During the Cold War, the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) by the use of nuclear weapons prevented the US and USSR from engaging in an open war, as such a war, even if done pre-emptively, was considered suicidal. Instead, both superpowers fought proxy wars in places like Vietnam, Korea and Afghanistan.
The Post-Cold-War era was far from being peaceful. The US engaged 1991 in wars in Iraq and 1999 in Kosovo, and suffered from terror attacks on the WTC in 1993 and on its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. However, restrictions of civil liberties didn't take place after these attacks, at least not on a global scale.
That changed after the 911 attacks. 6 weeks later President Bush signed Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, known as Patriot Act, and its western allies have enacted similar legislation since then. Canada and the UK introduced new anti-terrorism legislation at the end of 2001, the European Union passed similar legislation in 2003. Australia followed suit in 2004, just after the train bombings in Madrid.
However, the anti-terrorism laws failed to act as deterrent. Terror attacks happened in Bali in 2002 and 2005, in Madrid 2004, in London 2005 and in Mumbai 2006. The icon of 21st century terrorism, Osama Bin Laden, has not been captured, but numerous people ended up in dubious prisons like Guantanamo Bay as terror suspects, without the presumption of innocence or legal representation.
The anti-terror legislation does not only affect terror suspects, but all citizens. Security checks at airports have increased, several countries plan to introduce ID cards with biometrical information, people have been banned from boarding planes for expressing their opinion by wearing t-shirts with political messages.
Yet some consequences are less palpable. Surveillance has been made much easier and CCTV camera became ubiquitous in public spaces. The increased security measures require more funding, so that more taxpayer's money is spend on the war on terror. This essay evaluates the phenomenon of 21st century terrorism, the reaction of state actors to it and the consequences for civil liberties.
Terrorism is not a new strategy, yet the scale of the 911 attacks is certainly unprecedented. The images of destruction and the high number of casualties reminded of war, brought by global communication networks to living rooms all across the planet. Although wars in the traditional meaning involve state actors, the US administration considered the terror attacks as an act of war and reacted accordingly.
Five days after 911 President Bush said:
"As I said yesterday, people have declared war on America, and they have made a terrible mistake, because this is a fabulous country. … This is a new kind of -- a new kind of evil. …. This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."
The American president kept his promise, and being a neo-conservative (realist) he waged two traditional wars that still linger on. Afghanistan was invaded on October 5 2001, three weeks before the Patriot Act was signed, and the Iraq invasion began on March 20 2002.
Although these wars were announced as part of the Global War On Terror, they fit into the strategies of neo-conservatives in the US which were devised well before 911. The neo-conservative think tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC), founded in 1997, urged President Clinton 1998 in an open letter to complete the unfinished business in Iraq and to impose a regime change.
Ten out of 18 signatories of this open letter became part of the Bush administration, but their influence did not end there. PNAC released in 2000 the strategy paper Rebuilding America's Defenses, which stresses the importance of increasing the US' influence in Central Asia and the Middle East, maintaining America's unique position as a dominant military power, the need for further militarisation and pre-emptive action.
However, by the time the document was released, threats like terrorism and rogue states were not considered as grave danger for the US, which could justify a massive increase in military spending.
„[T]he process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor".
The "new Pearl Harbor" happened on September 11 2001, and consequently key issues of Rebuilding America's Defenses like unilateralism, pre-emptive warfare and increase in military spending, became part of President Bush's National Security Strategy.
Especially the war in Iraq, a unilateral move of the US without legitimation from the United Nations Security Council, has raised a lot of criticism. More Americans have been killed in Iraq than on 911, and the torture affair of Abu Ghraib has tainted the US administration's claim to protect human rights.
With the Military Commisions Act of 2006 the US introduced the concept of illegal enemy combatant, a legal construct that denies suspects habeas corpus, allows for indefinite detention and denies the right of compensation for those who were held in error.
According to President Bush, the war on terror requires the need to arbitrarily detain people to CIA prisons outside the US, and withhold their basic human rights. However, two basic questions about global terrorism seem to be neglected whenever new anti-terror legislation is introduced: the efficiency of proposed changes in legislation, and the size of the problem of global terrorism.
Less than 4,000 people have been killed in the attacks in New York 2001, Bali 2002 and 2005, Madrid 2004, London 2005 and Mumbai 2006. Acts of terrorism, no matter how spectacular, are luckily rare events, and remain - statistically seen – a much less likely cause of death than suicide, traffic accidents, substance abuse or other lifestyle choices, not too mention an average of 25,000 people starving daily due to the imbalances of the global economic system.
The motivations of terrorism are difficult to study, as it is a rare phenomenon, and might find its origins in a diversity of local causes. The simplified rationale promoted the US government, that terrorisms primary goal is the destruction of western liberties, has not proven helpful in counteracting terrorism.
Yet without calling the 911 attacks an attempt to abolish the freedom of western countries, support for the unilateral war efforts of the US would have been unlikely. The 911 attacks can be understand as violent opposition against the US foreign policy in the Middle-East, and its support for Israel. The restrictions of civil rights by the introduction of anti-terror legislation eradicated a lot of liberties taken for granted in democratic societies.
The freedom to assemble, freedom of speech and the privacy of citizens have been severly restricted. If it was the aim of global terrorism to destroy western liberty, western governments have acted as an indispensable helper, and the war could end.
The increase in governmental power to spy on its citizens has not yet proven efficient, but more cases in which these powers were abused become known. The loss of civil liberties for those who disappear in secret CIA prisons is very apparent, yet even in Australia the rules of law have been suspended for terror suspects.
The first victim of the Australian anti-terror laws was Faheem Lodhi of Sydney, who was sent for 20 years into a high-security prison.
"Justice Anthony Whealy said while there was little case law to guide him, the courts must take a stand against terrorism."
This stand against terrorism meant that Lodhi was sentenced for a thought crime – he did not commit any acts of terrorism, nor were an concrete plans for a terror attack found. His crime consisted of knowing another terror suspect, having maps of Sydney's electricity grip and a copy of an internet pamphlet describing how to build bombs.
The presumption of innocence was not used in this case, he was sent to jail for a possible future intention. The latest victim of the terrorist hunt is Dr. Haneef, a Brisbane doctor who is a distant cousin of someone linked to the failed terror attacks in Glasgow in July 2007. Dr. Haneef was detained without charge for 20 days, lost his working visa and can't return to Australia, although no proof of any terrorist activity could be found.
Once someone gets in the spotlight of any suspicion of terrorism, basic rights will be revoked. Political activists were banned from participating in protests against the G8 conference in Germany and the APEC conference in Sydney, even with a clean legal record.
The idea of pre-emptive activity has spread from warfare to jurisdiction, with dire consequences not only for terror suspects, but for any citizen. Entire areas in Sydney were blocked from public access, demonstration in front of the security fence were not permitted. The $170 million spend for APEC's security did not prevent the team from ABC's show Chaser – War on everything to enter the security perimeter with a faked motorcade.
The ABC comedians did not expect to succeed with their prank, yet they demonstrated the illusion of absolute security. The Australian taxpayers had to pay the bill for the APEC conference, while not even being allowed to show their dissent.
Conclusion
Terrorism became an ubiquitous news item since 911, although terror acts remain rare events. The war on terror reaped the lives of hundred thousands people in Iraq and Afghanistan, but hasn't achieved any of its nominal goals.
Terrorism certainly poses a risk to society, but the size of this risk seems grossly exaggerated in comparison to other challenges the globalised world faces. The war on terror, however, cannot be won, and will last forever, or unless citizens demand from their governments to stop it. Terror is a concept, not an enemy, and using the phrase "war on terror" is not only semantic nonsense, but also distracts from the casualties this war has produced so far.
Yet as long as the "war on terror" continues, the removal of civil liberties is unlikely to be reversed. Especially the restrictions for demonstrations severely impaired the ability for citizens to influence the political process and the public opinion, both vital components of healthy democracies.
The restrictions of civil rights are less visible than the terrible images of destructions following terror acts, but they affect far more people than those acts, at least by the way their taxes are spend. Acts of terrorism, however, are basically criminal acts with an untypical motivation. The experience with the legal system shows that laws cannot prevent crime, yet this idea is suggested by the battery of new anti-terror legislation.
Terrorists can take life, but they cannot change the legal system of societies, only governments can do this. If they primary goal of "global terrorism" is the abolition of freedom in democratic societies, governments acted as their accomplices with the introduction of anti-terror legislations. Civil liberties have never been granted deliberately by governments, most of them have been fought for with democratic means, which are on the brink of becoming illegal.
'In some ways she was far more acute than Winston, and far less susceptible to Party propaganda. Once when he happened in some connection to mention the war against Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not happening. The rocket bombs that fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, "just to keep the people frightened".'(Orwell, 1984)
acts against america anti-terror attacks citizens civil global governments however iraq laws legislation less liberties people president restrictions security suspects terror war western
created at TagCrowd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment