Australia's human rights obligations as part of the "coalition of the willing" (2004)

Click here to return to the Articles and Opinion Pieces Index

Australia's human rights obligations as part of the "coalition of the willing"

Opinion piece by President John von Doussa. Published in The Canberra Times, 21 June 2004

Media reports and repeated allegations of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners in US custody have raised fundamental questions about Australia's human rights obligations as part of the "coalition of the willing" .

Australian troops in Iraq are required to not only comply with Australia's obligations under the Geneva Conventions of 1949 - which set the standards for maintaining respect for human dignity in times of war - but also with Australia's obligations under international human rights law.

These international human rights laws include the Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under which torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is prohibited and the right to life protected absolutely and under all circumstances - including during the so called 'war on terror'.

Human rights are by their nature universal; they apply to all persons, regardless of whether they are a POW or civilian with in the meaning of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 or whether they are suspected of being a 'terrorist'. Treating persons suspected of being a 'terrorist' in accordance with their human rights does not 'reward' terrorist behaviour or undermine our national security. Rather, if we seek to justify the sacrifice of particular fundamental human rights in an attempt to safeguard our society, we risk foregoing the very rights that are the foundation stones of our functioning democracy.

There has been no suggestion that Australian troops were involved or implicated in any of the recently reported abuses of detainees in Iraq. However Australia is required, under international human rights law - to do more than ensure its troops are not directly responsible for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment on Iraqi or other detainees.

Under international human rights law, Australia is obliged to take steps to ensure that no person over whom it has effective control or authority is subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This includes making sure it does not turn over detainees to other troops if there is a real or foreseeable risk that doing so will result in the torture of that person.

It is unclear when the Australian Government first became aware of the mistreatment of detainees in Iraq. It is also unclear whether or not Australia has made inquires about the mistreatment by US troops of detainees it handed over into US custody.

The real question for Australia now in relation to its obligations under international human rights law is what inquiries or measures it has taken (or for that matter, will take) to satisfy itself that people detained by Australian troops and then handed over to US troops in the future are not at a real risk of being subjected to torture.

In the absence of such inquires or measures, Australia risks putting its troops in a situation where they may inadvertently expose people to torture or other such treatment.

The reported abuses of detainees in the Abu Ghraib prison and recent media reports raise questions about the conditions and treatment of the Australian citizens held in Guantanamo Bay. Although we should be concerned about the treatment of detainees in Iraq, we should be equally concerned about the treatment of the Australians currently being held in Guantanamo Bay.

The prevention of torture and other cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment or punishment is the subject of the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture. The Optional Protocol aims to prevent torture by providing for regular and systematic visits to places of detention by a new independent international body (the International Subcommittee) and an independent national body (the National Preventative Mechanism), to examine the treatment and conditions of persons in detention and make recommendations to Governments.

The Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in March of this year recommended that Australia not sign or ratify the Optional Protocol on the basis that it is unnecessary. The Government has indicated that it is currently considering whether it will sign the Optional Protocol.

As a country that prides itself on being an international leader in human rights standards - and as the current Chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights - Australia should be at the forefront of supporting measures aimed at preventing torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture would be one way to signal Australia's abhorrence of torture and other cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment.