In Memory of Nelson Mandela. Terrorist and freedom fighter.

In another age the word terrorist was not synonymous with Muslim extremism. It was ore likely to be applied to figures of the left.

In today's world, where the name Mandela is almost universally revered, it is difficult, painful even, to remember that not only the South African apartheid government, but also the UK and US governments viewed Nelson Mandela as a terrorist.

Mandela has been a figure of inspiration. But an examination of his quotes gives us an understanding as to just how radical the youthful Mandela appeared in the eyes of the establishment. Mandela justified an armed struggle as "a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid". He also said that "

A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who

defines the nature of the struggle, and the oppressed is often left no

resource but to use the methods that mirror those of the oppressor.

At a certain point, one can only fight fire with fire It is worth remembering that the ANC armed struggle was one of sabotage, rather than killing people. In today's world that such people, demanding nothing more than the vote, could be called terrorists seems more extreme than Mandela ever was. But his interest in and association with Communism during the cold war made Mandela dangerous to the West.

As ever one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

For his part in the campaign of sabotage Mandela was sentenced to life in prison. He served 27 years. Subsequent quotes give us an insight into a transition of sorts. For example
"If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner." But such sentiments presuppose a enemy willing to make an equivalent transition to partnership. This was, eventually, true for South Africa. And also for Northern Ireland. In the case of South Africa the manifest justice of the cause, allied with the magnanimity of the ANC allowed reconciliation to happen. It is, of course, easier to be generous when time is on your side. The inbuilt majority and the isolation of the regime made it clear the struggle would end in victory.

If we look to the rehabilitation of the ANC and Mandela for some hope for today's intractable conflicts, I feel somewhat disheartened.

Where is the leadership in Israel which will allow some settlement with the Palestinians? They have had their leaders, Barak could not bring the people with him. Rabin and Sharon could not live long enough to see it through. As for the Palestinians, since the loss of Arafat, there is no single leader recognised widely enough. Although Hamas as an organisation seems to have the potential.

As for America's wider war on terror, Obama could not even close Guantanamo. Bin Laden was a single leader, but the nature of al Qaeda is one of weak central command.

Without a settlement in Israel/Palestine a steady stream of recruits seems inevitable. How could any American president sit down to talk with Islamic insurgents? America's dominance of the battlefield being so absolute and the likelihood of some splinter group carrying on the struggle meaning the risk to Americans remains basically unchanged implies America has next to nothing to gain.

It is a truism of Great Power diplomacy that no military action should be undertaken without a clear view on how it might be brought to an end. George W Bush has been roundly criticised for many things. Most of it justified. The fact he began his 'War on Terror' and I still can see no way for America to end it is something for which he has not faced nearly enough condemnation.