|
|
 |
| |
| Weapon of mass oppression |
Suhas
Chakma |
Two
years have passed since the 9/11 strikes in the
United States. However, the terrorist attacks
continue. The United Nations Security Council has
adopted a number of resolutions condemning
specific terrorist acts such as September 11,
2001; the bomb blasts in Bali on October 12, 2002;
the hostage-crisis in Moscow on October 23, 2002;
the bomb attack in Kikambala and the attempted
missile attack on an airliner departing Mombassa,
Kenya, on November 28, 2002; and the bomb attack
in Bogota, Colombia on February 7, 2003. It
appears that the colour of the victims is crucial
to meriting the UN's condemnation. |
| |
| |
There is no doubt
that states have legitimate reasons, and the right and
duty, to take measures to eliminate terrorism and bring
the perpetrators of such acts to justice. However, the
counter-terrorism measures adopted post-9/11 have often
been taken without any respect for due process of law
and rule of law. In the name of a "war against terror",
the state terrorism witnessed against communists in the
1960s and 1970s and against pro-democracy activists in
Latin America in 1970s and 1980s is presently being
replicated across the world.
|
|
Post-9/11, we have
failed to resolve the contradiction inherent in the
aphorism: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom
fighter". This complexity is reflected in the UN's
failure to arrive at a universally accepted definition
of terrorism. The General Assembly, tasked with drafting
a comprehensive treaty against terrorism, is presently
grappling with the issue. Loose and broad definitions of
terrorism are being used to silence even peaceful
dissent.
|
|
Since September 11,
2001, a large number of countries adopted opportunistic
anti-terror laws. India rammed through the Prevention of
Terrorism Act by holding an extraordinary joint session
of Parliament. After a year, the highest number of
detainees is not from Jammu & Kashmir, the central
focus of India's war against terror, but Jharkhand where
alleged terrorist detainees include people as young as
12 years and as old as 81 years.
|
|
China immediately
intensified "Operation Strike Hard" in Xinjiang and
amended its Criminal Procedure Code to strike at terror.
Malaysia increased the application of its Internal
Security Act. Singapore adopted its own anti-terror
laws. Thailand has recently joined the bandwagon. Even
Tonga, a tiny kingdom in the Pacific, amended its
Criminal Offences Act on October 16, 2002, to define
"terrorism" as "an act which is intended or can
reasonably be regarded as having been intended to
seriously destabilise or destroy the fundamental,
political, constitutional, economic or social structures
of a country". The amendment has more to do with
stifling the pro-democracy movement than confronting
"terrorism" in Tonga.
|
|
All these
anti-terror laws have similar draconian features which
do not meet international human rights standards. They
empower the state to hold the accused for a prolonged
period of detention beyond the permissible limits under
the normal criminal procedure code without charging him,
and effectively subvert the cardinal principle of the
criminal justice system - presumption of innocence - by
putting the burden of proof on the accused, withholding
the identity of witnesses, making confessions made to
the police admissible as evidence, and giving the public
prosecutor the power to veto bail.
|
|
The US went a step
further by setting dangerous precedents for the criminal
justice system and showing disrespect to international
human rights and humanitarian laws. It has not clarified
the legal basis of detention and the exact legal status
of individual detainees - "enemy combatants",
quasi-"prisoners of war", "war criminals" or
"terrorists". The detainees held at Guantanamo Bay have
not been formally charged with any crime and are being
tried by military courts. Not surprising Malaysian Prime
Minister Mahathir Mohamad articulated the position of
authoritarian regimes during his visit to the US in May
2002: "The United States now appreciates some of the
things we have done as being in the national
interest."
|
|
Those who have
opposed such repressive measures have paid a heavy price
at the national and international levels. Former UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson was not
given another term after earning the wrath of the Bush
Administration for her call to halt the bombing of
Afghanis-tan to allow humanitarian aid to reach
civilians. She also asked for an inquiry into the
massacre of Taliban soldiers at Mazar-e-Sharif. Other
'sins' were her vocal stand against the treatment of Al
Qaeda prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and expression of
alarm at discrimination against Arabs and Muslims in the
West.
|
|
While Ms Robinson
lost her job, her successor, Sergio Vieira de Mello, who
also unequivocally called for "upholding rule of law and
respecting human rights" in the war against terror, lost
his life in a terrorist attack on the UN building in
Baghdad on August 19, 2003. Who could deny that
colonialism and occupation are one of the main reasons
for terrorism?
|
|
There is no evidence
that unlawful counter-terrorism measures could have
prevented terrorist attacks. There is no substitute to
intelligence-gathering. Political statesmanship is
crucial to reddress the conditions in which terrorism
breeds. Short-circuiting of justice provokes men to take
up arms and blurs the distinction between those who are
contemptuous of the law and those who preach the values
of democracy, rule of law and due process of law.
Consequently, the world is gradually regressing to
medievalism.
|
|
| |
 |
| |
| There are no comments on this article
so far. | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| | |
 |
| |
 |
| Members'
Email Login |
|
 |
|
 |
Forecast:
Mist in the morning.
Max Temp 31.6 C (+2)
Min Temp 13.2 C (-1)
Max Humidity 86%
Min Humidity 24%
Rainfall
nil
Sunset (Mon): 05.35 pm
Sunrise (Tue):
06.35 am |
|
 |
|
|
| Previous
Polls |
|
 |
|
 |
| |
.gif)
.gif){kind=small}
.gif)