Human Rights and
the Reaction to Terrorism
The terrorist acts
of September 11 may well have been an attack on democracy, as George Bush,
Tony Blair and others asserted,
but they were no threat to democracy. Democratic regimes have survived far
worse.It is the reaction to terrorism that destroys democracies.
Modern democracies
have perfectly adequate justice systems for dealing with terrorists.We track them down, catch them, bring them
to trial and impose fit punishment. That is what the US and the UK did with
those responsible for the Lockerbie crash, and for the embassy bombings in
Nairobi and Dares Salaam. It is what the UN is doing for those accused of
genocide and crimes against humanity in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
How much more
healthy it is for democracy that Milosevic be judged by an international court
rather than murdered by a cruise missile aimed at his home. As for the two Lockerbie
defendants, one was acquitted by Scottish judges earlier this year. Had the
advocates of assassination and summary execution prevailed in that case, an
innocent man would have been killed in the name of democracy's war on terrorism.
Some American
politicians now argue that criminal justice is inadequate because the events of
September 11 were an "act of war". But according to international
law, we must know what State committed it. A group of individuals, even
numbering in the hundreds, cannot commit an "act of war".
Perhaps those who
harbour terrorists may themselves be accomplices in an "act of war". But
let us remember the last time this bold claim was made, in 1914, when
Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia because a Serb nationalist had
assassinated its archduke. It unleashed a cascade of belligerent declarations
justified by an earlier equivalent of article 5 of the NATO treaty.
We now look back
in horror and bewilderment at how an overreaction to terrorism, in the name of
punishment and retribution, provoked a chain of events that ultimately
slaughtered an entire generation of European youth.
The anger and even
the thirst for vengeance of the victims and their families can well be
understood. But any act of reprisal that takes civilian casualties or is
directed against civilian objects is quite simply forbidden by international
law. It is a war crime. To the extent reprisals are allowed at all, they must
target purely military objectives.
The US seeks
sympathy for the thousands of innocent victims of this tragedy, and they have
it. Our hearts have been broken to see the agony of the bereaved relatives, and
an unbearably sad hole in a beloved skyline.
But international
solidarity should not become a pretext for promoting a US political agenda that
has little to do with catching the perpetrators and preventing future crimes.
Above all, if
measures are to be taken in the name of protecting democracy, there can be no
room for double standards. Only two years ago, in another context, the US
argued that a civilian office building in Belgrade was a legitimate military
target because it housed a television station. The US justified the resulting
deaths of civilian office workers as "collateral damage". If those
responsible for attacking the World Trade Centre are ever brought to court,
they may invoke this precedent. The scale of the killings was different in
Belgrade, but the principle is barely distinguishable.
Let us recall,
again and again, that civilians must be spared in any conflict. The right to
life is the most fundamental of all human rights. The right to life of
thousands of innocent civilians in New York City and Washington has been
egregiously violated. But that same right also belongs without exception to
civilians in Belgrade, Baghdad and
Kabul.
Professor William
A. Schabas, director, Irish Centre
for Human Rights,
Galway
Professor William
Schabas, formerly of Montreal and author of International Human Rights Law and
the canadian Charter. He has done some excellent work on Israeli's violations
of international law with its settlement policies in the Occupied Territories.