As the world celebrates yet another Human Rights Day (Dec 10), there is the danger that it would be overshadowed by a war "against" terrorism as well as a war "of" terrorism. Both sides of the conflict are beginning to dig deep trenches readying themselves for a long protracted war.

However, unlike conventional wars, the combatants in this war are neither distinct nor easily identifiable. Although the battle ground is not marked, it is clear that this conflict threatens to engulf all, as terrorists have marked out everyone as potential 'soft targets' and governments indiscriminately apply national security laws.

We must also be vigilant of the language used and of carefully defining human rights so that governments or terrorists do not abuse the term 'human rights' for their own interests.

So for this human rights day, the need to talk about human rights becomes more apparent. As the threat of warfare looms, there must be an open discussion about September 11 and the more recent bombings in Bali, Indonesia.

Two concepts

Human rights are debated heatedly in many countries and its only competitor at the moment is terrorism. The result is a battle between the two concepts. One seeks to protect and affirm human dignity. The other evokes images of blood, death and suffering; seeking to plumb the depths of chaos and confusion. Both concepts are amorphous and lack a fixed definition rendering them difficult to conceptualise.

Ask a person on the street and they may be able to tell you that human rights protect. On the other hand, government strategists might justify the creation and application of draconian national security laws and legal measures as protective of 'human rights'. Casting a net deep and wide, legislation and calls for war directed only against terrorists are beginning to take on a life of their own, engulfing human rights and innocent people.

As the great 'enemy of the people', terrorists are usually unseen, do not wear uniforms and could be the person sitting next to you on the tube or even a neighbour you have known for years. One could step out of one's house and read of a subway attack, creating the psychological need to remain 'safe' inside one's home, living in total fear. The fear is compounded by the fact that you cannot see, touch or hear it. Even when speaking to a friend over the phone or sending e-mails, ordinary people are thinking twice and wondering if they are being monitored or tapped. Some media outlets have also instilled the fear factor in individuals, churning out calls for war against a country or against some unseen enemy.

Weakness and cowardice

But it is human nature to want to go out and socialize in the world. The use of the term 'soft targets' is indicative of the fact that 'anything goes'. If those who advocate such violence are unable to hit out at those who can defend themselves, then hit out against the people who cannot defend themselves. Terrorists capitalize on this fear.

Such acts, whatever greater cause they could be prompted by, is a sign of weakness and cowardice. It demonstrates that in order for these terrorists to bring to light whatever grievances they may have over the oppression of a particular peoples, they are exacting the same kind of evil as that which they decry; the killing and murder of innocents.

Governments react, as would gunslingers, becoming parties in a shadow war with the terrorists. However, there is one important exception. None of the parties adhere to any particular set of rules or codes of conduct. The battles are characterised as a free-for-all and at the end of the day, it is human rights that are sacrificed.

The State then itself becomes a 'terrorist' when it begins to enact laws that curtail human rights and effectively instill fear in people. Immigrants who come to a country with certain physical characteristics, speak a certain language or come from a certain country face insurmountable odds.

Fingerprinting, placement in internment camps upon entry or incommunicado detention could become the staple response of governments. At the same time, efforts which say "Hey what about human rights?" would likely elicit laughter and cynicism. Human rights become derogable, an afterthought, a softness that are unhelpful in a time which requires toughness. And what about people living within these countries? Legislation is being enacted to permit wiretaps, allowing governments access to every nook and corner of a person's life. Due process and the right to counsel becomes a thing of the past; a reminder of more civilized times. Remember Big Brother?

Wantonly used

But then again, are we ever told when these suggested or implemented measures might come to an end? When might the State repeal such laws and begin to respect human rights again, if at all? How can they know if the people they intern or capture are truly terrorists when dealing with a shadowy foe?

And what about the terrorist? Would they ever lay down their arms when their supposed aims have been achieved (again we are never told if their aims are ever achieved)? How easy would it be for them to renounce their violence after many years of killing, maiming and bombing 'soft targets'?

While the true meaning of such terms such as 'terrorism' and 'human rights' have become harder to define, one would find that these terms are being wantonly used in both the media and in various statements made by governments.

The immediate reaction to any kind of action is deemed 'terroristic' and that protection of 'human rights' justifies the use of force against perpetrators of 'terror'. The space to define and to contemplate these two terms has become significantly narrowed. It is much easier to brand a person as such and such rather than to investigate what it means. What is terror? Does it have to be committed by a certain group or is it perpetrated by the State? When a group bombs innocent people in the name of God, how do we know that God approves of such acts? Is it terrorism when a powerful country sends in troops to attack another country in the name of human rights? Or it is terrorism when a country trains military soldiers to exact violence in other countries by using training grounds such as the School of the Americas?

Inherent dignity

If there is truth in the saying "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", how do we decide? How do we know where terrorism begins and where vengeance ends?, When undefined words are used indiscriminately, the greatest victims are the people on the ground or those caught in the middle of the conflict. 'Human rights' becomes another pejorative term defiled and misused by governments and terror groups. The consequence of this is that human rights again become relativistic, and return a field that has evolved over the past fifty years, back to square one.

This is the time when a humanistic understanding of human right becomes imperative. The fundamental aim of the human rights movement is to recognize the inherent dignity of human beings. In a supposed war against terrorism, humans are reduced to body counts and nameless entities in a borderless war not bound by any rules.

We need to understand that national security laws and other such "counter-terrorist" measures can take on a self-sustaining life of their own. Violence also becomes a leviathan, consuming all and eliminating space for consultation and open debate.

As Dec10 passes us, the human rights discourse will again be forgotten as people and governments try to overcome an unseen enemy. The root causes of terrorism are ignored. Instead, parties try to deal with immediate and more visible issues rather than the suffering of the families of those who died in both the Sept 11 and Bali attacks of or and those who have long suffered under State terrorism. However, perhaps it is time that activists, those who believe in human rights and even ordinary people say to governments and terrorists "Stop! What are you doing?"

LEONG KAR YEN is a former malaysiakini journalist. He is now in the United Kingdom for further studies.