PIERRE SANE, secretary general of Amnesty International, addressed members of the human rights community in Australia at the Regent Hotel in Sydney on October 9. We reprint here major portions of his talk. Subheads have been added.
In 1989 we watched as the Berlin Wall was taken apart piece by piece, and we knew that behind the dismantling of this most graphic symbol lay the end of the Cold War. With optimism and uncertainty the global community set out into uncharted waters.
Change might well be the defining characteristic of international relations during these five years. Yet looking at the facts and figures on human rights violations during this period, it is tempting to nod wisely and concede: nothing's changed.
Amnesty International knows full well the scale of continuing violations. We live and work under no illusions. Yet our movement makes no such concession. The world is changing and the human rights movement, of which Amnesty International is but one part, is determined to meet the challenge.
Our most recent Annual Report is not a comforting document. Its entries on 151 individual countries are so crowded with facts and details of abuse by governments — and many armed opposition groups — that it could be overwhelming. It is not easy to come to grips with the fact that in 1993 alone government forces in 61 countries were responsible for the unlawful killing of some 10,000 people; nor that torture and ill-treatment, prevalent in 112 countries, claimed more than 600 lives in 49 of those countries.
Governments have been struggling with international economic recession. This led to a preoccupation with global economic reform and restructuring. In too few cases has the same attention been given to fundamental questions concerning political transition and reforms. Certainly the resources essential to the prevention of human rights crises have been withheld, and thousands of innocent people have been paying the price.
Australia's credibility as a champion of human rights is at risk. It will remain at risk for however long it takes to eradicate clear breaches of human rights within Australia itself.
Let me cite three issues to illustrate:
* the impact of the criminal justice system upon indigenous peoples in Australia;
* the situation confronting detained asylum seekers;
* the continued existence of legislation allowing for the prosecution and imprisonment of consenting adults who engage in homosexual acts in private.
There is a growing tendency on the part of governments to on the one hand embrace NGOs, to say "look at these fine men and women, what a worthy job they are doing."
But on the other hand, they characterise us as judgmental, as being more interested in sound and fury than in results, as losing ourselves in the emotions of the moment, as riding a high moral horse without recognising the policy constraints.
International interest
Yes, we do bring certain values to our scrutiny of government behaviour.
The values Amnesty International applies are those embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the Covenants on Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The values and principles in a range of international human rights agreements that governments have written, that governments have signed, that governments have bound themselves to in international law.
We live today in a global community. It is simply not possible in the 1990s for any nation to pretend that it exists in isolation, that its affairs are not directly affected in one thousand and one ways by the policies and actions of other nations.
The fact is that few areas of international relations have so little enforcement options as human rights.
For example, I am aware of the arguments in this country following the UN Human Rights Committee's decision on Tasmania's laws as they affect homosexual activity between consenting adults in private. The fact is that the Human Rights Committee could not even have heard this matter if the Australian government had not decided to ratify the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and after that it also must have ratified the 1st Optional Protocol. Even then no enforcement provision exists. The Human Rights Committee can only make a ruling, without power to ensure it is acted upon. Decisions such as this cannot be enforced by the UN. They can only be given effect by explicit action by Australian governments elected by the Australian people.
The framework of international human rights law, convention and custom is indispensable to establishing the minimum standards of government behaviour. We must resist every attempt to undermine its validity and potential effectiveness.
We certainly should not allow international agreement on human rights to be threatened by superficial claims to national sovereignty. This position is utterly anachronistic. Even the most recalcitrant regimes have given up this hollow argument.
This is one reason why I have to say we find it shocking to hear these arguments now being raised by some in the major opposition political parties in Australia. Successive Australian governments have for decades made representations to other governments about torture or the unfair detention of political opponents, and helped to develop international mechanisms such as the UN Convention Against Torture.
Australia's international reputation, and the effectiveness of its representations on human rights, are based in part on this record. Amnesty International's work is based on the commitment that neither national borders nor prison walls can be barriers to concern. I find it hard to believe that those aspiring to political power here seriously want Australia's reputation, and Amnesty's work, to be undermined.
Yet debate within nations on human rights issues should be actively encouraged. Amnesty International's plea to the Australian government, to the present opposition parties and to all Australians is this: please, please concentrate on the real issue at hand. Ask yourselves not how do you limit your international responsibilities but rather how do you, with such a proud tradition of parliamentary democracy, legislate to give full effect to those responsibilities?
East Timor
I would like to turn briefly in the time I have left to issues concerning Australia's foreign policy on human rights.
We recognise Australia's commitment and the active diplomatic efforts this government pursues. However, we do have some concerns as to how that commitment is being translated into effective foreign policy on human rights.
This is particularly true in the case of Indonesia and East Timor. And I am here in Australia partly because of Amnesty International's new campaign on the continuing and widespread violation of fundamental human rights in Indonesia and East Timor.
The Indonesian authorities have been working hard to project a new openness, a new seriousness in confronting human rights abuse. Certainly there have been some institutional changes, some positive signs. But Amnesty International's research leaves not a shred of doubt that the real task of human rights reform simply hasn't happened.
Put starkly: torture, political killings, "disappearances", unfair trials, arbitrary detention, the detention and harassment of critics remain virtually unchecked.
Some space has been found for increased political activity but the risks remain high. Unacceptably high. With great personal courage and commitment, students, journalists, farmers, trade unionists and human rights advocates are paying the price. The armed forces and police are still largely unaccountable for their actions, particularly when "national security" is invoked. Indonesian judges continue to accept in their courts statements extracted by torture.
What disturbs me is that the evidence is substantial, it is comprehensive, and it is not entirely new. It defies any suggestion that the human rights situation is improving.
Yet is this not what your prime minister has said? Didn't your defence minister say as recently as July that with respect to human rights, "All the evidence is that Indonesia has improved immensely in the last few years"? What evidence I ask?
Australia speaks confidently of the success of its "quiet diplomacy" approach to human rights. Where such an approach works, Amnesty international supports it. But where is the evidence? The facts just do not support the assertion. And if that is the case then you must surely ask whether your current human rights policy — on Indonesia at least — may not be built on sand.
The opportunity for Australia to work cooperatively with others in the region for shared human rights goals is there now, as perhaps never before.
'Patience'
In his Melbourne speech [on September 8], Senator Evans does at times display evidence of those tendencies to dismiss NGO protests as the ranting of emotional do-gooders not forced to confront the consequences of their actions. I have already spoken on this. I would only reiterate here that the onus remains on governments to refute the evidence provided by NGOs with evidence of their own, to demonstrate and not simply assert the efficacy of their policies.
Senator Evans describes Australia's foreign policy on human rights as a combination of principle, pragmatism and patience.
In a nutshell, on questions of principle, Amnesty International clearly shares much common ground. When it comes to pragmatism we also believe in results, but are not convinced that the evidence is there to justify total confidence in current policies. By the time we get to the third "p", patience, we find ourselves at serious disagreement.
The patience which lies at the heart of Australian government policy is explicitly premised upon "recognising that many of the problems that exist with civil and political rights in developing countries, particularly in Asia, are likely to be transient in nature". Economic liberalisation, it is suggested, will inevitably bring political liberalisation. The Australian government's conviction that this process is "inexorable" leads it to place its policy emphasis on helping to accelerate the process, that is to speed what is deemed inevitable.
Nothing in Amnesty International's experience lends itself to support such a deterministic approach to human rights.
As I suggested at the beginning of this address. We live in a world of change. If anything is constant in international relations, it is the utter lack of predicability in the political, economic and social processes that define them.
Moreover, reliance upon some form of specifically economic determinism sits in contradiction to the core principles of human rights.
What perhaps is true, is that governments find it easier to manage when the economy is booming and abundant prosperity reduces the stresses and strains. Yet even this thesis, I believe, requires qualification. For it is not hard to think of prosperous countries, one or two not so far from here, whose particular brand of authoritarianism precludes the full enjoyment of basic civil and political rights.
The very point of human rights is that they are non-derogable. No-one can reasonably ask the oppressed — those who are arbitrarily denied their freedom, those subjected to torture, those killed for their beliefs outside any legal process or whose killing is sanctioned by the state itself — no one can reasonably tum to these people and say, "Hey, hang on there, the good times are coming!"
No, Amnesty International is not patient. We are anything but patient. Maybe it will take a long time but we will never, never lose our sense of urgency.
Recently, the Australian government successfully argued that any renewed contact with the State Law and Order Restoration Council in Burma (Myanmar) should be pegged to identifiable progress on human rights. This notion of benchmarking human rights achievements holds some promise. Consideration might well be given to establishing benchmarks by which particular sectors or elements of Australia's human rights policy might be assessed.
For it is perhaps time again to put the spotlight on your policies.
Has the response rate to those individual appeals improved over the last decade? What will it take to improve them? Have the parliamentary human rights delegations to China resulted in systematic and meaningful dialogue? What have been the fruits of this dialogue? How do you measure the results?
When Australia's own Human Rights Commission identifies a government breach of human rights, as in the case of the detention of asylum seekers, why does the policy remain? How, in these circumstances, can Australia's foreign policy emphasis on establishing similar machinery in neighbouring countries retain credibility?
These are difficult questions but, as a friend, Amnesty International cannot help but put them. Having come this far, it is surely time to journey that little bit further.