THE ROLE OF SMALL COUNTRIES IN THE FIGHT AGAINST GLOBAL TERRORISM

Distinguished Rector Devinsky,

Distinguished Vice-Rector Mraz,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Thank you for your kind words and for the honour bestowed on me.

I have acc epted with great pleasure the invitation to speak at this famous University renowned for its rich tradition. I accepted the invitation on the eleventh of this month, and I am addressing you today, on the twenty-fifth. Meanwhile the world in which we live has changed.

After the terrorist attacks on the United States of America nothing will ever be the same. The news we are all following day after day, hour after hour, provides sufficient foundation for this claim.

I have chosen the theme of my presentation in accordance with the changed conditions in which we live today. It is, I am certain, of interest to my country, Croatia, just as it is of interest to Slovakia, but also for a wide range of countries worldwide.

On the eleventh of September we faced not only a threat, but a bloody implementation of the plans of global terrorism. This implementation, the planes with passengers turned into deadly missiles, innocent people on their jobs turned into targets – all these have shown us that global terrorism is a real and omnipresent threat to our lives, but also more than just that. It threatens the way of life we have freely chosen, the very freedom built into the foundations of democracy to which we have committed ourselves.

Terrorism is not a phenomenon we have just begun to face. In its different manifestations and practices it is a continuous attendant of politics. Throughout history many have resorted to terror and terrorist action as a means for the achievement of their political goals, or of whatever they professed to be their political goals. As a rule, they have never succeeded in the long run. In the meantime, however, lives of innocent victims were extinguished.

In the period after World War Two the presence of terrorism on the global scene has been enhanced. As we are in Europe, let me first recall the terrorists who used to sow fear, insecurity and even death in Germany and Italy. Although they would not agree to being called terrorists, objectively speaking their ranks should include the Basque separatists in Spain and the members of the so-called Irish Republican Army in Ireland and the United Kingdom.

We are aware, of course, that terrorism has marked the Middle East scene for decades, and that Asia, Africa or Latin America are not immune to it either.

And although it has been quite clear for some time that terrorists cooperate with one another that they coordinate their activities, that there are states which, to say the least, watch their actions benevolently, until now there has been no readiness or political will to take multilateral, concerted action against terrorists.

That is no longer the case after the eleventh of September. The events in New York and Washington, and even more the investigations which have ensued, have demonstrated the existence of global terrorism. And global terrorism calls for a global response. We have witnessed over the past days the beginnings of such a response.

If we look for examples in history, perhaps only the antifascist coalition of World War Two bears comparison, in certain key elements, with the current antiterrorist coalition, league or alliance which is already operating and which is still being created.

At the time, a group of countries faced with aggression which obliterated freedom and democracy and introduced dictatorship and autocracy, judged that the Nazi regime in Germany, the fascist regime in Italy and the authoritarian regime in Japan could and should be faced only together, in an alliance. The bloc, known as the Allies, waged war with the other group of countries, the powers of the Axis and their satellites.

But this brings us immediately to an essential difference: the enemy of the Allies was known. Now the enemy first has to be identified with certainty, then found, and only then confronted. Formalists will say that such a confrontation cannot be called war, but we actually are at war. Of course, it is a specific war, but the war challenge to America and, through America, to all those who care for freedom and democracy, has also been very specific.

Having necessarily said that, I must ask myself, together with you: how will the antiterrorist coalition operate, and what is the role of our countries and countries like ours – that is, small countries – in this global coalition?

Of course, the contribution of individual countries will not be determined by their size but by the political will of their leadership and objective capabilities. Present-day circumstances, let me state categorically, leave no room for maneuvering or for neutrality. Let me repeat what I said in my address to the Croatian public after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington: "As of yesterday there is only one alternative: we or they."

Small countries like Slovakia and Croatia can join the antiterrorist coalition in various ways. The military action component, which, as I anticipate for many reasons, will be implemented through metods of conventional and nonconventional warfare – will be assumed primarily – I shall not say exclusively – by the NATO countries.

All the others can cooperate, or are already doing so, by offering logistic support in different areas: from the gathering and exchange of intelligence data through the opening of air space and providing availability of military bases on national territory to political action and lobbying.

Distinguished Rector Devinsky,

Distinguished Vice-Rector Mraz,

Ladies and gentlemen,

The development of ideas on which the antiterrorist coalition should rest and act will also have an important place within the scope of political action in the coalition.

Today I am going to present, for the first time, some of my considerations regarding this topic, and offer certain principles which, I believe, are unavoidable for our future action. Perhaps a little pretentiously, I could also call it a draft charter of the antiterrorist coalition.

1. The antiterrorist coalition has been created as a response to the challenge and threat of global terrorism whose attacks on New York and Washington have definitively shown that it threatens global civilization and the system based on the respect of law and human rights.

2. The exclusive aim of the coalition is fight against global terrorism in all its manifestations.

3. Membership in the antiterrorist coalition is the expression of the free will of the leadership of individual member countries and reflects their commitment to civilized life, peace, security and democracy.

4. The fight against global terrorism is waged in a coordinated and deliberate way, and its goal is not revenge, but punishment and the prevention of new terrorist acts – and, ultimately, the elimination of conditions for continued terrorist activities.

5. Our fight is not waged against specific nations or against followers of any religion, because terrorism knows of no religious or ethnic background. The fight is waged only against those who inspire, organize, promote and perpetrate terrorist acts, and against those that aid them in any way, whichever entity may be involved.

6. The fight against terrorism includes efforts focused on the prosecution of responsible persons, i.e., on the elimination of the inspirers, planners and perpetrators of terrorist acts wherever they happen to be.

7. The antiterrorist fight also includes efforts to detect and place under international control – or, if that should prove impossible – to disable or destroy all existing and potential sources for the production of weapons of mass destruction.

8. The fight against terrorism also includes measures to be taken against countries which either actively aid terrorists – in organizational terms, by intelligence logistics, arms and equipment – or harbour them and aid their escape. In this process it should be remembered that total economic sanctions as a rule affect the innocent population and not the regimes behind the terrorists or abetting them.

9. The actions taken by the antiterrorist coalition are planned, coordinated and then enforced through direct contact and consultation among member countries.

10. No action of the antiterrorist coalition may violate the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, and it would be advisable to take such action in agreement with relevant United Nations bodies.

11. The countries of the antiterrorist coalition will exchange intelligence data required for the fight against terrorism, and each member country is obliged, at the request of any other member, to gather specific intelligence requested of it and make it available to the applicant as well as to all the members of the coalition.

12. When a terrorist act is committed in a country, it is entitled to request the extradition of the suspect perpetrator and his associates regardless of their ethnic background, race or religion, the country of their current residence, their status and citizenship.

13. The country in which the suspect perpetrator of a terrorist act happens to be residing at the moment of the extradition request shall positively and without any delay respond to such a request, i.e., extradite the suspect perpetrator to the country in which the terrorist act has been committed and which requests the extradition of the suspect(s).

14. The member countries of the antiterrorist coalition shall offer and, if so requested, extend every aid to any country which becomes a victim of terrorism – ranging from medical and humanitarian through intelligence and logistics to economic and political aid.

15. The member countries of the coalition will agree and coordinate, and strictly enforce, in their own territory, security and antiterrorist steps in order to minimize and thwart terrorist acts.

16. Through strict law enforcement the antiterrorist coalition will thwart any attempt to have its activity abused as cover for any discrimination or endangering of members of any race, nation or creed.

Distinguished Rector Devinsky,

Distinguished Vice-Rector Mraz,

Ladies and gentlemen,

I have briefly, in sixteen points, attempted to summarize my vision of the principles which ought to guide the antiterrorist coalition. I believe that the establishment of these principles is not only useful but indispensable lest the coalition - which, let me repeat, is already operating albeit it is simultaneously still being formed – should turn into an ad hoc group of countries the number of which will decrease or increase in an uncontrolled way, a group which will always be dominated by a great power or by several powers only.

The creation of the antiterrorist alliance has been forced on us by terrorists. Let me reiterate: a global challenge calls for a global response. The response is the coalition. Since we are going to live with it for quite a time, because the elimination of global terrorism is not a matter or weeks or months, and the job we have assumed cannot be done halfway, I felt compelled to offer a concept of basic principles.

If my words should help others considering the same issues, if they have promoted or speeded up the work focused on defining and profiling the antiterrorist coalition which will certainly mark the beginning of the twenty-first century, I shall consider that I have done something useful by speaking and acting on behalf of my country, the Republic of Croatia, as the president of a state which was one of the first to call for the creation of the antiterrorist coalition.

Distinguished Rector Devinsky,

Distinguished Vice-Rector Mraz,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Finally, I cannot help adding a final point. Thousands of innocent people have perished in the attacks on New York and Washington. There is no doubt that, here and there, innocent people will also be killed in the military actions of the antiterrorist coalition. This cannot be avoided, however cruel that may sound.

I am saying this because there are people, whose intentions I cannot doubt, raising their voice against the use of force as a response to terror. Some even equate such a response with terror and claim that the propagation of the space of democracy can and must be the only response to terror. I am convinced that such critics of our current and future activities are wrong. The use of force has been thrust upon us by those who endeavour to use terror not in order only to reduce the space of democracy but to eliminate democracy. Of course, antiterrorist activity in the broadest sense cannot be imagined without a careful analysis of the conditions in which terrorism is born, without seeking an answer to the question: why does anyone resort to terrorism at all?

However, developments have progressed too much for our deceiving ourselves with the thesis that a subsequent analysis of the causes underlying terrorism and academic discussions will suppress terrorism whose iron fist has knocked on our door. Analyses are certainly required in order to avoid the mistakes of the past in the future. But now action is called for, and my presentation today has been focused on trying to formulate the basic principles which such action would follow.

Let me conclude with a historical analogy. Perhaps Hitler could have been stopped by democratic methods and the propagation of democracy if someone had analyzed the causes underlying Hitler's growing strength at the time of his ascent. However, those who responded to the dictator's growing appetites by withdrawal and appeasement prevailed.

And once the Wehrmacht war machine was set into motion, democracy had no chance. The response to force had to be force. In the war against the Nazis many of their opponents also died and were killed. With regard to global terrorism and to what we are and will be doing against it, I am afraid that we are in a very similar situation.

But the country which threatened the whole world under Hitler's leadership is today a strong and stable democracy. I believe that the world, faced with global terrorism, will become better and safer, more democratic and more civilized in the not too distant future thanks precisely to the determination of the countries which have decided to oppose terrorism united in the coalition.

Last but not all least: the war of the Allies against Hitler was not a war of civilizations, and neither is the present-day clash with global terrorism. Then and now civilization was only on one side. Civilization waged and wages war against noncivilization. Back then civilization prevailed.

And civilization must prevail today, too.

Our countries can only be on the side of civilization and all its implications. Because of our past and of our future – if we want to have it.

Thank you!