But for the highly cogitative recommendations of the panels and the UN Secretary General's proposed global strategy to fight terrorism, this conference would perhaps have passed off as yet another one of the many conferences that purport to deal with issues of human security whose output remain nothing more than mere verbose articulation of pious thoughts that have very little chance of being opertaionalised in any effective manner.

There is perhaps a need to restate at this point the obstacles in countering terrorism. There are several difficulties that attend the formulation of an efficacious strategy. The first and foremost is the lack of understanding of the phenomenon itself. Experts are of the opinion that the history of terrorism is one of the keys to understanding terrorism. The debates and discourses on this phenomenon have been many but passions and emotions have largely affected these. Past experience is no longer the only key to understanding terrorism, they aver. Newer elements like access to weapons of mass destruction and religious-political fanaticism should occupy our attention, although they concede that radical Islamism has not always been the main threat and may not always be so in the future.

Another impediment in understanding and combating terrorism is the fact that it is multifaceted and multidimensional, and because there is not one terrorism but a variety of it and no two terrorist activities are entirely similar in character, our response will have to take into consideration the objective conditions that nourish it. Coupled with this is our mental disposition against any new idea, resulting in the debate resembling what one expert characterises as "A parade of old hobby horses. People who have ready-made explanations of why terrorism occurs will not easily give up their beliefs, however proof to the contrary is produced."

It is also important to determine whether terrorism is the cause of a particular conflict or the conflict is the cause of terrorism. There are objective conditions that fan the flames of terrorism and these are not universal in nature but germane to a particular country. Each is predicated on particular sets of circumstances and each has its own reasons for gestation. Thus the imperative of going into the root causes to formulate appropriate measures.

The dichotomy that the states fighting terrorism are faced with is that the counter-measures may themselves destroy the very system they are supposed to protect.

It was refreshing to note that the panels of the Madrid Club addressed the problematic mentioned above and many more in formulating their recommendations.

However, a very common chord that one could make out in the deliberations of the 50 or so members of the Madrid Club, that is comprised of ex-heads of governments and states was that, democracy was the panacea for terrorism. For example Madrid Mayor Alberto Ruiz Gallardon told delegates: "Democracy is the best vaccination against terrorism." Those like the Mayor of Madrid that considered it to be so are perhaps overlooking the fact that, according to many experts, it was in the more democratic societies that terrorism took root and it was in the democratic states that terrorism was hard to combat. The reasons are quite obvious.

No doubt the experts' recommendations as well as the UN Secretary General's five point formula or plan, if you like, results from very deep cogitation of the issue and merits our attention, if for nothing else than at least as a "road map" (pun not intended) to contain, if not eliminate, the scourge of terrorism altogether.

In his keynote address the UN Secretary General laid out what, according him, was a "principled, comprehensive strategy" to combat the menace of terrorism, which could be characterised as the strategy of the "five Ds." They are as follows: first, to dissuade disaffected groups from choosing terrorism as a tactic to achieve their goals; second, to deny terrorists the means to carry out their attacks; third, to deter states from supporting terrorists; fourth, to develop state capacity to prevent terrorism; and fifth, to defend human rights in the struggle against terrorism.

The Secretary General's strategy is indeed very comprehensive and there is a remarkable commonality in his approach and that of the Madrid Club experts. All are agreed on the need for a multidimensional approach. The need for understanding the root causes as well as the need for arriving at a common definition in spite of it remaining as elusive is shared by all. And there was remarkable accord of view on the dangers of dilution of civil liberties and human rights while combating terrorism.

However, the SG's underlying thoughts on his first recommendations suffer from a lacuna in that he has pictured terrorism as a phenomenon that would be amenable to a universally applicable antidote. The Secretary General, like many others, views terrorism as a tactical expedient. The reality is that terrorism is used both as a tactic as well as a strategy. The finesse lies in determining which is which in order to formulate an appropriate response. Thus to paint all the instances of terrorism as merely a "tactic to achieve their goals" as he suggests, is likely to prove counterproductive.

One could also take issue with the Secretary General when he says, "Groups use terrorist tactics because they think those tactics are effective, and that people, or at least those, in whose name they claim to act, will approve. Such beliefs are at the root cause of terrorism." I would humbly suggest that people do not choose the "tactics" first and then become terrorists but quite the reverse happens, in that compulsions, misperceptions or whatever be their motivation, force them to renege against the authority. The tactics they chose to follow are in fact a consequence of this. Furthermore, to suggest that the success of terrorism as a tactical expedient is the root cause of terrorism is a good example of the oversimplification of the matter.

By the same token, the idea of dissuasion appears a tall order, which compels offering a better option for redressing the terrorists' grievances than the motivation for their resorting to terrorism in the first place. No wonder the experts have called in one voice to look into the root causes of and the problematic in countering terrorism without which no meaningful or lasting solution to the problem can evolve.

The issue of terrorism needs the world to come together. Parochial views often stand in the way of dealing with the issue effectively. The Secretary General's recommendations have great merit and potential for tackling the issue.

The world must give it the full consideration it deserves.

The author is Editor, Defence and Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.