WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate unanimously supports it. So does House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, along with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the Ukrainian Parliament.
But Secretary of State Anthony J. Blinken isn’t so sure.
For weeks, pressure has mounted on Mr. Blinken to officially declare Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, a label currently reserved for North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Iran. But despite the emotional appeal, Mr Blinken is resisting a move that could force him to sanction US allies who do business with Russia and could extinguish any remaining traces of diplomacy between Washington and Moscow.
Amid outrage over Russia’s brutal military campaign in Ukraine, the US Senate on Wednesday unanimously approved a non-binding resolution calling on Mr Blinken to designate Russia as a sponsor of terrorism for its attacks in Ukraine, as well as in Chechnya, Georgia and Syria. which resulted “in the deaths of countless innocent men, women and children.”
“Putin, to me, now sits at the top of a state terror apparatus,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, who co-sponsored the resolution, told reporters after the vote. He said the sanctions already imposed on Russia “have been effective, but we need to do more.”
This month, Mr. Graham and Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, visited Mr. Zelensky in Kyiv and presented him with a framed copy of their resolution.
But Mr. Blinken was noncommittal when asked about the issue Thursday, echoing other State Department and White House officials. Any decision should be based on existing legal definitions, he said, while pointing out that the issue is moot because Russia is already under many sanctions.
“The costs that have been imposed on Russia by us and by other countries are absolutely in line with the consequences that would follow from being designated as a state sponsor of terrorism,” Mr Blinken told a news conference. “So the practical effects of what we’re doing are the same.”
Mr. Blinken’s hand may be forced, however. While the Senate resolution was merely a call to action without legal force, a group of House Democrats on Thursday introduced a new measure that, if passed by Congress and signed into law, would end the State Department’s rule and add Russia to US list of sponsors of terror.
The State Department’s determination that Russia is a state sponsor of terror — a label agency officials call the “nuclear option” — will lead to more sanctions on Russia’s battered economy, including sanctions on countries that do business with Moscow. It would also drop traditional legal barriers that prevent private citizens from suing foreign governments for damages, potentially including the families of American volunteers killed or wounded while fighting Russia in Ukraine.
And it could sever once and for all the Biden administration’s limited diplomatic ties with Moscow, analysts said, which Mr. Blinken called important to keep intact.
As a reminder of that dynamic, Mr. Blinken spoke to his Russian counterpart, Sergei V. Lavrov, by telephone on Thursday and pressed him to accept a proposal to release two Americans, Brittney Griner and Paul N. Whelan, but he reported no breakthrough. It was their first conversation since Russia invaded Ukraine.
In the course of the war, Mr Zelensky has openly called for a definition of terrorism, speaking last month of the “urgent need to legislate it”. The House of Representatives is preparing to vote on a resolution similar to the Senate version, with strong support from Ms. Pelosi.
Our coverage of the Russian-Ukrainian war
- Grain blockade: Breakthrough deal aims to lift Russian blockade of Ukrainian grain supplies, easing global food crisis. But in the fields of Ukraine, farmers are skeptical.
- Ambitious counterattack: Ukraine lays groundwork to retake Kherson from Russia. But the endeavor will require huge resources and may incur heavy costs.
- Economic Chaos: As food, energy and commodity prices continue to rise around the world, few countries are feeling the bite as hard as Ukraine.
- Inside the Siege: For 80 days at the Avtostal steel plant, a relentless Russian assault met staunch Ukrainian resistance. So it was for those who were there.
The disagreement between the Biden administration and Congress over the label echoes debates since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, when the first evidence of atrocities emerged. When congressional leaders, including Ms. Pelosi, accused the Russian military of committing war crimes, Mr. Blinken was cautious, citing legal criteria and the need for evidence and an investigation. But on March 16, President Biden reversed that position, declaring Mr. Putin a “war criminal.”
Mr. Biden’s rhetorical declaration infuriated the Kremlin but had no political consequences. This would not be the case with an official definition of terrorism.
A senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss policy deliberations, expressed concern that such a measure would limit the administration’s ability to exempt some transactions with Russia from Western sanctions. The official did not specify the activities, but the United States, for example, has ensured that Russian food exports are not affected by the trade sanctions.
The secretary of state has broad discretion to impose different designations on other states or groups, legal experts say. But the department prefers to use the designations only in certain circumstances.
Updated
July 29, 2022, 4:54 PM ET
According to the State Department, the terrorism designation results in restrictions on U.S. foreign aid, restrictions on the export of certain “dual-use” technology items that may have military applications, and a ban on defense exports and sales.
Much of this is covered by existing sanctions. But the finding could force the United States to go further, Mr Graham said on Wednesday, adding new restrictions on how third countries can interact with Russia without fear of US sanctions.
“This means that doing business with Russia under this designation becomes extremely difficult,” Mr Graham said.
Experts said the diplomatic cost of such a move could be significant and that Mr. Putin could expel all American diplomats from the country. So far, Moscow has allowed the U.S. Embassy in Moscow to remain open and some diplomats to stay, including Ambassador John J. Sullivan.
Even amid the war in Ukraine, the United States wants to continue working with Russia on some issues, including international negotiations with Iran to restore the 2015 nuclear deal, to which Moscow was a party and to which President Donald J. Trump withdrew.
“For diplomacy, it’s not practical to name a country with which the United States has a multilateral relationship,” said Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group who recently worked on military and counterterrorism issues at the State Department.
Some supporters of the designation, however, do not mind further isolating Russia.
“The designation of state sponsorship of terrorism puts Russia in a very small club,” Mr Blumenthal said on Wednesday. “It consists of nations like Syria, Iran, Cuba, which are beyond the borders of civilized countries. They are pariahs.”
U.S. officials have so far used the label mainly in cases where a nation or its proxy has carried out a narrowly targeted, non-military action, such as bombing a civilian airliner.
“US officials want to draw a clear distinction between terrorism and the type of conflict in which the US military can engage in combat operations,” Mr Finucane said.
In 2019, Trump officials discussed a proposal to impose the “foreign terrorist organization” label on part of Iran’s military, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Pentagon officials opposed the move, fearing it would set a precedent that could invite other countries to impose a similar designation on the United States because of the actions of the American military.
President Trump rejected that objection. As part of negotiations to restore the nuclear deal, Iran has asked the Biden administration to drop the label, but Mr. Biden has refused.
Once announced, a terrorist designation is often seen by US officials as politically risky to revoke, even under a new administration with different views. In one of his latest actions in the Trump administration, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called Cuba a “state sponsor of terrorism,” a move the Biden administration has yet to reverse despite skepticism about its justification. (Mr Trump did remove Sudan from the list of state sponsors of terrorism as part of a 2020 deal to normalize relations with Israel.)
Mr Trump also designated North Korea as a state sponsor of terror in 2017, although President George W Bush lifted the label in 2008.
Daniel L. Bayman, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center for Near East Policy, wrote at the time that the United States’ approach to state sponsorship of terrorism “has many flaws.” Among them, he said, is the fact that some obvious candidates, including Pakistan – which Washington sees as a partner but whose intelligence services have ties to the Taliban and anti-India terror groups – have somehow avoided the label.
Charlie Savage contributed reporting.
Add Comment