Opinion - Interviews   

‘If in combating terrorism we undermine values, we are giving up too much’

— Photo: R.V. Moorthy

Stephen Toope: “Governments and NGOs should try and find ways where around certain issues they can build confidence by working together.”

It’s hard but that’s precisely why we have to do it. Post-9/11, there has been a tendency — because of fear — to focus on security concerns that actually generate repression and a lack of engagement across cultures. As universities, we have an even more important role to resist that.

We can’t as a set of societies around the world allow ourselves to be governed by fear. It’s hard to come up with rules that will eliminate all possibility of threat. Frankly, it’s not possible. We have to acknowledge that we cannot prevent all threat, all risk in any society. And when we try to do it, we create such regressive and intrusive rules that we actually undermine the very democratic principles that our societies say they want to uphold. It’s not that I want people to be hurt. Terrorism is not the right response to political challenges. But, if one tries to go so far in combating terrorism that we undermine the values we claim to uphold, we are giving up too much. Western societies are doing that, particularly the United States. The United Kingdom, too, has become a very intrusive, monitoring society. I’m surprised the English have allowed themselves to get so drawn into that.

There’s very little research to show that capital punishment is effective. So, even if you don’t want to talk about the moral considerations of how it is that states should behave to their own populations, there are a fair set of questions about whether it actually accomplishes any rational policy goal. And, if it doesn’t, then the government should ask itself why it should have capital punishment.

I’m always struck by the lack of confidence on the part of governments when they deal with the NGO community. In Canada, we’ve historically had a pretty collaborative relationship between NGOs and the government. Still, there are moments when you have to criticise. As soon as that happens, the government gets nervous and they don’t like it. All around the world governments don’t like being criticised. There’s nothing unusual about that. What is sad is when governments can’t find the places where there can be cooperation. In India, there should be places of cooperation on gender issues and issues related to minorities and indigenous groups. There are going to be areas of conflict; inevitably on security issues. I’ve seen it in Kashmir when I was with the U.N. Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. We had cases of disappearances in Indian Occupied or Indian Controlled Kashmir.

The government, although it cooperated, was very uncomfortable about those discussions. That will always be the case. But, governments and NGOs should try and find ways where around certain issues they can build confidence by working together.

I strongly believe in multilateralism. If the U.N. didn’t exist, you would have to invent some kind of organisation that provides a forum for all societies to talk to one another. At the same time, I’ve had enough dealing with the U.N. to know that it can be very frustrating; it’s a big bureaucracy. We have to understand that the U.N. is not an independent political actor. The U.N. can’t do anything unless it’s allowed to act by member states. We’ve seen not just big picture questions like Iraq but even in smaller areas that a lot of member states have been increasingly reluctant to give leeway to the U.N. to act. Even India, in areas of human rights, for example, has been very, very controlling. It’s not necessarily healthy because the U.N. is potentially a forum for dialogue and can be a forum for action in specific areas. Look at the immunisation programme. Without the U.N, we wouldn’t have made the progress we have on this front. So, if we give it up, we do so at great risk.

No. They are very expensive and the model requires high degrees of subsidisation. Countries that may get into this may find more and more expectations for subsidisation. I wonder whether that’s a good way to spend national resources. Besides, there are always promises that the best scientists and the leading professors would spend a part of the year on these campuses. It doesn’t usually work that way. Scientists are very dependent on the success of their labs. It’s expensive to set up labs. So, they’re not going to have two completely separate processes operating in different countries usually. It’s not easy for anyone to spend a part of their life every year in a different country. Often what happens is that people who get hired in these secondary campuses are not the leading people.

I prefer strong partnerships between universities so that we can develop really serious intellectual relationships crossing barriers of culture and barriers of political difference.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Signs of stability and maturity
Messy divorce, unhappy reunion
South Africa headed for leadership change?
Corruption has blighted Kenyan voters’ hopes
On dynastic politics
Communal mischief
Social threat
‘If in combating terrorism we undermine values, we are giving up too much’

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu