United States and the Politics of Listing and Delisting Terrorist Organizations
The United States has exploited its position of a hegemon to keep pushing the agenda of liberal democracies across the world. It has also used its might to clamp down on terrorist organizations, especially post the infamous 9/11 attacks. The attacks made US take strict actions against the culprit organizations, and started a whole new discourse in the international domain that precisely explores ‘terrorism’. As terrorism became the talk of the town, it also became a tool in the hands of the United States. It started pitching it as an ostensible reason for furthering its security and political agendas.
The task of identifying and monitoring the potential organizations that can be listed in the banned terrorist organizations lies with the Bureau of Counterterrorism (CT) in the State Department. CT investigates the minute details of all the organizations that might not be designated as ‘terrorist’ but are either engaged or plans to engage with ‘acts of terrorism’, or possess the capacity to inflict any major harm. CT puts together all the data that it accumulates from various classified, and open sources. This ‘administrative record’ is deemed as satisfied for designation. The proposal is then sent across to various people in power comprising of Attorney General, Secretary of Treasury, and Secretary of States. Once the designation is given a nod by them, it is put across the Congress. If the congress passes it without any objection, it makes its way through to the Federal Register, and here the designation comes into effect. Albeit, any organization listed as an FTO can counter this designation in the US Court of Appeals within 30 days.
Initially, it was mandated that the designation would be reviewed every two years but the re-designation requirements were amended following the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. This Act allowed FTO to file for revocation after 2 years from their date of designation. The Secretary of States undertakes a review research to consider the case for revocation. Moreover, at times revocation can be done solely based on the findings of Secretary of States without any plea in the first place. It can be done if the FTO is no longer considered a dangerous organization. The legal criterion for designation embarks that the organization needs to be of foreign origin, and must engage in terrorist activities. But most importantly, should threaten the security of US nationals, or National security of the United States.
Once an organization is listed, numerous legal ramifications are bestowed upon it. It becomes unlawful for anyone in the United States to extend any monetary or material support to it. Moreover, anyone linked to these organizations are not allowed on the land of the United States. US allies are also expected to follow suit and refrain from any economic engagements with the FTO. Furthermore, these organizations are stigmatized and isolated, and global awareness against their evil operations is peddled.
Although the aforementioned criterion sounds simple, just and value neutral but international politics never works on such simple lines. The United States has used these listing-de-listing as a bargaining chip, and political tool disguised as security. For instance, as the United States rivalry with China started brewing, it dropped East Turkestan Islamic Movement organization (ETIM)from the terror groups list. ETIM is an extremist group comprising of native Uyghurs that aspires to establish a separate country by the name of ‘East Turkistan’. This move by the United States enraged China, and it blamed the US for showing ‘double standards’.
At present, the issue has come to limelight over the possible delisting of the Terrorist Organization of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). POTUS Joe Biden has indicated that the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran might be revamped. This comes as an exchange deal, where the bargain has been made by Tehran who considers getting IRGC off the list. However, many speculate that this can be a wrong move, and Iran would empower he IRGC, and would use it to assert influence in West Asia. Iran lobbyist are trying to convince POTUS into uplifting of only economic but terrorist sanctions as well. IRGC has worked as an ideological custodian of Iranian Revolution of 1979, and it expanded following its full swing participation in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. It is one of the strongest forces that operates in Iran with its own military, navy, air force and intelligence. It has worked hands in gloves with the government to unleash proxy wars, take control over economy. Once the ban is lifted, it would allow businesses and personals working with IRGC to penetrate the global economic chains, and operate without any regulations. Therefore, paving a hurdle free road to growth and power. The influence of IRGC is spread across the entire West Asia, and despite operating under restrictions and sanctions, it has managed to have its proxies especially in Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Houthis is Yemen, and is working to build a missile system that undermines the defenses erected by Israel. A major cause of concern that remains for the world peace admirers is that de-listing IRGC would have a domino effect on the organizations that works under its hand and operate in countries like Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen. It would become next to impossible to disassociate these branches with the roots. In the past as well, the delisting of the Houthis caused dear to the United States. It continued its hostile missions, and it became increasingly difficult to justify the delisting. Hence, the concerns raised by experts are not out of thin air.
The fact that the standard procedure that was mentioned by the United States for listing and delisting seems to be falling prey of the political goals of the leaders. They undermine global security to make way for their commitments. President Biden desperately seeks a nuclear deal with Iran, for which he is ready to turn a blind eye to terrorism that the IRGC have propagated. Moreover, a dilution in the stand of the United States also effects its overall credibility as a hegemon, and just security provider. In addition, it is giving out a wrong message to all the terrorist organizations, that they can make their way through by penetrating these sanctions and bans in a similar manner. Ever since the Taliban has taken charge of Afghanistan, there has been a ‘win-wave’ for the terrorist across the globe. Therefore, the current de-listing approach by the US would only add to the spirits of the terrorists worldwide, while suffering a backlash from countries like China, Russia who calls the US going the ‘hypocrisy’ route. It is the need of the hour, that the United States keeps refrains from playing the ‘listing-delisting’ game, and coin its credibility by letting go off petty gains.
REFERENCES
1. What terrorist delisting of Iran’s IRGC would mean for US interests – IFMAT
2. Foreign Terrorist Organizations - United States Department of State
3. China accuses US of double standards as it drops ETIM from terrorism list | South China Morning Post (scmp.com)
4. Press Releases | U.S. Department of the Treasury
5. What is ETIM, the Uyghur extremist group China wants Taliban to crack down on (theprint.in)
6. Five lessons from the de-listing of MEK as a terrorist group | Glenn Greenwald | The Guardian
7. Administration still considers delisting IRGC as terrorist group, despite Erbil attack (jns.org)
8. Iran Opposition NCRI Warns Delisting IRGC Will Lead To ‘Terrorism and Mayhem’ (opslens.com)
Pic Courtsey-Fabien Maurin at unsplash.com
(The views expressed are thoSe fo the author and do noT represent views of CESCUBE.)
