The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Iraq´s Christians and the Lack of Oversight

Iraq´s Christians and the Lack of Oversight
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Saturday, April 9 2011, 16:57:09 (UTC)
from *** - *** Mexico - Windows NT - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

...I cannot tell a lie....my darlin goil, Roma, wrote this as part of a term paper on the need for pluralism in Iraq...once the invading Crusaders leave....this segment is most pertinent......

Iraq’s Christians and the Lack of Oversight


The case of the Christians in Iraq is an example of the violence that occurs when the rules of religious and ethnic pluralism are not followed. Since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq the violence against the minority Christian population has been escalating. There were approximately 1.4 million Christians before the U.S. invasion and now only about half remain in Iraq. Most have been leaving Iraq for neighboring countries like Syria and Jordan to find safety. The violence has come from non-state actors, roving bands of Shi’ias and Sunnis that are not only fighting each other for power in Iraq but have been persecuting the Christian minority as well. However, looking at Iraq’s history of tolerance and the literature on religious freedom and pluralism, I assert that this violence against Christians is not an inherent part of Iraq’s history; rather, it is a backlash against foreign intervention.

Iraq is an especially complex situation because it has had significant outside influence from, first, the British and then the Americans, since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. As mentioned earlier, Saddam called on Iraq’s Islamic identity during the Gulf War as a reaction to the Christian ‘other’ that was attacking Iraq. This issue is just as relevant today as it was in the early 1990s because it is again a Christian country that dropped bombs on Iraq, destroyed its infrastructure and economy, and allowed its artifacts and museums to be looted. While preferential treatment for faith-based aid organizations is not the only factor contributing to the violence against Iraq’s Christians, it is an example of the consequences of rejecting pluralism. According Salam Al Marayati, Christian missionaries were given “preferential access” to Iraq by the U.S. after the 2003 invasion (“Proselytism and Religious Freedom in the 21st Century” 9). Faith-based organizations have several benefits including their often immense range, the wide array of issues they cover and because they tend to have special relationships with local societies (“Decent Shelter for All” 7). Although religious institutions, historically, have provided valuable responses to emergencies like natural disasters, Marayati explains that “perceptions of those Christian groups became a negative, adding tension to Christian-Muslim relations” (“Proselytism and Religious Freedom in the 21st Century” 9).

It is precisely because of situations like these that governments like the U.S. must defend religious freedom but “must avoid the perception of preferential treatment for Christianity” (“Proselytism and Religious Freedom in the 21st Century” 10). Gerald Hyman agrees with Marayati that it is “risky and possibly counterproductive to engage on a theological or explicitly religious basis with U.S. government support” precisely because “the U.S. democracy promoters could easily look like official missionaries, and the efforts could easily look like a U.S. government effort at religious conversion” (“Religion, Democracy and the Foreign Policy of the Obama Administration” 23). Unfortunately, this is almost exactly what happened immediately following the U.S. invasion.

ABC News reported, shortly after the U.S. invasion in 2003, that faith-based aid groups like Franklin Graham’s Samaritan’s Purse were “’poised and ready’ to roll into Iraq to provide for the population’s post-war physical and spiritual needs” (Caldwell 1). In Graham’s own words he and his organization were there to “reach out to love them and to save them, and as a Christian [he did] this in the name of Jesus Christ” (Caldwell 1). According to the ABC article, since 1990 the number of missionaries in Islamic countries has quadrupled (Caldwell). Caldwell interviewed Donna Derr, an official for Church World Service, about her disapproval for the work of aid groups like Graham’s. Caldwell, paraphrasing Derr, explains that “ the 2,000 year-old Christian churches in Iraq – whose members are a tiny minority in a vast Muslim population – have worked extraordinarily hard in the last decade to ‘develop their place’ in the community” and that Muslims and Christians were getting along (Caldwell 2). Derr told Caldwell, “I would hate to see the tenuous balance that has been created made unbalanced by the entry into Iraq by peoples who may have less sensitivity” and that “our military has created one chasm. We don’t want to see our humanitarian assistance create another” (Caldwell 2). In May 2004, Ariana Eunjung Cha, of the Washington Post, reported that these Christian missionary groups were drawing criticism for “endanger[ing] the lives of secular aid workers and the military because insurgents may associate Christianity with Western domination, or because they disguise their intentions” (Cha 1); the latter point was an accusation frequently leveled against the aid groups. Missionary work, in places like the Middle East, is closely associated with colonialism and therefore understandably resented.

Aware of the repercussions, it is also clear that Christians in Iraq did not seek preferential treatment. CBS’s “60 Minutes”, in a report on Iraq in 2007 titled “Iraq’s Christians in Peril”, interviewed Reverend Andrew White and a member of the U.S. military discussing what life was like for the Christians in Iraq after the U.S. invasion. Rev. White, who had been in Iraq before the U.S. invasion during the rule of Saddam, said “Iraq is clearly worse now [than it was under Saddam]. There is no comparison between Iraq now and then. It’s the most difficult it’s ever been for Christians probably ever in history [in Iraq]” (“Vicar: Dire Times for Iraq’s Christians”). The member of the U.S. military explained that the U.S. was not allowed to protect churches, as part of a ‘hands off’ religion policy but also that the “Christians don’t want [the military] to guard the churches openly. They feel if [the military is] overtly protecting the churches, someone underground covertly will come in and murder the Christians because they’re collaborating with the U.S. soldiers” (“Vicar: Dire Times for Iraq’s Christians”). While the U.S. military was apparently not allowed to protect religious sites, the comment the soldier makes regarding the fear the Christian community had about receiving preferential treatment is important. A ‘hands off’ policy might have worked for not protecting religious sites but it clearly was not a policy used with aid organizations. Additionally, when it comes to an important issue like pluralism there might be a greater need for enforcing the protection of pluralism rather than opting for a ‘hands off’ policy.

The American government, through its support of specifically Christian, faith-based organizations – like Graham’s Samaritan’s Purse – and religious rhetoric made the invasion seem like a Christian war against Islam. In retaliation, Christian missionaries and aid groups as well as indigenous Christians were significantly easier to target then U.S. soldiers and therefore bore the brunt of the violence. Although this may appear to be a conflict between differing religions it should instead be seen through a political lens. If it were merely a religious struggle and Muslim Arabs were attempting to get rid of all other religious and ethnic groups (in this case minority groups), they had hundreds of years to accomplish this. Likewise, if this was purely a religious conflict, other religious groups in Iraq, including the Jews, would be facing the same levels of violence but they are not. Politically, Iraq was first occupied by the British in the 1920s, attacked by the U.S. in the Gulf War in the early 1990s and is now occupied by an American-led coalition. In all of these cases, the foreign country has been Christian in association and the most recent war with Iraq made the mistake of showing too much favoritism towards Christian aid groups. However, it is not just Christian aid groups that have disproportionately aided one group and contributed to polarizing Iraq further. Islamic non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in Iraq have been influenced by private funding to favor one sect of Islam over another; in this case most of the funding comes from the Salafi brand of Sunni Islam found in the Gulf States and therefore disproportionately aids Sunni Muslims (Murphy 2) and further polarizes Iraq’s religious groups. One of the problems is the lack of institutions whose purpose it is to monitor the distribution and ethics of faith-based aid.

There are several groups that have agreed to limit their proselytizing during aid and relief projects, but a significant number of groups have not committed to this. ‘Codes of conduct’ have been established by several prominent faith-based aid groups, including the World Council of Churches[4], to limit the amount and type of proselytizing that is allowed to accompany aid missions. However, Matthew Richards argues that these “voluntary codes are not designed as substitutes for national or international regulations” and while they might support ideas such as “’respect’, ‘courtesy, and ‘sensitivity’…they are vague and unenforceable laws” (“Proselytism and Religious Freedom in the 21st Century” 9). These are all examples of the paramount importance of governments keeping a watchful eye on faith-based aid and the messages it can send[5]. While the bulk of the issues with disproportionate and unmonitored aid occurred right after the U.S. invasion, there are still currently cases of plurality not being upheld.

A final area of concern regarding the Christians of Iraq – and the need for the U.S. to play an impartial religious role for the safety of Iraqis – is an amendment that was added to H.R bill 2601 in 2005. Assyrian Congresswoman Anna Eshoo’s amendment calls on “the departments and agencies of the U.S. Government to pay special attention to the welfare of ChaldoAssyrians [Iraq’s Christians]” (Eshoo). Additionally, the amendment calls on “the President and his administration to work with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to dedicate funding for the promotion of welfare and education, as well as the resettlement for these minority groups” (Eshoo). While the situation is a tragedy and a grave concern for human rights abuses and religious persecution, I assert this act would only put the remaining Christians in Iraq in even more danger. For the U.S. to continue to claim this is not a war of Christianity versus Islam but to attempt to provide protection to a small section of a war-torn country, specifically the Christian section, would only endanger their lives further and sharpen the cleavages. It would become a repeat of the preferential treatment that was given to Christian aid organizations following the U.S. invasion that has been causing this violent backlash. To now attempt to single out the Christians – in a country with an incredibly high death toll that is affecting all sectors of Iraq’s society – would repeat a tragic error. Kurrild-Klitgaard puts it best:

"To grant specific political privileges to various minorities merely on the basis of their religion or ethnicity in a country so relatively heterogeneous as Iraq would surely be a recipe for a disaster, since it will only cement the differences and lock the groups into a zero-sum game. (This in fact is what was tried in Lebanon, where it was one of the most important reasons for the collapse of the country)". (25)

This does not mean Iraq, and Iraq’s Christians, should be left to their own devices. However, the violence that is surrounding Iraq’s Christians cannot be insulated, or indeed halted, by providing them with “welfare and education”. Rather, initiating a plan to bolster Iraq’s economy, as a whole, and rebuild its infrastructure to contribute to the safety and future of a unified Iraq would go a lot further towards promoting peace and stability within the country.

The problems that are facing Iraq’s Christians illustrates the dangers that can come about if external involvement, particularly faith-based organizations, are not scrutinized and held to certain standards by the governments supporting them. However, it is not solely external players that present barriers to accepting pluralism.



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9