04 May 2007: ISS Today: Zimbabwe and the Discourse of Terrorism

4 May 2007: Zimbabwe and the Discourse of Terrorism

 

Police yesterday arrested 35 MDC activists and seized explosives and arms after the recent spate of terror bombings, hours after the ninth bombing, this time of two petrol tankers in Mutare yesterday morning.
The Herald, Harare, Zimbabwe, 29 March 2007

 

Commentary

 

The short excerpt above is from the lead story of the official mouthpiece of the Zimbabwean government. The previous day, Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the country’s biggest opposition party was reported to have been re-arrested. The regime rejected claims of the arrest as Western propaganda. Indeed, The Herald’s lead story looked at the so-called terrorist attacks perpetrated by the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). Interestingly, and by way of contrast, the repressive activities of the Mugabe regime in recent years have also been described in some quarters as a form of state terrorism. The depiction of players on opposite ends of the political spectrum in Zimbabwe’s endgame as terrorists re-kindles the perennial debate about the identity of the real terrorists.

 

Defining terrorism has been a particularly difficult task on the African continent.  Most legal drafters stay clear of defining terrorism and choose rather to describe an “act of terror” or “terrorist activity”.  The 35th Ordinary Session of the Heads of State and Government adopted the Organisation of African Unity Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism (Algiers Convention) in July 1999.

 

The Convention defines a terrorist act, but terrorist activities perpetrated by state actors are omitted.  In fact, the inclusion of state terrorism was a bone of contention amongst OAU members; globally there is still a controversy between those countries that feel that the activities of the state should not be labeled “terrorist”, though others wish to address the phenomenon in all its forms and manifestations.  Arguably most governments want to exclude any acts of their armed forces from falling under any international conventions against terrorism.

 

In the post-9/11 world, the fight against terrorism has moved to the top of the security agenda of most countries. The tendency is to safeguard the security of the state and its organs against “terrorist” attacks. In the quest to fend off attacks, custodians of the state demand that citizens surrender some of their basic freedoms and liberties. It is safe to say that the “War on Terrorism” and the obligations of states to comply with international commitments have not only further entrenched a state-centred approach to security, but have also provided an additional pretext for draconian measures to autocratic rulers such as the Zimbabwean president. Anti-terror measures are not used to fight international terrorists in this instance; rather they are employed to rein in opposition parties and other perceived enemies of the regime. The Suppression of Foreign and International Terrorism Act is but the latest creation of the Zimbabwe regime. And although Mugabe claims to be doing his bit in the global war against terrorism, his critics ask whether his despotic rule in itself constitutes a form of state terrorism.

 

Recent events in Zimbabwe create a dire picture. The situation began to worsen after a prayer rally in Highfield, Harare, was brutally suppressed by police. The leader of the opposition, Morgan Tsvangirai, has since been arrested twice and beaten up in custody. Gift Tandare, an opposition activist, was shot and killed and several others were arrested and tortured in custody. Last year, Mugabe established a Special Branch with the express mandate to eliminate voices of dissent. Drafted from the ranks of the Green Bombers and the war veterans, this secret force operates underground. The grouping is believed to be responsible for the continuing wave of abductions, brutal assaults and even murder of opposition and civil society activists. Members of the Branch have been deployed at all police stations in the country, the Harare International Airport and key public institutions. Its members not only keep tabs on troublesome members of civil society, but also spy on other police officers, members of the army and government officials in order to detect those who may pose a threat to the Mugabe regime. At the end of March, a death list of opposition leaders, lawyers and journalists who must be eliminated by the Special Branch was exposed.(1)

 

And although official government sources speak of an ongoing terror campaign on the part of of opposition forces, the same accusation could be levelled at the Zimbabwean state security machinery, in particular the Special Branch and the Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO). The CIO is said to have petrol-bombed the University of Zimbabwe in April. The university’s current and former students feature prominently in the ranks of human rights defenders.

 

Southern African governments have failed to acknowledge the gross human rights violations perpetrated by the Mugabe regime. If the so-called bombing campaign by the MDC is seen as terrorism, the mass beatings and torture visited upon opposition forces in Zimbabwe should carry the same designation. In this author’s opinion, the current use of the “terrorism” label involves a good measure of opportunism. In attaching such a label, the same criteria should be applied to all offenders.

 

|n conclusion, on a recent flight to Zimbabwe I was seated next to an old “Rhodesian farmer disowned by the terrorists” (in her own words). She was sharing some rather controversial views with a South African business executive. She drew parallels between the Zimbabwean liberation forces and al Qaeda. Peppered with a good measure of racism, I felt that the label of “terrorism” has come to depict anything we may dislike or want to demonise.

 

Annette Hübschle, Organised  Crime and Money Laundering Programme, ISS Cape Town

1. Itai Dzamara, The Zimbabwean, 28 April 2007