Australia border policy; tribal or human

What this political system will look like no one can predict precisely. A possible model is the European Union (EU) which, although it too does not offer an open border to non Europeans, has at least offered more open borders to citizens of its member countries. A Human Union may slowly develop to offer similar possibilities to all humans.

The EU model for a future Human Union makes more sense than the United Nations (UN) model. The UN does not require a basic degree of respect for human rights and democracy from its members and so contains both democracies and dictatorships and has failed to develop common values and standards among its members the way the EU has. A future Human Union would evolve slowly, gradually adding members as they came to share it basic common values.

How does this future possibility relate to the question of freedom of movement now?

We cannot build a Human Union overnight. But if all we do is support the status quo of the age of nationalism by denying the legitimate aspirations of our fellow human beings to a better life by restricting their freedom of movement we are simply supporting the worst possible option. If Australia was to take even a small step to start the building of a future Human Union or World Federation we could at least say that Australia is working its way towards a position that is fair to all humans rather than its current one of discrimination against those less fortunate.

It may take a hundred years to steadily build a Human Union. But every year that we do not even start the process we are not being “realistic”, instead we are simply delaying a necessary and sensible reform, while our fellow humans continue to suffer.

Australian Prime Minister Rudd has proposed an “Asian Community”, open to all apparently, whether democracy or dictatorship. Why not propose a Human or World Union, open to all democratically inclined countries, a Human Union which could start to gradually build a world of open borders. Such a Human Union may start with only one or two member countries, but over time it could grow. This would not necessarily help the people struggling to come to Australia today, but it would set in train a process which would help everybody in the future.

If Australia were to propose such an organisation, or seek others to join the initial nucleus of such an organisation, Australia would be making a genuine contribution to dealing with the problem of asylum seekers rather than simply guarding its tribal privileges against less fortunate fellow humans.

Instead of perpetuating the suffering of our fellow humans by denying them freedom of movement it would be more rational and just for Australia to declare that it will start helping to build a world where our fellow humans have freedom of movement. By exploring how to build a world that puts human dignity before the tribal privileges of the age of nationalism Australia can be part of the solution rather than just the defender of the status quo.