Who is a terrorist if Al-Shabaab is not?

Al Shabaab militia. [File, Standard]

In early August as I was going through my daily routine, I received a phone call from a friend who wanted to know if I had seen a report, by Africa News, July 31, on ‘Kenya and the listing of Terrorists’. Undoubtedly, my curiosity escalated to inquire what was going on that I needed to know. In response, he asked another question that sounded quite technical that: “Kenya has called on the UN to formally list Al-Shabaab as a terrorist group, so what have they (Al-Shabaab) been all along?”

Indeed, this was a deserving question to which any concerned Kenyan, given the atrocities experienced in the hands of ‘terrorists’ in the last two decades, would dare to ask. I didn’t have an immediate answer to ‘what Al-Shabaab would be if they are not terrorists.’ Perhaps someone from the National Counter Terrorism Centre would provide an answer and possibly confirm if we have a ‘definition of terrorism without Al-Shabaab.’ The report stated that Foreign Affairs Principal Secretary Macharia Kamau sought to make application for Al-Shabaab to be declared terrorists just like ISIS, Taliban, and Al-Qaeda, and I quote: “We will formally be submitting a request, seeking support in listing Al-Shabaab under UN Resolution 1267 of 1999.” The submission reportedly narrates how the ‘terrorist group’ has caused harm in Kenya and Africa at large to strengthen the case.

The fact that Kenyans consider Al-Shabaab as terrorist organisation, while the international community (UN) think otherwise, leads to significant conceptual confusion. This leave leads to the question of: “who is a terrorist if Al-Shabaab is not?” It questions the parameters for assigning meaning to terrorism.

It is important to acknowledge that while so much academic and policy discussions have gone into understanding and making definitions of terrorism, it is obvious so much at-stake also remains to be resolved. The debate informs us more on the prevailing power imbalance as sanctioned through the western (US and EU) epistemology to the local (national) meanings of terrorism. Prof Richard Jackson, in his research on critical terrorism, alludes this ontological obscurity to the ‘Western hegemony’ based on the dominant perspectives of the orthodox school of thought.

It is on the same strand that Mark Sedgwick explores further on the different interests at play and asserts that sources of such ‘conceptual confusion emanates from the varying interests, especially between the West and the rest of the world in the security context’. This includes integration and foreign-policy contexts both of which have different agenda. Based on such dilemma, the term “terrorist” has been applied to mean different things to different powers and authority and in different contexts.

When Kenya finally made the submission to the UN Security Council, it was the ‘greatest allies,’ who opposed and vetoed the request. The surprising fact was the report that former US officials and diplomats were at the forefront to stop the Kenyan proposal at the UN Security Council. Curiously, the US had designated Al-Shabaab as a terrorist organisation in February 2008 following the group’s proclamation of its allegiance to Al Qaeda. Subsequently, countries like Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom also listed Al-Shabaab as a terrorist organisation, according to UN News. Why this could not be applicable with the UN Security Council, leave more questions than answers.

The international media makes a surprising speculation that Kenya might be looking for more funds in their pursuit for declaring Al-Shabaab as terrorists. They reported that “such a listing in the UN Security Council would imply more funds for counter terrorism efforts, which they say, could financially benefit Kenya as a frontline state and a major target of Al-Shabaab’s terrorist activities.” If that were true, then the hidden economic viability of terrorism seems to be greater than the need to safeguard lives of citizens. This leads to more questions: Whose peace, interest and meaning are we protecting/pursuing in the fight against terrorism? Food for thought!

- The writer is University of Otago scholar at National Center for Peace and Conflict Studies - New Zealand