By Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi
Many observers wonder about the timing and the haste in the adoption of the controversial law –Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) - by the two houses of the American Congress –the House of Representatives and the Senate. The controversial bill was made into law despite the warning of US President Barack Obama and the head of the US intelligence service about its serious implications for US citizens as well as for American interests around the world.
Members of Congress hurriedly acted to overturn the veto of President Obama by adopting JASTA with an overwhelming two-thirds majority in favor of it. The passing of the law constitutes a historic coup against international law and a clear violation of the UN Charter, which gives immunity to the sovereignty of nations and guarantees equality to all of them.
The adoption of JASTA has triggered massive outrage and criticism not only within the United States but also outside. While drawing attention to the far-reaching consequences and repercussions that may affect everyone, many analysts warned of the potential of JASTA to cause damage and disruption in international relations.
Among those who have warned about the consequences of the law are President Obama, who is also a former professor of law, and several eminent legal and economic experts. There has been worldwide condemnation and criticism of the adoption of this draconian law that carries serious implications. This may prompt other states to enact similar laws that could damage international interests in general and American interests in particular. It has been pointed out that this might lead to a transformation of relations and interests among countries and result in chaos and confusion.
American lawmakers have enacted this authoritarian law with unusual speed that reflects its evil intention and lack of political and legal maturity. Have they considered the political and economic damage that either directly or indirectly might be caused to the United States and its interests as a result of this strange law? Perhaps, the simplest repercussion would be an erosion of confidence in US laws and lawmakers. This may prompt a large number of global investors to turn away from making investments in the US and move to other nations where they see reasonable regulations and adequate guarantees for their investments.
However, the worst scenario is awaiting the US in the event of any other states enacting laws similar to JASTA and targeting the United States as well as its interests and citizens. For instance, what would be the case if Iraq demanded the prosecution of US officials who were responsible for invading that country without any legal grounds and in clear defiance of the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and all international norms? It was evident that the United States committed the most heinous crimes against the Iraqi people on the basis of lies that it spread.
What would happen if a similar path were to be taken by Afghanistan, which was conquered by Americans who were responsible for killing and driving hundreds of thousands of Afghanis out of the country? What would be the case if Vietnam enacted a similar law to prosecute the US government and officials for the terrible crimes committed in that country? A large number of Americans took to the streets in protest against the US invasion of Vietnam at that time. World heavyweight boxing champion Muhammad Ali, who refused to fight in Vietnam, was at the forefront of those Americans. Ali preferred imprisonment and being stripped of his world boxing title rather than going to fight in that distant country.
Last but not the least, what would happen if the Japanese government enacted a similar law claiming compensation for the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people who were killed when atomic bombs were dropped by the US government on the civilian cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Finally, I want to ask some important questions with regard to the adoption of JASTA by US lawmakers.
1. Why did JASTA pass at this time and was it passed to serve any electoral purpose?
2. What was the role of President Obama; did he exert sufficient effort beforehand to protect his veto as he did earlier or did he use his veto as a mantle to protect him from criticism?
3. What was the role of the Arab lobby, particularly the Saudi lobby, in attempting to prevent the enactment of JASTA?
4. Has there been a failure on the part of Arab and Saudi diplomacy with regard to this law, as it was evident that Saudi Arabia is its main target? What was the reason for not taking sufficient effort, together with US lawmakers, to stop the adoption of this law at the very beginning, as well as to protect the veto used by President Obama?
It is clear that oil companies, arms suppliers and owners of corporate firms did not make any substantial effort to persuade members of Congress to vote against this controversial bill.
Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi is a former Saudi diplomat who specializes in Southeast Asian affairs. He can be reached at algham@hotmail.com
