But Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken isn’t so sure. For weeks, Mr. Blinken has been under pressure to formally designate Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, a label currently reserved for North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Iran. But despite the emotional appeal, Mr Blinken is resisting a move that could force him to impose sanctions on US allies who do business with Russia and could erode any remaining vestiges of diplomacy between Washington and Moscow. Amid furor over Russia’s brutal military campaign in Ukraine, the US Senate on Wednesday unanimously approved a non-binding resolution calling on Mr Blinken to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism for its attacks in Ukraine, as well as in Chechnya , Georgia and Syria, which resulted “in the deaths of countless innocent men, women and children.” “To me, Putin is now sitting at the top of a state terror apparatus,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina and a co-sponsor of the resolution, told reporters after the vote. He said the sanctions already imposed on Russia “have been effective, but we need to do more.” This month, Mr. Graham and Senator Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, visited Mr. Zelensky in Kyiv and presented him with a framed copy of their resolution. But Mr Blinken was noncommittal when asked about the issue on Thursday, echoing other State Department and White House officials. Any decision must be based on existing legal definitions, he said, while also arguing that the issue was moot because Russia was already under many sanctions. “The costs that have been imposed on Russia by us and by other countries are fully in line with the consequences that would come from being designated as a state sponsor of terrorism,” Mr Blinken told a news conference. “So the practical effects of what we’re doing are the same.” However, Mr. Blinken’s hand may be forced. While the Senate resolution was merely a call to action without legal force, a group of House Democrats filed a new measure Thursday that, if approved by Congress and signed into law, would shut down the State Department and add the Russia in the USA. list of sponsors of terrorism. A State Department determination that Russia is a state sponsor of terror — a label that agency officials refer to as the “nuclear option” — would lead to more sanctions on Russia’s battered economy, including sanctions on countries that do business with Moscow. It would also remove traditional legal barriers that prevent private individuals from suing foreign governments for compensation, including the families of American volunteers killed or injured fighting Russia in Ukraine. And it could sever, once and for all, the Biden administration’s limited diplomatic ties with Moscow, analysts say, which Mr. Blinken called important to keep intact. Recalling that dynamic, Mr. Blinken spoke by phone with his Russian counterpart, Sergey V. Lavrov, on Thursday and pressed him to accept a proposal to release two Americans, Brittney Griner and Paul N. Whelan, but reported no major discovery. It was their first conversation since Russia invaded Ukraine. During the war, Mr Zelensky openly called for the designation terrorism, speaking last month of “the urgent need to enshrine it in law”. The House is preparing to vote on a resolution similar to the Senate version, with strong support from Ms. Pelosi.
Our coverage of the Russia-Ukraine war
Grain embargo: A major deal aims to lift the Russian embargo on Ukraine’s grain shipments, easing the global food crisis. But in the fields of Ukraine, farmers are skeptical. An ambitious counterattack: Ukraine is laying the groundwork to recapture Kherson from Russia. But the undertaking would require huge resources and could come at a heavy price. Economic havoc: As food, energy and commodity prices continue to rise around the world, few countries are feeling the bite as much as Ukraine. Under siege: For 80 days, at the Avtostal steel mill, a relentless Russian assault met unyielding Ukrainian resistance. So it was for those who were there.
The disagreement between the Biden administration and Congress over the label echoes debates since the start of the war in Ukraine, when the first evidence of atrocities emerged. When congressional leaders, including Ms. Pelosi, accused the Russian military of committing war crimes, Mr. Blinken was reticent, citing legal criteria and the need for evidence and investigation. But on March 16, President Biden reversed that position by declaring Mr. Putin a “war criminal.” Mr. Biden’s rhetoric angered the Kremlin but had no political impact. This would not be the case with an official terrorism designation. A senior US official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss political discussions, expressed concern that such a measure would limit the administration’s ability to exempt certain transactions with Russia from Western sanctions. The official did not specify the activities, but the United States, for example, took care to ensure that Russian food exports were not affected by trade sanctions. The secretary of state has wide latitude to impose various designations on other countries or groups, legal experts say. But the department prefers to use the designations only under certain circumstances. UPDATED July 29, 2022, 4:54 pm ET According to the State Department, the terrorism designation results in restrictions on US foreign aid, restrictions on the export of certain items of “dual-use” technology that may have military applications, and a ban on defense exports and sales. Many of these are covered by existing sanctions. But the finding could force the United States to go further, Mr Graham said on Wednesday, adding new restrictions on how third countries could interact with Russia without fear of US sanctions. “It means that dealing with Russia, under that designation, becomes extremely difficult,” Mr. Graham said. Experts said the diplomatic cost of such a move could be significant and Mr Putin could expel all US diplomats from the country. So far, Moscow has allowed the US Embassy in Moscow to remain open and some diplomats to remain, including Ambassador John J. Sullivan. Even during the Ukraine war, the United States wants to continue working with Russia on a number of issues, including international talks with Iran to restore the 2015 nuclear deal, which Moscow participated in and from which retired President Donald J. Trump. “For diplomacy, it’s not practical to define a state with which the US has a multilateral relationship,” said Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group who recently worked on military and counterterrorism issues at the State Department. However, some proponents of designation would not mind further isolating Russia. “The designation of state sponsorship of terrorism puts Russia in a very small club,” Mr Blumenthal said on Wednesday. “It consists of nations like Syria, Iran, Cuba, which are outside the bounds of civilized countries. They are outcasts.” U.S. officials have so far used the label mostly in cases where a nation or its proxy has committed a narrowly targeted, civilian act, such as bombing a civilian airliner. “US officials want to make a clear distinction between terrorism and the kind of conflict where the US military can engage in combat operations,” Mr Finucane said. In 2019, Trump officials discussed a proposal to impose the “foreign terrorist organization” label on one part of Iran’s military, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Pentagon officials opposed the move, wary of setting a precedent that could invite other countries to impose a similar designation on the United States because of the actions of the US military. President Trump rejected that objection. As part of negotiations to restore a nuclear deal, Iran asked the Biden administration to remove the label, but Mr. Biden refused. Once announced, a terrorism designation is often considered by US officials to be politically risky to rescind, even under a new administration with differing views. In one of his latest acts in the Trump administration, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo labeled Cuba a “state sponsor of terrorism,” a step the Biden administration has yet to reverse, despite skepticism about its justification. (Mr. Trump did remove Sudan from the list of state sponsors of terrorism as part of a 2020 deal to normalize relations with Israel.) Mr. Trump also designated North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism in 2017, even though President George W. Bush lifted the label in 2008. Daniel L. Byman, a senior fellow at the Middle East Policy Center at the Brookings Institution, wrote at the time that the United States’ approach to state sponsorship of terrorism “has many flaws.” Among them, he said, was the fact that some obvious candidates, including Pakistan — which Washington sees as a partner but whose intelligence services have ties to the Taliban and anti-India terror groups — somehow avoided the label. Charlie Savage contributed reporting.
