South Africa Flirting With Terrorism

A frightening article appeared recently in Family Security Matters (a terrorism watchdog) warning South Africa of the dire consequences that its friendship with terrorist organisations and rogue regimes might bring. In very emotive language, the author Peter Pham (the director of the Nelson Institute for International Public Affairs) accuses our government of ‘foolishly playing with fire before the flames sweep across its entire area of responsibility’. While the content of the article echoes many of the issues we have raised over the last year or so, it effectively connects the dots making it a must read.

South Africa has been at the forefront of opposing the establishment of a regional US Military Command in Africa (AFRICOM) (surprise surprise). South African Defense Minister, Mosioua Lekota, has gone so far as to bully fellow African states into not supporting the initiative. At a recent SADC conference he declared that “the interests of unity of African nations supersedes any individual view of a constituent member” and threatened that “should any particular country choose to break ranks with this decision…other sister countries may refuse to cooperate with it in other areas other than that particular area.”

Interestingly the ANC, which prides itself on talking to everybody, has refused to meet with US representatives about the issue. In July for example, Lekota did not even bother to respond to a request from the US Embassy to meet with the designated first commander of AFRICOM, General William Ward. Contrast this with South Africa’s warm embrace of tyrants like Robert Mugabe, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Myanmar’s military Junta as well as terrorists like Ismail Haniyeh. Pham argues that this counterproductive behaviour is motivated by the ANC’s revolutionary/anti-Western worldview. He describes it in stark terms as ‘an ideological straightjacket that endangers not only the lives and property of its citizens, but the security of Africa and, indeed, the world.’

As Pham points out, there are many historical reasons that explain this phenomenon. Before 1994, the ANC itself was branded by many governments as a terrorist organisation (not only the apartheid regime). Thus they have an innate suspicion of those who claim to be fighting terrorists. As a liberation organization, the revolutionary rhetoric of the Bin Laden’s and the Chavez’s unfortunately resonates strongly. Moreover as former exiles, many ANC officials are sympathetic to international fugitives and have turned a blind eye to militants hiding illegally in South Africa.

Despite the bleak picture painted by Pham, I don’t believe the situation is hopeless. There are also strong counter historical/philosophical reasons that could be used to motive a different approach by the ANC to foreign affairs. Yes they were also classed as terrorists. But to any half conscious person it is clear that there was a vast difference in the approach of the ANC and say al Qaeda to the ‘struggle’. In fact this should give our government far more cause to speak out against civilian atrocities.

The ANC, strickly speaking, was not actually a national liberation movement. Its goals were far wider. It hoped to establish a free and prosperous society for all South Africans (see the freedom charter). This is very much at odds with the parochial and anti-democratic objectives of organisations like Hamas. Just as moderate Leftists during the cold war were able to both oppose the Soviet Union and promote more socialist policies, I see no reason why the ANC could not fight terrorism and at the same time work towards a more equitable international political and economic playing field.

Comments

[Gary]

Mike, begging the ANC regime to adopt a more rational foreign policy,is hopeless!
It is like begging the Nats 50 years ago to abandon Apartheid, or begging Hitler to love the Jews.

[Mike]

I am not begging them to do anything. All I am saying is that there are sound reasons to believe that the ANC could be at the forefront of the war against terror. Its not axiomatic that they should be in with the hamas and co.

[Gary]

The ANC is at heart a neo-Stalinits, neo-Marxist organization, and we all know that today far leftists and Moslem fundamnetalists go together like slime and mould.
Leftwing radicals always can be expected to support Islamic terror.

[Hillel]

Gary,

I think you have an over-inflated opinion of the ANC. While I think there may be an ideologue or two left, I think the vast majority are in it for money, or at least in it for the women, drugs and power that money can bring.

I also think that the government hasn't bothered to formulate a policy, they instead continue to act and think as a revolutionary movement and remain caught in a negative definition. i.e. without something to oppose (e.g. the great satan, the little satan, racism, etc) they have nothing. They are thus forced to invent foes in order to retain an identity.

Mike,

I think you're correct in suggesting that if the anc/government lived according to the principles they preached they would be forced to take very different stances on issues, nevertheless I disagree on whether they have any intention of doing anything more than preaching ... until they can get stock options.

[Joel Pollak]

Something doesn't add up here. Pham predicts that "one should not expect much counterterrorism cooperation" from Ronnie Kasrils. He cites Kasrils's radical political beliefs. Yet Kasrils has, in practice, done exactly what foreign intelligence asked of him--witness the Rashid affair. A friend of mine who spoke to a former CIA chief at a public seminar told me that Kasrils had been absolutely cooperative with the U.S. Who knows why. But propaganda is only one level of reality.

[Joel Pollak]

Something doesn't add up here. Pham predicts that "one should not expect much counterterrorism cooperation" from Ronnie Kasrils. He cites Kasrils's radical political beliefs. Yet Kasrils has, in practice, done exactly what foreign intelligence asked of him--witness the Rashid affair. A friend of mine who spoke to a former CIA chief at a public seminar told me that Kasrils had been absolutely cooperative with the U.S. Who knows why. But propaganda is only one level of reality.

[Mike]

Joel, I don’t know if that is entirely fair. Yes he cooperated with regard to Rashid. But we do not know how much information he has that he does not share or act on. Do you think he has he done enough to fight Islamist extremism in South Africa?

[Joel Pollak]

It's a tough question to answer, because there is very little that we know about Islamic radicalism in SA, other than the rhetoric (which is quite prominent). What we don't know is the extent to which SA is willing to ignore radicalism in neighboring countries like Zimbabwe, where there seem to have been unconfirmed reports about terror groups finding refuge on forgotten farms, etc. I personally disagree with Kasrils's strategy in SA--I don't think you can spout the rhetoric and appease or confuse terror, and that the likely outcome is actually the opposite. Nevertheless, as far as US-SA cooperation is concerned, it would seem to be fairly close (for better or for worse, depending on how you view such things as "extraordinary renditions").

[Cnaan]

Except moderate Leftists during the cold war were not universally able to both oppose the Soviet Union and promote more socialist policies. Only in some areas. In other places they failed.

For example, the May 1968 meltdown in France and the subsequent collapse of the republic (4th, was it?) was a distinct failure by the moderate left to oppose or even stave off the Soviet and Maoist doctrines. It was touch and go for quite a few of France's neighbors, too.

Frenchmen have only recently finished paying the economical price. Does the ANC specifically have what it takes to stay on the high road?

Drawing on my very limited understanding of the ANC (largely based on Martin Meredith's The State of Africa) I agree that it seems a likely candidate.

[Mike]

Cnaan I agree. Not all managed to juggle the 2. When I wrote it I had Kennedy and LBJ in mind.

The ANC is not a monolithic organization. What future course it may take is very unclear at the moment. There is a party primary in December when things will become more clear. Obviously if the hardcore Left (The SACP, COSATU and the ANCYL) take control then Chavez and co will probably be given holiday homes in Cape Town. But if the reborn capitalists take charge who knows…there may still be some hope.

[Brett]

Joel

"because there is very little that we know about Islamic radicalism in SA"

You need to define the we. I assure you that "we" may not not much, but much is known. .

It is clear from the release by the US state department a couple months ago that much is known about Islamic terrorism in SA. They publicly stated that SA is a control centre for terrorist funding, money laundering and possibly even training. They know something, and usually in the intelligence world, you release very little of what you actually know to the public.

As much as I hate to defend him, Kasrils' violent anti-Israel stance cannot be automatically extrapolated to home front terrorism support. He hates Israel, he doesn't necessarily love Hamas.

[Gary]

Kasrils doesn't neccesarily love Hamas?
Then why did he say in a press conference with them:
"We stand by you and support you."
and why did he so warmly invite them to SA.
He loves Hamas and Ahmadinejad BECAUSE he hates Israel.

[Mediocrates-x]

Well I suppose when they host and protect terrorists and those terrorists start mucking with the internal security of ZA then we can say we told you so. Of course you'll never get remorse, regret or action out of any government that supports those people today, so you're in for a long slow slide into anarchy and irrelevance. Good luck with that.

[gabriel christou]

please visit
www.gabrielchristou.blogspot.com

you will see PHOTOS of WHO and WHERE Bin Laden and his NETWORKS ARE….

URGENT…PLEASE HELP…. I CANNOT FROM HERE….. I AM BLOCKED ALL AROUND
FORWARD THIS INFORMATION TO THE FBI.

[email protected]

[Brett]

Gary, you said it. He loves them because he hates us. His love is not unconditional. As long as Hamas' target is Israel great - he will welcome and support them. But this MAY not mean he will do the same if the target becomes SA.
I am putting forward a theory, not stating a fact.

[Gary]

The ANC/SACP's love for Fatah (with whom they have the historical ties and not with Hamas) has also been conditional.
As soon as Fatah started to show preparedness to recognize Israel under certain conditions, the ANC/SACP switched to Hamas, supporting Hamas in the UN General Assembly (saying that the Fatah government was illegal).
The ANC had historic relations with Fatah and never with Hamas.
So the tired old explanation that the ANC/SACP support for the Palestinian terrorists is based on old struggle loyalties is a load of bull.
They simply hate Israel and democracy.

[Gary]

Oh, SA supported Hamas in the Security Council as well as the General Assembly.
Sa's man at the UN, Dumisani Khumalo is a real ideologue of the Islamic-Marxist Axis.