| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Terrorism
6.1 pm
Lord Judd rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, what progress they are making, together with other governments in the G8 and the European Union, in the cause of defeating global terrorism.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking the Question, I greatly look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey.
"Terrorism is . . . a tool of war": those were the words, as reported in the Guardian of 23 June, of three-star General Wallace Gregson, who is in charge of marine forces in the Pacific, when he was recently addressing the US Naval War College.
"This is no more a war on terrorism than world war two was a war on submarines. It's not just semantics"—
He reportedly added that providing doctors, engineers and other aid was,
Although climate change will do more human, economic and social damage than terrorism ever will, I do not want to argue that there is no terrorist threat. There obviously is, and I regard it as the first duty of government to protect the community. We must constantly remember those who have died, suffered—sometimes grievously—and been bereaved. What I want to argue is that, although the dangers—including nuclear, chemical and biological dangers—can perhaps never be totally eliminated, the battle to contain them will ultimately be won in hearts and minds.
The threat is rooted in a combination of phenomena. There are ruthless, manipulative power seekers; there is fanaticism and the hijacking of religion; and there are well educated, desperate people who feel alienated and excluded from any meaningful control or influence over the circumstances in which they exist—people who are without hope.
Suicide bombing is a terrible crime. It kills, maims and bereaves the innocent, although, of course, bombardments and bombing can do the same. A
29 Jun 2005 : Column 295
refusal to ask ourselves why people—especially the young—are prepared to destroy themselves in that way is dangerously myopic. To put it all down to promises of the rewards to come in the after-life is na-ve self-deception.
There are also the millions of the socially and economically deprived. My direct experience tells me that the overwhelming majority of them are as appalled by terrorist deeds as any of us. However, they are so preoccupied and exhausted by the struggle to survive and to provide the next meal for their families that the exposure and denouncing of terrorists are not always their top priorities. On occasion, they may just wonder whether, however wrong the deeds, some at least of the terrorists may not be on their side. It is in a climate of ambiguity that terrorists flourish.
The most important challenge, therefore, is the provision of hope and a positive feeling of stake holding in a decent future. Economic and social justice is essential. The work ahead for the G8 at Gleneagles is highly relevant, but there are the challenges of political justice as well. We should think of the Palestinians or the Iranians. The redistribution of power, coming to terms with the importance of recognising whom the Palestinians or Iranians want to speak for them rather than hand-picking those whom we would like to speak for them, is vital. Indeed, the redistribution of power in the world is an imperative. The agendas of the global institutions have to be the agendas of the—until now—relatively powerless, as much as those of anybody else.
Enlightened paternalism by the powerful is not enough. Indeed, it could prove counter-productive. Our demonstrable commitment, with other nuclear powers, to our own nuclear disarmament is indispensable, if we are to be as convincing as we want to be on Iran.
Too easily, our response to terrorism can be knee-jerk. We want to convince ourselves and the tabloids that we are being strong, but real strength demands more. Those who deploy and manipulate terrorism want to provoke us into over-reaction. They want to polarise, by discrediting our talk of human rights and the rule of law as empty rhetoric. Surely, we should invariably be at pains to deny them that victory. It is precisely when the pressures are most acute that, despite the costs, we need to demonstrate convincingly that we really are about something better and about a positive vision for and commitment to humanity.
When the high standards to which the majority of decent people in our armed services, the police and the Prison Service are committed lapse, when there is brutality or torture, it is not just that it is wrong or that formal requirements have been breached or that the values that are being defended have been contradicted; it is that such action is treacherous. It aids and abets the manipulative terrorists. It gives them exactly what they want and, by doing so, drives more recruits into their arms.
Human rights should never be seen as just another constraining rule to be obeyed but as the essence of the task. Training should always have them at its centre. It is by relentless, transparent and consistent commitment
29 Jun 2005 : Column 296
to human rights that the cause of winning hearts and minds will be advanced. Soldiering or policing that is not about that is bad soldiering or policing. The most telling condemnation of Guantanamo Bay is that it is difficult to think of a high-profile project that could be better designed to provoke more effectively the very dangers that it is so foolishly claimed to be there to diminish. Similar concerns must be expressed about Abu Ghraib and Bagram.
Immigration controls will be with us for the foreseeable future. They are needed, but the way in which they are administered and publicly discussed is crucially significant. At all times, the dignity and self-respect of would-be immigrants should be central to all that is said and done. Understanding their predicament is not weak; it is strong. Readily to admit with humility the imperfections of a world order that increasingly encourages the free movement of capital and goods but cannot yet—frankly, it cannot—permit the free movement of people is strong, not weak. Anything said or done that, by humiliation, alienates is likely to add to the ranks of the disillusioned and disaffected and to promote the availability of recruits for extremism. That realisation should surely be at the core of immigration policy and its implementation.
Employment opportunities, educational provision, health facilities and housing are all essential to the cause of winning hearts and minds, where the challenges of immigration and a multicultural society are greatest. Generous and imaginative social provision for the communities where the biggest influx of immigration occurs helps to ease tension and inhibit scapegoating. It can therefore reduce the dangers of alienation.
In the making of law and in its administration, commitment to human rights has to be a constant discipline. Derogations from the European Convention on Human Rights and administrative short-cuts play right into the hands of the manipulators of terrorism. Imagine an impressionable young person in an immigrant or ethnic minority community who is under pressure from extremists when a short-cut on long-established legal process is taken. Due process and a transparent manifestation that justice is not only being done but can be seen to be done are essential. Not to appreciate that is to live in a world far removed from the front line of human reality, where it matters.
Meanwhile, we must not sweep the lessons of Iraq under the carpet. In any case, the daily carnage makes that difficult. That such an enterprise was embarked on without widespread international endorsement remains a devastating and counter-productive blow to the credibility of the international rule of law. The failure, despite British anxieties, to have had in place from day one a convincing strategy for winning hearts and minds has proved an almost fatal irresponsibility.
For some time, I have been involved through the Council of Europe with the conflict in Chechnya. The humanitarian and human rights challenge remains huge. The agony of the Chechen people is the shame of Europe. The Russian action and the way in which it is pursued is as counter-productive as ever. It recruits
29 Jun 2005 : Column 297
for the terrorists. Terrorism against the innocent can never be condoned; it is horrific. But that applies to state terrorism—overt or covert—every bit as much as to everyone else. The climate of impunity, the disappearances, the illegal killings, the brutality and terror remain shocking. If Europe and the outside world cannot persuade Russia to take the road of a genuinely inclusive political process, winning back as many fighters as possible who are prepared to renounce terrorism to a stakeholding in a viable and sustainable political future, the message may well go out far beyond Chechnya to the wider Islamic world that there is no room for moderation. If, on the other hand, a meaningful, inclusive political process can be developed, the standing of moderation throughout the Islamic world could be greatly enhanced.
The courage, determination and selflessness of all those in the armed services, the police, the security services and in administration who strive tirelessly to defeat terrorism are impressive. They are tactically holding the position far more successfully than many dared to hope, but strategically we must constantly be on our guard, lest we lend ourselves to a long-term defeat by the terrorist. We must be resolute. We must be tough, but on no account must we ever be provoked into the dismantling of the quality of our way of life. That would be the way to give those we resist their victory. Everything we do must be seen and felt by all to be grounded in an unyielding commitment to justice and, above all, to human rights. I ask my noble friend whether he would not agree that the most effective sustained defence against fanaticism will always be reasonableness, reconciliation, rationality, human rights and open, inclusive democracy.
6.12 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |