[Peace-discuss] Authoritarianism thrives under shield of terrorism war

[Peter Miller]

**********************
The hard-line military regime in Myanmar
depicted itself as a victim of global terrorism,
citing last year's occupation of its embassy
in Bangkok, Thailand, by dissidents it labeled
"expatriate terrorists."
**********************

Thu Jan 3, 2002

Regimes using US war to crack down on dissent

 From the LA Times, 1/2/02:  U.N. fears abuses of terror mandate Some 
regimes using agency's campaign to justify repression

By William Orme, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

UNITED NATIONS -- Demands by the Security Council that U.N. members act 
against global terrorism are being used by some regimes to justify 
repression of domestic dissent, U.N. officials and independent human rights 
advocates say.

The anti-terrorism campaign has been used by authoritarian governments to 
justify moves to clamp down on moderate opponents, outlaw criticism of 
rulers and expand the use of capital punishment.

Compliance with the Security Council requirements "could lead to 
unwarranted infringement on civil liberties," Bacre Waly Ndiaye, the chief 
human rights officer at the U.N. Secretariat, told the council's new 
counterterrorism committee. "There is evidence that some countries are now 
introducing measures that may erode core human rights safeguards."

In an unexpectedly swift response to the attacks on the World Trade Center 
and the Pentagon, the Security Council called on U.N. members on Sept. 28 
to provide information within 90 days about their legal restrictions on 
fund-raising, financial transfers, arms acquisition and immigration.

But there is no agreement on what constitutes terrorist activity, U.N. 
experts say, and some governments are presenting what critics contend are 
police-state measures as part of the U.N.-endorsed campaign.

"In some countries," Ndiaye told the counterterror committee at its Dec. 13 
meeting, "nonviolent activities have been considered as terrorism, and 
excessive measures have been taken to suppress or restrict individual 
rights, including the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, 
freedom from torture, privacy rights, freedom of expression and assembly, 
and the right to seek asylum."

Ndiaye carefully refrained from identifying those countries, but human 
rights advocates quickly came up with a long list, from Algeria to 
Zimbabwe. In an interview at his office here last week, Ndiaye said he was 
concerned that the campaign could backfire and undermine U.N. efforts to 
promote democracy and the rule of law in Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia and 
his native West Africa.

"The challenge is how to make counterterrorism measures compatible with 
human rights," he said. "Unfortunately, under the guise of fighting terror, 
some governments are pursuing other agendas. Our concern is that this may 
provide cover to many governments to get rid of their opponents."

Insulting Mugabe may be outlawed

On Dec. 20, the Cuban legislature, with President Fidel Castro presiding, 
unanimously passed a law that state media said expanded the application of 
capital punishment for crimes defined as terrorism, including the use of 
the Internet to incite political violence.

A week earlier, the government of Zimbabwe published a proposed law that 
would make it a crime to "undermine the authority of or insult" President 
Robert Mugabe, who is again seeking reelection. Mugabe's aides defended the 
legislation as necessary to combat terrorists, a category they said 
includes most of the president's opponents as well as critical journalists.

"We agree with President Bush that anyone who harbors, finances or defends 
a terrorist is himself a terrorist," a presidential spokesman said.

In Central Asia, the government of Uzbekistan has defended its jailing of 
moderate Islamist opponents as part of the world campaign against 
"evildoers," while Kyrgyzstan has intensified internal travel controls on 
dissidents.

The trend to toughen statutes aimed primarily at domestic dissent worries 
advocates such as Michael Posner, executive director of the New York-based 
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.

"We are going to see repeated examples of governments using the new 
security environment as a pretext for silencing dissidents," he said. "This 
gives a green light to the Mugabes of the world to go after their opponents 
under the cover of what the U.S. and the U.K. are doing" to fight terror.

The chairman of the Security Council's counterterrorism committee, British 
Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, has agreed to Ndiaye's request that he add a 
human rights specialist to the committee's advisors, who already include 
specialists on money laundering and intelligence gathering. But the 
council's priority is to combat terrorism.

"The counterterrorism committee is not going to be the tool to resolve 
human rights problems around the world," said a European official at the 
committee who asked not to be named.

The U.N.'s own human rights advocates are limited to an advisory role in 
Security Council proceedings, noted Ndiaye, the New York deputy of Mary 
Robinson, the Geneva-based U.N. high commissioner for human rights. She in 
turn reports to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Robinson, a former president of Ireland, is viewed with suspicion in 
Washington, Moscow and Beijing because of liberal stands that are widely 
admired by human rights activists. Russia and China have publicly 
interpreted the Security Council's counterterror push as an endorsement of 
their own armed campaigns against Muslim rebels, which have drawn strong 
criticism at U.N. human rights forums.

By the midnight deadline Thursday, more than 100 of the U.N.'s 189 member 
states had filed their replies to the council, and most of the rest pledged 
to submit responses when the U.N. resumes sessions early this month. The 
published responses range from long catalogs of efforts to disrupt 
terrorist networks to cursory reiterations of official policy.

A two-page memo from Venezuela

The U.S. report, which American officials say was intended as a "template" 
for other countries, runs 23 pages. Venezuela, which has been accused of 
sheltering Colombian terrorists, sent a two-page memo pledging cooperation 
with the council and summarizing its long-standing international treaty 
commitments. The hard-line military regime in Myanmar, in an equally terse 
submission, depicted itself as a victim of global terrorism, citing last 
year's occupation of its embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, by dissidents it 
labeled "expatriate terrorists."

Within Myanmar itself, however, "there are no terrorists," the government 
assured the Security Council.

One of the first Middle Eastern submissions came from Syria, which is 
poised to join the council for a two-year term this month. The Syrian 
response makes a virtue of Syria's strict controls over both the economy 
and the political system, contending that financial support for terrorists 
is effectively curtailed by the absence of any private banking system or 
independent charities. The Syrians cite as a further deterrent their "harsh 
penalties" for threats to the public order, including capital punishment 
for such offenses as the "disruption of means of information, 
communications or transport."

The United States still officially calls Syria a terrorist state because of 
its backing of Hezbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon and because of 
Damascus' history as a haven for Islamic Jihad and other militant 
Palestinian factions. Syria asserted in its report that although it has 
ratified several regional and international conventions against terrorism, 
the "legitimate struggle against foreign occupation" does not fall under 
the definition of terrorism in these treaties. Syria, which does not 
recognize Israel, condones armed attacks by Palestinians within Israel's 
borders as well as in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Israeli and Palestinian diplomats said in interviews that the U.N. 
counterterror push has already blunted outside criticism of methods used on 
both sides to combat accused terrorists, including preventive detention and 
restrictions on speech and assembly. The Israeli submission to the Security 
Council cites laws on the books since Israel's founding that impose fines 
and jail time for "propaganda speeches" on behalf of terrorists or the 
possession of literature published by such groups. For decades, civil 
libertarians in Israel have urged that these statutes be rescinded.

Foreign condemnation of Israel's "extrajudicial killings" of accused 
terrorists has been muted since September, said Yehuda Lancry, Israel's 
U.N. representative.

Palestinian officials say that although they have come under intense 
criticism for arresting dissidents without charges or published evidence, 
the pressure on the Palestinian Authority to stop terror attacks has now 
relegated such concerns to the sidelines.

"The atmosphere everywhere has changed since Sept. 11," said Nasser Kidwa, 
the permanent Palestinian observer at the U.N. "The American people 
themselves are saying, 'Forget about due process, we want to stop 
terrorism,' and you are hearing things that would have been unmentionable 
here before, like military tribunals."

The prospective American military tribunals, though perhaps the single most 
significant change in U.S. counterterror policies since Sept. 11, are 
notably not highlighted in the report submitted by the U.S. government to 
the Security Council last month. Yet the tribunals' ultimate impact on 
regimes elsewhere might be greater than any other counterterror initiative 
by council members, human rights activists say.

In a joint letter to Bush early last month, eight leading American human 
rights groups said his order authorizing the tribunals -- which could 
impose the death penalty -- will be cited by foreign dictators "for decades 
to come" as a justification for summary executions.

"The credibility and effectiveness of the United States in opposing such 
repressive procedures will be seriously harmed by this precedent," the 
letter said.

The United States, in an embarrassment to the State Department, was voted 
off the Human Rights Commission in Geneva last year. The U.S. is expected 
to reclaim a seat on the commission when it reconvenes in March, but human 
rights groups that strongly supported U.S. membership say they are now 
concerned that Washington will be a less aggressive advocate for judicial 
reform and the protection of dissent.

"The State Department's last annual human rights report was filled with 
critical references to due-process concerns in places like Colombia, Egypt 
and Turkey," said the Lawyers Committee's Posner. "Whether they are going 
to be able to say all that again without subjecting themselves to ridicule 
is an open question."

U.N. human rights officials say they are also concerned that the 
counterterror focus could pose problems for U.N. efforts to encourage 
independent judiciaries and free election environments in violence-racked 
societies such as East Timor, Sierra Leone, the Yugoslav region of Kosovo 
and -- in the coming year -- Afghanistan.

"'The terrorists pose a threat to both security and human rights, and many 
countries may, and rightly, resort to exceptional measures," said Ndiaye, a 
burly, soft-spoken Senegalese lawyer and former Amnesty International 
official. "But even after 9/11, defendants still deserve a fair trial, and 
a government's opponents still have the right of speech and assembly. These 
should not be restricted. If you do, you are undermining the very reason 
that you are fighting against them."