|
Human Rights Crackdowns Overstated
Alan Boyd
October 01, 2002
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withdrawn in 1995 after human rights organizations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.
|
