Problems under international humanitarian law with designating the Allied Democratic Forces and Ansar al-Sunna foreign terrorist organisations

• Author: Rattner, R
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.47348/AYIH/2021/a7
• Published date: 15 December 2022
• Date: 15 December 2022
• Citation: (2021) African Yearbook on International Humanitarian Law 174
• Pages: 174-190

174

https://doi.org/10.47348/AYIH/2021/a7

Counting apples as oranges:

Problems under international

humanitarian law with designating

the Allied Democratic Forces and

Ansar al-Sunna foreign terrorist

organisations

Rebecca Rattner*

Abstract

Under President Biden, the US has shif ted its approach to ISIS to address

fears about the group’s expansion globa lly. The spread of ISIS in Afr ica

has become an area of notable concer n as an increasing number of armed

groups across the continent have annou nced afliations w ith ISIS. In

response to this perc eived threat, the Biden Admi nistration announced

the designation of two ar med groups with ties to ISIS op erating in the

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Moza mbique as foreign

terrorist organis ations (FTOs) in March 2 021. There are, however, reasons

to question the applicability of the de signations in these two ca ses and

consider the broader context and consequence s. This artic le argues that

the designations have been inappropr iately assigned to these two g roups

in the DRC and Mozambique based on inacc urate factual assessments and

explores the implications of th is problematic approach under international

humanitarian law.

Keywords: international humanita rian law, human security, foreign

terrorist organisations, global war on ter ror, use of force, Islamic

extremism

1 INTRODUCTION

Ingrained in the hi story of American foreign policy is a da ngerous

tendency to let fear of perceived ideological enemies drive ill-i nformed

actions. In doing so, the US has taken at face value the motives offered

by organised armed groups (OAGs) themselves and overreacted in

* BA (Brown) MSc (LSE ) JD (Harvard ); Research Associate at the S outh Africa n

Insti tute for Advanced Const itutional, Public, Human R ights and International

Law, a Centre of the University of Johan nesburg. Email: rebecca@s aifac.org.za.

(2021) African Yearbook on International Humanitarian Law 174

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

COUNTING APPLES AS ORANGES 175

https://doi.org/10.47348/AYIH/2021/a7

responding to such motives. During t he Cold War, a number of OAGs

in Africa touted communist cre dentials to gain Soviet support.1 Thi s

allegiance to communism, however, was largely rhetoric and posed

no real threat to the US.2 Yet, in response, the US-backed reac tionary

opponents, such as the racist regimes in Zimbabwe and South A frica.3

Consequently, the US found itself on the side of perpetrators of grave

violations of international law and opposing groups that would

ultimately come into power. Not only did this approach undermine the

US’ credibility, but it also weakened the international humanitar ian

law (IHL) regime, which, without an effect ive global enforcement

mechanism, relies on a degree of voluntary compliance. Now, history

seems to be repeating itself as A merica’s ongoing global war on

terrorism (GWOT) expands to Afr ica.

As US fears of ISIS expa nsion across the globe have grown,

American attention has tur ned towards Africa. In respons e to ISIS’

announcement of the establishment of the Islamic State Central Af rica

Province (ISCA P) and claims of responsibility for escalati ng violence

in the region, on 10 March 2021, the US State Department designated

the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an a rmed group operating in

eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and Ansar al-Su nna, an

armed group operating in nort hern Mozambique, as foreign terrorist

organisations ( FTOs).4 The designation is a signicant public signalling

of the Biden Administration’s concerns about the groups’ ideological

afliations with ISI S and raises the possibility of A merican military

action in the DRC and Mozambique.

1 Bruce Porter The USSR in Third World Conicts: Sov iet Arms and Diplomac y in

Local Wars (1984) 5–35; Michael E Lat ham ‘The Cold War in the Third World’

in Melvyn P L efer and Odd Ar ne Westad (eds) The Cambridge History of the

Cold War (2010) 260–267; Zbigniew Brzezi nski Africa and the Communist World

(1963) 3–6; Abbott A Bray ton ‘Soviet Involvement in Afr ica’ (1979) 17:2 The

Journal of Modern Af rican Studies 253 at 256.

2 Nigel Gould-Davies ‘The Log ic of Soviet Cultura l Diplomacy’ (2003) 27:2

Diplomatic History 193 –214; Jean-François Baya rt ‘Africa in the World: A History

of Extraversion’ (200 0) 99:395 African Af fairs 217; Christopher Gauger ‘Reds

and Patriots: The Al liance of the Afr ican National Cong ress and the South

African C ommunist Part y’ (2017) University of Wi sconsin-Oshkosh 4 0; Mark

Nash Red Africa: Affec tive Communities and the Cold War (2016 ).

3 See, for example, Elizabeth S chmidt Foreign Inter vention in Africa: From t he Cold

War to the War on Terror (2013); Gary Baines and Peter Vale (eds) Beyond the

Border War: New Perspectives on Sout hern Africa’s Late- Cold War Conicts (200 8);

Sue Onslow (ed) Cold War in Southern Africa : White Power, Black Liberation (200 9).

4 US State Department ‘State Depar tment Terrorist Designations of ISIS A fliates

and Leaders in t he Democratic Republic of the Congo and Mozambique’ (20 21)

available at w.state.gov/state-d epartme nt-terrori st-design ations-

of-isis-affiliates-and-leaders-in-the-democratic-republic-of-the-congo-and-

mozambique/> (accessed on 29 March 2 022).

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd