President Bush has just received an intelligence report from his top counter terrorism advisers. It concludes that the United States is losing ground in its fight against Al Qaeda. It is a bad news but certainly not a surprising one.

Since September 11 terrorism has been part of our daily life. For some experts the international community has entered a new historical era. Terrorism is now the main threat to worldwide security. This statement is both controversial and obvious. Controversial because terrorism has not appeared out of the blue on 9/11. No doubt that these tragic attacks are a historical event. But they have not radically changed the structure of international relations. The balance of forces among great powers has not been really modified, nor has been the nature of huge challenges the world must cope with. For instance, the lack of access to drinking water or the spread of small weapons are much more deadly than terrorist attacks. As a global threat to the very existence of mankind, climate change and global warming are also more dangerous.

Nevertheless, terrorism turns out to be an uncontested challenge. The most powerful country on Earth, the United States, has defined it as its strategic priority. The same preoccupation exists among most of its allies. According to recurrent polls, it is the public opinions’ utmost source of concern, at least in developed countries. Therefore we must live with terrorism. It is a long lasting challenge which will not disappear soon and quickly.

The condemnation of terrorism is almost unanimous. Its definition is more difficult. Those considered terrorists by some people are called resistance fighters by others. So? it seems to be impossible to rely on motives to define terrorism. A common approach of terrorism could be suggested as such: it is a violent action, engaged for political reasons and aimed at hurting civilians in an indiscriminate way. For this reason it is not only politically but also morally condemnable. Notwithstanding, a disagreement remains: is terrorism only linked to infra national groups or may it sometimes be connected to State actions, such as the bombing of a city? In fact, is there a State terrorism? There is a huge ideological debate over this issue.

Since George W. Bush made the war on terror the bedrock of his international policy, one has sometimes the feeling to be the helpless witness of a nightmare scenario. If the goal - to fight terror - is widely accepted, the tools used to reach it are heavily contested. According to Bush, war on terror, , reminds the story of a drunk man who has lost his keys but prefer to seek them where there is some light and not where he is supposed to have lost it. The point is that it is easier to look for something where you can see, which is probably more comfortable but not more efficient. The US policy shows a refusal to tackle the political roots of terror and a tendency to favor military options. Bush probably thought that it was easier to increase military expenditure than to cope with the political roots of terror. But for sure he has as few chances to win this kind of war as the drunk man to find his keys.

Who could seriously consider that the war in Iraq was an appropriate answer to 9-11 attacks? Who could still claim that this war was an efficient way to fight terrorism? To the contrary, who could deny that it has fueled more terrorism? Who is still convinced that it was not very dangerous to change the strategic and political map of the Middle East before having solved, even partly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? But unfortunately it was not President Bush’s only mistake. Not only has he added fuel on the fire he pretended to extinct, but he has also given arguments to his foes. According to him, terrorists hate democracy, while he pretends to protect it. But in that case, why damaging its very principles?? From the civil rights restrictions in the USA (Patriot Act) to the supreme shames of Abu Ghraib or Guantánamo, Bush added to the strategic failure a moral one. And this moral failure increased the strategic disaster.

Illegal imprisonments, excessive repression, bombings of civilians, torture and daily humiliations are strong incentives to turn peaceful people into terrorists.

Respect of legal procedures and international law is becoming a geopolitical matter. One must admit that even if there is a difference between democratic and non democratic regimes, there is another one between the one which respect their own principles and the others. It is not true to assert that fighting terrorism is not possible if bound by respect of law and human rights. To the contrary efficiency requests to stick to it.

European and Asian allies must support the goal of fighting terrorism, because their own security depends on it. But they should put ahead human rights and the respect of international law and dare to say to Washington their disagreement when they think that the US policy is on the wrong track. Democracies must be spotless. Being exemplary is the only way for democracy to show its strength.