Opinion | Columnists
America's petty list of terrorist states
The terror blacklist reduces US foreign policy to petty thinking of a bouncer, who gets to whimsically decide who is allowed in and who is not
- By Lionel Beehner
- Published: 23:33 October 25, 2008
- Image Credit: Luis Vazquez/Gulf News
The State Department's list of "state sponsors of terrorism" is one of the biggest farces of US foreign policy. Started in 1979 for nations designated by the secretary of state "to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism," the rationale behind the list is far from any high moral purpose to rid the world of terrorism.
This blacklist exists solely to punish our enemies, not to cajole them to stop sponsoring terrorists. Landing on it places limits on the size and scope of arms, economic aid and other financial transactions a country can have with American citizens.
By promising to remove a country from it, we dangle a carrot in front of the North Koreas of the world to try to exact behavioural change and wrest concessions. Although in theory that might be a useful tool, it ignores the need to work with our international allies to apply pressure on these states and does not tackle the socio-economic causes of why terrorism takes root in the first place.
The terrorism blacklist only reduces our foreign policy to the petty thinking of a clipboard-toting nightclub bouncer, who gets to whimsically decide who is allowed in and who is not. It fits snugly into our with-us-or-against-us view of world affairs, not to mention our one-size-fits-all preference to lump all terrorist groups under one umbrella.
"The very concept of a binary list, with countries either on it or off, is flawed and often does more harm to US interests than good," terrorism expert Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institution said in an analysis paper in May.
Mounds of evidence
Washington, for example, only removed Iraq from the terrorism sponsor list in 1982 so the US could supply military technology to Saddam Hussain in the early days of Iraq's war with Iran. Iraq was put back on the list after it invaded Kuwait in 1990 - which was an act of aggression, to be sure, but a move that had nothing to do with its support of terrorism.
For example, Afghanistan - an allies of the United States - has never landed on the terrorism list, despite mounds of evidence that elements within their governments at one time or another abetted terrorists.
And Eritrea, which previously had fought against foreign jihadists on the Horn of Africa, was nearly added to the list in 2007 for funnelling arms to insurgents in Somalia opposed to an invasion by Ethiopia, Eritrea's archenemy. Washington's threatened move was aimed more at appeasing Ethiopia, a US ally, in its proxy war in Somalia than at punishing Eritrea for abetting terrorists.
The list's membership, which has shifted over the years, is puzzling. The inaugural members in 1979 were Libya, Iraq, South Yemen and Syria, and the current ones are Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria. Why is Cuba, whose sponsorship of terrorists has been dormant since the Cold War, on the list but not Venezuela, which actively supports FARC, the leftist rebel group that seeks to overthrow Colombia's government? Why is Sudan, which partially collaborated with Washington to weed out extremism in parts of Africa, on the list but not Somalia?
And North Korea was removed from the list earlier in October, not because it stopped its support of terrorists - allegedly supplying nuclear technologies to Middle East countries such as Syria - but because it cooperated with US officials to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities again.
This was a major breakthrough, but one unrelated to its sponsorship of terrorism, past or present. After all, Pyongyang was slapped on the list in 1988 for its role in the 1987 bombing of a Korean Air flight that killed 115 people and for its support of Japanese communists.
Of course, some will stress the importance of the list as leverage during negotiations. But we have lots of other levers to pull for that purpose. And most countries fully understand how politicised the list has become, thus watering down its effectiveness.
Slapping Syria and Iran on a terrorism list does little to deter those governments from maintaining ties with Hamas or Hezbollah. It's purely political theatre - the equivalent of Congress' labelling Iran's Revolutionary Guards a "specially designated global terrorist" organisation.
Washington should knock off this charade and do away with its terrorism blacklist, which has little to do with stamping out suicide bombers and their ilk and everything to do with strong-arming countries for grievances unrelated to their support of terrorists.
- Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service
Lionel Beehner, formerly a senior writer at the Council on Foreign Relations, is a writer in New York.
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Russia, China complicit in Syria carnage
By Fawaz Turki, Special to Gulf News
By their double veto at the UN, they have chosen to back the Al Assad regime that is already wet spaghetti
-
Two prime ministers in trouble
By Kuldip Nayar, Special to Gulf News
Gilani faces contempt of court charge while Singh encounters moral responsibility in 2G scam case
-
Moving towards honest democracy
By Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister of Russia
Russia needs to unbundle power and property and separate executive power from system of checks over it
Your turn
