According to Ben Schokman of the Human Rights Law Centre, the proposed legislation is incompatible with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and, in its present form, is unlikely to address the disadvantage faced by many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

In its submission to a Senate Committee inquiry into the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2011 and related Bills, the HRLC has expressed particular concern about:

• the lack of meaningful engagement with and participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and individuals who are affected by the current Northern Territory Emergency Response measures and who will be subject to the proposed Stronger Futures measures;
• failures of the proposed Stronger Futures measures to comply with human rights obligations and principles, particularly given the lack of clear and cogent evidence to support the continuation of many of the measures; and
• ultimately, the high likelihood that the proposed Stronger Futures measures will not be successful in fulfilling their intended purpose to address the disadvantage faced by many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and individuals.

The proposed legislation extends many aspects of the measures introduced in 2007 as part of the Northern Territory Emergency Response and continues to raise serious human rights concerns.

While the HRLC welcomes the government’s commitment to protect children, ensure community safety and build a better future for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, there are major concerns relating to the process of development of the Stronger Futures measures, as well as the nature of the measures themselves.

Further information about the Bills and the Senate Committee’s Inquiry is available at http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/strong_future_nt_11/index.htm.

Criminal trials have commenced this week in Jayapura, against five Papuan political activists charged with criminal offenses following their involvement in last year’s peaceful assembly at the Third Papuan People’s Congress. The activists were among the hundreds of people arrested after Indonesian police and military forcibly shut down the gathering, killing at least three people and injuring approximately 90 others.

HRLC spokesperson, Tom Clarke, said the fundamental rights of all persons to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association are protected by International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – which Indonesia ratified in 2006.

“These fundamental human rights must be recognised and respected by Indonesia. The exercise of such democratic rights and freedoms must be protected by law, not criminalised.

“Australia’s UN Security Council bid pitches us as a ‘principled advocate of human rights for all’. This is a prime opportunity for the Foreign Minister to take a principled stand against human rights abuses on our doorstep,” Mr Clarke said.

The Papuan activists, Forkorus Yaboisembut, Edison Waromi, August Makbrowen Senay, Dominikus Sorabut and Selpius Bobii, are facing charges of treason in a region where people may be imprisoned for simply raising the West Papuan ‘Morning Star’ flag.

ILWP’s Jennifer Robinson called on the Australian Government to use its unique relationship with Indonesia to encourage the authorities to demonstrate their respect for human rights by dropping charges against the five activists.

“These trials should stop immediately, and Australia should do everything it can to help that happen. The prosecution of activists for peacefully expressing their political views has no place in a modern democracy. The Australian Foreign Minister, his department and embassy staff in Indonesia should make it very clear that the Australian Government firmly supports human rights and freedom of expression in the region,” Ms Robinson said.

Ms Robinson also called on the Australian Government to deploy embassy staff to observe the legal proceedings for the purpose of ensuring that the protesters receive a fair trial.

The trial is scheduled to resume on Wednesday 8 February.

For further comments:
ILWP’s Jenifer Robinson, +447767707566 (UK) +61423871773 (Aus)
HRLC’s Tom Clarke on Tom.clarke@hrlc.org.au or +61(0)422 545 763

Ahead of the 50th anniversary this Friday of the first raising of the West Papuan ‘Morning Star’ flag, the Human Rights Law Centre and Human Rights Watch have called on Minister Rudd to publically and unequivocally condemn the excessive use of force and suppression of peaceful protest and also deploy Australian embassy staff to Papua to monitor and observe anticipated events to mark the anniversary.

“Australia must unequivocally support the human rights of all persons to freedom of expression, association and assembly,” said Tom Clarke from the Human Rights Law Centre. “It is not in Australia’s strategic interest to have a festering human rights problem on our doorstep.”

“The default policy of successive Australian Governments has seemingly been to politely look the other way while human rights abuses occurred on our doorstep. This approach desperately needs rethinking. The problem of violence and repression in West Papua needs to be acknowledged and addressed,” Mr Clarke said.

The ‘Morning Star’ flag was first raised in 1961 when West Papua was moving towards independence with assistance from its colonial Dutch Government and the Australian Government. By this time, Papua already had its own government officials. However, in 1962 a chain of events eventually led to Indonesia taking control of Papua and well documented military violence and human rights abuses have plagued the province since. Today Papuans face imprisonment for simply raising the ‘Morning Star’ flag.

The letter urges Minister Rudd to call for a full and impartial investigation into recent use of force, including fatal force, by Indonesian police and military forces on a peaceful assembly on 19 October. The attacks on the Third Papuan People’s Congress resulted in at least three protesters being killed, at least 90 being injured and approximately 300 arrested.

“The West Papuan people do not enjoy the types of basic rights that we take for granted here in Australia. The right to meet to discuss ideas and express political beliefs are severely curtailed in West Papua. The international media is heavily restricted in travelling to Papua and reporting on events there. We are concerned that without international attention being focused on West Papua, human rights abuses are likely to continue,” Mr Clarke said.

The letter also requests that Minister Rudd urge the Indonesian Government to release all persons detained in Papua for the peaceful expression of their political views, including Filep Karma who the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention advises should be immediately released.

“Minister Rudd should follow US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton’s lead and directly raise concerns with Indonesia about the violence and abuse of human rights in West Papua. If he has a ‘special relationship’ with Indonesia, now is the time to make the most of it and, as a friend, help Indonesia meet the commitments that it’s signed up to under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” Mr Clarke said.

The Human Rights Law Centre will be hosting a public seminar in Melbourne with Human Rights Watch’s Elaine Pearson looking at this and other human rights issues in Asia on Wednesday 7 December. Further details can be found online here.

For further comments from HRLC: contact Tom Clarke on tom.clarke@hrlc.org.au or 0422 545 763

For comments from HRW: contact Phil Robertson on RobertP@hrw.org or +66 85 060 8406

When Mohamad Hassan Sultan and four other boys were innocently watching rubble being removed from a house destroyed in a cluster bomb strike, a truck bumped a tree, dislodging a cluster bomb. It detonated by Mohamad’s feet and blew up into him. He was killed and all his friends were injured. His shoes were blown off with parts of his feet and ankles still in them.

Australia is about to pass legislation to ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions. This important international treaty bans cluster bombs, an indiscriminate class of weapon known to cause significant and long-lasting civilian harm, particularly to children. However, the proposed legislation contains serious flaws which undermine the whole purpose of the treaty. In particular, the legislation allows Australian troops to directly and actively assist in the use of cluster bombs. It also explicitly allows non-state parties to stockpile cluster bombs on Australian soil and permits them to transit cluster bombs through Australian ports and airspace. No other ratifying country has provided such a blanket exemption.

Speak out against the needless harm caused by cluster bombs and ask Australia to fix the bill. Print this flyer and post it to Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd and Defence Minister Stephen Smith along with a shoe or sock to signal that, without a total ban, cluster bomb victims don’t have a leg to stand on.

Open letter to Minister for Defence, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Attorney-General (6 July 2011)

Dear Minister Smith, Minister Rudd and Attorney General McClelland

In 2008 you, Minister Smith, signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions for Australia. This important international treaty bans cluster bombs, an indiscriminate class of weapon known to cause significant and long-lasting civilian harm, particularly to children. We wholeheartedly endorse the treaty’s aims and congratulate the government on having signed it.

In order to ratify the treaty, Australia must pass legislation to implement the treaty’s obligations in our domestic law. However, the proposed legislation, shortly to be debated in the Senate, contains serious flaws which undermine the whole purpose of the treaty.

The treaty contains a clause which allows state parties to continue cooperating in military alliance with countries not party to the treaty. This clause protects troops of state parties if they are inadvertently involved in cluster bomb use during these joint operations. This is necessary and sensible, particularly for Australia, given that our major ally the USA has no intention of joining the ban on cluster bombs.

The problem with the government’s proposed legislation is that it goes much further than is necessary to maintain our military alliances. The legislation allows Australian troops to directly and actively assist in the use of cluster bombs. It also explicitly allows non-state parties to stockpile cluster bombs on Australian soil and permits them to transit cluster bombs through Australian ports and airspace. No other ratifying country has provided such a blanket exemption.

These exemptions are unnecessary at best and add little or nothing to our national security. At worst, they run directly counter to the treaty’s intent by setting a precedent which explicitly facilitates the ongoing use of cluster bombs.

In a submission to the government, the International Committee of the Red Cross said the abovementioned problems with the proposed legislation “would have the unfortunate consequences of effectively permitting activities that could undermine the objectives of the Convention and contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions rather than further their elimination.” We agree.

The goal of the Convention on Cluster Munitions is clear. It aims to eradicate cluster bombs and put an end to the suffering they cause for all time. We therefore seek your support in ensuring that Parliament amends the draft legislation to reflect and fulfil that aim.

Yours sincerely

Greg Barns, Barrister, and National President, Australian Lawyers Alliance

Paul Barratt AO, Former Secretary, Department of Defence, and former Deputy Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Fr Frank Brennan SJ AO, Professor of Law, Public Policy Institute, Australian Catholic University

Julian Burnside AO QC, Barrister

Professor Hilary Charlesworth, ARC Laureate Fellow and Director, Centre for International Governance and Justice, ANU

Sr Denise Coghlan RSM AM, Head of the Jesuit Refugee Service, Cambodia

Tim Costello AO, Chief Executive Officer, World Vision Australia

Mary Crock, Professor of Public Law, The University of Sydney

Bonnie Docherty, Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic, and Senior Researcher, Human Rights Watch

The Hon John Dowd AO QC, President, ActionAid Australia

Alistair Gee, Executive Director, Act for Peace, NCCA

Dr Norman Gillespie, Chief Executive Officer, UNICEF Australia

General Peter Gration, Former Chief of Defence Force

Jack de Groot, Chief Executive Officer, Caritas Australia

Brigadier Adrian d’Hagé, AM, MC, Author

Michele Harris OAM

Andrew Hewett, Executive Director, Oxfam Australia

Dr Andrew Jacubowicz, Professor of Sociology, University of Technology Sydney

John Jeffries, National Director, CBM Australia

Stephen Keim SC, Barrister-at-Law, and President, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights

Professor John Langmore, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne

Archie Law, Chief Executive Officer, ActionAid Australia

Carmen Lawrence ,Winthrop Professor, University of Western Australia

Philip Lynch, Executive Director, Human Rights Law Centre

Dr Francis Macnab, AM, Executive Minister, St Michael’s Uniting Church, Melbourne

Claire Mallinson, National Director, Amnesty International Australia

Professor William Maley, AM FASSA

Professor Jane McAdam, Director of Research, Faculty of Law, University of NSW

Professor Emeritus Ron McCallum AO, Senior Australian of the Year 2011

Dr Jeff McMullen AM, Writer, Foreign Correspondent, Filmmaker and CEO (Honorary) Ian Thorpe’s Fountain for Youth

Graeme Mundine, Executive Officer, Aboriginal Catholic Ministry

The Hon Alastair Nicholson AO RFD QC, Former Chief Justice of the Family Court; former Judge Advocate General of the Australian Defence Force

Marc Purcell, Executive Director, Australian Council for International Development

Professor Stuart Rees AM, Director, Sydney Peace Foundation

Professor Neal Robinson, Deputy Director, Centre for Arab & Islamic Studies, Australian National University

The Hon Susan Ryan AO, Chair, Australian Human Rights Group

Associate Professor Ben Saul, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney

Professor Gerry Simpson, Director, Asia Pacific Centre for Military Law, University of Melbourne, and Visiting Professor, London School of Economics

Nigel Spence, Chief Executive Officer, ChildFund Australia

Dr Timothy Stephens, Director, Sydney Centre for International Law

Lorel Thomas, National Coordinator, Australian Network to Ban Landmines and Cluster Munitions

Isabel Thomas Dobson, Moderator, Uniting Church in Australia, Synod of Victoria and Tasmania

Christine Walton, Executive Officer, Australian Disability and Development Consortium (ADDC)

Professor Emeritus John Warhurst, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University

Dr Bill Williams, President, Medical Association for Prevention of War

Jody Williams, 1997 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, and Campaign Ambassador, International Campaign to Ban Landmines

Matthew Zagor, Senior Lecturer, ANU Law School and board member, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights

The Joint NGO Statement sets out a range of concrete recommendations to strengthen the individual complaints mechanisms of UN human rights bodies so as to:

• enhance the promotion, protection and fulfilment of human rights;
• assist States to properly understand and discharge their human rights obligations;
• contribute to the accountability of perpetrators of human rights violations; and
• secure access to effective remedies for victims of human rights violations.

The Joint NGO Statement has been prepared as a key input to the process of reform to strengthen the UN human rights treaty bodies initiated by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2009. The strengthening process is intended to make the work of treaty bodies more coordinated and effective and to enhance the fulfilment of human rights on the ground. The High Commissioner has invited inputs and proposals from states, NGOs, human rights experts and NHRIs in this regard.

The HRLC’s work coordinating the Joint NGO Statement on Strengthening Individual Communication Procedures builds on our work contributing to the Pretoria Statement of June 2011, another joint NGO paper which contains over 60 concrete and practical recommendations to improve the work of human rights bodies at the international level and the fulfilment of human rights on the ground.

The letter was written as further evidence emerges of serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law against Tamil civilians by Sri Lanka’s military, including systemic rape, murder and the targeting of hospitals and health care clinics.

The text of the letter is set out below:

Subject: Sri Lanka as the host of CHOGM 2013

Dear Commonwealth Heads of Governments,

This letter follows an earlier letter on this subject that many of us jointly wrote to Commonwealth Foreign Ministers, prior to their meeting in New York on 22 September 2011. In the absence of any public pronouncement by Foreign Ministers on this issue we have to assume that no decision has yet been taken to put in place a process for assessing the suitability of Sri Lanka’s candidature for hosting the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM). In this context, we recall your 2009 decision to defer Sri Lanka’s candidature as host and seriously urge you to consider a similar postponement at CHOGM 2011.

We reiterate that Sri Lanka continues to face allegations of human rights violations that are of an extremely serious nature. These allegations have been found credible by none less than a Panel of Experts appointed by the UN Secretary General. In addition to this, several other well grounded allegations exist about the lack of fundamental freedoms within Sri Lanka, which it is charged, has resulted in serious violations of freedom of expression, association and movement as well as entrenched impunity for past human rights violations. Together these make Sri Lanka one of the most acute human rights situations in the Commonwealth.

In a recent response to one of our organisations the Commonwealth Secretary-General stated that the decision for Sri Lanka to host the 2013 CHOGM was taken by CHOGM 2009 and that it needs no further confirmation from CHOGM 2011. He also informed that the Commonwealth is waiting for the report from Sri Lanka’s Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) to decide its policy on the country. The report is due in November 2011 after CHOGM 2011, when it will be too late for any further consideration of the CHOGM venue. On the other hand, though the Commission’s report may deserve a fair hearing, it is important to remember that the UN Panel of Experts and numerous civil society organisations have cast doubts on the impartiality and effectiveness of the LLRC. In other words waiting for the LLRC report would mean that, due to paucity of time and the complexities of procedures involved, Sri Lanka will be able to host CHOGM 2013 regardless of any outcome and without any scrutiny, at the cost of the Commonwealth condoning serious human rights violations.

We believe that the moment to re-consider Sri Lanka’s suitability as a host for Commonwealth’s most emblematic meeting must be at Perth. The Heads must take into account the consistent intransigence of the government of Sri Lanka and the lack of investigations or progress on impunity within the country since the 2009 decision to postpone CHOGM.

Providing space for Sri Lanka to be the host of CHOGM 2013 will only serve as a declaration of the Commonwealth’s indifference to human rights concerns. It will also allow a government in serious controversy over its role in egregious human rights violations to preside over the organisation from 2013 to 2015 without the necessity of having to conduct any serious or credible investigations into the allegations it faces.

If it is wished that Sri Lanka should host a future CHOGM after 2013, we urge you to direct the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group to monitor the performance of Sri Lanka against specific benchmarks. We believe that before Sri Lanka is considered as the host of a future CHOGM it must meet the following minimum benchmarks that require it to:

1. Ensure meaningful domestic implementation of the international human rights treaties to which the Government of Sri Lanka is party and bring all legislation in line with international human rights standards;
2. Treat all people within Sri Lanka with dignity and respect as equals while allowing them to live in an environment in which they can enjoy all fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Sri Lanka and international human rights law;
3. Restore Constitutional provisions that guarantee separation of powers and re-instate the independence of the three wings of State;
4. Restore the independence of key government institutions, such as the National Human Rights and Police Commissions;
5. Institute effective mechanisms to protect journalists, civil society groups and human rights defenders who work for the promotion and protection of human rights;
6. Support and cooperate with independent and credible domestic and international investigations into all allegations concerning violations of international humanitarian and human rights law in the country, especially relating to the conduct of the armed conflict which ended in 2009; and
7. Commit to collaborate with the Office of the UN Secretary General and initiate the implementation of all recommendations set out in the report of the UN Secretary General’s Panel of Experts.

Sincerely,

Yap Swee Seng, Executive Director, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)

Wong Kai Shing, Executive Director, Asian Legal Resource Centre

Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, Executive Director, Centre for Policy Alternatives

Ingrid Srinath, Secretary General, CIVICUS World Alliance for Citizen Participation

Maja Daruwala, Director, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

Hassan Shahriar, President, Commonwealth Journalists Association

Hassan Shire Sheikh, Executive Director, East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project

Phil Lynch, Executive Director, Human Rights Law Centre (Australia)

Brad Adams, Executive Director Asia Division, Human Rights Watch

Nick Grono, Deputy President and Chief Operating Officer, International Crisis Group

Souhayr Belhassen, President, International Federation for Human Rights

Chris Chapman, Head of Conflict Prevention, Minority Rights Group International

Ruki Fernando, Rights Now Collective for Democracy

Edward Mortimer CMG, Chair, Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace & Justice

Stefan Nystrom was deported from Australia on 29 December 2006 after the government cancelled his visa on the grounds of his criminal record. Mr Nystrom was born in Sweden but arrived in Australia aged 27 days. Until his deportation at the age of 32, he had never left the country.

In a 25 page judgment, the Committee held that the deportation of Mr Nystrom (“an absorbed member of the Australian community” whose mother, sister and nuclear family all live in Australia) to Sweden (a country where he does not speak the language and “to which he has no ties apart from nationality” in the formal sense) breached the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

By a majority of 13 to 2, the Committee found that Mr Nystrom’s deportation was arbitrary and had “irreparable consequences”. Before his deportation, Mr Nystrom was in a “in a process of rehabilitation”. According to Rachel Ball of the Human Rights Law Centre, who brought the complaint on behalf of Mr Nystrom, “Stefan’s mental health has deteriorated significantly since his deportation, requiring admission to a psychiatric facility.”

The Committee also found that Mr Nystrom’s deportation “led to a complete disruption of his family ties” in breach of Australia’s obligation to protect families. According to Ms Ball, “Stefan’s mother, Britt, and his sister, Annette, love and miss him greatly. They’re gravely concerned for his welfare.” In its reasons the Committee said that their indefinite separation from Mr Nystrom “has caused great emotional distress”.

By a majority of 10 to 5, the Committee also held that Australia arbitrarily deprived Mr Nystrom of “his right to enter his own country”. This is the first time that an international court or tribunal has found that the right of a person to freely enter his or her “own country” applies not just to citizens but to non-nationals with “special ties” to that country. According to leading international jurist Elizabeth Evatt AC, a former Australian judge and herself an ex-member of the Human Rights Committee, “This decision is highly significant. It establishes that in certain circumstances a person may be able to claim protection against arbitrary deportation by a state even though not a citizen of that state.” Justice Evatt said that “Under the ruling, the right to protection may arise as a result of long-standing and strong personal and family ties to that country, together with the absence of such ties elsewhere.”

Leading barrister Brian Walters SC, who acted pro bono in the case with the Human Rights Law Centre, said that there were a number of factors that made Mr Nystrom’s deportation particularly arbitrary. “Stefan was made a ward of the state aged 13. As his guardian, the state failed to notify him that he was not an Australian citizen or to obtain citizenship for him.” Mr Walters also said that “the Committee was critical of the inexplicable delay of seven years between when Mr Nystrom was last convicted of a serious offence and when the Minister decided to cancel his visa.”

In its judgment, the Committee said that Australia now has a legal obligation to allow and support Mr Nystrom to return home. According to Ms Ball, “The Human Rights Committee is an eminent body of independent international human rights experts.” She said that “Australia claims to be committed to human rights and the rule of law and has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Committee. As such, the government has both an international legal obligation, and a domestic policy duty, to give effect to the Committee’s judgment and bring Stefan home.” Justice Evatt similarly said that “As a country which takes its international human rights obligations seriously, Australian should respect and implement this decision.” She noted that “Australia is obliged to respond to the decision within six months.”

The expert body also recommended that the government review the operation of the Migration Act to ensure that Australia does not expose other persons to similar human rights violations. According to Mr Walters SC, “Australia has both a legal and moral duty not to deport people in these circumstances.” Mr Walters said that Australia’s practice of doing so could damage international relations, noting that “Sweden had requested that Australia not deport Mr Nystrom ‘on humanitarian grounds’.”

Contacts:

For further information or comments, please contact:

Rachel Ball, Human Rights Law Centre – (03) 8636 4433 or 0434 045 919

Brian Walters SC, Victorian Bar – 0411 020 967

Background Documents:

Nystrom v Australia, Views of UN Human Rights Committee, UN Doc CCPR/C/102/D/1557/2007

Statement on Nystrom v Australia by the Hon Elizabeth Evatt AC

The Federal Parliament’s Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs is currently examining a Bill to amend the Extradition Act and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

In a submission to the Committee, the Human Rights Law Centre has called on the Bill to be strengthened to ensure that, in accepting extradition requests and cooperating with foreign criminal investigations, Australian officials are not complicit in serious breaches of human rights.

“Australian law should absolutely prohibit the involvement of Australian officials in exposing a person to death, torture, cruel treatment or a flagrant denial of justice,” said HRLC Executive Director, Phil Lynch.

Under proposed amendments to the Mutual Assistance Act, the risk of exposing a person to torture will be one of the mandatory grounds to refuse assistance to another country in a criminal investigation. The possibility of exposing a person to the death penalty, however, is not a mandatory ground of refusal of assistance.

Further, under proposed amendments to both Acts, there is no prohibition against Australia extraditing or providing assistance in situations where it would expose a person to the real risk of violation of other fundamental human rights, such as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or unfair trial proceedings.

A joint parliamentary committee has recommended that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade attach further importance to human rights in its work.

On 21 July, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade published its Review of the DFAT Annual Report for 2009-10. The Human Rights Law Centre previously made a submission to the review, calling for a human rights-based approach to foreign affairs and the development of a comprehensive, overarching human rights policy. The HRLC also made a range of other recommendations, including as to the use of social media as an important tool of modern human rights diplomacy.

In response to these recommendations, the Joint Committee “notes the potential value of having an overarching human rights framework against which to test foreign policies, and encourages DFAT to further highlight the importance of human rights in its annual report”. The Committee also highlights the value of Australia engaging in bilateral human rights dialogue and involving relevant parliamentarians in these processes.

On the topic of e-diplomacy, the Committee takes note of DFAT’s limited resources but, consistent with the HRLC submission, recommends that DFAT “make stronger efforts to capitalise on the potential offered by modern communications technology in terms of the dissemination and collection of information, and make greater efforts at understanding future e-diplomacy opportunities”.

The Government has not yet responded to the Committee report.

“Sri Lanka, Human Rights and Australian Foreign Policy in a Tweet”

Kevin Rudd, or @kruddmp to his online followers, likes to tweet.  I strongly support his use of Twitter – social media is an important new tool in the world of digital diplomacy – but I was struck by one message from the Foreign Minister on 4 July.  It read ‘4 corners tonight on Sri Lanka deeply disturbing.  UN Human Rights Council can’t simply push this to one side.  Action needed.  KRudd’.

The program, Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields, was indeed deeply disturbing.  It documents serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law against Tamil civilians by Sri Lanka’s military, including systemic rape, murder and the targeting of hospitals and health care clinics.  The allegations are not new, however.  The program aired in the UK on 14 June.  Both the US State Department and Human Rights Watch issued reports on possible war crimes in Sri Lanka as far back as 2009.

What struck me about the Foreign Minister’s tweet was the implication that the UN Human Rights Council has failed to act with sufficient resolve or urgency on Sri Lanka.  It struck me because, at the Council’s last session on 15 June, Australia failed to even identify Sri Lanka as a ‘situation requiring the Council’s attention’.  Australia did make a strong statement calling for the Council to act on Syria, Libya, Iran and Fiji.  Unlike states such as the US, the UK, France, Spain, Sweden and Denmark, however, we were resolutely silent on Sri Lanka.  Each of those countries and many others, by contrast, called for ‘immediate action’ to ‘ensure accountability’ for ‘grave allegations’ as to breaches of human rights and international law in Sri Lanka.

A critical analysis could attribute this silence to Sri Lanka’s cooperation with Australia to prevent the flow of asylum seekers.  The 2011/12 federal budget included $10.8 million to deploy Australian Federal Police liaison officers to Sri Lanka (as well as to Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand) to ‘combat people smuggling’.  The Sri Lankan Department of Immigration and Emigration is a recipient of Australian aid dollars.

A more generous analysis, to which I am inclined, attributes the disjunct between Australia’s statement in Geneva and the Foreign Minister’s tweet to our lack of a comprehensive strategy on human rights and foreign policy.  Without such a strategy, Australia’s action on international human rights often lacks coherence or clear priorities for action.  This was evident again just a few days ago, when the Foreign Minister, in announcing a new aid and development strategy, said ‘for the first time, human rights has been formally included within the core development objectives of the Australian aid portfolio’.  This is a positive development,  It will come as some surprise, however, to the UN’s Independent Expert on Human Rights and Foreign Debt who, just three weeks earlier, was lambasted by Australia for his ‘inaccuracy’ in ‘asserting that AusAID does not have an overarching human rights-based approach guiding its policies and programmes’.

Kevin Rudd is a highly capable, energetic and ambitious Foreign Minister who professes a strong commitment to human rights.  Australia’s candidacy for a temporary seat on the UN Security Council, conceived and actively and appropriately pursued by the Foreign Minister, pitches us as a ‘principled advocate of human rights for all’.  And so should we be.  The realisation of human rights should be a primary goal and instrument of Australian foreign policy.  As a goal, we should commit to promoting human rights and the rule of law as a key foreign policy priority.  And as an instrument, we should protect human rights to secure related goals such as peace, security and sustainable development.

If Australia’s human rights rhetoric is to translate into effective outcomes, however, we need to develop a more principled and coordinated approach.  A comprehensive strategy, similar to those developed by the Netherlands and Sweden, could integrate human rights in all areas of Australian foreign policy and, like those countries, capitalise on the benefits of doing so.  Those countries have also appointed permanent Human Rights Ambassadors – a post which does not exist in Australia – to ensure an active and consistent approach to human rights at the international level.

With an ever shrinking foreign service, the Foreign Minister should also establish a Human Rights Advisory Group, comprising experts from NGOs, academia and human rights bodies, to provide external advice on foreign policy and options for addressing human rights problems.  Mr Rudd’s UK counterpart, Foreign Secretary William Hague, established just such a group in 2010 and tweeted only a few days ago that ‘the Group’s expertise has already proved valuable in informing our human rights policies’.  It is imperative, he wrote, for governments to ‘hear from experts at forefront of reporting and documenting human rights abuses’.

Mr Rudd, I look forward to the tweet that reads ‘Just announced comprehensive human rights strategy & 100 concrete actions Australia will take to advance human rights around world. KRudd’.  That would be 140 characters worth far more than 1000 words.

Phil Lynch is Executive Director of the Human Rights Law Centre. The opinion piece above was first published on ABC The Drum: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2803978.html.

UK Developments – Parliamentary Committee calls for more principled and consistent approach to human rights in foreign policy

A parliamentary committee has recommended that the United Kingdom take a more principled, persistent and consistent approach to human rights in foreign policy. The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, in their report on the Foreign Office’s human rights work, welcomes the Government’s commitment to “the promotion of human rights overseas as one of its central foreign policy objectives”, but recommends that the UK “take a more robust and significantly more consistent position on human rights violations”.

The report highlights that a human rights-based approach to foreign policy can build diplomatic capital and finds that any “downplay of criticism of human rights abuses in countries with which the UK has close political and commercial links is damaging to the UK’s reputation, and undermines the department’s overall work in promoting human rights overseas.” It also highlights the necessity for domestic and foreign policy coherence, stating that “the UK’s own human rights practices…affect its international reputation and ability to pursue effectively improvements in human rights standards overseas.”

The report contains a range of recommendations to achieve consistency and coherence, including that:

• the Foreign Office document “more clearly the department’s key objectives for its human rights work in the coming year, along with the rationale for their identification and the means by which the department proposes to pursue them”;
• the UK enhance funding for “human rights project” internationally and also strengthen human rights training, guidance and support for Foreign Office staff;
• the Government give “higher priority” to developing and promoting “standards for human rights in business behaviour”, concluding that “this is essential if the UK’s efforts to promote human rights internationally are not to be undercut by the behaviour of…companies”; and
• human rights and trade be pursued as complementary and not conflicting priorities.

The Committee also welcomes the establishment of an expert Advisory Group on Human Rights to provide the Foreign Secretary with external advice on foreign policy and options for addressing human rights problems.

The Pretoria Statement – which was prepared by NGOs including Amnesty International, the International Service for Human Rights, the Centre for Human Rights (South Africa), CELS (Argentina) and the Human Rights Law Centre (Australia) – contains over 60 concrete and practical recommendations to improve the work of human rights bodies at the international level and the fulfilment of human rights on the ground.

The statement is open for endorsement by other NGOs. If your NGO wishes to endorse the Pretoria Statement, please send a notification preferably before 15 August 2011 to melhik.bekele@up.ac.za.

UN human rights bodies are an essential part of the framework for the promotion and protection of human rights, complementing the work of regional and domestic human rights mechanisms, non-government organisations and national human rights institutions.

In 2009, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights commenced a process of reform to strengthen the UN human rights treaty bodies. The strengthening process is intended to make the work of treaty bodies more coordinated and effective and to enhance the fulfilment of human rights on the ground. The High Commissioner has invited inputs and proposals from states, NGOs, human rights experts and NHRIs in this regard.

In response to this call, a civil society consultation was held in Pretoria on 20 and 21 June 2011, hosted by the Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria. This consultation examined and built on previous statements, including the 2009 Dublin Statement on the Process of Strengthening the UN Human Rights Treaty Body System (and the 2010 NGO response thereto), the 2010 Marrakech Statement, the 2010 Poznan Statement and the 2011 Seoul Statement.

The Pretoria Statement sets out over 60 recommendations, including as to:

• guiding principles of reform;
• the periodic reporting process;
• the review of states which fail to submit periodic reports;
• individual communications and remedies for human rights violations;
• follow up and implementation of human rights recommendations; and
• the protection of human rights defenders.