A tense lull settled over the world this week as the United States deliberated its response to the terror attacks on New York and Washington. Military retaliation seemed inevitable the only questions were how, when and where.
The US reaction could critically shape the lives of everyone on the planet. As influential voices have warned, there is a real threat of a third world war. It would not be the nuclear apocalypse of the Cold War era but a spiral of terror and reprisal which could last years. The danger is that attacks on Islamic countries, particularly if they cause indiscriminate economic damage and loss of life, will be read as a war on Islam as a faith and a culture.
One consequence could be the compromise of the US’s own strategic interests. Last week’s attacks differed from most acts of terror by having no clear agenda no one has claimed responsibility and no demands have been made. If the purpose was world Islamic revolution, as the Americans claim, the US will serve that agenda by inflaming the entire Islamic world and undermining its “moderate” allies in the Middle East.
The economic effects of a prolonged global conflict, and the damage to the cause of democracy, are incalculable. Muslims living in the West, and the 400 000 Europeans living in Arab countries, would be especially vulnerable. Civil rights will suffer, as they always do in wars.
If the mountainous wastes of Afghanistan are the target, the military option is fraught with peril and largely meaningless. Another strike on Iraq, which some intelligence sources believe is on the cards, would be major provocation to the Arab world. Instead, the focus should be on tracking down the killers and their co-conspirators, and rooting out the international network from which further attacks may come.
The chances of a broad Islamic backlash will be heightened if the US is seen to be conducting a unilateral crusade in its own interests. The world coalition against terrorism it is trying to forge essentially revolves around acts of terror against the US and its allies. But the US government has itself sponsored terrorism against perceived enemy states, particularly in south and central America. “Terrorism” will have to be carefully defined and fought in a non-partisan way. And whatever actions the US takes should be mediated through the United Nations so that they form part of a global initiative.
How should South Africa deal with the enormous conformist pressures the US is bringing to bear on governments across the world? Of course, it must cooperate in bringing terrorists to book, and has already said it will. But it cannot compromise its own strategic interests or South Africa’s human rights regime, as it did earlier this year when it handed over a terror suspect to the US authorities in breach of domestic law. There have been hints that under US pressure, the government may dust off controversial anti-terrorism legislation. The real merits of such a law, and its human rights implications, must be carefully weighed from the perspective of the national interest.
South Africa has tried to fashion for itself an independent course in world affairs, as a broker and mediator between the West and the Third World. The benefits of this were underscored by its key role in breaking the Lockerbie impasse. It must jealously guard its non-aligned status. To this end, the government’s decision not to contribute troops to the US war effort is the correct one.
Cold-blooded but pragmatic
Someone in the health ministry has finally realised that people with HIV are voters too. That is the implication of a leaked government document which says current approaches to the HIV/Aids epidemic are unsustainable and politically dangerous.
Cold-blooded though aspects of the report may seem, for example by highlighting the political risks inherent in the failure to provide treatment, it is a refreshing and pragmatic change from the disinformation and muddleheadedness that accompany many official responses to the epidemic.
The latest debacle over Aids mortality figures, and what the Medical Research Council’s (MRC) report does or does not say, has led to more confusion and mudslinging. No one knows how many people die in South Africa each year, or the causes. Bringing together different analyses of mortality figures for the sake of consistency is a praiseworthy initiative.
But the MRC report has been ready for weeks, if not months. It is not surprising that copies were leaked. It is also no surprise that the leaks included outdated versions of the report, which were published by journalists unable to elicit a formal response from the government.
In disturbing ways, the government seems to treat South Africa’s citizens as children, to be kept in the dark about the more disquieting aspects of our society. If South Africans are adult enough to choose their rulers, surely they should be told the real threats and choices facing them in regard to HIV/Aids? Health Minister Manto Tshabalala’s reference to the MRC report as “hers” revealed a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of democratic power. Nothing “belongs” to ministers of state except what they buy with their salaries. The state ultimately belongs to the people who, after all, pay for it.