How “normative” ethics are visible in the Indonesian, Australian and global responses
The category of morality is one of the most important and most complicated issues of humanity. People need moral norms, which help determine what is right or wrong, and act accordingly. However, in some situations the lines are blurred. The brightest example of such morally grey areas is antiterrorism.
As a response to the 2002 Bali Bombings, Australia and Indonesia have strengthened their cooperation in the war with terrorism by establishing the Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement Cooperation and signing the “Agreement between Australia and the Republic of Indonesia on the Framework of Security Cooperation”.
On the regional and global levels, the response is mostly the same – for example, in Southeast Asia Counter Terrorism Task Force was founded to coordinate Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation’s response and efforts in anti-terrorism. These actions have preventive nature and are aimed at fighting terrorism with morally accepted means, such as strengthening international cooperation and preparing for defense rather than offense.
Is it possible for regional governments to balance the normative ethics of the case with the use their power to have any real impact on terrorist activities?
The regional governments increase police security, intelligence work, and international cooperation. Such measures are not only ethical, but also effective. Regional terrorist activities are made more difficult by internalization of policing effort. Therefore, even acting within the ethically allowed borders can have real impact. Nevertheless, some experts voice the opinion that in order to protect its people, the government can be justified in breaking the law and ethic norms. “Offense is the best defense”, as the saying goes, and some even advocate the idea that in special circumstances, torture should be warranted, so as not to undermine the law. A proposed alternative is to leave the current legislation unchanged, with the torture prohibitions intact, but to make exceptions in courts. However, such ideas are merely theoretical. If ever approved, which is unlikely, they would constitute a severe violation of normative ethics and wreak havoc in the justice system.
What would be the “Realist” government response?
When fighting terrorism, governments are put in a difficult position. They are often forced to act by the book, bound by legal laws and moral norms. For instance, the right to a fair trial is what let the person responsible for the Bali Bombings of the hook. As a result, Abu Bakar Bashir only faced prosecution for violation of the immigration law – a hardly sufficient punishment, considering the extent of the damage he inflicted. Thus, a question arises of whether necessity and realism thwart the importance of moral norms. The “realist” response would have been to punish him according to his crimes, preventing him from committing further atrocious acts of terrorism and sending a message to others. However, the approach of fighting terror with terror poses another question: does the future of humanity deteriorate into a never-ending series of attacks and counterattacks? To answer that, one should consider the following points.
Firstly, the violence has the tendency to spread. Once it starts, the snowball effect is extremely difficult to stop. Governmental aggression can only encourage terrorists to response in kind, adding fuel to the flame. Secondly, after overstepping the boundaries of morality, people – and governmental organizations – are often tempted to push them again, justifying wrongful means with righteous ends, until the boundaries disappear completely and normative ethics loses its meaning.
All in all, it is important to act in accordance with moral norms and attempt to bring an end to terrorism with peaceful methods. That is why governments always try to avoid violence and law-breaking, regardless of their potential effectiveness.
References
Mark R Amstutz. International Ethics: Concepts, Theories, and Cases in Global Politics. Rowman & Littlefield Pub. 2008.