After Mubai, Beyond The War On Terror
Taj Hotel Mumbai, India
January 15th, 2009
I am here today to express the sympathy and support of the British people and the British government for the people of Mumbai. As I made clear to your Prime Minister and senior Ministers in New Delhi on Tuesday, we share your anguish, we admire your resolve, and we are determined to work in close collaboration to address the threats we face.
Seven weeks ago, when this city and this hotel were under attack, the citizens of this country and this city were faced with choices.
The staff here in this hotel could have chosen to think first of their own safety. Instead, they, and the police and emergency services represented here today, chose to risk their own lives to shelter and protect people they hardly knew.
The business people, residents and leaders of this city could have chosen to hunker down in fear of further attacks. Instead, Chhatrapati Shivaji station reopened just a few hours after the attacks, the Leopold Café a day later, this hotel and the Trident just three weeks later.
This country’s leaders have chosen to respond with resolve and wisdom, strengthening defenses, and calling for action by the Government of Pakistan to bring the perpetrators to justice. We support that call, strongly, clearly, loudly.
India’s response, Mumbai’s response, has been exactly the opposite of what the terrorists would have wanted. Terrorists succeed when they render countries fearful and vindictive; when they sow division and animosity; when they force countries to respond with violence and repression. By refusing to be cowed and quickly resuming their daily lives, the people of Mumbai have shown a remarkable strength and courage, just as the people of London did in July 2005. And by refusing to be drawn into a rhetoric of isolation or retaliation, the Indian government has shown good sense. Its patience and wisdom endures as a firm rejection of the terrorists’ fantasies of influencing world events. Its measured and robust response has given new meaning to Gandhi’s famous statement that ‘an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind’.
India is, of course, no stranger to terrorism. Neither is the UK. But these attacks were unprecedented, not just in their scale and barbarity but also in the fact that the terrorists targeted such symbolic buildings. This hotel was founded by the Indian businessman Jamsetji Tata, who decided to build a grand hotel worthy of Mumbai after being excluded from a whites’ only hotel. It’s a place where all Mumbaikers aspire to go, where film stars rub shoulders with politicians, where business deals are struck, and where couples are married. The Chhatrapati Shivaji station is a world heritage site that millions of Mumbaikers pass through each day. A place where, as Suketu Mehta once noted, no one is ever left behind: whatever your neighbourhood, religion, social status or caste you can "run up to the packed compartments and find many hands stretching out to grab you on board, unfolding outwards from the train like petals...”
As life in this city returns on the surface to normality, I want to talk today about how we address the shared threat of terrorism.
In terms of law enforcement, we have to up our game, working together to a whole new level. This job - identifying terrorists, investigating them, and bringing them to justice - is vital. We must also make it harder for terrorists to attack us. The UK and India are already working closely together to strengthen our defences around key buildings and airports. And we are sharing expertise to maximise security at major events too - preparing for the Commonwealth Games in New Delhi in 2010 and the Olympics in London in 2012, for instance.
But today I want to take a more fundamental look at our efforts to prevent extremism, and its terrible offspring terrorist violence. I want to examine our successes and our failures. Disaggregation
Terrorism was not invented or started on 9/11. But since then, the notion of a “war on terror” has defined the terrain. The phrase had some merit: it captured the gravity of the threats we face, the need for solidarity amongst allies, and the need to respond with real urgency - and where necessary with force.
But for a couple of years now the British Government has used neither the idea nor the phrase “war on terror”. The reason is that ultimately, the notion is misleading and mistaken. Historians will judge whether it has done more harm than good. But we need to move on to meet the challenges we face.
The issue is not whether we need to attack the use of terror at its roots, with all the tools available to us. We must. The question is how we best do so.
The notion of a war on terror gave the impression of a unified, transnational enemy, embodied in the figure of Osama Bin Laden and the organization of Al Qaeda. In fact, as India has long known, the forces of violent extremism remain diverse. Terrorism is a deadly tactic, not an institution or an ideology.
The global threat from violent extremism has become more real because technology enables terrorists to connect more easily with each other, whether to plot and plan or to ape each other’s tactics and techniques. But it is also more potent because Al Qaeda and its ilk seek to aggregate different local, regional and religious problems into a single complaint: the alleged oppression of Muslims around the world.
Yet the motivations and identities of terrorist groups - from Hizbollah to the Taleban, Tamil Tigers and Lashkar e Toiba - are disparate not singular. The more we lump terrorist groups together and draw the battle lines as a simple binary struggle between moderates and extremists or good and evil, the more we play into the hands of those seeking to unify groups with little in common, and the more we magnify the sense of threat. The trap to avoid is inadvertently sustaining Al Qaida’s propaganda – their claim that disparate grievances add up to a unified complaint. We should expose their claim to a compelling and overarching explanation and narrative as the lie that it is.
Laskhar e Toiba has roots in Pakistan and says its cause is Kashmir. The Naxalites say they want to overthrow the existing social order and replace it with their own rule. Hizbollah says it stands for resistance to occupation of the Shebaa Farms. The Shia and Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq have a myriad of fragmented demands. These movements are as diverse as the 1970s European movements of the IRA, Baader-Meinhof, and ETA. All used terrorism. Sometimes they supported each other. But their causes were not unified and their cooperation wholly opportunistic. So it is today.
Today’s terrorist groups need to be exposed and tackled at root, interdicting flows of weapons and financing, exposing the shallowness of their claims, channeling their followers into democratic politics. Political not Military
Second, the phrase “war on terror” implied a belief that the correct response to the terrorist threat was primarily a military one: to track down and kill a hardcore of extremists. But as General Petraeus said to me and others in Iraq, the coalition there could not kill its way out of the problems of insurgency and civil strife.
This is what divides supporters and opponents of the current military action in Gaza. As we speak the fighting continues. I reiterate the call of UNSCR 1860 for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to full Israeli withdrawal.
Similar issues are raised by the debate about the appropriate response to the Mumbai attacks. We have said publicly that we know that attacks were carried out by Lashkar e Toiba, operating from the territory of Pakistan, and that those who were responsible must be brought to justice. We have been pressing the Government of Pakistan to take urgent and effective action to break up the terror networks on its soil. When I visit Islamabad later this week, I will underline that there must be zero tolerance for such organisations.
This is a massive issue after the anguish of the last seven weeks. You have been attacked – whether Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Jew or Christian – for what you stand for. It is also a big issue for us too – the majority of British terrorism has links back to Pakistan.
But instead of the easy paths of accusation and counter accusation, confrontation and escalation, when I speak to the leaders of India and Pakistan I argue for the more difficult but much more effective choice of cooperation. Your Government has made clear it would like nothing better, but it needs a committed partner in Pakistan.
The governments of India and Pakistan have in recent years sought to establish a new relationship based on shared interests. Prime Minister Singh showed great political vision in reaching out to President Zardari last autumn, after the Kabul bombing, and concluding the historic agreement to open trade across the Line of Control in Kashmir. I am convinced he was right.
I know from my own conversations with President Zardari that he is equally keen to change the relationship for the better. And with over 2,000 Pakistani civilians having lost their lives in terrorist attacks in the last year alone, he recognises the threat that violent extremism poses to his own country. The whole machinery of the Pakistani State needs to join him in this recognition, and to act on it.
Ultimately, this is a journey only India and Pakistan themselves can make. But we, and other friends of India and Pakistan, stand ready to support both countries along this difficult road. Three quarters of the most serious terrorist plots currently under investigation in the UK have links to terrorists in Pakistan. So what is at stake is not just the security of this region, but the security of us all. Rule of Law
Third, the call for a “war on terror” was a call to arms, an attempt to build solidarity by portraying a fight against a single shared enemy. But I believe that the foundation for solidarity between peoples and nations should not be based on who we are against but instead on the idea of what we are for - who we are and the values we share.
India’s power and standing in the Twenty-First Century is not just based on its population or economic growth. Its best asset lies elsewhere: it is the idea of India as the world’s largest democracy; as a diverse, multi-faith nation; and as a country in which all can express their views and be heard.
As the cornerstone of all democratic societies, the rule of law is a key target for terrorist organisations. Their attacks seek not just to kill and maim but also to provoke repression and spread disorder, and to leave us in a permanent state of fear for our safety and security.
So my final point is that democracies must respond to terrorism by championing the rule of law, not subordinating it. If we want to promote the politics of consent instead of terror and of democratic opportunity rather than fear and oppression, we must uphold our commitments to human rights and civil liberties both at home and abroad. That is surely the lesson of Guantanamo and it is why we welcome President-elect Obama’s clear commitment to close it.
All democratic societies under threat are wrestling to strike the right balance between protecting their citizens and preserving civil liberties. This is necessary: existing laws and institutions cannot be allowed to ossify. They need to be modified as we learn more about the threats we face. Your government’s establishment of a new National Investigative Agency is just such a step. But all changes need to be carefully reviewed and debated to ensure that they are both necessary and constructive.
In particular, we need to be alive to the impact of our counter-terrorism strategies on minorities. As the Sachar Committee reported, India’s Muslims remain socially and economically disadvantaged. But the political and civil rights established in India since Independence have enabled minorities to channel their views and concerns through democratic politics rather than violence. As all democracies adapt their laws, it is vital that we preserve these rights that make all sections of society more resilient to extremism. Conclusion
So we must look at our laws, our defences, and our preparedness - but not at the expense of our values, our ideals and our way of life.
And we must unite around a common cause, but with an accurate understanding of the nature and complexity of the threats – the diverse threats - we face.
Few beyond this city can understand the terrible experiences of those three days. But what Mumbaikers have demonstrated is that when the stakes are highest, when the threats greatest, it is then that the capacity of human spirit, human values and human endeavour reveals itself.
I have just had the pleasure of meeting some of the hotel staff whose acts of heroism saved so many lives. They took great personal risk. And their stories are truly inspirational.
But of course there are many who tragically did not survive:
* The Chief of the Anti Terrorism Squad Hemant Karkare and the other police officers who were killed when they were ambushed on the way to the Cama hospital; * Constable Omble who acted as a human shield to save the lives of others; * Hotel staff such as Rajan Kamble a maintenance man who worked at this hotel for almost two decades and was shot while guiding guests to safety; * The family of Taj General Manager, Karambir Singh Kang, who died when they were trapped in the hotel and couldn’t be rescued from the fire; * Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his pregnant wife, Rivkah, who were murdered by terrorists who invaded Nariman House; * And of course the scores of ordinary Indians who lost their lives: the Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and Christians of all castes and social classes gunned down at the Cama Hospital and at the Chhatrapati Shivaji train station as they returned home from work.
This was an attack on a horrific scale, of a horrific length. A strike at the heart of one of the world's most plural, diverse and tolerant societies - and on a city that embodies these qualities.
You have our sympathy, our support, and our promise that we will do all we can help you ensure that your losses were not in vain.
Taj Hotel Mumbai, India
January 15th, 2009
I am here today to express the sympathy and support of the British people and the British government for the people of Mumbai. As I made clear to your Prime Minister and senior Ministers in New Delhi on Tuesday, we share your anguish, we admire your resolve, and we are determined to work in close collaboration to address the threats we face.
Seven weeks ago, when this city and this hotel were under attack, the citizens of this country and this city were faced with choices.
The staff here in this hotel could have chosen to think first of their own safety. Instead, they, and the police and emergency services represented here today, chose to risk their own lives to shelter and protect people they hardly knew.
The business people, residents and leaders of this city could have chosen to hunker down in fear of further attacks. Instead, Chhatrapati Shivaji station reopened just a few hours after the attacks, the Leopold Café a day later, this hotel and the Trident just three weeks later.
This country’s leaders have chosen to respond with resolve and wisdom, strengthening defenses, and calling for action by the Government of Pakistan to bring the perpetrators to justice. We support that call, strongly, clearly, loudly.
India’s response, Mumbai’s response, has been exactly the opposite of what the terrorists would have wanted. Terrorists succeed when they render countries fearful and vindictive; when they sow division and animosity; when they force countries to respond with violence and repression. By refusing to be cowed and quickly resuming their daily lives, the people of Mumbai have shown a remarkable strength and courage, just as the people of London did in July 2005. And by refusing to be drawn into a rhetoric of isolation or retaliation, the Indian government has shown good sense. Its patience and wisdom endures as a firm rejection of the terrorists’ fantasies of influencing world events. Its measured and robust response has given new meaning to Gandhi’s famous statement that ‘an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind’.
India is, of course, no stranger to terrorism. Neither is the UK. But these attacks were unprecedented, not just in their scale and barbarity but also in the fact that the terrorists targeted such symbolic buildings. This hotel was founded by the Indian businessman Jamsetji Tata, who decided to build a grand hotel worthy of Mumbai after being excluded from a whites’ only hotel. It’s a place where all Mumbaikers aspire to go, where film stars rub shoulders with politicians, where business deals are struck, and where couples are married. The Chhatrapati Shivaji station is a world heritage site that millions of Mumbaikers pass through each day. A place where, as Suketu Mehta once noted, no one is ever left behind: whatever your neighbourhood, religion, social status or caste you can "run up to the packed compartments and find many hands stretching out to grab you on board, unfolding outwards from the train like petals...”
As life in this city returns on the surface to normality, I want to talk today about how we address the shared threat of terrorism.
In terms of law enforcement, we have to up our game, working together to a whole new level. This job - identifying terrorists, investigating them, and bringing them to justice - is vital. We must also make it harder for terrorists to attack us. The UK and India are already working closely together to strengthen our defences around key buildings and airports. And we are sharing expertise to maximise security at major events too - preparing for the Commonwealth Games in New Delhi in 2010 and the Olympics in London in 2012, for instance.
But today I want to take a more fundamental look at our efforts to prevent extremism, and its terrible offspring terrorist violence. I want to examine our successes and our failures. Disaggregation
Terrorism was not invented or started on 9/11. But since then, the notion of a “war on terror” has defined the terrain. The phrase had some merit: it captured the gravity of the threats we face, the need for solidarity amongst allies, and the need to respond with real urgency - and where necessary with force.
But for a couple of years now the British Government has used neither the idea nor the phrase “war on terror”. The reason is that ultimately, the notion is misleading and mistaken. Historians will judge whether it has done more harm than good. But we need to move on to meet the challenges we face.
The issue is not whether we need to attack the use of terror at its roots, with all the tools available to us. We must. The question is how we best do so.
The notion of a war on terror gave the impression of a unified, transnational enemy, embodied in the figure of Osama Bin Laden and the organization of Al Qaeda. In fact, as India has long known, the forces of violent extremism remain diverse. Terrorism is a deadly tactic, not an institution or an ideology.
The global threat from violent extremism has become more real because technology enables terrorists to connect more easily with each other, whether to plot and plan or to ape each other’s tactics and techniques. But it is also more potent because Al Qaeda and its ilk seek to aggregate different local, regional and religious problems into a single complaint: the alleged oppression of Muslims around the world.
Yet the motivations and identities of terrorist groups - from Hizbollah to the Taleban, Tamil Tigers and Lashkar e Toiba - are disparate not singular. The more we lump terrorist groups together and draw the battle lines as a simple binary struggle between moderates and extremists or good and evil, the more we play into the hands of those seeking to unify groups with little in common, and the more we magnify the sense of threat. The trap to avoid is inadvertently sustaining Al Qaida’s propaganda – their claim that disparate grievances add up to a unified complaint. We should expose their claim to a compelling and overarching explanation and narrative as the lie that it is.
Laskhar e Toiba has roots in Pakistan and says its cause is Kashmir. The Naxalites say they want to overthrow the existing social order and replace it with their own rule. Hizbollah says it stands for resistance to occupation of the Shebaa Farms. The Shia and Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq have a myriad of fragmented demands. These movements are as diverse as the 1970s European movements of the IRA, Baader-Meinhof, and ETA. All used terrorism. Sometimes they supported each other. But their causes were not unified and their cooperation wholly opportunistic. So it is today.
Today’s terrorist groups need to be exposed and tackled at root, interdicting flows of weapons and financing, exposing the shallowness of their claims, channeling their followers into democratic politics. Political not Military
Second, the phrase “war on terror” implied a belief that the correct response to the terrorist threat was primarily a military one: to track down and kill a hardcore of extremists. But as General Petraeus said to me and others in Iraq, the coalition there could not kill its way out of the problems of insurgency and civil strife.
This is what divides supporters and opponents of the current military action in Gaza. As we speak the fighting continues. I reiterate the call of UNSCR 1860 for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to full Israeli withdrawal.
Similar issues are raised by the debate about the appropriate response to the Mumbai attacks. We have said publicly that we know that attacks were carried out by Lashkar e Toiba, operating from the territory of Pakistan, and that those who were responsible must be brought to justice. We have been pressing the Government of Pakistan to take urgent and effective action to break up the terror networks on its soil. When I visit Islamabad later this week, I will underline that there must be zero tolerance for such organisations.
This is a massive issue after the anguish of the last seven weeks. You have been attacked – whether Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Jew or Christian – for what you stand for. It is also a big issue for us too – the majority of British terrorism has links back to Pakistan.
But instead of the easy paths of accusation and counter accusation, confrontation and escalation, when I speak to the leaders of India and Pakistan I argue for the more difficult but much more effective choice of cooperation. Your Government has made clear it would like nothing better, but it needs a committed partner in Pakistan.
The governments of India and Pakistan have in recent years sought to establish a new relationship based on shared interests. Prime Minister Singh showed great political vision in reaching out to President Zardari last autumn, after the Kabul bombing, and concluding the historic agreement to open trade across the Line of Control in Kashmir. I am convinced he was right.
I know from my own conversations with President Zardari that he is equally keen to change the relationship for the better. And with over 2,000 Pakistani civilians having lost their lives in terrorist attacks in the last year alone, he recognises the threat that violent extremism poses to his own country. The whole machinery of the Pakistani State needs to join him in this recognition, and to act on it.
Ultimately, this is a journey only India and Pakistan themselves can make. But we, and other friends of India and Pakistan, stand ready to support both countries along this difficult road. Three quarters of the most serious terrorist plots currently under investigation in the UK have links to terrorists in Pakistan. So what is at stake is not just the security of this region, but the security of us all. Rule of Law
Third, the call for a “war on terror” was a call to arms, an attempt to build solidarity by portraying a fight against a single shared enemy. But I believe that the foundation for solidarity between peoples and nations should not be based on who we are against but instead on the idea of what we are for - who we are and the values we share.
India’s power and standing in the Twenty-First Century is not just based on its population or economic growth. Its best asset lies elsewhere: it is the idea of India as the world’s largest democracy; as a diverse, multi-faith nation; and as a country in which all can express their views and be heard.
As the cornerstone of all democratic societies, the rule of law is a key target for terrorist organisations. Their attacks seek not just to kill and maim but also to provoke repression and spread disorder, and to leave us in a permanent state of fear for our safety and security.
So my final point is that democracies must respond to terrorism by championing the rule of law, not subordinating it. If we want to promote the politics of consent instead of terror and of democratic opportunity rather than fear and oppression, we must uphold our commitments to human rights and civil liberties both at home and abroad. That is surely the lesson of Guantanamo and it is why we welcome President-elect Obama’s clear commitment to close it.
All democratic societies under threat are wrestling to strike the right balance between protecting their citizens and preserving civil liberties. This is necessary: existing laws and institutions cannot be allowed to ossify. They need to be modified as we learn more about the threats we face. Your government’s establishment of a new National Investigative Agency is just such a step. But all changes need to be carefully reviewed and debated to ensure that they are both necessary and constructive.
In particular, we need to be alive to the impact of our counter-terrorism strategies on minorities. As the Sachar Committee reported, India’s Muslims remain socially and economically disadvantaged. But the political and civil rights established in India since Independence have enabled minorities to channel their views and concerns through democratic politics rather than violence. As all democracies adapt their laws, it is vital that we preserve these rights that make all sections of society more resilient to extremism. Conclusion
So we must look at our laws, our defences, and our preparedness - but not at the expense of our values, our ideals and our way of life.
And we must unite around a common cause, but with an accurate understanding of the nature and complexity of the threats – the diverse threats - we face.
Few beyond this city can understand the terrible experiences of those three days. But what Mumbaikers have demonstrated is that when the stakes are highest, when the threats greatest, it is then that the capacity of human spirit, human values and human endeavour reveals itself.
I have just had the pleasure of meeting some of the hotel staff whose acts of heroism saved so many lives. They took great personal risk. And their stories are truly inspirational.
But of course there are many who tragically did not survive:
* The Chief of the Anti Terrorism Squad Hemant Karkare and the other police officers who were killed when they were ambushed on the way to the Cama hospital; * Constable Omble who acted as a human shield to save the lives of others; * Hotel staff such as Rajan Kamble a maintenance man who worked at this hotel for almost two decades and was shot while guiding guests to safety; * The family of Taj General Manager, Karambir Singh Kang, who died when they were trapped in the hotel and couldn’t be rescued from the fire; * Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his pregnant wife, Rivkah, who were murdered by terrorists who invaded Nariman House; * And of course the scores of ordinary Indians who lost their lives: the Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and Christians of all castes and social classes gunned down at the Cama Hospital and at the Chhatrapati Shivaji train station as they returned home from work.
This was an attack on a horrific scale, of a horrific length. A strike at the heart of one of the world's most plural, diverse and tolerant societies - and on a city that embodies these qualities.
You have our sympathy, our support, and our promise that we will do all we can help you ensure that your losses were not in vain.
No comments:
Post a Comment