Today, Explained - Is Russia a state sponsor of terror?

Episode Date: August 26, 2022

Six months into its escalation of war with Ukraine, the calls to declare Russia a state sponsor of terror have never been louder. Delaney Simon from the International Crisis Group makes the case against doing so and Kira Rudyk, a member of Ukraine's parliament, says the United States has nothing to lose. This episode was produced by Jon Ehrens, fact-checked by Laura Bullard, engineered by Efim Shapiro, and hosted by Sean Rameswaram, who also edited. Transcript at vox.com/todayexplained Support Today, Explained by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's been six months since Russia dramatically escalated its war with Ukraine, and there appears to be no end in sight. The State Department is saying it has information that Russia will increase its attacks on Ukraine in the week ahead. And this whole time, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been asking for escalation. He wants the United States to declare Russia a state sponsor of terror. And now he's got the unanimous backing of the United States Senate and Nancy Pelosi, but President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken are holding back. The case for and the case against

declaring Russia a state sponsor of terror coming up on Today Explained. This NFL season, get in on all the hard-hitting action with FanDuel, North America's number one sportsbook. You can bet on anything from money lines to spreads and player props, or combine your bets in a same-game parlay for a shot at an even bigger payout. Plus, with super-simple live betting, lightning-fast bet settlement, and instant withdrawals, FanDuel makes betting on the NFL easier than ever before. So make the most of this football season and download FanDuel today. 19-plus and physically located in Ontario.

Gambling problem? Call 1-866-531-2600 or visit connectsontario.ca. Today Explained, Sean Ramos-Firm here with Delaney Simon. She's a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group. It's a think tank dedicated to preventing wars. And Delaney's going to help us understand the gravity of declaring Russia a state sponsor of terror, a designation she thinks is a bad idea. There have been calls that have been sort of increasing in weight over the past several months, starting as early as April for Russia to be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. The calls initiated with President Zelensky asking the Secretary of State to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. President Zelensky, in a call to President Biden, asked the president to declare Russia a state sponsor of terror. And since April, it's just gathered momentum.

There have been politicians from other countries calling for this designation. Latvian MPs have declared Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, saying its invasion of Ukraine amounted to genocide. The Ukrainian parliament has been lobbying Congress in the United States to make this designation. The Senate issued a resolution calling on the Secretary of State to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. The United States Senate, all 100 members, are urging the Biden administration to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. And then recently, the House of Representatives introduced a bill that would designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. And then recently, the House of Representatives introduced a bill that would designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. The Speaker of the House of Representatives also called the designation long overdue. If Russia is not listed as a state sponsor of terrorism, tear up the list. So there's been a lot of pressure on Secretary Blinken,

but so far he's resisted pressure to make the designation. In terms of other designations based on actions that Russia is taking, we are and we will look at everything. He recognizes the horrific incidents of war crimes that have happened in Ukraine. More than 50 innocent people trying to flee the fighting killed in a Russian missile attack on a crowded train station. Among the first responders, investigators gathering evidence to determine if this is a war crime.

He recognizes the pressure to put as much pressure on Russia as possible to stop Russia's onslaught on Ukraine, to put an end to the horrific war crimes we're seeing. I think he recognizes that this designation actually would be counterproductive and could have real costs not just on U.S.-Russia relations, but also on multilateral relations in multilateral institutions more broadly. And then in addition to that, I think he also recognizes that it could have real costs on Ukraine and on efforts to end the war there.

Let's dial it back a second here and just talk about what it means to designate a country as a state sponsor of terror. What does that do? The designation triggers basically two separate buckets of law. One is sanctions, and one relates to sovereign immunity of Russia. So on the sanctions side, the state sponsor of terrorism designation triggers export controls for dual-use items. So that's items that have both civilian and military uses. It also restricts access to debt relief and international financing. It also promised some other restrictions, and it's a little bit difficult to put your finger on these because they're not

specified in the statutes that underpin this designation that cumulatively become sort of comprehensive sanctions that target entire economies or entire populations. Okay, so that's bucket one. A whole lot of additional sanction-y stuff kicks in when you're designated a state sponsor of terror. Bucket two? You have sovereign immunity. And so most states, all states that aren't state sponsors of terror,

are entitled to immunity under U.S. law, which basically means that a U.S. court can't involve a state in a prosecution. So like, I'm a U.S. citizen. which basically means that a U.S. court can't involve a state in a prosecution. So like, I'm a U.S. citizen. I can't take, I don't know, Germany or the United Kingdom to court in the U.S. But a state sponsor of terrorism designation limits that sovereign immunity. It means that a U.S. national or a U.S. government employee or a U.S. contractor or a U.S. service member can sue the designated country for certain offenses. So what's interesting in this case and in the other state-sponsored terrorism cases is that assets of that state are already frozen

because of U.S. sanctions. And it's possible for me, if I win my case and I'm suing the state, to have the damages be distributed through those blocked or frozen assets. Okay, bucket two, your sovereign immunity is limited, opens you up to lawsuits, losing even more money. In addition to those penalties, the designation can also result in a range of other nebulous effects. And part of the reason why the effects are so nebulous is because the state sponsor of terrorism designation is so tied up with this idea of stigma. And this is in part because the U.S. government has used this designation on countries that are its enemies, countries that are considered pariahs. And so the designation in and of itself can prompt this

chilling effect. I mean, you're already seeing this a little bit in Russia where companies are pulling out of Russia just because the reputational risks of engaging with Russia are so high. In Money Watch, a mass exodus of major international companies is underway in Russia following its invasion of Ukraine. The number of companies added to the list is growing by the hour. I think with this state sponsor of terrorism designation, you may see, as you have in other countries, that stigma getting even bigger because a state is linked to terrorism and therefore the stigma is bigger. So what we've seen in other countries is that firms will just stop engaging with the state sponsor of terror, even if technically their engagement is allowed. All right. So on top of bucket one, sanctions and bucket two, limits on your sovereign immunity, you've got bucket three, the nebulous stuff, serious stigma.

Let's talk about the countries that are currently designated state sponsors of terror by the United States. The states that are currently on are Syria, Iran, North Korea, and Cuba. There are so many other sanctions on these states and already they're engaged in behavior that's made them pariahs. The U.S. does not have diplomatic relations with those countries. It doesn't have multifaceted relations with those countries. The way that the U.S. engages with those countries is very different to the way that the U.S. engages with Russia. The measure effectively prevents anyone around the world from doing business with Syrian officials or government institutions. None of those countries are permanent members of the Security Council.

None of those countries are involved in the OSCE. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is the world's largest regional security organization. None of those countries are involved in complicated peace discussions with international stakeholders, for instance, on Georgia, on Libya, on Mali. And so the United States has a very different relationship with those countries than it does with Russia. So how would designating Russia a state sponsor of terror, as opposed to, say, an Iran or a North Korea or a Cuba or a Syria, affect Russia's standing in the world as well as the United States' relationship with Russia? It's safe to assume that the designation would be deeply insulting to Moscow. One of the legal requirements for the rescission of the designation is regime change. I think because it's baked into the laws that underpin the state sponsor of terrorism designation, President Putin would probably regard the move as an overt call for change in Russia's government.

And as we know, President Biden has explicitly said that he's not looking to force President Putin from power. It wouldn't be surprising to see Putin linking the designation with that explicit call. Which would what be an escalation? Oh, yeah. Something that the United States has done well and carefully throughout this whole war in Ukraine is to contain the U.S.-Russia relationship and prevent any kind of escalation, which could, frankly, be extremely damaging, unthinkable to global peace and security. And that's why Blinken and Biden haven't taken this step, even though it sounds like Congress is into it. I think that's part of the reason.

I mean, I think there are also other effects that are concerning. There would be lawsuits in U.S. courts pursued by U.S. citizens against Russia. Those claims might detract from an eventual peace settlement and could also detract from potential damages or reparations or some post-war settlement that Ukrainians could get. When there is a moment for negotiations, it's important to arm the Ukrainians with as much as we can. And I would be worried that these cases would take away leverage when a peace negotiation comes into play. After we speak to you, we're going to speak to a Ukrainian parliamentarian about why she thinks this should happen. If you were speaking to someone in Ukraine who said, my family's fled the country, my friends have died, I don't know where members of my family's fled the country, my friends have died. I don't know where members of my family are right now. They're fighting this war with Russia. And they told you about the atrocities they'd seen or heard about. What would you say to them as to why this shouldn't happen?

I'm glad that you asked that question because I really don't want it to sound like my arguments would be not in support of the people of Ukraine. Actually, the reason why I'm arguing against a state sponsor of terror designation is for the people of Ukraine. And I know it seems counterintuitive, but I worry that down the road, this will make it harder to end the war. We've seen in other cases how difficult it is to remove this designation. I mean, sanctions in general are notoriously hard to ratchet down. They're normally ratcheted up, but they're hard to remove. And a state sponsor of terrorism designation is really hard. Sudan is a great case of a country where

all comprehensive economic restrictions were lifted in Sudan. As you see, the American and Sudanese flags are flown in a spontaneous, popular, joyful reaction. This is an indication that the sanctions have had a heavy toll on the people and the economy. This particular designation was so sticky that it took three years for it to be removed. And I'm convinced that if Russia were designated as a state sponsor of terrorism and negotiations were to happen related to the war in Ukraine, Russia would ask for the designation to be lifted. But for a whole lot of reasons, I think it would be difficult to lift the designation for one of these designations to be lifted. There's two routes. The first route is the president has to submit a report to Congress that says that the state has undergone a fundamental change in leadership and policy,

one, cease supporting acts of international terrorism, two, and provided assurances that it will not abet such acts in the future, three. And then the other route is that the president has to confirm that the state has, one, refrained from supporting international terrorism during the preceding six-month period, and two, provided assurances that it will not resume supporting them in the future. When there is a negotiation about ending the war in Ukraine, it's hard for me to see Russia fulfilling any of those criteria. I mean, fundamental change in leadership is very unlikely. Can you imagine Russia providing assurances that it will not resume supporting terrorism

when it doesn't agree with the reasons why the designation was put in place in the first place? It's just hard for me to see. And so if it's difficult for the United States to lift the designation, then the U.S. doesn't have as much leverage. If Russia asks for the designation to be lifted and the U.S. struggles or takes a long time to lift the designation, I think it actually hamstrings the United States and Ukraine at the negotiating table. I should make it clear that the atrocities that are happening in Ukraine are unconscionable. And I believe that the international community should do everything that it can to put a stop to them. I just don't think that this designation will help that. I don't think that the designation will change the trajectory of the conflict in Ukraine. I don't think that the designation will change the trajectory of the conflict in Ukraine. I don't think that the designation will change President Putin's calculus. I think instead it will have

counterproductive effects down the line. And I'm concerned about those. I understand the impetus for it. It makes complete sense to me. But it's really difficult when you start diving into what the real policy implications would be of this designation and you realize actually that they would be negative. That was Delaney Simon with the International Crisis Group arguing why it's a bad idea to designate Russia a state sponsor of terror. The counter-argument when we're back on Today Explained. Support for Today Explained comes from Ramp. Ramp is the corporate card and spend management software designed to help you save time and put money back in your pocket.

Ramp says they give finance teams unprecedented control and insight into company spend. With Ramp, you're able to issue cards to every employee with limits and restrictions and automate expense reporting so you can stop wasting time at the end of every month. And now you can get $250 when you join Ramp. You can go to ramp.com slash explained, ramp.com slash explained, R-A-M-P dot com slash explained. Cards issued by Sutton Bank. Member FDIC. Terms and conditions apply. player prop tracking with real-time notifications. Or how about more ways to customize your casino page with our new favorite and recently played games tabs. And to top it all off, quick and

secure withdrawals. Get more everything with FanDuel Sportsbook and Casino. Gambling problem? Call 1-866-531-2600. Visit connectsontario.ca. We're back. Today explained, we wanted to hear an argument for declaring Russia a terrorist state. So we turned to Kyiv. I'm Kyra Rudik, member of Ukrainian parliament and leader of the Holos party. As you'll hear, Kyra Rudik thinks Ukrainians and the rest of the world have got nothing to lose in declaring Russia a terrorist state. Absolutely. This is one of the key sanctions, key statements that need to be made,

not only in the United States, but also in other jurisdictions. Why it is so important is it provides secondhand sanctions. So right now, when European countries, Britain, US, are cutting Russia off the markets, Russia is easily finding the new ones. Look at the South American countries, look at the African countries, Asian countries, and it will continue being a problem because Russia will always have somebody else who will give them a hand.

Acknowledging them as a state sponsor of terrorism creates this status of non-handshakeable country. So everyone who will be doing business with Russia, who will continue being a provider, who will be doing the export to Russia, will also be a subject to the sanctions from the US side. And I believe it will have incredibly strong impact, even on the political level. My main direction of international work right now is unfreezing of the seized Russian assets in different countries and making them being used on behalf of Ukraine or to the support of Ukraine. If the country is a state sponsor of terrorism, then the central bank assets can be seized and used. And this is why we need this legal background. We need this statement because

then we can work on top of it. And this is why we are calling for U.S. Congress, we are calling for Biden to finally make this decision. We spoke with a guest from the International Crisis Group, and they seem to think, along with President Biden and perhaps Secretary of State Blinken, that this designation of Russia as a state sponsor of terror could make it more difficult to negotiate a peace deal for Ukraine, could make Russia less willing to participate in peace negotiations with Ukraine. What do you think of that argument? It hurts me because it implies that we will be in the peaceful negotiations with Russia without an appropriate amount of security guarantees.

Look, I have been to Bucha after it was liberated the first day. I have seen the road covered with bodies. I have seen female bodies that were trying to be burned to cover for what happened to them. We have seen our people being killed, tortured, raped. And we cannot imagine having some peaceful deal with Russia without knowing that it would not be repeated. The war did not start on February 24th. It started eight years ago, and we know for sure what Russia is capable of.

We know that they are not keeping their word, and we know that all negotiations, all the deals with them, they are just useless. They are not even worth the paper that they are written on. And only way, only way for us to get into any deal with Russia is to know who is vouching for them. Who are the world leaders who will say, okay, so let's make this deal, but if Russia attacks again, then what? And so then the argument saying, okay, we should let ourselves have this space to negotiate with Russia, is absolutely cruel because we do not need this argument.

We need an idea of how the world security will look like and how we are getting the protection. Let's work right now on using Putin's money to cover for his crimes. It's so unfair that taxpayers of the country that are our allies should be paying for what Putin is doing out of their pockets. And if for this to happen, we need to acknowledge Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, then let's do it. I think this argument is extremely weak, and I think it's inhumane. How about the argument that designating Russia a state sponsor of terror would be viewed by Putin as an escalation of this war, would be viewed as more free to escalate the violence, the rape, the brutality in Ukraine. So what do you think he will do?

What should we be afraid of? My nation and my people suffered every single possible crime on the war crimes list right now. I'm so upset that everybody's talking about what Putin thinks, what Putin feels, what Putin will do and won't do. We should be thinking about what we are going to do, what the United States are going to do, what our allies are going to do. The whole world was watching how my country was being torn apart for eight years. And right now there is still the saying, oh, so whatever we will do, it will make Putin feel more free. What else do you think he will do?

I understand why this is such a difficult conversation and why some of these questions seem absurd to you. But I suppose if you accept that Vladimir Putin is not acting rationally and can lash out at any point even worse than he is now, and that he is a man who controls a nuclear arsenal, do you think there's a risk in pushing him too far in a moment like this? It's our fight. We are taking it and we are asking you guys, we are asking President Biden saying, please do that. Because it's us who are victims. We know that we will be fighting this fight for a longer time. And we are saying saying help us to push it if he starts attacking us with different other weapons it will be us who will be dying for that right we are saying that we

are taking this risk we are saying okay let's go ahead you know how they calling what they are doing in ukraine salami technique when they're cutting piece by piece. It's our country that he's treating as a piece of meat. It's our people, men and women and children and elderly who are being treated as pieces of meat. And this is absolutely unacceptable. How we can live in the world where he can still do what he's doing. And everybody's just saying, yeah, well, we should not be probably annoying him. I will ask you, so what's the plan then? Because I have talked to almost everyone.

And what I have not heard is a plan. Thank you. the International Crisis Group. Our show today was produced by John Ahrens, fact-checked by Tori Dominguez, and mixed and mastered by Afim Shapiro. I'm Sean Ramos-Verm. It's Today Explained. Thank you.