In the 1970s, when the Vietnamese boat people swamped to Malaysian, Indonesian, Philippines and Singaporean shores, the world community was outraged that these nations would not accept them. Singapore, an island republic of 625 square miles, would not under any circumstances. The others, despite their harsh stance, did relent on the condition they were eventually repatriated. The Western nations wanted to pick and choose whom they wanted, and insisted Malaysia keep the rest.

Malaysia has not been an immigrant nation since 1952, five years before independence, and since most were Chinese or Chinese-looking landing in the conservative Malay areas of her East Coast, Malaysia shooed them away. The other countries were unwilling and unprepared to accept foreigners; such large numbers could cause internal problems. Despite these, more than a hundred thousand of them landed in refugee camps and it took years before the last left for third countries or returned home.

The world wide condemnation was something else. Southeast Asia had no right, they were told, to prevent these people from landing. What caused it was the war in Vietnam, in which the Southeast Asian nations were dragged into, which when it ended, caused the exodus. The loser and his quislings and bitter opponents of the victor cannot expect justice in a new regime.

The big war is over. And now the exodus to developed countries come from the small wars and local and limited conflicts. The Vietnam exodus is forgotten, and those who shouted the loudest for justice for the Vietnamese refugees in the 1970s would not allow into their land refugees from the numerous conflicts that now take place.

'White Australia'

Australia, once vocal on behalf of displaced persons, now decides it cannot allow refugees from regional conflicts in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, and other hot spots to land. She would defend the right of displaced persons to land in any other country in the world but Australia.

A Norwegian vessel, Mv Tampa, last month picked up more than 400 refugees from a leaky Indonesian boat in the high seas. The captain tried to land them in Christmas Island, in the Indian Ocean, but Australia, whose territory the island is, refused. It took the stance of the Southeast Asian governments in the 1970s, but unlike them, militarily prevented them.

New Zealand and Nauru have since agreed to take the refugees in, and the affair is settled - for the moment. But it only postpones the inevitable. The Tampa is not the first, nor would it be the last, to bring refugees rescued from the high seas.

Australia, like the United States, allows for, indeed invites, migration, but those she wants have to be highly educated or politically acceptable. It is this short-term policy of political correctness in immigration that puts her policies to test in the court of world opinion.

For years, a 'White Australia' policy made it all but impossible for non-Caucasians to migrate to Australia, while Caucasians could for the equivalent of ten sterling pounds. Racism was ingrained in the Australian state, until it was removed in the 1970s.

In the waning years of the 19th century, towns down the coast of Australia hurriedly passed legislation to prevent Chinese who had fled China from landing. Those who did were confined to menial jobs, and regarded as non-persons.

Middle-class revolt

The political correctness Australia dispenses to the world is challenged at home. When the prime minister, John Howard, accused Malaysia and Indonesia of being the takeoff points of these refugees, there was some truth to the accusation.

But then these countries allowed these refugees and those fleeing from the war to do so on condition that they left for somewhere else as quickly as possible. Both governments did not care where these refugees went so long as they left their territories. Whether there is official collusion is besides the point.

The Australian reaction to the refugees must embarrass the government, quick to prescribe politically correct human rights remedies for the rest of the world but reacts in high dudgeon when it refers to her.

There is a reason for this: a middle-class revolt in the making, represented by Pauline Hanson and her fringe supporters. She represents few in the mainstream of Australian politics, but as life becomes more difficult, and the economy not as buoyant, she has more support that is admitted and the finger pointing would be at the new immigrants in the neighbourhood.

These newcomers have integrated into the society, but they are, when all is said and done, a tad below the Caucasian citizen. But they are not integrated into the highest level of society. Which is why when an Asian is appointed to a high position, much is made of that. The tokenism Australia accuses others of she practices in abundance.

The Tampa affair puts this in sharp focus. It must embarrass the Australian government no end that it had to do what it cannot afford to. The Australian middle-class is not about to give up its comfortable existence in times of an economic downturn by allowing foreigners to come and take away their jobs.

It is not true, of course, but Pauline Hanson represents that view, and Australia, for its sake, cannot afford that world view take root. But it also cannot afford, for a whole host of reasons, to defy it either. There would be other ships and other refugees to test Australia's patience.

Caught short

It is in the nature of conflict that those caught in it would want to flee. And since conflicts would be more prevalent in her neighbourhood, Australia would be hard put to keep a straight face and allow them in. She cannot. For the same reason Southeast Asia could not in the 1970s over the Vietnamese exodus.

She is hoist on her own petard for she speaks with a forked tongue now. She opts for the realpolitik of Southeast Asia and eschews the political correctness that dictated her stance then. And is caught short.

It reflects an official uncertainty. She looks upon Indonesia and Southeast Asia as her first line of defence, and tries to get these countries to mesh in with her policies. This cannot work, especially with Canberra's politically correct questioning of regional policies. And she does not want people in her ordered society, as Southeast Asia did not in the 1970s, by admitting those who turn up at her doorstep.

If she did, it could make relations with the countries they were citizens of problematical. She already runs into similar problems with legal immigrants. But does she have a choice? Can she take one position for the neighbours to follow and a contradictory one for herself?

But conundrums like these she would face so long as she fashions her policies on political correctness and not realpolitik. Her fear of her huge neighbour to the north stems from Indonesia's cold-blooded realpolitik when dealing with her neighbours.

That is not about to change. Nor, for that matter, Australia's uneven handedness on how she views her neighbours. She has to decide if she represents the Western Christian nations in a hostile regional sea or a Caucasian nation that happens to be in Asia.

The refugees and displaced persons on the Mv Tampa force her to address this. The embarrassment writ on official Australia is testament to it.