A growing number of governments are using the fight against terrorism to justify targeting dissidents abroad

Marco Werman: Fionnuala, let’s start by defining the problem here. What is America’s post-9/11 counterterrorism legacy that concerns you most?

Haven’t countries always tried to silence elements they consider adversaries whenever possible?

I think it’s true. But I think the striking difference after 9/11 is that two things happened. The first is that we have built an architecture for fighting terrorism in which states, in a certain way, can treat anyone they want as a terrorist. The second difference is that instead of states going after dissidents they don’t like at home, we see these lines of communication between states. And perhaps the third element is that all of this is increasingly supported by the use of new technologies and new capabilities that enable states to do this nefarious work better, stronger and faster. And I think that’s profoundly different from the world before 9/11.

Don’t some of these criticisms assume that other countries’ security concerns are less important than those of the United States?

I think so. But we have very good ways of measuring state security challenges. We have something called the Global Counterterrorism Index. It is an independent tool used by many countries. Some countries face great challenges, but other countries are opportunistic. And that, I think, is the key point here. States use this manual even when they do not face real security threats.

Some recent Washington Post articles highlight problematic aspects of Turkey’s counterterrorism operations. You are quoted in this article. How do U.S. law enforcement tactics and methods relate to how Turkey conducts its own counterterrorism operations?

It’s a playbook. And the playbook that we saw goes back to 9/11. The Washington Post article talks about the interpretation of Gulenists from different parts of the world.

Are the Gülenists considered the adversary of President (Recep Tayyip) Erdoğan in Türkiye?

Exactly. So, when faced with large-scale kidnappings around the world, the response is that the United States is doing the same. And in fact, as we know, there are still 30 men detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 16 of whom have been exonerated and said they pose no threat. So if you’re told you shouldn’t do that, you’re just going to turn around and say, “Oh, but the United States does that too.” Don’t lecture us. Don’t moralize about our tactics.

I mean, many obviously argued that the United States had the right to go after terrorists after 9/11. But right now, to what extent is the United States trying to warn countries not to go to other countries to arrest dissidents? And how convincing is the American argument for such a restriction now?

Well, I can only speak to my observations on American policy to say that we have seen significant regret and recognition that the seeds sown 20 years ago do not serve the long-term strategic interests of the United States. United. If we are a democracy and we want to promote democracy and the rule of law around the world, it doesn’t help us when our allies actually abandon the basic principles of an open and free society.

I mean, as you said earlier, Fionnuala, there is no agreement on what terrorism is. All of this brings us back to the idea that someone who is considered a terrorist may also be considered by another person to be a freedom fighter. So how can the world control this as long as there is this yin and yang?

So, I guess I would fundamentally disagree with the proposition that we can’t define terrorism. We have 19 treaties on acts of terrorism. So, actually, we have very good global treaties between states on what constitutes an act of terrorism. But we have experienced this slippage over the last 20 years by not holding States accountable when they go beyond this framework. And so, I don’t think it serves us well to have something called terrorism. For example, the entire Palestinian civil society is labeled terrorist. Women (and) human rights defenders in Saudi Arabia are being prosecuted as terrorists. It doesn’t advance the general welfare and ultimately, in my view, it doesn’t advance the security of states, because there are real terrorists. There are fundamental acts of terrorism to combat.

I don’t want to abandon something you brought up earlier, Fionnuala. The enormous technological advances since 9/11 – cyber threats, surveillance, drones, AI – have all been used to thwart and counterattack. How is terrorism transforming into an increasingly difficult challenge that could truly upend everything you’ve been talking about?

Well, I think two things are happening. The first is the fear of many States that non-State groups or designated terrorist groups will have access to this type of technology. We are already seeing that with drone technology, states will be less secure. But on the other side of the debate, oppressive states use these tools to cower and repress their open societies. We see this particularly in surveillance technology. I spent a year and a half traveling to many, many countries where journalists, lawyers, civil society actors, women and environmental defenders… all… are afraid that their phones will be infected by surveillance technologies.

So what options does the international community have, particularly as someone who has worked on this topic at the UN, to protect individuals from law enforcement tactics that might cross the line into human rights violations?

Well, one thing I would start by saying is that we really need states to accept this definition of terrorism and adopt a comprehensive treaty on terrorism at the UN. This has been going on for about 30 years. The second thing we need to do, and I think this falls heavily, the responsibility falls heavily on democracies, (is) to call out the aggressors. Name and shame the states that actually abuse these security tools because, in the long run, they make your democracy less secure. And I think the third thing we need to do is sort of reduce this global infrastructure of terrorism (and) address the elements that produce violence in society. These are not sexy. It’s about things like feeding people, clothing them and implementing things like the Sustainable Development Goals. These are fundamental long-term elements for creating societies where people do not turn to violence.