Foreign Digest: Serbia, Nepal and Russia

Serbia’s Prosecution of War Criminals

Serbia is prosecuting several Bosnian Serbs for the 1995 Srebrenica Massacre, the worst crime against humanity in Europe since the Second World War, in which the Bosnian Serbs, supported by Serbia-dominated Yugoslavia, rounded up and killed thousands of Bosnian Muslim men and boys during the Bosnian Civil War.

 The war was one of several that resulted from the nationalist policies of Communist Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic that resulted in the breakup of Yugoslavia into its subdivisions, which were mostly ethnically based.  Serbia later became an independent state after the total disintegration of Yugoslavia.  Serbia, which is seeking greater integration with Europe, hopes to show the European Union through Serbian prosecutions for crimes against humanity from the Yugoslav civil wars that it has reformed itself and is committed to justice and respecting the rights of minorities.  It is hoped that Serbia’s commitment is sincere.

Nepal’s Adoption of a New Constitution

After a long and difficult process, Nepal’s Government has approved a controversial constitution that makes it a federation of seven secular states, based upon ethnic concentrations, each with its own republican legislature, with a parliamentary republican central government.  The Nepalese Constitution is secular, liberal (i.e. it includes safeguards for liberty), inclusive and respectful of the rights of women and various minorities.  Some ethnic groups objected to the drawing of the boundaries of these states or their lack of inclusion, while some Hindus wanted Nepal to declare itself a Hindu state, as it had been a few years ago under its monarchy.  Some of the concerns of the ethnic groups are expected to be addressed soon in constitutional amendments.

Nepal is led by a grand coalition government that includes both liberal, secular republicans and Leninist Communists.  After a civil war in which Maoist Communist rebels made significant territorial gains, the Nepalese Government agreed as part of a peace deal to end the monarchy; it established a republic in 2008.  The secular, liberal republican, Leninist Communist and Maoist Communist parties were unable to gain dominance in parliamentary elections while the Constitution was being drafted.  Despite their divisions, they were nevertheless all able to cooperate, with some support from ethnic parties, in the drafting of the Constitution.

I commend Nepal for its achievement.  May it enjoy peace, liberty, representative government, respect for minorities and prosperity.

Russian Federation’s State Sponsorship of Terrorism

           The Russian Federation’s military is now supporting the tyrannical regime of Syrian Dictator Bashar Assad.  Syria sponsors the Palestinian terrorists Hamas, the Lebanese Shi’ite terrorists, Hezbollah, and other terrorists through harboring or financing these organizations.  In addition to its own direct sponsorship efforts, Assad’s Syrian regime acts as a conduit of support for terrorists on behalf of its major ally Iran, the chief sponsor of terrorism in the world.  Thus, Communist Russian Dictator Vladimir Putin’s regime is providing material support to terrorists, which meets the definition of sponsoring terrorism.  Therefore, the United States Department of State should list the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism and the U.S. should subject it to the relevant economic sanctions.

Fourteenth Anniversary of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks

On this fourteenth Anniversary of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks on the United States, it is appropriate to remember the fallen, to commemorate the heroism of the first responders and volunteer rescuers and to be reminded of the evil of the Islamist enemy who perpetrated the massacre. 

It is also right to express gratitude to the military servicemen, law enforcement agents, intelligence officers, elected officials, other public servants and private citizens who have helped prevent another attack on the American homeland the scale of September 11 for the last fourteen years.

This anniversary is particularly noteworthy for the opening of the visitor center at the site of the crash of Flight 93 on September 11, 2011 in Pennsylvania.  The site commemorates the victims of violent jihad (Islamic holy war) and especially those civilians who were the first resistors to Islamist terrorists in the global War on Terrorism.  Their heroic acts saved the lives of others and have inspired many other Americans, including the three who thwarted a terrorist attack on a passenger train in France last month. 

May their example continue to inspire Americans and all good people of the world bravely to resist terrorism and other militant acts of jihad.  May God bless America.

Major Italian Reforms and other Improvements, 2014-1015

In my previous post on Italian news last month, I focused on political reforms.  Other reforms and improvements are the focus of this post.

Since my last update on general Italian news in 2013, the center-left-right Government of the Italian Republic has cut income taxes and created a tax credit for donations to support the arts.  It paid back businesses millions of dollars the State had owed while continuing the crackdown on tax cheating.  The Italian Parliament approved major public works projects to improve infrastructure that will include private funding and capped “golden pensions.”  The Italian Government gained approval by the European Union for the EU to take over from Italy the costly task of rescuing migrants in the Mediterranean Sea.  A major labor reform was approved by the Parliament to make it easier for businesses to terminate employees, a measure that has increased the confidence of businessmen to hire more workers, which has already lowered Italy’s relatively high unemployment rate.  These various measures reduce public expenditures or increase revenue or stimulate the Italian economy, which is out of recession and weakly recovering.  

In addition, a large percentage of the leading Italian passenger airline, Alitalia, which is partially owned by the Italian Government, was bought by the airline of the United Arab Emirates to keep Alitalia aloft. 

The 2015 World’s Fair is being hosted by Milan, Italy’s second city, since May until the end of October, with the theme of “Feeding the World, Energy for Life.”  Already more than sixteen million tickets have been sold, which is further boosting Italy’s tourism industry. 

There were judicial reforms enacted by the Parliament of Italy, particularly to clear up the backlog of civil cases.  The Parliament also reformed the bidding process was reformed and also enacted a stronger anti-corruption law, while the Government has continued the policies of previous Governments of seizing assets of the mafia and other organized crime syndicates.  These measures will also help the Italian economy, as they increase investor confidence, in addition to making commerce easier. 

A major anti-terrorism measure was also enacted by the Parliament.  The law makes it a crime to fight alongside jihadists abroad; criminalizes organizing, financing or promoting trips abroad to commit terrorism; includes in its definition of training in terrorism those who train themselves, instead of only those trained by others; includes stiffer penalties for terrorism, recruitment or the incitement of terrorism through the Internet; allows law enforcement to shut down websites that incite terrorism and allows the immediate arrest of anyone with explosives.    

Europe’s Migrant Crisis Disproves a Major Tenet of Isolationism

           Isolationists, those who believe in “non-intervention,” insist that problems in foreign states are only matters of concern for that particular state, or, at most, of that region, and not of concern for the interests of other states which, therefore, ought not to intervene in any manner.  The current crisis of tens of thousands of migrants fleeing wars or oppression in Syria, Libya and elsewhere in North African and the Middle East, which is the highest number in Europe since the Second World War, proves that the problems in those states are affecting other states beyond the region, which, in turn, is affecting the world.

            I have already posted that there have been three million refugees from Syria, for example, which is led by a terrorist tyrant and engaged in a civil war.  A million Syrians have fled to neighboring Jordan alone.  Such a burden on a small state risks its destabilization.  The economic burden on European states, such as Greece and Italy, even only for the rescue operations they conduct and their initial processing of the migrants, has also already been mentioned in some of my posts.  Italy is only weakly recovering from a severe recession while Greece, despite economic improvements under its previous center-right-led Government, is still depressed.  The Northern European states where the migrants settle are being burdened with hosting them.  Thus, Europe’s migrant crisis is affecting its economy and, in turn, the global economy.

            People have a right to seek asylum.  States to where they flee are legally obligated to take them in and hear their pleas and grant them asylum if they merit it.  States also have a moral obligation to rescue people off their shores. 

The refugee crisis creates the opportunity for people, including undesirables, to immigrate illegally for economic reasons, as well as for jihadists to infiltrate.  Human traffickers take advantage of migrants.  The smugglers can be stopped with better policies, but the tide of migrants fleeing war, terrorism and tyranny cannot be stopped. 

            Refugees, as I have mentioned previously, are among a series of international problems that a crisis even in only one particular state can cause.  When that state cannot resolve its problems, it becomes in the interests of other states to intervene, at least to some degree.  There is a broad spectrum of intervention, most of which is short of war, ranging from providing advice or helping to mediate disputes, to humanitarian aid or economic sanctions, to intelligence support or sales of arms or material. 

Indeed, had foreign powers not given into pressure from isolationists and not withdrawn from Libya after the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi or intervened more in Syria and, there would not be such a migrant crisis in the first place.  The premature withdrawal of American and Coalition forces from Iraq contributed to the circumstances that led to the wave of humanity emanating from the Middle East, just as the abandonment of Afghanistan after the Cold War led to the rise of the Taliban and its harboring of the al-Qaeda Islamist terrorists. 

The problems in a few foreign states have become problems for the world.  Now, the world must act, at least to rescue and take in refugees until they can return home, and to work toward solutions in the home states of the migrants in order that these people can return to peaceful, stable and free lands.  

Pennsylvania Liberal Governor Tom Wolf Expands the Ineffective Medicaid Welfare Program

           Pennsylvania’s liberal Democratic Governor, Tom Wolf, as expanded Medicaid under United States President Barack Obama’s federalization of health insurance (“Obamacare”).  The federal program is so ineffective in covering the costs of healthcare that many doctors already decline to accept Medicaid patients, which often forces them to seek basic healthcare at clinics and hospital emergency rooms that could otherwise be addressed in doctors’ offices.  Expansion of Medicaid will further burden the welfare program.

           

Wolf’s expansion of Medicaid eliminates the incentives for recipients to work in the previous system approved by conservative Republican Governor Tom Corbett.  Corbett’s plan had subsidized the purchase of private insurance instead of providing more government insurance.  It also had included incentives for better health practices and required some co-payments.  Even the liberal Obama Administration had approved Corbett’s plan. 

Wolf is regarded as the most liberal Governor in the United States.

The United States Congress Must Reject or Block the Iranian Nuclear Weapons Deal

           The United States Congress will soon debate approval of President Barack Obama’s deal between world powers and Iran’s Islamist dictatorship in regard to its nuclear weapons program.  The resolution to disapprove the deal is supported by a large bipartisan majority in both houses in which Republicans are in the majority, but the resolution is likely to be short of the two thirds supermajority necessary to override a threatened presidential veto, as most liberal Democrats in both houses support the deal.

            The deal legitimatizes the Iranian government, as well as its nuclear weapons program, which the agreement only temporarily suspends while allowing Iran partially to continue nuclear development that can quickly be converted to weapons development. 

The enforcement provisions of the deal are weak.  The Iranian regime may delay inspections for weeks and is even allowed self-inspection in some cases, while the U.S. is obliged to defend Iran’s program from sabotage.  Undisclosed Iranian nuclear weapons facilities would be oft-limits to inspectors, as would most Iranian military facilities.  There is no requirement under the deal that Iran be investigated for violations of previous nuclear non-proliferation agreements.  Iran has demonstrated its bad faith by already openly violating the terms of the tentative agreement reached earlier this year.

In exchange for the agreement, global economic sanctions on Iran would be suspended and $150 billion of the terrorist-sponsoring regime’s assets would be unfrozen.  Even sanctions on its long-range ballistic missile program would be lifted.  The lifting of sanctions and unfreezing of assets would strengthen the Iranian economy, which has been weakened currently because of the sanctions and the drop in oil prices.  Therefore, if sanctions were to be re-imposed on Iran for violating the deal, they would be less effective, meaning that the Iranian regime would be less deterred from violating the terms of the agreement.  The world powers would be reluctant to declare Iran in violation anyway, even apart from the harm it would cause to their own emerging commerce with Iran, as they have staked their reputations on the success of the deal.  The deal also includes amnesty for a terrorist who murdered scores of innocent civilians. 

Therefore, even if this agreement were successful in temporarily delaying Iran’s nuclear weapons program, which is doubtful, the lifting of sanctions and unfreezing of assets would boost the Islamist Iranian regime and would thus make it necessary to reject it.

Two of Iran’s neighbors, Israel and Saudi Arabia, are particularly either opposed to the deal or worried about its weakness.  The Obama Administration’s pledge of increased weapons for these American allies proves the Administration knows the deal will not adequately safeguard them from Iran’s nuclear program.  The deal would thereby accelerate an arms race in the volatile Middle East.  The deal would certainly boost Iran’s ability to sponsor terrorism, not only in the region, but globally.  The Islamist regime is the worst state sponsor of terrorism in the world, as it believes in spreading its type of Islamism around the world by any means necessary. 

The deal would have to be approved by the Iranian Islamist parliament.  Iranian parliamentary approval is uncertain because of differences in interpretation of the deal and the Iranian supreme leader’s insistence that sanctions be lifted permanently instead of suspended temporarily.  Nevertheless, the deal is scheduled to be debated in the U.S. Congress in the meantime.  

Congress must disapprove the deal and override Obama’s veto.  If it fails to override the veto, Congress must find ways to block the implementation of the agreement.  The U.S. and its allies must continue to find other means to thwart the Iranian nuclear weapons program while providing better support for the Iranian opposition that seeks liberty, respect for human rights, representative government and peace.  

Otherwise, the world will have to be saved from this deal that emboldens the Islamist terrorist-sponsoring Iranian regime from a new conservative Republican President in January of 2017.  

Recent Communist Repression, Aggression and Anti-American Militancy

There has recently been another Cuban crackdown on dissidents, with reported arrests of scores of peaceful demonstrators.  After United States President Barack Obama legitimized the Castro Communist dictatorship of Cuba by normalizing relations, demoralized dissidents in Cuba have been marginalized as the Castro regime has not significantly liberalized in any manner in exchange for American diplomatic recognition.  Diplomatic recognition of the Castro dictatorship as the legitimate government of Cuba, despite a lack of liberty or free elections, provides a propaganda boost to the Communist regime by legitimizing it and implies the U.S. regards the dissidents as wrong, or at least that liberty and human rights are not the highest American priority in its policy toward Cuba.  The dissidents seek political and economic freedom for Cuba.  American recognition of the Castro dictatorship has apparently emboldened it to continue its repression.

The Russian Federation has been making incursions from South Ossetia, one of the two breakaway portions of Georgia it controls, into Georgian territory, increasingly expanding the border southward into Georgia, including into ethnic Georgian areas.  Russia invaded the former Soviet Republic of Georgia in 2008 and maintains a significant troop presence in both South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which have become Russian puppet states.  As with its invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea, among other deeds, Communist Dictator Vladimir Putin continues to act aggressively in the face of Western weakness. 

China continues to expand its foothold on the disputed Spratly Islands by reclaiming several square miles of land from the sea in order to build up military installations on the islands that are claimed also by several other Asian states.  

Turkish Communists recently bombed the U.S. consulate in Turkey while Japanese Communists have continued to attack American military installations in Japan. 

Follow-Up on Medals for the Three American Heroes

           In my last post, I called for the three Americans who heroically led the thwarting of a terrorist attack by an Islamist on a passenger train in France to receive military and civilian medals.  I am pleased to report that the Airman and National Guardsmen are each to be awarded medals by the United States Air Force and the National Guard, respectively.  All three of the American heroes have been awarded medals by the French Republic, but the civilian member of the trio deserves a civilian medal from the U.S. government, which I continue to call upon it to award.

Three New American Heroes Deserve Medals

           As terrorists have made the world their battlefield, off-duty members of the armed services, and even civilians, can be on-duty ad hoc soldiers in the War on Terrorism at any point. 

The three Americans, together with two other passengers, who subdued the Islamist terrorist yesterday on a train in France all were acting bravely as soldiers in the war.  One is an active-duty soldier (an Airman), another a National Guardsman and the third a civilian.  Their heroic deeds saved many from death or injury.  The two servicemen should be awarded military medals for valor, including a Purple Heart for the one who was wounded, and the civilian a civilian medal for their actions.  They deserve not only decoration, but appreciation and admiration.  

Not only did these heroes save lives and achieve a victory in the War on Terrorism, but made Americans proud.  May their heroism serve as a model for all of us if ever faced with such a situation.  They are the latest in a line of such ad hoc soldiers during the war, such as the passengers of Flight 93 on September 11, 2001, or the passengers aboard the planes who subdued the shoe and underwear bombers, all of whom also deserve civilian medals.  With Americans acting like these three heroes, like those before them, the terrorists do not stand a chance.  

May God bless the three new American heroes!

Update on the Syrian Civil War and the Use of Chemical Weapons

           Three years after U.S. President Barack Obama warned Syria’s dictatorial regime of Bashar Assad against using chemical weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in the Syrian civil war, the regime continues to use chemical weapons with impunity, as well as to bomb civilian areas indiscriminately.    

Syria’s dictatorship had used chemical weapons after Obama’s warning, but signed a Russian-brokered deal in 2013 to give up its known stockpile of chemical weapons, which allowed the Assad regime to escape punishment for using WMDs.  The weapons were removed, but doubts have remained about any undeclared weapons or stockpiles of prohibited chemicals, such as nerve agents, that can be used for WMDs.  Indeed, some of the prohibited chemicals have been used in WMDs in Syria, whether by the regime or the “Islamic State” Islamist terrorists.  The U.S. was successful recently in winning adoption of a United Nations resolution to investigate the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but any more meaningful measures in the Security Council are vetoed by Russia, which is an ally of Syria.  As I posted previously, the Syrian regime also uses deadly chlorine gas, which is not classified as a prohibited “chemical weapon” under the agreement, despite its history of being used as such since the First World War.  See my posts, Syria Has Circumvented Its Deal to Give up Its Chemical Weapons, from September of 2014, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2014/09/syria-has-circumvented-its-deal-to-give.html, and Foreign Digest: Ukraine, China Syria and Iran, from January of this year, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2015/01/foreign-digest-ukraine-china-syria-and.html.  

A quarter of a million people have died in Syria’s civil war.  Three million people have become refugees.  The Assad regime, which is Iran’s only Arab ally, is a state sponsor of terrorism.  The U.S. is training only a few dozen non-Islamist rebels while targeting the Islamic State and al-Qaeda in Syria.  The Obama Administration’s proposed nuclear deal with Iran would free up billions of dollars for Iran not only to provide even more aid to terrorists, some of which are fighting in support of the Assad regime, but also for Iranian troops themselves in Syria.

Political Developments in Turkey and Greece

Turkey

            The Turkish opposition parties that together won a majority of the vote in last month’s parliamentary elections were unable to form a government by the deadline.  The Islamist President has called for new elections.  See my post from June, Islamists Lose their Majority in the Turkish Parliamentary Elections, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2015/06/islamists-lose-their-majority-in.html.  

            In the meantime, Turkey’s Islamist caretaker government did grant the United States access to its base at Incirlik from which to launch manned and unmanned aircraft to strike the “Islamic State” in Syria and Iraq.  Turkey itself also joined the fight against the Islamic State, as well as attacked Marxist Kurdish terrorists in western Turkey, where their rebellion has flared up, and in northern Iraq. 

Greece

            The leftist Prime Minister of Greece has resigned after losing the confidence of a significant minority within his far-left party when he gave into demands from the Hellenic Republic’s creditors for reforms in order to receive a third bailout from them, despite his party’s parliamentary election campaign in February on a platform of rejecting such a deal. 

As neither the two next largest parties, the center-right party or a new party formed by the governing party’s most leftwing rebels, are expected to be able to form a government, the President will call parliamentary elections next month.  The Premier’s rump leftist party, despite the defections, is again expected to win a plurality of seats, but have to form another coalition government.  It currently governs with a right-wing party which shares its anti-austerity platform.  The Prime Minister will remain in office as head of a caretaker government in the meantime. 

Greece’s creditors, the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), had insisted on spending cuts, privatizations, tax increases and market liberalizations in exchange for more loans in order to avoid a Greek default on its current sovereign debt, which is mostly owed to that troika, as well as a possible Greek abandonment of the Euro, the common currency of the European Monetary Union.  A Greek departure from the Eurozone would produce an uncertain degree of at least short-term harmful effects on Greece’s economy and an additional degree of effect on others.  The first two institutions of the troika are components of the European Union.  The U.S. is the largest contributor to the third troika member, the IMF.

Because Germany is the European state with the highest gross domestic product, German taxpayers have generously funded most of the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of loans to the Hellenic Republic to keep Greece in the Eurozone.  The Germans and other Northern Europeans tend to be more prosperous, as they emphasize work and savings more than Southern Europeans.  They complain about the Southern Europeans as lazy and unproductive, without considering the hotter Southern climate that reduces productivity and encourages a slower, healthier, more leisurely lifestyle, and lecture the Southerners incessantly about the necessity of being responsible by repaying debts.  However, Germany also has yet to pay Greece reparations it owes for its invasion during the Second World War.  The Nazi regime had been favored by the overwhelming number of Germans.  Furthermore, Germany does not contribute proportionately to its own defense, the cost of which is born mostly by the U.S., and it engages in defensive or peacekeeping missions in only limited manners, and thus is reliant on foreign taxpayers, like Greece.  In contrast, Greece spends a relatively larger share of its national budget on defense.  Its creditors insisted on some defense cuts, which the Greek Government accepted, despite objections by the right-wing junior coalition member, which nevertheless backed the deal. 

Although not to the extent of Italy, Greece is bearing a disproportionate share of the costs of rescuing refugees from North Africa and the Middle East because of its proximity.  The European Union has begun a rescue mission to replace Italy’s and is also sharing the load for taking care of the refugees.

The Greek Government also committed to better enforcement of laws against tax evasion.  Tax evasion and corruption have plagued Greece’s economy, in addition to overspending (e.g. generous pensions and transfer payments and too many civil servants), too much bureaucracy and lack of economic liberalization.  Greek governments of the late 1990s and early 2000s had lied about the Hellenic Republic’s finances to make them appear better in order for Greece to gain entry into the Eurozone, which some of the other European states apparently ignored for ideological reasons or the political benefit of the expansion of the common currency.  The previous center-right government had made much progress through austerity of reducing Greece’s sovereign debt, which is at the highest percentage of gross domestic product in the European Union.  Although there had been some economic recovery from the depression, the Greek economy remained weak, which allowed the governing leftist party to win a plurality and to form a coalition with the anti-austerity right-wing party.

I have posted several times during the European debt crisis over the last few years about the flaws of the European Monetary Union, of which the debt crisis in Greece is the best example.  

70th Anniversary of VJ-Day

           Today is the seventieth anniversary of Victory in Japan Day (VJ Day), which marked the Allied Powers’ victory over the Empire of Japan, the last of the Axis Powers, and the end of major combat in the Second World War, which began in 1939.

           The Japanese Empire’s announcement on August 14, 1945 (the date in the Western Hemisphere at the time) of its acceptance of the Allies’ terms of nearly unconditional surrender sparked the greatest global celebration in human history, which was befitting the end of the world’s bloodiest war.  The Japanese Empire signed the formal surrender on September 2 and the peace treaty in 1951, although it still has not signed one with Russia, the successor to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  A few Japanese soldiers continued to hold out until 1974, with some engaging in combat in the Philippines as late as 1972.  Although it is appropriate to commemorate the Japanese surrender on September 2, it is nevertheless appropriate to celebrate August 14 as the day victory was achieved and relative global peace began to be enjoyed for a time.

           The millions of allied soldiers and civilian government employees who served in any capacity, especially those who sacrificed their lives, or who were wounded or captured, or who endured various privations, as well as the resistors and countless civilians who also endured suffering in support of the war effort in innumerable ways from the home front, won one of the greatest victories for liberty ever by defeating national socialism to preventing the fascists from taking over the world and imposing the most brutal totalitarianism.

           It is right to express our gratitude to all of them for the freedom that we continue to enjoy, which they secured, and to renew our commitment to defend liberty against any form of tyranny.

Major Italian Political Reforms, 2014-1015

           Over the last year and a half, since my post last February about the formation of the current center-left-right Government, Renzi is Italy’s New Premier, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2014/02/update-renzi-is-italys-new-premier.html, the Italian Republic has made significant progress in political reform, as well as other reforms and improvements.  The focus on this post is on the political reforms.  The next post on this subject will be focused on the other reforms and improvements.

The Italian Parliament this year approved major electoral reforms.  The reforms were seen as necessary after parliamentary elections last year produced a lengthy hung parliament, as the center-left coalition gained a majority in the lower parliamentary chamber, but not in the upper chamber, which necessitated the formation of an unstable grand coalition of the center-left and center-right.  Additionally, Italy’s highest court had subsequently ruled the previous electoral law unconstitutional.

The new electoral law raises the threshold for smaller parties to win seats in the House of Deputies, especially if they are not part of a coalition, and lowers the large number of bonus seats for the party that gains the most seats, which it wins if it earns at least 40% of the overall popular vote.  If no party achieves a total of 40%, there will be a run-off election among the top parties to win the bonus seats to assure a majority for the victorious party.  Some elector choice has also been introduced into the election process; in place of party “blocked lists” of candidates, voters will be able to indicate some preferences within those lists.  Deputies will continue to be elected by groups within constituencies. 

In addition, some of the powers of the fifteen non-autonomous Regions (out of twenty Regions in total) will be transferred to the State, in response to a recent series of financial scandals in regional governments, while the reforms also enable greater oversight by the national government.  A related reform implements a plan to eliminate Italy’s more than one hundred Provinces, which are administrative subdivisions of Regions, to save money and increase efficiency by reducing bureaucracy through the removal of an entire layer of government.  Led by paid officials, Provinces currently have limited responsibilities, such as for roads and emergency response, which can be shared between the regional and municipal governments. 

Civil service reform had been enacted in 2014 and another political reform, the phasing out of public financing of political parties, had already occurred under the Government of Enrico Letta in 2013.

Another major part of the Italian Government’s political reform is a series of constitutional amendments approved by Parliament that will significantly change the Parliament by stripping the Senate of most of its lawmaking power, which it had shared equally with the House of Deputies, by restricting it primarily only to constitutional matters and dramatically reducing the size of the Senate by over two-thirds.  Instead of having equal powers with the House, including the power to veto bills approved by the other chamber, the upper chamber will instead be an assembly primarily of Italy’s twenty Regions and of a few major cities, with a reduced number of only five life Senators appointed by the President for merit.  The regional Governors would serve also as Senators without extra compensation to save expenses amidst the continuing recession and European Union financial crisis.  The President will remain a check on the House of Deputies, as he retains the power to reject parliamentary acts that are unconstitutional or that are not in accordance with the budget.  

The electoral reforms should make it easier for parties to gain a parliamentary majority in order to govern more effectively, while the other reforms will make Italian government less corrupt, less costly and more efficient.  

Legislation Is Introduced in the United States Senate to Replace Dollar Bills with Coins

           Senators John McCain, (R-Arizona) and John Enzi (R-Wyoming), who chairs the Budget Committee, introduced legislation in the United States Senate today to require the federal government not to expend more funds in the production of currency than its face value, among various other proposed savings.  The legislation would thus require the replacement of $1 Federal Reserve Note with a dollar coin.  

           Switching from paper bills to metal would save between $4 and $14 billion because of the significantly longer durability of coins than paper.  Proponents of replacing dollar bills with dollar coins believe that ending the printing of the $1 bill would be an essential step in promoting the use of dollar coins.

            In my post, Use Dollar Coins and $2 Bills, from October of 2011, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/10/use-dollar-coins-and-2-bills.html I encourage the use of dollar coins in the meantime to save the federal government money, as well as $2 Federal Reserve Notes.   I had posted about the benefits to the taxpayers of dollar coinage and refuted some of the objections to it in three earlier posts.  See Dollar Coins Are Not a Waste of Money, from September of 2011, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/09/dollar-coins-are-not-waste-of-money.html, Follow-Up: Dollar Coins Are Not a Waste of Money, from October of that year, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/10/follow-up-dollar-coins-are-not-waste-of.html, and the Obama Administration is Pennywise and Pound Foolish About Dollar Coins, from December of 2011, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/12/obama-administration-is-pennywise-and.html.

            The currently-minted Dollar coins are smaller and weigh less than Silver Dollars and Eisenhower Dollars, but not as small as Susan B. Anthony Dollars (1979-1981, 1999), which were smaller and weighed less than Half Dollars, even though Anthony Dollars were of the same composition.  I note Dollar coins, which are currently only minted in collectors’ sets, are smaller and weigh less than the equivalent value of Half Dollar coins or   Quarter Dollars.  Dollar coins are visually distinguishable in color, as they are composed of manganese brass, but also have distinctive edges, so as to be distinguishable for those who are vision-impaired. 

            Many foreign states have replaced their paper currency with coins with the same denomination of one of the state’s monetary unit.  Dollar coins are popular in El Salvador and Ecuador, where the U.S. Dollar is the official monetary unit, which suggests the American public would also be more accepting of them, especially if there were no more $1 bills printed.

            The legislation offered by the fiscally conservative Senators at least educates Congress and the American people that printed currency in its smallest denomination is more expensive to produce than coins and might encourage innovation in the printing of currency and mintage of coins that is more fiscally responsible.  I hope it also serves to encourage greater use of dollar coins in the meantime.  

Moldova Forms a Pro-European Government

           After recent parliamentary elections, three pro-European parties formed a coalition government this week for Moldova.  Their alliance means that the Communists will be excluded from the next executive, unlike in the current Government. 

           In my post last June, Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova Sign Trade Deals with the European Union, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2014/06/ukraine-georgia-and-moldova-sign-trade.html, I noted Moldova’s concern about Russian aggression and its interest in European integration as a counterweight.  Transnistria, which is inhabited, like Eastern Ukraine, by ethnic Russians, is a separatist region of Moldova.  Without the Communists, the new Moldovan Government will have a freer hand to pursue further European integration to safeguard its security, as well as to make it more prosperous.  

Cuban Tyrant Raul Castro Validates Barack Obama’s Dictatorial Acts

Cuban Communist Dictator Raul Castro is urging United States President Barack Obama to use executive power to circumvent the law that requires an American trade embargo against Cuba. 

This request from such a despot validates the argument that Obama’s serial use of such power to legislate by decree is not only unconstitutional because it violates the Separation of Powers doctrine, but dictatorial, as well. 

Genocide Denial Re: Turkey and Bosnia

Russia recently vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution declaring the slaughter by Bosnian Serbs, who had coined the phrase “ethnic cleansing” to describe their policy, of thousands of Muslims in Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995 “genocide.”  The Serbs had been stirred by the Communist Serb leader of Yugoslavia who was using extreme nationalism to maintain his dictatorship.  The Russian Communists sided with their fellow Slavs of the Government of Serbia, who had opposed the measure, which was timed for the twentieth anniversary of the massacre.  The United States had supported the resolution.

Alas, earlier this year, the U.S. failed to join much of the international community, led by the Holy See, in declaring Turkey’s genocide against Armenians as such at its centennial, despite the promise by Barack Obama during the presidential election campaign that the U.S. would.  Instead, bowing to pressure from Turkey’s Islamist Government, American statements fell short of using the word. 

It is imperative to be able to identify genocide in order to prevent it ever from happening again.

The Flawed Nuclear Weapons Deal Legitimatizes and Rewards the Iranian Regime

           In my post in May, Obama Legitimatizes the Iranian and Cuban Dictatorships, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2015/06/obama-legitimatizes-iranian-and-cuban.html, in which I commented on the preliminary deal between Iran and all of the Great Powers, including the United States, as well as Germany, to eliminate the Iranian nuclear weapons program, I noted that other critics had pointed out the deal’s numerous flaws.  Now that the details of the Obama Administration’s final agreement have been announced, there are even more concessions to Iran and worse flaws.

            As other critics have analyzed the deal thoroughly, it is necessary to make only a few general observations.  In the first place, it is not only futile, but counterproductive to the interests of the United States to legitimize an untrustworthy dictatorship by engaging in negotiations with it, especially one that is terrorist-sponsoring, such as the Iranian regime.  As I have noted in other posts, such negotiations confer diplomatic legitimacy, which is a propaganda victory for the dictatorship and a loss of morale for political prisoners and other dissidents who are subjected to its tyranny. 

Iran, like other dictatorships that agree to treaties, will certainly cheat on the terms of this nuclear deal, as the Islamic Republic already did on the terms of the preliminary nuclear agreement while negotiating the final one.  The Iranian regime believes it can get away with cheating because either it will not be detected or the consequences of being discovered would be minimal, particularly because of Russia and China’s potential vetoes of the requisite United Nations Security Council resolution to restore economic sanctions.  Even if the sanctions were restored, Iran would benefit not only from their easing, but from the unfreezing of well over $100 billion its assets.  Any trade contracts it would sign in the meantime would nevertheless be honored under the terms of the nuclear deal, even after sanctions might be restored.  Therefore, the net benefits to Iran of cheating are significant, while any price it might pay in terms of a military strike by the U.S. is obviously not credible, either to Iran, or to American allies.  

As this deal with Iran will thereby boost its terrorism-sponsoring capability, it will allow the Islamic Republic to provide more aid its main ally, Bashar Assad’s Baathist regime of Syria, another state-sponsor of terrorism.  Combined with the Obama Administration’s lackluster effort at balancing the need to fight both al-Qaeda and “Islamic State” Islamist terrorists in Syria with the necessity of replacing Assad with an ally in the War on Terrorism, the deal suggests the Administration has given up on any serious effort to overthrow Assad.

            The nuclear deal also rewards Iran for its nuclear weapons program because it allows the ending of economic sanctions unrelated to its nuclear program, specifically those in regard to terrorism and ballistic missile technology, the latter of which can be used to deliver nuclear warheads.  Iran already can reach Europe and is known to be developing even longer-range missiles. 

Therefore, the message the deal sends is that the way for even rogue states to obtain what they want from the United States and the other Great Powers, in terms of diplomatic legitimacy or concessions, is to develop a nuclear weapons program. 

It was obvious also that the Obama Administration wanted a deal with Iran, because it had no stomach for war or it sought the glory of a diplomatic achievement.  The Islamic Republic effectively exploited this tactical weakness to its benefit. 

Conservatives must urge Congress to reject the Obama Administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, as well as to strengthen economic sanctions against the Iranian regime, support more comprehensive and effective policies to roll back Iranian-inspired Islamist revolution, to oppose more rigorously those terrorists sponsored by Iran and its allies, and to support more strongly policies in support of liberty for the Iranian people.  Such policies, coupled with a credible military threat, would better deter the Iranian regime from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  

Racial Segregation: Another Reason to Remove Franklin Roosevelt’s Portrait from the Dime

           Last month, I posted about the controversial plan by the Obama Administration to remove the portrait of Alexander Hamilton from the $10 United States Federal Reserve Note and the ongoing movement to remove Andrew Jackson’s image from the $20 bill. 

In my post, The Obama Administration’s Plan to Replace Alexander Hamilton’s Portrait on the $10 bill is Divisive and Patronizing, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-obama-administrations-plan-to.html, I mentioned Jackson’s mistreatment of certain Native Americans and ownership of slaves as the reasons that some people, especially liberals, object to his portrait on the $20 bill.  I wrote that by that reasoning, Franklin Roosevelt’s portrait should be removed from the Dime because, as President, the Democrat interred and otherwise violated the civil rights of many American citizens and loyal permanent residents, without trial, on the sole basis of national origin.   

The current controversy over the Confederate Battle Flag reminds me of an additional reason to remove Roosevelt’s image from the Dime: Commander in Chief Roosevelt, even during the Second World War, a time of great peril that necessitated unity among Americans, maintained the racial segregation of the U.S. military.  The Continental Army under George Washington during the American Revolution had been racially integrated, but while the Confederate Army during the Civil War was racially integrated, the Union Army was not.  The U.S. military remained racially segregated during the Spanish-American War and the First World War.  It was not until after the Second World War, under President Harry Truman, that the American military was racially integrated. 

Surely, if at least certain people have a new right not to be offended and thus to ban types of expressions by the government or public officials they deem offensive, even if the reasons they take offense are mistaken, as if they may insist that their interpretation of a word, symbol or image of a person means only what they think it means instead of its original intent, and if the Confederate Battle Flag is to be banned because it offends those who associate it with racism and racial segregation, then Roosevelt’s image would be even more offensive because it ought to remind everyone of racial segregation in the military that even the Confederates did not commit.  Of course, most liberals are probably not aware of this fact, but even if they were, their usual selective indignation might cause them to excuse Roosevelt for his overall favored policies, in contrast to how they regard Jackson, the Founding Fathers, Christopher Columbus, and any other great figure in Western history with whom they do not totally agree.  Perhaps liberals might even consider not judging historical figures apart from the standards of the times in which they lived and instead give these figures credit for the overall progress they achieved, in contrast to liberals’ current iconoclasm.  It must be noted, however, that Roosevelt did not make significant progress on advancing the equal treatment of blacks, in contrast to the Founders and others who are now coming under attack by the liberal iconoclasts.  Roosevelt’s interments based upon national origin would be enough for any liberal to object to honoring him publicly if he were anything less than a liberal hero, but his racial segregation ought to force them to join with conservatives in opposing such an honor for one who violated civil rights and equality.  Of course, consistency is hardly the hallmark of liberalism. 

            As I have noted in several posts, American coins or currency should not feature images of people, except perhaps for the major Founding Fathers, as they should be unifying, not divisive, which is why the Founders established the practice on the first coins to feature only the allegorical female human figure of Liberty and other symbols, instead of self-promoting portraits of current leaders or of any other human.  Featuring images of humans creates controversy and also makes it difficult to maintain the custom of changing coin or currency designs periodically, lest the admirers of the person whose image is proposed to be replaced be offended.  All too often, as in the case of the Democratic Congress only a few months after Roosevelt’s death in 1945, images are authorized to be placed on coins or currency out of emotions and partisanship, long before presidential documents are publicized, including those classified as “top secret,” to allow adequate historical research and well before sufficient historical precedent can allow for proper consideration and judgment about the individual to be honored. 

           If Roosevelt’s image is not replaced with that of Liberty or some appropriate symbol, then I suggest it be replaced with a portrait of James Madison, the Father of the Constitution that Roosevelt violated.

Conservative Analysis of the Obama Administration’s Tolerance of Private Ransoms for Hostages

           American citizens who pay ransom to terrorists for the release of hostages will no longer be threatened with prosecution by the Obama Administration for providing material support to terrorists.

            No American had ever been prosecuted for paying ransom, but the threat of prosecution did have some deterrent effect.  The United States government will continue not to pay ransoms. 

Publicly announcing that no one will be threatened with prosecution is an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, as it is a blanket policy, which violates the constitutional requirement in Article II, Section 3 that the Chief Executive “Take Care That the laws be faithfully executed.”  A prosecutor may exercise discretion for reasonable cause, such as some significant matter of public policy or risk to security, or out of prioritization of resources, but publicly announcing a blanket policy of non-prosecution leaves no room for exceptions and is thus an act of executive lawmaking by decree, which violates the principle of the separation of powers by usurping the Congress’ legislative powers.  Such a policy is unlike an amnesty, which precludes prosecution of people after they commit a crime, but is given before they commit the crime, as if to condone it. 

The impetus for the change in policy was the Obama Administration’s trade of five Taliban terrorist leaders for an American soldier who had deserted to the Taliban in Afghanistan, which led the families of some hostages to object to the inconsistency.  The policy change follows the rewarding of the Cuban Communist dictatorship for with diplomatic recognition and the relaxation of economic sanctions for releasing a federal contractor working to increase internet access for Jewish Cubans.  The contractor had been unjustly detained by the Castro regime, which censors the Internet.  The Obama Administration further rewarded Communist Cuba by removing it from the State Department’s lists of state sponsors of terrorism, despite Cuba’s harboring of terrorists and pro-terrorist foreign policies.  The Administration’s tolerance for private ransoms is thus part of a pattern in placing a higher premium on obtaining the release of Americans captured abroad than on protecting other Americans from being taken hostage in the first place.

            The Obama Administration’s policy not to threaten prosecution for private ransoms for hostages encourages terrorists to capture more Americans and hold them for ransom as the tactic of hostage-taking is now financially incentivized.  In fact, ransoms are one of the main sources of fundraising for terrorists.  Therefore, the change in policy leaves Americans more vulnerable as terrorists conclude that the reward for hostage-taking is more worth the risk.  Furthermore, the ransoms finance additional terrorist or other militant acts.   

           Conservatives should promote more comprehensive policies to obtain the release of Americans who are taken hostage or unjustly detained for bargaining purposes and to deter hostage-taking instead of encouraging it.

The Obama Administration’s Plan to Replace Alexander Hamilton’s Portrait on the $10 Bill Is Divisive and Patronizing

           The Obama Administration has announced its intent to place an image of a woman in its redesign of the Ten Dollar United States Federal Reserve Note in place of that of Alexander Hamilton, although Hamilton’s portrait may continue to appear on some $10 bills.

            Hamilton was an American Founding Father, and in that capacity was the author of most of the Federalist Papers that defended the U.S. Constitution during the debate over its ratification, and the first and greatest Secretary of the Treasury who, among other major achievements in that office, established the dollar as the United States monetary unit.  Few other Americans accomplished as much as Hamilton, or, indeed, as much as any of the other greatest Founding Fathers, especially any women.  It is unclear if there would be a new image on the reverse of the $10 bill, which currently features the Department of the Treasury.

The Administration made clear it seeks to place a portrait of an individual woman on the $10 bill, not the allegorical female figure of Liberty.  Sometimes allegorical female figures or images of eagles have been printed onto paper American currency instead of individuals.  Portraits of Martha Washington, the wife of George Washington, and Pocahontas, who assisted the English colonization of Virginia, have appeared on American paper currency, in the latter case, on the reverse.  There are a number of American women who made accomplishments of general benefit, such as Sacagawea, the guide of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, whose image is featured on the Native American Dollar coin, or “Dolly” Madison, the wife of Founder and President James Madison who, as First Lady, rescued historical treasurers from the invading British forces who burned the White House during the War of 1812, or Helen Keller, whose image appeared on the Alabama State Quarter Dollar, but none of their accomplishments are equal to those of the Founding Fathers or to certain other historical figures.  The replacement of Hamilton recalls the controversial replacement of Dwight Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander during the Second World War who was later President, on the Dollar coin in 1979 with women’s suffragette Susan B. Anthony in appearing to be ideologically motivated or as patronage to a favored political constituency. 

As I have noted previously, Liberty was inspired by the Roman goddess of freedom.  Her image appeared on the first coins issued by the U.S. under Treasurer Hamilton.  In contrast to the Roman custom of placing the image of the current Emperor or his wife or family members on coins, the Founding Fathers did not wish to allow coinage to be used as a means of self-promotion or politicized to the benefit of a particular political party or faction or to divide Americans, but instead intended coinage to unite Americans.  Accordingly, no individual figure appeared on American coins, other than commemorative coins, until 1909, when a portrait of Abraham Lincoln appeared on the Cent on the centennial of his birth.  Liberty continued to appear on regular issues of coins until the mid-1940s, by which time every regular issue coin featured an image of an individual.  Currently, Liberty appears only on commemorative or bullion coins, except for the image of the Statue of Liberty on the reverses of dollar coins, which are no longer minted for general circulation.  

There had been a movement by liberals to remove Andrew Jackson from the $20 Note, but it is not scheduled to be redesigned until after the $10 bill.  He was the General who was the hero of the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812 and the founder of the Democratic Party.  Perhaps his most fitting achievement as President to merit his portrait on American currency is that he was the only President to pay off the public debt, among other significant achievements, such as successfully resolving the Nullification Crisis. Unlike Hamilton, Jackson is reviled by some, among other reasons, for his policies towards certain Native American tribes during the war and for his personal slaveholding.  An example of typical liberal inconsistency is that there is no movement by liberals to replace the image of liberal Democrat Franklin Roosevelt, which has appeared on the Dime since the year after his death in 1945, even though, as President, he interred without trial thousands of American citizens, as well as numerous loyal permanent residents, on the sole basis of national origin, during the Second World War, and violated the civil rights of many others.  I have also previously noted how coin designs used to be completely changed with greater frequency in the past, but have generally become frozen, except in the cases of series in which only the obverse or reverse change, for several decades because of politics; the same is somewhat true of currency. 

Such controversies over what historical figures should appear on coins or currency would not exist if, as I have noted in previous posts, the example of the Founding Fathers of not placing the images of individuals on coins, except for allegorical figures, would once again be followed, in regard to both coins and currency, except for commemorative coins.  At most, it would be reasonable to place images of only the most significant Founders on coins or currency, in addition to symbols.  A more fitting place, like commemorative coins, to honor other individuals is on medals or postage stamps where many individuals, places or events are honored.  Instead of being divisive or patronizing or reflective of partisanship, regular issue coins and currency ought to be unifying.  

Foreign Digest: Denmark, Mali, Cuba

Denmark

            The center-right won a plurality of seats in the recent Danish parliamentary elections.  If it can form a coalition government, it will replace the current center-left government.  Anti-immigration sentiment was a factor in the elections, as a smaller party that opposes the acceptance of asylum-seekers coming into the European Union to escape difficulties in Asia and Africa gained a significant enough number of seats to be part of a coalition.  Denmark has been a strong ally of the United States in the global War on Terrorism.

Mali

            The Malian government has signed a peace treaty with the largest separatist coalition of Tuaregs to end a lengthy insurgency, of which I had posted about previously.  The insurgency had led to a coup and the takeover of much of northern Mali by al-Qaeda Islamists who had allied themselves with various Tuaregs.  A French-led international force that included the troops of several neighboring African states helped Mali to liberate its north in a major victory in the War on Terrorism, but the jihadis fled into the desert, where they have launched sporadic attacks on Malians and the international troops.  Mali had already reached peace agreements with other Tuareg groups.  It is hoped that peace with the Tuaregs would help deter the Islamists from regaining power in northern Mali. 

            Al-Qaeda Islamists still control significant territory in Somalia and are able to launch attacks in its capital and in neighboring Somali allied states, although the rebels have been gradually pushed back by international forces in support of Somalia’s government.  Nigeria, together with several neighbors, has been battling Islamists in its north and has been having some recent success in halting the insurgents’ advance.  However, Libya’s internationally-recognized government controls only a relatively small portion of Libyan territory while various Islamists, including al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, battle for total control of Libya, thus making it a potential safe haven for Islamists, as well as a jumping-off point for terrorists into Europe.  It is critical, therefore, that Mali not be left to fall back into the hands of the Islamist enemy while these other African battles in the War on Terrorism continue to be fought.

Cuba

           A Cuban human rights organization reports that over half of the total Cubans who had been political prisoners since the Obama Administration normalized relations with Cuba remain prisoners of conscience, as well as others who remain on parole.  

Islamists Lose Their Majority in the Turkish Parliamentary Elections

           Turkey’s Islamist ruling party lost its majority of seats in the Turkish parliamentary elections yesterday. 

            A new secular Kurdish party achieved the 10% threshold to hold seats in Parliament, which will be the first time that Kurds will be Members of the Turkish Parliament, while the two main secular opposition parties earned the rest of the majority.  None of these parties is likely to govern in coalition with the ruling party. 

A coalition government must be formed by a certain time or else Turks will have to return to the polls for another round of parliamentary elections.  The current Prime Minister will continue to govern in the meantime, but only as a caretaker.  The Islamist President will remain in power, but his attempt to gain more powers constitutionally will be halted, as Turkey will remain a parliamentary, not a presidential state. 

The growing authoritarianism of Turkey’s Government and the President’s attempt at gaining more powers, as well as public corruption and an economic slowdown were the issues that led to the defeat of the Islamists.  The Islamist Government had repressed dissidents, compromised the independence of the judiciary and violated the freedom of the press.

            Turkey, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, had long been a secular representative republican oasis in the Middle East and a reliable Western ally, but has suffered worsening relations with its neighbors and the West amidst various crises in the Middle East, including the Syrian Civil War and the Islamist-Baathist insurgency in Iraq.  Turkey has aspired to join the European Union, but faced obstacles because of its decline of secularism and civil rights. 

           It is hoped that Turkey will enjoy liberty, secular civilian representative government, equality for minorities, peace, stability and prosperity.  It is also hoped that a new government will restore Turkey to its role as a trusted Western ally against Islamism, play a more helpful role in resolving the ethnic Greek-Turkish division in Cyprus and become more integrated into Europe.  

Update: The Obama Administration’s Continued Weakness in Promoting Religious Liberty Abroad

After pressure from conservatives, including this blogger, and others concerned about religious liberty around the world, United States President Barack Obama finally named an Ambassador-at-large for Religious Freedom, after another lengthy vacancy in the post.  See my post from August of last year, The Obama Administration Should Make More Effective Use of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-obama-administration-should-make.html.

After there was no Ambassador for Religious Freedom from 2009-2011 and again from 2013 until recently, which represents most of Obama’s presidency, he finally nominated a Jewish rabbi to the post.  The Ambassador reports to a Deputy Secretary of State, even though ambassadors-at-large hold a higher rank.  However, the Secretary of State assured Congress the ambassador would have direct access to him and also that religious freedom was a priority of American foreign policy.

            The lengthy lack of an ambassador, the placement of the office in terms of reporting in the State Department’s organization chart and the Administration’s practice of seldom championing freedom of religion, which is fundamental to liberty, combined to signal to foreigners that freedom of religion is an American foreign policy priority and that the Administration is thus less inclined to invoke the enforcement mechanism of the act that created both the office of the ambassador and the Commission on International Religious Freedom of accepting the Commission’s recommendations to impose sanctions on states of concern that do not respect religious liberty.  Obama has still not named several foreign governments that meet the definition as “countries of concern,” as he may do under the law that authorized the Commission.

Furthermore, although Obama signed another piece of legislation in August of 2014 to create a special envoy for the protection of religious minorities in the Middle East and South Central Asia, where much of the persecution is centered, even as religious minorities, such as Yazidis and Christians, for example, are being persecuted in Iraq and Syria by the violent jihadist terrorists known as the “Islamic State,” he has still not filled that post. 

Freedom, peace and stability are essential foreign policy interests of the U.S., as they are the basis for good relations and commerce.  Religious liberty is the foundation of all of these interests.  Therefore, conservatives and others concerned about the freedom of religion abroad should continue to pressure the Obama Administration to make it more clear that religious liberty as a priority in American foreign policy.

United States President Barack Obama Legitimatizes the Iranian and Cuban Dictatorships

Iran

            The many flaws and omissions of the preliminary deal between the United States and the terrorist-sponsoring Islamist regime of Iran to curb the Iranian nuclear weapons program that leave the results of the deal far short of what President Barack Obama promised have been pointed out by numerous critics.  In addition, there was immediately afterwards a disagreement between Iran and the U.S. on the basic framework of the deal.  In earlier posts, I have questioned even the premise of negotiating in good faith with such a regime with an open policy of promoting Islamism by unscrupulous means, including deception, and a poor human rights record. 

            The U.S. is, however, robustly supporting the Saudi-led Arab coalition fighting pro-Iranian rebels in Yemen.

Cuba

            President Barack Obama has removed Iran from the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism, despite its continued harboring of terrorists.  In addition, Cuba aids Venezuela, which, in turn, aids terrorists.  In fact, Cuba did nothing to deserve being removed from the state sponsor of terrorism list, just as it did little to merit American relaxation of certain economic sanctions and diplomatic recognition in terms of improvement of human rights.

            I have called for Venezuela to be added to the State Department’s state sponsor of terrorism list (Designate Venezuela a State Sponsor of Terrorism, from February of 2012, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/02/designate-venezuela-state-sponsor-of.html) and North Korea to be placed back onto it (A Consideration of Recent Alleged Instances of “Terrorism” and Related Observations, from January of this year, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2015/01/a-consideration-of-recent-alleged.html).  The de-listing of Cuba now leaves only Muslim states on the list: Iran, Syria and Sudan, which is out of step with Obama’s policy of going out of his way not to have the War on Terrorism be seen in the slightest way whatsoever as a war on Islam or at least on Muslims. 

           The direct negotiations by the Obama Administration with the Islamist Iranian and Communist Cuban dictatorships which sponsor terrorism legitimatize those regimes, as American negotiations with them are propaganda victories over the freedom-loving dissidents they oppress and are discouragements of their fellow countrymen to resist tyranny as the message sent by the President of the United States is that even the leader of the free world respects the dictators’ right to rule over their people.  Direct negotiations also further reward the tyrants’ bad behavior by being interpreted as forcing the U.S. to the negotiation table, as if brutal dictatorships are on equal terms of legitimacy with free states.  In the case of Cuba, it was the kidnapping of an American aid worker, and in the case of Iran, it has been its development of a nuclear weapon program that forced the Obama Administration to direct negotiations.  In addition to the propaganda gifts to these dictatorships, Obama has rewarded them with decreases in economic sanctions.  Moreover, direct negotiations with brutal despots are inherently ineffective, as tyrants do not usually negotiate in good faith. 

           Alas, the beacon of liberty, of which America has always been seen, has been dimmed by Obama.