Prof Calie Pistorius

Vice-Chancellor and Principal

University of Pretoria

Pretoria

0002

Fax: (012) 362-5168

Dear Professor Pistorius,

RE: Closure of conference on 'Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism to the media and members of the public

We are writing to you in connection with an upcoming conference on 'Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism in Africa'. We have been informed that this conference is being hosted jointly by your University's Centre for International Political Studies and the Embassy of the United States of America in Pretoria, at the Sanlam Auditorium on Tuesday March 23, 2004.

We are deeply disturbed by the fact that this conference is closed to members of the public and the media.

It is inappropriate that a public institution like the University of Pretoria should host a conference on a matter of such profound public importance behind closed doors. It is also difficult to understand why speakers - who one would imagine would be committed to the basic tenants of academic freedom - would agree to participate under such conditions. What do they have to hide if they are really committed to open debate?

The fact that the University is hosting this conference with the US Embassy under such conditions is cause for even more worry, since the US administration is well known by now for using the 'war against terror' as a cover for the violation of many rights and freedoms, including the right to freedom of expression. Their involvement in the conference under conditions of secrecy makes the conference arrangements even more inappropriate.

What is particularly ironic is that the University sees fit to invoke the 'Chatham House rule' in defence of its decision to close the conference: we believe that this reason was conveyed recently in correspondence to the Media Review Network (whose objections to the closure of the conference we support fully). In our understanding, the above mentioned rule was created to facilitate a free exchange of ideas by guaranteeing the confidentiality of speakers, as reportage of on-the-record comments may have a chilling effect on the willingness of decision-makers to voice opinions frankly and openly.

The Chatham House rule is not a politically neutral instrument for the facilitation of free debate, though. It is invoked on a regular basis by right-wing think tanks, security and intelligence officials, governments and others, to facilitate 'free debate' amongst few hand-picked 'decision-makers'. The Chatham House rule originated in the Royal Institute of International Affairs to provide members of Britain's political and economic élite with information that they feel would be of particular use to them.

/…2

____________________________________________________________________________________________

It has evolved from being a Cold War instrument to become an oft-cited excuse for the holding of inter-governmental meetings in secret. Such meetings, as we know, are sites of struggle for many people who are opposed to the United State's understanding of 'globalisation", which is being imposed to great effect under the cloak the war against terror. In this regard, we note that many organisations that are proscribed under Anti-Terrorism legislation are listed merely for being opponents of US foreign policy. Given this context, whose free speech rights are being protected, and at whose expense?

After all, we should bear in mind that the Earl of Chatham - after which the rule was named - vigorously campaigned for war against other imperial powers in order to expand Britain's trade interests, in the process creating the British Empire through bloody conquest planned in secret meetings. Given its history, one would think that an academic of your standing would be more sensitive to the politics of invoking the Chatham House rule in the context of a debate about terrorism.

We cannot help but get the unfortunate impression that the University and the conference participates are secretly conspiring with the US administration to aid and abet the latter's political interests: hardly something that a South African public institution - which is bound to respect the political diversity of its teaching and learning community - should be engaged in. It is incumbent on a public institution like the University to promote freedom of expression through open and public debate, and not through pandering to the 'rooi gevaar' approach towards debating international relations, even if it is requested by speakers as a condition of their participation. The University should have the political sensitivity to resist such pressures.

By the way, we detect a measure of overkill in how the Chatham House rule is being invoked. It does not preclude participation of the media in meetings: it merely precludes the attribution of comments to particular individuals. Why the rule is invoked as an excuse to bar the media completely is beyond understanding.

The prosecution of the war against terror affects all South Africans in one way or another. Many thousands of people have already died in other parts of the world in its name. Given the global impact of this war, it is essential that maximum public debate takes place about its implications for the country. Public institutions like the University of Pretoria are well placed to facilitate such debate. But this debate must be broadened, not narrowed. It must recognise the fact that US foreign policy is contested. It must also recognised that the US definitions of what constitutes a terrorist organisation and terrorist act are contested. It can be anticipated that no such contestation will take place in the planned conference, given the manner in which it has been organised. Choosing to co-host such an event with the US Embassy alone, while barring all but a select few from its proceedings, does not befit an institution that claims to operate in the name of public education.

We trust that the University will re-consider its position on this conference.

Sincerely,

Jane Duncan

Executive Director