Documents

Keynote address by Mrs. Elisabeth Rehn
at OSCE Seminar Human Rights and Terrorism

Terrorism and terrorist acts are not something that started in the recent history, however, terrorism became a word we all started to use in everyday language now two years ago, after the 11 September 2001 attacks against the United States. Since that day, not a week has passed without various terrorism related news in the media. We all took new terms in our vocabularies: fight against terrorism, or anti-terrorism activities, or for some even 'war' against terrorism.

Soon after the emergence of 'war against terrorism' we started to talk about the backlash. We, the human rights activists, a group that I count myself belonging to, started to warn against the 'slippery slope' of erosion of human rights and of how the measures which were or are designed to protect civilians and democratic societies against terrorism, have in fact started from their part to limit the very liberties, rights and freedoms which are the cornerstones for our societies. We are asking: Are we throwing the baby with the bathwater?There have been many efforts in defining terrorism, terrorist acts and activities, or terrorist organisations. The United Nations has been working on the definition of terrorism since many years. Of course, to define something so complicated and controversial, and to get an international agreement on such a definition, is almost impossible. It has been said that terrorism can be distinguished from normal criminal violence, by the existence of a political goal that can also include ideological or religious motivations.

A major point of disagreement seems to have been whether an armed uprising against an oppressor state is justified under some specific conditions, and what should these conditions be so that a revolution, an uprising or guerrilla warfare against state structures is justified, and not considered terrorism? I recall my meetings in my previous capacity as the human rights rapporteur on Yugoslavia in 1995 and 1996 with the former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, when he always angrily referred to the KLA as 'those terrorists'. The KLA itself of course, most Kosovo Albanians and many foreign actors referred to it as 'freedom fighters'. This case might not even be the most difficult one; another example could be the Israeli-Palestine conflict and we have many more. One could even claim that one nation's terrorist can be another nation's freedom fighter. Or rather that a terrorist in one country could be perceived as a hero in another.

It is important for us to state however that acts of violence against civilian population can never be justified. The Geneva Conventions state that "the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants, and between civilian objectives and military objectives, and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives." What about acts against military targets, even if this 'target' would be for example the military in a country, where there is no armed conflict and which is considered a democracy? There are always those who do not acknowledge the legitimacy of a state that to us seems to be based on democratic principles and is fully legitimate. What about acts against state officials, or members of the parliament? I would consider them civilian, even if there are always those who might consider them 'authorised' targets. Also, while violent acts against civilian population outside a conflict is terrorism, these during a conflict are either terrorism or war crimes. All this of course presumes that these acts are conducted by non-state actors; or can such similar acts conducted by states be considered terrorist acts? At least we do have the term state terrorism and 'terrorist states', whatever they are to mean.

It seems that the more we try to find an exact definition to what is and what isn't terrorism, the more we sink into the mud. Most observers do agree however that terrorist acts are those that are directed against civilian targets, civilian population or civilian objectives. Terrorism, as we know it, is used in order to create insecurity, fear, chaos, and uncertainty among population. The means of terrorism, are in fact used in the hope of getting some sort of a reaction, either from the population in general, from targeted population groups be they minorities or majorities, from the authorities, from the military or from foreign powers. Terrorism is thus always a provocation. The question is, how do we respond to a provocation?

One way to respond in the recent two years has been a 'war against terrorism'. The word war already tells us what it is about: use of military force as primary instrument against terrorism. A researcher called Ekaterina Stepanova has written that the military approach (quote) "tends to be event-driven, reactive and short-term in nature, and has been neither specifically tailored to counter-terrorist needs nor particularly effective in meeting them - not to mention its mixed political security and socio-economic effects on various conflict and post-conflict settings around the world" (end of quote). Most examples show that an excessive reliance on the use of force has not been an adequate or effective instrument in stopping terrorists' violent acts. Thus while armed forces can play a useful role in supporting counter-terrorism activities, they are not the best-tailored for these tasks and should not assume a primary role.

The risk of using military means against terrorism is even greater if they are not just used for pre-empting or preventing terrorist acts, or bringing the culprits to justice, but for retaliation, coercion or collective impact. If the measures taken are punitive and retaliatory, it is hard to avoid bringing a negative or destructive impact on the civilian population.

If there is one lesson that should be learnt from numerous previous or on-going conflicts where guerrilla-type or terrorist attacks have been responded to with severe counter-measures, it is not to alienate the population through collective impact measures. It has showed that population that might not have been on the side of terrorists in the beginning will start to sympathise with them if it is targeted with tension and grievances by the authorities or military. The vicious circle is then ready.

I have not even mentioned yet the fact that retaliatory or punitive measures are likely to be violating common and agreed international human rights standards. It has taken decades for the international community to come to agreement of a set of fundamental rules that guide the nations' behaviour and interaction. We know from our own societies that joint, agreed rules only work as long as we all, or at least most of us, respect them. The speed limits on the roads work because most of the drivers obey them, most of the time. Every now and then there are those who speed and get away with it. There are also those who speed, get stopped and fined by the police, pay their fines and are maybe more cautious the next time. However, if half of the drivers start speeding, do not care to pay the fines they receive as a result, the other half sees that there is no effective means of enforcing the speed limits, and in the end no-one bothers to obey the speed limits as others do get away with it. What is the result? Chaos or disorder. It is the same with the international community. If we stop obeying the jointly agreed rules, namely the agreed standards for the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms, little by little the ground under them is eroding and we will find that the rules do not having a real meaning any more.

Of course some effective and focused measures need to be taken in the fight against terror. There need to be found new ways for the police, intelligence institutions, border control, and maybe even military to gather information of terrorist suspects and exchange such information. When handing out expanded competences to these institutions we need to ask however: How will this measure limit the rights of an individual, such as myself, my neighbour or the minority representative in my community? Or, how will that ruling meddle with the right to privacy of an individual? It is clear that authorities need to have the right to detain an individual who is suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. But can it really be justified to detain this person for several weeks, if not months, without any legal proceedings?

When planning for this keynote address here today, I was advised that one aspect to the topic could be to look into how the fight against terrorism affects individuals' rights while strengthening the community's rights. But I am wondering now, could really the interest of my community require that some of its individuals are deprived of their very basic rights, while some of us can keep them? Or can the interest of my community really require that some of its members have to be constantly on the guard and uncertain of which rights they have or whether these rights can be invoked from them if they happen to become suspects for some acts?

The title of this session was 'Dilemmas with regard to human rights and terrorism'. I think that there are indeed numerous dilemmas and challenges where we would need to find an answer to. We might not be able to find an answer to quite all of them today - but it is crucial that we keep asking these questions and keep trying to find better solutions to them, so that we can keep strengthening our jointly agreed rights rather than letting them erode down the drain.