HUMAN RIGHTS BEST PROTECTION AGAINST INSECURITY AND TERROR

By Louise Arbour and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

GENEVA, Jun 1 2005 (IPS) - In the face of terrorism, the politics of fear call for a total surrender of liberty in favour of security, secrecy, randomness, racial profiling, involuntary renditions, and the use of torture, writes Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In this article, Arbour writes that the international human rights framework stands as a counterweight to the politics of fear. A response to insecurity based on human rights is both more balanced and rational, and presents the singular advantage of dismantling, rather than perpetrating, the root causes of insecurity. Arbour asserts that human rights do not impede the protection of national security but are, at least in democratic societies, at the heart of national identity. Indeed, in my view, a country and the ideals it stands for are as much at risk of destruction from the collapse of its human rights norms and the rule of law that protects them as they are from the explosion of bombs on its territory. The most profound insecurity does not emanate from foreign threats but from internal temptations to allow to erode the foundations upon which national identity is built. To fight insecurity within the framework of human rights is to fight with our strongest weapon: our deepest values. This is the protection of human security in the most profound sense.

As a judge in Canada and as prosecutor for the international tribunals for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR), I gained valuable insight into what underpins the most spontaneous acts of humanity, generosity and compassion, and also what lies behind the worst violations of human rights. Fear is often at the source of these actions, which are at both extremes of the spectrum of human interaction.

Globally, insecurity is fuelled by terrorism, the proliferation and relentlessness of armed conflicts, and the persistence of extreme poverty and deprivation in a world of visible comfort and consumerism for the fortunate.

Fear is at once the best and the worst of advisors. It triggers an appropriate sense of alertness but may produce a premature, irrational response.

In the face of terrorism, the politics of fear call for a total surrender of liberty in favour of security, secrecy, randomness, racial profiling, involuntary renditions, and the use of torture. In armed conflict, fear often gives rise to an escalation of militarism, repression, indoctrination, and the use of child soldiers.

In the face of extreme poverty, the politics of fear can have a perverse two-pronged effect: it provides an inappropriate survival tool for the poor, one that leads to radicalism, gangsterism, and religious extremism. It can also provide an inappropriate tool for the self-preservation of the rich, one that leads to exclusion, the “gated” mentality, and escapism through consumerism.

These consequences of the politics of fear globally translate into racism and xenophobia, which are nothing but ‘fear of the other’. The politics of fear feeds upon itself, and leads to more fear.

The international human rights framework stands as a counterweight to the politics of fear. It provides the only reasoned and legitimate alternative to irrational reactions triggered by fear.

A response to insecurity based on human rights is both more balanced and rational, and presents the singular advantage of dismantling, rather than perpetrating, the root causes of insecurity.

Human rights are not a luxury that can be enjoyed after development and security are fully secured. Rather, they are a precondition of both, an antidote to the politics of fear which perpetuates both underdevelopment and insecurity.

Human rights provide a framework for resolving disputes –even those engaging our most fundamental values and beliefs– that relies on rationality, impartiality, and reason rather than force, intransigence, and intolerance.

As the preamble of the Universal Declaration makes clear, only human rights protected by the rule of law prevent individuals from being ”compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression”.

Human rights ensure the surrender of hostility to dignity and liberty. They are fundamentally a recognition of the rights of others. When we are asked to decide how much of our liberty we are willing to abandon for our security, we are asked, in reality, how much of the liberty of others we are willing to sacrifice for our own security: how many of my compatriots am I willing to allow to be transferred to countries where they will likely be tortured in order for me to feel secure? How many foreigners am I willing to allow to be detained indefinitely without charges if that is what it takes for me to feel secure?

Obviously, we never hear the question put this way: am I willing to subject myself to arbitrary detention or to the risk of torture so that my neighbour feels safer?

Human rights do not impede the protection of national security; they are, at least in democratic societies, at the heart of national identity. Indeed, in my view, a country and the ideals it stands for are as much at risk of destruction from the collapse of its human rights norms and the rule of law that protects them as they are from the explosion of bombs on its territory.

The most profound insecurity does not emanate from foreign threats but from internal temptations to allow to erode the foundations upon which national identity is built; it may not be as immediate and palpable as that triggered by a bomb, but it is perhaps deeper. To fight insecurity within the framework of human rights is to fight with our strongest weapon: our deepest values. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)