The response by Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock to the Kosovo crisis was quite inadequate and lacked the generosity that has marked Australia’s response to earlier crises in Europe and elsewhere in the world.
At the time he made the announcement it seemed a little out of character for Mr Ruddock who has usually taken a small-l liberal position in the Howard Government — a position that has become far too rare in the Liberal Party since the demise of the Fraser Government.
Fortunately, the Prime Minister himself has stepped in to change Mr Ruddock’s position that Australia would adopt a wait-and-see position and in the meantime not offer to take any refugees from the Balkans.
One might perhaps guess that Mr Ruddock had attempted to second-guess Mr Howard but got it wrong.
Mr Ruddock made the point that Australia usually accepted people for permanent resettlement whereas the hope with the Kosovo crisis was that people would be able to return to their homes.
That is a naïve hope. Most of the homes have been destroyed. Moreover, many refugees have lost family members, mostly fathers, and would have great difficulty picking up their old lives. Besides, the NATO military operation shows little sign of even stopping the exodus, let alone reversing it. The most likely result is that many, if not most, of those Kosovars who have been forced out will remain out.
In those circumstances, Mr Howard’s later stand was more appropriate. It is quite plain that Albania, the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia and the autonomous republic of Montenegro (which is notionally still part of Yugoslavia) will not be able to cope with the refugee influx. Moreover, a huge permanent flow into Montenegro might inflame popular resentment which might manifest itself by support for Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic.
The military effort to prevent the slaughter and displacement of innocent civilians in Kosovo is being carried out by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation whose members arguably have the prime responsibility for the fall-out of the military undertaking. Australia is not a member of NATO, nonetheless it has given verbal support to the NATO action.
In any event, as a member of the community of nations and as part of the human family, Australia – a rich country on scale of nations — has a moral obligation to look sympathetically on people driven from their homes.
NATO countries have agreed to take refugees in numbers ranging from 40,000 to Germany to 5000 to Canada. Australia has rightly agreed to take a number just under that. In doing so Australia has also sent a message to some members of the Serb community in Australia that this is a tolerant society which is not interested taking sides and is not desirous of fighting old ethnic battles afresh in Australia, but is desirous of people maintaining and expressing cultural links with their countries of origin.
The number agreed to by Australia – about 4000 – is about right given what is being done by the NATO members. In theory the commitment by the NATO members and other countries like Australia is one for temporary settlement. If that is the case, it is logistically illogical to send people all the way to Australia and then send them back. It would be better to house them closer to the place of their return. The fact is, however, that once in Australia, it is very unlikely that any of the refugees would voluntarily give up life here for a very uncertain future in their old homes. They would most likely want to stay.
Mr Ruddock and the Government were presented with a significant political difficulty. There can be little doubt that general public opinion in Australia is not supportive of a high immigration program for its own sake. Many feel that immigration has done its task and that the nation is now sufficiently populated to satisfy any economic or security imperative. A large body of opinion feels there are good ecological and environmental reasons against a large immigration program. Moreover, a large amount of the research indicates that economics of immigration are about neutral. The larger-that-usual immigration programs during the period of Hawke Government with their larger-that-usual family-reunion components ran in defiance of public opinion, particularly at a time of worsening economic conditions and changes that came with globalisation.
The trouble for Mr Ruddock was been that a large amount of goodwill was consumed by that wave of immigration. It has resulted in a fear of resentment against all immigration.
The delicate re-positioning that the Government has had to take over the past couple of days should serve as a lesson. It is very important for Australia not to run the immigration program too far apart from public opinion. It is important to run modest immigration programs with emphasis on skills and with an eye to its affect on the environment and ecological sustainability. If Australia does that, then it is in a much better position to respond more confidently and more positively to unusual events such as those in Kosovo.