Thread by @AnnaMeierPS

I've been moving furniture & subsisting off of applesauce all day, so join me in my delirium & let's talk about how New Zealand designates terrorist organizations, shall we?

(No really, this tells us a lot about counterterrorism, secrecy, & state power.) 1/

Much like the US, NZ maintains a list of organizations legally designated as "terrorist." It is a criminal activity to provide material support to or try to join these orgs. Unlike the US, NZ views its list as an obligation under UNSC resolutions. 2/

UNSC 1267/1989/2253 oblige member states to take action against al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, and their affiliates. Worth noting the US designates these entities separately. Other entities that default to UNSC resolutions include the EU and India. 3/

In designating orgs beyond these, New Zealand turns to Resolution 1373, which broadly obliges member states to outlaw the financing of & participation in terrorist entities. Member states get to determine what these entities are. 4/

As you might imagine, this leaves a lot of room for interpretation—& whether or not a country designates orgs under 1373 or domestic statute, interpretation is key. EX: Hizballah. The US designates it in its entirety. NZ lists only the Islamic Resistance, the militant wing. 5/

NZ also has a domestic legal basis for designation of terrorist orgs: the Terrorism Suppression Act (TSA). The US often designates orgs under the Immigration & Nationality Act, which, yes, is interesting & raises all sorts of Qs about associating "terrorist" w/ "Other." 6/

The TSA was passed in 2002, part of a wave of legislation around the world in response to 9/11. It allows for police to cooperate w/ the PM to designate terrorist entities. In the US, designations happen through State, Treasury, immigration judges (YUP), etc. 7/

So we have three axes of variation in this one US/NZ comparison: views on legal basis for designation (domestic or international law), interpretation of "terrorist," & what domestic entities designate.

Let me add a fourth: how we talk about designation. 8/

In the US, designations tend not to generate much press, & the gov't doesn't release much info. Recent publicity surrounding designations, e.g. the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as an FTO, is not the norm. 9/

The actual justification for the designation—not the PR spin, but the pages & pages of documentation (the “administrative record”) put together by State and vetted by DOJ on why this org meets legal thresholds for designation—is not released.

In NZ, it is. 10/

You can find NZ's equivalents of administrative records on the NZ Police website. They're not buried. Here’s the file for ISIS's Sinai affiliate. It includes an overview of the org & reasons it meets domestic thresholds for designation. 11/ police.govt.nz/sites/default/…

Reading through all of these is fascinating. Some include explicit references to why NZ needs to go beyond the UN list of AQ/ISIS/etc. affiliates to designate an org. Designations also must be renewed every 3 yrs, & the police provide access to those justifications as well. 12/

So that's four axes: legal basis of designation, what entity designates, interpretation of "terrorist," & degree of transparency in legal justification.

Why does this matter? I'd argue it tells us a lot about government attitudes toward counterterrorism. 13/

The US likes to conduct most of the so-called "War on Terror" behind the scenes. Major events, like the killing of Osama bin Laden, can drum up patriotism & make the apparatus seem like it's "working," even if it's also killing civilians, … 14/

…denying migrants the right to asylum, and perpetuating mass surveillance of Muslim & POC populations domestically. That the government doesn't talk much publicly about designations is a symptom of this broader institution of secrecy. 15/

You might say, Anna, no one would read US administrative records if the government released them. You might echo what many people told me when I was writing my dissertation proposal: Anna, this isn't very interesting to anyone but you. 16/

And you might be right. But the point isn't whether the public reads designation documents or even pays attention to designations in the first place. The point is the construction of designation as an obscure, bureaucratic process, when actually, … 17/

… who and what we call "terrorist" has profound legal, discursive, and sometimes life and death consequences for real people, which the state renders invisible while assuring the public it's doing the right thing w/ occasional publicity around major "wins." 18/

And when "terrorist" is subjective, when "terrorist" is politicized, and when the US government uses "terrorist" to describe its own citizens when they challenge state narratives, the invisibility of most of counterterrorism should bother us. /fin