analysis
Raymond Suttner
By the time this article appears, the United States and Nato might have launched an offensive against targets alleged to bear responsibility for the attacks last week on thousands of US civilians. At any rate, a climate has been created preparing for such attacks, with loose references to “war” and “civilised” and “uncivilised” worlds.
It is important to articulate more fully why we must condemn the attacks on Washington and New York, particularly as many people on the left feel some ambivalence, fearing their solidarity with the victims of these atrocities may be interpreted as support for the US government and its policies.
How we relate to these attacks also determines what we should treat as permissible as a response. In our own society we condemn murder, assault and rape as crimes against human beings, but by doing so we do not open the way for murder, assault and rape in revenge. The value we place on human life sets limits not only on what human beings can and cannot do to others. It also determines what the state may do in bringing offenders to order. That is why we in South Africa have outlawed the death penalty.
Likewise, international law sets limits on the use of force, precisely because even where there have been violations leading to loss of life and invasions of state sovereignty, there must be attempts to contain rather than extend the damage. The object of interstate relations is, ultimately, peace. Even responses to violations of that peace must ultimately aim at restoring tranquillity.
It is correct to condemn the terrorist attack on US targets unconditionally. One does not have to qualify this with attacks on the US role in the world. But such unconditionality does not extend to whatever action the US or Nato takes by way of “retaliation”. It is important that South Africa indicate that it will not tolerate any action that violates international law, as it did in the case of the Balkans conflict.
But we need to engage with last week’s tragedy on a political basis. One of the reasons we should condemn terrorism is that it is a species of elite politics, which is fundamentally undemocratic. It is carried out by small groups of people without mandates from anyone, accountable to no one and often without clear political goals. It is striking that unlike many acts of terror in the past, no one has yet claimed credit for this attack; no one has attempted to publicly justify it in terms of a political objective.
President Thabo Mbeki correctly distinguished between guerrilla activity in South Africa’s liberation struggle and acts of terrorism. Despite some aberrations, Umkhonto weSizwe (MK) acted on behalf of an organisation and generally operated under instructions that did not permit attacks on innocent civilians.
There was a moral component MK was fighting for a just cause. And there was a political component, that of representing people in an organisation and ultimately the democratic aspirations of the population at large. But there was also a genuine attempt to show respect for human beings and their right to life, even if they were white people whose government was responsible for apartheid oppression.
Whatever political objective may have been intended by the attack in the US, it was blurred. It was not a message from one group of representatives of people to another, as when MK attacked an apartheid target. The attacks were not only a horrendous assault on human life, but also on democracy. They targeted thousands of ordinary people who were quite remote from any political or military action that may have motivated the attack. An attack on these ordinary people is in essence an assault on the core of America’s democracy, the very people one should be appealing to even over the heads of their government in order to build democracy in the world.
In such a situation we must demand the perpetrators be brought to justice. But we should not condone the use of any methods that may go under that label. Any action by the US or Nato that decreases respect for legality in international relations will have long-term and dangerous consequences for the world. Already Nato action in the Balkans war undermined fundamental tenets of international law, widening the basis on which states can use force. It attacked not only acknowledged targets of the former Milosevic government, but also many innocent civilians.
Another feature of the reaction to last week’s atrocities has been the very careless reference to people from the “civilised” and “uncivilised” world, the latter an apparent reference to those from the Middle East. The not too subtle demonisation of people of Middle Eastern origin has helped create an atmosphere where attacks on immigrants and the most reactionary and racist responses have increased.
The US lays claim to leadership of the democratic world. This rightly evokes cynicism among those who consider themselves part of the broad left. But recognising that the US is the most powerful state in the world, we need to bring pressure to bear on it to use its power to enhance international security in the broadest sense.
This means it should look urgently at various trouble spots and, in particular, the Palestinian question, which have aroused powerful anti-American emotions.
This needs to be part of a debate aimed at ensuring the US plays a more constructive role in promoting peace and development in the world at large. The debate will be a key part of the effort required to remove the long-term causes of terrorism.
Raymond Suttner, a former ambassador to Sweden, is a visiting research fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies, Johannesburg. His book, Inside Apartheid’s Prison, was released this month by Ocean and University of Natal Press