It is essential that the new prime minister adopt an approach to terrorism that supports rather than undermines the government's efforts to prevent the radicalisation and recruitment of violent extremists. He can only do that by reviving the UK's leadership on human rights.
In articles in the Sunday Times and the Economist, the prime minister has complained that he has been constrained by public concerns about human rights from doing what he thinks necessary to defeat the scourge of terrorism. He has called on his successor, Gordon Brown, to adopt more vigorous measures to deal with the "methods and the ideas" of extremism.
Blair is right that the indiscriminate violence directed against innocent civilians practiced by groups like al-Qaida and its affiliates should be confronted head on. The attacks in London on July 7 2005 show that the threat is real and needs to be taken seriously. But as he enters No 10 Brown should avoid the mistake of thinking that counter terrorism measures which violate basic human rights or international laws will make us any safer.
However much he may feel he has been constrained, Blair has not shrunk from a hard-line counterterrorism strategy that has included, on the domestic front alone, indefinite detention without charge of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism, the use of control orders, and efforts to send terrorism suspects to countries where they face serious risk of torture.
As Human Rights Watch points out in a briefing paper published today, these measures are not just illegal under international law, they are also compromising the government's own efforts to prevent radicalisation and recruitment, a central component of the government's counterterrorism strategy since the London terrorist attacks. Since 9/11, Blair's approach to terrorism has undermined the UK's moral legitimacy at home and abroad and damaged its ability to win the battle for hearts and minds. It has also eroded public trust in law enforcement and security services, and alienated communities whose cooperation is critical in the fight against terrorism.
Past governments learned the hard way in Northern Ireland that security methods, which violate human rights are counter productive. Internment, Diplock Courts (trials without juries), and aggressive interrogation techniques all helped IRA recruitment and alienated many in the nationalist community against the security forces. The US will have to learn similar lessons as it comes to terms with the negative impact on its counter terrorism strategy of Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition and the CIA's secret detention programme. The long and depressing history of state repression in the Middle East shows all too clearly how torture, arbitrary detention, occupation and exile breed extremist violence.
Gordon Brown appears determined to portray himself as taking as tough a position on terrorism as his predecessor. This is understandable but it has led him to some rash statements. For example he has indicated that, like Blair and the home secretary John Reid, he would like to see an extension of pre-charge detention from the current 28 days to 90 days - a proposal which Human Rights Watch and other human rights organisations strenuously oppose.
However Brown has also indicated that he is willing to listen to those who would like the government to pursue terrorists in the UK through the criminal justice system. For example he says that he wants to reverse the continuing ban on the use of phone tap evidence in UK courts. This would make it easier to bring successful prosecutions against those suspected of terrorism, which is surely a good thing.
Such moves, together with some of Brown's statements on foreign policy, suggest that the PM-in-waiting is seeking to put distance between his and Blair's approach to counter terrorism. Brown, it seems, wants a counter terrorism strategy which is smart as well as tough. Let's hope that this is indeed the case and that Brown grasps the opportunity of his arrival in No 10 to set the UK on a new course, bringing its counterterrorism law and policy back into line with European and international standards, and long-standing British values.
It is essential that the new prime minister adopt an approach to terrorism that supports rather than undermines the government's efforts to prevent the radicalisation and recruitment of violent extremists. He can only do that by reviving the UK's leadership on human rights.
