THE SHASHI THAROOR COLUMN
Rights, a casualty?
AFP
A fallout of fighting terror ... new procedures for identification.
IF the first casualty of war is truth, has the first casualty of the war against terror been tolerance?
Recent developments around the world — from the denial of visas to innocent travellers to intrusive checks, investigations and detentions — have raised real concern, and not just in the minds of scare-mongers. In a recent report to Member States of the United Nations, Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed his fear that the world may retreat from the progress it has made in human rights and democracy. Human rights, after all, have been threatened both by terrorism itself and by the methods that some States are using to combat it.
It's not that the Secretary-General is suggesting that terrorism should not be combated. As he said at a moving commemoration at the U.N. on the first anniversary of September 11: "There could be no greater affront to the spirit and purpose of the United Nations than the terrorist attacks of September 11. Everything that we work for, peace, development, health, freedom, is damaged by this horror. Everything that we believe in, respect for human life, justice, tolerance, pluralism and democracy, is threatened by it. It must be defeated by the world acting as one." But the question remains: how should the world act? Many Governments in the developing world have learned in recent years that one way to eliminate frustration and anger in their societies is through promoting the growth of democracy and the rule of law. In democratic societies there are roadmaps for non-violent dissent. Power relations between ethnic and religious groups and the State are mediated, and there are mechanisms (however imperfect) to obtain justice. Democratic systems offer hope for change without the need for violence.
Terrorism threatens democracies and autocracies alike. But just as we make the world a smaller and less secure place for terrorism's pyromaniacs, we must make it a less friendly and less receptive place for those regimes that repress their citizens, and thereby fuel the fire.
The United Nations has increasingly been at the forefront of the promulgation and promotion of democracy, good governance and human rights — and as these have become international norms, a dwindling number of U.N. members are autocratic regimes. Of course, democracy, like love, must come from within; it cannot be imposed from outside. But it can be encouraged, and supported. Democracies are not immune to terrorism, but their capacity to resist it is stronger.
What leads surprisingly large numbers of young people to follow the desperate course set for them by fanatics and ideologues? A sense of oppression, of humiliation, of marginalisation, can give rise to extremism. Forty years ago, in 1962, the now all-but-forgotten U.N. Secretary-General U. Thant warned that an explosion of violence could occur as a result of the sense of injustice felt by those living in poverty and despair in a world of plenty. Some 2,600 people died in the World Trade Center on 9/11. But some 26,000 people also died on 9/11, around the world — from starvation, unclean water and preventible disease. "If human beings everywhere," Mr. Annan wrote, "were given real hope of achieving self-respect and a decent life by peaceful methods, terrorists would become harder to recruit and would receive less sympathy and support from society at large."
But that is, of course, not all. If a State cannot even offer its people hope for a better life for their children — by providing access to basic education — then how can we expect those people or those children to resist the blandishments of terror? It should come as no surprise that the Taliban recruited its foot soldiers from the religious schools or madrassas that were the only source of nurture and "education" for the many children who had no other source of knowledge available to them; who learned not science or mathematics or computer programming at these schools, but rather only the creed of the Koran and the Kalashnikov — the Koran crudely interpreted, the Kalashnikov crudely made.
If terrorism is to be tackled and ended, we will also have to attack the ignorance that sustains it. We must encourage a liberal, free-thinking education that opens minds everywhere rather than closes them. We must take a stance of respect and humility in our approaches to others, to strive for inclusiveness rather than marginalisation. And we must press Governments to ensure that in attacking terror, the cure does not become worse than the disease.
The worry is that in many countries, human rights have become the "collateral damage" of the war on terrorism — in particular to the presumption of innocence, to freedom from arbitrary detention, to due process, and thereby to the very fabric of democratic governance, which rests on the rule of law.
Building human rights safeguards into counter-terrorist strategies has never looked more essential.
Terrorism, Mr. Annan has said, should not be used "to demonise political opponents, to throttle freedom of speech and the press, and to delegitimise legitimate political grievances". And he went on to stress that terror "does not make it any less urgent than the cause be addressed, the grievance heard, and the wrong put right. Otherwise, we risk losing the contest for the hearts and minds of much of mankind".
So let us ensure that the battle against terror does not create a greater casualty — democracy itself. As Mr. Annan has often said, those who would sacrifice their liberty to gain security usually end up losing both security and liberty.
Shashi Tharoor is United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information. Visit him at www.shashitharoor.com
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
