Jihadi Terrorism – Where Do We Stand ?
Second IRRI Conference on International terrorism
February 13, 2006

"Fighting 'Revolutionary Terror' in Western Europe and Safeguarding the Rule of Law "
Prof. H.E. Mr. Gerhart Baum, Former German Interior Minister

    For 10 years I was active in the German Ministry of Interior (attorney general) - 1972 until 1982, in the years 1978 - 1982 as the responsible minister. It was the hot phase of Red Army Faction terrorism. Later I was active over 10 years in the human rights area of the UN. I headed the German delegation at the Human Rights Commission and was the Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Sudan.
    There are different kinds of terrorism. In Germany, it was a national group with links to terrorists in Italy and close links to Palestinian terrorists with a anti-Israelian and anti-Semitic component. Their motivations were typical German: exaggerated morality against the elder generation because of the Vietnam War and the pro Nazi sympathy of elderly people. The RAF was a deviant, a criminal element in the context of the reformist movement in Germany, a movement existing also in other countries of Europe and in the US with the intention to reform our societies. There were not more than 35 criminals politically motivated and not more than 35-40 people were killed. The victims were singled out persons, members of the hated political and economic elite. The difference between yesterday and today is that we knew them all, except those who murdered in the last phase. At the end, all of them are or were in prison or are dead. We knew their political motivation and therefore we were able to discuss about the problems - not with themselves, but with people sympathising with them, in universities for example. The active members of the RAF were surrounded with people very close to their ideas, while not being criminal. It was one of my intentions to discuss with those people and to bring them back to our democratic standards. As the case of former Foreign Minister Fisher shows: he was not member of the RAF but took part in violent demonstrations. At the end, we were able to convince those who were demonstrating with violence that this society could be reformed within its democratic structures.
    This German terrorism was a shock for our society. People felt to be in war. There were hysterical reactions, which were used by the political parties against each other. This led to enormous restrictions in criminal law, procedural law and data protection. It was a first phase of restricting human rights for the fight against terrorism. While it was previously necessary to provide proof in order to reduce fundamental rights had, afterwards this was not longer necessary.
    This experience in my country was not strong enough to avoid a similar reaction after 9/11. Again, we had the discussions dominated by fear. Political parties were not strong enough to tell the truth: we cannot avoid the risk, only reduce it.
    Now, we have anonymous terrorism. Nobody will contest we now need new instruments to fight a new phenomenon: jihad terrorism. But we should find out if we cross the border between criminal law and war law. Today jihad terrorists are killed without investigation or trial: this is war law.
    I brought two cases to the Constitutional Supreme court in Germany of which one will be decided this week. This case will decide about a law approved by parliament with a two-third majority, which enables the air force to shoot down a plane becoming a danger. This is in our juridical system the first case that the State demands human beings to be sacrificed for helping rescuing other people. This is a fundamental ethical question. ( In the meantime the Court cancelled the law because of violation of human dignity and the protection of human life.)
    I brought another case to the Court, which was decided two years ago and concerned the installation of microphones in private homes. The Court said: this is possible under very strict conditions, practically never… Not in the case when there is danger in the next days or hours, but in the case to find out who is guilty or not. The Court said the efficiency of police has to stop when human dignity is hurt. This fundamental jurisdiction is now applied on different cases in Germany.
    We have to decide how far we can go. In my view the reactions were exaggerated, not only in Germany, also in other democracies as in America - the Patriot Act goes to far and you remember well the discussion which took place in the last weeks on this. The dangerous discussion on torture ended now by a vote in the Senate 90 to 9, an amendment of Kane was approved, which is a strict barrier against torture. This was a very dangerous discussion in the US. We had the same discussion in Germany. Can we torture to rescue a person? There is also a tendency to weaken the freedom of press and other fundamental rights.
    The problem is that we do not know the terrorists. Therefore, we are targeting million of innocent people and we are violating privacy data protection. Hundreds or thousands of people, not under suspicion, are now in the files of secret services or police. For example, the FIFA asked to check about 250.000 people selling tickets or perhaps coca-cola in the stadiums. They were all under investigation and do not know what information the secret services have about them. In single cases they are not allowed to enter a stadium and they do not know why. We have access to mobile phones Fly data are given to the American authorities, etc... We have to check if these measures are really necessary to protect our freedom!
    When we are fighting for human rights, we should ask ourselves how democratic countries should react to terrorism. We have to preserve our credibility. When I confronted the minister of justice of Sudan on the basis that its secret police can take everybody without lawyer or court of justice, the minister answered: "Look at Guantanamo, look at the situation in Great Britain where the habeas corpus is restricted!" Now the fight against human rights violations by democratic countries is hindered by the lack of credibility. Now, the priority is fighting against terrorism and against WMD. It becomes difficult to fight against human rights violations, because so many countries are committing them.
    An example: Libya is now an ally in the fight against terrorism, but nobody is discussing about its internal situation: non-democratic, suppression of opposition, no freedom of press... Mr Putin was criticized by the western world for committing human rights violation in fighting Tchetchenia. After 9/11 he became an ally in the fight against terrorism and critics calmed down. In early 2003 Arab ministers of interior agreed on an anti-terrorism strategy leading to further restrictions on freedom of opinion, expression and other human rights.
    That is the impact of the fight against terrorism on the human rights situation all over the world. I would suggest that we try to cooperate with the civil societies existing in the Arab countries. A very interesting report is the UNDP Arab Human Developing Report of 2004 whose sources are all Arab experts. It is a strong self-criticism. The conclusion is that there is no good governance in the region and that the lack of economic development is linked to the weakness in democracy. We should remain partners of the civil societies existing there and all over the world. That is the only possibility to influence the countries from inside.
    John Locke said: "security is an instrument to protect freedom but not end in itself";
I have to say: "we protect our freedom and we should not bring our freedom into danger when we try to protect freedom". Thank you.