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/

Just another day of thuggery

How does one respond to today’s news about the execution of that brutal monster, Saddam Hussein? Many of the questions I have been asked – mainly by media – about the issue have focussed on the day on which the execution took place – an irrelevancy in my opinion. “How do you respond to the fact that the execution was on the day of Eid,” they wanted to know.

The journalists ask that question because that seems to be a big preoccupation of a number of Muslims – including certain Muslim governments. Frankly, I don’t really care that he was executed on the Day of Sacrifice. The obsession around the day simply serves to divert attention from much more important issues surrounding the execution. And these are what I want briefly to focus on.

But first, I must say that I am surprised at Muslims who shed crocodile tears for this erstwhile dictator. Whatever punishment Saddam could get in this world could not be close to what he really deserves for his brutality and ferocity. I remember when we were protesting the 1991 war against Iraq by the US, a coalition of organisations in Durban published a pamphlet wherein we referred to George Bush (senior) as the “Big thug” and to Saddam Hussein as the “Little thug”. A few Muslims were very unhappy. How can we call the man a thug? After all, he is a Muslim. And besides, when a Muslim is under attack we should rally to his defence, not help in attacking him.

Sorry, but that just doesn’t seem like the Islamic thing to me. Bush was the global thug and Saddam was a neighbourhood thug. And, like a typical neighbourhood thug, he was also sometimes generous (remember the money he sent to families in Palestine), sometimes warm, sometimes approachable, sometimes protective. Like a mafia boss. But, basically, a thug. (In fact, I think “thug” was too mild a word for Saddam (just as it was too mild a word for Bush).)

Now we have the local thug being brought to his knees (and worse) by the global thug, that American son-of-a-Bush. But there are serious issues around this execution that deserve our careful reflection.

· The whole process has been a travesty of justice. The court case was a travesty of justice, a kangaroo court. In what decent, democratic society do you have a judge trying someone who he has been personally harmed by? Oh wait, Iraq is not a democratic society; it’s a country under occupation. Why, even Iraqi police can’t do anything without the power they receive from the occupation forces.

· Following on the mockery that was called a court case was the mockery that was called an execution. Where do you find state executioners that have personal axes to grind with the prisoner and, in grinding them, taunts the prisoner as he is led up to the noose? (Let us forget for a moment the question of whether capital punishment is a decent thing for a decent society; it’s a debate for another day.) So Saddam was executed, in the true style of a gangland revenge attack.

· Isn’t it interesting how quickly Saddam was brought to the execution chamber? Why? Would justice not have better been served if he were protected for a while longer? Justice would definitely have better been served if, instead of a sham trial, there had been some kind of a truth investigation which sought to reveal all the monster’s crimes and atrocities. That would have helped to bring closure to thousands of families who had been victims of Saddam’s thuggery. Families whose family members had disappeared, been tortured, been maimed, been killed. What would have served the justice more: a cover-up execution or the truth? As a family member of someone that was assassinated in a political killing, I certainly believe it’s the latter.

· Of course, from the American perspective, there are good reasons for aborting Saddam’s life as quickly as possible. In the current case that Saddam was being tried for (the trial started in August 2006), Saddam and six others were facing genocide charges for their attacks against Kurds in Northern Iraq. The most famous of these was the March 1988 Halabja massacre where Saddam used chemical weapons against the entire village of Halabja. The pictures of the aftermath remain in my mind. This was also the period when the Iraqi war against Iran was in progress. And, it was the time when Iraq was a US ally. Indeed, Saddam got his chemical weapons’ technology from the US and Europe. Remember the three meetings Saddam had with Donald Rumsfeld around this time? Or the CIA operative who said of Saddam: “He’s a son-of-a-bitch, but he’s our son-of-a-bitch.” The US had been supporting Saddam from the 1960s when he overthrew the communist government and Iraqis witnessed communist bodies hanging from lightpoles. Saddam had threatened, soon after he was captured, that he would reveal all regarding the role of the US in propping up his dictatorship: its support of his war imposed on Iran, its acquiescence with his invasion of Kuwait, etc. Removing him from the equation protects that information and protects the US, the UK and the Gulf states which also used him as a proxy to fight the Iranians.

· Back to the issue of the date… as much as I think the date is irrelevant, the fact is that there is great symbolism attached to the day. It is the day of sacrifice; the day when hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world celebrate the acceptance by Abraham, his wife Hajar and his son Ismail of God’s command on him to sacrifice his son. Did no one from the American and Iraqi power structures consider that executing Saddam on that day was making him into a sacrifice, a modern-day Ismail? Was no one concerned that the thug was going to become a martyr? I am pretty sure that in a few centuries (maybe even decades) Saddam will be remembered by the Muslim masses for the fact that he was executed on Eid, for his approaching his death with dignity, not for his atrocities and crimes against humanity. Saddam has been very good at using Islam for his political ends – even adding “Allahu Akbar” to the flag when Iraq was at war so as to get support of the Muslim world and going to the gallows with a copy of the Qur’an in his hand. Fools create heroes because of symbols.

· And, of course, there’s the sectarian aspect. Did no one realise that he was being executed on the day when Sunnis were celebrating Eid – while Shi’as were to celebrate on the next day? Or that his executioners seemed all to be Shi’as (if the taunting and sloganeering is anything to go by)? Or that this could lead to sectarian violence in a very volatile part of the world? Or, was that the plan?

· Finally, with Saddam gone (and another two henchmen due to go soon), the Ba’ath Party which he headed can finally reinvent itself – sans the Butcher of Baghdad. It doesn’t have to accept responsibility for the crimes of the past, blaming all of that, instead, on Saddam. Dead men, after all, tell no tales. Another thuggish party given a new lease on life.

I say: good riddance to Saddam; insha Allah, the world will be a slightly better place. But, if he was kept alive, it could have been a much better place.

‘This enemy of my enemy stuff doesn’t work’

Just over half a century ago, the world saw one of the most despicable events – lasting more than half a decade – in contemporary history being perpetrated from within the heart of Europe and dragging much of the world into a war. That “event” was more than a decade of Nazi rule in Germany, the Second World War (or the Second European Tribal War, as Malcolm X preferred to call it) caused by that rule and, most especially, the deliberate, planned and systematic genocide of a number of groups of people: Jews, Roma (commonly called gypsies and persecuted all over Europe for centuries), homosexuals, etc.

The scale of the genocide and the systematic nature of it is what makes it one of the greatest tragedies of our time. It is a tragedy that must be remembered, commemorated and learnt from. The message of “Never again” that is a favourite refrain of Jews – especially survivors of the attempted genocide and their families – must become a driving force in international politics. Never again to genocide, never again to holocaust, never again to ethnic cleansing, never again to the driving of people out of their homes and the creation of refugee populations, never again to the attempt to wipe out entire groups of people on the basis of their ethnicity, “race” (a fallacious concept in itself but one which is used to delineate people nevertheless), class, sexual orientation, religion…

Of course, the “Never again” call and commitment has not seized all people around the world. Hence we have seen or continue to see the genocide in Rwanda or the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (see http://electronicintifada.net or http://psc.za.org), among others. History is also witness, of course, to holocausts and genocides before the mid-20^th Century: those against native Americans (or First Nations as many prefer to call themselves) and Australian aboriginals being just two examples. Some of these were worse in scale than that perpetrated by Nazi Germany (80 million First Nations people killed, for example).

However, whether there were genocides before or after 1945 does not detract from the enormous tragedy of the Nazi holocaust. Nor should there be any detraction by the fact of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (even if the holocaust in Germany was used as an excuse for this ethnic cleansing). Nor should there be any detraction by the fact that the Nazi holocaust has become an “industry” that is abused by a number of people for various agendas (see Norman Finkelstein’s The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering).

The fact is that a holocaust took place in Europe in the middle of the 20^th Century. The fact is that there was an intention and attempt by the Nazis to destroy the entire Jewish nation. These facts are sufficient for us all, today and forever, to stand on the side of those opposing holocaust, genocide and all forms of injustice. Jews should be the foremost in these struggles – as they have been in many other struggles.

That I am a religious Muslim who takes the Qur’an extremely seriously, forces me to want to have nothing to do with those who – for whatever reason or agenda – seek to deny these facts. And, let me add, it really doesn’t matter to me whether it was 5,999,999 or 6,000,001 Jews that were killed by Hitler and his murderous followers. It was a genocide against Jews (yes, and others too) and that is enough for me to be repulsed by it.

That is why I find the conference that just ended in Iran to be so odious to my sensibilities. It is not just stupid, silly, untactical, not good for the cause of the Palestinian people and insensitive – as many have said. All these are true. But, more importantly, it is a denial of a historical fact and a moral truth. And, being so, it is a psychological rejection of the “Never again” that should be inspiring us. This conference should not have happened. The people that were brought together (and I don’t deny that there might be some good people, even some people who are not holocaust denialists, but that is besides the point) should never have been brought together in this manner. What moral, spiritual, legal or political purpose can be served by bringing together people who insist that the number of Jews murdered was not 6 million and people who are arch-racists?

A friend wrote to me a few days ago about an interview on CNN by Wolf Blitzer (former lobbyist for the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)) with David Duke, former head of the Ku Klux Klan who spoke at the Iran conference. She said:

[David Duke] is not just a “former” klansman, he’s still an avowed racist and Americans, especially African Americans, know this. You don’t just wake and decide one morning that you’re not a racist anymore, that takes years of hard work even for soft racists like your average Joe who has beers with his black neighbor and once dated a Latina in high school… Those agreeing with [Duke] are the same people who call us islamofascists. This enemy of my enemy stuff doesn’t work. This conference was counterproductive, reactionary and damaging.

My friend is an African-American Muslim who knows very well what emotions the name of David Duke evokes among African-Americans.

Struggles for justice are important; they are what make us human. Passion against injustice is crucial in order to continue to maintain that humanity. But these struggles themselves must be based on truth, on justice and on moral high ground.

“Stand out firmly for justice,” the Qur’an says, “even as against yourselves…”

Sorry, no moderates here

The South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) is on some kind of a crusade against the Freedom of Expression Institute, where I work. They have, thus far, sent three letters to the FXI with various complaints, and have been rewarded by three letters in response, from the FXI's chairperson Mabalane Mfundisi. (See the series of six letters on the FXI's website.) I will write a blog posting at some point about these letters. However, I want to focus in the current posting on one issue raised in the first SAJBD letter.

SAJBD's Associate Director David Saks tries (he doesn't do it very well, though) to make the case that the FXI is engaged in a campaign against Israel and against “Jewish communal institutions” which have been the target of an FXI “special attack”. “By contrast,” Saks accuses, “the FXI's silence on cases where Muslim organisations and activists have suppressed freedom of expression has been truly deafening.” (The accusations are a load of hogwash, but that is not the point of this post.) In attempting to illustrate the latter point, Saks says:

Mention should also be made of another FXI statement released in 2002, when the organisation decided to condemn the reputed death threats that Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry, Ronnie Kasrils had received because of his anti-Zionist views… However, one finds no comparable statements of condemnation of the far more pervasive intimidation of Muslim moderates that has taken place in South Africa, something that has since led to the emigration of such eminent clerics and academics as Ebrahim Moosa, Faried Esack and Dullah Omar.

(As an aside, we must note that the SAJBD has, as yet, not condemned the death threats against Kasrils.) The point of this post is the last part of the above quote, that the FXI has not condemned the “far more pervasive intimidation of Muslim moderates”. (Of course, SAJBD builds what it thinks is a significant argument based on fallacious research: Dullah Omar, former Minister of Transport and, before that, Minister of Justice in South Africa, did not emigrate; he died of cancer in South Africa.)

Professor Farid Esack, when he read the SAJBD letter, seemed to be less than pleased about the use of his name in this manner. He sent the following email to Saks:

Dear David Sacks

It has recently come to my attention that you alleged that I am a “moderate Muslim” and stated that I have emigrated from South Africa.

a. I view the term moderate Muslim with disdain. It is a term used to denote Muslims who acquiesce to injustice and occupation and who view the world through the lenses of Pax Americana. There is no particular virtue in moderation towards anti-semitism, sexism, racism, occupations and all forms of apartheid (including Israeli apartheid) or the machinations of the empire, led today by the United States. Basically, it is a loaded term used for Muslims who have nothing to say to injustice and are desperate to fit in with the games of the powerful.

b. I am very much a South African, enjoying my teaching here in the United States, but I am a migrant labourer. I live in South Africa, and incidentally, take a rather dim view of those who emigrate.

I am not unaware of an insidious streak of anti-Jewishness among Muslims; it is something that I find despicable and have consistently spoken about and condemned. My commitment to oppose all forms of oppression, though, lead me very much into the camp of the Kasrils and the FXIs of this world. I would thus appreciate it if you kindly refrain from invoking my name in your battles against them. They are my comrades from the days when it was not nearly as sexy as it is now to claim to be against racism and discrimination.

I must second Esack's comments about the term “moderate Muslim”. Having been (and still being) a fellow ideological traveller with Esack and Moosa, I, like them, hate the term and refuse to have it linked to me. To me, like to many others, it is disdainful and insulting. Whenever I hear the term, I recall the repeated assertion in the 1980s by the Apartheid bittereinder, former president PW Botha, that the South African Muslim community comprised of law-abiding and “moderate” people and that it was just a handful of “radicals” that were the troublemakers. The troublemakers, of course, were us Muslims who were involved in the anti-apartheid struggle, who argued that the Qur'an demanded from us a jihad against the apartheid state and who vigorously engaged in that jihad in various ways.

To PW, in the 1980s, “moderate Muslims” were those who wanted to live peacefully with apartheid. To George Bush and his ilk and the SAJBD today, “moderate Muslims” are those who want to live peacefully with imperialism, Zionist racism and apartheid in Israel. I refused to be a “moderate Muslim” in the 1980s, I refuse to be one today. I will not be sold on this understanding of “moderate Muslim” which seeks to strip away any notion of struggling for justice. There can be no co-existence with injustice and oppression; I will not be moderated into believing so.