Blinken resists pressure to label Russia as a terrorist state

WASHINGTON — The US Senate unanimously backs it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing this, together with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the Ukrainian parliament.

But State Secretary Antony J. Blinken is not so sure.

For weeks, pressure has mounted on Mr Blinken to formally declare Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, a label currently reserved for North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Iran. But despite the emotional appeal, Mr. Blinking against a move that could force him to impose sanctions on US allies doing business with Russia, which could erase any remaining traces of diplomacy between Washington and Moscow.

Amid outrage over Russia’s brutal military campaign in Ukraine, the US Senate unanimously approved a non-binding resolution He called on Mr Blinken to designate Russia as a sponsor of terrorism for his attacks in Ukraine, as well as in Chechnya, Georgia and Syria, which resulted in “the deaths of countless innocent men, women and children”.

“To me, Putin is now on top of a state terrorist apparatus,” South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and co-sponsor of 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 Kiev and handed him a framed copy of their resolution.

But Mr Blinken responded with no strings attached on Thursday when asked about the matter, echoing other State Department and White House officials. Any decision should be based on existing legal definitions, he said, while also suggesting the point was wrong because Russia was already under many sanctions.

“The charges imposed on Russia by us and by other countries are absolutely in line with the consequences that would result from its designation as a state sponsor of terrorism,” Mr Blinken said at a news conference. “So the practical effects of what we do are the same.”

However, Mr Blinken’s hand can be forced. While the Senate resolution was just a call to action with no legal force, a group of House Democrats said on Thursday submitted a new measure which, if passed by Congress and signed into law, would lead the State Department and add Russia to the US terror sponsor list.

A foreign ministry finding that Russia is a state sponsor of terror — a label referred to by agency officials as the “nuclear option” — would result in more sanctions against Russia’s battered economy, including sanctions against countries that do business with Moscow. It would also waive traditional legal barriers that prevent private citizens from suing foreign governments for damages, which may include the families of American volunteers who were killed or injured in the fighting with Russia in Ukraine.

And it could sever once and for all the Biden administration’s limited diplomatic ties with Moscow, analysts say, which Mr Blinken thought was important to keep intact.

As a reminder of that dynamic, Mr. Shine Thursday by telephone with his Russian counterpart Sergey V. Lavrov, urging him to accept a proposal for the release of two Americans, Brittney Griner and Paul N. Whelan, but reported no breakthrough. It was their first conversation since Russia invaded Ukraine.

Over the course of the war, Mr Zelensky has openly called for the designation of terrorism, speaking last month about “the urgent need to anchor it legally”. The House is gearing up for a vote on a resolution similar to the Senate version, with the strong support of Ms Pelosi.

The disagreement between the Biden administration and Congress over the label reflects the debates from the start of the war in Ukraine, when the first evidence of atrocities emerged. When Congressional leaders, including Ms. Pelosi, who accused the Russian army of war crimes, Mr Blinken was cautious, citing legal criteria and the need for evidence and investigation. But on March 16, President Biden replaced that position by declaring Mr Putin “a war criminal.”

Mr Biden’s rhetorical statement infuriated the Kremlin but had no policy implications. That would not be the case with an official terrorism designation.

A senior US official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss policy deliberations, expressed concern that such a move would limit the government’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 trade sanctions.

The state secretary has a lot of freedom to impose different designations on other countries or groups, lawyers say. But the department prefers to use the designations only under specific circumstances.

According to the State Department, the designation of terrorism results in restrictions on US foreign aid, restrictions on some exports of dual-use technology 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, Graham said Wednesday, by adding new restrictions to how third countries can communicate with Russia without fear of US sanctions.

“It means doing business with Russia, with that designation, is going to be extremely difficult,” said Mr Graham.

Experts said the diplomatic cost of such a move could be significant and that Mr Putin could expel all US diplomats from the country. So far, Moscow has allowed the US embassy in Moscow to remain open and allow some diplomats to stay, including Ambassador John J. Sullivan.

Even during the war in Ukraine, the United States wants to continue working with Russia on a number of issues, including international talks with Iran about restoring a 2015 nuclear deal to which Moscow was a party and from which President Donald J. Trump withdrew.

“It’s not practical for diplomacy to designate a state with which the US has a multifaceted relationship,” said Brian Finucane, a senior adviser with the International Crisis Group who recently worked on military and counter-terrorism issues at the State Department.

However, some supporters of the designation wouldn’t 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 countries like Syria, Iran, Cuba, which are outside the borders of civilized countries. They’re outcasts.”

U.S. officials have so far used the label primarily in cases where a country or its proxy has committed a narrowly targeted, non-military act, such as bombing a civilian airliner.

“US officials want to draw a clear line between terrorism and the type of conflict where the US military may be conducting combat operations,” said Mr Finucane.

In 2019, Trump officials debated 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, wary of setting a precedent that could invite other countries to impose a similar designation on the United States because of the actions of the US military.

President Trump rejected that objection. As part of negotiations to restore a nuclear deal, Iran has demanded that the Biden administration remove the label, but Mr Biden has refused.

Once announced, a terrorist designation is often seen by US officials as politically risky to withdraw, even in a new administration with different views. In one of his latest acts in the Trump administration, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo labeled 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 terror sponsor list as part of a 2020 deal to normalize relations with Israel.)

Mr Trump also designated North Korea as a terror sponsor in 2017, although President George W. Bush lifted the label in 2008.

Daniel L. Byman, a senior fellow at the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, wrote at a time when the US approach to state sponsorship of terrorism “has many flaws”. Among them, he said, was the fact that some obvious candidates, including Pakistan — which Washington sees as a partner but whose intelligence agencies have ties to the Taliban and anti-Indian terrorist groups — somehow label dodged.

Charlie Savage reporting contributed.