The JASTA Fiasco
Recently, Congress overrode President Obama’s veto on a bill that would allow the families of those killed in 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia and other sponsors of international terrorism for their presumed role in the attacks. Though I honor these families for their desire to seek justice for their relatives, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act makes the U.S. more vulnerable in the global arena and undermines our relations with a strategic ally in the Middle East.
"Strong diplomatic relations are crucial if we aim to rid the region of its volatility and extremist tendencies."
As Americans, we pride ourselves in the prestige we carry on the international stage and refuse to confess to our neocolonialist ambitions. The truth is that the U.S. has spurred turmoil and violence across many countries in its efforts to subject them to its vision of government. U.S. interventions in Latin America have resulted in brutal dictatorships and civil unrest. In the 1930s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt helped to install Anastasio Somoza García as the president of Nicaragua, and then manipulated him to secure U.S. interests. In the 1950s, the United States overthrew the president of Guatemala Jacobo Arbenz to prevent the implementation of a land reform that would endanger American fruit companies. In other cases, the implications of our foreign policy decisions are less noticeable but nevertheless destructive.
Before we accuse other countries for their wrongdoings, we must ask ourselves the question: Are we willing to tolerate and fight against reciprocal accusations? Politicians eagerly sign deals that benefit their polling in the short-term without considering long-term repercussions. In March 2002, President George W. Bush imposed tariffs on imported steel to gain support from the steel industries of Pennsylvania, a battleground state. Although Bush intended the tariff to last three years, he cut it thirteen months short when the European Union retaliated with tariffs on American exports from other swing states like Florida. Bush learned that politics can be a zero-sum game. The 9/11 bill will empower other countries to sue the United States in international courts and seek concessions from our government on major foreign policy issues.
Indeed, Saudi Arabia has become more erratic and self-centered in the past few years. Its leaders have committed atrocious human rights violations and kept oil prices down in OPEC. Together, with other Gulf countries, Saudi Arabia has nurtured religious extremism in moderate Muslim countries like Bosnia and Albania, promoting a harsh Wahhabi version of Islam. During the Arab Spring, it suppressed rebellion and disturbed the already fragile political systems in Middle Eastern countries.
Despite Saudi Arabia’s repugnant actions, the United States should strive to maintain an appropriate relation with the country, given its large supply of crude oil and strategic position on the Arabian Peninsula. Strong diplomatic relations are crucial if we aim to rid the region of its volatility and extremist tendencies. Saudi Arabia has fought against ISIL on many occasions and has taken steps to prevent Saudis from traveling abroad to Iraq. The United States and Saudi Arabia see eye to eye on most methods of counterterrorism, so we should strive to nurture our cooperation on those issues.
I believe that JASTA will provoke a myriad of unintended implications. I acknowledge that King Salman does not share the United States’ vision of democracy and human rights, but question whether confrontation with the Saudi monarchy will further our long-term goal of stability in the Middle East or encourage Saudi Arabia to confess to its involvement in 9/11 attacks. More importantly, JASTA sets a dangerous precedent for international legal institutions by motivating other countries to sue the United States.