Registration impedes war on terrorism

Dr Svante E Cornell

The INS special registration is quickly becoming counterproductive. It is producing a siege mentality among Muslims in the US, and undermining the image of the US in the Muslim world, thereby impeding the war on terrorism while most likely failing to reach its stated objective. It should be rethought or modified before it is too late

To date, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has ordered male citizens aged 16 and above from 25 countries to register with the INS, and the list is growing. At first sight, this policy is a natural response to the threat of terrorism. After all, the US needs to protect itself from foreign terrorists, and given that several of the 9/11 terrorists had overstayed their visas, registration may provide for a good chance to close in on possible perpetrators. However, because of its inherent flaws and some evident blunders in its implementation, the special registration policy risks backfiring and actually doing more harm than good.

A first problem is that registration is unlikely to do much to curb terrorism. Sure, one or more people with terrorist connections may well be caught in the dragnet. But as most terrorism experts know, the global centre of Islamic radicalism today, and of terrorist groups linked to them, is western Europe. London in particular has come to be so infected with Islamic radicalism that other European intelligence officials ironically talk of a “Londonistan”. The apprehended shoe bomber, Richard Reid, was a British national, and Zacharias Moussaoui held a French passport. Two of the suspects in the bombing of a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya in November were US citizens. The point is Al Qaeda has no shortage of operatives with US or western European passports, who will not be affected by the registration procedures.

Secondly, the policy is hitting the wrong people. People with minor violations of immigration laws, who have been seeking to legalise their status and would normally have stood a fair chance to gain legal residence in the US, are now being arrested or deported as a result of these special regulations.

Thirdly, the policy is blatantly targeted against Muslim countries, some of which are crucial allies of the United States, and the policy is hence contributing to resentment against the US in these countries. Of the 25 countries whose nationals are forced to register, 24 are Muslim. The only non-Muslim country on the list is North Korea. That by itself is testimony enough to Muslims that they are targeted because of their religion, and harms the administration’s stated policy that the war on terrorism is not a war against Islam. The Muslim community in the US was already under pressure, which has now increased tremendously. Queuing up to register at INS offices, Muslims in this country feel that they are just one step away from having to attach a green crescent on their clothes.

To many Muslims, the last straw was that one non-Muslim country, Armenia, was initially put on the list but then summarily taken off as a result of the efforts of its powerful and well-connected lobby. Whatever the reason Armenia was put on the list and then removed, Muslims could be forgiven for drawing their own conclusions, seeing the only Christian country to be put on the list rapidly removed after lobby pressures.

Aside from alienating the Muslim community in the United States, a major consequence of this policy is to strengthen and amplify anti-American sentiments in many countries, including crucial US allies. Take Pakistan, for example. In spite of strong popular reservations on the US conduct of war in Afghanistan, Pakistan is a crucial ally in the war on terrorism, without which the entire effort would probably falter. None of its citizens or nationals in the US have been involved in either 9/11 or other Al Qaeda deeds. The Pakistani community in the US is one of the immigrant communities with the lowest crime rate, and Pakistani authorities have contributed to the arrest of more Al Qaeda figures than any other country. In this context, the special registration of Pakistanis is seen as a slap in the face by the Pakistani public, and further compounds President Pervez Musharraf’s domestic problems in his cooperation with the US war on terrorism. Musharraf is unable to show ordinary Pakistanis any tangible benefit of Pakistan’s alliance with the US, and registration policies do not help him convince his people that the US has friendly intentions toward Muslims or Pakistanis. Next time the US asks Musharraf for, say, a new military base in Pakistan, he will have to keep this in mind.

The Pakistani example is only a case in point, replicated in many other countries. The INS special registration is quickly becoming counterproductive. It is producing a siege mentality among Muslims in the U.S., and undermining the image of the US in the Muslim world, thereby impeding the war on terrorism while most likely failing to reach its stated objective. It should be rethought or modified before it is too late.

Dr. Svante E. Cornell is Editor of the Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, Johns Hopkins University-SAIS

Home | Editorial