Last week, as the United States commemorated the 2 600 people who died in New York on September 11 2001, CNN surveyed US public attitudes to President George W Bush’s “war on terror”. It found that two-thirds of Americans believe the US is not winning, and more than half believe terrorists will find a way to attack no matter what the US government does. Last year, a US state department report found that terrorist attacks had increased by 25% over the previous year, to 14 000, and resulting deaths by 40% , two-thirds of them in Iraq. Finding that al-Qaeda had found sanctuary and rebuilt amid Iraq’s chaotic meltdown, the report asserted that terrorism was shifting in nature towards “global insurgency”.
Conservatives cite current terrorist outrages, like the plot recently foiled in Germany, to justify the war on terror. This confuses cause and effect. All the evidence suggests that the “war” has inflamed the politico-Âreligious rage that underlies the terrorist phenomenon and deepened the world’s polarities. Ironically, given their claim to be defending democratic freedoms, it has also had the effect of eroding the human rights culture of major Western democracies. Through “special renditions”, conceived by the US but supported by many ÂEuropean governments, torture has been institutionalised as state policy. Both Britain and the US have passed laws providing for detention without trial. The American concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay, cynically located beyond the reach of the US courts, is an affront to the most basic human rights norms.
It is important to see that the terrorism of the 2000s is not the work of small, isolated groups of extremists in the mould of Germany’s Baader-Meinhof gang. It grows out of the profound sense of grievance widespread within the world’s 1,8-billion-strong Islamic ummah, which cannot be “defeated” by military means. A policy of invasions, assassinations, torture and detention can only stoke resentment and provide new recruits for Âterrorism, in an intensifying spiral of violence and counter-aggression.
It would be naive to think that with a committed quest for political solutions, the global terror threat will abate overnight. But “jaw-jaw”, as opposed to “war-war”, represents the only long-term way to go. As an immediate step, the West should withdraw its troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan, recognising that these are unwinnable wars that merely inflame the political climate. The plight of the Palestinians and US support for a repressive Israeli state were a key motive for the 9/11 atrocity, and remain a standing provocation to the vast mass of Muslims. A just solution to that crisis — which will not happen unless the US leans on its Middle Eastern ally — is critical to any lasting counter-terrorism strategy.
A nod to mediocrity
“Missed opportunity” is one way to describe the new SABC board nominated by Parliament this week. A jaw-dropping nod to mediocrity might be more accurate.
This is not necessarily because of the credentials of six new members nominated to board service. Each should add a fillip to a governance structure sorely in need of one. Our beef is with the fact that it is a largely status quo board. Six of the 12 previous incumbents have returned. Only seven were renominated and only one of these — Cecil Msomi, the KwaZulu-Natal government spin doctor — failed to make the list.
This implies that Parliament is happy with the performance of the former board — despite the glaring gaps in governance evident in the past year. The most serious of these was the SABC’s fight with the PSL over soccer rights, where the broadcaster was forced to concede defeat when it entered a deal with Supersport, which beat it to the finishing line.
A similar squabble over radio rights is ongoing. Then there have been the well-publicised concerns related to news and current affairs. The blacklisting report was covered up by the board with a symbolic slap on the wrist for news boss Snuki Zikalala, who had been found guilty of practices that are the antithesis of independent public broadcasting journalism. Research last week revealed by the Mail & Guardian shows that the public has a healthy appetite for robust and independent journalism and that, except in regard to two of its programmes, the broadcaster falls short.
The biggest governance failure has, of course, been the matter of the head of legal services, Mafika Sihlali, who is alleged to have corruptly extracted R1,8-million from the SABC and threatened numerous witnesses of a forensic investigation with violence. The board claims it was about to act when it was sidetracked by media revelations. We have our doubts about this, but Parliament has accepted its version.
There are other good reasons why a status quo board is not what the SABC needs. It faces a credibility crisis that cannot be wished away by chief executive Dali Mpofu insulting the rest of the media.
And, more importantly, it faces competition on many fronts, all of which demand a switched-on, open-minded board.
To ensure that reform tops the agenda, new blood is needed for board chairperson. Instead, at the time of writing, it appeared that lawyer ÂChristine Qunta, who embodies a conservative status quo that thumbs its nose at the many members of the public who do not share its world-view, is set to occupy this key post.