‘States should not concern themselves with , only with their own security and the preservation of peace.’ In concerning themselves with security and the preservation of peace, states must concern themselves with issues such as human rights. The preservation of peace is an extremely important issue, particularly in these times of uncertain international security and must be addressed by states in a manner that keeps human rights issues in mind. The Tampa episode of 2001 is a prime example of the decisions that must be made when the issues of human rights and national security come together. If a nation must decide between its stance on human rights and its security, which will prevail? With regards to Australia and the human rights records of some of our neighbours, we must take into account the so-called, ‘Asian Culture’ and the view in some parts of South and East Asia; community good is valued over the good of the individual.
Also, when addressing human rights issues, states must be wary of their own records on human rights abuses before making assertions against other nations. Which countries in the world today can claim to have a perfectly clean record in terms of human rights? A nation must not be allowed to decide whether human rights should be observed or not. Issues such as international security and the preservation of peace, especially in these times of terrorist activity and the threat of war, are concerns that must be addressed while keeping in mind the international affairs that will shape the future. Through the process of ensuring national security and endeavouring to preserve peace throughout the world, it is inevitable that human rights issues be addressed in the process. In looking at the concept of peace, one must consider the issues of power relations and the effects these can have on a nation, to force a nation in a dire economic situation, for example, to act against its will in order to secure aid. The concept of peace, in the current political climate, requires the world’s superpower, the USA, in association with the high level middle-powers, such as Great Britain and perhaps China, to utilize diplomatic skills in order to act on current issues.
Bearing this in mind, a nation must observe and form opinions on the actions of its fellow states so as to be able to keep an informed view of world events. If those key nations do not take an interest in the happenings in other states, the potential for an unexpected event increases exponentially. In this manner, subjects such as human rights must be raised on a global stage, both within and without the United Nations, an organisation in dire need of re-defined role if it is to remain an influence into the 21 st Century. To uncover past and prevent future abuses but also to enable the key political and military powers to sit down and discuss the possibility of world peace is a process that will not happen until cooperation is achieved, through understanding and acceptance of cultural and political differences, including each other’s stance on issues like human rights. The USA would argue, however, that an alternate route to a peaceful world is through the removal of opponents to the ‘Western’ ideal, a concept which remains a real possibility, especially following the quick success the so-called, “coalition of the willing” encountered in the War on Iraq.
The Tampa episode was an event that brought about a conflict of interests in the Australian government with regards to the conflict of interests between the Howard government’s stance on human rights, namely, the policy that states, “The Australian Government’s policies on human rights are based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent international human rights instruments that enshrine the principles of universality and indivisibility of human rights. Australian policy, therefore, does not presume to hold other nations to standards that we do not apply to ourselves. Fourthly, the Government believes that attention and consideration should be given to the promotion, protection and implementation of all human rights, whether they be civil, political, economic, social or cultural.” (Hon. Alexander Downer, MP, 30 July 2002) The dilemma facing the government was the decision whether the above policy on human rights should prevail over the immigration policy and the government’s stance on ‘Boat People’. Australia could not legitimately claim to be a sympathetic nation with regards to those suffering from human rights abuses while turning away a boat full of people claiming to be persecuted in their home countries of Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Pakistan, and being of ill health.
Ultimately, the Howard government used military force to seize the ship, justifying this strategy by claiming they must, “draw a line on what is increasingly becoming an uncontrollable number of illegal arrivals.” (John Howard, 5 September 2001). The decision about what to do with the passengers aboard the Tampa was an international crisis until, on August 31, 2001, New Zealand offered to accept 150 of the 434 refugees and the tiny pacific nation of Nauru accepted the remainder in return for Australian financial aid. The Tampa episode was a demonstration of the fact that the Australian government is determined not to be seen as an easy entry nation and will turn away those in need in order to maintain that image. The strategy applied to the Tampa episode showed that Australia is a nation strongly concerned with “Border Protection Policy.” The incident put an image across to Australian voters that, while claiming to be strongly against the abuses of human rights in our neighbouring nations, Australia is concerned primarily with domestic issues. It is easy to look at the Tampa episode and heap blame on to Australia for the mistreatment of those 434 refugees denied entry to this country for reasons seemingly inhumane. The fact remains, however, that Australia, in refusing those refugees, was adhering to the current policy on illegal immigrants.
Not one boat of refugees has entered Australian waters since the Tampa crisis. Thus Howard is following through on his policy remarkably well. The brutal stance taken by the Howard government demonstrated the fact that Howard will adhere to his policy, a position which was to help him gain a third term in power. In handling the Tampa crisis, the Howard government neglected the clause in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with conscience and reason and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1, 1948), and also that, “no one shall be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5, 1948). An editorial in England’s, The Independent newspaper put it well when optimistically musing that, “The least we can hope of democratically elected political leaders is that they should behave with a glimmering of humanity.” (The Independent, 30 August 2001).
The handling of the Tampa Crisis demonstrated the Howard government’s unwillingness to act in a manner that would go against policy, dealing with the backlash by manipulating the media to project a false image to the Australian public, hence removing any sympathy the nation might have had for the refugees. This manipulation of public opinion led to a Senate inquiry that found .”.. former defence Minister Peter Reith had seriously misled the public during the election campaign.” (Sydney Morning Herald, 31 October 2001). If one considers the Liberal government to have a policy of a deliberately tough stance with regards to refugees (mandatory detention, etc. ) then once again it is doing well on its own terms. The Tampa incident was not necessarily badly handled foreign policy; it was a privileging of domestic politics over international politics, which won Howard an election at the cost of regional standing.
The Tampa episode demonstrated to the world that Australia, specifically the Liberal government of the day, has the capability to act in a manner that will result in a strengthened position, if not in global politics, then at least domestically. Australia concerned itself with domestic affairs, placing human rights in a secondary light. This strategy employed may ultimately strengthen Australia’s position in world affairs through an increasing recognition of the government’s dexterity in coping with a crisis of Tampa’s magnitude. In arguing for the preservation, or indeed the sheer presence, of human rights, particularly in the South East Asian region, Australian officials must take into account the so-called ‘Asian Culture’. This is a concept developed by Asian leaders such as Malaysia’s Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir that refers to, primarily, and for the purposes of this argument, the differing views between Asia and ‘the West’ with regards to human rights.
In ‘Asian Culture’, the community is seen as paramount, starting from the family and branching up to national interests and is far more important than the individual. In other words, human rights are a secondary issue. Dr. Mahathir, along with other advocates of ‘Asian culture’, argues that Australia cannot successfully engage with Asia, and as such has no business in advocating and attempting to protect human rights in the region because of its majority ‘Western’ culture. While the argument of an ‘Asian Culture’ is valid to an extent, the claim comes apart when one considers the sheer size and diversity of cultures that make up the continent of Asia. The South East Asian region alone is a melting pot of all sorts of cultures and religions, ranging from Islamic Indonesia and Malaysia to mainly Catholic Philippines.
It is safe to say that the claim of an ‘Asian Culture’ presiding over the running of Asian nations is not as pertinent as some claim. Bearing this in mind, one must ponder whether Australia has the right to involve itself in the issue of Asian human rights, not because of the so-called ‘Asian Culture’ but does Australia itself have such a clean bill of health when considering our own human rights record? From the arrival of the first settlers in 1788, Australia’s record on human rights has been dubious to say the least. From Governor Philip’s ‘Conciliation of the Natives’s chem e, in essence a kidnapping plot, through to the ‘Stolen Generation’, Australian history is riven with abuses of human rights. While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has only been in existence since 1948, prior to this, it is easy to determine that human rights were abused throughout time, not least in Australia. The point of illustrating the past record of Australian governments’ on human rights is that in discussing whether states should address the problems in human rights in other nations, whether as a primary or secondary focus, one must consider the fact that it is not easy to find a nation in the world today that has not, at some stage in its history, had a poor record in terms of human rights abuses.
Take into account the Americans’ treatment of the prisoners at Camp X-Ray in Cuba; those prisoners have been subjected to sensory deprivation, a form of torture, since their capture, the ongoing controversy over the deprivation of human rights in China, the tyrannical regime that ruled in Iraq for over 30 years through a system of violence and fear. In Australia, our indigenous people were not considered citizens until 1968 and have still not been sufficiently reconciled in terms of past atrocities such as the ‘Stolen Generation’s can dal. In effect, it can be argued that no nation has the right to condemn a nations human rights record, because no nation has a perfect record itself. A nation must endeavour to find a balance when approaching domestic and international affairs, a balance that secures the nations future while dealing with international concerns.
Human rights issues must be observed, along with other international issues, if a nation is to secure itself and the world is to continue to strive for peace. “The promotion and protection of human rights is important to Australia’s national interest because it underpins the country’s broader security and economic interests.” (Hon. Alexander Downer, MP, 30 July 2002). An isolationist policy is no longer viable, due to the fact that it represents ignorance and an unwillingness to work towards a more peaceful future. Should a nation refuse to acknowledge the events of the world, it risks having its security restricted by another nation. In dealing with the Tampa episode, Prime Minister Howard took decisive action to secure domestic interests but in doing so created a crisis out of nothing.
This eventuated in the strengthening of his political base but did little to show that Australians have the ability to, ” Act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1, 1948). In the Tampa episode, human rights became a secondary factor in order to secure the nation’s border. A state should address issues as they come to light, not create them for political gain, as the Howard government did in August 2001. The pertinent issues of the day must be attended to with a view to maintaining, or bettering, the living standards of the state. “Human rights are important in the conduct of Australian foreign policy because the treatment of individuals is a matter of concern to Australia.” (Hon. Alexander Downer, MP, 30 July 2002).
Bibliography 1. Lindsay Murdoch and Andrew Clennel, Politics behind Tampa Crisis, Says Indonesia, Sydney Morning Herald, 6 September 2001, Fairfax 2. European Parliament Condemns Handling of Tampa Crisis, web 7 September 2001 3. Daniel Pipes, Crisis of Illegal Immigration, Jerusalem Post, 5 September 2001 4. James Cotton and John Raven hill, The National Interest in a Global Era: Australia in World Affairs 1996-2000, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 2001 5. Geoff Spencer, Troops Board Refugee Ship off Australia, Boston Globe, 29 August 2001 6.
Editorial, Freight of Misery, Financial Times, 29 August 2001 7. Editorial, Shameful Response to the Plight of Refugees-And Not Just by Australia, The Independent, 30 August 2001 8. Mark Steel, How Could Anybody Call This Lot ‘Genuine’ Refugees? , The Independent, 30 August 2001 9. Editorial, G’Way Mate, Los Angeles Times, 7 September 2001 10.
Editorial, Election Ahoy, The Economist, 6 September 2001.