A few days ago, I received an email ‘staff message’ from the Pro Vice Chancellor of Research at UNSW entitled, ‘Restrictions on research collaboration with Iran, Russia, Belarus and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’.
It was a little unnerving as – coincidentally (?) – a week or so before, unaware of the prohibition, I had posted online in this journal my first and only piece co-authored with a respected and widely published Iranian analyst living in Tehran. (For fear of breaching some subclause of the relevant legislation, I do not provide a link to that article here).
The staff message opened with the following statement: ‘In response to the rapidly evolving geopolitical climate, the Australian government has increased expectations on universities to exercise greater caution and oversight in relation to international collaborations.’ Henceforth, ‘…. any activity with individuals or entities in these countries is not permitted without prior approval’ (bold italics not in the original). It continued:
-
‘Activity with these countries may breach sanctions which is a serious criminal offence. Individuals may face up to 10 years in prison or substantial fines.
-
Even providing technical assistance (such as editorial guidance) to individuals or entities in these countries may be considered a breach of sanctions.
-
A failure to fully comply with this direction by a staff member would be a breach of their obligations to UNSW and may amount to serious misconduct under the Enterprise Agreement which could result in disciplinary action (up to and including termination of employment).’
Among other things, the message instructed me not ‘to initiate or continue any agreements (formal or informal) with individuals, universities or other entities in Iran, Russia, Belarus or the DPRK.’ And to ‘immediately notify your Associate Dean Research and the UNSW National Security team (ua.ude.wsnunull@ksir.lacitilopoeg) of any potential or existing restricted collaborations if you have not already done so.’
I complied with the instructions. However, as a law-abiding and responsible citizen, I consider it my duty to object to policies that are morally wrong and do not reflect well on what I still like to believe is an open society.
I haven’t been able to bring myself to write about this until now because I have been in a mild state of shock. After all, according to some, Australia ‘remains one of the world’s stronger democracies.’ Admittedly, a term that according to Arundhati Roy and others (including me) for many years now has been ‘hollowed out’ and no longer bears much resemblance to its original definition. So, I shouldn’t have been that surprised:
… can terms like “free speech” or “free world” have anything really to do with freedom, when those who proclaim them the loudest demonstrate that what they really mean is the freedom to do as they please? The freedom to “finance and sponsor despots and dictators” when it suits their purposes; “the freedom to topple democratically elected governments”; “the freedom to amass and use weapons of mass destruction…” The freedom to go to war against any government they disagree with or any government that has something that they want (Roy, 2003d) …. “And, most terrible of all,” does it mean “the freedom to commit these crimes against humanity in the name of ‘justice’, in the name of ‘righteousness,’ in the name of ‘freedom’? (Roy, 2003d, p. 8)” (Blunt & Lindroth, 2012, p. 475)
As to the moral standing and consistency of the requirement for greater ‘caution and oversight’ (control) regarding whom we may interact with, to take the first country on the list, as far as I am aware, Iran has not made any unprovoked military attacks on another country for at least 100 years. It does not have military bases in other countries (unlike, say, the US which has more than 800). It has not bombed any schools, hospitals or universities (30 Iranian universities have been reduced to rubble or a fine dust in the latest attacks by the US/Israel). It has not committed genocide or any other crimes against humanity, and so on.
Moreover, it is widely held (e.g., Chomsky, 2007) that the sanctions imposed on Iran in the first place were imposed because the revolution in 1979 that overthrew the dictatorship of the shah — Mohammad Reza Pahlavi — produced a popularly elected government that had the gall to refuse to obey US orders. The latest illegal war against Iran prosecuted by the US and Israeli regimes is being waged for pretty much the same reason: the persistence of Iranian disobedience and resolve (e.g., Roy, 2026) which prevents the creation of a Greater Israel and inhibits unbridled US predation and hegemony in the Middle East.
In short, Iran’s main sin is that it occupies territory and possesses resources that Israel and the US have other plans for. It also refuses to fall apart when its leaders are assassinated or, with threats to return it to the Stone Age, it is carpet bombed.
All of the obvious rhetorical questions arise. Should we assume, as the Australian government seems to, that disobedience to the US government (by Iran, by Australia, by anyone) is worse than genocide and other war crimes? Is the term ‘rapidly evolving geopolitical climate’ code for the wants of the US government? Should we assume that academics in the US and Israel support the murderous actions of their governments and not ‘collaborate’ with them as well? Will I soon receive a staff message instructing me to desist from ‘collaboration’ with academics whose governments have engaged in genocide or broken international law? Are there any universities left standing in Iran to ‘collaborate’ with? Has this journal been inundated with articles like this one, written by outraged scholars from all over Australia who have received similar notices? If not, is that because the ‘staff message’ was only sent to a select few, that is, those who were deemed to be deserving targets by whatever system of electronic surveillance is being used – in my case triggered by my co-authored publication with an Iranian scholar?
Also, I cannot help but wonder what quirk of Australia’s relations with the US explains why Cuba is not on the list. Or was it just a typo in the edict issued by the US government’s Department of War?
And what of China, is its turn to come?
What does all of this tell us about the trajectory of Australia’s ‘fair go’ society and the remnants of its allegedly ‘stronger democracy’?
When considering similar trends in the US, is Chris Hedges (2025) being too alarmist or melodramatic when he says:
“The goal of any concentration camp system is to destroy all individual traits, to mold people into fearful, docile, obedient masses…
First they come for the immigrants. Then they come for the activists on foreign student visas on college campuses. Then they come for green card holders. Next are the U.S. citizens who fight Israeli genocide or the creeping fascism. Then they come for you.”