Terrorism and Democracy in the Americas

By Rut Diamint

November 2003

 
 

Contents

 

  • Summary

Terrorism and Democracy in the Americas

We face what is known as “catastrophic terrorism”. This type of terrorism is global in scope and all nations are affected. The new terrorist groups are extremely mobile and they do not concentrate their activity in one nation, unlike the Cold War, when the enemy could be seen and located. Therefore the new threats create more uncertainty, but we are sure that there can be no security without authority.

The Special Conference on Security, held in October under the OAS umbrella, focused on the structure of security in this hemisphere. Since the Caribbean and Latin American countries have little background in discussing security issues, the people’s political representatives are presented with a new opportunity and a new demand to be involved in analyzing and responding to terrorism and other security concerns.

The state’s inability to meet citizens’ security expectations is potentially one of the most destabilizing factors in consolidating democracy. Faced with terrorism, democracy should respond by broadening the rights of citizens, granting more participation in the management and control of public affairs and improving the capacity of government institutions—this role definitely falls to the national legislatures of countries in this hemisphere.

 
Terrorism and Democracy in the Americas

Document prepared by Rut Diamint*

November 2003

Original: Spanish

  1. Introduction: Terrorism

We all know that terrorism is not a new phenomenon. We also know that since September 11, 2001, terrorism has taken on new characteristics which make it necessary to rethink responses to terrorism. Certainly, the new U.S. strategy presented in September 2002 and known as “pre-emptive action” is causing changes in the international system and these changes directly affect the security policies of nations.

A quick review of the existing literature shows that terrorism is an act of political violence against a specific population. For religious, ideological, social or economic reasons, it seeks to achieve a political purpose and causes fear and hate; it also seeks wide media coverage. This form of terrorism can be traced back to the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution and the brutal systematic purge of the ancien régime by the revolutionary government. It was called terrorism when native groups fought for their independence from colonialism, although the United Nations recognized the legitimacy of these movements. The term “state terrorism” was used to refer to dictatorial governments that trampled on the rights of their citizens. During the Cold War there were many terrorist groups, guided by violent intellectuals who held political beliefs that were opposed to their own governments.

The new terrorism, as expert Bruce Hoffmann says, is characterized by sophisticated and diverse technological resources, religious fanaticism, and paranoia about the world order and globalization. Walter Laqueur, another renowned expert on this subject, says that unlike terrorist groups in the 1960s and ’70s, this new terrorism does not try to create armies of militants; on the contrary, it is organized on the basis of small highly mobile groups. Another feature is that it blurs the distinction between state and non-state actors, moving security beyond the state through transnational networks, into a space where there are no rules regulating violence as there are within a nation. Thus terrorists create a new virtual space which is the whole world. In this way terror spreads, since it can strike at objectives regardless of borders. These new terrorist groups are extremely mobile and their activity is not concentrated in one nation. Unlike traditional guerrilla struggles, the new terrorism exploits the imbalance of power by making the powerful look vulnerable.

  1. Fighting Terrorism

Most governments have said that they want to fight terrorism. Among the ways agreed upon to fight terrorist attacks are the Resolution to Strengthen Hemispheric Cooperation to Prevent, Combat and Eliminate Terrorism (2001), the Convention to Stop Terrorist Bombings (2001), the Declaration on a Global Effort against Terrorism of the UN Security Council (2001), Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001), Financial Task Force on Money Laundering—FATF (1998) or International Financial Action Group (GAFI), a European–American NGO that promotes transparency in movements of capital in order to prevent laundering of money from drug trafficking, and now also helps control international funds that finance terrorism.

Although we are faced with “catastrophic terrorism”, this does not mean that “exceptional” measures must be taken. The measures for dealing with terrorism are mainly intelligence, satellite monitoring, control of movements of people, records of financial transactions, sharing information among governments, better customs inspections, supervision of scientific and technological developments, more control of trade in and export of sensitive material, and enhancement of organizations that control movement of people. There can be no security without authority. Consensus on the illegality of terrorist acts does not in itself mean that the action taken to fight terrorism is legal.

These actions have raised two dilemmas. The first is how to strike a fair balance between the requirements of security and the preservation of civil rights. Anti-terrorism legislation tends to exaggerate crime-fighting powers and limit traditional democratic rights. Jurists who specialize in this area maintain that terrorists must be treated with conventional criminal legislation, since this does not make them political victims.

Second, these new globalized terrorist groups have raised the question of whether we are dealing with internal phenomena, which should be fought with domestic institutions like security forces, customs, immigration and emigration agencies and especially the courts, or on the contrary, if they are identified as groups operating from outside, the use of the military is appropriate, since the armed forces are responsible for external defence. This dilemma is particularly important in Latin American and Caribbean societies, where in the past the armed forces have acted outside the law. Also remember that George W. Bush in his speech at West Point on June 1, 2002, said that these networks cannot be deterred by traditional military means, since they do not have a fixed territory or population to defend. Therefore, as some European leaders have pointed out, militarizing the fight against terrorism does not give positive results. With armies alone, however qualified they are, governments will not win these wars.

  1. The Security Structure of the Americas

This hemisphere has procedures for dealing with threats, and these must be used to prevent the spread of terrorism. The security structure of the Americas consists of the Inter-American Defense Board (IADB) established in 1945, the Inter-American Mutual Assistance Treaty (TIAR) or Rio Treaty of 1947, the American Treaty on Peaceful Solutions (Bogotá Pact) of 1948, the OAS Charter of 1948, the Santiago Commitment to Democracy and Renewal of the Inter-American System, Resolution 1080 on Representative Democracy and the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy (UPD), these last three from 1991, and the Regional Conference on Confidence and Security Building Measures (CSBMs) of 1995.

On October 27 and 28, 2003, the Special Conference on Security was held in Mexico, under the aegis of the OAS, to review the hemispheric security structure in light of the changes which began in the 1990s and to respond to new threats, highlighted by the terrorist acts of 2001. This meeting drew on many previous encounters at which the interests of the participating nations were accommodated following a wide-ranging debate. Nine preparatory meetings were held under the OAS, as well as several bilateral and subregional sessions. For example, Argentina had three meetings with Chile and two with Brazil (formal and informal).

This shows a greater commitment from the countries to come up with an agenda in tune with their national interests and not necessarily with the objectives of the leading hemispheric power, and at the same time reflects the current concern with security questions.

The approved draft sets forth some innovative criteria that will require action from the member states. We would emphasize two concepts: the multidimensionality of security and flexible architecture.

The Declaration of Bridgetown, Barbados, in June 2002 recognized that the security threats, concerns and challenges in the hemisphere are diverse and multidimensional and that the traditional concept and approach should be broadened to include new non-traditional threats, including political, economic, social, health-related and environmental aspects. This shows that security has more than one dimension and that each state can consider very different situations as risks to its security.

It is important to understand that the multidimensional aspect refers to the whole hemisphere, but as the declaration asserts, each state has the sovereign right to identify its own national security priorities, in accordance with its own legal framework and in full compliance with international law and the norms and principles of the OAS and United Nations charters.

The OAS Assembly also confirmed that the new threats are transnational, but it must not be assumed that the two concepts are equivalent, because it limits the national response of each state in confronting these threats, in accordance with its political objectives and laws. It was also agreed that all existing resources of the state (military, intelligence, legal, diplomatic) must be used to deal with the threats, but nowhere was it stated that these efforts must be under military control. This reservation is related to the idea of flexible architecture; that is, the instruments, resources and institutions that each state commits to questions of terrorism and other threats, together with the many complementary bilateral and subregional initiatives, as well as the hemispheric instruments for this purpose, provide for the security of nations and peoples.

Some agree and others disagree on the multidimensionality of security. For those who hoped that the Mexico meeting would end in a series of concrete actions to fight the new terrorism, this agreement seems to be a “shopping list” which provides all the necessary ingredients but does not make it possible to prepare a meal. Those who feared that this agreement would impose conditions contrary to their national legislation find the declaration an acceptable basis for setting the values on which action will be taken.

  1. New Security Concerns

The so-called new threats, which besides terrorism include drug trafficking, organized crime, mass migrations, environmental deterioration, illegal trade in weapons, children and body parts, and natural disasters, are not limited by national boundaries. Effective responses are at least bilateral and many or most are subregional in scope.

This leads to more cooperation among states, with another particularity: previously, external relations were handled almost exclusively by the ministries of external relations through meetings at the ministerial level. Today in the hemispheric context, various jurisdictions and government departments, such as trade and defence, are involved. Police authorities from different countries have to meet and civil society organizations participate more and even have a voice with multilateral organizations like the OAS. As is evident in FIPA, parliamentarians play their part in hemispheric cooperation, both as representatives of their national societies and as overseers of the executive authority.

This participation is even more necessary if we agree that unlike the Cold War, when the enemy could be seen and located, the new threats create more uncertainty, and raise questions about whether the traditional ways of defending a state are effective in fighting these dangers. The Government of the United States has declared war on terrorism and committed the countries of this hemisphere to it as a priority. As a result of the United States’ influence and the lack of background in discussing security issues in Latin American and Caribbean countries, where it was traditionally the exclusive domain of the armed forces, the people’s political representatives must be involved in the analysis and in responding to terrorism and other security concerns.

  1. The Americas Face Terrorism

All states in this hemisphere may be subject to terrorist attack, however remote the possibility. The United States has different kind of ties with the Caribbean and Latin American nations that go from contributing troops to El Salvador, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic, and involving in economic integration (like NAFTA), to tourism in the idyllic Caribbean islands. Any of these situations may lead to an organized attack by terrorist groups.

In the 2003 Mexico Declaration, member countries in the hemisphere promise to act against terrorism, which is a grave threat to their security, institutions and democratic values and the welfare of their peoples.

Each nation has taken on this responsibility and will allocate its political and legal resources to fighting the terrorist threat. The main regional body for responding to this risk is the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism (CICTE), under the OAS umbrella.

As other developed nations that have many decades of experience with internal conflicts and terrorism have said, the most effective way to combat the problem is through information, enforcement and migration controls. None of them have found military measures effective in fighting guerrillas. The duty of parliamentarians is to ensure that the means used to fight terrorism do not curtail civil liberties. Everything that governments do to tackle this problem must be legitimated in laws passed by the national legislature.

The priority in fighting terrorism is therefore a political order with broad legitimacy among the various ethnic and religious groups and social classes. Multilateralism, diplomacy, mediation, negotiation and even economic sanctions are the primary resources for security and defence; military action must be the very last resort. The legislation of different countries must be made compatible to counter these new forms of terrorism, because divisions among them only make them more ineffective.

  1. Civil Liberties and Terrorism

The tendency to militarize the fight against terrorism in the United States poses risks for incipient and fragile democracies like those in Latin America and the Caribbean. Most of the countries in this hemisphere are in the process of consolidating democracy and reforming and strengthening government institutions. Legislators, whose role was suppressed or restricted under authoritarian governments, have still not found their rightful place in national governments.

Two recognized shortcomings are the weakness of judiciary systems and the need to consolidate the rule of law. In addition, the armed forces are not effectively controlled and still have some autonomy, and in many cases they have not given up their former prerogatives, while the defence ministries have shown little ability to conduct defence policy. In this context, the people’s representatives work to have legal procedures and human rights respected.

Parliaments, in cooperation with the media, civil society organizations, women, environmentalists and human rights organizations, must together ensure that the government is acting appropriately. The priority is to overcome the current limitations of civil justice and prevent the rule of law from giving in to a militarist reaction.

Criminalizing a community is not an effective way to fight terrorism. Privacy must be protected and safeguarded. Faced with terrorism, democracy should respond by broadening the rights of citizens, granting more participation in the management and control of public affairs and improving the capacity of government institutions to meet the people’s legitimate demands.

  1. The Conflict in Colombia

These arguments are even more pertinent for the largest conflicts in our hemisphere. Although a traditional guerrilla movement like the Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso) persists in Peru, the major concern is FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. The role of national legislatures in dealing with this problem is twofold. First, in view of the many reports of human rights abuses, parliamentarians of the Americas can support the work of the Colombian Parliament and of recognized regional organizations like the Andean Commission of Jurists to fight FARC more effectively, within the rule of law. In the same vein, measures should be taken to support the people displaced by violence, estimated at 400,000 in 2002.

Plan Colombia has been much criticized for militarizing the conflict and disregarding other ways to fight the rebels. Parliamentarians can contribute to a wider public debate and encourage alternative solutions without the human toll of Plan Colombia. It should be emphasized that this lack of debate also includes the U.S. government, where few

criticisms have been made of the meagre results obtained from this plan. In one criticism, Congressman McGovern (D-MA) stressed that military aid had to be limited and proposed sending a powerful message that Congress believes respect for human rights is essential and the impunity of high-ranking military officers who abused human rights has to end.

If a military victory in Colombia is not possible and the conflict drags on, other countries will have to become involved, as José Dirceu, head of the military branch of the Brazilian government, recently proposed. In such a case, the role of parliamentarians will be vital, so that governments make decisions in keeping with the expectations of the society that they represent. Again, efforts must be made to build mechanisms for a just peace, avoid collateral damage to the Colombian population and strengthen justice and the primacy of law.

  1. What National Legislatures Should Do About Terrorism

Although it is not common practice, the presence of parliamentarians on the premises of police, security forces and the military to get acquaintance in greater detail with the security needs, would raise awareness among officials of the importance of the work that legislators do in democratic regimes.  It would also give representatives more information and knowledge of the issues, showing how responsibly members of Congress approach their work. These visits must be routine, not a social event. In some countries the idea persists that anything related to security must be kept secret. This is part of a tradition of autonomy for the military and security forces that must be reversed in a democracy to consolidate civilian rule.

Moreover, only through more detailed knowledge of security-related activities can parliamentarians debate the budget and allocate resources, which is a basic legislative task in a democracy. Budgetary oversight and reallocation by Congress is the clearest indication of the proper division of power in a society.

Members of Congress must also monitor military aid from the United States and determine, in accordance with the laws of each country, whether or not the armed forces instead of the police should take the lead in fighting drug trafficking. The government in Washington provides military aid for these tasks, which in some cases the military uses to play their desired political role. In recent years the United States has made former adversaries allies. The Americas, on the other hand, have a more stable relationship with the superpower. Therefore, they also have a voice of long-standing legitimacy to negotiate agreements. Members of Congress can play an important role in setting these standards of cooperation, representing the interests of every nation.

Legislators can call on CICTE, which is becoming an inter-American network to gather, share and transmit information and advise legislatures on formulating anti-terrorism laws. Closer collaboration between FIPA and CICTE would increase the legitimacy of these initiatives. Together, it would help carry out the directives of the United Nations Counter-terrorism Committee, which proposed a series of concrete measures to set standards of behavior for dealing with the threat of terrorism, policies for customs control, population movements, extradition, illegal arms trade, and establish laws for financial control and common codes for police intervention.

The new security agreement achieved consensus on the multidimensionality of security and flexible architecture. Nevertheless, it did not say how these two concepts would be implemented. To legitimize both concepts and strengthen government decision making, parliamentarians have to speak out on these subjects and take an active part in the internal and subregional debate on them.

  1. Parliamentarians and National Institutions

The concern about strengthening democracy in the Americas is well known. In recent years several presidents have been overthrown, there have been coup attempts, political crises and violent demonstrations, historic political parties have been weakened, the armed forces seem to be a state within the state, and the public mistrusts their political leaders. Many countries maintain a delicate balance between their democratic progress and threats to their governability.

In some Latin American countries the public suspects the police of being corrupt and excessively violent. Parliamentarians have to oversee these institutions and enforce strict compliance with the law, establishing clear guidelines for the graduated use of weapons. The state’s inability to meet citizens’ security expectations is potentially one of the most destabilizing factors in consolidating democracy. Heads of government occasionally prefer not to have external controls on the security forces, since in that way they can be used at their discretion to serve their interests in power. National legislatures can limit these deviations through institutionalized supervision of the security forces and intelligence community.

In most countries in the Americas, in which the armed forces were involved in serious violations of human rights and abuses of power, the new authorities’ uncompromising commitment to justice and intention to end impunity were fundamental in building democracy.

The abuses of the former regime and the militarization of the police forces have left a sorry legacy of police impunity. The limitations of Latin American governments and the reform processes (from authoritarianism to democracy, from internal war to peace and from closed to integrated economies) left police innovations to later. Police organizations must have a clearly civilian profile in terms of training and professionalism, doctrine, intelligence, equipment, recruiting and living conditions. Now that modern police forces are needed to deal with new forms of organized crime, this task is extremely urgent. In other cases, when the forces of order are overwhelmed, the armed forces can seize the opportunity to take over public security. Military participation in maintaining public order and internal intelligence functions contradicts the basis of democratic control.

We have seen that the administration of justice is deficient in some nations. Improved justice restores public confidence in their institutions. National legislatures can modernize and streamline the judicial system, and question what it does when it serves private or special interests.

The intelligence communities in Latin America and the Caribbean still have a strong military component and are subject to limited legal control. Secret activities of the state, collection of information on private individuals and groups and the use of this information are not military activities. They are police activities and must be subject to oversight by Congress or external commissions to prevent political use of these data or illegal procedures.

Definitely, the goal is to make the response to possible disaster a cooperative undertaking. The only effective way to fight terrorism is institutionalized international cooperation, through multilateral global and regional organizations. Good government with institutions that fully meet their responsibilities is the best antidote to the local appearance of terrorist groups. National legislatures must lead in making politics credible again, since the new threats will not yield to military measures, but only when their support diminishes by attacking the causes of the people’s discontent.

* * * * *

 

  • Auxiliary Bibliography

  • Adam Isacson and Ingrid Vaicius, “The ‘War on Drugs’ Meets the ‘War on Terror’: The United States’ Military Involvement in Colombia Climbs to the Next Level,” Center for International Policy, Washington, DC, February 2003.

http://ciponline.org/colombia/0302ipr.pdf

  • Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism, New York, Columbia University Press, 1998.
  • Conference on Democratic Transition and Consolidation, Madrid, Siddhath Mehta Ediciones, 2002.
  • Christopher Greenwood, “International Law and the ‘War against Terrorism’,” London, Internationals Affairs, No. 78, Vol. 2, 2002.
  • Fernando Reinares, Terrorismo y Antiterrorismo, Barcelona, Paidós, 1998.
  • Gabriel Marcella and Donald Schulz, Colombia’s Three Wars: U.S. Strategy at the Crossroads, Strategic Studies Institute, Washington, 1999.
  • Ken Booth and Tim Dunne, Worlds in Collision. Terror and the Future of Global Order, New York, NY, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
  • Mary Kaldor, Las nuevas guerras. Violencia organizada en la era global [The new wars. Organized violence in the global era], Barcelona, Kriterios-Tusquets, 2001.
  • Michael Renner, Fighting for Survival. Environmental Decline, Social Conflict, and the New Age of Insecurity, New York, W.W. Norton & Company, 1996.
  • Oliver P. Richmond, “Realizing Hegemony? Symbolic Terrorism and the Roots of Conflict,” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Vol. 26, No. 4, July-August 2003, Philadelphia, PA, Taylor & Francis.
  • Parliamentary Oversight of the Security Sector. Principles, Mechanisms and Practices, Handbook for Parliamentarians No. 5, Lausanne, Switzerland, Geneva Center for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces and Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2003.
  • Rafael Pardo Rueda, “The Prospects for Peace in Colombia,” Inter-American Dialogue, Washington, DC, Working Paper, July 2002.
  • Roy Godson, “Transstate Security”, in Richard Shultz Jr., Roy Godson and George H. Quester, Washington, Security Studies for the 21st Century, Brassey’s, 1997.
  • Thomas F. Homer-Dixon, Environment, Scarcities and Violence, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1999.
  • Walter Laqueur, The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction, New York, NY, Oxford University Press, 1999.