Australia Leads U.S In Ratification 'Race': Six Toothless Tigers To Three
The most recent, glaring example of the sheep-shepherd relationship between Australia and the United States (respectively) was Australia’s entry into the Iraq War on the coattails of the Bush administration. The reasons for such vary according to which authority you approach, however there is at least one area in which Australia has undertaken a leadership role; the ratification of human rights treaties. This is especially true in regards to the seven core human rights treaties which are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant for Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the Convention Against Torture (CAT), the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.
To date, the United States government has ratified merely three of the aforementioned treaties inclusive of the ICCPR, the CERD and the CAT, while Australia has ratified six: the ICCPR, ICESCR, CAT, CEDAW, CRC, and CERD. However, and quite ironically, the Australian government has not taken action regarding the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families even though half of all Australians now record at least one parent having been born overseas; while the feeble effort by the United States government is underscored by the painful path that was taken to ratification for the three which have been ratified. The lag between signing the ICCPR, CERD, and CAT and ratifying these was fifteen years, twenty eight years and six years respectively (apparently the U.S government isn’t as feisty in assigning more rights as in diluting them).
Any jubilation at Aussie superiority in this regard is short lived, and in true tall poppy syndrome spirit, here’s why: the ratification of these significant treaties has not facilitated a seamless implementation into binding legal instruments, which, aside from making Australia look active, makes treaties about as useful as an ashtray on a speeding motorbike. This is also the case for lesser known treaties which have been ratified. On such, Dr. Michael Head, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Western Sydney notes, “while Australia has a generally good record of ratifying human rights treaties, its record in implementing them in binding domestic legislation is not good, and some treaties, particularly the 1951 Refugee Convention, have been partially overridden by legislation and breached by executive practices, such as indefinite detention of rejected asylum seekers and removal of refugees to remote locations in the Pacific and Indian oceans”. Where Australia is often lauded for it’s efforts in treaty ratification, the implementation of these treaties so that redress may be sought for abuses of rights is a different, darker story altogether.
An example of such a shameful occurrence was when in 1999 the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination strongly criticized Australia for the advancements made in native title and multiculturalism (‘advancements’ used very loosely here), and Australia became the first western government to be targeted by UNCERD’s ‘early warning procedures’ because of concerns raised by the commission that the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 was incompatible with Australia’s international treaty obligations. Episodes such as these fuel the argument that “government’s stated commitment to openness is much less powerful than the practical, and limiting, effects of its actions regarding the international human rights regime”. In reality ratification is simply a step in the right direction; the foundation for binding enforcement, which is key for true compliance with these paramount treaties.
To be fair, in regards to these issues for the most part, the United States has yet to figure out which direction they’re facing and how they got to where they’re standing in the first place. The United States is certainly not without examples of violations of basic human rights (*cough* Guantanamo *cough*) to individuals and the atrocities that have occurred should have thus far provided a stimulus if not a giant kick in the proverbial to, at the very least, ratify basic human rights treaties and practice what the United States preaches so often on the international stage. Once the treaties are ratified, perhaps then some effort may be placed into enacting those treaties into binding legislation. Nevertheless the rate at which the United States government is currently travelling may be described as slow, stalled or in reverse depending on how well informed you are.
Perhaps obvious inadequacies of human rights treaties wouldn’t be so obvious if both the United States’ and the Australian governments weren’t so swift in criticizing foreign governments for inaction at human rights abuses in their countries. While being vocal in that regard should be applauded, the hypocrisy in leaving your own residents without enforceable protection of their human rights is a joke far less funny than the Bush shoe throwing incident, and a lot less pleasing to watch.
Nonetheless, both governments have opportunities now, with two new administrations in government, to improve their performance in regards to human rights.
The Obama administration, which takes over from the Bush administration in January 2009, has already prioritized four treaties: the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and one of the core treaties, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Hopefully the glaring omissions of the ICESCR and the CRC will be rectified but nonetheless, these small victories are welcomed as the Bush administration, said by some to be the administration which has violated more human rights than any other in United States history, exits.
The Rudd government is similar in that in 2007 it succeeded the Howard government which, alike the Bush administration (naturally), gave low priority to human rights issues, with the exception of the support for the development of the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. The Rudd government has since endorsed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (which the Howard government voted against last year, because obviously the abolition of ATSIC didn’t devalue Australia’s indigenous peoples enough) and made a commitment to ratify the Optional Protocol on the Convention Against Torture. The way forward for Australia lies in ratifying the last of the seven core treaties; the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, and then ensuring those ratified treaties become solidified in binding law.
Whatever shameful instances lie in the pasts of the United States and Australia, the forecast appears sunny for the new administrations to restore priority to implementation of human rights treaties in our respective nations. As the quote by George Bush goes, “One has a stronger hand when there's more people playing your same cards" (I just thought I’d include that as a token of my appreciation for being an Aussie, although K-Rudd isn’t nearly as entertaining). Actually, another of Bush’s ‘thoughts’ wraps up my piece on the soapbox quite nicely; “I tell people, let's don't fear the future, let's shape it."
—Fabi Fugazza
(Photo: Pascal Vuylsteker)
Dear Fabi, I want to thank you for very clear and honest, not to mention enlighting, article on Civil Rights. I am Australian and, until now, completely uninformed on the reality about the seven core of treaties. I thought I lived in a Country that is actually observing, defending, implementing such "rights". However, after reading your article I realized that the only one I often hear about is that about the Indigenous People and, not to make a mistake about it, only or more often around election time. It would be a terrible shame if nobody (the Media) brings these issues to our attention as well as the interest rates, the family bonus, the pension, etc because these issues buy votes. It is refreshing, though, what you think about the two new leaders Obama and Rudd. I am confident too that they will have the decency to do the work the other two: Bush and Howard did not bother to accomplish. Good on you, Fabi. I hope many more people get the chance to read the truth.
Posted by: Sandra Campioto | January 03, 2009 at 04:56 AM
Yes, i agree with the point made about the lack of implementation occurring in the states and Aus.In regards to Dr Head's comments, it seems it is more about the implementation rather than ratification. The ratified international law has no use if it is not being implemented, so to me it seems that such ratification is for political and diplomatic reasons rather than actually working towards ensuring that the terms of the treaty are upheld. International law has the potential to be enormously effective, but for this to be the case the United States, as the world's leader, should be active in such implementation.
Posted by: I. Beqaj | January 03, 2009 at 04:56 AM