Global Security & Terrorism

The Dangers of Over-Reaction by Governments

Governments around the world are so concerned about the potential danger to their authority, at home, and to their reputation abroad, that they can sometimes give the terrorists an unplanned victory, by introducing measures which are so repressive than these are resented by the population they are meant to protect and damage its international reputation.  This is a particular problem for a democracy, governed by the rule of law and a paradoxically outcome that governments need to be careful to avoid.  The ultimate duty of a democratic government is not to protect its own period of office, but to protect the values of the democracy and the rights of the citizens.  When a democracy uses the methods and tactics of a police state it undermines its own institutions far more effectively than any terrorist could do.  In this context the fact that the United States has denied any rights under its Constitution, including the Fifth Amendment which prohibits the deprivation of liberty without due process of law, or under the Geneva Conventions to those detained at Guantánamo Bay, in Cuba, has suffered its enemies well.

“Amnesty International’s report points to an overarching war mentality adopted by the US

administration since 11 September 2001 which has led it to manipulate or jettison basic human rights protections for detainees, including instances of the USA refusing to recognize that United Nations human rights experts have the mandate to raise concerns about US actions in the “war on terror”.” - Guantánamo and Beyond, Amnesty International Report, 13 May 2005

In the long term the international damage to the reputation of the United States by its policies at Guantánamo Bay and its use of torture in other places, including Abu Ghraib jail in Baghdad, has been immense.  The U.S. can no longer credibly criticize other governments who mistreat their citizens by the use of torture and false-imprisonment, and it has become possible for America’s enemies to portray it as a repressive and illiberal country.  In my opinion it is this damage to America’s reputation which has been the real long-term cost of 9/11.

The danger that we face at this time is that governments fail to learn from America’s mistaken and ill-judged response to threats, and press on with controls over their citizens which undermine the democratic institutions which they have been elected to protect.  The citizens of the western democracies have fought long and hard wars against tyranny, and ultimately will resist the imposition of unnecessary and excessive state control as a response to a serious, but not nation-destroying threat.

Initially governments may see benefits to themselves and a strengthening of their authority in the introduction of the security apparatus that is now available to them.  They will claim that these are all necessary in order to effectively combat terrorism, or violent crime, or a combination of the two.  They will advised by policemen and the like that such investments are essential.  Policemen will always advise the building of bigger and better security systems, as Admirals will advise the construction of bigger and better ships.  It is the role of government to understand what is actually in the interest of a sophisticated democracy.

The systems can be introduced, although they may have only limited effectiveness against well-organized terrorist groups, are very effective in extending government’s control over and knowledge of, the lives of ordinary citizens.  The need to “fight terrorism” can also be used to justify foreign adventures which would otherwise fight little public support, the invasion of Iraq by the US and UK being the most obvious recent example.  In fact there has been no evidence that Iraq had supported terrorism, but in the face of the perceived threat many of the public were prepared to support their political leaders’ actions.

Western governments are now planning, under the guise of anti-terrorism measures in a cradle to grave control of their populations, something that would have been unacceptable in the past. The danger is that the institutions of the state will become so addicted to these controls that they will refuse to remove them, even when the need for them has long expired. In addition to governments and their bureaucrats, commercial organizations also see the benefits to themselves of the ability to tightly track all the citizens in a country.  The use of sophisticated systems to track citizens will readily yield immensely valuable data on consumer behavior and financial status, taxable income and expenditure. It is already possible to monitor all your emails, and telephone calls, and American libraries already track readers’ borrowings in case the government wants to see who is reading the “wrong books.” The average citizen could find him, or her, self living in a version of the Matrix, with little knowledge of the extent to which the state’s bureaucracy actually controls their lives. In my opinion it is the possible (and likely) extension of the powers of the State which represents the greatest threat to the liberty and rights of the citizen, and something we must increasingly question and regulate.  The bureaucracy of a State cannot be assumed to be acting in the interests of the citizen of the State; like any organization it will always act in its own interests first, and that interest is primarily to consolidate and extend its own power.  

The State itself also will have its own agenda in relation to other states and centers of power in the world.  Traditionally states have relied on “disinformation” and secrecy in order to further their foreign policy and other aims, something that was used long before Machiavelli documented the mechanisms of realpolitik in The Prince.  The modern state has, in the last hundred years, demonstrated its essential ruthlessness on many occasions, and not just when governed by totalitarian regimes. Democratic countries like the US and UK have used covert action, as in Iran in the 1950s, to effect changes in governments which were perceived to be acting in ways hostile to their interests.

So in my opinion the real danger from terrorism is not from bombs or bullets, but the self-inflicted damage that liberal democracies could inflict on their values and principles, by an excessive and extreme response to the threat of terrorism.  In fact the danger is that the threat of terrorism is used as excuse for the introduction of new systems of surveillance and control, made possible by new technology, which have the effect of reducing the freedom of the individual.  In a democracy we must never lose sight of the fact that the only purpose, and reason for being, of government is to serve the citizen.  The citizen is not a pawn to be controlled by an all-knowing state – that is the path to authoritarian control and an Orwellian nightmare.