Over the last 24 hours, Pakistani-harbored terrorists attacked India’s Pathankot base in the Punjab province, and subsequently attacked India’s consulate in the northern Afghan town of Mazar-i-Sharif. The attackers appear to have been trained by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency. Diplomats might try to obfuscate, but the facts are clear: Pakistan is a state-sponsor of terrorism.
That it is not listed as such, however, is a castigation of just how meaningless the State Department’s “State Sponsors of Terrorism List” has become. Created in 1979, the List was for decades a rogue’s gallery: North Korea, Iraq, Libya, South Yemen, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria. Designation as a state sponsor of terrorism brought with it mandatory sanctions and restrictions which both by law and because of reputation risk undercut the ability and willingness of many companies to invest within a designated country.
A generation of diplomats, however, has moved to treat the list as subjective rather than objective, thereby undermining both the stigma associated with being listed as well as the very real fight against terrorism. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, for example, de-listed North Korea in 2008 less because Pyongyang had ceased its support for terrorists and more to try to jump-start a peace process, a political ‘Hail Mary’ pass to change her boss’s foreign policy legacy. Meanwhile, regime change in Libya and Iraq led to their removal from the list.
President Barack Obama entered office promising to talk to any enemy with whom he could engage diplomatically, and he wasted no time doing so. By the time Iranians rose in protest against fraudulent elections in June 2009, he had written a couple of letters to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who returned the favor by mocking Obama on the 30th anniversary of the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. “This new President of America said beautiful things,” Khamenei said on November 4, 2009. “He sent us messages constantly, both orally and written: ‘Come and let us turn the page, come and create a new situation, come and let us cooperate in solving the problems of the world.’ It reached this degree!” The State Department has not yet de-listed Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, but it is likely a matter of time, as Secretary of State John Kerry completed the nuclear deal only by acquiescing to a cascade of concession. The State Department has met every further Iranian demand to lift or refuse to enforce sanctions with compliance. Likewise, if Kerry can do an about face on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad staying, then he can just as easily drop Syria’s designation in order to ‘further’ the peace process.
Cuba’s inclusion was the subject of some debate, but Kerry simply waived it away despite Cuba continuing to support violent revolutionary movements in Latin America and its harboring of American cop killers.
After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush issued an executive order, which empowered the Treasury Department in addition to the State Department to designate individuals and groups involved in terrorism, even if the ability to designate states as sponsors remain in State Department hands. The 2001 move coincided with a decision to much more effectively wield financial tools in the battle against terrorists and their sponsors. Any juxtaposition between the Treasury Department list and State Department list shows just how different the outcome can be with objective rather than subjective criteria.
The world has not gotten safer under Obama; terrorism is blossoming. To what degree Obama’s choices have exacerbated the problem can be the subject of historical debate, but it would be irresponsible to deny the reality of a growing terror threat. The rapidly shrinking state sponsor list, therefore, does not correlate with the facts. Perhaps it’s time, then, to take the ability to designate state sponsors out of the hands of the State Department, which has both corrupted the process and allowed ease of diplomacy and personal ambition to trump national security. Perhaps it’s time for an independent, bipartisan committee or some other body shielded from the pressures of diplomacy or politics to make the call. Reality should suggest that Turkey, Qatar and Pakistan should be considered state sponsors of terrorism. That they are all nominally U.S. partners should be a source of embarrassment that Washington allies with such countries. If such countries do not like the designation and the consequences which follow, there should be no shortcuts: The only way off would be to reform behavior and curtail support for terrorism.
