Development Policy-The New Anti-terrorism Policy?

• Author: Graham Mayeda
• Pages: 385-424

385

Development Policy—The New

Anti-terrorism Policy?

Graham Mayeda

A. INTRODUCTION: THE IMPLICATIONS FOR

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES OF ANTI-TERRORISM

POLICIES IN CANADA, THE U.S., AND THE U.K.

The Ottawa Principles on Anti-terrorism and Human Rights and similar docu-

ments, such as the Berlin Declaration,1 rightly recognize that an effective

anti-terrorism policy is compatible with the protection of human rights.

The Ottawa Principles set out how a state can both provide security and

respect the rights of those accused or convicted of committing terrorist

acts. However, the Ottawa Principles overlook f‌ive aspects of a country’s

anti-terrorism policy that must be included when evaluating the extent to

which a country’s anti-terrorism policies protect human rights.

First, the Ottawa Principles overlook the role of the state and state

policy in preventing terrorism. The principles deal primarily with laws

that apply once a person is suspected of having committed a terrorist

1 See the principles at Part One of this book [Ottawa Principles]; and the Berlin Dec-

laration, which is the statement of the International Commission of Jurists on how

anti-terrorism law should respect human rights and the rule of law: International

Commission of Jurists, The Berlin Declaration: The ICJ Declaration on Upholding Hu-

man Rights and the Rule of Law in Combating Terrorism (Geneva: ICJ, 2004), online:

www.icj.org/IMG/pdf/Berlin_Declaration.pdf.

graham mayeda386

act. And yet, states also legislate and develop policies to prevent ter-

rorist acts. Arguably, these policies should also respect human rights,

although political and civil rights are not the only types of rights impli-

cated.

Second, the Ottawa Principles do not explicitly consider the causes

of terrorism. Of course, a particular view of the causes of terrorism is

implicit in the Ottawa Principles. Not unreasonably, they presume that

the cause of terrorism is terrorists. However, this approach only consid-

ers the most immediate and proximate cause of terrorism, namely the

people who commit terrorist acts, rather than the ultimate cause, that

is, the reasons why terrorists commit terrorist acts. A consideration of

causality is important for ensuring that all government policies aimed at

terrorism, both before and after it occurs, respect human rights. Only by

considering such ultimate causes can we properly determine the range

of government policies that must be assessed for rights compliance. If

the ultimate causes of terrorism include poverty and underdevelopment,

then government policies that target development should also be sub-

ject to scrutiny from a human rights perspective.

Third, as a corollary to the second point, although the Ottawa Prin-

ciples deal with domestic policy in a variety of areas, including criminal

law, immigration law, and administrative law, they do not examine the

role of development policy in anti-terrorism, despite the fact that many

of the anti-terrorism policies of developed countries increasingly con-

sider development polic y a key element in preventing terrorism. Many

terrorists originate from states classif‌ied as developing countries, and

many of the states that harbour and support terrorism are also consid-

ered developing countries.

Fourth, the Ottawa Principles aim at ensuring that a state’s domestic

anti-terrorism legislation respects human rights. However, the princi-

ples are based on a limited conception of human rights, since they focus

on the protection of civil and political rights. The principles thus over-

look a broader conception of human rights that would include social and

economic rights—the very rights implicated by development.

Finally, the focus of the principles is on anti-terrorism policies within

the borders of a state. The purpose of the principles is to provide guide-

lines for states to ensure that their domestic laws respect the civil and

political rights of citizens and non-citizen civilians in their countries.

The principles do not consider the impact of foreign policy, including

development policy—the new anti-terrorism policy? 387

development policy, on terrorism, and the role of these outward-directed

policies in the prevention of terrorism. However, it is important to con-

sider how foreign policy can contribute to eliminating terrorism by ad-

dressing some of its root causes.

I argue that principles aimed at reconciling human rights protec-

tions with anti-terrorism ought to consider all f‌ive of these issues. They

ought not to restrict themselves to laws and policies that apply within

a state, and that are enacted to deal with terrorism after a terrorist act

has been committed. In other words, the principles ought to deal with

laws and policies that states adopt to prevent terrorism, including those

in the areas of development policy. Policies to prevent terrorism and, in

particular, development policy touch upon more than just civil and pol-

itical rights; they also have an impact on the social and economic rights

of individuals beyond the borders of a given state. Finally, to the degree

that development is relevant to the prevention of terror, the domestic

situation of developing countries cannot be overlooked. Of particular

importance are the economic and legal reforms aimed at eradicating

poverty and improving the economy, instituting the rule of law, promot-

ing democracy, protecting human rights, and creating effective govern-

ance.

The purpose of this chapter will be to look at these additional policy

areas, with a particular focus on the impact of anti-terrorism policies

on a country’s approach to development. Over the last f‌ive years, de-

velopment policies have become increasingly integrated with defence

and foreign policy in a number of member-countries of the Organisation

for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). From the point

of view of preventing terrorism, such integration may make sense, al-

though I will also challenge this view. But integration could also have

negative consequences for the economic and social rights that develop-

ment policy seeks to promote. If development polic y is focused on sup-

porting the “war on terror,” its raison d’être may shift from the protection

and promotion of the social and economic rights of those in develop-

ing countries to the protection and promotion of the security rights of

those in developed countries. It is thus important to investigate the po-

tential impact of shifts in development policy on human rights beyond

the domestic context of developed countries.

Overall, my argument is that development policy has an import-

ant role to play in preventing terrorism that originates in developing