View previous stories
	The private sector, the UN and development by Roberto Bissio, Coordinator, Social Watch   Over the last months multinational corporations have jumped from the ‘economy and business’ pages of world newspapers to the sections on ‘crime and police’: Volkswagen was found guilty of programming its cars to cheat on emission tests enabling it to contaminate while on the streets way beyond the acceptable limits. The sugar industry was exposed as having a long record of fake scientific research aimed at blaming other factors for the health problems that they create. Goldman Sachs helped the Greek government in 2001 to lie about the state of its economy, in order to be admitted into the Eurozone. Between 2012 and 2015 the most powerful banks of the world, including Barclays, Chase Morgan, Citibank, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Lloyds, Royal Bank of Scotland and others, paid billions of dollars in fines for having manipulated for their own benefit the exchange rates among global currencies and the Libor interest rates that determine the cost of billions of credit operations around the world every day.   Reflecting on the magnitude of these scandals, Naomi Wolf wrote in The Guardian that:   “The notion that the entire global financial system is riddled with systemic fraud – and that key players in the gatekeeper roles, both in finance and in government, including regulatory bodies, know it and choose to quietly sustain this reality – is one that would have only recently seemed like the frenzied hypothesis of tin hat-wearers.”   In fact, many banks have been actively helping people in government around the world hide their assets, as widely exposed by the publication of the Panama Papers, while in South Korea, Lee Jae-yong, heir of Samsung, was arrested on charges of bribery, embezzlement, hiding of assets overseas and perjury, linked to the process that led to the impeachment of president Park Geun-hye.   The Report of the High Level Panel on Illicit Financial Flows from Africa, known as the Mbeki Report after the Commission’s chair, former South African president Thabo Mbeki, concluded in 2015 that US$50 billion leaves the continent illegally every year, double the total Official Development Assistance (ODA) received by Africa. Contrary to public perception, the bulk of these illicit flows does not result from the actions of corrupt government figures, smugglers of arms or diamonds or drug traffic, although all of these obviously exist, but from tax-evading transfers originating from legally-established multinational corporations, particularly, but not exclusively, in the extractive sector.   Technology corporations such as Uber even went beyond operating without authorisation or openly against the law in many cities and developed a software known internally as Greyball to identify law enforcement officers and steer its drivers away from them.   The private sector, the UN and development   Of course these are just some ‘bad apples’ and we should not assume that any business entity is guilty of misconduct until otherwise proven. Yet the epidemic proportions of bad-appleness, linked to the fact that when caught, executives largely get away with paying a fine and retiring with hefty pensions, frequently at the expense of their victims, may be one of the factors that is leading frustrated voters around the world to empower those that promise to ‘drain the swamp’.   When it comes to the ambitious 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development, the notoriously underfunded United Nations (UN) system, the multilateral development banks, and the donor countries that fund the UN and own the development banks, want to trust implementation to vague ‘partnerships’ with multinational corporations. Institutional hopes that business will come to the rescue seem so high that the UN General Assembly granted observer status to the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) from 1 January 2017. This is the first time that a business organisation has obtained observer status at the UN General Assembly. So far, the list of organisations with observer status was mainly limited to non-UN-member states, such as the Holy See and the State of Palestine, and intergovernmental organisations such as the African Union and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Trade unions and civil society organisations do not have such status.   The government of France justified this resolution on the grounds that “the private sector can bring key resources to the fore - knowledge, expertise, access and reach - that are often critical in order to advance United Nations Goals.”   While money is not mentioned as a resource to be contributed, it is clear that the expectation is there: in 2014, when the new development agenda of the UN was still being discussed, the then UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon proposed the creation of a “partnership facility to coordinate (and officialize) existing partnerships with the private sector (corporations, private foundations and civil society organizations) and encourage new ones” to "significantly increase existing resources and expand the effectiveness of their use," globally and in developing countries.   The initiatives to be formalised included Every Woman, Every Child, Sustainable Energy for All, Education First and several more. The official press releases are very optimistic. Every Woman, Every Child has purportedly ‘delivered’ US$10 billion and Sustainable Energy for All, saw pledges of US$50 billion in 2013, its first year. These amounts are impressive, considering that the total ODA of the richest countries is about US$100 billion dollars a year, and is falling.   However, what these numbers actually mean is not easy to figure out, as they only add up ‘commitments’ that in most cases extend over several years, sometimes decades into the future. These grants, and often also loans, are not received or controlled by any UN agency or developing country governments. There is no demonstrated additionality to ODA and other financial commitments made in inter-governmental fora.   Nor is there any proof that those monies add to what those involved would have disbursed independent of any new initiatives. Ultimately the proposal was withdrawn by Ban Ki-moon, when it became clear that it was not supported by key governments from North and South that demanded more transparency and oversight.   Those partnerships are not a new idea. In 1998 the UN Development Programme (UNDP) launched a Global Sustainable Development Facility, which aimed to “create sustainable economic growth and allow the private sector to prosper through the inclusion of two billion new people in the global economy.”   Then UNDP Administrator Gus Speth used to describe the partnership with the formula 2B4M:2020 - two billion people for the market by 2020. Fifteen multinationals paid US$50,000 each to be listed as co-sponsors. In response, more than a hundred civil society organisations (CSOs) signed a public letter to Speth and then Secretary-General Kofi Annan arguing that:   “The growing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of fundamentally undemocratic global corporations and other institutions of globalisation clashes with the overriding purpose of the United Nations to enhance human dignity and the capacity for self-governance.”   Mark Malloch-Brown, who succeeded Gus Speth in 1999 in the middle of this debate, immediately dropped the initiative and appointed many of the signatories of the letter to serve in the first Civil Society Advisory Committee to the UNDP Administrator.   Now, at a time when many global north countries have suffered recession and have cut their ODA budgets, the idea of a UN-related facility based on corporate contributions has resurfaced. It may seem obvious and reasonable to use private philanthropy funds to complement declining ODA. However, an alliance of civil society networks warned in 2013 about the possibility of precisely the opposite effect:   “Contrary to the perception that leveraging actually draws in private resources to available public funds, increasingly it is about using public money (ODA) to cover the risks of private investment. Losses will be socialized while profits continue to be private –and too often untaxed. Recent experience in many countries shows that these ‘innovative’ mechanisms are often ineffective, poorly regulated, and can lead to corruption in borrowing and lending countries.”   By joining these initiatives, corporations may be winning direct access to ODA monies, with the argument of ‘leveraging’ them, and indirectly benefit from access to the procurement budgets in ODA recipient countries, to the detriment of local small and medium enterprises. Similarly, the agency of local civil society actors might suffer as only large global CSOs specialising in service delivery may have access to these initiatives.   Several governments questioned the transparency and usefulness of the proposed Partnership Facility and it was never approved.   Who do partnerships serve?   In a pioneering study, ‘Fit for Whose Purpose? Private funding and corporate influence at the United Nations’, Barbara Adams and Jens Martens look at the proliferation of ‘partnerships’ and conclude that:   “They risk giving the UN stamp of approval and legitimacy to many initiatives not framed and shaped by UN values and standards of inclusiveness. These trends will not only continue to weaken global (economic) governance, they will endorse the replacement of a UN value-based framework for governance with a voluntary one, characterized by a hotchpotch of ad hoc deals that favour brand and image management over durable programmes that advance human rights and promote economic development founded on a true understanding of ecological sustainability.”   The official documents of the 2030 Agenda talk about “a revitalised Global Partnership for Sustainable Development.” The term is in singular because it remits to the Monterrey Declaration of 2002, where as an outcome of the first UN conference on Financing for Development, states concluded that “achieving the internationally agreed development goals, including those contained in the Millennium Declaration, demands a new partnership between developed and developing countries.”   Goal 17 of the SDGs, which deals with implementing the other 16, wants to “enhance” the partnership, “complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources.”   While the diplomats in New York were agreeing on different stakeholders “complementing” public efforts, the multilateral development banks, in April 2015, issued a joint document titled ‘From Billions to Trillions: Transforming Development Finance’; where they argue that “the best possible use” of the US$135 billion in official grants for development is to leverage “the largest potential from private sector business, finance and investment,” mainly into infrastructure, in a “trajectory from billions to trillions.”   That promise to multiply grant money by hundreds of thousands comes with the standard neoliberal macro policy advice to provide guarantees and subsidies for private investment, plus a change in the use and nature of public development grants, which now become public-private partnerships (PPPs). This offers a moral hazard, as losses and failures will be ‘socialised’ and covered with taxpayers’ monies from donor and recipient countries, while the profits will only be in the hands of the investor.   PPPs are a ‘buy now-pay later’ form of procurement that usually cost more than any alternative, but are preferred by decision-makers because they conceal the generation of debt. They have frequently been associated with high-level corruption and inefficiency, and numerous studies quote PPPs as causing the financial crisis in Portugal and to some extent in Spain.   An expert group of the development directorate of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) specialised in investment recently concluded that:   “Private participation in infrastructure can be complex, time consuming and subject to frequent renegotiation and restructuring. If certain modalities are hugely unsuccessful in OECD countries, they are unlikely to succeed in less developed countries where cost recovery is more difficult.”   Yet, with the support of the G20, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the multilateral development banks, PPPs have become more and more frequent and laws and constitutions in more then 150 countries have been changed or are being changed to make PPPs possible. Those changes include, in the case of international development agencies, changes in their information disclosure policy to defend the commercial interests of the private partners.   Some developed donors have started to ‘leverage’ their donations by channelling them to private investments, usually by corporations from the donor country, and others have conditioned their support to CSOs to the beneficiaries receiving a substantial proportion of their income from corporations.   But just adding another ‘p’ to the formula and making them public-private-people partnerships by including some CSOs in the mix would sound like mere window-dressing, and might create serious reputational risks for the CSOs involved.   In the triangle formed by the state, the market and civil society, many forms of interaction, collaboration and partnership between different actors will always be explored, and that dynamic is healthy. But civil society entities should never forget that the source of their legitimacy is not the votes of citizens but the respect for their integrity, and the measure of their impact is not the money they administer but their contribution towards checking the power of the state and market. Visit the related web page
	6,000 Australian doctors demand traumatised children be taken off Nauru detention center by MSF Australia, AMA, UNHCR, agencies   Oct. 2018   Australian GPs lambast ‘deliberate government policy which is causing the pain and suffering of children in detention’.   Australian doctors are escalating their campaign to have children in detention immediately removed from Nauru. Australian Medical Association (AMA) paediatric representative Dr Paul Bauert, who has treated patients on Nauru, said it was an “unconscionable” situation that could be easily avoided.   “This is the only situation I’ve come across where it is deliberate government policy which is causing the pain and suffering of these children,” Bauert told reporters in Canberra on Monday.   The AMA has been lobbying the government to change policy on Nauru, but just last month the prime minister, Scott Morrison, yet again rebuffed a plea from the peak doctors’ association.   To date 6,000 doctors are demanding the government immediately remove the 80 children from Nauru because of serious mental and physical health concerns.   Bauert said almost all the children in detention on Nauru are traumatised.   “Many are damaged already, but we don’t want this damage to be permanent,” he said. “They need to be assessed and treated as a matter of urgency. “It’s a miracle we haven’t had a death already.   “I have reviewed many cases of these children myself, it is simply unconscionable that we are keeping these children and their families in a situation which we know is a critical threat to their health and wellbeing,” he said.   “The situation for children on Nauru is a humanitarian emergency requiring urgent intervention and removal of all these children and their families to medical treatment in Australia.” http://bit.ly/2NIhyO9 http://bit.ly/2ClDUTq   Oct. 2018   Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) strongly condemns the government of Nauru’s sudden decision to cease the provision of desperately needed mental health care provided by MSF to asylum seekers, refugees and the local community on Nauru.   The international humanitarian medical organisation describes the mental health situation of refugees on the island as “beyond desperate” and calls for the immediate evacuation of all asylum seekers and refugees from the island and for an end to the Australian offshore detention policy.   “It is absolutely disgraceful to say that MSF’s mental health care is no longer required; the mental health situation of the refugees indefinitely held on Nauru is devastating. Over the past 11 months on Nauru, I have seen an alarming number of suicide attempts and incidents of self-harm among the refugee and asylum seeker men, women and children we treat.   We were particularly shocked by the many children suffering from traumatic withdrawal syndrome, where their status deteriorated to the extent they were unable to eat, drink, or even walk to the toilet,” Dr Beth O’Connor, MSF psychiatrist.   As corroborated by MSF medical analysis, refugee patients exist in a vicious cycle of deep despair with many having lost the will to live. Among them, at least 78 patients seen by MSF had suicidal ideations and/or engaged in self-harm or suicidal acts.   Children as young as nine have told MSF staff that they would rather die than live in a state of hopelessness on Nauru. Among the most severely ill patients are those separated from their immediate family as a result of Australia’s immigration policy.   Although many of the refugees on Nauru have experienced trauma in their countries of origin or during their refugee journey, it is the Australian government’s policy of indefinite offshore detention that has destroyed their resilience and shattered all hope that they will one day lead safe, meaningful lives.   “Separating families and forcibly holding men, women and children on a remote island indefinitely with no hope or protection except in the case of a medical emergency is cruel, inhumane and degrading,” said Paul McPhun, MSF Australia’s Executive Director.   “While the Australian government describes offshore detention as a humanitarian policy, our experience proves that there is nothing humanitarian about saving people from sea only to leave them in an open air prison on Nauru. This policy should be stopped immediately and should not be replicated by any government.   It’s not MSF’s psychiatrists and psychologists that should be leaving Nauru; it’s the hundreds of asylum seekers and refugees that Australia has trapped on the island for the past five years that should be leaving.”   http://www.msf.org.au/article/statements-opinion/msf-calls-immediate-evacuation-all-asylum-seekers-and-refugees-nauru   Oct. 2018   Australia urged to evacuate offshore detainees amid widespread, acute mental distress. (UN News)   Australia should end its offshore processing policy on the Pacific islands of Nauru and Papua New Guinea amid reports of widespread, acute mental distress and attempted suicide by children and young adults, the UN refugee agency, UNHCR, said on Friday.   “In one of the various cases brought to our attention during September, a suicidal pre-teenage girl remains in Nauru despite doctors’ advice to the contrary,” UNHCR spokesperson Catherine Stubberfield told journalists in Geneva. “Medical records seen by UNHCR staff show she first doused herself in petrol, before attempting to set herself alight and pulling chunks of hair from her head.”   According to UNHCR, more than 1,400 people are still being held on both islands, which have hosted Australia-bound migrants and asylum-seekers forcibly transferred there, since 2013.   The UN agency’s appeal to the Australian authorities echoes a warning from non-governmental organization Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) which pulled out of Nauru last week, at the request of the island’s authorities.   There have been no returns from Papua New Guinea to Australia this year, the UN agency noted, despite “several instances” of self-harm or attempted suicide there in the past month. In addition, a number of people with acute physical and mental needs remain untreated, UNHCR said.   “This policy has failed on a number of measures,” Mrs Stubberfield said. “It’s failed to protect refugees, it’s failed to provide even for their most basic needs throughout a period that now exceeds five years. And it’s failed to provide solutions for a substantial number that is still waiting and can clearly no longer afford to wait.”   The UNHCR spokesperson reported that of the 12 people who have died since Australia began detaining migrants and refugees offshore, half had been confirmed or suspected suicides. The mental health of those being held on the islands was worsening, she added.   “Our own consultant medical experts in 2016 found a cumulative prevalence of anxiety, depression and PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) in both Papua New Guinea and Nauru, to be well above 80 per cent, and the situation has deteriorated since then,” Ms. Stubberfield said. “So, there are very serious needs that are not being met. There’s no longer time for the Government of Australia to delay or find other solutions, and it’s for that reason that we’re asking people be evacuated today.” http://bit.ly/2OmSRfk   May 2018   Until we are free our struggle will never end, by Behrouz Boochani. (Human Rights Law Centre, agencies)   It gives me great pleasure to communicate with you from Manus Island and be present at this event. I wish to extend a special thank you to the Human Rights Law Centre for giving me this valuable opportunity.   The situation on Manus Island and Nauru over the past five years should be no secret to anyone.   The aim of my talk tonight is to add a new dimension to the debates pertaining to punishment, debasement and dehumanisation of individuals held within these sites.   I will not repeat how Australian politicians have inflicted pain and suffering on the innocent refugees locked up in these prisons. The incarceration of people seeking asylum, in particular the children on Nauru, is remarkably cruel and has been exposed in many compelling ways.   All of the documentation, witness testimonies and other evidence that have been discussed and published until now have proven conclusively that innocent people have been enduring extraordinary forms of physical, emotional and psychological torment. The fact that ten people have lost their lives on Manus Island, Nauru and Christmas Island since 2013 is a despicable crime that needs to be investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice.   No one can ignore the fact that people have been killed and thousands of lives destroyed as a result of political power plays.   The use of exile as a political tactic against vulnerable refugees is based on the construction of two concepts: national security and the national interest.   Without a doubt, Australian governments have enacted an extensive propaganda campaign which centres on a perverse account of these two notions. What should be a debate about people – about human beings, about children and families – has been deliberately poisoned to become a debate about borders and security.   As a result, the governments playing this game have been able to manipulate and dictate the majority of public opinion, they have been able to strengthen their support base and galvanise others in support of their policies.   Both Labor and Liberal governments have accrued enormous political profit by using this tactic. Creating a false sense of national security by treating innocent victims of war and persecution as a security threat, and saying it is in the national interest to use any means to keep us out.   But how is it in the national interest to undermine Australia’s international reputation with these policies? And spend almost $9 billion to do it?   The fact is, Manus Island and Nauru are pivotal to elections in Australia. The two major political parties have been using the refugees on Manus Island and Nauru for their own ambitions. Our lives are a form of ritual sacrifice. The price they are prepared to pay for power.   By ‘us’ I don’t just mean the men on Manus Island. I also mean the innocent children and women who have remained in a kind of purgatory for five years.   So what is the next course of action? We must accept the fact that after all these years the on-going pro-refugee campaigns and protests, the movements within civil society, and the work of refugee activists have been incapable of forcing change within Australia’s political system.   We must confront our failures and recognise our mistakes. However, at the same time, there have also been many notable achievements.   We have been successful in making the plight of incarcerated refugees a central issue in public discourse and this has created opportunities for making our aims and objectives clear: we want freedom… we demand freedom for all the refugees.   We have also been able, at the very least, to document the history of this ruthless political ideology and the merciless act of exiling refugees.   We are confident that these crimes will never be forgotten. That is, we have been successful in writing history using our voices. But no matter how much emphasis I place on these achievements, ultimately, they mean nothing until the refugees are free.   Our advocacy will be acknowledged as truly valuable and worthwhile only when we can secure the release and safety of the refugees imprisoned on these islands.   I do not want my tone and mood to reflect any sense of hopelessness. Under the current circumstances one must be as active as ever.   Detaining refugees for over five years in a prison is, undeniably, a moral failure. It also reflects a failure in the various forms of resistance. But, losing hope, or relinquishing one’s duty to human rights are even greater forms of failure and moral bankruptcy. The worst thing any of us can do is give up.   I am someone who has been locked up here on Manus Island for five years and have been struggling to employ any means possible to persuade public perception regarding our situation.   I have tried so hard to acquire any resource available to communicate a deeper understanding of our plight. I have endeavoured to shed light on the human factor within this politicised and militarised climate. My aim has always been to emphasise our humanity and invite others to see and feel that for themselves.   Many have fought alongside the refugees and used whatever was in their power to change the system. I have been working with those supporters and fighting from within the prison. And this ongoing fight has made me tired.   But, as someone who has had to endure pressure from all angles I would like to ask all of you to continue on this path that we have been traversing together. Do not give up. The refugees have no choice but to persevere.   We cannot stop resisting. Until we are free our struggle will never end. Never forget what we have endured all these years, the consequences of physical, emotional and psychological pain and affliction will never end. We cannot stop resisting.   http://www.hrlc.org.au/news/2018/5/18/2018-human-rights-dinner-keynote-address-by-behrouz-boochani http://www.hrlc.org.au/refugee-and-asylum-seeker-rights/ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/31/behrouz-boochani-asylum-seeker-manus-island-detained-wins-victorian-literary-prize-australias-richest http://bit.ly/2FIgAk4   Apr. 2018   Australia-bound asylum seekers left mentally scarred by years of detention on Pacific islands, warns UN.   A senior United Nations refugee agency official warned this week about the “shocking” effects of long-term detention on Australia-bound asylum seekers who are being held on remote Pacific islands.   Indrika Ratwatte said the situation in Nauru, as well and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea, was as bad as he had seen in his 25-year career. Both locations have been used to house more than 3,000 men, women and children from Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Sri Lanka and Myanmar, since Australia implemented its offshore processing policy in 2013.   Speaking to journalists in Geneva after returning from Nauru last week, Mr. Ratwatte, who heads the Asia and Pacific bureau of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), described the “shocking” psychological and the mental toll on refugees and asylum seekers. Children have been particularly affected, he said:   “I have seen a little girl for example who was 12 years old in a catatonic state who has not stepped out of her room in a month […] clinical psychiatrists and professionals have determined that around 80 per cent of the asylum-seekers and refugees in Nauru and Manus as well are suffering from post-traumatic stress and depression. This is per capita one of the highest mental health problems levels that have been noted.”   Despite the clear need to address the problem, the lack of psychiatric help and healthcare “has increased the sense of hopelessness and despair,” Mr. Ratwatte said. “The point here is also that Australia has had a long tradition of supporting refugee and humanitarian programmes globally, but on this one, the offshore processing policy has had an extremely detrimental impact on refugees and asylum seekers.”   He urged Australia to continue to support the authorities on Nauru once it hands over responsibility to the island for medical and psychiatric services. There are currently around 2,000 detainees on the islands.   Around 40 children born in Nauru have seen “nothing but detention-like conditions,” Mr. Ratwatte said, and another 100 youngsters have spent more than half their lives there.   Under a deal agreed between Australia and the United States, some 1,000 detainees from Nauru will be repatriated to the US Around 180 have already left the island. Welcoming the agreement, the UNHCR official said that this would still leave the same number of people on Nauru, and he urged the Australian Government to consider an offer from New Zealand to rehouse them. “It is a very genuine offer and New Zealand has an excellent programme for refugee settlement,” Mr. Ratwatte said. http://bit.ly/2EjARsm   Dec. 2017   UN urges Australia to find humane solutions for refugees, asylum seekers on Manus Island. (UNHCR)   The United Nations refugee agency warned this week that the situation of refugees and asylum seekers on Manus Island remains dangerous, and called on the Australian Government to “live up to its responsibilities” and urgently find humane and appropriate solutions.   “The forced removal of refugees and asylum seekers on 22 November from the now decommissioned Australian facility has inflicted further trauma on people who have already suffered greatly – violence and persecution in their own country followed by four years in detention on Manus Island,” said a UNHCR spokesperson.   At the same time, the medical condition of the refugees and asylum seekers is also worrying.   According to a recent medical report commissioned by UNHCR, their physical and mental health is deteriorating and there is growing risk of violence and self-harm due to the cumulative effect of uncertainty about the future, lack of solutions, stopping of vital services, poor living and hygiene conditions and inadequate health care. http://bit.ly/2BY2Z7j   Rupert Colville from the UN human rights office repeated his ofice''s concerns about Australia''s offshore processing centres, which “are inhumane and contrary to its human rights obligations”.   Mr Colville said both Australia and PNG were responsible under international human rights law and the 1951 Refugee Convention, to protect people from harm and ensure they had access to shelter, water, food and sanitation.   “All migrants, including refugees and asylum-seekers, are human beings. Like all of us, they have a right to a safe and secure environment, a right to an adequate standard of living and to participate in the decision-making process that is affecting their future,” Mr. Colville said.   http://bit.ly/2iY1qy0 http://bit.ly/2vgMNtt http://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/world/australia/australia-manus-island-refugees.html http://bit.ly/2AtFdfz http://bit.ly/2zqVkgY http://ab.co/2iFlUIn http://tmsnrt.rs/2iIOacO http://bit.ly/2ja09UJ http://bit.ly/2z69rIn http://bit.ly/2gRhZLE http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/a-doctors-experience-working-on-nauru/9932642 http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-resignation-syndrome-and-why-is-it-affecting-refugee-children-101670 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/20/human-rights-groups-set-deadline-to-get-all-refugee-children-off-nauru http://www.theguardian.com/news/series/nauru-files http://bit.ly/2uzTHtf http://www.unrefugees.org.au/ http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/ http://www.chilout.org/
	View more stories