« Lomborg on the mythical DDT ban | Home | Weekend reflections »
Iraqi interpreters coming to Australia
By jquiggin | April 10, 2008
I only saw this item flashing briefly across the TV screen, but it’s an issue that has been vigorously debated in the UK and over at Crooked Timber. The new Australian government, which is withdrawing combat troops (though not some troops guarding our embassy) from Iraq, has announced that Iraqis who have worked with Australian forces in Iraq will be offered resettlement in Australia. The estimated number of Iraqis to receive visas, including family members, is 600. Australia had only about 500 troops on average, so that gives an idea of the scale of commitment that might be expected from the UK and US if they met their obligations in a comparable fashion.
The decision to accept the interpreters ahead of other refugees has been criticised, but I think this is justified. The essential point should be to treat this intake as additional to, rather than part of, our general obligation to accept refugees.
On the same point, this Times story indicates that the first three workers to be accepted under the much more restrictive British program have finally arrived in the UK, and that the program has so far delivered visas to a total of 12 Iraqis and their families. The total estimated intake is 2000.
Topics: Oz Politics |
April 10th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Yes. It is the only humane thing to do.
And let’s look at the real story it tells of Iraq. Surely of all the beneficiaries of “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, these westernised, educated pro-COW employees and agents should be first in line.
So why aren’t they happily staying in put in Iraq preparatory to enjoying the “peace and freedom dividend” that must surely result from the 3 trillion dollars that the US alone has invested in the exercise?
But these folks aren’t waiting around for that dividend. Neither are they waiting around for the replay of the last US helicopter leaving from the roof of the US embassy.
Cnce bitten, twice shy.
These folks are making the correct and intelligent decision.
Welcome, fellow citizens-to-be!
April 10th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Well this is at least one small moral step forward that the change of government has achieved. Howard would never have even admitted that these people’s lives were at risk, let alone given them visas. Now we can all feel slightly less shame over Iraq. There have still been a million pointless deaths since the invasion, but at least these 600 are saved. And as Katz implied, if the right wing pundits are correct, Iraq is safe, and this is unnecessary, then the 600 probably won’t even use their visas. Not likely.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:59 am
What a stark admission of failure. These people are being taken away from the homeland they presumably wanted to help rebuild. It seems akin to taking doctors away from a poor country.
If Afghanistan bogs down I suppose it follows we will be taking their ‘collaborators’ in a few years time. There will come a day when lifeboat Australia can’t or won’t take any more.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
We have a moral obligation to welcome as many Iraqi refugees as would like to come here, without regard to any quotas.
The C.O.W acted alone. By defying the U.N, we unlawfully violated Iraq’s sovereignty and started this war. We have a moral obligation to accept responsibility for our actions, and face the consequences. Although Australia will most likely never be formally held to account for this war, it is shameless to believe we have the moral authority to turn away any Iraqi who wishes to leave.
Those who oppose giving these six hundred people visas, especially on the grounds of what they self-righteously believe is right for another country, should be humble knowing that we are unlikely to ever face real justice for our actions.
April 10th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
If there are any Afghanis or Iraqis who are still somewhere within our “illegal” refugee detention system, they should be processed in priority to the 600 referred to in the article. It is not their fault that they ran away from the violence of war during the reign of the Rat (please excuse my ad-rattus attack, actual rats are pretty neat).
April 10th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Those whose lives are at risk because they have helped Australians deserve assistance. There is a moral if not a legal obligation.
That is why Australia helped in East Timor and it is a sound principle.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Although Australia will most likely never be formally held to account for this war,
Why do you say that, Gojod? The whole world knows that those who invaded Iraq are war criminals. This is not a story that will die easily.
The issue may not have much currency in the Australian media at the moment, but you know how the meejah works… A change in climate, a few stories start to break, a bombshell revelation - suddenly there are calls for a Royal Commission!
April 10th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Rudd is to be congratulated on taking this small step to rectify the mess we helped to create in Iraq. Australia should take as many Iraqi “coalition collaborators” as possible. Otherwise those people will get it in the neck when we leave.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:49 am
There are huge numbers of needy refugees seeking to come to Australia and no special provisions should be made for specific groups since this will inevitably lead to others being excluded by constraint. Almost all applicants have specific needs (often they are not humanitarian) and I am interested to know why John sees the needs of the Iraqis as above those from, for example, Africa.
He must have much better information that those in charge of making selections. Need? Economic motivations? Ability to resettle?
And of course we must prioritise intakes on the basis of refugee needs and Australian needs. We want people who will make good citizens in Australia. There must be a quota on total intakes given the aggregate scale of refugee needs.
Refugee policy is a tough one. Labor’s resettling of Vietnamese refugees after that war was supposed to be based on need. However virtually all Vietnamese admitted under than program had family ties in Australia. The whole thing had a smell about it.
‘Admit them all’ in addition to those we were already going to admit is just posturing and does not reflect careful thought.
The assumption in the comments is that the allies (as Gandhi calls them ‘war criminals’) have lost and the terrorists will take over. I don’t think that is clearly going to be the case and of course I absolutely reject the negative characterisation of the mission in Iraq.
Ridding the country of Saddam and seeking to institute democratic processes might be naive but it does not make the allies ‘war criminals’.
The lies get endlessly repeated. Socrates, there have been nowhere near 1 million lives lost in Iraq. The Lancet studies were wrong.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:02 am
“The assumption in the comments is that the allies … have lost and the terrorists will take over”
I think you’re missing reality here HC. It seems to me that the main unknown variable is who will take over. Whether that happens to be a bunch of warlords, a “terrorist” organization, or Iran, I imagine the main effect is going to be essentially the same, excluding which groups happen to be on the losing end of the distribution and the absolute number of them. Or are you saying that McCain is going to win, massively increase the troops (despite most of the Iraqi population not wanting them), and that after 4 years everyone will suddenly love each other?
April 11th, 2008 at 9:14 am
HC,
I understand that you dislike pmfeelgood thomas-the-tank-engine.
But I’m surprised to read your comment.
I’m really confused
April 11th, 2008 at 9:23 am
How about “duty of care” HC.
Does the Right believe in the concept of duty of care?
April 11th, 2008 at 9:33 am
HC: “Ridding the country of Saddam and seeking to institute democratic processes might be naive but it does not make the allies ‘war criminals’.”
Starting a war without just cause makes you a war criminal. That’s the crux of the matter here.
Yes Ghandi, the whole world knows. But can you seriously imagine Bush and his kronies fronting up to the Hague? Most likely never.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:11 am
That’s why I am only calling for a Royal Commission at this stage, Gojod!
I notice Stephen Smith today declaring that Bush’s decision to cancel further troop cuts will not affect Australia’s withdrawal plans:
Mr Fitzgibbon said Australia was not walking away from Iraq.
“We have an obligation to do what we can on the non-military side to rebuild their country.”
Why do we have an “obligation” to rebuild Iraq if we have not done anything wrong there? Similarly, why do we have an “obligation” to bring these Iraqi refugees home with us?
The official narrative makes no sense unless you agree that we are guilty of war crimes.
Who’s going to ask the Foreign Minister (or better yet the PM) about that?
April 11th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Rabee, In the case when I petitioned Minister Vanstone to help: the person had been shot, her brother’s shop in Bhagdad bombed and there were written threats that they would all be killed. They were well-educated Iraqis who faced no clear resettlement problems.
What would anyone do?
They have, I believe, successfully resettled in Australia.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
The issue I guess HC is that we have a group of people who work for us in Iraq and whose lives are in danger because of this work. If we leave, then we simply have to bring them back with us.
We have to come to terms with the reality that many Iraqis don’t like us much; and that they will kill those that work for us. We also have to come to grips with the idea that those who don’t like us will inherit what’s left of Iraq–drop the fantasies associated with the likes of Ahmad Chalabi or Ayad Allawi or even Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. The Iraq that we leave behind will be a much more dangerous place for us and our friends than it could have been had we strong armed the little sh*t Saddam into behaving himself.
I guess what I’m saying is that these interpreters are in pretty much the same situation as the person on whose behalf you petitioned Vanstone. She was working for the British in Basra and because of that she was shot.
April 13th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Who are our real friends? As Kevin Rudd told the Chinese this week, a real friend is one who tells you truths you might prefer to ignore.
The Australian people told Howard that the war was wrong, but he went ahead anyway. These Iraqi interpreters may be the darlings of the pro-war elite, but the ordinary people of Iraq, who continue to peacefully oppose the occupation in the midst of violence, should know that many millions of ordinary Australians support their desire for freedom and independence.