A disturbing convergence? : civil liberties and the 'war on terror'

In Australia and other Western States, notably the participants in the United States-led |Coalition of the Willing| that invaded Iraq in 2003, the alleged threat of terrorism has been used, particularly since 11 September 2001, as a pretext to make far-reaching inroads into basic democratic rights, including free speech, freedom of political association protections against arbitrary detention, and the right to open and public trial for any serious offence. Despite criticisms by civil liberties groups, both the British and American governments introduced severe measures, including detention without trial and proscription of organizations¹.' Amnesty International condemned the Bush administration for breaching the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international protocols against arbitrary detention and inhuman treatment of prisoners². Since 2002, more than thirty pieces of legislation have been introduced in Australia, to substantially increase the surveillance, detention and proscription powers of the government and its security and intelligence agencies, The legislation (1) defines terrorism in vague terms; (2) permits the banning of political groups; (3) allows for detention without trial; and (4) shrouds the operations of the intelligence and police agencies in secrecy and provides for semi-secret trials³. This article examines the parallels between the Australian counterterrorism laws and those of two key Asian jurisdictions-Indonesia and China-to assess the extent to which the |war on terrorism| is being exploited for domestic political purposes and to erode basic civil liberties and democratic rights. It also examines the extent to which the Indonesian and Chinese measures appear to have been adopted under Western pressure to converge or conform to the proclaimed indefinite |war on terror.