Donations to the AIIA are tax deductible. Your contribution, whether modest or substantial, will enable the AIIA to continue to grow.

If you donate $500 or more, or indicate your intention to leave a bequest to the AIIA, you will be recognised as a Friend of the AIIA.

You can support a number of existing state or national initiatives such as bursaries, internships and awards through selecting from the options above. You will be directed to a secure online donations facility hosted by Westpac.

If you would like to donate to a specific AIIA office not listed above, please select general donations and list the state you would like your donation directed to in the optional information section as “in memory of”.

General donations are allocated to the area of greatest need to support the AIIA’s work.

If you would prefer to give via electronic funds transfer, details are:

Account name: Australian Institute of International Affairs

BSB: 032 719

Account No: 287 686

Description: Name + (preferred state/specific project)

If you are interested in funding a new project in a specific area of your choice please contact your local state office or the National Director on ceo@internationalaffairs.org.au or (02) 6282 2133.

Click here for information on leaving a bequest to the AIIA.

Introduction: The situation is getting worse

The refugee situation in Greece has taken a turn for the worse with the incoming winter conditions placing the lives of thousands of people in danger. With temperatures dropping below freezing and heavy snowfall, the makeshift refugee camps on the Greek island of Lesvos have struggled to adequately meet the needs of its growing refugee population. In a media report by the UK news agency The Independent, there are around 4,500 people still living in overcrowded conditions in summer tents on the island of Lesvos.[1]According to the report, at least one Afghan man has died due to the winter conditions.[2] NGO Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has come out criticising the EU, stating in a tweet that ‘Europe should stop making the lives of migrants and refugees more miserable.’ In response, however, the European Commission has claimed that the current desperate situation was ‘first and foremost’ the responsibility of the Greek authorities.[3]

So whose responsibility is it?

The notion of ‘responsibility’ is what lies at the crux of the current refugee crisis. In 2015, over a million refugees crossed the EU’s borders.[4] This dramatic increase in the movement of refugees has had an asymmetrical impact on member states, undermining attempts by the EU to coordinate a collective and coherent response. The Dublin Regulation, the EU’s system for designating the member states responsible for processing an asylum claim, stipulates that the first member state through which the asylum seeker enters is the one responsible for processing their asylum claim.[5] Furthermore, according to the Dublin Regulation, an asylum seeker can only make one application for refugee status.[6]

This mechanism however, has failed due to the unprecedented number of refugees arriving in Europe and placing immense pressure on border countries, in particular Greece. We sought to find out what the reality is on the ground in Lesvos and where the notion of ‘responsibility’ lies in day-to-day practice.

In an interview with Victor Roman, who has been living and working on the island of Lesvos for 4 months at the Lesvos Legal Centre, we found that in particular issues of overcrowding, lack of medical support, poor sanitation and food supply, poor reception centres, lack of information about asylum processes, and lack of political motivation acutely impact the day-to-day life on the island for both the local Greek community as well as the refugee population.

NR: “What are some of the major issues on the ground?”

VR: “Moria is often referred to as ‘hell’ or ‘the slow hell’ by refugees and this is reflective of the slow and draining process, accommodation, food, sanitation issues and poor sense of security.”

In particular there is a lack of security for the most vulnerable of the refugees, women and children.

VR: “Women are afraid of going to the toilet late at night, they are afraid of being raped and/or assaulted. Fights break out, and there is alcohol and drug abuse.”

Compounding the widespread sense of insecurity among refugees is the lack of protection offered by the local security officials. Roman talked about how the police attitude towards refugees has increased the violence on the ground.

VR: “Reports of police violence against refugees come out frequently. There is a lot of stress in the police job, but this has definitely created an ‘us and them’ attitude. This is widespread in the local community as well: there is definitely an anti-refugee perception, that they are a drain on the local community.”

Exacerbating the situation are the appalling medical conditions on the island, with many refugees unable to effectively access medical services. One of the most visible examples of this is the agonising wait refugees are forced to endure to access any sort of medical care.

VR: “In one case there was a refugee’s daughter who was pushed on to the ground in the commotion of a fight in the queue, when she fell she broke her two front teeth. The medical attention response was to give her some toothpaste…so the medical support in the camp is really not functioning to an appropriate level.”

Often the criticism toward the lack of medical attention is directed at NGOs such as Médecins du Monde (MDM), with many refugees seeing the organisation “as an extension of the Greek government.” Roman argues, “This is wrong…they are independent of the Greek government.” Organisations such as MDM and Lesvos Legal Centre, are there “trying to fill a gap which the Greek government has failed to fill themselves.” The desperate need for such organisations demonstrates the lack of resources and capacities of the Greek government to deal with the large-scale influx of refugees.

While these are only a few of the numerous examples that Roman presented when discussing the challenges on the ground in Lesvos, it is important to bear in mind additional factors on the ground which affect the responses and attitudes of the Greek government and local population towards the refugees.

Greece is still in a huge economic recession.[7] So the welfare resources much needed for the Greek people themselves are already under pressure and this trickles down to affect the services refugees and asylum seekers can access.

Moreover, there is a lack of efficiency in processing the refugees that Roman links to a cultural set of behaviours. He says this means, “…there is no willingness to take responsibility for anything. And the best part of it is that this is all confirmed by the Greeks themselves all the time.” According to Roman, the Greek administration doesn’t work, and anyone trying to assist refugee cases on the ground constantly has to push for things to happen, even if it is a standard request. There is an enduring attitude of “come back tomorrow, come back next week” which evidently affects the handling of the refugee crisis on the ground.

Greece struggles under its weight of asylum applicants: The Dublin Regulation and its disproportionate obligations

The original objective of placing one member state responsible for a claim was to ensure that applicants for asylum were not repeatedly referred from one member state to another with no state acknowledging itself as responsible.[8] With the Dublin Regulation, a clear criterion was given for which member state was responsible. This commitment was seemingly presented as a provision that would directly benefit asylum seekers by ensuring an application was processed by at least one member state. This logic may have worked when the system was created in 1990. At the time, it was impossible for the member states to imagine how the world would change, and how conflicts in the Middle East would lead to over a million refugees crossing the EU’s borders in a single year.

The problem today for Greece, and Italy, is that the main rule applied to designating responsibility is that of irregular first entry. Since the main migratory routes come from the central and eastern Mediterranean, Italy and Greece now constitute the front line for asylum applications. As a consequence, these states struggle to effectively process the unprecedented increase in refugee applications, with their national reception and integration capacities being placed under severe strain.

The desperate situation in Greece and Italy reached its climax in 2011, when the ECHR ruled that Greece was violating the human rights of a refugee by detaining him under inhumane conditions. It was further judged that Belgium violated its obligations under the GC by sending him back to a country, Greece, where he would have his rights violated.[9] This ruling effectively suspended all Dublin transfers to Greece.

In the same year, at a Council of interior ministers meeting, Italy and Malta called on the EU and other member states to activate a 2001 directive to grant temporary protection to migrants in cases of mass influx and to share the burden of absorbing newcomers.[10] With the uprisings in Libya and the outbreak of violent conflict in Syria, southern member states had begun to experience an unprecedented increase to already high refugee flows. However, the interior ministers refused to activate this directive. The Commission, in fact, argued that such a proposal was premature and that flow of migrants to Italy did not constitute a mass influx.[11]

However in 2015, the scale and intensity of the migratory pressure demonstrated that the first entry principle underlying the EU system could not function under massive inflows of refugees. The challenge today, however, is achieving a consensus among member states on how to effectively tackle the unfolding situation at the EU’s borders. On the other hand, there are those member states that are calling for the introduction of a mandatory joint processing system, in which refugees would be distributed across the EU.[12] Others, especially new eastern member states, are refusing to consider such measures, and have instead taken unilateral measures, such as building and reinforcing borders, to isolate themselves from the EU’s growing refugee problem. The decision by Council in September 2015 to relocate 160,000 persons across the EU from Italy and Greece has failed to demonstrate substantial results.[13] The events of 2015 have revealed the limits of solidarity among EU member states.

VR: “I have absolute sympathy for the Greek people who suffer a lot from its economic situation. Welfare and social services are not working very well for anyone in Greece. Yes, we must be able to demand that countries respond in an adequate manner to both its population and refugees. However, we can also demand other countries to take responsibility. All member-states of the EU have a shared responsibility with Greece. This shared responsibility is not limited to the EU. Refugee and migration issues is not a national or regional problem, it is a global issue that existed as long as mankind. All nations must look at these issues with humanity and compassion rather than fear.”

However, recent trends at the EU level, such as third country deals with Turkey, have demonstrated a more isolationist approach to migration matters with considerable support on preventing inflows from arriving at the EU’s doorsteps.

Lessons from Australia: Externalising its responsibilities

Unable to resolve the burden sharing flaws of the system, the EU has instead focused on externalising its responsibilities. The EU-Turkey deal is the EU’s latest attempt to tackle the critical situation and manage the flow of refugees entering Europe. However, there has been severe criticism of the agreement by NGOs and some member states. The return of asylum seekers to Turkey under the legal provision that Turkey is a safe third country is contrary to EU and international law, as Turkey does not provide all refugees with protection in accordance with the 1951 Geneva Convention.[14]

In fact, not all refugees have effective access to the asylum procedures and there have been reports of onward refoulement and returns of refugees to Syria.[15] If these reports were proven true, then the EU would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement by which a country cannot return people to a place where they may be in danger. By returning refugees to Turkey, which is also guilty of human rights abuses, the EU is in effect in breach of the principle of non-refoulement. Turkey’s human rights abuses include discrimination of minorities, and the denial of access to fundamental services such as health, education, social services, and employment.[16]

NR: “So what do you think are the impacts of the EU-Turkey deal in Lesvos?”

VR: “The conditions for refugees in Turkey are terrible. It should be mentioned that Turkey hosts almost 3 million refugees, which is an enormous humanitarian task.[17] It [the decision to send refugees to Turkey] all comes down to political incentive, so any day there could be a massive movement of lots of people at once to Turkey, and this is a scary prospect for many refugees living in Lesvos. There will be no automatic return but the risk of being sent back to Turkey remains.”

“I think there are similarities to the Australian approach when you think about the EU-Turkey deal. Australia has a policy of Sovereign Borders – and like this policy, Greece and the EU are trying to create a deterrence using people [refugees]. First is mandatory detention, and then you are imprisoned on the island (whereas before the EU-Turkey deal refugees could travel to mainland Greece) so they send a message of ‘don’t come here, because you wont be able to leave the island, and then you will just be sent back to Turkey anyway’…

“…Boats are being towed back, like in Australia, by the Turkish navy, meaning that some people attempt the voyage to Lesvos four or five times before they are successful. But this deterrence method has worked. Arrival rates to Lesvos have clearly and quite incredibly changed since the deal. For example, in December 2015 just under 66000 people arrived. In February 2016, at the time of discussing the EU-Turkey deal, these numbers dropped to around 31000, and then in March 2016 down to 14000 and every month since there are less and less so you see that it’s a significant change since the deal cam into effect. Other factors may be the coast guard intercepting more vessels, but this shows to some extent the success of the deterrence method of the EU-Turkey deal. A signal across the water of ‘Don’t come here’…it’s also important to note that the deal itself is illegal since Turkey is not a signatory to the refugee convention”

The dangers of an unfair system

Perceiving the rules to be unfair, member states have protested against the lack of solidarity in the EU by intentionally not complying with their obligations. This includes the failure to fingerprint refugees and the permissive attitude taken by some member states, such as Italy and Greece, toward secondary movement. Other measures include lowering reception standards or misapplying EU rules on qualification.[18]

According to Roman, there is also a persistent incentive on the Greek side of the crisis to find a way to reject asylum claims. This sometimes manifests in cursory interviews, in not supplying any kind of legal aid or in some cases where applicants are vulnerable, the aid of a psychologist. Roman explained that this is problematic because the responsibility of making a refugee claim lies with the refugee, but many refugees need guidance and assistance. Yet, there is a worrisome lack of accessible information.

VR: “If you are not able to explain yourself properly, and your interviewer doesn’t have the energy or resources to dig deeper, this means you wont get properly assessed.”

“A main problem in Moria is really the lack of information. When people arrive they are registered, then they wait many, many months (sometimes 7 plus). The first registration is called Simple Registration, and then 7 months later they get Full Registration. Legally, you have not lodged an asylum application until your full registration. Meaning you do not get the full rights that come with asylum seekers until your full registration: that is when you receive the asylum identity card called the International Protection Applicant Card. If you don’t have this card, it means you are waiting for full registration, not your interview for asylum, which many refugees don’t know.”

It is apparent that there is no information available which clearly outlines the registration and asylum application process, meaning that many refugees think they are registered and waiting for their interviews, when in fact they are actually in basic registration and waiting to be fully registered before they can proceed to the next step of their asylum claim.

VR: “This is the void we [the Lesvos Legal Centre] are trying to fill. The centre tries to provide information about the asylum process and where they are sitting in the procedure. When there is no information, there is a lot of room for speculation and rumors. For example, there was a rumor going around the camp that on Christmas day there would be a lottery for 3000 visas for refugees in Greece… The level of knowledge of the EU law and human rights definitely varies from person to person. Many people have no idea what they mean legally (the Refugee Convention). Some people believe that Greece and the EU are the same thing. People within the camp feel the EU and Greek services are equally bad too. I don’t think I’ve met a single refugee on the island that feels good about the EU as a political entity.”

Conclusion  

VR: “I think people in Europe experience the refugee crisis highly differently. Countries like Greece, Italy, and Bulgaria have become entry points into the EU. I believe all people have in some way seen or come in contact with the refugee crisis. When you are, however, in a hotspot like Lesvos, you become a witness daily to not only the refugee crisis but also its symbolic extension of numerous political, economical and social instabilities around the world.”

It is clear that the refugee crisis has taken on many facets between international and regional discussions, to the realities faced on the ground in Lesvos and Greece more broadly. The reality in Greece is but one example of a global problem. The lack of international, regional and even national solidarity has made the current global refugee crisis a problem for only a small number of countries. These countries are often those at the periphery, with weak financial and administrative capacity to deal with such high numbers of refugees. The failure of responsibility sharing in Greece, and its consequences on the lives of refugees, is representative of the global failure to help the world’s most vulnerable.

References

[1] McKernan, Bethan, (2017) “Refugees in Greece ‘could freeze to death’ in snow due to inadequate winter preparations, warn aid groups”, in The Independent, 9 January.

[2] McKernan, Bethan, (2017) see note 1.

[3] European Commission, (2016) “Commission reports on progress made under the European Agenda on Migration” Press Release, 8 December.

[4] Sabbati, G (2016), ‘Recent migration flows to the EU’ European Parliamentary Research Service, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2016/580893/EPRS_ATA(2016)580893_EN.pdf, viewed 14 March 2017.

[5] Fratzke, Susan (2015), ‘Not Adding Up: The Fading Promise of Europe’s Dublin System’ Migration Policy Institute Europe, March, p. 15.

[6] Regulation 2013/604, Article 3.

[7] Smith, Helena (2016) ‘A year after the crisis was declared over, Greece is still spiralling down’, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/13/greek-economy-still-spiralling-down-year-after-crisis-declared-over viewed 14 March 2017

[8] The Dublin Convention (1990), Preamble, Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:41997A0819(01)&from=EN

[9] M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, App. No. 30696/09 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jan. 21, 2011),

[10] Monar, Jorg (2012), ‘Justice and Home Affairs’ Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 50, pp. 117.

[11] Economist, The (2011), ‘The next European Crisis: Boat People’ The Economist, http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2011/04/north_african_migration, viewed 14 March 2017.

[12] European Commission (2016), Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council, ‘establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodge in one of the Member States by a third-country national or stateless person (recast)’ 2016/0133(COD), Brussels, p. 13

[13] Knaus, Gerald (2016), ‘Refugee crisis- A breakthrough is possible’ European Stability Initiative, http://www.esiweb.org/index.php?id=67&lang=en&newsletter_ID=103, viewed 14 March 2017.

[14] Human Rights Watch, (2016) EU: Don’t Send Syrians Back to Turkey: Lack of Jobs, School, Health Care Spures Poverty, Exploitation, https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/20/eu-dont-send-syrians-back-turkey visited 8 February 2017

[15] Human Rights Watch, (2016), EU Policies Put Refugees at Risk, https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/11/23/eu-policies-put-refugees-risk visited 14 March 2017.

[16] Human Rights Watch, (2016) note 12.

[17] UNHCR (2017) Syria Regional Refugee Response: Inter-agency Information Sharing Portal, https://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country.php?id=224 visited 8 February 2017

[18] Pastore, F and Henry, G (2016) ‘Explaining the crisis of the European Migration and Asylum Regime’ The International Spectator, vol. 51, no.1, pp. 44-57; Trauner, F (2016) ‘Asylum Policy: the EU’s “crises” and the looming policy regime failure’ Journal of European Integration, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 311-325.

Given Russia’s return to the world stage in the Caucasus, in Ukraine and in Syria, plus the allegations of involvement in Trump’s election victory, it is timely to have a new analysis of Putin’s Russia. Tony Kevin, a former Australian diplomat, has written an interesting book, part political defence of Putin and part travelogue, reflecting on a trip back to Russia after a 40-year absence.

Kevin provides a useful corrective to some of the more hawkish views on Russia. He rightly casts a critical eye over the interventions of Western ‘do-gooders’ but his reluctance to remove his rose-tinted spectacles about the current occupant of the Kremlin is a running weakness throughout the book. Putin, we are told, had a “harsh and deprived childhood”, as if this were an excuse for the nature of his regime. According to the author, it was the West that provoked Putin into invading Georgia, annexing Crimea, arming the separatists in eastern Ukraine and bombing Aleppo.

Kevin trots out the Kremlin’s standard line that there was a Western plot to weaken Russia after the end of the Cold War. As the reviewer was closely involved in Western policy during this period, he can categorically deny such claims. Western officials were too preoccupied with a host of problems—including the first Gulf War, the bloody disintegration of the Balkans, the reunification of Germany and the Maastricht treaty—to have time to devise dastardly plans for Russia.

The author lambasts NATO enlargement without asking the basic question as to whether the East Europeans, having regained their freedom after four decades of Soviet rule, should not have the right to choose their own friends and alliances. Rather he argues that as a great power that has been invaded in the past, Russia should have its own sphere of influence in its neighbourhood.

There are some realist scholars of international relations, including John Mearsheimer and Stephen Cohen, who support this line. They argue that as Ukraine and other East European states are not in the national interest of the US, it really does not matter who controls them. This theory is soundly rebutted by all governments in the region as well as NATO and its member states. There were fears during the Trump campaign that a Trump victory might lead to US acceptance of Russia’s droit de regard over the region. NATO was deemed ‘obsolete’ while Newt Gingrich, a prominent Republican, famously called Estonia “a suburb of St Petersburg”.

Now the mounting evidence of Russian interference in US politics has led to a U-turn. The cosying up to Putin has been replaced by a toxic brand. At the 2017 Munich security conference the US establishment, including Vice-President Pence, Pentagon chief Mattis, Secretary of State Tillerson and Senator McCain, lined up to berate Russia and reaffirm US support for NATO. Trump lost Michael Flynn, his first national security advisor, who lied about his links to Russia.

Kevin is right that the West should seek to maintain contact with Russia—but not at any price. It is important for its own moral compass that the West continues to offer support for the brave band of democracy and human rights activists in Russia, a group strangely missing from Kevin’s narrative. Russia, with a GDP the size of Spain or Italy, is not a major economic actor. If it disappeared tomorrow the world’s economy would barely notice.

Kevin describes the relentless Russian media campaign against the West as “defensive” while ignoring the mounting evidence of Russia’s interventions in Western democracies. Despite his unchallenged monopoly of power, history will judge Putin harshly for failing to modernise the Russian economy despite the oil price being sky high for most of his extended presidency.

Kevin’s disingenuous defence of Putin covers half the book. The rest is a mix of memory lane, travelogue and his favourite Russian authors, including Pasternak and Tolstoy. Kevin was a junior diplomat in Moscow from 1969-71 and recounts the difficulties of operating in the Soviet capital. He had no Russian friends and, like many diplomatic missions, the Australian embassy had very limited contacts with Soviet officials; they had to rely on their Anglo-Saxon partners for insights. Oddly, there is a lengthy defence of Laurie Matheson, a senior Australian trade official serving with Kevin, and who was later caught up in a spy affair involving a Labor politician and the KGB.

Kevin not only tells some interesting tales about diplomatic life in Moscow under Brezhnev but he has a keen and sympathetic eye for the daily travails of Russians then and today. Having revisited Russia in 2016 (hence the title of the book) Kevin argues that despite the difficult living conditions, worsened due to Western sanctions, the Russians are a proud and cultured people with a sense of history and their place in the world. He does not mention, however, the recent state-approved revival of the cult of Stalinism.

The West, he concludes, should adopt a more conciliatory approach towards Russia. This, however, could only be done by giving up some fundamental Western principles including respect for the territorial integrity of states (Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and others) and human rights. Putin has shown little interest in any deal with the West unless the Russian sphere of influence is explicitly recognised. Even with Trump in the White House, possibly assisted by Putin, the West simply cannot do this.

We are thus in for a long haul as Putin can legitimately remain president until 2024. The West will need plenty of strategic patience during this period. It should work with Russia wherever possible (arms control, terrorism, Middle East, Iran) but only drop sanctions and allow Russian back into the G8 as and when the Minsk agreements covering Ukraine are fully implemented.

There is much to savour in Kevin’s book. He is an avowed Russophile with a fluent pen and an eye for detail. But the next time he visits Russia, he should remove those spectacles.

Tony Kevin, Return to Moscow, Crawley: UWA Publishing, March 2017. 

Fraser Cameron is Director of the EU-Russia Centre in Brussels. 

Watch the recent Australian Outlook interview with Tony Kevin regarding ‘Return to Moscow’.

AIIA Victoria is planning a study tour to Chile, Argentina and Peru from October 8th to October 24th 2017. A comprehensive itinerary has been put together by AIIAV Council member John Woods, a former Ambassador to Peru, and the cost including air fares is in the range of $9,000.  There is an option to continue on to Cuba (at an extra cost) with the return to Melbourne on October 29th.

We are now calling for expressions of interest to join either the shorter tour to Chile, Argentina and Peru or the longer tour to those countries plus Cuba, and AIIA members from all states are welcome to apply. Further details on the study tour may be found here.

Due to the short timeframe in which to book promotional airfares, we are requesting expressions of interest by Friday 17th March to AIIA VIC at admin.vic@internationalaffairs.org.au, and with a copy to John Woods at john.woods@internationalaffairs.org.au.

Once expressions of interest are received, we would contact interested parties requesting payment of a $500 non-refundable deposit by 23rd March to enable the travel agent to secure bookings. At that time we would provide further details on the payment schedule for the tours.

Friday, 27 January 2017

The Australian Institute of International Affairs has been ranked the top think tank in Southeast Asia and the Pacific for the third year running as part of the University of Pennsylvania’s 2016 Global Go To Think Tank Index.

The results released overnight by UPenn’s Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program place the AIIA in the world’s top 50 think tanks overall, and in the world’s top 20 independent think tanks.

“This is a very rewarding result and recognises nearly a century’s research and public engagement by the AIIA to promote understanding and discussion of international affairs in Australia,” said national executive director Melissa Conley Tyler.

“At a time of uncertainty and instability in international affairs, the role of knowledge brokers like the AIIA is more important than ever.”

Looking ahead, the AIIA’s projects for 2017 include:

• Organising the EU-Australia Leadership Forum, the Korea Foundation roundtables and other international dialogues;
• Helping to facilitate public consultation for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s forthcoming Foreign Policy White Paper;
• Supporting leading international affairs research and publications including the Australian Journal of International Affairs and Australian Outlook; and
• Hosting more than 200 events for the public and international affairs community.

The Global Go To Think Tank Index is an annual global poll and the 2016 Index is based on a survey of more than 11,500 university faculty and administrators, journalists, policymakers, think tank scholars and executives, and donors.

The 2017 Australian launch of the Index is being hosted by the Australian Institute of International Affairs, the Institute for Economics and Peace, ANU’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre and the National Security College.

When:             3-5pm, Tuesday 31 January

Where:            AIIA, Stephen House, 32 Thesiger Court, Deakin

A link to the full report is available here.

For media inquiries, please contact:

Annabel McGilvray, 0405 260 919/ annabelmcgilvray@internationalaffairs.org.au

Does Asia dominate Australia’s economic future? Is China just for big business? Why are South Koreans eating so much Aussie beef? Why do the Danes love all things Tasmanian? Are Canadians just like Australians? These are just a sample of the many intriguing questions that the reader of Tim Harcourt’s sequel to The Airport Economist, Trading Places: The Airport Economist’s Guide to International Business, can find on the cover page of each chapter dedicated to a selection of countries which trade with Australia.

Sticking to the practical and entertaining nature of the Airport Economist blog and television show, Tim Harcourt presents a plethora of cheat cards on international business. At 400 pages, Trading Places takes the reader to 33 different countries spanning the globe with self-indulgent flair and wit.

The book is structured around brief chapters covering each country, with a cover setting the questions, a fast fact sheet with economic figures, the core content and in conclusion, ‘Tim’s tips’ and key contacts.

Regardless of the reading aim, be it education, infotainment or mere curiosity, the best thing in the various chapters is the section comprising cover questions, as they wittily stimulate your spirit of inquiry and make you want to read on. The same goes with ‘Tim’s tips’, as they deftly sift through the important information about the country in question.

The core content, albeit articulate and easy to read, is generally haphazard and at times too self-referential. Tim Harcourt’s charismatic personality is reflected on paper (or digital bit, as the book is also available as an EPUB), but gets somewhat tiresome towards the end of the book. The formulaic structure does not help the reader to indulge in Harcourt’s most high-handed passages. Nevertheless, there are a number of brilliant and well-placed anecdotes, such as the one about Harcourt’s visit to China some years ago:

‘The Australian trade union delegation, of which I was a member, was taken to a factory making watch components. While on the tour, I asked our hosts “Do you have workers’ compensation in China?” After much deliberation, the translator replied, “No. If the workers break anything, they don’t have to compensate us… straight away.”

On the book’s webpage, publisher NewSouth claims Trading Places to be “essential reading for business travellers, students of economics or business, and anyone who wants to understand the complexities of our modern globalised world”. Certainly, this is a book that would easily catch your eye in the bookshop of an airport or train station, and possibly convince a bored traveller to purchase it for the promise of a more interesting read than celebrity gossip and psychological self-help in popular magazines.

I would also certainly recommend the book to a high school pupil who entertains the idea of an international career path, as Trading Places provides plenty of cues and stimulating facts with accurate information and a well-thought conceptual approach. However, I suspect that an undergraduate business student would already find this book less compelling and a bit predictable. As an academic in the discipline, I found myself rather disappointed with the substance of the book. I admit that I was a bit fooled by the book cover—once again confirming the famous saying—as Trading Places did not go much beyond basic business themes extrapolated by entertaining anecdotes, whereas I was hoping for deeper insights and more innovative tropes.

Nevertheless, it is refreshing to find a book that promotes global trade from the ground up within quite a balanced perspective. Trading Places’ merit is that it will hardly affront trade neophyte readers from either the neo-liberal or anti-globalisation political camp. If you do not expect more than a first reference in the discipline, Tim Harcourt’s Trading Places is a worthwhile read.

Tim Harcourt, Trading Places: The Airport Economist’s Guide to International Business, NewSouth, 2014.

Dr Giovanni di Lieto lectures in international trade law in the Bachelor of International Business program at Monash University. His research agenda focuses on international economic law, in particular the global governance of cross-border socioeconomic relations and its repercussions on the international regulation of trade and labour markets.

2016 has not been a great year for queer rights. There has been an increase in discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in Southeast Asia and in some parts of Africa. The world will also lose a champion of queer rights when Obama departs the presidency next month. The new Trump administration is unlikely to take up the cause, and it will be up to global grassroots organisations to continue the fight—while battling the odds.

Earlier this year the UN Human Rights Council announced the appointment of Vitit Muntabhorn from Thailand as the first independent expert on the “protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI)”. This followed a bitter debate on the council, where a number of nations opposed the creation of the position; and a group of African states, supported by Russia and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, appealed to the General Assembly to overrule its establishment.

The appointment was upheld, but by a margin of only seven votes. It is possible that if the new US administration ceases to support international pressure to recognise LGBTI rights as human rights, a principle upheld by President Obama, the vote could be reversed in 2017. The protection of sexual and gender diversity has become a major site of international polarisation, as Jon Symons and I discussed in our book Queer Wars.

Despite the successful vote in the General Assembly, it’s not been a great year for SOGI rights. There has been growing acceptance of same-sex couples and trans rights in some European and Latin American countries, where Mexico’s Supreme Court has followed the United States in finding in favour of same-sex marriage, leaving Australia yet further isolated amongst its traditional allies. Taiwan also looks possible to become the first state in Asia to acknowledge equal marriage. However, one should note that Australia has far greater protection against discrimination than do a number of countries which allow same-sex marriage, including the United States.

But there have been equal if not greater moves towards increased persecution of people on the basis of their sexuality and gender identity across much of the developing world. In our region, Malaysia has been clamping down on trans people; last year Brunei introduced sharia law which proscribes death for homosexual behaviour.

Furthermore, in Indonesia there has been a concerted attack from both religious and political leaders on people perceived as being LGBT. In January, the minister of higher education said he wanted to ban LGBT student organisations from university campuses, while the minister of defence labelled LGBT rights activism a proxy war on the nation led by outsiders, more dangerous than a nuclear bomb. The minister said: “It’s dangerous as we can’t see who our foes are, but out of the blue everyone is brainwashed—now the [LGBT] community is demanding more freedom, it really is a threat…. In a nuclear war, if a bomb is dropped over Jakarta, Semarang will not be affected—but in a proxy war, everything we know could disappear in an instant—it’s dangerous.”

This sort of rhetoric has become common in the Middle East, across Africa and in the former Soviet Union. In all these cases national identity is depicted as under threat from forces of sexual deviance, an echo of the ‘Asian values’ language of several decades ago. At the same time a number of states in Western Europe and Latin America have made the defence of sexual diversity a keystone of their statements on human rights, and Australia has joined groupings in the United Nations aimed at establishing such recognition as part of universal norms.

As always there is a mix of altruism and self-interest in the positions states adopt in international fora. The appeal to traditional religious and cultural values fits well with the authoritarianism of a Putin or a Mugabe; the stress on individual rights is consistent with the Western liberal tradition and is sometimes deployed as part of a general hostility to Islam—the Dutch and French right are surprisingly pro-gay.

If there are reasons for optimism it lies in the development of grassroots organisations of people who identify as sexually and gender diverse, often against appalling odds. This year a gay pride week in Uganda and a gay film festival in Kenya led to harassment; activists routinely face violence and intimidation across much of the world.

During the second Obama administration, the US has led a global movement to support SOGI groups, sometimes, as in Vietnam and the Dominican Republic, through the appointment of openly gay ambassadors. Various UN agencies have been active in supporting local community groups, and through its funding mechanisms, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has been able to ensure the inclusion of some queer community organisations in its programs.

Australia has lagged in public support for SOGI, although voting in favour of UN resolutions and providing limited support to some initiatives through local embassies and multilateral funds. Presumably the current government feels constrained given the extent to which some of its right wing are so vocally opposed to equality.

The Australian Council for International Development has recently committed itself to supporting moves to oppose discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. There is a crucial role for large development NGOs who often seem quite unaware that they are frequently in contact with people who fall outside conventional assumptions about sex and gender.

Yet there is much Australia could do, even without using SOGI issues for domestic purposes, which has sometimes seemed the motive behind US activism. There is already a commitment to gender equality in the minister’s priorities for overseas development assistance; to add respect for SOGI rights would bring Australia into line with other donor nations, and send an important signal of our commitment to inclusion.

Small grants to community organisation are often vital, and some Australian missions already do this. But the single most significant step that the government could take would be to declare that it understands people often seek asylum because of their sexual or gender identity, and that Australia will work proactively with the UNHCR to help resettle those seeking asylum. As is true more broadly, Australia’s attitude to asylum seekers is the real test of our claim that a commitment to human rights is integral to our foreign policy.

Dennis Altman is a professorial fellow in human security at La Trobe University and the director of the Institute for Human Security at La Trobe.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Licence and may be republished with attribution.

In the lead-up to Christmas, the United Nations General Assembly passed its 29th resolution since 1985 drawing attention to human rights violations in Iran. Among the groups persecuted, followers of the Baha’i Faith have long been prominent. Tehran’s Freedom Tower is a powerful symbol of these transgressions. 

Towering above a public square in Tehran stands the mighty Azadi tower whose name seems ripe for a change yet again.

In 1979 after the Islamic revolution, this icon of the capital city of Iran was changed from Shahyad (King’s Memorial) to its present name, which means ‘Freedom’. However, in spite of the claims made in the current charm offensive led by Iranian diplomats and politicians, it is an undeniable fact that the country is a long way from freedom.

The reality is hidden from those foreign guests who succumb to traditional Persian hospitality and later say they saw nothing to complain about in the country. The United Nations General Assembly, however, has not been diverted by words that are not reflected in action.

Nor has it been persuaded by the techniques of false moral equivalence (“whataboutism”) which the Iranian government employs in its defence, for example taking Canada to task in the UN Human Rights Council for its alleged human rights violations.

New UN resolution

On 19 December, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution addressing Iran’s ongoing human rights violations as introduced by Canada and co-sponsored by 41 countries, including Australia. Iran has form, the resolution being the 29th such censure since 1985. Once again, the UN has formally condemned Iran’s “alarmingly high” use of the death penalty and its persecution of political opponents, human rights defenders, journalists and women’s and minority rights activists.The resolution expresses serious concerns about the severe limits on the right to freedom of religion or belief, making specific mention of the ongoing persecution of members of the Baha’i Faith, the biggest non-Muslim religious minority in the country.

The fate of the Baha’is has become a litmus test for the observance of human rights in Iran, and the litmus is definitely an acidic red, despite the public assertion by President Hassan Rouhani in his 2013 election campaign that “all religions, even religious minorities, must feel justice”.

Troubled history

The Baha’i Faith was was founded in Iran in 1844. The Muslim clerics who hold power in the Iranian government say there can be no divine religion after Islam, which was born in the 7th century. A fatwa by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says they are “unclean” and Muslims must avoid contact with them.

The clerics characterise Baha’is as political, despite the well-recognised practice of Baha’is to abstain from partisan politics and to strictly observe the laws of the land. It is also despite the worldwide recognition of the Baha’i Faith as an independent world religion.

Herein lies a great irony. The young Baha’i architect, Husayn Amanat, who designed the Shahyad Tower was forced to flee Iran in 1979, the very year his persecutors changed the name of the monument he designed to “Freedom Tower”.  At that time, the agents of the new revolutionary government were arresting Baha’is to deliver them up for torture and execution, sometimes after sham trials. Some, though, disappeared without trace, and Baha’i women as young as 17 years had their lives terminated on the gallows for teaching the equivalent of Sunday school.

During that bloody period, Iran lost to other countries, including Australia, highly skilled Baha’i doctors, engineers, scientists, academics and business people who had become refugees. The Baha’i emphasis on the education of girls over the generations had ensured that their community had disproportionate numbers of educated women and men in its ranks. Husayn Amanat, for example, became an eminent architect in Canada.

In an official report in September 2016, the UN’s special rapporteur on human rights in Iran, former Maldives Foreign Minister Ahmed Shaheed, described a vigorous government-directed propaganda campaign against the Baha’is, and observed that they continued to be jailed and to face economic discrimination. Iran steadfastly refused to allow Dr Shaheed to enter the country throughout his six-year mandate, at the same time criticising his reports for lacking understanding of internal conditions.

In the case of the Baha’is, Dr Shaheed was spot on. A month later, the Baha’i International Community launched a publication confirming what he said and much more. The Baha’i Question Revisited exposed how the government has maintained its systematic, widespread persecution but has fine-tuned it to try to escape world scrutiny, using methods more difficult to quantify.

The authorities close shops and other businesses owned by Baha’is—harassing them all the while via the bureaucracy—while continuing to deny them jobs in the public service, and putting pressure on employers to sack Baha’is in their workforce. Tertiary education for Baha’is is banned, and attempts to provide private tuition are met with raids and arrests.

A round-robin of arrest and releases seems aimed at keeping the Baha’is on edge. Added to the mix are assaults, firebombings and the occasional murder of a prominent Baha’i. Seven Baha’i leaders, against whom no evidence was produced, remain in prison after being locked away in 2008.

The Baha’i Question Revisited counters the excuses the regime gives for its actions, itemises the arrests and imprisonments, tells of the desecration of cemeteries, gives details of the economic and educational discrimination, explains the roots of the persecution and describes the inspiring resilience of those under attack. It notes there has been a dramatic increase in anti-Baha’i propaganda with the appearance of 20,000 items of anti-Baha’i articles, web pages and broadcasts in official or semi-official media since 2014. In a 31-page appendix, the publication prints copy after copy of official documents that show the persecution is official government policy.

Successive Australian foreign ministers have condemned the persecution of Baha’is in Iran, and there have been resolutions expressing similar strong sentiments in the federal parliament. Other nations have also been forthright in their views.

As Iran continues to seek to improve its trading relationships with the world, many delegations will go to Tehran. They cannot miss the Freedom Tower. It is their chance to ask their hosts, ‘What of the architect who designed the monument, what of freedom in Iran?’.

Michael Day is a former journalist and is now media officer for the Australian Bahai Community. 

This article is published under a Creative Commons Licence and may be republished with attribution.

Australia’s Leaders in International Affairs

The Australian Institute of International Affairs (AIIA) has been promoting interest in and understanding of international affairs in Australia for more than 90 years. As a part of this mandate, the AIIA recognises exceptional contributions to Australia’s international relations as Fellows of the Australian Institute of International Affairs (FAIIA).

The AIIA congratulates the following people who have been recognised as Fellows for 2016:

• Dr Sue Boyd for her distinguished contribution to diplomacy, the community and education.
• Dr Alison Broinowski for her distinguished contribution through her diplomatic career, research and publications, especially on the interface between Australia and Asia.
• Clive Hildebrand AM for his distinguished contribution to business, particularly the sugar industry, and his leadership in the promotion of international relations.
• Martine Letts for her distinguished contribution to Australia’s international relations through her career as a diplomat and expert.
• Greg Sheridan AO for distinguished contribution to public awareness of international affairs through his role as a journalist.
• Professor Russell Trood for his distinguished contribution to Australia’s international relations as an academic, senator and non-profit leader.
• Peter Varghese AO for his distinguished contribution to the fields of foreign and trade policy and intelligence, most recently as Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
• Tony Wheeler AO and Maureen Wheeler AO for their distinguished contribution to intercultural understanding and their contribution to alleviating poverty.

The overriding criterion for selection was that the person has achieved a high level of distinction in, and made a distinguished contribution to, Australia’s international relations. Nominations received from AIIA members and others were assessed in confidence by a selection committee made up of members of AIIA’s National Executive Team and existing Fellows. For a full list of Fellows of the AIIA since 2008 see: www.internationalaffairs.org.au/about-us/fellows-of-the-aiia/

The Australian Institute of International Affairs was established in 1924 as an independent non-political body to promote interest in and understanding of international affairs. It operates nationwide with more than 1500 members across seven State and Territory branches. For more information see www.internationalaffairs.org.au

To nominate a candidate for 2017, please contact Melissa Conley Tyler, National Executive Director, on ceo@internationalaffairs.org.au

BE PART OF THE IRAN STUDY TOUR – INTERNSHIP

AIIA Victoria is pleased to offer the opportunity to apply for a place as an Intern on the Iran Study Tour.   The study tour runs 8th April 2017 and 25th April, 2017.

Iran is one of the most exciting places in the world now.  Sanctions have held back the country for years. Things are now changing.   Don’t miss this wonderful opportunity – apply now.

All details can be found on our Internship website page here

PDF:  AIIAV 2017 Study Tour Internship for Iran

Applications required by close of business on Monday 19 December.

Contact Patrick Moore Tour Coordinator patrick@lisan.com.au

Last month’s strange incident involving Jamie Murphy and a bag of white powder in Kuta was the latest in a steady stream of Australians getting into trouble in Bali over the last 15 years. However, in that time a huge number of Australians—almost one in four—have visited without incident. The overwhelming majority spend big and return home happy, with suntans, souvenirs and good memories. It signifies the symbiotic relationship between the Balinese and visiting Australians.

The strange case of the recent arrest of Jamie Murphy in Bali swung from tragedy to farce with bewildering speed.

After white powder was allegedly found in a baggie in his bumbag at the Sky Garden nightclub in Kuta on Monday 21 November, the media was full of reports that the Perth teenager faced years in prison. But within just a few days, Murphy, 18, was released by embarrassed police. They said that that the ‘drugs’ turned out to be crushed paracetamol and other over-the-counter medications. Urine tests proved negative too, so he was free to go.

It is hard to be sure what really happened. There are plenty of theories circulating. Was the baggie really his, or did security guards plant it on him? If so, why did it not contain narcotics? Was someone trying set up a foreign tourist? Did they see Jamie coming and try to turn him into an easily-extorted ‘ATM case’? Was it an extortion attempt? Did someone fiddle the test results? Or did Jamie really try to buy drugs and by a stroke of weird luck end up with headache tablets?

We may never know what really happened but one thing is sure—Jamie’s narrow escape will become another in a long series of horror stories about Australians finding their holiday in tropical paradise turning suddenly to hell.

Not that there is in any shortage of these stories. In fact, we have seen a constant stream of them on our TV screens and newsfeeds for a decade and a half. To give just a selection: Bali bombing I, Bali bombing II, Schapelle Corby, Michelle Lesley, the Bali Nine and the execution of Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan, tourists blinded by moonshine alcohol, robberies, housebreaking and sexual assault, the ‘Black Widow’ murder of Bob Ellis by his Javanese wife, and the recent killing of a Balinese policeman by two tourists.

The list goes on, and it has created an image of Bali (and, by extension, Indonesia) as a high-risk destination, a view supported by DFAT’s travel warning that tourists ‘exercise a high degree of caution’ in Bali.

This is, in part, fair enough. Bali is not a holiday resort off the coast of Queensland. It is a distant province of Indonesia, a huge developing country of 270 million people. Bali is the site of a major tourist industry but has all the problems Indonesia shares with developing countries around the world, including ramshackle government, clunky bureaucracy, corruption, crime and incompetent law enforcers—and large numbers of desperately poor people.

People visiting a developing country—wherever it is—take some level of risk and need to have their wits about them. It is not the place for parents to send their children unsupervised for ‘schoolies’ coming-of-age indulgence and rule-breaking. Surely that should happen closer to home, in safer conditions? After all, if Australian teenagers do get caught with drugs instead of powdered panadol they face far more severe punishment than they would in Australia. Penalties range from decades in prison, to life imprisonment or death in serious cases. And the Indonesian government has repeatedly stated its policy of ‘no mercy for drug offenders’—and especially not for foreigners, who most Indonesians wrongly believe run the drug trade there.

But the horror stories are not the full picture. In fact, the image of hordes of intoxicated bogans running wild in Bali is inaccurate. A huge number of Australians have visited Bali—almost one in four, in fact—without incident. The overwhelming majority spend big and return home happy, with suntans, souvenirs and good memories. Many return year after year.

In fact, the Australian Embassy’s statistics show that of the more than one million Australians that went to Bali last year, just 60 per year had direct contact with police over issues or charges—that’s 0.006 per cent! On average, 81,000 visited every month last year but only two were ever arrested.

Likewise, a total of just 500 Australians sought consular assistance in Bali last year. They included people needing help because of lost passports and tickets, deaths from natural causes, traumatic relationship breakdowns, accidents, family emergencies, etc. That amounts to just 0.05 per cent of the million or more who visited last year, which is a very, very low incident rate.

The conclusion? The perception that Bali is a ‘Yobbo Paradise’ and a dangerous place to go is actually quite wrong. With a million people visiting for the express purpose of letting off steam and having a good time, there will always be a few who get into trouble, but the vast majority of Australians in Bali act responsibly.

Equally, the view that the Balinese are sick of Australians coming and breaking their laws is not accurate. They are more worried that bad news stories will harm the tourist trade, something that would have a devastating effect on their economic well-being.

The good news for them is that this is unlikely to happen, at least so long as Bali offers cheap holidays. Australian arrivals did dip after the Bali bombings but recovered quickly. Since then, the stream of horror holiday news has had little impact on tourists. The calls for to ‘boycott Bali’ after the horrific executions of Sukumaran and Chan was understandable but misplaced, as Balinese authorities generally opposed the killings. It was the government of President Joko Widodo in Jakarta that was determined to see them dead, largely to shore up the president’s domestic political position.

In any case, the calls for a boycott had little discernable effect on the numbers boarding flights from Australia to Denpasar. Australians still like going to Bali, almost as much as the Balinese want them to keep coming. It is a symbiotic relationship.

Tim Lindsey is Malcolm Smith Professor of Asian Law at the University of Melbourne, where he heads the Centre for Indonesian Law, Islam and Society.