It is not a secret that the United States of America, as a political and economic entity, carries impressive influence over the decision making power in countries across the globe. Ever since September 11, 2001, the U.S. has coordinated an international “war on terror,” requesting the legislative support of all countries in the form of new anti-terrorism laws. However, there have been mixed responses, with some countries unwilling to pass the necessary legislation, despite pressure from the U.S. Especially in the Third World, the focus and goals of anti-terrorism laws have shifted away from global peace and security to political “brown-nosing” and situational opportunism. The reasons for this shift are based largely on the facts that terrorism is not as much of a priority in their societies as compared to the U.S., they receive nothing tangible in exchange for cooperation, and because sentiments on reduced liberties are regionally sensitive.
Terrorism is not a new phenomenon, but rather, it has been magnified since the Twin Towers in New York collapsed in 2001. Third World countries are not unfamiliar with terrorism; however, they most likely have other more pressing issues at the forefront. In their book, Allied Against Terrorism: What’s Needed to Strengthen Worldwide Commitment, Alistair Millar and Eric Rosand claim that despite recent local terrorist attacks in 1998 and 2002 that resulted in hundreds of deaths, citizens in Kenya are still inclined to view terrorism as a Western problem (Millar and Rosand 2006). A major factor in their evaluation is that their country has been ravaged by HIV/AIDS and violent street crime (Millar and Rosand 2006). In the overall picture, the effects of the latter problems are more far-reaching than terrorist attacks, and produce far more victims. As a result, the popular opinion within society is that resources should be allocated to address the greatest of society’s problems, a decision that seems like common sense. Consequently, when governments decide that anti-terrorism is an issue, many citizens view the measures as requirements imposed by the Bush administration rather than for the betterment of the country (Whitaker 2007).
However, the idea of terrorism as a Western problem may produce an unfounded sense of security within Third World countries. For example, Morocco, a country viewed as a less likely target for terrorism, did not use any substantial measures to address terrorism in the aftermath of 9/11 (Whitaker 2007). Official UN Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) reports during this period reveal that there was no urgency to change existing laws or enact new ones in order to ensure security (Whitaker 2007). However, on May 16, 2003, more than 40 people were killed when suicide bombers attacked five different sites in Casablanca within a period of thirty minutes (Whitaker 2007). As a result, the Moroccan government enacted sweeping counter-terrorism legislation and arrested thousands of suspected militants (Whitaker 2007). Therefore, terrorism jumped up on their list of priorities once they experienced this “Western problem”. This is where the dilemma lies. In many Third World countries, they can only afford to allocate resources to their major societal issues. Terrorism, until it is actively experienced on a grand scale within the country, will not be considered one of society’s major issues, unlike First World countries. Unfortunately, this may lead to other incidents like the Moroccan example.
Without the influence and persuasion of the United States, many Third World countries might not have passed anti-terrorism legislation after 9/11 (excluding situations like Morocco). Therefore, there must be a political agenda surrounding these decisions. In most cases, these measures are seen as a method of winning favour with the U.S. (Whitaker 2007) In other words, it appears that national security is sometimes not the basis of anti-terrorism legislation in the Third World. So the question becomes what they are receiving in exchange for their loyal support of the ‘war on terror’. According to Whitaker, the presence or absence of counter terrorism measures do not have a significant impact on U.S. economic and military support (Whitaker 2007). However, for their cooperation, countries receive symbolic recognition from the United States which is actually more important than it seems. Future considerations and positive bilateral relations with America may lead to numerous benefits including increased tourism, aid, and assistance during future crises.
On the other hand, reluctance to pass anti-terrorism laws can have repercussions. For example, in Trinidad and Tobago, the US ambassador gave a warning about possible reductions in American investment unless the anti-terrorism bill passed (Whitaker 2007). As mentioned, this might not materialize into anything past rhetoric and empty warnings, but uncooperative attitudes will not be forgotten. For many countries which will probably rely on American assistance in the future, they cannot afford to risk possible negative relations with the most powerful country in the world. The governments believe that the public outcry against reduced liberties does not outweigh the possible risk of alienating themselves from the U.S. Therefore, the main purpose of the new legislation is for political benefits rather than for the security of the nation. This does not discount the fact that counter-terrorist laws do increase national security, but the question is, “would they have enacted the anti-terrorism legislation if, instead of the United States, it was Canada pressuring them?” In other words, “would terrorism be a major priority if there was no American influence?”
Lastly, public sentiment on reduced liberties is regionally sensitive, especially in Third World countries. For example, the end of apartheid and the country’s first multiracial elections in 1994 are still fresh in the minds of South Africans (Whitaker 2007). As a result, they are very cautious about legal measures to restrict their civil liberties. Especially in newly formed democracies, a slight shift toward more government authority could slide farther toward authoritarian rule. Under such a regime, unlawful arrests, police seizures and human rights abuses would be commonplace, experiences that are too familiar to the people of South Africa (Whitaker 2007). On the other hand, anti-terrorism bills have faced minimal opposition in countries where there has not been recent political empowerment (Whitaker 2007). Therefore, the reception of anti-terrorism will vary from country to country, depending on social, political and cultural history.
The governments of Third World countries can use the public opinion of anti-terrorist legislation for their own political ends. In countries where citizens believe the United States is responsible for new counter-terrorism laws, the ruling parties may use that belief to their advantage. This can be done to “avoid criticism and deflect blame” because the U.S. will not get much credit for preventing terrorist activities, but when human rights and civil liberties are violated, American influence will be blamed (Whitaker 2007). This way, the government can hold three benefits: avoid the possible ensuing public outcry against anti-terrorism laws, take credit for successful anti-terrorism operations, and gain favor with the U.S. for enacting the legislation.
It is becoming clear that in the Third World, countries are looking for other benefits from anti-terrorism legislation apart from protecting its citizens. The reasons are because terrorism is not as much of a priority in their societies as compared to the U.S., they receive nothing tangible in exchange for cooperation, and because sentiments on reduced liberties are regionally sensitive. Whether this is desirable for the Americans’ ‘war on terror’ remains to be seen. In any case, it is a good study into the international influence of the U.S.
Bibliography
Alistair Millar and Eric Rosand. Allied Against Terrorism: What's Needed to Strengthen Worldwide Commitment (New York: The Century Foundation Press, 2006), pp. 67-87.
Whitaker, Beth Elise. "Exporting the Patriot Act? Democracy and the 'War on Terror' in the Third World," Third World Quarterly, vol.28, no. 5 (2007), pp. 1017-32.
12 comments:
There are two motivations for why a country chooses to enact anti-terrorism legislation. The first is a country’s concern for its own national security and the second is regarding political motivations. In Whitaker’s Exporting the Patriot Act: Democracy and the ‘war on terror’ in the Third World, the political motivations for enacting anti-terrorism legislation is explored as well as the potential consequences of legislation with such motives. The issue that will be explored is the extent to which a country’s motivation behind enacting anti-terrorism legislation affects the success of the legislation.
After the 9/11 attacks on the United States, many countries that did not previously have anti-terrorism legislation rushed to enact it, other countries gave the issue considerably more thought, and many are still in the process of refining it. Despite whether a country was quick or slow to enact the legislation, the bottom line is that the attacks on the United States impacted these countries’ political reformations regarding terrorism.
Does it matter, however, if a country’s motivation for enacting legislation is political or for the sole purpose of national security? Whitaker argues that the adoption of anti-terrorism legislation in many Third World countries “provides governments with the tools they need to justify anti-democratic practices” (Whitaker, p. 1028). The abuse of these democratic practices, however, should not be considered as a result of anti-terrorism legislation enacted with a political motivation rather than from national security. In addition, the abuse of democratic practices in relation to issues surrounding anti-terrorism does not solely apply to the Third World. Even when a country’s anti-terrorism legislation is motivated by national security, democratic principles are still abused.
Anti-terrorism legislation is founded upon the notion of sacrificing some of an individual’s liberty in exchange for increased security and protection. One should not be concerned with whether a country’s anti-terrorism legislation is motivated by political purposes. The concern should rather be regarding how much of a citizen’s liberty is at stake to be sacrificed. Whether or not a country is motivated to enact anti-terrorism legislation as a matter of security or politics, the potential abuse of democratic principles will always be present.
Works Cited:
Alistair Millar and Eric Rosand. Allied Against Terrorism: What's Needed to Strengthen Worldwide Commitment (New York: The Century Foundation Press, 2006), pp. 67-87.
Whitaker, Beth Elise. "Exporting the Patriot Act? Democracy and the 'War on Terror' in the Third World," Third World Quarterly, vol.28, no. 5 (2007), pp. 1017-32.
The idea that the focus and goals of anti-terrorism legislation have shifted from concerns regarding security, to a form of political opportunism, is an interesting thought and one that seems to have some merit based on our readings. According to Whitaker, there seems to be no evidence that countries that choose to cooperate with the U.S. and enact similar anti-terrorist laws receive financial rewards (Whitaker 2007: 1022). However, we must take into consideration that the opportunities open to cooperative countries go beyond just financial rewards. The mere act of pleasing the U.S. by enacting anti-terrorist laws modelled after their own Patriot Act is enough to put the cooperating country in a very favourable position with the U.S. and its allies (Riley 2007: 10). Unfortunately, especially for Third World countries, such incentives are often too enticing to turn down.
One of the incentives associated with being in a favourable position with the U.S. is related to the symbolic recognition from the U.S., that cooperative countries receive. “Many countries have received symbolic recognition for their cooperation in the ‘war on terror’ including their enactment of such laws” (Whitaker 2007: 1022). This symbolic recognition has ranged from official state visits by U.S. representatives to cooperating countries, to official recognition of the countries as U.S. allies. Although the enactment of anti-terrorist laws provides beneficial symbolic recognition for the state itself, it is often the citizens that pay the price. The needs and problems of citizens in Third World countries, which are in many cases more pressing than the issue of terrorism, become afterthoughts for the governments of these countries who become preoccupied with pursuing political opportunities. Furthermore, anti-terrorist legislation is supposed to ensure peace and security in these states, however, it is often the proposed introduction of such legislation that triggers chaos and threatens security. Whitaker provides the example of the controversy that transpired in Mauritius as a result of the introduction of anti-terrorism legislation, which took two presidential resignations before finally becoming law when it was given assent by the third interim president (Whitaker 2007: 1020).
It is quite clear that the U.S. has played, and continues to play a major role in the decisions of Third World countries regarding whether to enact anti-terrorism legislation. It is interesting to note however, that it is not democratic states, but rather authoritarian ones, that can more efficiently enact the anti-terrorist laws that the U.S. so vigorously campaigns for. Thus, this implies that the U.S. “may find it easier to work with authoritarian governments than democratic ones simply because the measures can be enacted more quickly” (Whitaker 2007: 1021). We can reasonably assume that authoritarian states would have no problems disregarding the needs and opinions of its citizens, in order to achieve political gain by cooperating with the U.S. and enacting anti-terrorism legislation that could, and in many cases do, infringe upon the rights of their citizens. The fact that the pressure on states to enact anti-terrorism legislation, even when terrorism is not a primary concern for those states, comes not only from the U.S., but also from the UN itself, is also disturbing. “On 28 September 2001 the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1373 calling on member states to become party to all relevant international conventions on terrorism and to enact the necessary domestic legislation to enforce these agreements” (Whitaker 2007: 1018). In light of the numerous human rights violations that have resulted from existing anti-terrorism legislations in countries like the U.S., we must question what motives or incentives the UN may have in continuing to not only promote, but requiring other states to enact such legislation.
Works Cited
Alistair Millar and Eric Rosand, Allied Against Terrorism: What's Needed to Strengthen Wouldwide Commitment (New York: The Century Foundation Press, 2006), pp. 67-87 (chapters 8 and 9).
Thomas B. Riley, "Security vs. Privacy: A Comparative Analysis of Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States," Journal of Business and Public Policy, vol. 1, no. 2 (2007).
Beth Elise Whitaker, "Exporting the Patriot Act? Democracy and the 'War on Terror' in the Third World," Third World Quarterly, vol.28, no. 5 (2007), pp. 1017-32.
Terrorism is not a new phenomenon, and terrorist attacks in the contemporary sense (public space, Muslim extremists) have targeted a small number of countries. The number of countries with anti-terrorism legislation and associated efforts however is far greater. It is agreed that one reason behind this is the influence of the United States in desiring a global contribution to the “war on terror”. Countries are required to choose a side in the US mentality of “us vs. them”; for various suggested benefits, countries desire to be with the US. According to Whitaker, 33 countries in developing regions such as Africa have introduced specific anti-terrorism legislation but this number does not include the other nations which submitted to international pressure by enacting amendments to already existing criminal codes (Whitaker 2007).
Internationally minor nations, mostly in the developing world have either enacted anti-terrorism legislation and/or have undertaken measures to combat terrorism, even if terrorism is not a local issue. By submitting to the influence of the US, resources are diverted from more pressing local problems such as in Africa, battling AIDS or addressing with civil conflicts (Whitaker 2007). Terrorism is made into a local problem through US-influenced anti-terrorism efforts for these countries even if the citizenry do not see it as a top priority.
The US State Department does an annual assessment of all regions of the globe, analyzing the efforts countries have taken to combat terrorism (US State Dept. 2007). The majority of countries are developing nations with many local human rights issues. All that is evaluated however are their actions in addressing what is the top priority for the US, regardless of whether it is a priority for each individual nation. The assessment makes judgments about the efforts and attributes insufficient progress on regional problems such as limited resources etc. (US State Dept. 2007). There is no assessment made on the structures of these individual nations especially their records on human rights and the avenues available to the citizenry to voice their opinions and their dissent. No evaluation is sought on the effects anti-terrorism laws and efforts have on the liberties of the nationals of each country.
To proceed on the assumptions that each country needs to have anti-terrorism laws and efforts as strong as the ones of the US is far too ethnocentric. Not all nations share the priorities of the US nor do they all have a similar structure of recourse to the law or public opinion. Many such nations do not have structures of accountability and safeguarding of rights as in the US; it is troubling that there are expectations though that the countries make efforts against terrorism on a level satisfactory to the US but they are to do so when there is little guarantee for citizens to ensure their rights.
As Whitaker notes, many of the new laws are broad in nature and include anti-state activities, sharing of intelligence, and give broad powers to state authorities (Whitaker, 1021). One instance the author shares of misuse of terrorism laws is in the instance of Uganda, where the laws were used to suppress political opposition by limiting freedom of speech and focusing on those who were critical of the state (Whitaker 2007). Another instance of limiting free speech is in Zimbabwe where criticism of the state can lead to being labelled a terrorist (Whitaker 2007).
Thus, it is important to question why countries have adopted such laws and efforts but it is even more crucial to analyze the effects of them on the local populations; has the US’s desire to have uniformity in actions against terrorism, diverted resources from combating regional problems and simply given more tools for suppression of liberties to nations with questionable human rights records?
US State Dept. "Country Reports on Terrorism 2006." 30 April 2007. US Department of State. 9 Mar 2008 http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/
Whitaker, Beth Elise. "Exporting the Patriot Act? Democracy and the 'War on Terror' in the Third World," Third World Quarterly, vol.28, no. 5 (2007), pp. 1017-32.
The idea that anti-terrorism legislation can be used to further specific political agendas is an idea that requires some in-depth investigation. As clearly stated by the author of the initial post, it seems that “the focus and goals of anti-terrorism laws have shifted away from global peace and security to political “brown-nosing” and situational opportunism.” Whitaker too believes that anti-terrorism law is often a convenient excuse that “provides governments with the tools they need to justify anti-democratic practices.” (Whitaker 2007:1028) I would like to expand on the idea of political opportunism focussing not on the inter-country effects of complying with the United States’ policies as presented by the initial post, but rather on the measures taken by notoriously repressive governments to justify such practises within their own country under the guise of anti-terrorism law. The notion that the genuine, protective, and beneficial goals of a country’s anti-terrorism legislation could be desecrated and used as a manipulative tool against its very own citizens is uncomfortable to accept but the realities of this situation are documented in several academic works including the aforementioned readings. I would like to build on the idea presented by the author of the initial post and offer an ethical perspective by further discussing the moral issue at the heart of the concept of anti-terrorism law as a tool of political opportunism, and demonstrate how it is not only morally reprehensible but also politically stifling.
The Human Rights Watch organization has compiled a list of countries and their opportunistic statements and reactions to terrorism. The discoveries are alarming and range from the limiting of press freedom, unwarranted fines, arbitrary arrests and summary executions. Rampant abuse against innocent civilians, detention without trial and trials before military courts are also not uncommon. For example, China has been engaged in a nationwide anti-crime campaign called "Strike Hard," partially aimed at those suspected of supporting independence in ethnic regions. This campaign has led to arbitrary arrests and summary executions, with little or no due process. While there have been incidents of violence in Xinjiang, China has routinely arrested peaceful activists and has imposed tight restrictions on Muslim religious activities. The political powers are so strong in Israel and their justification for suspicions so vague that “on December 17, 2001, Israeli police briefly detained Sari Nusseibeh, a senior political representative of the Palestinian Authority, along with several of his colleagues, after he invited guests, including foreign diplomats, to a hotel in Jerusalem for a cookie-and-juice party to celebrate the end of Ramadan. Uzi Landau, the Internal Security Minister for Israel, called the reception a "terror-related" activity.” (Human Rights Watch 2006: 1) The Internal Security Act of Malaysia prides itself on the claim that they act as an "initial preventive measure before threats get beyond control." (Human Rights Watch 2006:1) They have ‘succeeded’ in imprisoning pro-democracy activists, students, alleged Muslim extremists as well as supporters of jailed former Deputy Prime Minister. Their mandate allows for indefinite detention without trial and allows for arrest without a warrant anyone any police officer has "reason to believe" has acted or likely to act "in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia." These are just a few of many of the many unbelievably opportunistic acts done in the name of anti-terrorism by intra-country governments. Clearly this kind of unbridled political opportunism is rampant across the globe and needs to be acknowledged and monitored.
There is something inherently wrong with the abuse of political power that is occurring with regards to the implementation of anti-terrorism law within numerous nations. It is disconcerting to uncover that those we have elected and supported as political heads are using the power and privilege bestowed on them for malicious gain against the very same people they are supposed to be protecting. Citizens have entrusted those in power with their respect, resources and essentially their lives, to make the best decisions on their behalf regarding protection from outside threats. It appears however, that the citizens need to be protected from the dangers perpetrated by their very own government occurring within their nation. Gaining the trust of a nation and then taking advantage of that respect against the same citizens is morally culpable in that, trust and honour for government is broken down within a nation. At least with regards to outside sources of terrorism and harm the nation’s people know to be wary of such threats by the enemy, but when they let their guard down and willingly accept rather intrusive, draconian measures which stifle their individual liberties in the name of security as advocated by their own government, the sense of betrayal that occurs is a harsh blow. Some human rights organizations argue that the atrocities occurring with the rise of political opportunism with regards to anti-terrorism law are just as morally detrimental to a given nation since the citizens truly believe they are being protected by giving up some of their liberties, when in effect, this is a false sense of security based on hope in a legislative government who is only hurting their own people. It is morally unacceptable to abuse the trust and respect of citizens to further selfish, political agendas as is being done in many countries.
This kind of political gain from tragedy is not only morally reprehensible but also serves only to break down the political trust and cohesion of a country, making it more likely to reject necessary anti-terrorism practices in the future for fear they are simply repeats of the opportunistic actions of the government in the past. “The latest information on Russian operations in Chechnya indicated a continuation of human rights violations and the use of overwhelming force against civilian targets, the number of credible reports of massive human rights violations [to] contribute to an environment that is favourable towards terrorism " because social and political cohesion is broken down within the country making it more susceptible to terrorist harm in its weakened state. (Human Rights Watch 2006:1)
In addition, anti-terrorism legislation as a tool for political opportunism only serves to further oppress a given nation by stifling individual liberties and encroaching on ideas such as free speech. Under the guise of terrorism prevention, the Liberian government has often failed to honour court decisions to produce the detainees in court, claiming that they are operating a rebel terrorist cell and that the editors of the independent newspapers and human rights activists are "illegal combatant[s]" who should be tried before a military tribunal. Judge Wynston Henries, the criminal court judge who established that the men will be tried under a military court, allegedly claimed that an illegal combatant may not only be a person who carries arms, but "collaborates ways and means to assist one side or the other" (Human Rights Watch 2006:1) The “anti-terrorism” amendments in Jordan now allow the government to close down any publications deemed to have published "false or libellous information that can undermine national unity or the country's reputation," and prescribe prison terms for publicizing in the media or on the internet pictures "that undermine the king's dignity" or information tarnishing the reputation of the royal family. The prime minister claims that the aim is not to suppress press freedom "but rather to put an end to attacks on the country and the authorities." This is another glaring example of citizens’ rights to free speech and freedom of association being stifled under the guise of protective anti-terrorism measures. Repressive measures in many of the countries outlined previously are justified by the government as ‘necessary’ for the battle against terrorism but in effect, work against a nation by inhibiting the free flow of ideas. While I am aware that the public has little to do with the formation of official anti-terrorism legislation, I think that the liberated circulation of ideas in the public sphere helps to inform and educate citizens who can then make informed decisions on whether or not they support certain measures and how they will react to them. The obstruction of free speech and public discourse causes a country’s growth to be stifled because only through open discussion can ideas be shared, challenged and refined. By prohibiting the free exchange of ideas through repressive measures, concepts are unable to be critiqued and enhanced to provide the best defence against terrorism as possible for a given nation. New ideas are unable to surface, current ideas go unchallenged and thus a country’s best interests may not be met as a result of the repressive nature of politically opportunistic anti-terrorism legislation.
Thus, I agree with the initial post that uncovers that that national security is sometimes not the basis of anti-terrorism legislation and that there is often a political agenda surrounding these decisions. The concept of anti-terrorism legislation as a tool for political opportunism is not only a harsh reality across the world today but a morally reprehensible and politically stifling tactic.
______________________________________
Human Rights Watch. “Opportunism in the Face of Tragedy: Repression in the Name of Anti-Terrorism.” 2006. 6 March 2008. http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/september11/opportunismwatch.htm
Whitaker, Beth Elise. "Exporting the Patriot Act? Democracy and the 'War on Terror' in the Third World," Third World Quarterly, vol.28, no. 5 (2007), pp. 1017-32.
This paper is well organized, logical and well written. The author makes good points about the real implications of anti-terror legislation on third world countries. I feel that it is unfair for the United States to impose their anti-terror legislation on third world countries, because, as the author stated, these countries have higher priorities to address. Furthermore, in unstable regimes, the implications of restricting the liberties of a countries citizens could result in social unrest and upheaval. The United States uses its political and economic clout to ‘bully’ these countries into compliance. Whitaker makes it clear that economic support did not increase to any of the third world countries as a result of adopting the United States’ anti-terror legislation, and military support was also unchanged. This means that even the threat of getting on the wrong side of the United States is enough to convince these third world countries to comply with their demands. With such obvious clout, the United States should be helping these countries to address issues that matter to them, rather than imposing their agenda upon them. As Riley says, privacy is now ‘understood to be a human right’. By imposing their privacy-restricting legislation on third world countries, the United States is imposing a restriction to the human rights of the citizens of those countries. Instead of meddling in this way, the United States should help to foster an international environment of support, providing consistent support and aid for countries that need it, regardless of whether they comply with every request made of them.
The realities of international politics mean that the United States must take the first step if third world countries are to feel supported rather than threatened. Taking this step would mean supporting anti-terror legislation if countries decided to implement their own version of it, but not trying to export American-style legislation abroad for the benefit of Bush’s reputation domestically.
Thomas B. Riley, "Security vs. Privacy: A Comparative Analysis of Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States," Journal of Business and Public Policy, vol. 1, no. 2 (2007).
Beth Elise Whitaker, "Exporting the Patriot Act? Democracy and the 'War on Terror' in the Third World," Third World Quarterly, vol.28, no. 5 (2007), pp. 1017-32.
I think what is most interesting about the paper is the idea of the Western problem categorization of the issue of Anti-terrorism.
I am reminded of philosopher and legal theorist Mary Ann Glendon's writing (Glendon, American Journal of Jurisprudence, 1999 Vol.4 "Foundation of Human rights")as she dismisses the notion of a "Western problem", of such colonial imperialism. Some ideas, such as use of force to penetrate political ideology, as terrorism would do, simply transcends borders and can, historically, occur anywhere.
Perhaps it stems from primarily examples in the West, but it doesn't mean third world countries are immune either, as this article points out effectively. The problem is multiculturally experienced and thus cannot be dismissed in such a way. The West may influence the nature of this problem, but it does not affect the intrinsic nature of the issue of anti-terrorism.
Another point I wanted to make was the uniqueness of the 9/11 attacks, the specificity and vindictiveness of them alone I feel merit the attention garnered by countries as a response to them, and it is beyond the fact that it was America attacked. My point is, despite the differing motivations of national security, political advantages of enacting anti-terrorism law, the fact that such law is becoming enacted is indication that the issue matters globally, whether or not the laws were made for "political brown-nosing". The question is not who had the idea first, but whether the idea is in itself worth consideration.
I think the argument of Western inspiration is an ad hominem one. As Glendon further writes, "all living vibrant cultures borrow from one another", the treatment of terrorism should be no different.
While I agree AIDS/HIV is a more significant and immediate problem to many citizens particularly of the third world developing countries, the notion of a threat to national security is in the interests of the public involved to investigate thoroughly...holding high relevance to the advances of the country as well and not meriting the dismissal often given to the issue.
I found your entry to be thought provoking yet would like to point out several key points in your reasoning. After the events of September 11th, it is true that new anti-terrorism laws have been enacted in various countries internationally including our own country of Canada.
Third world countries have been slow to enact these laws and I concur that in some Third World countries it may be because there is a far less pressing need for these measures to be enforced.
Sensitivity of issues in the sovereignty of each nation is a key factor when considering the implementation of new laws within a jurisdiction. Alistair Millar and Eric Rosand’s opinion to this effect is a much substantiated claim (Millar and Rosand 2006).
In whatever level of government, the opinion of those governed is crucial in deciding the actions of the leaders. When something devastating happens halfway around the world, it is easy for the average person to brush it off since the ramifications of the event will likely not affect the life of that individual in any substantial form. Therefore it is no surprise that public opinion of a nation typically changes extensively only when events occur in one’s own home.
Human beings are generally hardwired to deal with problems in a post-matter rather than with a prevention mindset. For the United States of America, there are reports that the government had ample time and information to suspect terrorist activities, yet did nothing to thwart those plans (Heinberg 2004).
Moreover, using your logic of why the Moroccan government did not impose new anti-terrorism measures after September 11th happened in the United States, could not the same be said about the United States for not implementing strong anti-terrorism laws after hearing and seeing terrorist activities happening around the world, especially with the strong media attention given to the crisis in the Middle East which remains a hotbed of terrorist activity?
Your claim that Third World countries felt an unfounded sense of security with respect to terrorism seems to be an uncorroborated claim since many Third World countries deal with the effects of terrorism on a daily basis. If anything, many in Third World countries may have become numb to terrorist activities due to the prevalence of those activities thus making ignorance their perceived sense of security.
Your conclusion seems to be a negative one implying that it is bad to impose anti-terror laws for anything other than national security. I disagree with this because the longing for greater national security does not always have to be the fuel that drives the actions of a government. In a globalized economy where contact with people around the world is at the tip of our fingers, the benefits that can be reaped from international cooperation are a priority for every government to consider. The cooperation of a Third World nation with anti-terror laws may be due to pressures from the international community but this should not come as a shock to anyone and should not be looked down upon.
While I agree with most of your points, I find that there is nothing wrong with taking action in one’s state so that the international community will look upon you favourably, especially when the event taken can only help one’s country. As an international community we rely upon each other to survive. International cooperation is more important today than ever before and an isolationist attitude of only caring about one’s own security and what happens in one’s own nation is not suitable for the kind of world in which we live today.
Works Cited
Alistair Millar and Eric Rosand. Allied Against Terrorism: What's Needed to Strengthen Worldwide Commitment (New York: The Century Foundation Press, 2006), pp. 67-87.
Heinberg, Richard. Powerdown: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers, 2004.
Whitaker, Beth Elise. "Exporting the Patriot Act? Democracy and the 'War on Terror' in the Third World," Third World Quarterly, vol.28, no. 5 (2007), pp. 1017-32.
That retribution for cooperation is an issue in this “war” should not come as a surprise. Of course, there are benefits inherent to security, but there are also costs. In our societies the methods of surveillance are monitored (due to laws of protection), yet they are also more plentiful. The technological resources of private and governmental bureaus maintain the capacity for sharp reach over citizens. Conversely, in societies that lack the infrastructure for comprehensive surveillance and monitoring, as well as the lack of resources to implement legislation, is a signal for aid and reinforcement sent to the agencies of the United States? In that case, there is not only a possibility that the nation itself may infringe on the rights of its citizens, but by means of political alignment the United States government may also hold this power. This is apparent in that Muslim leaders in Tanzania were arrested by Federal Bureau of Investigation. (Whitaker 2007)
To the citizens of developing nations the techniques employed by superpowers, including the hegemonic United States of America, to infiltrate and influence smaller political actors are plentiful. While attention must be shone on the motivations of the host nation, in that the information may be misused by domestic officials, a pivotal issue to address is what the United States of America gains from the sweeping formation of these policies across 33 countries? (Whitaker 2007)
In many circumstances in which allies are concerned, the agencies of the United States gain political aid and clout to interact with nations with regard to the exchange of sensitive information. This coordination bears two important concerns. First, this relationship does not seem reciprocal. For example, does the United States offer this same privilege to other nations? In the case of the Canadian youth being detained at the United State’s Guantanamo Bay Facility, the Canadian government’s calls to address this issue have been largely ignored (CTV news 2008). In addition, the Canadian government released to its foreign diplomats a list indicating in which nations they should be observant of signs of possible signs torture. This list is meant to aid these diplomats who visit Canadian citizens being held abroad; surprisingly, the United States appears of this list. If the Canadian government suspects that the American government engages in inhuman practices that may possibly violate international humanitarian laws, especially in cases involving Canadian citizens, why is it not more eager to express these concerns internationally? Perhaps the silence of the Canadian government and the complicity of the governments of developing nations have similar foundations. More importantly, why has the Canadian government been unable to illicit a dialogue concerning this matter with the United States government?
A second concern emerges as the United States gains entry into the lives of citizens of other nations and the boundaries of personal and national autonomy transgress, with no focus upon the extent of these lapses. President Bush recently maintained that “We [the United States] have no higher responsibility than stopping terrorist attacks.” (Meyers 2008) With the pivotal goal of the United States to win a “war on terror”, the rhetoric is equivocal as to a manner in which this goal will be attained while safeguarding a proper balance between state duties and citizenry rights. Anti-terrorism legislations afford the state with tremendous control over citizens, and the main dilemma emerges as there is no authoritative oversight of the government to ensure that governmental legislation and executive conduct, whether domestic or international, do not overstep their boundaries. In fact, the aggressive mentality of the policies “preclude serious independent assessment.”
The government of the United States of America is often criticized by its own politicians , as well as members of civil society of the manner of treatment towards detainees charged for suspected terrorism. However, there has been no international outcry against these practices. There is no determinant supranational body being formed to maintain that some rule of law, whether law-enforcement rules or international human rights laws are being upheld by the United States government in this war on terror. It’s equivocal as to whether the world is capable of exerting this type of authority upon the superpower. What’s further, by enacting similar legislations, the leaders of these developing nations are unwittingly assuaging the actions of the United States government. Perhaps that is the goal of the vigorous promulgation being undertaken by U.S officials worldwide? These developing nations are removed from the possibility of criticising the U.S in its stringent and controversial anti-terror policies, and simultaneously champion the methodology. Perhaps by ensuring that a majority of states are engaging in similar methods to fight terror, the United States has set international precedence and absolved itself, despite its many critics. That the domestic dissent towards anti-terror legislation is combined with negative cries against the United States is indicative that perhaps the goals of anti-terror and security legislation are not lost upon citizens in developing nations, but that the tactics promoted and employed by the United States should not be socially or legally accepted or sponsored by other nations.
CTV news. “Canada puts U.S. on torture watch list.” January, 2008 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080116/khadr_torture_080116/20080116
Meyers, Steve Lee. “Bush’s Veto of Bill on C.I.A. Tactics Affirms His Legacy” The New York Times, March 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/washington/09policy.html?th&emc=th
Roth, Kenneth. “The Law of was in the War on Terror”. Foreign Affairs, January/February 2004.
Whitaker, Beth Elise. "Exporting the Patriot Act? Democracy and the 'War on Terror' in the Third World," Third World Quarterly, vol.28, no. 5 (2007), pp. 1017-32.
The author of this posting claimed that the focus and goals of anti-terrorism laws have not held much legislative authority in Third world countries given that “terrorism is not as much of a priority in their societies as compared to the U.S.” While terrorism may no be held as much of a priority due to other more significant problems (i.e. AIDS or violent street crime), this is not to say that these Third World countries do not hold terrorism as a priority per se. This is important to note given that an unassuming reader may find such an argument to be stated in such a conclusive way that it can create problems. It is perhaps more important to note that these Third world nations are incomparably more terrorism-prone but that the US rhetoric associated with the ‘war on terror’ has placed disproportionate emphasis on the problem for the international community to bear.
What remains questionable in the Whitaker article is the degree to which the political force of the US rhetoric on the ‘war on terror’ affects Third world countries in their approach to combat the effects of terrorism on an international scale. Perhaps the Casablanca case identified in the Whitaker article is an example of how and why anti-terrorism legislative support only becomes active and is engaged when individual political interests are placed into immediate question and concern. What remains undeniable is the degree to which the U.S. carries such extreme political influence on the legislative decision-making power of the entire world – this is an uncontested assertion.
Also, the evidence used to suggest that terrorism is a so-called “Western problem” is difficult to make sense of in this debate. The historical record of violent events the Third world would prove otherwise. Perhaps this statement was made in order to point to definitional problems in which Third World countries view terrorism differently than the West and this would thus create differences in viewing when terrorism occurs and how it can be qualified to exist. This quote is misleading and perhaps is meant more to suggest not that terrorism is a ‘Western problem’ but should be understood as a suggestion that the Western obsession with issues of terrorism is unique in the emphasis it places as a high-ranking problem as compared to others on the international scale.
This argument is also confusing for other reasons. On the one hand, the author claims that terrorism is viewed as a major problem and resources are delegated for its solution when it is “actively experienced on a grand scale within the country” and references the Casablanca example here. However, the author then argues that when this occurs, these anti-terror legislative measures are then seen as “requirements imposed by the Bush administration rather than for the betterment of the country.” If a country came to a point of viewing and accepting the importance of implementing anti-terrorism legislation in their country due to recent attacks on their soil, why would they then view these decisions with anti-U.S. sentiments? This is a mistreatment of the Whitaker article given that anti-American responses were brought up with reference to the distinction between the uptake of anti-terrorist legislation in authoritarian and newly-consolidated democratic countries.
The author also claimed that enforcing anti-terrorism legislation is not as important in the Third world because “they receive nothing tangible in exchange for cooperation. This is a significant misreading of the points made in the Whitaker article. Here, the single point made was that beyond public rhetoric, the statistics noted simply show that countries that enacted anti-terrorism legislation did not receive significantly larger aid increases between 2000 and 2005” (Whitaker, 7). This statement does more to show a lack of conclusive evidence than point to an explicit conclusion as to why these countries do not undertake the responsibilities of enacting anti-terror legislation. It is one thing to say that the presence or absence of anti-terrorism legislation did not seem to have a significant impact on levels of US economic and military aid assistance. It is quite another to state that Third World countries are looking for other benefits from enacting anti-terrorism legislation given that this limited evidence suggests they receive nothing tangible in exchange for their cooperation. Also, the fact that no found evidence exists to account for cooperation does not exclude the fact that other external political benefits may be in play.
Sources Cited:
Beth Elise Whitaker, "Exporting the Patriot Act? Democracy and the 'War on Terror' in the Third World," Third World Quarterly, vol.28, no. 5 (2007), pp. 1017-32.
Why the West is Perceived to be the Lucrative Terrorist Venture and How The Terms “Third World” and “Opportunism” Undermine the Issues Within Each of Developing Countries:
The post you have written presents interesting viewpoints on “third world” countries and their decisions to enact anti terrorism legislation. While I am in agreement with much of what is being said, there are in fact alternate perspectives I would like to discuss that have been overlooked in the three point thesis support for the perceived shift to “third world” political opportunism aforementioned. My two main issues reside within your statements of how “third world” countries came to perceive terrorism to be a disease of the west, and in turn how the term “third world” needs to be redefined seeing as how even “developing nations” within the third world have taken different perspectives to anti terrorism.
Firstly, you mention that one of the reasons why the shift occurs is because “terrorism is not as much of a priority in their societies as compared to the US”. It is important to unpack such a statement to understand how, developing countries, which you have noted to all be under the category of “third world” countries, might have begun to think that terrorism was a disease of the west, and then look at the specifics and semantics of the use of third world countries in the argument. To begin, one of the common mistakes made when thinking about terrorism, both locally and globally, is that people perceive it to be a rather external problem, and thus evade investigating the possibility of home grown terrorism. In the same way the US only after being attacked on 9/11 decided to step up its legislation, and that too with a huge focus on targeting terrorists grown outside of the country. Reprimanding Iraq and Afghanistan for their assumed involvements in the attack, the US decided to crusade a global stance on terrorism that exuded the idea of terrorism initiating from countries in which democracy is comparably unstable. The idea that only countries that lack political infrastructure and relative social protection and wealth, will take from the richer countries, acts as a clear reiteration of the faulty causal relation that is made between poverty and crime.
“Third world” countries generally all tend to face unrivaled levels of economic privation, illiteracy and disease, making the population incredibly unstable. But within this category exists varying degrees of instability and privation making the term third world inaccurate as a blanket category. This will be dealt with below. Linking the idea of developing countries and their reasons for enacting anti terrorism legislation however, it can be seen that with the framework that the USA portrayed, whether it was intentional or not, lay people understood USA to be so powerful and wonderful that other countries would want to ruin its stability to achieve their goal of wealth. Here I draw on a parallel between being a thief and being a terrorist.
For example, the USA was known to redefine “terrorism” as an act committed by those who fight to gain more from the rich. This then enshrined literally the idea of stealing from the wealthy to be analogous to being a terrorist.
This, could be a reason why terrorism is further seen to be a problem faced by second or first world countries who have more developed political infrastructure and democratic literacy to be lucrative for thieves or in this case terrorists. For example, by enacting the USA Patriot ACT in 2001, the USA expressed its stance on “doing whatever it takes to stop terrorism on, and only on, American Soil”. Notice the words in the Patriot Act themselves speak volumes about how much exactly the US cared for protecting other countries from terrorism as opposed to protecting itself. The USA PATRIOT ACT stands for: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (Whitaker, 1018).
With all eyes on the States, its actions and articulation of what terrorism was and how much harm it could cause, showed the world that the “powerful countries” like the states, are more at risk of being targeted. The idea that, power was a means of popularity which in turn was gained by economic successes and democratic electioneering was a crystal clear one that resounded in the minds of many people across the world. So, how exactly can developing nations such as Kenya in which people are dying at astronomical rates because of curable diseases begin to think about homeland security when all the messages from the developed world tell them that they need not worry about being attacked? They need not worry because they are not developed, not rich enough, their people not smart enough, and because they simply do not contribute as much to the world as other more powerful countries do? Only natural it would be for these so called “third world” countries to feel unthreatened by terrorist attacks that they decide to focus on bigger population eroding issues such as poverty before they think about homeland security.
Suffice it to say that, 9/11 while being a sad day for many people around the world, was also used as a popularity tool for the American Government. As harsh as this may seem, it was only after this incident did global protection of homeland security come to light enticing even Whitaker to make a comment like, “The events of 9/11 shifted global attention from individual rights to national security’ (Whitaker, 1018). While I agree that the attention did shift in western countries, I argue that this shift COULD happen, in these developed countries. Meaning that countries like USA and CANADA, could afford to think about national security, for under developed countries such as Kenya and other developing nations, the plight present on their soil is perhaps not enough to set aside the fight to give their population individual rights to life in other words, basic necessities for survival by any means.
My point here is that “third world” countries by virtue of the negative tone attached to being in this category are for the most part not known to be those with strong foundations, social protection and governmental infrastructure. Hence, when given such strong messages from the developed world that the victims of terrorism are mostly the richer countries, it is only natural that these developing nations focus their resources on more pressing things, such as health care and education. Here though we reach a catch 22. While focusing in on their social problems as a result of the message coming from the more powerful countries of who is most likely to be victim to terrorism, these poorer countries will inadvertently be putting themselves more at risk of internal terrorism or home grown terrorism.
Suicide bombers, capital building bombings and riots that stir fear into a countrys’ population will, as a result of the de-prioritization of terrorism within the poorer countries, cause the social, political and legal fabric of those societies to be weakened, making it easier for an attack on an already weak country. This goes back to my first comment- that terrorism tends to always been seen as an external act, hence devaluing the affect of the internal impact of such actions which can be equally as dangerous for a society especially one facing economic privation.
Overall, the other reason why nonwestern societies do not revere terrorism to be such a threat, is not just because they are focused on the other social ills that erode their societies, although this may be a cause, but the “it can’t happen to us” mentality is clearly reiterated in the actions of countries such as the US who popularized terrorism to be an action done only to those who deserve it- and those countries which deserve it are those that tend to be more developed and economically more sound. As the media picked up on US’s get tough with crime and war on terror idea, it is only natural that governments of other countries could possibly get mixed messages of the importance of terrorism.
Yes, on one hand the fear of losing out on tourism and collaboration from the wealthier countries such as the US, but on another level they are constantly being told that they are not good enough to be targeted- reiterating the idea that terrorism is most often, if not always external intervention. Finally, using the word opportunism places a rather negative tone onto the developing countries that turn to enact legislation as a sense of compromise. Is it so hard to believe that people sometimes do things to please others, even if they do not want to? Human do things to please others when they know that pleasing this other party is worth it, be it because they might in return receive accreditation, population, relationship advantages etc.
In the same way, when a country such as Columbia whose internal workings are not as solid in comparison to more developed nations and their people are still suffering from strong levels of illiteracy and poverty, decide to enact anti terrorism legislation in fear that they might lose whatever ties they have with the “Veto Power” countries which will cause further instability to their nation- it is not an act of brown nosing- in fact it can be deemed to be an act that is political literate in that one outweighs the losses to gains within their country if they were to lose the support and international ties of wealthier countries such as the US.
In no way am I supporting the forceful tactic of the States, but it was important to shed light how opportunism demonizes the actions of third world countries, belitting them to be brown nosers, wanting to climb the popularity ladder. However, when a country’s’ social welfare is at risk, sometimes the gains of buying into such legislation outweighs the long-term costs.
That being said, the reasons you have expressed in your post and those expressed in mine are not mutually exclusive. If anything they can work together to better explain the coercion that some countries may feel to buy into anti terrorism legislation- to fit the progressive world bill that has been set out for them by super powers like the States.
Secondly, there lies a huge inaccuracy in the way the term "Third World" has been used in relation to political opportunism- thus this idea of “Third world” needs to be better defined before linking it to reasons why these countries have enacted or failed to enacted anti terrorism legislation. In Whitakers article the idea of the “Third World” is not clearly defined, and this unclear category seems to also exude in your understanding of why under developed or developing countries decide to enact anti terrorism legislation. While it is believed the term originated in times of the Cold War to distinguish those nations that are neither aligned with the West (NATO) nor with the East, the Communist bloc, the term is now more popularly used to identify those countries which are developing such as those within Africa, Asia and Latin America (OWNO, 2008).
However, within the list of countries that have enacted anti terrorism legislation post USA Patriot Act are those such as India, Columbia and Nepal which have all been named third world countries in one regard or another (Whitaker 1019). My problem exists with the inappropriate manner in which this term is used, then abused. It would be wrong to say that “Without the influence and persuasion of the United States, many Third World countries might not have passed anti-terrorism legislation after 9/11”. This is because, your statement implies that all third would countries do not fully understand or appreciate the threat of terror because they believe it is something that happens in the west, and thus without US force cooperation ultimatums they would not for the reasons of protecting their own people decide to enact such a legislation. This is definately problematic. By using the idea of “third world” both, Whitaker and by virtue of your utilizing her article as background and support, you, are making a blanket statement forcing all types of third world countries into one category, when in reality this is not always the case.
Take India as an example. This country has always been seen as a third world or developing nation, yet still only after extensive debate, the anti terrorism legislation has passed in this country (Whitaker 1019). However, Kenya which is also a third world country according to the Whitaker paper, is yet to pass such a legislation as it is pending detailed discussions. Nepal, recently being rated one of the worst places to live in for women by The Toronto Star, on March 9, 2008, was also one of those countries that passed the anti terrorism legislation. I use these examples to show that the term third world needs to be unpacked and broken down to be effective and to perhaps explain why some countries rather than others enact such legislations while others ponder protection against social ills as more of a priority. It is widely understood that countries are deemed third world because they are either developing totally in all regards, or are developing immensely in one regard or another. That being said, some of the categorizes that exist now which outline the differences amongst countries are : “Third World Countries in terms of political rights and civil liberties Third World Countries in terms of their Gross National Income (GNI), Third World Countries in Terms of their Human Development, Third World Countries in Terms of Poverty and Third World Countries in Terms of Press Freedom” (OWNO, 2008). This needed to be better outlined in the Whitaker article before tackling issues of “Anti-terrorism legislation in the Third World” (Whitaker, 1018), as she has attempted to do. It can be seen that all the aforementioned countries who are deemed third world, are at different stages of development and thus this overarching category is ineffective in explaining how each country as a result of its third world status resorts to opportunism.
Additionally, by stating as you have that, reduced liberties is regionally sensitive, especially in Third World countries, no actual argument is being made because in each developing nation there exists differing levels of development and without indicating which country is third world in relation to what qualifying standard, the argument remains empty and unconvincing. For example it would make sense to say that Ghana in relation to its overall development is being deemed third world for the purpose of this argument however nothing of this stature was made. Further making it difficult to understand how exactly public sentiments on reduced liberties in the third world are sensitive and thus differ from more progressive and developed nations such as the States.
It would be more persuasive to state that liberties in India might be seen differently than those in Kenya, and thus India has move forward much ahead of Kenya’s government to take into consideration after heated debate that importance of such legislation. Additionally, while you imply the respect of liberty is greater in western nations, you leave no comment on the possibility that even within developing nations liberty holds different values and varying importance. For example, Nepal having passed an anti terrorism legislation in 2002 (Whitaker, 1019), is still rated to be one of the worst places socially to live for women in the world. Teen girls who are unmarried are sold to traffickers, this is common place in the regime. Women who have lost their partners are labeled witches and treated as such. This crystallizes the lack of equality, guaranteed the basic necessities and protection of human rights to survive and be free of persecution as per the UN Declaration.
Furthermore, his same country was amongst the first fourteen countries “that have introduced anti-terrorism legislation since 2001 passed it with minimal debate”. (Whitaker, 1019). It is hard however, to understand how nation state security was seen as more important than protecting the rights of the female gender within Nepal. Further to this, enacting legislation has a monetary cost, and in such a country it can be properly argued that the government should spend more time and money looking into the female traffic business and into reviving women’s shelters and women’s aid clinics to help those widowed back into society without discrimination.
At the same time, countries such as Kenya, Ghana, Zimbabwe and Nigeria, face some of the highest levels of HIV/AIDS infestations and their economies are less than substandard in comparison to India and Nepal. Thus, in comparison to Nepal and India, Kenya, Ghana, Zimbabwe and Nigeria, whilst still labeled third world, have yet to enact such a measure of nation protection, perhaps because dealing with the social ills that are currently eroding its society is more pressing to them than spending money on an act that they have been told symbolically by the USA and the West, will probably never be enacted as a result of their poor status.
This mindset could very well be that which is followed by African officials when dealing with the pressures of enacting anti terrorism legislation. However, my point here is that even within the developing world, there are different levels of development that indicate and shape the actions of those governments. Using the India, Nepal and Kenya comparison not only can this be seen but it can be understood that categorizing all of them into the third world without properly defining their relation to development, meaning in which way they are being called third world, is detrimental to the over all point of why developing nations turn to anti terrorism legislation in the first place. Overall simply calling a country third world, undermines the issues at large within the nation, which in turn hinders the ability to understand the relation between anti terrorism legislation, the western world and their impacts on these developing nations.
Overall, I must reiterate that I find your post interesting and while we agree on several points, my intention in the aforementioned post was to highlight some of the deeper causes of why the developing world might see the west as the place of terrorism and hence why other societies might not prioritize anti terrorism to be highest on its list of “things to fix”. Additionally, it was crucial to identify the importance of properly using the terms “opportunism” and the “third world”, especially in relation to one another in order to ensure that these developing countries were revered for their varying levels of progression and in turn were not demonized for deciding to endorse and enact or desist from enacting anti terrorism legislation.
Sources:
One World Nations Online- nationsonline.org. Copyright 1998-2008
Whitaker, Beth Elise. "Exporting the Patriot Act? Democracy and the 'War on Terror' in
the Third World," Third World Quarterly, vol.28, no. 5 (2007), pp. 1017-32.
Since 2005, the Bush administration’s two foreign policy initiatives have been the global promotion of democracy and the “war on terror”. The pairing of these goals rests on the rationale that authoritarian regimes can actually lead to terrorism. Terrorism has long been considered the “weapon of the weak”; restricted access to resources and diminished human rights, understandably, create the conditions of desperation and powerlessness that motivate and underlie terrorist acts. The promotion of democracy in such authoritarian regimes is argued to be a worthwhile effort toward the long-term eradication of terrorism, in that it aims to resolve the root conflicts that generate extremist sentiments and behaviour. In reality, however, the United States’ twin foreign policy goals appear to function in opposition to each other, rather than in unison (Whitaker 2007). The goal of enhancing international security has apparently superseded the promotion of democracy and, rather paradoxically, has utilized anti-democratic means towards this end (Ibid). While the resulting tension between freedom and security is felt even in entrenched democracies like the UK or Canada, the incongruence of America’s dual foreign policy goals is most apparent in the newer democracies that comprise the “third world” (Ibid).
In the wake of 9/11, the United Nations Security Council called on all member states to comply with international conventions on terrorism and to adopt the necessary domestic legislation to enforce these codes. Leading the global fight against terror, the US was quick to respond with the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act. For a country with such a famed democratic tradition, the Act’s repressive measures have been shocking. For instance, the Act includes broad definitions which fuse terrorism with civil disobedience; it also expands the powers of the state and law enforcement, while enhancing surveillance and intelligence gathering capabilities. Moreover, the PATRIOT Act reduces procedural requirements and permits the widespread sharing of information among law enforcement agencies both domestically and internationally.
The Act has spearheaded somewhat of a global shift in the prioritizing of security over individual rights. After its’ enactment, at least 33 countries in the developing world have followed suit with similar legislation Although international bodies like the UN have required States to crack down on terrorism by enhancing national security, the US is widely perceived as the driving force behind these, often repressive, measures (Ibid). Such a perception is warranted considering Bush’s overtly convicting assertions regarding the “war on terror” (“You’re either with us or against us!”). Moreover, as stated by the blog author, and some respondents, the clout surrounding the US is undeniable. “Third world” countries in desperate need of aid and powerful alliances cannot afford to alienate themselves from the most powerful country in the world. .
The “third world” response to US-backed counterterrorism legislation has been divided. While more authoritarian regimes have been quick to implement the repressive policies, there has been significant delay in new democracies (Ibid). Citizens of South Africa or Kenya, for instance, have been highly oppositional to the proposed retraction of their recently hard-won liberties (Ibid). Instead of supporting the democratic aspirations of these countries, the US has accused them of being “soft on terror” (Ibid). Many citizens of the “third world” feel that the US is forcing repressive, counter-terrorist policies on their domestic governments (Ibid). This sentiment is understandable, considering the subtle threats used by US diplomats. For instance, as the blogger noted, Trinidad and Tobago was warned of a reduction in American investment if the anti-terrorism bill was not passed. Moreover, despite human rights abuses in Indonesia and Uganda, the US has granted these states extensive financial and military aid following the adoption of anti-terrorism policies (Ibid). In combating terrorism, the US has preferred to work with “friendly authoritarian regimes” where citizens lack the rights and freedoms to challenge their governments (Ibid).
The Bush administration’s twin foreign policy goals are clearly at odds with each other, as the US supports anti-democratic measures in the name of combating terrorism. “Third world” states are increasingly pressured to forgo their newly embraced democratic ideals, in favour of repressive, US-backed security polices. This has resulted in a strong anti-American sentiment that will likely only get worse if “third world” governments abuse their broadened power at the expense of their citizens (Ibid). Current US foreign policy may inadvertently be contributing to the very desperation and repression which fuels terrorism and the anti-Americanism which makes the US an enticing target.
Whitaker, Beth Elise. "Exporting the Patriot Act? Democracy and the 'War on Terror' in the Third World," Third World Quarterly, vol.28, no. 5 (2007), pp. 1017-32.
Post a Comment