Manama: Bahrain and Kuwait have reiterated their grave concern about the passing of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (Jasta) that allows US citizens to sue foreign governments and entities for damages resulting from acts of terrorism committed on US soil on or after September 11, 2001.
The act that removes the authority to determine whether a state is a sponsor of terrorism away from the federal government and places it in the hands of local courts was vetoed by US President Barak Obama, but Congress easily succeeded in overriding the veto.
Several countries have warned that the act was disastrous and would have ruinous effects on international relations and ultimately world stability.
Addressing the second Asia Cooperation Dialogue (ACD) summit in the Thai Capital Bangkok under the theme "One Asia – Diverse Strengths", Bahrain’s Prime Minister Prince Khalifa Bin Salman Al Khalifa said that the act was a menace to sustainable development.
“This summit is taking place at a time when sustainable development is at the forefront of the global agenda,” he said in his speech on Monday. “However, the achievement of sustainable development requires maintaining security and stability and no negative impacts on such efforts. The legislation of laws such as JASTA contravenes the principles of equal sovereignty of states and sovereign immunity. This calls for our joint cooperation to ensure the security and stability of our countries and for establishing a strong economy which provides support for our programmes to achieve sustainable development.”
Kuwait’s Emir Shaikh Sabah Al Ahmad Al Jaber Al Sabah said in his address to the summit that the international covenants and charters had to be respected in order to “safeguard homelands and promote communities, describing Jasta as a breach.
"We ought to respect our covenants and treaties and seek to resolve our differences peacefully to present to the world an ideal sample with respect of international dealing that may safeguard our homelands and promotion of our communities,” he said.
“We ought to defend international covenants and charters that govern our world, where Jasta, recently endorsed in the United States of America, constitutes a violation of such treaties, a breach of their rules and a harm to everybody’s interests."
In the US, Juan Cole, a blogger and professor of history at the University of Michigan, in a comment on the possible impact of Jasta on world relations and stability warned that “the vague wording of the law (one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter) will allow all kinds of people to sue all kinds of governments.”
“Irish-Americans could sue the UK for injuries during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Palestinian-Americans will line up to sue Israel, and Jewish Americans will likely sue Palestine. Ukrainian-Americans will sue Russia. Old Pro-Gaddafi Libyan elites now in the US could sue France and Britain for supporting terrorist groups in Libya. Kenyan victims of the British colonial suppression of the Mau-Mau now in the US could sue Britain,” he wrote.
“But why stop there? Why shouldn’t Saudi Arabia now let Saudi citizens sue the US over US support for the Israeli squatter terrorists on the West Bank? Or what if Pakistan lets the US be sued for its unilateral drone strikes, which often kill civilians, on Pakistani soil? Or Greek courts could, on the model of Jasta, allow Pakistanis in Greece to sue the US over strikes on Waziristan.”
