International Human Rights Day 2002
Human Rights in a Climate of Fear ... the significance of education for humanitarian citizenship
Tuesday 10 December
Presented by the Hawke Centre at UniSA in association with the International
Human Rights Day SA Planning Committee
Keynote Speaker:
Margaret Reynolds, President of the United Nations Association of
Australia
Chair of the Commonwealth Human Rights Advisory Commission
Member of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade NGOs Consultative
Committee
Human Rights - Get it Right !
Human Rights Day this year brings with it a set of complex emotions at a
time when we are trying to make sense of warnings about possible terrorist
attacks while at the same time responding to the Bali tragedy which affected
so many families and friends of young Australians.
It is not an easy time for earnest human rights advocates to promote the
fundamental principles laid down in united national humanitarian protocols
and conventions, nor does there seem much concern for those whose human
rights are being denied.
There is a total preoccupation with the so called “war on terrorism” and
political leaders in Australia and indeed elsewhere seem incapable of
responding more strategically to the complex environment of the past twelve
months.
It is of course naïve to deny that there are specific threats facing
Australia and indeed the possibility of more innocent Australians being
targeted when traveling overseas. No decision maker can ignore these harsh
realities in responding to the current intelligence available here and
overseas.
Yet there seems no preparedness to do more than go into an increased
security mode without also considering fundamental changes in Australia’s
foreign policy. It makes sense to ensure Australia take basic security
precautions at airports, major landmarks and large public events. But is
this all our government has to offer?
It should be obvious to even the most amateur observer of human behaviour
that terrorism occurs when groups resort to extreme measures to either
promote a “cause” or in “retaliation” for real or perceived persecution. A
number of western world leaders want us to believe that war is “legitimate”
because it is conducted by professionals whereas terrorism is random and
targeted at innocent civilians. Yet we all understand that both authorised
and unauthorised violence has the same effect on humanity!
The people of Australia have been trying to come to terms with the meaning
of the Bali bombings. The horrendous loss of life, the shocking injuries and
the random nature of the attack on young people, have left many of use with
so many questions but so few answers.
Politicians, for a short time, set the tone with a period of grieving and a
solidarity unknown in the Australian Parliament. The media, for its part,
seemed to adopt a code of sensitivity balancing that fine line between
giving the facts while maintaining respect for individuals and families. It
was reported that a number of journalists abandoned their reporting
responsibilities to join humanitarian efforts in the chaos of the immediate
days following the disaster. No doubt editors were torn between frustration
and admiration.
As time passes there is a demand for those answers. Why didn’t we know of
more specific warnings publicised in the United States? Were Australians
deliberately targeted or was it against westerners generally? Was this
attack orchestrated from outside or is it part of the political uncertainty
of Indonesia? How can we best prevent such an atrocity in the future?
Overwhelmingly the question we must answer immediately is to asses the
impact of the Bali bombings on our foreign and defence policy. Greens
Senator Bob Brown was a lone voice reminding us that we need to concentrate
our attention on our region. It may have appeared a jarring note in the
immediate aftermath of tragedy, but to many Australians it was stating the
obvious.
While it is important not to jump to conclusions about links to other
terrorist attacks and threats in the world, it is essential that Australia
reassess its priorities and capabilities. Our history is littered with the
tragic results of our following major powers to war. Whilst we must take a
global view and play our part in world peace and security, there is an
increasing concern amongst many Australians about the apparent enthusiasm of
government to automatically endorse US priorities. We can play a much more
constructive role in world affairs by working independently to promote
preventative diplomacy and conflict resolution.
Australian defence personnel are renowned for their expertise as highly
professional and respected peace keepers. They are well trained in mediation
and conflict resolution. As a nation we can offer a wide variety of support
in humanitarian intervention and reconstruction.
This is a positive independent face Australia needs to present to the world,
and particularly in our region we need to be more responsive to our
neighbours showing more tolerance and respect for their needs.
The Medical Association for the Prevention of War reported last week that it
is
“… greatly concerned about statements containing dangerous declarations from
our leaders regarding changing the UN Charter and weakening international
law.”
Australians attempt to redefine self defence as a right to undertake
unprovoked attack (a pre-emptive strike), undermines international security
– especially when the international security community has not yet come up
with a definition of terrorism.
An unprovoked attack, just in case, is as morally repugnant and detrimental
to human security as suicide bombers. Australia should lead in pushing for
accountability and hold criminals and terrorists accountable under the
International Criminal Court, not advocate killing innocent people with
“pre-emptive strikes”.
Media emphasis on current conflict is as selective as it is disturbing.
Today’s Australian newspaper headlines illustrate the way in which national
morale is being shaken and the cultural divide deepened.
“Asia’s Mosques call Australians ‘enemy’”
“No where safe, nothing sacred”
“Australia named as enemy”
“Losing friends in the neighbourhood”
“Suicide bomb plans may still be ticking”
“Baghdad nearly made N bomb”
Some of the stories themselves may objectively state facts that of course
must be reported, but others are long on hypotheticals and quote only one
side of the debate.
Meanwhile some gross breaches of human rights are not reported to us even
though they relate specifically to the current focus on Australia’s
international relationships. Last Friday in Launceston, Tasmania, a young
mother opened her door to 6 Federal Government Agents - 3 Police, 2
Immigration Officers, 1 unknown individual rumoured to be from ASIO. She was
escorted to her children’s child care centre where she collected her 3
children and then they were taken to her husbands place of work. The family
was then interrogated about having fraudulent visas and within hours were
flown to South Australia’s Baxter Detention Centre.
It seems their crime is to be among 900 Afghans who are accused of living in
Pakistan prior to coming to Australia as asylum seekers. The Australian
Government now maintains links with a Pakistan spy agency to try to prove
these claims. Experts knowledgeable about this troubled region would
understand the difficulty of trying to assess the rights and wrongs of
people movements between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yet Australia asks ever
vigilante junior bureaucrats to determine the status of people whose lives
have already been torn apart by torture, murder and war. We punish and
vilify people of cultural difference who have dared to seek our assistance.
We cooperate with preparations for war against Iraq, while at the same time
detaining the very people who have fled the ruthless regime we seek to
destroy. Such are the almost manic double standards which pass by us, almost
without comments or media scrutiny. Where is this frenzy of isolation and
paranoia leading us?
What will future generations say about how we collectively responded to the
need for a very special kind of leadership and understanding in these
complex times?
In this climate of fear it is essential we challenge our leaders to
seriously consider alternative policies which can offer Australians greater
security now and in the future. Security takes time, commitment and patience
in building trust. Security cannot be achieved through threats, tough talk
or restrictive legislation. A secure relationship between individuals relies
on understanding and respect. It is no different if the relationship is
between nations.
Last week, neither Australian nor Malaysian Prime Ministers, Howard and
Mahathir, demonstrated understanding or respect. Their language was
carelessly aimed at populism at home rather than strategically protecting
international friendship. Who can predict the long term effect of such
intemperate clumsy rhetoric which will be filed away in the memories of so
many of our neighbours?
Sadly, so much national and international debate relies on reactionary and
retaliatory rhetoric rather than refrained reflection based on fundamental
commitment to humanitarian law. Basic standards of human rights must be
respected by all leaders if they are to be the way in which we build
security and negotiate our way out of situations of conflict.
Yet it seems that too many leaders prefer to assume these must always be an
enemy to ruthlessly destroy. They do not appreciate that the enemy “within”
their own paranoia polarizes good and evil and prevents the resolution of
conflict. There are plenty of accusations and condemnations, but no
preparedness to consider why there is such hatred and extremism nor to
attempt to discover how we prevent distressing disregard for humanity.
The focus of this forum is to try to find answers to these questions. We
cannot change the world but we can attempt to influence our own community.
On International Human Rights Day 2002, we need to decide those priorities
to which we personally can subscribe in promoting respect for individual
human rights.
We need to strongly advocate a proactive commitment to humanitarian
citizenship in our schools and universities, so that future communities
respect individual human rights and understand that it is only by building
tolerant communities and prevent misunderstanding that so often leads to
conflict. Some of the questions we can start with in this debate are :
What is terrorism and how does it affect the Human Rights discourse?
Is Australia meeting its human rights obligations under international law?
Why is there such a paranoia about cultural difference in the current
climate?
Is there a comprehensive program of human rights education in Australian
schools and universities?
How do Australians become aware of basic standards of human rights practice
in this country?
What are some of the alternatives for educational initiatives in
humanitarian citizenship?