While the rest of the planet is struggling to fathom the sheer scale of human rights abuses carried out under Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's "war on drugs" – with mounting evidence of international law violations and crimes against humanity – Foreign Minister Julie Bishop recently insisted that Duterte has provided her with "detailed reasoning" for the slaughter. Well, that's a relief.
But if the minister is in any way reassured by her recent tete-a-tete with the self-confessed gunslinger, her precis of the discussion is, frankly, less than consoling. In fact, coming from a woman with a deft grasp of diplomacy, Bishop's words – uttered on Sky News recently – are utterly dismaying.
![Foreign Minister Julie Bishop with acting Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Enrique Manalo in Manila last Thursday.](/web/20170508072417im_/http://www.theage.com.au/content/dam/images/g/v/2/b/u/4/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gvasvc.png/1491624704539.jpg)
"He is intent on wiping out the drug lords," said Bishop of the murderous nine-month rampage, which has left more than 7000 dead, including children, many through extrajudicial killings which primarily target the poor. "He is unapologetic.
"He is determined to rid the Philippines of ice and he will stop at nothing."
![Supporters of President Rodrigo Duterte at Manila's Rizal Park for a vigil to show their backing for the president's ...](/web/20170508072417im_/http://www.theage.com.au/content/dam/images/g/u/o/r/6/2/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gvasvc.png/1491624704539.jpg)
It's not that Bishop hasn't made mention of Australia's concerns about human rights under the brutal crackdown; she has, on more than one occasion, although what she said privately to Duterte is a matter of conjecture. But words matter – as our foreign minister knows more than most – so we should be wary of what she has chosen to subsequently divulge about her meeting with the Filipino leader, because it sets a different tone altogether.
Bishop's depiction of Duterte suggests he's single-minded, resolute – not exactly a criticism – and she is at pains to point to the "considerable detail" offered by him on the drug issues confronting about "4 million" of his country's people, which presumably includes his reasons for the wholesale slaughter of drug suspects, many of whom are not dealers at all, according to Human Rights Watch, but users: the very people, in other words, that Duterte has ostensibly been galvanised to defend.
And, seriously, what sort of "detail" could possibly provide the context for the grisly campaign that has seen Duterte attract not just worldwide condemnation, but the scrutiny of the International Criminal Court? What reasoning could conceivably justify the vigilante death squads, the routine falsification of evidence, and generous bounties for those who kill drug suspects, no questions asked? And what social maladies are likely to be remedied by flooding the morgues with many of the nation's most vulnerable, including young children?
The spectacle of an Australian foreign minister stepping up to parrot Duterte's anti-drug rationale – flawed, as it happens, when you consider that rates of drug addiction in the Philippines are actually around half the global average – is beyond the pale.
![Illustration: Jim Pavlidis](/web/20170508072417im_/http://www.theage.com.au/content/dam/images/g/v/b/t/f/m/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gvasvc.png/1491624704539.jpg)
Last December, the US deferred aid to the Philippines amid concerns over the escalating body count. So what safeguards have been put in place to ensure that Australian foreign aid – including "wide-ranging training, support and assistance" for the Philippine National Police – is not supporting rights violations? And how does our foreign minister, currently leading the charge for an Australian seat on the UN Human Rights Council, reconcile Duterte's "reasons", such as they are, with the tenor of his other pronouncements?
"Hitler massacred 3 million Jews," declared Duterte at a press conference in October. "There's three million drug addicts. There are. I'd be happy to slaughter them." So there you go; short on detail, I suppose, but it just goes to show that when sizing up a madman, sometimes a synopsis is all you need.
Frankly, at this juncture, what's called for is not an expression of "concern" by the foreign minister, but a point blank repudiation of Duterte's drug war – its mission and its methods. Given the scale of the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe, including proposals to target children as young as nine, and the intransigence of Duterte when it comes to soft diplomacy, nothing less will do. Or not if we fancy ourselves to be trailblazers when it comes to human rights.
Of course, this is where it gets truly disheartening, because, quite aside from our grim record of domestic human rights abuses – which there aren't enough column inches left to enumerate – our foreign minister is not exactly veering from the well-trodden path. In fact, when it comes to human rights abuses of those in our region, Australia has a long tradition, if not a proud one, of simply looking the other way. Which is putting it nicely; some would just say "moral bankruptcy" and have done with it.
I won't bore you with the particulars, which others have set out in compelling detail, but it would be wrong not to invoke East Timor or West Papua. Because nowhere is the gap between what we profess, publicly, to believe and what we choose, privately, to pursue more apparent than in our dealings with Indonesia; dealings that go back to the Whitlam era, when the then-PM - briefed on a looming invasion which would ultimately lead to the deaths of more than 100,000 East Timorese – gave lip service to self-determination while covertly backing "incorporation" in deference to our northern neighbour. A "gesture to Australian public opinion" – as Whitlam himself conceded.
Back to the present; who knows what Bishop really said to the leader of one of our longest standing regional allies, but the historical record doesn't exactly give you hope. Nor do some of her contemporary utterances.
Here's the thing though: underneath it all, I think Bishop cares a great deal about human rights. I believe in the authenticity of her desire to eradicate the death penalty globally – although it's not clear the matter was broached with Duterte who is on the verge of reinstating it. I also believe in her sincerity when she speaks of fundamental freedoms, or argues passionately for democracy, or insists that human rights are inextricably linked to prosperity and regional stability. I do.
But if our key bilateral relationships can't withstand a little more plain speaking where human rights are concerned, there will always be a chasm between what we say in Canberra or Sydney or Melbourne, and what we convey, publicly or privately, in the international arena when the stakes are high. Until we find a way to reconcile those twin realities, we can never be a credible leader in the region.
Sarah Gill is a Fairfax Media columnist.
13 comments
Comment are now closed