Phil Lynch writes:

A recent report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (JCFADT) identified the Asia-Pacific region as ‘diverse and complex’ with a ‘mosaic of human rights challenges’.  The Committee highlighted gender discrimination and violence, human trafficking, capital punishment, restrictions on freedom of expression and association, and profound poverty, among others.  The Committee identified a ‘clear need to enhance mechanisms to protect human rights and to redress human rights violations’.

On Australia’s role, JCFADT found that Australia is ‘well placed to foster discussion and progress on a cooperative approach to human rights challenges facing the Asia-Pacific’.  It concluded that Australia has a ‘significant’, albeit ‘sensitive and cooperative’ role to play in the promotion and protection of human rights in the region.

So what concrete commitments would a human rights-focused policy on engagement with the Asia-Pacific include?

Human Rights as a Key Instrument and Aim of Australian Engagement in the Region

JCFADT recommended that the Australian Government should be ‘conscious of its human rights obligations in all of its regional relationships’, including in the area of trade.

• Australia should develop a comprehensive white paper on human rights and Australia’s engagement with the Asia-Pacific.  The paper should: explain the benefits and imperatives of a human rights-based approach to the Asia-Pacific region; set out Australia’s human rights and foreign policy objectives in the region; and detail the means by which the Government will pursue these strategic objectives.  The paper should identify priorities for action and make concrete, measurable commitments across all areas of Australian engagement with the Asia-Pacific which impact on human rights.
• Australia should develop and undertake Human Rights Impact Assessments as a key aspect of doing business in the Asia-Pacific, including in the areas of aid, development, trade, investment, business, labour, migration, defence, military cooperation, security and the environment.
• Australia should ensure that the promotion and protection of human rights are incorporated into the objectives and activities of all regional organisations and processes that impact on human rights and of which Australia is a part.
• Where appropriate, Australia should negotiate for bilateral and multilateral agreements to include human rights clauses and safeguards.

Adopting a Human Rights-Based Approach to Aid and Development Assistance

JCFADT also recommended that AusAID ‘adopt a human rights-based approach’ to aid and development projects.  This recommendation was underpinned by evidence that development and human rights are interdependent and mutually reinforcing, and that a human rights-based approach can enhance program effectiveness and efficiency.  Both the OECD and the Overseas Development Institute have identified that the integration of human rights in all aspects of aid programming can deliver more effective, sustainable and value-for-money development outcomes.

• Consistent with the Government’s commitment to strengthen the effectiveness of Australia’s aid program, AusAID should ‘adopt a human rights-based approach’ to aid and development projects.
• Australia should prioritise human rights as a key aim and instrument of Australia’s development cooperation with the Asia-Pacific.

Adopting a Human Rights-Based Approach to Military and Security Cooperation

In many countries in the Asia-Pacific, members of the security forces who are implicated in human rights abuses are neither investigated nor prosecuted.  Australia is playing an increasing role in training foreign security forces through exchange programs and joint training exercises.  Human rights should be central to these trainings both in content and in terms of who is invited to participate.

• Australia should develop a transparent vetting system to scrutinise all members of security forces who are put forward to participate in activities funded or coordinated by, or otherwise involving, the Australian government.  The vetting system should be codified in a publicly available policy document initially and later through legislation.  Members that have themselves been implicated in human rights abuses, or are stationed with a unit that is implicated in such abuses, should be excluded from the trainings unless they have been charged with criminal offences relating to the abuses and found not guilty.  National human rights institutions and human rights NGOs should be consulted to determine whether members or units are implicated in such abuses.
• Australia should ensure that all activities involving members of foreign security forces, particularly training activities, funded or coordinated by, or otherwise involving the Australian government, includes practical human rights training.
• Bilateral military assistance and training programs that involve security forces should be contingent on respect for human rights and accountability for violations.

Phil Lynch writes:

Of the myriad issues inadequately covered in the election campaign thus far, Australian values and identity — and the question of how these values shape the way we understand our role and responsibility in the world — rank high. In the leaders’ debate, for example, the only discussion of Australian foreign policy and our place in the world arose in the context of the “Timor Solution” and the war in Afghanistan.

This is not the way things should be. With real leadership, elections present an opportunity to tap into admirable but often latent aspects of national identity, a concept explored by Canadian political scientist Alison Brysk in her new book, Global Good Samaritans: Human Rights as Foreign Policy. Why, Brysk asks, do a small number of countries sacrifice their national interest to promote human rights and help strangers? Her answer is simple: they don’t. Instead, she explains, countries such as Sweden, Canada and the Netherlands have nurtured national identities that have a deep commitment to human rights at their core. Global good samaritans, Brysk posits, see the “blood, treasure, and political capital they contribute to human rights as an investment, not a loss”. Both at the local and international levels, they have learned to see themselves, she says, “as interconnected members of a community that works best for everyone when human rights are respected”.

What I’d really like to see in this election is our national leaders appealing to and mobilising the most constructive and admirable aspects of Australia’s national identity and committing to the nation’s development as a principled, persistent, fearless and forceful human rights champion in the region and on the international stage.

Certainly, we are well placed to be an effective human rights promoter. We are democratic and politically stable. We are globalised and multicultural. We have an active and well networked civil society. We enjoy low levels of social stratification and high levels of economic development. We are a secure regional middle power.

We also have much to gain from pursuing the human rights agenda and much to lose in failing to do so. The positive side of the ledger includes the development of more stable and predictable international and regional policy environments, enhanced international credibility and diplomatic capital, strengthened policy coherence, and the mobilisation of universal, unifying national values. Conversely, a failure to multilaterally address urgent human rights challenges, such as climate change and food and water insecurity, will have grave implications for global, regional and national peace, security and development.

What then, could Australia do to most actively and effectively contribute to the agenda of making human rights a human reality in the 21st century?

As a first step, Australia should develop a comprehensive strategy on human rights and foreign policy. That strategy should mainstream human rights across all areas of Australian foreign affairs, including aid, development, trade, investment, migration, environment, business and security. It should contain concrete measures and commitments to promote and protect human rights in the region and internationally. Such a policy could enhance our international reputation as a human rights leader and build significant diplomatic capital.

Australia’s 2013-2014 UN Security Council candidacy could be a flagship for this policy. As a Security Council candidate, we should commit to taking a principled, persistent and consistent approach to human rights internationally and to ensuring that our domestic policies and practices are human rights compliant. We should use our Security Council candidacy to promote our national interest in international human rights, the rule of law and good governance.

Australia should similarly take a proactive and principled approach to the UN Human Rights Council, whether as an active observer state or member. We have an important role in ensuring the Council fulfils its mandate, and achieves its potential, as the leading multilateral forum for the discussion, promotion and enforcement of human rights.

Both through the Security Council and other international and regional bodies, including trade and financial institutions, we should push a fearless and forceful human rights agenda. This agenda should address existing human rights challenges – including poverty, financial instability and inequality – and pursue progressive initiatives, including operationalisation of the responsibility to protect, the abolition of the death penalty, the advancement of Indigenous peoples globally, and the regulation of business and human rights.

It is often observed that human rights begin at home. The fulfilment of human rights at home is inextricably linked with our national identity and our capacity and ability to promote human rights abroad. Domestic human rights protection must be recognised as a core aspect of any comprehensive and coherent foreign human rights policy.

In order for Australia to adopt not only a principled and consistent, but also effective, approach to human rights in international affairs — from the death penalty, to child labour, to people trafficking, to a regional solution on asylum-seekers — human rights must become core business in internal affairs. As US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton recently recognised, “By holding ourselves accountable, we reinforce our moral authority to demand that all governments adhere to obligations under international law.”

Australia’s status as the only Western democracy without a national human rights law undermines our authority and legitimacy on international human rights issues and in regional human rights dialogues. A national Human Rights Act — rejected by the Rudd/Gillard Government – could promote more responsive and accountable government, improve public services, and enshrine fundamental values such as freedom, dignity, respect and a fair go. Perhaps most importantly, however, a comprehensive national Human Rights Act could provide a framework for international, regional and domestic policy coordination and create a “virtuous circle” in which a constructive national identity is mobilised which places human rights at the centre of our internal and external affairs. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has played precisely this role, placing human rights at the centre of both Canada’s self-perception and external engagement.

Australia has what it takes to be a human rights promoter at home and abroad. For Australia to realise our potential, however, will require real political leadership and legislative and institutional reform, Most critically, it will require the mobilisation of a national identity that values human rights every bit as highly as beaches, barbecues, boomerangs, the Anzac spirit and the Ashes. That is the opportunity that this Federal Election presents and the responsibility that the next Australian Government confronts.

I think there is no doubt that hate crimes occur in Australia, and that it would be futile to deny that racism is a real problem in this nation.

However, there are a few issues around these events worthy of comment.

My impression, and it’s only that, is that the majority of these crimes appear to have occurred in Melbourne. I don’t think that’s because there’s a particularly high proportion of Indian students studying there. It may be higher, but there is certainly a large number in Brisbane. Is there something particular to Melbourne that may account for this?

Secondly, I wonder, above and beyond educational measures universities and others may have implemented to advise new students about safety, what can be done? The response to this, and previous incidents, seems to me to carry a demand in its wake that the government take action, but it’s not at all clear to me what action would be desirable or effective. I am sure, though, that the disavowal of racism, which cannot be unrelated to other issues in the Australian-Indian bilateral relationship, and concerns about the image Australia projects more broadly, is not helpful.

Elsewhere: Senator Sarah Hanson-Young at GreensBlog.

Update: New post.

Barack Obama’s victory represents a watershed in American history, but it will also have ramifications around the world. Before I head out to celebrate I thought I’d just bash out a few quick notes on some of the policy implications for Australia of this momentous turnaround in the state of US politics:

Climate change

Today’s election result heralds the rise of Green Keynesianism. The US economy is in the toilet and smart economists are advocating direct investment over a more consumer-based fiscal stimulus. Democrats in Congress got a head start last year with the Green Jobs Act, and elements of the President-elect’s energy and environment policies look a lot like a ‘Green New Deal’. This from Time Magazine:

He wants to launch an “Apollo project” to build a new alternative-energy economy. His rationale for doing so includes some hard truths about the current economic mess: “The engine of economic growth for the past 20 years is not going to be there for the next 20. That was consumer spending. Basically, we turbocharged this economy based on cheap credit.” But the days of easy credit are over, Obama said, “because there is too much deleveraging taking place, too much debt.” A new economic turbocharger is going to have to be found, and “there is no better potential driver that pervades all aspects of our economy than a new energy economy … That’s going to be my No. 1 priority when I get into office.”

Calls for a Green New Deal are also starting to gain traction in the UK – and the UN. This can only help the chances of Australia’s version of the Apollo alliance, which released the ‘Green Gold Rush’ report last week calling for investment in green-collar jobs growth.

The Obama campaign’s target for emissions cuts was 80% by 2050 – a fair way ahead of Oz Labor’s as-yet-unaltered election promise of 60% by 2050. With the Arctic ice-sheet melting rapidly even an 80% target is too low for a developed country like the US, but it should certainly give Professor Ross Garnaut reason to revise his pessimism about the likely outcome of the Copenhagen round of climate negotiations. It’s worth noting that the Obama campaign’s climate and energy platform specifically called for 100% auctioning of permits.

Afghanistan

I might leave the analysis of this point for one of our more foreign-policy inclined fellows. Suffice to say that Obama’s win means that US activity is likely to be ramped up in Afghanistan, and given that we’re still there, that will have implications for Australia.

Behavioural economics and ‘choice architecture’

Obama has quoted the ideas put forward by behavioural economists Thaler & Sunstein in Nudge, which looks at ways in which a more nuanced understanding of how humans behave in markets can enable policies which are more flexible than top-down regulation, yet better at addressing common market failures than a free-market approach. Sunstein and Thaler have both been consulted by the Obama campaign. This from the Guardian on Thaler and the Dems:

He “talks a lot” to Obama’s camp, especially the chief economics adviser, Austan Goolsbee. “We gave Goolsbee the book when it was still in proof. He read the whole thing and just lifted some parts.”

Of course, as this post argues, its important to remember that the policy tools informed by behavioural economics can be used towards either progressive or conservative ends.

Multilateralism might get inspiring again

The amazing Ben Brandzel sent an email around a few days before the election listing 43 policy proposals from the book of Obama that kept him motivated while working on the campaign in North Carolina. This was his favourite:

“Save millions of lives and win allies around the world by doubling foreign assistance to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015, and accelerate the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculoses and Malaria.”

I can imagine that some UN staff might feel a lot like John Robertson did after the election of the Rudd government – i.e. ‘at least this lot don’t want to kill us’. Regardless, the US’ newfound commitment to multilateral cooperation on serious global problems is about to make the lives of everyone working in international development a little more (there’s that word) hopeful. And that’s got to be a good thing.

Just as an aside, it will be interesting to follow the relationship between progressive think tanks & the new administration. Expect to see the traditional influx from conservative think tanks to Republican administrations mirrored on the Democrat side this time around. John Podesta has been put in charge of the transition phase, which means he’ll play a key role in building the new government. Former Whitehouse chief of staff under Clinton, John is the founder and CEO of DC-based think tank the Centre for American Progress. I met a bunch of very switched-on CAP people when I was in Washington earlier this year – they’re an absolute ideas-factory. Check out their policy platform for signs of things to come.

What does regime-change in the US mean for Australia, and the world? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments…

In what I think is quite a balanced article in the New Statesman, Misha Glenny looks at the influence of the reality-free thinking of the Dick Cheney faction on the lead up to the Georgian conflict, without minimising the autocratic and bellicose behaviour of the Putin regime. At Open Democracy, Donald Rayfield looks at the realistic options Georgia has, and some of the background to the war, while Neal Ascherson similarly examines how Georgia could progress beyond this war. Both write as avowed friends of Georgia, but both don’t think inflammatory rhetoric from Washington helps at all – they believe that it in fact hinders any positive outcome. This isn’t to adopt some deracinated Kissingerian realism, but rather to argue that the Manichean language of good and evil does anything but achieve the objectives it ostensibly sets out. As Ascherson powerfully demonstrates, there’s evil enough to go around on both sides of this conflict, with atrocities committed at least since the fall of the Soviet Union. A recognition of that – rather than positioning one side as a plucky sovereign democracy and the other as the incarnation of Satan – might actually provide a basis for realistic and peaceful progress.

Meanwhile, on the American campaign front, McCain is being praised by his supporters for his “muscular” response. Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings is worth reading on what McCain’s rhetoric says about his suitability for the Presidency. And on the application of the “Cold War frame” to the reporting of the conflict, see Ronda Jambe at Ambit Gambit.