|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Year Book of International Law |
Compiled and Edited by
Tim Bolotnikoff
Legal Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Supervised by
Peter Scott
Legal Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
On 27 June 2000, Mr David Stuart, Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the United Nations Security Council concerning the situation in East Timor. Extract of that statement follows:
A successful transition to independence in East Timor will require careful and effective planning. We attach great importance to the development of a considered exit strategy for UNTAET [United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor]. Among other elements, this strategy should lay down a set of realistic benchmarks which reflect the basic conditions required for East Timor to function effectively as an independent state. We consider that an exit strategy incorporating benchmarks should be a mutually reinforcing aspect of continuing efforts to expand East Timorese involvement in the transition process. We consider that such a strategy should not be so detailed as to set the bar unrealistically high for what can be achieved, but yet specific enough to provide some focus for the path to independence and an adequate basis for measuring the progress and effectiveness of ongoing reconstruction efforts.
On 30 November 2000, in the Senate, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Robert Hill, answered a question without notice from Senator Vicki Bourne concerning self-determination for Irian Jaya (Senate, Debates, 30 November 2000, p 20273). Extract of the answer follows:
… the matter of violence in Irian Jaya was taken up at the recent Pacific Forum, the communique of which expressed deep concerns about recent violence and loss of life in the Indonesian province of Irian Jaya and called on the Indonesian Government, the sovereign authority, and secessionist groups to resolve their differences peacefully through dialogue and consultation. That remains the position of the Australian Government. We continue to urge restraint by all parties, especially during the December anniversary. We would wish to see the civil and legal rights of all Irianese upheld. I do not know of any specific representation that has been made in the last few days.
On 29 June 2000, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, answered a question on notice from Mr Colin Hollis concerning self-determination for Western Sahara (House of Representatives, Debates, 29 June 2000, p 18802). Extract of the answer follows:
The UN-sponsored referendum on self-determination for Western Sahara, which was to have been held in July 2000, has been delayed. The United Nations Secretary-General stated in his Report on the Situation Concerning the Western Sahara of 6 December 1999 that the problems posed seem to allow little possibility of holding the referendum before 2002 or even beyond. The conduct of the referendum, to indicate the wishes of the population of Western Sahara on the question of independence or incorporation into the Kingdom of Morocco, is the responsibility of the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). On 24 February 2000, the United Nations Security Council extended MINURSO's mandate for a period of three months, until 30 May, to allow the Secretary-General's special envoy to review existing impediments and identify solutions to achieving an early, durable resolution of the long-running dispute. MINURSO's inability to resolve a range of outstanding issues (comprising agreement on the voter appeals process, protocols for repatriation of Saharan refugees, and security conditions required for voting) has stalled the referendum to date.
On 29 June 2000, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, answered a question on notice from Mr Colin Hollis concerning Western Sahara (House of Representatives, Debates, 29 June 2000, p 18802). Extract of the answer concerning recognition follows:
Australian Ministers do not usually receive, formally or informally, representatives of either the Polisario Front, a West Saharan liberation movement, or members of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, as Australia does not recognise either as the legitimate government of the Western Sahara. Australia considers the Polisario Front to be representative of an important body of West Saharan opinion, but does not regard it as the sole representative of the West Saharan people. Australian Parliamentarians and officials may meet Polisario representatives informally.
On 10 February 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, and the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Nick Minchin, issued a joint press release concerning the Timor Gap Agreement with the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (FA 10). Text of the press release follows:
We are pleased to announce that the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) has become Australia's partner in the Timor Gap Treaty and that the terms of the treaty will continue to apply. The Timor Gap Treaty covers development of petroleum resources in the seabed between Australia and East Timor. In Dili today, diplomatic notes were exchanged by the UN Transitional Administrator and Australia's Representative in East Timor to give effect to the new agreement on the Treaty which will apply in the transitional period until East Timorese independence. The agreement was negotiated in close consultation with East Timorese representatives. A Memorandum of Understanding was also signed on practical arrangements for the transitional period. These arrangements will ensure a smooth transition for the Treaty, and provide the political confidence necessary for significant investments presently under consideration in the Timor Gap Zone of Cooperation. In talks in Jakarta last week, Indonesian representatives agreed that following the separation of East Timor from Indonesia, the area covered by the Treaty was now outside Indonesia's jurisdiction and that the Treaty ceased to be in force as between Australia and Indonesia when Indonesian authority over East Timor transferred to the United Nations. We wish to place on record the Australian Government's appreciation of Indonesia's constructive approach to these talks. We look forward to Australia's close collaboration with the United Nations acting on behalf of East Timor during the transitional period. The United Nations is confident that the arrangements now entered into will continue to provide a sound basis for Timor Gap operations, to the mutual benefit of East Timor and Australia.
On 15 August 2000, an Exchange of Notes, done at Canberra on 4 August 2000, constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America to further amend and extend the Agreement concerning Space Vehicle Tracking and Communication Facilities of 29 May 1980 as amended, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts of the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:
Australia’s cooperation with the US on space-related activities began in 1957 with the establishment of facilities at Woomera in South Australia, to radio track US satellites. This was broadened to include additional scientific facilities set up by the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in 1960. Since then, the space vehicle tracking and communication relationship between Australia and the US has been the subject of a succession of treaties between the two countries. The treaty action under consideration further amends and extends the latest Agreement, the 1980 Program Agreement, which provides for the establishment, operation and maintenance of NASA facilities in Australia.…
The 2000 Amendment provides for the continuation of the Program Agreement until 26 February 2010, confirming Australia’s long-standing relationship with NASA and providing for continuing cooperation in space vehicle tracking and communication support. NASA has spent in excess of $A470 million on space-related activities in Australia since 1960. Cooperation with NASA has also facilitated the transfer of technical and scientific knowledge and skills between Australia and the US.
The 2000 Amendment does not increase the scope or operation of the Program Agreement, nor impose new obligations on Australia. Rather, it updates and formalises the existing arrangements, confirming the basis for cooperation between Australia and the US, which is relevant to contemporary realities and future space development.
On 26 October 2000, a statement was delivered to the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly for the Australian Delegation. Extract of the statement concerning the law of the sea follows:
Australia once again underlines the critical importance of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the pivotal role it has played in the development of maritime space regulation since its entry into force in 1994. The Convention, and the institutions created by it, form the very foundations upon which Australia approaches maritime space.
On 26 October 2000, a statement was delivered to the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly for the Australian Delegation. Extract of the statement concerning the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea follows:
The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea fulfils a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the Convention as a whole. Australia welcomes the formation of a trust fund, set out in the draft resolution under agenda item 34(a), to increase access to the Tribunal for developing States. We regard this as a vital step in enhancing the Tribunal’s central role in the area of dispute resolution. We also congratulate the Tribunal on the conclusion of an Agreement with its host country, Germany, that enables it to move into its splendid new premises. Australia hopes to ratify the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Tribunal by the end of this year or early in the new year.
On 26 October 2000, a statement was delivered to the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly for the Australian Delegation. Extract of the statement concerning the International Seabed Authority follows:
The International Seabed Authority achieved a milestone earlier this year with its adoption of the Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Nodules in the Area. Australia is pleased with this outcome and will continue to discharge with diligence its duties as a member of the Council of the Authority.
On 26 October 2000, a statement was delivered to the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly for the Australian Delegation. Extract of the statement concerning the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf follows:
Australia welcomes the dialogue initiated with States Parties by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf through its first open meeting held earlier this year. Such initiatives are clearly beneficial to both the Commission as well as to the States intending to make submissions on the outer limits of their extended continental shelves in accordance with Article 76 of the Convention and we thank the Commission for its conscientious and focused work in this regard.
On 26 October 2000, a statement was delivered to the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly for the Australian Delegation. Extract of the statement concerning the United Nations Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and Law of the Sea follows:
Last year Australia co-sponsored resolution 54/33, which established the United Nations Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea, and was pleased to participate in May this year in the first meeting of this process. Australia views one of the fundamental purposes of the informal consultative process — that is, to improve coordination and cooperation between the relevant United Nations agencies with competence in oceans and law of the sea issues, and between such agencies and member States — as crucial to the integrated management of the world’s oceans. The first meeting, which focused on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and marine pollution, demonstrated the usefulness of this initiative, as is evident in the two resolutions before us today. Australia looks forward to strengthening this informal consultative process, and encourages all States to participate fully in this forum.
This agreement continues Australia’s rights and obligations under the Timor Gap Treaty (May 1990) agreed between Indonesia and Australia. The Agreement on the continued operation of the Timor Gap Treaty provides for UNTAET to act on behalf of East Timor and assume all rights and obligations under the Timor Gap Treaty previously exercised by Indonesia. The 1990 Treaty set up a regime for joint development of an area in the Timor Sea between northern Australia and East Timor, then a province of Indonesia. The provision of a workable legal framework under the Agreement has helped effective exploitation of the proven petroleum resources in the Timor Gap Zone of Cooperation. … The new Agreement does not create any new international rights or obligations for Australia. It continues a regime for the joint development of petroleum resources in the Timor Gap Zone of Cooperation. It is a provisional regime subject to permanent delimitation of the seabed boundary. The Agreement will have effect for the duration of the transition period from 25 October 1999 until the date of independence of East Timor. This is expected to occur in two to three years' time.
On 26 October 2000, a statement was delivered to the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly for the Australian Delegation. Extract of the statement follows:
It is a source of deep regret to Australia that, for the first time ever in the history of the Assembly’s consideration of this agenda item, a vote is going to be requested on the draft resolution on fisheries. The importance to mankind as a whole of the conservation, management and sustainable development of the world’s living marine resources — an issue of particular importance to developing coastal and small island States for whom the ocean’s resources are the principal resource for their ongoing survival — has been recognised over the years by the resolution’s traditional adoption by consensus. To break with this tradition is an extremely regrettable action that risks undermining the positive and constructive developments that have taken place over the years, through the dedication and cooperation of all interested delegations, both developing and developed alike.
On 26 October 2000, a statement was delivered to the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly for the Australian Delegation. Extracts of the statement follow:
Australia believes that becoming Party to the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement) and to the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (FAO Compliance Agreement) are the two most useful legal steps that States interested in fisheries can take to ensure the sustainability of the resource. The United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement in particular is a significant achievement, establishing as it does a progressive and comprehensive framework to better conserve and manage the world’s major fisheries, many of which are under threat. It is therefore unfortunate that some States appear less than committed to it. Australia calls on all States that have not already done so to take the necessary steps to become Parties to the Agreement. Australia itself has done so and is working through its internal procedures towards acceptance of the FAO Compliance Agreement. We sincerely hope that when we next meet on this topic both Agreements will have entered into force generally.…
Australia is pleased to have been a participant in the negotiation of the first regional fisheries management agreement to be negotiated under the framework of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. The Convention for the Conservation of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific (MHLC Convention), which was adopted in Hawaii in September this year, establishes a framework for the conservation and management of the world’s last great tuna fishery not subject to regional management.
The MHLC Convention provides a model for cooperation to ensure that these resources are sustainably conserved and managed for the benefit of present and future generations. However, it will require the participation in the Convention of all those with major interests in the region if we are to achieve this result. We note with concern, therefore, that a small number of States at the last moment chose not to support the final agreement. Both the MHLC Convention and the Preparatory Commission remain open to these States to become members, and Australia urges them to join with others in the Pacific region in working together to achieve our common objectives.
All of the participants in the process — which included coastal States located in the Western and Central Pacific, and States fishing for the relevant stocks in the region — agreed in the Majuro Declaration of June 1997 that the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement was the foundation of the process. Indeed, the participants declared their commitment to establish the mechanism for the conservation of highly migratory fish stocks in the region in accordance with the Convention and the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. Further, the objective of the Convention, as set out in Article 2, provides: “The objective of this Convention is to ensure, through effective management, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean in accordance with the 1982 Convention and the Agreement”.
But the clinching argument is the savings clause of Article 4, which provides that “Nothing in this Convention shall prejudice the rights, jurisdiction and duties of States under the 1982 Convention and the Agreement. This Convention shall be interpreted and applied in the context of and in a manner consistent with the 1982 Convention and the Agreement.” Thus, even if by some chance a particular provision standing alone could be interpreted in a way that renders it inconsistent with the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, this savings clause will ensure that such an interpretation is eschewed in favour of one that maintains its compatibility with the Convention and the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. So, Mr President, quite apart from the incongruity of States that have not ratified the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement posing as its defenders vis a vis others that have, particularly when we are in agreement on the fundamental principles they say are at stake, the basis on which they do so is, I regret to say, misconceived.
No multilaterally negotiated text is ever completely satisfactory to all parties to its development, and that is equally true of both the current fisheries resolution and the Central and Western Pacific Fisheries Convention. But that is the very essence of compromise and both documents are the product of just that. It is all too easy to withhold support because this or that aspect is not entirely as we would wish it — Australia, too, could do so. But if we all fell into such an all or nothing mentality, this organisation would achieve far less than it currently manages to achieve. In this context we recall that towards the very end of the recent informal consultations on the fisheries resolution, the participants in the negotiations were all extremely close to consensus agreement, with only one delegation standing outside of this consensus. We therefore call on the delegation concerned to reconsider its drastic action in requesting a vote, in light of the potential damage it might do to the future work on this important issue. Moreover, Australia appeals to the States intending to abstain in the vote not to turn their back on this resolution. That is no solution to the problems faced by world fisheries today, and does nothing to promote the cooperative spirit from all that is required to resolve them. Australia urges all States Parties to underline their commitment to cooperation by supporting the resolution.
On 26 October 2000, a statement was delivered to the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly for the Australian Delegation. Extracts of the statement follow:
Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing continues to represent a serious threat to the world’s marine ecosystems. It has the potential to undermine the efforts of regional fisheries management organisations and represents a major obstacle to achievement of the objective, contained both in the Convention and in the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, of conservation and sustainable management of marine living resources. Unfortunately, IUU fishing occurs in virtually all fisheries. It is now clear that concerted international action is essential to address and, in time, to eliminate this practice. Indeed, Australia considers the inclusion of a number of important references to IUU fishing in this year’s resolution on fisheries to be one of the resolution’s most important aspects.Australia welcomes the work being undertaken under the aegis of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) to develop a comprehensive international plan of action to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing. Australia has supported these efforts from the outset, and was pleased to host, in combination with the FAO, a consultation of experts, drawn from a wide range of States, on the subject of IUU fishing in Sydney in May 2000. We believe that this meeting proved a useful preparation for the FAO consultation held 2-6 October in Rome.
Australia was disappointed that the consultation in Rome was not able to finalise a draft international plan of action. Australia urges all member States to cooperate, as a matter of priority, in the adoption of a comprehensive international plan of action, which contains a broad range of actions to deter, prevent, and eliminate IUU fishing. Specifically, this must include not only an emphasis on strengthening exercise of flag state jurisdiction, but also port state controls, coastal state controls, market state controls and controls on nationals. Australia has utilised all of these controls on a domestic basis, but these actions must be translated into multilateral action in order to be truly effective.
On this point, Australia wishes to note an important and innovative multilateral initiative to prevent IM fishing — the adoption by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) late last year of a trade documentation scheme for toothfish, a species on the brink of commercial extinction. This scheme, a multilateral trade measure that is consistent with the World Trade Organization Agreement, has shown early signs of success in reducing the economic incentives for illegal fishing in the southern oceans. Australia believes that it also provides a useful model for broader international action on IUU fishing.
On 3 July 2000, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill addressed the 52nd Meeting of the International Whaling Commission in Adelaide. Extracts of the address follow:
In the week ahead the Commission has a number of significant matters to consider. Amongst these is a proposal from Australia, New Zealand and supported by the Pacific Island States which seeks the protection and conservation of whale stocks in the South Pacific, through the creation of a South Pacific Sanctuary.The proposed Sanctuary will complement the existing Indian Ocean and Southern Ocean Sanctuaries, providing protection from commercial whaling for many whale populations throughout their ranges. The Southern Ocean Sanctuary protects the feeding grounds of these species while the proposed South Pacific Sanctuary will protect their breeding grounds. We believe that this proposal will make a significant contribution to the protection of whales in the region, while promoting research and the development of sustainable whale watching industries.
On 1 November 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release concerning the South Pacific Whale Sanctuary proposal (FA 125). Extracts from the press release follow:
Australia warmly welcomes continued Pacific Islands Forum support for the development of the South Pacific Whale Sanctuary proposal as announced Monday in Kiribati.The Pacific Islands Forum has been a long-time supporter of global efforts to conserve whales. In 1993 Leaders supported the International Whaling Commission’s moratorium and in 1998, gave their support to the development of a proposal to establish a South Pacific Whale Sanctuary. This year’s meeting of Pacific Island Leaders has reaffirmed that commitment.
…
Australia will continue to work closely with New Zealand and Pacific Island countries to promote the South Pacific Whale Sanctuary, particularly in the lead up to the meeting in mid-2001 of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). A three-quarter majority vote is necessary from members of the Commission to establish the Sanctuary.
On 3 July 2000, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill addressed the 52nd Meeting of the International Whaling Commission in Adelaide. Extracts of the address follow:
The Commission’s moratorium on commercial whaling has had some positive benefits in the recovery of whale numbers but we are still not sure if it came in time to save particular species.We now hear the arguments of those opposed to a continued moratorium that numbers of certain species have recovered enough to allow the resumption of full-scale whaling.
But when it comes to conserving our animals and marine creatures, second chances are rare. For those species of whales which were not hunted to extinction, it appears we have been given that second chance — a chance which must not be lost.
On 3 July 2000, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill addressed the 52nd Meeting of the International Whaling Commission in Adelaide. Extract of the address follows:
…since the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was signed in 1946 community attitudes towards whales and whaling have changed considerably in many parts of the world. Like other international legal instruments, the Convention provides a framework for the regime of regulation to evolve in line with changing international community values.On 10 October 2000, amendments to the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, done at Adelaide on 6 July 2000, were tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts of the National Interest Analysis follow:
The Schedule is an integral part of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946 (the Convention). It is amended from time to time, in accordance with the provisions of Article V of the Convention, to take account of decisions of the International Whaling Commission established under the Convention (the Commission). … The treaty action involves amendments to the Schedule to the Convention to which Australia has been a party since it came into force in 1948. The amendments arise from the annual requirement to make current the dates in Paragraphs 11 and 12 and Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the Schedule to the Convention which maintain the moratorium on commercial whaling (zero catch limits). The dates will be changed from 1999/2000 pelagic season to 2000/2001 pelagic season, from 2000 coastal season to 2001 coastal season, from 2000 season to 2001 season, and from 2000 to 2001 respectively. … The amendments to the Schedule will not add to Australia's existing obligations under the Convention. Australia already prohibits whaling. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, which prohibits killing, injuring or interfering with whales in Australian waters, affords a higher level of protection to whales in Australian waters than is afforded under the Convention.
The following is an extract common to the National Interest Analysis accompanying:
• the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Romania for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and Protocol, done at Canberra on 2 February 2000, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament on 7 March 2000.
• the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Russian Federation for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and Protocol, done at Canberra on 7 September 2000, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament on 10 October 2000.
The two key objectives of the Agreement are to:• promote closer economic cooperation between Australia and […] by eliminating possible barriers to trade and investment caused by the overlapping taxing jurisdictions of the two countries, and providing a reasonable element of legal and fiscal certainty within which cross-border trade and investment can be carried on;
• create a legal framework through which the tax administrations of Australia and […] can prevent international fiscal evasion.
The Agreement once in force will reduce or eliminate double taxation caused by the overlapping taxing jurisdictions, by limiting taxing rights over various types of income flowing between the two countries. …
In negotiating the sharing of taxing rights under bilateral agreements, Australia seeks an appropriate balance between source and residence country taxing rights. Generally the allocation of taxing rights under the Agreement is similar to international practice as set out in the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and Capital(“the OECD Model”), but consistent with Australian practice — there are a number of instances where the Agreement is biased more towards source country taxing rights: the definition of “permanent establishment” is wider in some respects than the OECD Model, and the Business profits, Profits from the operation of ships and aircraft, Royalties, Income from alienation of property and Other income Articles also give greater recognition to source country taxing rights.
On 7 March 2000, the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Romania for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and Protocol, done at Canberra on 2 February 2000, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts of the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:
Negotiations with Romania commenced in 1992. The second and last round of talks was held in 1995. Finalisation of the text was delayed largely due to translation difficulties. More recently there was also a need to renegotiate part of the ‘Income, profits or gains from the alienation of property’ Article following the adverse Federal Court decision in the Lamesa Holdings BV case.…
Once it is in force, the main impact of the Agreement will be on Australian enterprises investing in and trading with Romania. Romania is Australia’s largest export market in Central Europe. It is ranked 19th among our export destinations. In 1998-99, Australian exports to Romania totalled A$75 million, the main items being raw materials such as coal, iron ore and other ores. Romania is ranked 77th among our import sources. In 1998-99 imports amounted to A$8.5 million, the main items being footwear and clothing. Although Australia’s current investment and trade relationship with Romania is not substantial, this Agreement will assist in developing a bilateral framework for investment and trade with Romania.
…
In general the Agreement follows the structure of the OECD Model. However, there are some influences from the more source country biased United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Countries (‘‘the UN Model’’). In addition both countries have proposed some variations to reflect their domestic tax rules, economic interests and legal circumstances … . Subject to these variations, the Agreement is substantially similar to Australia’s recent tax treaties.
On 10 October 2000, the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Russian Federation for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and Protocol, done at Canberra on 7 September 2000, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts of the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:
The Agreement will add to Australia’s existing income tax treaty network. Australia currently has 39 comprehensive income tax treaties … and four Airline Profits Agreements — Airline Profits Agreements are more limited, dealing only with cross-border taxation of airline profits).With the break-up of the USSR, the Treasurer approved the substitution of the Russian Federation for the USSR on the Australian tax treaty negotiation program. Negotiations with the Russian Federation commenced in 1992. A second round was held in 1997 and a third and final round was held in 1999.
…
The Agreement is likely to have an impact on:• Australians and Russians investing in and trading with the other country;
• Australians and Russians working in or supplying services to the other country;
• the Governments of Australia and the Russian Federation; and
• people receiving pensions from the other country.
On 7 March 2000, the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Slovak Republic on Trade and Economic Cooperation, done at Canberra on 23 April 1999, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. The following is an extract of the accompanying National Interest Analysis:
Although two states have emerged from the former Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, trade and economic relations with the Slovak Republic continue to be governed by the 1972 Agreement mentioned above. The negotiation of a new trade and economic cooperation agreement was first raised by the Slovak Republic in May 1996. It was considered that the 1972 Agreement was outdated and inconsistent with the Slovak Republic’s newly independent status and transformation to a market economy.The Agreement differs from the 1972 Agreement in that it is a more contemporary document. In particular, the reference to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) has been replaced with the World Trade Organization (WTO) reflecting the GATT’s supercession by the WTO and both countries’ obligations as members of the WTO; it extends the coverage of the Agreement to trade in services; includes a reference to the principle of “Most Favoured Nation” arising from obligations under the WTO; includes a provision for dispute settlement; and replaces the “Joint Trade Committee” (established under the 1972 Agreement but which no longer operates) with a more flexible means of consultation between the Parties.
The Agreement will provide a more comprehensive institutional framework for the facilitation and development of trade and commercial relations between Australia and the Slovak Republic. It will do this by updating the language in the 1972 Agreement to make it more relevant to the contemporary environment, as well as more accurately reflecting the international rights and obligations of both parties. It will also complement the Australia-Slovak Republic Double Taxation Agreement (which entered into force on 22 December 1999). The main objectives of the Agreement are to:
• provide an enhanced Government-to-Government framework supportive of the development of bilateral commercial relations; and
• provide a more reliable basis and a greater level of protection for the Australian business community in the pursuit of closer trade and commercial relations with the Slovak Republic.
On 27 November 2000, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, answered a question without notice from Mr Jim Lloyd concerning a proposed Free Trade Agreement with Singapore (House of Representatives, Debates, 27 November 2000, p 22733). Extracts of the answer follow:
The Prime Minister’s announcement on 15 November that Australia will be negotiating a free trade agreement [FTA] with Singapore is tangible evidence of the government’s commitment to advancing Australia’s trading interests. We are prepared to take every opportunity to open up new markets for Australia’s exporters, whether that be through bilateral relationships, regional relationships or multilateral relationships. This agreement will strengthen an already important economic relationship, with two-way trade between Australia and Singapore currently standing at $12.5 billion.The negotiations agreed to between our Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Singapore are expected to commence early in 2001 and conclude within a 12-month period. We are particularly interested in improving market access in areas such as legal and financial services and telecommunications. During the process of the negotiations we will be consulting broadly with Australian business and other interested parties in this particular market.
…
This FTA with Singapore is an important step for Australia and it is interesting to know that it is only the second Australia has participated in. The other very successful FTA we were involved in was with New Zealand. The closer economic relationship with New Zealand was started some 17 years ago when trade between New Zealand and Australia was standing at, I think, about $1.7 billion. Today, it stands at about $14 billion.
On 29 May 2000, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, answered a question on notice from Mr Anthony Albanese concerning the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. Extracts from the answer follow (House of Representatives, Debates, 29 May 2000, p 16512):
On 21 April, the Treasurer and I announced that Australia will provide 100 per cent bilateral debt forgiveness to countries which qualify for debt relief under the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative coordinated by the IMF and World Bank. Of the 40 countries that have been identified for possible debt relief under the enhanced HIPC Initiative, there are two — Nicaragua and Ethiopia — which have debts to Australia and are expected to qualify for relief. When Nicaragua and Ethiopia receive debt relief under the HIPC Initiative, all of the debt they owe to the Australian Government will be forgiven. Vietnam is currently not eligible for debt relief under the enhanced HIPC Initiative as its debt has been assessed by the World Bank and the IMF as sustainable. However, Vietnam’s debt levels will continue to be monitored by the Bank and the Fund.…
Australia, together with all other shareholders, is represented on the Executive Boards of the World Bank and the IMF. These boards monitor the operations and management of the institutions and approve and assess individual programs and projects — including those focused on poverty reduction in the poorest countries (eg. the IMF’s Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility and the World Bank’s International Development Association). Furthermore, substantial ongoing engagement and review of the World Bank is provided through periodic replenishments of the Bank’s concessional lending arm.
…
In the future, should the Government decide that changes to the enhanced HIPC Initiative are warranted, several mechanisms are in place which allow Australia to participate in reviews of the enhanced HIPC Initiative including through our representatives on the World Bank and IMF Boards and the World Bank/IMF annual and spring meetings.
The World Bank and IMF Executive Boards regularly discuss HIPC progress reports. Australia provides comments through the respective Executive Directors and the Australian constituency retains a vote on all Board matters.
Ministers are given the opportunity to discuss the enhanced HIPC Initiative twice a year at the World Bank/IMF annual and spring meetings. These meetings provide a venue to put Australia’s views forward. At the 1999 annual meeting, for instance, Ministers decided to enhance the original HIPC Initiative to provide deeper, faster and wider debt relief for HIPC countries.
On 5 April 2000, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, delivered a speech to the National Press Club at the launch of the 2000 Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement. Extracts of the speech concerning the WTO follow:
I remain totally committed to the market access-focused agenda Australia took to Seattle. It is vital that the WTO agenda is not over-burdened with “non-trade” issues that will only serve to make consensus more difficult.…
In Australia’s view, a trade round securing the liberalisation of agriculture, manufactures and services offers the best opportunity to rectify imbalances in the international trading system. And I am proud to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Ministers from developing countries in the Cairns Group as we battle for a fairer deal for agriculture.
The good news, ladies and gentlemen, is that while efforts to launch a round continue, members are getting back to business in the WTO. The mandated negotiations on agriculture and services have begun.
Australia is working closely with its Cairns Group partners on detailed proposals for the agriculture negotiations. We are also working closely with like-minded countries on the services negotiations. But we recognise that significant progress in these areas will be difficult in the absence of a broader round.
Our WTO agenda also involves improvement in our capacity to utilise the dispute settlement process and our negotiations on bringing new members into the WTO.
In recent times, significant attention has focused on our vigorous defence of actions involving automotive leather and salmon. But we need to remember that the dispute settlement process cuts both ways.
Our Government is committed to ensuring that Australian companies with legitimate complaints can pursue their claims at the WTO. Working closely with industry, the Government took action under the WTO dispute settlement process on two occasions in 1999 — against the unfair US restrictions on Australian lamb exports and against Korean restrictions on our beef.
Those actions continue to be actively prosecuted. We now have a WTO panel established in the lamb case, and next month we will receive the panel report on the Korea beef case.
We have also had good wins as a third-party through the WTO — for example, allowing Spencer Gulf prawns to enter the lucrative US market, and validating Australia’s intellectual property regime for pharmaceuticals.
But we can and must do more to use the full leverage of the WTO to improve market access for Australian exporters. Last September, I announced a new WTO Disputes Investigation and Enforcement Mechanism in my Department. I have asked officials from this unit to travel around Australia next month to talk to business about WTO dispute processes and to work with them to develop cases where we believe they have strong grounds to launch a WTO action.
We intend to pursue vigorously in the national interest all avenues available to us should we believe that the provisions of the WTO have been breached.
On 12 May 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, delivered a speech to the British Chamber of Commerce in Adelaide. Extracts of the speech follow:
There is a lot of talk about reform of the WTO’s own procedures. We support practical proposals for improvements to WTO processes, but believe that more radical changes, such as the creation of a WTO “Security Council”, would be less democratic and less flexible than existing arrangements.WTO members should focus not on process, but substance. Governments, and business leaders, must explain the advantages of open markets, and freer trade. They must be prepared to undertake the hard reforms necessary for their own economic well-being — and necessary for a trade negotiations agenda which genuinely offers something for all participants, but can achieve results in a short timeframe.
On 27 March 2000, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, issued a press release concerning WTO agriculture negotiations (MVT 21). Text of the release follows:
Trade Minister, Mark Vaile, today welcomed the start of World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations on agriculture following the conclusion of the first substantive session in Geneva on March 23-24.“WTO members agreed to work throughout the remainder of 2000 to lodge detailed negotiating proposals outlining negotiating objectives and how to achieve them,” Mr Vaile said.
“This outcome is very much consistent with Australian and Cairns Group objectives.”
Mr Vaile said the business-like manner in which the meeting was conducted was also an encouraging sign that the WTO was back on track and focused on its principal objective of improving market access and export opportunities.
“Unity among the Cairns Group of 18 agricultural traders that Australia chairs was a key factor in achieving our objectives for the meeting.
“The Cairns Group agreed to lodge a series of detailed proposals during the course of this year that will help to keep a strong focus on the agricultural distortions that harm our farmers and agrifood industries.
“Australia is committed to working with the Cairns Group and with the increasing number of developing countries who realise the importance of achieving real reductions in trade-distorting subsidies and better access for agricultural exports.
“The road ahead will be challenging. Some WTO members vehemently oppose agriculture liberalisation, especially in the absence of a broader round of trade negotiations. But we have made an encouraging start and the Cairns Group will remain focused and united as we move forward with long overdue trade reform for agriculture.”
On 26 October 2000, Senator Alan Ferguson delivered a statement to the 55th Session on the United Nations General Assembly on behalf of the Cairns Group of countries on the subject of trade and development. Extracts of the statement concerning WTO agriculture negotiations follow:
In view of the increasing distortions to world agricultural markets, the Cairns Group welcomes the start of the mandated WTO agriculture negotiations. But beginning the negotiations is not enough. The WTO needs to work expeditiously towards a conclusion.The Cairns Group has participated actively in the current mandated WTO negotiations, by submitting negotiating proposals which, so far, cover the elimination of export subsidies and major reductions leading to the elimination of trade distorting domestic subsidies. We are preparing a proposal to improve agricultural market access which we aim to table in November 2000. The Cairns Group encourages other WTO members who have not done so to submit reform proposals as soon as possible and to begin preparing for the second stage of the negotiations from March 2001.
Achieving real and early reform in agriculture is essential for the future of the multilateral trading system. Such reform will also reduce the potential for trade disputes and avoid unnecessary strains on the WTO.
…
The agriculture negotiations must […] deliver concrete and operational special and differential treatment provisions for developing countries. Trade reform and special and differential treatment are both central elements in ensuring that developing countries have the necessary means to address crucial rural development and food security objectives through the negotiations. The Cairns Group would also like to put on record its recognition of the importance of the Marrakesh Decision on least developed and net food-importing developing countries and our concern to ensure this decision is made more effective.
On 23 November 2000, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, issued a press release concerning WTO work on information technology barriers. Extracts of the release follow:
Trade Minister, Mark Vaile, today welcomed the decision by a key World Trade Organization committee to examine non-tariff barriers affecting trade in information technology products.Mr Vaile said at Australia’s request, the Committee of Participants in the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade in Information Technology Products (ITA) had agreed to identify non-tariff barriers to trade in IT products. The committee is to also examine the economic and developmental impacts of the barriers.
Most of the participants in the ITA, who account for over 90% of world trade in information and communications technology products, eliminated their tariffs on these products on January 1, 2000.
“However, the IT industry is characterised by short product life cycles,” Mr Vaile noted, adding “it’s important to look at other barriers which can delay products reaching the market and hinder consumer’ access to the latest technology.
On 29 May 2000, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, issued a press release concerning WTO services negotiations (MVT 58). Text of the release follows:
Mr Vaile was commenting on the agreement reached in the WTO Council for Trade in Services on a ‘roadmap’ for the first phase of the services negotiations lasting until March 2001. The roadmap was agreed on Friday, May 26.“Australia’s services industries are a key part of the Australian economy accounting for four out of every five jobs, two-thirds of our GDP and contributing to nearly a quarter of Australia’s exports,” Mr Vaile said.
“They cover a diverse range of sectors including banking and insurance, telecommunications, transport, tourism and professional services.
“The establishment of a negotiating work program in the WTO, based on an initial Australian-Singaporean draft, will allow us to get to work on obtaining a better deal for Australian services exporters’’, Mr Vaile said.
“Overseas trade barriers in a range of services sectors hinder the growth of Australian companies overseas. The WTO negotiations are squarely aimed at getting these barriers removed.”
Mr Vaile said Australia would continue to work closely and productively with like minded countries in the negotiations to ensure better market access for Australian companies.
On 5 April 2000, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, delivered a speech to the National Press Club at the launch of the 2000 Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement. Extract of the speech concerning the WTO follows:
Today I want to reaffirm our Government’s unflinching support for launching a new market access-focused round of WTO trade negotiations at the earliest opportunity. Not because it is easy, or because it will deliver the mythical “level-playing-field”. But because a stronger WTO should provide greater stability, predictability and transparency in the international trading system. The WTO provides the most effective means for a country like Australia, with its medium-sized economy and broadly based and geographically diverse interests, to secure greater market access for its exports.
On 12 May 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, delivered a speech to the British Chamber of Commerce in Adelaide. Extracts of the speech follow:
Many WTO members, including Australia, remain committed to the launch of a new round of trade negotiations at the earliest possible date. I discussed prospects for the new round with EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy in Brussels during my visit in February. The European Commission and others consider that it might be possible to launch a new round this year, in the narrow “window of opportunity” between the Congress vote on securing normal trade relations with China (in the context of China’s WTO accession) and the US Presidential election.It is important to establish the climate for early re-engagement. A critical mass of agreement between the major players will be important. While contact between the European Commission and the US has intensified, it remains to be seen whether either will show the required flexibility, particularly on investment and competition for the EU, and on anti-dumping and trade and labour standards for the US. A number of hard line developing countries will also need to be persuaded that their concerns are being sufficiently addressed.
Nonetheless, some positive steps have been taken. The negotiations on agriculture and services mandated from the Uruguay Round have started. We are working with others, including the Cairns Group on agriculture, to push for concrete progress to help demonstrate that the WTO is firmly back in business.
On 13 September 2000, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, issued a press release concerning the allocation of increased resources for WTO disputes. Extracts of the press release follow:
Trade Minister, Mark Vaile, has used his address to the World Economic Forum in Melbourne today to announce that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will be devoting more resources to prosecuting and defending Australia’s legal rights in the World Trade Organization (WTO).…
Resolving disputes through the dispute settlement system has become a key feature of the WTO and it is crucial that Australia is well placed to take maximum advantage of the process. We must continue, in close cooperation with Australian industry, to make sure we use the WTO rules effectively to pursue Australia’s trade and commercial interests.
Mr Vaile said Australia had been actively using the WTO dispute system in the five and a half-year history of the WTO. Nevertheless, the need for additional focus on disputes was clear given that over 200 cases had been taken to the WTO in that time compared with only 100 cases in the 50 years preceding under the old GATT system.
On 17 May 2000, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, issued a press release concerning Canada’s complaint to the WTO on salmon (MVT 47). Extracts of the release follow:
Minister for Trade, Mark Vaile, today announced that Australia and Canada had reached a mutually satisfactory settlement of Canada’s WTO complaint on salmon. The agreement is scheduled to enter into force on 1 June.“The settlement with Canada puts an end to this long-running dispute and has been achieved without any trade off of our conservative approach to quarantine”, Mr Vaile said. “There are no changes to ten of the eleven measures above the international standard adopted by Australia last year.
In the case of the consumer ready provisions where the WTO found inconsistencies, we have found an alternative method to deliver the same high level of quarantine protection. For instance the requirement for product weighing more than 450 grams to be in skinless form has been replaced by other stringent controls on processing including detailed packaging and certification requirements and legally enforceable compliance conditions for processors”, Mr Vaile said.
“Canada has also accepted an undertaking from Australia that the Commonwealth will continue to seek observance on the part of Tasmania. Discussions will continue with the Tasmanian Government and I call on them to act responsibly in terms of their commitment under the Commonwealth/State MOU on quarantine to take corrective action when quarantine measures have been found to be WTO-inconsistent.”
…
“I am delighted that the threat of retaliatory action has been removed. It was vital in reaching this settlement that innocent Australian exporters did not get caught in the crossfire. Canada is an important export market for Australia valued at $1.2 billion in 1999 and it would have done no-one any good to get caught up in an unnecessary trade war.
On 12 December 2000, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, issued a press release concerning exports of beef to Korea. Extracts of the release follow:
Trade Minister Mark Vaile today welcomed Australia’s win in the World Trade Organization on beef exports to Korea.…
Overnight the WTO’s Appellate Body rejected Korea’s appeal against earlier findings by a WTO Panel that its beef retail system discriminated against imported beef.
On July 31 this year, a WTO panel upheld a complaint by Australia and the United States that Korea’s measures on imported beef were contrary to WTO rules. The measures include a requirement that imported beef be sold separately from Korean beef; subsidies to Korea’s beef producers; minimum wholesale pricing; limitations on which private sector operators can buy and sell imported beef; and discriminatory labelling and record-keeping requirements.
Korea challenged only two of these findings: retail sale requirements and subsidies. The Appellate Body rejected Korea’s claims regarding retail sale. However, the Appellate Body overturned the Panel’s finding that in the late 1990s Korea gave excessive levels of subsidies to its beef farmers.
Mr Vaile said he was very pleased that Korea must now remove the measures that impede the distribution and sale of Australian beef in the Korean market. The finding on subsidies, while a little disappointing, was not a key issue and does not overturn the important market access win for Australia.
“The findings will be adopted by the Members of the WTO next month and we’ll be looking for Korea to quickly bring its measures into compliance with WTO rules.
“As with Australia’s recent win in the lamb dispute against the US, this case demonstrates the value of WTO rules and its dispute settlement system to Australian exporters,” Mr Vaile said.
On 22 June 2000, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, and the Attorney-General, Mr Daryl Williams, issued a joint press release concerning the dispute with the United States on copyright protection (MVT 65a). Extracts of the release follow:
A recent change to US copyright law removed the right of songwriters and composers to receive payment when broadcast music is used commercially in an estimated 70% of US bars and restaurants and 45% of US retail stores. A WTO panel has found this exception to be inconsistent with WTO intellectual property protection rules.“This outcome is consistent with the balanced and fair approach Australia advocated, and endorses key aspects of the case we put before the WTO panel. The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is proving a valuable instrument for the protection of Australia’s creative and innovative exports to global markets, ranging from cultural works to high technology products and services,” Mr Vaile said.
“It’s another important win for Australia coming on the heels of our victory in the Korea beef case and in the settlement of the Howe Leather dispute yesterday. It again shows the value of WTO rules and disciplines in protecting Australian export interests.” The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has just issued a publication — Intellectual Property: A Vital Asset for Australia — which outlines how Australian industry can take advantage of the TRIPS Agreement.
Mr Williams said the WTO ruling confirmed the right of Australian musicians to be rewarded for their creativity and for their perseverance in winning international recognition, including in the vital US market.
“The recent changes to US copyright law had led to the dramatic reduction of the right of Australian musicians to be remunerated for the commercial exploitation of their musical works in one of the most important international markets for Australian music.
“We have defended the interests of Australian musicians in a key export market, and contributed to an equitable application of international rules in an industry which is a showcase for Australian creativity,” Mr Williams said.
On 25 February 2000, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, issued a press release concerning WTO Appellate Body ruling on US export subsidies (MVT 11). Extracts of the release follow:
Trade Minister, Mark Vaile, today welcomed the findings of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) against special treatment offered to US exporters under US Foreign Sales Corporations (FSC) tax provisions.“The WTO has confirmed that the United States FSC scheme is a prohibited export subsidy and has recommended that the US withdraw the subsidies, which are estimated to amount to around $US 3.5 billion per year, by 1 October 2000.”
Mr Vaile said the FSC scheme supports a large volume of US exports including important agricultural products, such as wheat, corn, soya beans and cotton.
“It is particularly notable that the WTO has found that the FSC is not only a prohibited subsidy under the WTO Subsidies Agreement, but that it is also in violation of its obligations under the WTO Agriculture Agreement”, Mr Vaile said.
Evidence presented in the WTO dispute shows that as a result of the FSC the US has exported around 32 million tonnes of wheat between 1995 to 1997 with export subsidies in breach of its WTO commitments.
“Australia will be further examining the FSC ruling and watching closely US implementation of the report given its relevance to Australia’s trading interests and to ensure all Australia’s WTO rights are protected.”
On 21 June 2000, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, answered a question without notice from Mr Tim Fischer concerning the Howe Leather dispute (House of Representatives, Debates, 21 June 2000, p 17864). Extracts of the answer follow:
I am pleased to announce that Australia has negotiated a settlement with the United States of this long-running dispute over assistance provided to the Australian automotive leather manufacturer Howe Leather. We cannot underestimate the significance of reaching a satisfactory conclusion to this and avoiding the possibility of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of retaliation that may have been levelled at Australia’s wine industry or beef industry, as the member indicated in his question. The US is our second largest export market and is worth about $13 billion annually. It includes exports such as $275 million dollars worth of wine, $42 million worth of citrus, $1 billion worth of meat products, including over $100 million worth of lamb, as well as $700 million in autos and auto components. These are all areas that could have been exposed to retaliation had we not been as diligent as we have been in negotiating this outcome.Importantly, as a result of the negotiated settlement, we have helped to safeguard 700 jobs with the Howe company. Interestingly, 120 of those jobs are at Rosedale in regional Victoria, which I think is in the seat of the member for Gippsland, and I am sure that he is very appreciative of that. Also, just as importantly, 350 of those jobs are at the Thomastown factory on the outskirts of Melbourne, which I understand is in the seat of Scullin, and I am sure that the member for Scullin is also very pleased about this very important outcome.
Members will recall that the decision in the WTO required a payment of $30 million by Howe Leather. The settlement that we have negotiated with the United States administration involves Howe paying just $7.2 million over 12 years as well as an agreement that automotive leather be removed from eligibility for support under the TCF and motor vehicle plans. This is a very significant outcome in terms of trade negotiations on the international scene. It has been a significant test of the ability of our officials and this Government in terms of reaching an outcome that avoids serious retaliation that could have had a major impact on a number of Australia’s very important export industries.
On 22 June 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release concerning the settlement of the Howe Leather dispute (FA 65). Text of the release follows:
The Government today announced Australia had settled the long-running dispute with the US over assistance provided to the Australian automotive leather manufacturer, Howe and Company Pty Ltd.
The Trade Minister, Mark Vaile, the Science and Resources Minister, Senator Minchin, and I worked tirelessly to remove the threat of retaliation against Australia’s exporters. We were always very concerned to protect innocent Australian exporters — especially the South Australian wine industry — from being caught in the cross-fire of any US retaliation.
Had the Government failed to reach an agreement on the Howe dispute, the US would have had the right under the WTO to retaliate against Australian exporters. While the Government was never advised of items to be included in a possible US retaliation ‘hit list’, the very success of the Australian wine industry in the US in recent years suggests it may have been viewed as a possible target.
Today’s settlement of the Howe dispute has removed the threat of severe penalties against the [South Australian] wine industry and will enable the industry to continue to develop and expand its market presence in the US.
On 7 December 2000, in the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, answered a question without notice from Ms Fran Bailey concerning the United States measures against Australian lamb exports (House of Representatives, Debates, 7 December 2000, p 23651). Extracts of the answer follow:
I am quite delighted to inform the House that the final report of the World Trade Organization panel on lamb meat has found against the United States. This is tremendous news for Australian exporters. For the first time in living memory, to my understanding, there appears to be a modicum of international trade justice for the farmers of Australia. For too long, our primary producers have laboured under a world trading order which not only has discriminated against primary producers to the benefit of those who depend more heavily on manufactured goods but, even amongst primary producers, has written the rules to advantage the Americans and the Europeans to the detriment of Australians and New Zealanders. What was done by the United States in relation to lamb was indefensible. It was the subject of very strong representations at the time, by me and the Minister for Trade, to the American administration. Those representations at a political level were of no avail; but, to his very great credit, the Minister for Trade and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade supporting him did not give up. I want to thank the Minister—who is once again overseas doing trade business on behalf of Australia—and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the great work that they did.The WTO Panel has reaffirmed its interim finding that the United States is in breach of its World Trade Organization obligations and that the tariffs it imposed on our lamb imports are unjustified. I understand that the report will be released publicly in the next few weeks. From the beginning of this dispute, the Government has been pursuing actively the vital interests of Australian lamb farmers. We have always maintained that the American measures were wrong. I understand that it is still open to the United States to appeal against the report. If it does so, Australia will vigorously defend the findings. I also make the point that, when the process of appeal has been resolved and this matter is finally concluded in Australia’s favour, we will expect of the Americans immediate action to remove the unfair quotas that have been imposed on our lamb exporters—just as they required of us immediate action in relation to the Howe Leather company.
This is a very important victory for Australian farmers and it is a victory they deserve. It is a recognition long denied to them that there is some justice in the international trading system, and I hope that it is seen throughout the farming community as a token of the long-term value of pursuing more open trade. In the end, the salvation of Australian exporters is in a more open, liberal world trading system. Because of our size, we cannot retreat into protection and the imposition of quotas. It is tough, it is very hard and it is very unrewarding, but in the long run a country of Australia’s size will benefit more than many others from an open, liberal world trading system.
On 7 March 2000, the Protocol of Amendment, done at Brussels on 26 June 1999, to the International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follows:
The … Convention aimed to address the divergences between national customs procedures which hamper international trade. Australia became a party to the Convention as it was considered that the Convention’s provisions harmonised and simplified customs procedures and contributed to the improved efficiency of Customs Administrations.…
A review of the 1973 Convention was undertaken to ensure the Convention would appropriately reflect the international trading environment and incorporate modern administrative practices which had been implemented by many countries in the period since its entry into force. Restructuring was necessary to reduce the number of core provisions being optional.
The outcome was the 1999 Protocol of Amendment. In relations between the Parties to the 1999 Protocol, the Protocol and its appendices shall supersede the 1973 Convention.
…
Becoming a party to the 1999 Protocol allows Australia to contribute further to the facilitation of international trade in an internationally agreed manner, which reduces complexity and differences between customs procedures, which can be barriers to trade. Australian industry will benefit as costs and delays to trade should be minimised and rules will become more uniform and predictable.
On 10 October 2000, the Protocol relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, done at Madrid on 27 June 1989 was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follows:
Securing access to export markets is considered a priority by many traders in goods and services. To obtain a competitive edge for business many traders are relying increasingly upon the use of trade marks. A trade mark is a sign used in the course of trade to distinguish goods or services. Thus, effective trade mark protection forms a vital part of the strategy to promote goods and services in overseas markets. However, to obtain trade mark protection in another country can involve significant costs and administrative burdens to traders. A system which simplified procedures and reduced costs would offer benefits for Australian trade mark owners.The Protocol under consideration forms part of an efficient and streamlined international trade mark registration system known as the ‘Madrid System’ and made under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization. The Protocol is based upon the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks of 14 April 1891. … Countries may become Party to the Madrid Agreement or the Protocol or both. It is intended that Australia seek to accede only to the Protocol. The Protocol incorporates a number of modifications to address issues which have presented obstacles to Australia becoming a Party to that Agreement and participating in the Madrid System. The registration system established under the Protocol would offer significant improvements over present arrangements for Australian trade mark owners seeking protection of marks in overseas markets.
The Protocol provides that a trade mark owner of a Contracting Party to the Protocol may secure protection of the mark in other Contracting Parties by filing an application for international registration with the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization. International registration would operate for ten years with an option for renewal for a further ten years. The Protocol provides also that the protection to be accorded to an internationally registered trade mark by other Contracting Parties is to be the same as if the mark had been registered by the Office of that Contracting Party.
On 10 October 2000, a statement was delivered on behalf of the Australian Delegation to the 55th session of the United Nations General Assembly concerning the report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. Extracts of the statement follow:
In recent years, developments in international commercial relations and new technologies have made the work of the Commission, with its focus on the harmonisation of international trade law, even more important. Australia has been involved with the work of the Commission since its inception in 1966 and remains committed to its goal of harmonising laws relating to international trade. Australia was represented at the 33rd annual session of UNCITRAL and continues to maintain a strong input into the working groups on electronic commerce, receivables financing and insolvency.
Australia is pleased that at the 33rd session the Commission completed its work on the legislative guide on privately-financed infrastructure projects, and hopes that the guide will be used broadly to facilitate the development of these projects.
Australia is also encouraged by the progress that has been made in the preparation of the draft Uniform Law of Assignment in Receivables Financing, and will continue to participate in the Working Group as that project is finalised.
Similarly, Australia continues to support the work of the Working Group on Insolvency, and is particularly pleased that the Commission has given the Working Group a mandate to further investigate and develop insolvency regimes. Australia looks forward to participating actively in this work.
Australia continues to have a strong interest in the Commission’s important work on electronic commerce. Australia welcomes the on-going development of the draft Uniform Rules on Electronic Signatures, which will encourage the development of cross-border electronic commerce. To this end, Australia has recently enacted electronic transactions legislation which reflects the concepts and provisions of the Model Law on Electronic Commerce.
Australia regards as important the Commission’s continuing work in the areas of training and assistance, promoting practical uniform legal texts and providing technical assistance to Governments. Furthermore, Australia supports the continued operation of the case law on UNCITRAL texts (CLOUT) as a valuable tool for international trade research which facilitates access to relevant developments around the world.
In light of the valuable achievements of UNCITRAL and the global importance of harmonising international trade law, Australia is concerned to ensure that the Commission has the necessary financial and personnel resources it needs in order to continue its important work.
On 20 November 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, delivered a speech to the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law. Extracts of that speech follow:
Australia does have a distinctive approach to human rights, as it has to many things. Our human rights objectives are much the same as those of other countries which share our democratic ideals — the “like-mindeds” in diplomatic parlance — but I think it can fairly be said that we go about achieving them in a slightly different way.Some of the explanation for this is geographic. …
…
The second reason for our distinctive approach to human rights has more to do with an Australian way of doing things. Our approach is pragmatic but it is also firmly rooted in an ideological commitment to liberal democratic ideals. I believe this blend of the practical and the idealistic very much reflects the character of Australia. A separate public forum could no doubt be dedicated to discussing what core Australian values are — or if they even exist — in the year 2000. Personally, I have no qualms in saying that one of our abiding values is that of a fair go for all.
Australians care about human rights because they believe strongly in a fair go, they support the underdog and they take particular exception to abuses of power. They see justice and human dignity as the self-evident right of all people. They also prefer to cut through the rhetoric and do something useful.
…
It follows that it is very much in Australia’s interests for government to work out how best to deliver an effective human rights policy. It is also, of course, in the interests of the ordinary people of the world who just want to live their lives free from the fear of poverty, war and tyranny. But I want to emphasise the word effective because this is the litmus test for everything this government does in the human rights field.
…
The emphasis on effective, realisable outcomes is as important in the multilateral as it is in the bilateral sphere, although I would have to say that making a difference in bodies like the United Nations with its huge membership and complicated structures can be a daunting task. Happily, we do not have to choose between putting our energies into bilateral or multilateral human rights work: the two should be, and often are, mutually reinforcing.
So, we backed up our commitment to governance with a diplomatic effort earlier this year to get the Commission on Human Rights to adopt a resolution linking human rights and good governance for the first time. Of itself, the resolution is not going to make corrupt regimes change their ways, but it has added a modicum of moral suasion that was not there before.
We also work hard multilaterally to encourage the establishment of human rights institutions, including through funding for the secretariat of the Asia Pacific Forum for National Human Rights Institutions. The Forum has now expanded to eight member countries.
On the multilateral front, we want the human rights machinery to function effectively, because the principles it is supposed to advance are too important for it to do otherwise. The Government’s review of the UN treaty body system this year had its origins in our sense that the treaty system was not only drowning under its own weight, but had moved too far away from its original vision. Committees were set up to advise and assist States Parties to fulfil their treaty obligations but are in practice sitting in judgement upon them, or have become too burdened to cope with the volume of reports submitted under treaty obligations. In practice, some committees were trying so hard to be even-handed that they gave a light slap on the wrist to countries everyone agreed were serious human rights offenders, and made countries that take their treaty commitments seriously — like Australia — seem like monsters. We want to see committees adhering to their mandates, addressing serious resource issues and the related long delays, and we want them to treat States Parties as their principal interlocutors. We will be working with like-minded countries to achieve these objectives.
Clearly we are not turning our backs on the UN The recent election of the distinguished Australian, Professor Ivan Shearer, to the Human Rights Committee demonstrated our commitment to the system and UN members’ recognition of that commitment. So we do have grumbles about the over-loaded bureaucracy and some of the anomalies that have grown up around the UN treaty system. At the same time, we acknowledge the contributions that the array of UN human rights standards, the international institutions, and emerging body of international law have made to the advancement of human rights. They have palpably not rid the world of ruthless dictators or serious human right abusers. But they have contributed to the emergence of a remarkable new human rights culture in international affairs.
Bit by bit, leaders of governments that suppress human rights are being made to feel uncomfortable, however much they bluster and hide behind sovereignty arguments. The would-be Pol Pots and Ceaucescus are now on notice. The Pinochets and Milosevics of the future, still in their prams, are going to grow up in an international environment that will give them pause. They should note the lesson from recent history that those who hold onto authoritarian power by denying their people the right to participate in government, or by sheer terror, will eventually have their day of reckoning.
The International Criminal Court will make an enormous contribution to shaping this new environment by establishing a single permanent institution to deal with the most egregious offences, and by enhancing the new international culture of human rights. I take pride in Australia’s role in the Court’s gestation and birth, which includes our chairmanship of the 60-nation like-minded group that fought so hard for an effective court.
On 13 March 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release concerning mandatory sentencing (FA 14). Text of the press release follows:
Today I am releasing the text of the United Nations reference paper on international standards in relation to the mandatory sentencing of juveniles. The reference paper was jointly prepared by UNICEF and the UN Commissioner for Human Rights in response to a request from the Leader of the Opposition to UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, and passed to me by the United Nations in Geneva. The paper is a guide to the various international instruments related to the issue. The UN paper does not focus specifically on Australian law and practice nor does it make any judgements about Australia's conformity with international standards. This paper confirms the view expressed by the Secretary-General during his recent visit that the mandatory sentencing issue remains one of domestic responsibility.
On 13 October 2000, a statement was delivered to the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly for the Australian delegation concerning the rights of the child. Extracts of the statement follow:
Today Australia joins other countries in reaffirming and restating its commitment to the promotion and protection of the human rights of the world’s children through its contribution to efforts at the international, regional and national levels. As the most vulnerable group amongst us, children must be accorded special protection and particular care by the international community.The international community has taken great strides towards achieving explicit and comprehensive legal protection of the human rights of children. Over the past decade, the Convention on the Rights of the Child has been a significant factor in raising awareness of children’s rights, in acting as a catalyst for international change and in providing a framework for addressing the needs of children. With 191 countries party to the Convention it has almost achieved universal ratification. Australia urges the very small number of states which have not yet ratified it to do so as soon as possible.
Australia welcomed the conclusion of negotiations on the Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict and on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography earlier this year and their adoption by the General Assembly in May. The Protocols will be considered in accordance with normal domestic processes.
…
The tenth anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 2001 will provide an important opportunity for the international community to assess the progress which has been made towards achieving the goals set by the World Summit for Children in 1990, and to identify new and continuing challenges which require our urgent attention. There are encouraging signs that progress is being made towards some of these goals, for example, immunisation coverage, iodine deficiency control and the promotion of breastfeeding. However, issues such as adequate nutrition, high mortality, sanitation and girls' education goals remain of serious concern.
The Special Session will need to address these problems and define a continuing agenda to further improve the well-being of children worldwide. This agenda should see governments and other participants identifying priority areas of action for the next decade consistent with UNICEF's "future global agenda for children". Australia looks forward to playing an active role and to contributing to a productive and effective meeting. Australia hopes for broad participation at the 2001 special session, including from within the NGO community. We welcome the fact that UNICEF has already implemented initiatives to include youth in the preparatory phase of the 2001 Special Session on Children.
On 13 October 2000, a statement was delivered to the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly for the Australian delegation concerning the rights of the child. Extracts of the statement concerning commercial exploitation of children follow:
At the national level, Australia launched its “National Plan of Action Against the Commercial Exploitation of Children ” on 9 August. The aim of the Plan is to provide the basis for the development of a coordinated cross-sectoral and inter-governmental response to commercial sexual exploitation of children and young people. It represents the fulfilment of an undertaking by Australia as a signatory to the Declaration and Agenda for Action adopted by the Stockholm World Congress Against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children. Australia’s Plan is by no means the end of a process but a beginning.…
Australia welcomed the adoption in 1999 of the ILO Convention on the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour. Ratification of the Convention by Australia is the subject of ongoing domestic consideration and consultation in accordance with treaty making processes.
On 16 February 2000, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, answered a question on notice from Mr Graham Edwards concerning the international campaign against child soldiers. An extract of the answer follows (House of Representatives, Debates, 16 February 2000, p 13714):
In light of the widespread and increasing involvement of children in armed conflicts currently taking place around the world, the Government considers it a priority to support efforts aimed at improving the international legal protection available to children affected by armed conflict. In particular, Australia strongly supports the development of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) on the involvement of children in armed conflict. The aim of the Protocol is to raise the minimum age for recruitment of persons into armed forces and for their participation in hostilities from 15 years (as it is currently established in the CROC and in international humanitarian law). Australia is actively participating in the negotiations of the working group developing the text of the Protocol.
On 9 March 2000, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, answered a question on notice from Mr Martin Ferguson (House of Representatives, Debates, 9 March 2000, p 14399). Extracts of the answer concerning children in armed conflict follow:
Given the International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World, 2001-2010, and the widespread and increasing involvement of children in armed conflicts currently taking place around the world, the Australian Government considers it a priority to support international efforts aimed at improving the protection available to children affected by armed conflict. In particular, Australia has been actively involved in the United Nations working group developing the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the Convention) on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict. Australia supported the adoption of the text of the Protocol which was concluded during a negotiating session held from 10 to 21 January 2000.
The Protocol raises the minimum age for recruitment of persons into armed forces and for their participation in hostilities from 15 years (as it is currently in the Convention and international humanitarian law) to 18 years for participation in hostilities and for compulsory recruitment, and at least 16 years for voluntary recruitment. In addition, the Protocol obliges Parties to maintain safeguards to ensure that when recruiting persons under the age of 18, such persons are fully informed of the duties involved in military service, that reliable proof of age is provided, and that such recruitment is genuinely voluntary and is done with the informed consent of the person’s parents or legal guardians. The Protocol also includes provision for international cooperation and assistance in its implementation.
The adoption of a new instrument will benefit children by establishing new legal standards against which international behaviour can be measured. However, without other practical measures to protect children from involvement in armed conflict this will not be sufficient. The Australian Government considers it a priority to continue to support international efforts aimed at improving the protection available to children affected by armed conflict.
On 13 October 2000, a statement was delivered to the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly for the Australian delegation concerning the rights of the child. Extracts of the statement follow:
Australia supports the ongoing work of the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict and we welcome his latest report. We have taken note of his aim to channel the activities of the many organisations working in this important field into a “critical mass”. We agree that concrete and targeted actions can yield tangible results and we look forward to seeing the results of his efforts. The adoption of the Agenda for War Affected Children at the recent International Conference on this subject in Winnipeg has also played an important part in focusing international attention on the issue of children in, and affected by, armed conflict in the lead up to the 2001 special session on follow up to the World Summit for Children.
On 13 October 2000, a statement was delivered to the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly for the Australian delegation concerning the rights of the child. Extracts of the statement follow:
Australia supports the work of the Special Rapporteur on the Sale of Children, Mrs Ofelia Calcetas-Santos. Australia strongly supports efforts to counter the repugnant practice of trafficking in children. In this regard, Australia was pleased to have been an active participant in a meeting of the Asian Regional Initiative Against Trafficking in Women and Children held in late March. The meeting, co-hosted by the Governments of the Philippines and the United States, raised the profile of this important issue and complemented the existing regional and international processes which aim to stop trafficking. We look forward to further developments in this area.
At a broader regional level, the Australian bilateral aid program aims to ensure that the rights and opportunities of children, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, are promoted through its focus on basic education, primary health and maternal health. Australia’s strong focus on gender and development also contributes to the protection and promotion of the rights of the girl-child. Australia is also a strong collaborator with UNICEF and we work closely with them on their programs in the Asia Pacific.
On 28 February 2000, Head of the Australian Delegation to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, Ms Jo Caldwell, delivered Australia’s statement to the Commission. Extracts of the statement follow:
The Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 was a watershed for the advancement of the status of women. Together with other States which embraced the Australian Government’s proposal for a Conference of Commitments, Australia recognised that in order to achieve long-term improvements in the lives of women, there would need to be a practical agenda of policies and programmes benefiting women.Since Beijing, the Australian Government has delivered on these practical measures, policies and programmes for women, based on the principle that equality of opportunity supports both the realisation of individual potential and a stronger community. The Australian Government has adopted practical and innovative policies to support women’s choice and opportunity — in relation to the twelve critical areas, including the important fundamentals of life such as health, education, employment and aged care.
…
The significance of the Fourth World Conference on Women at Beijing in 1995 is still felt around the world. Governments and communities have a powerful agenda with which to measure progress and achievements — an agenda which unites all nations in one universal aim, that of achieving equality, development and peace for all men and women. Australia looks forward to continuing its constructive engagement to achieve the ideals set out in the Platform for Action and the Beijing Declaration.
On 10 October 2000, the Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, HE Penny Wensley, delivered Australia’s statement on the advancement of women to the United Nations General Assembly. Extracts of the statement follow:
Since we last met to consider the Advancement of Women at the 54th session of the General Assembly, the United Nations and the international community has had an exceptionally busy time. Over the past year, the Beijing Plus Five (United Nations Special Session “Women 2000: Gender, Equality and Peace for the 21st Century”), Copenhagen Plus Five (Five Year Review of the World Summit for Social Development) and Millennium Summit processes provided strong impetus for members of the international community to work together to identify the challenges which still remain to the fulfilment of basic rights for all, and to map out actions to address these as we enter a new century. Those of us who took part in these processes must now return to the less dramatic, less exciting, but equally important business of implementing the commitments we have made.In the field of women’s rights, the Outcomes Document and the Political Declaration which emerged from the Beijing Plus Five process, have provided Governments and other actors in the international community with a blue-print for action. The challenge we now face is to put this blue-print into action, but we also believe there is another challenge for all of us; and that is to keep the promotion and protection of women’s rights on international, regional and national agendas, despite the many competing priorities for our time, energy and resources.
…
The Australian Government will continue to play a strong part in the promotion and protection of women’s rights as a member of the United Nations, through our strong commitment to the Asia-Pacific region and through our robust approach to the advancement of women’s rights within Australia.
The coming year will provide opportunities for us and other states to keep the empowerment and advancement of women high on the international agenda. The Special Session of the General Assembly on Financing for Development in 2001 is one example. The link between gender equality and development is drawing increasing international attention. A recent World Bank Study concludes that promoting gender equality must be a central component of development strategies for all people and that gender equality strengthens countries’ capacity to grow and to reduce poverty. Participating States should ensure that these themes and linkages are given attention during the Special Session.
Separately, the ten year review of the World Children’s Summit will examine issues which have a particular impact on the girl-child. In September 2001, the World Conference on Racism in South Africa will refocus the world’s attention on the right for all people to be treated as equals. The impact of racial discrimination and racially-motivated violence on women and girls, particularly in situations of war, deserves a special focus at this conference.
On 24 October 2000, the Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, HE Penny Wensley, delivered Australia’s statement to the United Nations Security Council Open Meeting on Women and Peace and Security. Extracts of the statement follow:
Just as we came to recognise — not so long ago — the critical link between gender and development, and that achieving sustainable development required the active participation and involvement of both women and men in the development process, so we are moving (rapidly) to recognition that the same, vital, linkage exists in relation to effective conflict resolution, peace making, peace building [and] post conflict activities.The Council itself gave a valuable boost to this in March this year, in a statement it issued on International Women’s Day, when it recognised publicly the inextricable link between peace and equality between men and women. Today’s debate builds on that acknowledgement — that equal access and full participation of women in power structures and their full involvement in all efforts for the prevention and resolution of conflicts are essential for the maintenance and promotion of peace and security.
The Windhoek Declaration of May 2000 and the Namibia Plan of Action on “Mainstreaming a gender perspective in multidimensional peace support operations”, which were informed by the three year study conducted by the Division for the Advancement of Women and [Department of Peacekeeping Operations], were another important step. Australia can support many of its key conclusions and recommendations:
• That the gender dimensions of peace processes have not been adequately recognised;
• That women have so far been denied their full role in national and international peacekeeping and peacemaking operations;
• That the mandates of UN preventive peace missions, peacekeeping operations and peacebuilding should include provisions for women’s protection and address gender issues; and
• That peace support operations should include appropriately staffed and integrated gender units and gender advisers.
The recent review on war-affected children by Graca Machel is also important. A new chapter on the role of women and the peace process, recognised that building peace from the grass roots level is an important aspect of women’s participation — that even as they hold their families together in war and post-war conditions, women are creating and sustaining peace at the community level. But it went further, to argue that the role of women must go beyond this informal grass roots level; that women have potential to make a greater contribution to peacemaking and peacebuilding; that they should be given an active role in the formal processes of conflict resolution and post conflict reconstruction.
So, Mr President, the gaps — and the possibilities — in relation to women’s participation have been identified, the linkages are becoming more evident and acknowledged by authoritative voices, the lessons learned are being examined and placed before the UN system and Member States and the calls to action — to factor women into the peace and security equation in new ways — are loud and becoming louder. The question is, how do we — or how should we — heed them?
Australia believes there are a number of practical steps which can be taken. We are applying these in our own development assistance programs, in our region in particular. We would be happy to share our experience with programs in Bougainville, the Solomon Islands and East Timor, designed to support the role of women in peace processes (operating alongside programs to empower women and to provide greater protection for women in situations of armed conflict).
Beyond our national efforts, we would wish to see a more deliberate and concentrated effort, at the regional and international level, to increase women’s participation in peacemaking and peacebuilding operations. At the top of the spectrum, renewed attention should be given to the consideration of qualified women for appointment as Special Representatives and Deputy Special Representatives of the Secretary-General and as senior field staff for peace support operations. This requires effort on the part of the UN and of Member States, to identify suitably qualified women for leadership positions. Australia has just completed a lengthy and intensive exercise to do just that. We hope that other governments will do likewise.
On 10 October 2000, the Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, HE Penny Wensley, delivered Australia’s statement on the advancement of women to the United Nations General Assembly. Extracts of the statement concerning the role of the United Nations follow:
It is important that the United Nations itself remains an uncompromising advocate of women’s rights through mainstreaming and the integration of women’s issues into all UN mechanisms. Australia welcomes the Secretary-General’s renewed commitment to achieving gender equality as set out in his latest report on the Status of Women in the Secretariat. We will continue to monitor developments closely in this area.In this context individual States, as well as the UN, should continue efforts to identify suitably qualified women for positions throughout the UN system, including as Special Representatives and Deputy Special Representatives of the Secretary-General. The appointment of women as decision makers at the international level will also help to promote their greater participation in regional and national decision-making processes, an area where all Member States of the United Nations should continue to strive to do better.
Australia is strongly committed to improving the operation of international human rights mechanisms, including those which promote and protect the rights of women. The Australian Government recently completed a review of its interaction with the United Nations Treaty Committee system and has announced a package of measures which aim to bring about an improvement in the operation of that system. Australia believes that reforming the system will enhance the integrity of the international human rights system and bring tangible benefits to many women around the world. One important aspect of reform is to ensure that the Committees entrusted with upholding international human rights standards have the resources they need to perform this role effectively.
On 10 October 2000, the Ambassador to the United Nations, New York, HE Penny Wensley, delivered Australia’s statement on the advancement of women to the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. Extracts of the statement concerning the role of the regional organisations follow:
Just as we think the Member States of the United Nations should look for opportunities in the UN system to ensure that women’s rights are addressed effectively at the international level, Australia also believes that regional organisations and groups should take opportunities to pursue the advancement and empowerment of women. As a government with a strong commitment to the Asia-Pacific region, Australia is always looking to develop and strengthen cooperation on priority issues such as human rights through its bilateral and regional relationships.We have played an active role in the APEC Advisory Group on Gender Integration, which aims to increase women’s involvement, both as beneficiaries and participants, in the work of APEC. Australia has also long been a supporter of the promotion of equal opportunities and equal rights for women through our bilateral development assistance programs in the Asia-Pacific as well as other regions.
We are already looking at ways in which we will be able to assist the promotion of women’s rights and opportunities in our future aid contributions to East Timor. This is an opportunity for Australia to help ensure that women take an active and equal role in the development and administration of a new society from the very outset. We will be doing so from a strong base. The women of East Timor have already played a very important role in the territory’s transition to independence. The Gender Affairs unit in the United Nations Transitional Administration is also playing an important role in the political and social reconciliation process for women in the territory.
On 7 March 2000, a partial withdrawal of Australia’s Reservation to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. The partial withdrawal concerned women in combat and combat-related duties. Extracts of the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:
At the time of ratification of the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) on 28 July 1983, Australia lodged two reservations. The first reservation relates to maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits pursuant to Article 11.2(b). The other reservation concerns women in combat and combat-related duties. Changes to Australia’s Defence Force (ADF) policy and relevant legislation since ratification allow the reservation dealing with combat and combat-related duties to be altered to withdraw the reference to combat-related duties. The reservation relating to maternity leave will remain unchanged.…
The purpose of CEDAW is to promote equality of rights between women and men and to improve the status of women by eliminating gender based discrimination. CEDAW recognises that discrimination against women violates the principles of equal rights and respect for human dignity and is an obstacle to the equal participation of women in political, social, economic, community and cultural life. CEDAW was created in the recognition that despite various international human rights instruments, extensive discrimination against women continues to exist.
…
The reservation relating to women in combat and combat-related duties … was lodged because Australian Defence Force policy and domestic law were inconsistent with CEDAW in this respect. The text of the original reservation is as follows:
The Government of Australia advises that it does not accept the application of the Convention in so far as it would require alteration of Defence Force policy which excludes women from combat and combat-related duties. The Government of Australia is reviewing this policy so as to more closely define “combat” and “combat-related duties”.
However, since 1992 ADF policy has been that women may perform combat-related duties. In addition, Section 31 of the Sex Discrimination Amendment Act 1995has omitted the reference to combat-related duties contained in section 43 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, confining the exemption to combat duties. This allows a partial withdrawal of Australia’s original reservation so that it applies only to the involvement of women in combat duties. The text of the reservation would then read:
The Government of Australia advises that it does not accept the application of the Convention in so far as it would require alteration of Defence Force Policy which excludes women from combat duties.
Existing defence force policy continues to exclude women from combat duties. Section 43 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 continues to exempt from its anti-discrimination requirements discrimination against a woman on “the ground of her sex in connection with employment, engagement or appointment in the Defence force…”.
On 17 October 2000, a statement was delivered to the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly for the Australian delegation. Extracts of the statement follow:
My delegation welcomes the opportunity to address the Third Committee on the activities of the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People. The Australian Government unequivocally condemns racial prejudice in any form, and strongly supports international action to better recognise, promote and protect the rights of indigenous peoples throughout the world. Australia therefore strongly supports the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People as an important means to this end.…
The establishment of a permanent forum in the United Nations to consider indigenous issues has been another important focus of efforts during the Decade, and one on which work is yet to be completed. Australia supports the establishment of an appropriately representative and accountable body which can ensure that indigenous peoples’ perspectives are known and understood in the multilateral sphere, and can better coordinate UN activity on indigenous issues. We have been involved in work in the Commission on Human Rights to develop this concept. The outcome of that work, Resolution 2000/22 of the Economic and Social Council, reflects the broad agreement of states that such a body should be established, and on key elements of its mandate and modus operandi. However, further discussion is needed to clarify remaining elements, including the important and related ones of funding, and the fate of existing UN mechanisms whose roles duplicate elements of that envisaged for the new body. Australia remains ready to participate in any discussions that will facilitate effective participation by indigenous peoples in the UN system. We hope that those on the establishment of the Permanent Forum will move forward in the near future.
…
Advancing indigenous peoples’ economic and social rights and opportunities is vital to achieving lasting reconciliation with the first peoples of so many nations. In this as in other areas of human rights Australia’s policy has always been one of promoting human rights through practical deeds and actions, rather than simply words. To this end, Australia has participated in the full range of international forums designed to recognise the contributions that indigenous peoples have made and continue to make. Australian indigenous representatives have also been active participants in such forums, with the support of the Government, or that of their own representative bodies.
On 17 October 2000, a statement was delivered to the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly for the Australian delegation. Extracts of the statement follow:
Australia’s approach to indigenous issues at the multilateral level reflects our domestic approach, which is based on the principle that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should have greater opportunities for exercising meaningful control over their affairs and an effective voice in decision making on matters which affect them. This principle already operates to a significant degree in Australia. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are not only able to exercise the full range of civil and political rights that all Australians enjoy, a system underpinned by wide-ranging anti-discrimination legislation, but also have access to special legislation and programmes to safeguard and advance their rights. Two key bodies in the management and implementation of these programs, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and Torres Strait Regional Authority, which between them administer over half the Australian Government’s expenditure on indigenous specific programmes, are controlled by elected indigenous boards.Like many other countries, Australia is continuing to confront its colonial past and the legacy of ongoing social and economic disadvantage faced by its indigenous peoples. One of Australia’s key priorities in the new millennium is to ensure that all Australians share equally in the prosperity of the nation. The Australian Government is committed to redressing indigenous disadvantage, and spent a record $2.2 billion on indigenous-specific programmes in 1999-2000. The emphasis is on practical measures to improve indigenous people’s health, housing, education, employment and training opportunities. Australian State and Territory governments have also implemented a range of indigenous-specific programmes and initiatives. Australia believes that such measures are necessary so that indigenous people can exercise their civil and political rights from a position of strength.
The Australian Government believes that true reconciliation can only be achieved through practical outcomes that improve the standard of living of indigenous Australians. The Government also understands the importance to many indigenous people of symbolic actions. Last year the Australian Parliament reaffirmed its “wholehearted commitment to the cause of reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians as an important national priority for Australians”, and, in a motion of reconciliation, expressed “its deep and sincere regret that indigenous Australians suffered injustices under the practices of past generations, and for the hurt and trauma that many indigenous people continue to feel as a consequence of those practices.”
On 19 October 2000, a statement was delivered to the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly for the Australian delegation. Extracts of the statement follow:
Australia regards racism as a fundamental challenge for all the nations of the international community, both individually and collectively. The Australian Government therefore attaches great importance to the World Conference Against Racism. We fully support the objectives outlined for the Conference in the 1997 United Nations General Assembly resolution, in particular that it formulate concrete recommendations for action-oriented national, regional and international measures aimed at combating racism.In this context we would like, through you, to draw the attention of the Committee to the Vision Declaration made by the Secretary-General for the Conference and High Commissioner for Human Rights during the Millennium Summit. This Declaration was endorsed by our Prime Minister and many other of the Heads of Government and Heads of State present for the Summit. It is, as the World Conference must be, forward looking. It calls for an inclusive, non-discriminatory world in which diversity of race and culture are not limiting factors in human exchange and development, but means to mutual enrichment. It urges us to treat diversity as a gift rather than a threat in considering the desired outcomes from the Conference.
…
Like all other societies, Australia is not completely immune from intolerance and prejudice based on race and culture which, if not constantly worked at, could disrupt our community harmony. However, the great majority of Australians find such attitudes offensive, and completely contrary to our tradition of tolerance; of giving everyone a “fair go”. Diversity has enriched us, not harmed us. Australia has a strong tradition of older generation Australians, co-existing harmoniously with newer arrivals. For some years the Government has been running a program called “Living in Harmony” which aims to reinforce these messages through community education and partnerships. Its centrepiece is a community grants program which provides funding for projects which promote community harmony, reduce bigotry and intolerance, and build on previous initiatives for raising cross-cultural awareness, tolerance and understanding. This is based on an understanding that communities are in the best position to recognise and deal with local problems.
Australia believes that this sort of partnership approach is as necessary and as relevant at the regional and global levels as it is at the national level. It is reflected in the High Commissioner’s Declaration which envisages a life for every man, woman and child where the exercise of individual gifts and personal rights is affirmed by the dynamic solidarity of our membership of the one human family. If the World Conference Against Racism is to be successful we see it as vital that it look forward and look constructively at the means of realising this vision.
The themes for the provisional agenda of the World Conference, as agreed by the Preparatory Committee, provide a solid basis for a forward looking agenda. However, we should reiterate a concern expressed by the Western Group in the Preparatory Committee at the time the themes were adopted. This related to the use of the word “compensatory” in the fourth theme, which deals with provision of effective remedies and related measures. We remain of the view that a focus on compensatory measures would not be likely to yield constructive, forward looking outcomes. Nor would it be conducive to agreement on the agenda for cultural change envisaged in the High Commissioner’s Declaration.
We see themes such as measures of prevention, education and protection, and strategies to achieve full and effective equality as the main focus for our efforts. It is these considerations which, in our view, are most likely to provide — as the High Commissioner’s Declaration says — the culture to ensure full recognition of the dignity and equality of all and full respect for their human rights.
Consistent with this approach and these objectives, we consider it vital that all preparatory processes for the Conference be broadly inclusive. They should contribute to the development of a constructive and forward looking conference agenda, and the formulation of a positive and practical program of action. The High Commissioner has made inclusiveness a key theme of her approach to the Conference. She has made clear her view that the policy and practice of ensuring inclusion will be the most effective way to overcome remaining obstacles to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
In this context, Australia continues to believe that all states should have the opportunity to participate fully in the regional preparatory processes for the World Conference. Unfortunately, for Australia and New Zealand, this has not so far been the case. Both states recently participated in the regional preparatory Asia-Pacific Expert Seminar in Bangkok, but the Geneva Asian Group’s decision to organise the Tehran regional preparatory meeting along UN Asia Group electoral lines is effectively excluding Australia and New Zealand from full participation in preparatory processes, a situation which Mrs Robinson, as Secretary-General for the Conference, has found of concern.
In all other regional preparatory processes, while different ways of organisation have been used, all states have a place. This means that Australia and New Zealand find themselves in the anomalous situation whereby our two countries, alone among member states, are currently unable to participate fully in the regional preparatory process for this important UN Conference. Not only would this be anomalous, but also inconsistent with previous practice as there are clear precedents for our full participation in the Tehran regional meeting.
On 20 March 2000, the Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, HE Les Luck, delivered Australia’s statement to the Commission on Human Rights. Extracts of the statement concerning good governance follow:
As members of the United Nations, it is never easy to conduct a stock-take of our collective efforts to realise the human rights of the citizens of the world. In some areas we find reasons to be encouraged; in others we see tragedy and appalling abuses. Unlike in some spheres of activity, it is not possible to take a balance sheet approach that produces a tidy plus or minus result: human rights are not like that. All we can do is try to detect patterns in the patchwork of developments.Australia believes one such pattern is now clearly in evidence. More and more governments, it seems, are realising that without strong institutions, without the rule of law, without accountability and transparency and without an active and participative civil society, national well-being in all its facets — economic, social, cultural, political and civil — is much more difficult to secure. Many governments are also realising that respect for human rights can only flourish where the basic building blocks of good governance are firmly in place.
Recognising the imperative for good governance and translating it into reality are very different things, as governments everywhere and of every persuasion are aware. But Australia sits in a region, and a hemisphere, where courageous efforts are being made in many states to inculcate the rule of law and the institutions and habits of good governance, while at the same time addressing the excesses of the past. The Australian Government would like to acknowledge these efforts, and to pledge its continuing support for them.
On 27 April 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release concerning the United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution on good governance. Extracts of the press release follow:
Member countries of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, currently meeting in Geneva, voted almost unanimously in favour of an Australian-led resolution on good governance, breaking new ground in international thinking on the connections between human rights and transparent, accountable and participatory government. It was the first time a UN inter-governmental forum had adopted such a resolution.While noting that good governance practices vary according to the needs and circumstances of different societies, the resolution emphasised that strengthening good governance at the national level, including through the building of effective and accountable institutions for promoting growth and sustainable development, was a process for all governments regardless of the level of development of the countries concerned.
Good governance has been an important plank of the Australian Government’s development cooperation program and its international human rights activities. The decision to introduce a resolution on good governance added a further dimension to the practical assistance the Government continues to provide towards institution and capacity-building, particularly in the Asia Pacific region.
In introducing the resolution to the Commission, Australia worked closely with four other countries: Poland, Chile, South Africa and the Republic of Korea. The five countries represented all the regions making up the United Nations and together were able to marshal support for the resolution.
The adoption of the resolution was an impressive indication that countries of all persuasions accepted that good governance was inseparable from the protection of human rights.
On 20 March 2000, the Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, HE Les Luck, delivered Australia’s statement to the Commission on Human Rights. Extract of the statement concerning Afghanistan follows:
Australia remains deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Afghanistan. Amidst recent reports of renewed fighting in Afghanistan, Australia urges all factions to observe international and human rights law and support the delivery of vital UN humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people. We are also deeply concerned about the strict social policies imposed by the Taliban which impinge most acutely on the rights of women and girls. The lack of adequate health care and education currently received by women and girls in Afghanistan is particularly disturbing. Australia remains supportive of all efforts by the international community to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Afghanistan.
On 20 March 2000, the Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, HE Les Luck, delivered Australia’s statement to the Commission on Human Rights. Extract of the statement concerning Algeria follows:
Australia has been heartened by President Bouteflika’s efforts towards reconciliation and the restoration of peace in Algeria which have led to a decline in the tragic loss of life and violent incidents that we have witnessed as a result of internal turmoil during the last decade.
On 20 March 2000, the Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, HE Les Luck, delivered Australia’s statement to the Commission on Human Rights. Extract of the statement concerning Burma follows:
In Burma, Australia remains very concerned at the continued lack of progress on human rights against widely accepted international standards, including the forcible re-location of entire villages away from their sources of livelihood. We are disturbed by continued reports of the use of forced labour both for public works and for army porterage. We urge the Burmese Government to open a genuine dialogue on political reform, which must include the NLD and representatives of the ethnic minorities and must address the human rights situation in Burma. On the positive side, however, we have been encouraged by the Burmese Government’s decision to grant the International Red Cross access into its prisons and encourage continued commitment to that process.
On 24 August 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release concerning human rights in Burma (FA 96). Extracts of the press release follow:
There can be no argument about the extent of human rights abuses in Burma. The question is what to do to improve the situation.Our approach to Burma arose from the repeated failure of other approaches to improve the political and human rights situation there.
The Human Rights training program has not only helped educate Burmese officials in basic human rights, but we have also contributed to Burma agreeing to establish an independent Human Rights Commission based on the Paris Principles, and using Indonesia’s KOMNAS HAM as a model.
On 4 September 2000, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, answered a question without notice from Mr Laurie Brereton concerning human rights in Burma (House of Representatives, Debates, 4 September 2000, p 19986). Extract of the answer follows:
The Australian government’s position is that it is appalled by the standards of human rights in Burma and it certainly deplores the way Aung San Suu Kyi has been treated over a very long period of time — over a decade — including at the present time and during the last week. The Australian government is quite happy to join with other countries in deploring that treatment.
On 5 September 2000, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, answered a question without notice from Mr Laurie Brereton concerning human rights in Burma (House of Representatives, Debates, 5 September 2000, p 20097). Extract of the answer follows:
The overall approach of this government to human rights in Burma is not only to see that the Burmese people and the Burmese government are able to fulfil the international norms of human rights — which, of course, are well articulated in United Nations conventions and a number of other instruments — but also to see in Burma the restoration of democracy, which was snatched from the Burmese people just over 10 years ago. … This country adheres to United Nations conventions. We signed these conventions a very long time ago, and we obviously support other countries signing the conventions. But one of the points that is often made about United Nations conventions is that many countries sign these conventions and some do not live up to them. There is a long record of that.
On 6 November 2000, in the Senate, the Minister Representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Robert Hill, answered a question on notice from Senator Vicki Bourne concerning the human rights situation in Burma (Senate, Debates, 6 November 2000, p 19227). Extracts of the answer follow:
The Australian Government was not silent over the recent restrictions on the travel of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. We deplored the recent actions of the Burmese Government in forcing Suu Kyi and her NLD supporters to return to Rangoon. We had repeatedly urged the Burmese Government to respect the right of freedom of movement for all Burmese people including Suu Kyi, and this included her right to move about freely and meet with her supporters in the township of Dala. As Mr Downer said in the House of Representatives on 4 and 5 September, the Australian Government had repeatedly and publicly criticised human rights abuse in Burma and was appalled by the standard of human rights in Burma.…
On 7 September Mr Downer called in the Burmese Ambassador and told him that the Australian Government deplored the recent treatment of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi by police and military officials. He emphasised that the prevention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s travel beyond Dala, and her forcible return to Rangoon were in violation of the internationally recognised right to freedom of movement and association. The Australian Embassy in Rangoon sought access to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and NLD representatives as soon as possible in order to confirm first hand their circumstances and welfare.
On 20 November 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, delivered a speech to the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law. Extracts of that speech concerning Burma follow:
I would be the last to inflate the prospects of turning around the very poor situation in Burma, but the purpose of the initiative was always fairly straight-forward: to do something to improve the human rights of the Burmese people. We had reached the stage when other approaches did not seem to be having the slightest effect and the old maxims about “nothing ventured nothing gained”, or “a journey of a thousand miles must start with a single step” were beginning to come to mind. The idea of suggesting to the Burmese that they establish a national human rights institution, and the proposal to conduct workshops on human rights for Burmese officials, were born out of frustration with zero progress, as much as anything else. Some may look for darker motives, but they won’t find them.So far, a total of 51 Burmese officials have taken part in the three workshops and benefited from the talents and knowledge of people like David Kinley here. The workshops have covered international law and human rights treaties and, from what I have heard, the participants were keen students who were prepared to talk fairly freely about how the content of the courses related to Burma. They came from a range of ministries and included police and prison officers. The Burmese are under no illusions that Australia is content only to have conducted the workshops and to hear that Burma is setting up a national human rights institution. They know that they will have to follow through with concrete action if Australia is to take our initiative forward and that we will be watching carefully to see what kind of commission is established and how it operates. I think the Burmese also realise that after ten years of disappointment, the world is not disposed to give them the benefit of the doubt. So the ball is very much in Burma’s court.
But regardless of what happens with this initiative overall, I find it hard to believe that giving human rights training to 51 Burmese officials with direct responsibilities in some of the most difficult areas affecting human rights could be anything other than a useful step. If the workshops’ sole effect is to open the minds of those officials and the people associated with them to new ideas, they will have been worth having.
On 20 March 2000, the Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, HE Les Luck, delivered Australia’s statement to the Commission on Human Rights. Extract of the statement concerning Cambodia follows:
In Cambodia, a system of village-level monitoring of human rights problems has been introduced, along with a Human Rights Committee. We commend the efforts that have been made and hope they will quickly begin to yield positive results. Australia also notes that during the past year there have been no reports of politically motivated killings by government forces. Steps have been taken to allow prosecutions of the police and security forces for criminal activity, but much remains to be done to address a continuing culture of impunity, a lack of respect for the rule of law, and problems in maintaining the division between powers of the executive and judiciary.
On 20 March 2000, the Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, HE Les Luck, delivered Australia’s statement to the Commission on Human Rights. Extract of the statement concerning Chechnya follows:
Australia shares the concerns of the international community over the disastrous humanitarian situation in Chechnya, and strongly supports international efforts to resolve the crisis, including through the search for a political solution. Australia welcomes the appointment by Russia of a human rights monitor in Chechnya, and notes the importance of commitment to investigating credible reports of human rights abuses. Australia welcomes the facilitation of visits to Chechnya by international human rights observers.
On 20 March 2000, the Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, HE Les Luck, delivered Australia’s statement to the Commission on Human Rights. Extracts of the statement concerning China follow:
… in China, […] the continuation of our formal human rights dialogue has made it possible to cooperate with the Chinese authorities to implement a Human Rights and Technical Assistance program. This program has a grass-roots focus and has covered areas such as women’s rights, legal reform, and human rights training for officials. The Dialogue has also provided Australia with the means of communicating our human rights concerns directly to senior officials in a position to bring about changes in China, including our concerns about the rights to freedom of assembly, association and speech and the rights of religious and ethnic minorities.Australia repeatedly expresses concerns about actions taken against individuals and groups in China which severely circumscribe their freedoms, and we do so again now in this international forum. We have also questioned the legislation and regulations that legitimise harsh penalties for activities that most people regard as benign. In other spheres, it is not the law itself but the lack of law enforcement that arouses concern. While acknowledging the great strides China has taken in the area of economic and social rights, Australia urges China to spare no effort to ensure that all the human rights of all its citizens are respected.
On 15 August 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release concerning the human rights dialogue with China (FA 90A). Extracts of the press release follow:
An expanded Chinese delegation will attend the fourth round of the Australia China Human Rights Dialogue to be held in Australia 14-17 August. Participation will increase from five Chinese ministries in 1998, the last time the talks were held in Australia, to nine ministries and agencies this year. The Chinese delegation will be led by a senior Foreign Ministry official, Vice Minister Yang Jiechi.…
The meeting is expected to cover a large number of human rights issues and concerns. The two sides will also decide on activities to be conducted under the Human Rights Technical Assistance Program.
On 17 August 2000, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, answered a question without notice from Mr Bruce Baird concerning the human rights dialogue with China (House of Representatives, Debates, 17 August 2000, p 19283). Extracts of the answer follow:
Yesterday and the evening before, a human rights dialogue, the fourth in a series, was conducted between Australian and Chinese delegations.…
Coming from this dialogue, which discussed a wide range of concerns in the area of human rights, is the Technical Cooperation Program, a program which Australia finances to address legal reforms in respect of human rights in China. This year more initiatives are being taken in that area.
…
When the opposition were the government, they did not conduct a human rights dialogue of this kind with China but chose the path of an annual human rights resolution in the United Nations which they co-sponsored—the idea being that this resolution would condemn China, once passed through the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and this would somehow lead to an improvement in human rights in China. The simple fact is that that particular policy, … , has now been tried nine times and that resolution has failed on all nine occasions. It is also important to note that there will be no human rights dialogue for as long as countries like Australia co-sponsor this resolution.
In 1997 this government abandoned the resolution, deciding that for us the human rights dialogue was likely to be more productive.
On 20 March 2000, the Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, HE Les Luck, delivered Australia’s statement to the Commission on Human Rights. Extract of the statement concerning Cyprus follows:
Breaches of human rights continue to take place in Cyprus and we see an urgent need to move forward with the proximity talks under UN auspices aimed at achieving a peace settlement in Cyprus. We urge both sides to show flexibility in this process.
On 20 March 2000, the Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, HE Les Luck, delivered Australia’s statement to the Commission on Human Rights. Extract of the statement concerning East Timor follows:
In East Timor, people are coming to terms with their recent trauma and beginning to put their lives back together again in an atmosphere of strong international support for a fresh beginning. The promotion and protection of human rights will be of paramount importance as the East Timorese people set about building a new nation and a climate of trust and reconciliation. The United Nations, with support from this Commission, has an important role to play in assisting that endeavour. Individual member nations can also provide material as well as political support for human rights activities in East Timor.
On 20 March 2000, the Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, HE Les Luck, delivered Australia’s statement to the Commission on Human Rights. Extract of the statement concerning the Great Lakes region of Africa follows:
Australia also remains concerned at the adverse impact of the continuing conflict in the Great Lakes region of Africa on the refugee and human rights situation and its severe consequences for the security and well-being of the civilian population. We urge all signatories to the Lusaka Peace Agreement to implement the provisions of the Agreement and work towards a long-term solution which is acceptable to all. The humanitarian and human rights situation in Sudan is another source of concern. We welcome the extension of the ceasefire in parts of southern Sudan. We urge all parties to cooperate with international agencies, humanitarian organisations and the United Nations Special Rapporteur in order to address the needs of the Sudanese people suffering from the prolonged conflict.
On 20 March 2000, the Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, HE Les Luck, delivered Australia’s statement to the Commission on Human Rights. Extract of the statement concerning Indonesia follows:
The democratic transition in Indonesia has passed some significant milestones since this Commission last met. The general election was notable for its fairness, lack of violence and high level of participation. It was conducted amid greater political freedom, including a new electoral law. The democratically-elected government is committed to improving human rights in Indonesia. It has taken steps to increase the accountability of government and the military, including by supporting investigations into human rights abuses in East Timor and Aceh, and has established a Ministry of Human Rights. New freedom of the press and the release of political prisoners are two further significant developments. Enormous challenges remain, including internal unrest whose underlying causes have not yet been fully addressed. Australia applauds these historic changes and is providing strong support for Indonesia’s efforts and urges other countries to do likewise.
On 20 November 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, delivered a speech to the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law. Extracts of that speech concerning Indonesia follow:
… I would like to think that a series of human rights workshops being conducted in three provincial centres of Indonesia right now with Australian Government support will ultimately have a beneficial effect on the lives of ordinary people.Indonesia, of course, is going through an enormously difficult transition and has already put in place a range of institutions and legislative measures to address its human rights problems and past practices of impunity. By the end of the current series of workshops some 450 Indonesian officials, members of parliament, police officers, academics and media representatives from Yogjakarta, Bandung and Semarang will have participated in three-day workshops covering the architecture of the international human rights system and the four treaties to which Indonesia is a party. The workshops complement other human rights assistance Australia has provided to Indonesia, including to Komnas Ham, the national human rights commission.
On 20 March 2000, the Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, HE Les Luck, delivered Australia’s statement to the Commission on Human Rights. Extract of the statement concerning Iran follows:
Australia also welcomes the strong support recently expressed by the Iranian people for the reformist political program of President Khatami, and is encouraged by his emphasis on the promotion of the rule of law and the protection of rights and freedoms provided for in the Iranian Constitution. However, human rights issues remain of concern, especially in relation to due process and the treatment of the Baha’is.
On 20 March 2000, the Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, HE Les Luck, delivered Australia’s statement to the Commission on Human Rights. Extract of the statement concerning Sri Lanka follows:
Australia remains deeply concerned by the continuing ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka and urges all parties to cease hostilities and undertake negotiations to find a lasting political solution that takes into account the legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lankans. We welcome progress made in investigating disappearances, such as the Chemmani multiple graves investigation, and the successful prosecution of members of the security forces for human rights abuses. We are encouraged by the progress made by the Human Rights Commission, but urge it to be strengthened further. Australia deplores and condemns all acts of terrorism and is greatly concerned by the continuing brutal killing of innocent civilians by the LTTE and their use of child soldiers.
On 8 June 2000, in the Senate, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Robert Hill, answered a question on notice from Senator Vicki Bourne concerning the human rights situation in Sri Lanka (Senate, Debates, 8 June 2000, p 15046). Extracts of the answer follow:
The Australian Government supports a political settlement to the conflict, which takes account of the legitimate aspirations of the Tamil minority and recognises the fundamental human rights of all Sri Lankans, while continuing to support the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. Australia does not and has never supported a military solution to the conflict and believes that only a peaceful negotiated settlement will bring an end to the human suffering wrought by the continuing conflict. Australia takes every opportunity in its ongoing contacts with the Sri Lankan Government and with Tamil groups in Australia to encourage progress towards a peaceful resolution.
On 7 March 2000, the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions Relating to Maintenance Obligations, done at the Hague on 2 October 1973, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. The following is an extract of the National Interest Analysis:
At the time of accession Australia will make a reservation under article 26(3) of the Convention to state that within Australia and its territories recognition or enforcement will not be given to decisions in respect of maintenance obligations between persons related collaterally or by affinity. The effect of this reservation would be to restrict Australia’s obligations to recognise and enforce overseas liabilities to those which are currently enforced by domestic law in Australia. These are liabilities for the maintenance of children and spouses.…
The main objective of the Convention is to establish international arrangements for the recognition and enforcement of child support and spousal maintenance liabilities. The Convention obliges each Contracting State to provide in its domestic legislation for the recognition and enforcement of such liabilities. The Convention will complement Australia’s existing bilateral and multilateral international arrangements for enforcement of child support and spousal maintenance liabilities. Australia is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance of 20 June 1956 which obliges Contracting States to take action to recover maintenance for claimants in other Contracting States. Australia also has non treaty bilateral arrangements with twenty seven countries under which authorities take action to recover child support and spousal maintenance.
On 7 March 2000, the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand on Child and Spousal Maintenance was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts of the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:
The main objective of the Agreement is to provide new arrangements between Australia and New Zealand for the collection and payment of monies in relation to child and spousal maintenance. The Agreement operates where the payer is resident in the jurisdiction of one country and the payee is resident in the jurisdiction of the other country.The Agreement obliges each country to take action to register and enforce child support assessments, court maintenance orders and registered maintenance agreements. Other principal provisions of the Agreement provide principles for the resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction between Australian and New Zealand Child Support Agencies and courts, principles for determining the law applicable in cases where child support is payable in respect of children in both countries, obligations of administrative and judicial authorities to collect monies under liabilities registered in their jurisdiction, requirements for reciprocity in legislative presumptions of parentage and requirements for the establishment of Central Authorities in both countries to be responsible for the implementation of the Agreement.
The Agreement will replace existing arrangements between Australia and New Zealand for enforcement of child support and spousal maintenance liabilities. These existing arrangements are the United Nations Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance of 20 June 1956 (which provides for Contracting States to take action to recover maintenance for claimants in other Contracting States) and non treaty arrangements between Australia and New Zealand which provide for the recognition and enforcement of child support and spousal maintenance liabilities.
On 7 March 2000, the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark on Social Security, done at Canberra on 1 July 1999, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts of the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:
Once in force the Agreement will co-ordinate the social security schemes of Australia and Denmark to provide better welfare protection to people who move between Australia and Denmark. It will benefit Australia’s population of about 9,000 Danish-born residents, as well as those former Australian residents now living in Denmark.People will be able to move between Australia and Denmark knowing that their pension rights are recognised in both countries and that each country will contribute fairly to support those people who have spent part of their working lives in both countries. In this way, both countries will share responsibility for the total social security coverage for people who are within the scope of the Agreement.
A network of bilateral social security agreements has been set up within the international community to give better welfare protection to people who move between countries. Australia is a country with a large overseas-born population and it is appropriate for it to participate in this network of agreements.
Australia’s participation also brings economic and political benefits to Australia by maximising both the foreign income of Australian pensioner residents and the flow on effect of these funds into the Australian economy, and by reinforcing Australia’s political, business or strategic interests.
On 4 April 2000, the Agreement on Social Security between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Italy and Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Italy, amending and clarifying the Agreement on Social Security were tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts of the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:
There are two treaty actions proposed: one is lodgement of Australia’s instrument of ratification to bring into force the Agreement on Social Security with the Republic of Italy, which was signed on 13 September 1993 (‘the 1993 Agreement’); and the other an exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement between Australia and the Republic of Italy to amend and clarify the 1993 Agreement (‘the Amendment’).…
When the 1993 Agreement enters into force, the present Agreement between Australia and the Republic of Italy providing for reciprocity in matters relating to Social Security of 23 April 1986… , shall terminate … .
…
The 1993 Agreement will bring economic and political benefits to Australia, similar to the 1986 Agreement, as well as offering better social welfare protection to people who move between the two countries.
…
The unratified 1993 Agreement was reviewed in 1997 to cater for terminology changes and to clarify the operation of the income testing provisions.
On 10 October 2000, the proposed Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt Regarding Cooperation on Protecting the Welfare of Children was tabled in both Houses of Parliament prior to signature, as decided by both Parties. Extracts of the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:
The Agreement is required because there is currently no mechanism to assist Australian nationals whose children have either been abducted to Egypt or where difficulties with contact between a parent and child have arisen. The Agreement will establish formal procedures to assist Australian nationals in these circumstances.The Agreement is in Australia’s interests because Egypt is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980, (the ‘Child Abduction Convention’). Hence the mechanisms and protocols available under the Child Abduction Convention cannot be utilised in cases involving Egypt. Egypt is one of several countries with child custody laws based on religious law and is unlikely to become a party to the Child Abduction Convention.
The Agreement is important because it reflects the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 11 of that Convention specifically obliges States to take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad and to promote the conclusion of bilateral agreements to this end.
The Agreement will benefit Australia as it mandates ‘the best interests of the child’ as being of primary importance in matters relating to parents’ rights of residence and contact with their children (residence and contact in Australian law equate to custody and access in the Agreement). It also seeks to maintain the child’s personal relations with both parents on a regular basis and aims to assist a child to recover from any harmful effects suffered in the removal of the child by a parent from the territory of one Party to the territory of the other Party (Article 1).
…
The Agreement is of a facilitative and administrative nature. It provides a consultative mechanism to formulate and implement recommendations to effectively resolve child abduction cases. There are no measures that require legal enforcement, for example, through the courts of either country. The Agreement extends to children who are of Egyptian, Australian or dual Australian and Egyptian nationality (Article 2).
Article 3 of the Agreement provides for the establishment of a Joint Consultative Commission (‘the Commission’). The Commission is an administrative body made up of representatives from government authorities in both countries. In Australia the government authorities are the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department and the Commonwealth Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In Egypt the government authorities are the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Justice and the Interior. The Commission will assist in locating children who have been abducted, encouraging dialogue between parents and facilitating the return of children in some cases. The Commission will, in accordance with the laws of each Party:
• act as a monitoring body which will consider and assist attempts to resolve individual cases;
• perform an educative and promotional function with respect to the rights of children (Articles 5 and 6);
• assist parents and children to obtain travel documentation (Article 6(e)). The Agreement provides that the Commission may only consider immigration matters in these circumstances (Article 5(2));
• play a role in mediating and settling disputes between parents, and it may take recommendations to the appropriate authorities to assist in taking all appropriate measures, in accordance with the laws of each Party, to achieve the objectives of the Agreement;
• follow the progress of cases with a view to providing timely status reports to the concerned authorities of both countries and promoting awareness and cooperation between the concerned authorities; and
• receive and exchange information and documents related to cases and facilitate the transmission of such information and documents to the concerned authorities of either Party as required.
On 8 May 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release concerning diplomatic relations with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Text of the press release follows:
I am pleased to announce that Australia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) have agreed to resume diplomatic representation on a non-resident basis, ending, from today, nearly 25 years of interrupted relations. Both Australia and the DPRK will move soon to appoint Ambassadors in accordance with normal international practice.I also welcome the DPRK’s renewed engagement in regional and international affairs. We were delighted by the recent announcement that the leaders of the DPRK and the Republic of Korea will hold an historic summit in June. Today’s development in our bilateral relations, announced in both Australia and the DPRK, is a positive contribution to improved relations among countries in the Asia-Pacific region and to strengthening regional linkages. I trust it will also add impetus to the spirit of dialogue and compromise on the Korean Peninsula.
Australia’s decision comes after the recent round of senior officials’ talks in Pyongyang from 23-25 February 2000, the first such meeting in the DPRK since diplomatic relations were interrupted in 1975. It also comes after my meeting with DPRK Foreign Minister Paek at the time of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on 27 September 1999, which was the first bilateral ministerial-level meeting since that time.
On 3 July 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release concerning representation to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (FA 73). Extracts of the press release follow:
I am pleased to announce that Australia’s newly appointed Ambassador to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), Mr David Irvine, will formally present his credentials in Pyongyang this week to the Head of State, Kim Yong-nam.This concludes a twelve-month process of restoring Australia’s diplomatic relations with North Korea which were interrupted nearly twenty-five years ago.
Our Ambassador, Mr Irvine, is concurrently Australian Ambassador to China and resident in Beijing. During his visit (4-8 July) the Ambassador will make introductory calls on officials from various government departments with responsibility for the DPRK’s international political and economic relations.
On 30 November 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, answered a question on notice from Mr Harry Jenkins in the House of Representatives, concerning any plans to change the non-resident accreditation basis of diplomatic relations between Australia and FYROM (House of Representatives, Debates, 30 November 2000, p 23215). An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:
The Australian Government has no plans at present to change the basis of its non-resident accreditation to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM).…
Australia has non-resident accreditation to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia from its Embassy to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in Belgrade.
On 26 April 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, made the following remarks in a press release:
The reopening of the [Australian Embassy in Lisbon] marks a new chapter in our relations with Portugal. Our two countries have established close contacts on East Timor and we enjoy a new spirit of friendship and cooperation. The Embassy will play a leading role in building a stronger relationship based on mutual interests particularly in relation to trade and investment but also involving a greater degree of overall interaction between us including greater cooperation in areas such as culture, education and tourism.
On 6 June 2000, the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Kingdom of Spain on Remunerated Employment for Dependants of Diplomatic, Consular, Administrative and Technical Personnel of Diplomatic and Consular Missions, done at Madrid on 6 March 2000, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. The following is an extract from the accompanying National Interest Analysis:
Under the Agreement dependants of Australian diplomatic and consular personnel stationed in Spain, and of Spanish diplomatic and consular personnel stationed in Australia, can engage in paid work for the duration of the diplomat’s or consular official’s service in the receiving country.…
Bilateral employment instruments are usually in the form of arrangements or memoranda of understanding (‘MOUs’), both of which are instruments of less than treaty status. However, Spain has in this case indicated its strong preference for a treaty to be concluded.
…
In accordance with Article 5 Australian dependants are obliged to waive the immunity normally enjoyed under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 to be subject to civil prosecution and the execution of civil judgements in respect of matters arising out of their employment in Spain.
On 23 August 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued the following press release (FA 94), concerning the Australian Representative Office in Ramallah:
In a major step forward in its dealings with the Palestinian Authority, I have today announced that Australia is to open a Representative Office in the West Bank city of Ramallah.At this critical moment in the history of the contemporary Middle East, it is important for Australia to be closely informed of developments, to strengthen its relations with all key parties, and to play a positive and constructive part in support of negotiations to secure a just and comprehensive peace.
The decision to establish the Australian Representative Office represents a significant step toward meeting that need. It will make a substantial contribution to facilitating Australia’s dealings with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinian Authority has several of its Ministries in Ramallah, which is approximately 20 minutes drive north of Jerusalem.
The Australian Representative Office will have responsibility for our development assistance program, which at $7.4 million per annum places us among the major donors to the Palestinians. The Office will have full access to the Palestinian Authority for coordination for our aid activities.
The Office will enable Australia to promote other objectives in the region more effectively, including support for democracy and good governance. It will also facilitate expansion of our commercial contacts.
The Office will open within the next few weeks.
The decision to open the Office is of course without prejudice to the outcome of direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on important issues in the Middle East peace process. Australia is firmly opposed to any unilateral steps that could jeopardise the success of those negotiations.
Current information concerning treaties that Australia has signed, ratified or acceded to is available from:
Treaties Secretariat, International Organisations and Legal Division,
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Barton ACT 0221
Alternatively, the information is available at: <www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat>
On 5 September 2000, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, answered a question without notice from Mr Bob Charles (House of Representatives, Debates, 5 September 2000, p 20104). Extracts of the answer concerning the treaty making process follow:
We introduced the tabling of treaties in the Parliament; we made it clear that each treaty would be tabled to include a national interest analysis allowing parliamentary and community scrutiny of treaties; we established the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which of course gives the public the opportunity to come forward and express views; we have set up a treaties information database, and so on. In other words, extensive transparency has been built into the treaty making process.
On 10 February 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, and the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Nick Minchin, issued a joint press release concerning the Timor Gap Agreement with the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor(FA 10). Text of the press release follows:
We are pleased to announce that the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) has become Australia's partner in the Timor Gap Treaty and that the terms of the treaty will continue to apply. The Timor Gap Treaty covers development of petroleum resources in the seabed between Australia and East Timor. In Dili today, diplomatic notes were exchanged by the UN Transitional Administrator and Australia's Representative in East Timor to give effect to the new agreement on the Treaty which will apply in the transitional period until East Timorese independence. The agreement was negotiated in close consultation with East Timorese representatives. A Memorandum of Understanding was also signed on practical arrangements for the transitional period. These arrangements will ensure a smooth transition for the Treaty, and provide the political confidence necessary for significant investments presently under consideration in the Timor Gap Zone of Cooperation. In talks in Jakarta last week, Indonesian representatives agreed that following the separation of East Timor from Indonesia, the area covered by the Treaty was now outside Indonesia's jurisdiction and that the Treaty ceased to be in force as between Australia and Indonesia when Indonesian authority over East Timor transferred to the United Nations. We wish to place on record the Australian Government's appreciation of Indonesia's constructive approach to these talks. We look forward to Australia's close collaboration with the United Nations acting on behalf of East Timor during the transitional period. The United Nations is confident that the arrangements now entered into will continue to provide a sound basis for Timor Gap operations, to the mutual benefit of East Timor and Australia.
On 6 September 2000, the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, made a statement at the United Nations Millennium Summit. Extracts of the statement follow:
…we all want this organisation to be well-equipped to meet the challenges of the future.Australia believes that this can best be done through the UN focussing on its core strengths and responsibilities, such as the peaceful resolution of disputes, disarmament and the relief of suffering and want.
We also believe that aspects of the UN treaty committee system need reform. Australia’s recent experience has been that some of these committees give too little weight to the views of democratically-elected governments and that they go beyond their mandates.
Australia will intensify its work with other states on reform of the treaty committee system. We have recently announced a series of measures aimed at improving the operation of the UN treaty committee system. Australia’s strategic engagement with these committees will be dependent on the extent to which effective reform occurs.
Australia endorses calls to expand the Security Council’s permanent and non-permanent membership in line with today’s realities and to improve the Council’s effectiveness and authority. A better geographical spread is needed. In particular, Australia has been a long-standing supporter of permanent membership of the Security Council for Japan.
On 18 September 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, addressed the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. Extracts of the address concerning Security Council reform follow:
Reform and expansion of the Security Council is driven by two fundamental, interrelated imperatives: the need to restore the representative nature of the Council by reconfiguring its composition to reflect the size and diversity of contemporary UN membership, and the need to enhance the Council’s credibility, authority and legitimacy.The Australian Government’s view has long been that expansion in both categories of membership is needed to restore balance and equity to the composition of the Council.
New permanent seats should be assumed by the under-represented developing regions of the world. New permanent seats should also be allocated to the major industrialised powers best able to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. Equally importantly, other members of the UN should be given the opportunity to contribute directly to the work of the Council through periodic participation as elected members. Expansion of non-permanent membership would enhance the representative nature of the Council, enabling it to act genuinely on behalf of the whole membership.
Australia has long voiced concerns about the veto and continues to argue that there must be limitations on its use. Of course, all permanent members of the Council, old and new, must remain accountable for their performance, and to this end any new arrangements for the Council should be reviewed after ten or fifteen years.
Regrettably, discussion on Security Council reform has failed to reach agreement on a package of reforms in the six years since the Open Ended Working Group was established. The impasse is disappointing, and I hope that this session will give new impetus to the reform effort. It is clear from statements at the Millennium Summit, and during this debate, that there is strong support for reform. Renewed commitment and flexibility is needed from all sides.
On 18 September 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, addressed the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. Extracts of the address concerning electoral group reconfiguration reform follow:
In the recent debate about UN reform, one key element has largely been missing. I refer to the UN electoral groups.The electoral groups were established to ensure that there was fair and equitable representation on UN bodies, so that all members who wanted to make a contribution to UN decision-making would have an opportunity to do so. Now that three decades have passed since the formalisation of the present groups, it is timely that we focus on their relevance to present and future geopolitical realities.
The current group system reflects the geopolitics of the 1960s. Since that time, more than sixty nations have joined the UN, leading to significant disparities between the size of groupings and an inadequate level of representation for some sub-regions. In addition, the original rationale for the configuration of the electoral groups has eroded, creating dissonance with the way many member states organise themselves politically and electorally.
The previous realignment of groups in 1963 was a long and difficult process impelled by significant changes in the UN system after the entry of many newly independent states from Africa and Asia. I recognise that group reconfiguration is no easy matter, and accept that change now will be similarly complex. For that very reason we should delay no longer in commencing a serious debate of these issues.
While there are many possible configurations for revised electoral groupings, and many sensitivities around altering the status quo, the dramatic global changes since the current system came into force have created historic anomalies that cry out to be redressed. Australia looks forward to working with others to achieve that goal.
On 30 March 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release concerning the review of Australia’s relationship with the United Nations human rights treaty bodies (FA 24). Extracts of the press release follow:
The Federal Government will undertake a whole-of-government review of the operation of the United Nations treaty committee system as it affects Australia.…
The burdensome reporting requirements imposed by these committees have become too great for most member states. More often than not, Governments are overdue with reports and often committees consider them years after they are lodged. In many cases, there is an over-emphasis on non-governmental submissions. This has led to a growing perception that the committees are pursuing political agendas rather than fulfilling their ‘expert’ objectives.
In this context, the Government was appalled at the blatantly political and partisan approach taken by the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) when it examined Australia’s periodic reports in Geneva last week. The Government approached the meeting seriously and in good faith, submitted detailed reporting on Australia’s performance under the relevant Convention and fielded a strong delegation, led by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock.
The Committee’s response was disappointing in the extreme. It largely ignored the significant progress made in Australia across the spectrum of indigenous issues. The Committee’s observations are little more than a polemical attack on the Government’s indigenous policies. They are based on an uncritical acceptance of the claims of domestic political lobbies and take little account of the considered reports submitted by the Government.
The CERD Committee’s political approach is also demonstrated by its reference to Australia’s obligations under the UN Refugee Convention — a subject well outside its mandate.
The Cabinet has determined that it would now be appropriate to review how Australia participates in the UN treaty committee system.
On 29 August 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, the Attorney General, Mr Daryl Williams, and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Philip Ruddock, issued a press release concerning the United Nations human rights treaty bodies (FA 97). Extracts of the press release follow:
The Government will take strong measures to improve the effectiveness of the United Nations human rights treaty bodies … .The move is an outcome of the review of Australia’s interaction with the UN treaty committee system, which was considered by Cabinet yesterday. The Government commissioned the review in March in response to our concerns with the approach taken by some UN committees to fulfilling their mandates.
The treaty review found that UN human rights treaty bodies need a complete overhaul especially:
(i) as regards the treaty committee system:• to ensure adequate recognition of the primary role of democratically elected governments and the subordinate role of non government organisations (NGOs);
• to ensure that committees and individual members work within their mandates;
• to improve coordination between committees; and
• to address the current inadequate secretariat resources for research and analysis to support committees’ work; and
(ii) as regards the international protection system:• to ensure that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee (Excom) maintain their focus on their primary objectives;
• to improve their operational effectiveness and responsiveness to states’ concerns; and
• to enable states to reassert their common understanding of international protection obligations.
Cabinet decided Australia’s strategic engagement with the treaty committee system should be dependent on the extent to which effective reform occurs. In pursuit of reform the Government will take the following measures:
• Australia will intensify work with other States on reform of the treaty committee system, including through a high level diplomatic initiative with Ministerial leadership and more strategic use of meetings of state parties, to address our concerns.
• Within the framework of Australia’s continuing commitment to international human rights standards and monitoring, the Government will adopt a more robust and strategic approach to Australia’s interaction with the treaty committee system both to maximise positive outcomes for Australia and enhance the effectiveness of the system in general.
• Australia will immediately implement a package of measures to improve our continued interaction with UN human rights treaty committees, including the following:
(a) reporting to and representation at treaty committees be based on a more economical and selective approach where appropriate;
(b) Australia will only agree to visits to Australia by treaty committees and requests from the Committee on Human Rights ‘mechanisms’ for visits and the provision of information where there is a compelling reason to do so;
(c) Australia will reject unwarranted requests from treaty committees to delay removal of unsuccessful asylum seekers from Australia; and
(d) Australia will not sign or ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) which establishes a new complaints procedure.
• Australia will continue its high level campaign at Ministerial level to work with other states on reform of the UNHCR and its ExCom, as well as through a separate high-level diplomatic initiative.
In addition the Government will:
(a) undertake a comprehensive review of Australia’s and other parties’ interpretation and implementation of the 1951 Refugees Convention and consider the need for remedial legislation;
(b) establish a standing inter-departmental committee jointly chaired by [Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade] and [Attorney-General’s Department] to progress reform of the treaty committee system and coordinate future interaction with the treaty committees; and
(c) establish an inter-departmental committee chaired by [Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs] to coordinate implementation of the reform strategy outlined in paragraph (a) above.
Australia has long been an active proponent of reform of the committee system. We will build on this work and push for more intensive change. We will continue to work closely with other like-minded States and the UN.
Australia has a strong history of active support for the UN. We have a strong human rights record and we take our international rights and obligations seriously.
The Government believes these steps will ensure that Australia gets a better deal from the UN treaty committees. They will also strengthen the ability of the UN to deal with human rights issues. This will be a good result both in terms of furthering Australia’s domestic interests and in ensuring the continued legitimacy and sustainability of the UN treaty committee system.
On 18 September 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, addressed the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. Extracts of the address concerning treaty body review follow:
As part of the Government’s commitment to a strong and relevant United Nations, Australia recently completed a review of the United Nations human rights committee system, with the objective of improving its effectiveness. The review proceeded from our Government’s commitment to the international promotion and protection of human rights, and a firm belief that the UN has a central role to play.Australia has a proud human rights record and we take our international rights and obligations seriously. We are party to both Human Rights Covenants and to the four Conventions. Within Australia, which has a strong civil society, human rights are protected by a range of key civil and political mechanisms, including a strong democratic tradition, our Constitution, an independent judiciary, a free press, and wide ranging anti-discrimination legislation. Internationally, Australia is a strong proponent of the universal application of human rights standards and committed to continued support for international human rights protection.
We are concerned that the committees, established to monitor international compliance with human rights treaties, are losing credibility and effectiveness because of the way they operate. It is important also that the international protection system work efficiently and effectively so that democratic countries such as Australia, which have a proud record of extending generous humanitarian assistance, can continue to have the confidence and support of their own domestic constituencies for such humanitarian protection.
Australia’s review found that the committees need to adopt a more consistent approach to their role, and understand the pitfalls of simply accepting without analysis the submissions put before them by non-government organisations. It is important that adequate recognition be given to the role and views of governments which are democratically elected and which take their treaty commitments and reporting obligations seriously. The committees need also to be more balanced and strategic about targeting key human rights offenders and avoid unfairly focusing their criticism on countries with good human rights records.
For some years now Australia has, together with a number of other countries including Canada, New Zealand and Norway, been advocating reform of the treaty committees. Most recently, the Australian Mission to the United Nations in Geneva hosted a meeting of around 20 countries to discuss treaty committee reform. The United Nations itself has also recognised the need for reform of the treaty committee system, and Australia has been fully supportive of these international reform efforts.
Australia intends now to broaden such efforts by spearheading a high level diplomatic initiative to garner broad support for reforms to improve the functioning of the committees and professionalise their operations. Reforms could include the provision of adequate resources to the human rights treaty committees, improvements to their working methods, standardised rules of procedure when considering states’ reports, and better consultation between the committees themselves to coordinate reporting timetables and to facilitate cooperative work on reform issues. But Australia does not have a monopoly on good ideas, and we want to work closely with UN officials and with like-minded countries to make the treaty committee system work more effectively for the good of all member states and for the protection of human rights.
On 10 October 2000, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, answered a question on notice from Dr Andrew Theophanous concerning the United Nations treaty body review (House of Representatives, Debates, 10 October 2000, p 21210). Extracts of the answer follow:
The Government has not, I repeat not, withdrawn Australia from its obligations to the Human Rights Committee under Article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or from any of its other international human rights obligations.The Government’s review of the UN treaty body system has resulted in a determination by the Government to intensify its efforts to work with like-minded countries and within the UN system to achieve much-needed reform of the treaty committees. This is essential in order to ensure that the work of the committees continues to be relevant to their mandate of assisting States Parties to meet their obligations, and that they accord due weight and respect to submissions from democratically elected governments which, such as Australia, have excellent human rights records.
As announced on 29 August, the Government will develop a high level diplomatic initiative with ministerial leadership, together with more strategic use of meetings of States Parties, to address our concerns. The Government will establish a standing inter-departmental committee jointly chaired by my Department and the Attorney-General’s Department to progress reform of the treaty committee system and coordinate future interaction with the treaty committees.
On 15 September 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, and the Attorney General, Mr Daryl Williams, issued a joint press release. Extracts from the press release follow:
We are pleased to announce the election of Professor Ivan Shearer to the Human Rights Committee on Thursday 14 September at the United Nations in New York.Professor Shearer was elected in the first round of voting at a meeting of States Parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He obtained the votes of 92 of the 137 countries which participated in the meeting.
…
Professor Shearer will serve on the Human Rights Committee as an independent expert. As a distinguished scholar, teacher and writer in the field of international law, Professor Shearer brings considerable stature and experience to the Committee. He has a strong background in public international law, and currently occupies the Challis Chair of International Law at Sydney University.
…
The Australian Government is firmly committed to strengthening the treaty body system and will be working actively with other countries and the UN to achieve this objective.
On 9 March 2000, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, answered a question on notice from Mr Martin Ferguson concerning the International Year for the Culture of Peace (House of Representatives, Debates, 9 March 2000, p 14399). Extracts of the answer follow:
The Australian Government supports the UN Declarations on the International Year for the Culture of Peace in 2000, and the International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World, 2001-2010.
For the International Year for the Culture of Peace (IYCP), UNESCO has been designated as the UN focal point for the coordination of IYCP activities, and is consulting Member States, NGOs and other international organisations on possible activities for the IYCP.
Although there is no special funding available to finance IYCP activities, the Government is encouraging NGOs and local and community-based organisations to undertake activities under the auspices of the IYCP.
In order to raise awareness of the IYCP, I am writing to Commonwealth Ministers, whose portfolio responsibilities relate to aspects of the IYCP, and to State Premiers, to seek their support in promoting the IYCP and to encourage them to identify relevant projects, events and activities that could be badged and promoted as activities under the IYCP.
On 16 April 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, delivered a speech to the South Australian branch of the Royal Commonwealth Society. Extracts of the speech concerning the Commonwealth follow:
The task before us, as members of the Commonwealth, and for you, as part of the Commonwealth’s vast network of associated organisations, is to ensure that [the Commonwealth’s] relevance and value is achieved. It means recognising where the Commonwealth’s strengths lie, building on them and identifying where and how those strengths can be used effectively to meet the challenges which will face Commonwealth countries in the years to come.…
On a policy front, the Commonwealth’s commitment to addressing issues of concern and relevance to its Member States, particularly through the biennial CHOGMs [Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting], has ensured its continuing relevance. This was no more apparent than at the last CHOGM in Durban where 47 of the 53 full members were represented at Head of Government level. In the light of what I have already said, it will come as no surprise to note that they came to discuss one of the most influential trends facing Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth nations, namely globalisation. Importantly, the Heads of Government recognised the need to seize the opportunities offered by globalisation but acknowledged the need to minimise its risks.
In recognition of the importance of this issue, Australia announced at CHOGM 1999 that it would continue its support of the Commonwealth’s Trade and Investment Access Facility (TIAF), established at the Prime Minister’s initiative, to help Commonwealth developing countries to manage the impact of globalisation. We also announced that we would fund a special training programme for trade negotiators from African countries to strengthen their capacity to take advantage of the new WTO trade round. One of the Commonwealth’s most significant features is that it provides an effective forum where its 32 smaller states can express views and be heard.
From Australia’s viewpoint, the Commonwealth’s most important strength is its proven track record in promoting fundamental political values among its members including, in particular, democratisation, good governance and the rule of law. Australia’s membership of CMAG [Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group], which was set up in 1995 to deal with serious or persistent violations of the fundamental political principles set out in the Commonwealth’s Harare Declaration, demonstrates our strong support for the Commonwealth’s role in these areas. I look forward to attending the first CMAG meeting of 2000 early next month at which CMAG members will review developments in Pakistan, Sierra Leone and The Gambia since CHOGM 1999.
…
To be effective, the Commonwealth needs to be realistic about what it can achieve and this means focusing on activities in areas where it has a comparative advantage. Its budget is modest and it should not attempt, for example, to replicate the range of activities undertaken by the UN. This means withdrawing from areas of activity where others are more effective. In an era of diminishing resources and competing priorities, this is particularly important.
The Commonwealth has already shown where it can add value — it now needs to focus on how to strengthen and possibly expand its involvement in these areas and assess whether it needs to have a future role in others. There is also further scope for the Commonwealth to develop its links with and complement the work of other organisations. For example, the Joint Task Force between the Commonwealth and World Bank to deal with small states’ issues has been a successful advocate on their behalf and was a step in the right direction.
…
The next few years will be significant in laying the groundwork for a revitalised and relevant Commonwealth in the 21st century. The Commonwealth has achieved much in the past, particularly in encouraging countries to shape their own political and economic futures.
On 10 October 2000, the Fifth Additional Protocol to the Constitution of the Universal Postal Union of 10 July 1964, as amended; the Universal Postal Convention and Final Protocol; General Regulations of the UPU; the Postal Parcels Agreement and Final Protocol, done at Seoul on 14 September 1994 were tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts of the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:
The UPU is a specialised agency of the United Nations comprising 189 member countries. … The aim of the UPU is to secure the organisation and improvement of universal postal services and to promote in this sphere the development of international collaboration. … Australia joined the UPU on 1 October 1907.The treaty status documents of the UPU include the Constitution of the UPU (and Fifth Protocol), as the basic Act of the UPU, the General Regulations, the Universal Postal Convention (and Final Protocol), and four optional Agreements (the Postal Parcels Agreement, the Money Orders Agreement, the Cash-on-Delivery Agreement and the Giro Agreement). The four optional Agreements are only binding upon those UPU members who elect to become a party to them. Of them, Australia is only party to the Postal Parcels Agreement.
…
If Australia Post, as the designated Australian postal administration, is to continue to provide efficient and price competitive postal services, within and outside Australia, Australia’s continuing active participation as a member of the UPU is essential.
…
Australia participated in discussions and voted on proposals to amend the Acts that were put to the 1994 Seoul Congress of the UPU and supported changes to the Acts by its signature of the Final Acts at the conclusion of the Congress. Australia has applied the provisions of the Acts since their entry into force on 1 January 1996 and their ratification would be both expedient and appropriate.
On 10 October 2000, the Sixth Additional Protocol to the Constitution of the Universal Postal Union of 10 July 1964, as amended; the Universal Postal Convention and Final Protocol; General Regulations, done at Beijing on 15 September 1999 were tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts of the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:
… At the 1999 Beijing Congress Australia was elected as a member of the Council of Administration (CA) and the Postal Operations Council (POC).…
Continued participation in the UPU provides Australia the opportunity to voice its opinion concerning the conduct of the UPU’s affairs and the operation of the universal postal service over which the UPU presides, and also strengthens Australia Post’s capacity to fulfil its mandate. The UPU remains an important forum for Australian participation given the increasing trend by Member States to provide postal services on a competitive basis internationally, and the increasing significance of market liberalisation of postal services in the deliberations of the UPU and the Australian domestic setting. As an active contributor to the activities of the UPU, Australia has sought continuing reform and efficiency in its operation. Consequently, Australia has been influential in ensuring that the UPU remains a forum effective in securing a more competitive international postal regime while at the same time being able to meet the challenges of a fast changing global market environment.
On 26 April 2000, the Minister for Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill delivered Australia’s national statement to the 8th Session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). Extracts from the statement follow:
Trade liberalisation and globalisation are creating new opportunities for the financing of sustainable development activities in developing countries.• Developing countries stand to benefit significantly from increased foreign investment and better access to global markets.
• The creative and innovative mobilisation of private sector financial resources should be encouraged because these resource flows can make a key contribution towards poverty alleviation and sustainable development.
• This in no way suggests that the continuing importance of Official Development Assistance and debt reduction programs should be underestimated, simply that we need to recognise the range of tools at our collective disposal.
We should broaden our discussion to include debate about what kind of financial solutions will work in different cases, what enabling environments are required and how governments, the private sector and communities can go about implementing targeted solutions.
• Australia, for instance, sees an important role for the establishment of carbon sinks under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism in realising important environmental, greenhouse and developmental goals.
• The same issue arises over the question of technology transfer for development — all countries acknowledge its importance every year at CSD, but we seem to make little forward progress.
Perhaps, in addition to critically reviewing progress towards the implementation of Agenda 21, these are core barriers that we might choose to look at it in detail at Rio+10.
• Rio+10 also presents us with an opportunity to focus more closely on the ways in which developing countries can benefit from globalisation, trade, and private sector investment.
The CSD’s strength is in its capacity to establish and strengthen the linkages between organisations, knowledge, expertise, policy debates and ideas which can contribute to furthering sustainable development goals on both a local and global scale.
• We should ensure that our deliberations target priority issues, provide useful guidance to governments and international organisations and avoid wasteful duplication of effort.
On 3 April 2000, the Ambassador for the Environment, HE Ralph Hillman, delivered the opening address to the Pacific Islands Conference on Climate Change, Climate Variability and Sea Level Rise at Rarotonga, Cook Islands. Extracts of the address follow:
We have long accepted that Pacific Island countries are particularly disadvantaged by isolation, limited production bases, and vulnerability to natural disasters. Our aid partnership and defence relations through the Pacific patrol boat program exemplify the spirit of cooperation that characterises our relations with the island nations of the Pacific.It is against this background that I’d like to say how pleased Australia is to be associated with the Pacific Islands Climate Change, Climate Variability, and Sea Level Rise Conference here in Rarotonga.
Australia has made a substantial contribution to the funding of this conference through our South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project.
That Project is building a high quality database on sea level change in the Pacific. A discussion of the project — and its findings to date — is scheduled for tomorrow. As we all know, measuring climate change is a long-term proposition. It therefore gives me great pleasure to inform the conference that Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, has announced that Australia will fund a third phase of the Project through to 2005.
We think there is considerable merit in the Conference theme — “linking climate science to climate policy”. Good policy is based on sound analysis and in the climate arena, it needs to be based on quality science. Accordingly, I am pleased to see such a strong turn out of scientific expertise at the conference.
…
The Australian Government is committed to assisting Pacific island countries to respond to climate variability and climate change. Through AusAID, we already have a broad program of activities in place aimed at addressing climate-related issues in the Pacific.
…
Developing countries in the Pacific and elsewhere have the right to expect major emitters of greenhouse gases to act to address greenhouse emissions growth. The Kyoto Protocol is an important milestone in this regard.
Under the Kyoto protocol, Australia’s target requires that we reduce greenhouse gas emissions growth to 108 per cent of our 1990 baseline. This equates to a challenging reduction of almost 30 per cent from business-as-usual projections — in line with other developing countries.
Australia is putting in place a broad-ranging program of measures to ensure that this target can be met.
…
Ultimately, the solution to global warming lies in the entry-into-force and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.
Australia attaches considerable importance to the completion of the negotiations that will permit ratification and entry-into-force of the Protocol.
…
A COP 6 that delivers balanced decisions on the outstanding issues it will address will be an important step towards entry-into-force of the Protocol.
The final step, that will be the key to the implementation of Kyoto, will be the acceptance of commitments by major developing countries, whose emissions of greenhouse gases are projected to surpass those of developed countries within 15 years.
Australia would like to foster a cooperative approach to the negotiations with our Pacific neighbours. Regular dialogue and better understanding of our respective concerns will contribute positively to this aim.
On 9 March 2000, the Ambassador for the Environment, HE Ralph Hillman, made a statement concerning climate change to the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Reference Committee. Extracts of the statement follow:
The Third Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change adopted the Kyoto Protocol in December 1997. The Protocol set binding targets for 39 developed countries to achieve overall reductions of five per cent in emissions compared with 1990 by 2008 to 2012. This represents a reduction of about 30 per cent below business as usual. This outcome was seen as a good achievement for Australia. We had the concept of differentiation accepted in the negotiations, we had sinks included in a way that accommodated our interests and we were given a plus eight per cent target, which recognised Australia’s particular economic circumstances. But that target, plus eight per cent, nonetheless amounts to a 30 per cent reduction below business as usual and is therefore in line with other Annex 1 country targets. Entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol would be the beginning of a serious attempt to address climate change and would impose substantial costs and structural change on developed economies. It is expected to cost Australia between half a per cent and one per cent of GNP in 2010.The Kyoto negotiation was a major negotiation and it had an important outcome, but it left a number of key issues unresolved. These issues will need to be settled before major players, including Australia, ratify and bring the Kyoto Protocol into force. In simple language, the key issues are as follows. The first is the extent to which developed countries should be allowed to meet their targets through emissions trading and by undertaking emission reduction projects in developing countries — as distinct from domestic measures — and what the rules and modalities of these so-called flexibility mechanisms should be. The second issue is the extent to which sinks, that is, forestry and land use management, should contribute to meeting developed country targets. The third issue is which compliance system should apply and what the consequences of non-compliance should be. The fourth is the extent to which developed countries need to respond to demands by G77, that is, developing countries, for transfers of resources and technology. The final issue is how and when developing countries should take on targets under the Protocol. I shall come to Australia’s position on these issues shortly. Negotiating parties agreed at COP 4, the Fourth Conference of the Parties in Buenos Aires in November 1998, to reach decisions on all but the last of these issues, that is, the question of developing country targets, at COP 6-conference of the parties No. 6 in The Hague in November 2000. No agreed process or time frame exists for addressing the question of developing country targets.
On 12 April 2000, the Ambassador for the Environment, HE Ralph Hillman, addressed the Australian Greenhouse Conference in Sydney. Extracts of the address follow:
Kyoto left a number of key issues unresolved which will need to be settled before major players including Australia will ratify and bring Kyoto Protocol into force. In simple language the key issues are:• the extent to which developed countries should be allowed to meet their targets through the use of the flexibility mechanisms — international emissions trading, the clean development mechanism and joint implementation — and what would be the rules, guidelines and modalities for these mechanisms;
• the extent to which sinks should (ie. forestry and land use management) contribute to meeting developed country targets;
• what compliance system should apply and what should be the consequences of non-compliance;
• the extent to which developed countries need to respond to G77 (developing countries) demands for transfers of resources & technology; and,
• how and when should developing countries take on targets under the Kyoto Protocol.
Negotiating parties agreed at the fourth Conference of the Parties in Buenos Aires in November 1998 to reach decisions on all but the last of these issues by a meeting to be held in The Hague in November this year — COP6. No agreed process or time frame exists for addressing the question of developing country commitments.
On 21 November 2000, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill, delivered Australia’s statement to the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in the Hague. Extracts of the statement follow:
Since the historic agreement reached at Kyoto in 1997, Australia has begun implementing a comprehensive and ambitious program of domestic action to address climate change.We are now directing almost A$1 billion to tackling climate change. We have established the world’s first national office devoted to tackling greenhouse. We have a program of voluntary cooperation with industry which now includes almost all of our major emitters. We have contracted a carbon broker to direct private resources into enhancing our sequestration through revegetation. We have before our parliament a bill to increase the amount of electricity generated through renewable energy, to take the overall percentage to over 12% of generation. Importantly, we are devoting resources to assisting our Pacific neighbours in assessing and adapting to climate change.
Our package of measures is aimed to encourage businesses and consumers to reduce emissions. Last week the Government launched a process to consider market-based incentives for business to undertake substantial early abatement action which would continue to have effect during the commitment period. This is a significant step that could see us drawing down a percentage of our Kyoto target to reward early and ongoing abatement. Further, we have created the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program, a competitive bidding process for Government assistance to reduce emissions, which promises to help us move towards a less carbon intense economy.
Australia has taken the Kyoto outcome seriously. We have acted in good faith to embark upon the task required to meet our commitments. But we must ensure that the rules agreed here faithfully implement the balance carefully struck at Kyoto.
In Australia, we have now reached the level beyond which our domestic response cannot pass without further decisions internationally. Domestically, people are finding it increasingly difficult to understand why, having heard the views of the scientists, and why, having reached agreement at Kyoto, uncertainty remains at the international level.
Australia needs progress on four issues to move forward to ratification. We need flexibility mechanisms that create an efficient market that can achieve low cost outcomes. The rules should not constrain the market so that it would fail to achieve its promise. Secondly, we should seize the opportunity to realise the multiple environmental and economic advantages that sinks can confer, within a framework that ensures a simultaneous focus upon the reduction of emissions. Sinks reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon, and their potential should be recognized. On compliance, our point of departure should be that countries will wish to comply, and should be assisted in every way to comply. For Australia, the path to ratification will also need to recognize that climate change is a problem whose solution is beyond the means of the developed countries alone. We need to chart a means to include all countries in the task of limiting emissions.
On 27 November 2000, in the Senate, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill, answered a question without notice from Senator Tsebin Tchen concerning the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in the Hague (Senate, Debates, 27 November 2000, p 19754). Extracts of the answer follow:
This meeting was intended to try to settle the rules that remained unresolved after the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in November 1997. The rules included areas such as the flexibility mechanisms which were designed to enable nation states to achieve abatement at least cost; rules relating to sinks — what sinks were eligible, how they should be defined and how sinks should work in practice — rules in relation to compliance, because obviously countries would wish to know the consequences of a failure to meet targets; and matters relating to developing country participation, because as emissions from developing countries are about to pass emissions from developed countries, it is obviously important that everyone is playing their part and carrying their weight in achieving this better global outcome.When ministers arrived for the second week of negotiations, they found that the highly complex text still had many areas of disagreement. In fact, someone counted over 1,500 sets of brackets still remaining. So there were over 1,500 matters unresolved when ministers were being asked to reach final agreement. There had to be a consensus outcome from 180 different countries, all with different economic interests, which is the cost aspect to this complex debate.
Notwithstanding the difficulty, ministers sought to reach agreement on the text and, by the middle of last week, it was obvious that that could not be achieved. There was just too much work undone at the time of the commencement of the meeting. An attempt was then made to reach an agreement on issues of principle, and the President, the Dutch Minister Pronk, brought what he called a compromise agreement to ministers about 24 hours before the end of the meeting. About 25 countries were given the opportunity to negotiate that agreement in a closed room, and they met from about 4 p.m. on Friday through to about 9 a.m. on Saturday, when Minister Pronk finally decided that agreement even on principle could not be reached. As a result of that, the meeting has been suspended until late May of next year. It is trusted that, at that time, issues of not only principle but also detail will be settled.
What was heartening was statements that countries better understood each other’s perspectives in this matter. Countries now recognise that domestic action is being taken across the world to reduce emissions and to enhance sinks in terms of their sequestration capacity. Furthermore, willingness and determination were expressed by all parties to reach the agreement that would settle the Kyoto rules and allow the historic Kyoto Protocol to come into legal operation.
That is heartening, despite the fact that so many differences still remain. Key differences remain on the issue of sinks, and, in particular, what additional sinks will be legitimate and whether they should be capped. Key differences still remain in relation to some of the flexibility mechanisms; for example, whether the clean development mechanisms should include sinks. Differences still remain on compliance, but at least progress has been made.
On 12 April 2000, the Ambassador for the Environment, HE Ralph Hillman, addressed the Australian Greenhouse Conference in Sydney. Extracts of the address follow:
The Clean Development Mechanism is significant because it has the potential to give developed countries access to low cost abatement opportunities in developing countries, and thereby lowering the global cost of reaching the Kyoto targets. Importantly, it will also lead to substantial flows of investment and technology to developing countries. This prospect has softened the attitude of many G77s to the flexibility mechanisms, and to progress in the negotiations more generally.…
There is considerable discussion at international negotiations about the institutional structure required for the CDM. Australia, along with the Umbrella Group are arguing for a minimal institutional structure that will ensure the CDM’s environmental integrity, keep administrative costs low, and thereby increase the CDM’s attractiveness to the private sector. I would like to say that other countries see it the same way, but I can’t. Some G77 countries are proposing ponderous, intrusive and expensive institutions. Others, like the EU, are proposing a framework that goes well beyond what is required.
On 9 March 2000, the Ambassador for the Environment, HE Ralph Hillman, made a statement concerning climate change to the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Reference Committee. Extracts of the statement concerning emissions trading follow:
The European Union, with support from some G77s, has sought to cap or limit the extent to which emissions trading and the clean development mechanism can be used to achieve targets. They argue that the United States will avoid substantial emission reductions at home by purchasing Russian emission credits arising from the collapse of the Russian economy. The EU is concerned that this could substantially reduce the US cost of meeting its Kyoto target, and that in turn would undermine the competitive advantage the EU expects to gain from the bubble arrangement it negotiated for itself at Kyoto and its own anticipated access to low cost credits from potential new EU members: Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Australia, with other members of the umbrella group — a negotiating group of which we are a member and which comprises the United States, Japan, Canada, Russia, the Ukraine, New Zealand, Norway and Iceland — is committed to uncapped use of emissions trading and other flexibility mechanisms.
On 9 March 2000, the Ambassador for the Environment, HE Ralph Hillman, made a statement concerning climate change to the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Reference Committee. Extract of the statement concerning sinks follows:
Negotiations on sinks — that is, land use change and forestry — will only get started after the release of a major report in May this year by the scientific body, the IPCC — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, in preliminary sparring, the EU and some G77s are trying to limit the extent to which sinks can be used to meet Kyoto targets. Sinks are of critical importance to Australia. The definition and rules to be adopted will impact on the size of our abatement task, as well as the cost. This will be a key issue for us at COP 6.
On 9 March 2000, the Ambassador for the Environment, HE Ralph Hillman, made a statement concerning climate change to the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Reference Committee. Extracts of the statement concerning compliance follow:
The shape and nature of the Protocol’s compliance system was an issue left undetermined at Kyoto. A compliance system is needed to help parties comply with their Protocol emission abatement targets and to sanction those parties that fail to meet their targets. Parties are currently working towards agreement on the operation of this compliance system at COP 6. An outcome on this issue will be important to most industrialised countries’ ratification decisions. One of the most difficult issues for parties to agree is likely to be the consequences that would be invoked if a party fails to meet its target. Current proposals range from facilitative means designed to help parties overcome their implementation problems to enforcement or hard measures such as requiring additional emission reductions in a subsequent commitment period. Australia has argued that a strong facilitative component is important to achieve implementation of parties’ commitments, but we are yet to finalise our position on consequences. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade plans to release shortly a public discussion paper to help solicit stakeholder views on this issue and to assist in the development of our position.
On 9 March 2000, the Ambassador for the Environment, HE Ralph Hillman, made a statement concerning climate change to the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Reference Committee. Extracts of the statement concerning developing country commitments follow:
Developing countries will be seeking outcomes on a number of issues at COP 6 involving financial and technology flows in return for their agreement to a package of decisions on the set of issues I just outlined. These include funding for adaptation to climate change, particularly for small island states, and for building institutional capacity to deal with greenhouse. Developing countries also want technology transfer beyond what will come through the clean development mechanism. OPEC countries are pressing for compensation for economic loss they might suffer as a result of any fall in oil prices arising from the emission abatement policies of the developed economies.…
This is probably the most difficult of all the issues, yet it is central to ratification by the United States and others, including Australia. The United States Senate has made it clear that it will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol unless there is meaningful participation by developing countries. The G77 — that is, developing countries, and particularly China and India — strongly resist any suggestion that they should take on binding targets. They were successful at Kyoto in having a draft article on voluntary targets removed from the text. A strong United States push to address this in the formal negotiations at the Fourth Conference of the Parties in Buenos Aires in 1998 led to the G77 blocking substantive progress on virtually all other issues. The United States is now focusing on bilateral contact and informal dialogue in which Australia participates to take this issue forward. At COP 5 in Bonn last year, Argentina said it was working towards a voluntary target. Some other countries may follow this lead. A successful outcome at COP 6 should allow more focus in the formal negotiating process on this issue.
On 26 April 2000, the Minister for Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill, delivered Australia’s national statement to the 8th Session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. Extracts from the statement concerning the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification follow:
I am in a position to announce today that Australia expects to finalise the process for its ratification of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification in the near future.• The objectives of this Convention are particularly important to some of the least developed countries in the world whose aspirations for sustainable development are seriously affected by desertification, drought and land degradation.
On 15 February 2000, amendments to Appendices I and II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals were tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:
The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals(known as the Bonn Convention) was established in 1979 to encourage the conservation of migratory species of wild animals and their habitats. The Convention recognises that wild animals are an irreplaceable part of the earth’s natural system and compels governments to take action, individually or collectively, to conserve and undertake research into species which migrate across or outside national boundaries. The Convention also encourages Member States to conclude regional agreements to conserve endangered species.The amendments, tabled in Parliament on 15 February 2000, led to the addition of seven new species to the list of endangered species described in Appendix I and thirty-one new species to the list of animals with an ‘unfavourable conservation status’ described in Appendix II of the Convention.
On 6 June 2000, amendments, done at Nairobi in April 2000, to Appendices I and II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, were tabled in both Houses of Parliament. The following is an extract of the accompanying National Interest Analysis:
The treaty action concerns amendments to Appendices I and II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The amendments were adopted at the eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES, held in Nairobi, Kenya between 10 to 20 April 2000.…
The treaty action involves the transfer of five taxa (or scientific groupings) from Appendix II to Appendix I, the transfer of five taxa from Appendix I to Appendix II, the addition of seven taxa to, and the deletion of eleven taxa from Appendix II, and three amendments to the interpretative annotations to the species listed in Appendices I and II of CITES. These are listed in the attachment. Appendix III is not affected.
The amendments are intended to ensure more effective global action to address the impacts of international trade on the conservation and sustainable use of the species listed.
…
Australia does not have significant trade in any of the taxa involved in these amendments and therefore the effect on Australia’s trade interests will be minimal. The amendments are consistent with Australia’s commitment to the conservation of species threatened with trade, and for these reasons, Australia does not propose to lodge a reservation under paragraph 3 of Article XV for any of the amendments.
On 13 May 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release concerning the situation in Aceh (FA 40). Text of the press release follows:
Australia welcomes the signing yesterday in Geneva of a humanitarian pause agreement between the Government of Indonesia and the Free Aceh Movement.The agreement represents an encouraging step towards addressing the humanitarian situation in Aceh, ending the violence, reducing tensions and resolving differences through peaceful means.
This important development is very much to the credit of President Wahid who has shown foresight and statesmanship in the way he has sought to resolve the problems of Aceh through dialogue and reconciliation.
It is in the interests of Australia and the region to support a peaceful solution to the conflict in Aceh, in the framework of a united and prosperous Indonesia.
On 24 March 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release concerning the Bougainville peace process (FA 20). Extracts of the press release follow:
Australia welcomes the conclusion reached in Port Moresby on 23 March by the PNG Government and Bougainvillean leaders (the Loloata Understanding) and is encouraged that the parties have taken this significant step on the road to a negotiated settlement of the Bougainville conflict.The Loloata Understanding represents a valuable framework for future negotiation. It is important that the momentum now achieved will be maintained and that the parties will continue to show the commitment and flexibility needed to reach a final settlement.
During my recent visit to Port Moresby for the Australia-PNG Ministerial Forum, I had the opportunity to discuss Bougainville with Prime Minister Morauta and members of his government. The PNG Government acknowledged Australia’s contribution to the peace process through our leadership of the Peace Monitoring Group and our aid program.
We remain firmly committed to working with the PNG Government and the Bougainvilleans in advancing settlement efforts. As I told the PNG Government at the Forum, Australia will accept any settlement negotiated by the parties.
On 26 January 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, delivered a speech to the Oxford Union concerning international crisis resolution in East Timor. Extracts of the speech follow:
… I [will] use the example of East Timor as what you might call a model of international intervention for the cause, if you like, of human rights or humanitarianism.The United Nations was to supervise the referendum [in East Timor], which it did under a Tripartite Agreement reached between Portugal, the former colonial power, Indonesia, the then existing power, and the United Nations. And on 5 May 1999 the details of how this referendum would take place were more or less agreed. A United Nations mission known as UNAMET led by a Briton called Ian Martin, who was formerly the head of Amnesty International, went to East Timor and they registered people to vote which was an extraordinarily successful process. The vote took place at the end of August and the vote took place also in a remarkably peaceful environment.
…
… on the 4th September when the result of the ballot was announced, then violence in East Timor erupted, militia groups went wild. There is no doubt, to put it in its most qualified way and you can put this a lot more strongly, there is no doubt that the Indonesian military and police failed to bring the militias under control and it is of course alleged, and there is certainly evidence of this, that the Indonesian military were complicit in the violence that took place. East Timor was more or less trashed. It was sacked to use an old-fashioned expression.
…
… we — and I don’t just mean Australia although importantly Australia, but the international community — made the decision that we wouldn’t go to war with Indonesia, that we wouldn’t intervene without the agreement of the Indonesian Government. Now that wasn’t popular with everybody. There were many people who said we should have intervened regardless of the views of the Indonesian Government. That would have constituted an act of war and our judgement was that the humanitarian “benefits” of that wouldn’t have been there. It would have been a very bloody, and a very disastrous, conflict if it had ever come to that. We absolutely ruled out that option. …
As a consequence what we had to do was internationally persuade the Indonesians to accept an international force into East Timor to restore law and order. Initially the Indonesians were very resistant to that but, by using a number of methods (in particular the United States threatening the Indonesians with economic measures against Indonesia, but also with those other countries — Britain, the European Union, Australia of course, New Zealand — which are so important to Indonesia’s economy, threatening to take still further measures against Indonesia, particularly economic measures), Indonesia eventually, after something like seven or eight days, relented, and said that they would allow an international force.
So this is the first thing — we didn’t go to war with Indonesia, we said that what we wanted was the Indonesians to agree to the insertion of an international force.
The second thing we said was that we wanted the United Nations to authorise the insertion of that force. While not saying it would have been illegal, we didn’t want it to be outside, if you like, the ambit of international law. So a number of governments went to New York and worked on getting the United Nations Security Council to agree to a resolution to authorise an international military intervention into East Timor — which as you know the Security Council did. And let it be remembered that it was the British Government that actually wrote the resolution and the British Government gave tremendous support to the diplomacy that led to the passage of that resolution.
The third, and important, thing was that before we got the resolution passed we wanted a resolution which would be decisive. Some of you will remember the failed United Nations involvement in Bosnia. Long before the current international force went into Bosnia, its predecessor, the United Nations force that was there, was in many respects humiliated. You will be familiar with the in-the-end failed effort of the United Nations in Somalia. What we wanted with the East Timor resolution was a resolution which would give this military force decisive power. That is unequivocal power to restore law and order. We didn’t want the hands of the military to be tied.
…
The fourth thing that I would say about this exercise was that we didn’t want to participate in an intervention that was endless. We thought it was going to be vitally important for there to be an exit strategy. One day this international force would have to leave — it has gone in there to do a job, it will have to leave — and when it leaves there will have to be political stability left in its place. Otherwise, if you send in a force and you withdraw and there isn’t political stability in place, then clearly you will go right back to where you began. If, on the other hand, you are concerned about that and aren’t prepared to withdraw, then your military could remain there indefinitely, and obviously you will appreciate that that is also an unsatisfactory outcome.
So we were asked to lead this international force, known as INTERFET. We made the judgement, as did the other countries (including Britain) which have participated in this international force, that we would be able to do the job fairly quickly (within a matter of months) — that is, to restore law and order in East Timor and in time to pass over the responsibility for law and order, firstly to a more modest United Nations peace keeping operation and finally to the East Timorese themselves. And we are nearly at the end of the first phase now. By the end of February this international force will be replaced by a more traditional United Nations peace keeping operation which in many respects will be a lower level operation than INTERFET, and then finally replaced by just a more traditional East Timorese based policing and paramilitary operation for peace and security in East Timor.
On 18 September 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, delivered a speech to the 55th Session of the United Nations General assembly. Extracts of the speech concerning East Timor follow:
… . When I addressed this Assembly one year ago, East Timor was in the throes of the most appalling violence at the hands of a brutal and lawless militia. Since then important progress has been made in restoring security and building the foundations of an independent East Timor. Australia pays tribute to the men and women of INTERFET and of UNTAET for their commitment and in too many cases — their sacrifice.East Timor faces a long and difficult path to peace and prosperity. Australia is playing a major role in the territory’s reconstruction, through the UN and other organisations as well as bilaterally. We are committed for the long term to helping the East Timorese build their emerging nation — not only for the benefit of the East Timorese but in the interests of stability and security in our region.
Regrettably, the pro-integration militia continue to pose a major threat to security and stability. Intimidation and violence against Timorese refugees and humanitarian aid personnel in the camps on the East-West Timor border must be halted. The killing of UNHCR workers earlier this month deserves the world’s strongest condemnation. Australia reiterates its call on Indonesia to fulfil its responsibility to provide effective security in West Timor, including by bringing an end to militia activity, bringing to justice those responsible for crimes, creating the necessary conditions for the return of UNHCR, and resolving the refugee situation. We urge the Indonesian authorities to take all possible steps in this direction, including cooperating with the proposed Security Council mission.
On 29 September 2000, the Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, HE Penny Wensley, addressed the open meeting of the United Nations Security Council concerning the situation in East Timor. Extracts of the address follow:
Australia is extremely concerned by ongoing militia activity and the deterioration in the security situation in West Timor since the last Security Council open debate. We condemn the militia attacks which resulted in the deaths of three UNHCR staff in Atambua in early September. My Government conveys its sincere condolences to the Governments and families so sadly affected. We look to the Government of Indonesia to ensure that the perpetrators are brought swiftly to justice.Australia strongly supports UN Security Council Resolution 1319 of 8 September and looks forward to its early implementation.
The Australian Government has welcomed the Indonesian Government’s undertakings to resolve the security problems in West Timor and, in particular, its timetable for disarming the militia. We note that Indonesia is in the process of working through its timetable for disarming militia and is currently implementing the first — voluntary — phase of its program.
We recognise that the disarmament process is still being implemented and we are aware that it still has some way to go before it is fully implemented. In this context reports of militia continuing to act with impunity during implementation of the process, such as the events which followed the disarmament ceremony in Atambua on 24 September, are extremely disturbing. Recent incidents of militia contact with the UNTAET [peacekeeping operations] in East Timor in recent days also underline the need for further action. More needs to be done if the disarmament process is to succeed, and there are a number of steps which we believe need to be taken for the process to be successful, including the permanent surrender (voluntary or forced) of all weapons by militia, the arrest and trial of suspects in the UNHCR staff killings, the arrest of key militia members, and the disbanding of militia.
It is incumbent on the Indonesian authorities, in particular TNI and the police, to take whatever steps need to be taken to deliver on Indonesia’s undertakings to the Security Council. Australia and the international community are closely watching what concrete steps are being taken on the ground and we look forward to the achievement of tangible results.
…
Ultimately, resolving the security problem in West Timor will be critical to resolving the refugee situation there. Australia reiterates the importance of Indonesia providing effective security to ensure that there is no militia intimidation, unimpeded access to camps for UNHCR and a credible registration process. The international community has already indicated its willingness to provide assistance in implementing Indonesia’s proposal to close the refugee camps. However, provision of effective security by Indonesia remains an essential prerequisite, which only Indonesia can ensure.
On 16 December 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release concerning the situation in Yugoslavia (FA 139). Extracts of the press release follow:
I am pleased to announce today that Australia has commenced action to ease the bilateral restrictions imposed on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as a result of the policies of that country’s former President, Slobodan Milosevic.The Australian Government is easing its restrictive measures against Yugoslavia in order to support the democratic elements in the new Yugoslav Administration. In doing so, we are moving in step with the broad international community.
At the same time, Australia will continue to observe its obligations under United Nations Resolutions aimed at preserving the assets of successor states of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and with respect to the embargo on the export of arms to Yugoslavia. In this regard I am pleased to note Yugoslavia’s admission as a new member of the United Nations, an action Australia co-sponsored in the United Nations General Assembly in November.
In conjunction with the United States, European Union and other Western allies, Australia imposed financial sanctions on dealings with the Milosevic regime and had in place visa restrictions to prevent members of the former Yugoslav government from visiting Australia. Australia will now ease financial restrictions against Yugoslavia, consistent with its UN obligations, and will also remove restrictions on the issue of visas to individual Yugoslav Government officials.
On 29 May 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release concerning the situation in Fiji (FA 57). Extracts of the press release follow:
The Government also reviewed a range of other strong measures which we will put in place unless constitutional government is maintained in Fiji. These measures will include the suspension of the Australia-Fiji Trade and Economic Relations Agreement (AFTERA); the downgrading of the aid relationship, in particular, the suspension of projects involving the Fiji public sector and the award of new scholarships; the suspension of forthcoming naval visits and joint military exercises; and a thorough review of sporting contacts, including, in particular a possible ban on the Fiji national rugby union team visiting Australia.
I will also be attending the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) being convened in London on 6 June by the Commonwealth Secretary General. Unless there are positive developments, I will be moving at that meeting for the suspension of Fiji from the Commonwealth.
On 29 October 2000, the Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, HE Penny Wensley, addressed the 10th Emergency Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on the topic of the Middle East Peace Process. Extracts of the address follow:
In previous years Australia has consistently questioned whether the Emergency Special Session mechanism can in any material way be of assistance to the situation in the Occupied Territories. Our concern is particularly relevant now when both parties are seeking to implement the Sharm El-Sheikh agreement to stop the deaths and injury. Direct negotiations between the parties themselves provide the best prospect for putting a final end to the cycle of violence and returning to a process that can deliver a comprehensive agreement — an agreement that recognises the right of the state of Israel to exist in secure defined boundaries, and the legitimate rights of the Palestinians for a homeland. It is imperative that the commitments made at Sharm El-Sheikh be implemented as soon as possible.The peace process cannot be abandoned. There is no real alternative — for either side — to a negotiated settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and the principle of land for peace.
On 5 December 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, delivered a speech entitled ‘Australia and the Middle East Peace Process’ to the annual assembly of the State Zionist Council of Victoria. Extracts of the speech follow:
… [Australia is] committed to playing a positive and constructive part in support of peace in the Middle East. We work both in public and behind the scenes to that end, including through the use of direct bilateral channels and in multilateral forums such as the United Nations.We have sought to make our role a practical and effective one.
Australia has made tangible commitments to the peace process through targeted development assistance. Our development assistance program this year is worth roughly $6.5 million. In addition, we are to provide $1.5 million dollars as emergency assistance for those affected by the current violence.
In September 2000 Australia opened the Australian representative office in Ramallah. The office will substantially facilitate Australia’s dealings with the Palestinian authority in the West Bank and Gaza. It will enable Australia to promote other objectives more effectively, including support for democracy and good governance.
…
Most of you will be aware that Australia abstained on the Resolution of the Tenth Resumed Emergency Special Session (ESS) of the UN General Assembly on 20 October that was critical of Israel. That stance has generated quite a lot of interest, including among a wide range of community groups in Australia.
Let me preface my remarks about the ESS by noting that Australia’s record of support for the United Nations is exemplary. Many Australians have served with UN agencies in the region such as UNTSO, UNIFIL and UNRWA. Those agencies have contributed to stability, not only as peacekeepers, but also through providing education and health facilities among Palestinian refugees.
Australia accepts that UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 are central planks upon which a comprehensive solution to the Israeli-Arab dispute must be based.
At the political level, however, all too often the temptation to vent frustrations in a UN context overrides more considered strategies to benefit those directly involved on the ground.
There are issues of international law associated with the use of the ESS mechanism, which I won’t go into here. Those issues have meant that Australia has opposed the use of the mechanism to deal with the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
Our decision to abstain this year was informed by this history, but it was also based on the resolution’s substance. Like the resolutions emerging from the past five previous sessions of the ESS, the text was unbalanced enough to warrant an abstention, but not so unbalanced overall as to justify a vote against. Another 45 countries took the same view.
The text was unbalanced because it did not acknowledge the need for the Palestinian leadership to act in a determined way to stop the violence. Nor did it reflect adequately the loss of life and injury among Israelis, as well as among Palestinians.
We made an explanation of [our] vote at the time, putting our view that direct negotiations between the parties themselves provide the best prospect for putting a final end to the cycle of violence, and returning to a process that can deliver a comprehensive agreement. We urged that the commitments made at Sharm El-Sheikh be implemented as soon as possible.
On 13 May 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning the situation in the Solomon Islands (FA 39). Extracts of the press release follow:
In light of our concern at the deterioration in the security situation around Honiara, my colleague the Minister for Defence and I have decided to fund an expansion of the Commonwealth Multinational Police Assistance Group (MPAG). Additional Australian funding will allow the MPAG to expand from its current nine Fiji police officers to 50 police officers, drawn from the Pacific region. The expanded MPAG would support efforts by the Royal Solomon Islands Police to extend their activities by improving their communication with the aggrieved communities and helping to contain the violence which has forced thousands of Solomon Islanders from their homes over the past year. We are discussing the composition of the expanded MPAG with other Pacific Island countries.…
… . We have also supported the Commonweath’s very useful work, including previous rotations of the MPAG and the activities of Commonwealth Special Envoy, Major-General Rabuka. Australia remains willing to provide further support to facilitate the success of the peace process, while recognising that the communal problems on Guadalcanal are deeply entrenched and that effective “home-grown” solutions must be developed to address them.
On 15 October 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release concerning the Townsville Peace Agreement (FA 117). Extracts of the press release follow:
I warmly welcome the signature today of the Townsville Peace Agreement for the Solomon Islands. I applaud the efforts of the 130 conference delegates who have worked hard over the past six days to bridge the divisions between them, for the sake of their troubled country. Implementation of the agreement is potentially of enormous benefit to all the people of the Solomon Islands, so many of whom have suffered severely and directly from the violent conflicts and other impacts of the ethnic tension over the past two years. I am delighted the facilities and support Australia has been able to provide for the conference at RAAF Base Townsville have assisted such an important and satisfying outcome.The Peace Agreement signed today in Townsville lays the ground for a desperately needed return to normal life without the threat of violence in the Solomon Islands. Signature is only the first step. Determined commitment will be needed from all the parties to ensure it is implemented effectively under the pressures which may be placed on it over the coming months. Implementation of the Agreement will allow Australia to deliver the assistance we have promised to support the reconstruction of the devastated Solomon Islands economy and to provide other “peace dividends”, including to those areas most directly affected by the tensions. I am sure other friends of the Solomon Islands will respond in a similar way.
The Townsville Agreement provides for the establishment of an international peace monitoring team to help with a number of key aspects of the peace agreement. Australia accepts that external involvement of this sort could be an important support for peace and will consult closely with the Solomon Islands Government and other interested governments in determining how best we can contribute to such a team.
On 8 June 2000, in the Senate, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Robert Hill, answered a question on notice from Senator Vicki Bourne concerning the situation in Sri Lanka (Senate, Debates, 8 June 2000, p 15046). Extracts of the answer follow:
The Australian Government supports a political settlement to the conflict, which takes account of the legitimate aspirations of the Tamil minority and recognises the fundamental human rights of all Sri Lankans, while continuing to support the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. Australia does not and has never supported a military solution to the conflict and believes that only a peaceful negotiated settlement will bring an end to the human suffering wrought by the continuing conflict. Australia takes every opportunity in its ongoing contacts with the Sri Lankan Government and with Tamil groups in Australia to encourage progress towards a peaceful resolution.
On 6 November 2000, in the Senate, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Robert Hill, answered a question on notice from Senator Bob Brown concerning the Australian response to the war in southern Sudan (Senate, Debates, 6 November 2000, p 19224). Extracts of the answer follow:
The Australian Government regularly co-sponsors Resolutions on the Sudan at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and Sessions of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). The Resolution of the 56th Session of the CHR (April 2000) expressed our deep concern at the use of weapons, including landmines, against the civilian population and at the continuing and serious violations of human rights, fundamental freedoms and international humanitarian law perpetrated by all parties to the conflict. The Australian Government is pleased to note the cooperation extended by the Government of Sudan to visits, in 1999 and February-March this year, by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights.The Australian Government has also made bilateral representations to the Sudanese Government on human rights issues.
Any application to export defence or related goods from Australia to Sudan would be subject to the closest scrutiny by agencies of the Standing Interdepartmental Committee for Defence Exports to ensure consistency with Australia’s foreign, strategic and security policy objectives. The Australian Government has not approved the export of any offensive weapons to Sudan for over ten years.
More broadly, through our participation in the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use-Goods and Technologies, the Government is working to promote greater transparency and responsibility in transfers of conventional arms to regions of concern. Arms flows to countries in the Horn of Africa have been the subject of Wassenaar attention.
There has been no United Nations Resolution calling for stronger action to deal with the conflict in Sudan beyond existing mediation efforts. The Australian Government welcomes all attempts to bring the war to a conclusion acceptable to all parties but does not support one peace initiative over another.
On 6 June 2000, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Robert Hill, answered a question on notice from Senator Bob Brown concerning the situation in Western Sahara (Senate, Debates, 6 June 2000, p 14764). Extracts of the answer follow:
In April 1991 the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) approved, under Resolution 690, the authorisation of the establishment of a UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) to implement the plan for a referendum on self-determination to indicate the wishes of the population of Western Sahara on the question or independence, or incorporation into the Kingdom of Morocco. In May 1991 the Security Council approved plans for a referendum in the disputed territory. The conduct of the referendum process, including voter registration, is the responsibility of MINURSO, in consultation with the concerned parties, i.e. the Kingdom of Morocco and the Frente Popular para la Liberacion de Saguia el-Harnra y de Rio de Oro (the Polisario Front). MINURSO's inability to resolve a range of outstanding issues, comprising agreement on the voter appeals process, protocols for repatriation of Saharan refugees, and security conditions required for voting, have stalled the referendum to date. Australia is not a member of the United Nations Security Council and does not have significant influence over Security Council decisions. However, Australia has consistently supported the decision of the UNSC on the holding of a UN referendum for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara. Australia also supports the extension of the mandate of MINURSO for a further three months from 28 February 2000. This extension was necessary to allow time for the Kingdom of Morocco and Polisario to complete the voter identification process, the issuance of the second provisional voter list and the initiation of appeals from applicants of tribal groupings. As the Australian Government fully supports the extension of MINURSO's mandate and the UNSC's resolution on the holding of a referendum, we have not had cause to make representations to the United Nations on this issue.
On 9 May 2000, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, answered a question without notice from Dr Mal Washer concerning Australia’s response to violence in Zimbabwe (House of Representatives, Debates, 9 May 2000, p 16044). Extracts of the answer follow:
Last week I was in London for my first meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group prepared a strong chairman’s statement, reflecting the deep concern of the Commonwealth about the situation in Zimbabwe, including — and I quote from the statement — ‘ongoing violence, loss of life, illegal occupations of property, failure to uphold the rule of law and political intimidation in the run-up to Zimbabwe’s parliamentary election’. What was interesting about this statement was that it was a statement agreed to by not only Australia or the United Kingdom but also countries like Botswana, Nigeria — near neighbours of Zimbabwe — Malaysia, Bangladesh, Barbados and Canada. This issue is of very major concern to the international community. Let me make it clear that this problem in Zimbabwe should not be characterised just as a dispute between Zimbabwe and Britain. This is a matter of concern to the whole of the international community. We helped now President Mugabe and his people achieve the genuine independence that they have, and we expect that Zimbabwe today and the Zimbabwe government will uphold the rule of law and will ensure that there is a proper constitutional process in place. We will continue to make representations on this issue. The Secretary-General of the Commonwealth is intending to visit Zimbabwe very soon and I know he will make representations.
Finally, I have made it clear that Australia would be prepared to send observers to the elections in Zimbabwe which we expect to be held before the end of August. I think some members of this House may be willing to go. I think it would be appropriate to have a small number of members of parliament as part of that observer group. Overall, I think it is important that the Commonwealth has a team of observers there, including some from Australia.
On 12 April 2000, in the Senate, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Robert Hill, answered a question on notice from Senator Lyn Allison concerning arms control and disarmament (Senate, Debates, 12 April 2000, p 14011). Extracts of the answer follow:
The Government believes that the Article VI [of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] goal of eventual nuclear disarmament can only proceed via a series of incremental and reinforcing steps — including bilateral nuclear warhead negotiations, entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, commencement of Fissile Material Cut-Off negotiations, improving the international nuclear safeguards system and facilitating nuclear weapon free zones. The Government has made representations to all five Nuclear Weapon States [NWS] to urge their active support for these individual steps, which together represent significant progress towards achieving the final goal of Article VI.The Government believes that progress in reducing nuclear warhead numbers at this stage is best made bilaterally, between the U.S. and Russia, through the START process. The Government has been active in lobbying Duma members and key officials in the Russian Government to encourage Duma ratification of START II. We have made representations to both the U.S. and Russia to encourage commencement of negotiations on START III and the earliest conclusion, ratification and implementation of START III possible.
The Government has also made representations to the U.S., China and Russia to urge them to ratify the CTBT. It has made representations to all five NWS on the importance of an immediate start to negotiations for a Fissile Material Cut-Off Convention (a measure recognised by both the Canberra Commission and the Tokyo Forum as an essential step on the road towards a world free of nuclear weapons). In addition it has called on all five NWS to take action as part of global efforts to strengthen the nuclear safeguards system, including most recently Russia, the only NWS yet to sign an Additional Protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Government made successful representations to encourage the nuclear weapon states to support the South Pacific Nuclear Weapon Free Zone and has encouraged the U.S., U.K and France to vigorously continue efforts to resolve their outstanding differences with the members of the South East Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in order to enable ratification of the Protocol to that Treaty.
These reinforcing measures all constitute steps on the path to nuclear disarmament — while they may be small steps individually, cumulatively they amount to significant movement. It is important to remember that a strong non-proliferation regime is essential to further progress towards nuclear disarmament.
On 27 April 2000, the Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament, HE Les Luck, delivered a statement to the Sixth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Extracts of the statement follow:
I would also like to touch on the issue of transparency in nuclear disarmament. The whole global community — but most particularly the states which have submitted themselves to the obligations of the NPT — have a direct and fundamental interest in nuclear disarmament. In this context, I would like to thank the United States for the briefings it provided on the current state of nuclear disarmament to delegations of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva in March this year. That briefing built on previous U.S. briefings on this topic — a practice which makes a valuable contribution to the understanding of States Parties on this issue. Australia has appreciated efforts by other Nuclear Weapon States to share similar information and encourages them at this Review Conference and beyond to share information on steps they have taken or are contemplating taking to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and put in place measures designed to obviate the risk of an inadvertent or accidental nuclear strike. There is no doubt that this Review Conference will see discussion about the pace of nuclear disarmament and the more informed that deliberation is, the more productive it will be.Australia understands the frustration of those who feel that the current pace of nuclear disarmament is too slow. But we do not share the view that there are easier or better ways to achieve the goal of ultimate nuclear disarmament. The Australian Government is fully committed to working, by balanced and progressive steps, towards the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons. But it is an obvious political reality that reductions in nuclear weapons — leading to a world free of them — must be made incrementally. Our interest is in promoting a realistic, balanced approach to nuclear disarmament, which takes account of strategic realities and which, importantly, stands the best chance of engaging the Nuclear Weapon States constructively.
On 2 November 2000, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Alexander Downer, answered a question without notice from Ms Danna Vale (House of Representatives, Debates, 2 November 2000, p 22032). Extracts of the question and answer follow:
This year [at the United Nations General Assembly] we were also pleased to be able to support a resolution tabled by Sweden on behalf of a group of countries known as the `New Agenda’ Coalition. We supported the resolution this year—we had abstained in previous years — because this year the `New Agenda’ Coalition worked very closely with governments such as ours in order to redraft the resolution, to make it one that could achieve broader support than has been the case in the past. This particular resolution consolidates support for the positive outcomes of this year’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and, in doing so, supports key Australian disarmament policy priorities, including the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the commencement of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and universal adherence to and compliance with the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. This resolution got the support of 146 countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom and China. It demonstrates the centrality of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in the global nuclear non-proliferation disarmament framework. The Government has consistently demonstrated its commitment to practical and realistic steps that can lead to nuclear disarmament, rather than pursuing agendas which, frankly, are unrealistic and will never be achieved.
On 25 April 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, presented a speech at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York. Extracts of the speech follow:
The international community has already passed judgement on the NPT’s worth in one highly significant manner — and that is in the growth of its membership. With 187 parties the NPT remains the single most important multilateral agreement underpinning global peace and security. Ten years ago some 60 states, including two of the five Nuclear Weapon States, were outside the Treaty. That number has now dropped to just four: India, Pakistan, Israel and Cuba. I take this opportunity to welcome the nine states which have become party to the Treaty since 1995.In achieving this near universal membership, we have seen a number of states — Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine — turn away from possession of nuclear weapons and seek their removal back to Russia. All joined the NPT as Non-Nuclear Weapon States. South Africa eliminated their nuclear weapons in 1991, thereby demonstrating that the spread of nuclear weapons is not irreversible, and joined the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state.
The NPT enables states with nuclear technology and materials to participate in nuclear trade and cooperation without fear of compromising non-proliferation objectives. Without these assurances of the peaceful nature of states’ nuclear activity, such trade and cooperation would inevitably fall away.
The treaty’s pivotal role in the international order was given due recognition by the 1995 decision to extend it indefinitely. With that decision the NPT became a permanent tenet of international law.
…
It is appropriate that today, in the interests of a safer world and on behalf of Australia — one of the strongest supporters of the NPT — that I should announce our Anzac day six point plan to promote progress in nuclear arms control and disarmament. The key elements of that vision are:
• The immediate entry into force and the full implementation of START II, and the early commencement and completion of the negotiations on START III;
• The early entry into force of the CTBT;
• The immediate commencement of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty [FMCT] and, pending its conclusion, a moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons;
• Universal adherence to the IAEA Additional Protocol and early establishment of an integrated safeguards regime to strengthen the effectiveness and improve the efficiency of the safeguards system;
• Implementation of effective export controls to enhance the long term assurance and stability which underpins nuclear trade and cooperation, and
• Universal adherence to the NPT regime.
We will be working closely with others in this conference and beyond to realise this vision.
…
The commitment to work not only towards the cessation of the nuclear arms race, but also towards nuclear disarmament is a central obligation of the NPT, and remains a key Australian policy objective.
Australia acknowledges that significant progress has been made. But we hope for and expect further action towards the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons. The START process is a basis for considerable further progress. Like other countries we look to the United States and Russia to deliver the deep cuts in nuclear arsenals promised by these arrangements. We welcome the decision taken by Russia to ratify START II and we urge Russia and the United States now to move to early and full implementation. We encourage both Russia and the United States to continue their preliminary discussions on START III.
Let me make it quite clear: the Australian Government is fully committed to working, by balanced and progressive steps, towards the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons. But it is an obvious political reality that reductions in nuclear weapons — leading to a world free of them — must be made incrementally. Our interest is in promoting a realistic, balanced approach to nuclear disarmament, which takes account of strategic realities and which, importantly, stands the best chance of engaging the Nuclear Weapon States constructively.
Reinforcing progress towards nuclear disarmament it is worth recalling that article VI obligations are directed at all NPT parties, not just the Nuclear Weapon States. It is equally important that Non-Nuclear Weapon States reinforce non-proliferation and disarmament goals — for example, by encouraging entry into force of the CTBT and the negotiation of an FMCT. Australia has been a strong supporter of both these objectives; many states here will have received representations from Australia urging early ratification of the CTBT.
…
Universal adherence to the NPT remains an urgent priority. We encourage those yet to join the Treaty to do so at the earliest opportunity. Those already in the treaty can support its objectives by maintaining the strongest possible commitment and vigilance against nuclear proliferation.
From both the non-proliferation and disarmament standpoints, NPT parties must adhere fully to their IAEA safeguards obligations.
Australia is one of the most active proponents of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s strengthened safeguards system, and played a prominent role in the negotiation of the Additional Protocol to improve and extend the IAEA’s inspection and access rights. In fact, Australia was the first country to ratify […] Additional Protocol. We want this conference to support the Additional Protocol strongly and help pave the way for it to be regarded as a necessary part of Non-Nuclear Weapon States’ safeguards obligations under the NPT.
…
I should also mention nuclear weapon free zones, which are another important element of the global nuclear arms control regime and which complement the NPT in limiting the threat posed by nuclear weapons. The opening for signature of two more treaties in Southeast Asia and Africa respectively, building upon widely accepted existing pacts in our region and in Latin America and the Caribbean, is very welcome. We look forward to further progress on the central Asian nuclear weapon free zone.
…
There have been challenges for the NPT and doubtless more will lie ahead. The drafters of the regime foresaw the need to respond to changing circumstances by building into the system the review mechanism we are here to apply. It is an encouraging feature of the post-cold war EPA that, whenever new challenges have emerged, the international community has strongly supported the existing non-proliferation regime and the identification of possible new measures.
The nuclear tests in South Asia in 1998 struck at the international norm against proliferation, although we should be clear that actions by non-parties cannot be seen as a failing of the Treaty itself. We urge India and Pakistan to choose the path of reducing tensions and averting the threat of a South Asian nuclear arms race. Near term steps open to India and Pakistan include signature of the CTBT, constructive participation in the FMCT negotiations and maintaining their moratoria on nuclear tests. We also encourage both countries to apply stringent export controls in support of global non-proliferation norms. Ultimately, of course, we would like to see India and Pakistan sign the NPT as Non-Nuclear Weapon States.
It is self-evident that in examining progress on implementation of the treaty it will be necessary to address issues of compliance. The IAEA is still unable to resume its verification and monitoring activities in Iraq under relevant Security Council resolutions. We call upon Iraq to cooperate fully with UNMOVIC and the IAEA to achieve full implementation of all relevant Security Council resolutions, and its international legal obligations as a party to the NPT.
We welcome the recent improvements in relations between the DPRK and other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. We hope this will be reflected in reduced tensions in the region and improved North Korean cooperation with the IAEA in implementing their NPT safeguards agreement. But we remain concerned about the lack of cooperation from the DPRK in fulfilling its obligations under the safeguards agreement. The DPRK must preserve all information needed for the IAEA to verify its initial inventory declaration to ensure that it will in due course be able to benefit fully from the peaceful nuclear cooperation being offered to it through the KEDO light water reactor project.
On 27 April 2000, the Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament, HE Les Luck, delivered a statement to the Sixth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Extracts from the statement follow:
The commitment made by the Nuclear Weapon States to pursue in good faith measures relating to nuclear disarmament lies at the heart of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Continued, steady progress on nuclear disarmament is central to preserving the political strength and vitality of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and remains a key Australian policy objective. This conference should therefore send a strong message to the Nuclear Weapon States that the non-Nuclear Weapon States Parties to the Treaty look to them to work to fulfil this commitment.In doing so, however, we should not underestimate the progress that has already been made, nor should we be lulled into believing that nuclear disarmament is likely to be anything other than a complex, incremental process in which each step is evaluated for the security benefits it will bring. There can be no doubt that good progress has been made towards nuclear disarmament, notwithstanding the fact that this progress may not have been entirely uniform or consistent.
Through the Strategic Arms Limitation and Reduction Treaty (START) process and other instruments, the Russian Federation and the United States have halted and are moving at a steady pace to reverse the nuclear accumulations of the Cold War by eliminating nuclear weapons on a significant scale. The United States has reduced its total nuclear warheads from a peak of 32,450 in 1966 to less than 10,500 today. The Russian Federation has reduced its total warheads from a peak of 45,000 in 1986 to below 20,000 today. Furthermore, under START II both states are scheduled to reduce their nuclear arsenals to below 3,500 deployed strategic warheads by 2007. Important unilateral steps have also been taken by other Nuclear Weapon States. The United Kingdom has, under its “Strategic Defence Review,” cut its nuclear warheads to a currently level of 185, a significant reduction from a high of 350 in 1981. France has reduced its operational warheads to 450 from a high of 538 in 1992 and closed down permanently its test sites.
These are not insignificant reductions and it would be naive of us to think otherwise. Australia acknowledges that significant progress has already been made. But we hope for, and expect, further action towards the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons. The START process is a basis for considerable further movement, and another welcome step in this process was taken recently with the approval by the Russian Duma of START II ratification. We now look forward to early and full implementation of the Treaty by both the Russian Federation and the U.S. START III will see nuclear warhead levels fall even further and we call upon Russia and the United States to commence and conclude negotiations on this important treaty as soon as possible, and to then continue the process beyond START III.
The final elimination of nuclear weapons must of course be a global endeavour involving all states. For this reason Australia continues to believe that there is scope for multilateral discussions on nuclear disarmament in the Conference on Disarmament and we will support any proposal for such discussions capable of attracting a consensus. While for the time being the main onus for nuclear disarmament lies with the United States and Russia, there are vitally important reinforcing steps which other countries can take to contribute to the development of, and support for, an environment favourable to nuclear weapons elimination. This Conference should therefore support in the strongest possible terms the non-proliferation regime as an essential component of, and prerequisite for, the nuclear disarmament process.
It is for this reason Mr Chairman that, consistent with the vision articulated by the Australian Foreign Minister earlier this week, we have joined with Japan in putting forward some ideas for further measures to promote nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. These future measures to strengthen the treaty take as their point of departure a commitment to the full implementation of the 1995 Principles and Objectives. The ideas of Japan and Australia are set out in document NPT /CONF/2000/WP.l.
…
This Conference must also address the issue of South Asian nuclear testing in the context of our Review. Those tests struck at the international norm against proliferation, although we should be clear that actions by non-parties cannot be seen as a failing of the Treaty itself. Australia welcomes the efforts being made by the BJP-led Indian government to build a domestic consensus in favour of CTBT signature. We are, however, concerned that little progress seems to have been made by India and Pakistan on meeting a number of the other benchmarks laid out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172. This is something we should squarely address in this forum.
In considering South Asian testing, I should also underline the ongoing importance Australia places on universality of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. With 187 parties the NPT remains the single most important multilateral agreement underpinning global peace and security. Australia welcomes the nine states which have become party to the Treaty since 1995 — Andorra, Angola, Brazil, Chile, Comoros, Djibouti, Oman, the United Arab Emirates and Vanuatu.
Ten years ago some 60 states, including two of the five Nuclear Weapon States, were outside the Treaty. That number has now dropped to just four: India, Pakistan, Israel and Cuba. Australia calls on those four states to join at the earliest possible juncture as Non-Nuclear Weapon States and conclude a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Australia supports the consideration by this NPT Review Conference of possible further measures to provide assurances to non-nuclear weapon states party to the Treaty against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Proposals for any such measures must, however, be capable of attracting consensus if our work in this regard is to be productive. Our energies should therefore be devoted to practical proposals capable of winning the support of all groups of states.
Australia calls on the Nuclear Weapon States to reiterate the terms of their 1995 declarations and Security Council Resolution 984. In the context of security assurances, Australia supports, consistent with the 1995 Principles and Objectives, efforts to establish new nuclear weapon free zones on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among the states concerned.
Australia places great importance on Nuclear Weapon Free Zones as a vehicle for providing Negative Security Assurances to NPT non-nuclear weapon states parties. Tremendous progress in this regard has already been made since the 1995 Review Conference, with Nuclear Weapon States signature of the Protocols to the Treaty of Rarotonga, establishing the South Pacific Nuclear Weapon Free Zone, and the Treaty of Pelindaba, establishing the African Nuclear Weapon Free Zone, trebling from 33 to 99 the number of Non Nuclear Weapon States benefiting from binding Negative Security Assurances from all five NWS.
Furthermore, there is the prospect of future progress in this area, and Australia reiterates its preparedness to offer, as we did in the case of the nascent Treaty of Pelindaba, the sponsors of the Central Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone initiative and the Mongolian single state zone such practical assistance as may be welcome and appropriate, drawing on our experience with the South Pacific Nuclear Weapon Free Zone. We believe this Conference should agree to strive for early entry into force of these new zones.
On 22 May 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued the following press release (FA 54):
I am delighted that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, which concluded in New York on 20 May, and which I addressed on Anzac Day, has agreed on a program to advance global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.
As one of the strongest supporters of the NPT, Australia worked hard in the lead-up to the Conference and at the Conference itself to achieve this positive outcome.
Proposals developed by Australia and Japan on further measures to implement the NPT have been reflected in the Conference’s forward looking program.
This very important outcome sends a clear message that all States Parties to the NPT remain strongly committed to the goal of a nuclear weapon-free world. For the first time since 1985, States Parties to the Treaty — of which there are now 187 — were able to agree on both a review of the Treaty and a series of next steps for the Treaty’s implementation.
That all countries represented at this conference were able to reach such a consensus underlines international acceptance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as the best vehicle for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and working towards nuclear disarmament.
The NPT is the instrument through which the Nuclear Weapon States have committed themselves to the elimination of their nuclear arsenals, and through which almost every other country in the world has agreed not to acquire nuclear weapons. The Treaty therefore makes a vital contribution to global, regional and national security.
At this conference, NPT members have committed themselves to goals for which Australia has long worked, such as early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), continuing a moratorium on explosive nuclear testing, negotiation of a treaty to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, universal adherence to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s strengthened safeguards system and universal membership of the NPT.
I particularly welcome the unequivocal commitment of the Nuclear Weapon States to the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. It is also a measure of the NPT’s strength that a common approach was agreed on regional issues, including the Middle East and South Asia.
On 13 March 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release (FA 15) concerning the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty. The text of the press release follows:
I have today reaffirmed Australia’s strong commitment to reinforcing the international regime which prevents the proliferation of nuclear weapons.On behalf of the Government, I have signed an arrangement with the Preparatory Commission of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) to facilitate the establishment and management of nuclear test monitoring stations in Australia.
The facility arrangement was signed on behalf of the CTBTO by its Executive Secretary, Dr Wolfgang Hoffmann, during Dr Hoffmann’s visit to Canberra today.
The CTBT has already established a powerful international norm against nuclear testing and this norm will be established in international law when the Treaty enters into force, banning for all time all explosive nuclear tests.
The Treaty will therefore form a vital component of the international nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime. Australia has signed and ratified the CTBT and played a leading role in bringing the Treaty before the United Nations for adoption in 1996.
As a strong supporter of the CTBT, Australia has in recent months made vigorous efforts to encourage further ratifications of the CTBT, including representations either made or about to be made to 36 countries. I warmly welcome recent further ratifications of the Treaty, including by Turkey, Lithuania and Bangladesh. The CTBT now has 155 States signatories and 54 States Parties.
An international monitoring network will be set up under the Treaty to detect any explosive nuclear tests. When completed, the network will have 337 facilities around the world, including 21 in Australia.
In my discussion with Dr Hoffmann, I welcomed the work done by the CTBTO toward establishing the International Monitoring System. Work on Australia’s 21 facilities is proceeding well.
Australia is also a strong advocate for the development of a robust On Site Inspection capacity so that any suspected breach of the Treaty can be investigated effectively. I welcomed advice of renewed efforts by Dr Hoffmann’s organisation to advance that important aspect of the CTBT.
On 25 April 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, presented a speech at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York. Extracts of the speech follow:
The CTBT is the newest element of the global nuclear arms control regime, and one to which I have made a strong personal commitment. It was, after all, the Australian government that in 1996 brought the CTBT to the UN General Assembly, thereby providing for its adoption. It is disappointing that the CTBT is not yet in force. But it has been firmly established as a powerful international norm against further nuclear testing, and with 155 State signatories it is already rapidly approaching the status of a universal treaty. I welcome the recent decision of the Russian Duma to ratify the CTBT.We should also not forget that all five Nuclear Weapon States have signed the CTBT, and therefore they do have an obligation under international law not to frustrate its purpose. In that context, we welcome the Nuclear Weapon States’ moratorium on testing. We will also continue to encourage the U.S. administration to mobilise the very significant support for the CTBT amongst the people of the United States, so as to convince the Senate of its worth.
On 27 April 2000, the Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament, HE Les Luck, delivered a statement to the Sixth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Extracts from the statement follow:
The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty remains a vital reinforcing element of the non-proliferation regime. We welcome the ongoing moratorium on explosive nuclear testing observed by the Nuclear Weapon States, consistent with their signature of the CTBT. Over the past five years the number of States adhering to the CTBT has risen steadily, and with 155 State signatories the CTBT has established a powerful international norm against nuclear testing and is already rapidly approaching the status of a universal treaty. This is a very positive development which we greatly welcome.There is still some way to go, however, before the CTBT enters into force and this Conference should urge all States who have not yet signed and ratified the Treaty to do so as soon as possible. It is particularly important that all Nuclear Weapon and nuclear-capable States support the CTBT and we greatly welcome in this context the recent decision of the Russian Duma to ratify the CTBT. We also urge the three nuclear-capable states which remain outside the NPT to continue to refrain from explosive nuclear testing pending entry into force of the CTBT.
On 30 October 2000, the Ambassador to the Conference for Disarmament, HE Les Luck made a statement to the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. An extract of the statement follows:
While it is disappointing that the CTBT is not formally yet in force, it is in provisional operation and that is to be welcomed. With 160 signatories and 66 ratifications, and a growing verification infrastructure, the Treaty is firmly established as a powerful international norm against further nuclear testing.Australia, which played a major role in bringing the Treaty to the United Nations General Assembly in 1996, will continue to work actively with other countries to secure early entry into force of the Treaty. We recently made a further round of diplomatic representations to Asia-Pacific countries and countries in the group of 44 whose ratification is required for entry into force. Australia is also active in the Vienna process to organise a second CTBT Article XIV conference on facilitating the Treaty’s entry into force. We were pleased to take the lead in introducing this year’s CTBT resolution under consideration in the First Committee.
Progress with signatures and ratifications has made an important contribution to maintaining the strength and momentum of the Treaty. A further key factor has been the successful establishment of the CTBTO’s Preparatory Commission (PrepCom) and its Provisional Technical Secretariat (PTS) in Vienna.
We should be in no doubt that the establishment of the CTBTO PrepCom was a landmark achievement for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. The setting up of the PrepCom and the significant financial investment inherent in its work send a powerful message to those still outside the CTBT that the global non-testing norm is here to stay.
The Treaty’s International Monitoring System (IMS) is a major effort for the international community. When completed it will consist of 170 seismological, 60 infrasound, 11 hydroacoustic and 80 radionuclide stations — supported by 16 radionuclide laboratories. A Global Communications Infrastructure and an International Data Centre in Vienna will complete the IMS. Countries will also be establishing their own national data centres to enable them to reach conclusions about international compliance with the test-ban. Obviously, this system requires a significant investment. But it is an investment fully justified by the security benefit of assurance of detection of-nuclear test explosions anywhere in the world.
On 2 November 2000, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Alexander Downer, answered a question without notice from Ms Danna Vale (House of Representatives, Debates, 2 November 2000, p 22032). Extracts of the question and answer follow:
Over the last month, Australia has been very active and constructive in the role it has played in the United Nations to promote nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. I am delighted that the Australian-led resolution in support of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was adopted by a larger majority in the United Nations this year than in 1999. It is appropriate that Australia should move that motion. After all, this government was the government that brought the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the United Nations General Assembly and had it voted on by the General Assembly. It is indeed a great achievement for Australia — not just for this government — that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty came into existence. The resolution that was passed through the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly emphatically confirmed strong international support for the CTBT and it does send a clear message about the norms against nuclear testing and that they are here to stay.
On 25 April 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer
, presented a speech at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York. Extracts of the speech follow:
The 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference identified the negotiation of an FMCT as one of the most urgent disarmament and non-proliferation steps the international community should take.It is disappointing and frustrating that the Conference on Disarmament is yet to commence negotiation of this logical next step on the nuclear arms control and disarmament agenda. We look to this conference to reaffirm the need for an immediate commencement of FMCT negotiations and their speedy conclusion. Pending negotiation of the FMCT, we hope that China will join the moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons announced by the other Nuclear Weapon States. We look to India, Pakistan and Israel to place a moratorium on production of fissile material for any nuclear weapons and to participate constructively in the FMCT negotiations.
On 27 April 2000, the Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament, HE Les Luck, delivered a statement to the Sixth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Extracts from the statement follow:
Five years ago, the Parties to the NPT committed themselves unequivocally to the immediate commencement of negotiations on a FMCT, which was identified as a key element of a program of action to work towards the implementation of Article VI. FMCT enhances not only non-proliferation but is also a vital step underpinning nuclear disarmament. In this regard FMCT was recognised by both the Canberra Commission and the Report of the Tokyo Forum as being an integral step on the road towards a world free of nuclear weapons.It is a matter of profound disappointment and regret to Australia that five years on we still have not begun these negotiations. This conference should use the strong support which was voiced at the 1995 Review, and which has since been reiterated in the Conference on Disarmament, at the UN General Assembly and in the Preparatory process for this Review Conference, as a catalyst for renewing and redoubling the efforts of all NPT parties in the Conference on Disarmament to secure an agreement which would allow these vital negotiations to commence. This Conference should also call for the speedy conclusion of such negotiations, preferably before 2003 but by no later than 2005.
Pending negotiation of the FMCT, we hope that China, as a party to the NPT, will join the moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons announced by the other Nuclear Weapon States.
On 27 March 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release (FA 21) to mark the 25th anniversary of entry into force of the Biological Weapons Convention. The text of the press release follows:
Yesterday marked the 25th anniversary of the entry into force of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), the first multilateral treaty to outlaw completely an entire class of weapons of mass destruction.While the entry into force of the BWC has established an international consensus against biological weapons, the treaty does not have a verification mechanism. Countries have been working hard to negotiate a Protocol which would provide for verification of the ban on biological weapons. Australia plays an active and important role in the Ad Hoc Group negotiating the protocol, and is Vice-Chair of the negotiations.
The Ad Hoc Group is currently meeting in Geneva and, given the importance of this anniversary, I have instructed the Australian Ambassador for Disarmament, Les Luck, to impress upon the group the need to focus on our common goal and resolve the outstanding differences that are delaying progress.
This Government will persist in doing all it can to expedite these negotiations and ensure the effectiveness of the final protocol. In an era of rapid advances in the field of biotechnology, it is now easier than ever to develop, produce and conceal biological weapons. Their use, even only once, would be devastating and this lends weight and urgency to the need to conclude negotiations. A robust verification protocol will further enhance global security and ensure our investment in the BWC pays security dividends for Australia.
On 23 November 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued the following press release concerning ballistic missile proliferation (FA 134):
I warmly welcome China’s commitment, announced on 21 November, not to assist other countries in any way to develop ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.China’s commitment represents a responsible step forward for international efforts to prevent missile proliferation and for the development of a more stable regional and global security environment.
China’s parallel commitment to improve and reinforce its export control systems, including by publishing a comprehensive export control list of missile-related items will be an important tool in its efforts to prevent missile proliferation.
As a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), Australia firmly supports efforts to reduce missile proliferation and has been a strong advocate for broader adherence, including in the Asia-Pacific region, to measures to limit the spread of missile technology and the export of long-range missiles.
My just completed visit to North Korea provided me with a valuable opportunity to reinforce this message at senior levels in the DPRK.
Australia will continue to lobby actively for the imposition of effective controls on exports of missile-related equipment and technology, including through its membership of the MTCR. We urge all countries to impose and implement such controls with vigour.
On 10 April 2000, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, answered a question on notice from Mr Graham Edwards concerning the Ottawa Convention. Following is an extract from the answer (House of Representatives, Debates, 10 April 2000, p 15644):
Through our diplomatic missions in South Pacific countries, in 1999 the Australian Government made representations to South Pacific countries which had not signed or ratified the Ottawa Convention to encourage them to ratify or accede to it. Most countries responded by expressing support for the convention and an interest in becoming a party to it. However, other bureaucratic and legislative priorities may preclude many of them from taking early action. Through a number of regular bilateral dialogues at Ministerial and officials’ level, the Government has encouraged relevant countries to join the convention. For example, at the March 2000 Ministerial Forum with Papua New Guinea, Mr Downer encouraged PNG’s accession during his meeting with Foreign Minister Kaputin.In a meeting on 21 February with representatives of the Australian network of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), Mr Downer agreed that representatives of the ICBL and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade should discuss means for the Government and NGOs to take on an advocacy role in encouraging regional countries to accede to the convention.
On 28 November 2000, Mr Colin Hollis MP, made a statement for the Australian Delegation at the United Nations General Assembly. An extract from the statement follows:
In 1998 the Australian Parliament enacted the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Act, which gives force to the provisions of the Ottawa Convention under Australia law, making it a criminal offence for Australian citizens, or Defence Force personnel, to place, possess, develop, acquire, stockpile or transfer anti-personnel landmines.In keeping with our obligations under Article 6 of the Convention the Australian Government has become a significant contributor to international mine clearance, mine awareness and victim assistance programs, with a particular focus on the Asia Pacific region.
…
As envisaged in Article 4 of the Convention Australia destroyed its stockpile of anti-personnel landmines in September 1999. This process was completed almost four years before we were required to do so under the Convention. The exercise involved the destruction of almost 130,000 mines, or some 27 tonnes. As is allowed for under the Convention a number (10,000) were retained for training and research purposes. To carry this out the Australian Defence Force developed an innovative and cost-effective method of destruction, using Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil and diesel fuel. This technique has attracted significant interest from other States Parties to the Convention and the Australian Defence Force believes that for many countries assessing options for stockpile destruction this method offers a cheap and effective answer.
In order to assist other countries in this regard, the Australian Government has made available to States Parties, the technical report into the destruction of our stockpile and has expressed its willingness to provide additional information to those states requiring it.
…
The leading role Australia has taken on this issue has resulted in Australia being selected as a co-rapporteur of the Ottawa Convention’s Standing Committee on Stockpile Destruction. Indeed Australia is an active participant in the full range of Ottawa Convention Standing Committees.
So this is what we have achieved to date, but where do we focus our attention now? The Declaration issued at the conclusion of the Second Meeting of States Parties in September reflected positively on the progress made to date, but acknowledged that considerable work lies before us. While we acknowledge the rapid progress in expanding the number of States Parties, there are now 107 parties, the Government sees universalisation of the Convention as a central priority.
The Australian Government is contributing to global efforts aimed at promoting greater adherence to the Convention by focussing our energies on our own neighbourhood. Through our network of diplomatic missions we have called on the countries of the South Pacific to adhere to the Convention. We were very encouraged therefore by the ratification of Nauru and accession of Kiribati which occurred immediately prior to the Second Meeting of States Parties held in September.
The Australian Government is also working with the Australian Network of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines to develop a collaborative program to build support for the Convention among the countries of South-East Asia.
The Australian Government is also prepared to consider sharing its technical expertise with regional countries, for example, through the provision of training in stockpile destruction techniques. Through the Government’s Mine Action program, we will consider funding activities under the program, and have given a commitment to provide up to AUD 200,000 for advocacy activities.
On 28 November 2000, Mr Colin Hollis MP, made a statement for the Australian Delegation at the United Nations General Assembly. An extract from the statement follows:
I would like to turn briefly now to discuss the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) also frequently referred to as the Inhumane Weapons Convention. While the CCW does not prohibit the use, production or transfer of landmines, it does place restrictions on States Parties. It is particularly important as it brings on board a number of key producers and users of landmines that have not yet joined the Ottawa Convention.The CCW also deals with a range of other weapons, such as anti-vehicle mines, blinding laser weapons and incendiary devices, which are not covered by the Ottawa Convention. As a long-standing supporter, the Australian Government believes that the CCW continues to have an important role to play in dealing with mines and other weapons with a similar indiscriminate effect. With this in mind the Government has announced Australia’s candidacy for the Presidency of the CCW Review Conference due to be held at the end of 2001.
On 17 July 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer made the following comments concerning international intervention in the course of a speech delivered to the Sydney Institute:
In the short to medium term, there are three types of measures the international community can take. First, there is direct intervention, such as occurred in East Timor. Second, there is the carrots and sticks approach using sanctions and incentives. Thirdly, it may be increasingly possible to resort to the international legal system.But a word of warning: there is never any guarantee that international intervention can work. For as long as national sovereignty remains at the heart of the international system, there will be limits to what the international community can achieve.
First, direct military intervention: ideally, this should require four criteria to be met. The host nation should accede to the intervention; the force should have the authority of the UN Security Council; it should enforce or uphold a peace settlement or final outcome already designed; there must be an exit strategy for the force.
I said these criteria were ideal. All four applied in East Timor and, in the early nineties in the Gulf War. They didn’t in Kosovo. The point is, though, that if all four criteria do not apply then the consequences of direct intervention will be considerably greater and may even preclude that option, as they did for example, in Chechnya.
Suffice it to say I do not regard my four criteria as an iron law of international intervention, only as prerequisites for a straightforward and successful intervention.
Secondly, I spoke of sticks and carrots. One of the most popular cries that accompany outrage is the call for sanctions.
…
… blanket economic sanctions can simply exacerbate a humanitarian crisis and harm third countries.
Let me use some examples. If Australia were to apply full economic sanctions against Fiji we would decimate its economy; tens of thousands of people would lose their livelihoods, businesses would be lost forever and, given Fiji’s political position in the Pacific, countries like Kiribati, Samoa, Tuvalu and Tonga would be sucked down with Fiji.
…
There is evidence however, that “smart” or targeted sanctions which aim at those responsible for unacceptable behaviour, can have a more beneficial impact politically without causing widespread economic devastation.
The sanctions which seemed to have worked most effectively against South African apartheid were not general trade sanctions — the South Africans found novel ways of circumventing them — but financial sanctions which threatened the capacity of white dominated big business and the Government’s capacity to raise or extend finance from abroad.
…
In addition to the “sticks” represented by sanctions, governments should look at incentives, or “carrots”. Such incentives should be designed to bring change without confrontation. This mutually agreed approach to bring about change is most evident in the Government’s aid program.
The Australian Government believes our aid program has a central role to play as an advocate of good governance and human rights.
…
Another practical way to achieve desired outcomes is through the Government human rights programs. The China Human Rights Technical Assistance Program, at about $1 million each year, provides practical assistance to promote attention to human rights issues in China and complements the annual human rights bilateral dialogue between Australia and China. Activities include training and seminars for example, in human rights reporting obligations, legal issues, and development of minority rights, such as in the delivery of services.
…
The third form of international intervention is through the international legal system. This type of intervention is only in embryonic phase. The international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda have started to have some impact. But most importantly, 97 countries, including Australia, have now signed the Statute for the International Criminal Court. This Court, which Australia did so much to help create, will not only be able to prosecute and convict perpetrators of egregious human rights abuses, but it will act as a very serious disincentive to commit such acts. I have no illusions about the difficulty in building an intervention legal framework to help ensure the world becomes more humane. Nor do I think such institutions will be sufficient, but I do think the International Criminal Court and other global institutions can make a serious difference.
On 15 November 2000, the Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, HE Penny Wensley, addressed the United Nations Security Council in relation to United Nations operations. Extracts of the address follow:
Australia strongly agrees there should be “no exit without strategy”, but also wants to stress that this is not in itself sufficient — the Council should not create operations without an exit strategy. Moreover, any subsequent adjustment to planning of a operation’s end-date should be timely and transparent, and be the subject of prior consultations with troop contributing nations for that operation.Developing an exit strategy requires a clear view of the objectives of the operation. If the aim or aims are clear to Council members, then the conditions that need to be in place before the Council declares the mission has been achieved can be readily identified. Similarly, the operational concepts — what actions are necessary to achieve these conditions — can be more readily developed.
…
Exit strategies should take into account not only the military end-state that the Council wishes to see achieved, but also the political and economic implications of a pull out or significant reduction in the numbers of peacekeepers or other UN personnel.
Politically, this might include such factors as the sustainability of political processes once the UN operation has departed, and whether processes of reconciliation between parties in conflict or re-establishment of the conditions for an election or other significant national event are in place. It is only reasonable here that the Council not be expected to set the bar too high; there will rarely be a situation when the UN leaves with a completely stable, fully-functioning polity achieved. Rather, the benchmark should be that political processes are such that there is no longer a threat to international peace and security.
…
In those cases where the UN has a major impact on a national economy, for example because of the size of an operation or because it has established a transitional administration as in Kosovo or East Timor, these economic factors need to be given weight by the Council. There should be, to the maximum extent possible, a seamless transition from high levels of UN-stimulated economic activity and short-term project assistance to medium term projects which will work to support the economy for the longer haul. This will entail coordination of planning and implementation of medium term development assistance projects so that the termination of the formal operation does not result in frustration, renewal of tensions or a sense that the UN has suddenly turned its back on the country being assisted. The Council will necessarily look to the Secretary-General, other UN organs and agencies, and to the international community more broadly, to be the agents for planning and implementing this assistance.
…
It is of course desirable that “exit” equate with successful achievement of the goals set by the Council. But we recognise that it will not always be possible. Sometimes, the Council will have to withdraw an operation because it has not succeeded in its mandated-role. In such cases, however, we would argue strongly that the withdrawal of the operation is not the end of the matter. In such cases, the Council will need to develop new goals or a strategy for reaching the desired end-state by other means.
In the spirit of greater transparency and effectiveness in the Council’s work, the Council should put a premium on developing exit strategies in consultation with countries most directly affected by its decisions. One obvious group is those contributing troops and police to an operation, particularly where specific timelines are incorporated for planning purposes. There is also, however, an onus on individual contributing countries to give early advice to the UN about their own plans for length of deployment. The reality is that some will be unable to maintain a presence throughout the life of an operation and this should also be factored into mission planning.
On 14 February 2000, Mr Rod Smith, Counsellor at the Permanent Mission to The United Nations in New York, delivered Australia’s statement to the United Nations Special Committee on Peacekeeping. Extracts of the statement follow:
Over the years, Australia has been a strong advocate of reform within DPKO [Department of Peacekeeping Operations], with the primary objective of strengthening its strategic capacities. We have pointed to the need to maintain this capacity at a level that can support at least three peacekeeping operations simultaneously. The current level of commitments illustrates the validity of this view.Good progress has been made in the restructuring of DPKO, improved transparency and flexibility of procurement procedures, and improved communication between DPKO and member states. We also commend DPKO for its contribution to the preparation of the reports on Srebrenica and Rwanda, which will help to inform our debate in this Committee.
We are continuing to monitor the impact on DPKO of the significant changes in staffing arrangements, including the loss of gratis personnel. We were pleased to note the recent agreement of the Fifth Committee to fund the provision of additional staff. We continue to be concerned, however, that the critical planning capacity of DPKO is badly stretched by current demands.
On 18 September 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer made a statement to the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. Extracts of the statement concerning peacekeeping follow:
The experience of the 1990s has clearly shown that the UN’s ability to meet an expanding and increasingly complex range of peacekeeping demands is under strain. The decade witnessed some important successes in peacekeeping — notably East Timor, but also some smaller, unheralded operations. But it also saw some tragic failures, the costs of which were often measured in human lives.I commend the Secretary-General’s commitment to blunt scrutiny and review of the UN’s performance, including the reports on Srebrenica and Rwanda. We particularly commend his initiative in convening the Brahimi Panel on UN Peace Operations. The Brahimi Report is a landmark document setting out a blueprint for modernising the UN’s peacekeeping and related functions. We must move expeditiously to consider its recommendations.
Let me highlight briefly five points that, in Australia’s view, are among the most significant lessons of recent experiences.
First, military intervention must be used only as a last resort. All efforts must be made to find peaceful solutions. In this context, we welcome the Brahimi Report’s emphasis on preventive action and peace-building.
Second, where the UN is deployed, there must be a peace to keep. There are real dangers in sending troops indefinitely into harm’s way in the absence of a clear peace plan and reasonable prospects for achieving it. Disputing parties must be committed to peace, and must be held accountable for their actions.
Third, peace operations must have a mandate from the Security Council that is appropriate to the job they are being asked to do. If the environment is hostile, they must be appropriately equipped and able to project credible force.
Fourth, deployment must take place quickly once a decision is taken by the Security Council. Delays can lead to the further deterioration of a situation, and can cost lives. The Brahimi Report offers a number of useful ideas to speed deployment which merit careful consideration.
Fifth, UN peace operations must have a clear exit strategy. This is linked in particular to the clarity of Council mandates: as the Brahimi Report rightly stresses, mandates must be clear, credible and achievable. It is also linked to the efficacy of accompanying peace processes and peacebuilding efforts. We welcome the attention given to these issues in the Brahimi Report. We also support the point that the UN must be given the resources it needs to carry out the demands that we make of it. There is no question that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations needs to be strengthened and reformed. Ultimately, it is our responsibility, as member states, to support a stronger and more effective UN peacekeeping capacity. This includes placing the financing of peacekeeping on a surer footing and paying our assessed contributions in full and on time.
On 10 March 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer delivered a speech at the opening of the 12th Australia-Papua New Guinea Ministerial Forum in Port Moresby. Following is an extract from the speech concerning peacekeeping on Bougainville:
On Bougainville, we have been delighted with the progress that has been made since early 1997. … But I agree with Sir John [Kaputin], that we don’t want the Peace Monitoring Group to be a permanent fixture, we want the Peace Monitoring Group over time to phase down and eventually to leave and that we believe will happen before too long, provided there is an appropriate political settlement in Bougainville. … we would just continue to encourage the evolution of this peace process in Bougainville. Again we have no illusions about it being difficult but we do have admiration for all those who have been involved in bringing the conflict on Bougainville to a conclusion during the course of 1997 through 1998 right up until now.
On 14 February 2000, Mr Rod Smith, Counsellor at the Permanent Mission to The United Nations in New York, delivered Australia’s statement to the United Nations Special Committee on Peacekeeping. Extracts of the statement concerning peacekeeping in East Timor follow:
Australia’s main engagement in international peacekeeping over the last year has been in East Timor, as the lead nation of INTERFET. The provision of forces for INTERFET represented the largest overseas deployment of Australian troops in over 25 years, with Australia’s contribution totalling more than 5000 personnel, out of a total INTERFET force of approximately 9000.Members of the Committee will be aware from INTERFET’s periodic reports to the Secretary General that it has discharged its mandate from the Security Council, and has started the process of transferring responsibility to the military component of the UN Transitional Administration.
INTERFET has succeeded in establishing peace and security through a credible and deterrent presence in all parts of the territory, although some low-level militia activity continues in some parts of the border region of the Oecussi enclave. Armed violence by all groups in East Timor has been halted. INTERFET has developed, in cooperation with Indonesian authorities, agreed procedures for border management along the East Timor-West Timor border, and has created conditions, and provided escort support, for large numbers of displaced persons to return to their homes.
INTERFET was also able to support wider UN operations and humanitarian assistance programs. These included assisting the transition from UNAMET to UNTAET, national reconstruction tasks, governance and administration, policing and law and order functions, as well as investigations into possible violations of international humanitarian law.
A critical ingredient in INTERFET’s success has been the strong support of the international community, including that of the countries in our immediate region, and the outstanding contributions of many. We take this opportunity to recognise and express appreciation to those countries that contributed to the multinational force — 22 countries in all: Thailand, the Philippines, New Zealand, UK, Fiji, Canada, France, Italy, Singapore, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Jordan, Brazil, US, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Kenya, Malaysia, Norway and Egypt. Their defence personnel have performed in an exemplary manner in difficult circumstances.
We take some important lessons from our experience with INTERFET. Not the least of these is the critical importance of an appropriate mandate from the UN Security Council. Force objectives, duration and scope must be clearly spelt out, and the operation given authority under the UN Charter that is appropriate to the circumstances on the ground. INTERFET’s authority under Chapter VII recognised the security environment that prevailed in September 1999 and was entirely appropriate.
Other lessons include the need for adequate resources, and the importance of developing practical, cooperative mechanisms for resolving disputes and other issues — such as those INTERFET developed with TNI to investigate the Motaain incident and with Indonesian authorities on border management.
It is also a powerful lesson of East Timor that the international community’s responsibility does not end with peacekeeping. Peace-building and nation-building are longer term tasks that, in East Timor as in many other theatres of conflict, will require sustained commitment, effort and resources over many years. Australia will continue to play its part.
On 6 November 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release concerning the International Peace Monitoring Team in the Solomon Islands (FA 126). Text of the press release follows:
I am pleased to announce that Australia will lead an International Peace Monitoring Team (IPMT) to Solomon Islands, responding to the call for such a team in the Townsville Peace Agreement of 15 October 2000.The role of the IPMT will be to support the indigenous Solomon Islands Peace Process under the aegis of the Peace Monitoring Council. Its main tasks will be supervision of the surrender of weapons, regular inspection of the stored weapons, confidence-building within affected Solomon Islands communities, and reporting to the Peace Monitoring Council. The monitors will be a completely neutral, unarmed group deployed at the invitation of all the main parties to the ethnic tension.
The International Peace Monitoring Team will be led by my Department, in the person of an experienced diplomat, Mr Simon Merrifield. The initial deployment will comprise 35 Australians and 14 New Zealanders. The monitors will be drawn from the Australian Federal Police and civilian public servants from DFAT, Defence and AusAID, with some logistic support provided by the Australian Defence Forces. The first IPMT members are already on the ground, preparing for the arrival later this week of the rest of the group. The full rotation of 49 will be in Solomon Islands by early December.
Australia has played a significant role in bringing the parties involved in the Guadalcanal conflict to the negotiating table, not only in Townsville, but also in several rounds of peace talks within Solomon Islands. We therefore have a particular interest in assisting with the implementation of the Townsville Peace Agreement and we will be helping the Solomon Islands peace process as much as we usefully can.
I am delighted that work on implementing the Townsville Peace Agreement is moving so quickly, and that Australia is able to continue its support for this process through the IPMT and other bilateral and multilateral assistance.
On 31 October 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, delivered a speech to the Australian Defence College. Extracts of the speech concerning the ASEAN Regional Forum follow:
The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), of which Australia is a member, should work to exploit its full potential as a means to reduce tensions and strengthen security dialogue in the Asia-Pacific. To this end, Australia has very much welcomed the development over the past year of an enhanced role for the ARF Chair in liaison with other multilateral organisations.Australia is also supporting moves to accord the Chair a stronger role, perhaps in cooperation with other ARF members, in “good offices” and preventive diplomacy, so as to forestall conflict before it occurs. The ARF is also useful in that it engages the major powers (including the US, China, Japan and Russia) in dialogue about the security affairs of the region.
Australia was pleased that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) joined the ARF earlier this year, as further engagement of the DPRK in regional affairs is a vital step in easing regional tensions.
On 9 February 2000, the Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, HE Penny Wensley, made a statement on the safety of United Nations and humanitarian personnel to the United Nations Security Council. Extracts of the statement follow:
The last year has seen an alarming number of incidences of attacks on UN and humanitarian personnel. Australian personnel have been among those who have suffered, and in two cases have lost their lives.The case of the three CARE Australia aid workers imprisoned in the [Federal Republic of Yugoslavia] has been well documented. Steve Pratt, Peter Wallace and Branko Jelen spent a combined total of 19 months in prison on charges of espionage which the Australian Government maintains were false.
…
Responsibility for ensuring the safety of UN and humanitarian personnel rests, first and foremost, with governments within whose jurisdiction activities are taking place. Governments should recognise and respect the independence and impartiality of UN personnel and humanitarian workers and allow them to operate without threat or hindrance. States must guarantee immunity and protection according to the law, and provide whatever physical protection and assistance is possible.
Governments must also denounce attacks against UN personnel and humanitarian workers, and take all measures to bring perpetrators of violence to justice. Impunity can not be allowed. Practical measures can be taken by governments to promote understanding and observance of international humanitarian law within their own communities — especially among military and security forces, but also civilian populations — including by disseminating information about international humanitarian law. UN and humanitarian workers must also be properly trained about their responsibilities. Building a spirit of partnership between international personnel and local governments and communities can also be a crucial ingredient in averting tensions and threats.
…
To minimise these risks, the Security Council should ensure appropriate plans are in place as part of peacekeeping operations to ensure proper protection of humanitarian personnel. Australia supports the use of Chapter VII authority to ensure the protection of UN personnel where this is warranted, as we did for example in the case of recent Security Council resolutions for INTERFET and UNTAET in East Timor.
And the authority of the United Nations and the Security Council must be brought fully to bear when violence is committed or threatened against UN staff or personnel of legitimate humanitarian organisations.
The importance of international humanitarian law in protecting UN and humanitarian workers cannot be overstated. The international community must make efforts to strengthen those protections already provided for, in particular the 1994 Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. Australia signed this Convention on 22 December 1995 and is currently in the process of enabling its ratification. Subject to parliamentary processes, the necessary legislation is expected to be passed later this year, with the aim of full ratification by the end of 2000. I strongly urge member states that have not already done so, to take the necessary steps to ratify this important Convention.
The enforcement of international humanitarian law must also be strengthened in order to bring those responsible to justice and to send a clear message of the international community’s intolerance of this violence. Intentionally attacking humanitarian personnel who are legitimately going about their business is a war crime, and has been specifically codified as such in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). We support the ICC as a powerful instrument for bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes against humanitarian personnel, as well as perpetrators of other war crimes and crimes against humanity. The ICC will do this not only by providing a mechanism for the investigation and prosecution of such crimes where no state is able to do so, but also through the imperative it will place on states, through the complementarity regime, to investigate and prosecute such crimes themselves.
Most important will be the deterrent effect of this interlocking of national and international jurisdictions. We therefore urge States that have not done so to begin their domestic processes for ratification of the Statute to ensure its early entry into force.
On 7 March 2000, the Proposed Treaty Action in relation to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract of the accompanying National Interest Analysis follows:
The Convention is a legal response by the international community to the increasing number of deliberate attacks and other acts of violence against United Nations (UN) and associated personnel deployed in various parts of the world fulfilling the mandate of UN operations. A principal objective of the Convention is to enhance the safety of UN and associated personnel by ensuring that the perpetrators of crimes to which the Convention applies are brought to justice.…
Crimes against UN and associated personnel are crimes against persons who act on behalf of the international community, and therefore of concern to all States including Australia. Ratification of the Convention by Australia will demonstrate Australia’s support for the conduct of UN operations and international cooperation to ensure that offenders are made individually accountable for their crimes. With the deployment of the UN Mission in East Timor (UNAMET) and the subsequent establishment of the UN Transitional Authority in East Timor (UNTAET), the relevance of the Convention to Australia, which has become both a host and a transit country for increasing numbers of UN and associated personnel, has increased considerably.
Ratification would also encourage other countries to become parties. This would not only improve international law and order and the recognition of the international rule of law, but would also make it safer for Australians who are participating in UN operations.
…
Australia will accept the obligation in Article 22.1 to submit any dispute between Australia and one or more other States Parties, which cannot be settled by negotiation, to arbitration or, if the organisation of such arbitration cannot be arranged within six months, to the International Court of Justice at the referral of any party to the dispute.
The Convention does not affect obligations of States Parties or UN and associated personnel under international humanitarian or human rights law, the rights and obligations of States regarding their border control, the obligations of UN and associated personnel under the mandate of a UN operation, the right of States contributing voluntarily to a UN operation to withdraw their personnel, or the entitlement to compensation for death or injury consequent upon participation in UN peace-keeping (Article 20). Neither does it derogate from the right to act in self-defence (Article 21).
On 28 June 2000, in the House of Representatives, the Attorney-General, Mr Daryl Williams, made the following remarks in the course of the second reading speech of the Criminal Code Amendment (United Nations and Associated Personnel) Bill 2000 (House of Representatives, Debates, 28 June 2000, p 18407):
I am pleased to introduce this Bill which will enable Australia to ratify the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and associated personnel. The object of the Convention is to give greater protection to the men and women who under the auspices of the United Nations put themselves at risk while serving the international community. Recent events overseas have unfortunately once again demonstrated the significant dangers which can face the men and women associated with UN operations.…
This Bill deals with the individual criminal responsibility of persons who attack United Nations and associated personnel. It adds a new division, division 71, to the Commonwealth Criminal Code which makes the crimes set out in the Convention offences in Australian domestic law.
…
I am pleased to say that the Governments of the States and Territories have been consulted about the Convention and that there is general support for Australia becoming a Party. The Bill reflects this cooperative approach by expressly preserving State and Territory criminal laws. In addition, it will not be possible to convict a person in a state or territory court for an offence under division 71 if the relevant conduct is the subject of a criminal penalty under a law of that State or Territory. This means, in effect, that the offences created by this law will not operate in relation to conduct that occurs in Australia where the relevant State and Territory law implements Australia’s Convention obligations. The Commonwealth law will operate primarily in relation to conduct outside Australia, as well as being available to cover any gap in local criminal laws.
On 19 April 2000, Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, HE Penny Wensley, made a statement to the United Nations Security Council concerning civilians in armed conflict. Extracts of the statement follow:
…Member states, the UN and regional bodies must focus more attention on ways of improving implementation and enforcement of existing humanitarian and human rights laws and norms, including the Geneva Conventions — particularly the fourth — and the 1977 Additional Protocols, and promoting observance of these instruments at all levels.
This means support for state efforts to develop consistent national laws. It also means support for state efforts to develop national institutions to disseminate laws of armed conflict through education and training, both of armed forces and civil administration, and for monitoring and enforcement of laws.
Strengthening legal protections for civilians also involves ensuring adequate recourse to justice where violations have taken place. It is vital that we have effective institutions to bring to justice perpetrators of crimes against humanity.
Australia views the ICC as a powerful instrument in this regard. It reinforces state imperative to investigate and prosecute, and, where no state is able or willing genuinely to do so, provides a mechanism for the investigation and prosecution of crimes.
More emphasis needs to be placed on implementing and developing concrete measures to improve the physical security of civilians caught in conflict situations. Particular attention must be given to vulnerable groups such as women, children and displaced persons.
These measures include greater use of preventive action, increased use of the specific mechanisms for the protection of civilians provided for in international humanitarian law instruments, increased use of UN Charter provisions to investigate conflict situations, and, as a last resort, sanctions targeting delinquent parties, but tailored to minimise any adverse impact on the civilian population.
Another important component is the sustained use of political and diplomatic pressure to ensure parties have access to humanitarian assistance, and necessary protection for United Nations and related personnel, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and humanitarian relief workers.
…
There is also scope for the international community to improve the physical security of civilians through its peacekeeping activities. Australia supports the Secretary-General’s recommendations to include explicit provisions for the protection of civilians within UN peacekeeping mandates where warranted, and where UN missions are provided with the resources to fulfil their responsibilities.
In this context, it is important that UN peacekeeping mandates be clearly and realistically defined, in terms of both responsibilities and objectives. Where peace enforcement powers are entrusted to UN operations, they must be backed up with the necessary resources.
The INTERFET operation in East Timor demonstrated that a well-equipped, mobile force can have an immediate, positive impact on the physical security of civilian populations, as well as perform a critical, longer term deterrence function. INTERFET benefited from a robust mandate that left no question as to its authority to enforce peace if required, and strong support from the international community.
…
Australia strongly supports the provisions of the draft resolution before the Council today on the protection of civilians. Its adoption represents another step in the Council’s ongoing efforts to enhance international security, not only in the broad geo-political sense but in a practical way that can benefit people right down to the village level.
On 1 December 2000, Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, HE Penny Wensley, made a statement to the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly concerning the role of diamonds in fuelling conflicts. Extracts from that statement follow:
In response to growing international concerns over the illicit trade in rough diamonds the Australian Government is pleased to co-sponsor this resolution on the role of diamonds in fuelling conflict which was introduced by my colleague, the distinguished Permanent Representative of South Africa. We support strongly industry and inter-governmental efforts to break the link between diamonds and armed conflict.…
Since September this year we have participated actively in international deliberations on illicit trade in rough diamonds. We congratulate the Government of South Africa and other African countries, the diamond industry and Non-Government Organisations for their initiative in establishing the Kimberley Group to develop recommendations for possible control measures that industry and governments could consider introducing.
We also congratulate those diamond industry countries that have gone ahead and introduced new control measures for their diamond trade, and note that a number of states have also established national diamond certification systems.
Australia also welcomes action taken by the United Nations Security Council in introducing resolutions to prevent the trade in conflict diamonds from Angola and Sierra Leone, and in the continuing work of the various Security Council Sanctions Committees to ensure that these resolutions are fully implemented.
The people of Angola and Sierra Leone are suffering terribly from prolonged internal conflicts. We are aware of the strong measures that the Angolan and Sierra Leone Governments have taken to control and provide legitimacy to their diamond trade. But these measures cannot work alone. They require the continued support of the international community to help cut the link between conflicts and diamonds.
For our part, Australia implemented new Customs Regulations on 10 November 2000 to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1306 of 2000, banning uncertified rough diamond imports from Sierra Leone. We are also prepared to accept the need for new control measures to address the problem of conflict diamonds.
…
The Australian Government has supported the work of the Kimberley Group and the outcomes of the Pretoria Ministerial Conference. We attended the recent London Inter-Governmental Meeting, hosted by the United Kingdom, which, for the first time, gained the support of the world’s diamond industry nations. We look forward to working again with the Kimberley Group early in the new year at the technical workshop to be hosted by Namibia, which was referred to in operative paragraph 4 of the resolution before us.
Mr President, we recognise that the funding of conflicts through the illicit sale of rough diamonds continues to generate devastating humanitarian costs. We need to act decisively and swiftly to break the nexus between illicit trafficking in rough diamonds and the military acitivity that this trade permits. We need to do this for many reasons, but, above all to stop the spread of conflicts and related human suffering. We believe that the adoption of this resolution, with the strongest possible support of all Member States, is an important first step in that direction.
On 10 January 2000, Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, HE Penny Wensley, made a statement to the United Nations Security Council concerning the impact of AIDS on peace and security in Africa. Extracts from the statement follow:
Australia recognises the potential of the HIV/AIDS epidemic to inflict economic and social dislocation upon Africa, and the security implications which potentially flow from this. The sheer magnitude of the epidemic has the potential — indirectly — to exacerbate political and social unrest. At the same time, war and instability have themselves also contributed to the advance of HIV/AIDS in Africa. In a recent report, the Great Lakes region was found to be particularly vulnerable to the spread of AIDS, not least because recent political instability has created vast refugee populations and intensified the poverty of the populations in the area.This underscores the need for continued, concerted efforts to combat the epidemic — including through ongoing direct assistance — and the need for comprehensive approaches to addressing the root causes of conflict and instability in Africa. Australia will continue to contribute to these efforts.
On 31 October 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer answered a question on notice from Mr Mark Latham concerning the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (House of Representatives, Debates, 31 October 2000, p 21791). An extract from the answer follows:
Australia did not sign the Second Protocol [to the Convention] before it closed for signature on 31 December 1999. No decision has yet been taken on whether Australia will accede to the Protocol. There is therefore no timetable for accession at this stage. The inter-departmental committee chaired by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will continue to consider accession to the Second Protocol.
On 7 March 2000, the Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America concerning Technology for the Separation of Isotopes of Uranium by Laser Excitation, Agreed Minute, and Exchange of Notes, done at Washington on 28 October 1999, were tabled in both Houses of Parliament. The following is an extract from the accompanying National Interest Analysis:
The existing Australia-US Agreement Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy does not apply to transfers of “sensitive nuclear technology”, unless specifically provided for by amendment of that Agreement or by a separate agreement. The Agreement now proposed establishes the procedures through which an Australian company, Silex Systems, and a US company, the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), will conduct research, development and commercial utilisation of the Silex technology. It establishes reciprocal obligations on the Parties and meets Australia’s key non-proliferation requirements. The proposed Agreement, allowing for the transfer of sensitive nuclear-related technology, is required as part of Australia’s stringent non-proliferation policy.…
Transfer of Silex technology to the US for peaceful purposes is fully consistent with our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). While the Agreement concerns transfers of Australian enrichment technology (and nuclear material produced through its use), the text has been structured to be consistent with Australia’s uranium export policies, as reflected in Australia’s series of bilateral safeguards agreements. …
The Agreement specifies that Silex technology shall be used for peaceful purposes only. The use of Silex technology, and material produced using the technology, for any nuclear explosive purpose, or for any military purpose, is specifically excluded. Strict safeguards, verification and physical protection (i.e. security) measures are stipulated to ensure the observance of this requirement. The Agreement also ensures that Silex and derived technology are controlled against unauthorised use and cannot be retransferred to any other country without Australia’s consent. The Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO) is monitoring the project to ensure that Australia’s non-proliferation commitments are satisfied and the requirements of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 are being met.
On 15 August 2000, the Exchange of Notes, done at Canberra on 16 June and 1 August 2000, constituting an Agreement to further amend the Exchange of Letters constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan establishing an Implementing Arrangement pursuant to the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan for Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts of the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:
Australian uranium exports are covered by a network of safeguard agreements. These agreements establish and ensure conditions for the transfer of uranium to ensure transfers are consistent with Australia’s commitment to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and Australia’s related treaty obligations. The obligations include those as Party to the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and those that will be assumed once the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) enters into force. These conditions protect Australia’s security interests while facilitating Australia’s uranium export industry. Australia currently has fifteen such agreements in place.The bilateral safeguards agreements Australia enters into are designed to ensure that Australian uranium is properly monitored through the nuclear fuel cycle and is prevented from being used for any military or explosive purpose, or in any other way contrary to Australia’s international treaty obligations.
Specifically, the bilateral safeguards agreements require that Australia’s consent be obtained for the re-transfer, high enrichment (over 20 per cent) or reprocessing of Australian uranium. They also provide for the application of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. Any material transferred remains subject to physical protection standards and fallback safeguards in the event that IAEA safeguards cease to apply. The material will also remain subject to safeguards for its full life or until there is agreement between both parties to remove it from the safeguards system.
The 1982 Agreement sets conditions that allow for long-term cooperative arrangements in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. It recognises the need for these arrangements to be made in a predictable and practical manner, taking into account the requirements of long-term nuclear energy programs as well as the shared objective of nuclear non-proliferation.
An Implementing Arrangement, attached to the 1982 Agreement, sets out details of how the Agreement will operate, including the facilities at which Japan may process, use or reprocess Australian nuclear material. These facilities are listed in the delineated and recorded Japanese Nuclear Fuel Cycle Program (DRJNFCP) attached to the Implementing Arrangement.
…
The 2000 Amendment would oblige Australia to extend recognition to the European facilities being added to the DRJNFCP with respect to the terms of the Agreement.
On 28 June 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, made a speech to the Joint Meeting of the Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law and the American Society of International Law in Canberra. Extracts of the speech concerning the International Criminal Court follow:
Australia’s promotion of the International Criminal Court reflects the Government’s strong commitment to practical and constructive outcomes in the field of human rights. These include building the institutions that will help ensure that human rights, civil society and the rule of law are promoted and protected around the world.Australia has been active in encouraging the signature and ratification of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Primarily, this has been through our chairing of the “Like-Minded Group”, the group of sixty-seven States committed to the establishment of the International Criminal Court, which was formed during the negotiation of the Statute and continues to caucus during the Preparatory Commission phase of the Court’s implementation.
…
It is possible that the Court will hear a case against a person against the wishes of a State that is not a Party to the Statute. It is equally possible that the Court will hear a case against the wishes of a State Party to the Statute. In neither case, however, is the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction in conflict with the norms of international law.
The Court derives its general jurisdiction from the States Parties to the Statute, as well as jurisdiction over specific cases by other States through a declaration lodged with the Registrar, or by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the UN. The Court only inherits the territorial jurisdiction of States and their jurisdiction over their own nationals abroad. Neither of these bases of jurisdiction is controversial under international law.
Furthermore, the exercise of this jurisdiction is strictly limited to the Statute crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes — and the crime of aggression, once States Parties have adopted a provision defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court’s jurisdiction may be exercised.
Most of the Statute crimes actually attract universal jurisdiction, through the Geneva Conventions and their First Additional Protocol, the Genocide Convention and the Convention against Torture. A person of any nationality who commits any of these crimes anywhere is liable to prosecution and punishment in every country anyway.
The authority for the Security Council to grant the court jurisdiction over these Statute crimes when committed anywhere or by anyone does not derive from the Statute either, but rather from the Charter of the UN. The Charter authorises the Security Council under Chapter VII to intervene in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State — irrespective of whether the State is a Member of the UN. Furthermore, the Security Council’s referral of a matter to the Court, like all decisions of the Security Council, would be binding upon all Members of the UN, whether or not they are Parties to the Statute.
There has also been a lot of talk about the possibility of the Court being used by States or NGOs to launch politically malicious prosecutions. In our view, this is simply not credible. It is inconceivable that any politically motivated referral to the Court from a State Party without sufficient merit based on evidence would satisfy the scrutiny of the Prosecutor. Similarly, politically motivated referrals to the Prosecutor from any other source would have to satisfy both the Prosecutor and the Pre-Trial Chamber of their independent merit before they could proceed further.
It is also inconceivable that any politically motivated referral to the Court could emanate from the Security Council. Such a referral would need the affirmative vote of at least nine Members of the Security Council, including the concurrence of all five Permanent Members.
Undoubtedly, some States and organisations will attempt to use the Court to promote particular political agendas, but unless they are able to demonstrate the commission of a Statute crime of sufficient gravity to attract the Court’s jurisdiction, such attempts are likely to rebound upon themselves. It is also likely that States will criticise the operation of the Court as being politically motivated if the Court is investigating or prosecuting nationals or crimes connected with those States, as has been the case with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. As the ICTY’s experience demonstrates, neither scenario is likely to impact upon the viability or legitimacy of the Court.
The Court does, however, have a quite deliberate political function. It places a powerful incentive upon those States that ratify its Statute — as well as many that do not — to ensure that they would be able to try the Statute crimes in their own jurisdiction should the need arise, in order to take advantage of the principle of complementarity.
A case is not admissible before the Court if it is being or has been investigated or prosecuted by any State — Party to the Statute or otherwise. But this only applies if the investigation or prosecution is genuine, and not a shield against justice. The Court decides itself whether this investigation or prosecution is genuine, thus providing an impartial adjudication of a State’s bona fides in investigating or prosecuting particular allegations of Statute crimes which fall within the jurisdiction of the Court, or are the subject of a Security Council resolution. It will therefore be a powerful incentive for States to fulfil and enforce their existing humanitarian obligations under international law.
…
The very fact that we are so close to establishing an International Criminal Court is itself an indication of how far the international community has come in responding to the universally-held wish to see perpetrators of the worst crimes of international concern brought to justice. Symptoms of this abound, from the pursuit by Spanish courts of Augusto Pinochet, to the very encouraging efforts of Cambodia to establish an internationally credible tribunal to prosecute the crimes of the Khmer Rouge. The International Criminal Court brings home what should have been obvious from the beginning — that the actions of rogue states are the consequence of the actions of individuals, and by holding individuals accountable, new norms of state behaviour must of necessity follow.
On 25 October 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, and the Attorney-General, Mr Daryl Williams issued a press release containing the following comments concerning the International Criminal Court:
The Commonwealth intends to introduce legislation by the end of the year to ratify the Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, announced today.This is a major international human rights initiative for Australia. We have been at the forefront of the development of the Statute and its underlying documents for a number of years.
Australia’s ratification legislation will fully implement the obligations under the Statute. Among other things, the proposed legislation will enable Australia to take full advantage of the principle of complementarity. This means that crimes covered by the court’s jurisdiction will also be crimes for the purposes of Australian law. Upon commencement, Australian authorities will be able to investigate and prosecute those persons who are accused of perpetrating the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. These will include genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The jurisdiction of the court will be entirely prospective, meaning it will only apply to crimes committed after the Statute enters into force.
The legislation will enable Australia to cooperate with the court in its investigations and enforcing its decisions. This will include obtaining evidence for the purpose of investigations or trials by the court and the arrest and surrender of persons within Australia to the court on request. A similar regime has been in operation for a number of years to enable Australia to successfully cooperate with the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.
The Government has taken an approach which recognises that it would be desirable to have the offence provisions framed consistently with the Statute crimes. This will enable us to ensure the benefit of complementarity in specific cases.
The Statute of the Court will come into force following the 60th ratification. At the beginning of October, there had been 21 ratifications.
On 15 November 2000, a statement was delivered to the 55th Session of the United Nations General Assembly for the Australian Delegation. Extracts of the statement follow:
It is hard to imagine any State in the world that would not declare today that it unequivocally condemns terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, or that would not pledge itself to join the international consensus to eliminate this scourge. This is a testament to the firm resolve of States in the United Nations over many years to ensure that there is never a justification — never an excuse — for terrorist crimes. It should not, however, allow us to be complacent about the long road ahead to eliminate terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.Australia is party to all but two of the international treaties that oblige States to criminalise specific acts of terrorism and to cooperate with other States in the investigation and prosecution of such acts and to prevent their occurrence. Of the two that Australia has not yet ratified, both — the Terrorist Bombings Convention and the Terrorist Financing Convention — will be submitted to our Parliamentary Committee on Treaties early next year.
In addition to the global forum on terrorism provided by the United Nations Ad Hoc Committee, Australia participates actively in regional fora and in bilateral discussions to seek through international cooperation to maximise our own national efforts to prevent where possible — and, where not, to punish — terrorist acts.
Australia welcomes the draft Comprehensive Convention on Terrorism, and we join others in thanking the Government of India for its proposal. We look forward to working with our colleagues in the Ad Hoc Committee to conclude a convention that will enjoy widespread international support and strengthen the already existing international counter terrorism legal regime.
We recognise that the existing regime is not exhaustive in its coverage, and see the value in an instrument that will complement the regime, making the regime as a whole truly comprehensive. In our view it is critical, however, that the new draft Convention be complementary only and that it does not seek to overlap its coverage with the existing counter-terrorism Conventions. Australia is aware that some States are of the view that the subject-by-subject approach of the international legal counter-terrorism regime is unsatisfactory. We do not share this view. In our opinion, the present regime provides the strongest, most appropriate mechanism to respond to the complex phenomenon of terrorist crime.
Specific crimes require specific treatment. Crimes against shipping or against fixed platforms on the continental shelf require unique jurisdictional and institutional responses. So do crimes against aviation. So do crimes against internationally protected persons. Dealing with each of these, as well as the other crimes in separate instruments, allows the necessary degree of specialisation to make the instruments legally — and practically — effective. Attempting to deal with all possible manifestations of terrorist crimes in a single instrument would sacrifice this ability to apply special measures for specific crimes. This could only weaken, not strengthen, the international counter-terrorism regime.
It is important to remember that, were it not for this network of legal instruments, there would be no multilateral legal instruments providing for cooperation to counter terrorism at all. Negotiations for the Conventions on Terrorist Bombing and Terrorist Financing have shown that we are no closer now than we were thirty years ago to coming to an agreed definition of “terrorism”. And yet the lack of such a definition has not prevented the development of a truly robust and effective counter-terrorist regime.
On 5 July 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer and the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Amanda Vanstone, issued a joint press release concerning the Extradition Treaty with Latvia. Extracts of the press release follow:
The treaty marks a significant step in the development of the bilateral relationship since Latvia’s re-emergence as an independent state in 1991. It follows on from the signature of a Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement between the two countries in November 1993, which provided the institutional framework for a broader economic relationship. Australia’s Latvian community numbers some 30,000.“The early conclusion of this treaty is a sign of the commitment of both countries that neither should be a haven from justice for persons wanted for serious crimes “, said Mr Downer.
“In early 1998, one of my first actions as Minister for Justice was to instruct the Attorney-General’s Department to take steps to establish a modern extradition relationship with Latvia, and other Eastern bloc countries. I am pleased to see these initiatives coming to fruition”, Senator Vanstone said.
On 15 August 2000, the Treaty between Australia and the Republic of Latvia, done at Riga on 14 July 2000, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts of the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:
Extradition treaties are a mechanism for the surrender of persons wanted for prosecution or for imposition or enforcement of a sentence (“fugitives”) by one country to another. Extradition treaties are not always (depending on the law and practice of the particular country) the only means by which a country may request or grant the surrender of fugitives. However, they are a reliable and effective means of doing so, because such treaties create an obligation in international law to extradite and are designed to accommodate the domestic extradition laws and procedures of both countries.Extradition treaties benefit Australia by providing a reliable and effective means of securing the return to Australia of persons overseas wanted for criminal prosecution, or imposition or enforcement of a sentence, in Australia, both at Commonwealth and State and Territory level. Extradition treaties also benefit Australia by making Australia a less attractive destination for overseas criminals wishing to evade justice in their own countries.
…
Extradition relations between Australia and Latvia are currently governed by the Treaty between Great Britain and the Latvian Republic for the Mutual Extradition of Fugitive Criminals, done at Riga on 16 July 1924 (“the 1924 Treaty”). This inherited Treaty differs in several important respects from the style of extradition treaty now favoured by Australia. In particular, the 1924 Treaty provides for a specific list of extraditable offences and permits extradition of a fugitive wanted for prosecution only where evidence sufficient to justify the fugitive’s committal for trial (i.e. sufficient to establish a prima facie case) is provided by the requesting party.
In the operation of older style treaties these features give rise to two difficulties. First, extradition may not be available where the fugitive is charged with a serious offence not expressly listed in the treaty. Second, experience has shown that civil law countries, because they are unfamiliar with common law rules of evidence, commonly have great difficulty in presenting evidence in an admissible form and so may be unable to establish a prima facie case even on the basis of ample information. Because of these concerns the Extradition Act and the Australian Model Extradition Treaty (developed in the mid-1980s as a basis for our extradition treaty negotiations) provide that all conduct which is criminal under the laws of both parties and carries a maximum penalty of at least one year’s imprisonment is extraditable and that a foreign country requesting extradition from Australia need only present a detailed statement of alleged acts and omissions rather than evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case. Over the last decade or more, Australia has replaced a substantial number of inherited United Kingdom extradition treaties with treaties of this newer type.
In the case of Latvia, in addition to the normal difficulties with the older style treaties, there were additional complications arising from the prolonged suppression of its independence after the treaty had entered into force. The Government was concerned that any extradition request received from Latvia would be likely to fail for technical reasons unrelated to the merits of the prosecution case in Latvia. This concern was accentuated by the possibility that an extradition request might be made in respect of World War II war crimes, which would raise particularly difficult evidentiary issues. Accordingly, it was decided to put in place a new extradition treaty between the two countries based on the Australian Model Extradition Treaty.
The proposed Treaty will add to Australia’s network of modern (i.e. not inherited from the United Kingdom) bilateral extradition treaties. There are currently 31 of these treaties and five signed treaties awaiting entry into force.
On 17 February 2000, in the House of Representatives, the Attorney-General, Mr Daryl Williams, answered a question on notice from Mr Martin Ferguson concerning transfer of prisoners between Australia and the United States of America (House of Representatives, Debates, 17 February 2000, p 13884). Extract of the answer follows:
With respect to transfers between Australia and the US, the Government proposes to seek to accede to the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, to which the US is already a party. The Government hopes that transfers pursuant to this agreement will commence this year.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUYrBkIntLaw/2000/12.html