America, terrorists and Nelson Mandela
- Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own -
Woe betide the organization or individual who lands on America’s terrorist list. The consequences are dire and it’s easier to get on the list than off it even if you turn to peaceful politics. Just ask Nelson Mandela.
One of the great statesmen of our time, Mandela stayed on the American terrorist blacklist for 15 years after winning the Nobel Prize prior to becoming South Africa’s first post-Apartheid president. He was removed from the list after then president George W. Bush signed into law a bill that took the label “terrorist” off members of the African National Congress (ANC), the group that used sabotage, bombings and armed attacks against the white minority regime.
The ANC became South Africa’s governing party after the fall of apartheid but the U.S. restrictions imposed on ANC militants stayed in place. Why? Bureaucratic inertia is as good an explanation as any and a look at the current list of what is officially labelled Foreign Terrorist Organisations (FTOs) suggests that once a group earns the designation, it is difficult to shake.
The consequences of a U.S. terrorist designation include freezing an organisation’s funds, banning its members from travelling to the U.S. and imposing harsh penalties (up to 15 years in prison) on people who provide “material support or resources” to an FTO.
At present, there are 44 groups on the list, ranged in alphabetical order from the Palestinian Abu Nidal Organisation to the United Self Defense Forces of Colombia. The Abu Nidal group, according to the government’s own country reports on terrorism, “is largely considered inactive.” The Congressional Research Service, a bipartisan agency which provides research and analysis for Congress, has wondered why it is still on the list.
One can ask the same about the Colombian group, added to the list in 2001. The bulk of the paramilitary organisation demobilized years ago and the latest U.S. government report says its “organizational structure no longer exists.”
New messenger, same mandate
– Kevin P. Gallagher is professor of international relations at Boston University and co-author of “The Enclave Economy: Foreign Investment and Sustainable Development in Mexico’s Silicon Valley” and “Putting Development First: The Importance of Policy Space at the WTO.” The opinions expressed are his own. –
On the campaign trail, President-elect Barack Obama pledged to rethink U.S. trade policy. The initial nomination of Xavier Becerra as United States Trade Representative was a signal that Obama will work to fulfill that promise. Congressman Becerra declined the offer and former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk has been chosen to head the office instead. Given Kirk’s enthusiastic support for NAFTA, he will receive close scrutiny as he takes over a USTR that has the mandate of rethinking U.S. trade policy.
Regardless of the messenger, Obama has pledged to fundamentally change U.S. trade policy. To this end, there are four early priorities for Kirk and Obama: honor existing commitments under the WTO, press for an equitable completion of the Doha Round, conduct a thorough evaluation of major U.S. trade agreements, and enact comprehensive trade adjustment assistance legislation.
The immediate first step is to honor the WTO ruling that deemed that the $3.2 billion in annual cotton subsidies and $1.6 billion in export credits violate trade rules. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy estimates that U.S. cotton subsidies caused damages of $400 million between 2001 and 2003 alone for poor African cotton-producing countries, where more than 10 million people depend directly on the crop.
Returning to multilateralism by honoring the cotton ruling would not only aid poor farmers but would also allow the U.S. to regain legitimacy at the WTO by sending signal to developing countries that the U.S. no longer preaches a global trade policy of “do as we say, not as we do”.
Second, Obama and Kirk should move to complete the Doha Round on terms that benefit both the U.S. and its trading partners. A core principle of a reconfigured Doha Round should be the recognition that developing countries need the policy space to deploy the kinds of government measures that have been proven to work for development in the west. According to separate studies by the World Bank and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the deal debated while Bush was in office would have yielded only $6.7 billion to 21.4 billion (or less than a penny per person per day) for the poor. Rich countries were projected to see per capita income gains 25 times those in developing countries. (Read the full report here.)
Third, Obama’s first year in office should also honor his pledge to evaluate impacts of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other major trade agreements. It is essential that the assessment analyzes the economic, environmental, social and regulatory impacts of past agreements on the U.S. economy– and on our trading partners.
during the court proceeding,some of the information about MEKm`s activities declassified by state department.
according to these information the group has not ended its military operation,still intenends to use violence to achieve its political goals and trained females to be suicide bombers.in also said that much of the information the group has provided on iran`s nuclear program has been wrong.
(www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/a rticle/2010/07/16/AR2010071605881_pf.htm l)
therefor MEK exatly is a terrorist group.