The Australian attempt to secure a seat in the United Nations Security Council for the 2013-2014 terms is coming up for question. Why you may ask? The double or multiple standards they practice when dealing with terrorists and others, is undoubtedly a major cause for concern for many countries.

On the one front, Australia chose to stay on the good side of the remaining super power by joining the “coalition of the willing” on “the war against terror” and was part of the jolly ravaging of Iraq, whilst showing surprising leniency to LTTE terrorists using Australian territory.

Furthermore, these suspect policies were compounded by catering to the whims of external pressure groups allied with terrorists (mainly the rump LTTE) by blessing ridiculous and unsubstantiated allegations, which were enthusiastically broadcast by state media outlets. (Which appear to have their own agendas).

True, even though the dubious allegations against the Sri Lankan President were squashed by the Australian AG, more could have been done to protect the officials of a sovereign and friendly state, especially the only one which defeated terrorism.

Yet, the foreign Minister, Rudd, continues to mouth the rump LTTE line, calling for war crimes investigations in Sri Lanka despite the mountain of evidence that debunks these allegations. On top of all this, the Australian aid of over $ 120 million to Sri Lanka is suspiciously focused on former LTTE strongholds.

The laughable and lenient sentences handed out by the Australian courts in the Halophyte case to individuals for providing more than $1 million to the LTTE and securing explosives, (The resulting bomb explosion at the Colombo Central Bank killed over 1,400 civilians and maimed thousands) clearly demonstrate the duality of the “anti-terrorism” policies. In Australia, there are aborigines who have been rotting in Australian prisons for decades, deaths in custody are common. Yet, 18 month sentences to individuals for supplying explosives to terrorists, which resulted in the deaths of over 1,400 people! So, the question every UN member should ask themselves is, should we really entrust international peace and security to a state with such selective principles on terrorism and a colonialist mindset?

I guess it’s no surprise that the four rich white countries of the Commonwealth (the UK, New Zealand, Canada and Australia) have taken it upon themselves to sit in judgment and harass Sri Lanka, a developing country which did what even the only remaining super power couldn’t do. What else can be done when you see that your global influence is slowly slipping away with the rise of the Asian giants, China and India? It appears that oppressing a small island country is the only way for these “wannabe powers” to relive the macho glory days of colonialism. Indeed, a seat in the Security Council would be significant for Australia, which has been looking for respectable headlines ever since the end of “white Australia”.

The Australian immigration system has been scrutinized by the United Nations for decades. The racist “white Australia” policy which was adopted in the early 1900s intentionally restricted “non-white” immigration. Even though the policy was dismantled as recently as 1968, remnants of this mind-set are still clearly visible in modern day Australia. Case in point: The aborigines, who constitute less than 3% of the entire population, are the largest segment occupying Australian prisons (25%). Not to mention the countless detainees imprisoned in “holding facilities” awaiting immigration decisions. Sri Lanka by the way has extended a voluntary helping hand to curb the flood of economic refugees to Australia, limiting the exodus to a trickle.

The sad manner in which Australia treated (and is still treating) minorities and the manner in which they treat officials of sovereign countries should be carefully reviewed when considering endorsing their bid for the Security Council. Especially in this post cold war era, where the Security Council wields significant power, not only when mediating between states, but increasingly, more so in terms of internal conflicts. The main challenge which lies ahead of Australia on its quest for a seat in the SC is, learning to deal with international matters evenhandedly and sincerely.

– Asian Tribune –