APPROPRIATE RESPONSES TO THE TERROR ATTACKS ON THE US
Briefing to the Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs
Laurie Nathan - Centre for Conflict Resolution
11 October 2001
Chairperson, Honourable Members and friends
Thank you for inviting me to brief the foreign affairs committee on appropriate responses to the terror attacks on the US. I seek to address the question of `what is to be done?’ and to propose an agenda for peace and justice.
The agenda has three overarching themes:
It is essential to attend to the causes as well as the symptoms of terrorism. Among other things, this requires concentrated, long-term and systemic efforts to promote political, social and economic justice within states and at the global level.
These efforts must be multi-lateral and must take place through legitimate international forums, many of which are in dire need of reform.
All military and other punitive action must be consistent with international law.
Over the past few weeks, an emphasis on these themes has been construed by some people as somehow insufficiently critical of the attacks on the US and as disrespectful to the victims, their families and their country.
I condemn unequivocally the attacks on the US as wanton terror. Yet this condemnation is based on the fundamental principle of respect for the sanctity of life and human rights of all people, regardless of their nationality, ethnicity and religion. The agenda that follows rests on this fundamental principle.
Military action All military action taken by the US and other countries must be consistent both with international law governing the use and threat of force (chiefly the Charter of the United Nations) and with international humanitarian law governing the conduct of warfare (chiefly the Geneva conventions and protocols).
In the immediate aftermath of the attacks on the US, some Western politicians and security experts proposed that "effective retaliation" required the US and its allies to use "overwhelming force", including punitive military expeditions, the overthrow of foreign regimes, political assassinations and the deployment of cluster bombs and napalm.
In a statement released on 18 September, the Centre’s Board of Governors warned that these proposals were grossly irresponsible. Military strategies of this kind have been tried before. They have not only failed, but have caused massive suffering to millions of people in many regions. The strategies have also been wholly counter-productive, breeding successive generations of terror.
States have a right and a responsibility to protect their citizens from harm. But they have no legal or moral right to do this through disproportionate force that wreaks havoc on civilian populations in other countries. States are obliged to act within the constraints of international law. The relevant rules were not made for normal situations. They were designed precisely for extreme circumstances. If the rules are abrogated, essential principles developed by the international community over several decades will be severely compromised. We may end up destroying the values we seek to defend. The risk of anarchy will be great.
The attacks on Afghanistan by the US and its allies have been conducted with restraint over the past few days. Nevertheless, the escalating humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, with over a million Afghanis rendered refugees or displaced people, is a matter of grave concern. These people are not responsible for terrorism. They are victims of the tyrannical rule of the Taliban.
There is a point at which the humanitarian cost of punitive action is so great that the action becomes illegitimate even if its objective is legitimate. This problem is evident in the on-going imposition of sanctions against Iraq, which have contributed to the death of over half a million children. Notwithstanding the culpability of Saddam Hussein, the sanctions have rightly been denounced as a crime against humanity.
Other forms of international law enforcement
Military action is clearly an insufficient means of dealing with international terrorism. There is also a need to generate more sophisticated intelligence and to ensure a high level of intelligence co-operation between states. The South African government has declared its support for these strategies.
The UN Security Council is currently endeavouring to freeze the funds and interdict the flow of money to terrorist organisations. The UN is also in the process of consolidating and strengthening existing international conventions on terrorism.
The definition of `terrorism’ is critical in this regard. The UN is obliged to oppose all forms of deliberate violence against civilians, regardless of the identity of targets and the identity of the perpetrators (which include both state and non-state actors). The reality is that the most pervasive and cumulatively damaging form of terrorism is repression by states against their own citizens. It is unacceptable that South Africa and other democratic countries declare their opposition to terrorism while exporting arms to repressive regimes.
The envisaged International Criminal Court is another essential element in the global campaign against terrorism and crimes against humanity, not least because it would entail judicial processes that have an international character and international endorsement. A Bill providing for the implementation and enforcement of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is currently before this Parliament.
Multi-lateralism through legitimate international forums
Since the end of the Cold War, there has been a debate on whether the `new world order’ will be characterised primarily by multilateral action or unilateral action by powerful states. The current crisis raises the equally important question of whether multilateralism will be pursued through systematic and preventive measures within the framework of legitimate international forums, or through reactive and ad-hoc measures outside that framework.
In addition to establishing the International Criminal Court, there is an urgent need for states to introduce, ratify and/or strengthen international arms control treaties relating to nuclear weapons, biological and chemical weapons, conventional armaments, light weapons and landmines.
Other forums are required to address the problem of political and socio-economic justice within and between states. Most conflict resolution scholars and practitioners are convinced, on the basis of ample evidence, that fundamental injustice is a fundamental (though not the only) cause of insecurity, conflict and violence.
I have deliberately emphasised the term `legitimate’ with reference to international forums. In tackling the issues listed above, it is also essential to address the composition of such bodies as the UN Security Council, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. For as long as these institutions reflect the balance of power at the end of World War II and favour the interests of wealthy and powerful states, they will not enjoy sufficient legitimacy.
Tolerance, respect and dialogue between cultures
Over the past few days, the US and its allies have been at pains to insist that their military operations are not directed at Muslims or Islam. Yet in the immediate aftermath of the attacks on the US, and in general prior to these attacks, the Western media and frequently Western governments tended to equate Islam with fundamentalism.
We should be clear that fundamentalist elements exist in many faiths; it was, after all, a fundamentalist Jew who killed an Israeli Prime Minister. And we have to be very clear that we are opposed to fundamentalism of any kind rather than to any particular faith.
It is not sufficient that we are tolerant and respectful of religions other than our own. There is also a need for on-going dialogue and interaction between different religions. President Mohammed Khatami of Iran has repeatedly issued calls for "a dialogue among civilizations" as a "paradigm for peace". I am unaware of any Western political leader who had made such calls as consistently and determinedly. The global challenge in this regard applies equally to South Africa, and to the Western Cape in particular.
Palestine
There is no doubt that the conflict between Israel and Palestine is related to the current international crisis and that the resolution of this conflict would contribute significantly to reducing international tensions.
In November 2000 the Israeli cabinet considered a document prepared by the Prime Minister’s office on alleged transgressions by the Palestinians. The Acting Foreign Minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami, opposed the distribution of the document on the grounds that no one would be surprised that a people under occupation had failed to honour its agreements with its occupier. Henry Siegman, former Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress, observed correctly in the New York Review of Books that this statement "goes to the very heart of the conflict and extracts the poison buried there". The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 inflicted a great injustice on the Palestinian people, compounded by the subsequent Israeli rule of the Occupied Territories.
Acknowledgement of the primary causes of the violence does not constitute anti-semitism. Nor does it amount to a denial of Israel’s right to exist. Rather, it constitutes an urgent call on the Israeli government to redress injustice and satisfy legitimate claims, without which peace negotiations will fail.
The necessity for justice and freedom derives from pragmatic as well as ethical considerations. Oppression almost always gives rise to rebellion and thereby threatens the security of the oppressor. Repression and reprisals in response to rebellion provide no relief. They only deepen, broaden and prolong the cycle of violence and counter-violence. The notion that security can be achieved through reliance on force is demonstrably false.
The security of Israelis and Palestinians is inescapably intertwined. Neither group will be secure for as long as the other is insecure. There is consequently no viable alternative to a negotiated settlement that is just, that recognises both Palestine and Israel as fully independent sovereign states, and that provides for peaceful coexistence and co-operation between these states.
New epoch
The agenda for peace and justice presented above is incomplete with respect to the topics and the level of detail that can be provided in a brief address. It nevertheless seems clear that we are at the start of a new international epoch. Just as World War I and World War II shaped the international system, its structures and its agenda for decades, so too will the attacks on the US and the short- and long-term responses of various actors. We stand at the crossroads between deeper polarisation and violence on the one hand, and a more equitable, legitimate and effective international system on the other. The tragedy in the US presents us with both grave dangers and historic opportunities.