| |
Human rights crackdowns
overstated
By Alan Boyd
Fears of a human rights crackdown in Asia under
the guise of counter-terrorism have been overstated,
with only a small number of countries so far exploiting
the issue for domestic political gain. But prospects for
a more liberal approach may still falter at the
enforcement level, as governments ignore gaping holes in
international law that put security interests ahead of
individual liberties.
Most violations of human
rights during the last 12 months took place in China,
India, Malaysia, Pakistan and the five Central Asian
republics of Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan,
Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.
China has stepped up
its suppression of Muslim Uighur separatists in the
Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region and implemented new
anti-terrorism provisions that include restrictions on
religious and cultural rights. The offensive appears to
have been timed to take advantage of the global
terrorism alert, as there were few incidents in the
preceding months that would have justified such a
heavy-handed response.
Pakistan has allegedly
flouted its own criminal laws to arrest hundreds of
people on suspicion of terrorism activities, detaining
some without trial and deporting foreign nationals
before their complicity has been proved.
In
Malaysia, scores have been held under the Internal
Security Act (ISA), which allows indefinite "preventive"
detention without trial for anyone suspected of posing a
threat to national security. Six men - five of them
teachers in religious schools - were arrested under the
ISA shortly after the September 11 terror attacks for
their purported involvement in bombings and robberies by
the so- called Malaysian Mujahideen Group. Muslim groups
charge that the arrests had a strong political motive,
as most of those held were also active supporters of a
leading opposition party, Parti Islam se-Malaysia.
Indian authorities revived an amended version of
the discredited Terrorists and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act (TADA) of 1985, now under the new name
of Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO). TADA was
withdrawn in 1995 after human rights organizations
catalogued torture and arbitrary detention involving
tens of thousands of minority Muslims, Sikhs and Dalits,
as well as labor leaders and political opponents.
Although it has been modified in response to renewed
fears of abuse by security agencies, POTO proposes a
very broad definition of terrorist acts that could be
wrongly interpreted for narrow political ends.
In Kyrgyzstan, the police launched a passport
control regime for ethnic minorities in southern regions
who were alleged to be part of a pro-Islamic extremist
group thought to be the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
(IMU). There was no evidence to support these claims.
A similar campaign against the IMU in Uzbekistan
led to the death of Muslim leader Ravshan Haidov while
in custody, and murder charges against four policemen.
Both countries justified the offensives by linking the
IMU to Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network.
Also cited by human rights groups was Australia,
which used the September 11 terror attacks to justify
taking a tougher line against asylum seekers, and to
overturn a court decision that it had illegally detained
hundreds of people arriving in boats.
However,
most of these collective actions were initiated long
before Washington forged a global coalition against
terrorism and launched an offensive against Osama bin
Laden and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Although China
sought to legitimize suppression of the Uighur by
linking it - without success - to the coalition, it had
already been seeking to pacify ethnic minorities for
more than a decade. The latest crackdown, given the
campaign slogan "Strike Hard", began in April last year,
five months before the attacks. Ostensibly an anti-crime
operation, it resulted in arbitrary arrests and summary
executions.
Malaysia was making liberal use of
the ISA before September, though it also sought to give
the edict more of a counter-terrorism hue. There were 30
ISA arrests, mostly of political opponents, in the
preceeding five months.
Central Asian states
have been cracking down on Muslim activists ever since
they broke away from the defunct Soviet Union, and there
is little evidence that the frequency of detentions has
increased.
The International Helsinki Federation
for Human Rights (IHF) has recorded more than 8,000
arrests of Muslims in Turkmenistan, which undoubtedly
has the worst record of human rights violations.
"'Threats to security' have been the most common
pretexts for repressing political dissidents and
religious activists," the IHF said in a report released
in November.
Kyrgyzstan's government has been
intensifying its harassment of political opponents,
independent media, religious groups and ethnic
minorities since the reelection last year of President
Askar Akayev, according to the US-based Human Rights
Watch.
In Asia as a whole, a sharp escalation of
extremist attacks might provide enough justification for
an increase in counter-terrorism efforts - except that
75 percent occurred in one country, India. American
defense archives stated that on average, there were 53
serious terrorism attacks annually in Asia during the
last three years, compared with only four in the
corresponding period 10 years earlier.
Yet for
all of the resources that are being put into counter-
terrorism in the wake of September 11, there have been
far fewer attempts to ensure that human rights are not
sacrificed in the name of security.
One bright
spot was the adoption of Afghanistan's first human
rights commission, even if this did owe much to strong
pressure from Washington on the newly-elected
government.
Elsewhere, it has been a question of
ensuring that lawyers don't get in the way of soldiers.
At the very least, most Asian states have redefined
their powers of arrest and detention, even in cases -
such as India - where the existing laws were adequate.
This may have been an instinctive reaction to
efforts by the United Nations and other global forums to
achieve a worldwide mandate on security issues that have
traditionally been a domestic matter. Bangladesh,
Cambodia, Kyrgyzstan, the Philippines, Korea,
Tajikistan, Thailand and Uzbekistan are Asian countries
that have backed the establishment of an International
Criminal Court that could help check violent
cross-border crimes. Of these, two - Cambodia and
Tajikistan - have actually ratified the covenant, along
with Australia and five other Pacific nations. Missing
are Japan, China, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei,
Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Many
of these countries have put their faith instead in the
draft Comprehensive Convention on International
Terrorism, sponsored by India in the UN General Assembly
as the first legislation that would address all aspects
of terrorism. Attempts to formulate a codified response
to terrorism have been underway since 1937, when the
League of Nations, forerunner to the UN, drafted a
covenant. It lapsed because noone could come up with an
acceptable definition.
There have since been more
than 130 inconclusive interpretations of what
constitutes a political, ethnic or religious extremist,
proving that the diplomatic divide is as wide as ever.
Hence, the issue has had to be dealt with on the basis
of individual incidents, and in reference to the three
UN conventions on terrorism: the International
Convention against the Taking of Hostages (1979),
International Convention for the Suppression of
Terrorist Bombings (1997) and International Convention
for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism
(1999).
Only the first is in use, as the others
are awaiting ratification. There are also four other
conventions dating from the 1960s and 1970s that partly
cover terrorism activities in relation to maritime and
air safety and the handling of nuclear materials. None
offers specific guarantees that human rights will be
respected, and neither do two resolutions that were
passed by the Security Council in direct response to the
terror attacks on the United States.
Resolution
1373, one of the Security Council edicts, states that
suspicion of political motivation should not constitute
grounds for refusing to extradite a terrorist suspect, a
ruling that has sparked panic among opposition groups
functioning in dictatorial regimes.
India's
General Assembly convention has attracted strong support
from Asian states for its efforts to criminalize
terrorism activities and hence take them right out of
the political sphere.
One implication would be a
blurring of the lines between subversive actions and the
genuine political or religious opposition that would be
permitted in any democratic society. A host of
humanitarian laws would be violated, including asylum
statutes under the 1951 Refugee Convention. Indefinite
detention would be allowed in some cases and rights to a
fair trial waived.
Even public debate of
terrorism would become an offense. Legal entities such
as trade unions and pressure groups could be targeted on
suspicion of political extremism, and journalists jailed
for expressing an opinion.
The Organization of
the Islamic Conference backed the draft during a meeting
in Kuala Lumpur in April, and it was also endorsed by
the Asia-European Meeting in Copenhagen late last month.
However, modifications may be needed to get the
convention to the ratification stage, as it has again
fallen foul of the amorphous issue of how to tackle
terrorism without compromising legitimate political
dissent.
Human Rights Watch noted on the eve of
the Copenhagen talks that the current version of the
draft failed to differentiate between an activist
fighting for democracy and a bomb-carrying subversive.
"We agree that terrorism can't be defeated by military
or technical means alone. There must be a comprehensive
approach that addresses the human rights abuses that
create an environment conducive to violence and
extremism," said Lotte Leicht, the group's European
director.
Washington and its allies have given
little heed to excesses by Asian security services since
September 11, but are likely to use their vetoes this
time. For once, human rights groups will be on their
side.
(©2002 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
