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.