Torture is resurging around the world, ringing alarm bells over the lost rights of individuals vis-à-vis unbridled state power, writes Ayman El-Amir* Torture, a heavy name for an ugly mediaeval practice used to extract confession from helpless captives, was believed to be a thing of the past. Despite the end of Soviet-era gulags, the expressed commitment of more countries to democratic ideals and accession to dozens of binding international human rights covenants, the practice is resurging on a pandemic scale. It would have been easy to dismiss the phenomenon as excessive misconduct by zealous investigating officers, or temporary measures required by the global fight against terrorism. Or perhaps it may be the last gasp of minority dictatorial regimes as they plod along the difficult path to democratic reform. None of the above seems to be the case. Closer scrutiny reveals ominous aggression by the state against the individual. It is not about the enforcement of law and order or the fight against terror; it is a new assertion of state power over people. This is taking place at a time when 141 countries have signed or acceded to a landmark international Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1984. News reports of the past few weeks are telling. The European Union parliament has voted to investigate mounting charges that the CIA used the territories of European states to set up secret detention centres and airports to whisk off terrorist suspects. President George W Bush admitted he ordered extrajudicial eavesdropping on US citizens, saying it was necessary "to save lives". But he was also forced to sign into law an amendment by the House of Representatives, championed by Arizona Republican Senator John McCain -- once a prisoner of war in Vietnam -- banning cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of military detainees. Investigators in Iraq reveal that the Interior Ministry has tortured hundreds of Iraqis. Meanwhile, a leading Al-Qaeda operative, Ibn Al-Sheikh Al-Libi, a Libyan national, made a stunning revelation. He said he had made up a crucial confession of links between his organisation and Saddam Hussein's regime -- used as fundamental evidence to justify the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- to escape coercion while in Egyptian custody. Again, this has led President Bush to absolve the invasion of Iraq under a rationale of "faulty intelligence". The notorious practice of rendition, under which terrorist suspects in US custody were sent for interrogation to certain Middle Eastern countries known for their routine use of torture as a means of extorting confession, has become increasingly controversial. It is now evident that the old and ugly practice has been employed to the benefit of repressive regimes and the exigencies of powerful governments. This presents a formidable challenge to the international consensus on the protection of civil liberties and fundamental human rights. The consensus that was forged in the post-World War II era is now caught up in a paradox. Not only are many vociferous supporters of international conventions counted among the worst violators of human rights on record, but also some of the self- professed liberal democracies themselves, in facing the threat of terrorism, are compromising the international standards they helped to create. To make things worse, the international organ responsible for human rights protection, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, is heavily politicised and has become woefully ineffective. Without enforcement authority, the Commission on Human Rights has mutated into a safe haven for state infringement on human rights. A review of international instruments protecting human rights will show that repressive regimes have no qualms acceding to them and then pursuing their own domestic political ends in contravention of their international obligations. Some will claim exceptions on account of so-called "cultural specificity", religious dogmas or traditional values. Accession to international covenants does not always mean they are codified into binding national legislation that individuals can evoke before national courts of law. Emergency laws that can run for decades become instruments of governance that usually banish civil liberties and political rights, including the fundamental right of free speech. The global fight against terrorism, which was waged after 11 September, has introduced legislation that impinged on the privacy and security of individuals. Weak international accountability encourages violations with impunity. It was this sense of state immunity that made possible the crimes of genocide in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Therefore, it was a pleasant surprise that the US Senate blocked the extension of the anti-terrorism Patriot Act, in recognition of the fact that the power of the state has overtaken the rights of individuals. Regrettably, not all governments of the world adopt or believe in such self-correcting practice. Brutal laws are created to stay. International human rights instruments, and mechanisms of monitoring and enforcement, need to be upgraded. As far as international monitoring and accountability are concerned, the world needs a mechanism more akin to the UN Human Rights Committee -- which consists of 19 independent experts that have the authority to question the practices of governments with regard to their human rights obligations -- rather than the Commission on Human Rights where government representatives meet and engage in political deals and back-scratching. A rigorous international enforcement regime of sanctions would be necessary to support monitoring of violations and address them. The International Criminal Court has more of a post mortem rather than deterrence effect. It would be more effective to inject the terms of human rights instruments into bilateral and multilateral relations. They should be used as a yardstick to determine nations' eligibility for multilateral assistance programmes. Like credit rating by international financial institutions, there should also be human rights ratings of countries as criteria by which aid donors and multilateral financial institutions should be guided. Regional human rights bodies, such as the European Court of Human Rights, could play a role by ruling illegal any EU member's trade relations or aid donations to countries that have an established record of human rights abuses. Ultimately, under no circumstances should emergency laws be used as instruments of governance, except in times of war and for a very limited period. We realise that all this, and much more, is easier said than done. Complex political agendas, coveted trade relations, and strategic interests often stand as barriers between ideals and action. But it should be clear too that our increasing concern over, and losses to, global terrorism are linked to human rights violations at the national level. Violations are a fertile breeding ground and build supply lines for terrorist actors and activities. To the extent that we continue to view terrorism as a security rather than a political problem we will gradually lose the battle against it. It seems that even as we wade into the 21st century some fundamental principles need to be reiterated. First among them is that individuals -- the masses in their millions -- created the state and elect governments to regulate their relations and defend their interests. The state is not entitled to security against the individual, but individuals need the protection of law against the tyranny of state, especially when the state adopts draconian security measures in the name of safeguarding collective welfare. * The writer is former Al-Ahram correspondent in Washington, DC. He also served as director of United Nations Radio and Television in New York.
