Viet Nam Human Rights
»
home
»
political-social
»
Have anti-terrorism laws violated human rights and democracy?!
Have anti-terrorism laws violated human rights and democracy?!
17/3/16
Anti-terrorism legislation are laws the purpose of which is fighting terrorism.
They usually, if not always, follow specific bombings assassinations. Anti-terrorism legislation usually includes specific
amendments allowing the state to bypass its own legislation when fighting
terrorism-related crimes, under the grounds
of necessity. And, as all we know, the United States and Western countries are
who seem keen to pass these laws at anytime they have chances.
Because of this
suspension of regular procedure, such legislation is sometimes criticized as a
form of lois scélérates which may unjustly repress all kinds
of popular protests. Critics often allege that anti-terrorism legislation
endangers democracy by creating estate of exception that allows authoritarian style of government.
Anti-terrorism laws around the world are preventing aid agencies reaching
people in desperate need, the UN humanitarian chief has warned. More people would die in
Syria because charities feared prosecution if they worked in areas controlled
by the jihadist group Isis.
Western
anti-terror laws are forcing aid agencies in Syria to avoid communities
controlled by extremist groups, making it harder to deliver vital supplies and
leaving people vulnerable to radicalization, a Thomson Reuters Foundation
investigation found.
A
survey of 21 international and national non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
found government donors and banks were also demanding more in-depth audits in
the two years since jihadist group Islamic State (ISIS) took root, sending
costs spiralling.
Charities
fear individual aid workers could face prosecution if payments are made for
access, or goods fall into the wrong hands. While acknowledging the need for
tougher laws, NGOs surveyed said operating in jihadi-run areas in Syria made
them vulnerable to being blacklisted in the United States and European Union
countries where the groups are branded "terrorists".
One
international NGO which responded to the confidential survey said it had had to
move some of its assistance programs to other areas in Syria "because of
difficulties dealing with armed groups and fears of running afoul of
anti-terrorism laws".
The
Syrian NGO Alliance (SNA), a consortium of 90 NGOs working in the country, said
its members were having to cancel projects because they could not keep up with
the paperwork required by donors.
"This
is really bad for Syrian people, who end up being more vulnerable to joining
the terrorist groups because they do not get the humanitarian assistance,"
said SNA coordinator Fadi Hakim.
Affected
charities said action taken by banks and money transfer companies in Britain,
the United States and Turkey was excessively "risk averse", and time
and money diverted to compliance work would be better spent on getting food,
water and medicines into Syria.
Moving
money into Syria is complicated. NGOs typically withdraw cash from Turkish
banks and transfer it across the border using hawala, an informal trading
system based on trust and personal ties.
Charities
said Syrian drivers, doctors, trainers and logistical staff often require
salaries to be paid through money transfer systems, such as Western Union, in
Turkey. But three of the NGOs surveyed said Western Union had delayed or
blocked payments when they had tried to wire cash to staff living close to the
Syrian border. Western Union is "unable to share details relating to a
specific country", a company spokeswoman said in a statement. It maintains
"very strict controls to prevent the abuse of services, particularly in
designated high-risk areas," she said.
Mohammed,
a Syrian who works for a European charity, said his attempts to withdraw his
salary from branches of Western Union on the Turkish side of the Syrian border
were met with a shrug from a clerk.
"She
never gives an explanation, but when I tell her I am Syrian she simply says
there's no money or that the system is down," the 33-year-old said in a
phone interview.
The financial problems
are a side effect of the war on terror, which led to stricter regulations and
scrutiny of bank transactions. That fight has gotten renewed attention because
of the threats from extremist fighters from the so-called Islamic State group
and reports that about 100 Americans sought to join those fighters. For
financial institutions, concerns are also grounded in several high-profile
cases against banks and charities, including a Brooklyn
jury’s finding last month that a Jordanian bank was liable for supporting
terrorism.
Some civil rights activists
and charity workers say banks are discriminating against them because of their
religion or ethnicity, but they also blame the U.S. government for imposing
regulations they say discourage banks from working with them. Experts say banks
are turning away charities not suspected of wrongdoing because those
regulations have become costly and time consuming and because the risk is too
great.
So what can donors and
humanitarian agencies realistically do?
1.
They take a risk and hope that their chiefs will not be jailed for long terms
and their registrations cancelled forever.
2.
They find 'creative' ways of accounting for the monies spent on the
'levies'. This could include
entering into broad contracts with local legitimate partner agencies and not
insisting on a break down of expenses incurred or just passing off these levies
under other accounting heads.
3.
They scale down / do not deliver.
Few
of the credible agencies would want to take options 1 and 2 for very obvious
reasons. They are not geared to take these risks and break the law. Also
most of them operate in other areas as well and they cannot put at risk all of
their work for operating in the conflict areas.
Most
agencies are therefore forced to scale down and not deliver humanitarian aid. This means the suffering people do not get access to safe water, food,
health and any life saving support. The de-facto governments,
naturally, do not do much to meet basic needs of people. For once, it is not in
their mandate and second a lot of territory keeps shifting hands. The governing
is thus temporary. Thousands of people, if not millions, actually die or are
forced to migrate out.
To summarize what happens
when anti-terrorism laws clash with humanitarian imperative:
1.
Donors release less money for
humanitarian aid.
2. Aid agencies scale down work or
spend a fortune on reaching few people.
The affected people DIE. The aged, children and women
die first. Viva the U.S. human rights! Viva Western democracy./.
Popular Posts
-
Religion is a part of the spiritual life in society, this phenomenon of the superstructure has been strongly changed with economic - social... -
Vietnam has just done well for the second cycle of Universal Periodical Review (UPR) in Geneva, Switzerland. So, what’s the UPR? an... -
Thai people in Shutdown Bangkok protests Not until this crisis, we have realized the ne... -
Representatives from foreign countries congratulate Viet Nam on its election to the Human Rights Council for the first time on November ... -
A street flowers vendor in Hanoi Another new spring has come to Vietnam, bring... -
If nothing changes, there will be a preferential credit program with hundreds of thousands billion of capital for agriculture and r... -
Recently, several anti-governmental individuals have established series of illegal groups and organizations in the name of civil soci... -
Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a private, nonprofit international broadcasting agency of the United States government that broadcasts and...
All comments [ 11 ]
Anti-terrorism legislation and licensing requirements reduce our nimbleness and slow down our effectiveness in reaching vulnerable people because of onerous reporting.
Banking problems are only increasing for humanitarian agencies, with millions of dollars of donations to charities working in war zones being blocked with no detailed explanation.
It's apparently that those legislation has violated universal values of human rights.
The interconnected international banking system means no major financial body is immune from U.S. anti-terror laws.
NGOs said these banks did not give an official reason for the closures, but said it was implicit they were to do with their work in Syria and concern about anti-terror laws.
Britain's charity watchdog said earlier this month it had reopened an investigation into how a British man convicted of helping a teenager travel to Syria to fight with ISIS diverted charitable funds he raised through social media.
Some civil rights activists and charity workers say banks are discriminating against them because of their religion or ethnicity.
The key issue are that if you are working in areas affected by conflict and under the control of bodies that are classified as "terror outfits", you cannot help but interact with them.
Efforts to deliver aid have been hampered by unexplained bank account closings and canceled transactions as banks recoil from any risk of funding terrorist organizations.
As a result, critical aid to orphanages, refugee camps and hospitals has been delayed, blocked or put at risk, say charity workers.
Anti-terrorism laws are just a US and Western mean of intervening in other countries' affairs. Stop that!
Your comments