by Ali Abunimah
May 2, 2000

Dear Secretary Albright,

I read with interest the State Department's latest report, "Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1999," published on May 1. I would like to thank you for this report, and assure you of my full support for all genuine efforts to combat terrorism, and to bring those who deliberately harm innocent people for political gain to justice. To the extent that you actually do this, you can be certain of my full and unequivocal backing.

Allow me, however to make a few comments about your report, publication of which was widely reported in the media.

1. The main conclusions of your report are not supported by the data you provide

   The introduction to the report and the conclusion most widely covered, states that, "The primary terrorist threats to the United States emanate from two regions, South Asia and the Middle East. Supported by state sponsors, terrorists live in and operate out of areas in these regions with impunity. They find refuge and support in countries that are sympathetic to their use of violence for political gain, derive mutual benefit from harboring terrorists, or simply are weakly governed."

   Yet, the statistics and narrative you provide about anti-US attacks, and "terrorist" activities in and from these regions tell a different story.

   Of the 169 anti-US attacks reported for 1999, Latin America accounted for 96, Western Europe for 30, Eurasia for 9, and Africa 16. The Middle East accounted for only 11, and Asia for 6. Most of these attacks were bombings. The figures you provide for the total number of terrorist attacks by region indicate that in recent years, Latin America and Europe have each accounted for a greater number of terrorist attacks than either the Middle East or Asia. 1999 is consistent with this pattern.

   The chapter on the Middle East does not provide any insight into why your report headlines that region as presenting one of the two major threats to the United States today. On the contrary, it details widespread and "vigorous" "counter-terrorism" efforts by Jordan, Algeria, Egypt, Yemen, Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Although you continue to list Syria, Iran, Iraq and Libya as "state sponsors" of terrorism, the report does not detail any activity by these states that would support the conclusion that the Middle East region represents one of the two main threats to the United States.

   To the extent you allege that "terrorist" activity persists in the Middle East, this is principally directed not at the United States, but at Israel, a country that is illegally occupying the territory of several others. You also categorize resistance against combatant Israeli occupation forces in Lebanon as terrorism, [this activity is cited in the section on Lebanon, and the section on Iran accuses that country of encouraging Hizballah and other groups "to use violence, especially terrorist attacks, in Israel to undermine the peace process"].

   The definition of Hizballah's activities as "terrorist" is at odds with the internationally recognized right to resist foreign occupation, but it could possibly be justified if you were at least applying a consistent standard. Yet, while you term Hizballah a "terrorist" organization, you do not use this designation for the Israeli-controlled "South Lebanon Army," a sub-state group that frequently carries out attacks on Lebanese civilians, seizes and tortures noncombatant hostages, and threatens and uses other forms of violence and coercion against Lebanese civilians.

   The continued designation of certain countries as "state sponsors" of terrorism appears to be politically motivated. Your report states, for example, "A Middle East peace agreement necessarily would address terrorist issues and would lead to Syria being considered for removal from the list of state sponsors." This may suggest to seasoned observers that Syria's continued designation as a "state sponsor of terrorism" is simply a stick to get Syria to sign an agreement with Israel consonant with US preferences, rather than a designation arising from an objective analysis of that state's policies.

   This view may be supported by the fact that you do not allege any activities being planned from Syria, and you say that Syria "continued to restrain" groups operating in Damascus from any but political activities.

   The section on Iran claims that that country was "the most active state sponsor of terrorism" in 1999. Yet all the alleged activities were directed not at the United States, but were assistance to groups fighting the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Iran's other alleged principal activity was assistance to the PKK, the group fighting Turkey's repressive policies against Kurds. Again, none of the reported activities appear to directly threaten the United States.

   None of the other sections on Middle East countries list any activities by states or groups that would seem to justify the assertion that the Middle East represents a major threat of terrorism to the United States. Certainly this assertion is not borne out by the actual data on terrorist attacks and casualties, which consistent with recent years, shows the Middle East accounting for a relatively tiny number of "anti-US attacks," and US casualties.

   As for the assertion that the "locus of terrorism" has shifted from the Middle East to South Asia, and particularly Afghanistan, your entire case seems to rest on assertions that Usama Bin Ladin is operating a vast, international terrorism network. It is difficult for observers to evaluate these claims, because you do not publish any substantial evidence or sources, merely assertions. We do know that in cases where the US government has made specific claims, these have often turned out to be exaggerated or false. Investigative reporting by The New York Times and others, of which you are surely aware, severely and compellingly questioned the factual basis, and process of President Clinton's decision to bomb the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, Sudan in August 1998. I also note that the United States government chose not to contest a lawsuit brought against it by the owner of that factory who sought to recover control of his assets, frozen by the United States on the grounds that he was linked with Mr. Bin Ladin. Hence, in the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary, the US government's past record with regard to claims about Mr. Bin Ladin suggests that a responsible observer should at the very least be deeply skeptical. Some observers have suggested that the threat from Mr. Bin Laden has been deliberately exaggerated to justify limits on civil liberties in the United States, and an expanded US role in the Middle East.

   Again, as in the case of the Middle East, the principal events in South Asia, such as the hijacking of an Indian airliner and bombings in India and Pakistan which claimed many lives, were unrelated to the United States, and seemed to be related to local or regional conflicts such as that in Kashmir or Sri Lanka.

   In conclusion, it appears from the data in your report, that the only region where a large number of anti-US attacks is occurring or originating is Latin America, and particularly Colombia. Yet, this country is not designated as a major threat to the United States. The reasoning for this is absent.

2. The report makes disturbing assertions that may fuel anti-Muslim prejudice in the United States and around the world

   The report assures the reader that, "Adverse mention in this report of individual members of any political, social, ethnic, religious, or national group is not meant to imply that all members of that group are terrorists. Indeed, terrorists represent a small minority of dedicated, often fanatical, individuals in most such groups. It is those small groups-and their actions--that are the subject of this report."

   Yet it appears to do quite the opposite. For example it states:

   "Islamist extremists from around the world--including North America; Europe; Africa; the Middle East; and Central, South, and Southeast Asia--continued to use Afghanistan as a training ground and base of operations for their worldwide terrorist activities in 1999. The Taliban, which controlled most Afghan territory, permitted the operation of training and indoctrination facilities for non-Afghans and provided logistic support to members of various terrorist organizations and mujahidin, including those waging jihads in Chechnya, Lebanon, Kosovo, Kashmir, and elsewhere."

   This paragraph appears to cast any Muslim person fighting any battle, for any reason as an "Islamic extremist." It also uses the Arabic words "jihad," and "mujahidin," which have very specific definitions, to be synonyms for terrorism. Is it not possible to imagine that a Muslim in Kosovo, or Chechnya could be engaged in a legitimate battle? [I certainly think the United States would have thought so when it provided substantial state sponsorship to groups in Afghanistan and when it designated such people as "freedom fighters," using them to fight against Soviet intervention.

   Unfortunately the report is silent about US state sponsorship of these groups, so again it is difficult to evaluate how much of the presently observed phenomena are a direct result of United States activities in South Asia over the past two decades. Certainly an objective analysis would have to take this into account.]

   Careless references to Islam, "jihad" and "terrorism" are unfortunate and damaging. This report comes in the context of US officials late in 1999 openly linking the Muslim feast of Ramadan with an increased threat of "terrorism" around the world. The threat did not materialize, but the hysteria generated by the government warnings was particularly damaging to Arab Americans and Muslims in the United States who already face enormous obstacles due to sterotyping and misrepresentation in popular media. The panic and media sensation created by the arrest of an Algerian man at the United States-Canada border, allegedly for carrying explosives, reportedly caused an increase of harassment of Arab Americans and Muslims by airlines and others, and allegations by law enforcement officials, later retracted, that other Arabs arrested at the border for visa violations were terrorist suspects.

3. The definition of "terrorism"

   The report states:

   "The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

   This definition may be overly narrow, since it defines "terrorism" principally on the basis of the identity of its perpetrator rather than by the action and motive of the perpetrator. Hence, if Israel launches a massive attack on Lebanon and deliberately drives several hundred thousand people from their homes, openly threatens and targets civilians, and states that all of this is intended to pressure the Lebanese or Syrian government, as Israel did in April 1996, it does not fall under the definition of terrorism, solely because you recognize Israel to be a state.

   If, by contrast, Lebanese people organize themselves to resist an internationally condemned foreign occupation of their soil, you term this "terrorism," even when such people restrict their targets to enemy combatants in occupied territory.

   May I suggest that you broaden your definition of terrorism to include state terrorism? While terrorism as you define it is certainly disturbing, compared with the number of victims of state terrorism, it is a relatively minor concern. If you included statistics for state terrorism, observers could then objectively evaluate, for example, PKK activities on the one hand against premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatants carried out by the Turkish government.

   Or we could out into perspective a "jihad" by "Islamic extremists" in Chechnya against premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatants by the Russian army.

   This would provide the public with a fuller picture of the problem, and analysts and policymakers with better information to make policy recommendations which could end the political conflicts, injustices, and occupations which in nearly every case seem to generate the phenomenon known as "terrorism."

   I thank you for taking the time to read this letter.

   Sincerely,

   Ali Abunimah
   ahabunim@midway.uchicago.edu