A sequel to:
“MARCH IN MADRID”, www.SustainabiliTank.info, Real World’s News
button,
article March 4, 2005, and Book Review posted March 5, 2005 -
“MODERN
JIHAD: Tracing the Dollars Behind the Terror”, by Loretta
Napoleoni.

March 11, 2004 was the day trains were blown up in Madrid by the
Osama
Bin Laden trained terrorists killing 192 people and injuring over
2,000.
3/11 2005, was the first memorial anniversary.

At the Gibraltar, Spain is just 13 miles away from Morocco; from cities
in
Morocco one can reach Spain by boat or ferry, in one or two hours.
Spain
has a population of about one million Muslims and some of them came
specifically to use Europe as a base for warfare against the western
way of
life. There is indication that Islamic radicals have used Spain as a
safe
haven since 1994; the hash trade was a source of financing for their
activities. The number of illegally present Arabs is not known, as
they
could come and go easily. Spain believed that they will never attack
this
safe-haven, and Spain’s worries were the Basque separatists.

(1) On the first anniversary one can see that the Islamic
Fundamendalists’
threat is now considered the main threat to security in Spain, and not
the
threat from ETA, the Basque separatist underground.
The Zapatero government has made overtures to nationalists in the
Basque
region and in Catalonia managing to decrease tensions with separatists.

(2) After 3/11 in Madrid, European governments have devoted new
resources
to counteracting the terrorist threat. France, Belgium, Germany, and
Italy
have made dozens of terrorism-related arrests, and perhaps not just by
coincidence, Britain has enacted a tough, and somewhat controversial,
new
package of laws on Friday March 11, 2005.

(3) On March 11, 2005, The Islamic Commission of Spain, that
represents 70
percent of the 200 or so Sunni mosques in Spain, declared the first
“fatwa”,
or Islamic edict, against Osama Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda. These
were,
world-wide, the first Moslem clerics to do so! Personally I can
remember
how I argued at the Center for UN Reform Education (CURE), in New York,
back
in December 2001, that I can have no respect for the Islamic religion
without hearing from at least three Imams that the perpetrators of the
New
York 9/11 did not go to haven - but went to hell. Seemingly this was
never
requested from the US based mosques, as it was never requested from the
Palestinian clerics that were praising the suicide bombers in Israel -
the
Spaniards must thus be doing something better then what was done in the
US.

(4) Spain has reorganized, centralized, and made much more efficient
its
counter-terrorism forces and sharpened its cooperation with similar
organizations outside Spain. It also established a central DNA
information
bank.

(5) On March 11, 2005, the Spanish parliamentary commission, charted
in
July 2004 to draw security lessons from the attack, has presented its
preliminary findings that included 136 measures. The deliberations of
the
commission became politicized, but nevertheless, a quiet revolution has
overtaken Spain’s security forces. The politicization resulted from
the
attempt of the opposition to reject the submission under the pretext
that it
did not look enough into the possibility of an Al-Qaeda - ETA nexus,
this
despite the fact that Spain, after detaining over 1,000 people in
terrorism-related cases in the last year, is holding 131 Islamic
radicals,
of whom 40 North-Africans were caught in a plot to blow up the Madrid
courthouse complex. Of 79 suspects believed to be involved in the
Madrid
train bombings, 24 are in jail and awaiting trial; seven individuals
connected to the train bombings committed suicide rather then
allow to be caught. Evidence of a Pakistani cell has emerged since the
bombings, 10 are in jail and a plot to attack high-profile buildings in
Barcelona has been uncovered - including the 44-story Mapfre Tower and
the
44-story Hotel Arts - the two buildings known as Spain’s “twin tower”s.
The
police seized several pounds of cocaine and more than $20,000 in cash,
and
evidence the cell sent money to cells in Pakistan that were loyal to
Al-Qaeda and involved in the killing in Pakistan, in 2002, of Wall
Street
Journal Jewish reporter Daniel Pearl. A Syrian, Imad Eddin Barakat
Yarkas,
who is held in custody, is believed to have been the Al-Qaeda leader in
Spain, but his connection to the Madrid bombings was not proven yet.
Evidence has been found that Spain is still an Al-Qaeda target even
though
the present government does not have troops in Iraq anymore.

(6) Prime Minister Zapatero suggested to the Club of Madrid to
organize a
Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security under the patronage of His
Majesty the King of Spain. The Club of Madrid is a body chaired by
the
Former President of Brazil, Mr. Fernando Henrique Cardozo, who also
chaired
the Group of Eminent People that advised the UN Secretary-General in
his
attempt to improve the work of the United Nations. The Club of Madrid
membership is of former heads of State; from the US, former President
Bill
Clinton is a member. The meetings were set for Tuesday March 7 -
Thursday
March 10, with 200 experts on terrorism from all over the world
present.
Following the deliberations, on March 11, the conclusions of the
meetings
were released as the “Agenda of Madrid”. ( www.ClubMadrid.org )

The Agenda of Madrid is a democratic strategy of how to confront
terrorism.
It includes “The Madrid Principles” - a set of guidelines aimed at
shaping
democratic response to terrorism, and “The Madrid Policy
Recommendations”
which are some practical steps that democracies can take to make the
international struggle against terrorism more effective.

On Tuesday March 7 - The debates were held in four thematic areas:

• I The underlying causes of terrorism,
• II how to confront the problem of terrorism,
• III democratic answers to terrorism,
• IV the role of civil society.

The DEFINITION of TERRORISM for the conference was clear:

ANY ACTION, IN ADDITION TO ACTIONS ALREADY SPECIFIED BY THE EXISTING
CONVENTIONS ON ASPECTS OF TERRORISM, THE GENEVA CONVENTION, AND UN
SECURITY
COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1566 (2004), THAT IS INTENDED TO CAUSE DEATH OR
SERIOUS
BODILY HARM TO CIVILIANS OR NON-COMBATANTS, WHEN THE PURPOSE OF SUCH
ACT, BY
ITS NATURE OR CONTEXT, IS TO INTIMIDATE A POPULATION, OR TO COMPEL A
GOVERNMENT OR AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION TO DO, OR TO ABSTAIN FROM
DOING,
ANY ACT”.

Each area was then divided in a series of Working Groups as follows:

for I
1. Individual and Psychological Explanations,
2. Political Explanations,
3. Economic Factors,
4. Religion and Religious Extremism,
5. Cultural Explanations.

   for II

6. Policing,
7. Intelligence,
8. Military Responses,
9. Terrorist Finances,
10. Legal Responses.

    for III

11. Human Rights,
12. Promoting Democracy and Accountable Government,
13. International Institutions,

    for IV

14. Citizens as Actors,
15. Civil Society and Political Violence,
16. Strategies Against Violence.

A fifth area was added at the conference as an Ad hoc Working Group
(17)
on Science and Technology under (V) - International Institutions
Oversight.

These 17 Working Groups, after general debate, met in private closed
sessions followed by meetings in order to integrate their findings.
Obviously, all Working Groups, at the high level of competence, were
important, but I will mention two that seemed to me central:

WG 9 on Terrorist Finance chaired by the author of the book we
reviewed.
The task of this WG was described as - “No terrorist organization can
operate without financial resources. This working group debates the
most
important measures that need to be taken by governments and the
financial
community in order to make it more difficult for terrorist
organizations to
fund their activities”.

WG 10 on Legal Responses - “The rise of international terrorism calls
for
new legal frameworks and increased co-operation at the international
level.
What new laws are required to cope with the terrorist threat?
How can international agreements be made more responsive to the demands
of
the new security environment?”

The Wednesday March 8, program included parallel sessions on topics
like:

• The War On Terror and the Arab-Israeli Conflict,

• Protecting the Humanitarian Space in the Face of Violence and Terror,
• Democratic Reform in the Arab World,
• From Conflict to Peace; Lessons from the Frontline,
• Immigration: Is Integration Failing?,
• Missing the Plot? The Politics of Intelligence Post 9/11, with
  Richard
  Ben Veniste, Commissioner, The Commission on the Attacks Against
  America,
  USA, as moderator, and discussion leaders from Spain, Russia, and the
  Secretary-General of Interpol,

• Balancing the Agenda: How to Promote Development and Fight Terror,
  with
  the Editor and Publisher of Foreign Policy Magazine, USA, as moderator,
  and
  major NGO Executive-Directors, plus the head of the US Overseas Private
  Investment Corporation (OPIC),

• The Necessary Alliance: Strengthening Transatlantic relations in the
  21st
  Century, with Madeleine Albright as one of the discussion leaders,

• Freedom, Security and Civil Liberties, sponsored by the Government of
  Norway and moderated by Celso Lafer, Profesor of Law at the University
  of
  San Paulo and Former Foreign Minister of Brazil,

• Women, Terror, Religion, Democracy: An interactive Dialogue,
  moderated by
  Michael E. Conroy, Program Officer of Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

The day ended with a plenary on “Democracy and Terrorism” expressing
the
belief of the participants that Democracy is the most effective tool
for
confronting terrorism and political violence.

The Thursday March 10, program included parallel sessions:

• UN High Level Panel Report based on the UN Secretary-General’s “High
  Level
  Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change”, with its recommendations for
  the
  multilateral system regarding the terrorist threat,

• Terrorism Goes High Tech, moderated by Brian Jenkins, Special Advisor
  to
  the President of RAND Corporation, USA,

• The World Over a Barrel: The Politics of Energy. What contributions
  can
  business make to enhance the safety of the world’s energy? A
  geo-political
  assessment of the links between energy and terrorism. Moderated by
  David
  Buchan, Senior Editor for Energy, Financial Times, and with Former US
  Senator Gary Hart as one of the discussion leaders,

• Religion and Religious Extremism, sponsored by the Government of
  Norway,
  with a Professor from Harvard as moderator, and the Prime Minister of
  Norway
  as a discussion leader,

• From Violence to Voting: Armed Groups and Peace Processe, sponsored
  by
  Norway, moderated by Margaret Anstee, former UN
  Under-Secretary-General, and
  Andres Pastrana, Member, Club of Madrid and former President of
  Colombia, as
  one of the discussion leaders.

• Terrorism and Anti-Terrorism in Spain, a panel of academics from
  Spain,

• The Media and Terrorism: Friends or Foes?
• Stoping the Spread of WMDs, with the Paris Bureau Chief and Middle
  East
  Editor of Newsweek as moderator, Rolf Ekeus, former weapons inspector
  in
  Iraq as one of the discussion leaders, and Jonathan Schell, Senior
  Fellow at
  the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization as one of the
  respondents,

• The Impact of Terrorism on Financial Institutions,
• Democracy, Terrorism and Open Internet.

The lunch Plenary was on “The Way Ahead’, and should have included
former
President Bill Clinton, along with the Prime Minister of Norway, the
President of the Inter-American Development Bank, Queen Noor, and
George
Soros; moderated by te Foreign Affairs and Development Minister of
Spain.

The evening Plenary, in the presence of the King of Spain and the
attending
heads of State and Governments, listened to the UN Secretary-General
keynote
address - “A Global Strategy for Fighting Terrorism”. Then, followed
the
closing plenary with presentations by the Prime Minister of Spain and
the
President of the Club of Madrid.

(7) The presentation by Mr. Kofi Annan at the Club of Madrid :

The UN Secretary-General, at the closing plenary of the International
Summit
on Democracy, Terrorism and Security, started his presentation by
saying
that “terrorism is a threat to all states and to all peoples, which can
strike anytime, anywhere”. The mentioning of “states” is in the
context of
the UN being an organization of member states, but then the UN Charter
talks
rather of “peoples” - this difference between the vision that created
the UN
and the bleak reality of its state today, where probably at least one
quarter of the member states are far from representing their people,
can
not be swept under the red diplomatic carpet anymore.

Mr. Annan presented first what he called a “principled, comprehensive
strategy” built on “five D’s”, then he proceeded elaborating on each
one of
these “D”s in 2-7 points for each D:

1. DISSUADE disaffected groups from choosing terrorism as a tactic
   to
   achieve their goals;

2. DENY terrorists the means to carry out their attacks;
3. DETER states from supporting terrorists;
4. DEVELOP STATE CAPACITY to prevent terrorism;
5. DEFEND human rights in the struggle against terrorism.

First let us compare the text as prepared in advance with the speech as
it
was made - interesting the difference in the introduction of the 5-th
“D”.
The prepared text starts that point with “Last, but far from least, the
fifth D”, but the “far from least” was deleted from the speech as
given.
This may not be a trivial matter as in effect, in the context of the
meeting, human rights and democracy should have been the first and not
the
fifth point of the UN Secretary-General’s presentation. We know he
could
not do this with 50 member states in tow that are outright
dictatorships,
run not in the interest of “peoples”. Actually, the word “democracy”
does
not appear anywhere in the speech - this is probably not being an
acceptable
word in UN language.

One of the points under the fourth “D” stated in the prepared text:
“our
Electoral assistance Division is increasingly called on to assist
countries
with elections - often at turning-points in their history, as recently
in
Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq, and Burundi”. This is said in context of
“development” by the United Nations Development Programme ” that
“focuses
increasingly on questions of governance”. In the speech, the
Secretary-General may have realized that Palestine is not a full Member
State of the UN, and corrected the text thus to: ” …Afghanistan,
Iraq,
and Burundi, as well as the Palestinian territory”. I bring this up
here as
an example of the difficulties the Secretary-General may be having with
prejudiced members of the UN staff, and the simple truth that it may be
difficult to deal with terrorism at the UN, honestly, before major
changes
in the UN system.

On the other hand, doing above comparison of texts, it is fun to
mention
also two other little changes:
(a) “we need to do more, and we must do better” was changed to “we need
to
do more, and we must do more” - I guess, no recognition that anything
needs
corrections at the UN.
(b) when talking about the casualties of 3/11, the original text
mentions
“the terrorist attack here in Madrid”, and the speech added the word
“last”,
as in “the last terrorist attack in Madrid”, probably as a diplomatic
favor
to the hosts who are proud of the fact that no further attacks
succeeded
since.

Going over the many points mentioned in the 5Ds, I would like to
mention
specially two brave statements:
“terrorism is unacceptable under any circumstances, and in any
culture”.
“As for the right to resist occupation, it must be understood in its
true
meaning. It cannot include the right to deliberately kill or maim
civilians.”

In context of his first “D”, Mr. Annan backs the definition of
terrorism and
calls for a convention against terrorism: “any action constitutes
terrorism
if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or
non-combatants, with the purpose of intimidating a population or
compelling
a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from
doing
any act. I believe this proposal has clear moral, force, and I
strongly
urge world leaders to unite behind it, with a view to adopting the
comprehensive convention as soon as possible”.

In context of the second “D”, Mr. Annan said that we must make it
difficult
for the terrorists to travel, to receive financial support, or to
acquire
nuclear or radiological material, and he pointed out the UN Convention

on
the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism that has been in force for
three
years. Further on “We also need effective action against
money-laundering.
Here the UN could adopt and promote the eight Special Recommendations
on
Terrorist Financing produced by the OECD’s Financial Action Task
Force”.

In context of the third “D”, Mr. Annan made some of his strongest
comments:
“in the past, the UN has shrunk from confronting states that harbour
and
assist terrorists, and the Security Council has repeatedly applied
sanctions. Indeed, it is largely thanks to such sanctions that several
states which used to sponsor terrorists no longer do so. This firm
line
must be maintained and strengthened. All states must know that, if
they
give any kind of support to terrorists, the Council will not hesitate
to use
coercive measures against them”.

In context of the fourth “D”, Mr. Annan, pointed out The Security
Council
resolution 1373, followed up by the Counter-Terrorism Committee, that
require states to take steps to prevent terrorism. He continued by
saying
that many poor countries “genuinely cannot afford to build the capacity
they
need. They need help. The new Counter-Terrorism Directorate will
assess
their needs, and develop a comprehensive approach to technical
assistance.
Every state must be able to develop and maintain an efficient criminal
justice system. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime is experienced at
this
work and is prepared to do more”.

In context of his fifth “D”, Mr. Annan said that he “endorses the
recent
proposal to create a special rapporteur who would report to Commission
on
Human Rights on the compatibility of counter-terrorism measures with
international human rights laws”. I must say here that the sorry
condition
of the UN Commission on Human Rights makes above proposal very
questionable,
in effect, without UN reform, that is without figuring out the
membership of
UN Commissions, and perhaps even membership in the UN itself, there is
no
real hope that the UN can be a useful tool in fighting terrorism.

The world press tried to find the operative elements in the
Secretary-General’s presentation:

The AP signaled that “UN’s Annan proposes anti-terrorism treaty” by
saying
that he called for a world treaty to outlaw attacks targeting civilians
and
establish a framework for a collective response to the global threat”.

The Financial Times’ Mark Turner, started with that the
Secretary-General
said “that the UN should insist that, in the fight against terrorism,
we
cannot compromise on…human rights… if we sacrifice them in our
response,
we are handing a victory to the terrorists. Mr. Annan appealed to
states to
agree on a common definition of terrorism, and then to unite behind
it”.
“An international fund should be established to compensate victims.
And
states that harboured terrorists should be punished”. Also an
evaluation -
“He also offered clear signs of support to the US administration. This
included praise for the proliferation security initiative, the
brain-child
of John Bolton, the controversial US nominee as UN ambassador, to
prevent
transport of nuclear materials by ship”.

The New York Sun’s Benny Avni, was happy to find here “Annan To Push
for
Definition of Terror” and pointed out that Mr. Annan will request from
Mr. Mahmoud Abbas, next week when meeting him in Gaza, to publicly
endorse
the legal definition of terrorism as recommended in a December report
by a
high level panel at the UN of former foreign ministers and heads of
state.
Mr. Annan’s panel, which included such international figures as Brent
Scowcroft, the former US national security adviser and Yevgenny
Primakov,
the former Russian prime minister, determined that the inability to
unite
behind a terrorism definition ’stained the UN image’. Finding such a
definition, it added, ‘is a political imperative’ for the UN”. Mr.
Amre
Moussa, Former Egyptian Foreign Minister, and presently chief of the Arab
League, “threatened to resign” from the 16-member panel in his
opposition to
a clear-cut definition of terrorism.

Considering above, Mr. Annan may indeed have a successful trip to the
Middle
East if he manages to get Mr. Abbas to back the definition of terrorism
released in Madrid. Who knows, maybe the Madrid “Fatwa” will
strengthen Mr.
Abbas and allow him to build on it? Will the Hamas go along?

Personally, I wonder about the Secretary-General’s 5D pillars. Much of
what
he said there was very rudimentary compared to the work of the Club of
Madrid Working Groups. As per the “Modern Jihad” volume, the world
outside
the UN is freer to come up with operative ideas regarding
counter-terrorism.
Where Mr. Annan could have been more successful, I would humbly
suggest, are
the 5E pillars instead of his 5Ds. The UN is indeed struggling with
all the
subjects of those 5Es, while organizations like the Club of Madrid are
looking into operative measures that are needed to implement all those
items
in the 5Ds.

The five “E” pillars I am suggesting are:

1. Empowerment - as in empowerment of women;
2. Education - as in allowing the young people to learn what the
   modern
   world has to offer them;

3. Environment - as in learning that we are custodians of the
   earth for
   future generations;

4. Energy - as in understanding how the modern world works;
5. Economy - as in explaining how, established on a base of Good
   Governance and Democracy/Human Rights -
   Sustainable
   Development connects the Environment, Economic
   Development, and Social Development, for the
   benefit
   of all God’s creation.

“Modern Jihad: Tracing the Dollars Behind the Terror” teaches us how
the
disregard of the 5Es brought us to the situation that Mr. Annan thought
he
can loosen us from by suggesting his 5Ds. The truth is that only by
working
on the 5Es, one will ever get away from the misery of religious
extremism
that is now a main ingredient in the terrorism mix. Recitation of the
5Ds
alone will not get us away from the clutches of the drug dealers, the
Imams,
the diggers for oil that destroy our habitat, the money changers, the
pimps
- in short the colorful mix that has at heart the interest not to allow
us
to live in a better world.

I wish this little note at the end of my reporting could be attached to
the
proceedings of the Club of Madrid meeting.