State-Sponsored Terrorism: A Global Issue
For a number of years, terrorism was perceived as a struggle or conflict between two groups or states. However, as of late, other nations have begun utilizing their terrorist organizations to further their own national goals on a global scale. Some nations began utilizing terrorism to advance their own objectives by funding terrorist organizations rather than aiding in the fight against it. The motivations for state-sponsored terrorism may be intellectual, political, or religious. It can also be motivated by the need for vengeance following a traditional battle with the aim of accomplishing political goals that could not be accomplished through diplomacy and other conventional political means. In this paper, I will argue that sanctions are not the best approach to dealing with a state sponsor of terrorism like in the country of Sudan. Sudan was sanctioned by the UN after a group of individuals in the country were accused of perpetrating violence and genocide in the country. However, despite the economic and political penalties imposed on these individuals, the peace mission has never been accomplished in Sudan. Instead, the country has suffered economically due to lack of funds and support from foreign aids.
Are Sanctions the Best Way to Deal with a State Sponsor of Terrorism like Sudan?
Sudan is a country that has been under sanctions for state sponsored terrorism against its people, and this leads us to the question, are sanctions the best way to punish a state sponsor of terrorism like Sudan? The answer is no because even after the sanctions were issued to Sudan, it did not deter terrorism and the conflict did not end. Moreover, the sanctions implementation was focused on countries bordering South Sudan such as DRC, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Uganda and some of these countries were unable to help resolve the conflict. In addition, the sanctions only affected the named individuals, but there are other entities and persons who might have accelerated the conflicts and were not sanctioned, and so the problem was not resolved.
The Effectiveness of Sanctions in Countering State-Sponsored Terrorism
It is true that International state-sponsored terrorism is flourishing because of the training and funding provided by terrorists from sovereign states. Therefore, proponents might argue that the best way to counter state sponsored terrorism is by imposing sanctions on countries like Sudan. However, despite the sanctions, the 2013 civil conflict in South Sudan has never ended (Leriche, 2015). In fact, Sudan is still struggling to achieve peace until now despite the sanctions meaning they did not help in solving the country’s problems, as there are several inner conflicts in Sudan. The sanctions were on specific individuals, but it is sad that they did not stop the elites from acquiring weapons and amassing more wealth while the average citizens suffer the consequences (Elhassan, 2016). Hence, since these sanctions proved futile they have never brought positive results in Sudan, it means that sanctioning state sponsors of terrorism is not a solution, but brings more problems to the average citizens of a country like Sudan.
The Failure of Sanctions in Addressing State Sponsors of Terrorism
In addition, sanctions are not the best way to deal with a state sponsor of terrorism like Sudan because it failed terribly. Despite the efforts by the EU Council and the UNSC, the sanctions imposed on South Sudan never brought any fruits. In fact, instead of bringing some positive results, it caused more harm to the country as the sanctioned individuals continued with their activities as the monitoring is flawed. Moreover, according to Elhassan, despite the sanctions, Bashir has remained in power for about 27 years with no signs of any change in the country (2016).
Alternative Approaches to Dealing with State Sponsors of Terrorism
Proponents argue that applying pressure to states that sponsor terrorism is the best means of countering terrorism. Most terrorist attacks perpetrated directly by a state are always for a specific interest of the country. After the United Nations Security Council Sanctions had met to decide the fate of the constant conflicts in Southern Sudan, it resulted in a resolution of sanctioning Sudan, and the penalties were economic (asset freezing), and political (travel bans). The sanctions applied to specific people and entities with the hope of putting an end to the Sudan conflict. Some of the individuals include Santino Deng Wol, Simon Gatwech Dual, Gabriel Jok Riak, Peter Gadet, James Koang Chuol, and Marial Chanuing Yol Mangok, but the list was subject to change in case any entity or individual was found accelerating the conflict further or preventing the ongoing peace process in the country. Nonetheless, despite the sanctions on these people, the conflict is South Sudan was not resolved, and this means that applying sanctions is not the best way to deal with a state sponsor of terrorism. Regardless of the sanctions, the terrorism sponsors will continue with their activities inside their countries with the help of the unsanctioned officials, and instead of ending terrorism, it will be at increased levels.
The Negative Impact of Sanctions on the Economy and Citizens
Sanctions might not be an excellent way to deal with a state sponsor of terrorism like Sudan because the sanctions have created several obstacles to the country’s development process. The sanctions led to reduced trade and foreign investments in addition to little access to financial assistance. Besides, the sanctions have also resulted in a decline in the health, information, agricultural, and transport sectors and this is detrimental to the economy of Sudan (Krain, 2017). Furthermore, the sanctions damaged their rail system, and since there is no new technological equipment coming in the country, the economy is stagnated, and this is not helping the citizens at all. Sanctions make the citizens suffer while the sanctioned individuals enjoy their wealth. Therefore, sanctions are not the perfect way to deal with state sponsors of terrorism in a country because it detrimentally affects the economy and the well-being of the people and this does not solve the problem of terrorism.
The Ineffectiveness of Sanctions for Resolving Terrorism Issues
Even though the US and UN sanctions had a grave impact on South Sudan as it prohibited imports and exports in the country, it is sad that the sanctioned individuals never changed their behavior of sponsoring terrorism. The sanctions were political and economic, but the overall goal of bringing peace to South Sudan has failed terribly in spite of the sanctions. The sanctions do not bring any positive results to countries, and South Sudan has been left to rebuild from scratch without any financial help because the Security Council does not want to be billed for any collateral damage after the sanctions (Krain, 2017). In fact, the United States’ approach to state sponsored terrorism is flawed with an inconsistent policy response. The South Sudan sanctions should be lifted because the current new state terrorism sponsors such as Syria, Iran, North Korea, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Yemen are more dangerous to the US than what South Sudan is and other countries on the list. Therefore, because of this complexity, the answer to whether sanctions are the best way to deal with a state sponsor of terrorism like Sudan is no. It ‘s hard to remove a listed country like Sudan from the sanctions list even if there is no evidence that it supports terrorism (Evans, 2014). Consequently, instead of sanctioning countries, the US should adopt a new approach to dealing with countries that sponsor state terrorism by employing diplomatic pressure, and if it fails, more severe economic and political penalties should be imposed on these individual countries.
Exploring Alternative Strategies to Address State Sponsors of Terrorism
Isolating and punishing countries through sanctions are not the best way to deal with state sponsors of terrorism. Instead, the US should try the “constructive engagement” that is employed by its allies because the sanctions only block activities by US firms and this means the state sponsors can still do business with other countries that are not allied to the US. The sanctioned individuals can still propagate their terrorist activities despite their accounts being frozen because they can still receive funds through unsanctioned entities (Hassan, 2016).
In Conclusion
In conclusion, state sponsored terrorism is a kind of terrorism that can be motivated by factors such as political, religious, and even ideological factors, which are of a specific interest of a country. Sudan was sanctioned after the country was listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. Nonetheless, despite the sanctions, there has been no peace in the country, and its economy has been deteriorating over the years. Therefore, sanctions are not a solution for state sponsors of terrorism, and this is evident when we look at a country like Sudan. The UN and the US imposed economic and political sanctions on specific individuals in Sudan who were said to be sponsors of terrorism. However, after many years now, the sanctions have done very little to bring change to the country of Sudan. Despite there being sanctions, the elites have never stopped acquiring weapons and amassing wealth while the average citizens suffer. In addition, Bashir has been in power for 27 years now with no signs of a regime change in the country. The sanctions have failed to bring peace to the people, which was the overall goal of the sanctions. Instead, they have created several obstacles to the country’s development process. In essence, there should be a better way to deal with state sponsors of terrorism other than sanctions because the action of punishing Sudan was meaningless as it failed in its peace mission which was the primary objective of the sanctions.
References
Elhassan, E. A. (2016). The Sudanese American Medical Association Visiting Faculty Program: An Ambitious Model for Augmenting Renal Education in the Sudan. Sudan Medical Journal, 52(2), 98-104.
Evans, P. J. (2014). Alternatives to retaliation in response to state sponsored terrorist attacks (Doctoral dissertation, Monterey, California: Naval Postgraduate School).
Hassan, F. (2016). Sharing Sudan’s Burden: Options for Post-Secession Debt Apportionment.
Krain, M. (2017). The Effect of Economic Sanctions on the Severity of Genocides or Politicides. Journal of Genocide Research, 19(1), 88-111.
Leriche, M. (2015). How the Use of Targeted Sanctions can Undermine Peace in South Sudan. Conflict Trends, 2015(4), 11-25.
