The American Congress’ over-riding of President Barack Obama’s veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (Jasta) is a grave mistake. It shows exceptionally poor judgement that both Houses of the United States Congress have voted in a rare show of bipartisanship to ignore Obama when he said that Jasta will alienate important allies at a time of global unrest, and is detrimental to US national interests.
Both Republicans and Democrats ignored that advice in a rare act of bipartisanship, which is a severe blow to Obama who has vetoed 12 bills during his presidency. Until now, none had been overridden, a rare feat given the Republicans’ long-standing control of the Congress. Instead, the representatives and senators chose to try to garner votes for their parties in the presidential election campaign by supporting the families of 9/11 victims who have campaigned for the law, in the grossly mistaken belief that somehow the Saudi Government had a hand in the attacks that killed almost 3,000 people.
They have ignored the hard work, commitment and huge sacrifices that countries all over the Arab world have put in to the defeat of terrorism. Shaikh Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, UAE Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, summed up the position of all the Gulf states when he told the United Nations General Assembly that “resorting to blindly-placed laws that ignore the effective role played by a number of states in countering terrorism after the suffering of others, Jasta will lead to further arbitrary policies and destabilise the existing strong relationships between allies”.
But in addition to the positive reasons to reject the bill, the US also faces some domestic harm from Jasta. Firstly, there is bound to be some retaliatory action from Gulf states as they cut their long-term commitments and investments in the US. But secondly, if the US gives its courts the right to waive foreign sovereign immunity, then it sets a precedent that other countries could well follow. Jasta will encourage governments all over the world to give their courts the right to exercise jurisdiction over the US Government and any of its employees for government-backed overseas actions, such as damages from drone strikes, or abuses committed by US-trained police units or US-backed militias. Such cases in Afghan or Yemeni courts will be a grave worry to any US government official in the country, who could well be named on behalf of the US Government.
