Taking a Measured Response

‘Take a deep breath’ is what my mother said whenever she worried I’d do ‘something stupid’. And she was right. When horrible things happen, first reactions are not usually the ones that we end up being proud of. It usually takes a bit of thought and consideration to make sense of what happened. Following the September 11 attacks, perhaps the world should have heeded some of my mother’s wisdom. Back then, some argued that everything had changed, and that life would never be the same again. Others said that nothing had changed at all, and that everyone who claimed otherwise was a fear monger. In retrospect, both positions appear to be over the top. It is of course true that, statistically speaking, terrorism is no great threat. We are eight times more likely to die in a traffic accident, and – as Bruce Hoffman points out – there is even a greater chance to be killed by a dog than by a terrorist. It is also true that terrorists rarely ever succeed in achieving their ultimate political ambitions, especially when their violence is directed against democratic governments. But does that mean terrorism exists only in our imagination? As Paul Pillar notes, terrorism not only kills, it also distorts our societies, economies, and political relationships. Major acts of terrorism are usually followed by a downturn in international travel, higher prices for key commodities, and a more cautious attitude of multinational corporations when investing abroad. They compel governments to spend enormous sums on counter-terrorism measures and security. They give rise to a climate of distrust, with people discriminating against fellow citizens of particular religious or ethnic backgrounds. Terrorist acts enflame regional conflicts, undermine peace processes, and make international co-operation more difficult. And, not least, they may one day involve a large chemical, biological or nuclear device, which would multiply the impact of all of the above. Terrorism, therefore, while not likely to end civilisation as we know it, is a serious challenge to peace, prosperity, and democracy. Indeed, it seems as if, in the five years which have passed since September 11, we have gradually moved towards a broad consensus along these lines. Many – though by no means all – civil libertarians now accept that some legal reform is needed to prevent terrorists from carrying out acts of mass murder and (thus) pre-empt the overreaction that frequently follows such events. And many – though by no means all – security hawks now agree that the ‘battle of ideas’ can be as decisive in defeating terrorism as the one that is fought with tanks and guns. It may be neither possible nor desirable to achieve complete agreement. But few would doubt that the process of taking a well measured rather than knee jerk response has been a useful one. Both the Club de Madrid’s Summit and the New America Foundation’s National Policy Forum, for example, were attended by people from all ends of the political spectrum, and they both saw some real controversy and disagreements. Yet, by bringing people together and creating space for debate, they also helped crystallise what I believe should become an authoritative consensus about the importance of democratic values and the rule of law in fighting terrorism. Drawing on all the energies of the internet, Madrid11.net aims to provide a forum in which the process of gaining a measured, appropriate, authoritative and democratic response can continue. No doubt, some of the debates will be as lively and controversial as those in Madrid and Washington. Hopefully, though, they will also be as productive. Personally, I would like Madrid11.net to turn out to as the ‘deep breath’ that my mother had advised me always to take. After all, to avoid doing ‘something stupid’, it’s essential to consider all your options.