Many European countries are said to be fuming with anger over the disclosures that a large number of CIA flights had used their airports to ferry terrorists to ‘unknown’ destinations and the charge that certain European countries had provided ‘facilities’ to ‘interrogate’—torture, actually—the terrorist prisoners. There is also a threat that some members of the European Union might be stripped of their voting rights. This threat, however, appears meaningless because a EU member can be deprived of this right only when all the member countries agree to that—something that is highly unlikely.

Human rights organisations—patronised by the US and the UK-- are gnashing their teeth in what can be described as only mock annoyance on the discovery that the US, self-proclaimed champion of freedom and human rights in the world, has been grossly violating them.

It is not the first time that the human rights organisations and activists have ‘discovered’ violations of the rights of prisoners and suspects—not to speak of immigrants and visitors—in the US. Since the 9/11 attacks it has become a regular feature to hear about these violations and after some wailing and whining all is forgiven and forgotten—till the next round of disclosures. Is it because the US claims to be the biggest votary of human rights and it cannot be accused of molesting its own baby, so to say. It has been reported that more than 100 terror suspects have been sent to various ‘black sites’—also called as the new Gulag Archipelago—in Europe and North Africa. Thailand has also been mentioned, though Bangkok has denied it with vehemence.

The White House has actually defended the practice of ‘rendition’ of terrorist suspects on the grounds that ‘the most important duty’ of the US president is to protect the American people. The president takes that duty ‘very seriously’, said Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman.

The US defence is that there are ‘compelling’ reasons to ship some terrorist suspects abroad—so that the suspects cannot contest their detention in American courts and the US remains free to detain them and ‘interrogate’ them for long periods.

Expectedly, even some of the staunchest supporters of the US are now upset with Washington for the brazenness with which it used their airports and airspace to transport terror suspects who were literally whisked off the streets in one country and then taken to another country where they could be kept in detention—and tortured-- for months and years without anyone knowing about it.

What the US has been doing is illegal and goes against its treaty obligations. Yet, Washington keeps rushing to question the human rights records of other countries and will never, never allow any other country to replicate the manner in which the US deals with terrorist suspects.

The US maintains, perhaps with some justification, that the war on terror cannot be fought the conventional way. But the US is not willing to concede that there are other countries like India, which too have to fight terrorism; in fact they have been fighting it much longer than the US with a lot more handicaps than faced by the US. Terrorism in India is an export from Pakistan, which oddly is the staunchest US ally in the so-called war on terror.

The US expects India to strictly adhere to all the codes of a conventional war while taking on the terrorists and absolutely prohibits strikes against the nurseries of terrorists across the border. Therefore, combing operations by Indian security forces against the terrorists are frowned upon by the US and its client, Pakistan, beats its chest shouting ‘gross violation of human rights’ by the Indian forces.

At the start of her five-nation European tour early in December, Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice had declared that the US does not ‘permit, tolerate or condone’ torture ‘under any circumstances’. She added that the US complies with all its international treaty obligations. That must be one of the biggest lies spoken by a high-ranking US official, unless all the reports about the treatment of prisoners in Iraq (Abu Ghraib), Afghanistan (Bagram) and Guantanamo Bay are to be treated as pure fiction.

Besides, the Secretary of State has been silent on the allegations that the CIA has set up secret prisons in Europe to ‘interrogate’ terrorist suspects. The UN Convention Against Torture prohibits transfer of anyone to a country where there are reasons to believe that they might be tortured. The world body is also working on a new convention that will explicitly ban ‘disappearance’ of suspects.

United States is ducking for cover from bouncers. It is taking the plea that it cannot allow its intelligence sources, law enforcement and military matters to be compromised in order to ensure protection of its citizens from possible terrorist attacks. Interestingly, the UK repeats almost the same words.

The UK has just come out of a bitter controversy over the (abortive) Blair government’s move to seek 90 days’ detention of terror suspects. The decision to hold a sort of in camera trial of those arrested in connection with July 7 bombings in London has sparked off another controversy.

The US and UK governments have devised their own ways of tackling the menace of terror, regardless of the public uproar. Terrorism has hit these countries only in recent years and they feel a great urge to bend the rules. But when the same affliction visits another country—India—these two leading nations of the west insist that the rules cannot be amended to meet the exigencies.

The resulting division in public opinion only weakens the on-going ‘war’ on terror with accusations of double standards flying around and some countries being allowed to patronise terror for the sake of the ‘freedom fighters’. Except for raising some mute voices against it, these leaders of the world condone the use of terror as an instrument of state policy by certain countries which openly back ‘freedom fighters’.

It is hardly helping matters that these countries have been doing their best to obfuscate the difference between terrorists and ‘freedom fighters’ even as the sole superpower in the world looks at the problem with some indifference.

The ‘war’ on terror perhaps requires a fresh code if it is accepted that it is not a conventional war. But the new rules cannot be written if the leading powers of the world want two sets of rules—one for themselves and another for the rest.


Courtesy : Syndicate Features

Printer-Friendly Version