The Eros of Nationalism

 

While I disagree with him, I have profound respect for Philip Ruddock. He ran former Prime Minister Howard's  border protection policy, but he had visited refugee camps before his work with that government, voted against discriminatory policies of his own party and respectfully debates and allowed himself to be interviewed by those he knew opposed his views.

However, the present turn back the boats policy is performed in secret. If history is to judge this policy kindly then it must be open for all to see. In a democracy we should have the  facts before us to decide whether we agree. But debate has been censored.

In watching a the recent debate IQ2 Debate: History's Judgement will be to Vindicate our Treatment of 'Boat People', televised on the ABC, I began to wonder.  

The government is elected to make decisions including tough decisions. I accept that in International law  all nation states have a right to defend our borders. However, if the Australian Government honestly believes  policy is to be praised as humane then it should be able to stand up to public scrutiny. Unlike Mr Ruddock, the present Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison can hide behind military secrecy.

Secondly, I have walked the slums, and spoken to the children whose lives are of the type many refugees are trying to escape.

I found it morally repugnant that Foreign Minister Julie Bishop could blatantly compare the refugee camps of Manus Island, when, the same day, it was reported she saw them from a distance but did not enter these homes.

Sadly this was not reported enough.

I believe that all decision makers of government policy must spend time  – and I do not mean flying visits, with Ministerial or NGO comforts – living with the people or environment of the people whose decisions will be effected. Try for atleast a week. (Imagine an Environment Minister who never entered a forest, but made decisions about the ecology while only ever enjoying an air conditioned office in his concrete jungle?).
My experiences in India convince me that most businesses and NGO’s entering that country are  shown a rent a crowds that support officials with views of minds already decided.  

Get among the “stake holders”, as the “Poli-speak” would call them, and see whose lives you will effect. 

I honestly believe we must make decisions on the basis of our whole person. That is, we must decide, not just with our disembodied heads, but also with our heart.

I believe a nation can be patriotic without being jingoistic. Unfortunately, patriotism is a lot like erotic love: short term and intense. The  ancient Greek writer Thucydides described the erotic decision to go to war against Sicily.
But Sex can other unite or hurt and disillusion.  Lust can rush a man or woman to a choice they later regret, just as nationalism can thrust a nation toward passion or hatred.It seems to me that linking the punishment of already marginalised  and afflicted with patriotic fervour risks being found out as a dissatisfying and disillusioning experience.

But why choose between Patriotism and universal reason? Could it be that politicians triggering fear against the unknown other simply because we fear the uncertain?

Our Immigration heritage, is often flagged with patriotic joy, much as New York has been for the USA’s immigrant history. The same nationalism rushed both Australia and the US into a war based on misinformation.  

So it is I now come back to our debate on boat people arriving in Australia.

I ask if you are a politician debating the issue of “boat people” then please spend a week in a slum, or a detention centre first. Know what peoples lives are like first.

Then, if after that you as a whole person can still defend Australia’s position, then I salute you and respect your for your integrity,  even if I  grudgingly disagree.

 You see, part of the argument has implied the belief that new Australian should uphold a minimum set of Australian values. I believe most do. However, when I went to school e were taught an Australian value I still wish we would uphold:

“You don’t kick a dog when it’s down”.

Sending the Navy against unarmed refugees seems more akin to thuggery.