POLITICS-US: Letup in Policy on Terrorism

By Jim Lobe Reprint | | Print |

Analysis - Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, May 5 1999 (IPS) - A series of moves in the past week by President Bill Clinton’s administration could have a major impact on US policy towards terrorism and countries accused of supporting it.

The most important – the lifting of bans on the commercial export of food and medicines to Iran, Libya and Sudan – primarily appears designed to pacify key US business interests, which long has opposed unilateral trade sanctions against potential markets.

But it also could signal Washington’s hopes of reducing tensions and rebuilding commercial ties with all three countries.

This especially applies to Iran, with which the Clinton administration has been engaged in a delicate diplomatic detente since the election two years ago of President Mohammed Khatami.

The latter interpretation has been bolstered by the State Department’s decision not to single out Teheran as the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism” in the latest edition of its annual ‘Patterns of Global Terrorism’ report, released here Friday.

Trade groups like the US Chamber of Commerce applauded the decision but also have complained that the new dispensation does not include other countries, notably Cuba, that also are on the US terrorism list.

“It makes no sense for us to continue waging economic warfare against Cuban families while liberalising trade with Iran, Libya and Sudan,” says the US Chamber of Commerce. It has vowed to back new legislation in Congress to permit commercial sales of food to Havana.

In yet another unexpected move, the US Treasury Monday released 24 million dollars in frozen bank accounts belonging to a Saudi businessman whose pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was destroyed by a US missile attack last August.

Washington had charged that the plant was being used by Osama bin Laden, an Islamic militant suspected of ordering last year’s fatal bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, to produce chemical weapons.

When it subsequently came to light that the businessman, Saleh Idris, owned the factory, Washington charged that he was linked to bin Laden, and froze his US assets. Idris sued the Treasury to clear both his name and his assets, denying that he has any ties with the Afghanistan-based bin Laden or that the plant produced chemical weapons.

Washington’s decision to free the assets, according to some, marks a very embarrassing admission that it never had the evidence to prove its charges against Idris. Other officials insist the administration has the evidence but could not reveal it in open court for fear of exposing intelligence sources.

The decision to ease sanctions against Iran, Sudan and Libya, came after a lengthy review of the utility of unilateral US trade sanctions and had nothing to do with relations with the three countries which stand to benefit, officials say.

Under Clinton’s executive order, the administration will permit US companies to sell food and medicine to these countries, despite their inclusion on a list of seven countries accused by Washington of practicing or supporting international terrorism.

“It’s not intended to send a signal to any particular country,” says Undersecretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs Stuart Eizenstat, who chaired the administration’s review of sanctions policy. “It is part of our overall sanctions reform to make sure they’re as effective as possible..”

“Sales of food, medicine and other human necessities do not generally enhance a nation’s military capabilities or support terrorism.”

Moreover, sanctions on food and medicine can also be counter- productive, both because it appears “that it is punishing innocent people” and because “it also has negative impacts on U.S. interests – for example, in the agricultural community,” Eizenstat says

US agricultural exports are currently down 10 to 15 billion dollars compared to a few years ago.

“If anything – and Iran would be an example, as would Libya or Sudan – it’s better to have them purchasing food and medicine and using their scarce funds for that purpose than using it for weapons of mass destruction, missile delivery systems, and support of terrorism,” he said.

Of the three, Iran, which, until this year, was named by Washington as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, is clearly the most important economic target.

The softening in tone came two weeks after Clinton himself had suggested Teheran’s long-time sense of grievance against the West may have been justified. “I think it is important to recognise …that Iran, because of its enormous geopolitical importance over time, has been the subject of quite a lot of abuse from various Western nations,” he told a White House gathering.

“And I think sometimes it’s quite important to tell people, look, you have a right to be angry at something my country or my culture or others that are generally allied with us today did to you 50 or 60 or 100 or 150 years ago,” Clinton said.

In the short term the easing of the embargo , gives Niki Trading Co., a big US trader, the hope of selling as much as 500 million dollars of grain and sugar to Iran in what is likely to be the biggest commercial deal between the two countries since Washington imposed a trade embargo against Iran in the mid-1990’s.

The administration, however, has denied a request by Mobil Corp. to swap to swap crude oil from the Caspian Sea region to a refinery in the north of Iran in return for picking up an equal quantity of cruse in south Iran.

While Eizenstat has declared that no official decision has been reached yet on Niki’s request, most analysts expect it to be approved.

Similar considerations may also apply to Libya, against which the Ronald Reagan administration imposed sanctions in the mid- 1980’s. Before then, Libya was a major purchaser of US agricultural commodities, as well as lucrative partner for US oil firms.

After surrendering two suspects in the 1988 bombing of a Pan American airliner over Lockerbie Scotland earlier this month, UN sanctions against Tripoli were lifted. While US oil companies are most eager to re-enter Libya, food exports may help open the door, according to trade analysts here.