Ross Finnie MSP
Speech to the Scottish Liberal Club's - the fourth John G Gray Lecture.
“On Liberalism and Terrorism”
20 February 2008
For some time now, in common with many other Liberal Democrats, I have been concerned that attempts, both internationally and in the UK, to take adequate, effective and proportionate measures against the threat of terrorism have compromised Liberalism. I decided, therefore, to use this lecture to explore whether my concerns were justified or whether any trade-off between Liberal values and the measures to counter terrorism was in fact justified by the outcome.
I begin by considering the nature of terrorism and then the issues that terrorism raises for Liberalism. I then review the international and domestic response to the current terrorist threat and finally, against that background, I consider the application of Liberalism to the threat.
Sadly, terrorism is not a new phenomenon. It is generally accepted that terrorists target political culture precisely because it represents a society’s support for its leaders and their policies. Terrorists attack stable democracies to test their resolve, whilst they attack weak or failing democracies to destroy its political community and render the state ineffective.
The latter part of the twentieth century saw the emergence of groups such as: Al Fatah; Hamas; Palestinian Islamic Jihad; Hezbollah; the Tamil Tigers; PKK; ETA; the Red Brigades; the Baader-Meinfof Gang; and the IRA.
Some, most notably: PKK; ETA; the Red Brigades; the Baader-Meinfof gang; and the IRA have effectively been dealt with. The others remain active and have been added to by, amongst others, al-Qaida.
Equally sadly, the latter part of the twentieth century saw the revival of political assassination. In stable states there was: General Franco’s presumed political successor, Luis Carrero Blanco, in 1973; Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro in 1978; Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981; Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1984; former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991; and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. Last December, in a less stable state, we had the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
Terrorist groups have killed thousands of innocent citizens and each political assassination was a callous act of murder but it is interesting to note that not one of these terrorist acts had the effect of permanently destabilising the State in which it took place.
Terrorism poses a different form and degree of criminal activity. Liberals have long argued that if terrorist activities are to be brought within the ambit of the criminal law, both at a domestic and international level, then there needs to be a definition of terrorism in order fully to describe and circumscribe the circumstances in which the law is to apply. Liberals have also argued that any such definition should not encompass “just causes”.
There is, however, no internationally accepted definition of Terrorism. The majority of definitions suggest that terrorist acts have political goals, are conducted outside normal political bounds, and involve symbolic violence usually perpetrated against innocent victims. Much of the disagreement on definition centres on the desire to avoid defining “just causes” as terrorist activities.
The UN has expressed frustration at the lack of an agreed definition, the absence of which has prevented it from sending an unequivocal message that terrorism is never an acceptable tactic, even for the most defensible of causes.
In the UK, the definition of terrorism was the subject of a Report by Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, the former Liberal Democrat MP for Montgomery. The Report concludes that the definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act 2000, as amended, “is consistent with international comparators and treaties, and is useful and broadly fit for purpose.”
The main focus of attention is currently centred on the al-Qaida movement. It has been seen in less stable states such as: Pakistan; Afghanistan; Tunisia; Yemen; Saudi Arabia; and, after the invasion in 2003, Iraq. It has also carried out attacks against stable democracies, most notably: the USA; Spain; and the UK.
Al-Qaida’s overarching aim is to work towards the re-establishment of an Islamic Caliphate, not necessarily modelled on the historic Caliphates such as the Abbasids, but certainly embracing a politico/religious entity that would be formed initially across much of the Middle East and might take 50 – 100 years to bring to fruition.
In the short-term al-Qaida’s main aims include: the eviction of foreign military forces from the Islamic world with the emphasis on the western Gulf states especially Saudi Arabia; the termination of the House of Saudi; the termination of pro-western regimes with the emphasis on Egypt, the Gulf emirates and Pakistan; and the establishment of a Palestinian state in place of Israel.
The threat to each of these unstable states is very real and we know from the horrific events of 9/11 in New York, the Madrid and London bombings and the attempted bombing at Glasgow Airport how real the threat is to stable states.
What makes al Qaida so difficult to counter is that it barely has any physical bases. It has little or no structure and only a tiny tangible physical presence. Its ideas are promoted by modern means of communication especially the internet. This also allows it to recruit, plan and execute operations without any of the cumbersome paraphernalia of a conventional military structure. It is, rather, a viral network that materialises in the moment of the attack and vanishes the moment after.
The distinguished historian, Eric Hobsbawm believes the current phase of international terrorism is more serious than such movements have been in the past because it is capable of massacre and is deliberately indiscriminate. Hobsbawm believes terrorism requires special efforts but he also thinks it is important that it should be kept in perspective. In practice, the real danger in terrorism lies not in the actual danger from anonymous handfuls of fanatics but from the unreasonable fear their actions provoke.
If terrorism has, as one of its key aims, the intent to challenge and destabilise the fabric and legitimacy of the state then we need to consider what key elements of Liberalism have been, and remain, under threat such as: the nature of Liberal Democracy; its interface with the rule of law; the nation state; legitimacy; and the application of these concepts internationally.
John Stuart Mill both in On Liberty and in Considerations on Representative Government argues that the best form of government is representative government. That basic proposition remains unchallenged but Liberalism has long recognised that electoral accountability is not enough to control power. Right from the beginning Liberalism set limits on power This did not begin with Mill On Liberty but with Locke’s Letter Concerning Toleration.
For Liberalism accountability takes two forms: political and legal. Locke saw the need for the power of the executive to be checked between elections and Liberalism developed this into one of the functions of a Parliament. Sadly, and not for this lecture, in the UK we have seen the power of Parliament badly eroded by successive governments taking powers unto themselves.
The essential need for accountability only serves to underline the fact that for Liberalism liberty rather than democracy is the core Liberal value. The concern that democracy might extinguish liberty led Mill and others to invest considerable intellectual energy specifying the institutional, legal, social and economic requirements for establishing and maintaining democratic systems of representative government.
The other essential element of accountability was the establishment of the Rule of Law. Locke set out the framework of the rule of law in his Second Treatise of Government. The need to control the arbitrary use of power by the executive by the supremacy or predominance of regular law was developed further by Friedrch A Hayek.
Albert V Dicey’s seminal work on constitutional law Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, setting out principles on the rule of law and the legislative supremacy of Parliament, greatly influenced Liberal thinking particularly on the rule of law. Dicey developed: rules of equality before the law; formal or procedural rules, including rules of evidence and procedure governing access to representation; and fairly obtaining and presenting evidence. Underpinning all of this, there had to be a separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary.
Dicey was also a staunch advocate of historic principles of English Law including the prerogative writ of Habeas Corpus circumscribing amongst other things the period of detention without trial
In practical terms Liberal thinking on the rule of law has developed to its current more social Liberal and human rights-based-approach. The rule of law remains, however a key principle of Liberalism and of a Liberal political order.
Liberal thinking on the “nation state” has evolved since John Stuart Mill expressed the importance of nationhood in terms of the equal importance of self determination. Mills view was of the nation state that was accountable only to itself. Indeed, in his essay “A Few Words on Non-intervention” published in 1859 Mill asserts that non-intervention is generally the right policy because it is not possible for outsiders to create free states.
Expanding on the principles of democracy and the rule of law Ralf Dahrendorf developed thinking on the importance of legitimacy and effectiveness as two key elements in a nation state’s stability. Dahrendorf laid great stress on the need for democratic governments to maintain their legitimacy to remain effective. Indeed, Dahrendorf expresses concern about the erosion of legitimacy because for democracies “there is a great danger that the response to a crisis of legitimacy will be authoritarianism and illiberalism”.
The extension of Liberalism from domestic to international affairs is largely the legacy of Gladstone who, during the Midlothian Campaign, told the electors “what I think to be the right principles of foreign policy”.
There are two issues with which Gladstone forced Liberals to grapple, and which have been with us ever since. One is the issue of the nation state and how Liberalism should view it. The other is the internationalisation of our commitment to the underdog which has evolved into a firm legal commitment to international human rights.
The process of evolution involved applying Liberalism’s instinctive identification of liberty with law and tying it into the rapidly developing framework of international law. This had the effect of giving Gladstone’s commitment to international human rights a framework which is legal and secular and, whilst Liberals have supported this development, it has helped lead Liberalism away from Gladstone’s other belief in the sovereign state.
Jo Grimond advocated the need for greater regional international co-operation which would make more likely an effective United Nations. Grimond also recognised the need for states to make some surrender of sovereignty if international conflicts are to be mediated or brokered. Paddy Ashdown has taken this further: “the idea that the sovereign state can remain the basis on which the world is managed is one of the nostalgic myths from which we are going to have to break free.”
There is nothing distinctively Liberal about this realisation but Liberals have never been obsessed with believing in unitary centre of power. We have always believed in pluralism and hence that human rights create norms of international conduct whose authority goes beyond any one sovereign state
In the 1990s David Steel led the campaign to amend Article 2 of the UN Charter which effectively prevents intervention in the affairs of another Nation State. More recently Paddy Ashdown has called for radical changes to both the constitution and operation of the UN. The reflexes behind this thinking go back to Locke’s idea of the Law of Nature, as expounded in his Two Treatises of Government, as well as drawing on the practical facts of power in the modern world.
The response to terrorism
It is against that background that I consider, briefly, the response to terrorism both internationally and domestically and its impact on Liberalism. The international response to terrorism has been almost exclusively driven by the USA’s response to the 9/11 atrocities and It began, in September 2001, with President Bush’s declaration of a “war on terror”.
In October 2001, without any International Resolution, but with the support of NATO, the USA led the invasion of Afghanistan with aim of capturing Osama bin Laden and eliminating the Taliban militia and their al-Qaida associates. This intervention had the support of President Hamid Karzai who then believed that without support Afghanistan would become a failed State.
In January 2002, the camp at Guantamano Bay, where detainees held by the USA were classified as enemy combatants, was established and the practice of rendition commenced at about the same time. Human Rights organisations and Liberal Democrats protested at the breach of international law and denial of human rights but the UK Government made no public criticism at the establishment of Guantanamo Bay. Indeed, it only intervened when two UK citizens were to be put on trial before the military commissions.
By April 2002 the war had been extended to include an “axis of evil” of states such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea and President Bush had asserted that early intervention, including regime change, was the formal and responsible policy of the USA given the threat to its security.
The USA turned this assertion into reality when, in March 2003, in the face of international opposition and with major questions at the UN over its legality but with the support of the UK Government, it led the invasion of Iraq. The stated purpose of the invasion was to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism and free the Iraqi people.
Liberal Democrats declared the invasion of Iraq as a breach of international law and, therefore, illegal. The illegality was confirmed by the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan This absence of legality also undermined the legitimacy of the war.
In July 2006 President Bush made it clear that the actions of the Israeli Defence Forces in Lebanon, intended to destroy Hezbollah as a military force, should be seen as part of his overall war on terror and there should be no talk of ceasefire short of achieving that aim. Again, Liberal Democrats condemned the USA and Israeli Governments’ actions and the UK Government’s lack of action.
By December 2007 the term “war on terror” had been replaced by “the long war against Islamic fascism” This term embraced not only al-Qaida and associated groups but also a range of jihadist paramilitary groups in Pakistan, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories and most of the insurgent groups in Iraq.
In short, the response of the stable democracies of the West to the al-Qaida threat has been dominated by the actions of the US government. The pressure on the US government was immense, but Hobsbawm contrasts the American reaction with that of India as a good example of the capacity of a stable state to resist terrorist pressure. In the last twenty years India has lost two leaders to assassins, it lives in a situation of low-level war in Kashmir, a wide selection of guerrilla movements occupy its north-eastern provinces, and Marxist-Leninist insurgency operates in some tribal areas but nobody would dream of suggesting that India remains other than a stable state in full operational order.
Paddy Ashdown’s conclusion is that the so called “war on terror” is actually a struggle for the values of tolerance and humanity that lie at the heart of not just civilised societies but all great religions. Our enemies are not “Islamic terrorists” but terrorists who profess to be Muslims. Our most important friends in this struggle are not our Western Allies but that great majority in Islam who need our help to prevent their religion being captured by fundamentalist bigots. Force has a part to play in this struggle, but this is ultimately a battle of ideas and no amount of force can deliver victory on its own.
Prior to 2000 terrorism in the UK was governed by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 introduced after the Birmingham bombing and stated to be a strictly temporary measure but never repealed. The UK Government’s response to the war on terror has been to introduce a raft of draconian anti-terrorist legislation: the Terrorism Act 2000: the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001: the Criminal Justice Act 2003; the Terrorism Act 2005: and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2006
These Acts extended the range of terrorist offences; developed the practice of proscribing terrorist organisations; reversed the presumption of innocence in respect of articles held by suspects; allowed foreign nationals suspected of terrorist activities to be detained for extended periods; and introduced control orders imposing restrictions on liberty on the basis of “reasonable suspicion” on evidence unavailable to the suspect and on charges which are not disclosed.
In addition these Acts extended the period of detention without trial for suspected terrorists from four to seven days: then to fourteen days; and, in 2006, to twenty eight days.
Amnesty International published a damning report on the UK detention of non-nationals without trial, calling it the British “Guantanamo Bay.” The House of Lords subsequently held that indefinite detention was incompatible with ECHR.
Liberal Democrats opposed much of the legislation particularly those parts that reversed the presumption of innocence and introduced control orders.
The nature of the UK Government’s response was all the more surprising given it had the benefit of Professor Conor Gearty and John Kimbell’s review of the laws introduced to address the problems in Northern Ireland. Their Report Terrorism and the Rule of Law published in1995 argued that the rule book could not be thrown away just because we felt so incensed by the horror of terrorist acts. They developed three principles of equality fairness and human dignity as the objective and immutable yardsticks against which the legitimacy of any special legislation must be judged.
Nearly seven years after the most recent terrorist threat emerged it remains a potent force and, both in its threat and in the responses to that threat, it poses a real danger to the principles of Liberalism. As we enter the next phase which, as a result of the failure of the so called war, is now loosely described as the “battle for hearts and minds” we need to recognise that in the stable western democracies Liberalism is the very essence of what the terrorists are seeking to destroy and so must be the starting point in the design of our own defence.
This will call for a more aggressive assertion and application of Liberalism. It will require greater clarity about the limits to Liberal tolerance. If Liberalism is to win the ideological battle against violent prejudice and theocracy it must be self confident in insisting on the inviolable nature of core liberal values.
In applying the principles of Liberalism it will be important to be aware, and take account, of not only the ideological and historical background to the current terrorist threat but also the particular country or circumstances in which these principals are to be given practical effect.
The threat to Liberal Democracy remains. Dr Grant Wardlaw, National Manager, Intelligence in the Australian Federal Police who has published widely on terrorism, warns, “The danger lies in the possibility of doing the terrorists’ job for them by taking unnecessary steps in an attempt to counter the perceived threat and, thereby, fundamentally altering the nature of democracy.” In this sense, both state and community must remain committed to the core political values of liberal democracy even when under attack. In essence, a democracy’s response to terrorism must be framed initially within the context of its dominant political culture.”
Liberalism’s requirements for effective democracy continue to be wholly misunderstood. Last month, in the run up to the Pakistani general election held this Monday, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, visited President George W Bush and Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Both, apparently, were satisfied with President Musharraf’s undertaking to hold a free, fair and transparent election. Liberalism is not about unfettered majority rule. For Musharraf’s undertaking to have met the test of Liberalism it would also have had to include reinstating the sacked judges and restoring the rule of law.
That said, those who prosecute democracy, Western values and human rights, such as is being attempted in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, in Afghanistan, have to recognise that these values are not like some technological importation whose benefits are immediately obvious and will be adopted in the same manner by every state.
Indeed, rapid democratisation in the absence of supportive conditions – such as a strong civic culture or the presence of effective and legitimate institutions that can peacefully organise the participation of newly empowered citizens – may lead to political and social chaos. As Mill reminds us individuals and states must be allowed to determine their own future.
Another key element of Liberal Democracy is the principle of legitimacy. To that end Nick Clegg has advocated a policy of critical engagement, He has identified some key principles that must be adhered to if legitimacy is to be achieved in the Muslim Communities in the UK.
In summary, Clegg’s principles require: the whole approach to be rooted in specific Muslim Communities, condemning individual terrorists without slighting all Muslims; government accepting that engaging critically involves listening to grievances and reviewing policing policies; making a clear distinction between integration between communities and relationships within these communities; and finally, understanding the crucial role played by religious leaders, criticising those who actively incite violence but also being tolerant of the problem the lack of imams in the UK causes for the Muslim faith.
This approach echoes the main conclusions of the Rowntree Trust’s Report into the community consequences of the Government’s counter terrorism measures: “The key to successfully combating terrorism lies in winning the trust and cooperation of the Muslim Communities in the UK”
If the governments in Iraq and Afghanistan are to achieve legitimacy then the international community needs to assist in building up the capacity within these states to allow them to progress towards a stable, peaceful and democratic outcome. It is sad that the breakdown in trust between east and west has prevented Paddy Ashdown from taking up post as the Special Representative of the Secretary General in Afghanistan.
The Rule of Law also remains under threat. Neither Liberalism nor the adherence to the rule of law and human rights prevents the passing of counter terrorist legislation. But as each new Anti-terrorism Bill has been introduced, Parliament has been seduced into believing that one individual encroachment on freedom can be seen as inconsequential. The cumulative effect has been rather different and Liberalism requires that any further changes be tested against a full blooded commitment to the rule of law and to the law of human rights
Set against that test, it is possible to envisage measures, for example, to: extend the monitoring of internet sites; introduce passports with a finger print; provide greater surveillance at ports of entry; expand police powers to investigate bank accounts and emails; change thresholds for search warrants; and generally expanded the capacity for intelligence gathering.
Liberal Democrats have called for the removal of the current prohibition on the use of intercept evidence in the UK but only on condition that there must be full disclosure of the source of the evidence. Organisations such as Liberty have also suggested that it might be possible to widen the grounds for post –charge questioning to terrorism cases.
By the same test of Liberalism, there are changes to the law that would be unacceptable. For example, there is no justification for any further extension in the period of detention without charge. The UK Government is promising further anti-terrorism legislation including proposals to extend the period to forty two days but has produced no evidence in support of this change. Even allowing for differences in the respective legal systems it is instructive to note that the USA permits 2 days, Spain 5 days, Turkey 7.5 and Australia 12 days. The UK already has a period more than double the length of any other stable democratic state.
Whilst no details have been given about the forthcoming legislation, there can be no support from Liberalism for the UK Government’s continued threats to the rule of law as evidenced by: its repeated efforts to reduce trial by jury; its support for retrial for those acquitted threatening double jeopardy; its support for placing previous convictions before juries; and, perhaps most serious of all, its attacks on the independence of judiciary.
As noted, Liberalism places great store on the independence of the judiciary For clarity on why that should be the case I quote not from a Liberal but from Scotland’s most senior Judge, Lord Hope, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.
“What do appellate judges do – especially those who sit in the highest court? I think that it is no exaggeration to say that the moulding and upholding of the law in the public interest is in their hands. It is their task, in times of trouble, to stand up for the rule of law against the executive. In doing so, they must interpret and apply the laws that are made for us by the legislators in a way that makes sense and is consistent with human rights principles.”
“The law must protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of everyone, whatever they are alleged to have done and wherever they have come from.”
Fortunately, Liberalism’s respect for Human Rights now finds expression in various international human rights charters including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It seems reasonable that anti-terrorism laws, introduced anywhere in the world, should be subjected to scrutiny by reference to them For Liberalism any retreat from the rule of law; human rights and civil liberties would be short-sighted and unthinkable.
Last week the USA charged six Guantamano Bay prisoners with murder and war crimes over their involvement in 9/11. The accused are to be tried under the military commissions not by the US civil court and prosecutors have already announced they will be seeking the death penalty in the event of a guilty verdict whilst at the same time admitting to using extraordinary procedures, including “water boarding” to obtain evidence.
It will be a tragedy if America, the one country which devotes more of its GDP than any other defending democracy and freedom, allows emotion to blur its vision and thereby fail to make the distinction between justice and revenge. It would be a retreat from the rule of law. It would be a retreat from the principles of Liberalism.
In a lecture stressing the need to reassert the International rule of law, Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and former UN Commissioner for Human Rights, included this quotation: “Promoting respect for international law is essential to ensuring that the war on terror does not score a devastating own goal by eroding permanently the rule of law and the international standards that protect us all. Otherwise, as Kofi Annan has noted, we deliver a victory to terrorists that no act of theirs could achieve”.
The international tribunals and courts at the Hague have begun to demonstrate that it is possible for Liberalism’s advocacy of the International Rule of Law to be brought into being by the UN and be accountable under international law. If it is to be developed further the UN should be empowered to demand that the same pressure currently applied to individual regimes on weapons control be applied as strenuously to securing freedom, human rights and democracy.
With Liberalism propounding that human rights create norms of international conduct whose authority goes beyond any one sovereign state it needs to become more assertive in the case for intervention There have been many cases in recent years when it has been necessary to assist a country in its transition from war to full democracy. In these circumstances, and for a limited period of time, it might be necessary to put democracy behind the imperative of ending conflict and establishing the institutions of justice and good governance upon which democracy ultimately depends.
There is no doubt that post Iraq calls for intervention will be heard more sceptically than in the past. One wrong decision, however, is not the basis for establishing a principle. Blanket rejection of intervention would be wrong especially when members of the UN have agreed to take collective action to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
If we learn anything from the invasion of Iraq it must be that a single superpower cannot compensate for the absence of a global authority. In pursuit of Liberalism’s ideal of a truly international order, Grimond, Steel and Ashdown acknowledged that the role of the UN must be rethought as it has no defined role in the settlement of disputes
The absence of an international intermediary, genuinely considered neutral, and capable of taking action without the unanimous authority of the Security Council, has been the most obvious gap in the system of dispute management. The UN probably cannot be effective unless it has something like the European Union’s qualified majority voting instead of the veto.
Liberalism has been severely bruised by the policies pursued on both sides of the Atlantic against terrorism. In the UK there is a more pressing need than ever before for a Bill of Rights to reclaim the civil liberties that have been eroded in the fight against terrorism and to anchor, once and for all, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of association in our constitution.
To achieve the pluralism to which Liberalism aspires the West will have to acknowledge the inevitable presence of Islam in the politics of the states of the Middle East and in many states in Asia. The forces of secularism in the Middle East are likely to remain weak. The West, therefore, needs to identify and support Islamic groups that are moderate within the context of Middle Eastern politics. The rise of Muslim Democracy in Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Turkey should help to assure Western leaders that pluralism within the Islamic tradition is a real possibility given the proper conditions.
Because Liberalism concentrates on the individual its preference is to disperse power but it also advocates governance at the most appropriate level. Grimond set out a vision of a pyramid of power; from local to international level In this globalised world it is time for Liberalism to accept the dictum succinctly stated by David Bell, emeritus professor of sociology at Harvard University, “Nation states have become too small to solve the big problems, too big to solve the small problems.”
For Liberalism, sustainable security is essentially about recognising the centrality of human communities and the requirement for states to cooperate in the face of common needs. A Liberal International order would rest on consent which, would have to come, in the first instance, from sovereign states limiting their power in their own self-interest. It would rest on international law developed by a series of international conventions and its operation and enforcement would come under the auspices of the UN.
Conventional counter–terrorism measures have little chance of controlling the further development of the al-Qaida movement unless there is a fundamentally different approach developed that seeks systematically to undercut support for the movement. Liberalism offers that fundamentally different approach because as a philosophy it concerns itself with the rights and liberties of the individual in a framework of democracy and the rule of law to create a fair, free and open society in which the individual can live in peace and harmony.
Delivering his Nobel Prize lecture in December 2001 Kofi Annan said: “In the 21st Century, I believe the mission of the UN will be defined by a new, more profound awareness of the sanctity and dignity of every human life, regardless of race or religion. This will require us to look beyond the framework of states and beneath the surface of states or communities.”
“In this new century, we must start from the understanding that peace belongs not only to states or peoples but to each and every member of these communities. The sovereignty of states must no longer be used as a shield for gross violations of human rights.”
I hope I have demonstrated that as society strives to defeat terrorism Liberalism is not a luxury but rather a security imperative. Russell Johnston once observed that “Humankind has no nationality.” That same humankind deserves liberty from terrorism. Given the experience of the last seven years, the notion that that this can be achieved by compromising the principles of Liberalism couldn’t be more wrong.
