Terror compels ‘revisit’ of national security vs human rights debate

December 24, 2014, 12:00 pm

article_image

Indian activists hold lighted candles and placards during a vigil in Mumbai on December 22, 2014, held for schoolchildren and teachers killed in an attack by Taliban militants on an army-run school in Peshawar. Pakistan plans to execute around 500 militants in coming weeks, officials said, after the government lifted a moratorium on the death penalty in terror cases following a Taliban school massacre. Six militants have been hanged since December 19 amid rising public anger over the December 16 slaughter in the northwestern city of Peshawar, which left 149 people dead including 133 children. AFP

A seemingly emotional statement by the Al-Qaeda to the effect that its ‘heart is bursting’ over the recent mass student killings in the revolting and heart-rending terror attack on a Peshawar school is proof that public outrage against the brutality in question is having an impact of sorts on extremist circles in South Asia. But the Al-Qaeda reaction could in no way mitigate the horror of the unconscionable and devastating attack which claimed well over 150 young lives.

However, there is no denying that unreserved condemnation of terror in any form should be persisted with by publics all over the world. The fact that people are occupying centre stage in these protests is something to be warmly welcomed but the hope of all progressive sections worldwide ought to be that governments would throw their weight behind the people on these issues. It cannot be taken for granted that governments would take to public causes of grave importance as a matter of course, as it were. For, in the case of authoritarian governments in particular, human rights questions are not treated by them with the gravity these matters deserve. And South and South-West Asia are abounding with repressive governments.

Nevertheless, current public protests in Pakistan over the school terror should be unreservedly approved and backed by civilian publics and democratic states all over the world. In fact the world should come out in support of the Pakistani people in this their hour of need. It is a matter of profound concern that this is not happening to the desired degree. Why the Sri Lankan public, which has suffered terribly at the hands of terrorists, is not adequately showing solidarity with the Pakistani people, is an issue worth probing. Have we, Sri Lankans, desentisized ourselves to political terror and its costly consequences over the years?

On the other hand, are governments focusing sharply on the dominant and essential issues growing out of terror? The usual reaction of most states is to adopt tough law-and-order measures to terrorism with the hope that these would prove adequate even in the long term to resolve the issues at hand. But are they?

National security is of crucial concern to governments and there is no denying that this need must be met. But would it suffice to ensure national security by adopting only strong law-and-order measures to terror, which latter impinges strongly on a country’s security? Terror attacks of the kind which occurred in Pakistan should compel governments and publics to ‘revisit’ these questions. The quality of governance would suffer badly if we do not do so.

These matters need urgent addressing because countries facing ‘terror’ are adopting measures which have a negative impact on human rights and their sustenance in the face of national security concerns. There is the case of Kenya, for example, whose attempts to pass into law, strong anti-terror measures, are proving highly controversial and politically divisive. The Kenyan government is reportedly being taken to task by the country’s Opposition over the relevant legislation which is seen as negatively impacting civil and political rights, including the Right to Information.

It is not often realized by states of the developing world in particular that fundamental rights cannot be bartered for national security and ‘development’.If rights come to be compromised by states there would be no development worth talking about.In short, there could be no trade-offs between rights and development. These dimensions of national well being develop hand-in-hand. Some Scandinavian countries are proof of this truth.

However, repressive states in our part of the world have laboured under the illusion that ‘development’ and security could be had without the provisioning and sustenance of fundamental rights.The fact that these states have come to be torn apart, sooner rather than later, by political and social discord is the evidence of the inseparability of security, development and rights. If people are deprived of their rights, they would revolt eventually and this would bring to nought all ‘development’ efforts. Strong arm tactics by governments to these upheavals only compound the crises concerned.

The need for governments to provide the Right to Information, for instance, clinches our point. It is public awareness of social and economic reality that enables people to demand development of states.That is, public awareness of these issues, promoted by the Right to Information and a responsible press, enables the people to demand from their law-makers, the essentials for a stable material existence. This process keeps progressive, democratic governments on their toes and compels them to usher equitable growth. Therefore, the Right to Information is of crucial significance to responsible, good governance.

However, unfortunately, some states see the Right to Information in a negative light. Repressive governments, in particular, see this right as having destabilizing consequences for states.Hence, their efforts to stifle the mass media, which are instrumental in promoting public awareness on crucial national issues, in the name of ‘security’.

Such repressive governments should be seen as being in the same league as extremist outfits such as the Islamic State and its backers who are in an effort to systematically weaken the media by killing journalists.

The considerable number of journalists killed in the ‘Killing Fields’ of Asia this year, is the evidence that in the national security vs rights debate, it is the former that is gaining the upper hand.

This is a most unfortunate development which needs to be arrested immediately. A free and responsible press needs to be seen as a cornerstone of development.And it is only the latter which can help in ushering national security, for, a development-starved people would eventually rise in revolt against repressive governments.

Accordingly, it is important that the debate centering on security and rights is ‘revisited’ and thoroughly examined by governments and publics. A blinkered view of these issues could very well mean national decline and decay.