As I recall, the Department resisted putting the Provisional IRA on the list during the late 1970s and early 1980s because it would have barred all contacts and communications with their leadership, blocking any efforts at helping bring about a peaceful resolution.
I think that’s a misunderstanding. Nothing in my read of the FTO law forbids communication or negotiation. Instead, the law forbids material support to the organization, such financial assistance or the provision of expertise. This can have a chilling effect on the willingness of governments and NGOs to talk with the terrorist org, but it doesn’t make it illegal. That’s my understanding at least.
So it could be that they didn’t want to hear complaints from HMG about any contacts that might occur and keeping them off the list kept HMG from invoking that. Of course there’s also the matter of law and then the policy on regulations on how to implement that law. I had several DoS lawyers flip such legal interpretations over the years when a new lawyer disagreed with what a previous lawyer had said.
As I recall, the Department resisted putting the Provisional IRA on the list during the late 1970s and early 1980s because it would have barred all contacts and communications with their leadership, blocking any efforts at helping bring about a peaceful resolution.
I think that’s a misunderstanding. Nothing in my read of the FTO law forbids communication or negotiation. Instead, the law forbids material support to the organization, such financial assistance or the provision of expertise. This can have a chilling effect on the willingness of governments and NGOs to talk with the terrorist org, but it doesn’t make it illegal. That’s my understanding at least.
So it could be that they didn’t want to hear complaints from HMG about any contacts that might occur and keeping them off the list kept HMG from invoking that. Of course there’s also the matter of law and then the policy on regulations on how to implement that law. I had several DoS lawyers flip such legal interpretations over the years when a new lawyer disagreed with what a previous lawyer had said.