(RSF/IFEX) – The following is a 9 January 2002 joint RSF and International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (Fédération Internationale des ligues des Droits de l’Homme, FIDH) press release, forwarded as received: 11th September 2001 – 11th January 2002: One hundred and twenty days of immutable liberties being abused/The top 15 liberty-killing States Since September […]
(RSF/IFEX) – The following is a 9 January 2002 joint RSF and International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (Fédération Internationale des ligues des Droits de l’Homme, FIDH) press release, forwarded as received:
11th September 2001 – 11th January 2002: One hundred and twenty days of immutable liberties being abused/The top 15 liberty-killing States
Since September 11 2001 with New York and Washington attacks, most of the States have reinforced their security set-up. Although that reaction is perfectly legitimate, so are not the abuses generated toward collective and individual liberties.
Some one hundred and twenty days after the terrorist attacks, publishing a first statement on the consequences seemed to be appropriate. For these abuses toward human rights, press freedom and information on the Internet, have multiplied.
Therefore we reveal this “Top 15” of liberticide countries: the list of the countries where security drifts and infringements have been the most numerous and serious. Two types of liberticide states should be distinguished: those who have yielded to “panic” after the attacks and have fitted themselves with legal arsenals restricting liberties. But also “Opportunistic states”: those who have used the war against terrorism as an excuse to oppress their minorities and opponents.
The innocent victims of the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, those in afghan town and villages are on everyone’s mind.
On behalf of the fight against terrorists, should we leave every violation unchecked? We do not think so. It is with the view to remaining “together on the watch” that we publish this record of liberticide countries.
N°1: The United States
(Too) big cures to heal big diseases
So was the title of one of our articles published on the site, last December 10. It sums up the situation in the United States. If the authorities reacting vigorously after the attacks of September 11 sounds natural and legitimate with a view to protecting themselves against new attacks, we have got to admit that the “response” has turned to liberticide measures. Abuses toward collective and individual liberty, civil right, cyber-liberty and presumption of innocence are blatant. Together with it, the “crime for the colour of the face” has made its come back. All this was undeniably generated by the steps taken by President Bush and his government supported by the Congress.
– The strategy of protective, massive and ⦠wrongful custody?
The day after September 11th, The authorities have set up a huge manhunt. It is the theory of massive, preventive and ⦠wrongful arrests (according to human right defence organisations) advocated by John Ashcroft, minister of Justice and taken over by the FBI. Around one thousand and two hundred people have thus been taken for questioning and been kept in custody without any judgement. In most cases, defendants (mostly held for offence to visa legislation) have not had the chance to meet an attorney or be in touch with their families. Last November 27th, the minister of Justice has acknowledged that six hundred people were still in custody without any trial. He refused categorically to have his ministry publish the list of these six hundred names.
– Prisoners’ rights and presumption of innocence trampled
At the beginning of January 2002, foreign diplomats posted in the United States gave up their diplomatic reserve to flay the American authorities “who do not observe the basic rights of our citizens jailed since the attacks of September 11”. Following the example of Pakistan Consul General in New York, they reported that “in most cases, we don’t know the identity nor the remand place of our citizens. At best, they condescend to tell how many … the authorities also put pressure not to let them use their rights to contact their consular representatives or their attorneys. It is merely unacceptable”.
Regarding Moussaoui’s trial, the French man first accused in the investigations after the attacks and liable to death sentence, one of his attorneys, François Roux rose up against the presumption of innocence of his client not being observed as for most of the defendants. “We shall turn this trial into a fight to leave no option to that inalienable right, that immutable freedom that is presumption of innocence. A right blatantly scorned in this case. This is unacceptable. Nobody is guilty before his trial”, he declared.
– USA Patriot Act: towards a police State
On October 26, George W. Bush signed orders enacting that law said to be “patriotic” assumed to be an answer to the threat of terrorism. Worked out by minister of Justice John Ashcroft, it enshrines provisions that notably abridge liberties.
– Eavesdropping conversations between attorneys and their clients: step back of the law
On November 2, the ministry of Justice authorises that conversations between suspects held for the purpose of investigation on the attacks and their counsels be heard and recorded. Nevertheless it has been written for a long time in the American law that “an accused does not have a fair trial as long as he may not speak freely with his attorney.”
– Special military courts: on the one hand the Americans ⦠and on the other hand, the others
On November 13, President Bush signed a decree making it possible to bring non-American alleged terrorists before special military courts. Initially, that decree enabled:
*Trials to be set up most secretly.
*Courts not to reveal the evidences they had at hand.
*Death sentence to be pronounced if two thirds of the jury agree.
Under the pressure of freedom defence organisations, distinguished lawyers and part of the media and public opinion, the government has loosened up the operating conditions of these courts. Indeed, the administration has just announced that:
*Military juries will have to be unanimous to pronounce death sentence.
*After the judgement, a three-person committee shall examine the verdict and the defence petitions.
It will transmit its recommendations to the ministry of Defence. As for the verdict, the final decision will then belong to President Bush. Another progress: in addition to appointed military attorneys, civilian counsels may defend the person charged.
*At last, the general public and journalists will be allowed to attend the hearing. Sessions will only be in camera in the case pieces of information deemed to be “secret-defence” could be revealed.
– Five thousand people ⦠from Middle East interrogated
The ministry of Justice demanded on November 13 that five thousand people from Middle East be interrogated. The objective for the authorities: identify potential accomplices to the perpetrators of the attacks of September 11 or “sleepers” of Oussama ben Laden’s Al-Qaida network. That “giant” interrogation contributed to blacklist and isolate Middle East, Arab or Muslim foreigners.
– Discrimination: the broken dream of Arabs and Muslims
The Arab and Muslim community is paying dearly for the attacks of September 11. Although the representative bodies of that community have condemned the attacks. Nevertheless, since that day, murders, physical aggressions, moral pressure or wrongful dismissal of people of that community are thriving. The Arab American Institute has registered one hundred and fifty seven claims for racial or religious discrimination. A recent report published by Los Angeles authorities registers ninety-two racist offences committed toward them since September 11 against … twelve for the whole year two thousand.
The nightmare of Muslim or originally Arab Americans has been more than widely covered after the case of a secret service agent appointed to the close protection of President Bush. Being of Arab origin, he was expelled from a plane by the captain who displayed his mistrust for that armed middle-east-looking man.
– The stick and carrot of denouncement
At the end of November, American minister of Justice John Ashcroft, announced that foreigners, including non-registered immigrants, would be “eligible for a programme enabling to get their visas in order to have their American naturalisation speeded up if possible; as long as they provide the authorities with priceless information enabling the arrest of terrorists”. To show his goodwill, John Ashcroft has handed a document summing up these new measures over to the FBI, the immigration and naturalisation services as well as to the Justice department criminal section. This new provision was vigorously denounced by human right defence organisations for having created a widespread mood of denunciation detrimental to innocents.
– “Big Brother” version of an identity card
The American Federal government is presently testing among military and civil servants from sensitive ministries its new anti-terrorist fighting tool: the identity card. Before September 11, it was inconceivable for Americans to have their private life “controlled” by means of a federal identity card that did not exist until then. Four millions of identity cards will be distributed within the next two years. And for the next decade, it is the whole population that should be concerned. From the European point of view, the identity card is no big deal and in principle, it does not imply any abuse on individual freedom. In the United States, things will be fundamentally different. What worries civil rights defence associations who talk about a real “Big Brother” being brought out ⦠For the American version of the identity card is a breathtaking concentrate of technology and a dreadful machine designed to track each of its owner’s acts. Fitted with two photographs, two barcodes, fingerprints and a magnetic tape it will make it possible to trace its owners’ activities minute by minute since it will be at the core of a sprawling system of super databases.
– CIA: dollars and terrorists to fight against ⦠terrorism
By mid-December, the CIA, the huge American intelligence office, has obtained from President Bush and the Congress everything it wanted to fight against terrorism. The almost 10% increase of its budget (and of the other intelligence agencies) will be used “to finance corruption operations, the recruitment of people with questionable profiles and murderous operations abroad”. As far as corruption is concerned, the CIA budget was multiplied by ten according to Newsweek weekly magazine. That boon will be used to pay foreign officers “turned over” and informers, including terrorists serving as double agents. But what alarms the human right defence organisations is the return of the CIA thirty years backward. Since the beginning of the 70’s, the American Intelligence was not authorised to set up and finance the killing of a person abroad any more. Republican senator Richard Shelby confirmed that “President Bush has ordered the CIA, on account of the powers it was entrusted with, to released themselves of that ban”.
– Resorting to torture is being discussed
At the end of October, voices arose among the FBI, the administration but also among the media to claim for resorting to “other methods than simple questionings to prompt to talk silent suspects, arrested within the framework of the investigations on September 11th attacks”. Some federal officials did not fear to mention the “truth drug”, penthotal, in order to obtain confessions. Other “means” have also been considered: psychological and physical pressures, such as expulsions toward third countries. The police use the brutality of these latter and threat the accused family to obtain confessions.
– Freedom of expression relegated to the background
Since September 11, beware of your speech and expression of bad temper in public! Several non-American citizens have learned at their expense that freedom of expression stopped where attacks and terrorism in general were mentioned. In September, an Iranian was expelled from the university of Florida for being wrongly humorous. Another Iranian risks up to twenty-year imprisonment for having uttered threats last December against the United States after an argument with a stewardess in a plane. At last, at the end of December, a Japanese furious about the sluggishness on boarding at Seattle airport, declared to a flight attendant: “If I were a terrorist, I would have this plane blown up.” He is liable to five-year imprisonment and a ten-thousand dollar fine.
– Press freedom: the White House organises censorship
At odds with American institutional traditions, the executive body set up at the beginning of October, some kind of devised press censorship. Condoleeza Rice, national security advisor of President Bush, summoned the main press barons to remind them of their “responsibilities” concerning information in time of crisis. Even more worrisome, in a note dated October 5th 2001, President George Bush calling upon national security hazard, ordered the main members of his government not to communicate to members of Congress some items of information necessary to fulfil their mandate. This measure was motivated by fear of “leaks” through the press.
– Cyber-liberty: America, new global lawmaker on the Internet organises the cyber-hunt
Within the law designed to fight against terrorism, the American Justice Department assumed the right to pursue “hackers” on the Internet, be they American or not, acting on the American soil or not. The authorities’ reasoning is simple: since most of the communications on the Internet go via the United States, they intend to arrest throughout the world, anybody who would contravene US laws within cyberspace as long as the object of the electronic offence would pass in transit through American wires.
The American federal police (FBI) equipped itself with a new tool. Christened “Magic lantern”, it makes it possible to decode and decrypt any protected data of personal computers. Genuine “Trojan horse”, the software “Magic lantern” may be set up remotely by the FBI. Once set up, it provides the authorities with the full content of the pirated computer.
Thanks to “Carnivore”, surfers’ e-mails can be intercepted and their content sifted through. Before the attacks of September 11, the Justice department had commanded the FBI to use it parsimoniously. Last October, after prior agreement with lawyers, President Bush authorised “Carnivore” to be used by the federal police. And this as much as they want.
N°2: Great Britain:
The first country to go against the European Convention of human rights
Regarded before September 11 as too mild a country toward religious activists, indeed a sanctuary for alleged terrorists, the United Kingdom took a U-turn. The antiterrorist law voted by the Parliament by mid-December 2001 has turned the Kingdom of Her Majesty into the first country to go against the European Convention of human rights, whereas the Internet is placed “on probation”.
– Antiterrorist law: custody without investigation nor accusation
The persistent resistance of the House of Lords (Parliament upper house) was not enough: the law fighting against terrorism finalised by Blair government was voted by backbenchers.
Two measures are particularly disparaged: the possibility to keep aliens in custody without any investigation and the increased power of the police regarding the surveillance of the Internet, the electronic mail and telephone conversations. The first measure puts Great Britain as the first and only country throughout the old Continent to go seriously and blatantly against the European Convention on human rights. Article 5 of this convention stipulates indeed that any long-lasting remand outside the strict framework of legal proceedings is proscribed. Moreover, because of unanimous critics the government waited for the last moment to withdraw from the text an “offence for appeal to religious hatred”.
– Press freedom: media ordered to “distinguish the right from the wrong”
The British government, United States’ unfailing support in the war against terrorism and for Afghanistan military operations, chose its side. And the team of British Prime Minister Tony Blair sharply asked the media to choose theirs. That is to say the same one, in a climate of sacred union. At the beginning of November, Tony Blair’s spokesman harshly called them to order with respect to how they dealt with information linked to the war in Afghanistan. “I ask them to distinguish the right from the wrong”, hammered Tony Blair’s communication manager. “They must not put on an even level the Taliban’s web of lies and the coalition’s declarations.”
– Cyber liberty: the Internet spied in the name of anti-terrorist fight ⦠among other things
Following the example of the United States, Canada or France, Great Britain put the web under close surveillance. After the example of Paris, London has extended the conservation time for surfers’ data conservation by access providers. The Home secretary has also announced his will “to be entitled to have access to financial transactions on line or openly check private e-mails”.
In concrete terms, by virtue of the new law, the police is altogether exempted from asking for the authorisation of a judge to act. He only needs the agreement of the Home secretary or one of his top-ranking civil-servant to do it. So many measures giving rise to an outcry: access providers considering relocating their server outside Great Britain.
N°3: Canada
The country were being an alien or a journalist is no more advised
Law C-36 against terrorism enforced on December 24 is everything but a Christmas present. It institutionalises “preventive” arrests (thus potentially arbitrary) of people suspected of terrorism and includes heaps of provisions endangering press freedom or freedom on the Web. And generally speaking, it marks the turning in of this – former ? – land of welcome on itself.
– Antiterrorist law(s): full power for the government and the police
The first anti terrorist law enforced since December 24. Christened C-36, among other things it allows, for seventy two hours, the preventive arrest of people suspected of preparing terrorist acts. To take action, the police only needs to rely on suspicion. Besides, their powers are increased in terms of surveillance of the Internet, of the electronic mail and of telephone conversations. An amendment to the law on national defence enables the defence secretary to authorise the telecommunication security centre (CST) to intercept private communications between Canada and abroad with a view to obtaining details pertaining to “international affairs, defence or security”.
But voting that law also means that Canada is turning in on itself. Immigration procedures have been hardened together with controls on borders.
A second bill, if voted by parliament members, will give the ministers more power to take unilateral and secret actions, denying thereby the role of the parliament.
– Press freedom: source confidentiality demolished
The amendment to the law on national defence allowing private conversations between Canada and abroad to be intercepted with a view to obtaining items of information induces that confidentiality of journalists’ communications with their contact abroad is no more secured. The new law also enables to demand that a person on whom “there are reasonable grounds to believe that [she] has direct and relevant details pertaining to terrorist offence” be summoned by a lawyer in order to disclose that information. People refusing to appear before the lawyer or to answer his questions are liable to a sentence going up to one-year imprisonment. At last, from now on the act on official secrets, re-christened law pertaining to the protection of information, shall punish with “life imprisonment” the transmission of sensitive information “to a foreign entity or a terrorist group”. Based on article 16, the information concerned is the one “toward which the federal government or any provincial government take protective measures” without any further detail. Article 17 penalises the disclosure of “special operational information”. These latter include information of general interest such as “the limits or failures” of the information policy set up by the federal government. Such provisions potentially lead journalists to breaking the law.
– Cyber-liberty: Lawful surveillance of the Internet
Tight surveillance of the Internet and of the electronic mail is one of the antiterrorist law’s corner stones. Before enacting that law, the authorities were to inform the citizens that they were undergoing or had undergone a surveillance procedure. Today, the police and intelligence services do not need to be supported by a lawyer to proceed and are no more accountable to the citizens.
N°4: France
The law on daily security endangers the liberty of expression
On November 15, hurriedly and without any real debate, France institutionalised an antiterrorist law that looks like a legal omnibus bill creating amalgamation between terrorism and delinquency. Deemed to be unconstitutional, that law on daily security (LSQ) considerably abridges the liberty of expression on the Internet.
– Law on daily security: the Internet under close scrutiny
Further to the attacks of September 11, the government was quick to react and submit to the members of the parliament a set of measures designed to fight terrorism. That set-up was not “tailor-made” to fit the fuzzy shape of terrorist threat. Provisions have been hurriedly added to an existing text: LSI, law on the information society.
Thereby, the LSQ became a dump that takes in thirteen amendments said to be “antiterrorist” together with the possibility to accuse anonymously someone, leaving no means for the person accused to justify himself in front of his detractor (creation of the “anonymous witness”); genetic recording of any person condemned for mere theft; search of vehicles; search without the control of judicial authority and in absentia of the person concerned; the possibility to ban sit-ins in building halls; private security agents being granted police authority or security measures linked to the transition to the Euro.
Beyond the liberticide measures contained in that set-up, its detractors denounce a law amalgamating common law and antiterrorist fighting. It is the lack of a real debate pertaining to its implementation that particularly feeds the critics. The public bill went off smoothly unopposed by the Senate nor the national assembly. No parliament member has dared to seize the constitutional Council (which is the rule in the case of a law containing sensitive measures from a constitutional point of view) and ask for their opinion on the validity of the LSQ.
– Press freedom: media called to order
Further to the recommendations of the French broadcasting regulatory body (CSA) to radios and televisions and to the call to order of information channel Al-Jazira, organisations for the defence of press freedom and liberty of expression have called on the CSA to ensure that no kind of information control be re-established in France on account of the international context. These organisations worried about the recent recommendations by the CSA on the treatment of information within the context of the conflict in Afghanistan, as well as its call to duty of the information channel based in Qatar Al-Jazira. The fact that in France, there is no control of news item content is a basic right of these two last decades for broadcasting media.
– Cyber liberty: the Internet under French lawyer’s rule
The LSQ brings up to one year the time for data conservation by the Internet access providers; it authorises lawyers to resort to “State means subjected to national defence secrecy” to decrypt messages and compel the providers of encrypting means to provide the authorities with their ciphering protocols so as to let them decrypt freely. As many provisions that mean nothing else but place the Internet under close scrutiny and make encryption an offence.
N°5: Germany
A “catastrophic” antiterrorist law
The associations for the defence of civil rights and the protection of personal data deem that the antiterrorist law concocted by Interior federal minister Otto Schily and adopted by the Bundestag is “catastrophic”. The measures regarded as the most liberticide ones are the following:
– Being suspected of endangering the fundamental democratic and liberal order is liable to have one’s resident’s permit refused or not extended. For aliens living in Germany, it is also liable to expulsion. The immediate execution of such an expulsion is to be expected later on.
– The separation between intelligence services and the police is over: intelligence services have unlimited access to the data system common to INPOL police and the Direction of the military security department (MAD), from now on, External German intelligence Services (BND), border police and the federal Office for the protection of the Constitution are associated to the visa delivery procedure.
– For the first time in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany, the German service for the protection of the Constitution is entrusted with a power to be compared with that of the police.
– The law pertaining to the alien central Register is amended so as to authorise the police and the intelligence services to have an automated access to all data.
– Recording bits of interviews attesting to the identity of foreigners and asylum seekers is planned as a means to prove their “genuine” country of origin and make their expulsion easy.
– Fingerprints and “other documents proving the identity” of all asylum seekers will have to be kept for ten years and will be systematically compared with clues sampled by the police on the scene of the crime. The Federal Office of the Criminal Investigation Department will keep them.
– Any association of foreigners whose goals or activities would be detrimental to or would endanger the fundamental interests of the Federal Republic of Germany is prohibited.
– The right of access to telecommunication data likely to be stored on electronic support: who e-mails who; who phones to whom; localisation data; overall archiving of communication contents; New rights for intelligence services to have access to the data of telecommunications, mail shipping companies, post offices and banks. The legal concepts used are not clear and difficult to assess. In practice, their interpretation is left to the authorities. Who is to define the concept of “support to international terrorism”? Who defines the limits between “terrorists” and “freedom conservationists”? The amendments to the law pertaining to the entry and stay of foreigners in Germany and to the law on asylum procedure are not designed to reinforce security. To the contrary, they reinforce the prejudices and resentments of the population.
N°6: China
The anti terrorist fight as an excuse to crackdown on opponents and minorities
At the end of October 2001, the Chinese parliament ratified two international treaties to fight terrorism: the international Convention against terrorist actions and Shangai Convention for the fight against terrorism, separatism and extremism. Sudden ratifications which were mostly used to trigger a violent crackdown on Muslim separatist movement Uighur, in the north-eastern region of Xinjiang, against Mongol separatists and against followers of Falungong spiritual movement.
At the end of the year, the minister of public security hardened a little further these crackdowns. He announced the creation of an office to coordinate antiterrorism fight. That bureau, which has a special police unit at its disposal, has already set ultimatums to banned groups that worked for the interests of Muslims from Xinjiang, Mongols and Falungong followers. According to each case, they have up to February 2002 to appear before officials of that bureau and “confess their illegal activities”. In return, the Justice will be more clement with them.
What remains is death sentence that, from now on, will be the sanction against alleged terrorists and their accomplices in China. Indeed, the Popular Republic is about to amend its penal code to punish more severely people fomenting terrorist actions, those who help them as well as originators of false alarms and even people circulating false information of terrorist nature. The new Chinese antiterrorist arsenal is denounced by freedom conservationists. Indeed they remind us that “China is an unfailing supporter of the international antiterrorist coalition since September 11 for it allows her to crackdown on disturbing minorities and opponents with complete impunity”.
N°7: Italy
Secret services allowed to act with complete impunity
In order to fight against terrorism, the Italian government has worked out a new law aiming at reforming its intelligence services. The bill plans that agents of intelligence (SISDE) and military (SISMI) services will be allowed, with complete impunity while under assignment, to commit offences except killing or injuring people. Theft, “savage” searches, eavesdropping “in a rough and ready way”, shadowing, interventions into private domains will no more require the support of a magistrate. Even better: while on mission, agents will be strictly forbidden to have any connection with the legal authorities. Their missions and interventions will be decided by the director of the office concerned in liaison with his minister in charge. They will be covered by the president of the council. At last, State secrecy will cover for fifteen years the documents inherent to the missions and offences committed.
N°8: India
Fight against terrorism to settle its problems with Pakistan
By mid-November 2001, the Indian government has unveiled its antiterrorist arsenal: the Edict for the prevention of terrorism (POTO). First minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, called on the support of heads of foreign states for the set-up he had put forward without waiting for parliament’s approval was greatly criticised. The opposition had denounced the text as “anti-democratic, liberticide, generating excess and all together useless. From now on, a suspect is liable to be jailed for thirty days without any justification from the authorities. Whoever has got a piece of information on alleged terrorists, including journalists, will have to inform the authorities for fear of proceedings”. For opponents to that system, “this text targets minorities, first thing and more particularly the Muslim communities of Jammu and from Cashmere who fear the enactment of that bill”.
The BJP party in power in India has indeed asked First Minister Atal Vajpayee to follow the example of the American military operation in Afghanistan, to eradicate internal terrorism. In a nutshell: in order to rid Cashmere of the armed groups supported by Pakistan its sworn enemy. That request followed the attack perpetrated on December 13 against the Indian parliament.
Under the pressure of members of parliament and organisations for the defence of liberties that antiterrorist law had to be amended. It is now in force for three years and not five. Moreover, the legislator has introduced control procedures.
N°9: The European Union
Painful harmonisation of the fight against antiterrorist
At the beginning of November 2001, the European Commission put forward a bill framing a decision pertaining to the harmonisation of the fight against terrorism throughout the countries of the Union. The purpose was to match the definition of terrorism with the sentences applied. that bill invited to controversy. The initial “unified” definition of terrorism was so wide that it could apply to any form of social conflict. The illegal seizure of infrastructures with a view to abridging seriously social and economic structures” was included in the scope of “terrorism”. “Anybody or a group encouraging these actions was becoming liable to seven-year imprisonment”. The organisations for the defence of collective and individual liberties have sharply denounced “the return of opinion offence”.
By mid-November, the Fifteen members have agreed on a new definition of terrorist acts. But they had a hard time finding an agreement on the list of offences that could be subjected to the delivery of a new European arrest warrant. Regarding the definition of terrorism, the Union had to accept a wording guaranteeing explicitly the freedom of association, of meeting, of expression, demonstration as well as the freedom of trade-union. As for the European arrest warrant, Italy and Ireland have refused to ratify a list of thirty offences giving way to systematic extradition. Italy opposed in particular the fact that offences linked to tax evasion or laundering be included in that list. While Luxembourg has asked for the European warrant to deal only with people liable to four-year imprisonment instead of one year as planned in the first place.
The European Commission expressed itself, “against including political organisations in a list of alleged terrorists common to the Fifteen members”. “To my knowledge, no political organisation sitting in the parliament of any of the member States is regarded as a terrorist group by the government of its country”, declared Leonello Gabrici, spokesman for the European Commission. This declaration was echoing the wish of Spain to include in that list the Batasuna party, political wing of the Basque terrorist organisation ETA.
N°10: Spain
The ETA, target of the antiterrorist fight
If the government of José Maria Aznar did not have its Parliament vote a specific antiterrorist law, it lead an offensive on the European front. And it managed to impose some of its points of view. The goal being to reinforce the pressure wielded on internal terrorism, namely the ETA, within the overall antiterrorist campaign. He obtained to have the Fifteen agree on the most controversial common definition of terrorism and to have them join its project of European arrest warrant.
N°11: Pakistan
Fundamentalist Muslims put under control
Godfather of the hardly democratic Afghan taliban for many years, Pakistan became, all at once, one the eulogists of antiterrorist fight. American pressure and allied military operations in Afghanistan are necessarily connected to that sudden political change. Therefore, madrassas, utter fundamentalist Koranic schools in which the taliban had been trained, kindly tolerated until then, have become undesirable from autumn 2001 onward. A computer file is going to be created in conjunction with the Americans to watch on teachers and pupils. Pakistanis president, the general Musharraf, restricted at the beginning of November, the use of loudspeakers on top of Mosques. From now on, calls to prayer alone are authorised. On the other hand, sermons and politico-religious speeches are banned. According to the newspaper “Dawn”, “the power wants to avoid that mullahs use the minarets to criticise its support of the United States”.
Another change: Whereas the country of the general Musharraf was one of the only States to have acknowledged the government of the taliban while offering a diplomatic platform, the taleb ambassador in Pakistan and spokesman of mollah Omar’s men firmly asked that press conferences during the military operations in Afghanistan be stopped. While beginning the year 2002, he was arrested by the Pakistanis authorities and put in the hands of American soldiers.
N°12: Kingdom of Jordan
Hardening of censorship
In the Kingdom of Jordan, the attacks of September 11 gave way to a sheer decline of democracy. Although national polls were to be set up, the power used the international context as an excuse and the tense situation on the West Bank to postpone sine die this ballot. Worse: On October 8 2001, the government enacted two laws. The first one, designed “to fight against terrorism”, rests on particularly open and fuzzy definitions and conceptions. Thus, anything likely to “abridge the Constitution is regarded as terrorist”. The sanctions planned go from life sentence to death sentence.
The amendment to the penal Code and its press-related articles has hardened a little further censorship and crackdown undergone by journalists. From now on, they are liable to prison if declared guilty of having expressed themselves openly on topics “that could breach national unity, divide the population or damage the image and the reputation of the State”.
N°13: Russia
The Afghan tree does not hide the forest of exactions in Chechnya
He shouted his head off, a real firebrand, so is the former Russian dissident Sergueï Kovalev, today honorary president of Memorial the organisation for the defence of human rights when taking a stand in the Chechnya conflict. Kovalev’ words are no cant words. Asked to comment on the wall of silence that has been surrounding the situation in Chechnya after Russia had rallied the antiterrorist coalition in the wake of the attacks of September 11, he denounces Westerners for their sudden blindness with respect to the exactions committed by Russian soldiers. “You don’t want to see anything”, he claims “Originally, the European council (which had appointed a emissary, NDLR) was to see to the observance of human rights in Chechnya. At the end of the day it sold itself.”
Westerners’ mild attitude toward de Vladimir Putin stirs up Sergueï Kovalev’s anger. “You, Stupid Westerners, you watch and do not understand that behind all that there is the hand of the KGB. The President comes from the KGB, he called his colleagues to power. What are you doing? You are licking the boots of that pathetic man.”
End of November, the OTAN reviewed its opinion and position on the Chechnya conflict since the attacks of September 11. This is what George Robertson, general secretary of the Alliance, said while on visit in Russia. “Now, they all understand that terrorism is prowling worldwide and is to be fought in common,” he declared hinting at Chechnya, “I came in Russia to build a safer future with the management of this country.”
N°14: Indonesia
An antiterrorist bill with “a taste of the Suharto’s year”
The Indonesian press has raised itself against some measures contained in the antiterrorist bill concocted by the government. The daily Jakarta Post did not twist its words: “The amalgams and inaccuracies contained in this text which could easily justify all kinds of crackdowns on the account of terrorism, remind Indonesians of the thirty dark years of Suharto regime.” Jakarta Post, like freedom conservationists, put the blame on the definition suggested and far too vague of terrorist acts. A definition that would enable simple offence of common right offences to be classified as “terrorist acts”.
N°15: Zimbabwe
Antiterrorist fight muzzles the opposition
Zimbabwean president Mugabe and his team use the fight against terrorism as an excuse to muzzle the opposition. A new legislation said to be “antiterrorist” threats with death or life imprisonment whoever would be guilty of “an act of revolt, crime, sabotage and terrorism”. Heavy jail sentences are also planned for journalists, Zimbabweans and foreigners, who “scathe the President’s authority”. That law worries the defenders of human rights and press freedom since president Mugabe regards as “terrorist” anyone who criticises his power.
Zimbabwean authorities however, have overstepped another threshold, assimilating foreign journalists working in that country with “terrorists”. Quoting the American position since September 11, the authorities have made public a list of foreign journalists accused of “helping terrorist activities in this country”. This list and accusations were repeated in the governmental newspaper Herald. “The journalists concerned should know that we agree with president Bush on the fact that anyone who finances, shelters or defends terrorists is a terrorist himself”, added the spokesman of the government.
