Briefing by Deputy Minister on Terrorism

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
11 September 2002
BRIEFING BY DEPUTY MINISTER ON TERRORISM

Chairperson: Dr P Jordan (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Briefing by Deputy Minister
OAU Terrorism Convention
Jonathan Freedland Israel set on tragic path, says chief rabbi The Guardian 27/08/02

SUMMARY
The Deputy Minister spoke on the issue of terrorism. He condemned the September 11^th attacks but emphasised that terrorism was not unfamiliar to the rest of the world and did not occur only in the Middle East. He was concerned by the precedent that would be set by US's stance on pre-emptive strikes and felt that diplomatic means should first be exhausted. He cautioned against replacing one evil regime with another. South Africa should take a sober review of the situation and he recommended that the definition of "terrorism" centre on attacks on civilians, rather than on what constituted a struggle.

Members of the Committee were critical of the US response to terrorism, particularly with regard to the singling out of Iraq, when it was not the only country to have nuclear weapons and since the US themselves held nuclear weapons. Issues that the Chair felt required greater exploration were the extent to which nuclear weapons were needed and the strengthening of multi-lateral institutions.

MINUTES
Briefing
The Deputy Minister took the opportunity to express his condolences to the families of the 3000 who had died or been injured in the September 11^th attacks. President Mbeki would lead the South African delegation on that day to the memorial service in New York. He thought it an appropriate and fitting tribute to all those who lost their lives, but the following day would mark one of the most important debates that the UN General Assembly had faced for a long time and it was expected that major announcements would be made on the issue of terrorism and how to combat it. The debated was being looked forward to because its outcomes would determine a lot of policies an actions in the coming period and so he felt it appropriate to discuss the issue of terrorism.

He reiterated that as bad as September 11th was in scope and ruthlessness, the issue of terrorism was not something unfamiliar. African countries, including South Africa had experienced terrorism, as had Kashmir, the Balkans, Spain, Russia and other countries and it was a phenomenon that had haunted people for many years. This opportunity would be taken by government and the people condemn acts of terrorism and to participate with other governments investigating and dealing with acts of terrorism.

It was important that the fight was done in a co-operative way and under the aegis of the UN, which was the body through which fundamental threats like terrorism should be tackled. It was important to remember and to reinforce that it was not a fight against Islam or any religious group. The fight against terrorism would be a long-term one and it was a strongly held view that the matter could not be dealt with militarily. A holistic approach, rather than a military approach was necessary. Post September 11^th the world has had to deal with new concepts of "either you are with us or against us" and pre-emptive strikes.

Thee have been unprecedented discussions on post September 11th not only on terrorism but on how to deal with it. He quoted Brazinsky from the New York Times of 1^st September 2002, who highlighted the fact that all the issues that faced the world before September 11th are still with us - poverty, environmental issues, HIV/AIDS etc. If those issues were tackled with decisively, the issue of terrorism would not be able to be dealt with effectively. He quoted Pulitzer Prize winner Dennis Lewis and Noam Chomsky from the Sunday Times and said that it was that many of these writers are trying to find an explanation for what gave rise to September 11th . A new concept had emerged from President Bush's speech at West Point in June - the extended interpretation of Article 51 of the UN Charter. He had stated and began to identify that the US need not wait for attacks before being allowed to engage in pre-emptive strikes.

The concept of pre-emption has great significance. The fight against terrorism has been broadened against those seen as a potential threat. This could not be ignored and cognisance must be taken of it. There was a need to accept the reality that the notion of pre-emptive strikes was high on the agenda of other countries and would be used.

Mark Steyn of the Spectator identified the thinking of some very important forces. He was concerned that the writer says that it is not necessary for the new regime in Iraq to better, only different and he hoped that Steyn was not right.

It was vital that an attempt was made to tackle terrorism and to use the UN institutions and it was also important that the actions taken do not create the conditions for new forms of terrorism.

The Deputy Minister did not doubt that there might be people who do not like Saddam Hussein and would not mind him no longer being there but there were also people who did not like Saddam Hussein but who did not want him to be taken out militarily. The Germans strongly oppose military action, the French have said that Iraq should be allowed three weeks in which to let in nuclear inspectors, the Russians do not think that acting militarily will solve the problem and the Chinese were of the same opinion. One thing that everybody is consistent on is that all pressure must be put on the Iraqi regime to ensure that weapons of mass destruction are destroyed.

His personal view was that Saddam Hussein's tyranny was not justification for going to war because it would lend justification to many other countries in the regions who, due to the UN system, had been "held back". There were strong debates within the US on the role of the US in the world order and concern that it evolves in the interests of everybody.

Scott Ritter, an American now working for the UN, had said the previous week that for the sake of his country and fellow soldiers he hoped that the US would pull out of Iraq. Yesterday the Financial Times had highlighted the inaccuracy of news reports on the situation. There is a very real responsibility to get down to the facts and soberly review the situation. All diplomatic means should first be exhausted before military action is taken. Countries were bound by the resolution of the Security Council and South Africa was one of few countries that have responded to the Resolution.

There is still no definition of "terrorism" as this has been a stumbling block between those who want to identify terrorists and those who want to distinguish genuine liberation struggles. However, even in struggles attacks against civilians should not be acceptable and this is the approach that should be taken. Parliament had ratified the OAU Convention on Terrorism and was ratifying other terrorism conventions indicating South Africa's clear position on terrorism, but it was important to ensure that one attack on terrorism did not fuel the terrorist situation.

Discussion
A member stated that a lot of what he would be saying was predictable, but he would be saying it with a sense of concern. He questioned if, honestly, the real threat to world peace was terrorism. He asked because terrorism related to attacks on innocent civilians and, in the name of the war on terror, the US had invaded Afghanistan and killed innocents with impunity. Whoever kills innocent civilians - a wanton destruction of life and property - should be stopped be stopped, even thought they were doing it in the name of anti-terrorism.
The second issue was that the US has the right to nuclear weapons but nobody else. In this case, Iraq had been singled out, although India, Pakistan, Russia and China all had nuclear weapons as well. He questioned if nuclear weapons were deemed to be more of threat if held by Iraq or Iran.

Dr Mulder (FF) said that he had visited the US in May and noticed that there were American flags everywhere. He could understand their patriotism, but when he had asked when the flags would be taken down the response had been that they would be taken down when the war was won. His experience was that it would never stop and his concern was on how the US was going to get out of the it as they would need to announce a victory. Pre-emptive strike and the keeping of nuclear weapons by Saddam Hussein were both dangers to democracy. He agreed with Mr Pahad that a sober approach must be taken and all the evidence needed to be considered.

Dr Geldenhuys (NNP) said that there were no root causes for what had happened on September 11th except, it seemed, the specific interpretation of a religion. He would like to hear if specific root causes had been identified. His opinion was that the US should not attack Iraq as it would endanger the global coalition on terrorism.

Ms Mahomed (ANC) asked what the Minister's view was with regard to the UN Resolution on world peace, and why some countries were obliged to enforce UN resolutions and other not. She questioned how one reconciled with the fact that when the US was attacked, suddenly everyone was upset, however terrorism itself was an age-old problem.

Mr Pahad responded, on the issue of root causes that it was not only one cause that gives rise to terrorism but was part of a bigger principle that terrorist breed in the conditions that are conducive. The vast majority of the population of the Middle East are under the age of 20 and unemployed. Osama Bin Laden had said after September 11th that the attacks were done in support of the Palestinian struggle, although the Deputy Minister did not believe that Bin Laden had supported the cause before. Thereafter, Mr Arafat had immediately said that he did not want that kind of support. The terrorist incidents in Kashmir and Chechnya had come from the "same stable" and there was a need to find the base from which they were all recruited and handle the matter that way. His view was that the matter should be determined by a UN sanctioned action. He stressed that the Arab streets were waiting to explode. Every regime in the Middle East was sitting on a powder keg and it was imperative not light the match because of it could emerge another Ayatollah.
In response to Ms Mahomed question, he said that double standards were precisely the reason why there was a need to strengthen multi-lateral institutions. There have been other forms of terror. He had warned against the Northern Alliance because their track record was horrendous and he had cautioned against replacing the Taliban with a worse regime. He had read a horrendous report in News Week of Taliban soldiers who had surrendered to the Northern Alliance, only to be placed in containers and taken to a mass burial site - during which time they had died. An investigation was being called into this. The Northern Alliance had admitted that this had happened but claimed that the numbers had been exaggerated - it was not 700 people but only 150. When replacing one evil it was important not to replace it with another evil.
The nature and scope of September 11th was unprecedented and concluded that it could not but be condemned.

Mr Sithole (ANC) asked what was the view of the Deputy Minister with regard to the fact that the US had been party to the building of Saddam Hussein. He asked if it were an accident that he was now being seen as a serious threat. He questioned to what extent the Saddam situation was playing into the hand of the political situation in the US and indicated that the matter was being kept unstable in order to ensure the present government's position in power.
He highlighted the attitude of the US with regard to multi-lateral agreements and felt that they only involved themselves in multi-lateral bodies when it was being done on US terms.

Mr Ramgobin (ANC) said that he could understand the Deputy Minister being circumspect, given the position he held, but did not feel that the same applied to Members of Parliament. Moving away from Iraq, he said that he had been trying for some time to find a part of the world where there was turmoil and the US was not involved in some way. He felt that the US should stop believing themselves to be the custodians of the world as they are the cause and source of instability in the world. He referred to Bin Laden and Hussein as "American babies" created to defend their then national objectives and felt that Americans should be told that what goes around comes around. There was a need for a concerted national programme consisting of people to people mobilisation to raise the level of consciousness of the entire legal community and say that this conduct is the source of the world's instability and lack of peace. Experience was rooted in a deep moral understanding of what humanity ought to be and he wondered what the churches, women and NGO's in America were saying. He felt that they could shout until they were blue and not be able to convince non-Americans that there are other sources of evil when they create evil. It was not possible to go beneath the vulgarity of economies that were based on and thrived on wars and human wealth that increased on it. He did not expect the Deputy Minister to respond.

Mr Mokoena (ANC) thanked the Deputy Minister for a lucid explanation of a complex situation. He asked what had happened to plans to restructure the UN and what gave the US the idea that they could win this was, which prima facie could not be won.

Mr Pahad thought that the initiative to restructure the UN was a continuing process and was not sure that the problems of the Security Council would be solved soon. Everyone had agreed that there was a need for reform, but debates on the changes continued.
He could not predict whether the war was winnable or not so he could not say why the US was confident on it. The decision to go to war had not been made. The question of how to deal with terrorists was linked to the broader question of world peace. The following day's General Assembly meeting would give an indication of where the world was going and the question must wait until then.
In response to Mr Ramgobin he said that when an issue of that complexity was discussed, one must be able to understand all the issues and not just generalise. It was a question of how, through interaction, to influence each other and the way forward.
Mr Sithole's question required more time to be answered. In the US there was a strong debate on the issue, however he did not have time to discuss it further.

The Chair said that he had hoped to have a discussion on religious intolerance but it had been agreed with the Deputy Minister to discuss terrorism as a destabilising factor. The discussion had shifted to the present threat of war, which was inevitable given the context of the discussion. The Deputy Minister had pointed out the issues that needed greater exploration - the extent to which countries confer on themselves the right to nuclear weapons to the extent that they declare war on other who dared to have nuclear weapons. The greater question was to what extent are weapons of mass destruction needed. Nuclear weapons are immoral regardless of who holds them and the fact that they are being held by a superpower does not make them more moral.
The other issue was whether sufficient weight was being given to multi-lateral institutions. Some could do what they want to regardless of the institutions while others pay their fees when they chose to. This was another area that required further exploration.

Terrorism was a threat to world peace and did not only arise from the Middle East although there seemed to be a temptation to associate it with the Middle East. Terrorism also occurred in Chechnya, Spain, Russia and others where it had nothing to do with internal politics and that was what needed consideration. The reason why certain organisations have become more attractive is because of the mood of despair of the people. Religious intolerance was mirrored around the world and the focus should not be put on this to the extent that all other issues were forgotten.

Meeting adjourned.