From the exchange of letters between Amnesty’s senior lawyer Claudio Cordone and the human rights lawyers Sara Hossain, Amrita Chhachhi and Sunila Abeysekera:
Claudio Cordone says of Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners:
Moazzam Begg is one of the first detainees to have been released from Guantánamo and to disclose information when much of what was going on in the camp was shrouded in secrecy. He speaks powerfully from personal experience about the abuses there. He advocates effectively detainees’ rights to due process, and does so within the same framework of universal human rights standards that we are promoting. All good reasons, we think, to be on the same platform when speaking about Guantánamo. Now, Moazzam Begg and others in his group Cageprisoners also hold other views which they have clearly stated, for example on whether one should talk to the Taleban or on the role of jihad in self-defence. Are such views antithetical to human rights? Our answer is no, even if we may disagree with them – and indeed those of us working to close Guantánamo have a range of beliefs about religion, secularism, armed struggle, peace and negotiations. I am afraid that the rest of what we have heard against Moazzam Begg include many distortions, innuendos, and “guilt by association” to which he has responded for himself.
[my emphases]
Sara, et al, reply:
We believe that the question you raise in your letter as to whether the concept of ‘defensive jihad’ is antithetical to human rights, and your categorical statement that the response of Amnesty International to this question is ‘NO’, raises very serious concerns. We are dismayed by this statement. Our considered opinion is that this is a highly contentious issue and not one which can be answered as firmly as you have done. . . . . . It has been shown that ‘defensive jihad’ results in indiscriminate attacks on civilians, attacks which are disproportionate and attacks which are targeted for the purpose of discrimination such as those on schools, shrines and religious processions. As you know, international humanitarian law prohibits all such attacks under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Given this it is shocking to us that in your letter you appear to endorse ‘defensive jihad’ as a public position of Amnesty International position.
Conor Foley correctly identifies that the ball is now in Amnesty’s court to as far as furnishing a legal definition of “Defensive Jihad” in terms of human rights and in relation to Amnesty’s decision to partner with and give platform to Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners. Here Foley alludes to Amnesty’s inexplicably weird reasoning and asks all the obvious questions, on Liberal Conspiracy of all places:
Sara et al call for more discussion about the concept of ‘defensive jihadism’ and more analysis of Mozzam Begg’s own views on the subject, but this seems to me to be fairly simple, at least in relation to Afghanistan. We know that Begg has condemned some of the Taliban’s actions but also called for dialogue with them. That is a respectable position which I (reluctantly) share. However does Begg define the Taliban’s campaign as a ‘defensive jihad’? If he does, then I do not think that Amnesty should be giving him a platform.
But, some say that Moazzam Begg has spoken out robustly against the Taliban’s record of abuse of women’s rights. That clears his name, surely?
Foley brushes this straw man aside and expands on his argument further down in the comments:
As you know support for the Taliban and other jihadi groups was a key part of foreign policy of the most reactionary elements of the Pakistan military for over a decade (between 1995 when they created to the movement until about 2008 when they finally turned on it). This policy was based on the concept of ‘defensive jihad’. It is also the policy of groups like Jamiat-e-Islam whose links to the ISI and the Pakistan military are well-known.
What it meant in practice was that ISI operatives directed, trained and fought alongside the Taliban even after 9/11 and a large number of them were airlifted out of Kunduz as part of the deal that Musharaf did with Bush. The Pakistan military provided logistical support for Taliban cross-border operations between 2003 and 2006, which included transporting them to the border, setting up field hospitals for them and providing covering fire for them when they retreated. The Taliban’s tactics during these attacks were to kill civilians indiscriminately, but to particucularly target tribal elders, government officials, aid workers, girls schools and religious leaders who had denounced them. To anyone who is worked in the Pakistan/Afganistan regions that is what the term ‘defensive jihad’ means.
The term may have other meanings, in other contexts, but if that is the context in which Begg is using it than I think that is antithetical to a human rights position. As Claudio says ‘There are victims with whom we would not associate, while unreservedly campaigning against any abuses of their rights.’ I do not know whether Begg belongs in that category or not, but the use of the term ‘defensive jihad’ set of thousands of alarm bells in my head.
Begg has never made a statement on his position on the Taliban’s use of military offensive but we can certainly infer what they are about from Cageprisoners. It now transpires that Amnesty’s decision to associate with Begg and Cageprisoners was based on the reasoning that the Taliban’s tactics of directing indiscriminate violence against Afghan civilians was defensible not only by the principle of religious obligation, or “jihad”, but that it’s actions which involved killing innocent civilians were wholly “jihad in self-defence”.
If Claudio Cordone believes that these actions are not “antithetical to human rights” and compliant with international humanitarian law, he has some explaining to do.
So Sara’s three specific questions stand and remain unanswered. Providing answers to them has now become a matter of urgency for Amnesty:
- On what grounds did you decide that ‘defensive jihad’ and its aims are not antithetical to human rights?
- Can you elaborate your examination of both the ideology of ‘defensive jihad’ and acts committed in its name for compliance with international humanitarian law, human rights law and international criminal law?
- On what opinions did you rely? Which experts were consulted?