New US terror law isn’t as simple as it seems

What the Arabic press is saying about the new US law, Jatsa

The United States Senate voted to reject president Barack Obama’s veto of a piece of legislation – forcing the bill into law. AP Photo

On September 28, the United States House of Representatives and Senate voted to reject president Barack Obama’s veto of a piece of legislation – forcing the bill into law. The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (Jasta) allows families of victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for damages.

Writing in Aletihad, the Arabic-language sister newspaper of The National, the columnist Dr Saleh Abdul Rahman Al Maneh said that the timing of the passage of the bill was important, as it happened when American politicians were desperately trying to appeal to the emotions of voters in the lead- up to elections next month.

“The attempts of some congressmen to pass the bill clearly showed that they wished to blackmail the Saudi government and businessmen so that they could claim compensation, although the crimes were committed by others who did not represent the kingdom or its people even though they held Saudi passports,” Al Maneh said.

The writer said this was unfortunate, because Saudi Arabia invests huge sums in American government bonds and deposits money in some of the biggest banks in the United States.

“Some American politicians suggested that an international fund be created to compensate the families of the victims, with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries being the main donors,” Al Maneh noted.

However, he said that the US and European countries should also contribute to such a fund whose beneficiaries should be the victims of terrorism in Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and some European countries, not just September 11 victims.

“Limiting the contribution to such a fund to Saudi Arabia would imply that the kingdom is to blame for these criminal acts perpetrated by Al Qaeda members while, in fact, it is not responsible for their hideous acts,” he wrote.

The writer added that such a law would move the onus from individuals to countries to which they belong.

“This would mean that any person who commits an illegal act is not personally responsible for his deed. It would rather mean that the country to which that person belongs should bear the responsibility. This would create a host of other legal problems locally as well as internationally.”

Another point to consider is that such a law would affect the confidence of investors and countries that put their money in the US.

“This may even shake the confidence of countries and individuals in the US currency in the future,” he said.

According to the Saudi columnist Tariq Al Humaid, this controversial law does not just target Saudi Arabia, but the international community as a whole, and its repercussions will be felt by the United States as well.

“This is why American legislators – among them those who voted in favour of the Jasta bill – are now calling for its revision,” he noted in the pan-Arab London-based daily Asharq Al Awsat.

The writer did not see the law as an incrimination of Saudi Arabia or something that undermines its position. However, it might result in some complex and messy judicial actions, Al Humaid said.

Yet, it is not as serious as some are portraying it to be.

The writer concluded that the law is neither the first nor the last tough challenge that the kingdom has faced. Rather than resorting to tension and escalation, he called for a balanced and rational response.

* Jennifer Attieh