Does the State Sponsor of Terrorism list mean anything anymore? The list was created almost 45 years ago as a diplomatic tool to identify terrorism sponsors and impose automatic sanctions upon them, but White House and State Department inconsistency and mendacity enable those on the list to dismiss the designation as unjust. Equally important, failure to designate by objective standards encourages other regimes to try to get away with terrorism so long as they spread money around Washington.
The Export Administration Act of 1979 first empowered the State Department to designate state sponsors of terrorism. The State Department initially designated four countries: Syria, Iraq, Libya, and South Yemen. Almost immediately, though, White House and diplomatic ambition enabled some regimes to escape accountability. Today, while the State Department has listed Iran as the greatest state sponsor of terrorism for almost 40 years straight, initially, President Jimmy Carter refused to designate the Islamic Republic for fear that doing so could undermine his efforts to reconcile with Ayatollah Khomeini. Only in 1984 did the Reagan administration designate Iran, by which time Iranian agents had killed hundreds of Americans, from Bethesda to Beirut.
On Iraq, President Ronald Reagan fell victim to the same wishful thinking. To enable cooperation, his team argued dictator Saddam Hussein was a centrist and removed Iraq from the list in 1982. Hussein never ceased supporting terrorist groups, though. President George H.W. Bush finally restored Iraq to the list in 1990, but it was too late: Iraq had invaded Kuwait, setting off a cascade that cost trillions of dollars and set the region alight.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice likewise prioritized diplomatic aspiration above objective terrorist designation. As the mood shifted against the United States wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Rice sought last-minute outreach to North Korea in the belief she could redefine George W. Bush’s legacy. Despite evidence that North Korea was helping Hezbollah, Rice removed the country from the terrorism list to enable aid to flow. Only in 2017 did the State Department redesignate the nuclear-armed dictatorship.
While Bush was as guilty as Carter and Reagan in the list’s corruption, he also enabled the exposure of its distortion. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush signed Executive Order 13224 to enable the Treasury Department to designate terrorist groups. That Treasury’s list is far more expansive than the State Department’s reflects corruption in diplomatic considerations.
The problem is not only the undeserved removal of state sponsors but also the shielding of states whose malign behavior meets that of designated terrorism sponsors. Turkey, Pakistan, Oman, and Qatar each finance terrorism groups with global reach, and Pakistan and Turkey arm groups ranging from the Taliban to the Islamic State. Malaysia protects terrorists as they plan and even train for terrorism operations.
Terrorism today is spreading in Africa. With the 2022 lifting of sanctions on the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Congolese government channeled tens of millions of dollars into new weaponry and, in support of terrorist groups, it shelters along its eastern border with Rwanda. Congo has also paid Évariste Ndayishimiye, president of Africa’s poorest country, Burundi, to impress soldiers for terrorism operations directed by Congo. Designation of either would dry up funds and tie investment to responsible behavior.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Also damaging to the list is the designation of regimes that, while abhorrent, simply do not meet the standards for inclusion. Here, Cuba is a case in point. The United States should advocate freedom in Cuba. Lifting sanctions would also be unwise if the Cuban military disproportionately benefited, as it did under President Barack Obama’s outreach. Still, Obama’s delisting was, on its face, proper. President Donald Trump’s re-designation of Cuba and President Joe Biden’s subsequent refusal to assess Cuba objectively were not. They are pure politics and hurt private enterprise that Cubans will need to unravel the communist regime’s grip.
Terrorism is a scourge, and calling it out is proper. But when subjectivity becomes the order of the day, it is mendacity. If the State Department cannot cast corrupting influences aside, it is necessary to charge others, such as the intelligence community or Treasury Department, to make the honest calls.
Michael Rubin is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.