The USA has been waging war against "terrorism" for a decade, since 911 the war against "terrorism" has intensified. When we demystify, the "global policeman," USA's definition of "terrorism" the following clarification appears from the haze: -

- That global power relations remain intact in terms of the economic, political and military (the international state system)
- The status quo should not be challenged;
- From within the states the existing power hierarchy could be challenged;
- But armed groups of ethnic, linguistic, religious and other groups demanding a share of the global pie - is seen as the immediate threat to USA interest.

The USA wishes that the existing power hierarchy remain intact - with no changes. What about Singapore's wishes is it the same as USA?

Did 911 change the global power of USA? The 911 attacks on New York and Washington did not change the world although the contrary has been claimed. For the first time, USA power has been redefined by the attack on WTC and Pentagon due to the scale and symbolic impact. Early attacks did not change USA power, example: 1998 US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and 2000 USS Cole in Yemen

The USA and its friends united and declared war against "terrorists and those who harbour terrorists". Singapore's support for the US action against the regime in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda network has been strong.

Singapore used the Internal Security Act (ISA) to arrest suspected Islamic "extremists" who are alleged to be anti-USA and anti-capitalism. They are alleged to have made preparation to bomb the USA and Israeli embassies, US warships and businesses. There were detention of suspected Islamic "terrorist" in Singapore, Malaysia and Philippines. Singapore has called on neighbouring countries like Philippines and Indonesia to deal with suspected "terrorist networks". While the Philippines has invited 600 US troops to trained the local army to deal with Islamic armed groups in the southern Philippines island, particularly in Zamboanga and Basilan in Mindanao.

Now the US President has claimed there is an "axis of evil" - Iran and North Korea - maybe they are to be bombed to stone age! Such simplistic approach is dangerous as the unresolved conflict in the Middle East escalates and worsens - the motivation for the September 11 attacks remains.

The US's habit of using military power to solve problem is a new headache for many countries. Conditions that breeds "terrorism" like injustice, poverty, despair and discrimination needs long term just solution and surely there is no negotiation at gun-point.. Instant gun-power solution will only lead to more risk of terrorism and violence. Where injustice flowers - its fertile ground for violence and terrorism - violence does not occur unprovoked. Can the cause of the violence be remedied? Do you think there will be a mindset change or remaking of policy on the part of Singapore government on its support to US western cowboy approach of "shoot first-talk later"?

What is happening in India - TADA is extinct but here comes the POTO?

In a joint session of parliament on Mar 26, the Prevention of Terrorism (POTO) ordinance was passed with 425 votes. The POTO was first defeated in the Rajya Sabha (Council of States or upper house of the Indian Parliament) on 21 March 2002. POTO provides for capital punishment for terrorist killings, 90 days of detention without trial and special courts for terrorist cases. Many fear this law would be open to misuse against political opponents and minorities. It also permits confession made to a police officer.

The Indian government designed a new ordinance after the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, or TADA, of 1987 was allowed to lapse in 1995 (Parliament was to review the Act every two years).. Many innocent people were detained but December 1999 TADA charges against almost 24,000 people had been dropped and released by a review committee. India used (TADA) to detain those it suspected of carrying out "anti-national" activities. TADA allowed for detention without charge or trial for long periods and without bail. The police were alleged to have routinely used torture to obtain confessions from detainees and/or planting evidence to detain them.

USA: Prisoner of War and Military Commission

Amensty International reports "That the Pentagon has paid lip service to due process in its commission guidelines cannot disguise the fact that any trial before these executive bodies would violate the USA's international obligations." The commissions would allow a lower standard of evidence than is admissible in the ordinary courts, including hearsay evidence. The Pentagon guidelines do not expressly exclude statements extracted under torture or other coercive methods. These deficiencies are particularly troubling given the lack of due safeguards during interrogation and the fact that the commissions will have the power to hand down death sentences. Amnesty International is calling for the Military Order to be rescinded, and for no person to be tried before the military commissions (22 March 2002 AI press release). More then 1,100 people are detained without formal charges after the 911 attack.

Is Human Rights the loser in the "war against terrorism"?

Recently, 17 independent experts of the Commission on Human Rights expressed concern that anti-terrorist measures adopted after the 11 September attacks may infringe upon human rights and fundamental freedoms. They deplored "human rights violations and measures that have particularly targeted groups such as human rights defenders, migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees, religious and ethnic minorities, political activists and the media".

According to Amnesty International (8 March 2002) human rights at risk includes:liberty and security of the person; freedom from torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment; freedom of expression and of peaceful assembly and association; a fair trial and to take proceedings before a court to enable a determination without delay on the lawfulness of detention; seek and to enjoy asylum and not to be forcibly returned to countries where people are at risk of suffering serious human rights abuses.

Moreover, the Security Council did not adopt a human rights framework for resolution 1373 which requires states to implement anti-terrorism measures. With a human rights framework for that resolution states have to ensure any measures taken would comply with international human rights standards.

Both Mary Robinson (UN HCHR) and Ruud Lubbers (UN HCR) at the 58th session of the Commission on Human Rights, questioned whether terrorism could be overcome without development to remedy issues of poverty and discrimination. But the global policeman, USA, was annoyed and took public issue on the above proposal that successful solution to terrorism is linked to overcoming injustice like poverty and discrimination.

Thus, countries with questionable human rights are now invoking terrorism to escape from condemnation for their unjust and inhumane behaviour - their human rights abuses are being overlooked as they are now allied with the US (global policeman) against terrorism.

In a world, where economic globalisation is encouraged and promoted, globalisation of politics and human rights standards should be welcomed! Otherwise, the selective use of human rights or "war against terrorism" by US and its allies on behalf of narrow national and business interest will only further damage the global standards of human rights. That will lead to greater injustice, abuses and the circle of violence will continue - will there be peace?

Globalisation has changed the way we communicate - but not they way humankind think and act - its revealing, the yawning gap between mere rhetoric and the harsh daily reality, where cosmetic changes are offer as the authentic! The information and images of development merely try to represent or show a particular reality desired by those who control the medium of communication (internet, websites, TV, radio, papers) as they are the real power while the people become dis-empowered. Thus, political and social insecurity emerges as the delusion of access to wealth and participation evaporates. Without effective changes and social safety net at the grassroots - the inequality, discrimination, despair, hate and fear, feeling powerless and with no political participation - the voiceless remain excluded and marginalised. A fertile ground for violence!

Conclusion

Anti-terrorism measures should respect international humanitarian law and human rights and deal with the consequences and the root causes of terrorism. Moreover, terrorism should not be label on specific ethnic groups, religions or countries. Mrs. Robinson said that "It was imperative to address the underlying conditions that led individuals and groups to violence. There was no doubt that the absence of the rule of law and democracy, suppression of expression, disrespect of the rights of ethnic and minority groups in addition to claims of domination, discrimination and denigration were among those underlying conditions. Terrorism often stemmed from hatred and generated more hatred. Behind the resort to terrorism was the assumption of the diminished humanity of the victims. A human rights approach affirmed the richness of human diversity and respect for every human right. It was widely acknowledged that racism and intolerance could be both a cause and a consequence of violence and therefore of insecurity."

In Singapore, is it possible for gradual incremental changes to be implemented - to allow more open and free political space for debates and other fundamental rights - rather than immediate changes which will be too sudden for most? In trying to bring positive changes in society, we should respect human rights as a means to advance harmony and peace with justice. The capacity to promote and practice human rights and democracy means the ability to freely choose one's rulers and to participate in decision-making. It's a process that enables control over one's own destiny to gain control over the means to satisfy the human needs? As a Singaporean what are your needs, your family and communities needs, can you fulfil the needs?

What changes do you wish to see in Singapore? Do want the ISA to be removed or amended if it remains? Do you feel free, confident and trust that remaking Singapore is possible in the present political environment? Do you think that only cosmetic changes are being made like the speakers-corner? Do you know what are your rights and have you read the UDHR - the Universal Declaration on Human Rights?