The Challenge of Terrorism in Democratic Nations - Literature review Example

THE CHALLENGE OF TERRORISM IN DEMOCRATIC NATIONS Name: Course: Instructor: Institution: Date of Submission: THE CHALLENGE OF TERRORISM IN DEMOCRATIC NATIONS The fight against terrorism has been a diplomatic issue in both the developing and the developed nations for over three decades now. The issue of providing the much needed security within the borders of countries that are surrounded with the potent risk of terror attacks has remained on the debate tables of most democratic countries throughout the world. First, this paper seeks to address the dilemma that democratic nations are faced with in the struggle to eliminate terrorism while at the same protecting the rights of its citizens. Secondly, the paper gives particular illustrations on cases in recent history that have spurred thoughts on the extent to which terrorism has affected decision making in critical legislation. The paper finally discusses the various approaches that democratic nations can undertake to combat terrorism while preserving fundamental human rights. With the ever rising fears of the possibility of terror attacks, the fundamental challenge that faces democratic nations the world over is designing the best techniques to combat terrorism while equally safeguarding the basic human rights that are the foundation stones of democracy and define a free society (Lal et al., 2010). It is has been by design that indeed, terrorist have targeted superior nations for quite a long time. The issues raised by terror groups are diverse, and as democratic societies seek to protect their citizens, it has become evidently clear that negotiation with terrorist groups is out of question. First, international laws demand that any members, whether affiliated to or suspected to be part of these terror networks be detained until conclusive investigations are made (Sukumaran, 2011). However, there has been wide protests on implication and detention of otherwise innocent civilians. In a bid to counter terrorism, governments, through the use of intelligence services, sometimes hold the wrong people in custody. This has raised uproar with humanitarian movements especially in the West demanding release of persons originally thought to be linked with the terror groups In the legal battle of Sayadi and Vinck vs Belgium, the jury held that the Belgium government has committed serious violation of the victim’s liberty to movement and privacy due to the misrepresentations linking them to Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorism (Chen, 2008). Moreover, under the rule of democracy, the fight for terrorism should under no circumstances take precedence over human rights (Brysk et al., 2007). As obvious as this doctrine sounds, it has led to serious and widespread violence in regions where militant groups linked with terror movements such as al-Qaeda are ambushed by armed government militants and innocent lives are lost in the process. This pertinent issue of determining which areas quantify to be held under siege for suspected terrorist activities is still a bone of contention in democracies. Secondly, as humanitarian movements persist in the fight for human rights in democratic nations, legislators have had heated debates on the correct legal penalty that those found guilty of committing crimes amounting to terrorism should be subjected to. This debate has been in the public domain for years now, with great divisions on whether capital punishment is enforceable for persons arrested for committing terrorist crimes. The fact that terrorism involves premeditated acts of violence makes it controversial as to whether these crimes can brushed off merely as murder (Wilson, 2005). However, as human rights activists have delved in this issue, other forms of punishment such as use of torture to divulge information have also been criticized by some segments arguing that it is inhuman. Those in support of torture on the other hand argue that the lack of such critical information poses serious security threats and puts the lives of civilians at risk. So serious has this become that two terrorists applied at the European Court of Human rights claiming torture by the purported British Security Forces. Human rights legislation has been controversial with defense lawyers leading democratic governments to be extra vigilant in approaching matters of terrorism and human rights (Landman, 2013). Undoubtedly, fighting terrorism without undermining the fundamental human rights has proved to be an arduous task especially for nations with a high population of cross cultural citizens. Taking the case of United States of America, the high number of immigrants has posed serious security issues as the high number of foreigners has meant the intelligence service must be vigilant to trail down on a criminal activities as they might have links to terror activities. Therefore, the US has had the task of maintaining the delicate balance between safeguarding the rights of foreigners to exercise their freedom in a foreign land without making them feel insecure (Brysk et al., 2007). International law on human rights dictates that in as much as countries should take protective actions to counter terrorism, the actions should be such that they are proportionate, plausible and necessary as to meet the magnitude of the supposed threat (Guchteneire & Matthias, 2007). Essentially, this translates to nations combating terrorism threats within legal and humane standards and should only act on the purpose of containing or eliminating the threat posed, without exposing the citizens to undue danger. The wide network of terror movements has become so complex and far reaching that striking the delicate balance between providing security at a national level and upholding human rights has been taken to a whole new level. The risk that comes with terrorist attacks, as well as the damaging effect it poses to trade, international relations, and confidence of the citizens on their governments present a challenge that all legal minds and human rights activists should fight to alleviate (Guchteneire & Matthias, 2007). In as much as governments seek to refrain from intruding into the private life of its citizens through constant checks, investigations, and sometimes suspicions leading to temporary detention, it has become of great essence that government keep watch of any unusual activities within its borders for the greater good of its citizens (Tsang, 2008). Undoubtedly, terrorism is a grave violation of the elementary human rights and as such, tackling this enigma demands that we do not forget our purpose in the fight. It is a question of evaluating our ethical and moral standpoint as nations and any war that fails to meet the moral and ethical threshold is not worth fighting. The core principle by which these terror groups operate are driven by the need to spur hatred, fear, and widespread distrust of the citizens against their governments (Wilson, 2005). Governments have to be vigilant to protect their citizens as the ripple effect of terrorism is a resentment of the citizens against their governments which eventually gives way to ‘homegrown’ terrorism (Landman, 2013). With regards to these, government should make sure that counter terrorism laws enacted should protect against illegality, abuse, or sidelining of any class, race, or communities that are depicted as prone to radicalization. Instead, governments should keep watch by ensuring consistent surveillance of any suspicious terror activities carried out. A popular analogy that clearly defines the link between human rights and the addressing the security issue is that of the devastating era when there were global conflicts, as during the world war 2, when it was imperative that the nations sat down and decided that a balance had to be struck between upholding the fundamental human rights and security interests of the nations that were at war (Chen, 2008). And thus, this led to the gradual but quiet end of the war. Therefore, in a similar fashion, democratic countries need to be cognizant of the fact that there is a critical need to develop an equilibrium between upholding collective security and protection of individual rights. Many nations did not have elaborate legislation to deal with criminal cases involving terrorists. In Australia, the criminal code had no provision for terrorism until the year 2002 when the Security Amendment Act 2002 was enacted. (Salinas, 2012). These legislations serve to provide critical guidelines on the prosecution of persons proven to have involvement, link or are actually in terror movements. Invariably, world leaders have come up with great ideas to on how to combat terrorism while safeguarding human rights and freedom. A school of thought proposed that ­pushing for improved democracy in the extremist Muslim world would ultimately result in improvement of security, particularly in the United States which has been the major target by most terrorists (Gray, 2009). In as much as this school of thought brings on an interesting debate, analyzing the premise however begs critical issues. Is there a relationship between democracy and terrorism? In other words, is it correct to argue that to some extent, democracy reduces the magnitude of terrorism? The concept of democratizing nations is not an easy one, not even one which any country can do for another. However, due to the security risks suffered by members of a country, they rise to the occasion and resolve to bring an end to a dysfunctional system and hence democracy is brought into existence (Nesi, 2006). However, even with the frameworks for democratic rule in place, the dilemma of addressing terrorism still raises serious humanitarian issues, especially where it is difficulty to draw the line between activities orchestrated by citizens and those carried out by foreigners (Landman, 2013). Indeed, if governments are not keen on promoting the social wellbeing of its citizens, these terror movements have a knack for recruiting youths into their terror groups. Cases have been reported where young unemployed youths have been recruited into these movements with the enticement of monetary rewards and later on they end up becoming suicide bombers. This trend has become worrying especially now that that it has shifted away from the Middle East and such cases have been reported even in African countries and in the North and South America. Among the terrorist threats, the most significant one has been the al-Qaeda, which has managed to develop a very wide and potentially dangerous network funded through the massive oil wells in the Middle East (Dworkin, 2008). Whilst the democratic nations unanimously agree that the threat of terrorism is here to stay, it is, however, impossible to separate terrorism from politics. Terrorism is politically motivated and the principal concern by governments is to give its citizens an opportunity to interact without the fear that war, bombings, or threat to their life may ensue. The government, therefore, has the duty to demand that its citizens desist from engaging in any terror activities, or getting into terror groups that may otherwise jeopardize their safety. As can be seen from the above illustrations, coming up with clear cut and humane methodologies of combating terrorism in the twenty first century has been an uphill task for both democratic governments and humanitarian activists. While governments have the solemn duty of safeguarding their citizens from any potential risk to their security, they have to strike the delicate balance of not going too far in fighting terrorism as to allow terrorism to take pre-eminence over the constitutional precept of preserving human rights (Gray, 2009). Setting up International Institutions such as the International Criminal Courts to address crimes committed against humanity is one of the combined efforts done by global democracies in a bid to bring sanity to the legal systems worldwide which have often time faced criticism from human rights groups as they try to limit their mandates within the constitutional dispensations of their respective governments (Dworkin, 2008). For democratic nations, the best approach in the fight against terrorism is to contain it. Containing terrorism essentially demands that nations instill in citizens a strong sense of loyalty to their nations. Moreover, securing the borders of countries against illegal immigrants who might be terrorists is critical. Finally, integration of law enforcement with diplomacy, intelligence service, defense, and consideration of foreign policies are sure ways to strike the much needed balance between waging war on terrorism and fostering human rights. REFERENCES. Brysk, A., & Shafir, G. (2007). National insecurity and human rights: Democracies debate counterterrorism. Berkeley: University of California Press. Dworkin, R. (2008). Is democracy possible here?: Principles for a new political debate. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. Gray, C. S. (2009). National security dilemmas: Challenges & opportunities. Washington, D.C: Potomac Books. Guchteneire, P. F. A., Koenig, M., & Unesco. (2007). Democracy and human rights in multicultural societies. Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Ashgate. Lal, C. K., Kabir, N., John, T. A., & Qamar, S. N. (2010). Human rights, democracy and governance. Delhi: Longman. Landman, T. (2013). Human rights and democracy: The precarious triumph of ideals. Nesi, G. (2006). International cooperation in counter-terrorism: The United Nations and regional organizations in the fight against terrorism. Aldershot, England: Ashgate. Salinas, F. A. (2012). Counter-terrorism and human rights in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Sukumaran, N. P. (2011). Human rights in a changing world. Delhi: Kalpaz Publications. Tsang, S. Y.-S. (2008). Intelligence and human rights in the era of global terrorism. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Security Studies, an imprint of Stanford University Press. Wilson, R. (2005). Human rights in the 'war on terror'. New York: Cambridge University Press. . Read More

This pertinent issue of determining which areas quantify to be held under siege for suspected terrorist activities is still a bone of contention in democracies. Secondly, as humanitarian movements persist in the fight for human rights in democratic nations, legislators have had heated debates on the correct legal penalty that those found guilty of committing crimes amounting to terrorism should be subjected to. This debate has been in the public domain for years now, with great divisions on whether capital punishment is enforceable for persons arrested for committing terrorist crimes.

The fact that terrorism involves premeditated acts of violence makes it controversial as to whether these crimes can brushed off merely as murder (Wilson, 2005). However, as human rights activists have delved in this issue, other forms of punishment such as use of torture to divulge information have also been criticized by some segments arguing that it is inhuman. Those in support of torture on the other hand argue that the lack of such critical information poses serious security threats and puts the lives of civilians at risk.

So serious has this become that two terrorists applied at the European Court of Human rights claiming torture by the purported British Security Forces. Human rights legislation has been controversial with defense lawyers leading democratic governments to be extra vigilant in approaching matters of terrorism and human rights (Landman, 2013). Undoubtedly, fighting terrorism without undermining the fundamental human rights has proved to be an arduous task especially for nations with a high population of cross cultural citizens.

Taking the case of United States of America, the high number of immigrants has posed serious security issues as the high number of foreigners has meant the intelligence service must be vigilant to trail down on a criminal activities as they might have links to terror activities. Therefore, the US has had the task of maintaining the delicate balance between safeguarding the rights of foreigners to exercise their freedom in a foreign land without making them feel insecure (Brysk et al., 2007). International law on human rights dictates that in as much as countries should take protective actions to counter terrorism, the actions should be such that they are proportionate, plausible and necessary as to meet the magnitude of the supposed threat (Guchteneire & Matthias, 2007).

Essentially, this translates to nations combating terrorism threats within legal and humane standards and should only act on the purpose of containing or eliminating the threat posed, without exposing the citizens to undue danger. The wide network of terror movements has become so complex and far reaching that striking the delicate balance between providing security at a national level and upholding human rights has been taken to a whole new level. The risk that comes with terrorist attacks, as well as the damaging effect it poses to trade, international relations, and confidence of the citizens on their governments present a challenge that all legal minds and human rights activists should fight to alleviate (Guchteneire & Matthias, 2007).

In as much as governments seek to refrain from intruding into the private life of its citizens through constant checks, investigations, and sometimes suspicions leading to temporary detention, it has become of great essence that government keep watch of any unusual activities within its borders for the greater good of its citizens (Tsang, 2008). Undoubtedly, terrorism is a grave violation of the elementary human rights and as such, tackling this enigma demands that we do not forget our purpose in the fight.

It is a question of evaluating our ethical and moral standpoint as nations and any war that fails to meet the moral and ethical threshold is not worth fighting. The core principle by which these terror groups operate are driven by the need to spur hatred, fear, and widespread distrust of the citizens against their governments (Wilson, 2005).

Read More