Who is a terrorist? Is there a credible entity that brands terrorists? Answers to these questions matter. Qatar, a sovereign country, has been embargoed and threatened with invasion because it is accused of funding “terrorists.”
The United States is the leading country that unilaterally brands entities around the world as terrorist and sanctions anyone who supports or has normal relations with these named groups. In effect, the United States uses, in part, its unilateral branding of terrorists as an instrument of foreign policy to isolate, coerce and sanction countries that fail to do its bidding. This cavalier, off-the-cuff branding of entities as terrorists, who don’t follow U.S. dictates, has serious consequences and is currently not only undermining the fight against terrorism but also may be promoting terrorism.
There is general agreement that Al-Qaeda (and all its offshoots), ISIS, Boko Haram and a number of other such entities are terrorist organizations. They have attacked innocent civilians the world over and have claimed responsibility for their heinous acts. Today, the U.S. State Department has a long list of organizations it classifies as terrorist and a much shorter list of de-listed entities. Two entities on the list, one not on the list and one de-listed help make our point.
While the U.S. classifies Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations, to most of the world’s 1.7 billion Muslims, these are two legitimate political organizations. Hezbollah has defended Lebanon against Israeli incursions; it has helped elevate the voice of Lebanese Shia Muslims; and it has provided many benefits to the most deprived segment of the Lebanese population. Yes, it is heavily influenced by Iran. Yes, Hezbollah is supporting the oppressor Assad in Syria. But if these activities merit a terrorist designation, then there are governments that oppress the people of other countries and should be on the top of such a list, for example, Saudi Arabia in Bahrain. Interestingly, Muslims in the Middle East have consistently voted the leader of Hezbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nassrallah, as one of the two or three most popular Arab leaders.
Hamas is the de facto government of the Palestinian people in Gaza. Yes, it has been at war with Israel. While Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is in violation of international law, something that nations of the world (except the United States and fewer than a handful of other countries) have confirmed again and again at the United Nations, the United States brands Hamas as a terrorist organization. In the branding of Hezbollah and Hamas, the United States seems to be following Israeli wishes. But no matter, America’s process of terrorist designation is woefully inconsistent and compromised.
To America’s credit, although it has had on-and-off relations with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Brotherhood is not on its terrorist list. This is an organization developed nearly a century ago devoted to political and social activism in an Islamic context and has disavowed violence. But it is seen as a threat by a number of Arab dictators who view the Brotherhood as a popular movement that could undermine their autocratic or military (and we would add un-Islamic) rule. Six countries reportedly classify the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, The United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Syria and Russia).
The People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) has been on and off the list and is today delisted. It is a movement that opposes the regime in Tehran; it was based in Iraq and fought alongside Iraqi forces in the Iran-Iraq War; and it has carried out terrorist acts inside Iran. A number of high-profile U.S. politicians, reportedly including former House Speakers Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert, Congressman Patrick Kennedy, former Senator Joe Lieberman, former governors Howard Dean and Ed Rendell, former mayor Rudi Giuliani, retired generals Anthony Zinni and Wesley Clark, former United Nations Ambassadors Bill Richardson and John Bolton and many more have been paid speakers, a.k.a lobbyists, for the People’s Mujahadin of Iran. Yes, the MEK has high-profile support. But on the basis of what sort of logic could the MEK be exempted from the U.S. terrorist list and Hezbollah and Hamas be on the list?
The U.S. can have whatever list of terrorists it wants but given the arbitrary basis of its list, it should not be used to sanction countries that have relations with those on the list or to support countries (Saudi Arabia and its allies) who threaten countries (Qatar) who have relations with those on the list. Today, the U.S. has encouraged and supported Saudi aggression on Qatar because Qatar has dealings with Hezbollah and Hamas. Saudi Arabia (the creator of Al-Qaeda, the financial backer of radical Islamic teachings around the world and reportedly the heaviest financier of ISIS) has taken further advantage to create its own list to include the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and others. All in the name of fighting terrorism!
Washington’s arbitrary branding of organizations as terrorist has serious consequences; it compromises the fight against terrorism and makes a mockery of America’s proclaimed support for human rights and democratic values:
- The vast majority of Muslims, whose support the world needs to fight terrorism successfully, do not support the U.S. designations.
- U.S. support for repressive regimes such as those of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Egypt in the name of fighting terrorism rings hollow and exposes U.S. duplicity when it comes to fighting terrorism and supporting human rights.
- To many Muslims, the terrorist list and its application to support oppressive rulers is an indirect method of oppression in support of client dictators.
-All this provides more recruits for ISIS and other terrorist organizations.
In the current standoff between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Saudi Arabia is using the U.S. list as the basis to embargo and issue an ultimatum on a sovereign country. This is in essence an attempt at a ‘soft’ takeover of a sovereign nation with President Trump’s backing. Qatar has been asked to shut down Al-Jazeera, arguably the most independent news network in the Arab world; to sever relations with countries and entities found objectionable to Saudi Arabia; to act in ways acceptable to the Gulf Cooperation Council (i.e., Saudi Arabia); and to pay unspecified compensation as dictated by Saudi Arabia.
Is this attempt at a soft annexation of Qatar (with U.S. encouragement and support) that much different from Russia’s takeover of the Crimea? How will this help the legitimate fight against terrorism?
