Is Counter-Terrorism incompatible with Human Rights?

Counter Terrorism is the use of political or military activity with the motivation to prevent or thwart the threat of terrorism. This has been a mode of response adopted in the face of 'New Terrorism' in particular, as in the 21st Century we have seen an exponential growth in acts of terrorism in the Western World, from the 9/11 attacks, to the 7/7 London bombings, from the Madrid bombings in 2004, to the recent 2015 Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in France. The 'War on Terror' has significantly changed the way that democratic governments have responded to terrorist tactics, as we have extended beyond the boundaries of both state laws and international laws and committed acts against terror suspects that have been controversial in their breach of human rights and civil liberties.

Countering Terrorism has taken on many forms, taking a significant turn during the ongoing 'War on Terror' The United States government, under the Bush Administration, took action to eradicate the terrorist threat from Al-Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the Counter Terrorism techniques adopted were various; including the use of military force and presence in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) counter-insurgence in an attempt to diffuse the threat and stabilise the governments of these nations through hard power capabilities, in efforts to install a democratic and representative leader e.g. Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai's election as President of Afghanistan in September 2014 as a consequence of overthrowing the Taliban before the withdrawal of troops from the nation, as well as the support of Nouri al-Maliki, the previous Shia Muslim Prime Minister of Iraq in a way that resembled soft power. However, this has created a backlash as any Western intervention in the Middle East has become one of the main concerns of these terrorist organizations that conform to 'global terrorism' in that they wish to damage the power or image of the United States and it's allies, therefore, in a sense these actions of counter-terrorism are seen as adding fuel to the fire. The strengthening of state security is also a measure taken by governments to decrease the terror threat level which has been adopted by nations such the UK, Spain, Sri Lanka and Israel, while political deals are also designed to create co-operation to reach a political end in a liberal form in place of conflict or resorting to terror tactics.

However, there are a number of ways in which we have exemplified a breach of human rights during the interrogation, detainment and punishment of terrorist suspects. A case study for this is the treatment of prisoners, at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, the idea of 'extraordinary rendition' means that a government or intelligence agency such as the CIA, is able to transport a prisoner to another country that does not practice the same Human Rights laws as the United States, which allows these agencies to take part in torture techniques such as water boarding and mock executions, a breach of human rights as well as dismissing the right to a fair trial, detaining prisoners without charge, two prominent suspects being subjected to this were Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. This is considered to be controversial due to this use of counter-terrorist techniques creating a slippery slope towards becoming an authoritarian state system, giving up the moral high ground and giving the enemy morale, despite the need for intelligence or the utilitarian idea of the greatest good for the greatest number in a 'Ticking Bomb Scenario'.

On the other hand, there is evidence that counter-terrorism is compatible with human rights, along with the use of soft power to influence the ideals of others, military involvement and political deals, there are examples of attempts to quash terrorism without compromising the moral high ground or depriving suspects of their human rights. If we are to maintain a liberal and democratic political system, we must look into the movement of work such as that of the "Human Rights and Terrorism Project" (2005-2008). During the project, seminars took place to develop an innovative, inclusive and just approach to the drafting of UK counter-terrorism legislation, this made steps towards an equilibrium between respect for human rights and the need for national security, which led to the 2008 Counter-Terrorism Bill which made sure that the interrogation and imprisonment of suspects did not infringe upon the rule of criminal procedure in the UK. The Bill was a success in relation to it's influence on post-charge questioning as well as prosecution and punishment. In 2009, it was claimed by David Miliband that "There is no military solution to terrorism." It is agreed that soft power could be significant in the issue of eliminating the terrorist threat, this has been achieved in smaller ways by establishing regional centres and forums in states such as Iraq and Afghanistan to focus on de-radicalization and the idea of 'winning hearts and minds'. In terms of highly capable terrorist groups such as ISIS, this could be important as it has emerged that most of the terror threats in the UK are from citizens which identify with the terrorist organization's ideology. When referring to groups such as ISIS, the severing of funding to the wealthy organization is vital, as they earn £28 million in ransom payments annually as of 2015. The co-operation of nations such as France with terrorist groups can encourage tactics such as hostage situations and beheadings, for this reason, another counter-terrorism strategy in the UK and US is the illegalization of funding ransom payments. This ends the dilemma of forced co-operations and funding.

Ultimately, the strategies used since 2001 by the United States in particular have been in violation of human rights and civil liberties that are not part of the claimed liberal democracies highlighted as a Western model of social framework. However, there has been movement concerning the need to limit counter-terrorism tactics to a more compatible format to create an aforementioned equilibrium between the "respect to human rights while maintaining national security."

Why do some strands of Islamic terrorism wish to 'purify' the world?

Islamic Terrorism, by definition, are the terrorist acts committed by groups who profess Islamic or Islamist motivations or goals. The ideology lying behind some of the radical or extremist views and actions are taken from the Islamic perspective of the Quran and the Hadith. Islamic Terrorism, under groups such as Al-Qaeda and Islamic State, can be categorized as 'global terrorism' as it aims to degrade and damage the unipolar global power, the United States, or the West itself. However, due to the nature of this radical and religion based movement, could be considered 'new terrorism', or in it's attempt to overthrow the colonial rule and imperialistic nature of US occupation in the Middle East, 'nationalist terrorism'. 

It is understood that a large part of the Islamist agenda is the objective of 'purification' of the world, this stems mostly from the idea of 'Jihad', or 'the struggle'. This struggle can address the 'greater' struggle, internally, which focuses with one's personal and psychological acceptance of their own Islamic faith, while the 'lesser' struggle refers to the physical barriers to Jihad, which enforces the acceptance of faith and conversion of others to a like-minded ideology. To Islamists, Jihad is very much a physical struggle, spreading Islamification through the use or threat of terror, propaganda etc.  

Furthermore, establishing a 'caliphate' is an important part of the Islamist ideology. The idea of a caliphate means the deterritorialization of the Middle East that was set up by the Western countries after World War I, creating an Islamic State, which is the main priority of terrorist organizations such as ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). This demand for a pure and united Arab nation is also derived from the Quran, however, by Islamist extremists, this is interpreted as enforcing the Islamic faith around the world. For example, the striving for religious purity is documented as in 2014, there was mass persecution of Christians, Yazidis and Shia Muslims in Northern Iraq, and more recently in February 2015 as 21 Coptic Christians were executed by the terrorist group. This form of purity is based on the eradication of those who do not share the same beliefs, and in this sense, the demand for purity could be seen as an extreme form of identity politics, whereby the Middle East has been oppressed by the West (mainly the United States) for a long time, showing classic Imperialistic signs, that terrorist groups are considered in these nations as 'freedom fighters' in many people's minds. 

Finally, it appears that terrorist agenda is to reach a political end by definition, but it's clear that the search for purity is possibly a means to an end for Islamist Terrorism, as while Islam takes it's teachings from the Quran, including the idea of 'Shariah Law' which dictates a cruel legal and punishment system, it is widely debated that the core teachings of the Quran that are open to interpretation is seen as primarily peaceful, so it seems as if the terrorist search for purity is not only convoluted but a tactic for gaining power and damaging conflicting ideologies or powers.  

Should Iran be allowed Nuclear Weaponry?

Currently, there are nine states with nuclear weapons capabilities, those of which being the P5 of the UN Security Council (US, Russia, China, UK and France) as well as Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel. Iran is a nation that is currently known not to be possessing nuclear weapon capabilities or Weapons of Mass Destruction and has previously been a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Israel is a nation which has previously been in conflict with Iran and is currently engaging in political tensions with Iran regarding it's Nuclear Weapons Program, from the Israeli perspective, Republic of Iran is an aggressor which as a threat to Israel (particularly since the beginning of an indirect conflict or proxy war between the states in 2005) could use the Nuclear Weapons, although this is unlikely. There is debate over allowing nuclear weapons into the wrong hands, or even allowing two conflicting states to possess them. Not only is Israel in conflict with much of the Middle East due to religious and political reasons throughout much of it's history since 1948, but the concept of two opposing nations having nuclear weapons is dangerous. as the situation of stockpiling became an issue during the Cold War (even in 2002. Russia and the US still had the control of 98% of the Earth's nuclear weapon arsenal). This is evidence that a volatile country such as Iran is an example of how the gaining of nuclear weapons capabilties is seen as offensive rather than defensive, which could result in an impending security dilemma, whereby as we allow horizontal proliferation to take place, we are allowing a security risk and the possibility of Iran to grow in terms of vertical proliferation, provoking a conflict within the current state of an acknowledged Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) which has inadvertently created peace within our current system. This begs the question. are we allowing nuclear weapons into the wrong hands? By allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons, are we threatening the current system we have in place?

However, there are arguments for the state of Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, firstly there are states in history such as North Korea and Pakistan which have obtained access to nuclear weapons without the authority of the UN, before the Indo-Pakistan War in 1965, Bhutto claimed "If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass and leaves for a thousand years, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own. The Christians have the bomb, the Jews have the bomb and now the Hindus have the bomb. Why not the Muslims too have the bomb?" This highlights the issue that there is a power held by the current nuclear capable countries to give and take this power from other nations, under the Security Council's Permanent Five nations. However, there are nations that in the light of others military armament or the stockpiling of nuclear weapons, feel as though there is a right to protecting themselves against an external threat. Therefore, despite the belief that nuclear weapons are aggressive in their use, it is also noted that in modern history, there has been no event of nuclear weaponry used in warfare despite unstable countries or dictatorships having access to them. It can be seen that the point of nuclear destruction is a deterrent of war itself and is in a sense, a form of security or defense. For this reason, is it fair that other nations are undertaking nuclear proliferation, despite not being authorized with this power, while other nations are not allowed this security themselves.

This being said, the allowance of Iran to have nuclear weapons is a risk in itself due to Iran's standing in the Middle East. There is a possible domino effect of this horizontal proliferation and Iran is a nation at odds with much of the Middle Eastern nations, which themselves have proven to be a significant power in economy, resources and military, making the Middle East either an asset to the West, or a problem. As seen in the Iraq War or the threat of ISIS and Al Qaeda, the Arab nations are in a state of turmoil. Despite this not being an immediate threat to Iran, the mostly Shia state has had conflict in the 80% Sunni Middle East in the past, highlighted in the Gulf War (or the Iran-Iraq War) of 1980, or the oil war with Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations. This could lead to nuclear weapons becoming a demand of many Middle Eastern nations as this could be seen as an offensive act, further accentuating the risk of nuclear power falling into the wrong hands. Furthermore, Iran themselves have been anti-West, particularly since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, whereby the pro-Western Shah was forced to flee by rebels. This shows that the inclusion of Iran into the 'nuclear club' could result in a backlash or a wave of unforeseen nuclear proliferation demands that the UN could not predict. 

Ultimately, in my perspective Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, if not for the threat that Iran poses itself, but the backlash it may have for the West and the UN within the Middle East, allowing Iran into the 'nuclear club' could be a threat to an emerging multi-polar world' which has previously based it's co-operation on the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction, the threat of a nuclear winter and the downgrading and decreasing of nuclear weapon stockpiling since the end of the Cold War.