Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

Dealing with 'rogue' nations

Last summer, on August 7, the lives of thousands of people were scarred by two massive explosions - both within minutes of each other - outside the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. The August massacre left more than 250 dead and thousands more injured. It is widely suspected that the attack was the work of followers of the exiled Saudi Arabian turned world terrorist financier, Osama bin Laden.

Last Friday marked the first anniversary of the U.S. response - the bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.

Only recently has another tragic detail in this debacle come to light. In an effort not to stray from a policy not to deal with "rogue" nations, the U.S. state department has possibly let the genuine rogues - terrorists - walk away free and unpunished. In the investigation that followed, the U.S. passed on several opportunities to apprehend two key suspects in the Nairobi bombing.

Two days after the bombings, Sudanese officials apprehended two men with false passports suspected of organizing the Nairobi attack. Sudan, however, was in unfamiliar territory as they had a reason to communicate this to the U.S., but not a diplomatic forum in which to do so. This stems from the fact that Sudan has been designated a rogue state by the U.S. state department - a classification it shares with Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Syria.

This rogue designation comes from a history of these nations either condoning or supporting terrorist activities in some fashion and it carries various consequences for each individual country. Practically speaking, it means that there is no official embassy representation by these countries, here and no U.S. representation within their borders. However, most dramatically, it cuts off economic aid from the U.S. to these countries (excluding humanitarian aid) and punishes any countries that engage in trade with them. So, in an undisclosed forum, Sudan notified U.S. law enforcement officials of their investigation.

Having heard this and having been invited to pursue the investigation further, the State department refused to allow FBI agents to travel to Sudan to discuss apprehending the two suspects who supposedly also had intimate knowledge of plans for future bin Laden attacks. Rather than dealing directly with Sudan and pursuing the bombing suspects, a move that it would have certainly done with any "non-rogue" state, the United States explored a less productive option - the destruction a pharmaceutical factory. All the while, the Sudan had offered the U.S. these suspects along with testimony gathered during their interrogation.

At the time, the U.S. reported that the factory had been used to produce weapons used in the Embassy blasts - this was a conclusion reached from a soil sample. Further evidence has revealed the factory was on contract with the United Nations to produce vaccines.

Even after the bombing, Sudan continued to reach its hand out to the U.S. in the form of proposed extradition of the suspects. After the State Department refused yet again, both suspects were sent by Sudan to Pakistan, where their exact whereabouts are unknown. They are supposedly in the custody of Pakistan's equivalent of our CIA. However, no one in the State Department will deny that at this point in time Pakistan is more concerned about an area known as Kashmir than it is about two bombing suspects and would be willing to release these suspects to someone other than the U.S. to garner support in what could turn into a full-fledged war.

The State department did not act in the best interests, or more specifically, the greatest interest of its employees and its countrymen. The State Department has set the stage for a future of relations with countries where they become so pre-occupied with classification that they forget to consider common sense.

The attack on the U.S. Embassies in Africa should be seen as a direct attack on America - an act of aggression that deserves a well-formulated response. In this instance, the best response was to deal with the Sudanese government for the sake of pursuing justice and protecting U.S. institutions from any possible future attacks. In its zeal not to stray from one policy (precedent), the U.S. passed on the opportunity to apprehend two suspected terrorists with intimate knowledge of a man, bin Laden, who has issued a statement to "kill all Americans, soldiers and civilians."

The U.S. was so busy looking through documents to examine protocol on dealing with rogue nations, it had its nose down when the real rogues walked by them.

U.S. Embassies and institutions around the world have become the target for numerous organized attacks. To assume that U.S. soil is not a target either is a mistake that only endangers our lives.

Our government, when it heard the news of suspected terrorists being apprehended, chose to turn a deaf ear and follow a policy it had the power to change. In the international arena, State Department policy serves a purpose and allows for appropriate protocol to be developed. But, when lives are in danger, the State Department should throw protocol out the window and all options should be pursued to ensure that the future safety of its country is never compromised.