comment
John Stremlau With the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the United States has begun to think seriously about the next phase in its global war against terrorism. This should spur all other countries with stakes in the anti-terror campaign to review their options. For South Africans three issues stand out. l What action is the US likely to take? l How might these actions affect South Africa’s relations with Washington and other countries, and domestic opinion? l What steps could help ensure that South Africa’s interests and values are protected and promoted? Recent comments by senior advisers to President George W Bush suggest phase two will be on three fronts. The first, and most urgent, tasks are in Afghanistan. They include the destruction of what remains of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network, ensuring that after political reconstruction Afghanistan is more democratic and responsive to the will of all Afghans, and forging a nation strong enough to withstand hijacking by terrorists. The second front focuses on weak states, such as Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, where al-Qaida could seek refuge in order to rebuild. Al-Qaida cells are believed to exist in about 40 countries, a quarter of them in Africa. In most states governments are able and willing to cooperate with the US in closing down al-Qaida’s network. But for the few too weak or divided to resist al-Qaida, some form of US-led intervention seems likely. The third front arouses the greatest international concern those handful of states the US has long accused of being sponsors of state terrorism: Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, and, above all, Iraq. US hawks had been pressing for a direct confrontation with Iraq long before September 11. While not ruling this out, Bush appears more interested in reopening Iraq to United Nations weapons inspectors and in supporting local opposition groups in the hope that Iraqis will eventually find their own way of deposing Saddam Hussein. Is US policy on any or all fronts likely to damage relations with South Africa? Not if the experience of the past three months is any guide. President Thabo Mbeki responded quickly and unequivocally to the September 11 attacks on the US, condemning terrorism, acknowledging the US’s right to act in self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter, and offering non-military cooperation in finding those responsible. South Africans who see the US as a selfish bully may feel he was too generous. But swift military victories, growing UN involvement and evident popular relief at an end to Taliban repression vindicate Mbeki’s approach. More significant for reducing the risk that South African policy will alienate important domestic constituencies or other countries critical of US behaviour, are the subtle and successful ways Mbeki has sought to redefine the war on terrorism. Above all he chose to regard terrorism as an extreme form of human rights abuse, with the only truly effective long-term solution being the universal entrenchment of human rights and democratic values. Recalling the limited use of mass violence in its own campaign against apartheid gives South Africa’s policy credibility. It also serves as a reminder that South Africa has become a truly modern secular state, one that seeks to accommodate cultural diversity rather than foment a”clash of civilisations”. This commitment to democratic values conflicts fundamentally with traditional cultures, including many predominantly Islamic countries that oppose gender equality and rights of religious freedom. Mbeki has avoided being drawn into debate about differences between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. By focusing on means and treating motives as irrelevant, terrorism is defined as acts of murder against innocent civilians, the denial of any individual’s basic right to life. South Africa thus opposes all such acts, even when done in the name of a just cause such as the liberation of Palestine. Mbeki’s long-term solution, granting”power to the people”, is also human rights-based and has deep roots in African National Congress orthodoxy. It places South Africa at odds with continued Israeli occupation of Palestine and with the denial of democratic freedoms in countries that spawn terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia, or have condoned terrorism, notably Iraq. In his address to this year’s UN General Assembly Mbeki declared no less than six times that the”peoples of the world” not the UN’s member states should unite in opposing terrorism, ensuring peace and development, and in reforming international organisations, including the UN. This, of course, is consistent with the support for human rights and democracy as the cornerstones for building a new partnership for African development, as he reminded the world body. What steps might South Africa consider taking to continue to advance this policy?
The least controversial would be to offer various forms of technical assistance to rebuild a more pluralistic Afghanistan. Contributing to building a non-sectarian, non-sexist society in war-torn Central Asia affirms the universality of our most basic values. Twenty-six years of civil wars has decimated Afghanistan’s technocrats and several thousand foreign advisers will be required to assist the reconstruction. Representatives from South Africa’s Muslim community especially women would bring technical skills and a powerful message that devotion to Islam is not incompatible with democracy and gender equality. Reports of Afghan interest in creating a truth and reconciliation commission is another example of where South African cooperation might be helpful. By such participation South Africa can also remind the richer donors that the billions of dollars pledged for Afghanistan must not be at Africa’s expense. South Africa also has more pressing concerns on the second front, ensuring that weak states in Africa do not become the staging grounds for terrorist networks. Perhaps the new partnership can help. Next June’s G-8 Summit in Canada is committed to deciding on ways to help strengthen the new partnership. One way might be to underwrite a new facility to assist conflict prevention and post-conflict peace building, which could help build local capacity to deny access to terrorist networks. Over the long term the new partnership’s commitment to promote human rights and good governance are essential preconditions for sustainable development for eliminating the root causes of terrorism. This includes the urgent need for international action to prevent the further collapse of law and order in Zimbabwe. Finally, there is the issue of state-sponsored terrorism. South Africa’s ability to influence US policy is limited. But Pretoria has successfully engaged Libya in helping to resolve its dispute with the US and Britain over the terrorist bombing of PanAm 103. Earlier this year South Africa dispatched humanitarian aid to Iraq, and it is beginning to expand economic links to Iran. None of the initiatives have damaged our relations with the US and they suggest that South Africa might one day help broker a normalisation of relations between the US and these states, confirming an end to any threat that they might be sponsors of terrorism. For sound domestic and foreign policy reasons Pretoria cannot endorse any US efforts to support opposition groups trying to overthrow the government of Iraq or any other countries. But South Africa should not temper its call for greater respect and tolerance for religious, racial and gender differences in all nations. South Africa is at the forefront of a new international movement to reform outdated norms of sovereignty, rightly arguing that any state that practices human rights abuse risks forfeiting claims to sovereign protections. South Africans and Americans may disagree over means and priorities but their long-term shared interest in promoting good governance has acquired greater urgency. Many South Africans will recall how little the US did officially to oppose apartheid and may question the sincerity pledges to support human rights and democracy as a goal of foreign policy. But it is now impossible to conceive of a more reliable cure to the threat of terrorism than the eventual universal respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Nor can the US hope to win its campaign without the help of religiously and culturally diverse democracies, including South Africa. Before agreeing to such cooperation, however, South African citizens have a democratic right and obligation to openly debate the likely costs and benefits. With vital national interests at stake, including possible US intervention in Africa, the time for public deliberation is now. John Stremlau is head of International Relations at the University of the Witwatersrand