Paper presented at IHRC’s International Prisoners of Faith Conference in February 2002.
Download the report here.
Following the attacks in the United States of America on 11 September 2001, many states have felt the need to introduce new legislation to protect those within their borders from such attacks. Many of the measures currently being introduced are apparently to deal with emergency situations and involve limiting or suspending human rights guarantees. However, it is at times of conflicts and emergencies, when human rights responsibilities are derogated from, that the worst violations occur and when adherences to human rights obligations are most needed.
Undoubtedly the extensive use of emergency laws to combat terrorism will result in gross violations of rights, mostly of innocent people. In many cases the excuse of terrorism is used to combat internal struggles of political opposition. The resulting HR violations that occur range from the violation to the right to life, the right not to be subject to torture, inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment, to indefinite detention without charge or trial, unfair trials and violation of rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly.
Indeed, since September 11 many states have falsely accused the protection of human rights as acting as a barrier to effective action against terrorism and that derogation from human rights is justified in light of the threat. Countries have taken advantage of the tragedy by declaring their internal struggles as battles against terrorism.
President Vladimir Putin of Russia escalated his campaign of arbitrary arrests, torture and summary executions in Chechnya in the excuse of combating terrorism. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon felt free to conduct violent campaigns in Palestine, frequently referring to Yasir Arafat as “our bin Laden.” Uzbekistan’s crackdown on dissidents escalated in the name of anti-terrorism after the US government drew links between the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and the Al-Qaeda network, and Egyptian Prime Minister boasted of his harsh measures of persecution, calling for western countries ‘to think of Egypt’s own fight and terror as their new model.
Embracing the rhetoric of anti-terrorism and supporting the global coalition has provided them and many others with the excuse to carry out graver HRV, all parties safe in the knowledge that their role within the global coalition will ensure that their allies turn a blind eye to their human rights transgressions both home and abroad. The willingness of most western governments to tolerate HR abuses by friendly governments is not a postSeptember 11 attitude, and is apparent in their failure to address the problems of Israeli abuses against Palestinians including the West’s role in creating and supporting the problem, and their total disregard for the effects of sanctions against Iraq in causing serious civilian suffering.
Thus, the go ahead for states to act with disregard for human rights implicitly comes from those leading the war on terrorism, the United States and Western European countries, who themselves have adopted draconian measures within their own borders to combat terrorism in violation of international norms and standards. Their anti-terrorism effort remains focused mainly on those from predominantly Muslim countries namely from the Middle East and North Africa. This selective targeting of particular nationals facilitated the introduction of these oppressive measures. Had it been applicable to the entire population, public pressure may have prevented such measures being adopted.
Since September the 11th, the US government has detained more than 1100 suspects, mainly non-US national. It has powers to detain people for the purposes of interrogation for an extended period before appearing before a court. Reports emerged that many were kept in harsh conditions, sometimes solitary confinement, and were subject to the same rigours as convicted criminals. Many of them have found themselves on the receiving end of physical and verbal abuse from both guards and inmates. The British government, also upon the introduction of emergency legislation, made arrests and placed the detainees into high security prison, denying them fundamental safeguards to protect their rights to liberty. It further introduced measures that severely curtailed the right to seek asylum.
It appears that Muslims are being persecuted in the name of anti-terrorism in both Muslim and non-Muslim countries. Such selectivity threatens the efforts to combat terrorism and will continue to fuel the fire against what will be seen as out of control aggression
