Terrorism, double standards and the international community
(MFA Nov 21,
2008):-Over the last few years, terrorism has been one of the international media’s
most frequently used words. And as often misused. But there has been a
surprising lack of unanimity over what it means. Indeed there are literally
dozens of definitions and a great deal of dispute about how it might be
categorized. Discussion and comment on terrorism, and on how to treat it,
remains rife with double standards.
Given the enormity of the
atrocity of September 11, 2001 (9/11) and the fact that it launched the US’s
‘war on terror’, it is not surprising that 9/11 is often seen as a watershed in
the appearance of terror on the international scene. It was, of course, nothing
of the kind, any more than the idea that terrorism should only be associated
with Al-Qaeda or organizations linked to it. In this region of Africa alone,
Ethiopia, for example, was a victim of repeated terrorist attacks long before,
as was Somalia. There were the bombings and assassinations by Al-Itihaad in
Somalia in the early 1990s, and in Ethiopia in the mid 1990s, including the
attempt on the life of the then Minister of Transport, Abdul Majeed Hussein in
1996. In 1995 there was the attempt to kill President Hosni Mubarek by the
Egyptian terrorist group Gama’at al-Islamiyya in Addis Ababa. There were the
terrorist activities of the Oromo Liberation Front in the 1990s and of the
Ogaden National Liberation Front from 1995 onwards. No use of the “one man’s
terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” can conceal the fact that the
extreme and violent activities of these organizations against civilians and
non-civilians alike, must be classified as terrorist. Similarly, there can be
no doubt that the activities of the Lords Resistance Army in Uganda or the Interahamwe
in Rwanda and Congo must be recognized as terrorist.
Yet there remains an
extraordinary reluctance in the international community to see terrorism in
Africa as terrorism, unless that is it is aimed at European or American
interests and people. Indeed, this double standard (which does not, of
course, only affect terrorism) has remained a basic point in the international
response to terrorism. It is one reason why international cooperation against
terrorism has been far less successful than it might otherwise have been. Take
an example near to home: it was noticeable that the international community
failed to condemn the ONLF atrocity at Abole in April last year. Over 70
Ethiopian and Chinese workers were slaughtered in their beds or as they lined up
for breakfast, including women and a three year old child. Not only was there
little condemnation, the BBC in London promptly allowed the leaders of the
ONLF, who were and still are based in London, a platform to defend their
action. Double standards indeed, especially given the outcry in the UK over the
Horn of Africa origins of some of those involved in recent terrorist activities
in the UK.
This is why it is so
disappointing that these double standards also appear to infect the output of
US scholars on the Horn of Africa. Ambassador David Shinn and Professor Ken
Menkhaus, for example, both notable scholars of Somalia and the Horn of Africa,
have consistently been minimizing the threat of terrorism in the region. They
argue that as there are only one or two members of Al-Qaeda that have been
operating in Somalia there is therefore no real threat of terrorism. This shows
an almost willful disregard of Al-Itihaad’s operations or, more recently, of
the terrorist operations of Al-Shabaab. One might also notice here the recent
bombings in Hargeisa and Puntland which emphasize the continuing dangers of
terrorism and the threat it poses to Somalia, and Somaliland and indeed the
whole of the sub-region of the Horn of Africa. In fact, it is clear that the
Horn of Africa remains in the front-line in the fight against terrorism.
Al-Shabaab is, after all, the most active terrorist organization in Africa, and
the fact that it has so far largely confined its operations to Somalia does not
in any sense minimize its terrorist credentials. Any attempt to do so clearly
underlines the double standards that have seriously affected the international
community’s efforts to deal with terrorism.
Three years ago in a paper
entitled “Domestic or International Terrorism? A Dysfunctional Dialogue”
Ambassador Shinn talked of the difference between international and domestic
terrorism. While he felt terrorism in African countries was under-reported, and
should be of more concern to the US, and underlined that “the US has a
different understanding of the definition of terrorism”, he also saw terrorism
in African states (“domestic terrorism”) as of significantly less importance
than international terrorism. Professor Menkhaus, in his latest paper “Somalia
– A Country in Peril; a Policy nightmare” (September 2008) carries this a stage
further, showing little indication of awareness of the terrorist element in
Somalia today. He hardly notices terrorism, or terrorists, virtually appearing
to reject any identification of Al-Shabaab as a terrorist organization because
it is confined to Somalia. It might be unfair to ask Ambassador Shinn or
Professor Menkhaus to move beyond the interests of their own country, the
United States, and to take a position that reflects the interests of the
international community in general, and more particularly those of the peoples
of the Horn of Africa. Nevertheless, those in a position to know in the US are
much more reluctant to dismiss terrorism in the Horn of Africa as of little
account. The current Director of the CIA, Michael Hayden, very unusually this
week expressed public concern over Al-Shabaab links with Al-Qaeda: “…a merger
between [them] could give Somali extremists much needed funding while al-Qaeda
could then claim to be re-establishing its operations base in East Africa.
That’s a base that was severely disrupted about two years ago when Ethiopia
moved into Somalia.”
In fact, the latest
manifestations of terrorism in the Horn of Africa do clearly affect the
interests of the world community. Look at what is taking place in the Gulf of
Aden and the Red Sea. There is little doubt the growing menace of piracy in the
maritime regions of Somalia is, in part, a function of the statelessness of
Somalia, a condition in whose creation terrorists had had a major role.
However, to underline the double standard once again, piracy has been going on
for years in the region. It is only now, when a threat is posed to
international shipping lines and oil flows to Europe, that it has apparently
become of international concern. It is clear enough that the failure to
cooperate effectively in the fight against terrorism, as called for by the UN
General Assembly two years ago, and most particularly when it comes to
terrorism in places like the Horn of Africa, has contributed to the recent
successes of criminals and terrorists.
It has not only been
academics and governments that have failed to appreciate the enormity of the
threat that terrorism represents outside the developed world. The international
media has been equally unhelpful in creating the requisite level of
co-operation. The same can be said about some of the organizations that profess
to promote human rights. The situation in Somalia over the last few years,
serves as a good example of how these bodies have allowed themselves to be
misled by entities claiming to be indigenous human rights organizations while
in fact serving as propaganda organs of extremists organizations, set up for
the express purpose of sowing confusion among those who might otherwise have
been fighting together against terrorism.
It is necessary to underline
again: terrorism, whatever the aims of terrorists, remains terrorism. In April
2006 a UN document “Uniting against terrorism: recommendations for a global
counter-terrorism strategy” makes the point that terrorism, irrespective of its
causes or grievances cannot be justified: “no cause, no matter how just, can
excuse terrorism. This includes the legitimate struggle of people for
self-determination. Even this fundamental right defined in the Charter of the
United Nations does not excuse deliberately killing or maiming civilians and
non-combatants.” The UN strategy document also calls on the media to guard
against providing a platform for terrorists to spread a message of hate,
xenophobia or mass murder. This is a stricture that NGOs and international
human rights organizations might bear in mind. The UN’s strategy called for
efforts to dissuade disaffected groups from choosing terrorism as a tactic,
denying terrorists the means to carry out attacks, deterring other states from
supporting terrorism, developing the anti-terrorist capacities of states, and
defending human rights in the struggle against terrorism. It was adopted by the
General Assembly unanimously in a resolution (60/288) in September 2006,
uniting all 192 member states behind a strategy which, as the Secretary-General
underlined, conveyed the message: “terrorism is never justifiable, whether on
political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other
grounds.” This imposed the principal responsibility for implementation of the
strategy on Member States who, in the Assembly’s resolution reaffirmed that
“…acts, methods and practices of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations
are activities …threatening [the] territorial integrity, security of States and
destabilizing legitimately constituted Governments…”, and that “…the
international community should take the necessary steps to enhance cooperation
to prevent and combat terrorism”. To quote the Secretary-General again “only
persistent, concerted and coordinated efforts by us all will provide the basis
…to fully implement the UN Counter-Terrorism Strategy.”
UN General Assembly
resolutions impose obligations on member states. Despite this the response to
the resolutions on terrorism has been less than satisfactory. This is where the
international community has failed, and comprehensively so. There is a strategy
that all UN member states subscribed to in 2006. The failure to enact this
fully underlines, once again, why we raise the issue of double standards.
Whatever the intent, these draw false distinctions between terrorist attacks on
US or European targets wherever they might be found, on the one hand, and
attacks on non-US or European targets on the other. The former is clearly
considered by the western international media and human rights organizations,
and indeed by some in the international community, as more important than the
latter.
In fact, despite the number
of terrorist atrocities world-wide, and despite the resolutions of the General
Assembly, some in the international community still appear to fail to
understand the realities of terrorism. We would repeat: they are quite simple.
Terrorism (to paraphrase the OAU/AU’s Convention on Prevention and Combating of
Terrorism) is any violation of a state’s criminal laws which may endanger the
life, physical integrity or freedom of, or cause serious injury, or death to,
any person, any number of group of persons or damage public or private
property, resources, or heritage of the state, in order to intimidate, frighten
or coerce any government body or the general public, disrupt any public service
or create general insurrection in a State”. This should certainly be
comprehensive enough. If the fight against terrorism is to succeed, the
international community must drop the double standards that many scholars and
politicians continue to use. It must realize that no distinctions can be drawn
between domestic and international terrorism, or any other alleged variant.
Terrorism is terrorism. Only when the international community fully accepts
this, and fully commits itself to live up to its UN obligations, will
international counter-terrorist policies and programs be able to succeed in
removing the scourge of terrorism