If only civil society was taken seriously: Reflections on the fifth anniversary of the tragedy of 11 September 2001
Release Date: 09 September 2006
By Kumi Naidoo, CIVICUS Secretary-General
Dear e-CIVICUS Subscribers,
In the immediate wake of the tragic events of 11 September 2001, political leaders, activists and journalists took turns predicting the long term political and social consequences. Some questioned whether it was the feared expression of a ‘clash of civilisations’, or prophesised an imminent World War III. Others reflected on past responses to terrorism, and feared, both privately and in public, that the subsequent inappropriately named ‘war against terror’ would lead to curtailed political and civil rights, internationally and domestically.
Recognising this critical moment, CIVICUS along with other civil society organisations, released a joint civil society statement shortly after the events. The statement urged a tempered approach --one which ensured security without sacrificing human rights. It appealed to leaders to curtail emotional responses, and be “motivated by the demand for justice, not revenge, and by the pursuit of peace.”
In the five years following 9/11, the world has witnessed the introduction of numerous repressive counter-terrorism measures. While claiming to prevent terrorism, such laws have restricted the rights and freedoms vital for democratic governance and expression, particularly the rights to assembly, association and expression, which are of course guaranteed by international human rights law. Official and secretive wars have been waged, and continue to be waged, to uproot elusive terrorist threats. Barriers to the movement of refugees and immigrants have been erected and much more.
While remembering those who tragically died, this fifth anniversary must also force us to ask the difficult but pertinent question: have these laws, wars and barriers brought us greater safety and security?
Conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and more recently in Lebanon have caused huge loss of life, and mass upheavals and displacements of people. Harassment and stereotyping of Muslims and Arab citizens has created divisions in many minds and our neighbourhoods. Restrictions on refugees entering countries have resulted in longer and more dangerous waits in limbo, and the promotion of riskier illegal migration. We have globalised financial flows and trade (even though these are regimes are still rooted in injustice), and facilitated international communication and information, but at the same time, shut our eyes and ears to each other.
The fear of terrorism has been used to justify restrictions on the very same rights the international community has struggled to guarantee through 50 years of conventions and treaties. In states already prone to repression of civil and political rights, such as Belarus, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Zimbabwe, Swaziland and Russia, the war against terror has been used to justify even more draconian measures. And the list continues - Jordon and Bahrain are currently vying to pass controversial anti-terrorism laws, widely criticised as potentially harmful to fundamental freedoms.
Seemingly even in states that like to seem themselves as exporters of democracy such as the USA and the UK have witnessed terrorism policies slowly erode civil liberties and basic human rights.
While the elusive threat of terrorism remains, and according to some political leaders, continues to grow, it is our democratic institutions which suffer. As Micheal Iganatieff, a former head of Harvard’s Centre for Human Rights said in this week’s Economist: “It is the response to terrorism, rather than terrorism itself, that does democracy most harm”.
As freedoms are restricted, the space for citizens and civil society to legitimately engage with government and international institutions is being narrowed. For example, in Ethiopia and Belarus, activists involved in peaceful electoral observation activities during recent presidential elections have been labelled as terrorists, and have been accused of being involved in conspiracies to overthrow their respective governments. In Uzbekistan, a peaceful mass demonstration, when confronted by state violence, led to hundreds of deaths, subsequent mass terrorism trials and a clampdown on human rights organisations. In Ethiopia, where two leaders of the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (www.whiteband.org), Daniel Bekele and Netsanet Demissie, who I visited in prison in April, have been held now for a year and who are being charged with treason as a result of being associated with peaceful protests against the what was seen as a flawed elections process.
Five years on from 9/11, the world remains no less safe from terrorism, but tragically, it has instead become more afraid and less free. As civil society asked just weeks after 9/11, again we demand of our leaders -- do not let our fundamental freedoms fall victim to fear.
CIVICUS’ programme Civil Society Watch is dedicated to defending civil society’s fundamental rights to freedom of association, expression and assembly around the world. For more information, please visit www.civicus.org or www.civilsocietywatch.org. Subscribe to the CSW Monthly Bulletin by emailing cswcommunity@civicus.org.
We also are challenged now as civil society to rethink our own role so that we might more creatively and effectively address the real threat of terrorism in such a manner that we uphold human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The recent admission by President Bush, after several earlier denials of secret CIA prisons in Europe just last week raises troubling questions. How can we rebuild our faith in political leadership when they blatantly lie about important issues of public policy and practice? What really are we defending, if we systematically undermine certain fundamental tenets of democracy in the name of the “war on terror”? How do we respond to the reality that the very actions of the “war on terrorism” has undoubtedly fuelled and grown terrorism? Can civil society play a role in dissuading people to turn to terrorism and instead for them to articulate their grievances, however illegitimate they might be to some, in legal and peaceful activities?
In January 2003, shortly before the illegal war against Iraq, I debated US Attorney General John Ashcroft at the World Economic Forum, on the topic: How will the war on terrorism shape the future? In my comments I was guided by the International Civil Society Statement issued 10 days after the tragedy. I urged him to trust citizens and make them part of the solutions and to recognise that unless we have a more comprehensive approach to security, one that embraces human security in its entirety, rather than narrowly placing all ones eggs in a national security basket, we would be heading for disaster. This is one of several examples recently when one wishes one was wrong. But sadly, this was not the case. I also urged him to remember that those that planned and executed the attacks were men; and now those that have the power to determine an appropriate response are in the main men. The absence of gender equality in our governance structures is a critical successful factor if we are to address the challenges of security or any other problem that humanity faces.
But at this time as we reflect on five years later, it is important to remember those families and friends who lost their loved ones and the thousands of volunteers who came forward to offer support. During that time, we saw the best and worst of humanity. The challenge for all of us is to look at how we can continuously look for the many positive things that ordinary citizens can bring to our public life and not let fear overtake us.
In Solidarity,
Kumi Naidoo
Below you will find all previous columns published within e-CIVICUS editions.
