HOME HOME
© 2023-2024 Oriental Institute, The Czech Academy of Sciences, Kevin L. Schwartz, and Ameem Lutfi
THEMATICS THEMATICS
Ever since the United States launched the War on Terror in the early 2000s, interpretation of anti-terrorism legislation in the West extended to encompass civilian endeavors, comprising all kinds of vaguely worded threats to public order and damage to property as potential terrorist acts. Counterterrorism policies may conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights laws, but creating legislation and abiding by it creates an illusion that the rule of law is respected. 1 Since 9/11, anti-terrorism legislation has been adopted in several countries of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in two waves, all defining the word terrorism vaguely. The first wave (2001–2007) was motivated by domestic terror attacks rather than compliance with international or western expectations alone. The second wave, after the Arab uprisings in 2012–2017, was used to either repress domestic opposition or prevent the uprisings from spreading regionally. 2 Anti-terrorism legislation allowed regimes in the MENA region to obstruct nonviolent protests, criminalize oppositional activities, and justify ongoing repression. Thus, adopting the legislation in the MENA region allowed regimes to continue their old policies and strategies of control while widening the definition who is a terrorist. 3 This was true for Syria as well. The State of Emergency, first implemented since 1963, empowered security forces to surveil the people and to act with impunity. As a result, thousands of people were arbitrarily arrested, disappeared, and tortured. This occurred especially in the 1980s when the regime detained Islamists, Communists, and other political activists. The State of Emergency ended in 2011, but it was soon replaced by the anti-terrorism legislation, initiating an expansion in the scale of violence directed toward civilians. Syrian regime adopts anti-terrorism legislation Syria was the first country in the MENA region to adopt anti-terrorism legislation during the second wave, doing so in July 2012. Article   1   of   Law   19 , or “Law on Combating Terrorism,” stipulates that “acts that aim to create a state of panic among people, disturb public security, or damage the state’s infrastructure, and are committed to using weapons” are terrorist acts. Terror attacks in Damascus in May 2012 were the official reason behind the law’s creation; in reality, the need to repress both civil and armed opposition, resulting from a strengthened uprising and the emergence of rebel groups, seem more plausible explanations. From the start of the uprising the   president   emphasized Islamists and terrorists to be at the core of the protest movement and likened Syrian policies to the western Global War on Terror after 9/11. 5 2012 was not the first time that the Syrian regime referred to regime critics as terrorists, but it has done so selectively, based on the identity of the group in question and the extent to which the group constituted a threat. Before 2011, it served the regime’s purposes to use other rhetorical repertoires rather than the notion of terrorism. In 2000, during the Druze uprising, the community was accused of “heresy and treason,” and during the Qamishli uprising in 2004 the Kurds were accused of “ethnic separatism.” The only time the regime has used the notion of terrorism, apart from in the context of opposing the U.S. and Israel, was the Islamist uprising in 1979–1982; it consisted of a group with an identity, Sunni Arab, suitable for the notion, and the group constituted a great enough threat to the regime. During the Arab uprising, this threat was considered to have manifested itself again. 6 Consequences of anti-terrorism legislation for health care Healthcare professionals had not experienced systematic violence related to their profession by the regime before 2011. But this soon changed with the onset of protests, as professionals who treated injured protesters were arrested by the regime. During   their   imprisonment , they were beaten, tortured, and, in some cases, executed. They also witnessed the brutal treatment of others, which included their colleagues and other professionals, such as journalists and lawyers. 7 While imprisoned, healthcare professionals were accused of providing medical aid to protestors, supporting terrorists, or even being terrorists themselves. In addition, the anti-terrorism legislation required healthcare professionals to report any patients they suspected of being injured in protests to the authorities. 8 These policies contradict international laws, according   to which   healthcare   professionals   are   protected while providing medical assistance to those in need. Thus, the fear of being arrested by the regime while treating patients in hospitals, as well as the desire to help the injured, led healthcare professionals to establish secret field hospitals in mosques, schools, and people’s living rooms. 9 As the regime lost areas to the armed opposition, it started to target civilian areas with barrel and cluster bombs and imposed brutal sieges to annihilate civil life. 10 All kinds of civil sites, including hospitals, were deliberately targeted. 11 The targeting of hospitals can be seen as a continuation of the arrests of healthcare personnel in 2011–2012, when all civil activities were viewed as supporting terrorists or as terrorism. Later, those civilians living in opposition-held areas became legitimate enemy targets under the anti-terrorism legislation. This had significant consequences for healthcare and people in need of treatment. In addition to a significant number of doctors fleeing, many hospitals were completely destroyed and out of service. Those healthcare professionals who stayed to treat the patients were in constant danger due to airstrikes. They had to work under extreme conditions with hardly any equipment which affected the availability and quality of care. 12 “Us” and “Them” The 2011 uprising and the subsequent civil war have been an existential threat to the Syrian regime. Identifying the opponents, the majority but not all Sunni Arabs, as “terrorists” as “others” serves the purpose of the regime again. The uprising had to be annihilated by any means necessary. In practice, this meant applying anti-terrorism legislation to everyone considered an opponent to the regime. Health care workers became, because of their profession, “legitimate” targets for the regime. Not respecting human rights prior to the war either, the regime continued to blatantly violate international humanitarian law, which should protect healthcare professionals and allow them to provide care impartially to those in need, regardless of patients’ political affiliations or actions. Now that the regime has regained control over most of the opposition-held areas, it divides individuals into loyal and disloyal ones. This division into “us” and “them” travels also to the post- war times. Those suspected of terrorism-related actions (e.g. health care practitioners who worked in rebel areas) are fundamentally treated as disloyal. Crucially, there is not a way for an individual to change how they are perceived. 13 The anti-terrorism legislation intensified the regime’s methods toward the opposition and helped justify the destruction of civilian targets on a scale that in the early 2010s was still unprecedented. Providing health care in these circumstances was often practically impossible. Using the word terrorism vaguely and conducting a War on Terror that neglected international law, the West provided an easy antecedent for Syria, and other countries, to use it to their benefit when the situation required. It is notable that the West extended their War on Terror into Syria where it fought most effectively against ISIS not the authoritarian regime of Bashar al-Assad. Neglect of human rights was not a new phenomenon in Syria, but since the war started it took on a new scale. Destruction of civil life, worded as “terrorist” targets, has blatantly violated international laws. Dividing the country according to those who are considered loyal and those who are not will last for a long time without a political solution in sight.
Source: Voice of America
September 5, 2024
If you are interested in contributing an article for the project, please send a short summary of the proposed topic (no more than 200 words) and brief bio to submissions@911legacies.com. For all other matters, please contact inquiry@911legacies.com.
CONTACT
Web design made by Nyx Alexander Design ; Icons, logo and photos provided by Daniel Brown
Source: Voice of America
Ever since the United States launched the War on Terror in the early 2000s, interpretation of anti-terrorism legislation in the West extended to encompass civilian endeavors, comprising all kinds of vaguely worded threats to public order and damage to property as potential terrorist acts. Counterterrorism policies may conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights laws, but creating legislation and abiding by it creates an illusion that the rule of law is respected. 1 Since 9/11, anti-terrorism legislation has been adopted in several countries of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in two waves, all defining the word terrorism vaguely. The first wave (2001–2007) was motivated by domestic terror attacks rather than compliance with international or western expectations alone. The second wave, after the Arab uprisings in 2012–2017, was used to either repress domestic opposition or prevent the uprisings from spreading regionally. 2 Anti-terrorism legislation allowed regimes in the MENA region to obstruct nonviolent protests, criminalize oppositional activities, and justify ongoing repression. Thus, adopting the legislation in the MENA region allowed regimes to continue their old policies and strategies of control while widening the definition who is a terrorist. 3 This was true for Syria as well. The State of Emergency, first implemented since 1963, empowered security forces to surveil the people and to act with impunity. As a result, thousands of people were arbitrarily arrested, disappeared, and tortured. This occurred especially in the 1980s when the regime detained Islamists, Communists, and other political activists. The State of Emergency ended in 2011, but it was soon replaced by the anti-terrorism legislation, initiating an expansion in the scale of violence directed toward civilians. Syrian regime adopts anti-terrorism legislation Syria was the first country in the MENA region to adopt anti-terrorism legislation during the second wave, doing so in July 2012. Article   1   of Law     19 , or “Law on Combating Terrorism,” stipulates that “acts that aim to create a state of panic among people, disturb public security, or damage the state’s infrastructure, and are committed to using weapons” are terrorist acts. Terror attacks in Damascus in May 2012 were the official reason behind the law’s creation; in reality, the need to repress both civil and armed opposition, resulting from a strengthened uprising and the emergence of rebel groups, seem more plausible explanations. From the start of the uprising the   president   emphasized Islamists and terrorists to be at the core of the protest movement and likened Syrian policies to the western Global War on Terror after 9/11. 5 2012 was not the first time that the Syrian regime referred to regime critics as terrorists, but it has done so selectively, based on the identity of the group in question and the extent to which the group constituted a threat. Before 2011, it served the regime’s purposes to use other rhetorical repertoires rather than the notion of terrorism. In 2000, during the Druze uprising, the community was accused of “heresy and treason,” and during the Qamishli uprising in 2004 the Kurds were accused of “ethnic separatism.” The only time the regime has used the notion of terrorism, apart from in the context of opposing the U.S. and Israel, was the Islamist uprising in 1979–1982; it consisted of a group with an identity, Sunni Arab, suitable for the notion, and the group constituted a great enough threat to the regime. During the Arab uprising, this threat was considered to have manifested itself again. 6 Consequences of anti-terrorism legislation for health care Healthcare professionals had not experienced systematic violence related to their profession by the regime before 2011. But this soon changed with the onset of protests, as professionals who treated injured protesters were arrested by the regime. During     their imprisonment , they were beaten, tortured, and, in some cases, executed. They also witnessed the brutal treatment of others, which included their colleagues and other professionals, such as journalists and lawyers. 7 While imprisoned, healthcare professionals were accused of providing medical aid to protestors, supporting terrorists, or even being terrorists themselves. In addition, the anti-terrorism legislation required healthcare professionals to report any patients they suspected of being injured in protests to the authorities. 8 These policies contradict international laws, according to   which   healthcare   professionals   are   protected while providing medical assistance to those in need. Thus, the fear of being arrested by the regime while treating patients in hospitals, as well as the desire to help the injured, led healthcare professionals to establish secret field hospitals in mosques, schools, and people’s living rooms. 9 As the regime lost areas to the armed opposition, it started to target civilian areas with barrel and cluster bombs and imposed brutal sieges to annihilate civil life. 10 All kinds of civil sites, including hospitals, were deliberately targeted. 11 The targeting of hospitals can be seen as a continuation of the arrests of healthcare personnel in 2011–2012, when all civil activities were viewed as supporting terrorists or as terrorism. Later, those civilians living in opposition-held areas became legitimate enemy targets under the anti- terrorism legislation. This had significant consequences for healthcare and people in need of treatment. In addition to a significant number of doctors fleeing, many hospitals were completely destroyed and out of service. Those healthcare professionals who stayed to treat the patients were in constant danger due to airstrikes. They had to work under extreme conditions with hardly any equipment which affected the availability and quality of care. 12 “Us” and “Them” The 2011 uprising and the subsequent civil war have been an existential threat to the Syrian regime. Identifying the opponents, the majority but not all Sunni Arabs, as “terrorists” as “others” serves the purpose of the regime again. The uprising had to be annihilated by any means necessary. In practice, this meant applying anti-terrorism legislation to everyone considered an opponent to the regime. Health care workers became, because of their profession, “legitimate” targets for the regime. Not respecting human rights prior to the war either, the regime continued to blatantly violate international humanitarian law, which should protect healthcare professionals and allow them to provide care impartially to those in need, regardless of patients’ political affiliations or actions. Now that the regime has regained control over most of the opposition-held areas, it divides individuals into loyal and disloyal ones. This division into “us” and “them” travels also to the post-war times. Those suspected of terrorism- related actions (e.g. health care practitioners who worked in rebel areas) are fundamentally treated as disloyal. Crucially, there is not a way for an individual to change how they are perceived. 13 The anti-terrorism legislation intensified the regime’s methods toward the opposition and helped justify the destruction of civilian targets on a scale that in the early 2010s was still unprecedented. Providing health care in these circumstances was often practically impossible. Using the word terrorism vaguely and conducting a War on Terror that neglected international law, the West provided an easy antecedent for Syria, and other countries, to use it to their benefit when the situation required. It is notable that the West extended their War on Terror into Syria where it fought most effectively against ISIS not the authoritarian regime of Bashar al-Assad. Neglect of human rights was not a new phenomenon in Syria, but since the war started it took on a new scale. Destruction of civil life, worded as “terrorist” targets, has blatantly violated international laws. Dividing the country according to those who are considered loyal and those who are not will last for a long time without a political solution in sight.
© 2023-2024 Oriental Institute, The Czech Academy of Sciences, Kevin L. Schwartz, and Ameem Lutfi
From Healthcare Professional to Terrorist: Anti-terrorism Legislation during  the Syrian Civil War
Written by
Tiina Hyyppä
Doctoral researcher, University of Helsinki
If you are interested in contributing an article for the project, please send a short summary of the proposed topic (no more than 200 words) and brief bio to submissions@911legacies.com. For all other matters, please contact inquiry@911legacies.com.
CONTACT