Proposition betrays a lack of understanding of the dynamics of terrorism and the conditions under which it flourishes. If the authors believe that they are better positioned than other scholars and practitioners to address the issue of terrorism, they have failed to make their case. Instead, what they have done is confuse the issue. The problem with this argument is that while the US war on terror has so far been counterproductive, there is no reason to assume that it will not be effective in the future or to confuse this with the efficacy of other counter-terrorism efforts. What we do know is that more than 200 terrorist groups operate worldwide and kill some 10,000 people a year. In fact, if one were to compile statistics on attacks against civilians by US military forces during the 1980s, it is likely that such civilian deaths would top those caused by all terrorist groups combined. The fact that current attempts at a US counter-terror strategy has failed is simply a result of its lack of focus, and not of the presence of counter-terrorism laws, which obviously fail to address the root cause of the problem. Similarly, while there may be a correlation between the use of terror tactics and political repression in authoritarian regimes, there is no necessary connection between the two. In fact, where there is no terrorism there is also little evidence that political repression is a major problem, as countries that may have high levels of censorship (such as Burma and China) have little in the way of civil strife. It is this lack of focus that has been the bane of US foreign policy since at least the Cold War. In fact, it is ironic that the authors of the study should criticize the absence of legal measures to deal with terrorism. It was only a few years ago that the US Congress attempted to deal with the issue of terrorism by passing a number of laws mandating a number of new security measures. Given the fact that US intelligence failures had contributed to the 9/11 attacks, it would have been difficult to ignore this kind of legislation. In general, it would seem that while terrorism is a phenomenon that will persist, efforts to deal with it need to have a broader focus. As should be obvious, while one needs to pay attention to counter- terrorism tactics, efforts to counter terrorism have tended to be counter-productive, such as the US military efforts in Somalia, Somalia, Haiti and Haiti as well as the Israeli policies towards the Palestinians. The recent war in Afghanistan, in which US and other western military forces are seeking to overthrow a repressive and brutal regime in the name of democracy, can only prove counter-productive. As the events in Iraq have shown, as well as the more recent events in Indonesia and Turkey, it seems that while there may be some correlation between political repression and terrorism, there is not a necessary connection. In fact, in many countries, as in the US, there is a more direct correlation between political repression and civil rights. This is true for Burma (the situation in that country is as bad as if not worse than during the 1990s) and for many countries in Latin America. In these countries political repression and the conditions for terrorism do not exist in the same form as they do in the Middle East, a region that tends to receive most of the focus of the US foreign policy. The authors of the study argue that democratic processes have led to the emergence of radical groups in such as Indonesia, the Middle East, and Central America. Here the authors are relying on the old US right-wing approach that blames democratic processes for problems in the countries under consideration. In fact, the most successful movements for radical change have all occurred in countries with democracies (the most notable of these examples are those of South Africa and Northern Ireland). The overall point being made here is clear enough. The US leadership has not been successful in combating terrorism. The war on terror has been counter-productive and in many cases counter-legal. Since it has been so unsuccessful, the main concern should be to try to find effective strategies for reducing terrorism that are more in line with US values. The way to move forward in this regard is not to attack terrorists by any means available. If the aim of terrorism is to cause the US leadership to lose heart and thus to retreat in an aggressive manner, this is what will happen. The US and western anti-terror policies have indeed made the US leadership lose heart. The recent terrorist attack in Spain confirms this. As long as US leaders believe that the US is winning, the US leadership is winning. The best strategy for dealing with the issue of terrorism, which actually has some precedence in US foreign policy, is to try to figure out how to change the attitudes of radical groups that are committed to violence and terror as tools of opposition to the US. Such attempts at a strategy should be part of a concerted effort to bring down or at least reduce violence. The success of a particular group should be relegated to their ability to achieve that goal, not whether or not they achieve that goal through terror. If the US leadership does not understand the dynamics of terrorism, and counter-terrorism efforts have been counter-productive, the only logical conclusion is to rethink the strategies being used. If the US wants to win against terrorism, it needs to make sure it understands the reasons for that terrorism and has a realistic plan of action to deal with them. I am surprised that this piece appeared at all, as the authors' views and conclusions clearly represent a minority position within the US foreign policy community. What can be a more effective way of countering terrorism than by changing the behavior of US policy- makers? The writer, an international law expert, is a research fellow at the Centre for Research and Analysis of the Legal System at the University of Pretoria. -------------- The writer, an international law expert, is a research fellow at the Centre for Research and Analysis of the Legal System at the University of Pretoria. On 1 June 2003, the South African Institute for International Affairs (SAIIA) hosted a press briefing on its research initiative on South Africa's external relationships. The briefing followed the publication in December 2002 of the report on South Africa's external relations with its neighbouring countries (see below). The briefing, which was attended by journalists from South Africa and elsewhere, provided an opportunity to discuss the recommendations contained in the report, and examine their implications for South Africa's international relations. A round-table discussion with senior foreign policy analysts was also held. The report was prepared under the direction of Professor Frits Hermann, Senior Adviser in the Foreign Office. Its findings and recommendations were drawn up by an inter-ministerial team that included senior officials from the Foreign Office, National Defence, the Mineral and Energy Affairs Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs, and the Department of International Relations and Cooperation. Annex Report on South Africa's external relations with its neighbouring countries Introduction The objective of this report is to analyse the state of South Africa's relations with its neighbours and assess their impact on its economy and stability. The South African government has emphasised the need for a "development of sound relations with neighbouring states in order to improve our regional and international influence, security and stability, create confidence among our people and our partners, and contribute to sustainable growth" (White Paper of the National Party, 1991). Furthermore, the South African government maintains that a harmonious and peaceful region benefits not only its neighbours but the African continent as a whole (Republic of South Africa, 1998a). In the light of such objectives, the analysis in this report is divided into three main sections: an assessment of regional relations, an examination of economic relations and the situation with regards to international trade, and a focus on South Africa's own foreign policy. Regional relations 1.1.1 The end of apartheid in South Africa has not resolved the tension between the two sides, nor is it likely to. The 1994 elections have not resulted in a rapprochement of relations between South Africa and its neighbours. Indeed, despite all the progress which has been made by South Africa towards international acceptance of its transition to democracy, relations with its neighbours have remained tense. Since the elections there has been