There has been horror and hope in the reports from Tunisia over the last few days - horror at the cowardly attack on tourists lying on a beach, but hope too in the fact that, after the attack, hundreds of demonstrators gathered for a rally against terrorism, as they did in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris earlier this year.
It demonstrates once again what terrorist attacks always prove: they do not weaken the will to resist and the commitment to democracy, they strengthen it.
However, Tunisia cannot do it alone. As the only democracy in the Arab World, the nation is an important ally in a united, democratic response to the threat of religious terrorism, but the attack in Sousse, in which 38 people died including at least 15 Britons, is a significant challenge to that democracy and part of a rise in Islamic radicalism in the country. One of the international responses to the attacks must be to help the country stay the course.
The UK has its part to play in this. In 2011, the G8 promised Tunisia loans of 25 billion euros which could be used to develop the economy, but four years on, the money has still not materialised. It was offered to Tunisia in the first place because it was recognised that democracy will only flourish there if there is investment and jobs and the same argument holds now. In the words of Tarak Ben Ammar, the prominent Tunisian film producer: "democracy cannot survive on an empty stomach". The G8 should honour its promise and provide Tunisia with the financial support it needs.
As far as the UK is concerned, the more immediate challenge is how to protect its citizens from attack. In the short term, there will be extra security in Tunisian hotels, action will be taken against mosques thought to be radicalising young Muslims, and most British holidaymakers have decided to come home. But in the longer term, British politicians must continue to wrestle with the question at the heart of anti-terrorism: how do you fight and defeat fundamentalism without infringing your citizens' human rights?
The first point to remember, as the First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said as reports emerged that a couple from Cumbernauld were among the victims, is that terrorists such as Seifeddine Rezgui do not speak for Muslims. "Their actions in the name of Islam are a perversion of that faith," she said. It means that the millions of Muslims who live in peace can, and should, be part of the anti-terror strategy.
To be effective and remain true to democratic principles, that strategy should also be based on evidence and intelligence rather than any form of blanket surveillance. In the wake of the Tories' win at the General Election, the Home Secretary Theresa May has revived the Communications Data Bill (or Snoopers' Charter as its enemies prefer to call it) which would require internet service providers to maintain records of every user's activity. But one of the reasons a million people marched through Paris after the Charlie Hebdo attacks was to defend the right to freedom of expression and the UK government needs to consider whether an appropriate response to terrorism is to further restrict individual liberties and the right to privacy. Can blanket surveillance ever be made to work as effectively as targeted, evidence-led intelligence?
As well as intelligence-led efforts to track down British citizens who are planning attacks, the UK must play its part in mobilising international support to bear down on IS. That might mean talking to regimes we would rather avoid, such as Iran and Syria, but it must also mean supporting and encouraging the democratic forces in countries such as Tunisia. Across the Mediterranean Sea, Greece needs all the help it can get to survive a huge financial crisis, but the Tunisian crisis is just as important. Help Tunisia and we will help the democratic world to fight extremism and prevent more attacks such as the one in Sousse.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article