From March 25th – 26th, over 50 people from across the world gathered to discuss threats presented to civil society by ‘terrorism’ and ‘counter-terrorism’ and, in response, to build the aims, structure and strategy of Citizens Against Terror.

Participants included, among others, grass-roots human rights activists from Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Iraq, US and Russia; UN and OSCE representatives, academics and researchers; legal experts in human rights and humanitarian law (Human Rights First and Human Rights Watch); representatives of international civil society networks (such as Civicus); families of victims (Voices of September 11); and media (Q news, BBC).

Six people were unable to reach the meeting due to visa difficulties and were greatly missed. They were Horia Mosadiq and Dr Niazi from Afghanistan, Kinda Mohammediah and Mohammad Maaruf from Lebanon, Basel Mansour from Palestine and Mohammed Said from Egypt. Their absence offered a poignant illustration of the unequal freedoms of citizens, worsened in the current political climate.

The armed Basque nationalist organisation ETA’s announcement on March 22nd of a permanent ceasefire provided a timely and optimistic backdrop to the meeting.

Background

The Citizens Against Terror (CAT) initiative was born of civil society’s participation in the Madrid summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security, March 8–10th, 2005, and was inspired by the millions who took to the streets of Spain after the March 11 attacks, to protest and mourn for the dead. CAT is an emerging network of citizens and citizens’ groups from across the world responding non-violently to the threats presented by terrorism and counterterrorism, in a post 9/11 environment, and aiming to empower others to do the same.

Day One – Saturday 25th March

The initial aim was to address the chief threats to civil society and individuals arising from terrorist and counter-terrorist activity and to identify effective strategies for their alleviation. These had been framed as: the threat of, and direct violence to the individual; the threat to civic activism and grass-roots actors; the threat to human rights and international law; the threat to global community and of deepening cultural antagonism.

Discussion of this analysis was encouraged, the aim being to identify existing and potential strategies that could be implemented or supported by CAT.

Session One

Presentations on threats to citizens from terrorism

Aladdin Al Radhi (CIPE) provided a glimpse into the varied, multiple risks and insecurities faced daily by citizens in Baghdad, from kidnapping to strikes by coalition forces.

Alfie Dennen (WNA) spoke of ‘We’re not afraid’, the hugely popular online initiative he established after the London bombings, to encourage citizens’ defiance of terrorist tactics.

Charles Mambu (Civil Society Coalition) recounted some of the violence faced by civilians during Sierra Leone’s devastating civil war and his work towards rebuilding civil society in his country.

Mohammed Fatal (Al Amal), replacing the absent Horia Mosadiq, spoke about the lack of hope faced by young people in Iraq today, and the work his human rights organisation is undertaking to counter this desolation and fear.

Frank & Mary Fetchet (Voices of Sept 11) spoke of their organisation’s work following the loss of their son on September 11th 2001 in addressing the needs of victims – from psychological support to lobbying for government reform – and their ‘building bridges’ programmes.

Plenary Discussion

Following remarks about the power and poignancy of these accounts, and of the inspiration provided by such robust responses, the first open forum discussion focussed on establishing common ground amongst the varied participants. A key initial issue was whether a working definition of terrorism, which has so far eluded UN efforts, will be needed by CAT as a foundation. Arguments were heard both supporting and opposing the inclusion of “state terror” in such a definition.

Various participants noted the absence of international consensus on a definition, and lack of civil society condemnation of terrorist acts. Others highlighted the grave risks posed by counter-terrorist measures. There was consensus that common ground on terror exists – whether through victims experience or common indignation at terror tactics – and agreement that context, history and Western-biased perspectives must be addressed. Non-violent strategies were unanimously endorsed, as was the need to enable dialogue on citizens’ experiences of terrorism that can engage with UN discussions on definitions. In both these spheres it was felt that CAT could play an instrumental role bridging citizens and policymakers.

Session Two

Presentations on threats to citizens from counter-terrorism

Fred Halliday (LSE, CIDOB) spoke of the need to denounce and hold to account both state and non-state actors. Stressing the need to explore historical contexts of terrorism he argued that interfaith and intercultural dialogue and understanding was critical to defuse the dangerous notion of a ‘clash of civilisations’.

Joanne Mariner (Human Rights Watch) highlighted the negative impact of the perceived terror threat on international legal principles and their application. Unprecedented in scale and pervasiveness, security concerns are increasingly seen to trump human rights – leading to the erosion of international legal institutions and the reappearance and legitimisation of practices such as indefinite detention and torture.

Yuri Dzhibladze (Centre for Development of Democracy and Human Rights) spoke, with particular reference to Russia, of the abuse of ‘counter-terrorism’ by authoritarian governments to justify restrictions on legitimate opposition and grass-roots human rights organisations.

Plenary Discussion

After general agreement regarding the major threats, plenary discussion returned to the definition issue and the question of when violence is legitimate. The variety of contexts and motives for terrorist tactics was raised, e.g. criminal groups in South America, and the perceived lack of alternative to violence by many suffering under state repression. A parallel debate emerged around the efficacy of engagement with radical or patriarchal cultural leaders. The challenge of state weakness or misconduct was agreed to be critical, but balanced with recognition of a failure by civil society to de-legitimise certain types of violence. CAT could take the lead in forging a consensus and arguing for a new understanding of security rooted in human rights and freedom from fear.

Several speakers emphasised the critical need for outreach to those marginalized, radicalised or genuinely afraid and the significant challenge of awareness-raising about laws and cultural misconceptions. In this context the initiation of an open intercultural dialogue, and the generation of an information resource base, was identified as a key early objective for CAT. The call was renewed for a wide and representative contribution by civil society to the UN process on definition, and it was agreed this could be facilitated by CAT and linked to the latter. The need for people to take ownership of this process and for dialogue to be in their own languages was affirmed by all.

Session Three

Presentations on middle-east developments and their implications

Shirouk Dillaa (Iraqi women’s network) outlined the diverse forms of violence faced by Iraqi citizens on a daily basis and the neglect of victims and lack of humanitarian assistance. She argued that state/non-state distinctions were often redundant and underlined the lack of statistics or investigations into deaths. She asked how CAT could support victims and their families, how it could mobilise the international community to give more support to people on the ground and appeal for investigations into violence against civilians.

Ahmad Nader Nadery (Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission) spoke of the resurgence in terrorist activities in Afghanistan and the failure of coalition action to address the root causes of terrorism. He pointed particularly to the negative consequences of coalition troops’ support for local warlords and the damage that secret US interrogation bases – to which monitors are refused access – do to the cause of human rights.

Lucy Nussebeih (MEND) read the statements of two Palestinian participants, Basel Mansour who was to make a presentation and Mohammed Maaruf, who were unable to reach the meeting due to checkpoint and visa problems. She went on to speak about the power of negative stereo-types of Palestinian’s and the collective trauma arising from occupation.

Plenary Discussion

The focus of the third plenary was to establish how CAT could best respond to these challenges and in particular how CAT could use ‘We’re not afraid’ to reach wider publics, mobilise broader debate around the UN attempt to define terrorism and support grass-roots activists by, for example, monitoring and publicising non-violent action initiatives. Emphasis, it was argued, should be on building a network of people rather than organisations and the potential to generate dialogue and sensitise large and diverse peoples should be at its heart.

The need for engagement with all parties was reiterated, to prevent deepening isolation and the perception of some groups as ‘faceless’ enemies. Several speakers asked how to position CAT to best advocate good governance and lobby for better legislation not prompted by, or seeking to exploit fear. Concerns were raised about addressing language barriers and global representation lest the organisation resemble a ‘commonwealth’ emanating from the North.

Session Four

Focus groups on CAT’s core aim and objectives

The aim at this juncture was to build on the consensus and flesh out CAT’s core aims in four smaller break-out groups. Convenors were asked to focus on four possible objectives oriented around the key threats identified above. Also open to discussion were the most appropriate and effective channels of application for CAT’s work. Each group reported its conclusions to the reconvened conference.

The nucleus of a mission statement was proposed, with CAT’s key aim being empowerment of local actors to challenge terror non-violently. Discussion regarding the possible value added by CAT centred on:

• exchange of knowledge and expertise with unprecedented scale and reach
• mobilisation of support and attention to local civic action
• national and international lobbying
• community of solidarity of individuals and organisations on the front line against terror – whether victims or activists.

Day Two – Sunday 26th March

Session One – Reaching Agreement

Building on the consensus of the previous afternoon, the final mission statement was drafted as the following, and is explained below.

Mission

To empower people across the globe to take non-violent action to bring an end to terror

We denounce terror, which we define as deliberate violence against civilians, by non-state or state actors, for the purpose of intimidation

Objectives

• To build a community of solidarity, to protect and support those challenging and those affected by terror, wherever they are
• To counteract terrorism and enhance human security through the framework of international law, including human rights and humanitarian law
• To address the contexts which give rise to terrorism, through research, dialogue and the advocacy of non-violent alternatives

The Mission

The core mission is intended to stress that Citizens Against Terror is:

About empowerment

CAT aims to counter isolation and fear by providing a resource and community of solidarity that gives people a means to act. This was seen as particularly important given that governments have previously dominated responses to ‘terrorism’ and often in counterproductive ways.

About People

CAT is primarily an alliance of people, communicating on a human level, rather than an organisational network. It was felt that at its core must be the empathetic sharing of experiences and building of collective action.

Global

Reflecting the international dimension and concern of CAT was a key concern, to counter the idea that citizens’ lives are of differential value.

About non-violent action

Non-violent action was considered central to an effective, long-term response to terror. It was emphasised that non-violence does not imply inaction and cowardliness but is a pro-active, demanding and effective strategy.

About bringing an end to terror

Participants emphasised that CAT is initiating a process that will require time and sustained energy to succeed.

Under the mission, a clarificatory statement was added,

“We denounce terror, which we define as deliberate violence against civilians, by nonstate or state actors, for the purpose of intimidation”

This was intended to make clear that CAT was concerned with ‘terror tactics’ whether perpetrated by non-state or state actors. In spite of reservations about security risks this was considered necessary to counter the selective, dominant application of the term. Participants also wished to clearly denounce terrorist tactics, and encourage others to do the same, and thereby to build the minimum ethical framework of the initiative.

The Name of the network

After debate on various names, the group decided to retain ‘Citizens Against Terror.’ It was felt that ‘citizens’ reflected the active participation and responsibility desired of members, and ‘terror’ suggested a concern with both state and non-state violations, as well as the psychology of fear which the initiative hopes to combat. The strap-line ‘acting together for a world without fear’ was intended to reflect a proactive rather than merely reactive approach, the global scope and concern of the project and strength in solidarity.

Session Two

The Shape of the network

Chloe Davies (CAT) presented the possible shape of the network, emphasising the need to establish autonomous regional or national hubs, managed in local languages, sensitive to local realities and need. She raised questions concerning key communication between these nodes, the legal structure of CAT, and possible funding opportunities. She outlined 5 key functions of the network:

1. Networking – by connecting civil society actors and types of expertise across regions for shared experience, CAT will enhance civil society’s ability to take informed, collective action
2. Public education and research – by making cutting edge research, testimonies and debate accessible to a wider public CAT will improve people’s understanding of the causes and effects of terrorism. By highlighting the successes of non-violent resistance as an alternative strategy, and by amplifying the voices of victims of terrorism, CAT will counter radicalisation
3. Lobbying/impacting power – by exploring ways and forging the community by which civil society can have more of an impact in security debates and measures increasingly taken at an international level, CAT will enhance civil society’s lobbying power
4. Dialogue – by acting as a national and global node point for dialogue on terrorism and counter-terrorism, CAT will enable the development of alternative tools for argument and meta-narratives concerning the threat of terror
5. Projects – CAT will run specific projects, facilitate partnerships and support local initiatives

Bill Thompson (Madrid11 Online Communities) then outlined a communications strategy, stressing the need to take advantage of but not rely wholly on web communications.

Key requirements were:

• A public presence (website, email lists, audio/podcasts, discussion area, action alerts)
• Co-ordinating tools (instant messaging, collaborative tools)
• A private space (for frank, secure exchanges)
• Small, efficient full-time team, supported by an international management committee

Discussion followed, focusing on CAT’s structure and challenges faced, such as:

Representation

It was agreed that decentralisation would be key to the network’s success, and that regional or national hubs were needed to be established to ensure the network was broad-reaching, and sensitive to context and language. Discussion followed on how best to reach people without access to the web. Speakers recommended using radio and local level meetings in remote areas.

Managing and communicating between nodes

The question of translating and cross-fertilising regional debates was raised and how to build a global conversation given these constraints. The ‘wiki’ model, allowing the public to translate documents, was one possible solution.

The ethical frame

It was agreed that the core aim and objectives provided a minimal frame and the idea was raised of building a more developed ethical framework, or set of principles over time, with much broader engagement.

Security

It was agreed that a balance had to be struck between guarding against sabotage and fostering a sense of ownership. It was also recognised that we would need secure channels of communication between members given the sensitivity of some discussions.

Funding

New media foundations were discussed as possible funders of the innovative online aspects of the project. The Jimmy Carter Centre, Clinton Global Initiative and Open Society Institute were also forwarded as possible avenues.

Session Three

Decisions

It was agreed that minimal funding was required to support a small core team based, for the present, in the UK. Chloe Davies (Project Director) and Peter Harrington (Project Manager) were elected, with Alfie Dennen and Bill Thompson as consultants. The currently anglocentric team was considered a temporary compromise in order the set the project in motion, and it was agreed that full concern would be paid to ensure the network was increasingly decentralised and global as soon as possible.

An advisory steering committee was elected to oversee the project’s development and ensure its global reach.

Robin Wilson (Northern Ireland), Miguel Darcy (Brazil), Mary Fetchet (US), Shirouk Dillaa (Iraq), Ahmad Nader Nadery (Afghanistan), Yuri Dzhibladze (Russia), Lucy Nussebeih (Palestine) Charles Mambu (Sierra Leone) Mary Kaldor (UK), Murat Belge (Turkey), Still to approach: Egypt, South Africa, China, Indonesia, India, Spain

The next steps

The conference as a whole recognised that September 11, 2006 presents a key date for CAT:

• September 11, 2006 is the 5th anniversary of 9/11
• On September 11, 1906, Mahatma Gandhi launched the first mass campaign of nonviolent struggle the world had seen, in Johannesburg, South Africa
• September 2006 represents the possible culmination of the UN’s attempt to define terrorism and produce a comprehensive convention.

CAT’s first project can be centred on this milestone, the initial aim being to initiate a broadbased, global dialogue on citizens’ experience of and definitions of terrorism to influence and support the UN’s process of definition. This could culminate in a ‘Citizens’ Convention.’

The internet can be used to facilitate dialogue and parallel, connected people’s meetings across the world, building on what was achieved around the Madrid summit. An event could be held in New York in partnership with ‘voices of September 11’ linking US with global victims of terror.

The September 11 project will drive CAT’s initial development, outreach and funding focus, which Chloe Davies and Peter Harrington will oversee. A website must be created in multiple languages and regional nodes established.

The delegates agreed to build on the momentum gathered in Barcelona, to promote the network and consider potential partnerships and future projects.

“The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step!” – Lao Tse