By PAUL BUCHANAN*
The unexpected arrival of Ahmed Zaoui in New Zealand has brought public and parliamentary outcry over the Government's handling of his case.
Listed as an international terrorist by Western security agencies, Zaoui is an Algerian sentenced to death in his home country because of alleged participation in anti-Government violence.
Opposition MPs and others have demanded his expulsion and questioned whether his provisional admission is a sign that we are soft on terrorists.
Yet Zaoui's case is more complicated than his detractors would suggest.
He is a member of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), a coalition of Islamic groups that won an overwhelming majority in the December 1991 Algerian elections. Zaoui was one of the FIS candidates elected to Parliament.
The election was held to be fair and free by international observers, and in gaining control of Parliament the FIS not only ended a long history of one party domination but also promised to reverse Algeria's secular form of government and return to one based on Shii'a law.
The group was financed in part by foreign benefactors including, it is claimed, Osama bin Laden.
Confronted by this scenario, the Algerian military, the most secular of all Algerian institutions, took power in a coup in January 1992.
It banned the FIS, rigged another election, and with a voter turnout estimated to be less than 30 per cent restored the old government (albeit with more direct military oversight).
Free elections have not been held since. Amid muted protest, the West reacted favourably to the coup because it feared another Iran had the FIS assumed power.
Many of the FIS leadership were jailed, and many others fled into exile.
But a paramilitary wing, the Islamic Armed Group (GAI), began a guerrilla campaign against the authoritarian usurpers.
That degenerated into a vicious civil war in which more than 100,000 people, mostly civilians, have died.
Zaoui, who is alleged to be a member of the GAI, fled to Europe in the mid-1990s.
In 1997, he was sentenced to death in absentia by an Algerian military court for "illicit association". The same year he tried to gain asylum in Switzerland but was refused entry and deported to Burkina Faso.
His movements since then remain unclear, but two weeks ago he arrived in Auckland on a plane from Malaysia using false South African documents that he destroyed in flight.
On arrival, he approached an immigration officer, announced his name in French and asked for political asylum.
A check of international security lists brought up his name as a wanted man, and he was rapidly whisked to Paremoremo prison, not the usual processing centre for refugees and asylum-seekers. He remains there today.
The case against Zaoui is problematic for a number of reasons. Terrorist lists are prepared by Governments, and in this case the Algerian authoritarian regime offered his name under the title "terrorist".
He has not been charged with any specific crime other than illicit association, was denied proper representation at trial, and, if anything, is confirmed only as a member of a group trying to restore democracy - albeit with an Islamic tilt - in Algeria.
The Algerian security services are known to have used death squads to carry out capital sentences against regime opponents, and there is reason to believe they were closing in on Zaoui in his precarious refuge in Burkina Faso.
A few weeks before his arrival here, the United States and Algerian Governments signed a military co-operation agreement in which the US will supply weapons and training assistance in return for Algeria's support in the war on terror.
Perhaps Zaoui saw this as tacit US approval for Algerian security tactics and decided that his days were numbered unless he sought haven.
It has never been proven that Zaoui is a member of the GAI. It is said that he gave money to the GAI through his position in the FIS. He has ostensibly been linked, through the GAI, to a 1995 bombing of the Paris metro in which seven people died.
But France did not charge him with any crime in association with the incident, and has not requested his extradition as a suspect or material witness.
Even if he is a member of the GAI who engaged in armed attacks on the Algerian regime, one might argue that he was doing it in defence of a legitimately elected government whose right to rule was thwarted by an unelected repressive military-civilian alliance.
History is replete with armed resistance movements to dictatorial authority, movements that often work in concert with moderate groups seeking an end to authoritarian rule.
There is no proof that Zaoui committed any act of violence. All the reasons for him being branded a terrorist have come from an Algerian regime of dubious legitimacy.
This brings up questions on related issues. If Robert Mugabe's Government branded someone a terrorist and sentenced him to death, would New Zealand try to deport him should he arrive here? Would New Zealand have deported Timorese freedom fighters fighting Indonesian occupation if requested to do so?
This country welcomed many Chilean exiles after they were branded terrorists by the Pinochet dictatorship, and they have contributed usefully to this society. Who is to say that Zaoui, from what we know so far, could not offer the same?
Under New Zealand and international conventions, Zaoui cannot be deported to Algeria to face his fate. He can be deported to a third state, but it is unlikely that any state that would not, in turn, send him to Algeria will accept him. Until his past is clarified, he remains in limbo. He is thus deserving of scrutiny, but also of temporary refuge.
It is possible this was a deliberate al Qaeda probe in which another man used Zaoui's well-travelled name to test our border controls. If so, it was ineffectual, confirmed the obvious, and would have to be followed by further probes of a less forthright nature - say by a Western-looking, English-speaking professional using an assumed name and a proper visa.
Or it could have been an attempt by the man in question to spread terrorism in New Zealand by presenting himself as such, although pushing the al Qaeda cause from a maximum security prison might prove a tad difficult.
Which leaves us with another possibility - the man in Paremoremo is the real Zaoui, non-terrorist, fleeing political persecution from the Algerian authorities in a legitimate quest for asylum in a peaceful country known for its commitment to civil rights and humanitarian concerns.
It is, therefore, hard to understand why certain MPs and members of the public are upset. The border controls worked, to the point that an international terrorist suspect surrendered voluntarily rather than risk capture in a bid to gain surreptitious entry.
Rather than a soft touch for terrorists, the Government, in its treatment of Zaoui, has shown itself to be reasoned in its approach, waiting for all the evidence for and against him to be weighed.
This may well garner favour with many around the world who are subject to authoritarian persecution for their political beliefs.
If Zaoui is a terrorist, and evidence surfaces to conclusively tie him to acts of violence, he is incarcerated and New Zealand has scored a victory in the war on terrorism. He might even be liable for deportation to a country in which his crimes are proven - something the Algerians have yet to do.
From any perspective other than a visceral xenophobic one, this is a positive situation. New Zealand appears tough but fair in its treatment of this asylum-seeker, which speaks volumes to others contemplating similar moves.
But one nagging question remains. If he is not a proven terrorist, how long should he continue to be held in prison when he has committed no crimes in this country?
* Paul Buchanan, a former US Defence Department analyst, lectures at the University of Auckland.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
Latest from New Zealand
Yoga, clothing, a pet: What NZ principals spent 'treat yourself' Covid-19 wellbeing money on
The ministry doesn't know how many schools were sent draft guidance to 'treat' themselves.