Intelligence

Times Online - Leading article: Democracy v terror

Times Online - Newspaper Edition

Leading article: Democracy v terror

Many people in Britain and many more in Turkey are grieving this weekend over those murdered in Al-Qaeda-inspired attacks in Istanbul. Sadly, they will not be the last. Terrorism has become the grim spectre of our times. Britain is on high alert for suicide bombers — two Al-Qaeda cells are said to be planning an outrage here and the police have already foiled a gas attack on the London Underground. Washington has warned of a new threat, this time using cargo jets. In Iraq yesterday, 18 people were killed when suicide bombers blasted their cars into police stations, and disaster was only narrowly avoided when a plane landed in Baghdad after being hit by a surface-to-air missile. These are no longer distant acts of terror; people in the West fear where all this is leading and where the next bombs will strike.
There are two interpretations for this renewed surge of terrorism. Clare Short, the former international development secretary, claims that Britain and America are reaping what they sowed in Iraq. The war acted as a “recruiting sergeant” for Al-Qaeda because of the mishandling of the conflict by George Bush and Tony Blair, who she castigates for “bad leadership” and “terrible errors”. Many who marched in London last week to protest at the president ’s visit to London no doubt agree with her.

There is also a second interpretation: that the military action taken by Britain and America to overthrow Saddam Hussein is part of the wider war on terror and its state sponsors and is a solution to the problem, not its cause. The West responded to an attack on its soil, an attack that was a declaration of war. To have done nothing would have been interpreted as weakness and would have provoked yet more attacks. September 11 was planned under the presidency of Bill Clinton, who had shown little appetite to take on Saddam or even Al-Qaeda. The Taliban gave succour to Al-Qaeda and had to be overthrown. Saddam, too, was a regional threat and that in turn helped to create the instability on which terrorism thrives. Certainly we were misled about his weapons of mass destruction, but it was still right to overthow a tyrant who killed far more of his own people than any western alliance. Now the difficult process of installing a stable, democratic government has begun.

What hope can we find in this grim time? First, however much Al-Qaeda would like to strike at Britain, it is finding it tough. Why else attack soft targets in Muslim countries. There have been bombings in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Tunisia. Tragically, many more Muslims have died than westerners, although Al-Qaeda cares not a jot. We also know that as long as there are young fanatics prepared to strap explosives to their bodies or drive car bombs into buildings, the threat will remain.

We have to get used to a higher level of security and disruption in our daily lives than is desirable in a civilised society. A committee of MPs will this week criticise Britain’s readiness for a big terrorist attack and, in truth, you can never be prepared enough.

All this security must be underpinned by a political vision. That strategy was in part set out by Mr Bush on his visit to Britain. As he put it: “Democratic governments do not shelter terrorist camps or attack their peaceful neighbours; they honour the aspirations and dignity of their own people.” Too often in the past, and America and Britain have both been guilty of this, western governments have been prepared to support tyrants and despots while ignoring democratic rights.

Winning the war on terror, as the president argued, has to mean fostering the spread of democracy: “If the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation and anger and violence for export.” That means following the reformist road of countries like Morocco, Jordan and Qatar, not preserving autocracies such as Syria and Saudi Arabia, the region’s pivotal state. It means that anything less than a settled democracy in Iraq would be a failure. That is a strategy worth pursuing. The war on terror will not be won under this president or this prime minister. But it must be won.

November 23, 2003 at 09:59 AM in Political | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home