CLASSIFIED | POLITICS | TERRORISM | OPINION | VIEWS

Do terrorists have Geneva Rights?

Shenali Waduge

There are roughly 385 terrorist & insurgency groups worldwide, of which 250 are active. What makes definition of terrorism difficult is the agenda's that cover the existence of each individual terrorist group.

Countries like the US, UK, EU, Canada, India ban terrorist organizations mainly to cover terrorist activity taking place on their home soil, these proscriptions have helped little to curb the rise & spread of terrorism across international borders - the less said of their indirect role in encouraging terrorism the better.

The UN, the beacon of world peace, however does not have its own terrorist list, which explains why the UN ends up only denouncing terrorist attacks on innocent civilians after they have taken place when the damage is done to life & property. It also explains why the Government of Sri Lanka had to object to the statement issued by the UNESCO Secretary General Koichiro Matsuura who condemned the "airstrike" on the Voice of Tiger radio station since Mr. Matsuura failed to verify before making the statement that the VOT was in fact used for LTTE propaganda. This & similar errors create the mistake of justifying the existence of terrorism. The verbal denunciations of terrorist organizations by international forces alone will not suffice to treat the cancer of terrorism.

Terrorists are well aware that whatever dastardly act they commit the statements that follow condemning the attacks are intangible & these terrorists are prepared to take up such denunciations as we have seen over the years. One or two arrests of their fund raisers is hardly likely to affect them either. Thus, the international community & the UN need to promote these denunciations a step further to decisive actions that should attempt to target the leaderships of all the terrorist groups & salvage the combatants & most importantly introduce them to normal living patterns.

We are talking about a generation of youth now climatized to living life in the wilderness, robbed of their youth, having no choice but to live away from the comfort of their parents & family in jungles or places of hiding with weapons that become their only trusted friend.

What has the international community done to salvage the future of these combatants of the 385 or so terrorist groups operating worldwide? Can the UN give figures as to how many youth through the international pressure channels they have saved from the clutches of the terrorist leaders & introduced to normal living? The international efforts to curb recruitment of terrorists have not reaped the positive results that the public expected.

Human rights have become a term being used randomly & loosely for convenience - many are even obsessed with the term. Let us ask ourselves whether terrorists that target humans in a bid to cause mayhem & destruction as a means to prove a point to a Government should expect human rights for themselves in return. All terrorists are aware that the international community offers ample opportunity for discourse, negotiations, conflict resolution & all the other terms being used globally to engage in discussion to reach a compromise to problems - with the awareness of this alternative why would terrorists wish to enter a phase wherein they have to end up going underground & using illegal means to raise funds to purchase arms & enter into a period where they practically create anarchy in that State? What about the rights of those humans they nullify by placing a bomb or using a suicide cadre to blow people to smithereens? It is in this context that we need to examine whether terrorists should or should not be given human rights.

We are all in agreement that terrorists whatever their warped designs may be are of course part of the human species. Yet, we must not forget that they lead proxy human lives & in essence end up becoming proxy soldiers that are accountable for making a country & its people suffer severe economic & social hardships in addition to leaving their own cadres without family & home & subjecting them to a unhealthy life, denying them proper nutrients in their growing years - basically denying them the 3 fundamental rights - food, clothing & shelter.

All terrorist leaders should be tried in international courts of law for denying their cadres these three essential human requirements to engage their young lives into a life in the wilderness with no hope of a safe return. When they are grouped to create anarchy & trained to kill how can they find fault when the soldier fires upon them? If the international community along with the UN can question Governments regarding issues related to human rights why do these international bodies not take steps to question & hold accountable the terrorist leaders for their gross negligence of the rights of their cadres?

Mistreatment of prisoners is nothing new. It has happened for centuries & is unlikely to cease whatever international law or however much human rights activists demand Governments to stop. Why were the Nazis not given such rights during WW11? The question of human rights raises the questions of why certain nations are not "pulled up" for their role in abuses of human rights? The indulgence of the international community to depict less powerful nations of human rights violations & turn a blind eye to bigger states for their role in violating human rights sets the pace of a barrage of questions - almost every State faced with conflicts are possibly guilty in some sense of violating human rights (however menial) & in turn the terrorists of those States are equally guilty of doing the same more so for their cadres then the POWs namely the soldiers that they capture.

Exponents of human rights to terrorists tend to look at the due human rights per se rather than balancing the rights against the many atrocities that the terrorists commit upon innocent civilians? Ignoring the lack of decency towards innocent civilians does not make any empathy for terrorists who will not hesitate to use their guns upon anyone that they see as a threat.

This is something that any military personnel will not do. In a war zone, we must understand the state of the soldier who has very little time to assess the situation. Why should his decision to use the trigger be extended to allow the militant the opportunity to execute the soldier just to suffice the human rights exponents the right to their argument that terrorists should be given human rights? Surely the soldier's rights should be placed far above that of any terrorist who has chosen his/her path & whose aim is to kill anyone coming between their "cause".

The Abu Ghraib prison scandal exposing the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, the denial of POW status under Geneva Convention to Al Qaeda & Taliban fighters, the interrogation methods used at Guantanamo Bay have become issues that have been raised to showcase the need for changes to rights given to prisoners. Obviously the US is angered by what happened on 9/11 but will such treatment ever nullify what took place in 2001? The incident in Iraq however goes against Article 17 of the Geneva Convention "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever".

The military justice systems are in place to deal with individual soldiers who take the law into their own hands. What about if the terrorists end up making the same offence? These are non-state actors & its members violate normal & accepted principles by targeting innocent civilians, carrying out surprise attacks etc- how can they have POW status when they carry out guerilla warfare? Did they not give up the status of being a "human" by the "inhuman" acts they commit on a daily basis? Would humans ever think of blowing up people, wearing a suicide kit knowing that one is giving up ones life along with scores of others, people who are innocent - do these terrorists really want human rights or is it a band of others that wish it for them? There are no laws that govern terrorism but there are laws that apply for any person arrested & it becomes an easy endeavor for legal representatives for terrorists to place the "human rights" card for leniency as in the case of the UK terror suspects.

The UK having signed the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951 & adopted into domestic law under Human Rights Act in 1998 prevents terrorists from being deported from the UK even after serving a jail sentence. However, there is much debate to change this stand to suit the "new age of terrorism" since there is likelihood of more terrorists coming into Britain. As this article is being written the UK Home Office has arrested 3 men in connection with fund raising on behalf of the LTTE - this is a very positive move especially in the light of the LTTE claiming to have its offices in London, its theoretician once a resident there & countless fund raising openly taking place with British parliamentarians also joining in by even visiting LTTE programs & even making statements on behalf of the LTTE against the Government.

There are likely to be very few except of course those who indulge in the obsession of human rights mantra who would agree that terrorists deserve any human rights - though they should not be ill-treated as the US soldiers did to the Iraqi POWs.

It is ironical that the very people who cared less for the deaths of those they set out to destroy seek haven in the international legal systems that may eventually protect them when they did not resort to using those same systems to address any grievances before taking to guerilla warfare?

The world surely needs to know that all terrorists are just criminals behind the faE7ade they project.

"The terrible thing about TERRORISM is that ultimately it destroys those who practice it. Slowly but surely, as they try to extinguish life in others, the light within them dies."-- Terry Waite

Shenali Waduge

Disclaimer: The comments contained within this website are personal reflection only and do not necessarily reflect the views of the LankaWeb. LankaWeb.com offers the contents of this website without charge, but does not necessarily endorse the views and opinions expressed within. Neither the LankaWeb nor the individual authors of any material on this Web site accept responsibility for any loss or damage, however caused (including through negligence), which you may directly or indirectly suffer arising out of your use of or reliance on information contained on or accessed through this Web site.
All views and opinions presented in this article are solely those of the surfer and do not necessarily represent those of LankaWeb.com. .

BACK TO LATEST NEWS

DISCLAIMER