Many human rights defenders argue that Western governments have overstepped the mark and sacrificed some civil liberties to the security agenda. It is this issue, crucial for democratic societies, that is being addressed in the case currently under review at the US Supreme Court.In Holder v. the Humanitarian Law Project, human rights activists are challenging a law that prohibits contacts with foreign organizations included on the official “terrorist” list published by the US administration. They argue that the law is too broad and too vague. By banning “training” and providing “expert advice or assistance” and labeling such interaction as “material assistance” to a terrorist group, it prevents mediators and peace activists from engaging with militant organizations in order to convince them to express any grievances they may have through peaceful means.
What makes this case of particular interest to Turkey is that it involves the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Ralph Fertig, a human rights activist and conflict mediator, is challenging the law in his capacity as head of the Humanitarian Law Project because he believes it is in the interest of peace to train PKK associates in conflict resolution and to teach them how to lobby effectively for the rights of Kurds at the UN. Under the current regulations, doing so might expose Fertig and his colleagues to jail terms of up to 15 years.
In Turkey, of course, any association with the PKK, real or perceived, is severely repressed. Most people in Turkey would therefore expect the US Supreme Court to uphold the current strict rules. It may well do so. But the justices are not being asked to decide whether or not the PKK is a terrorist group. They have to rule on the constitutionality of principles that apply equally to all the groups designated as foreign terrorist organizations, which also includes LTTE, better known as the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, as well as to the Palestinian group Hamas. They are expected to make their conclusions known in the late spring.
Many in Turkey, and indeed elsewhere, believe Hamas should not be subject to such an embargo. The fact that it is, and that working with the group also exposes human rights defenders to criminal procedures, illustrates how complex and delicate the security vs. freedom issues are. The Turkish government, for instance, has had contact with Hamas, which it sees as an important element in the quest for peace in the Middle East. In the not-too-distant past, Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC) also used to carry the “terrorist” label. In fact, in 2008, US officials had to hurriedly amend their records and lift restrictions on travel that still applied to the elderly statesman and the ANC.
The influential American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has closed ranks with the Humanitarian Law Project, filing a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of several major human rights NGOs including the Carter Center. Former President Jimmy Carter, who in the past has urged the international community to recognize Hamas and continues to be active in conflict resolution around the world, has thrown his weight into the debate.
“Our work to end violence sometimes requires interacting directly with groups that have engaged in it,” Jimmy Carter said. “Unfortunately, efforts like ours, and those of the many other human rights groups who signed onto this brief, are hindered by the extremely vague ‘material support’ law that leaves us guessing whether our work to encourage peace could actually be considered illegal. Sadly, the law being challenged in court -- which is aimed at putting an end to terrorism -- actually threatens the work of humanitarian groups that share the same goal.”
