Human Rights Day irony in Cape Town

What an irony! On Human Rights Day, demostrators in Cape Town were denied their right to proceed with a march in the city, a right guaranteed by the South African Constitution and given legislative effect through the Regulation of Gatherings Act (RGA).

It is not an unusual occurrence for arrogant local authorities to "refuse to give permission" to marchers based on no reason in particular. Of course, according to the law, they do not have the right to "give permission"; "permission" is not even mentioned in the RGA.

But on the streets, it is not the constitution and the law that triumph, it is raw force. When I, representing the Freedom of Expression, spoke to the policeperson in charge and attempted to explain the constitution and the RGA to her, her response was, simply: "Let them just try me! I will arrest them all."

Just another day in South Africa...

Human Rights Day

"My mother was a kitchen girl;
And my father was a garden boy;
That's why, I'm a socialist, I'm a socialist, I'm a socialist!"

The song blared from loudspeakers on a truck as protestors started a march through the streets of Johannesburg. More than a thousand protestors toyi-toyied through the city today to celebrate / commemmorate Human Rights Day. The march was organised by the Social Movements Indaba (SMI), which also organised actions in Durban and Cape Town.

It was an emotional and heartwarming demonstration of people's being able to take over the streets. It was also a sad reflection of the fact that, 13 years after democracy finally came to South Africa, millions of people still suffer under the yoke of poverty, lack basic services like water and electricity and fall as victims to Aids.

Speeches at the end of the march included those from various social movements dealing with privatisation, access to water, fighting evictions, landlessness, etc. There were also speakers from the Anti-War Coalition, Palestine Solidarity Committee and the Save Zimbabwe Campaign.

Motley bunch confronts the SABC

Today, a strange mixture of people assembled, at the behest of the Freedom of Expression Institute, in front of the headquarters of the South African Broadcasting Corporation to protest the SABC's lack of movement towards becoming a true public broadcaster.

In an amazing show of covergence of forces on the issue, members of the Socialist Party of Azania, Pan Africanist Congress, Anti-Privatisation Forum, a hawkers' organisation, the Traditional Healers' Organisation, Muslim Youth Movement, Palestine Solidarity Committee, a Gauteng Council member of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (who was also billed to speak but left early for another appointment) and various other groups took over the streets, ululated and toyi-toyied in their opposition to the SABC.

"We are going to kick Snuki out of here," demonstrators chanted, referring to the SABC's head of news, who has been implicated in the recent blacklisting scandal that confronted the Corporation.

For more information about the campaign to transform the SABC, visit the website of the Freedom of Expression Institute.

Inna lillahi wa inna ilaihi rajiun

Professor Tanya Reinhardt breathed her last in New York on Saturday, 17th March 2007. Numerous obituaries have already been written for her and, no doubt, numerous others will follow. This is just meant to be a brief remembrance.

An Israeli, Tanya was a strong, outspoken critic of successive Israeli governments and a strong defender of Palestinian rights. Despite the euphoria from many quarters at the time, she opposed the Oslo Accords, arguing that it would perpetuate and strengthen the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.

One of her important contributions to international solidarity with the Palestinian struggle was her contribution to the debate on the academic boycott of Israeli academics and academic institutions. Favouring a boycott, she nevertheless differentiated between institutions and individual academics, offering a nuanced perspective on the boycott question. (See, for example, http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6700.shtml)

Tanya Reinhardt is among those who, being part of a privileged oppressor class by accident of birth, is able to transcend that and fearlessly articulate themselves in favour of justice and in opposition to their privilege. Like a number of other Israeli Jews and a number of White South Africans under Apartheid, she chose the difficult path of spaking truth to power, despite the uncomfortable and, often, frightening personal consequences, isolation, etc.

Long live your spirit, Tanya!

And, in the Muslim tradition, when one hears of a death, I conclude with: "Inna lillahi wa inna ilaihi raji'un - To God we belong and to Him is our return."

Gilder's comments can lead to Islamophobia

Barry Gilder, the Coordinator of South Africa's National Intelligence Coordinating Committee (NICOC) recently made certain comments about Muslim "terrorists" in South Africa that have been widely reoprted in the media (see, for example, an article on iol). Gilder was making the comments in a briefing to senior government officials.

He said that a number of foreign Muslim "terrorists" were using South Africa to hide out in. The attractiveness of South Africa, according to Gilder, is mainly because of this country's well-developed banking and communications infrastructure.

The most concerning aspect of Gilder's comments is the focus on South African Muslims as potential terrorists and the implication - whether intended or not - that the notion of "global terrorism" is an Islamic phenomenon. If, as Mr Gilder says, there have been foreign "terrorists" (of whatever hue or religion) that have been using South Africa either as a transit point, to "lie low" or "to settle" and if, as he adds, South African intelligence agents have had such people under surveillance for years, why is it that they have not been arrested or otherwise acted against?

South Africa is a constitutinal democracy and the rule of law must be applied. If there are known criminals present in our society, they must be dealt with according to the law. Why then, if the allegations about the presence of terrorists on South African soil is correct, would such people be only monitored by our intelligence services but not dealt with through the legal system?

Further, despite Gilder's comments that South African Muslims are by-and-large "not susceptible" to being recruited by terrorists, it is very discomforting the manner in which South
African Muslims are being referred to - by Gilder and sections of the media - as if we are objects that need simply to be analysed for whether we will participate in terrorism. Such injudicious references assist in stigmatising the Muslim community, sowing the seeds of Islamophobia and in pushing the Muslim community into a defensive corner. None of these is
healthy for us as a South African society.

Comments such as these serve slowly to create a fearful climate within South Africa where citizens begin to become suspicious of each other and begin to speculate about who is or is not a terrorist. Such suspicion has destroyed the fabric of many communities in Western countries; we do not want to follow suit. Finally, the statement about "terror training camps" in South Africa is highly problematic. Again, if such camps exist, they should be closed down and those involved with them should be subjected to the criminal justice system. But throwing out such accusations as media soundbites can add to the climate of suspicion and the concern for terrorism among South African citizens, a concern which has no basis in reality.

Quietly now...

Zimbabwe has been on slow boil for years. But, this past weekend, the lid just blew off the pot!

Numerous reports tell of the assaults and torture of opposition members - including the head of the Movement for Democratic Change, Morgan Tsvangirai, the raiding of trade union offices, the breaking up of a prayer meeting, the killing of Gift Tandare...

A hastily-called demonstration outside the Zimbabwean consulate in Johannesburg today drew more than 100 protestors - mostly Zimbabwean. If people are not angry at what is happening under the brutal dictatorship of Robert Mugabe, at least there should be some concern. And I am pretty sure that many South Africans are very concerned.

I'm not sure, however, how much concern there is in South Africa's Department of Foreign Affairs. Spokesperson Ronnie Mamoepa insists: "We have constantly maintained that the solutions to the problems of Zimbabwe will be resolved by the people of Zimbabwe."

Excuse me!! If that was the attitude that the world had taken in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, we would have still been languishing under apartheid - while the rest of Africa and the world waited for "the problems of South Africa" to be "resolved by the people of South Africa."

I have to agree with Cosatu's Patrick Craven: this response by the DFA is "shamefully weak" and "disgraceful"! Add "pathetic" and "disgusting" to the list.

Now, more than ever, Zimbabweans need South African support so that they can "resolve the problems of Zimbabwe". We, as a people, and our government, must come out strongly in support of the democratic rights of the Zimbabwean people and against the tyranny of Mugabe. With the fault lines showing within his own party, such support from their southern neighbour might be all that is necessary to tip the scale and force Mugabe out - once and for all! Away with quiet diplomacy! Action now!

South African Muslim organisations on Bush’s war of terror

At the end of last year, the Bush administration attempted to include the names of two South Africans on the UN list of terror suspects that is maintained by the “1267 Committee”. The two – cousins Junaid and Farhad Dockrat – were spared by the intervention of the South African government which objected to the inclusion and demanded evidence before accepting such charges against its citizens.

The US claimed that it had “three trolley loads of evidence” but that revealing these trolley loads would compromise its intelligence-gathering techniques. With no evidence forthcoming, the 1267 Committee – which can only make decisions on consensus – placed the names on its list of “holds”.

The US, nevertheless, went ahead and included the Dockrats’ names on its own terror list. The result is that any assets of the two in the US would, by now, be frozen, they would not be able to travel to the US (why anyone would want to, these days, is beyond me) and their assets in South African banks linked to the Swift network could also be in jeopardy.

In the immediate aftermath of the announcement, only one South African organization issued a condemnation of the US actions. After much discussion and negotiation, a group of 15 organisations last week held a media conference where they issued the following statement (the organisations’ names are at the bottom of the statement).

Statement by Muslims of South Africa
27th February 2007
JISS Centre, Mayfair, Johannesburg

We, South African organisations representing the Muslims of this country, declare that:

• We believe that no single country has the unilateral right to define terrorism or to coerce other countries to support their viewpoint;

• We condemn the Bush administration for listing some South Africans as “terrorists” and for threatening to list more South Africans without due process and without any consideration for the need to provide substantial and credible evidence;

• We support the stance of the South African government in its insistence on securing credible evidence for such listings and for subscribing to the principle of administrative justice before acting against any of its citizens;

• We further reject with contempt the decision by the Bush administration and some of its allies for imposing travel restrictions on South African religious and community leaders, academics, activists and their families;

• We condemn the Bush administration for detaining prisoners of war indefinitely and without fair trial in violation of the Geneva Conventions, such as those in Guantanamo Bay, and call for their immediate and unconditional release;

• We are strongly opposed to unlawful acts of rendition of so-called suspected “terrorists”;

• We proclaim that, as believing Muslims, we are opposed to all acts of injustice and acts of indiscriminate violence against innocent civilians perpetrated either by individuals, organisations or states;

• We advocate that any effort aimed at curbing unconstitutional or criminal activities by individuals or organisations should not undermine our hard-won fundamental human rights and infringe on our civil liberties;

• We reserve the right to express solidarity with all peoples living under the yoke of colonialism, national oppression and foreign occupation and to assist such peoples both materially and financially in their struggles for national liberation and freedom.

• We urge all countries, including our own, to respect the rule of law when dealing with the rights of their citizens and others.

Muslims, as South African patriots, have contributed actively to the struggle for national liberation and against apartheid. We commit ourselves to continue with this tradition and to work with our fellow compatriots in order to:
+ struggle for the socio-economic development of our nation;
+ fight poverty, crime and HIV/AIDS ;
+ intensify the campaign for the moral regeneration of all our people; and
+ to promote respect, tolerance and peace among all South Africans.

This statement is supported by:
• Association of Muslim Schools
• Call of Islam
• Eastern Cape Islamic Congress
• Eastern Cape Ulama Council
• Islamic Council of South Africa
• Islamic Forum – KZN
• Islamic Medical Association
• Jamiatul Ulama / Council of Muslim Theologians (formerly Jamiatul Ulama Transvaal)
• Murabitun South Africa
• Muslim Judicial Council
• Muslim Vision 2020
• Muslim Youth Movement
• Sunni Jamiyat-e-ulama
• Sunni Ulama Council
• Union of Muslim Students’ Associations

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.