Jarnil at the House

Speech - University House

University of Melbourne

7 August 2006

Thank you Juliet. It’s a pleasure to be here tonight in such company and for such a worthwhile reason.

My brief this evening is to speak to you about my recent experience as a member of the Australian delegation to the final, conclusive sitting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in March of this year.

As many students tend to, I floated into the Law faculty at Monash University quite by accident. I knew I wanted to be there, but had no idea why and to what end.

That changed very quickly when in 2002 a friend asked me if I would like to visit the immigration detention centre at Maribyrnong. I said no, why on earth would I want to do that?? Then I realised that perhaps there were a number of persuasive reasons to visit, and so one evening, as the last rays of the day’s sun faded, I found myself ringing a buzzer outside a 15 foot steel picket fence. From that day onward my purpose in studying law has been much more defined.

Time went by, and one day I stumbled across a call for applications to attend the UN Commission on Human Rights as a member of the Australian Government delegation. I applied, after going through my CV with a fine-tooth comb, downplaying anything that may carry the putrid stench of advocacy, activism or seditious intent!

Remarkably, I was chosen for the internship. After a mass of paperwork and a special message from Geneva ensuring that I knew my role in the delegation (the mute intern, a blank canvas, compliant, backgroundless and definitely opinionless), I was off to Switzerland.

I arrived in Geneva two days before the internship was to begin, amidst crazy confusion regarding the status of the Commission… what would be its substance? Its duration? Was this to be the final Commission on Human Rights? Was it going to be happening at all? The employees of the Permanent Mission begged our forbearance of all the disorder, and we began to attend meetings in the Palais des Nations.

Eventually it was decided that the Commission would not happen at all, beyond a 3 hour closing meeting. However, despite the brevity of the negotiations, there was still an opportunity to watch Australia fly its flag and show its true colours in an international diplomatic setting.

Before I arrived in Geneva, my perception was that it was primarily the United States pushing to 'undo' the Commission, and stall the creation of its replacement - the Human Rights Council. I was fairly convinced that 'disengagement' would be the order of the day, particularly for the United States.

Halfway through the internship I began to think perhaps I had been mistaken. Even though the United States didn't support the General Assembly Resolution which created the Human Rights Council, neither did they block it, and in meetings after the Resolution was adopted, they made quite a few positive noises about wanting the Council to be as strong as possible, and supporting it as much as they could. However, from my perspective these affirmations lost their value only moments after the Commission had closed for the last time. I was chatting to the American Ambassador in the plenary hall when a journalist approached him for his views on the Human Rights Council. He said something like, "well, I suppose everybody is hoping that it will be a strong body with some real capabilities for change, but frankly I am seriously skeptical". Now, this response did not really come as a surprise, but was certainly a violent reality check at that stage of the process.

For the preceding three hours, member states, NGOs and key members of the UN infrastructure had been saluting the 60 year legacy of the Commission, paying tribute to its profoundly significant contribution to the global recognition of human rights. The regional group statements had been generally positive, affirming that each member state was looking forward, into the future of the Council, to stronger, brighter and better things ahead.

But after the comments made by the American ambassador, I thought to myself, "hold on, what have we signed up for, here?” Everybody had been making positive noises about reform in the council, making changes, strengthening accountability mechanisms, but now that the time has come for that reform to kick in, already States are pushing it to arm's length, dissociating, and tempering their expectations of what it can really achieve.

Particularly having listened to the debate about the Voting Standards for the Council, I have my own serious concerns. The view of the US and Australia, and a number of other countries, has been that the Commission’s principle discrediting feature was the presence on the Commission of states who have been Human Rights violators. The US was outspoken in its determination not to let such states have any part in the new Human Rights Council. Now, of course this in itself is massively problematic, because both Australia (for its lack of any entrenched protection of human rights, and its treatment of asylum seekers, indigenous people) and the US (for Guantanamo bay, the invasion of Iraq etc) have been heavily criticised as systematic violators of human rights. But of course, both countries are very keen to hang on to what they perceive as their transcendent, impeccable human rights records. So that leads to the argument that somehow countries like Australia and the US are outside the jurisdictional striking range of the Commission, and subsequently the Council. Which leads in to an even more interesting, and much more potentially disastrous, issue...

The general push has been to tighten the criteria for membership to the Council so that those who are under sanctions or other heavy criticism pertaining to human rights are automatically excluded. So then ideally what will happen is that from their position of authority, the member nations of the Council will make high-fallutin’ moral judgments over other countries, and expect them to conform to what the UN requires.

But the natural reaction of sovereign states when that happens has traditionally been to distance themselves from the body, and denounce its jurisdiction. Even the example of Philip Ruddock’s inauspicious appearance before the UN Racial Discrimination Committee in 2000 showcases this problem. As a response to fair and objective criticism from the Committee, Ruddock became angry, personally insulted a number of people on that Committee, and then proceeded to denounce the entire United Nations treaty system. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer bit back by stating that “if a United Nations committee wants to play domestic politics here in Australia, then it will end up with a bloody nose”.

Such an attitude can only cause problems, and lead to the total discreditation of the Council, even before it has celebrated its first birthday. And Australia is not alone- recently the United States was requested by the UN to close Guantanamo Bay and try its detainees fairly and transparently. The US politely declined and informed the UN that it did not have jurisdiction over such matters. So it seems that countries are happy to abide by the dictates of the UN, so long as its hand of criticism is not turned toward them.

So that's the first element of that problem. The second is this:

A country that has been deliberately excluded from the HRC would have no reason to submit to its will. Such a country could have no possible incentive to acknowledge the jurisdiction of a body that has openly, publicly spurned it. It is thus arguable that the reform of the Human Rights Council has gone in polarly the opposite direction to that which it should have. I have become a firmer and steadily firmer believer in the principle of "universality" when it comes to human rights bodies.

Wouldn't the system work so much more effectively if each and every country were welcomed into a forum of open discourse, accountability, criticism and pursuit of common goals? Why not engage potential problem states in the issue, rather than polarising it, and continuing the "us and them" mentality that has been so pervasive and so damaging up until now? It may seem idealistic to think that member states could engage in a meaningful multilateral consultation process, but I am convinced that a system of alienation and proclamations from on-high will achieve nothing.

Into all of this, inject the fact that there are countries which are openly critical of the human rights records of Australia and the US, arguing that those two countries are not any better than countries they habitually criticise. Although sometimes those criticisms are raised as a form of grandstanding and to deflect attention away from other issues, both countries’ human rights records do bear stains, smears and marks denoting them as human rights abusers in some form or other, and lending validity to the claims of their deriders.

Australia’s relationship with the United Nations reeks of hostility and stubbornness cloaked in civility. The façade, the pretence, the outward appearance of compromise, concealing a soul of iron – immovable, untouchable, not negotiable.

Perhaps those sound like the characteristics of strength and leadership, but we cannot abandon the fact that all decisions made within the halls of government and the United Nations eventually trickle down to affect human lives.

I can’t help but see Australia’s international diplomatic façade reflected perfectly in the recent renovations to the Maribyrnong Detention Centre – just one of the prisons where Australia locks up people seeking asylum in this country. Over the past month, the visits area at Maribyrnong has had a makeover – it now looks like Starbucks - coffee tables, cosy purple and beige couches, an XBox for the kids, and some fresh new carpet. All the while, the detainees out the back are still packed six to a room, without so much as a door on their dormitories.

Similarly, the front of the Baxter detention centre has recently been done up to look like someone’s beach house – tasteful wood panelling, a native Australian garden out the front, and a boardwalk-style approach to the visits area. Yet just this morning I read a report of yet another suicide attempt by a detainee who has been held there for over 2 years – innocent of any offence – removed from psychiatric care back to detention against doctors’ orders and locked up in this renovated, prettied-up hell hole.

As usual, the outward sheen obscures the inner rot.

Yesterday was my 24^th birthday. At risk of being accused of youthful idealism or wide-eyed utopianism, I would like to take the opportunity to say that I still have high hopes for this country. I believe there may still be a time when justice and human rights are not pursued by a $10 million a year floating prison equipped with machine guns and a fitness centre. Where the most desperate and vulnerable people in the world are not turned away from our borders and dumped indefinitely on a desert island. Where no person can be taken off the street and jailed without explanation, or access to a lawyer or a telephone. Where fear mongering and manipulation - rather than dark skin and different languages – are what enrage and ignite the Australian people.

Your presence here tonight is an unequivocal indication that there are still people in Australia who are willing to pursue justice and mercy, unblinded by politics, and for that I applaud and congratulate you. I thank you for being here to assist Jarnil Khan and his family to begin their life together here in Australia – may our beautiful country offer them its very best in hospitality, support and peace. Thank you.