Moving over to my Other Blog...

Hi There,

Since the internship is now over, I've been writing much more on my Asylum Seeker News blog. If you are interested in reading it, you can find it at http://asylumseekernews.blogspot.com - there is quite a bit of info on refugee law reform, current issues, bits and pieces about my visits to detention centres, and various other tidbits.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any other questions!

Cheers,

:) Jess

Home Again, Home Again...

Well after a breezy 24 hours (!) of international air travel, here I am back in Olde Melbourne Towne.

So nice to be able to meander down the road and have a decent cup of coffe. Quite seriously, I'm not surprised that the world is in such turmoil when the coffee at the UN cafeteria is THAT bad. Blerrghh!

I have decided fairly hastily and in a moment of temporary insanity to change my thesis topic. I'm going to write about the UN stuff (probably teasing out a lot of the questions / issues set out below), instead of Duty of Care in immigration detention. Which is a bit of a pity from one perspective, but I feel like I have a pressing duty to write about the UN! It's been occupying an amazing amount of my headspace recently, and from talking to some people I've confirmed my suspicions that there's been almost nothing written about it in Australia. So there we go. I've already spoken to my supervisor about it, and we've got approval from the Honours co-ordinator, so it's all systems go.

OK well I gotta dash.

Cheers

J

I have some concerns... :(

Well, it's now a couple of days on the other side of the Commission, so the dust has settled in my head, and I have some thoughts. Perhaps I should put them under subheadings! Hmm maybe I won't, I'll just see how they come out, and if they're completely garbled I'll try to reorganise. Stay with me.

First of all, before I came over here my perception was that it was primarily the United States pushing to 'undo' the Commission, and stall the creation of the Human Rights Council (HRC). I was fairly convinced that 'disengagement' would be the order of the day, particularly for the US.

Halfway through the internship I began to think maybe I'd been wrong. Even though they didn't support the Resolution in the General Assembly which created the HRC, neither did they block it, and in meetings after the Resolution was adopted, they made quite a few noises about wanting the HRC to be as strong as possible, and supporting it as much as they could. But I was chatting to the American Ambassador in the Plenary hall, when a journalist approached him for his views on the 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* sceptical". Now, this is not REALLY a surprise, but came as a bit of a reality check at this stage of the game. It was about 5 minutes after the closing of the Commission on Human Rights, and everyone in the room had just been discussing that we were all looking forward, into the future of the Council, stronger, brighter, better things ahead etc. But I sort of thought to myself, "hold on, what have we signed up for, here?!?". Everybody's been making positive noises about real reform in the council, but now that it's time 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 to-ing and fro-ing about the Voting Standards for the Council, i have my own serious concerns. The view of the US, and a number of other countries, has been that the REASON that the UN Commission on Human Rights was a bit of a joke was that there have been states sitting in the Commission who have been Human Rights violators. The US has been OUTSPOKEN in its intention 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 (asylum seekers, indigenous people) and the US (Guantanamo bay, Iraq etc..) have been heavily criticised as systematic violators of Human Rights. But of course, both of our countries are very keen for tenure on the Council. Hmmm. So that of course leads to the inevitable conclusion that somehow countries like ours are outside the jurisdictional striking range of the Commission, and then 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 HRC so that those who are under sanctions or other heavy criticism pertaining to Human Rights are automatically excluded. So what will happen is that from its high-horse, the HRC will make high-faluttin' moral judgements over other countries, and expect them to jump into line with what the UN requires.

But the natural reaction of sovereign states when that happens is to distance themselves from the body, and denounce its jurisdiction! Just look at Ruddock when Australia was under fire from the United Nations' Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in 2000. Australia was heavily criticised for its treatment of asylum seekers and indigenous people, and generally given a right old slamming over the state of race relations in the country. Ruddock cracked it, made an utter shambles of himself in front of the Committee, personally insulted a number of people on that Committee, and then denounced the entire UN Treaty system!!! That denunciation has been Australia's official policy in the United Nations until only a couple of weeks ago, and is NOT a good state of play for this country in the context of international Human Rights Law.

And Downer's response was, "We won't cop it any longer! We are a democratically elected government in one of the most liberal and democratic countries you will find on Earth. And if a United Nations committee wants to play domestic politics here in Australia, then it will end up with a bloody nose."

Let's see what Mr Howard had to say: "I mean in the end we are not told what to do by anybody. We make our own moral judgments ... I'm not going to cop this country's human rights name being tarnished in the context of any domestic political argument ... Traditionally these matters are the prerogative of states."

This is exactly the attitude that will lead to the total discreditation of the Council, before it has even begun. And Australia is not alone- recently the US was requested by the UN to close Guantanamo Bay and try its detainees fairly and transparently. The US politely declined and basically told the UN to jump in the jurisdictional lake. So everyone is happy to listen to the UN, so long as it's not criticising them. Hmm.

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

Why would ANY country who has been deliberately excluded from the HRC submit to its will? What reason could such a country possibly have to acknowledge the jurisdiction of a body which has openly, publicly pooh-poohed it? No reason whatsoever, I think. So I think perhaps the reform of the HRC 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 better 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. Maybe this sounds a bit pie-in-the-sky to think that everyone could play nicely together, but I am VERY convinced that a system of alienation and proclamations from on-high will achieve, well... approximately squat.

Into all of this, inject the fact that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist... There are countries which are openly critical of the records of Australia and the US, and although sometimes those criticisms are dragged out as a form of grandstanding and to deflect attention away from other issues, both of our countries have done some pretty whack stuff in our times. Things that we shouldn't be proud of. Things which have caused immense suffering, and contravention of Geneva Conventions of all shapes and sizes (I'm thinking particularly here of the recent example of Amanda Vanstone admitting that yes, locking up refugee children IS, I suppose, a form of systematic, state-executed child abuse, but that it is justified by the policy outcomes it purportendly achieves. Gah.). So who are we to be pointing fingers while accepting no real accountability ourselves? It's a bit scary.

This is a bit half-baked but I'm late, and have to go. Please leave comments!

If you want to read more about the fun and games of Australia before the Treaty bodies, click here: http://www.safecom.org.au/geneva.htm Also, i know i've recommended Spencer Zifcak's book 'Mr Ruddock Goes to Geneva' 50 times already, but consider this number 51.

Funeral for a Noble Ol' Dame...

well - it happened! it's all over. i'm sure we'll all post some thoughts up here over the coming days, but for now here's an article from reuters.com

enjoy!

jt


UN gives rights body dignified burial
Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:33 AM ET
By Richard Waddington
GENEVA (Reuters) - Much criticized in later life, the 60-year-old U.N. Human Rights Commission received a dignified funeral on Monday to make way for a protector of the persecuted that it is hoped will be more dynamic.
The Commission, which gave birth to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948, will be replaced in June by the United Nations Human Rights Council, which advocates say should have more authority to speak out on rights abuses.
Its 53 member states held a brief final session after the U.N. General Assembly voted earlier this month to create the new forum.
"It is my honor to declare closed the 62nd session of the Commission on Human Rights," said Peru's ambassador Manuel Rodriguez Cuadros, the current chairman.
For critics, including U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Human Rights High Commissioner Louise Arbour, the commission was hobbled because states whose rights records were questionable got themselves elected to it to shield themselves.
But in bidding farewell, Arbour had some warm words for a body that emerged after the destruction and mass killings of World War Two as part of international efforts to ensure such carnage was never repeated.
"It would ... be a distortion of fact, and a gross disservice to this institution, if we failed on this occasion to celebrate the achievements of the commission," she said in her address to its valedictory meeting.
Amongst its successes, Arbour listed the universal declaration and two later covenants -- on civil and political rights and on economic, social and cultural rights -- against which all states are judged.
"These were, and are, ground-breaking human rights instruments, maybe the most famous contribution ever made by the U.N. to the wellbeing of the whole of mankind," said the former Canadian Supreme Court judge and U.N. war crimes prosecutor.
POISONOUS DEBATE
The commission had also set international standards on the rights of women and of children, as well as of human rights defenders, and shaped covenants outlawing genocide, racial discrimination and torture.
Although it became the subject of "intense, even poisonous" debate, the commission had also done much to help victims of abuse in individual countries, Arbour said.
She highlighted its stance on the apartheid regime in South Africa, Chile under military rule, East Timor, Kosovo, Rwanda and territory Israel occupies where Palestinians want a state.
She also pointed to the fact that ordinary people were able to bring individual cases before the commission.
"These, then, are the achievements that we should today take note of and, tomorrow, build on," Arbour said.

But in recent years, human rights activists say the commission lost credibility in large part because of the membership of such countries as Sudan, Cuba and Zimbabwe.
China and Russia regularly avoided investigation of their treatment of political and religious minorities, while the commission never launched a probe into the U.S. prison camp for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which has been widely condemned by rights groups.
States will need to win the backing of 50 percent of the general assembly to gain a seat on the council, which will hold its first session on June 19.
But the council's birth has also been marred by controversy.
The United States opposed it because it wanted tougher entry qualifications, although it has said it will work with it. Washington also objected to the fact that countries will only be able to serve for two consecutive terms.

We finally know what's going on...

Well, here you will see a picture of two happy little campers (in suits, no less) sitting inside one of the meeting rooms in the Palais des Nations.

Sorry that they look a bit, er, mustard coloured. I took this pic with my phone, which doesn't really pretend to to be a camera.

Anyway it's sunday night, March 26th. This weekend, the three of us all went our separate ways to entertain ourselves. I went to Rome with my mum, Aedan went to Belfast to drink Guinness, and Stuart went to Freibourg (sp?) to eat wurst and wear liederhosen. But tomorrow morning Stuart will have to take OFF his liederhosen (or just wear them UNDER his suit), because we have a **BIG** day ahead of us.

First thing in the morning, we have a Western Group meeting. Then in the afternoon, we have the 62nd AND FINAL UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS! And it's going to last 3 hours! Yes, that's right, the thing we all came here for, thinking it was going to last 6 weeks... well, it's happening between 3 and 6 pm tomorrow. An historic day for Human Rights. All of the 5 regional groups are going to make a statement, along with 1 joint statement from the NGOs, and a statement by a few other important figures. It's going to be a fantastic thing to witness.

Anyway, off to bed. Night!

J x

Today = Blah Day

Well, this is probably going to be a preeeeeetty short post! Today - as predicted - the Commission was delayed for another week. And we were told that our internship is over as of next Friday at the very latest. So we're all, like, maaajorly bummed, man (as Keanu Reeves might say).

Hmmm.

We're all trying to figure out what to do. I will go home early, in time for the wedding of two very close friends. But I'm trying to figure out whether to go somewhere else first or just give up and go home in a dejected manner! I think it will probably be the latter, although I do have rather an interesting proposal from a friend to tour the Czech countryside patting goats and drinking good beer. Tempting. But alas, the realities of Melbourne await! Thesis, work, my dog misses me and I didn't get around to tidying my room before I left. So home - I believe - I shall go. It's kinda sad.

Anyway that'll do with my moping for now. Ha - if you think I'm bad, you should see the other two...! :)

See you later!

J x

End of our first week

Well I'm typing this on the wireless network in the Serpent Cafe in the Palais des Nations. We've just come out of our Western Group meeting where the President said that the current situation is: a minimum session of 2 days, a MAXIMUM session of THREE DAYS! Ha! Crazy. I had a chat to the Swiss representative this afternoon, and asked him to explain further his country's position on various aspects of the debate. I think he has a lot of good points, but I guess they could be seen as putting rather a lot of credence in the immediate efficacity of the jurisdiction of the UN on matters relating to Human Rights, so I guess he's not really being listened to all that much by some other countries. It's a shame. Ha that was all very opaque. Sorry. I just don't know if I'm allowed to say anything more!

It's the weekend tomorrow and I have no idea what I'm going to do! Hopefully will find something!

Jess x