>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: UN-Australia. Seattle to Melbourne >Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2000 > (JC: if PM Howard's friends -the US, Clinton, US corporations -had >any respect for the United Nations or its Human Rights efforts, he >would still follow them to the end. The continued slaughter by the >US/Indonesia pact in East/West Timor -the US maintaining that its >army was needed elsewhere in more important places than Timor >-(Where-else?)and its envoys to Jakarta calling the shots, his >pathetic attitude towards the UN may earn praise from Disneyland?) > > Via -Sydney Morning Herald . August 4, 2000 >"Foundering in a sea of populist politics" > By Robert Manne is associate professor of politics at La Trobe > University. > >Last week the Howard Government announced, with considerable fanfare, >a new policy of non-co-operation with the United Nations' committee >system monitoring human rights. In the future, UN representatives of >these committees would be allowed to visit Australia only where there >was compelling need. UN requests to prevent the deportation of >unsuccessful asylum seekers would, moreover, be routinely refused. >The policy of non-co-operation would continue until the whole system >had been substantially reformed. > It is not difficult to feel some sympathy for the Government's >position. No doubt it is true that many members of the UN's treaty >committees, offering detailed criticism of Australia's record on >human rights, represent regimes where such rights are systematically >abused. If such human rights committees devoted as much attention to >abuses in Australia as in Iraq, they easily become vulnerable to >democratic ridicule and contempt. It was such feelings which the >Howard Government deftly played upon last week. > >In retreating from its former support for human rights diplomacy, the >Howard Government suggested that nothing of real importance was being >put at risk. What is the value, it argued, of a human rights treaty >regime scrupulously respected by those Western countries who have no >need of it, and flagrantly breached by those Third World >dictatorships whose violations it had been designed to curb? > In my opinion, this argument is misconceived. When authoritarian >regimes are unchallenged it is true that they can afford altogether >to ignore the treaties they solemnly sign. When, however, the walls >of these regimes begin to crack, this often ceases to be the case. > >Let one example suffice. In 197, the communist countries of Eastern >Europe signed, at Helsinki, human rights treaties with the West. From >that moment, inside the Soviet bloc, one of the most important and >successful tactics of the dissident forces was to monitor and >publicise abroad the instances where the treaty obligations freely >entered into by their governments had been breached. Since the mid- >1970s the pursuit of a global diplomacy of human rights has been one >of the most effective instruments for undermining authoritarian >regimes. Over the past quarter century Australia has been a reliable >supporter of this diplomacy. Last week we changed course. When the UN >Human Rights Commissioner, Mary Robinson, described Australia's >retreat as "tragic", it was no doubt this larger picture she had in >mind. > >>From what, then, did the Howard Government's petulant behaviour >arise? The answer is not difficult to find. In recent years Australia >has borne the brunt of regular criticism from UN human rights >committees, chiefly with regard to Aborigines and refugees. In >outlining the new policy of non-co-operation, the Attorney-General, >Daryl Williams, suggested, with characteristic irritation, that when >compared with the thuggery of Third World dictatorships our supposed >violations of treaty obligations were petty in the extreme. > >How petty, however, have these violations been? Consider, if you >will, the drift of Australia's human rights record over the past two >decades with regard to those asylum seekers who arrive here by boat. > >In the late 1970s and late 1990s significant numbers of boat people >arrived on Australian shores; the first group from communist Vietnam, >the second mainly from the brutal regimes of Afghanistan and Iraq. >The Vietnamese were treated by the Fraser Government with sympathy >and respect. By contrast, the Howard Government has consistently >sought to blacken Middle Eastern asylum seekers' good name. > >When the Vietnamese arrived they were provided with hostel >accommodation in the main cities. The Middle Eastern refugees have >been detained in prison conditions in the desert or remote >hinterland. All the Vietnamese were granted asylum, access to social >services and generous family reunion rights. Even those Middle >Eastern asylum seekers granted refugee status have been given only a >provisional visa, denied access to social support and prohibited from >even applying for reunion with children and wives. The others face >definite imprisonment or deportation. > >In the late 1970s any UN criticism of Australia's treatment of >the Vietnamese boat refugees would have been grotesque. Criticism >today by the UN human rights committees concerning Middle Eastern >refugees, to put it mildly, cannot be so described. > >Most Australians seem to believe that human rights are adequately >protected by the existence of our robust parliamentary system, free >press and rule of law. In general this might be true. In particular, >however, these institutions have offered almost no protection to the >refugees from Afghanistan and Iraq. Malcolm Fraser is not the only >Australian whose mind is now turning towards a bill of rights. > >Many Australians are also deeply offended by the decision of the >present Aboriginal leadership to take its grievances to the human >rights committees in Geneva. What these Australians do not seem to >appreciate is how little protection Parliament and the law gave the >Aborigines before the franchise of 1967 and the passage, under Gough >Whitlam, of the UN-inspired race discrimination law. > >Some things in politics are straightforward. In taking its stand >against the current UN human rights regime the Howard Government is >making yet another populist bid, especially for the uncommitted one >million One Nation votes of 1998. Yet, I am also convinced that in >making this bid, the Howard Government will inflict on Australia's >reputation considerable harm. > >Opinion in the United States and Europe is far more interested in >the condition of the Aborigines than in our tax reform. Over the next >month thousands of journalists will descend upon Australia. Many will >report extensively on the depressed condition of the Aborigines. Many >will now also report on the refusal of the Government to allow the UN >committees on human rights even to set foot in this country to >investigate conditions of Aboriginal life. > >Last week's decision to attack the UN human rights regime might have >been politically clever. It most certainly was not politically wise. > > ******* > >subject: "Seattle to Melbourne > Via - Sydney Morning Herald .Editorial August 4, 2000 > "Seattle to Melbourne" > >Violence of the kind which disrupted the World Trade Organisation >meeting in Seattle late last year cannot be allowed to destroy the >World Economic Forum meeting in Melbourne next Monday. The >demonstrations planned for Melbourne will provide an especially tough >test for the Victorian police. But there is no reason to believe they >cannot be contained and kept peaceful. Any other assumption concedes >victory in advance to those who use violence. That cannot be allowed. > >Yet the demonstrations in Melbourne cannot and should not be wished >away. They are, as long as they remain non-violent, a valid >expression of free speech. Precisely what the demonstrators intend to >express is another matter. A great many Australians, if asked to >speculate on this, would not have the faintest idea. Those who do >have some interest in the S-11 (for September 11) protest would know >that it is a protest against globalisation, but might be hard pressed >to say what that means. The demonstrators themselves will reflect the >anti-globalisation movement's consensus in the broad and the >divisions implicit in the movement's myriad supporting elements. > >Despite this, there is no doubting the authenticity of the feeling >against globalisation among a great many people. Globalisation should >mean wider economic benefits for all peoples, through free trade. >Free trade should bring faster growth, through the application of new >technologies and the spur of foreign competition. For many people in >many countries it has. But for many others the system has not worked, >or seems not to have worked fairly. Critics of globalisation are not >confined to the simplest, clearest cases of those who have missed >out. Workers in labour-intensive industries in Australia, for >example, might rail against the oppression of workers in the Third- >World countries who now produce goods such as shoes and textiles at a >fraction of the price that a manufacturer in a relatively high- >wage economy like Australia's can. But from the point of view of the >workers in such Third-World countries, the chance of employment and >the prospect of future and ever-more rewarding employment in more >mature industries is what matters. On one important sense, such >workers are every bit as concerned to see globalisation work as are, >for example, Australian primary producers. Both have a vital interest >in seeing trade become truly free and fair. > >The opponents of globalisation are not confined to those caught in >such contradictions. Some of the most active opponents are >environmental groups which are well able to point to damage caused by >the rise of very large multinational corporations and the power they >are able to assert in their own interests, especially in countries >with governments often too weak to strike a reasonable balance >between the demands of economic advancement and environmental >protection and conservation. > The protesters in Melbourne, like those in Seattle - and at the >next protest venue, the International Monetary Fund conference on >investment in Prague, on September 26 - will not be all rabid >opponents of everything the new global economy stands for. The lack >of clear boundaries is seen in small but significant symbols. One of >the speakers in Melbourne will be the Microsoft chief Mr Bill Gates. >To many, Mr Gates is a symbol of the heights it is possible to reach >in the new information age. To others he is a more ambiguous figure. >Even among those who would like to emulate Mr Gates's success are >many who applauded the court-ordered break-up of Microsoft. > >However, rough it gets along the Yarra next week, the shouting >and placard-waving will essentially represent a deeper debate about >the rapid changes in the world economy. That debate is carried on as >intensely and seriously by concerned citizens in quiet dialogue as >much as it is parodied by the excesses of the most violent >demonstrators at Seattle, Melbourne or Prague. > >The World Economic Forum has a serious purpose. It has the potential >to prepare the ground for policies which will strengthen the >economies in the Asia-Pacific region. Its discussions will touch on >many areas of concern to those who criticise globalisation. But those >concerns, whether they be for the environment, for human rights, or >for the rights of labour or consumers, will only be properly >addressed from a basis of economic strength and sufficiency. JC > > > _______________________________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi _______________________________________________________ Kominform list for general information. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anti-Imperialism list for anti-imperialist news. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________________
