While the United States (US), led by the Bush Administration, is promoting both anti-terrorism legislation and democracy around the world, these goals may run the risk of being seen as another example of American hypocrisy. This paper, authored by Beth Elise Whitaker, examines the politics surrounding passage of anti-terrorism laws in the developing world. In promoting anti-terrorism legislation and increased democratisation simultaneously, the US has generated widespread cynicism about the Bush Administration’s twin foreign policy goals.
In response to the events of 9/11, the United Nations (UN) Security Council adopted Resolution 1373, which supported the adoption of international conventions on terrorism by member states. Soon after, the US passed the anti-terrorism Patriot Act of 2001.
Since then, at least 33 countries have introduced anti-terrorism legislation: 14 developing countries have passed legislation with minimal debate; 13 countries passed anti-terrorism legislation after significant debate; and six countries have introduced legislation but continue to debate its passage.
Most anti-terrorism laws in the developing world contain the following parallels with the US Patriot Act:
- Expansion of law enforcement powers;
- Improved sharing of information among law enforcement bodies; and
- Lengthy pre-trial detention of suspects and mandatory sentences for those convicted.
Given these parallels, there is ample reason to suspect active American promotion of these laws.
Exporting the Patriot Act: An analysis of anti-terrorism laws in the developing world yields the following observations about the US role in promoting anti-terrorism legislation:
- While there has been an abundance of US rhetoric supporting the passage of anti-terrorism laws in the developing world countries, there is no clear evidence that US economic and military assistance funding is determined by the presence or absence of such legislation.
- Despite the role of multilateral anti-terrorist initiatives, such as the aforementioned UN Security Council resolution, the US is clearly perceived to be the driving force behind the passage of anti-terrorism laws. Political debate in developing world countries about anti-terrorism legislation is pervasively anti-American.
- In countries that have recently emerged from authoritarian regimes,
debate on anti-terrorism legislation has been marked by a passionate defence by civil society of individual rights vs. increased law enforcement powers. - Although US pressure for anti-terrorism legislation is largely rhetorical, people in many developing countries believe that such laws are required by the US as a commitment to the “war on terror”.
Promoting Democracy: Debate over anti-terrorism legislation has called into question the commitment of emerging democracies to the right to dissent in some countries, but has also included democratic public debate in others:
- Anti-terrorism legislation has been used by some governments to target political opponents and crack down on dissidents.
- In newer democracies, anti-terrorism laws have faced opposition from civil society organisations and political parties defending individual freedoms, thus fostering civil society engagement in public debate.
- While US promotion of anti-terrorism legislation may generate such civil society engagement in debate, much of this activism is directed against the US.
If the “war on terror” is used to justify support for Western-friendly authoritarian regimes, the US will be seen as placing its own national interests over the human rights of other peoples. On the other hand, if the US takes this opportunity to promote democracy by fostering civil society dissent to proposed anti-terrorism legislation, it may not like the results.
