|
Human Rights and the War on Terrorism
Tom Malinowski
Washington Advocacy Director, Human Rights Watch
Tuesday, March 12, 2002; 10 a.m. EST
To fight international terrorism, the United States has solicited assistance from countries with questionable records on human rights. Uzbekistan, a key U.S. partners in Central Asia since the war in Afghanistan began, is described in the State Department report on human rights as "an authoritarian state with limited civil rights." The Post reports Assistant Secretary of State Lorne Craner said an improved human rights performance will be "an important byproduct of our alliance with them."
Does cooperation help foster change in repressive regimes or does it condone authoritarian practices? How does the U.S.-led war on terrorism reconcile with protecting and promoting human rights? These questions will continue to affect U.S. policy makers as they examine the war in Afghanistan and consider expanding anti-terrorism missions to other countries.
Tom Malinowski, advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, was online Tuesday, March 12, to discuss human rights and the war on terrorism.
Human Rights Watch believes the State Department's report is largely accurate but Manilowski urges the Bush administration to consider such findings when making policy. "The Administration argues forcefully in this report that defending human rights is vital to fighting terrorism," Manilowski says. "That argument needs to be reflected in the alliances it is forging, the money it is spending, and the bases it is building overseas."
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
washingtonpost.com:
Good morning Mr. Malinowski and thank you for joining us. Let's begin. How does cooperation with states such as Uzbekistan that have strategic importance but a questionable record on human rights affect the U.S.-led war on terrorism?
Tom Malinowski: In the short run, countries like Uzbekistan obviously have something to offer. In Uzbekistan's case it was an air base, without which it would have been harder for the U.S. to strike at Afghanistan, and a bridge to send relief supplies to needy Afghans.
But there is also a big potential downside. Uzbekistan's brutal repression of its people drives political opposition underground, right into the hands of extremist organizations. It potentially strengthens the very forces threatening America in the war on terrorism.
The same can be said of many countries in the Middle East and Central Asia -- Saudi Arabia and Egypt for example. If people in these countries had more opportunities to express themselves peacefully, they would be less drawn to groups that express themselves violently.
Cleveland Park, D.C.:
What distinctions do you see in the relative human rights records of the FARC and the AUC in Colombia?
Tom Malinowski: They are both horrible. I suppose one difference is that if you are an urban Colombian, you are more likely to suffer from abuses by the FARC -- the leftist rebels -- which have launched a wave of kidnappings and bombings in Colombian cities. If you are a rural Colombian, the Paramilitary groups are the bigger threat -- they are responsible for most of the massacres in villages.
I would argue that the AUC - the main paramilitary group - is probably the bigger threat to the rule of law in Colombia, because it maintains close ties to the Colombian military.
Cumberland, MD:
Frequently it appears that efforts to push a human rights agenda, by forcing fragile countries like Afghanistan to expose individuals accused of violations more than 2 decades ago, is a detstabilizing influence on those countries. Don't you think that HRW should back off in those situations where such aggressive activity threatens to destabilize a country?
Tom Malinowski: That's a very interesting question. And part of the answer is that we have to listen to what the people in the country concerned are saying.
In Afghanistan, it may be too early to push ahead right now with prosecutions of everyone who was implicated in human rights abuses in the past. But keep in mind, those abuses didn't all happen 20 years ago. Many happened this year, last year, two years ago . . . And some of the leading villains are vying for power in the new Afghanistan -- a real threat to the country's prospects for stability and democracy. Most Afghans we've spoken to want to see the rule of law restored, and that means holding people accountable in some way for crimes they may have committed. If that doesn't happen, we will increasingly see people take the law into their own hands -- indeed that has already started in parts of the country.
Cumberland, MD:
Do you believe it is the correct thing to do to interfere in US Foreign Policy by criticising our allies so loudly -- wouldn't it be better if you took a more low-keyed approach?
Tom Malinowski: I think we all have a responsibility to take part in the national debate on foreign policy -- that's not interference; that's democracy. As far as criticizing allies, the State Department last week issued a human rights report that criticizes close U.S. allies in the most candid ways imaginable. Whether the goal is fighting terrorism, or anything else, U.S. foreign policy will be more effective if it is based on a clear-eyed, unsentimental understanding of the countries with which America deals.
New York, N.Y.:
Mr. Malinowski, is your organization interested in the rights of the mostly Muslim "suspects" who were arrested in the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11? They seem to have fallen down a black hole. What's going on with them? How does one find out about them?
Tom Malinowski: We believe very strongly that those responsible for what happened on Sept. 11th need to be brought to justice -- those attacks, after all, were the ultimate human rights violation. At the same time, we have been concerned that justice be done with full respect for due process and the rights the United States has long been committed to upholding.
We have sought to obtain more information about the detainees and the conditions in which they are held; we have visited prisons and interviewed some of the detainees. But the administration has been very reluctant to release information.
One important issue here is maintaining America's credibility as a champion of human rights overseas. The United States regularly, and rightly, criticizes other countries for detaining suspects without charging them with a crime. Its ability to do so effectively is undermined when it does the same thing.
Cumberland, MD:
Why are your activities so often against the national interest? I am referring to the issue of the detainees in GITMO where you made unproved accusation of ill treatment etc.
Tom Malinowski: Our most basic concern on Guantanamo has not been the treatment of the detainees. These are obviously very dangerous people and the military has every right to take strict precautions to protect itself.
The big issue is defining their legal status correctly under the Geneva Conventions. On that issue, human rights groups like mine have made exactly the same case to the Administration as America's military leadership has made: We have both argued that the Geneva Conventions are there to protect everyone, including U.S. servicemen and women overseas. The reason we need to be meticulous in respecting the Conventions for enemy prisoners is that we want to preserve our ability to complain when Americans are captured in combat.
washingtonpost.com:
This afternoon, President Bush will meet with Islam Karimov, president of
Uzbekistan. What would you like to see come from their meeting?
Tom Malinowski: I'm glad they're meeting; I'm glad the U.S. is paying attention to Uzbekistan. But I hope and trust President Bush will press Karimov for concrete commitments to improve respect for human rights and to begin political reforms. One important step Uzbekistan could take is to legalize domestic groups that advocate for human rights, as well as opposition political parties. That way, people who are frustrated with their government will have peaceful, lawful, constructive avenues to express their dissent -- and they will be less drawn to groups with extremist views. I hope President Bush will urge Karimov to release specific prisoners who have been jailed in Uzbekistan simply for expressing their political views or religious faith. And I hope he will make some of these points publicly, so Karimov won't be able to portray the meeting as an endorsement of his policies.
washingtonpost.com:
Assistant Secretary of State Lorne Craner said that improved human rights will be "an important byproduct" of U.S. cooperation with countries like Uzbekistan. Do you agree? How can this best happen?
Tom Malinowski: Well, it depends on what he means. If he's arguing that this will happen automatically, simply by virtue of the fact that these countries will be more exposed to American values, then I disagree. If he's arguing that the United States now has an even greater interest in pressing for human rights in countries on the front lines of the war, then I agree. But it's going to take an effort. The administration is going to have to figure out how to use the tools of American influence in these countries -- aid, military cooperation, economic investment, and diplomacy -- to leverage improvements.
Elon, NC:
What is your stance on the bombing of the caves in Eastern Afghanistan? There have been reports that the Al Qaeda fighters have taken women and children into the caves with them. Should that affect the US decision on whether to continue to bomb the caves? Should it change the US strategy on how to extract these fighters from the caves?
Tom Malinowski: Tough question. The bottom line is that we would not object to bombing the caves. The laws of war require the U.S. to do what it can to avoid civilian deaths, but don't automatically require the United States to refrain from attacking a target like that if armed fighters have taken their families with them. The test is one of proportionality. Whenever the United States bombs a target it has to weigh the possible cost to civilians against the military value of the target.
Harrisburg, Pa.:
What are opposition groups in Uzbekistan like? Are they strong and viable or weak and disorganized? Do they represent a cross section of the population or do they consist primarily of specific subgroups of the population?
Tom Malinowski: President Karimov has worked very hard for the last ten years to ensure that opposition groups are very weak. Opposition parties have been outlawed; their leaders imprisoned or driven into exile. There are human rights groups, but they have been functioning illegally; their members are constantly harassed and often jailed. The leadership is profoundly afraid of any organized activity independent of its control -- that goes for political activity as well as religious worship.
One important concession that the Bush administration has obtained from Karimov is the legalization of one of the country's previously banned human rights groups. We need to see more of that, because ultimately, change cannot be imposed on Uzbekistan (or any country) from the outside. It must arise from the efforts of people on the inside.
washingtonpost.com:
We're just about out of time. Mr. Malinowski, before we go, can you tell us to what extent the Bush administration should be considering human rights when fighting terrorism and do you believe the government has been making sufficient efforts to do so both at home and overseas?
Tom Malinowski: On September 12, quite understandably, most people weren't thinking about human rights in the war on terrorism. If they were, they probably thought the era when human rights were important to US foreign policy was over.
That hasn't happened. President Bush and his administration have argued quite forcefully in recent weeks that human rights matter to the war because repression breeds extremism and terrorism. They have recognized the importance in Afghanistan of putting together a more humane and representative government, so that the Taliban dictatorship isn't replaced by one equally bad. They've acknowledged that suffering in in distant places once considered irrelevant to America matters. They have stepped up diplomatic efforts to press for human rights improvements in Central Asia.
The real question is whether they are willing to take the arguments they themselves are making into account when they make critical decisions about American aid to these countries, American military cooperation, American bases. That will be the test. And they will be tested by others.
The world is full of dictators who see the war as an opportunity to justify the brutal things they do to their people -- in China, Chechnya, Uzbekistan, etc. Authoritarian leaders like President Mubarak of Egypt have said that Sept. 11 "creates a new concept of democracy -- especially in regard to the freedom of the individual." It's up to this Administration to prove him wrong.
washingtonpost.com:
Thank you Mr. Malinowski and thanks to all who participated. Find out more about human rights and the war on terrorism at washingtonpost.com's special report.
Automatically Update Page
| Get New Responses | Submit Question
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
