[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
HRW: Australia Undermining Global H
- Subject: HRW: Australia Undermining Global H
- From: darnott@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 02:18:00
--=====================_5258270==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>[Ah, so that's what the Australian human rights training programme in=20
>Burma is all about.
I had somehow assumed that they were going there to teach rather than=20
to learn. The
rationale is presumably that if Australia is part of Asia, it might as=
=20
well join Malaysia,
Burma et al in embracing "Asian values", putting the Special=20
Rapporteurs in their place
and getting off the hook of universal standards and treaty=20
obligations. -- DA]
>Human Rights Watch Press Release
>
>August 31, 2000
>
>AUSTRALIA UNDERMINING GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS
>
>(New York, August 31, 2000)=97Human Rights Watch today condemned the
>Australian government's decision to restrict cooperation with U.N.
>bodies critical of Australian human rights practices.
>
>"In terms of human rights criticism, the Howard government's motto seems
>to be =91It is better to give than to receive'," said Sidney Jones, Asia
>director of Human Rights Watch. "It doesn't do much for protection of
>human rights if any government can change the rules to avoid criticism
>of itself."
>
>On August 29, three Australian ministers -- Foreign Minister Alexander
>Downer, Attorney-General Daryl Williams, and Minister for Immigration
>and Multicultural Affairs Philip Ruddock -- issued a joint statement
>calling for a "complete overhaul" of U.N. human rights treaty bodies to
>"ensure that Australia gets a better deal" from them.
>
>Many of the major international human rights treaties, such as the
>International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), have
>provisions establishing committees to ensure the treaties'
>implementation. These committees are known as U.N. treaty bodies. The
>Howard government was particularly angered by criticism from three such
>committees. In 1999, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
>Discrimination warned that government policies risked violating the
>rights of indigenous communities. In 1998 and 2000, the government was
>embarrassed by two high profile interventions by the Committee Against
>Torture to stop the return of asylum seekers until it had considered
>their claims that they would face torture if returned to the countries
>they had fled. And in July 2000, the Human Rights Committee of the
>ICCPR expressed serious concerns about Australia's mandatory sentencing
>laws, the marginalization of Aboriginal people, and the mandatory
>detention of asylum seekers.
>
>As a result, the Howard government says it will only agree to visits to
>Australia by treaty bodies when "there is a compelling reason to do so,"
>and it will reject "unwarranted requests from treaty committees to delay
>removal of unsuccessful asylum seekers from Australia." It says it
>will not sign or ratify a new optional protocol to the Convention on
>the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women which establishes a
>complaint procedure, and it will fight against a greater role for
>nongovernmental organizations in the treaty bodies' activities.
>
>Human Rights Watch said the Howard government's decision to distance
>itself from the U.N. treaty bodies was particularly disappointing
>because in many areas, Australia has been a champion of human rights.
>Its support for an International Criminal Court to try perpetrators of
>grave abuses is one important example.
>
>Like the United States, however, Australia's support for human rights
>abroad has not always translated into good policies at home. Australian
>anger over critical U.N. scrutiny of mandatory sentencing, treatment of
>asylum-seekers, and Aboriginal policies has its parallel in U.S.
>resentment of U.N. investigation of capital punishment by U.N. Special
>Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions.
>
>"The Australian decision on the U.N. is particularly unfortunate,
>because it will add a hitherto respectable voice to those of repressive
>governments seeking to undermine the international system for protection
>of human rights," Jones said.
--=====================_5258270==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<blockquote type=3Dcite cite>[Ah, so that's what the Australian human
rights training programme in Burma is all about.</blockquote>
I had somehow assumed that they were going there to teach rather than to
learn. The <br>
rationale is presumably that if Australia is part of Asia,
it might as well join Malaysia, <br>
Burma et al in embracing "Asian values", putting
the Special Rapporteurs in their place <br>
and getting off the hook of universal standards and
treaty obligations. -- DA]<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite cite><b>Human Rights Watch Press Release</b><br>
<br>
August 31, 2000<br>
<br>
AUSTRALIA UNDERMINING GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS<br>
<br>
(New York, August 31, 2000)=97Human Rights Watch today condemned the<br>
Australian government's decision to restrict cooperation with U.N.<br>
bodies critical of Australian human rights practices.<br>
<br>
"In terms of human rights criticism, the Howard government's motto
seems<br>
to be =91It is better to give than to receive'," said Sidney Jones,
Asia<br>
director of Human Rights Watch. "It doesn't do much for
protection of<br>
human rights if any government can change the rules to avoid
criticism<br>
of itself."<br>
<br>
On August 29, three Australian ministers -- Foreign Minister
Alexander<br>
Downer, Attorney-General Daryl Williams, and Minister for
Immigration<br>
and Multicultural Affairs Philip Ruddock -- issued a joint=20
statement<br>
calling for a "complete overhaul" of U.N. human rights treaty
bodies to<br>
"ensure that Australia gets a better deal" from them.<br>
<br>
Many of the major international human rights treaties, such as the<br>
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), have<br>
provisions establishing committees to ensure the treaties'<br>
implementation. These committees are known as U.N. treaty
bodies. The<br>
Howard government was particularly angered by criticism from three
such<br>
committees. In 1999, the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial<br>
Discrimination warned that government policies risked violating
the<br>
rights of indigenous communities. In 1998 and 2000, the government
was<br>
embarrassed by two high profile interventions by the Committee
Against<br>
Torture to stop the return of asylum seekers until it had=20
considered<br>
their claims that they would face torture if returned to the
countries<br>
they had fled. And in July 2000, the Human Rights Committee of
the<br>
ICCPR expressed serious concerns about Australia's mandatory
sentencing<br>
laws, the marginalization of Aboriginal people, and the mandatory<br>
detention of asylum seekers.<br>
<br>
As a result, the Howard government says it will only agree to visits
to<br>
Australia by treaty bodies when "there is a compelling reason to do
so,"<br>
and it will reject "unwarranted requests from treaty committees to
delay<br>
removal of unsuccessful asylum seekers from Australia." It
says it<br>
will not sign or ratify a new optional protocol to the Convention
on<br>
the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women which establishes a<br>
complaint procedure, and it will fight against a greater role for<br>
nongovernmental organizations in the treaty bodies' activities.<br>
<br>
Human Rights Watch said the Howard government's decision to=20
distance<br>
itself from the U.N. treaty bodies was particularly disappointing<br>
because in many areas, Australia has been a champion of human
rights.<br>
Its support for an International Criminal Court to try perpetrators
of<br>
grave abuses is one important example.<br>
<br>
Like the United States, however, Australia's support for human
rights<br>
abroad has not always translated into good policies at home.
Australian<br>
anger over critical U.N. scrutiny of mandatory sentencing, treatment
of<br>
asylum-seekers, and Aboriginal policies has its parallel in U.S.<br>
resentment of U.N. investigation of capital punishment by U.N.
Special<br>
Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions.<br>
<br>
"The Australian decision on the U.N. is particularly
unfortunate,<br>
because it will add a hitherto respectable voice to those of
repressive<br>
governments seeking to undermine the international system for
protection<br>
of human rights," Jones said.</blockquote></html>
--=====================_5258270==_.ALT--