Australia's hypocrisy, its current dark trajectory, and how we can change this

Australia is a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention (the photo of the signers of the 1951 convention on the UNHCR webpage appears to show people of entirely European origin, about 20 are men, possibly 3 are female) and also of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Last financial year the federal government spent more than $1 billion to house about 2200 asylum seekers in offshore detention centres in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. The children of adults who seek asylum in Australia experience considerable mental health problems; these are consistently downplayed and hidden by Australian authorities.

We now flout both Conventions. No one expels us. No other country even seems to criticise our flagrant disregard, approaching contempt, especially for the refugee convention, even though many Australians seem to look down on nations that have not signed it. No refugee, harmed by our actions, has the means to take us to court, and even if they did, no international court yet exists that would rule in their favour. So, this situation is likely to continue.

Although it would be more honest for Australia to withdraw from these conventions (that we once did a much better job of observing), most of us still appear to think of Australians as a humane, "First World" country. In some ways we are, but in many ways that is not so. I think we are now not so different to Nazi Germany. There were winners and losers there and then, there are winners and losers here and now. It is a question of where to focus our gaze. Most of us prefer to look away from those who suffer due to our policies, just as many in Nazi Germany seemed to ignore the victims of Nazi racial and cultural hygiene policy, such as Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, gypsies and the disabled.

Australia's record is increasingly blemished (though White Australia's invasion of Aboriginal Australia is evidence that we have never been benign) and our trajectory looks darker every year, for example as shown by yet deeper cuts to our already miserly foreign aid budget. For over fifteen years (before 9-11) I have published articles (eg "Inequality, Global Change and the Sustainability of Civilisation", published in 2000) (a free version is here) and chapters arguing that such selfishness will increasingly drive resentment and terrorism, both external and home-grown. 

Somehow, collectively, people in Australia who want to promote and defend the rights, health and well-being of the "other" need to struggle on. To do so not only protects the other, but it also - in the long run - protects us.

How can we change? Enough people need to realise that  it is in our collective self-interest to change. We also need to be a lot more generous, especially to people in low-income countries. If we disregard international law, then, one day, which nation will come to protect us?
 
The siege in Sydney has just ended. There is an outpouring of grief over its victims, which occurred around the same day as foreign aid was cut further. Yet, too many companies pay too little tax (according to the Economist, $20 trillion is held in tax havens). Collectively, Australia is prepared to spend billions subsidising fossil fuels that poison our common future. Instead of cutting aid we could raise taxes from the rich and well-lawyered.

My view that forms of inequality drive terrorism is virtually completely unrepresented in the mainstream media. Instead, I repeatedly hear claims to the effect that "nothing can be done to prevent such events" (eg the Martin Place siege). But a lot could be done. Yet, for the time being I am forced to conclude that my views appear to be in a tiny minority.

PS Oct 13, 2016: Nothing has improved since I wrote this. Doctors are banned from speaking out about conditions offshore. Australia's cheating of Timor Leste is better understood, and China's contempt for the Law of the Sea is clear. Fear of China is rising, and Australia's bullying behaviour towards Timor Leste is like that of China towards its neighbours. I hope I am wrong, but feel World War III is evolving.

The Sydney siege and simple explanations: reflections

Al Jazeera recently published an article by Nazry Bahrawi criticising the "I'll ride with you" hashtag. I was under-impressed. It seems to reflect and reinforce stereotypes, even making the egregious error that the instigator was white (so what? except that Bahrawi appeared to have reflexly assumed that and even tried to make it a central point). (Rachael Jacobs, a lecturer in Education at the Australia Catholic University in Brisbane was the Greens candidate for the seat of Brisbane. Her parents were born in India, and her appearance suggests Indian heritage.) (A later version of Bahrawi's paper corrects his error.)

My fundamental criticism of Bahrawi's argument is that he seems to suggest that factors such as "religion", "race" and "nationality" are entirely discrete .. if one accepts that then you can conclude causation is all "x" and zero "y". We see the same logical flaw when asylum seekers are labeled "economic" (ie 100% economic), thus ignoring driving elements in migration such as persecution, environmental scarcity and other forms of "push" factors. Indeed, failing to see the deeper complexity of things, just picking one explanation, may be a characteristic of racism and racists.

Bahrawi asserts that it is others who see dichotomies, who fail to see nuance. He even says "Western colonisers began to think of their "Other" in one of two antithetical ways - either as a barbaric savage or a noble savage." Now, maybe some colonisers did see one or either extreme, only but is it not plausible that many people always perceived the "other" as somewhere between these poles? But, even if they did see complexity, I do agree that many representations of mass opinion are simplified, digitally, either "on" or "off".

But, even if some colonisers used to think so simplistically, are such views still common? I have certainly met racists (especially when I was a general practitioner), but they don't generally - if at all - think of the "other" in barbaric or noble terms .. they simply think selfishly. Most of the early (and shameful) racism in Australia against Chinese was economic, i.e. selfish. I don't think it was much to do with an idea that the Chinese were barbaric, though there undoubtedly were mass media depictions of Chinese as barbaric. It was instead foreseen that many Chinese immigrants would endure lower living standards, work for lower wages and thus drive down the incomes of the European Australians. Perhaps that couldn't be admitted .. alleged Chinese barbarism was instead proposed.

But even if some authorities and individuals did think in those black and white terms I cannot see the relevance to the Sydney siege. Furthermore, separation into "otherness" has no monopoly by "Westerners". The Rwandan genocide, the modern tribal barbarism in South Sudan, and indeed division among Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East easily show that.

Also, the main point of the "I'll ride with you" movement is that many people are challenging extremist views.

It is also fallacious to use arguments such as because the perpetrator of the Sydney siege is mentally unstable and a criminal (or synonyms for that) that the siege therefore had nothing to do with the Middle East (even though the perpetrator had an Islamic flag and sent messages delivered by his hostages on YouTube that he was launching an attack on Australia for Islamic State). There is a large supply of unstable people in the community, and they will reflect like misty mirrors the larger issues in the world. And one such large issue is the morass of Western involvement in the Middle East (and no doubt involvement and competition of myriad other groups there, Islamic and non-Islamic.) And there is undeniably a Muslim dimension to it all. 

The reputation of modern Islam has been greatly harmed among the non-Islamic world by actions such as the fatwah against Salman Rushdie (irrespective of how representative of Islam that intolerance is). Islam appears not only intolerant, and pockets within it seek to actively and violently enforce intolerance on non-Muslims, such as the January 2015 attack on the Paris office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. According to an article by Suzanne Moore in the Guardian as many as 20% of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world have some sympathy for radical Islam.

There is a strong defence that freedom of speech and satire are legitimate in democracies. I am a Buddhist. Buddhism talks of right speech and I am personally uncomfortable with some forms of satire and ridicule, including towards religious figures. But ridicule can never justify violence towards those who utter it. I utterly condemn this latest attack.

However there is insufficient recognition, especially in the West, that we need far more progress towards a global democracy. I don't know how many non-Muslims support Western intervention in predominantly Muslim countries but my guess it is far higher than 20%, a point that is rarely made.

It is irrefutable that many terrorist actions aimed at liberal values (not just here, but in Nigeria, Pakistan, France etc) come from people acting, at least in part, in the cause of Islam. I do not think Bahrawi faces up to that. He is far from alone in the Islamic intelligentsia in his seeming denial.

But, of course, numerous other groups (Israelis, George Bush-led US invasions, supported by John Howard and Tony Abbott-led Australian support, Buddhists in Myanmar and in Sri Lanka etc) also practice violence; but those forms of violence are not directed against Australian citizens (or French for that matter). It is not just the the Islamic intelligentsia who are capable of denial.

Let's hope that "I'll ride with you" acts to ease tensions .. I think it will (slightly) .. but the underlying problems will not fade, in a world where limits to material growth continue to tighten, and where the claim that scarcity drives co-operation is true only to a point. 

At about the same time as the Sydney siege Australia cut its foreign aid, yet again. I know aid is hard to do well, but to me, the general level of Australian support (or at least acquiescence) for that cut in aid is evidence we are a rather spoiled nation that would like to forget there are other peoples in the world, and we have with very little understanding that a fairer world is actually safer for us, at least in the long run.

Reflections on non violent civil disobedience to oppose Australia's coal export frenzy

I have been thinking a lot re non violent civil disobedience (NVCD) lately .. as some of you know I was arrested last week. I blocked a road for 50 minutes, the charge was damage to mine property by “rendering a road useless” . The maximum penalty is 7 years in jail, and the police statement stated that Whitehaven Coal would be seeking damages of at least $40,000.

Maybe the $40K threat is bluff and maybe the police won’t follow through with that extreme charge but the severity of both threats surprised me (though not that much) and is forcing me to reconsider suggesting NVCD to others. Even if both threats evaporate, there is a risk that NSW (and Qld) will further evolve towards fossil fuel-police states; in good conscience I cannot now suggest to virtually anyone that they take the risk I did, at least in Australia. (Maybe a very wealthy public figure like Dick Smith could take the risk, but how many people like that do I know?)

If I was in Nazi Germany (ie after Hitler took power) protests (eg Bonhoeffer’s) would be heroic but almost certainly ineffective in the life of the protester. NSW/Australia is not as extreme as Nazi Germany, but it is far further along a trajectory towards extremism than is comfortable (witness our illegal and immoral treatment of asylum seekers for a start). Social media is much on my side (and that of the former Australian rugby captain David Pocock who was also arrested this week) and mainstream media too is sympathetic, so far anyway, but I think we have to accept social media is far from representing majority opinion in Australia.

I am wondering if a tactic that might evolve is a protest seeking media attention (and public recognition that climate change is a very serious issue .. far more than NIMBYism) but that does not in any conceivable way harm mine property .. except its reputation could be a vigil outside the peak body in charge of fossil fuel mining and exports; maybe the office of the Minister of Energy. But doing what? A fast for a week? I am not prepared to fast to death or even to serious risk (and no fast at all at least not for the next 12 months) .. and this probably seems extreme to most people (I think such a fast has been tried in Australia?) but I’m just thinking aloud.

As for reputation – Whitehaven etc could evolve to Gunns 20 tactics – SLAPPS .. especially if the protesters start to look effective or get under their skin. (Gunns 20 might have had much to do with its CEO, John Gay’s particularly unpleasant personality). Whitehaven doing a Gunns must be under consideration by them but could also backfire..

But as I mentioned, the proximity of the risk as a tactic by big coal inhibits me from suggesting to others that NVCD is desirable (even though three of us have an in press letter in a public health journal saying exactly that .. but that letter was written when a SLAPP against climate protest seemed, at least to me, less likely.)

If I was to be involved in a fast, that could perhaps trigger a SLAPP but I think at the moment that is also unlikely.

I have no conclusion – I strongly support disinvestment, conventional academic means, think tanks and lobby groups; IPCC good science etc . But I remain of the view that those tactics are not enough. (I am certain of one thing though – violence will be counter-productive.)

Extreme climatic events work in our favour, but too many of them mean we are in peril. I met a senior climate scientist in the US last month whose opinion was that the recent apparent slowdown of land-surface ocean warming may persist for an unknown time .. even decades .. (ie deep ocean warming will progress, so will ocean acidification, so will sea level rise .. but perhaps the acceleration of more direct effects on human well-being eg drought will slow). .. but at the end of the day that scientist does not know. And this year looks to be the warmest on record, and again not a strong El Nino.

On the positive side, the ABC contacted me today and I am to be the subject of a cover story in a magazine called Medical Observer, which goes to almost all GPs in Australia.

I recently had an email exchange with a US academic who thinks Australia is irrelevant to climate change, that what alone matters is China/US. But Australia seeks to be the world’s leading coal exporter so I think there is leverage here. Also, protests as apparently extreme as NVCD in Europe and perhaps even in the US are not as warranted I think, because in both places the rhetoric is shifting towards encouraging the clean energy transition.

Of rich countries, Australia shares with Canada (and perhaps Poland) unique characteristics that suggest NVCD could be particularly useful:

1. Reckless national (and some state) government rhetoric largely indifferent to climate risk; 

2. We are an important fossil fuel producer and 

3. We are not (fully) a police state .. there is still reasonable media, still a tradition of fairly free speech and respect for the right to protest. 

But note my caution re the evolution of this towards SLAPPs and prison.

The other recent IPCC contributor I know of who was arrested, a Canadian in Canada, I believe faced a much lighter charge than I am.

PS I removed this on the advice of my lawyer, but recently reposted it. Since I wrote this I got a two year good behaviour bond, with no conviction recorded.

Another consequence of being arrested was that I was denied a visa to the US to attend a scientific meeting to which I had been invited. I was eventually offered one, valid for a very short time that has long since expired, after considerable time, cost and aggravation, but it was not granted in time to organise my travel. Even today, despite no sentence being recorded, I cannot visit the US without going through the same process again.

The meeting I was unable to attend was part of the process leading to the Lancet/Rockefeller Foundation Planetary Health Commission.