User:Koltonwhitmire/sandbox

State-sponsored terrorism

Lead Section

There is not a generally accepted consensus among academics regarding the precise, current dynamic between sponsors and terrorist groups. It remains a relatively unexplored area of international studies.

While state-sponsored terrorism peaked in both intensity and volume during the 1970s, and is now relatively low in terms of number of nations sponsoring, but because of the expansion of nuclear technology attention][NS2]  is more greatly focused on the issue of state-sponsorship, because even a small number of sponsors can create great international disturbances. [NS3] [NS4]  State-sponsorship can drastically affect international relationship dynamics, leading to tariffs and sanctions. [NS5] 

1. By countries

State Sponsorship is difficult to identify. Because of the normative nature of the word, there is not a reliable list of which countries sponsor terror, but there are observable effects when states do sponsor terror, and this can help create a comprehensive, scholarly list of state sponsors.

State Sponsorship is worrisome for the international community because the data implies that groups with the backing of a state are more effective and lethal and inclined to carry out various acts of terror.

1.2 Greece

Since the Cold War, Greece has engaged in: Training and operations, money, arms, and logistics as well as diplomatic backing of the Kurdistan Worker’s Party or PKK.][NS7]

1.5 Iraq

Since the Cold War, Iraq has provided: money, arms, & logistics, diplomatic backing, and provisions of sanctuary for “leftist Palestinian groups”, as well as; training & operations, money, arms & logistics, provisions of sanctuary for the Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MEK).

1.7 Liberia

Since the Cold War, Liberia has engaged in: training & operations, money, arms, & logistics, diplomatic backing, organizational aid, and provisions of sanctuary or headquarters & major training facilities of the Revolutionary United Front.

1.10 North Korea

North Korea is indicative of why state-sponsored terrorism is such a large concern. While no state has yet provided nuclear capabilities to a non-state actor, experts fear that North Korea has long been involved in a “sophisticated transnational smuggling network”, which does not currently include nuclear weapons, but should North Korea achieve such a feat, these advanced networks of sponsorship of terrorist groups could be the realization of the fears of experts in the field][NS8] of state sponsorship of terrorism reaching its most consequential potential.

1.16 Sudan

Since the Cold War, Sudan has sponsored a number of groups including: al-Qa’ida, al-Itihaad al-Islamiya (AIAI), Algerian groups, Al-Nahd in Tunisia, Palestinian groups (HAMAS & PIJ), Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Hizballah, and Allied Democratic Forces (ADF).] Sudan’s support is generally in the form of harboring, and giving operational assistance for Iranian backed extremists[NS9] .

1.17 Syria

Links between Syria and the Japanese Red Army have been acknowledged.

1.18 Soviet Union

During the Soviet-era, it has been documented that it funded like-minded movements in a number of countries. The Soviet Union used allies like Cuba and Palestinian organizations to channel funding and assistance through, in an attempt to aid international efforts during the Cold War.][NS10] This is an example of a nation using terrorist organizations to achieve ends which it would not want publicly attributed to the state's own military.

1.21 United States

U.S. sponsorship of terrorism is a very contentious subject. Most scholars agree it occurs, but there is little consensus as to what degree the U.S. sponsors foreign terrorist activities, compared to the international community.] [NS11] The U.S. has aided groups in Afghanistan during the 1980s, contras in Nicaragua under the Reagan administration, rebel groups in Angola, and groups engaged in the Syrian Civil war. For a more complete list redirect to the page on the United States and state-sponsored terrorism.

2. Methods of sponsorship

2.1 Active Support

2.1.1 Access to government facilities

Many Arab nations openly had previously publicly aligned themselves with the PLO, despite some of its more blatant acts of terror against Israelis, allowing for the use of government facilities.

2.1.2 Funding

Libya offered both funding and arms to Palestinian organizations.

2.1.3 Sheltering

Iraq offered sanctuary to anti-Iranian and groups fighting Turkish forces.

b.    Sheltering involves providing a physical area with which a group is allowed to operate without interference of need for particular secrecy. Research suggests that a group such as al-Qaida would not have been able to plan the attacks on the World Trade Center if the Taliban government of Afghanistan had not provided shelter.

2.2 Passive Support

Passive support is support in the form of indirect actions that allow a group to operate freely, usually within the sponsors borders. In the case of Al-Qaida, no state currently sponsors the activities of the group, but some states allow it to continue within its borders, and sponsors even use it as leverage in international negotiations where other states value information that other pursuing states may need.

Passive support creates a complex and intricate international dynamic, where two states who are openly allies, may be passively supporting groups of with opposing goals whose activities may negatively impact public relationships between states. An instance of this disruption would be Saudi Arabia’s passive support of Al-Qaida operatives before the attacks on the World Trade Center.

3 Justifications from States

3.1 Plausible deniability

States can fund terrorist activities to create plausible deniability and avoid openly associating with known terrorist groups. States do this to complete tasks which it would not do openly, at the discretion of the international community. [1]

---