The
Axioms
Of Evil
Mandela is
no longer
suspected of
'terrorism'
- a term so
politicised
it is
largely
useless
By Waleed
Aly
08/07/08
"The
Guardian" --
- Nelson
Mandela was
44 years old
when he was
arrested in
1962, and
subsequently
imprisoned
for leaving
South Africa
without a
passport.
Two years
later, while
serving this
sentence, he
was
infamously
convicted of
sabotage and
conspiracy
to launch
violent
revolution,
and spent
his prime in
prison as a
result.
These facts
are
frequently
rehearsed.
More rarely
noted is
that
Mandela's
arrest was
made
possible by
the CIA,
which
effectively
handed him
over to the
South
African
security
police by
revealing
his
whereabouts
and blowing
his
disguise.
Mandela was
a villain
then. His
anti-apartheid
activism had
a vaguely
communist
hue, and
threatened
to undermine
a friendly
South
African
regime. Thus
was he
condemned.
As a
terrorist,
no less.
That much
was made
official
during the
Reagan era
when Mandela
and his
party, the
African
National
Congress,
were added
to the US
government's
terror watch
list.
Now, with
Mandela on
the brink of
his 90th
birthday,
the scenery
could not
contrast
more
starkly.
These days,
the Queen
meets him
and London
celebrates
his
milestone
with a rock
concert. Yet
he
officially
remained a
terror
suspect
until last
week, when
the US
government
finally
removed his
name, and
that of the
ANC, from
its watch
list. It
rectified an
absurdity
that
Condoleezza
Rice said
she found
"embarrassing".
But serious
questions
emerge from
this. For
example,
precisely
what is so
"embarrassing"
about
Mandela's
inclusion?
Was his
inclusion
always so
ridiculous,
or did it
only become
so when the
political
winds blew
apartheid to
the ground?
Margaret
Thatcher did
not seem
remotely
abashed in
declaring
the ANC
terrorists
in 1987,
signing up
to the
prevailing
Reaganite
orthodoxy.
Yet today,
David
Cameron sees
a need to
repudiate
that stance.
Mandela is
"one of the
greatest men
alive", he
wrote two
years ago in
the
Observer. A
terrorist no
longer, he
saved South
Africa with
his
"leadership,
his humanity
and
generosity
of spirit".
Who was
right? At
the heart of
this is a
lack of
clarity on
what we mean
by the term
"terrorist".
Mandela, you
will recall,
founded and
led the
ANC's armed
wing. In
that role,
he launched
bombing
campaigns on
government
and military
targets. Is
that
terrorism?
He took care
to ensure no
people would
be killed in
the attacks.
Does that
change your
answer? It
makes no
difference
under
American or
British law,
where
political
violence
qualifies as
terrorism
even if
directed
against
property
alone. Is
that right?
There are no
easy,
unanimous
answers to
such
questions.
Terrorism
studies
academics
have failed
for decades
to agree on
a definition
of their
subject
matter.
Presently,
they argue
over
something in
the order of
a staggering
200
different
definitions,
and this
controversy
shows no
sign of
resolving
itself. Some
insist that
terrorism
connotes the
targeting of
civilians -
which would
exclude IRA
attacks
against
British
soldiers.
Others
require the
violence to
be aimed at
generating
fear, rather
than causing
mass
casualties.
Some require
the attack
to be
symbolic in
character.
And so on.
But the
greatest
source of
incoherence
is the
irrepressible
tendency to
politicise
the term.
Put simply,
terrorists
are presumed
evil and
illegitimate
by
definition.
Here it
becomes a
term of
condemnation
rather than
description.
That seems
uncontroversial
until one
considers
that it
renders the
definition
of terrorism
a political
contest.
Inevitably,
such
political
discourse
becomes
swamped by
double
standards:
those whose
cause we
oppose are
terrorists;
those we
support are
not. The
Mandela case
sharply
illustrates
this
phenomenon.
His past
actions
cannot be
altered, but
his status
clearly
transforms
in line with
our own
political
orientations.
A terrorist
in one era
becomes a
champion in
another.
Such
convenient
inconsistencies
can only
devalue the
concept of
terrorism in
the long
run, and
undermine
those
claiming to
fight it.
Surely it
would be
wiser to
accept that,
however we
ultimately
choose to
define
terrorism,
that
definition
should apply
irrespective
of the cause
being
served. The
ghastly
cliche that
one man's
terrorist is
another's
freedom
fighter
could then
be consigned
to
irrelevance.
It is
entirely
possible to
be both.
· Waleed Aly
is a lawyer
and a
lecturer in
politics at
Monash
University,
Australia
|
