This week, Anthony Barnett and I attended an impressive conference in Washington, DC convened by the US foreign policy think-tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). "Overcoming Extremism: Protecting Civilians from Terrorist Violence"brought together a broad array of scholars, policy-makers, journalists, activists and survivors of terrorist violence, ostensibly to develop a "shared international agenda" on combating terrorism.
Such gatherings on the Beltway can be damp squibs, with the imperatives of "bi-partisan balance" sapping life and novelty from discussions. Not so here. What I heard over the duration of the conference was serious, energetic and unflinching re-evaluation of the "war on terrorism". Critics - including yours truly - have long been frustrated by the insular nature of even the most well-meaning foreign policy debates in the States. Though it did not arrive at some magical "shared international agenda", CSIS' conference went a long way to opening those debates to the perspectives and experiences of the rest of the world. "Overcoming Extremism" was held by the Center for International and Strategic Studies in Washington, DC on 22-23 October.
Visit CSIS' blog on Prevention, Conflict Analysis, and Reconstruction.
The tone was set by Irene Khan, secretary general of Amnesty International, who delivered the first keynote speech. She reminded the audience of the unprecedented threat posed to the international order by many terrorist and insurgent groups today; unlike their predecessors, militants (including al-Qaida) now seek to paralyse the state, not replace the state (as did revolutionaries like the Shining Path in Peru). Yet, Khan stressed rightly that military means will never be enough in waging this war. A human rights-based counterterrorism agenda, she insisted, was not naïve; it was precisely the erosion of commitment to human rights in the west and support for repressive governments elsewhere that fuelled radicalisation.
Khan's approach - combining a principled commitment to human rights with a realistic assessment of the evidence - was reinforced by a magisterial historical overview in the closing plenary of the first day. Aryeh Neier of OSI offered a bleak but, in its cold way, passionate account of 150 years of attempts at protecting civilians. From America's own Lieber Code of 1863 to the Geneva Conventions and the new International Criminal Court, efforts at prohibiting violence against civilians have been accompanied by ever increasing assaults against them, from organised rape to genocide. We must nevertheless carry on the work of outlawing such attacks, Neier concluded, without expecting any immediate improvement.
Khan also emphasised the need to engage with Islamist and other militant groups, and not dismiss them as beyond the pale of reason. This was a theme developed later in an excellent and provocative panel on the second day with the pollster John Zogby, the Harvard scholar Louise Richardson (also an advisory board member of toD), and Ken Silverstein, the Washington editor of Harper's.
In the March issue of Harper's, Silverstein urged Washington to consider speaking with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, as well as Hamas and Hizbollah. If the US still wishes to encourage democratic institutions and practices in the region, it will not be able to sideline groups that are deeply embedded in their societies and enjoy broad popular support. The question, Silverstein suggested, should not be "Is the Muslim world ready for democracy?" but instead, "Is the United States ready for Islamic democracy?"
Such a call for engagement isn't too much of a surprise for those of us outside the cloisters of Washington. In DC, talking with others (and Others) has become less and less the modus operandi. The vigorous debate that followed the panel presentations is a measure of how contentious the idea of engagement remains in the United States. toD will bring you video footage of this discussion, as soon as it becomes available via the conference website. It makes for required watching.
More popular amongst the State and Defence department set in the conference hall were the remarks of Sir David Veness, former Scotland Yard head and now chief security officer at the United Nations. As a member of the "when, not if, camp" regarding terrorist attacks, he spoke in detail about counterterrorism training, strategy and methods.
Yet, even his hard-nosed and focused analysis hinted at the US' larger diplomatic failings, calling for greater cooperation and coordination with the world. Washington could learn from the counterterrorist strategies of the European Union, ASEAN, and even the League of Arab States.
Multilateralism will underpin any successful strategy against the broad sweep of Islamist militant groups. But in addition to the coordination of international governments and institutions, citizens and civil society groups have a part to play in the fight against terrorism. The conference concluded with moving presentations from victims of terrorist attacks - from Omagh, Nairobi, Beslan and Amman. Yet, they were not simply there to evoke the trauma of their losses; they reminded the assembled audience of policy-makers and media-types of the resilience of those that experience terrorism first-hand.
They're not merely victims but activists, speaking out against extremism, calling their governments into question, and building international networks of support and action. Global civil society - especially that which springs from the rubble of violence - can strengthen the efforts of governments to tackle terrorism and its consequences at the grassroots level.
Finally, I shouldn't fail to mention that Anthony Barnett and myself delivered presentations at separate workshops. Mine, on "Countering the Enabling Environment", can be read on toD in adapted form. Anthony spoke very eloquently about the challenges posed to media - and any meaningful coverage of terrorism - in the age of "the first world war of the spectacle". A spectacular topic, indeed. Video footage to follow soon.