Qian Xuemei*

 

Abstract: This article briefly outlines how anti-terrorism struggles became linked and their relationship thereafter with human rights issues in international political life. With equal relevance and value to human development, anti-terrorism efforts and human rights protection are themselves not mutually exclusive or contradictory. Their conflict in everyday life has sometimes resulted from the fact that they are both manipulated in the service of certain political ends. What’s more, there has never been perfect human rights protection in the world so far, which often makes human rights problems an easy charge against almost every government. No anti-terrorist activities in either the US or Europe have been really constrained by the idea of human rights no matter how beautiful their rhetoric has been. Now both human rights and anti-terrorism have been made into a tool of diplomacy and international politics. With the war in Afghanistan over, the United States is enhancing its human rights diplomacy together with its anti-terrorism diplomacy. Truly efficient, comprehensive international cooperation on anti-terrorism is still far away.

 

Key Words: anti-terrorism    human rights    international politics

 

In recent years, the relation between the fight against terrorism and human rights protection has become a focus in international politics. Two opposing views are rather eye-catching among all the claims. One asserts that some aspects of human rights must be restricted for the sake of anti-terrorism while the other view emphasizes that human rights should prevail above all and should never be weakened in the name of anti-terrorism. Such a debate is now gradually showing its impact on the political practices of relevant countries and playing a role in establishing international conventions related to the practice of anti-terrorism. This article explores how anti-terrorism struggles are linked with human rights protection, the origin of this linkage and its possible influence from the perspective of international political practice. 

 

 

Human rights protection is a fundamental principle of the Charter of the United Nations(UN). Various special institutions have been established under the UN and other international organizations to protect human rights. Despite their differences in history, culture, governmental form and development, all countries have promised to protect human rights with one accord. At the same time, taking human rights protection practices and establishing standards there from has been an important stage in international politics for half a century. Countries like the U.S. are rather active in promoting human rights diplomacy. Since the end of the Cold War, the term “human rights” has become a key word in international affairs. Humanitarian intervention in regions like Timor-Leste and Kosovo has become a typical practice. [page]

 

International anti-terrorism efforts within the UN framework originated in the 1960s,¹ but were not linked to human rights for a long period of time. The 12 universal UN Conventions² frequently mentioned in international anti-terrorism studies have involved such issues as aviation safety, combatting hijacking and hostage-taking, diplomatic personnel protection, nuclear materials protection, navigation safety, explosives regulation, suppression of bomb attacks and bans on financing terrorist organizations, etc., but not human rights. The resolutions on fighting terrorism passed by the UN Security Council in the 1990swere no exception: for example, see Resolution No. 1267,which was passed in 1999 regarding sanctions against the Taliban. The structural source of this phenomenon lies in its institutional establishment and its functional scope. The primary concern of the UN Security Council is global safety, while that of the UN General Assembly is the promotion of human rights protection. More importantly, for various reasons, the UN, especially the UN General Assembly, “hasn’t performed its role as the defender of the UN Charter so far.”³

 

The events of 9/11 are generally taken as a historical watershed interms of their fundamental influence on international political practice. On the one hand, the status of human rights in U.S. political life greatly declined. In the field of diplomacy, anti-terrorism replaced human rights, becoming the criterion for distinguishing friends from foes by the U.S. government in the fall of 2001.  President Bush laid human rights diplomacy aside, urging other governments to choose either to be with the U.S. or with the terrorists.⁴ In the field of domestic politics, strongly fighting against terrorists became the first priority in ensuring homeland security. The U.S. government enhanced the powers of law enforcement departments and intelligence services, and carried out several measures, such as restricting freedom of speech, conducting various types of monitoring, searching houses and enhancing border and immigration control. Citizens’ human rights, freedom and democracy became subordinate to homeland security.

 

On the other hand, due to the international status of the U.S., the war against terrorism has become the most important international political matter since the beginning of the 21st century. President George W. Bush organized a number of countries into a global anti-terrorism war alliance, which brought some changes to the formerly loose or even merely nominal anti-terrorism front within the UN framework. The goal of the war in Afghanistan was considered to be anti-terrorism, taking homeland security as the core and self-defense and punishment as the purposes, but it was not an international effort to promote and protect human rights. It was totally different from the former humanitarian intervention practices of the U.S. and European countries. In seeking propaganda, government leaders of the U.S. and UK and their wives asserted that over throwing the Taliban regime was helpful in protecting the legal interests of females in Afghanistan.⁵ They also asserted that the real reason for overthrowing the Saddam regime lay in its former slaughter of the Kurds. Yet the core of the anti-terrorism war was not the human rights and freedom of the Afghan and Iraqi people, but the national security and regional strategy of the U.S. and its allies. The Bush Administration had tried to avoid ICC regulation of wars through bilateral agreements. In 2001-2002, the anti-terrorism resolutions of the UN didn’t make any special comments on human rights either. Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1373 called for the international community to redouble efforts to combat terrorist activities and enhance international anti-terrorism cooperation, yet glossed over the UN Charter and human rights protection issues.⁶ Despite the controversies and doubts aroused in the area of international law by the UAV fixed-point attack by the U.S. on terrorist leaders in the tribal area of nonbelligerent Pakistan, the UN Security Council didn’t call for a stop. 

 

Although domestic security regulations aroused dispute,⁷ on the international level, international law experts and human rights activists were very concerned with whether the anti-terrorism war would lead to the irreversible loss of status of human rights in international affairs and national strategy. International opinion hadn’t linked human rights with national/global security then. The discussion about human rights mainly focused on how to treat terrorist suspects.⁸ After the outbreak of the war in Afghanistan, while being asked whether it was possible to forgive the 9/11 suspects, General Norman Schwarzkopf said “It’s the power of God to forgive them. Our task is to send them to God.”⁹[page]

 

It was in 2002-2003 that human rights protection and humanitarianism were brought into the schedule of anti-terrorism. There were two important milestones: One was that the U.S. and UK governments, on public occasions began to use human rights more frequently as the reason for justifying the continuation of the war in Afghanistan and the start of the Iraq War. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America 2002,¹⁰ released on Sept.17, 2002, was an important document. The second was that Resolution No. 1456 of the UN Security Council in January 2003 clearly required that anti-terrorism actions should follow the obligations of international law. Measures should be taken according to international law, especially international laws about humanitarianism, human rights and refugees.¹¹ Undoubtedly, the Iraq War was never a humanitarian war, but was a first strike by President George W. Bush to dominate the situation. Human rights and freedom only served as a flag or a fig leaf. United Nations S/RES/1456 (2003) only emphasized international law not abstract human rights. The supervision mechanism for evaluating whether anti-terrorism struggles accorded with protecting human rights was not duly established at the UN. In subsequent years, the Counter-terrorism Committee (CTC) of the Security Council and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCTR) maintained dreadful cooperation. The Human Rights Committee never took any important actions in supervising whether anti-terrorism struggles by all countries followed human rights norms.¹² That is to say, although United Nations S/RES/1456 (2003) included human rights protection and humanitarianism in the norms of anti-terrorism struggles, it remained an expression of attitude only. 

 

Before 2007, a basic consensus of anti-terrorism and human rights experts in Europe and the U.S. was that human rights protection was just a basic restraint on the fight against terrorism. A proper restriction of human rights served as an important premise of national security. The open, free and democratic society was facing a severe threat of terrorism. Thus it was choosing the lesser evil¹³ whereby governments would exercise emergency powers to carry out radical anti-terrorism measures that restricted some aspects of human rights. Surely there were different opinions, especially in the fields of law and politics. Despite different voices, however, the U.S. continued its strong fight against terrorism. The war in Afghanistan drifted far away from the Third Geneva Convention to a large extent. Members of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were taken to be terrorists, not just combatants. Torture in prison continued spreading. President George W. Bush clearly claimed that members of Al-Qaeda couldn’t enjoy the protection of the Third Geneva Convention because they “couldn’t represent any nations or countries. They didn’t sign the Third Geneva Convention.”¹⁴

 

The period 2006-07 was a landmark for human rights protection being taken as a key link in the fight against terrorism, with the following events as the main background. The Taliban staged a comeback at the end of 2004. The situation in Afghanistan continued to worsen. The U.S. raised its troop strength in the region by 50 percent, but was still unable to resolve the situation. The battlefield in Iraq was quite a mess. Global anti-Americanism reached an unprecedented height and global anti-terrorism struggles got into hot water. Guantanamo Bay became the symbol of America, whose image around the world was no longer as a protector of human rights but as a destroyer of human rights.¹⁵ In order to change the unfavorable situation, on Dec. 15, 2006, America released a new COIN with the core idea that the key to the success of rebel and anti-terrorism struggles was not military war but the combination of attack, defense and stabilization measures. Such measures included public security and management, basic services, the development of economic infrastructure and human rights, etc. The new principle emphasized that the most important experience in successfully suppressing rebellions was focusing on the demands and safety of the people, and pardoning and resettling those supporting the new government.¹⁶[page]

 

Protecting human rights and establishing democratic and free political regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq became the main issues in global opinion and anti-terrorism/anti-rebellion fights. The Report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, House of Lords, House of Commons in 2009-2010 and the Report by the International Commission of Jurists, etc. all urged governments to take measures ensuring that every anti-terrorism action strictly respected human rights.¹⁷ In 2010, the UN General Assembly passed the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, listing respecting human rights and democracy as one of the four foundations of counter-terrorism strategy.¹⁸

 

Since 2010, due to the increase in casualties on the Afghan battlefield, the remaining turbulence in Iraq since the end of the war and anticipation of American troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, reflections and criticism of existing anti-terrorism policies further increased. During hot debates about the relationship between anti-terrorism and human rights protection, the opinion was not a minority one that the War on Terror was obviously opposed to the basic principles of human rights.¹⁹ Some even believed that the U.S. War on Terror significantly harmed the reputation of human rights and made it a topic that the intellectual elites in Middle East and the Arab world tried to stay away from.²⁰ In this situation, opinions calling for carrying out anti-terrorism struggles with human rights protection as the premise were gradually voiced. Great changes took place in the context of the global fight against terrorism. The dominant narrative stressed reconsidering the relationship between anti-terrorism and human rights protection, advocated re-evaluating the threat of terrorism and avoiding countries or governments infringing on human rights in the name of anti-terrorism.

 

In summary, in global political practice in the late 20th century, anti-terrorism and human rights protection used to be two discrete fields. Although long emphasizing human rights diplomacy, the U.S. government didn’t link anti-terrorism with human rights protection at the beginning of the war in Afghanistan. On the contrary, the governments of the U.S. and the UK took international human rights mechanisms as antithetical to the fight against terrorism and eliminating terrorist threats, considering it impossible for the two to coexist. Based on the needs of anti-terrorism, from 2001-2006 the U.S. and the UK implemented a series of policies restricting human rights, freedom and democracy within the two countries, which won the approval of the majority. In 2007, the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq worsened. The US adjusted its counter-rebellion policy, stressing human rights protection in Afghanistan and Iraq, which opened up a debate about the relationship between anti-terrorism and human rights protection. During the debate, some opinions were abstracted to conceptual systems. Using human rights as a weapon to criticize and query anti-terrorism policies in a purely theoretical sense gradually spread and became popular.[page]

 

 

China is a key target of U.S. and European human rights diplomacy. The terrorist threat to China’s political order has increased in recent years. With the end of the war in Afghanistan, the U.S.increased its intervention in China’s human rights and anti-terrorism struggle. At the same time, the discussion about anti-terrorism and human rights protection heated up in China, attracting a lot of theory-first theorists and morality-only theorists. It is foreseeable that in the next few years the debate about anti-terrorism and human rights protection will enter the discourse system of certain public intellectuals and those suspicious of the system. 

 

Here the author would like to share several ideas for further discussion:

 

 

An abstract argument about whether anti-terrorism or human rights protection is more important on a value level would only result in an endless and hopeless discussion. 

 

On the theoretical level, this issue is part of an endless debate about human rights centering on two philosophical traditions, liberalism and utilitarianism. The famous theories of Hobbes and Locke about the order of the state or government are often cited as the grounds for these different arguments. In the political view, anti-terrorism belongs to the scope of political practice (policies), which is inevitably influenced by historical conditions. The activities of terrorists, and governmental anti-terrorism policies and their effects and influences always differ based on differences in geography, time and political culture. Human rights principles belong to the category of morals or ethics; yet human rights as fundamental principles call for political practice to be transformed into real rights. The relationship between political practice and morals or ethics has long been a core concern of political philosophy. Since the time of Confucius and Plato, there have been numerous theories about how to put moral principles into political practice so that the latter may embody and be consistent with ethical principles, yet none have been universally effective. [page]

 

 

From the perspective of civil rights, there is no internal conflict between anti-terrorism and human rights protection. It is not a choice of either this or that. They promote and improve each other. Their conflict in political practice results from overuse by politicians. 

 

On one hand, it is common sense that terrorism severely encroaches on human rights, which has also been emphasized by the UN General Assembly, the UN Security Council and the UN Human Rights Committee. Thus, anti-terrorism itself is a significant premise and also practice for protecting human rights. On the other hand, international anti-terrorism practices show that terrorists usually hide among ordinary citizens and seek resources and support from them. Thus, it is inevitable that anti-terrorism actions should bring about some restrictions on the rights and freedom of citizens, such as strengthening controls and security search measures, secret information gathering and intelligence cooperation, etc. These measures are “the core of global anti-terrorism efforts, which are legal and will last for a long time in the foreseeable future.”²¹ Thus, traditional ideas about human rights and privacy must be adjusted. Some anti-terrorism efforts, which seemingly challenge traditional human rights concepts, are meant just to better protect human rights. There is no contradiction.  

 

In political practice, the tense relationship between anti-terrorism and human rights has two reasons. First, in domestic politics, the state apparatus has over-stressed the severity of terrorist threats. In the name of national security, governments have taken possession of resources, expanded governmental powers and restricted civil rights. In international politics, superpowers started wars with other countries or imposed sanctions in the name of “cracking down on terrorism and its supporters.” Second, domestic political actors have over-stressed human rights and the freedom of citizens, mobilizing and gathering people to protest against the government and its anti-terrorism policies. In the field of international relations, they have intervened in the domestic affairs of other countries using universal human rights criteria. 

 

Thus, only when anti-terrorism and human rights were over-used by “politicians” as a means to pursue other political ends did they contradict each other. 

 

For this reason, the rule of law must be emphasized, which doesn’t refer to simple legal texts, and doesn’t mean being unidirectionally aimed at a certain actor. Both anti-terrorism efforts and human rights protection must be carried out in accordance with the law. On the international stage, the authority of international law and that of the UN must be re-established. In domestic political life, on the one side the government must be prevented from over-using anti-terrorism power to infringe on human rights; on the other side, political forces should be prevented from over-using rhetoric about human rights, civil rights or freedom to instigate grassroots rebellion, obstructing national anti-terrorism efforts to maintain public order and security. However, achieving such due consideration or balance is much easier said than done. Between legal texts and the real rule of law is a long and difficult road, which is similar to many other problems in the governance of a state. Simply talking about the principle is easy, but making a practicable policy or reform measure dealing with the fundamental reality of the country is rather difficult. [page]

 

 

Human rights in the end are only claims of rights. Human rights protection is a continuous and long-lasting political aim, which can’t be realized in one day. 

 

The claims of rights are usually idealistic and beyond political reality to some degree. Such claims and legal recognition continuously drive progress in human society, representing a condition where human society is far from perfect. Thus, no matter whether there are anti-terrorism fights or not, the ideal of human rights never becomes reality. In the political lives of all countries, huge gaps between human rights theory and practice, and between promises and reality, still exist. Restrictions and coercive measures only temporarily or partly enlarge such gaps. 

 

In other words, the defect in current human rights protection is the natural state of human rights in human society so far, and is not the outcome of the struggle against terrorism. Regarding the current upward trend in the supremacy of human rights theory, Kant’s statement on rights can be seen as a rebuttal. “According to the logical principle of contradiction, all rights carry with them some implied qualifications or authorities, which impose restrictions or constraints to those that might actually encroach them.”²²

 

 

Political practices in Europe and the U.S. show that when faced with severe terrorism threats, all countries have chosen fighting terrorism as the first political task and a priority in policy-making without exception. The fight against terrorism in the West has never been restrained by the concepts of human rights and freedom. 

 

In special situations where terrorism has badly threatened basic political order and public security, fighting terrorism is sure to be an emergent and realistic political task. In such a situation, some rights and freedoms are sacrificed in order to achieve more freedom, or even to seek rights and freedom because survival is a necessary premise for all rights. The voices against “restricting rights to fight terrorism” in the UK and the U.S. in 2003 never influenced the governments’ will and policies regarding fighting terrorism. In international anti-terrorism practice in the 21st century, human rights protection is usually subjected to the needs of the fight against terrorism or transformed into a tool to fight terrorism or rebellions. [page]

 

For this reason, the protection of human rights and freedom should not be used indiscriminately to repel or negate the value and correctness of fighting terrorism. Primary contradictions and secondary contradictions should be treated distinctively according to real situations. Talking about freedom and other rights of individuals is much too extravagant when public security is badly threatened.

 

In political practice, evaluating whether terrorism has badly threatened national security is the key to deciding what is the primary contradiction between fighting terrorism and human rights protection. Such processes are never democratic or transparent even in democratic countries like the UK and the U.S. because the estimation of terrorist threats calls for much information and intelligence. But who can obtain such information about the scale and extent of threats? Certainly the public can’t. Can the government totally publicize all information about the suspects and their moves? Of course not. This is not an ordinary issue of publicizing governmental affairs or the citizens’ right to know, but an issue of national security. 

 

 

With the end of the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. has begun to re-emphasize human rights diplomacy and take full advantage of the emergency and difficulties of anti-terrorism fights in other countries to promote anti-terrorism diplomacy at the same time.

 

During the past 10 years, the U.S. has successfully promoted anti-terrorism diplomacy in three ways: (1) Combatting and suppressing enemies in the name of anti-terrorism. For instance, it carried out military strikes against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and the Gadaffi regime in Libya, defined countries like North Korea and Iran as rogue regimes shielding or supporting terrorism and imposed long-term economic sanctions against them.²³  (2) Striving to attract allies and strengthen alliances in the name of anti-terrorism. The war in Afghanistan was an important platform for the solidarity of NATO and a thrust for the return of the U.S. into South Asia, where it established strategic partnerships separately with Pakistan, Afghanistan and India. (3) Enhancing its global leadership status through the fight against terrorism. Using the platform of the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. fully stabilized its leadership by stressing the common threat of international terrorism to human society. It also accomplished this through the International Security Assistance Force and other international regimes regarding the Afghan issue.  [page]

 

President Obama’s speech at West Point in May 2014 implied a fourth type of anti-terrorism diplomacy: anti-terrorism diplomacy mixed with human rights diplomacy. In other words, after publicly defining a certain organization as a terrorist organization or the result of a failure of nation-building or a fighter of human rights, the U.S. would support the anti-terrorism actions of a certain country. Actually, there is an important phenomenon in the Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) list disseminated by the US Senate: those who terrorize U.S. allies are still recorded as existing even if they actually no longer exist; while terrorists in countries opposed to the U.S. are not listed as Foreign Terrorist Forces even if they are rather active. Late in 2013, Japan’s Aum Doomsday Cult was still on the FTO list while the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) only showed up on the list in 2002. This represents a global political strategy rather than a difference in values and ideologies. The purpose is to increase the cost of development and stability of opponents or potential opponents.

 

Thus, the challenges for China in the governance of Xinjiang and in anti-terrorism will be more difficult in the upcoming period. On the one hand, some domestic anti-government forces will fully take advantage of complex international political struggles to disguise themselves as human rights fighters or fighters for freedom using the slogan of human rights. They will represent the breakthrough and agent for U.S. human rights and anti-terrorism diplomacy related to China. On the other hand, along with the end of the war in Afghanistan, the morality and political correctness of anti-terrorism struggles no long exist as they did in the first 10 years of the 21st century. With parallel anti-terrorism diplomacy and human rights diplomacy, China will face more and more international opinion pressure related to anti-terrorism. 

 

Here there are two points to be highlighted. First, terrorism isn’t scattered around the world equally in quality and quantity. Thus, terrorist threats that different countries face are not the same. In 2010, the Human Rights Commission of the UK Parliament declared that the UK still faces a serious terrorist threat but not so serious as to endanger the survival of the state²⁴ as it did in 2001. In May 2014, President Obama said that although no president could promise he had obliterated terrorism, America had achieved its anticipated goal.²⁵ China must stay clear on this issue. Major Western countries’ estimation of their own anti-terrorism situations shouldn’t be mixed up with that of China. The U.S. based the start and end of its global anti-terrorism wars on the realistic conditions and strategic needs of itself and its allies, not on the anti-terrorism situation of China. Second, international opinion pressure should be treated rationally and reasonably. In May 2014, Obama made a public assertion that if the survival of the American people and America was threatened or its allies were endangered, American would use force or even take unilateral actions when necessary. He said, “International opinion is important. But America does not have to ask for permission to protect its people, its territory and its lifestyle.”²⁶[page]

 

 

Abstractly in philosophy or legal science, human rights protection is the common goal of human society, and terrorism is a common threat to all countries. A typical feature of contemporary terrorism is its broad transnational contacts, which do not merely exist at the level of organizations but also possibly at the level of ideology. Globalization provides convenience for the cross-border transfer of personnel, capital, ideas, and the recruitment and training of new members, thus increasing the difficulty of counter-terrorism, which is difficult for any one country to accomplish. Theoretically, the threat of international terrorism is a natural basis for the unity and cooperation of international society. Yet a sad truth of international political reality is that a common target and a common threat do not always constitute the basis for sincere cooperation among countries. The international cooperation appealed to in the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy,²⁷ passed in September 2006 by the UN General Assembly, has so far not been truly achieved. 

 

Political practice over more than half a century shows that to achieve effective international cooperation in anti-terrorism and human rights protection, a basic consensus must be reached on two issues: (1) What is the standard for human rights? In this era of globalization where human cultures still exist and develop in the form of local cultures, is there an absolute and unique standard of human rights? (2) Is there a common and specific terrorist enemy for all human beings? Obviously not. At least terrorists do not admit that they are terrorists. Although we could condemn the inhumanity and anti-humanity of terrorist activities, we can’t deny that terrorists are also members of human society. Moreover, so far the activities and agendas of terrorist organizations are endemic/regional. Although there may be some international ideological connections, the real threat to peace and security still differs by country. Thus, in the abstract “common battlefield of civilized countries,” there are at least two groups of countries: one group that tries to make every effort to counter terrorism due to the serious and direct threat it faces; the other group is rather free from terrorism and thus can talk easier or intervene in the affairs of others. 

 

Thus, the crux comes back to the original one: international society can’t reach a consensus on the contents of human rights and terrorism. As long as the development of human society hasn’t reached a level where human rights can be achieved perfectly, human rights is just an effective political weapon or lever. As long as there are still countries facing terrorist threats, anti-terrorism will always be an internal part of international political struggles. Thus, debates and arguments about human rights and anti-terrorism can never be rid of the color of Foucault’s utterance. No matter how abstract or academic these arguments may become in the future, the basic historical fact shouldn’t be forgotten: Debate itself is a part of current real political life, born to serve the specific international political regime.  [page]

 

QIAN Xuemei(钱学梅), asssociate professor in the School of International Studies, Peking University.

 

1.The international community’s joint anti-terrorism mechanism is traceable to the era before the founding of the UN. In November of 1937, the League of Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism was passed by the League of Nations, but for various reasons, it never went into effect.

 

2.For a Web resource about conventions and protocols.

 

3.Nigel D. White, “The United Nations and Counter-Terrorism: Multinational and Executive Law-Making,” in Ana Maria Salinas de Faias et al., eds.,Counter-Terrorism: International Law and Practices, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, p.62.

 

4.(U.S.) George W. Bush, Decision Points, translated by www.dongxi.net, China CITIC Press, 2011, p. 181.

 

5.L. Ward, “Leaders’ Wives Join Propaganda War,” The Guardian (UK), Nov.17,2001.

 

6.See also Legal Instructions on UN Joint Anti-terrorism Conventions and Resolutions.

 

7.At the beginning of the Afghan war, most Americans thought it proper and necessary to restrict some rights for the purpose of anti-terrorism. Protesters said that these measures infringed human rights and citizens’ rights, endangering democracy and freedom in the U.S.

 

8.Richard A. Wilson, “Human Rights in the War on Terror”, in Richard A. Wilson ed., Human Rights in the War on Terror, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp.1-2.[page]

 

9.The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002.

 

10.The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002.

 

11.There is important political background for Resolution No. 1456 of the UN Security Council. At the end of 2001 and in 2002, the Taliban regime was overthrown. Its main members hid along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan along with the key commanders of Al Qaeda. A transitional government was established in Afghanistan. The whole situation became stable and post-war reconstruction started. United Nations S/RES/1456(2003) was adopted by the Security Council at its 4688th meeting, on Jan. 20, 2003.

 

12.But it did solve the problem of coercing statements through torture. Wolfgang S. Heinz, Jan-Michael Arend, “The International Fight against Terrorism and the Protection of Human Rights,” German Institute for Human Rights, 2005, p.8.

 

13.Nicole LaVioleet, The Human Rights of Anti-terrorism, Irwin Law Inc., 2008, p.19. Paul Berman, Terror and Liberalism, New York: W.W.Norton and Co., 2003. Thomas Friedman, Longitudes and Attitudes: Exploring the World After September 11, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003. Michael Ignatieff, The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. In the summer of 2006, some Western experts proposed the Ottawa Anti-terrorism and Human Rights Principles at the University of Ottawa, which are generally briefed as the Ottawa Principles. The core was to emphasize that all people are protected by law. National anti-terrorism measures must respect human rights and nomocracy. For details, see The Ottawa Principles on Anti-terrorism and Human Rights.

 

14.Wolfgang S. Heinz and Jan-Michael Arend, “The International Fight against Terrorism and the Protection of Human Rights,” German Institute for Human Rights, 2005, p.21. (US) George W. Bush, Decision Points, translated by www.dongxi.net, China CITIC Press, 2011, p.157.

 

15.Aryeh Neier, “How Not to Promote Democracy and Human Rights,” in Richard A. Wilson, ed., Human Rights in the War on Terror, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, p.140.

 

16.Sarah Sewall et al., The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, the University of Chicago Press, 2007, chapter 1.

 

17.Assessing Damage, Urging Action, Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-terrorism and Human Rights, 2009. Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights (17th Report): Bring Human Rights Back in, Joint Committee on Human Rights, House of Lords, House of Commons, March 25, 2010.

 

18.The UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, Document A/64/L.69.

 

19.Conor Gearty, “Terrorism and Human Rights,” Government and Opposition, vol.42, No.3, Summer 2007, pp.340-362.

 

20.Aryeh Neier, “How Not to Promote Democracy and Human Rights,” in Richard A. Wilson, ed., Human Rights in the War on Terror, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, p.139.

 

21.Genald Staberock, “Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism: Towards a Human Rights and Accountability Framework?” in Ana Maria Salinas de Faias et al. eds., Counter-Terrorism: International Law and Practices, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012, p.384.

 

22.Kant, The Philosophy of Law: An Exposition of The Fundamental Principles of Jurisprudence as the Science of Rights, translated by Shen Shuping, proofread by Lin Rongyuan, the Commercial Press, 2008, p.42.

 

23.At the beginning, Cuba was also on the list. In 2014, relations between the U.S. and Cuba warmed up. Obama urged the Senate to “review” the issue of the government of Cuba supporting terrorism. This is typical of U.S. anti-terrorism diplomacy.

 

24.Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights (17th Report): Bring Human Rights Back in, Joint Committee on Human Rights, House of Lords, House of Commons, March 25, 2010.

 

25.“Statement by the President on Afghanistan”, May 27, 2014.

 

26.“Remarks by the President at the United States Military Academy Commencement Ceremony,” May 28, 2014.

 

27.UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, United Nations, A/Res/60/288, Sept.9, 2006.