A single tweet from Donald Trump threatened to implode the Australia-US refugee resettlement deal on Thursday, forcing Australia’s prime minister Malcolm Turnbull into an exceedingly difficult and embarrassing position.

So how did we get here? Who are those caught up in the resettlement deal, and why was it so critical for the government to find somewhere for them to go? Here’s some background to today’s events.

Scott Morrison says Trump travel ban shows 'world is catching up' to Australia Read more

Who are those caught up in the deal?

The deal relates to 1,250 refugees held in Australia’s offshore detention camps on Nauru and Manus Island, including many from Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran and Iraq. The refugees, some of whom are stateless, have spent years languishing in the offshore detention camps, which the United Nations has repeatedly criticised as cruel and illegal. The refugees are unable to go home, but cannot come to Australia – even when their right to protection as refugees is confirmed – because they travelled to Australia by boat. The vast majority of those in Australia’s offshore detention regime have been confirmed to have a valid claim to refugee status, meaning they are legally owed Australia’s protection. On Nauru, 983 of the 1,200 refugee status determinations were positive, while 217 were negative. On Manus Island, 78% of 859 the people finally assessed were found to be refugees, while 190 have been found not to have a claim for protection. The deal was also to include hundreds of refugees previously held on Manus or Nauru, who were in Australia receiving medical care, provided they had been found to be refugees.

What was the deal? And why was it so crucial for the Australian government?

In November the US agreed to take an undisclosed number of refugees from Australia’s offshore detention regime. The resettlement option was only to be available for detainees who had been found to be refugees (under the refugee convention). Others who were assessed and found not to be entitled to protection would not be deemed eligible. Applicants were to be interviewed twice by US officials before being resettled, in a process that was to take between six and 12 months. If a refugee missed out on US resettlement, the existing options of Papua New Guinea and Cambodia were still available.

The deal was seen as a significant win for the Turnbull government. Australia has searched in vain for a sustainable plan for refugees. For more than three years Australia has consistently maintained it will never settle asylum seekers on the Australian mainland that arrive by boat, a position that has been popular with voters and is still supported by both main parties. But the policy has led to regular reports of human rights abuses, many of them documented in the Guardian’s publication of the Nauru files, and is bitterly condemned by refugees advocates inside and outside Australia.

At the time of the US agreement, only 24 refugees had resettled in PNG, and a handful in Cambodia. The Manus detention centre had been declared illegal by the PNG supreme court, and Australia was under pressure over allegations on Nauru of sexual abuse on women and children, assaults of children, rape, widespread mental harm and epidemic rates of self-harm and suicide attempts.



Why is it now under threat?

There was considerable consternation that the election of Trump, who campaigned with strong anti-immigrant rhetoric, could undermine the deal. That was heightened when Trump on Saturday signed an executive order placing a four-month suspension on entry of refugees into the US, and temporarily barring travellers from seven Muslim-dominated countries.



On Sunday, a phone call between Turnbull and Trump took place. Turnbull maintains that, during the call, Trump committed to honouring the refugee resettlement deal. That was later confirmed by the US state department and US embassy in Canberra. But a report in the Washington Post cast the Trump-Turnbull conversation in an entirely different light. It was reported that Trump had described the deal as “the worst deal ever” and complained that Australia was trying to send the US the “next Boston bombers”. Trump poured petrol on the fire by later tweeting: “Do you believe it? The Obama administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!”

The Nauru files: cache of 2,000 leaked reports reveal scale of abuse of children in Australian offshore detention Read more

Where to from here?

Trump’s unpredictability makes the way forward difficult to gauge. Turnbull has said that, despite Trump’s tweet, the refugee resettlement deal is still on. But the intensity of Trump’s rhetoric, and the deal’s obvious conflict with the policies of his administration, including the travel ban, make it an increasingly unlikely prospect.

The fate of 1,250 refugees is now hanging in the balance. If the US deal falls over, there are two options: find another third-country resettlement option, or bring them to Australia. The Turnbull government would not contemplate the latter, and the former will take many, many months, likely years. Alternatively, it has been suggested that Trump could still honour the deal but simply accept none of the refugees who apply. Trump’s twitter outburst makes implementing the deal much less likely.