Terrorism poses a bigger, immediate danger

I hate terrorists. I hate a person who can kill a helpless, clueless, innocent person just to make a point to a third party.

I think it is the epitome of heartless brutality, of delusional, self-absorbed, mad fanaticism.

Ten years ago, Al Qaeda killed more than 200 people in this city. Could it happen today? Could Abdullah Fazul waltz into Nairobi, park a pick-up full of fertiliser under a building and set it off?

Opinion is divided. The people whose business it is to make sure it does not happen are pretty confident that Nairobi, Mombasa and the Kenya-Somali border are tightly monitored and it is close to impossible to mount the type of conspiracy that resulted in the Nairobi bomb 10 years ago.

And there has been some success, though never made public, in thwarting attacks, as we report elsewhere. But there are those who look at our security arrangements, our unclear laws and inconsistent policies, and despair.

I am a strong believer in law, order and security. When we are debating our security and response to terrorism, I think there are three issues which we need to clear in our minds.

The first is whether Kenya terrorism is a serious threat to our nationhood. Second, is the question of Somalia and exactly what kind of threat it presents and what the best way of dealing with it is.

Third is the extent to which the nations that are working together to defeat Al Qaeda in this region see the problem from the same perspective and the degree to which they can reasonably cooperate to defeat it.

One can say that to the average Kenyan, terrorism is not a hot button issue. For people who are having to work reasonably hard to put bread on the table, have to fight Aids and escalating cost of living, terrorism appears to be a distant threat.

The threat of having nothing for dinner is more immediate. This attitude, I think, is common among leaders as well. Yes, terrorism is a problem, they figure, but it is not the only one.

The fact is, terrorism has the potential to destroy Kenya completely. Early in the year during the election fiasco, minor skirmishes in Mombasa disrupted the flow of cargo to the region.

Can you imagine if there was a devastating terror attack on the port of Mombasa or the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport?

Terrorism is a serious threat not just to the lives of Kenyans but also to the very economic fabric of the country. You can’t go out go out to look for your bread if terrorists are lobbying bombs up your backside.

From my reading, there are American analysts who have concluded that Somalia, as a haven for terrorists, is not viable. The lawlessness in that country makes it nearly impossible for terrorists to operate.

There is no law and order, so the terrorists are in danger. The Somali are moderate Muslims, the idea of a radical, political religion is to them alien. They are a pragmatic, business minded and generally anarchic lot so the discipline and fanaticism of Al Qaeda holds limited appeal.

Besides, in a country without a functioning government, terrorists are exposed to direct attacks by foreign powers such as Kenya, Ethiopia and of course the US.

Kenyan security thinking, as far as I can establish, is different. We tend to believe that Somali groups such as Al Shabab are a threat, not just because they harbour Al Qaeda, but because they infiltrate the country and may have territorial ambitions against it.

In Kenya’s way of thinking, the best way to contain that problem is to have a functioning state in Somalia with which we can have security and other relations.

I have seen one American analysis which seems to suggest that establishing a Somali government is expensive and not very useful since a lawless environment is as hostile to Al Qaeda as to any other foreigner.

The analysis envisages cooperation with local warlords in a generally chaotic situation to make the lives of terrorists as uncomfortable as possible.

The analysis, in Al-Qaeda’s (mis) adventures in the Horn of Africa by the Harmony Project at West Point (the US naval academy) is clever without being practical.

The third issue — how Kenya and its partners — view and approach the problem is particularly pertinent at this time of remembrance. The US foreign and security policy is almost single-minded in its focus on terrorism, and with good reason.

After the 9/11 attacks on mainland America, Al-Qaeda made the US the battleground for its war against the West.

In the document referred to above, the analysts argue that Kenya sees terrorism as a device to attract US aid, that the authorities are willing to tolerate a certain amount of terrorism as a result.

It even argues that Kenya might be willing to sacrifice its tourism industry — an effect of terrorism — if that will guarantee it aid from the US. The views in that report may seek to inform US policy but they are not, as far as I know, US policy, I must emphasise.

My own view is that though Kenya may not share America’s single-minded approach to terrorism, the conclusion of those authors are generally daft. The view that developing countries will do anything for aid is based on old realities.

Even on a cost-benefit basis, there is no Kenyan politician, however daft, who would think that aid can be a justification for the loss of life, or that military aid is a good replacement for a vibrant tourism sector creating and distributing wealth.

I think we have been right in protecting the rights of Kenyans, particularly Muslims, and not allowing other nations to violate them in the pursuit of their own policies.

I also think that Kenyans should be pissed off at these terrorists who would kill them just to make a point to the Americans.

I think we should be more vigilant and militant in securing our lives and those of our children.

So my advice is: If Fazul Abdul or any of these other jokers is living in your estate, turn him in and collect the reward. I know you could use Sh325 million.

I hate terrorists.

Mr Mutuma Mathiu is the managing editor, Sunday Nation. [email protected].