One of the most surprising political developments since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has been the extent to which the fight against terrorism has divided the democratic world. A seemingly unbridgeable gulf emerged between those who wanted to counter terrorism primarily by "taking the battle to the enemy" and those who tended to minimize the threat. Most of us did not feel comfortable with either position, yet most policymakers, intellectuals and civic leaders couldn't offer anything coherent or articulate of their own. Since the Madrid summit meeting last month on democracy, terrorism and security, this is no longer true.
Organized by the Club of Madrid, the association of former heads of state and government, the event brought together scholars, representatives of nongovernmental organizations and research institutes, and official delegations from more than 60 countries and the world's most important international institutions.
The final document of this conference, the Madrid Agenda, contains a long list of practical policy recommendations, but more broadly, its underlying principles can be seen as a new framework: a new global consensus on the issue of terrorism.
In my view, three themes are worth highlighting. First, almost everyone agreed that the threat from terrorism was real, but that it needed to be fought with full respect for human rights and the rule of law. When confronted with attacks on civilians, states not only have the right, they have a duty to suppress them and bring their perpetrators to justice. But at the same time, governments need to be careful not to betray the very values they are meant to defend.
This is not only a moral imperative, it is also a practical one. If terrorism is a form of psychological warfare that aims to provoke a repressive response and thereby confuse the distinction between perpetrator and victim, it is essential to maintain the moral high ground and deny the terrorists the legitimacy for which they long. In practical terms, while forceful measures are sometimes necessary, they need to be subject to judicial and political control, and should be applied only as long as there is a credible threat.
Second, if terrorism has become a global challenge, narrow national mind-sets are no longer useful. The police, intelligence agencies and the judiciary all need to redouble their efforts to approve international co-operation. In doing so, the guiding principle should not be political dogma, but what works best: In some cases, the most effective way at facilitating cooperation across national borders may be through bilateral agreements; in others, multilateral cooperation is a must.
No nation can defeat terrorism alone, particularly when it comes to questions of international peace and security; here, a multilateral approach not only allows the sharing of political and financial costs, it also brings the international legitimacy needed to sustain national policies in the longer term.
The third theme is perhaps the most important. It is the conviction that, ultimately, only democracy will defeat terrorism. Our experts told us that while open societies make it easier for terrorists to operate, they are also less likely to see terrorists achieve their political objectives. The reasons are obvious. In societies in which people themselves determine their futures, terrorists lack the growth medium of resentment on which they thrive. Where people have access to institutions to address their most urgent concerns - economic, political or cultural - they have no reason to turn to the merchants of hate and fear.
For democracy to become a societal immune system, however, it needs to be more than just elections. It must be based on a vibrant civil society and full respect for the rights of ethnic and religious minorities. In this respect, even some established democracies have some work to do: Just think of the growing immigrant and diaspora communities, whose experience of Western liberal democracy is often marked by suspicion and exclusion
To condemn terrorism unequivocally, to fight it through the rule of law, to promote international co-operation, and to spread and deepen democracy - these are the elements of what I would describe as "the Madrid consensus." This consensus is not so much a middle way between the "war on terror" and a misguided form of leniency: It is a new paradigm cutting across the ideological divisions that have hindered the fight against terrorism in the past. Being both pragmatic and principled, it may be our best chance at making the world not only a safer, but also a better place.
Fernando Henrique Cardoso, president of the Club of Madrid, was president of Brazil from 1995 to 2002.
Copyright © 2005 The International Herald Tribune
