Tag: North Korea

Diario de Cuba’s Editorial on Its 15th Anniversary

On December 4 , Diario de Cuba, a daily Internet Cuban diary (in Spanish and English) published in Madrid, Spain, celebrated its 15th anniversary with the following editorial.[1]

“Exactly 15 years ago, the first news and articles from this newspaper appeared on the screens of some readers. Over the course of this decade and a half, changes have taken place in Cuba, but not those necessary for the country’s democratization.”

“Fidel Castro died—which for many seemed not only unimaginable, but impossible—and something else happened that had seemed impossible: the people took to the streets to protest their living conditions. The regime in Havana opened an embassy in Washington, Washington opened an embassy in Havana, and the rapprochement between the two countries, arranged by President Obama, was ultimately sabotaged by the Cuban regime.”

“With Miguel Díaz-Canel chosen by Raúl Castro, the first revolutionary leader who did not participate in the armed struggle rose to the presidency of the country and the secretariat of its sole party. Almost the country’s entire productive economy passed into the hands of the military conglomerate GAESA , which has set about building hotels while ignoring the downturn in tourism and ruling out investments much needed for the Cuban population.”

“The country became even more indebted and, in a vicious circle, persisted in its tradition of shirking its financial obligations. The authorities implemented the most ill-advised monetary policies possible, so inflation runs rampant in Cuba. Medical professionals and technicians have been, and continue to be, exploited by means of contracts lucrative for the regime but exploitive for them.”

“In response to the popular protests, the regime ratcheted up its repression against dissidents, activists and independent journalists, as the Justice system was turned into an ever stronger mechanism of repression , and the number of political prisoners grew. Censorship of thought and the arts intensified, and those young artists who protested ended up in prison or having to go into exile.”

“The migratory wave in the history of the country began, and the emigration of the youngest Cubans, along with low birth rates, has contributed to a largest acute aging of the population . Every day it is more and more difficult to have children in Cuba. Elderly Cubans are more vulnerable than ever. The regime used to have a “monopoly” on violence, but now cities and towns are no longer safe. Public insecurity is on the rise, gangs of young people are forming, and VAW is claiming more and more victims.”

“Each new state measure manages to render agriculture and livestock even more unproductive. Cuba, once the world’s largest exporter of sugar, has been fallen apart, with the country now importing sugar for several years. The only plant that grows in Cuba is marabou, and farmers determined to make the land produce are hampered by new restrictions. Meanwhile, no less onerous burdens weigh on entrepreneurs, who have been allowed, reluctantly, to start MSMEs.”

“Health and education, which for decades were the regime’s showpieces, have collapsed, their decline evident in the unhealthy state of hospital facilities and students’ poor results. Sports, another point of pride for socialism, are suffering a similar fate. Not even baseball is spared. Just as Cuba ceased to be a sugar powerhouse, it has now ceased to be a baseball power too.”

“In the last 15 years the regime has been dismantling the welfare system with which it had mitigated social inequalities, to the point that it no longer addresses the fate of the most disadvantaged . Today we can talk about the end of the grocery store book and rationing card. With blackout after blackout, the island has been sunk in darkness, and the national electrical system can no longer hold up. The last hurricanes to hit the island have highlighted the ineffectiveness of its on-effective civil defense system.”

“Old, dilapidated buildings continue, inexorably, to collapse, and the construction of new homes is an unresolved problem in every government plan. Vagrants, homeless people, and children who work, or beg, are becoming more common on Cuban streets. Meanwhile, his heirs of the regime’s elite boast on social media about what their parents have stolen, and continue to steal.”

“The Cuban regime cultivates alliances with nations like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, and continues to meddle in Venezuela’s politics. It no longer operates based on any ideology, but rather on the exercise of brute force, and continues to mutate towards a dictatorship shamelessly open to benefiting a fortunate few.”

“Over the course of this last decade and a half, DIARIO DE CUBA has been there, studying and covering the scenarios briefly summarized above. In celebration of its birthday, last October the “For the Cuba of Tomorrow” DDC Forum was held in Madrid. Through it, and its day-to-day work, DDC demonstrates its commitment to the Cuba of the future.”

“On this anniversary, all that remains is to thank all our contributors and readers, and to renew this publication’s commitment to Cuba and to Cuban democracy.”

Reactions

As a U.S. citizen with some connections with Cuba, including three visits to the island at the start of this century, conversations with Cubans who have visited the U.S. and carefully following the published news about Cuba, especially those in Diario de Cuba, and writing blog posts about same,[2] I concur in most of this editorial’s observations.

However, although agreeing that U.S. President Obama had taken steps for “rapprochement between the two countries,” I think it is overstatement to claim that this effort was “ultimately sabotaged by the Cuban regime.” Obama’s successor (President Donald Trump) reversed some of those steps and the whole psychology of improving the relationship and even President Biden has not returned to the Obama effort.[3]

Recently a group of 15 U.S. Congress Representatives wrote a letter to President Biden urgently requesting “immediate action to stabilize Cuba’s energy infrastructure and provide critical humanitarian assistance. The Cuban people are currently facing widespread blackouts and an escalating energy crisis, exacerbated by the impact of Hurricane Rafael. The situation is not only causing immense suffering for the Cuban people but also poses serious risks to U.S. national security interests. If left unaddressed, the crisis will almost certainly fuel increased migration, strain U.S. border management systems, and fully destabilize the already-strained Caribbean region.”[4]

Therefore, these Congressmen “strongly” recommended “removing Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism (SSOT) list” and suspending “sanctions that hinder the flow of humanitarian assistance, including restoring the EAR license exception to allow donations to Cuban health and humanitarian relief entities.” This blogger endorsed those recommendations plus asking President Biden to “eliminate the U.S. embargo of Cuba. . . .“

=======================

[1]  Editorial: DIARIO DE CUBA Turns 15, Diario de Cuba (Dec. 4, 2024)..

[2]  See List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: CUBA [as of 5/4/20}.The labor of manually preparing updates to this list has discouraged the blogger from creating similar subsequent lists.

[3] See the posts listed in these sections (U.S. (Obama) & Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2014; U.S. (Obama) & Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2015); U.S. (Obama) & Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2016);and U.S. (Obama) & Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2017; U.S. (Trump) & Cuba Relations, 2016-17) of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries– Topical: CUBA [as of 5/4/20}.

[4] U.S. Congressmen Ask President Biden To Provide Sanctions Relief and Other Aid to Cuba, dwkcommentaries.com (Nov. 20, 2024).

Support for Immigration from Nicholas Eberstadt and George Will

Nicholas Eberstadt , the Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at Washington, D.C.;’s American Enterprise Institute (AEI), has authored a penetrating 23-page article about the upcoming new era of history he calls “the age of depopulation.”[1]

Eberstadt “researches and writes extensively on demographics and economic development generally, and more specifically on international security in the Korean peninsula and Asia. Domestically, he focuses on poverty and social well-being.” The AEI is a  “public policy think tank dedicated to defending human dignity, expanding human potential, and building a freer and safer world [and advancing] ideas rooted in our belief in democracy, free enterprise, American strength and global leadership, solidarity with those at the periphery of our society, and a pluralistic, entrepreneurial culture.”[2]

George Will’s Endorsement of Eberstadt’s Article

George Will, the noted columnist for the Washington Post, has endorsed the importance of the Eberstadt article, in a two-page column that distills at least some of Eberstadt’s important points.[3]

Here are the key points of that distillation.

“Earth’s population is going to decline. A lot. This will create social hazards that will challenge political ingenuity. Still, it will be, primarily, a protracted reverberation of a relatively recent, and excellent, event in humanity’s story: the emancipation of women.”

Eberstadt “says a large excess of deaths over births will be driven not by a brute calamity like the bubonic plague but by choices: those regarding fertility, family structures and living arrangements, all reflecting ‘a worldwide reduction in the desire for children.’”

“Today, two-thirds of the world’s population lives in countries with below-replacement levels (2.1 births per woman) of fertility. Since the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia has had 17 million more deaths than births. The 27 European Union countries are, collectively, 30 percent below replacement. Last year, France had fewer births than in 1806, when Napoleon won the Battle of Jena. Italy had the fewest since its 1861 unification, Spain the fewest since it started keeping track of this in 1859. America’s “demographic exceptionalism” is despite its fertility rate (1.62 last year), thanks to immigration.”

“Eberstadt says, as the world has become richer, healthier, more educated and more urbanized, ‘the most powerful national fertility predictor’ has been something related to these changes: changes in ‘what women want.’ Volition shapes birth rates because now people everywhere are ‘aware of the possibility of very different ways of life from the ones that confined their parents.’”

“It is possible that ‘the pervasive graying of the population and protracted population decline will hobble economic growth and cripple social welfare systems in rich countries,’ Eberstadt writes. Also: ‘A coming wave of senescence,’ smaller family units, fewer people getting married, ‘high levels of voluntary childlessness,’ ‘dwindling workforces, reduced savings and investment, unsustainable social outlays, and budget deficits’ are the fate of developed nations — unless they make ‘sweeping changes.’”

“Eberstadt is, however, tentatively cheerful: ‘Steadily improving living standards and material and technological advances will still be possible.’ The Earth ‘is richer and better fed than ever before — and natural resources are more plentiful and less expensive (after adjusting for inflation), than ever before,’ and the global population is more ‘extensively schooled’ than ever. What is required is ‘a favorable business climate,’ which is Eberstadt’s shorthand for allowing market forces to wring maximum efficiency from fewer people: ‘Prosperity in a depopulating world will also depend on open economies: free trade in goods, services, and finance to counter the constraints that declining populations otherwise engender.’”

“The ‘demographic tides’ are, Eberstadt writes, running against the quartet of nations (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea) that, oblivious of demography, are exaggerating their future powers. China’s next generation ‘is on track to be only half as large as the preceding one.’”

“Furthermore, ‘demographic trends are on course to augment American power.’”

“Although the United States is ‘a sub-replacement society, it has higher fertility levels than any East Asian country and almost all European states,’ Eberstadt says. Even more important, thanks to immigration, ‘the United States is on track to account for a growing share of the rich world’s labor force, youth, and highly educated talent.’”

“One issue in this year’s presidential campaign is germane to the convulsive demographic changes that are coming: immigration. Concerning this, Donald Trump is obtuse, and Kamala Harris has, as about most things, vagueness born of timidity.”

Conclusion

Many thanks to Eberstadt and Will for their illumination of these exceedingly important issues.

This blog has written many posts about the aging and declining population of the U.S. and many of its states and other countries in the world and the challenges that presents and to the importance of the U.S. continuing to develop policies that encourage and welcome immigrants.[4]

With some exceptions, most U.S. citizens should be glad to think and say “I am a proud descendant of immigrants to the U.S.” and support reforms of U.S. immigration law to welcome more immigrants.

=======================

[1] Eberstadt, The Age of Depopulation: Surviving a World Gone Gray, Foreign Affairs (Nov/Dec 2024)

[2] Nicolas Eberstadt, Bio & Experience; About {AEI}.

[3] Will, If demography is destiny, bring on immigration. We’re going to need it, Wash. Post (Oct. 23, 2024)

[4] Here is a list of some of the posts to dwkcommentaries regarding the challenges to public policy presented by low birthrates for the U.S. and many other countries and hence the need for more immigrants: U.S. States That Could Have Greatest Benefit from Immigrants Labor (February 28, 2024); Another Documentation of the U.S. Need for Immigrants (April 12, 2024); U.S. Fertility Rate Falls to Record Low (April 25, 2024); Will the World’s Population Cease To Expand? (May 15, 2024); Foreign Physicians Needed To Solve U.S. Doctor Shortage, (June 1, 2024);“Economist” Magazine Also Predicts Lower World Population (June 3, 2024):Pew Research Center Proposes Framework for U.S. Immigration Reform (10/2/24);The Significance of the U.S. Low Birth Rate (10/7/24);.Government Difficulties in Raising Birthrates (10/14/24)..

Two U.S. Congress Officials Object to O’Grady’s Defense of U.S. Designation of Cuba as State Sponsor of Terrorism   

U.S. Representative Jim McGovern (Dem., Mass.) and U.S. Senator Peter Welch (Dem., VT) jointly voice their objection to Mary Anastasi O’Grady’s defense of the  U.S. designation of Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism because, they argue, she presented no evidence for that action.[1]

Yes, McGovern and Welch say, “Cuban officials meet with counterparts in Russia and China, but so do American officials. Alliances with Russia and China, also cited as evidence of support for terrorism, would put half the world on the list. When it comes to spying, Cuba and other countries have had spies in the U.S.”

“Ms. O’Grady’s argument about Cuba’s support for Venezuela’s oppressive dictator might sound convincing, but Venezuela itself isn’t on the [terrorism] list. Cuba harbors some aging American fugitives, but none of them have been accused of international terrorism.”

“To be sure, there are [other] countries that belong on the list. [Two of them are North Korea and Syria.] North Korea threatens to launch nuclear weapons at us. Syria used chemical weapons on its own people and finances regional terrorists. Iran funds the rockets that rain down on Israel.”

“Cuba’s government is repressive; its economy is in shambles. If those were criteria for being on the list, it would be a mile long. It’s fine to criticize Cuba, but let’s be honest about who the real terrorists are. A policy of constructive engagement with Cuba might lead to more democracy. Wrongly labeling it as a sponsor of international terrorism only furthers a broken status quo.”

Conclusion

This blog has repeatedly and consistently argued that the U.S. designation of Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism is unjustified. [2]

===========================

[1] Compare McGovern & Welch, Cuba Is No Sponsor of International Terrorism, W.S.J. (Jan. 31, 2024), wit O’Grady, Why Cuba Belongs on the Terrorism List. W.S.J. (Jan. 21, 2024),

[2] E.g., Cuba Still on List of State Sponsors of Terrorism, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 1, 2023); U.S. Senators and Representatives Demand Ending of U.S. Designation of Cuba as State Sponsor of Terrorism (Jan. 12, 2024);COMMENT: Another Congressman Calls for Ending Cuba as State Sponsor of Terrorism (Jan. 13, 2024).

 

 

 

Cuba’s Current Economic and Political Crises

Introduction[1]

At least by early December 2023, it was evident that Cuba was experiencing a horrible economic crisis. One commentator put it this way: “Cuba is going through the worst crisis it has experienced in decades, with widespread shortages of food and medicines, rolling blackouts and a sky-high 400% annual inflation rate. The calls on the communist leadership to open up the economy to the market are getting loud, even from close political allies.”

t also was a Cuban political crisis on how to respond to this economic crisis.  As John Kavulich, the president of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council based in New York City, said in early December, Cuban “bureaucrats have become more reluctant to take risks since there is uncertainty about who is really in charge.” They are “either frightened or untrusting, and certainly not risk-takers.”

The most vivid criticism of this situation came from Roberto Alvarez-Quinones, a Cuban journalist, economist and historian who after working in Cuba for Granma and Cuban television stations has been doing that work in Los Angeles, California. He said, “Never in the history of the entire West has there been such an overwhelming economic and social crisis that it has affected practically 99% of the total population of a country, without having been caused by a natural catastrophe or a war, but by the Government of the nation.”

Cuban Government’s Response[2]

 At a December 20-22, 2023, meeting of Cuba’s National Assembly, the Minister of the economy and planning, Alejandro Gil Fernandez, reported that for 2023 Cuba’s GDP fell almost 2%; exports were $770 million below predictions; food production was less than that for 2022;  tourism, although more than the prior year, had a yield only 69% of the 2019 figures; overall production was down; there were shortages of supplies and fuels; and health care and education sectors where harmed by loss of workers to emigration.

Fernandez attributed Cuba’s inflation to international price hikes, the government’s release of money to finance its budget deficit, fewer goods being produced, the agricultural sector being burdened by labor shortages, high costs and low yields and Cuba being forced to import over 70% of the food that [was] being consumed.

Prime Minister Manuel Marrero Cruz said the government’s lack of control over production and distribution “adversely affects production by state entities and lets currency exchanges on the illegal market determine the pricing of products from the non-state sector.”

President Diaz-Canel, of course, criticized the U.S. embargo (blockade), but admitted that the Cuban government had made some errors in the “design and implementation of currency unification,” “approving new economic actors without performance norms having been established” and “the complexity of making decisions in a context of extreme tension [and of] commitment to preserving social conquests.”

All of these “difficult realities” were summarized by W.T. Whitney, Jr. (an U.S. political journalist focusing on Latin America) as “the adverse effects of diminished tourism, inflation, and emigration; social inequalities based on varying access to resources; production stymied by shortages of resources; inadequate food production; lack of buying-power for most Cubans, and for importing necessary goods; and the near impossibility of securing foreign investment.”

To meet these problems, Whitney said, Cuba was preparing these responses: “further decentralization of political and economic administration; cutbacks on the expenditure of central government funds; reduced subsidies for the purchase of water, fuel, transport, and electricity by business entities; adjustment of import tariffs to favor the availability of resources for production; capturing more tourist dollars; protecting state-operated production entities; fixing prices; and producing more food.”

Moreover, Whitney said, the U.S. needs to cancel its embargo (blockade) of Cuba and remove Cuba from the U.S. list of countries that are sponsors of international terrorism.

Criticism of Cuban Government Responses[3]

Javier Perex Capdevila, Doctor of Economic Sciences and Professor at the University of Guantanamo, said the Government measures are based on cutting subsidies, but “there are no measures to get out of economic stagnation and . . . to reduce inflation, accompanied by a fiscal deficit that entails generating more liquid money which does not stimulate the economy, but rather inflation. The measures that have been announced in a confusing and ambiguous manner are supposed to achieve macroeconomic stabilization, but that is not a real solution . . and there is no guarantee that they will work.”

In addition. Capdevila noted that increases in long-distance transportation rates will adversely affect many people who have to use such transportation to reach competent medical personnel. He said, “You cannot save a country if you do not save the people.”

Pedro Monreal, a Cuban economist, criticized the purported justification for increasing black market prices for currencies by saying the government had not designed that market. Monreal said this was “a fig leaf to cover up the poor design of the ‘organization that made this informal market necessary.’”   The Cuban State did something worse in 2020 when “it designed a defective official exchange market with an overvalued [peso].” Monreal also “predicted more inflation” this year with a government deficit of 18.5% of gross domestic product.

Cuban economist Emilio Morales commented on the continued emigration of Cubans in 2023 while there was a 3.3% decrease in remittances to those on the island due to the need for those now in other countries to pay for their outbound transportation and expenses of living in other countries on their “march for family freedom.” Morales concluded that this result shows “the systemic crisis demands radical reforms and the entrenchment of the mafia regime in its totalitarian model blocks any possibility of survival. History teaches that bayonets cannot sustain a regime for long, indefinitely without fundamental reforms.”

The most recent news about Cuba’s laws affecting private enterprises was the January 16th announcement of new income tax regulations. Now “private sector employees will have to pay a 20% income tax on earnings above 30,000 Cuban pesos, about $109 per month. That’s a 15% tax rate increase from the previous scale set up in 2021, which imposed a 5% income tax for earnings over 9,510 Cuban pesos. Business owners must automatically deduct the tax payments monthly, the decree says.”

This recent announcement is in addition to the tax burden on Cuban private businesses: 35% tax on profits, a 10% tax on sales or services provided, a 5% payroll tax, a one percent revenue tax to support local governments and contributions to social security equal to 14% of workers’ salaries. Owners of the [private businesses] also have to pay up to 20% taxes on dividends.

Such private businesses “cannot hire more than 100 employees, they cannot be involved in economic activities handled by the state, such as telecommunications, and must import products and supplies through state companies working as intermediaries. According to the new regulations published this week, they can also be hit with price controls at any time ‘when circumstances advise it to achieve more favorable prices for the population.’”

At about the same time as this announcement of new taxes on private enterprises, the Cuban government announced a new “’ethics code’ for government officials and members of the Communist Party and similar organizations that mandate them to ‘be faithful to socialism,’ fight against the ‘genocidal’ U.S. embargo and ‘be loyal to the Cuban Communist Party, the Revolution… and to the Revolution´s Commander in Chief, Fidel Castro.”

Conclusion[4]

This blog consistently has advocated for U.S. repeal of the embargo (blockade) of Cuba and the U.S. designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism. However, all of the blame for Cuba’s current crises cannot be attributed to these U.S. measures. Indeed, the U.S. now is the sixth largest exporter to Cuba.

Moreover, now the U.S. is preoccupied with the Israel-Hamas and the Russia-Ukraine wars, problems with Iran, North Korea, China, Yemen and the Red Sea and the problems created by large number of immigrants at our southwestern border. As a result, the U.S. does not have the time and resources to devote to Cuba’s problems and U.S. policies regarding same.

=============================

[1] Analysis of Cuba’s Current Economic Crisis, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 5, 2023); Almost All Cubans Suffer Worst Economic Crisis in the History of the Western Hemisphere, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 11, 2023);

[2] Whitney, A revolution in trouble: Cuba’s government, People’s World (Jan 8, 2024).

[3] ‘You can’t save a country if you don’t save the people.’ a Cuban economics doctor explodes in response to the package, Diario de Cuba (Jan. 13, 2024); Another rise in the price of the dollar and the euro on the Cuban black market, Diario de Cuba (Jan. 15, 2024); Emigration grows, but remittances to Cuba sink, Diario de Cuba (Jan. 16, 2024);Through resolutions, the Castro regime intends to stop the astronomical fiscal deficit that it approved, Diario de Cuba (Jan. 17, 2024); Reyes, The economic package opens a political crisis in the Government of Cuba, Diario de Cuba (Jan. 17, 2024); Torres, As the economy craters, the Cuban government hits private-sector workers with tax hike, Miami Herald (Jan. 18, 2024).

[4] E.g., posts listed in sections “Cuba: State Sponsor of Terrorism?” and “U.S. Embargo of Cuba” in List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: CUBA [as of 5/4/20]; Cuba Still on U.S. List of State Sponsors of Terrorism, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 2, 2023);U.S. Senators and Representatives Demand Ending of U.S. Designation of Cuba as State Sponsor of Terrorism, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 12, 2024); COMMENT: Another Congressman Calls for Ending Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan.13, 2024); U.S. Increasing Exports to Cuba, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 12, 2024).

Secretary Pompeo Foments Conflict with the Holy See

On September 30, U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo was at the Holy See for its Symposium on Advancing and Defending Religious Freedom through Diplomacy. There he delivered a speech entitled “Moral Witness and Religious Freedom” that provided great details about China’s abuses of religious freedom and called upon the Vatican (Pope Francis) to take action against the Chinese abuses. He thereby fomented conflict with the Holy See.

Pompeo’s Recent Speech [1]

Most of the first part of this speech appropriately concentrated on the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe and the courageous resistance to the Nazi’s persecution of its Jewish citizens by Roman Catholic Father Bernhard Lichtenberg in  Berlin by his helping Jews with finances, advice and emigration assistance and by publicly  criticizing the Nazi regime after Kristallnacht.

“That life or death struggle [against the Nazis] was a crucible, a proving ground of moral witness.  Individual stories of valor were legion.  But I remember especially Father Bernhard Lichtenberg. . . .[He] was a priest in Berlin in the 1930s, who fervently resisted the Nazi regime, and helped Jews with finances, advice, emigration assistance as the Nazi fist tightened. In 1938, in the aftermath of Kristallnacht, he began to speak up more loudly on their behalf, proclaiming at St. Hedwig’s Cathedral in Berlin, ‘Outside ‘the synagogue is burning, and that too, is a house of God.’ From then on, he fearlessly prayed each day publicly for the Jews and other victims of Nazi brutality.”

“Eventually, the Nazis arrested him in 1941. Rejecting a deal to go free in exchange [for] stopping his subversive peaching, he was given a two-year prison sentence.  When asked if he had anything to add when the sentence was read, he said, ‘I submit that no harm results to the state by citizens who pray for the Jews.’ Towards the end of his sentence, the Nazis realized they could never break his spirit.  They ordered him sent to Dachau concentration camp, but he died on the way before he reached that grim destination. Father Lichtenberg bore an incredible moral witness, and in 2004 he was honored by the State of Israel as one of the Righteous Among the Nations, a non-Jew who risked his life to save Jews from Nazis.”

“Today, as we think about that man, I urge all faith leaders to exhibit a similarly moral, bold witness for the sake of religious freedom, for human dignity, and for peace.” (Emphasis added.)

Secretary Pompeo then shifted his remarks to say “the mission of defending human dignity – and religious freedom in particular – remains at the core of American foreign policy. That’s because it’s at the heart of the American experiment.  Our founders regarded religious freedom as an absolutely essential right of mankind and central to our founding.”

“Indeed, I would say it’s an integral part to what Pope John Paul II described as the ‘universal longing for freedom’ at the United Nations when he spoke in 1995.  Billions of people today . . . have always seeked to worship according to their conscience.”

But sadly, authoritarian regimes, terrorists, and even secularists, free societies are – in their different ways – trampling religious freedom all around the world. Vast swathes of humanity live in countries where religious freedom is restricted, from places like . . . Cuba, and beyond.” (Emphasis added.) Later in the speech he reiterated this contention: “Christian leaders have an obligation to speak up for their brothers and sisters in Iraq, in North Korea, and in Cuba.” (Emphasis added.)[2]

Then he went into his excoriation of China.

“Nowhere, however – nowhere is religious freedom under assault more than it is inside of China today. That’s because, as with all communist regimes, the Chinese Communist Party deems itself the ultimate moral authority. An increasingly repressive CCP, frightened by its own lack of democratic legitimacy, works day and night to snuff out the lamp of freedom, especially religious freedom, on a horrifying scale.”

The Uyghur Muslims of Xinjiang are “not the only victims.  The Chinese Communist Party has battered every religious community in China: Protestant house churches, Tibetan Buddhists, Falun Gong devotees, and more.”

“Nor, of course, have Catholics been spared this wave of repression: Catholic churches and shrines have been desecrated and destroyed. Catholic bishops like Augustine Cui Tai have been imprisoned, as have priests in Italy. And Catholic lay leaders in the human rights movement, not least in Hong Kong, have been arrested. Authorities order residents to replace pictures of Jesus with those of Chairman Mao and those of General Secretary Xi Jinping.”

“All of these believers are the heirs of those Pope John Paul celebrated in his speech to the UN, those who had ‘taken the risk of freedom, asking to be given a place in social, political, and economic life which is commensurate with their dignity as free human beings.’”

“We must support those demanding freedoms in our time, like Father Lichtenberg did.”

For the Church, “Earthly considerations shouldn’t discourage principled stances based on eternal truths.  And as history shows, Catholics have often deployed their principles in glorious, glorious service of human dignity.” These include Jacques Maritain,  the bishops of Poland and West Germany in the 1960s,  the bishops of Poland and West Germany, Pope John Paul II, who was unafraid, and Pope Emeritus Benedict. “And just like Pope Benedict, Pope Francis has spoken eloquently about the ‘human ecology’ essential to decent societies.” (Emphasis added.)

“Pope Francis has exhorted the Church to be ‘permanently in a state of mission.’  It’s a hope that resonates with this evangelical Protestant who believes, as the Holy Father does, that those of us given the gift of Christian faith have an obligation to do our best to bless others.” (Emphasis added.)

“To be a Church ‘permanently in a state of mission’ has many meanings.  Surely, one of them is to be a Church permanently in defense of basic human rights. A Church permanently in opposition to tyrannical regimes. A Church permanently engaged in support of those who wish to take ‘the risk of freedom’ of which Pope John Paul II spoke, especially, most especially where religious freedom is denied, or limited, or even crushed.” (Emphasis added.)

“As Christians, we all know we live in a fallen world.  That means that those who have responsibility for the common good must sometimes deal with wicked men and indeed with wicked regimes.  But in doing so – in doing so, statesmen representing democracies must never lose sight of the moral truths and human dignity that make democracy itself possible.” (Emphasis added.)

“So also should religious leaders.  Religious leaders should understand that being salt and light must often mean exercising a bold moral witness. And this call to witness extends to all faiths, not just to Christians and Catholics.  It’s for leaders of all faiths at – indeed, at every level.” (Emphasis added.)

“I call on every faith leader to find the courage to confront religious persecution against their own communities, as well as Father Lichtenberg did against members of other faiths as well.” (Emphasis added.)

“Every man and woman of faith is called to exercise a moral witness against the persecution of believers.  Indeed – we’re here today to talk about religious freedom – the very future of religious freedom depends upon these acts of moral witness.”

“Pope John Paul II bore witness to his flock’s suffering, and he challenged tyranny.  By doing so, he demonstrated how the Holy See can move our world in a more humane direction, like almost no other institution.” (Emphasis added.)

“May the Church, and all those who know that we are ultimately accountable to God, be so bold in our time.  May we all be so bold in our time.” (Emphasis added.)

Pompeo’s Preceding Comments [3]

Just twelve days before his recent trip to the Holy See, Pompeo published an article in First Things, “a conservative Christian magazine that has called [Pope} Francis a failure as Pope.” https://www.firstthings.com/about

Entitled “China’s Catholics and the Church’s Moral Leadership,” Pompeo’s article vigorously attacked the 2018 agreement between the Holy See and China that recognized the validity of Chinese appointment of some of the Catholic bishops in the country and the current Holy See-China negotiations about renewal of that agreement. (Emphasis added.)

The next day, Pompeo issued the following tweet: “Two years ago, the Holy See reached an agreement with the Chinese Communist Party, hoping to help China’s Catholics. Yet the CCP’s abuse of the faithful has only gotten worse. The Vatican endangers its moral authority, should it renew the deal.” (Emphasis added.)

Reactions to Pompeo’s Comments and Speech [4]

These Pompeo words were seen by an “indignant Vatican . . . as a calculated affront.” As a result, the Vatican denied Pompeo a requested meeting with Pope Francis. Cardinal Pietro Parolin, who, as secretary of state, is the Vatican’s second-ranking official, told reporters that the Pope had not granted the meeting because Francis had “clearly said that he does not receive political figures ahead of the elections.”

Moreover, Pompeo’s subsequent speech at the Holy See can be seen as an indirect challenge to Pope Francis by Pompeo’s talking about the Chinese abuses at great length and the courage of previous popes and Father Lichtenberg, by calling on “every faith leader to find the courage to confront religious persecution against their own communities,” by his using Pope Francis’ own challenge to the Church to be “permanently in a state of mission” as a way to say Francis is not doing that and by Pompeo’s saying, “May the Church, and all those who know that we are ultimately accountable to God, be so bold in our time.”  

In addition,  Pompeo met with “prelates and others who are hostile to Pope Francis.” As a result of these developments, many observers believe “Pompeo’s [recent] visit is as much about the coming [U.S.] presidential election as about China policy. Mr. Pompeo dismissed that suggestion as absurd, but intended or not, his trip signals that President Trump is on the side of those conservative American Catholics who worry about the church’s direction under Francis and think he is soft on China.”

The New York Times also reports that the event at the Vatican where Pompeo gave his speech on September 30 was organized by Callista Gingrich, the U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, and who received warm words from Pompeo at the start of his speech while she sat in the front row with her husband Newt Gingrich, the Republican former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.”

“Mr. Gingrich said that Mr. Pompeo’s piece in First Things has stirred support and ‘probably’ motivated Catholic voters who read it to vote for President Trump. ‘The reaction to his op-ed the other day was very strong.’ Mr. Gingrich, who converted to Catholicism after his third marriage [to Calista] is a co-chair of Catholics for Trump [that] has attacked Mr. Biden over his ties to China and . . . supports Carlo Maria Viganò, the former Vatican ambassador to Washington, who has accused the pope of shielding child abusers and demanded that he step down.”

As he went to the podium for his Vatican speech, Pompeo “gave a pat on the shoulder to Cardinal Raymond Burke, a U.S. leader of the conservative opposition to Francis within the church hierarchy. Burke, who ruled out giving communion to John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign, said he believed American voters ‘more and more so’ cared about the issues Mr. Pompeo raised. And when it came to China, he said ‘I know I do.’” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Leo_Burke)

“Thomas Williams, the Breitbart bureau chief in Rome and a consistent critic of Francis who attended the event, argued that there was a clear electoral angle to the nominally diplomatic trip. He said that while he believed Mr. Pompeo genuinely hoped to change the Vatican’s stance on China, any political benefit back home was ‘a welcome and I’m sure sought after side effect.’”

Massimo Faggioli, a professor of theology and religious studies at Villanova University [and a supporter] of Francis, said these Pompeo actions are “an appeal to an electorate that is bigger than the Catholic vote, it’s also the evangelical vote. Being anti-pope helps with these Catholics but also evangelicals.”

“Alberto Melloni, the director of the Foundation for Religious Sciences John XXIII in Bologna, Italy, called Mr. Pompeo’s moves ‘a divisive operation targeted to the American electorate, not to the Holy See.’” Afterwards Pompeo, rejecting the suggestion that his speech was an attack on Pope Francis, said at a press conference, “I wrote that piece to honor the moral authority of the Catholic Church and its capacity to influence and make things better for people all across the world. They have historically stood with oppressed peoples all around the world. The piece was written and our policy has been all along to bring every actor who can benefit the people of China from — to take away the horrors of the authoritarian regime the Chinese Communist Party is inflicting on these people. That was our mission set, and it will remain our mission set. It’s been so long before the election; it will remain so after the election.”

This response was endorsed in a Wall Street Journal editorial with these words: “It is a welcome message from a U.S. Secretary of State, and the Vatican would do well to at least hear him out as it enters its latest negotiations with Beijing.”

All of this leaves this non-Catholic blogger from Minnesota bewildered. However, there should be more diplomatic ways to discuss and negotiate differences with the Holy See.

================================

[1] State Dep’t, Michael Pompeo Speech, Moral Witness and Religious Freedom (Sept. 30, 2020).

[2] In his 2019 speech at the Holy See, Pompeo said, “Because when the state rules absolutely, God becomes an absolute threat to authority.  That’s why Cuba cancelled National Catholic Youth Day back in August [of 2019].”  This statement was erroneous and misleading as discussed in a prior post. (Secretary of State Pompeo Delivers Speech at the Holy See, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 4, 2019).)  https://dwkcommentaries.com/2019/10/04/secretary-of-state-pompeo-delivers-speech-at-the-holy-see

[3] Pompeo, China’s Catholics and the Church’s Moral Witness, First Things (Sept. 18, 2020), https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/09/chinas-catholics-and-the-churchs-moral-witness; Pompeo, Tweet (Sept. 19, 2020), https://twitter.com/secpompeo/status/1307366983890018311?s=21.

[4] Horowitz & Jakes, Rebuffed by Vatican, Pompeo Assails China and Aligns With Pope’s Critics, N.Y. Times (Sept. 30, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/world/europe/pompeo-pope-francis-china.html; Winfield, Pompeo urges Vatican to condemn human rights abuses in China, Wash. Post (Sept. 30, 2020), https://www.wsj.com/articles/pompeo-and-the-pope-11601507813?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=2; Morelio, Harlan & Shih, Pompeo and Vatican officials face off over negotiations with China, Wash. Post (Sept. 30, 2020), https://www.wsj.com/articles/pompeo-and-the-pope-11601507813?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=2; Winfield, Pompeo, Vatican talk China after tensions spill out publicly, Wash. Post (Oct. 1, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pompeo-meets-with-vatican-after-us-china-tensions-spill-over/2020/10/01/1d9b1c16-03d4-11eb-b92e-029676f9ebec_story.html.

 

U.S. Commission on Unalienable Rights Responds to Criticisms

On September 15, 2019, Dr. Peter Berkowitz, the Executive Director of the State Department’s Commission on Unalienable Rights, published responses to criticisms that have been leveled against the Commission.[1] Here are those responses followed by this blogger’s reactions to same.                                    

Dr. Berkowtiz’s Responses to Criticisms

“The announcement of the . . . [Commission’s} existence and mandate immediately triggered a barrage of skepticism, indignation, and anger. The misunderstandings that the criticisms embody underscore the urgency of the commission’s work.”

Characterization of the Criticisms

“The very idea of human rights has come under fire from the left and the right for its supposedly sham universality. Hard-core progressives contend that human rights are nothing more than a vehicle for advancing Western imperialism and colonialism. Single-minded conservatives maintain that the essential function of human rights is to erode national sovereignty and promulgate progressive political goals around the world.”

“More measured and compelling objections focus on the excesses to which the human rights project has been exposed. The proliferation of rights claims has obscured the distinction between fundamental rights that are universally applicable and partisan preferences that are properly left to diplomacy and political give-and-take. International institutions charged with monitoring and safeguarding human rights sometimes include in their membership countries that flagrantly violate human rights and which wield international law as a weapon to undermine them. The growth of international institutions, courts, and NGOs dedicated to human rights has created a cadre of bureaucrats, judges, scholars, and activists. Many of these experts and advocates are dedicated to the cause of human rights and serve with distinction, but all face the temptation — typical of any professional community — of succumbing to special interests and self-serving agendas. And an overemphasis on universal rights can distract from other essentials of political life, including the discharge of responsibilities, the cultivation of virtues, and the caring for community.”

U.S. Role in Evaluating These Criticisms

“It’s especially important for the United States to respond thoughtfully to the confusion and controversy swirling around human rights because of our country’s founding convictions. The Declaration of Independence affirms “certain unalienable Rights” — these include “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” — that inhere in all human beings. The Constitution establishes the institutional framework that enables Americans to secure these fundamental rights through democratic self-government.” (Emphasis added.)

Moreover, as a driving force behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in December 1948 — the United States reaffirmed the nation’s founding conviction that all human beings deserve the rights and liberties secured by its Constitution. At the same time, the Constitution leaves to the American people and their elected representatives the discretion to determine the role in the country’s foreign policy played by the universal rights that Americans and non-Americans share.” (Emphasis added.)

Evaluation of Criticisms

“Yet an array of scholars, pundits, former political officials, and organizations are up in arms about the commission. Their critiques are illuminating, though not entirely as they intended.”

“First, critics charge that the Trump administration’s record advancing human rights renders it unfit to establish a commission to provide advice on human rights. Set aside that the administration has engaged Kim Jong-un in pursuit of peaceful dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program; imposed tough sanctions on Vladimir Putin’s belligerent Russia; supported a democratic transition in Venezuela; opposed Iran’s quest to impose a brutal hegemony throughout the Middle East; and convened in Bahrain an international forum attended by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, among others, to discuss the economic reconstruction of the West Bank and Gaza and peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Isn’t the State Department’s determination to improve understanding of the connections between America’s founding principles and the administration’s foreign policy a sign of the enduring significance it attaches to human rights?”

“Second, critics detect a sinister ambition in Secretary Pompeo’s “distinction between unalienable rights and ad hoc rights granted by governments.” They worry that authoritarian countries around the world will conclude that the guiding purpose of the Commission on Unalienable Rights is to redefine human rights narrowly. But the American constitutional tradition turns on the difference between universal rights that are essential and unchanging and the contingent rights created by the consent of the governed that serve as a means to protecting citizens’ fundamental freedoms, and which are bound to vary from country to country.” (Emphasis added.)

“Third, critics express dismay that the commission was charged with examining the reasoning by which claims about human rights are assessed, because they believe that the debate about the foundations and the meaning of human rights has all but ended. It has been asserted, for example, that codification of human rights by widely ratified international treaties (in many cases, though, not ratified by the United States) renders the commission’s work superfluous. This contention illustrates problems that gave rise to the panel. Contrary to the critics’ belief, a right does not become inalienable simply because an international treaty says so. And the refusal of the United States to ratify many such treaties demonstrates the persistence of questions about what counts as a human right and about the status of such rights in international law.” (Emphasis added.)

“Fourth, critics have warned that the commission intends to strip members of various groups and communities of their rights. In fact, the commission proceeds from the premise that all persons — regardless of faith, nationality, race, class, and gender — share essential rights grounded in our common humanity.” (Emphasis added.)

Fifth, critics accuse the commission of lacking intellectual and political diversity. In fact, the political diversity and variety of intellectual perspectives represented compares quite favorably with the uniform political and intellectual outlook that informs so many of those who have condemned the commission.

“In one respect, the quick-out-of-the-gate criticisms of the State Department’s Commission on Unalienable Rights have been highly constructive. By throwing into sharp relief the passion and perplexity that surround the discussion of human rights, the critics themselves unwittingly make the case for sober and deliberate reflection about the roots of human rights in the American constitutional tradition, and their reach in the conduct of America’s foreign affairs. That is precisely the task that Secretary Pompeo has directed the Commission on Unalienable Right to undertake, and which its members have proudly embraced.” (Emphasis added.)

This Blogger’s Reactions

Some of the highlighted portions of Berkowitz’s comments correctly observe that some of the criticisms expressed concern that the Commission was designed to reduce the scope of international human rights in accord with the political views of the Trump Administration, but Berkowitz fails to acknowledge statements by Secretary Pompeo that prompted these criticisms.

Berkowitz also acknowledges, as he should, that the U.S. “Constitution establishes the institutional framework that enables Americans to secure these fundamental rights through democratic self-government.” But he fails to note that the U.S. Declaration of Independence itself states, ““to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” immediately following its proclamation, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (Emphasis added.)

In other words, the U.S. Declaration itself implicitly recognizes that it does not secure the rights it proclaims because it does not create binding legal obligations. Instead the Declaration contemplates that the not yet established U.S. government subsequently will enact statutes that protect the unalienable rights, only three of which are specifically mentioned in the Declaration while alluding to a larger category of unalienable rights. These subsequent statutes are not “ad hoc” and lesser rights as Secretary Pompeo likes to say. [2]

Similarly the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) from 1948, which the Commission, in other contexts, properly mentions in the same breath as the U.S. Declaration of Independence, does not create any binding legal obligations. Instead, the UDHR says, “every individual and every organ of society , keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive . . . by progressive measures, national and international, to secure [these rights and freedoms] universal and effective recognition and observance.” In other words, the UDHR itself contemplated that there should be additional measures, including national legislation and international treaties, to secure the rights and freedoms articulated in the UDHR. Again, these are not “ad hoc” and lesser rights.(Emphasis added.)

In addition, the Commission’s Chair Mary Ann Glendon, the author of a leading book about the creation of the UDHR, has said that one of the principles of the UDHR’s framers was “flexible universalism.” The UDHR framers “understood that there would always be different ways of applying human rights to different social and political contexts, and that each country’s circumstances would affect how it would fulfill its requirements.” For example, . . . [UDHR’s] Article 22 provides: ‘Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international cooperation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.’ (Emphasis added.) Another example is Article 14, which states, ‘Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution,’ but is silent on how that right should be protected. [3]

“Flexible universalism” also exists in human rights treaties that allow for their ratification by nation states with reservations for at least some of the treaty’s provisions. And, of course, a state may chose not to ratify a treaty and thereby not be bound by any of its provisions. Moreover, there are mechanisms for other states and international agencies to address these reservations and non-ratifications. For example, in the U.H. Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review process, the Council and other states may, and do, make recommendations for states to withdraw reservations or ratify certain treaties. But these are only recommendations.[4]

================================

[1] Berkowitz, Criticisms Illustrate Need for State Dept. Human Rights Panel (Sept. 15, 2019). Dr. Berkowitz also serves this year on the Department’s Policy Planning Staff while on leave as Ted and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He is the author of books and articles about constitutional government, conservatism, liberalism and progressivism, liberal education and Israel and the Middle East. He holds degrees from Swarthmore College (B.A.), Hebrew University of Jerusalem (M.A.), and Yale University (PhD and JD). (Com’n Unalienable Rights, Member Bios.) 

[2] E.g., Another Speech About Unalienable Rights by Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, dwkcommentareies.com (Sept. 7, 2019); Criticism of the U.S. Commission on Unalienable Rights, dwkcommentaries.com (July 20, 2019).

[3] Human Rights Commentaries by Mary Ann Glendon, Chair of the Commission on Unalienable Rights, dwkcommentaries.com (Nov. 2, 2019). 

[4] E.g., U.N.’s Human Rights Council’s Final Consideration of Cameroon’s Universal Periodic Review, dwkcommentaries/com (Sept. 20, 2018); U.S. Ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, dwkcommentareis.com. (Feb. 5, 2013) (U.S. ratification had five reservations, understandings, four declarations and a proviso).

Washington Post Criticizes Commission on Unalienable Rights

An August 23, editorial in the Washington Post criticized the recently established U.S. Commission on Unalienable Rights.[1] It thereby joins this blog and many other voices in finding this Commission unnecessary and misguided.

According to the Post, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has lamented so called “ad hoc rights” and “the proliferation of rights claims” and called for a return to fundamentals or “unalienable rights.” Yet to date the Secretary has not “spelled out what he means” or offered “a single concrete example of what rights he wants to curtail.” This has prompted many human rights advocates to complain that the true purpose of the Commission is to exclude women’s reproductive rights or LGBT rights.

President Trump, however, “does not adhere to principle on human rights.” Instead, these two leaders “have singled out abuses when it suits their purpose” while turning “a blind eye toward the unsavory activities of regimes they favor.”

Therefore, “rather than. . . [tweaking] definitions [of human rights], Mr. Pompeo should start honestly speaking the truth about the world’s most frequent and serious rights violators.” [2]

==================================

[1]  Editorial, Why redefine U.S. policy on human rights?, Wash. Post (Aug. 23, 2019).

[2] A recent article about  Pompeo reports that as an unsuccessful Kansas businessman he had the financial backing of the Koch brothers; that this Koch support continued while Pompeo was a Congressman and fierce critic of President Obama’s foreign policy; that Pompeo in 2016 was determined to stop Trump from getting the GOP’s presidential nomination, but at the party’s National Convention that year had switched to supporting Trump; that Trump’s November 16, 2016, interview of Pompeo was the first time they had met; that Pompeo as director of the CIA held daily briefings with Trump and waged what a former White House official described as a “concerted campaign” to replace Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State; that the State Department’s Commission on Unalienable Rights, banning the gay-pride flag at U.S. diplomatic posts and scepticism about climate change are parts of “Pompeo’s own ideological agenda;” and that Pompeo is approaching the Secretary’s job “like a future Presidential candidate.” (Glasser, The Secretary of Trump, The New Yorker (Aug. 26, 2019).)

 

Senators Express Deep Concern Over Commission on Unalienable Rights

On July 23, 2019, a group of 22 Senators told Secretary of State Pompeo of their “deep concern” over the new U.S. Commission on Unalienable Rights. [1]

The Senators said they “vehemently disagree” with the Secretary’s assertion that there was “confusion” over what human rights are. “The 1948 UN declaration of Human Rights begins by declaring that the recognition of the equal and inalienable rights ‘of all members of the human family is the foundation of the freedom, justice and peace.’ Moreover, widely ratified international treaties codify ‘inalienable’ rights.”

The letter continued, “it seems the administration is reluctant—or even hostile—to protected established internationally recognized definitions of human rights, particularly those requiring it to uphold protections for reproductive rights and the rights of marginalized communities, including LGBT persons. The [Secretary’s] assertion that decades of well-defined agreement on human rights has sown confusion over what rights are is simply an Orwellian twist to defend the indefensible.” In short, the Commission is “absurd, particularly from an administration that has taken a wrecking ball to America’s global leadership on protecting human rights across the world” by supporting “despotic governments abroad,” by “ignoring the devastating abuses and rights of children and families on our border” and by President Trump’s fawning “ over current abusers of human rights such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

The senators also were concerned that the Commission’s membership was not fairly balanced, in accordance with federal law (41 C.F.R. Section 102-3.30). “The Commission’s chair and members are overwhelmingly clergy or scholars known to support discriminatory policies toward LGBT persons, hold views hostile to women’s rights and reproductive freedom, and/or support positions at odds with U.S. treaty obligations.”

Finally the letter protested the Secretary’s failure to consult or obtain input from the Department’s career human rights experts.

This letter to Pompeo was organized by Senator Bob Menendez (NJ), the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The letter was signed by the following Democratic presidential candidates: Kamala Harris (CA), Michael Bennet (CO), Elizabeth Warren (MA), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Cory Booker (NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) and Bernie Sanders (IN, VT). Other Democratic Senator signatories were Tammy Baldwin (WI), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Benjamin L. Cardin (MD), Christopher Coons (DE), Tammy Duckworth (IL), Patrick Leahy (VT), Edward J. Markey (MA), Jeffrey A. Merkley (OR), Patty Murray (WA ), Jack Reed (RI), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Tina Smith (MN), Chris Van Hollen (MD), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) and Ben Wyden (OR).

Conclusion

This blog, which is sceptical about the true purpose of this Commission, has published many posts about this Commission.

==================================

[1] Letter, U.S. Senators to Secretary Pompeo (July 23, 2019); Lederman & Lee, human rights groups lead chorus of alarm over new Trump administration commission, NBC News (July 23, 2019); Budryk, Democrats, advocacy groups urge Pompeo to abolish new ‘unalienable rights’ commission, The Hill (July 24, 2019).

U.S. State Department’s Second Ministerial To Advance Religious Freedom

On July 16-18, 2019, the U.S. State Department hosted its Second Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom. The opening event was held at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. to emphasize the “importance of promoting religious freedom and protecting religious minorities.” The closing event, also in Washington, D.C. was at the National Museum of African American History and Culture and co-hosted by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.[1]

First Day Activities[2]

After welcoming remarks by Secretary Pompeo and Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback, the participants discussed the opportunities and challenges for promoting and defending religious freedom globally. Through a series of plenary sessions, they discussed the necessary building blocks and emerging trends in advancing religious freedom, as well as how religious freedom, international development, and humanitarian aid can work together to advance mutual interests.

Second Day Activities[3]

 There were three separate discussions led by topical experts, civil society actors, religious leaders, academics and working-level government officials on topics such as best practices for religious freedom advocacy; limitations in forming, registering and recognizing religious communities; challenges facing religious minorities; combatting the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Islamic behavior; countering violent extremism; religious freedom and national security; religious freedom and economic development; cultural heritage protection for religious sites; religious minorities and humanitarian crises; international development aid and religious freedom; and mobilizing faith leaders around peace and development goals.

At the end of the second day, the White House held a brief reception for some of the Ministerial attendees. One was Cuban Pastor Mario Felix Lieonart, who said, “Pastor, Ramón Rigal, and his wife are imprisoned in Cuba.  Please pray for them and help the people in Cuba. Two other Cuban pastors who were invited for the Ministerial “are not here because the government in Cuba would not give them permission to come. They are Moisés de Prada, president of the Assemblies of God, and Álida León, president of the new Evangelical League of Cuba, which said, “The intention to attend [the Ministerial] was made public, it was a proof of transparency and truth, we have nothing institutionally to hide.” Lieonart added, I am here because I am a refugee in United States.  Thank you for your hospitality for me.” In response to a question from President Trump, Rev. Lieonart said, “Raúl Castro is continuing in power because he is the First Secretary of the Communist Party.  And the new President is not really Cuba’s leader. Castro is the real leader.”

Third Day Activities[4]

Senior government and international organization representatives focused on: identifying global challenges to religious freedom; developing innovative responses to persecution on the basis of religion; and sharing new commitments to protect religious freedom for all. Survivors or close relatives of those who suffered persecution due to their religion or beliefs shared their stories. Government delegations were encouraged to announce new actions and commitments they will take to protect and promote freedom of religion or belief.

There also were the Keynote Address by Secretary Pompeo, an Address by Vice President Mike Pence and Closing Comments by Ambassador Brownback. The highlights of those speeches follow.

Secretary Pompeo’s Keynote Address

The attendance aat this Ministerial “proves that religious freedom matters to literally billions of people all around the world. Look around you. Religious freedom isn’t just a Christian concern, a Jewish concern, a Muslim concern, a Buddhist concern, a Hindu concern, or a humanist concern. It’s all of our concern; it is everyone’s concern.”

“Here in the United States, our Declaration of Independence clearly states that certain rights are unalienable. There are liberties to which all of mankind, in all places, at all times are entitled. Religious freedom is one of them. Our Constitution puts it in the very first amendment.”

“Thomas Jefferson, our first Secretary of State, [helped author the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom,“ which states, ‘Almighty God hath created the mind free… No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry, or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief.’”

“The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms religious freedom or belief as a universal right.”

“Today, we come together to turn our convictions into action. And there’s not a moment to lose. A shocking 83 percent of the world’s population live in nations where religious freedom is either threatened or denied entirely.”

Perhaps you’ve heard the recent news of the Cuban evangelical leaders who registered for this very event to come here to Washington but were not permitted to come. . . . [T]he Cuban government prevented them from . . . [coming] to express their religious freedom. Such is the thuggish, intolerant nature of the current regime in Havana.” (Emphasis added.)

The Secretary then commented about violations of religious freedom in Iran, Burma and China.

“{L]ookl at what we’ve accomplished as a result of last year’s ministerial.”

“The State Department has established an International Religious Freedom Fund – a multi-donor fund that provides rapid assistance to victims of persecution all throughout the world. It’s already serving good, and its purpose around the world is expanding. . . . We encourage more countries to step up to the plate and donate and contribute to this important cause that can do so much good all around the world.”

Here are other examples. The “United Arab Emirates they hosted the first regional conference in February on promoting religious tolerance in their curricula. . . .  {T]he nations of the Organization of American States unanimously put forth their first ever statement, introduced by the United States, affirming religious freedom in our hemisphere. Along with the United Kingdom, the United States co-sponsored a groundbreaking conference this past November on meeting the needs of vulnerable religious minorities in conflict zones. And several governments have created special ambassadors specifically charged with advancing religious freedom in their country and around the world.”

The State Department “recently commissioned a group called the Commission on Unalienable Rights to generate a serious debate about human rights that extends across party lines and across national borders. The commission’s purpose is very simple. We’re not out to discover new principles but to ground our discussion of human rights in America’s founding principles, and religious freedom is certainly amongst them.”

“In 2019, the State Department introduced mandatory training on international religious freedom for every one of our Foreign Service Officers. We’ve, so far, trained nearly 12,000 employees on how to identify religious discrimination and persecution and how to work closely with faith leaders all across the world. It is incredibly important that our diplomats be our ambassadors for this first freedom.”

“We should all consistently speak out about abuses of religious freedom. It’s the least that we can do. Today, we have nine statements of concern on countries and issues all teed up. I would ask each of you to sign them in solidarity.”

“Albania, Colombia, Morocco, and the Vatican will host regional conferences in the near future.”

“Thanks to Poland’s efforts, the UN General Assembly has named August 22nd as a special day to remember the victims of religious persecution. Please commemorate it in your home countries too. And we should all keep making the case at the United Nations and in other bodies that religious freedom should be a priority for that institution.”

“But governments alone can’t properly tackle this problem. Our countries need to support civil society groups.”

“I’m very proud to announce today a new effort that’s intended to help us in our goals across the board. We will create the International Religious Freedom Alliance. We hope that this new vehicle – the first every international body devoted to this specific topic – will build on efforts to date and bring likeminded countries together to confront challenges of international religious freedom. . . . it will defend the unalienable rights for all human beings to believe – or not to believe – whatever it is they choose.”

“You all came here because you understand that it is our responsibility to help them. We’re all in this fight together. You can be sure that the United States will be out front defending the God-given, unalienable right of all human beings to worship as they choose.”

Vice President Pence’s Remarks

“Since the earliest days of our nation, America has stood for religious freedom.  Our first settlers left their homes and all they knew for the chance to, as they said, “Begin the world [all] over again.”  They carved protections for religious liberty into the founding charters of our nation and our very earliest laws.  And after our independence was won, the crafters of America’s Constitution enshrined religious liberty as the first of our American freedoms.”

“Our Declaration of Independence proclaims that our precious liberties are not the gift of government, but rather they’re the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.  Americans believe that people should live by the dictates of their conscience, not the diktats of government.”

“Free minds build free markets.  And wherever religious liberty is allowed to take root, it is prosperity and peace that ultimately flourish as well.”

“And as we tell even our closest allies, those who reject religious freedom are more likely to breed radicalism and resentment; that it can sow those seeds of violence and it can too often cross borders. And those who deny religious freedom to their own people often have few qualms denying those rights to others.”

“The list of religious freedom violators is long; their oppressions span the globe.” It includes Burma, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Iran, Burma, China, North Korea, Eritrea, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China and North Korea.”

“While religious freedom is always in danger in authoritarian regimes, threats to religious minorities, sadly, are not confined to autocracies or dictatorships.  The truth is, they can and do arise in free societies, as well, not from government persecution, but from prejudice. This is the evil of Anti-Semitism.”

=========================

[1] State Dep’t, Secretary Pompeo Convenes Second Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom (June 25, 2019); State Dep’t, Ministerial To Advance Religious Freedom Convenes Opening and Closing Events (July 12, 2019). The first Ministerial in July 2018 was discussed in a prior post.

[2] State Dep’t, Day 1: 2019 Ministerial To Advance Religious Freedom (July 16, 2019).

[3] State Dept, Day 2: Track 1: 2019 Ministerial To Advance Religious Freedom (July 17, 2019); State Dept, Day 2: Track 2: 2019 Ministerial To Advance Religious Freedom (July 17, 2019); State Dept, Day 2: Track 3: 2019 Ministerial To Advance Religious Freedom (July 17, 2019); The White House, Remarks by President Trump in Meeting with Survivors of Religious Persecution (July 17, 2019); Cuban Pastor Denounces Cuban Violations of Religious Freedoms to President Donald Trump, Diario de Cuba (July 19, 2019); The regime prevents two of Cuba’s leading evangelical leaders from leaving the country, Diario de Cuba (July 14, 2019); We have nothing to hide’: the Evangelical League of Cuba, Diario de Cuba (July 19, 2019).

[4] State Dep’t, Day 3: 2019 Ministerial To Advance Religious Freedom (July 18, 2019); State Dep’t, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo Keynote Address at the Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom (July 18, 2019); The White House, Remarks by Vice President Pence at the 2nd Annual Religious Freedom Ministerial (July 18, 2019). The prior day the Secretary made a similar speech for the presentation of international religious freedom awards. (State Dep’t, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo at the Reception for the Ministerial To Advance Religious Freedom and Presentation of the International Religious Freedom Awards (July 17, 2019).