|
|
 |
POLITICA >> Oceania | ||||
Menu
|
Politica is a forum for independent analysis of political events around the World |
|||||
|
Essays and debate forum |
||||||
What is wrong with Australia?Australia has long tried to establish itself as a regional power in the Asia Pacific area, but why should Asian nations take heed? A close examination of Australia's human rights record raises big questions about Australia's commitment to the values it preaches to its "neighbours". To begin with, the condition of the aborigine people is a source of immense concern. In British colonial times, the native inhabitants of the island continent were almost wiped out, but their plight did not end when the British left. As late as 2002, the Australian high court rejected a land ownership claim by the Yorta Yorta people, on the grounds that "the tide of history" had washed away their claim to land on the Murray river (1). Essentially, the court's decision sanctioned the actions of European settlers whose persecution of the aborigines led to many groups losing their culture and traditions over time. Since the Native Title Act of 1993 specifies that traditional customs must be "substantially uninterrupted" for a claim to succeed, most tribes will never be able to claim their land back. Indeed, the white man made sure that the tribes' customs were interrupted, for example by taking aborigine children from their parents and sending them to "European" schools, to be indoctrinated. This "stolen generation" has never succeeded in obtaining compensation from the Australian government. The UN has complained about the treatment of aborigines in the past, for example in the report of the Economic, Social and Human Rights committee in 2000 (2). In this report, the UN expressed deep concern at discrimination against the aborigines in employment, housing, justice, health and education, as well as about amendments to the country's land laws, which would damage the process of reconciliation between aborigines and the government. However, the report praised Australia for its assistance to East Timor. And this is exactly the problem: Australia is a nation that would portray itself as a model to neighbouring countries, yet whose own human-rights record at home leaves a lot to be desired. Australia didn't help its cause by responding angrily to the UN report, and restricting further visits by UN human rights experts. The attorney general responded to criticisms of the criminal justice system (which sends disproportionate numbers of aborigines to jail) with remarkable arrogance: "If we are comparing with arbitrary arrests and executions and having your arms chopped off, the problems in Australia pale into insignificance"(3). Well, that did not reassure the UN, Amnesty International (which accused it of refusing accountability for its actions) or even the local Labour Party. Australia's aborigines are a downtrodden minority (they are 400,000) in this vast country, and they suffer from higher than average infant mortality, as well as a reduced life expectancy when compared to the rest of the population. But international criticism of Australia is not limited to the condition of the aborigines. Australia has also recently come under fire for its (mis)treatment of refugees. The same UN report mentioned above also highlighted this theme, criticising Australia's policy of interning illegal immigrants in camps for inordinate amounts of time. More recently, refugees from Afghanistan, fleeing violence and religious persecution (which did NOT miraculously cease after the flight of the Taleban), and having lost their life's savings to people-smugglers, arrived on a sinking ship to Australian waters. A Norwegian vessel rescued the refugees, but was forced by the Australian navy to remain away from the coast. Eventually, these refugees were deported to the tiny island of Nauru, out of the sight of the international community (4). Nauru's silence (journalists and lawyers were banned from the camps) was bought for a mere $30 million. Some of the asylum seekers there have now been locked up for nearly a year, and although their living conditions are not extreme, their psychological distress is a cause for concern. John Howard's government, not satisfied with turning back refugees, is also starting to turn against his own people. Since the 11th of September attacks, and the Bali bombings of 2002 (incidentally neither attack on Australian soil), the conservative government has also hijacked fears of terrorism to severely curtail civil liberties. At the end of 2002, the government provoked the anger of parliament by trying to pass laws giving sweeping new powers to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). These changes in the law would allow the ASIO to detain and question suspects for a week, and would remove the right to silence of these suspects. Moreover, conditions for access to lawyers are to be limited by the proposals. Worse, the original draft, rejected outright by backbenchers, provided for the interrogation and strip-searching of children (5). As if this were not enough, Australia has succeeded in provoking the ire of Asia-Pacific states by raising the possibility of pre-emptive military strikes against suspected terrorist militants in the region(6). Fortunately, Australia's military does not have the required projection capabilities to satisfy the government's delusions of grandeur, but the statement of intent was enough to cause a major international row. Following prime minister John Howard's comments, in which he mentioned the possibility pre-emptive strikes against groups suspected to be planning an attack on Australia, neighbouring countries were quick to react. Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad said any unauthorised action on Malaysian soil would be considered an act of war. Similarly, the Indonesian military commander, general Endriartono replied that Indonesia would not stand by should Australia attack. Meanwhile, a shocked Philippines was busy backtracking on a previous anti-terrorism agreement with Australia (7). Threatening to bomb your neighbours is not exactly the best way to make friends, nor to establish your country as a "regional leader"… Well, if you can't be a leader, then you might as well follow someone else. And what better shining beacon of human rights than George W Bush, who is currently planning to turn the Iraqi population into a pile of ashes. Since the 11th of September, Australia has become a staunch ally of the USA, although not really a strategic one, considering its location in the World. There has even been mention of a US-Australia free-trade pact (8), which would further alienate Asia-Pacific Nations, whose goods would have more trouble entering the new economic zone. But with friends in America, who needs Asia? The USA, not surprisingly, reacted favourably to Australia's newfound fondness for pre-emptive action, a philosophy much in favour in Washington these days. There is, however, a glimmer of hope in Australia, as illustrated by recent demonstrations against a war in Iraq. Moreover, the independent press is not afraid to criticise the government policies. For example, The Australian considered that John Howard's "pre-emptive strike" idea brought shame on the administration. Unfortunately, the Australian electorate seems fond of Mr Howard's "tough" policies, and a recent poll showed that 58% judged him the "best possible prime minister" for the country (6). It is time for the Australian Labour party to behave like a true alternative to Howard, before things get worse. References and related articles 1- Mercer,
P. 2002. Aborigines lose land battle. BBC news world edition.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2568521.stm
|
||||||
|
||||||