July 11, 2005

To Leave or not to Leave, that is the Question

by Martin Varsavsky

At our summit on global terrorism, Safe-Democracy.org attended by Kofi Annan and 34 heads of state there were two main schools of thought on the future of Al Qaida. The optimists who thought that Al Qaida had been dealt a lethal blow and that it was unlikely that it would strike again in Europe or America and the pessimists who thought that more attacks were only around the corner. Now we know: the pessimists won. Today we have a carnage in London, dozens dead, hundreds wounded, families and hearts broken. I write this, only after a few hours after the attack with a lot of the evidence not out yet but I assume that this was another "friends of Al Qaida" attack a la Madrid and that probably terrorists will soon demand that the UK leave Iraq. The question is then, should the UK follow Spain and leave Iraq or not?

The obvious answer would be to say that the UK should not leave. Leaving Iraq, the argument goes, would be rewarding terrorists and that is a mistake. While rewarding terrorists is a mistake in my view there is, however, a greater mistake, that of not leaving. The present war and occupation in Iraq is wrong, and continuation of this policy is wrong. President Zapatero realized this dilemma, and left Iraq after terrorists so requested. For doing that he was greatly criticized. Still, since the Spanish withdrawal there´s been peace in Spain.

I am horrified at the hundreds of innocent victims of London today, but I am also appalled at the 100,000 estimated civilian deaths that have occured in Iraq as a result of the US led Iraqi invasion. Placing bombs is mass murder, probably a crime against humanity, but in my view so is bombing civilian populations such as the failed search for Zarqawi in Fallujah that resulted in thousands of innocents dead. Why should placing bombs be illegal and bombing civilians from the air not be? If terrorism is the killing of civilians in order to attain political objectives, isn´t the US led invasion of Iraq insofar as it has resulted in thousands of civilian deaths also "terrorist". Saddam Hussein was a genocidal dictator now in jail, soon on trial. In that sense the US invasion was a success. There have been elections, there´s a new government in place. Why not leave Iraq instead of carrying on paramilitary operations ? Why continue waging an impossible to win war frequently violating human rights ? Can we really continue to make the case that there would be more death in Iraq if the US and the UK left? Wasn´t inevitable that the enemy would choose to fight in Western territory as they did today? Why give Al Qaida and other terrorist networks reason to do so? "Terrorists have no logic" commentators argue. Personally I would agree that they don´t if tomorrow there is another March 11th type of attack in Madrid after the withdrawal from Iraq. But since March 11th 2004 there hasn´t been one. And we do know that if there hasn´t been an attack is not because our security forces are efficient. Ground transportation is and will always be vulnerable to terrorism. Unde r ground passengers, bus passengers can´t be searched as airplane passengers, the y are easy targets. If there hasn´t been an attack in Spain since March 11th is only because of the uncomfortable decision President Zapatero made of withdrawing from Iraq, and I think that in a few monhts, and discreetly, Tony Blair should make the same choice.

Comments (1)

April 12, 2005

Identifying the Roots of Modern Terrorism

Small Identifying Roots.jpg

Click to Enlarge Policy Evaluation

Eleven Rules for Preventing and Combating Terrorism

1. Prevent radical individuals and groups from becoming terrorist
extremists, by confronting them with a mix of “carrot and stick” – tactics and search for effective counter-motivation measures.

2. Stimulate and encourage defection and conversion of free and imprisoned terrorists and find ways to alienate the terrorist organization from its constituency.

3. Maintain the moral high-ground in the struggle with terrorists by
defending and strengthening the rule of law, good governance, democracy and social justice.

4. Try to address the underlying conflict issues exploited by the
terrorists and work toward a peaceful solution while not making any
substantive concession to the terrorists themselves.

5. Establish an Early Detection and Early Warning system against terrorism and other violent crimes on the interface between organized crime and political conflict.

6. Deny terrorists access to arms, explosives, travel and identification documents, safe communication, safe travel and sanctuaries; disrupt their preparations and operations through infiltration, communication intercept, espionage and by limiting their criminal- and fund-raising potential.

7. Reduce low-risk/high-gain opportunities for terrorists to strike by enhancing transportation and communication security and by hardening critical infrastructures and potential sites where mass casualties could occur.

8. Prepare for crisis - and consequence-management for both “regular” and “catastrophic” acts of terrorism in coordinated simulation exercises and educate the public to cope with terrorism.

9. Enhance technical assistance against terrorism by strengthening the capacity of law enforcement, intelligence and the military of states which lack sufficient capacities while also enhancing internal and external coordination within and between states to deal more effectively with terrorist threats.

10. Since terrorism is a mix of violence and propaganda, counter not only the violence but also terrorist communiques, ideological writings and internet propaganda and respond to the language of hatred and violence by a well-argued counter-language of reason and humanity.

11. Since we all can become victims of terrorism and they bear no guilt for their fate, it is our obligation to acknowledge them, show solidarity with them and assist them, including through financial compensation. This will also contribute to strengthening the resilience of targetted societies.

Comments (0)

Models for Promoting Democracy

Small Models for Promoting Democracy.jpg
Click to Enlarge Policy Evaluation

1. The West must stop supporting autocrats in the Middle East and must support the democrats instead. Media attention in particular can play a key role. As said Saad Eddin Ibrahim " We democrats are only ever noticed when we are imprisoned"

2. There is a need to strengthen civil society as a means of
supporting the democrats

3. South/South cooperation can be far more effective than North/South
cooperation as a tool for monitoring the development of democracy in
the middle East

Comments (0)

Adjusting Geneva

Small Adjusting Geneva.jpg
Click to Enlarge Policy Evaluation

The laws of war do not need to be adjusted: current international law if properly interpreted is adequate to regulate conflict between states and terrorist groups. What is important to recognize is that the laws of war should not be stretched out of context to provide false authority for actions they do not really sanction; and also that fundamental human rights, including the right against prolonged arbitrary detention, and the right not to be tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, are binding at all times, whether during armed conflict or not.

Comments (0)

March 20, 2005

The Right Way to Promote Arab Reform

Small Right Way to Promote Arab Reform.jpg
Click to Enlarge Policy Evaluation

There is a need for education reform to increase civil society participation. Empowerment of the people would come through education reform. Also, creative workshops/functions to create more interaction between peoples of different cultural backgrounds should be implemented.

Comments (0)

Stopping the Proliferation of WMD

Small Proliferation of WMD.jpg
Click to Enlarge Policy Evaluation

The proliferation of WMDs can be summed up with:

Representation, Connection, and Prevention.

The Representation of women and minorities are necessary in such debates, particularly of Muslims.

There is a Connection between WMD and Religion/Nationalism. There is a proliferation of WMD in communities who feel strongly about religion and nationalism. They apply exclusivist interpretations to these terms in order to rationalize and justify the use of WMD against innocent people, or those whom their religious beliefs would not view as innocent.

Prevention should be the greater focus on the ideology of terror. The practical step is the local prevention of local terrorist acts through community-based groups. These groups would work in cooperation with security agencies because many locals who commit the acts have local support.

Comments (0)

Saudi Arabia: Democracy vs. Oil

Small Saudi Arabia.jpg
Click to Enlarge Policy Evaluation

“The Formation of International Committee to Implement Democracy within Saudi Arabia and Greater Middle East”

Democracy has demonstrative effects in giving a voice to the people of society.

Under the UN, this committee would accept applications by countries on a case-by-case basis in Saudi Arabia and GME. Governmental and non-governmental members would participate. There would be punishments, including sanctions, to protect the committee. The goal would be to create a culturally sensitive democratic framework for a 10-year development plan from the ground-up.

Comments (0)

Pursuing Terror as an Open Society

Small Pursuing Terror.jpg
Click to Enlarge Policy Evaluation

Since terrorism is the last resort to express grievances, other forms to voice grievances are necessary. One forum could be a “Global SMS Network”, where one would have the ability to text message grievances to toll-free phone numbers. This idea is based on the fact that the number of cell phones in use today is passing one billion. These text messages would be collected at an independent global clearinghouse. From there, they would be sent to governments, journalists, etc. The messages could be acted on. The end result would be the spreading of information by providing direct access to those with grievances. It would be giving voices to the voiceless.

Comments (0)

Mobilizing Civil Society

Small Mobilizing Civil Society.jpg

Click to Enlarge Policy Evaluation

1)Independent institution that would organize/aggregate/provide the sources (knowledge, skills, tools, resources, etc.) to support local and indigenous groups and to provide for opportunities for independent development.

2)Create globalization on a global level to monitor and promote civil society around the world and work to give them space. The media would be focused on them so more people would know about them and would be less likely to be targets of aggression.

3) Create an organization that fosters promotion of civil society through interaction between corporate and civil society sectors by providing greater opportunities for equipment, materials, etc.

4) Develop workshops to explore and promote the opportunity for people to work in home countries and to work across communities to promote more democratic responses to problems.

5) A global town hall meeting using all available technological resources to provide the opportunity to expose and share the best grass roots practices. It would be based on the participation of the global civil society organizations sharing with the indigenous populations throughout world.

Comments (0)

March 10, 2005

Nationalism, Religion, and Terrorism

Creative Policy Debate Question 12

Some scholars speculate that US led military action in Iraq is spurring a pan-Arab backlash, causing thousands of Arab volunteers to gather today in Iraq; much the same way Arabs flocked to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets in the 1980’s. Taking this view further, some conclude that the Bush administration played into the hands of religious fundamentalists by offering them pan Arab nationalism as a recruitment tool. Osama Bin Laden seems to merge religion and national identity in his frequent referral to an Islamic caliphate.

Are Islamic terrorist groups like Al Qaeda driven by pan-Islamic nationalism, religious fervor, or a combination of both? What policies can be devised to deal with these two potentially converging forces?

Comments (1)

Adjusting Geneva

Creative Policy Debate Question 11

The Geneva Convention presents a set of provisions guiding state conduct in conflicts with other nation states. The Geneva Convention does not apply to groups such as Al Qaeda, a non-state actor that targets civilians and disregards other laws of war. Exploiting the ambiguity in how to deal with non state actors, the United States labeled the first detainees at Guantánamo as “unlawful combatants,” denying them the traditional protections received by regular prisoners of war. Donald Rumsfeld challenged the current relevance of the Geneva Convention by stating:

“The reality is the set of facts that exist today with the al-Qaeda and the Taliban were not necessarily the set of facts that were considered when the Geneva Convention was fashioned.”

Can we develop a legal framework for dealing with non state actors that are not party to the Geneva Convention? Should the Geneva Accord be adjusted or updated?

Continue reading "Adjusting Geneva"

Comments (17)

Bush’s Second Term: Europe Responds

Creative Policy Debate Question 10

As Bush’s recent trip to Europe confirmed, strong transatlantic ties are central to preserving global peace and stability. The nature of terrorist incidents and PR activities of terrorists, demonstrate that their actions, and even those of rogue states, are designed to exploit transatlantic divisions and sway public opinion and influence policy. The recent unified declarations by the United States and France vis-a-vis Syria demonstrate the potential power of transatlantic solidarity.

How can the United States and Europe forge a strategy that also balances other philosophical and political differences?

Continue reading "Bush’s Second Term: Europe Responds"

Comments (3)

Mobilizing Civil Society

Creative Policy Debate Question 9

Recent events in Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia demonstrate that internal reform can be mobilized at a grass roots level, independent from external political interference. In the fight against terror, the persuasive power of local NGO’s, civil groups and other grass root organizations is often overlooked. The strengthening of the civil society is vital in the War on Terror.

What roles can citizens play in strengthening democracy and fighting terror and what policies can Western democracies develop to encourage a greater civil role in promoting democracy? (Policy Debate)

Continue reading "Mobilizing Civil Society"

Comments (1)

Stopping the Proliferation of WMD

Creative Policy Debate Question 8

Most people agree that the fight against terrorism and the spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are top global priorities. Rogue states and other groups seek to obtain unconventional weapons. With the United States foreign policy preoccupied by Iraq, activities by North Korea or Al-Qaeda to obtains WMD constitute a significantly larger threat to the stability of the international system.

Denying proliferators WMD technology and expertise has been a central element to past non proliferation policy. Are there ways democracies can improve cooperation in fighting the spread of WMD and improve existing non-proliferation policies to prevent a terrorist organization from acquiring WMD?

Continue reading "Stopping the Proliferation of WMD"

Comments (14)

Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza: Light at the End of the Tunnel

Creative Policy Debate Question 7

Social scientist Malcolm Gladwell has written a well publicized book titled The Tipping Point, which refers to how a change in behavior or perception can reach a critical mass before suddenly creating a whole new reality. Thomas Friedman refers to this book in raising three simultaneously occurring Tipping Points: the Elections in Iraq, the murder of ex-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and Sharon’s commitment to disengaging from the Gaza strip.

Do recent events in these three regions suggest the development of a new reality in the Middle East? What new policies should the United States and Europe adapt to respond to recent events?

Continue reading "Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza: Light at the End of the Tunnel"

Comments (12)

Saudi Arabia: Democracy vs. Oil

Creative Policy Debate Question 6

Historically, Western Democracies have done little to promote democracy in the Middle East, and have instead relied heavily on autocratic leaders to ensure political influence and access to cheap oil. Thomas Friedman dismisses the West’s traditional policy view towards strategically important Saudi Arabia by referring to is as “a big gas station to be pumped and defended but never to be taken seriously as a society.” After 9/11 US policy towards the Middle East changed abruptly. Now democratization seems to supersede security and stability on the list of Western Policies regarding the Middle East.

How do democracy promotion policies of the Western Democracies conflict, or coincide with the fundamental need to secure a stable flow of affordable oil? With this in mind, what policies vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia should be adopted to ensure both stability and democracy?

Continue reading "Saudi Arabia: Democracy vs. Oil"

Comments (20) | TrackBack (53)

The Right Way to Promote Arab Reform

Creative Policy Debate Question 5

To encourage democracy in the Middle East, the Bush Administration has used a strategy that has emphasized civil society, economic development and punitive measures. It is not entirely clear whether this has been successful in encouraging political liberalization in the region. Alternatively, Western European leaders lean towards a strategy of financial incentives to reward positive change and encourage political reform in the region. Critics complain that approaches like sanctions have historically failed to influence the intended recipient, and instead punishing innocents. With these two opposing approaches as a broad benchmark, what is the right way to promote Arab democratic reform?

Continue reading "The Right Way to Promote Arab Reform"

Comments (2) | TrackBack (41)

Identifying the Roots of Modern Terrorism

Creative Policy Debate Question 4

There are multiple explanations that illustrate why the Middle East is fertile ground for the recruitment of terrorists. Frequent descriptions are: the US support for Israel, the Saudi monarchy and other corrupt authoritative regimes, or Wahhabism and other educational institutions that preach intolerance.

How do we succinctly encapsulate and define the source(s) of modern Islamic terrorism? What policies can be developed to tackle these root causes?

Continue reading "Identifying the Roots of Modern Terrorism"

Comments (2) | TrackBack (1)

Pursuing Terror as an Open Society

Creative Policy Debate Question 3

Terrorism raises a series of questions about the state of Open Society. A crisis such as 9/11 can lead to extraordinary action from a democratic society - as seen by Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. While the War on Terror is often presented as a defense of Open Society, open debate leading up and during the Iraq has been weak and limited to a few peripheral issues. Democratic opponents to Bush seemed uncertain about how best to respond or propose alternatives to ongoing War on Terror. As George Soros stated in a speech to the National Press Club:

“Open Societies suffer from an innate weakness: uncertainty. Leaders who claim to be in possession of the ultimate truth offer an escape from uncertainty. But that is a snare, because those leaders are bound to be wrong.”

Is Soros right or wrong? How should an Open Society with an innate weakness, such as uncertainty, fight a war against terrorists with the will and potential capability of detonating a ‘dirty bomb?’

Continue reading "Pursuing Terror as an Open Society"

Comments (8) | TrackBack (4)

Models for Promoting Democracy

Creative Policy Debate Question 2

Democratic institutions offer rule of law, independent judiciary, and the separation of religion and state – all which help manage competing interests in a society. The weakness of democracy in the Middle East has been cited as one of the key underlying causes fermenting terrorism.

How should policy makers promote democratic reform in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria? Is there a standard template for democratic reform? If no, what type of model should be developed for the Middle East? For example, what is the correct balance between the ‘Big Bang’ approach experienced in Iraq, compared to the gradual evolution to democracy experienced by Taiwan and South Korea?

Continue reading "Models for Promoting Democracy"

Comments (12) | TrackBack (34)

View all entries

The Topics

In order to help focus the policy proposals we will be working from a set of 12 topics or prompting questions for our creative debates. These are the ones we have selected:
  1. From Raleigh to Riyad: Bridging the Communication Gap
  2. Models for Promoting Democracy
  3. Pursuing Terror as an Open Society
  4. Identifying the Roots of Modern Terrorism
  5. The Right Way to Promote Arab Reform
  6. Saudi Arabia: Democracy vs. Oil
  7. Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza: Light at the End of the Tunnel
  8. Stopping the Spread of WMD
  9. Mobilizing Civil Society
  10. Bush’s Second Term: Europe Responds
  11. Adjusting Geneva
  12. Nationalism, Religion, and Terrorism

The Workshop

On March 11th 2005 the Atocha Workshop on Global Terrorism, hosted by the Safe Democracy Foundation, will create a repository of original thinking on Global Terrorism that will continue to be fed weekly in the form of a weblog by creative thinkers on the subject from around the world.

The launching event will take place at the Atocha Train Station on March 11th, 2005 at the restaurant Samarkanda. Here, in in an atmosphere that will encourage creative thinking, around 200 people will participate as policy proponents, webloggers or as public; all will be engaged in the discussion of the proposed policies.
Workshop Program and Agenda >>

The People

The Workshop will bring together journalists, politicians, activists and scholars in the fields of democratic advocacy and terrorism analysis (see full list). We are introducing them by means of One Question Interviews. Anyone can register to the Workshop and participate by asking them further questions, challenging their assumptions or proposing their own alternative ideas.

The Proposals

The general criteria for published ideas in the Atocha Workshop Weblog are that they be original, creative, potentially executable and most important that their implementation would likely lead to a more democratic world. The basic concept of the Worshop is that in politics, as in biology, diversity is needed to fight a threat. Political leaders, when confronted with the problem of global terrorism need a menu of possible responses. From the proceeds of the discussion on the weblog plus the physical event we will offer a series of Policy Proposals.
Read more >>>

The Atocha Workshop is sponsored by the Safe Democracy Foundation. (Formerly the Varsavsky Foundation)

With the support of

Subscribe to AtochaWorkshop via RSS: