The discussion hosted by openDemocracy on 19 March was recorded, on the basis that no speakers words would be quoted on our site without their first seeing a transcript. We therefore publish Caspar Hendersons report without direct attribution, except in the case of the first two speakers: Diego Hidalgo and Timothy Garton Ash.What it means for Spain
The meeting, chaired by openDemocracys editor Anthony Barnett, began with a minutes silence for the victims of the Madrid attack, those who had been injured but survived, and those left to pick up the pieces.
Diego Hidalgo, a founder of Spains leading newspaper El País came from Madrid. He described a momentous few days in Spain.
Read also our free thinkers exchange of views on democracy in an age of terror
The first reaction on Thursday 11 March was absolute horror at these attacks on ordinary hard-working people and their children. Who could possibly do something so inhumane? The many acts of practical solidarity the rush to give blood and offer specialist help to those most in need were particularly striking. This soon began to give way to growing anger, which in some cases turned against the government and all symbols of authority.
The day after the attacks, more than 11 million people a quarter of the Spanish people came onto the streets to demonstrate their revulsion. This was testimony to the courage of the Spanish people because at that stage nobody knew if the terrorists would again attack such large concentrations of people.
The victory of the Socialists (PSOE) in Sundays general election stunned many people, said Diego Hidalgo. There were also mixed feelings. With hindsight, it was becoming easier to understand what had happened. According to one leading newspaper, the supposed lead of the governing Popular Party (PP) had almost evaporated in the days before the attacks. Opinion polls cannot be published in Spain close to an election.
The PP received about the same number as in the previous election; but 2.5 million more people had voted, including many young people for the first time.
A full analysis of the motivation of the voters was awaited; but leading analysts argued that many voters were angered at the PPs refusal to face the possibility of al-Qaida responsibility for the attacks and its instant blaming of the Basque militant group ETA a line the PP then pushed deliberately despite growing evidence to the contrary. A different PP reaction might have been followed by a much closer election result.
Diego Hidalgo was asked whether the Madrid attacks could mark the beginning of the end of ETA; he said there were indications that ETA would gradually fade away.
One audience member concluded that the openDemocracy meeting left everyone with spirits lifted; another said we were all still confused but at a higher level.
Several people at the meeting felt that the people of Spain had manifested democracy in its purest form. The presence of millions of people on the streets, in defiance of terrorism, was one way of attacking this scourge. Others strongly disagreed.
A speaker cautioned that the Spanish people have not stopped thinking merely because they have voted: they would continue to reflect, moderate and even change their minds even after the election. This participant was sure that (despite the new prime ministers promise) Spanish troops would not leave Iraq; instead, an accommodation would be found under a UN mandate, which in any case was in accordance with the goals of the US-led coalition.
Another participant pointed to a contribution from an American citizen in an openDemocracy forum contrasting US and Spanish reactions to 9/11 and 11-M. After 9/11, the writer had said, Americans were frightened; we locked ourselves in our homes and our president declared war. After 11-M, the people of Spain courageously flooded the streets and called for peace.
But although some participants feared that such attacks would be repeated in Europe, there was also a denial of the view that the attacks in Madrid were comparable to those on New York and Washington.
What it means for Europe
Timothy Garton Ash, following Diego Hidalgos opening remarks and the subsequent discussion, defined the central question as: what should we as Europeans do now? Ever since the original 9/11 attacks, he had been wondering how people would react if there was a similar attack on a European city. The answer now was pretty shameful: Europe was falling apart all over again, going back to its old argument over the war in Iraq and relations with the US administration.
Timothy Garton Ash agreed that subjectively the election result was not a victory for al-Qaida. But objectively it was, in the sense that if Im al-Qaida, Im getting exactly what I want.
It was surely possible to agree that two things can both be true: that Britains prime minister Tony Blair had been wrong about Iraq, because the invasion had not helped the fight against al-Qaida and had probably made things worse; but also that Tony Blair was right when he kept warning that there was a real threat of international terrorism and that we, particularly in Europe, hadnt done enough to address it.
Where can you find Miguel Hernándezs poems, Arctic journeys, Mumbai dreams, Ugandan reflections, Cancún comments, Iraqi ambitions, Kyoto frustrations and World Bank feuds? Only in Caspar Hendersons Globolog only in openDemocracy
It was not enough for Europeans to sit around criticising the Americans over the Patriot Act and the handling of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Europeans needed to ask what security measures were necessary and justified in the response to terrorism. A good start would be greater cooperation between different security services across Europe. Maybe we needed a European Patriot Act. If so, what should be in it?
Timothy Garton Ash continued that al-Qaida-type terrorism was an even bigger threat to Europe than it was to the US because there were at least 12 million Muslims in the existing European Union, often living in harsh conditions and alienated from society. What were Europeans going to do about that? Wasnt it crazy that in this explosive situation France was proposing to ban the headscarf?
Other participants strongly disagreed with the view that Europe had split apart. One felt more confident about Europes capacity to act together than at any time in the last eighteen months. For example, the European Constitution was now a realistic possibility. This might look irrelevant, but actually was fundamental if Europeans wanted to work in greater concert.
Another participant agreed with this view. Following the Madrid attacks, the big three who really mattered Germany, France and Britain were working more closely on how to deal with terrorism. Europe tends to move forward in response to crises. It was after 9/11, for example, that there was agreement on the common arrest warrant, one of the most important pieces of European integration since the single currency.
Muslims as Europeans and as others
The question of what the attacks meant for Muslims in Europe led to particularly lively discussion. A French participant responded to the allegation that the French ban on headscarves was like going around Europe planting bombs. France, he argued, could not accept that young women at school were bullied and forced to submit to pressure. People were free to wear whatever they like at home and on the streets; but there should no discrimination at school, where we are all equal.
Another speaker argued it was vital to consider the impact of European policies on moderate Muslim opinion (though adding: we have to be very careful how we measure what Muslim liberalism is). It was significant that private polls of Muslim girls in French schools appeared to show that the majority in some cases 100% - of Muslim girls wished there to be a ban on headscarves in school. It was important to think carefully about what Muslims, particularly in Europe, really wanted, and about the double nature of their existence in the modern world.
A participant who had grown up in a Muslim country said that Europes only solution was to cut down on Muslim immigration, and that nations should find any pretext to do so. Europe should then concentrate on accommodating and working with those Muslims already within its borders. This speaker predicted that the reinforcement of Muslims in Europe by new immigrants from outside would guarantee their continuing radicalisation.
Another speaker characterised as dangerous the idea that Muslims are an indigestible minority. The response to Madrid must be to strengthen the citizenship of European Muslims. Turkey was very important in this regard. If Europe wanted to lead reconciliation with the Muslim world, the integration of Turkey into the European Union should be a key goal.
It was also important to realise that the Muslim community in Madrid and elsewhere joined with their fellow citizens in condemning these terrible attacks. Their voices had been largely ignored, but we as journalists and members of civil society must join hands with our Muslim neighbours.
What do you make of this digest and of all our post-Madrid coverage? Read our articles, follow our links, join our forum
Responding to terrorism
If Europe was serious about effectively responding to terrorism after Madrid, said a speaker, it should become more fully engaged in reform in the Middle East. It was not enough for us in Europe to say that Bush is doing most things wrong, even if that was true; we in Europe needed a clearer notion of what should be done, starting with a peace settlement for Israel/Palestine.
Europe also needed to have a coherent response to US proposals for democratisation in the wider Middle East. It should be possible to say that going into Iraq was worse than a crime, it was a blunder yet also recognise that now the invasion had taken place, Europeans had a vital interest arguably even more than the US in making sure that the situation there did not turn into an even greater disaster.
A Spanish participant said there was good evidence that the new Spanish government understood this. At the same time, it was important to understand that some 80-90% of activity by Spanish troops in Iraq at present was spent in trying not to get themselves killed.
Several participants argued that to be tough on terrorism it was also vital to be tough on the causes of terrorism. The regional and global institutions and mechanisms to deal with root causes such as injustice and inequality were wholly inadequate. We need to think of ourselves as ordinary global citizens. There must be a lot more soul-searching and self-examination, and a good deal less lecturing by those of us in positions of privilege and wealth.
Others were unimpressed by these views. If 11 million, 20 million or the whole of Europe marched in the streets that wouldnt stop al-Qaida, said one. The only way to stop terrorists was to fight them, added this speaker.
Another participant responded by starting with the things you should not do: alienating educated, moderate Muslim opinion by invading countries when you didnt have to; holding people in prison without due process, thereby degrading the very democratic values you say you are trying to uphold.
What was shocking for this participant was to sit around a dinner table in an educated, middle-class Muslim household and to be told that the west was fighting a war on Islam. Those were the people the west needed to have on its side.
These things might sound rather abstract, but they are fundamental. The number of terrorists was very small. But the hinterland of the terrorist was something you can influence by the way you practice your values and democratic principles.
Another speaker agreed that trampling on basic rights makes things worse. Guantanamo was a long way from the worse abuse in the world today, but the deliberate tearing up of legal process in the past two years sends a megaphone message around the world.
One speaker argued that Timothy Garton Ash was wrong and that what the Spanish people have shown is that we can make it impossible for leaders of nations to take their countries to war almost individually and without agreement or consultation. We have passed the moment where prime ministers and presidents may behave as warlords.
Another stated that it is not enough for Europeans to learn better how to act together. There also needs to be a better international architecture that allows more voices in global decision-making.
An American participant agreed with the need for the west to act with less arrogance and more awareness of historic wrongs and present injustice. But none of this would be enough because the conditions that have created this terror are already in place.
The world is in a position of great peril for many people. The international security system and the role of the UN must be rethought. Coalitions of the willing do not provide the institutional basis for pursuing a conflict, even when they are needed. But a plebiscitary democracy also carried the danger that elected government is replaced with control by very wealthy people who controlled the media.
Another participant asked: what kind of policy would allow for more democratic relationships between people and power in dealing with terrorism? High strategic politics have long been seen as a monopoly of those who rule. This was no longer acceptable for many people. If so this might not be a victory for al-Qaida.