Last week came the announcement that the United States government had asked the United Nations Security Council to list two South African citizens, Farhad Ahmed Dockrat and Junaid Ismail Dockrat, on its ”terrorist” watch list. Both were accused of having links with al-Qaeda, fundraising for its activities and recruiting South Africans as its operatives. South Africa and all other UN member states would be expected to place travel bans on the two and to freeze their assets.
When asked by South African officials for evidence against the two, the US balked, suggesting that its intelligence could be compromised if it accedes to the request. Instead, it demanded that South Africa prove the innocence of its two citizens.
On January 24, Minister of Foreign Affairs Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma instructed South Africa’s permanent mission in New York to place the names of the two South Africans on hold until bilaterals had been concluded with the US. A temporary reprieve has been achieved. But what should we do? Should we be pragmatic and play along with Washington and the UN? Or should we defend the two men on the grounds that they are innocent until proven guilty?
Perhaps our government should be guided by the obligations of our Constitution and by the recent track record of the US government itself.
The South African Constitution is very clear: it allows our government to undertake or participate in the ”war against terror”, but only within the framework of respect for the human rights of its citizens. In the case of the two individuals concerned, they can be acted against only if there is sufficient evidence that they have been involved in recruiting for and financing terrorist activity. It is true that some anti-terrorist legislation may sanction limited government action against the two, but this would go against the spirit of our Constitution. Can we take the risk of violating our Constitution on the word of a government whose recent track record on human rights is so questionable?
Let us briefly review this track record. In recent years, the US government has detained hundreds of people at Guantánamo Bay with no legal recourse. This is simply detention without trial, an abhorrent repressive mechanism that many South Africans experienced under apartheid. Just as significant is that officials of this same government have been involved in sanctioning torture against suspects in foreign lands in an apparent effort to bypass US legislation.
As if this was not enough, the US government has barred countless individuals from entering that country on the flimsiest of grounds. Last year, I was deported from New York with no explanation.
All that I have been told by US homeland security is that this has nothing to do with them, but that I have a ”record” placed against my name by the US state department. Letters to the state department and to the US embassy on why I have been listed have generated no response. The fact that I lived in the US for three years, and visited it more than 10 times in the last decade, has made no difference. Nor has the fact that I regularly receive official US delegations in my office, and while I have been frank in my criticisms of their government, these visitors have always been treated with courtesy.
Two weeks ago this travel ban was extended against my wife, Fatima, and my two children, Irfan (11) and Zidaan (7). Once again, no reason was provided. How two children can constitute a security threat, and how a democratically elected government can act so maliciously against two kids is beyond comprehension.
My case is no exception. A number of other South Africans have suffered similar experiences. Nor is this peculiar to South Africans. My correspondence with officials of the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Association of University Professors, and interactions with numerous other comrades, friends and colleagues in the US, suggest that there are hundreds or even thousands of other victims who continue to be subjected to similar arbitrary, extralegal action.
The US government, feeding on the legitimate fears of its citizens, has conducted a wholesale international assault on human rights and civil liberties in the name of the ”war against terror”.
Hopefully, sanity will prevail among the American electorate in the medium term, and it will replace this administration and its officials.
But what of South Africa’s responsibilities? If there are terrorists in our midst then we must take strong action against them. But such action must be based on evidence. We must not allow the witch-hunt atmosphere apparently prevailing in the US to infect us. If the US makes allegations against our citizens, it must place evidence on the table. South Africa’s own institutions must independently interrogate this evidence. If it is found to be accurate, the law must take its course. If it is found wanting, the government must undertake its most fundamental responsibility to its citizens: it must protect them.
Such an approach will not only enable South Africa to meet its national obligations, but also its international responsibilities. Our role in the Security Council, temporary though it may be, is not to mindlessly follow the dictates of great powers, but to engage them and provide an example of responsible international leadership.
Adam Habib is executive director of democracy and governance at the Human Sciences Research Council. He writes in his personal capacity