The conflict between freedom and security is old and well known. As a classical dichotomy, it is unsolvable. Freedom and security are both interdependent and contradictory.
The events of 11 September 2001 brought a new threat to modern civilisation; a terrorist threat that calls for special countermeasures. But amongst the array of questions this poses, an old dilemma arises: how is freedom to be defended while security is actively pursued? The relationship is in urgent need of renewed discussion.
Freedom without an adequate measure of external and internal security makes life extremely difficult and dangerous for the citizen and robs freedom of its concrete meaning. Freedom in anarchy places the entire burden for security on the individual, shifting it from the public realm. On the other hand, it would be devastating if the advocates of more and more security were allowed to pursue their expansive activity unchecked. Decades of painstaking building of larger and smaller pieces of valuable terrain of civil and international liberty are in jeopardy of getting lost. The physical freedom of movement, the unimpeded and inexpensive exchange of goods and services, but above all, the freedom to express an opinion without government control or permission, are all in danger today.
The paradox of the war on terrorism
The world is involved in a lethal conflict that is no less serious than defeating Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. 11 September 2001 has shown that a relatively small but superbly organised and utterly determined group is capable of hurting the world in such a way that it no longer functions for a while. The use of living people as weapon platforms was one of the options from the terrorist arsenal, and weapons of mass destruction are its logical extension.
The initially rapid progress in the war in Afghanistan should not lead to the conclusion that the matter is settled. Even with the disposal of large portions of the al-Qaida network, this is only the beginning of a large and arduous undertaking. First, there are other and possibly even more dangerous terrorist groups. Second, the idea that the problem can be localised Afghanistan, Georgia, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Colombia is a questionable way of approaching the vast new world threat. Our strategic thinking is too strongly influenced by earlier conflicts. The ability to localise the enemy was an issue in the Second World War and perhaps the Cold War. But international terror is ubiquitous. The military destruction of certain terrorist bases may be a necessary but not sufficient measure. Rather, the ability of individuals or groups to seriously hurt the civilised world must be prevented, generally and everywhere.
The chances that the civilised world will succeed in this endeavour are not very good. The problem lies in the asymmetry of power and the vulnerability of the attackers and their targets. This is the nucleus around which strategic discussions must revolve in the period ahead. The previous major political power and war struggles were more or less symmetrical. Both sides possessed a certain threat potential and a certain measure of vulnerability; the course of events was basically determined by the capability of the parties to increase their threat potential and minimise their vulnerability.
The Second World War ended because Nazi Germany had completely exhausted its threat potential and was no longer capable of defending itself against air attacks, hence was completely vulnerable. In Japans case, the first nuclear weapons had to be used to demonstrate its vulnerability. In the Cold War, the balance of terror kept the threat potential and vulnerability of both parties at an equilibrium. The demise of one of the combatants was caused by self-dissolution not by military but by social, political and economic factors.
By contrast, terrorists have a considerable threat potential, yet they are almost completely invulnerable. The opposition does have a certain threat potential, but is also extremely vulnerable. This is the calculus of the war against terror. The terrorists invulnerability is based on their indifference, in fact their willingness to perish for their cause. The civilised worlds enormous vulnerability arises from its highly complex systems, its openness and its tolerance, but also from its scant willingness to suffer for its cause.
The result of this asymmetry is both sobering and frightening. Even the undisputed superpower, the United States, is reduced to a ridiculously low factor in the fight against terrorism. Based on Nashs equilibrium formula, a recent study has calculated this factor at three. This does not inspire much confidence. The calculus of the war against terror means that the civilised world can actually win the war only if the threat potential is reduced to zero as rapidly as possible and kept there in a lasting manner.
US President George Bush has recognised this instinctively and accurately. The European intelligentsia described his rhetoric as Texan and Cowboy, but he hit the nail on the head. Because of the asymmetry of vulnerability, every half-measure and every millimetre of tolerance engender a situation that is untenable for the civilised world. Clearly, this is of particular concern to those who are interested in the continued progress of the economy and society, because the uncertainties generated by international terror seriously impair the economy and the exchange of goods, services and capital.
The crucial question is whether the civilised world is prepared for such decisive combat, and which means would lead to success without self-defeating effect. Here is a paradoxical element of the fight against terrorism. The civilised world is civilised precisely because it grants its citizens freedom and personal responsibility. It is civilized because it does not seek control of everything but deliberately wants to give developments a free run. Its politico-social and economic strength lies precisely in this willingness to provide elbow room for spontaneous growth and permit old and ailing things to be displaced by better and new ones. The civilized world is civilized because it knows that spontaneous development can occur only if a sufficiently open-minded private sphere protects the maverick from the establishment and its defensive mechanisms.
Yet it is in this private sphere that the fight against terrorism must take place in Zurich, Frankfurt, London and Washington as much as in Afghanistan and Iraq. But what if the need to reduce the threat potential of terrorism to zero by necessity leads to an attempted complete control of the whole world? This is, to say the least, an uncomfortable prospect. In that case, the fight against terrorism by the Free World will lead to a global police state and the Free World would have done away with itself.
The urgency of setting priorities
This is not the paranoid fantasy of a proponent of the freedom party. In the US, the reintroduction of torture has been discussed in all seriousness. In the United Kingdom, the ancient rule of Habeas Corpus, which prohibits unlawful imprisonment, was overthrown for terrorist suspects. In Afghanistan, in total disregard of international law, the surrender or destruction of the chief suspect and his followers is enforced by military means without conclusive proof. In Guantanamo, captives who are not supposed to be prisoners of war are awaiting court proceedings whose legality is unknown.
The paradox is clear: saving the rule of law seems impossible without betraying its core principles.
The question of how to protect the Free World against further deadly terror attacks without ultimately reverting to a police state is in urgent need of international consideration. If, under the guise of combating terror, one government agency after the other begins to expand its own sphere of interest, the very freedom they purport to defend will be endangered.
These government bodies, after all, already have a wide range of targets for possible intervention from pornography and the drug trade to tax evasion and capital flight. All of these are important; but none has the quality of a lethal threat to the system as a whole. Yet even in these problem areas, there is a great danger of gathering and processing far too much irrelevant data, with the result that the state system increasingly turns against its own citizens. Today, the Federal Republic of Germany employs police state methods to prosecute tax offenders, using the facilities of the BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst), the German Intelligence Unit. At the same time, and since one can''t do everything at once, the same BND missed the most important al-Qaida cells outside the USA in Hamburg and Frankfurt.
In the fight against Terrorism, the authority of government and supra-national bodies will have to be limited to very narrowly defined priorities. And in order to be successful at all, they will have to be equipped with an extremely powerful mandate. In a military sense, this mandate will be a target for destruction. All other matters in the public interest, even if they are criminally relevant, must be kept outside of this regime of authority because if the attempt is made simultaneously to resolve major global problems by seeking total social control, international terrorism will only be strengthened.
The fight against terrorism must be institutionally separated from combating international crime precisely because there are likely connections between them. For, above all, the possibility that the results of the investigation of terrorism are used casually in criminal inquiries must be prevented.
The illusion of total control
The Wall Street Journal recently published a report about a security check, enforced in the context of the anti-terror campaign, involving the staff of subcontractors of a pharmaceutical company. About 100 employees lost their jobs on account of their criminal past. These were largely minor offenses committed years ago; because of confusion over names, some individuals were falsely accused.
If every American who even once consumed cannabis were to be fired on that account, or were unable to find employment because they pose a security risk, the Mr. Cleans of this world would feel happy, but the fight against terrorism would be substantially impaired. Yet the US governments current mentality and practical efforts follow the same logic. One branch indiscriminately combats terrorism, the drug trade, pornography, capital flight and tax offenses; another issues an immigration visa for Mohammed Atta. The result is a combination of arrogance, incompetence, and illusion.
The danger is of this approach is twofold. First, in the medium and longer term, it jeopardises the chances of success in the campaign against terrorism, as essential coalition partners are alienated. Second, it traps the agent in moral double standards. The desire to ban the wrong and indecent from this world may be part of the Calvin-inspired US dream of social control; but reality will always catch up. The United States is waging a bloody and devastating drug war in Latin America and elsewhere accuses all kinds of world financial centers of dealing in stolen goods and money laundering but by the same token is by far the world''s largest consumer of drugs.
Nothing would be worse than the USA, in the course of its continued fight against terrorism, sliding increasingly into the unfortunate mire of double standard morality because of its tendency to act as Mr. Clean and seek total control. Apparent inability to perform the role of a superpower that brings order to the Middle East, coupled with a hypocrisy that impairs its legitimacy to engage in further military action in the fight against terrorism, could sooner or later turn into that perilous mixture against which even the mightiest superpower can do nothing. Those who can still remember anti-Vietnam War demonstrations know what I am talking about. Changes in sentiment are not linear processes. Moods tend to topple.
The conflict against fundamentalists who have misused their god for totalitarian aims cannot be won by the equally fundamentalist concept of total control. The deformed morality that accompanies it undermines its legitimacy. The war against terrorism has not been won and its success is not assured. After 11 September, the world needs a buildup of renewed confidence. We may be not only far away from this goal, but actually moving in the wrong direction. If Friedrich Hayek were still alive, he would have to add to his The Mirage of Social Justice (the second of his trilogy Law, Legislation and Liberty) another chapter, entitled On the Illusion of Total Control. The reality behind this illusion, after all, is The Road to Serfdom.
The Free Worlds sole answer to terrorism is targeted and intelligent search, full disclosure and ruthless destruction while leaving the big, free and imperfect rest of the world alone. By this means, freedom and security can be held in balance in a world where the threat of losing both is very real.
