 Torture is brutal and is horrible, and I've been a victim of, I would say, a mild form of torture. I suppose there are two types of torture that I've experienced. On the one hand, there's the torture which comes about by being in complete and total isolation from other human beings for almost a period of five years, by being chained to the wall, by having no books or papers, by living for much of the time in the dark, by sleeping on the floor for all those years. That could be seen as a form of mental torture. Physical torture, I was beaten and beaten on the soles of the feet with cable so that I couldn't walk for a long time, and I have been through a mock execution. Many people have suffered far, far worse than that. When I was experiencing torture, physical torture, I simply remember thinking, how can you, that is the person who's committing that act, how can you do that? You probably go home to a wife and family and lead a seemingly normal life, and yet you come and you can behave in this way. I puzzled about that. Why? How is it that people can do that? Then further, I realized that torture is not confined to any one particular group of people, any ethnic, religious or whatever group. It can be practiced by the most civilized of people, if you like, or the nations that have seemed to be civilized. I think of the torture which was sanctioned by America in Guantanamo, when it was said that waterboarding was not torture. All I can respond to that is, then perhaps if you say that, why not experience it for yourself first of all, and see whether it's torture or not, and I think you'll change your mind. But I quote the example of Guantanamo, simply to make the point that where this type of act is committed and has sort of a legal sanction, either the sanction of a larger body like the state, or the sanction of a group, such as a terrorist group if you like, then individuals feel as though they can behave with impunity and engage in it almost with a clear conscience, and what has to be pointed out constantly that this form of behavior is totally wrong by the state, if it's committed by the state, or it's committed by a group within the state. It is against all that is decent and right, and also it's ineffective. It does not necessarily get information in the way that people think it does sometimes. I am very much against the use of torture, obviously. What has happened now is, I mean, the whole shape of the world has been changed with this vast migration of largely innocent people who have nowhere to go, their homes have been devastated by warfare. If you've got to take it further back into history also, and you look at the dictators in these countries, these countries were formed by the colonial powers, and we didn't know what we were doing very much in those days when we put together people of different ethnic religious backgrounds and encompass them in a nation state. The only way perhaps that these nation states may be held together was by a strong central dictator. People might hope for a benevolent dictator, but you rarely find them, I mean, going back to the famous dictum of Lord Acton when he said, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that has, of course, happened, but resolving it by removing them by force, by creating so much disturbance, has created an even worse situation. I think the situation will eventually be resolved in that region, not necessarily by external powers, but by the people of the region themselves. But also we have to look at underlying motive. Why did we act in that way? And there are those that argue, and perhaps there is validity to their argument, that it was done primarily for economic reasons, for oil and to gain control of oil. Well, what has happened? How many people have paid a price for that, and where are we in the world at the moment in a disastrous position? I think today the work of humanitarian organizations such as the Red Cross has been made so much more difficult. At one time, not too long ago, and they really were generally immune from being captured or killed or warfare, I mean, the Red Cross or the Red Crescent was a symbol that said, okay, hands off. This is genuinely an impartial body working for humanitarian purposes, hands off them. That seems to have gone. Now they're fair game. So I think the pressures on people and the difficulties under which people have to work now to fulfill the original objectives of the organization are very, very difficult indeed. And I don't know if we're ever going to be able to restore the situation whereby there was that degree of immunity that was enjoyed until quite recent times. I think there's a possibility it may have gone forever. It's a very sad day for humanity, but it doesn't mean to say that the organization is finished. The work of humanitarian organizations who will be genuinely impartial, free of government pressure is vital. And I would encourage people to support it where there are difficulties and dangerous situations. Yes, of course, to recognize that, but to give maximum support to people who bravely engage in this work, which is a work of peacemaking, peace building, and relief for people in need. Well, I don't think I'm necessarily particularly strong, I'm very vulnerable. But I think one thing really stands out in my mind more than anything else. Someone said to me once, do you ever wonder why most of your life has been spent working for reconciliation? And I thought about it, and then I came up with the answer, well, it's probably because I'm trying to be reconciled myself within, trying to do something for myself as well as trying to do something for others. And I think over the years, probably one has achieved a little bit more in terms of internal reconciliation, somehow bringing yourself together a little more completely. Which when you can do that, actually does give you a strength.