The struggle against terrorism shouldn’t violate human rights – Anver Kafarli

After the events of 11 September anti-terror struggle gained more priority which to certain extent moved other not less important issues back. It concerns issues connected to democracy and human rights development, struggle against poverty and unemployment. Unfortunately, in most cases anti-terror policy is limited to primitive punitive measures, although considerable internal and external resources have been involved in. According to International Helsinki Human Rights Federation from 10 December 2001, “such measures include strengthening of police authorities; limiting the rights of suspected terrorists arrested by police and setting up special courts for legal investigation of cases; repressing the nonviolent political and religious trends, toughening refugee and immigration policy and also deportation of persons suspected even in the slightest relations with terrorist organizations”.
Stated measures are typical human rights violations within the anti terror campaign.
As a rule, emigrants become the first victims of such measures.
It should be realized that application of only force methods in anti terror struggle may create negative ethnic stereotypes such as equating terrorists with emigrants and consequently ignite xenophobia and racism in the society. Only this might cause surge of extremism in Russia, where the fight against the so-called “Chechen terrorism” provoked distinctly negative attitude of common people to persons of “Caucasian” and “Asian” nationalities.
Similar phenomenon takes place in Western Europe, where rise in rightwing radical political power is already observed on the basis of anti emigrants’ appeals.
Experts of the Helsinki Federation warn that tendency to quick adoption of new anti terror statutes and rules, which threaten human rights and breach international human rights standards in countries of Western Europe and Northern America are the dangerous examples for countries in transition period.
After Azerbaijan has joined the global anti terror coalition it is not hard to notice the distinct deviation from some democratic principles of human rights protection in the country. The matter is that the struggle against terrorism may upset the balance between legal security measures and human rights not only once, but also may become a justification for systematic violations of human rights which is the most dangerous.
Certain political forces using slogans about necessity of providing safety and stability as a cover may establish total control over the most spheres of the social life. Unfortunately, security has always been and remains the most convenient problem for political manipulation. The accent only on power methods in the struggle against terrorism and extremism is not only senseless, but even worse promoting protester moods and consequently extending the influence of terrorist factors.
The global anti terror campaign, which was picked up by great enthusiasm in our country, creates a favorable informational political field justifying application of force operations or tougher force policy as which increases enforcement structures role and positions in the Azerbaijan Republic. Particularly in the current situation special services gain an additional significance which will enable them to become an independent institute of political power. Possibility of displacement of informational centre towards special services increases, because the informational management de facto is in the frameworks of special services. Therefore, the political centre may be also displaced what will cause the strengthening political groupings connected to the special services.
Thus, enforcement component must be present in anti terror campaign, but not prevail.
Terrorism mustn’t be considered as a simple use of power for political aims. Unlike other phenomena terrorism has a reductive inner structure that ensures high capacity for self-repair and even mutation. Therefore, the anti terror policy must be directed to limiting areas of its vital activity. The results of our investigations directed to exposure of the regional map of terrorism expansion on the Caucuses showed that the areas of spreading of the terrorism are much wider than the zone of extremist activity. Thereby the traditional measures against terrorism must be conducted in the core of such spaces.
The structure of anti terror system must be simplified, too. The main elements in such system are “receptors” which is to ensure timely identification of straight and indirect threats for security. The role of “receptors” has to be place not only on enforcement structures, because they may to distort information aiming to create artificially crisis situation to strengthen their positions. Therefore, specialized analytical structures aimed to study and detect general conditions facilitating terrorism should be involved in the role of “receptors”.
Another section is “the centre of studying the received information”. Functions of such section may be carried out not only special anti terror centers, but also corresponding committees of parliament. Then follows “a decision taking block”. Security Council and other state agencies are entrusted with this function. One of the conditions is that the extraordinary bodies on local and national levels must be attached to Security Council. But the on Fulfillment of various decisions must be controlled by corresponding committees and commission of parliament, because entrusting Security Council with these responsibilities may bring to monopolization of all process of taking anti crisis decision, as it was in the former Soviet Union.