Letter to Belgian Prime Minister Guy VerhofstadtPrime Minister
Guy Verhofstadt
Rue de la Loi
16 1000 BRUXELLES
Dear Prime Minister Verhofstadt:
We are writing on the eve of your meeting with U.S. President George Bush to urge your close attention to the significant human rights concerns raised by joint E.U.-U.S. efforts to combat terrorism.
We condemn the horrific September 11 attacks as a crime against humanity and welcome E.U. efforts to prevent the recurrence of such atrocities and bring those responsible to justice. We are equally appreciative of the sentiment expressed by Foreign Minister Michel last week in Washington, that „combating terrorism is both about protecting the lives of our citizens from terrorist attacks and about safeguarding the fundamental values of our open democratic and multicultural societies.“ As this comment suggests, it is essential that in the course of this anti-terrorism campaign the E.U. and its member states scrupulously adhere to international standards and maintain the crucial distinctions between the perpetrators of crimes and the innocent, between combatants and the civilians who may surround them, between those who commit atrocities and those who simply share their religious beliefs, ethnicity, or national origin. Equally important, the E.U. should insist that its allies in the fight against terrorism also uphold these standards.
We are deeply concerned that these fundamental human rights norms will be challenged in the wake of the September 11 attacks, with some politicians and policy makers arguing that the concern for civilians and non-combatants dictated by international humanitarian law is a luxury they cannot afford in this „war.“ Others will argue that the fight against terrorism requires fewer rights for suspects or tougher measures against refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants. Still others may cynically exploit the fight against terrorism to justify on-going or increased repression of their political opponents.
We hope that alongside measures to combat terrorism, the E.U. will undertake an equally rigorous campaign to address the humanitarian impact of the war on terrorism, to ensure that internal E.U. security measures respect fundamental rights, and to remain vigilant in its stance against human rights abuse throughout the world, particularly against any opportunistic use of the fight against terrorism to justify violations. Our specific concerns and recommendations on each of these fronts are outlined below.
Humanitarian Relief
Afghanistan is on the verge of a massive humanitarian catastrophe, with five million people, most of them women and children, displaced both internally and externally, and the civilian population at risk of starvation. Deplorable conditions brought on by twenty years of civil war, continuing human rights violations under the Taliban regime, and severe drought have only been exacerbated in recent weeks by the closure of all borders with Afghanistan's neighbors, the withdrawal of international relief agency staff, the seizure of food supplies by Taliban authorities and the shutting down of U.N. communication networks within Afghanistan, as well as large new movements of people in anticipation of possible U.S.-led military strikes.
It is imperative that the E.U. and the U.S. develop a strategy to minimize the civilian impact of their efforts to combat terrorism and to address the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan and neighboring countries. Human Rights Watch believes that the following are critical elements of any such strategy:
- All neighboring countries and countries in the region should reopen their borders to ensure that refugees from Afghanistan enjoy their right to seek asylum and relief agencies have full and unhindered access to civilians in need. These countries' legitimate security concerns can be met by screening out armed elements at the borders.
- As a matter of urgency, host and donor governments, and United Nations agencies should develop a coordinated strategy to identify and separate militants and armed elements from civilian refugees. Separation should take place inside host countries at the border and involve an international monitoring presence.
- Displaced persons should not be forced to remain in camps, safe havens, or humanitarian zones within Afghanistan, but rather they should be permitted to seek refuge in neighboring states.
- Governments outside the region, particularly industrialized states, should explore emergency resettlement possibilities for Afghan refugees.
- Donor countries need to make emergency commitments to the United Nations and international aid agencies and Afghanistan's neighbors to meet the humanitarian needs of the displaced and civilian populations. E.U. humanitarian assistance, augmented yesterday by a new 4 million Euro commitment, are welcome; but the mobilization of resources on a far grander scale will be required just to meet UNHCR's emergency appeal for $252 million, let alone longer term needs.
- Donor governments, U.N. and international relief agencies must urgently explore ways in which humanitarian assistance can reach all affected civilians inside Afghanistan, especially the internally displaced.
E.U. Security Measures
Human Rights Watch recognizes the heightened concern for the development of internal E.U.-wide security measures in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. However, we urge the E.U. to proceed with caution, through transparent and deliberate decision-making procedures, to ensure that any security measures taken provide adequate safeguards to guarantee the protection of individual civil liberties. A number of recent E.U. proposals to combat terrorism contain elements of concern to Human Rights Watch:
- The European Commission Proposal for a Council Framework Decision to Combat Terrorism of September 19, 2001, provides a broad definition of terrorism that threatens to quell legitimate dissent. Human Rights Watch is concerned that public demonstrations and protests-such as those against nuclear weapons and those in favor of more transparent procedures governing international financial institutions-could be subject to the provisions of the proposal, thus infringing on the rights to freedom of association and assembly.
·- The European Commission Proposal for Council Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant of September 19, 2001 is meant to replace the current system of extradition between E.U. member states with mutual recognition of court judgments ordering a case referred to another court pursuant to a European arrest warrant. Human Rights Watch hopes that these new procedures will not come at the expense of safeguards giving surrendering countries an explicit exemption from honoring warrants in cases where the issuing country may fail to observe fair trial standards. This will be particularly important as the E.U. explores the possibility of extending the European arrest warrant system to E.U. applicant states and other non-member states.
·Both the Conclusions and Plan of Action of the Extraordinary European Council Meeting of September 21, 2001 and the Commission Proposal for a Council Framework Decision to Combat Terrorism include measures to identify terrorist organizations and criminalize their activities. The Commission Proposal for a Council Framework Decision to Combat Terrorism would make „promoting of, supporting of or participating in a terrorist group“ a criminal offense with a penalty of up to seven years imprisonment. Human Rights Watch is concerned that broad, undefined terms such as „promoting“ and „supporting“ could result in findings of „guilt by association“ of persons sharing the same political ideology, nationality, or ethnicity as persons who commit acts of terrorism. Indeed, with mere expressions of sympathy for terrorists one could run afoul of such provisions.
·The Conclusions adopted by the extraordinary meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of September 20, 2001, include an invitation to the Commission „to examine urgently the relationship between safeguarding internal security and complying with international protection obligations and instruments.“ This conclusion suggests that E.U. authorities will be exploring ways in which E.U. member states can expel or exclude from their territory a refugee proven to pose a threat to national security. The obligation of states not to deport in any manner a refugee to a country where their „life or freedom would be threatened“ is an established principle of international customary law and enshrined in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Provisions do exist under this Convention to expel or return a refugee for whom „there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country.“ This provision must be applied strictly and according to its terms and sufficient procedural safeguards should be put in place to protect refugees from discriminatory exclusions based solely on nationality, ethnicity or religion. In any event, refugees must be protected against deportation, either directly or indirectly, to a country where their lives or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
While we understand the security imperative that has informed these recent proposals, we urge you to ensure that no such measures infringe the basic human rights of people in E.U. member states.
Opportunistic Crackdowns
Human Rights Watch is seriously concerned that abusive governments will take advantage of the September 11 attacks to step up their repressive practices. Some will expect latitude to silence their critics as a quid pro quo for their cooperation in the fight against terrorism. Others will try to justify their internal crackdowns on perceived political opponents, peaceful advocates of separatism, or religious activists as a necessary part of the global anti-terrorism effort. Either way, these opportunists will undermine the basic human rights principles that were under assault by the September 11 attacks.
Already these tendencies are apparent. Russian President Vladimir Putin has pointed to alleged links between Osama bin Laden and rebels in Chechnya and suggested that Russia and the west face „a common foe,“ implying that Russia now expects international acquiescence in a campaign that has indiscriminately targeted civilians. We were deeply troubled to hear that yesterday German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder validated President Putin's expectations, commenting that „as regards Chechnya, there will be and must be a more differentiated evaluation in world opinion.“
The Chinese foreign ministry has said that the United States should give its „support and understanding in [China's] fight against terrorists and separatists“ - a reference to Tibet as well as to the Muslim region of Xinjiang, where Chinese authorities are engaged in a campaign of arrests and summary executions, with little or no due process. In Israel, before the current efforts to restore a cease fire, Defense Minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer bragged that on the Thursday after the attacks his forces had killed fourteen Palestinians, „with the world remaining absolutely silent.“ Egyptian Prime Minister Atef Abeid lashed out at the United States and United Kingdom for „calling on us to give these terrorists their 'human rights,'„ referring to criticism of torture and unfair trials. „After these horrible crimes committed in New York and Virginia,“ he added, „maybe Western countries should begin to think of Egypt's own highly abusive fight against terror as their new model.“ In Macedonia, Prime Minister Georgievski said NATO should now be more supportive of his government's sometimes abusive campaign against its predominantly Muslim Albanian opponents.
The danger of such a response may be particularly acute in Central Asia, which will be a staging area for operations in Afghanistan. This region faces a genuine armed threat from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which has been allegedly linked to Osama bin Laden's organization. But it is also home to brutal dictatorships that use tools of repression they inherited from the Soviet Union against any political or religious group they cannot control. Since 1997, for example, Uzbekistan has arrested thousands of non-violent, pious Muslims for offenses such as praying at the wrong mosques, reading the wrong religious literature and listening to the wrong sermons, sentencing many to terms of up to 20 years in prison.
As the E.U. and the U.S. build the coalition of states to fight terrorism, we hope that you will make clear that you will not tolerate opportunistic crackdowns, and that you consider respect for human rights and international humanitarian law a necessary element of an effective anti-terrorism strategy. In particular, we hope that the E.U. and its member states will:
·- Refuse to provide assistance to the military, paramilitary, law enforcement, and intelligence forces of abusive governments unless credible safeguards are in place to ensure it is not used against peaceful opponents or to commit human rights violations.
·Make clear in public statements and in private diplomacy that the E.U. and its member states will expect from its allies what it will demand of itself: that counter-terrorism efforts respect civilian life, and that they distinguish between those who commit atrocities like the attacks of September 11th and those who simply share their religious or political beliefs, ethnicity or national origin.
Instruct ambassadors around the world to watch for statements or actions by governments that take advantage of these tragic events to advance domestic campaigns of repression and publicly condemn them wherever they occur.
Continue to report fully and candidly any human rights violations committed by allies in the coalition against terrorism, and use available instruments such the human rights conditions on Partnership and Cooperation Agreements without regard to a country's place in that coalition.
Avoid cooperative activities that will be read by abusive governments-and their innocent victims-as implying support for abusive practices.
Taking these steps will not rule out cooperation with any country or otherwise compromise the campaign against terrorism. It would simply send a message that how the coalition fights will be as important as what it is fighting. We know that these issues are at the forefront of policy-makers minds in Washington and we hope that our observations contribute to productive discussions with your U.S. interlocutors tomorrow. We look forward to addressing these critical issues with you and your colleagues in the weeks and months ahead.
|
