South African Muslims are moving targets

So South Africa’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Aziz Pahad, expressed concern about the fact that there might be more South Africans added to the US list of “terror suspects”. Recent developments, he said, could have “fundamental negative effects on individuals who are on the list”. Damn right!

He was responding to a statement by an unnamed US official who said on Monday that the Dockrats might not be the only South Africans to be placed on the list.

Well, of course the South African government should be concerned! No country should stand back while the very persons and dignity of its citizens are violated by a foreign government which doesn’t care to publicly provide any evidence. And to say, as US officials have said about the Dockrats, that there are “thousands of pages of evidence” is not enough! We want to see the evidence; we want to know that it exists; we want to be able to verify that it is true. Otherwise we should oppose any attempt to have our citizens attacked and demonised in this way.

Pahad also, a few days ago, expressed concern that a number of South African Muslims were being harassed, interrogated and even deported when they travel to various destinations around the world. The most famous recent example of this was the case of Professor Adam Habib of the state agency, the Human Sciences Research Council, when he attempted to gain entry to the US – for which he had a valid visa. Not only was he deported from JFK International Airport in New York City, his visa was subsequently revoked. Along with those of his wife and his two young children.

But Habib is not the only one. Over the past few years, a number of South Africans have been deported or otherwise harassed at airports in the US, Europe, United Arab Emirates and some African countries. Farhad Dockrat – who is now on the US list of “terror suspects” – was kidnapped and held incommunicado for about four days when he crossed the Gambian border in November 2005. To budget time for lengthy airport interrogations has become normal for South African Muslims travelling abroad. Students on holiday, clerics, academics, politicians… no one is spared.

Then there are those who are just not granted visas. I have been waiting for a US visa from 2003. In the two-year period starting June 2003, I repeatedly applied for a US visa. Twice it was to speak at United Nations conferences; once to speak at an academic conference; once as keynote speaker at another academic conference; once to take up a prestigious 3-month fellowship at Northwestern University. I was also due to speak at a church in Washington DC and teach classes at Duke University. Officials at the US embassy could not tell me why I was not being given a visa. I was simply told that my “status” on the Homeland Security Computer had been set to “Pending”. I now simply refuse invitations from the US – like one I received last week – on the basis that there is no chance I will get a visa.

South Africa’s Department of Foreign Affairs does the right thing?

I’m generally not a great fan of many of the policies of the South African government – particularly its foreign policy.

The latest gaffe – South Africa’s first vote in the UN Security Council – reinforces my scepticism. The case of Burma – like that of Palestine – is one of those foreign policy issues that should require no great thought or debate. It’s a clear case of military dictatorship, massive repression and unashamed denial of human rights. It should be one of the easier issues to cast the “correct” vote on. But South Africa got it wrong. They voted against the resolution condemning the Myanmar military dictatorship. (I must say that I really don’t care that it was the Americans who introduced the resolution; that’s irrelevant to the issue.) Explanations and excuses by Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad don’t cut it. I can understand and agree with the South African perspective on the need to restructure the UN, to reduce the power of the undemocratic Security Council, etc. And I can understand the argument about matters such as this resolution needing to be dealt with by some or other UN committee rather than by the Security Council. But South Africa could forcefully have made these points after it voted to condemn the Myanmar dictatorship.

But I stray.

Despite my general cynicism about South African foreign policy, I think the Department of Foreign Affairs actually got it right on the issue of the Dockrat cousins whose names have been placed on the United States list of terror suspects. When the US attempted to have those names added to the UN list of Taliban and Al-Qaeda suspects, the South African government objected, saying they required convincing evidence that the cousins were involved with Al-Qaeda, had sent funding to the organisation and had recruited for it as alleged. Until such evidence was provided, the DFA said, the names should not be added to the list.

Since the UN 1267 Committee which makes decisions on who to add to the list works on the basis of consensus and since South Africa is a member of the committee by virtue of its membership of the UNSC, the names have gone onto the “hold” list.

Bush’s war of terror against the world has, frankly, gone out of control. And the “terrorist” label is becoming a convenient way for various power elites across the world – including some of the worst dictatorships – to demonise its opponents. Is it not a joke when states that are themselves involved in terrorism – like Israel, India, Pakistan and the US – or are guilty of gross denial of basic human rights – like Saudi Arabia – suddenly are seen to be at the forefront of fighting terrorism? It needs to be stopped!

I’m not naïve enough to believe that South Africa – or any other state – objecting to the names of its citizens being put on the list will stop this war of terror, but it does make a statement that not everyone will simply go along with the American neo-cons’ vision of the world. (Of course, that point is made much more strongly by braver governments and leaders than ours – like Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.)

Whether there are suspicions about the Dockrats or not, no one has the right to so thoroughly ruin the life of another person based on suspicion, war agendas or bullying. The South African government has done the right thing!

But the DFA went further. If, it said, convincing evidence is produced of the involvement of the Dockrats as alleged, then the South African government will be obliged to follow through on its international law responsibilities and take the necessary action against the cousins. Of course, one shouldn’t expect anything different. If they are guilty, they should face the music. (Now if only South Africa would follow through on its other international law responsibilities in respect of Israel…)

Bad scholarship and devious agendas

Recently, someone on a mailing list that I belong to posted an article by a researcher named Anneli Botha, supposedly a “terrorism expert” at the Institute for Security Studies based in Pretoria. The article is called “Pagad: A Case Study of Radical Islam in South Africa” and was published in September 2005.

Botha contends that there is a real threat of “Islamic terrorism” to South Africa. There are a number of indigenous South African Muslim networks and organisations, she claims, which have the inclination and potential to engage in terrorist activities in South Africa either on their own or in conjunction with foreign groups. And to prove her point she presents a case study of the (now-dead) organisation, People against Gangsterism and Drugs (Pagad).

The article is a pathetic attempt at an academic piece. But its policy implications are worse. With scant research, she argues that a threat exists to South Africa and implies that it this threat needs to be dealt with.

I don’t want to do a detailed deconstruction of the article. But I need to say that I was shocked at the paucity of references in the article. It was particularly shocking because she makes extremely serious allegations but states them as fact. An example is her contention, stated as fact, that the Cape Town-based organisation, Qibla, is manipulated by Iran’s intelligence services and that it is used by these Iranian agencies as a cover for espionage purposes. It is unbelievable that people can so glibly and easily spout such nonsense without any evidence whatsoever and then can be regarded as serious academics. It’s an insult to academics everywhere. Botha provides only three references in her almost-1,600 word article. One is my article on Pagad from 1996, another is a booklet by Qibla leader Achmat Cassiem from 1992 and the third is an article from 1997. And we are then expected to believe that she is writing about the state of Pagad today?

Why, someone on the mailing list asked, should we believe that Pagad is a threat to South Africa when it, in fact, “died an ‘unnatural death’”.

It’s the usual story: Pagad has now suddenly become a threat because some “security” or “terrorism” experts say it is. Sometimes these “experts” write such nonsense because of their particular agendas: they actually might want to create a climate of fear. Sometimes they do it because it keeps them in business (I’m sure the ISS that Botha works for needs such articles to help them in their fundraising efforts and, from what I hear, her terrorism unit brings in lots of money to the ISS). Sometimes such a person would get asked to write about “Islamic fundamentalism” in South Africa (or Africa) and s/he feels the need to make something up without having to do detailed and proper research (a.k.a. academic laziness). So, s/he will dredge up old articles and present the stuff (spiced with some “predictions” and “Moslem gevaar” for good measure) as if it’s current. Sometimes it helps such a person to seem to be on the “right side” – which has all kinds of benefits: conferences, funding, access to “important people”, etc.

There are lots of reasons why people write crap like this. And through the manufacturing of consent between these “terrorism experts”, there is a developing conspiracy being painted for the public and for policy-makers. Most appalling are the Muslims within this group of “terrorism experts” who write such nonsense. Their fanciful pieces are then also regarded by outsiders as having some degree of “authenticity” and they can pass off virtually any lies as serious analysis.

Anneli Botha is not the only such person. There are a number of others (and, as I said, this list includes some Muslims) who have suddenly made "Islamic extremism", "Islamic terrorism", "Islamic fundamentalism", “Islamic militancy”, etc their specialities. And, often, these specialities are based on a mixture of ignorance and some devious non-academic agenda.

One such person is someone who has co-authored a number of articles with Anneli Botha is an academic from the University of Pretoria, Hussein Solomon.

They co-wrote an article called “Terrorism in Africa”. In reality, however, it is not about terrorism in Africa but about what the authors call "Islamic extremism" in Africa. It has more references than Botha’s Pagad article but it is clearly a political agenda packaged as academic writing. Some choice quotes will show what the article is like.

The very first lines of the article are:

"Terrorism, in particular Islamic extremism, presents a real threat to regional and international security. On a global scale, the biggest threat presented by Islamic militancy does not necessarily lie in a temporary hold on political and economic power in a particular country, but rather in the formation of a transnational terror network that has disastrous consequences as witnessed in the Kenya and Tanzania US Embassy bombings followed by the 11 September incidents."

Other quotes:

"Despite the moderate spread of the religious principles of Islam focussed on peace, tolerance and good moral values, Muslim influence has been insidious in it's spread and often accomplished by the ‘behind-the scenes’ supply of finance and arms to various tribes and factions that are already in conflict. Islamic ‘advisors’ from Iran and Lebanon have been providing weapons and explosives to various African groups since at least 1990, and have ingratiated themselves in the inner circles of a number of African regimes."

"Islam as a threat to the internal and external security of countries in Africa is binomial:

i) The Islamic revival has led to the establishment of more radical Muslim groups, which according to authorities, are aimed at subverting their rule.

ii) The second phenomenon to emerge in Africa over the last year has been clashes between rival Islamic groups that, with the formation of transnational terror networks, become a secondary threat to national security."

"South Africa's internal security (as part of a transnational phenomenon) is threatened by both Islamic and right wing motivated extremism."

"Although some of these [Muslim] NGO's [doing relief and welfare work] have legitimate objectives, those in control of it use it as a vanguard for destabilizing activities. These objectives include the destabilization of regimes or the determination to change the composition of regimes."

Admittedly, there is some reference in the article to "terror" in Africa that is not Muslim: the Zimbabwean government and the South African right-wing are the only two mentioned. (Incidentally, Zimbabwe is the only country mentioned as perpetrating “state terrorism”.)

The authors mention the Lord's Resistance Army thrice in the article. The LRA is probably the most brutal terrorist organisation on the African continent, with its signature being the mutilation of its mostly-civilian victims (cutting off of noses, limbs, etc) and child kidnappings. Its purpose, essentially, is to set up a Christian state in Uganda. However, there is no mention in the article of the Christian orientation of the LRA. It is referred to as a "cult" group and the only mention of it as a threat to the continent’s security is in the context of funding it allegedly receives from Sudan. So even the phenomenon of the LRA is presented as an "Islamic extremist" problem, not a Christian one. Indeed, if any reader had not heard of the LRA, s/he would be forgiven for thinking that it was an “Islamic fundamentalist” organisation.

Retrogressive understanding of citizenship

“It’s a very retrogressive understanding of citizenship,” said newspaper owner Trevor Ncube, of the attempt by the Zimbabwean government to strip him of his citizenship of that country. Ncube owns two newspapers in Zim – the Zimbabwean Independent and the Standard – and the Mail & Guardian in South Africa.

He addressed a media conference today, ahead of tomorrow’s Harare High Court hearing where his lawyers will be fighting to save his citizenship rights by contesting the governments decision to strip him of his citizenship. He, unfortunately, will not be present at the hearing. As soon as he enters Zimbabwe, his passport will be impounded. He will then have just one one-way trip left on his passport – to any country willing to give him a visa. For someone with business interests outside of Zimbabwe and a family based in Johannesburg, that would be disastrous; he will be under “country arrest” in the land of his birth.

The reasons for Mugabe’s government wanting to strip Ncube of his citizenship can be debated at length: he is regarded as an enemy of the state for giving the opposition (and anyone else) a platform to express themselves; he owns the only two independent newspapers still surviving in Zim; etc. These reasons will likely be debated in court tomorrow and have been and will continue to be in the international media. But what this issue also highlights is the manner in which African governments s readily wield the citizenship stick either to bring their citizens into line or to marginalise them. Remember how then Zambian president Frederick Chiluba attempted to make former Zambian president, Kenneth Kaunda, into a Malawian in order to prevent him from running in the elections? Kaunda had to go to court to prove that he, in fact, was Zambian. What a ridiculous situation!

It is strange, as Ncube pointed out, that African leaders regularly and frequently “decry colonialism” while adhering so strongly to “colonial boundaries of the colonists”. African leaders passionately defend the boundaries of the nation states – it is one way of protecting their power. Not only do they defend these borders verbally and legally, they also go to war for them and are willing to kill or be killed for them.

No matter how patriotic one might be, as Ncube says he is, once one seeks to threaten those whose power relies on the existence of the nation state, one is enough of a threat somehow to be silenced. In December 2005, Ncube’s passport was seized. He went to court and won that one. Now it’s his citizenship.

What does a person do without citizenship of any country? Most Palestinians, of course, know about this only too well, being officially “stateless”. Being a permanent refugee, not being allowed to return to one’s homeland? This is the possibility that confronts Trevor Ncube. He has never held the citizenship of any country besides Zimbabwe. He was born in Zimbabwe and does not desire to be a citizen of any other country. But because his father was born in Zambia and moved to what was then Southern Rhodesia – before Trevor’s birth, this is being used as an excuse to strip him of his rights. In a number of countries – notably many Arab countries – the foreign birth of one’s parents means that one can never be a citizen of that country. That is why in countries like Saudi Arabia or Qatar, huge proportions of their populations consist of non-citizens. Even people who have lived in these countries all their lives will be regarded as foreigners and can never become citizens!

The issue of citizenship is an important one. What does being a citizen of a country mean? What are the rights and responsibilities associated with being a citizen? Should a born citizen of a country have more rights than a naturalised citizen? Should there be impediments to people changing their citizenships if they so desire? And, as in Ncube’s case, can someone be presumed to have a citizenship of a country even if that person doesn’t, never has and has no desire to do so? It is these questions that need careful answers which should be used to force these African despots (and their Arab counterparts) to understand the meaning of human rights.

But not understanding what “citizenship” means is also a problem faced by many Muslims living in majority non-Muslim countries. Many of them who immigrated to these countries still do not understand the concept of citizenship and the responsibilities entailed by being a citizen, by having a compact with a society and a state. The responsibilities to live within the law, to contribute to the development of the society, to be part of the debates within that society, to participate in the political decision-making of that country, etc.

At the same time, as we South Africans know too well, citizenship also means struggling to build a just society. And this could imply struggling – even fighting – against an unjust state, as was the case in Apartheid South Africa.

Pheko leaves a bad taste in the mouth

Mohau Pheko (see the full article below) commits a serious flaw in her eagerness to accuse the South African government and, more generally, South African society, of giving Muslims ‘preferential treatment’. That flaw results in an argument that is unsustainable and based on a patent lack of knowledge.

The flaw is in Pheko’s first sentence: ‘South Africa is considered a secular state that is officially neutral in matters of religion.’ Firstly, ‘officially neutral in matters of religion’ is but one understanding of what a secular state is. The hinge is how one understands the word ‘neutral’. In the South African context, our secular state is one that positively engages with religion, while not favouring any particular religion over another. Can we truly say that the South African state is one ‘that prevents religion from interfering with state affairs’ when the President has a Religious Leaders’ Forum that he consults with or when numerous state functions open with multi-faith prayers?

Pheko also contradicts her fundamental thesis by later claiming that ‘Christianity is the de facto official religion of this country’. That statement certainly does not engender confidence among adherents of all other religions – in particular, adherents of religions that that were deliberately marginalised under Apartheid (a Calvinist Christian ideology), especially followers of African traditional religions. So which is it, Mohau? Is South Africa a secular state ‘neutral in matters of religion’ or is it a ‘de facto Christian country’?

But Pheko’s problem is not just with her imagined preferential treatment of Islam by the state; she fantasises that the entire South African society has this attitude towards Muslims. Hence her objection to supermarkets having ‘halaal’ biscuits among other biscuits that might not be ‘halaal’. Such labelling is a private sector concern, not a state one. Or is Pheko is suggesting that the secular state should outlaw this practice?

Pheko’s accusation is that this ‘preferential treatment’ discriminates against citizens that are not Muslim. How? Because they are forced to look at biscuit boxes on which are printed tiny symbols that say halaal (or kosher, for her argument applies equally to kosher foods). Packages marked with halaal or kosher symbols do not imply any kind of preferential treatment (by the state or anyone else). They simply satisfy the peculiar needs of a section of the consumer public. If a Muslim wants to be sure that pork products, for example, are not contained in the chocolate bar she wants to purchase, she will be confident of this if she sees the halaal label. It really means nothing to those who don’t believe in the halaal idea and is in no way an imposition on them. To suggest that halaal and kosher foods should be ghettoised in labelled sections of a supermarket is ridiculous.

‘Should,’ Pheko asks, ‘some religions have more rights than others to impose their practices on the unsuspecting public?’ Absolutely not. That would not only be inconsistent with the notion of our secular state; it is, quite simply, unjust. Besides, that’s where we come from as a society; it is not where we would like to see ourselves again.

If Christians feel that they want a cross on foods to indicate suitability, then there certainly should be no barrier to them being able to do so. Neither Muslims nor anyone else should object. And if atheists want a symbol on foods to indicate that no religious ritual was performed in its production, they have the right to ask for that too. Why should anyone be offended by any such requests?

Her second issue about the state’s preferential treatment towards Muslims (the first had nothing to with the state, as I have shown) is the issue of Radio Pulpit’s losing its licence. This example is even weaker than the previous one. Clearly Pheko doesn’t follow Icasa developments closely. She probably has not heard of the Johannesburg Muslim radio station which wasn’t given a four-year licence after having been on air for seven years. Or the Cape Town Muslim station which was found guilty by Icasa of hate speech. Or the Lenasia Muslim station that was forced to allow women on air (and correctly so). Where’s the preferential treatment, Ms Pheko? Oh, and by the way, the government does not renew broadcasting licences, Icasa does; it’s an independent structure from government.

Her ignorance extends to the issue of land. A large number of mosques are built on privately-acquired land. Secondly, Muslims in African townships face an uphill battle having religious sites allocated for mosques because, quite simply, too many councillors are as blinkered and ignorant as Pheko is.

It is patent that Ms Pheko has done no research for her article and has been influenced, rather, by her box of shortbread biscuits.

Religion must be a matter of individual taste

by Mohau Pheko

Sunday Times, 14 January 2007

Its role is neither to support nor to oppose any religious beliefs or practices. It can not give unfair preferential treatment to any faith.

Theoretically, a secular state has a dual role: it protects freedom of religion and freedom from religion. It is described as a state that prevents religion from interfering with state affairs, controlling the government or exercising political power. Laws protect each individual, including those from religious minorities, from discrimination on the basis of religion.

I had no idea that a simple biscuit would force me to question whose religious rights and freedoms are more important in a secular state such as South Africa.

In a grocery store there are designated areas for various foods. This enables the consumer

to make choices about which brands to buy and so forth. Diabetic or low- to no-sugar-

content items are clearly marked, there may be a kosher section to fulfil the needs of the

Jewish community and one will probably find a section that contains sauces, noodles, rice

and spiced items from Asia. Increasingly, some restaurants distinguish themselves as halaal by putting up a visible sign for their Muslim diners.

A well-known store that used green shopping bags over the festive season fulfilled my requirement of a perfect shortbread biscuit. I happened to turn the packet over, only to discover a halaal symbol. Unless I missed it, there was no notice in the biscuit section of the store that informed me that I was buying halaal biscuits.

Why should citizens of diverse faiths be subjected to halaal food without their knowledge? I have no problem with those who eat halaal food. However, those who choose not to should be given a choice with clearly designated sections for such food items in all grocery stores. I was informed by one of the store managers that a number of food items in stores are halaal.

Most people do not take time to read labels and stores do not go out of their way to clearly mark food sections accordingly.

Should some religions have more rights than others to impose their practices on the unsuspecting public? I thought religious freedom was about the right to choose. Should Christians insist on having a cross on food items to signify that it has been appropriately sanctified for Christian consumption?

Perhaps the debate the nation should have is whether labelling food along religious preference is dogma rather than religion.

In this Islamophobic era, some may argue that I have no religious tolerance.

Some will argue that the challenge in a country like South Africa, where the Christian faith has dominated, is gradually to take away positive discrimination in that direction with the view to equal treatment of other religions and beliefs. In so doing, proponents of this idea believe, a new generation of Muslims and Christians may become the vanguard of the next decade, offering their co-religiosity as a new vision of faith.

A second issue that made me wonder whether freedom of speech is a universal human right was over the renewal of Radio Pulpit's broadcasting licence. Apparently after many years of broadcasting to the Christian community, it has been struggling to get its licence renewed by the government.

The separation of church and state is a key component of South African democracy, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we live in secular state. Freedom of religion means that the government tolerates the fact that citizens practice the faith of their choice and, while there is no official religion here, Christianity is the de facto official religion of this country. Coupled with this, a number of churches are having difficulty securing state land on which to build churches. Yet there is a proliferation of mosques and radio stations for the Muslim community.

What does religious freedom mean in a secular state? Should minority religions have the same rights as majority religions? How does the state avoid promoting one religion or faith group over another?

What criteria can be used in practice to promote a religiously based life over a secular life? Should religion retreat from the public sphere or can it find a place in the public sphere in a purely secular state?

It is said that the South African state should be neutral between the religious and secular parts of society. When the discussion turns to policy making, however, it seems that this neutrality disappears.

I would argue that no policy should be supported without adequate secular justification since these are the only types of arguments that are acceptable to all. What has happened to neutrality in South Africa?

South Africa is a politically alert society, aware of the role that religious rights play in public life. It is clear that if the state provides more concessions to one religion, members of other faiths will feel alienated since such values would be imposed upon them. They may be prohibited from practising the rituals of their religion. In this respect, I am not in favour of the values of any one religion being imposed on members of different religions that are present in our country.

Iraqi Kurds on US attack of Iranian embassy

Amazing how an event as serious under international law as the invasion and raiding of a foreign embassy goes by with as little fuss as this has. But the "Presidency of the Kurdistan Region and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)" in Iraq issued a statement condemning the attack. Their statement says:

The Presidency and the Kurdistan Regional Government express their dismay and condemnation of the American action against the official consulate of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Erbil, capital of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. The consulate was opened by agreement between the governments of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Iran, and enjoys immunity and protection under the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
Unlike other parts of Iraq, the Kurdistan Region enjoys safety, security, stability and the rule of law. The US action does not conform to the policy of attempting to spread security and stability throughout all of Iraq. No military action should be taken in the Kurdistan Region without consultations with security authorities here.
The people of the Kurdistan Region protest against and reject this action which violates our internal sovereignty. We do not accept that disputes with our neighbouring countries should be brought onto our soil. We call for the immediate release of those arrested. - http://www.kurdmedia.com/articles.asp?id=13877

The Kurds in Iraq are, we are told, supposed to be the allies of the US occupiers. No nation enjoys living under occupation, even if the occupiers might be able to pretend to be liberators, bringers of democracy, civilisation, etc.

Nauseating US propaganda on SABC

I listened to a number of SAfm news broadcasts today and am quite disgusted at the reporting on Somalia. From the terminology (“Islamic extremists”, “terrorists”, etc) to the analysis, the story is completely an adoption of American government propaganda. The Union of Islamic Courts people are not “terrorists”; indeed, they have been the only ones to have brought some peace and stability to Somalia in the past decade and a half. (See the article below. It is just one article (that landed on my desk today) of a number of such articles by respected journalists, scholars and analysts that show that the role the UIC played is different from what the US and Ethiopian governments would like us to believe.) The UIC is also not Al-Qaida. The US would love to convince the world that it is; the SABC is serving as a conduit for that propaganda.

Also, the uncritical way in which the SABC is referring to “the Somali government” is equally problematic. It is a “government” that hasn’t been elected but imposed; it relies on warlords and the US to give it legitimacy; it has been able to do nothing to bring peace and governance to Somalia; in fact, for much of its life, it hasn't even been IN Somalia! For the rest, it has been confined to the town of Baidoa, leaving the rest of the country to the warlords to ravage.

Now, let me make it clear: I have little sympathy for the ideology of the UIC. As a Muslim I don’t agree with some of what they claim is Islam or Islamic; I don’t agree with a number of their rulings. However, I do expect knowledgeable and unbiased reporting from the SABC. This kind of uncritical repetition of US propaganda as if it were fact is seriously problematic. Basically, it points to lazy journalism, something I wouldn't like to associate with the SABC.

Destabilizing the Horn: American-Backed Warlords Invade Somalia

By Salim Lone, TomPaine.com
Posted on January 8, 2007, Printed on January 8, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/46424/

The stability that emerged in southern Somalia after 16 years of utter lawlessness is gone, the defeat of the ruling Islamic Courts Union now ushering in looting, martial law and the prospect of another major anti-Western insurgency. Clan warlords, who terrorized Somalia until they were driven out by the Islamists, and who were put back in power by the U.S.-backed and -trained Ethiopian army, have begun carving up the country once again.

With these developments, the Bush administration, undeterred by the horrors and setbacks in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, has opened another battlefront in this volatile quarter of the Muslim world. As with Iraq, it casts this illegal war as a way to curtail terrorism, but its real goal appears to be to obtain a direct foothold in a highly strategic area of the world through a client regime. The results could destabilize the whole region.

The Horn of Africa, at whose core Somalia lies, is newly oil-rich. It is also just miles across the Red Sea from Saudi Arabia and Yemen, overlooking the daily passage of large numbers of oil tankers and warships through that waterway. The United States has a huge military base in neighboring Djibouti that is being enlarged substantially and will become the headquarters of a new U.S. military command being created specifically for Africa. As evidence of the area's importance, Gen. John Abizaid, the military commander of the region, visited Ethiopia recently to discuss Somalia, while Chinese President Hu Jintao visited Horn countries a few months ago in search of oil and trade agreements.

The current series of events began with the rise of the Islamic Courts more than a year ago. The Islamists avoided large-scale violence in defeating the warlords, who had held sway in Somalia ever since they drove out U.N. peacekeepers by killing eighteen American soldiers in 1993, by rallying people to their side through establishing law and order. Washington was wary, fearing their possible support for terrorists. While they have denied any such intentions, some Islamists do have terrorist ties, but these have been vastly overstated in the West.

Washington, however, chose to view the situation only through the prism of its "war on terror." The Bush administration supported the warlords -- in violation of a U.N. arms embargo it helped impose on Somalia many years ago -- indirectly funneling them arms and suitcases filled with dollars.

Many of these warlords were part of the Western-supported transitional "government" that had been organized in Kenya in 2004. But the "government" was so devoid of internal support that even after two years it was unable to move beyond the small western town of Baidoa, where it had settled. In the end, it was forced to turn to Somalia's archenemy Ethiopia for assistance in holding on even to Baidoa. Again in violation of the U.N. arms embargo, Ethiopia sent 15,000 troops to Somalia. Their arrival eroded whatever domestic credibility the government might have had.

The United States, whose troops have been sighted by Kenyan journalists in the region bordering Somalia, next turned to the U.N. Security Council. In another craven act resembling its post-facto legalization of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the Council bowed to U.S. pressure and authorized a regional peacekeeping force to enter Somalia to protect the government and "restore peace and stability." This despite the fact that the U.N. has no right under its charter to intervene on behalf of one of the parties struggling for political supremacy, and that peace and stability had already been restored by the Islamists.

The war came soon after the U.N. resolution, its outcome a foregone conclusion thanks to the highly trained and war-seasoned Ethiopian army. The African Union called for the Ethiopians to end the invasion, but the U.N. Security Council made no such call. Ban Ki-moon, the incoming secretary-general, is being urged to treat the enormously complex situation in Darfur as his political challenge, but Somalia, while less complex, is more immediate. He has an opportunity to establish his credentials as an unbiased upholder of the U.N. Charter by seeking Ethiopia's withdrawal.

The Ethiopian military presence in Somalia is inflammatory and will destabilize this region and threaten Kenya, a U.S. ally and the only island of stability in this corner of Africa. Ethiopia is at even greater risk, as a dictatorship with little popular support and beset by two large internal revolts by Ogadenis and Oromos. It is also mired in a military stalemate with Eritrea, which has denied it secure access to seaports. It now seeks such access in Somalia.

The best antidote to terrorism in Somalia is stability. Instead of engaging with the Islamists to secure peace, the United States has plunged a poor country into greater misery in its misguided determination to dominate the world.

Salim Lone, a Kenyan whose last assignment in his U.N. career was as spokesman for the U.N. mission in Iraq immediately after the 2003 war, is a columnist for The Daily Nation in Nairobi.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/46424/