Los Sistemas WAMS y los Sistemas de Gestión de Energía

The 'War on Terrorism' is a term used by the Bush Administration. The aim of the War on Terrorism was to put an end to international terrorism, and it was declared as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US for which Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility (Washington Post, October 2, 2006).

US President George W. Bush stated, “[t]his war on terrorism begins with Al-Qaeda but will not end there. It will continue until every terrorist group has been found, stopped and defeated” (White House News, September 2001). President Bush stated further,

“Every nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the

United States as a hostile regime” (White House News, September 2001).

30

The War on Terrorism was launched by the US with the support of NATO and other allies. The phrase Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) (Whitehouse News, December 2001) is the official name used by the United States military. In the same war the United States-led coalition that invaded Iraq in 2003, toppled President Saddam Hussein (BBC News, March 18, 2003 a).

The Bush Administration has been accused of acting in violation of international law, Human Rights (BBC News, March 18, 2003 b) and the US Constitution in its execution of this War on Terrorism. The accusation was made particularly with regard to the internment of prisoners of war in its military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In accordance with the US Government’s own measures, international terrorist incidents have been on the rise (Washington Post, April 26, 2005 a) since the declaration of the War on Terrorism. However, the US and its allies have claimed victories, in the sense of the first democratic elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the capture of the alleged 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (Progress in the Global War on Terror speech on September 7, 2006). This War on Terrorism has resulted in high military casualties on both sides, as well as high civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq. The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the Code states the following:

Section 2331 of chapter 113b:

... activities that involve violent...<or life-threatening acts>... that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and ... <if domestic> ... (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States... <if international> ... (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States...31

31

With respect to defining his policy as the War on Terror, the previous President of the US, George W. Bush, stated:

...today’s war on terror is like the Cold War. It is an ideological struggle with an enemy that despises freedom and pursues totalitarian aims... I vowed then that I would use all assets of our power of Shock and Awe to win the war on terror. And so I said we were going to stay on the offense two ways: one, hunt down the enemy and bring them to justice, and take threats seriously; and two, spread freedom.32

The United States strategy in the Global War on Terrorism as from January 2007 is based on two strategy papers (The National Security Strategy, and the Strategy for Countering Terrorism) (Remarks by President Bush on the Global War on Terror [25]).

The 'War on Terrorism' is sometimes described as a struggle between liberal democracy and its uncompromising enemies (Ignatief, 2004:125-131; Berman, 2003:182-183). The attacks on Al-Qaeda and the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan have been justified as legitimate measures of self-defence (Elshtain, 2003). It is difficult to 'strike a balance' between human rights and security in a 'War on Terrorism', because it requires complex and uncertain judgments.

The universal right to freedom puts others at risk, and this risk may threaten human rights. We also need to analyse clearly which human rights are under threat of terrorism, and which risks we ought to take. The International Council on Human Rights Policy sees a special role for professional human rights organisations. 'Terrorism' is "dangerous, and we are not irrational to be afraid" (Palti, 2004 a).

It is clear that the extremist Islamic ideology of Al-Qaeda is a grave threat to human rights. The September 11 attacks and the War on Terrorism call on us to rethink the strategies for human rights in this new world (dis)order.

32

The events of September 11, 2001 and similar events such as 11 March 2004 and those of 7 July 2005, posed a major challenge to the political integrity of the Human Rights Act (Cooper and Marshall-Williams, 2000). The meta-question behind these terrorist attacks is our concern for equal dignity for all. The problem of political violence arising out of conflict, for example, in Northern Ireland has produced a large body of anti-terrorism legislation, (Donahue, 2000), with the European Court of Human Rights in Strassburg having been frequently called upon to adjudicate in conflicts between terrorist suspects and the state (Brannigan and McBride, 1993). The problem of human rights standards being used to legitimise restrictions on political freedom and on civil liberties was also evident in this early period (Ewing and Gearly, 1997).

The debate over the power balance between human rights and counter-terrorism will remain contentious in the future, fuelled by the abuse of detainees, so-called ghost detainees, permissible interrogation methods, and the applicability of the law of war. The bulk of the debate is taking place in the United States itself, in regard to the three June 2004 Supreme Court cases dealing with enemy combatants held in the United States and in Guantanoma as references.

It can also be predicted that the 'Global War on Terrorism' will continue, and that it may even intensify and become the barometer for legitimising the basis for aggression around the world. It may also be that formulating and executing policies of torture and indefinite detention without trial will be promoted in the future (Lewis, 2004). However the language of Human Rights is not the same all over the world, and there remains a robust debate not about whether human rights have a place in the new security sensitive paradigm, but what that place should probably be.

Not only will the courtroom most likely be the place where opposing sides will bear the burden of persuasion, but the debate will also go on amongst the public. Also, on the international level the debate will be hammered out and laws will be enforced and formulated. It is vital that all people involved in Human Rights discussions, should approach this debate with gusto and determination. The new trend towards the criminal

prosecution of suspected terrorists within the jurisdiction is to be welcomed, regarding how things should actually be done (Guardian, August 5, 2004; August 18, 2004; August 26, 2004). At the European level, the Council of Europe has published a very good set of guidelines on the role of human rights in counter-terrorism (Council of Europe, July 11, 2002).

The basic building blocks of human rights, namely equality of esteem and a respect for law and a commitment to the democratic process, remain in place, but the challenge is to ensure the survival of these ideas especially in difficult times (for example the War on Terrorism) (Guardian, September 21, 2004). UN guidelines to help states strike a balance between human rights and combating terrorism have been established in a number of resolutions adopted by the General Assembly, Security Council and Commission on Human Rights. These resolutions emphasise the fact that “states must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law and should adopt such measures in accordance with such International Law.”

Balancing the rights of individuals with those of the state is a goal that the UN strives to attain in Human Rights. It is vitally important that the UN and member states should continue to balance out these rights, so as to achieve freedom and democracy in states (Schlager, 2005).

The UN contribution through norm setting, codification of the Human Rights Law, facilitation of communication among member states, drafting and preparing of effective legal instruments, remains the answer to counter-terrorism. Terrorism often thrives in countries where human rights are abrogated; this however should serve as enough motivation to strengthen actions to combat violations of human rights (Gearty, 2005).

With this in mind, terrorist acts should be viewed as assaults on the fundamental rights of human beings. Since terrorists utilise sophisticated weaponry and even weapons of

mass destruction, the UN activities concerning disarmament, must gain renewed relevance (Palti, 2004).

The War against Terrorism is not just a matter of national security, it is also a struggle to maintain values – values such as justice, respect for human rights for others, respect for human dignity and the equal treatment of individuals before the law (Joyner, 2004:240-257).

The Bush Administration stated that it intended basing its counter-terrorism strategy on defeating terrorists and their organisations. Terrorists should be identified, located and destroyed. It is also vital that terrorists should be denied sponsorship, support and sanctuary (National Strategy for combating terrorism, 2003).

Emphasis was therefore placed on ending state sponsorship to terrorists and maintenance of an international standard of accountability. In order to combat terrorism, all countries willing to abide by the counter-terrorism strategies of the US, should endeavour to persuade or compel those countries which remain unwilling and reluctant to adopt similar strategies, to join in the attempt to eliminate terrorism. An important step in the strategy to fight terrorism, is the destruction of terrorist sanctuaries and havens.

Additionally, the counter-terrorism strategies should focus on diminishing the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit by strengthening the weak states and winning the 'war' on ideals.

Furthermore, the strategy focuses on defending US citizens and interests at home and abroad by implementing a National Strategy for Homeland Security and endeavouring to attain domain awareness, while enhancing measures to ensure integrity, reliability and availability of infrastructures at home and abroad. Importantly, the strategy should integrate measures to protect US citizens abroad and ensure an integrated incident management capability.

The former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan set out an alternative vision of the complementarity of human rights and counter-terrorism:

Our responses to terrorism, as well as our efforts to thwart it and prevent it, should uphold the human rights that terrorists aim to destroy. Respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law are essential tools in the effort to combat terrorism – not privileges to be sacrificed at a time of tension (Annan, 2003).

Years and even decades after Annan's vision, governments and societies like Peru, Guatemala, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Northern Ireland are still struggling to overcome the destabilising effects of conflicts and struggles against terrorists in which the rule of law and respect for human rights were ignored (Carter Centre, 2003).

All governments should reaffirm their commitment to supporting the essential work of human rights defenders. Respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law are essential elements of a free and fair society. The abuse of these elements in the course of efforts to combat terrorism can ultimately be self-defeating and deny the distinction between those who stand for the rule of law and those who defy it (Haydar, 2005).

2.5 Terrorism

In today’s world, no one is innocent, no one is neutral. A man is either with the oppressed or he is with the oppressor. He who takes no interest in politics gives his blessing to the prevailing order of the ruling classes and exploiting forces (George Habash).

Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed against civilians (Davis, 2003:41; McDermott, 2006:171). It can further be described as acts which are intended to create fear, or ‘terror’, which are perpetrated for an ideological goal, and involves the deliberate targeting of civilians. Terrorism is often used by political organisations particularly to further their objectives; right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic and religious groups, revolutionaries and even by ruling

governments (Encyclopaedia Britannica) (A list of terrorist attacks can be found in Appendix N).

Due to the nature of terrorist acts and attacks, terrorism is a crime in all countries where such acts occur (Khan, 1987). In November 2004 a United Nations panel described terrorism as any act:

…intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act (UN, 2004).

The Law Enforcement Assistant Administration in the United States formed a National Advisory Committee for Criminal Justice, which classified terrorism as follows:

 Civil Disorders – Collective violence interfering with peace, security and normal functioning of a community.

 Political Terrorism – Violent criminal behaviour designed primarily to generate fear within a community.

 Non-Political Terrorism – Terrorism not aimed at political purposes but at individual or collective gain rather than political objectives.

 Quasi-Terrorism – A fleeing person who takes hostages is classified as a quasi- terrorist. Such methods are similar to those of a 'true' terrorist but the purposes are quite different.

 Limited Political Terrorism – Genuine political terrorism is characterised by a revolutionary approach; limited political terrorism refers to acts of terrorism which are committed for ideological or political motives, but which are not part of a concerted campaign to capture control of the state.

 Official or State Terrorism – refers to nations whose rule is based upon fear and oppression similar to terrorism.

Research has also shown that terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom, and nations with the least terrorism are nations with the highest degree of democracy (Harvard Gazette Archives, 2004). However, one study shows that there is an exception to the tendency that modern suicide terrorists target a democracy - a state with a considerable degree of political freedom (Pape, 2005:1-19).

Terrorism has now become part of our everyday lives: terrorist acts occur on every continent and in almost every country. The atrocities of 11 September 2001 influenced millions of people to use air travel less. It is consequently believed that several international airlines dependent on United States business went bankrupt. The holiday and travel industries on both sides of the Atlantic suffered major losses. The fear generated by the destruction of the World Trade Centre had a severe effect on social and economic factors all over the world.

It was once envisaged that terrorist groups would use nuclear and biological weapons to kill, not thousands, but hundreds of thousands of civilians. This vision has become a reality (Davis, 2003:1-40). The so-called 'New Terrorism' is inspired by fanatical religious beliefs and its activists are willing to seek martyrdom through suicide. They rarely set out aims that are attainable; they give no warnings; they do not engage in bargaining; they find no compromise in solutions to problems, and they are eager to carry out the mass slaughter of non-combatants.

The 'New Terrorism' was reportedly the cause of the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. The US government blamed Al-Qaeda, an Islamic fundamentalist network, and in particular their leader Osama bin Laden (Mclean and McMillan, 2003:532-534).

Sheila Camerer of the DA stated (during an interview conducted with her) that fighting terrorism both domestically and internationally has become “like being in favour of motherhood and apple pie, it puts you on the side of the angels” (Camerer, 2007). According to Camerer the events of September 11 2001 gave rise to the important UN Security Council Resolution 1373 which ruled that international terrorism was considered a threat to international peace and security. Douglas Gibson (during an interview conducted with him on 15 June 2007) stated that locally, the whole of South Africa should unite to form a front against terrorism (Gibson, 2007). He further indicated that President Mbeki should have helped unite the world against terrorism by calling an urgent meeting of the Council of NAM to ensure that all the organisation’s member nations become part of a global force to combat international terrorism.

The fundamental political question which faced the Bush Administration was whether their politics had impacted on terrorism, by failing to destroy Al-Qaeda, and whether or not the antagonism towards the US within the Sunni Arab world had worsened due to the invasion of Iraq. It has become clear that the number of young Muslims willing to commit to acts of terrorism is growing faster than the ability of the United States to capture these terrorists.

However, since the May 2003 wave of terrorist attacks inside Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Security Services have become more cooperative with the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation of the US in destroying Al-Qaeda networks operating in Saudi Arabia (Risen, 2007:179).

The use of force becomes necessary to stop the violation of Human Rights, especially when terrorists base their actions on ideologically-driven religious arguments to justify their behaviour. The question that now remains, is what kind of force can be justified and will be effective, also when and against whom should it be used legitimately? (Holzgrefe and Keohane, 2003).

2.6 Taliban

From the mid-1990s until late 2001, the Taliban were the ruling force in Afghanistan (Rashid Taliban, 2000:27-29) and saw themselves as the religious, military and revolutionary elite in Afghanistan, but did not necessarily have strong support in the country (McDermot, 2006:159-161; Davis, 2003).

The Taliban were also ethnically distinct from many Afghans, because they were mostly Pashtuns from Kandahar in the South, the Sunni branch of Islam, whereas Northern Afghans were referred to as the Shia.33

The purpose of the Taliban was to declare war against the United States and Israel and any of their allies (Rashid, 2000:1). Also, this movement was the call to all faithful Muslims to take up the holy war, or Jihad against all enemies of Islam. As a fundamentalist organisation, the Taliban was not only interested in Islamic purity, but also rejected modernity and wished to create a medieval Islamic society.

The repression of women under the Taliban was almost complete; they were forced to wear the restrictive traditional dress (the burka), and were forbidden to work, to be educated, or to appear in public unless accompanied by a male relative (Physicians for Human Rights, 1998). Men, on the other hand were forced to wear beards, under penalty of imprisonment (Encyclopaedia of Islam and the Muslim World, 2004). The United Nations declared sanctions against the Taliban regime because of their human rights abuses, and extreme restrictions on women in public, and because of the sheltering and aid given to the Islamic terrorist Osama bin Laden (Robertson, 2004:270- 272).

After the September 11 attacks the USA delivered the following ultimatum to the Taliban (Bush, 2001 a):

33

 Deliver to the US all the leaders of Al-Qaeda.  Release all imprisoned foreign nationals.

 Close down all terrorist training camps immediately.

 Hand over every terrorist and their supporters to appropriate authorities.