A recent CNN article describes a decision by Congress to list a Nigerian extremist group called Boko Haram on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list. Boko Haram, whose name means “Western Education is Sacrilege”, is attempting to control northeastern Nigeria and impose strict Islamic sharia law in the region.
The organization has existed for several years and has tangible ties to al Qaeda. They have been responsible for at least 3,000 deaths in western Africa since 2009, and have recently begun amplifying their extremist activities.
In deciding to officially name Boko Haram a terrorist organization, Congress has concluded a pointed debate on the issue. On one hand, the group is almost entirely regional. While they have declared a “war on Christians”, their reach and objectives are generally limited to the geography in and around Nigeria. Thus, while they are a danger in their region and could become a larger issue with increased support from al Qaeda, the group poses no real threat to domestic American interests at this time. As such, the appropriateness of declaring them a terrorist enemy is not necessarily obvious, and our conflicting interests are more remote than against al Qaeda itself.
On the other hand, naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization might induce them to become a threat in fact. While the article does not point out any attacks directed at Americans in Africa, Boko Haram could react to this latest news by making a point to do so.
The article does interestingly point out the tools which become available to America once Congress puts a group on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list. Regarding Boko Haram, Congress now has the power to “freeze assets, impose travel bans on known members and affiliates, and prohibit Americans from offering material support.” These tools could become pretty hefty deterrent forces if Boko Haram attempts to assert influence in a wider region than Nigeria itself.
While this determination is apparently a done deal, so to speak, consider the policy implications of allowing America to label foreign organizations as terrorists even when they pose no actual threat to American interests. Should Congress be able to do this? Should there be limits or guidelines restricting Congress’s discretion in so designating organizations? Are such designations even appropriately within the discretion of the United States, or should the United Nations be in charge of dealing with groups who have no known capability or desire to directly harm American citizens? What other issues might arise under this approach?