Last September, the Bush administration designated Saudi Arabia a “country of particular concern” for “severe religious freedom violations” pursuant to International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA).
At the time, the action was applauded — especially given the close ties between the Bush family and the Saudi leadership. But a year later, there's growing concern that the designation was an empty action.
Why? Because under the IRFA, the administration is required to “take action to oppose religious freedom violations” in Saudi Arabia within 90 days of making the designation. There are 15 potential actions the IRFA allows. But almost a year after the designation was made, the Bush administration, by its own admission, has not taken any additional action.
At an Aug. 9 press briefing, State Department Deputy Spokesman Adam Ereli could only quip when asked about the delay:
QUESTION: Speaking of reform, about five months have passed since the deadline concerning a U.S. response to the finding that Saudi Arabia is a Country of Particular Concern because of restrictions on religious freedom. I suppose that we're going to have to wait a little longer to find out what the conclusion of your deliberations is.
ERELI: At least long enough for me to find an answer to the question.
***
Why was the designation, and subsequent action, needed?
The federally funded U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom "has been recommending that Saudi Arabia be designated a CPC since the Commission was formed in 1999. This has been based not only on the Saudi government’s violations of religious freedom within its own borders, but also based on reports of its propagation and export of an ideology of religious hate and intolerance throughout the world,” said Commission Chair Preeta D. Bansal.
Other nations with the same designation: Burma, China, Iran, North Korea and Sudan.
***
The administration had been pushed last year, in part, by a Senate resolution introduced by Susan Collins (R-ME) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) in August, 2004.
Perhaps it's time for those two to lead the Senate in a new resolution — demanding that the Bush Administration follow the law.
Of course, the Bush Administration could indefinitely delay the required action. The Commission, after all, expires in 2011.
***
This article first appeared at Journalists Against Bush's B.S.
Article comments
1 - rbp0554
Yeah right... and the day that they take action against SA for freedom of religion violations will be the same day that they promote democracy in Pakistan.
*Good relations with SA = oil.
*Good relations with Pakistan = "logistical support"
*Israel with nuclear weapons that are in violation of the IAEA = Some how in our national interest.
Go figure.
By the way, the reason that we will never "promote" truly democratic elections or democratic reform in SA or Pakistan is b/c if we did they would probably both elect fundamentalist Islamic Governments that would be extremely hostile towards us.
- RBP
2 - Victor Lana
This is one of Bush's major defects: he trusts Saudi Arabia. That's like Stalin trusting Hitler in 1939.
The war on Iraq was misguided and all that effort should have been directed at Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Syria.
I agree with RBP, "democracy" in SA will bring about another Iran. Just what you were hoping for, Mr. President?
3 - Dave Nalle
So we're all in agreement that ignoring this somewhat crazy policy is a pretty sensible idea and that invading Iraq is an excellent, less destabilizing way to put pressure on Saudi Arabia and Iran without actually having to try to invade them or force regime change on them?
Makes sense to me.
Dave
4 - David R. Mark
That may be how you think, Dave. I doubt "we're all in agreement."
5 - Victor Lana
Dave,
I'd never agree that invading Iraq was "excellent" in any way.
6 - David R. Mark
Dave, I'm not good at reading sarcasm. If you are trying to make a sarcastic point, say so.
7 - David R. Mark
Here's a question: Who is going to make sure that the Bush Administration follows the law?
8 - gonzo marx
your answer, David is that we can't...
until and unless either the Congress or the Seante switchees from GOP control, you will not even get an Investigation on these matters...
instead, the Party faithful will table it, shove it under something, and hope it goes away by the '06 elections...smug in the belief that the electorate are ignorant with the memory and attention span of a tse tse fly
i, for one, do hope they are proven wrong
Excelsior!
9 - David R. Mark
It doesn't make for a very good bumper sticker, huh?
But I could see a Democratic House or Senate candidate making it an issue in 2006 -- maybe by linking it to Bush's inability to do anything about rising gas prices.
I think any candidate able to connect those two issues -- our soft handling of Saudi Arabia, and $2.50/gallon gas prices -- could ride a ground swell.
10 - Dave Nalle
My point is that when Congress legislates this sort of policy it almost always doesn't work or makes an effective foreign policy more difficult to operate. RPB's first comment seemed to acknowledge the silliness of this policy in the face of diplomatic reality.
We have to walk a fine line in the middle east, and the way to stay on that line was to invade Iraq rather than Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia, even though they might be the real threat. Iraq was a softer target which had basically handed us a bunch of good excuses to invade them. We had no similar justification for military action against any of the other countries, and Iraq's positioning is perfect for exerting an influence in the area which might achieve our goals wihtout having to go to war with the entire middle east. Sorry, but the invasion just makes absolute, perfect sense in ways which dwarf the WMD issue and render it irrelevant.
Dave
11 - gonzo marx
but you miss the point..we had no good reason to pre-emptively invade Iraq either...other than ,as Mr Nalle points out, it was convenient...
and Afghanistan?..how about we finish up there
a case for ADD in the DoD, i guess
Excelsior!
12 - Dave Nalle
>>but you miss the point..we had no good reason to pre-emptively invade Iraq either...other than ,as Mr Nalle points out, it was convenient...<<
The reasoning is that we had a good reason, even a need to establish a substantial presence in the middle east, stabilize the area politically and distract the terrorists.
If you accept that logic, which many people do, then it's not so important which country we invade. So Iraq becomes a good target as it's easier to invade, we can do some good in the process, and we've got some convenient excuses to use to justify the war.
We now know that we probably should have invaded Iran, but at the time it wasn't clear that we had any justification for doing so. As for invading Saudi Arabia, the actions of individual Saudi citizens could never have been used as a justification for war.
Dave
13 - gonzo marx
i guess it stems from the Concept that a pre-emptive Invasion against a sovereign Nation is against what America stands for
you seem to think it's ok to go Imperial...i do not
we agree on Afghanistan, that was in retaliation to an attack...no such Rationale exists for Iraq
instead, all there is are Imperialistic reason, which Mr Nalle mentions quite clearly...
kind of like going into a neighborhood, busting into someones house, killing some of the Family and taking over, because Dad was an asshole and you wanted to be closer to the mall
not my Concept of American Ideals and Principles...
yoru mileage may vary
Excelsior!
14 - Dave Nalle
As I've mentioned before, Gonzo. I'm against pre-emptive invasion and US Imperialism. That doesn't mean that I don't understand it and am not going to explain the logic behind it when appropriate. That doesn't mean I agree with the actions taken. However, once you accept the idea that we should have this sort of foreign policy, then the invasion of Iraq makes perfect sense.
Dave
15 - gonzo marx
as i have said numerous times..there is NO logic that can explain it...
and i refuse to accept that our Nation condones it..the Administration knew it wouldn't fly..so they "sold" it
and now it is too late, and we have to deal with it
the ramifications will haunt us for years to come, IMO
and that's enuff from me on that
Excelsior!
16 - David R. Mark
But the question remains, why did the Bush Administration offer this designation for Saudi Arabia, if it did not plan to follow through?
Or, can we assume one was a political decision in 9/04, prior to the presidential election, and the other is a political reality, in 2005, after the election?
17 - Dave Nalle
David, the answe to your quesiton is so obvious that the question really doesn't need to be asked. It's all posturing. We say 'you're bad' in order to get them to be more cooperative. We set up some fancy sounding designation of evilness and threaten them with it so that they might back off from some of their undesriable practices. It's transparent as hell.
Dave
18 - gonzo marx
and when they don't change...we do nothing
real good Foreign Policy there
just re-inforces the hollow bully theory many governments have of the US
just fucking brilliant
Excelsior!
19 - David R. Mark
But, Dave, the law says we have to follow up. If they just wanted empty posturing, then Rice should have given a speech, and left it at that.
20 - Dave Nalle
To quote Mr. Bumble from Oliver Twist "the law is a ass - a idiot"
I maintain the point that laws which dictate hard and fast procedures for foreign policy without any consideration of the regional situation or the nature of the country in question, are idiotic.
Dave
21 - Temple Stark
Hmm? September 2004. Now what was important about that time that made more empty statements even more critical.
I can think of three things.
22 - David R. Mark
So we all agree that the administratiom was doing something political, but empty, when it gave saudi arabia the designation? And, with a MSM that doesn't care, and a Republican-led Congress that won't do anything, this story will die on the vine?
23 - Dave Nalle
David, I don't think anyone on the left except you and a few hard core bush-haters cares much about this either. Certainly no one with any common sense is concerned about it.
Dave
24 - David R. Mark
Dave -- nice personal attack. Keep it up. You only lose credibility when you debate me, rather than the issues at hand.
Unfortunately, you're wrong. The only reason this story hasn't gotten bigger play, I think, is the reality that the Republican-led Congress won't do anything about it. There is a reasonable chance, though, that Sens. Collins and Lieberman -- who first pressured the administration to give Saudi Arabia the designation -- will follow up on it later this year.
You seem to think that these are "liberal" issues. Last time I check, Collins is a Republican. And if you go through the minutes of the appropriate Senate committees, you'll see that there are quite a few senators and others (testifying) who feel this is an issue that needs to be taken seriously by the Bush Administration.