By Elizabeth Kendal
At the end of January 2012, the League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria issued its report. It included the following observations:
Par 8) "In accordance with the protocol, the Syrian Government confirmed its readiness to facilitate the Mission in every way by allowing the free and safe movement of all of the observers throughout Syria, and by refraining from hindering the work of the Mission on security or administrative grounds. The Syrian Government side also affirmed its commitment to ensuring that the Mission could freely conduct the necessary meetings; to provide full protection for the observers, taking into consideration the responsibility of the Mission if it were to insist on visiting areas despite the warning of the security services; and to allow the entry to Syria of journalists and Arab and international media in accordance with the rules and regulations in force in the country."
Par 13) "Immediately on arriving in Homs, the Head of the Mission met with the Governor of the city, who explained that there had been an escalation in violence perpetrated by armed groups in the city. There had been instances of kidnapping and sabotage of Government and civilian facilities. Food was in short supply owing to the blockade imposed by armed groups, which were believed to include some 3000 individuals. The Governor further stated that all attempts by religious figures and city notables to calm the situation had failed."
Par 26) "In Homs and Dera'a, the Mission observed armed groups committing acts of violence against Government forces, resulting in death and injury among their ranks. In certain situations, Government forces responded to attacks against their personnel with force. The observers noted that some of the armed groups were using flares and armour-piercing projectiles."
Par 27) "In Homs, Idlib and Hama, the Observer Mission witnessed acts of violence being committed against Government forces and civilians that resulted in several deaths and injuries. Examples of those acts include the bombing of a civilian bus, killing eight persons and injuring others, including women and children, and the bombing of a train carrying diesel oil. In another incident in Homs, a police bus was blown up, killing two police officers. A fuel pipeline and some small bridges were also bombed."
Par 28) "The Mission noted that many parties falsely reported that explosions or violence had occurred in several locations. When the observers went to those locations, they found that those reports were unfounded."
Par 29) "The Mission also noted that, according to its teams in the field, the media exaggerated the nature of the incidents and the number of persons killed in incidents and protests in certain towns."
Par 71) "The Mission determined that there is an armed entity that is not mentioned in the protocol. . ."
Par 75) "Recently, there have been incidents that could widen the gap and increase bitterness between the parties. These incidents can have grave consequences and lead to the loss of life and property. Such incidents include the bombing of buildings, trains carrying fuel, vehicles carrying diesel oil and explosions targeting the police, members of the media and fuel pipelines. Some of those attacks have been carried out by the Free Syrian Army and some by other armed opposition groups."
Actually, the report by the League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria makes very interesting reading as it turns the Western-Saudi-Gulf Arab narrative, of an evil regime vs a peacefully protesting nation, on its head. This is doubtless why the report was so decisively quashed -- until it was leaked:
League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria
Report of the Head of the League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria
for the period from 24 December 2011 to 18 January 2012
Author Pepe Escobar, an expert on the geo-politics of the Middle East, has written a stinging critique:
Exposed: The Arab agenda in Syria
By Pepe Escobar, Asia Times online, 4 Feb 2012
As Escobar notes: "The report is adamant. There was no organized, lethal repression by the Syrian government against peaceful protesters. Instead, the report points to shady armed gangs as responsible for hundreds of deaths among Syrian civilians, and over one thousand among the Syrian army, using lethal tactics such as bombing of civilian buses, bombing of trains carrying diesel oil, bombing of police buses and bombing of bridges and pipelines."
Escobar describes the Syrian National Council as "essentially a Muslim Brotherhood outfit affiliated with both the House of Saud and Qatar". He describes the Free Syrian Army as a conglomerate of Sunni defectors, well-meaning opponents of the Assad regime, and "foreign mercenaries weaponized by the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council], especially Salafist gangs".
As Escobar notes, "GCC leaders House of Saud and Qatar bluntly dismissed their own report and went straight to the meat of the matter; impose a NATOGCC regime change via the UN Security Council."
But Russia and China would not stand for it. They vetoed the resolution, decrying it as unbalanced and biased.
Text of proposed UN Security Council resolution on Syria vetoed by Russia, China
By Associated Press, Published: 5 February 2012
It was the existence of an "armed entity" that Russia sought to address when it proposed amendments to the UN Security Council resolution.
Russia wanted guarantees that the Syrian opposition would "dissociate themselves from armed groups". Russia also wanted assurances that the Syrian Army would only be required to withdraw as the armed groups also withdrew, thereby ensuring that the vacuum left by the withdrawal of Syrian forces would not be filled by foreign jihadist outfits. Russia also rejected the vague wording of the resolution, claiming it left the door open for possible international military intervention in Syria -- something that Russia believes would only aggravate any civil war.
See: Russia, China veto UN Security Council resolution on Syria
4 Feb 2012 , RT "TV-Novosti"
Syria Tribune editor Ali Mohamad told RT that he doesn't believe the Western backers of a UN Security Council resolution on Syria "are working for the best interests of the Syrian people."
"Mohamad says, 'there was a very good chance this week to find a draft that could satisfy all sides – but it was not supported by Western countries. The Arab league initiative, supported by the Security Council, wants to portray an image where the problem is between Assad and the Syrian people, but this is not the reality.'"
-------
As noted previously on this blog, the battle in Syrian includes a battle for Syria. It is a battle that will determine the balance of power in the Middle East. It is a battle between the Iranian-Shi'ite axis and the US-Saudi-Gulf Arab axis.
Iran needs Syria to link it geographically to Lebanon; while Syria's minority Alawites need Shi'ite legitimisation and protection for their security. Meanwhile, the Saudi and Gulf Sunni Arabs want to bring Syria back into the Sunni-Arab axis to counter the Iranian-Shi'ite ascendency.
The West supports the Sunni-Arab agenda as being in the West's economic interests. It will not, however, bring security to the region, for in the wake of the "Arab Spring" the Sunni-Arab axis is increasingly as belligerent as the Iranian-Shi'ite axis. Furthermore, if the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi groups are empowered in Syria like they have been in Egypt it will certainly spell a bloody end to the religious liberty that has been a feature of minority-ruled secular Syria for the past half century.
Of course the Saudi and Gulf Arabs are not bothered by the fact that countering Iran by means of regime change in Syria will come at the cost of Syria's religious minorities. But the West should be. The West should be rejecting the cost as absolutely unacceptable. Instead they seem to be intent on burying these inconvenient peoples under a mountain of propaganda.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Monday, January 9, 2012
SYRIA: false narratives and propaganda
By Elizabeth Kendal
The battle presently taking place in Syria includes a battle by foreign powers for Syria -- a battle for the regional balance of power; a battle that pits the US-Saudi / Gulf Arab Sunni Axis against the Iran-Hezballah Shi'ite axis of which Arab, mostly Sunni Syria is integral.
See: SYRIA: CHRISTIANS FEAR FOR THEIR FUTURE
Religious Liberty Prayer Bulletin | RLPB 137 | Wed 07 Dec 2011
Aisling Byrne writes for Asia Times Online (5 Jan 2012), that the battle for Syria is essentially the first stage of a "war on Iran". Byrne quotes Saudi King Adbullah who observes: "Other than the collapse of the Islamic Republic itself, nothing would weaken Iran more than losing Syria." Likewise, notes Byrne, the US administration has also commented that regime change in Syria would constitute a massive blow to Iranian power in the region.
"What we are seeing in Syria," she concludes, "is a deliberate and calculated campaign to bring down the Assad government so as to replace it with a regime 'more compatible' with US interests in the region. [. . .] Not for the first time are we seeing a close alliance between US/British neo-cons with Islamists (including, reports show, some with links to al-Qaeda) working together to bring about regime change in an 'enemy' state."
See: A mistaken case for Syrian regime change
By Aisling Byrne, Asia Times Online, 5 Jan 2012
PROPAGANDA ESSENTIAL TO STRATEGY
Byrne's article is essential reading for anyone confused by the conflicting narratives coming out of Syria, for Byrne's main complaint is against the "deliberate construction of a largely false narrative that pits unarmed democracy demonstrators being killed in their hundreds and thousands as they protest peacefully against an oppressive, violent regime, a 'killing machine' led by the 'monster' Assad." (emphasis mine)
Most of the article's ten pages are devoted to exposing and analysing the propaganda that is pouring out of Syria and being disseminated by those with a strategic interest in regime change and others determined not to let truth get in the way of a sensational story.
Byrne notes: "Of the three main sources for all data on numbers of protesters killed and numbers of people attending demonstrations - the pillars of the narrative - all are part of the 'regime change' alliance".
In particular, the British-based Syrian Observatory of Human Rights -- which is funded by US and Gulf Arab money -- "has been described as the 'front office' of a large media propaganda set-up run by the Syrian opposition and its backers." As Byrne comments, the Observatory has been pivotal in sustaining the narrative of "massacres" and more recently "genocide". Yet not only is the Observatory not legally registered as a company or charity, it has no office, no staff and yet is "reportedly awash with funds".
Byrne reports: ". . . a YouGov poll commissioned by the Qatar Foundation showed last week that 55% of Syrians do not want Assad to resign and 68% of Syrians disapprove of the Arab League sanctions imposed on their country. [. . .] Unsurprisingly, not a single mainstream major newspaper or news outlet reported the YouGov poll results - it doesn't fit their narrative."
HOW TO SECURE A "HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION"
-- (or at least foreign backing)
As was the case in Libya, Syria's is an asymmetric conflict: the Syrian opposition cannot match the Syrian military. As Stratfor has noted, "Thus far al Assad has resisted his enemies. Though some mid-to-low-ranking Sunnis have defected, his military remains largely intact; this is because the Alawites control key units. Events in Libya drove home to an embattled Syrian leadership -- and even some of its adversaries within the military -- the consequences of losing. The military has held together, and an unarmed or poorly armed populace, no matter how large, cannot defeat an intact military force." (Stratfor: "Syria, Iran and the Balance of Power in the Middle East." By George Friedman, 22 Nov 2011.)
Consequently, the Syrian opposition knows that it needs external support, and to get it, it has to make a case for at best foreign intervention, and at least foreign backing.
Of course the West will never intervene on purely humanitarian grounds; it must have economic or geo-strategic interests. This is why multitudes of genuine humanitarian concerns are ignored or worse, treated as embarrassments and inconveniences to be covered up.
In order to launch a "humanitarian intervention", the Western governments concerned -- being democracies -- will first need to convince their constituents that a humanitarian catastrophe is indeed underway. Of course anyone can create a humanitarian catastrophe -- real or imagined. It has been done before by Islamist separatists in Bosnia, Yugoslavia; Albanian Islamist separatists in Kosovo, Serbia; Islamist imperialists in Ivory Coast and Islamist imperialists in Libya. It has also been attempted unsuccessfully by Islamist imperialists in the Palestinian Territories and in South Lebanon. Yes, false narratives have been created and propaganda used before to pave the way for US-NATO bombing campaigns against innocent civilians from Belgrade to Abidjan to Sirte, all so US-NATO states can advance their own economic and geo-strategic interests.
Byrne quotes American Conservative which notes that figures being cited by the UN are based on rebel sources and are uncorroborated. Likewise, reports of mass defections are a fabrication, with few defections actually being confirmed. Furthermore, American Conservative asserts that "Syrian government claims that it is being assaulted by rebels who are armed, trained and financed by foreign governments are more true than false".
See: NATO vs. Syria
By Philip Giraldi, American Conservative, 19 Dec 2011
Byrne's article in Asia Times Online includes many more such quotes and claims, including that the US has been pumping money into Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups specifically for the purpose of advancing regime change in Syria with the goal of hurting Iran.
As already noted, Byrne's article is essential reading for anyone trying to make sense of the situation in Syria.
SYRIA'S CHRISTIANS: ANOTHER INCONVENIENT PEOPLE
Like the Papuans of Eastern Indonesia and the Kachin of northern Burma, the threatened, imperiled, besieged Christians of Iraq and now Syria are just an inconvenience to Western powers that have economic and geo-strategic interests in their sights.
Western Christians need to accept the new reality: their governments do not inhabit a moral high ground. Rather, they are driven by economic and geo-strategic interests (money and power) and will not be hamstrung by inconvenient truths concerning the devastating consequences their actions will have on the liberties, lives and even future survival of local Christian communities.
The battle presently taking place in Syria includes a battle by foreign powers for Syria -- a battle for the regional balance of power; a battle that pits the US-Saudi / Gulf Arab Sunni Axis against the Iran-Hezballah Shi'ite axis of which Arab, mostly Sunni Syria is integral.
See: SYRIA: CHRISTIANS FEAR FOR THEIR FUTURE
Religious Liberty Prayer Bulletin | RLPB 137 | Wed 07 Dec 2011
Aisling Byrne writes for Asia Times Online (5 Jan 2012), that the battle for Syria is essentially the first stage of a "war on Iran". Byrne quotes Saudi King Adbullah who observes: "Other than the collapse of the Islamic Republic itself, nothing would weaken Iran more than losing Syria." Likewise, notes Byrne, the US administration has also commented that regime change in Syria would constitute a massive blow to Iranian power in the region.
"What we are seeing in Syria," she concludes, "is a deliberate and calculated campaign to bring down the Assad government so as to replace it with a regime 'more compatible' with US interests in the region. [. . .] Not for the first time are we seeing a close alliance between US/British neo-cons with Islamists (including, reports show, some with links to al-Qaeda) working together to bring about regime change in an 'enemy' state."
See: A mistaken case for Syrian regime change
By Aisling Byrne, Asia Times Online, 5 Jan 2012
PROPAGANDA ESSENTIAL TO STRATEGY
Byrne's article is essential reading for anyone confused by the conflicting narratives coming out of Syria, for Byrne's main complaint is against the "deliberate construction of a largely false narrative that pits unarmed democracy demonstrators being killed in their hundreds and thousands as they protest peacefully against an oppressive, violent regime, a 'killing machine' led by the 'monster' Assad." (emphasis mine)
Most of the article's ten pages are devoted to exposing and analysing the propaganda that is pouring out of Syria and being disseminated by those with a strategic interest in regime change and others determined not to let truth get in the way of a sensational story.
Byrne notes: "Of the three main sources for all data on numbers of protesters killed and numbers of people attending demonstrations - the pillars of the narrative - all are part of the 'regime change' alliance".
In particular, the British-based Syrian Observatory of Human Rights -- which is funded by US and Gulf Arab money -- "has been described as the 'front office' of a large media propaganda set-up run by the Syrian opposition and its backers." As Byrne comments, the Observatory has been pivotal in sustaining the narrative of "massacres" and more recently "genocide". Yet not only is the Observatory not legally registered as a company or charity, it has no office, no staff and yet is "reportedly awash with funds".
Byrne reports: ". . . a YouGov poll commissioned by the Qatar Foundation showed last week that 55% of Syrians do not want Assad to resign and 68% of Syrians disapprove of the Arab League sanctions imposed on their country. [. . .] Unsurprisingly, not a single mainstream major newspaper or news outlet reported the YouGov poll results - it doesn't fit their narrative."
HOW TO SECURE A "HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION"
-- (or at least foreign backing)
As was the case in Libya, Syria's is an asymmetric conflict: the Syrian opposition cannot match the Syrian military. As Stratfor has noted, "Thus far al Assad has resisted his enemies. Though some mid-to-low-ranking Sunnis have defected, his military remains largely intact; this is because the Alawites control key units. Events in Libya drove home to an embattled Syrian leadership -- and even some of its adversaries within the military -- the consequences of losing. The military has held together, and an unarmed or poorly armed populace, no matter how large, cannot defeat an intact military force." (Stratfor: "Syria, Iran and the Balance of Power in the Middle East." By George Friedman, 22 Nov 2011.)
Consequently, the Syrian opposition knows that it needs external support, and to get it, it has to make a case for at best foreign intervention, and at least foreign backing.
Of course the West will never intervene on purely humanitarian grounds; it must have economic or geo-strategic interests. This is why multitudes of genuine humanitarian concerns are ignored or worse, treated as embarrassments and inconveniences to be covered up.
In order to launch a "humanitarian intervention", the Western governments concerned -- being democracies -- will first need to convince their constituents that a humanitarian catastrophe is indeed underway. Of course anyone can create a humanitarian catastrophe -- real or imagined. It has been done before by Islamist separatists in Bosnia, Yugoslavia; Albanian Islamist separatists in Kosovo, Serbia; Islamist imperialists in Ivory Coast and Islamist imperialists in Libya. It has also been attempted unsuccessfully by Islamist imperialists in the Palestinian Territories and in South Lebanon. Yes, false narratives have been created and propaganda used before to pave the way for US-NATO bombing campaigns against innocent civilians from Belgrade to Abidjan to Sirte, all so US-NATO states can advance their own economic and geo-strategic interests.
Byrne quotes American Conservative which notes that figures being cited by the UN are based on rebel sources and are uncorroborated. Likewise, reports of mass defections are a fabrication, with few defections actually being confirmed. Furthermore, American Conservative asserts that "Syrian government claims that it is being assaulted by rebels who are armed, trained and financed by foreign governments are more true than false".
See: NATO vs. Syria
By Philip Giraldi, American Conservative, 19 Dec 2011
Byrne's article in Asia Times Online includes many more such quotes and claims, including that the US has been pumping money into Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups specifically for the purpose of advancing regime change in Syria with the goal of hurting Iran.
As already noted, Byrne's article is essential reading for anyone trying to make sense of the situation in Syria.
SYRIA'S CHRISTIANS: ANOTHER INCONVENIENT PEOPLE
Like the Papuans of Eastern Indonesia and the Kachin of northern Burma, the threatened, imperiled, besieged Christians of Iraq and now Syria are just an inconvenience to Western powers that have economic and geo-strategic interests in their sights.
Western Christians need to accept the new reality: their governments do not inhabit a moral high ground. Rather, they are driven by economic and geo-strategic interests (money and power) and will not be hamstrung by inconvenient truths concerning the devastating consequences their actions will have on the liberties, lives and even future survival of local Christian communities.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Whither America on Religious Freedom? -- UPDATE
By Elizabeth Kendal
USCIRF SURVIVES, BUT IS EVISCERATED
As Emily Belz reports for World Magazine (16 Dec 2011): "After four months of struggle, Congress approved the reauthorization of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, hours before the commission was set to shut down. The House approved the final reauthorization of USCIRF by a voice vote Friday (16 Dec), in a bill that will reduce the commission’s budget and remove most of the current commissioners."
For background see previous post:
Whither America on Religious Freedom? 8 Dec 2011
That Senator Richard Durbin, D-Ill. could essentially take a bill hostage by means of a secret procedural "hold" after it had passed in the U.S. House of Representative by a vote of 391-21 (15 Sept 2011), and then play games with it in order to advance an agenda, is astonishing and profoundly undemocratic. To ensure that there would be a high degree of desperation and no time for debate, Durbin waited until the 11th hour before releasing his "hold" on H.R. 2867 (the bill reauthorising funding for the USCIRF) and introducing his amendment S.AMDT. 1461, which limits commissioners to two-year terms.
When Congress voted on Friday 16 Dec, the legislators essentially had no option other than to pass Durbin's amendment or see the USCIRF close.
Congressman Frank Wolf, R-Va., slammed Durbin's move charging that it essentially amounted to "blackmail", while Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. condemned the amendment as "bad".
As it was, the original reauthorisation Bill cut the USCIRF's funding from $4 million to $3 million and reduced the number of commissioners (all unpaid) from nine to five. With Durbin's amendment, seven of the nine current commissioners will be permanently forced out. As Southern Baptist minister Reverend Richard Land laments, the effect of the amendment will be to leave the USCIRF with "very little institutional memory".
---------
On the surface this looked like basic political pork-barrelling by a rogue Senator. However, on closer inspection it looks more like premeditated strategic manoeuvring with one of the intended outcomes being the evisceration of the USCIRF.
Senator Durbin's alleged reason for placing a procedural "hold" on H.R. 2867, was that he wanted to "force members of the House of Representatives into earmarking funds for the federal government to purchase a state prison in Thompson, Illinois that his home state can no longer afford to operate". (Gaffney)
Frank Gaffney, Jr., the President of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for the Washington Times, writes: "When the idea of a federal takeover of this facility was first floated last year, it ran into strenuous opposition on both sides of Capitol Hill. Not only was the deal deemed to be unaffordable at a time of yawning federal deficits. It turned out that the Obama administration and its allies in Illinois' Democratic machine in Washington and Springfield state had in mind another, even more outrageous motivation: the Thompson prison could serve as the place to relocate terrorists currently held offshore at Guantanamo Bay, allowing Gitmo's closure.
"In other words, Sen. Durbin is seeking to secure by stealth an earmark that would overturn existing legislation barring the relocation of such detainees inside the United States - and the real risk that they would, thereby, be granted constitutional rights, access to civilian U.S. courts and perhaps be set loose in our country by irresponsible federal judges."
See: Silencing the Watchdogs of Religious Freedom: Durbin's War on the USCIRF
Center for Security Policy | Dec 12, 2011
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.
Be that as it may, why did Durbin suddenly release the bill even though he had failed to secure the ransom? And if Durbin was simply accepting defeat on the matter of Thompson prison, how come the bill (his hostage) came back with an amendment attached?
According to Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., "There are people who are trying to kill this commission."
Reporting for World Magazine, Emily Belz writes (15 Dec): "Smith said President Bill Clinton opposed the creation of the commission and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton doesn't want it around now, either. The State Department hasn't undertaken many of the commission's recommendations in recent years . . .
"'Religious freedom is not a priority' at the State Department, said Smith. 'Homosexual rights and abortion rights' are priorities, he said, referring to the Obama administration's recent push to put gay rights at the top of its global human rights agenda."
According to Gaffney, "the Obama administration has been working behind the scenes to do as its Islamist friends have demanded by shutting down the USCIRF. It has enlisted for this purpose Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate's Number 2 Democrat. Sen. Durbin is not only perfectly placed to do the deed stealthily. He has his own close associations with a number of the Brotherhood's top fronts and operatives in his home state of Illinois, in Washington and elsewhere across the country. . ."
That the highest levels of the US administration could be complicit in the evisceration of the USCIRF is very disturbing. It will be interesting to see who the administration appoints to fill the USCIRF's vacancies. If the new commissioners do not come with considerable experience in international religious liberty, then, though the USCIRF might survive, it will have been rendered harmless (harmless, that is, to religious liberty abusers) and non-threatening (non-threatening, that is, to economically and geo-strategically beneficial but morally compromising alliances).
ISOLATED INCIDENTS OR A TREND?
As noted in the previous posting, when the Obama administration recently appointed the popular and immensely gifted Reverend Suzan Johnson Cook to the post of US ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom -- after a lengthy delay -- it was praised for finally filling the post, thereby affirming America's commitment to international religious freedom. This was despite the fact that the appointee had absolutely no experience in international religious freedom. In no other field would such a thing be tolerated.
As I have previously noted, when it comes to dealing with the propaganda and religio-political ideologies and strategies that threaten religious liberty both domestically and internationally, lack of religious liberty background puts the cause of religious liberty at a serious disadvantage.
In the light of this, the machinations surrounding the reauthorisation of funding for the USCIRF provide me with an uneasy sense of déjà vu.
Is the Obama administration intentionally and strategically disempowering international religious liberty advocacy because, while it wants to appear domestically to be supportive of it, in reality, it doesn't want to be embarrassed internationally by it?
By retaining the religious freedom bodies, the form or appearance of international religious freedom advocacy is maintained for the purpose of public relations and propaganda. But by filling these bodies with appointees who, despite their gifts and graces, have little or no experience in dealing with the religio-political complexities inherent in international religious liberty advocacy, they render those bodies ineffective, or worse.
How does the administration get away with it? Well, if the administration can hold the sword of Damocles over the heads of religious freedom advocacy bodies for long enough, then for mere life all will be immensely grateful!
-----------
The reality is, when powerful alliances and/or big money and /or geo-strategic gains are involved, there is nothing more inconvenient than an informed, experienced and passionate dedicated religious freedom advocate who is absolutely committed to shattering the deadly silence.
Christians should pray for Rev Suzan Johnson Cook -- the Obama-appointed US ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom -- that she might learn quickly, be gifted with discernment and wisdom, and have the courage to be the most inconvenient Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom America has ever known!
Likewise, Christians should pray that when the Obama administration appoints new commissioners to the USCIRF in the next few months, they will prove to be the most inconvenient religious liberty advocates imaginable!
Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand. (Proverbs 19:21 ESV)
As violent persecution escalates and impunity becomes the order of the day, the last thing the persecuted need is to be left to suffer in darkness under a shroud of silence.
USCIRF SURVIVES, BUT IS EVISCERATED
As Emily Belz reports for World Magazine (16 Dec 2011): "After four months of struggle, Congress approved the reauthorization of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, hours before the commission was set to shut down. The House approved the final reauthorization of USCIRF by a voice vote Friday (16 Dec), in a bill that will reduce the commission’s budget and remove most of the current commissioners."
For background see previous post:
Whither America on Religious Freedom? 8 Dec 2011
That Senator Richard Durbin, D-Ill. could essentially take a bill hostage by means of a secret procedural "hold" after it had passed in the U.S. House of Representative by a vote of 391-21 (15 Sept 2011), and then play games with it in order to advance an agenda, is astonishing and profoundly undemocratic. To ensure that there would be a high degree of desperation and no time for debate, Durbin waited until the 11th hour before releasing his "hold" on H.R. 2867 (the bill reauthorising funding for the USCIRF) and introducing his amendment S.AMDT. 1461, which limits commissioners to two-year terms.
When Congress voted on Friday 16 Dec, the legislators essentially had no option other than to pass Durbin's amendment or see the USCIRF close.
Congressman Frank Wolf, R-Va., slammed Durbin's move charging that it essentially amounted to "blackmail", while Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. condemned the amendment as "bad".
As it was, the original reauthorisation Bill cut the USCIRF's funding from $4 million to $3 million and reduced the number of commissioners (all unpaid) from nine to five. With Durbin's amendment, seven of the nine current commissioners will be permanently forced out. As Southern Baptist minister Reverend Richard Land laments, the effect of the amendment will be to leave the USCIRF with "very little institutional memory".
---------
On the surface this looked like basic political pork-barrelling by a rogue Senator. However, on closer inspection it looks more like premeditated strategic manoeuvring with one of the intended outcomes being the evisceration of the USCIRF.
Senator Durbin's alleged reason for placing a procedural "hold" on H.R. 2867, was that he wanted to "force members of the House of Representatives into earmarking funds for the federal government to purchase a state prison in Thompson, Illinois that his home state can no longer afford to operate". (Gaffney)
Frank Gaffney, Jr., the President of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for the Washington Times, writes: "When the idea of a federal takeover of this facility was first floated last year, it ran into strenuous opposition on both sides of Capitol Hill. Not only was the deal deemed to be unaffordable at a time of yawning federal deficits. It turned out that the Obama administration and its allies in Illinois' Democratic machine in Washington and Springfield state had in mind another, even more outrageous motivation: the Thompson prison could serve as the place to relocate terrorists currently held offshore at Guantanamo Bay, allowing Gitmo's closure.
"In other words, Sen. Durbin is seeking to secure by stealth an earmark that would overturn existing legislation barring the relocation of such detainees inside the United States - and the real risk that they would, thereby, be granted constitutional rights, access to civilian U.S. courts and perhaps be set loose in our country by irresponsible federal judges."
See: Silencing the Watchdogs of Religious Freedom: Durbin's War on the USCIRF
Center for Security Policy | Dec 12, 2011
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.
Be that as it may, why did Durbin suddenly release the bill even though he had failed to secure the ransom? And if Durbin was simply accepting defeat on the matter of Thompson prison, how come the bill (his hostage) came back with an amendment attached?
According to Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., "There are people who are trying to kill this commission."
Reporting for World Magazine, Emily Belz writes (15 Dec): "Smith said President Bill Clinton opposed the creation of the commission and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton doesn't want it around now, either. The State Department hasn't undertaken many of the commission's recommendations in recent years . . .
"'Religious freedom is not a priority' at the State Department, said Smith. 'Homosexual rights and abortion rights' are priorities, he said, referring to the Obama administration's recent push to put gay rights at the top of its global human rights agenda."
According to Gaffney, "the Obama administration has been working behind the scenes to do as its Islamist friends have demanded by shutting down the USCIRF. It has enlisted for this purpose Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate's Number 2 Democrat. Sen. Durbin is not only perfectly placed to do the deed stealthily. He has his own close associations with a number of the Brotherhood's top fronts and operatives in his home state of Illinois, in Washington and elsewhere across the country. . ."
That the highest levels of the US administration could be complicit in the evisceration of the USCIRF is very disturbing. It will be interesting to see who the administration appoints to fill the USCIRF's vacancies. If the new commissioners do not come with considerable experience in international religious liberty, then, though the USCIRF might survive, it will have been rendered harmless (harmless, that is, to religious liberty abusers) and non-threatening (non-threatening, that is, to economically and geo-strategically beneficial but morally compromising alliances).
ISOLATED INCIDENTS OR A TREND?
As noted in the previous posting, when the Obama administration recently appointed the popular and immensely gifted Reverend Suzan Johnson Cook to the post of US ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom -- after a lengthy delay -- it was praised for finally filling the post, thereby affirming America's commitment to international religious freedom. This was despite the fact that the appointee had absolutely no experience in international religious freedom. In no other field would such a thing be tolerated.
As I have previously noted, when it comes to dealing with the propaganda and religio-political ideologies and strategies that threaten religious liberty both domestically and internationally, lack of religious liberty background puts the cause of religious liberty at a serious disadvantage.
In the light of this, the machinations surrounding the reauthorisation of funding for the USCIRF provide me with an uneasy sense of déjà vu.
Is the Obama administration intentionally and strategically disempowering international religious liberty advocacy because, while it wants to appear domestically to be supportive of it, in reality, it doesn't want to be embarrassed internationally by it?
By retaining the religious freedom bodies, the form or appearance of international religious freedom advocacy is maintained for the purpose of public relations and propaganda. But by filling these bodies with appointees who, despite their gifts and graces, have little or no experience in dealing with the religio-political complexities inherent in international religious liberty advocacy, they render those bodies ineffective, or worse.
How does the administration get away with it? Well, if the administration can hold the sword of Damocles over the heads of religious freedom advocacy bodies for long enough, then for mere life all will be immensely grateful!
-----------
The reality is, when powerful alliances and/or big money and /or geo-strategic gains are involved, there is nothing more inconvenient than an informed, experienced and passionate dedicated religious freedom advocate who is absolutely committed to shattering the deadly silence.
Christians should pray for Rev Suzan Johnson Cook -- the Obama-appointed US ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom -- that she might learn quickly, be gifted with discernment and wisdom, and have the courage to be the most inconvenient Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom America has ever known!
Likewise, Christians should pray that when the Obama administration appoints new commissioners to the USCIRF in the next few months, they will prove to be the most inconvenient religious liberty advocates imaginable!
Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand. (Proverbs 19:21 ESV)
As violent persecution escalates and impunity becomes the order of the day, the last thing the persecuted need is to be left to suffer in darkness under a shroud of silence.