South African Anti-Terrorism Bill aids and abets American imperialism

by Jane Duncan (Executive Director - Freedom of Expression Institute)

(Unedited version of article published in The Sowetan in late January 2003)

When Parliament opens this year, one of the first draft laws it will debate is the Anti-Terrorism Bill. According to the government, this Bill will bring South African law into line with many other countries that have passed similar laws since the terrorist attacks on America on September 11: a process referred to, without a trace of irony on the part of the lawmakers, as harmonisation.

The Bill is based on a massive report compiled by the South African Law Commission (SALC), which redrafted an earlier version after huge public controversy about its anti-human rights provisions (such as detention without trial). The study and Bill lean heavily on Australian, British and Canadian legislation, with the definition of terrorism being taken virtually word for word from Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001.

So what is the problem if everyone else is passing these laws, and if such studied legal acumen has been brought to bear on our own version? A lot. The SALC has demonstrated extreme political naivety by failing to address the political economy of the current anti-terrorism drive, which America is using to further its global imperialist aims. The events of September 11 have allowed it to renew its economy through military expansion by creating a permanent international state of emergency. With great effect, America has cajoled countries and organisations such as the European Union (EU) to ride roughshod over freedom of expression and ban anti-imperialist organisations and national liberation movements that threaten its expansion. The central thrust of all the legislation is to introduce unprecedented powers to outlaw, interrogate and jail opponents of the ruling political establishment.

South Africa looks set to become Americas latest client state on security matters, in that the Bill may well be used by the government to ban organisations that are - in many respects - attempting to follow the route of the ruling African National Congress (ANC) and negotiate political solutions to armed struggles.

America also has a direct interest in making countries use these laws to close the spaces for opponents of its foreign policy agenda in the Middle East, where it pumps billions of dollars into supporting its buffer-state, Israel, on the basis that United States policy is to keep the sources of oil in the Middle East in American hands. Numerous countries like Spain and Israel have taken full advantage of heightened tolerance of repressive measures to stamp out organisations they themselves have found troublesome.

However, domestic terrorism does not seem to be the main motivating factor in South Africa, given that the government has dealt effectively with such threats using existing legislation, and has even recently boasted about crushing the right-wing threat.

Which organisations have been targeted in particular? The America and the EU blacklists have undergone roughly three phases of development in delineating the axis of evil. Initially they listed Al Qaeda and related organisations and individuals, proceeding to list revolutionary national liberation organisations opposed to American imperialism and the occupation of Palestinian land, such as the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the ETA in the Basque territories, the Lebanon-based Hizbollah, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The third phase involves the anti-globalisation and emerging social movements, with the Federal Bureau of Investigation having called for action against left-wing groups who profess a revolutionary socialist doctrine and view themselves as protectors of the people against the dehumanising effects of capitalism and imperialism.

The PKK and the ETA have drifted towards electoral politics since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, and have increasingly pursued negotiated settlements through their political wings. The ETA has even called in the Irish Republican Army and its political wing, Sinn Fein to assist with its transformation. The Spanish government has since banned ETAs political wing, Batasuna, for advocating the right to self-determination of the Basque people, and closed down the Basque free press. Then there are the individuals that have been listed by the EU and the US, such as Professor Jose Maria Sison, a leading figure of the Philippine national democratic revolution for almost forty years, and a leading member of the Communist Party of the Phillippines.

Is it too far fetched to imagine South Africa following suit? The Canadian example is particularly instructive, given that we are set to adopt its definition of terrorism. This definition is extremely vague and broad in terms of what constitutes an act or acts of terrorism. It incorporates virtually anything done for political, religious or ideological reasons as long as such activity results in death or serious bodily harm or disruption of what the state would consider tobe essential services.

The Canadian Liberal Democratic government attempted to quell criticism of this definition by promising the public that the Act would not be used to repress dissent. In September 2002, members of a special anti-terrorist police unit raided the homes of prominent indigenous rights activists for supposedly stockpiling weapons, and then proceeded to question them about their political activities. Last month, the government changed its mind and added the political wing of Hizbollah to the list of usual suspects banned under the law, after months of insisting that it was a legitimate national liberation organisation. This about-turn took place after pressure, including court action, by Zionist groups. Students from suspect countries like Iraq and Syria have been banned from taking university chemistry courses as they may use this knowledge to manufacture bombs.

Then there is the fact that the SALC did some highly selective shopping in the Canadian law. Canada made several concessions after a huge public outcry over the law. For example, it agreed to remove the word lawful from those activities that it considered to be expressions of dissent, which would ensure that even unlawful protests like wildcat strikes and sit-ins would not be defined as terrorist acts. However, the word lawful still appears in the South African definition.

What this means is that the South African authorities can use their discretion to define unlawful dissent as terrorism. For example, the Soweto Electricity Crisis Committees (SECC) Operation Khanyisa - involving the illegal electricity reconnections of disconnected households as a result of their inability to afford the rising costs of electricity - could well qualify as a terrorist act. Many other forms of direct action could be criminalised, including illegal gatherings, which is especially worrying given the almost-certainly-unconstitutional nature of the Regulation of Gatherings Act.

In fact, the South African law goes further than Canadian law in that it outlaws simple membership of terrorist organisations: even claiming to be a member is illegal. The Canadian government also proposed the addition of a new clause making it clear that expressions of political, ideological or religious beliefs alone is not a terrorist activity. Canada also agreed to a five-year sunset clause for the clause around investigative hearings, after human rights activists pointed out that the hearing of evidence outside of a formal trial was unprecedented and dangerous. None of these concessions have been included in the South African law. In other words, things may not get as bad as they have done in Canada: they may get far, far worse.

Countless severe problems still remain in both laws, though. Journalists especially should be very worried about this Bill; amongst other things, they can be compelled to reveal confidential sources and hand over journalistic material.

Another telling omission in this definition is a clause contained in the Organisation of African Unity Algiers Convention of 1999, which states that the struggle waged by peoples in accordance with the principles of international law for their liberation or self-determination, including the armed struggle against colonialism, occupation, aggression and domination by foreign forces shall not be considered as terrorist acts. Countries such as Lebanon have argued that laws and UN documents must foreground this clause, rather than burying it away in some vague reference to respecting international legal principles as South Africa’s Bill does. It has repeatedly refused to ban Hizbollah, arguing that the organisation is pursuing a just war and pointing out that the organisation has been responsible for the ejection of Israeli forces from South Lebanon and a buffer zone on the border.

All these concessions point to the fact that South Africa is willing to fall into line with the social democratic governments of Britain, Germany and France and use the war against terror to do the dirty work for repressive right-wing regimes, especially America. The ANC also stands to betray its own political history by adding its weight to prevent other international liberation movements from charting a similar course to its own. The threat to domestic activism must not be underestimated.

In fact, if you are a left-wing political activist in South Africa today, be afraid, be very afraid.

ENDS