http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley12112006.html

CounterPunch    December 11, 2006

Homeland Security Stalks the New South Africa
Banning Mandela

By Virginia Tilley

Johannesburg, South Africa.

On Friday evening, October 20, a traveling academic confronted a
regular ugly occurrence at JFK airport. He was stopped at immigration
by Homeland Security, shuttled off without explanation into a stark
waiting room, left there for six hours with no food or water with
other similarly trapped travellers (including a little child who cried
inconsolably), was asked a few template questions - "have you ever
been a member of a terrorist organization?" - and finally was marched
away by two armed officers and put on a plane back to South Africa,
his
10-year visa summarily revoked. No explanation. By the time he
realized what was afoot and called the South African embassy, at about
3 a.m., it was too late for them to do anything. He arrived back in
South Africa tired, tousled, and very pissed off.

But, unusually, this visitor was in a position to make a serious stink
about it. Within hours, the South African government's Department of
Foreign Affairs was mobilized and the American Embassy was offering
embarrassed apologies. Within days, the American Association of
University Professors (AAUP) was also mobilized. The American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) called to ask if they could make his experience
a test case.

Denying US visas to visiting academics is, of course, not uncommon
these days. All over the United States, in the Homeland Security era,
university departments and organizers of scientific and academic
conferences have been regularly startled, angered, frustrated and
baffled as some new colleague or visiting scholar is denied entry to
the country. Some of these unwanted souls have been luminaries, like
Dr. Tariq Ramadan, an international scholar of Islam and its
interaction with western cultures, who was named by Time one of the
100 most important innovators of the 21st century. Targeted as
objectionable by pro-Israeli networks, Dr. Ramadan was abruptly denied
a visa just two weeks before he was scheduled to assume a senior
appointment at the University of Notre Dame. (Amidst the ensuing
hullabaloo, he was promptly snapped up by Oxford). Other rejectees are
talented rising scholars, like Dr. Waskar Ari from Bolivia, whose visa
was denied just a month before he was to take up his new position at
the University of Nebraska. Apparently, all work visas from Bolivia
were cancelled some time after the leftist President Morales was
elected.

But Dr. Adam Habib is not some mild-mannered professor-type, to whom
Homeland Security (with its routine disdain for intellectuals and
their lily-livered liberal universities) might casually flip the bird.
Nor is he simply well-known - although he is one of the best-known
political scientists and public intellectuals in South Africa, whose
expulsion from the US has sent shock waves through South Africa and
triggered a blitz of international media coverage. Nor is he a Muslim
cleric, Pakistani student, Venezuelan researcher, Palestinian
brother-in-law, or other traveller who might fear for the welfare of
some vulnerable family member or lack access to government contacts,
and therefore be sufficiently intimidated by Big Brother to confine
his frustrations to sympathetic friends in his living room.

Rather, Dr. Habib is Executive Director of the Democracy and
Governance Programme at the para-statal Human Sciences Research
Council (HSRC), the largest research institution in South Africa.
(Disclosure: I work in that programme.) He was going to the US as part
of an official delegation from the HSRC, led by its CEO Olive Shisana,
to consult with the World Bank and other terrorist sympathizers. His
chums are ministers and director generals of various government
agencies and their international equivalents.

In other words, he's a leading international figure in the study and
promotion of democracy in South Africa, in the African continent, and
globally. Very shady stuff, apparently, to Homeland Security.

Why was Dr. Habib caught in Homeland Security's net? (They even let
his wife in.) Officials gave no explanation and they aren't required
to give one. Even the airport officers, who dealt apologetically with
Dr. Habib as they threw him out of the country, may not have known
what it was. Having visiting the US numerous times over the past
decade on his ten-year visa, Dr. Habib himself was entirely baffled.
Back home, speculations ran the gamut. His visit to Iran in 2004? But
that was part of an official HSRC exchange programme. A ban on Muslim
clerics? Dr. Habib is a practicing Muslim but not a cleric. Racial
profiling? Dr. Habib is not Arab, or Pak, or Persian, or Afghan, or
any other of Homeland Security's racial targets: he's of Indian
descent, as is some 2.5% of South Africa's population. His name? Even
the doughty Homeland Security can't automatically shut out every
traveler with last names like "Habib". [Philip Habib used to be a
big-name US diplomat!] All of these reasons at once, perhaps?

Capping the opacity, after weeks of inquiry the US government finally
issued its own written explanation: we have no record of Dr. Habib's
expulsion. The aura of 1984 congeals with a thump.

One speculation is that Homeland Security, being so skilled at its
job, has simply merged into its own database the old apartheid-era
South Africa database of security threats, which includes notorious
Islamo-fascists like Nelson Mandela. This might explain a recent
fiasco: when the elderly Mr. Mandela last visited the US, in 2003, the
US security apparatus at first refused to let him in. "Once a
terrorist always a terrorist", came Homeland Security's sniffy
pronouncement about one of the world's political saints. (Upon
hammering by the South African government, the ban finally reached the
desk of Colin Powell, who overturned it in a flash.) Since Dr. Habib
was briefly detained by the South African apartheid government back in
the 1980s - rather a mark of distinction these days - his name may
have popped up on the same list.

Whatever the reason, Mr. Mandela and Dr. Habib are not alone. A number
of South African travellers have been turned back more recently, for
reasons unexplained. The Department of Foreign Affairs is vague about
who and why: the South African government had, mysteriously, not acted
on what is clearly a pattern regarding South African citizens. No
official complaints had been filed until Dr. Habib got home and
promptly called his startled government friends and colleagues, the
ministers of this and that, to ask what the hell.

Still, what is behind this bizarre targeting of South Africans? What
is the rationale? Merging a list of "security risks" composed by South
Africa's apartheid government is hard to attribute to mere ignorance
(for which Americans are, of course, infamous). It is not even easily
blamed on the galloping incompetence that Homeland Security
increasingly displays. For apartheid South Africa was not just a
repressive regime universally detested and denounced for killing or
torturing those "security risks" struggling for democracy. It
evaporated entirely in 1994 and many of those former "security risks"
have entered South Africa's government leadership. Even the US now
extends them all diplomatic courtesies. So after the embarrassing
Mandela incident, why didn't Homeland Security strike its forehead in
self-recrimination and delete those entries?

It's a stretch, but not much of one, to speculate that South Africa's
freedom fighters still manifest generically to the Bush administration
today as a "risk", lip service notwithstanding. For, as we know, the
US has historically been very suspicious of democracy. The entire US
military mission in the Middle East is, of course, framed by insipid
"democratization" rhetoric, but its regime-change projects are, at
best, designed to create weak governments that will trot nicely on the
US leash, absorbing local democratic pressures into ineffectual
legislatures and periodic electoral ceremonies that install compliant
client leaderships. We have ample evidence from US behaviour over the
past century or so - notably in Central America in the 1980s and most
recently in Palestine and elsewhere - that the last thing the US
government wants to see in its far-flung dominions are grassroots
democracy movements which succeed in producing vigorous, progressive
governments that can meaningfully take the reins of security, trade
and development policy.

So maybe South Africans like Dr. Habib are indeed a "security risk"
for the Bush administration and its schreibtischtater. It's not just
that he's an intellectual of formidable standing who happens to be
Muslim. What indeed might devolve, if South Africa's example of
democracy spreads? What if other beleaguered peoples around the world
start talking to these veterans of the anti-apartheid struggle and
inviting them to come visit?

Especially, what would happen - the horror - if South African
democracy theorists with serious activist track records and names like
"Habib" started showing up in Israel-Palestine? Can't have people
thinking too much about the new South Africa in a place like that.

Virginia Tilley is Chief Research Specialist at the Human Sciences
Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa and author of The One-State
Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock
(University of Michigan Press and Manchester University Press, 2005).
She can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED]

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm

--
Jim Devine / "The human being is in the most literal sense a political
animal, not merely a gregarious animal, but an animal which can
individuate itself only in the midst of society." -- Karl Marx.

Reply via email to