Dealing in Justice

The world has undeniably changed since the September 11 attacks triggered George W. Bush's declaration of a global war on terror. One of the biggest consequences, says jurist Arthur Chaskalson, has been a widespread decline in respect for basic human rights. Chaskalson, a former chief justice of South Africa, was part of the legal team that defended Nelson Mandela before the African National Congress leader's 1964 sentence to life imprisonment for trying to overthrow the white minority government. Chaskalson, 76, now leads the International Commission of Jurists, a human rights advocacy group consisting of lawyers and academics from 62 different countries. The commission, based in Geneva, Switzerland, provides legal assistance to ensure that basic freedoms are valued in a new era of fast-changing global policies. Visiting Washington for the American Civil Liberties Union national membership conference, Chaskalson sat down with NEWSWEEK's Daniel Stone. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Looking at the current state of global affairs, with humanitarian and political crises, what issue is of the most concern?
Arthur Chaskalson: One of the central issues confronting us today is an erosion of 50 years of development of human rights standards. If you go back to the time of the collapse of the Nazi empire and the Second World War and the establishment of the United Nations, the world there realized that what had happened should not be allowed to happen again. And so you find [respect for human rights] in the U.N. charter and in the world of U.N. conventions and treaties … Since 9/11 there has been a reversal. In relation to counterterrorism issues and the so-called war against terror, there has been a movement to erode basic protections and basic human rights values.

Are you speaking about America in particular?
Not only America. I've been part of a project run by the International Committee on Jurists from Geneva called the Eminent Jurist Panel. We have heard from over 39 countries; we've held public hearings and met people. You see a pattern, particularly in countries that have a record of not respecting human rights.

How have rights changed over the past few decades?
In different parts of the world, we see departure [from] what were accepted as basic principles. Let's take torture. People are now debating in some parts of the world whether torture is acceptable. It's something which is beyond discussion, or should be beyond discussion. In international law it's nonnegotiable. It's something that infects your whole legal system and brings disgrace to those who practice it and brings disgrace to the country that tolerates it … I'm not talking only about Guantánamo Bay; I'm talking about many different places.

Like where?
In Pakistan, in India, in Malaysia, in the Middle East, in parts of Africa. The story is the same.

You mentioned 9/11 and Guantánamo. What's America's role in this?
I think that some countries see what has happened in Guantánamo Bay and other policies of the U.S. as giving a green light to them to do what they like. Whether that's right or not, that's what they do.

So you advocate shutting down Guantánamo.
What needs to be shut down is the practices: the holding people incommunicado, not bringing them to trial, not allowing them access to lawyers. That whole structure is something that has harmed America's image.

Military commanders and top government officials counter that argument by saying that tough interrogation techniques can often be vital to national security.
The argument that the ordinary law is not good enough is an argument which has goes back generations. If you look back at all repressive measures, you find that they tend to be justified on the basis that the law cannot deal with them, therefore we have to adopt repressive measures. Later generations see that that's wrong. The existing structures have measures that enable you to prosecute people, to bring people to trial. If they are guilty you can prove it. You don't need to hold people incommunicado for long periods of time.