Since 2000, the British state has maintained a list of organisations which are officially banned. People are not supposed to be members of these organisations. We aren’t even supposed to support these organisations. Even wearing a T-shirt bearing their name or logo is a criminal offence. Such is the depth of political control today.

The Home Secretary can effectively add new organisations at whim – there is some parliamentary and judicial scrutiny but not much. Supposedly, the banned organisations are all “terrorist”. There are currently 44 “international” groups on the banned list, not including 14 groups active in Northern Ireland. Given the depth of the threat to basic liberties posed by this list, scrutiny is needed as to who is on it and why. This is what I aim to perform here.

I’ve covered some 15 of the 44 groups here. In each case, I pose the question of whether the group can really be called an international terrorist organisation posing a threat to Britain. The conclusions are disturbing to say the least.

These are the sections I’ve used:

Terrorist?
This section discusses whether the group concerned can accurately be described as “terrorist” or not, using the standard that a group is terrorist if it carries out deliberate armed attacks on civilians, “the peacetime equivalent of war crimes”. The assessment is made in terms of the group’s actions – no judgement is implied for or against the causes of the various groups.

International?
This section discusses whether the group is active internationally, or is simply taking part in a local insurgency or civil war.

Britain?
Does the group concerned pose any threat in terms of carrying out attacks in Britain?

Why added?
This section suggests possible reasons for the selectiveness of the list, and why particular groups might have been added.

Oversights?
This section compares groups which have been proscribed with others which have not. Its main purpose is to expose the inconsistency and bias of the list – to suggest that the amount and extremity of violence committed by a group, the targeting of civilians, or the threat it poses has very little to do with whether it is listed or not. It is not necessarily meant to suggest that the other groups discussed should be banned – rather, that those which are banned have been unfairly treated.

FARC

Terrorist? Sort of – FARC has carried out massacres of civilians suspected of opposing it, as part of an ongoing “dirty war” between FARC and the Colombian state. But it is basically a guerrilla army. Earlier this year, a Danish court ruled that financing a FARC radio station did not constitute supporting terrorism.

International? No – apart from negotiators abroad, FARC is a domestic group involved in a civil war

Britain? No

Why added? Colombia is a US foreign policy “frontline” with a vicious neoliberal government

Oversights? The AUC, a far-right paramilitary group, has committed more, and more extreme, atrocities than FARC, and yet is not on the list. Around 100 trade unionists and other social movement activists are assassinated by right-wing terrorists every year. Such right-wing violence is the main reason the FARC came into existence. The US has added AUC to its terror list, but continues to aid AUC indirectly through resources given to the Colombian military under Plan Colombia, which are often funnelled to the AUC. The AUC is well-documented as being continuous with the Colombian military and used by it to carry out operations it doesn’t want to be caught handling. Similar groups in Venezuela have been involved in coup plots. In Cuba, American-backed terrorists have carried out a series of attacks on tourist resorts and air travel, most notoriously blowing up a plane full of foreign students in 1976. The self-professed anti-Castro terrorist, Luis Posada Carriles, is living freely in America. Posada claims to have been bankrolled by the Cuban-American National Foundation, a right-wing group which receives money from the US government and the company Bacardi. But don’t expect Bacardi to face terrorism charges any time soon.

ETA

Terrorist? ETA yes – though it mainly targets government figures, and has only recently expanded to civilian targets. Alleged supporters, included under EU and UK rules, no – these are civil society youth groups, political parties, non-violent direct action groups and so on, which Spain has rather dubiously classified as parts of ETA, and the British state has gone along with. For instance, an activist of the party Batasuna has been held in Britain pending deportation for being a “terrorist”.

International? Not really – aside from some activity in France, the group is fighting a very local campaign

Britain? No

Why added? Spanish state pressure within the EU

Oversights? Acts of torture and repression by the Spanish state’s shadowy “anti-terrorism” apparatus could easily be used to proscribe cooperation with its security agencies, but at present do not even stop deportations to Spain. The death-squads of GAL, state-linked paramilitaries involved in murders of Basque separatists, are not included on the British list.

Balochistan Liberation Army

Terrorist? No – this group is involved in a standard guerrilla insurgency against the Pakistani state

International? No

Britain? No

Why added? Apparently as part of a deal with Pakistan to get a “terrorist suspect” deported to Britain, in exchange for Baloch human rights activists

Oversights? Pakistan has used state terrorism in border areas, such as collective punishment, and the Pakistani ISI has been connected to alleged terrorists in Kashmir and elsewhere. There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of nationalist and separatist insurgent groups around the world. Most of these are not on the list. Two, TPLF and EPLF?, are now the govts of Ethiopia and Eritrea (western allies). Others are operating in Darfur where the west is hostile to the govt. The KLA, formerly proscribed by the US and UN, is now central to the western-backed government of Kosovo. It seems nationalist insurgents only become terrorists when their enemy is an allied state.

CPP (Philippines)

Terrorist? Sort of – the group has carried out assassinations, but is primarily a guerrilla army

International? No – dissident leaders are in exile, but the group has not carried out attacks abroad. Alleged threats made against other Filipino exiles have not been acted on.

Britain? No

Why added? The Philippines is another key US ally in implementing neoliberalism

Oversights? Similar groups operate in India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Burma and elsewhere. Clearly singling out the CPP is an act in support of the Filipino regime.

PKK

Terrorist? Not really – the PKK is a guerrilla insurgency involved in guerrilla warfare against occupying forces, though they’ve committed some human rights abuses (targeting teachers for example)

International? Not really – aside from alleged bases in Iraqi Kurdistan, and wider Kurdish support, the group carries on its war entirely within Turkey

Britain? No

Why added? Turkey is a NATO member and close US ally. Also, banning Turkish groups such as PKK and DHKP-C makes it much harder for Turkish dissidents – often wrongly accused of membership of such groups – to claim asylum in Britain.

Oversights? Turkey is a semi-democratic regime with a very strong and insidious “deep state” (see below). The Turkish state has committed far more extreme and extensive human rights violations than the PKK, such as saturation bombing of entire villages, systematic use of torture, and even periodic invasions of the border regions of Iraq. In addition, it seems dubious that only Turkish Kurds are targeted. If the PKK is on the list, Kurdish groups in Northern Iraq (KDP, PUK) should logically be included too, since they used similar tactics to fight for independence. Yet these groups now form the official local government of US-occupied Iraqi Kurdistan, and one of their leaders, Jalal Talabani of the PUK, is the President of Iraq.

Hamas

Terrorist? Yes, with provisos – Hamas has carried out attacks on civilians in Israel, such as rocket attacks and suicide bombings. But it is also a mass social movement, and the democratically-elected government of the Gaza strip.

International? No

Britain? No

Why added? Britain and America basically support Israel against the Palestinians, and ban Palestinian groups as part of this policy of political support

Oversights? The Israeli government is a prime contender for the designation of “state terrorist”. Far more innocent Palestinians are killed by Israel than are Israelis by Palestinian groups. In addition, extreme groups strong among Jewish settlers have been involved in terrorism such as the massacre by Baruch Goldstein and the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. One of these groups, Kach/Kahane Chai, is banned in America and the EU – but not in Britain. Many leaders of the Israeli state have been former members of groups such as Haganah, Irgun and Stern, which carried out terrorist attacks during the Israeli war of independence, such as blowing up the King David Hotel

While people are locked up for planning to fight in Palestine or Iraq, pro-Israeli groups openly recruit for the Israeli Army’s Sar-El programme in Britain, which involves spending two weeks serving at an Israeli military base.

Al-Muhajiroun

Terrorist? No – the group is banned because it “glorifies” terrorism; it is a formerly legal political party.

International? No

Britain? Not unless encouraging unpopular views is considered a “threat”. The government alleges that former members sometimes become terrorists, and that “glorification” indirectly causes terrorism. But by this standard, the government should be arrested for provoking people into terrorism by invading Iraq.

Why added? As part of a criminalisation of political Islamist ideology, and to satisfy press hysteria about rowdy demonstrations by the group.

Oversights? It has often been pointed out that rhetoric just as extreme can be heard any day from speakers in Hyde Park. Neo-Nazi groups such as the NSM and C18 are not proscribed, despite calling for and sometimes engaging in “race war”.

Kongra-Gel

Terrorist? No – it’s a political party, similar to Sinn Fein, formed as an attempt by the PKK to move from “bullet to ballot”.

International? It is Turkey-focused but has global support.

Britain? No

Why added? To please Turkey, and as part of the policy of banning “terrorist” doctrines and “supporters” as well as actual terrorists

Oversights? The group is no different from Irish parties such as Sinn Fein, the Ulster Democratic Party and the Progressive Unionists, who are still legal today and were never banned during the Troubles. Had these groups been banned, it is inconceivable that the Good Friday Agreement could have happened – a lesson which seems to have been forgotten in the treatment of al-Muhajiroun, Kongra-Gel and Batasuna.

Hezb-E Islami Gulbuddin (HIG)

Terrorist? No – this is the political movement of supporters of former Afghan president and anti-Soviet guerrilla leader, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Like most Afghan warlords, Hekmatyar has been associated with war crimes, but not the kind of deliberate targeting of civilians usually associated with the label “terrorism”.

International? No

Britain? No, aside from British troops occupying Afghanistan

Why added? Because Hekmatyar sided with the Taleban after being expelled from the Northern Alliance at America’s behest. He was the Northern Alliance leader and pending Afghan president before the west shipped in Karzai

Oversights? Hekmatyar is no worse than dozens of other Afghan warlords, including some who are part of the official government. Rachid Dostum, a warlord based in northern Afghanistan, has a particularly bad reputation for rapes and massacres, was caught killing thousands of prisoners of war after the US invasion – and is a key figure in the occupation-backed government.

Al-Qaeda

Terrorist group? If it exists, yes – but intelligence specialists have claimed that al-Qaeda has become an “idea” rather than a group. The leadership group around bin Laden, although mostly still at large, do not appear to be operating as an organising force and are only seen in occasional propaganda videos. So who counts as an al-Qaeda member? Dangerously, the government seems to consider anyone who sympathises with Islamist ideas or who has trained in Afghanistan to be in al-Qaeda; most of these people are not terrorists

International? Yes.

Why added? This is supposedly the whole point of the “war on terror” – this list wouldn’t be a list without it! Though actually, al-Qaeda was only added to the list after the 911 attacks.

Britain? Supposedly, although confirmed attacks and plots here have all been “home-grown”. Bin Laden has publicly stated that Britain is only at risk because of its involvement in foreign wars, and that countries such as Sweden are not at risk.

Oversights? Western intelligence services, along with those of countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, built up the network of foreign fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The Pakistani ISI and Indonesia’s Kopassus are widely suspected of continuing to use local Islamist groups to carry out operations too politically thorny for the spooks themselves. Security cooperation with these organisations has not been prohibited because of their links to “terrorism”. Rather, they have been given blank cheques. Kopassus, proscribed in the US after it was found to have been involved in an attack on Americans in Papua, was de-proscribed as part of the “war on terror”, despite its long-standing links to the Bali bombers.

Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), Algeria

Terrorist? Today, yes – before, no. In 2002 the BBC reported that it ‘focuses its attacks on military targets, and is not believed to be implicated in the killing of civilians’. Its recent switch to attacks on civilians and abductions of westerners is a classic example of the self-fulfilling prophecy – by criminalizing national insurgent groups, the west creates the threat it fears.

International? The group has recently adopted the al-Qaeda label, presumably to get attention, and attacks foreign targets within Algeria, such as western tourists.

Britain? No. The group does not operate outside Algeria.

Why added? The list includes virtually every political Islamist organization the government could find – these groups make up about half the 40-strong list. The government adheres to a conspiracy theory which views all these groups as offshoots of al-Qaeda, and has sought to criminalize political Islam in general, regardless of context

Oversights? Algeria’s secret police, the DRS, operate outside official control and are responsible for systematic torture. Of course, they are not proscribed – far from it. Western states hand suspects over to the DRS and use evidence obtained by it through torture. Algeria’s ruling regime is itself an outgrowth of an armed opposition group, the anti-colonial FLN, which carried out terrorist attacks.

Hizbollah (Lebanon)

Terrorist? The armed wing, yes – Hizbollah has carried out shellings against civilians, suicide bombings and other attacks. But the organisation also runs social services, media and political activities which are not terrorist; these are implicitly covered by the ban. Hizbollah’s TV station – a legitimate source of alternative, if biased, news – has officially been shut down in Europe.

International? Not really – the group is not known for operating outside Lebanon.

Britain? No.

Why banned? Hezbollah is anti-Israel, anti-western and allied to Iran.

Oversights? Almost all the various sectarian factions in Lebanon have their own militias, but only Hizbollah is banned. The semi-fascist Falange movement, associated with the Maronite Christian community, perpetrated a number of atrocities against civilians during Lebanon’s civil wars, such as the notorious Shabra and Shatilla massacres. Surprise surprise – it is not on the list.

November 17 (Greece)

Terrorist? Probably fair comment – the group has carried out assassinations, bombings and bank robberies, although the targets are usually government-connected.

International? No

Britain? No, except for the British embassy within Greece

Why added? Probably because Greece is an EU member and political ally. The Turkish leftist DHKP-C is also banned, and about half the EU proscribed organisations list is made up of leftist and anarchist groups from southern Europe (though most of these have not made it onto the British list).

Oversight? Like ETA, November 17 was set up to resist an American-backed fascist regime. Armed opposition in southern Europe is deeply connected to the political context in which the army and secret service colluded with right-wing parties to criminalise social movements, keep the left from power and push their societies towards fascism. The persistence of some of these groups after “transitions to democracy” is due to the incompleteness of the transition and unfinished business which was never addressed. In fact the major perpetrator of massacres and attacks in southern Europe are the deep-state and far-right networks connected to the Gladio project, Nato’s undercover plan to sabotage the European left. The Bologna bombing, used as a pretext for a mass roundup of activists, was later revealed to be the work of Gladio, working with the Italian secret service and a neo-Nazi group, Ordine Nuovo. Needless to say, none of these groups is proscribed – not Gladio, and not the far-right groups linked to it. In Turkey, activities of the deep state – “shadowy forces in the army, the judiciary and the bureaucracy long suspected of working with the mafia to advance their ultra-nationalist agenda” – have long been alleged, and recently brought to the surface by the exposure of a cell plotting bombings and assassinations. The cell, referred to as Ergenekon, included several army officers and a senior prosecutor. Surprise surprise, Ergenekon is not on any of the terror lists.

International Sikh Youth Federation

Terrorist? No. The group is accused of supporting militancy in the Punjab, but is mainly active in the west. It appears to have been targeted mainly for its beliefs and indirect support. It exists mainly in Britain, Canada, Germany and the US, but has been forced to officially dissolve due to criminalisation. The other proscribed Sikh group, Babbar Khalsa, carried out attacks in the past, but has not committed a majot attack for some time.

International? Yes – this is primarily a Sikh diasporic group.

Britain? No

Why added? Presumably under pressure from India to shut down groups operating out of the west.

Oversight? ISYF was legal in India until 2002 when it was banned by the far-right BJP which was then in power. The BJP is linked to the RSS, an extreme group involved in pogroms against non-Hindus in India. In 2002, RSS supporters in BJP-controlled Gujarat state carried out large-scale attacks on Muslims in which 2000 were killed and hundreds of thousands left homeless. Like Sikh and Muslim groups, the RSS receives financial and moral support from some Hindus abroad. Unlike them, it is not on any of the terror lists. Instead, the BJP regime was courted as an ally in the “war on terror” owing to its anti-Muslim rhetoric and support for neoliberalism.

Mujaheddin-e-Khalq (People’s Mujahideen, Iran)

Terrorist? No – this was formerly an armed opposition group in exile, seeking to overthrow the Iranian regime. In 2007 a special court ordered the British government to de-proscribe the group, and last month the ruling was upheld on appeal. Despite this, the group still appears on the list as of June 2008.

International? No

Britain? No

Why added? Nobody knows – probably as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Iran. The group was banned in America in 1997 as a goodwill gesture to an incoming reformist government in Iran; at the time, it was allied with Saddam Hussein.

Oversight? Bizarrely, although banned in both America and Britain, this group is based in occupied Iraq, and is actually receiving support from the American government! It has been reported that America intends to use this group to invade Iran should there be a war with the country. The paradox of the British and American organisations “harbouring” a group they themselves have declared to be terrorist has largely been ignored. This is also the group which supplied evidence on Iranian nuclear programmes which caused international controversy earlier this year. Although absurd, the situation is not new – the Kosova Liberation Army (KLA/UCK) had a similar status during the bombing of Yugoslavia.

The full list can be found at:

http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/legislation/current-legislation/terrorism-act-2000/proscribed-terrorist-groups?version=1

Statewatch’s coverage of the UK, EU and other “terror lists” can be found here:

http://www.statewatch.org/terrorlists/terrorlists.html