Headlines

WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM: How Far Is Too Far in Terror Fight?

Ravi Kanth Devarakonda

DAVOS, Switzerland, Jan 25 2007 (IPS) - The movers and shakers of global politics and security searched for a “comprehensive response to terrorism” at the World Economic Forum’s 37th session here Thursday, but not surprisingly, differences cropped up over the strategies to wage a fight that many critics say is increasingly breaching fundamental human rights.

The movers and shakers of global politics and security searched for a “comprehensive response to terrorism” at the World Economic Forum’s 37th session here Thursday, but not surprisingly, differences cropped up over the strategies to wage a fight that many critics say is increasingly breaching fundamental human rights.

“We have to get the balance right, otherwise there is a danger we would lurch into authoritative responses that would undermine liberty, freedom and fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration [of Human Rights],” warned David Cameron, the British Conservative Party leader.

Terrorism is high on the WEF’s agenda this year, constituting one of the major threats to global security and order out of 23 major risks that needed a concerted action on an international footing.

In a session focused exclusively on what ought to be the “comprehensive response to terrorism,” the WEF asked a team of panelists – comprising the head of the U.S. Homeland Security Department, the counter-terrorism coordinator for the European Union, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, and the British Conservative Party leader – whether there is adequate coordination between national and international agencies to identify and eliminate terrorist cells.

The panel also raised the issue of whether global institutions need to be more strongly involved to create an atmosphere that would prevent innocent people from being lured into terrorism.

More importantly, the WEF wanted to know if “western societies are prepared to accept further trade-offs between security and individual liberties,” implicitly suggesting that it might not be wrong to suspend fundamental human and civil rights for the sake of guaranteeing security.

Prime Minister Aziz, who came under considerable pressure as he arrived at the WEF’s annual meeting because of media reports that Pakistan’s intelligence agencies are aiding and abetting Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, made a forceful plea that terrorism can only be tackled if the “root causes” and “sources” that give rise to the problem are comprehensively addressed.

He mentioned the problems in the “Middle East, Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq” as “sources” that are breeding terrorism while arguing that his government is not backing off from adopting strong security responses in a coordinated fashion to tackle the problem. He blamed the Afghan government for not putting its own house in order to deal with the “Taliban” problem, while agreeing to coordinated international action.

Cameron said he would agree with Prime Minister Aziz that the root causes for terrorism – whether they stem from perceived injustices or violations of basic rights – must be addressed on a war footing.

“The nature of terrorism today is different from what the IRA [Irish Republican Army] or other such organisations had caused in the past as the current terrorists want to kill as many people as possible,” he said.

“It is a different order of terrorism,” Cameron said, arguing that “big changes are taking place in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Pakistan” to address terrorism. He, however, said repeatedly that it is important that “we [the major players] get the balance [between excessive security responses and fundamental human rights],” echoing the views expressed by several United Nations human rights experts that counter-terrorism operations are gradually eroding fundamental human rights.

Clearly, there is a need to address the “ideological” and other causes, including those arising from poverty, Cameron said, stressing that there has to be “some clarity” on the goals set out to address terrorism, a stand that seemed to be different from the current British government’s position which wants a hard line response to terrorism and terrorists.

In sharp contrast to the arguments offered by the Pakistani prime minister and to some extent the British Conservative leader, the United States – which has taken the so-called “war on terror” to new heights – took the line that there is nothing wrong in adopting heavy-handed security responses.

Michael Chertoff, the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, vehemently argued that the “complexity of global terrorism” needs extraordinary responses, but chose to sidestep addressing related issues that weakened fundamental freedoms and human rights, such as arbitrary detention, secret prisons and the use of torture to ferret out information.

The EU’s counter-terrorism coordinator, Gijs M. de Vries, adopted a middle ground position between security and technology-driven responses on the one side, and appropriate legal sanctions to ensure that there is not a blatant breach of what is guaranteed to citizens in regard to fundamental human rights.

He urged those who were present during the session to impress upon their governments the importance of ratifying the U.N. convention against terrorism, saying that the problem has to be addressed through coordinated international action. The EU coordinator also spoke about the need to strengthen the non-proliferation regime to ensure that weapons of mass destruction did not slip into the hands of terrorists.

The panel also highlighted the importance of new biometric and fingerprint techniques to fight terrorism. But there was little consensus on the usefulness of global and national databases to track vital information of citizens.

The discussion finally entered into the difficult terrain of “soft power” and “hard power” techniques to fight terrorism. A Harvard University academic who coined the term “soft power” to stress the importance of winning the minds and souls of terrorists asked the panelists whether considerable thought is being given to adopting different techniques to moderate the impact of counter-terrorism operations.

Again there was no clear consensus among the panelists on the issue adopting a combination of strategies instead of putting all the eggs in the “security” and technology basket to address terrorism.