Liberal Democracy vs Terrorism: Who is winning and why?

For as long as it has existed people have sought to fight terrorism[1] but, since the attacks on the World Trade Centre on the 11th of September 2001, liberal democracies have been given an excuse to expand the scope and boundaries of counter-terrorist measures. Bush’s declaration of a ‘war on terror’ may be the single most pertinent example of counter-terrorism in the 21st century. Using the US and the UK as case-studies, this essaywill seek to explain some of the dilemmas arising from the implementation of more stringent and intrusive policies since the declaration of a ‘war on terror.’ The first thing that must be assessed is the legitimacy of the war itself and how it fits into pre-existing just war theories. The paper will then identify actions taken to fight terrorism domestically before looking at laws passed or broken in the UK and US in the fight against terror and assess the impact of such actions. The final section will look at torture and the suspension of international law in the ‘war on terror.’ This overview of significant issues will portray some of the main difficulties arising from the execution of counter-terrorism in modern, liberal democracies. It will highlight controversies over human rights, civil liberties and the efficacy, or otherwise, of the policies introduced to implement the current ‘war on terror.’

Just nine days after the attacks on the World Trade Centre President Bush declared his ‘war on terror’ (Whitehouse, 2001). While a military response to terrorism may be said to have little effect on the democratic countries from which the attack is launched it will be shown that the ‘war on terror’ continues to have both a domestic and international impact. Many people have questioned whether the war is just. An outward sign that this is a real issue were the public demonstrations against the US-UK bi-lateral declaration of war on Iraq,[2] as part of the general ‘war on terror.’ Using the example of the Allies declaration of war on Nazi Germany as a paradigm, Walzer (2006) explains that war is justified when resisting armed aggression across international borders and ends when the offending military force is defeated[3]. The case of the general war on terror is more complicated than a war between nations. Terrorists are, indeed, armed and aggressive by most accepted definitions and, while not confined to a single state, they increasingly threaten international peace. We may, however, bring into question the efficacy of and, therefore, justification for a military response to stateless terrorism. Comparing international terrorism to the Hydra, a mythological creature with the ability to spawn two heads in the place of one when one is severed, Silke (2005) suggests that a military response “can have a negative impact far greater than many of the issues which are traditionally seen as root causes of terror” (p.241). He goes on to explain that, violence justifies violence and that when we justify violent retaliation we erroneously expect them not to think or act in the same way. The result is a never ending, increasingly violent war, which, therefore, falls short of Walzer’s definition of a just war as one that ends with the military defeat of the aggressor. We have been presented with military retaliation as a viable counter-terrorist initiative and, in spite of some civil opposition, liberal democracies continue to wage this war.

Schmid (2005) makes the point that there are two approaches to countering terrorism. One is to attack the causes of terrorism and the other is to fight “the manifestations of terrorism itself” (p.223). It is interesting to realise that the West's ‘war on terror’ has encompassed both of these by fighting the countries from which international terrorism originates and by imposing restrictions upon their own citizens in an attempt to reduce the perpetuation of terrorist activity domestically. These restrictions range from the implementation of stronger anti-terror laws to granting police increased powers.

In an effort to stop terrorist attacks on UK soil, metropolitan police have been given the right to carry and use guns. Presuming guilt rather than innocence and instructing police officers to shoot-to-kill may be considered a heavy-handed response and over-reaction to the threat of terror. Wilkinson’s (2006, p.61) observation that overreacting “could destroy democracy far more rapidly and effectively than any campaign by a terrorist group” is pertinent when considering the shooting dead of Jean Charles de Menezes (BBC News 2007). Schmid (2005) explains how counter-productive such an episode can be when he states:

“A police that is respected and trusted by the public because it reacts adequately without overreacting tends to obtain voluntarily information on criminal and terrorists in particular from society” (p. 233).

Conversely, a police force that overreacts separates themselves from the trust of the public which, in turn, makes their job of countering terrorism and gathering intelligence more difficult.

Such violence against the public was partly the result of changing and more stringent laws introduced by the government in an attempt to curb terrorism. Bamford (2004) explains that this included the introduction of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA), which gave authority to detain, without trial, any immigrant or Asylum seeker suspected of being involved with international terrorism. Those powers have grown and authorities can now detain any UK citizen, without trial, evidence, or charge, who may be suspected of involvement with terrorist activity. At the moment the detention limit for such suspects is 28 days but, with the new ‘Terror Bill’ the government is attempting to extend that to 42 days (BBC 2008a).

The UK is not alone in its suspension of human rights and civil liberties as a method of countering terrorism. In contravention to both federal and international law the Bush administration has set up Guantanamo Bay, a prison for holding what he describes as ‘unlawful combatants.’ This military prison is not only for people detained on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan but for any person, from any country, whom the US suspects of being involved in terrorist activity. Wilkinson (2006) describes how “the US government devised a system of military tribunals… [but that] very few [suspected terrorists] have ever had the chance of appearing before a tribunal.” (p.63) The result is that there are hundreds of people being detained without trial for an indefinite period of time.

As discussed above, a ‘war on terror’ is indefinite by nature. The implementation, therefore, of morally-questionable laws, as seen in the UK, or the breaking of laws, as in the US, on a perpetual basis tend to separate the public from the government. Such cleavages can not only hinder counter-terrorism efforts but may also encourage the spread and growth of terrorist activity domestically.

It is not only national laws but international laws which are being broken in the ‘war on terror’. Danner (2004) describes how, since images of US soldiers torturing Iraqis in Abu Ghraib were broadcast, in April 2004, many hundreds of cases of torture have been confirmed. According to the ‘Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’ (OHCHR 1984), which the US has signed, such actions are totally illegal under international law. Although he initially denied condoning the use of torture, Bush has declared that any means of gaining intelligence on possible terrorist attacks is justifiable and that “whatever [the US government and military] do will be legal” (BBC News 2008b). Sands (2008) describes how the television series 24, which erroneously portrays torture as a viable and effective form of information gathering, was broadcast across the world and especially in the US shortly after Bush’s declaration of ‘war on terror’. The accusation is that popular-culture is being used to lie to the masses and that this forced ignorance creates public consent to Bush’s desire to break international law.

Schmid (2005) argues that terrorism is a crime like any other but that it aims to change or influence politics. By implementing strict laws and using heavy-handed methods of policing domestically, liberal democracies have helped terrorists to achieve such goals. Suspending their responsibility to protect human rights and civil liberties governments have “use[d] the law as a political instrument against their opponents” (ibid. p.227) at the cost of the credibility of the law itself. It has been empirically shown that low levels of human rights leads to high levels of terrorism (ibid). This helps to explain the increased support for and appearance of domestic terrorism. Similarly oppressive tactics have been utilised internationally. The ‘war on terror’ has subjected many to torture and humiliation (Danner 2004). Recognising that “a key motivation for joining a terrorist organisation ultimately revolves around a desire for revenge” (Silke, 2005) many thousands of people have, because of US and UK foreign policy, been given a reason to fight the oppressive West in a war of terror. Meanwhile, using popular culture and the media, politicians and corporations, whose interests lie in the fighting and winning of wars around the world, have convinced members of so-called liberal democracies that they are justified in their violence. Ignoring the propaganda, what becomes clear from evidence and experience is that a violent response to terrorism is not working and that citizens of liberal democracies must preserve their freedoms by standing up against their oppressive governments and finding new ways to curb terrorism both at home and abroad.


[1]For instance, Schmid (2005) points out that the United Nations has been actively concerned with International Terrorism since 1972.
[2] Chomsky’s (2003) section on International Law and Institutions gives an account of how the US ignored international law when declaring war on Iraq and how their special friend, the UK, showed full support for their illegal plans.
[3] By this definition it is clear that the war with Iraq was unjust as Sadam Hussein was no longer pursuing violence over international borders

Please contact me for a full bibliography.