In the fight against terrorism and corruption, it is imperative not to

compromise on human rights and civil liberties

Abrahim Shah

(3rd in CSS 2018, PAS)

Key takeaways:

 States must provide certain basic human rights and civil liberties to its citizens
 No pretext of national security or terrorism should curb these rights
 Many countries including the United States, Pakistan, Israel and India curb civil liberties
in the name of fighting terrorism and corruption
 This is self-defeating because this only further isolates affected communities
 Terrorism and corruption have economic and political roots, thus require economic and
political solutions, not security-centric policies
 Curbing civil liberties and compromising human rights should thus be the last resort

Outline
1. Introduction

Human rights and civil liberties are as essential for people as is security; states have a tendency
to violate human rights and civil liberties in the name of security and fighting terrorism and
corruption; terrorism and corruption tend to worsen if human rights and civil liberties are
violated

2. Defining the basic human rights and civil liberties that must not be compromised
a. Freedom of expression
b. Freedom of movement
c. Freedom of association and political mobilization
d. Freedom of speech
e. Freedom of the press
f. Protection against arbitrary detention and arrest
3. Why civil liberties and human rights must not be compromised in the battle against
corruption and terrorism
a. Civil liberties and human rights are as important as security for human beings
b. The state’s overarching powers allow it to use the excuse of terrorism and
corruption to silence genuine dissent and criticism
 c. The pretense of terrorism and corruption often leads to the arrest and
prosecution of well-meaning and innocent citizens
d. A security state that violates human rights fails to provide the adequate social
fabric for its people
e. Violating human rights and civil liberties often exacerbates the menace of
terrorism and corruption
f. Such measures impact different communities differently and have a significant
emotional and mental toll on affected communities
4. Examples of states violating human rights and civil liberties on the pretext of terrorism
and corruption
a. The United States
i. The Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security
ii. Surveillance of Muslims
iii. Police brutality and the struggles of the African-American community
b. Philippines and its battle against drug cartels
c. Israel and oppressing the Palestinians
d. India and state-led violence against Kashmiris
e. China and the internment of Uyghur Muslims
f. Sri Lanka and the defeat of the Tamil Tigers
g. Pakistan
i. The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act
ii. The case of missing persons
iii. Military courts
5. Is violating human rights and compromising on civil liberties ever justified in the name
of fighting corruption and terrorism?
a. Some cases require the state curb certain human rights and civil liberties
b. Curbing freedom of movement and communication are often essential to clamp
down on radical organizations
c. Restricting flow of capital and finance is another civil liberty that can be
compromised to ensure security
6. Discussion: corruption and terrorism often stem from economic and political
problems, and require political and economic solutions, not security related measures
a. Terrorism in Afghanistan can only be resolved through dialogue and increasing
political representation
b. Terrorism in Balochistan too can only be resolved through political power sharing
and economic development
7. Conclusion
Civil liberties and human rights are essential for the sanctity and dignity of human life and must
not be curbed in the name of fighting corruption and terrorism. Certain limitations are indeed
necessary but it is important to realize terrorism and corruption stem from poor political and
economic structures, and thus require non-security related measures

The United States of America—the supposed land of liberty and freedom—is an

unwelcoming place for Muslims, African Americans and indeed most minorities. Harassed by
law enforcement agencies, targeted by the police and under constant surveillance from the ‘big
brother’ American state, Muslims and other people of color in America face physical and
psychological pressure on nearly a daily basis on the pretext of fighting terrorism and
corruption. For it is the Patriot Act and the subsequent legislation the United States passed to
‘protect American shores’ from terrorism that led to the mass surveillance and prosecution of
people belonging to particular religions, communities and skin colors. This surveillance and
silencing of dissent in certain communities, in turn, stems from the American government’s
claims that it is fighting terrorism and corruption on behalf of the American people. Terrorism
and corruption are thus used to justify the curbing of basic human rights and civil liberties for a
large segment of the population. These draconian measures are sadly common in other
countries such as China, the Philippines, Israel, India and Pakistan as well. While these countries
claim to be promoting national security by limiting civil liberties and curbing human rights, such
measures only tend to isolate targeted communities and further exacerbate the fissures that
give birth to terrorism and corruption in society. In reality, civil liberties and human rights are
essential to the social fabric of a community, and humans cannot function adequately if their
dignity and freedom are violated. Issues of terrorism and corruption, moreover, are usually
political and economic in nature, and thus require political and economic intervention, not
heavy security measures. It is thus essential that states rethink their approach towards fighting
terrorism and corruption, and not compromise on basic human rights and civil liberties in the
name of national security.

There are certain civil liberties and human rights states tend to compromise the most on
in the name of fighting terrorism and corruption, and it is important to delineate these rights
first. The first rights states tend to subjugate are the rights of freedom of expression, right of
freedom of speech and the right to mobilize. By curbing the first two aforementioned
freedoms, states are able to stifle dissent and prevent certain movements from spreading
amongst the people. The primary example of this is state oppression against dissident bloggers
and writers in Bangladesh and India. The government in both of these countries arrested and
prosecuted individuals who voiced opinions against the incumbent government. This is a classic
example of states curbing certain civil liberties and human rights in the name of fighting
terrorism. In Bangladesh, for instance, the bloggers were accused of fomenting terrorism and
inciting violence against the government. In reality, these individuals had simply expressed their
disapproval of the Bangladeshi government’s policies and its brutal measures against members
of Bangladesh’s Jamaat-e-Islami.

The freedoms to mobilize and to express one’s political views are other rights states
tend to violate in the name of fighting terrorism and corruption. This is again done to prevent
dissent and to ensure dissenting movements do not take up physical space or come together to
challenge the writ of the state. Often, these movements have genuine grievances, and
mobilization allows them to gain sympathy and to express themselves politically. Governments’
decision to prevent this only exacerbates the problem and further leads to isolation within the
community. The prime example of this is the Pakistani government’s decision to not engage
with the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM) and to prevent the movement from mobilizing or
organizing in Pakistan’s urban areas. The justification for this is once again that this movement
is ‘anti-state’ and aims to promote terrorism.

The free press and journalists are also significant casualties of the state’s fight against
terrorism and corruption. Too often it is the press that faces censorship, while journalists are
unable to report on important issues or to prevent objective analysis. This silencing of the press
once again stems from the argument that press censorship is essential to fight terrorism and
corruption. States obsessed with national security and with fighting terrorism therefore often
score poorly on indexes of press freedom. Journalists in these countries also tend to live
challenging lives and face oppression on multiple fronts. It is indeed as the quote goes,

“Truth is always the first casualty of war.”

The last and perhaps the most significant civil liberties and human rights that tend to be
compromised in times of conflict are freedom of movement and freedom from arbitrary arrest
and detention. This usually happens as preemptive measures or to gain information that might
lead to the arrest of purported terrorists. The most draconian example of this in modern times
is the arrest and surveillance of Muslims in the United States. Muslims living and residing in the
United States are subject to arbitrary arrests and can anytime be taken to detention centers for
‘questioning’. This is equally true for Muslims who have spent all their lives in the United States
as it is for young Muslims arriving in the United States on study visas. Such scrutiny has
immense psychological ramifications for targeted individuals, who are forced to live in constant
fear and caution. This sentiment was best captured by the American whistleblower Edward
Snowden, who claimed,
 “No system of mass surveillance has existed in any society that we know of which has
not been abused.”

-Edward Snowden (whistleblower and former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee)

Violating and compromising on civil liberties and human rights is thus very common in the name
of fighting terrorism and corruption. In reality, however, these steps tend to backfire and have far more
negative ramifications than they do positive consequences. Civil liberties and human rights are integral
to the dignity and conscience of human life. Violating these thus leads to a paradigm where people
cannot express themselves free, and in which citizens do not have complete freedom over their
thoughts and actions. This is highly debilitating for individuals and thus deters societies from growing.
Again, this is evident amongst the Muslim community in America where members of the community
spend a large amount of time avoiding suspicion and living defensively. This has a significant mental toll
and thus limits the maximum productivity of the community. The leading politician in Myanmar, Aung
San Suu Kyi captured this best when said,

“Within a system which denies the existence of basic human rights, fear tends to be the order of
the day.”

-Aung San Suu Kyi (State Counselor of Myanmar)

Curbing civil liberties and human rights in the guise of fighting terrorism and corruption
often leads to the stifling of genuine criticism and debate, and limits the democratic rights of
the people. This happens because governments become impervious to opposition and thus
label any constructive criticism as being ‘anti-state’. Authorities thus intertwine democratic
opposition and healthy debate with anti-state and terrorist activities, which in turn silences
constructive debate. Bangladesh and India once again serve as pertinent examples of this.
Under Narendra Modi, for instance, the Indian state is increasingly becoming intolerant of
opposing voices, and people clamoring for the rights of Muslims, Dalits and Kashmiris are
labelled ‘anti state’. The civil liberties of these people are thus compromised in the name of
national security and in preventing terrorism. Bangladesh too has adopted an increasingly
authoritarian role towards opposition voices. The incumbent regime of Sheikh Hasina, for
example, has clamped down on opposition voices and in fact prevented opposition politicians
from contesting elections. This is a prime example of a government compromising on civil
liberties and human rights in order to curb terrorism. In reality, these governments are silencing
constructive dissent and moving towards increasingly authoritarian structures of power.

The greatest impact authoritarian measures have is that they often exacerbate the
challenges these measures set out to overcome. Intense surveillance and oppression for
instance, tend to further isolate communities and push them towards the fringes of society.
This pushes these communities closer to corruption and to terrorism, thus further perpetuating
the divide that already exists in society. The rise of the Islamic State or DAESH in Iraq and Syria
perfectly highlights this point. Following the fall of Saddam Hossein in 2003, the American
government initiated moves that isolated the Sunni community in Iraq. This community was
ostracized and faced intense prosecution and isolation from both the Americans and the ruling
Shiite government in Iraq. These Sunni forces eventually came together in the oppression they
faced and formed IS. In many cases, therefore, intense surveillance and curbing of human rights
and civil liberties only leads to further marginalization and to a rise in terrorism and corruption.
Yuval Noah Harari, in fact, captured this best when he said,

“The most dangerous thing about terrorism is the over-reaction to it.”

-Yuval Noah Harari (Historian)

Subjugating human rights and civil liberties thus has significant consequences for
individuals and societies. Many countries—chief among them the United States—
unfortunately, compromise on basic human rights in the name of fighting terrorism and
corruption. The United States, for example, promulgated the Patriot Act in 2001 and
established the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of 2001 9/11 attacks in New York
City. These measures gave American authorities widespread power to detain citizens and
torture them for information. The greatest brunt of this state high-handedness fell on Muslims
who were labelled as terrorists and ostracized. American intelligence and law enforcement
agencies would prosecute Muslims on uncertain grounds which led to massive psychological
trauma amongst the Muslim community. This prosecution took the form of massive
surveillance of Muslim citizens and public spaces such as mosques and community centers. This
surveillance, moreover, was not restricted solely towards Muslims, with African-Americans too
finding themselves victims of a racist judiciary and police force. The Black Lives Matter (BLM)
movement, in fact, is the African American community’s response to the oppression it faces at
the hands of the police and American judiciary.
 The recent drug war the Philippines government launched in its country is yet another
example of the government curbing civil liberties in the name of fighting corruption—in this
case moral and social corruption. The Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte has made it a personal
crusade to clamp down on the drug trade in his country, but this mission has seen state
authorities unleashing massive amounts of violence on ordinary citizens. Many teenagers, for
instance, have lost their lives when drug enforcement agencies have launched crackdowns in
particular areas. This once again highlights how the pretext of fighting corruption—in this case
the war on drugs—encroaches on basic human rights—the right to life and the right to self-
defense in this case.

Countries such as Sri Lanka, India, Israel and China are also guilty of subjugating human
rights in the name of fighting terrorism and corruption. Sri Lanka, for instance, initiated
genocide against the Tamil community in order to completely eradicate the Tamil Tigers. While
many tout this as a successful attempt at eroding a virulent terrorist organization, it was in fact
a state led act of war against an ethnic community. This campaign, moreover, was fraught with
severe violations of human rights, and led to massive loss of life amongst the Tamil community.
The acclaimed human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson said about the Sri Lankan war,

“The question of [genocide in Sri Lanka] needs to be litigated because the Sri Lankan
Government certainly behaved as if its intention was to wipe out at least a part of the Tamil
community and to produce conditions in the North which made it difficult for Tamils and their
culture to survive.”

-Geoffrey Robertson (human rights lawyer)

India and Israel, meanwhile, impose severe limitations on the human rights Kashmiris
and Palestinians enjoy in these respective countries. India’s Armed Forces Special Powers Act
(AFSPA) for example, gives Indian military authorities and police officials to detain Kashmiris
and to use violent arms against them. Israel, on the other hand, has turned Gaza into the
world’s largest ‘open air prison’, with Gazans unable to move freely or to mobilize. Gazans,
sadly, do not have even basic access to education and healthcare either. Both the Indian and
the Israeli government justify these harrowing measures by claiming they are fighting terrorism.
Palestine and Kashmir’s cases therefore, perfectly highlight how a shallow pretext to fight
terrorism and corruption is used to oppress millions of people and to stifle basic civil liberties
and human rights.

This pretext and the subsequent oppression of human rights exist closer to home as
well, with both Pakistan and our evergreen ally China guilty of this. Pakistan, for example,
promulgated the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act in 2016 which gives government
widespread authority to keep tabs on social media and news outlets. In fact, Pakistan ranks 139
on the global Press Freedom Index primarily because of the severe censorship that exists in our
society. Military courts and the case of missing persons too point towards a system that rests
on intimidation and weak judicial measures to oppress dissent. Many jurists have highlighted
how military courts violate basic human rights and the mechanisms required for a fair trial. The
missing persons issue stems from similar problems, with many claiming that this too is a
product of draconian authoritarianism. China, on the other hand, has initiated ‘internment
camps’ for the ethnic Uyghur community in its restive western region of Xinjiang. These camps
are meant to ‘educate’ the local Muslim population on Chinese culture, but in fact, involve
stringent surveillance and coercive measures against the locals. This harmful nexus between
state security, terrorism and limiting civil liberties was best foreshadowed by former American
president James Madison, who claimed,

“The means of defense against foreign danger have always been the instruments of
tyranny at home.”

-James Madison (former President of the United States)

Despite the drawbacks that exist in curbing civil liberties, and the pernicious impact this
had on the social fabric of countries that engaged in this practice, it is also true that some
occasions warrant limiting civil liberties and compromising on human rights. Such situations
occur when there is a grave terrorist threat. A prime example of this is once again Pakistan,
where state authorities regularly limit cellular phone access and communications. Authorities
usually take these steps on important religious and national days to prevent any communal or
sectarian violence. This circumscribing of communication ensures radical organizations are
unable to coordinate attacks. In this case, therefore, curtailing civil liberties is not only
necessary but also beneficial to maintain security.

Curtailing free flow of international capital and money is yet another step states take to
fight terrorism and corruption. This is another action that infringes on the civil liberties citizens
enjoy, but can once again be necessary to prevent a severe debt crisis and money laundering.
Pakistan, in fact, adopted this measure in 1998 when the government froze all foreign owned
accounts because of the sanctions the United States imposed on the country in the wake of the
1998 nuclear tests. Curbing the inflow and outflow of capital and managing a country’s capital
account are in fact essential for developing countries to prevent devaluation and a ‘run on their
currencies’. In both of these situations, therefore, curtailing civil liberties and compromising on
basic human rights—such as undertaking monetary transactions—is valid because of the
security and economic challenges the country faces.
 It is, however, essential to understand that corruption and terrorism are problems that
are economic and political in nature, and thus require political and economic solutions.
Security-oriented measures can stymie the tide of corruption and terrorism, but to truly curb
these menaces, it is essential to think beyond the security paradigm. There is no greater
example of this than the security threat in Balochistan and the persistence of the Taliban in
Afghanistan.

Pakistan’s most restive province Balochistan has remained in the throes of severe
violence for decades. A significant military presence and substantial limits on the freedom of
the locals have translated into little improvement in the overall security situation. This is
primarily because terrorism in Balochistan is a product of years of political neglect and
economic marginalization. Balochistan continues to remain Pakistan’s biggest province despite
the natural resources it boasts, while state high-handedness over the course of Pakistan’s
history has isolated different segments of the Baloch community. This has led to the violence
that we see on almost a daily basis in the province. The government’s inability to initiate
genuine political reform in the province, coupled with the poor mechanism of resource sharing
has only further exacerbated the problem. This situation thus highlights how the government’s
efforts to curb terrorism by curbing civil liberties and human rights are futile. Instead, the
government must look beyond a security-centric approach and engage with disgruntled
elements in the province. The government must also move towards a comprehensive
decentralized and power sharing formula which gives genuine voice to the people.

Afghanistan too poses a similar conundrum, where America and its allies have clung to a
security and military oriented approach. Afghanistan’s problems are political and ethnic in
nature, and thus require political efforts. To both America and Pakistan’s credit, this is exactly
what these states are now pursuing. Pakistan, in fact, has always claimed that a peaceful
negotiation is the only solution to the Afghan crisis. America’s inability to subjugate the Taliban
once again highlights how a security oriented approach that is predicated on limiting civil
liberties and human rights is by nature abortive and will fail to yield any results. America must
therefore be receptive to engaging with the Taliban and to finding a political solution in the
country.

In conclusion, therefore, any effort to curtail terrorism and corruption must not blind
states to the importance of providing civil liberties and basic human rights. Terrorism and
corruption are problems which stem from political and economic factors, and thus require
economic and political interventions. The war in Afghanistan and the security concerns in
Balochistan serve as cases in point to augment this argument. It is, however, equally true that a
limited curtailment of civil liberties and human rights can at times be essential to root out
terrorism and corruption. Limiting communication and controlling the free of capital, for
instance, are at times essential to prevent terrorist attacks from occurring and from countries’
economies coming under threat. It becomes a problem, however, when states use national
security as pretexts to impose severe limits on the freedom and human rights of citizens.
Countries like the United States, China, India, Israel and Pakistan, unfortunately, are all
complicit in using national security as a veneer to imposing authoritarian and draconian
measure on their societies. This is too often self-defeating since stringent limits on civil liberties
and human rights isolate targeted communities and only further isolate them. States should,
therefore, turn their attention towards identifying why terrorism and corruption exist—which
often stem from political and economic issues. Countries must thus move from imposing strict
security measures and limiting civil liberties to initiating genuine political and economic reform.
That is the need of the hour. Pakistan too much adopt this approach. A violent future lies in
wait otherwise.