The fight against terrorism often conflicts with the imperatives of human rights and democracy.
Where rights are concerned, as they always are in South Africa after 1994, the freedoms of religion, belief, opinion, expression, assembly, demonstration, picket, petition and association come to mind.
As far as emotions go, nationalism, patriotism, religious indignity and accusations of ”American imperialism” have emerged.
As far as interests go, the fight against terrorism is pitting states against individual citizens and state security against human security, despite the fact that this fight was initiated purportedly to rid the free world of terrorism. Thus the war on terror begs two questions: ”What is being protected?” and ”For whom is it protected?”
The Centre for International Political Studies of the University of Pretoria’s conference, titled: Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism in Africa, held on March 23 attempted to come up with some answers. The conference also hosted sessions dealing with the nature of the threat posed, lessons learnt from responding to terrorism, and regional responses to terrorism in Africa.
Perhaps the gravest shortcoming of the conference was that civil society and ordinary citizens’ voices were not heard. There was great controversy about the fact that the conference was closed to the media and students of the campus at large.
The conundrum for the academic debate about terrorism is that ideology is given precedence over reasoning; that people’s nationalist self- expression inhibits others’ freedom of expression.
Terrorism, its definition, and how it should be approached are charged with passion and emotion. This stands in contrast to the more rational and detached manner associated with academic conferences where objectivity is seen as the hallmark of the scientific approach.
The fight against terrorism should ultimately be to ensure that people are safe and that they can live securely — the creation of human security, in other words. If, however, the debate is only about states and what they do individually and collectively to secure the national or regional interest, Africa’s people will continue to suffer the tyranny of state-centered realism where governments protect the interests of the elite at the expense of the citizenry.
Africa cannot afford to become the global battleground on which terrorism is fought. Africa’s citizens are already fighting poverty, disease, underdevelopment, military dictatorships and predatory states.
The conference put the emphasis very much on the role states and supra-national bodies play to fight terrorism. This was evident for three reasons:
First, most of the speakers represented their countries as officials of the state, as was indicated by the number of diplomatic vehicles in the parking area.
Second, the content of the papers focused largely on the roles and actions or inaction of states through their political leaders and regional organisations in the fight against terrorism.
Third, the response-and-discussion sessions proved that nationalism is still a very powerful ideology. Certain speakers vehemently defended their national position and objectives with regard to terrorism.
Acts of terrorism have a profound effect on ordinary citizens’ lives as well as on the functioning of societies and the states and regions in which they occur. Terrorism seems most prevalent in societies where the political process is closed down and where free and meaningful participation in political processes is restricted or denied.
Acts of terror have varied origins, designs and consequences, thus debate about terrorism is a natural attempt to gain some understanding of the causes and effects of this very deviant form of human behaviour.
The other salient points raised at the conference are as follows:
Defining terrorism is an extremely difficult exercise and the concept remains contested. Despite this challenge, there are legal, theoretical and practical reasons why we need to separate terrorism from other concepts such as war, civil war and crime — even though these might be found simultaneously in certain conflicts or regions, and even though they may all be fought effectively (without more harm to innocent people) by means of law rather than by ”war”.
Legislation, protocols and conventions have been put in place to counter the germination and proliferation of terrorism. We need to recognise, however, that despite all the efforts by states and regional organisations, disgruntled individuals and interest groups will always find some malevolent way to vent their anger and frustration. Acts of terrorism are set to continue and the security of ordinary citizens can never be fully guaranteed.
Inus du Plessis is a senior researcher at the Centre for Military Studies of the University of Stellenbosch, Gauteng branch