Assessing the impact of the Human Rights Council through an Australian lens

CANBERRA — Australia began its three-year term on the U.N. Human Rights Council in January 2018 — the first country from the Pacific region to serve as a non-permanent member. Australia’s tenure on the panel has come at a time when geopolitics and protectionism are seeing dramatic upheavals in the HRC — including the withdrawal of the U.S. in June last year citing bias against Israel. But how has Australia performed in the face of these challenges? The assessment of Australia’s role and its impact vary from “strong” to “tepid” for its ability to magnify its middle-power status on a broader stage. “As with the efforts with the U.N. Security Council, more seems to be put in the advertising and campaign stage than the governing stage,” Dr. Binoy Kampmark, a senior lecturer at the School of Global, Urban, and Social Studies at RMIT University, told Devex. “Ambitions tend to run foul of political realities once Australia finds itself on the panel.” In its bid for a seat on the HRC, then Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Minister for International Development and the Pacific Concetta Fierravanti-Wells led the chorus promoting Australia’s human rights — and a special envoy was appointed to engage with countries making the decision. The final decision to appoint Australia to one of two seats available was made easy with France withdrawing from the process, effectively giving the open seats to the countries that had raised their hands — Spain and Australia. When Australia’s election to the HRC was confirmed in October 2017, Bishop highlighted the five fundamental principles guiding Australia’s advocacy: gender equality; freedom of expression; good governance and robust democratic institutions; human rights for indigenous peoples; and strong national human rights institutions. These principles were reiterated by new Foreign Minister Marise Payne in a speech delivered to the 40th session of the HRC in February. What has Australia done on the HRC? How Australia responds to and votes on resolutions is an important indicator of its impact on the HRC. Data collated by Geneva-based Universal Rights Group on votes by HRC members shows that of the 178 resolutions that have been put in front of Australia as part of six sessions and one special session, it has voted in favor of 31, against 29, and abstained from three with the remaining 115 resolutions agreed to by consensus. On six of these resolutions, Australia has acted as a sponsor on issues including equal pay, good governance, national institutions, slavery, and human rights in Eritrea. During Australia’s time on the HRC, new budgets worth $64.2 million have been allocated to delivering on resolutions, including $14.5 million supporting the human rights of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities in Myanmar. In determining how to vote on resolutions, both geopolitics and a pack mentality have been a factor. Resolutions sponsored by Cuba, Venezuela, and Pakistan have commonly been voted against, with Australia more likely to favor resolutions with a larger group of sponsors — particularly those by sponsors originating in Europe. It was the recent 42nd session of the HRC, convened in Geneva from Sept. 9 to 27, that has seen Australia take a leadership role. It showed this leadership with an address by Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt, as well as strong statements on human rights concerns — including a slow humanitarian response in Yemen, shrinking space for civil society in South Sudan, and the need to achieve accountability for crimes committed in Syria. Explanations of decisions, including a resolution marking the 25th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, have also demonstrated the focus on gender as part of its decision making. Australia also led a joint statement on human rights in Saudi Arabia, released on Sept. 23, addressing concerns about civil rights in the country. “We welcome recent reforms in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, including the announcement in August that restrictions on the rights of women to travel will be lifted and that they can be the legal guardian of children ... However, we remain deeply concerned at the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia.” Australia’s statement addressed the concern of “persecution and intimidation” faced by civil society in Saudi Arabia and “reports of torture, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, unfair trials, and harassment of individuals engaged in promoting and defending human rights, their families and colleagues” — as well as the murder of Jamal Khashoggi at Saudi Arabia’s Istanbul Consulate in October 2018. While this is Australia’s first time on the HRC, it is bringing its experience from its 2013-14 term as a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council to help with the politics of the U.N. Richard Gowan, U.N. liaison for International Crisis Group, said Australia’s tenure on the Security Council had seen it carve out niche diplomatic goals on its chosen humanitarian causes and played well at the tactics required to engage with permanent members. And while it didn’t change the world, it brought “extra rigour and professionalism to the debates in New York ... always nudging the big players in the direction of a better approach.” Pressure on middle power countries to act In June, Human Rights Watch delivered a letter to Payne criticizing Australia’s performance on the HRC, citing the need to strengthen Australia’s voice, impose targeted sanctions on human rights abusers, and address shortcomings in the country’s human rights record at home. Since then, the Australian director of Human Rights Watch, Elaine Pearson, told Devex she has seen a significant improvement. “Australia’s performance so far on the Human Rights Council is solid,” she said. “They have more recently shown leadership on a couple of country situations such as Eritrea and Saudi Arabia that otherwise may have evaded Council scrutiny. They generally vote in favor of resolutions to hold abusive countries to account, though at times they’ve joined those efforts quite late.” The statement on human rights in Saudi Arabia in particular has received a positive response at home. Edwina MacDonald, legal director at the Human Rights Law Centre, said in a statement that public condemnation from Australia and other countries will increase the pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop persecuting the rights of activists. “If you have a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, then you have an obligation to use it to take leadership on human rights emergencies,” MacDonald said. “This is [a] strong statement and the Australian Government has done well to lead on it.” Australia’s increased presence, Pearson believes, has been the result of the US leaving the HRC, which has required other middle-power countries to step up. “We’ve seen countries like Iceland, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, in addition to the European Union, as a bloc stepping up on human rights concerns,” she said. “The absence of the U.S. has created more pressure on middle-power countries to act and find their voice. They can’t just sit back and let other countries do the heavy lifting to make resolutions happen.” While Pearson said she believed Australia has largely met expectations, she still saw challenges in its term so far. “It was an odd decision to appoint a human rights ambassador only in the lead up to getting the seat for the Human Rights Council, but to let that appointment lapse once the seat was secured ... It could have been very useful to have a high-profile individual advocating on human rights issues throughout the membership term.” A procedural line on human rights While Australia has made a recent impression, there are others who still see Australia as maintaining the status quo of human rights globally — including Kampmark, who considers Australia’s contribution “rather tepid” in light of the effort put into getting on the HRC. “While much was expended in resources and effort to gain a seat, the walking is proving more reluctant than the talking,” Kampmark told Devex. “Human rights groups have rightly pointed out that Australia is taking a procedural line on this — voting correctly, but refusing to take leadership on key human rights issues.” Statements made by Australia on the HRC, Kampmark said, tended to be “safe” including one made on Sept. 13, 2018, condemning genocide. “Few would disagree with the sentiment, or with the general urging to identify mechanisms to ‘ensure action to prevent human rights violations and abuses and mass atrocity,’” he said. “The devil, however, is in the detail, and not much detail has been forthcoming.” Continuing problems within Australia related to juvenile detention, offshore processing, and its approach to climate change action, Kampmark said, has further impacted the country’s performance. And from a human rights perspective, he said there have been missed opportunities. “There have been no concrete policy positions articulated, no stance on, for instance, what possible remedies that might be used against human rights abusers.” But Kampmark also said that another perspective could be that the Australian approach is one of quiet resistance and back-channel pressure. What Australia’s role says about the broader impact of the HRC Australia’s tenure on the HRC has seen the impact of increased protectionism with criticism of the politics of the U.N. — most evident in the U.S. withdrawal. Unbiased decision making is becoming increasingly challenging. “All human rights bodies cannot avoid the political dimension that shapes them,” Kampmark said. “Like other bodies, the Human Rights Council will always have sympathies and focal points more pronounced than others.” Both Kampmark and Pearson consider the HRC “deeply flawed” because of the challenges posed by the difference between what members say and do, as well as its makeup. China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Somalia are among the member countries that Human Rights Watch is actively monitoring for human rights abuses — as well as Australia. Their ability to sit as members, Pearson said, is because of a lack of competitive elections for some regional seats, and “certain powerful countries” being allowed to sit on the HRC and evade scrutiny. “But at the end of the day, the Human Rights Council is what we have and it has played an important role in holding abusive countries to account — and establishing investigative mechanisms and fact finding reports to provide a record of atrocities, as a first step to holding abusers to account.”