Interfaith Strength

Does Awami League Victory Offer Hope for Real Change?

(Originally published 31 December 2008 in Weekly Blitz)

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Bangladeshi elections had been put off for so long that it was difficult to predict what they might produce. On December 29, 2008, however, the people of Bangladesh answered that question clearly by giving Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League (AL) a landslide victory. That’s both good news and bad news for the left-center party good news in that it need not make any dubious deals to being other parties into its ruling coalition; bad news in that the world will hold Hasina and her party responsible for what happens next. The AL is inheriting an economy in shambles, a still-corrupt officialdom, a nation infested with Islamist terrorists, and a seemingly ineradicable tradition of minority oppression, even ethnic cleansing. Curing those ails is an enormous task, and one key to success will be actions the AL takes to secure foreign support for its effort. In January 2007, I met with former Bangladeshi Home Minister Lutfuzzaman Babar at his home in Dhaka, three days before a military coup suspended elections scheduled to be held later that month.

The reason for the military’s intervention was that Babar’s party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), had rigged the upcoming vote so transparently as to render any potential outcome illegitimate. At the time of my meeting with Babar, there it still appeared that the election would take place as scheduled; and Babar along with the rest of the BNP was planning their next move as the nation’s leaders.

Babar asked me how I thought the United States could help Bangladesh and what we could do to secure that aid. I responded that “Bangladesh and your party in particular” are going to have a tough time convincing anyone in Washington or anywhere else to support you until “you take real action to stop three things: massive corruption, tolerating and even sponsoring radical Islamists, and the oppression of minorities, women, and journalists.” During the BNP’s long tenure in office, matters grew worse on all three dimensions. Babar himself remains in prison having been arrested by the interim government for his own role in Bangladesh’s seemingly endemic corruption. Often, the Awami League has touted itself the antidote to these ills, particularly the last two; and while there is no question that it is preferable to the BNP and its Islamist coalition partners, the swooning we see in some quarters are pre-mature. The AL has a long and hard road ahead of it, and it ultimately will be judged on its actions and their effectiveness for the people of Bangladesh; not on its fine words or the a priori support of others. And thus far, its actions fail to live up to its words.

Let us remember the unique situation that transpired just prior to its assumption of power. First, the BNP transparently rigged and somehow expected that the opposition, the entire diplomatic community, and most importantly the people of Bangladesh would not notice. By doing so, it revealed a level of corruption so deep that cheating was considered acceptable enough to be done in the open. But the AL only made matters worse. Its rants against BNP mendacity found the entire world on its side, but instead of proving itself to be in a class above the BNP, it showed itself to be no better. When I arrived in Dhaka AL leader Hasina was on television and in the press calling for violence in the street to “shut down” the nation. Instead of capitalizing on her support and going to various embassies in a statesman-like way, she acted like a demagogue that would bring the country to greater misery that it already was. The general impression in world capitals was that both the BNP and AL would bring the country to ruin if it meant scoring points against the other; that their leaders cared less about the national interest than they did about their own petty feuds. The AL’s actions confirmed that impression and so no one saw either party as a palatable alternative. In an historically unprecedented action, every western democracy called on the Bangladeshis not to hold elections.

Not long before that, the AL abandoned its stated principles of religious freedom and a secular government by signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the radical Islamist Bangladesh Khelefat Majlis (BKM). In exchange for BKM’s support, the AL stipulated that Islamic clerics’ fatwa would be binding on the entire nation if the AL won the election. The MOU parties also promised to ban any law deemed contrary to Quranic values, put madrass degrees on the par with public schools and universities, and outlaw any criticisms of the Prophet Muhammad. Undoubtedly, AL defenders would remind us that the party rescinded the MOU, but that was only after the elections were cancelled—and almost a month after it at that.

While the Awami League frequently identifies itself as the defender of minority rights, its record is less than convincing. Professor Abul Barkat of Dhaka University has conducted the most authoritative study on Bangladesh’s Vested Property Act (VPA). The VPA was modeled after Pakistan’s Enemies Property Act, and like its predecessor is a racist and retaliatory law aimed at Hindus and other minorities. It empowers the Bangladeshi government to seize the property of non-Muslims and distribute it to Muslims of their choice. As Barkat has shown, the percentages of the spoils collected by the BNP and AL are almost identical with their positions flip flopping depending on who is in power. At the end of its tenure in 2001, the AL passed the Vested Property Return Act, but that was recognized as an empty gesture that would never be implemented.

This is not to say that the world should despair that there will be no change under the new AL administration; but it should caution everyone not to assume things will change based on words alone. There is hope, however. This AL’s landslide victory presents the party with an opportunity it has not had in the past; namely, to operate free of the pressures and interests of coalition needed partners. Sheikh Hasina has stated that the economy and the people’s welfare will be her top priority, and success will require her government to tackle the issues mentioned in this article in order to win international credibility for Bangladesh. Her government can take some basic actions to secure that.

As one of the AL’s first actions, repeal the Vested Property Act and set up a commission to return seized properties to their rightful owner. By this point, even members of the government have called the VPA “a black law” in that it has no justification by any standard of human rights and jurisprudence. All parties interviewed about the VPA said they are looking for the AL to right this historical wrong. It would be easy to do and do quickly as a message to the world that this Bangladeshi government is committed to act and not just talk in upholding the principles basic to the people and culture of Bangladesh.

Secure cooperation of the United States and NATO and announce that Bangladesh will work jointly with them in a grand alliance against Islamist terror. There was a time that Bangladesh was identified as a moderate Muslim nation and one that would stand against terror. That time is long past thanks to a BNP government that abetted the expansion of radical Islamists in its country. It has been rumored that even Osama Bin Laden has at times found safe haven in Bangladesh. To re-establish its anti-radical credentials and win international goodwill, Bangladesh must show that it is ready to back up its words with action.

Control the open border with India that allows contraband and terrorists to flow freely between the two countries. I have been to that border and saw how easily people and goods move illicitly between the two countries. That is not good for Bangladesh or India. It has devastated the border areas and costs both countries enormous amounts in resources dealing with the consequences. The AL has maintained cordial relations with its giant neighbor, and controlling the border could be the first step in building a new relationship that will benefit both countries greatly.

Conduct behind-the-scenes negotiations and then announce that as a moderate Muslim county, Bangladesh will act as an honest broker in the Middle East conflict. In 2003, I published “Dear Bangladesh” in which I recognized that Bangladesh was uniquely positioned to take on this role. Since then, however, hard-line statements by BNP officials (many far more strident that those heard anywhere in the Muslim world except in rogue states like Iran) have made such a role less likely. There have always been efforts to establish some level of contact between Bangladesh and Israel, and one that would not compromise Bangladesh’s support for the Palestinians or jeopardize its expatriate workers in Saudi Arabia. It would be another way for Bangladesh to re-establish its moderate Muslim credentials, and it would change Bangladesh’s role from that of a poor victim to a major international player that needs to be courted.

Immediately allocate police and military resources to enforce laws against minority oppression and attacks on minorities. Make this RAB’s primary role. The AL has said all the right things about supporting an end to this rampant minority oppression and ethnic cleansing of Bangladeshi Hindus; but it has yet to say how it will enforce laws that have proven invulnerable to enforcement. Not only do anti-minority incidents in Dhaka and other large cities proceed with impunity (and this is the case whether the victims are Hindu, Christian, Ahmadiyya, or any other minority), but the countryside has been open season on non-Muslims for decades where even local law enforcement participates in or allows the atrocities. It would be another way the AL can show it is ready to back its words with action. And it might turn its human rights albatross (RAB) into an instrument that enforces human rights.

Continue the mandate of the Anti-Corruption Commission. Strengthen the Commission and staff it with individuals from all major parties and the military so its justice will be handed down equitably. Add provisions to prevent this variety from paralyzing its efforts.

Launch an initiative for international investment and tourism in Bangladesh. A prominent AL supporter told me, “We don’t want handouts, we want joint ventures.” The future of Bangladesh lies in its ability to attract foreign capital. There are resources that have not been tapped, unmet needs of this giant population, and natural beauty and wonder that would make anyone’s vacation a memorable one. By showing the world that she truly is leading a new Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina can build the international confidence needed to sustain her people well into the 21st century.

Drop the false charges against Weekly Blitz editor Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. These charges have been the single greatest impediment to Bangladesh securing a Free Trade Agreement or any other trade benefits with the United States. The Bangladeshi embassy in Washington has been trying for years but with no success. A few friends prevailed upon lawmakers to try and sneak the benefits through in at least two other bills, but they were discovered and the bills not even brought out of committee. This prosecution—which successive government representatives have admitted to be false—also has been condemned in parliaments in the European Union, Canada, Australia, and elsewhere. The AL has an opportunity to have the charges dropped as a vestige of the BNP-Jamaat effort to censor dissent and placate Islamists even if it causes the people of Bangladesh to suffer. Maintaining the charges also stands in violation of a resolution by the United States Congress and prevents various benefits even from being considered.

Drop the ban on travel to Israel. The ban has angered several members of the United States Congress and stands as an undue restriction on Bangladeshi citizens. It also is something that it can do quickly and easily that will demonstrate a definite break with the policies of the past. Even some Islamists, such as those of the Khelafat Andolin Bangladesh, have criticized the travel ban as un-Islamic.

Obama-led Regional Solution for South Asia Should Scare the Heck out of Us

(Originally published 27 December 2008 in Canada Free Press)

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

For many conservatives, the election of Barack Obama to become the 44th President of the United States gave cause for concern on many fronts.  But perhaps the area for which Obama had the least experience and espoused the most dangerous ideas was that of foreign policy and in particular, the way he would approach international conflicts involving radical Islamists and their supporters.

Even before he is inaugurated, events might be setting the stage for an early test of those concerns.

In the wake of deadly terror attacks in Mumbai, India, at the end of November 2008, there have been increased calls for Obama to try and craft a “regional solution” to the conflicts in that part of the world.  Even before those attacks, he already seemed determined on that course.  Two weeks before the attacks on November 11, he told The Washington Post that he wanted to explore a “regional strategy for Afghanistan.”  According to a report by the BBC, since Mumbai, “Obama has talked about looking at Afghanistan as ‘part of a regional problem that includes Pakistan, India and Iran.

’There have been persistent rumors that he will appoint veteran US diplomat Richard Holbrooke as a regional “troubleshooter” for South Asia; and while nothing has been confirmed, Washington insiders continue to insist that the Holbrooke appointment will happen some time after Obama’s inauguration on January 20, 2009.  Holbrooke has a reputation as something of a maverick but seems pretty much in lockstep with the man who might be his boss in the near future.  In a recent article in “Foreign Affairs,” Holbrooke said he wanted to see a South Asian regional strategy that includes Afghanistan and involves Iran, China, and Russia, as well as India and Pakistan. He called the Afghan government of Hamid Karzai “weak”  and wants the US to impose stern conditions on any aid to it.  The notion of resolving issues that have plagued the India-Pakistani relationship since the countries’ birth, as well as the war in Afghanistan, might appeal to Obama’s penchant for grandiose thinking, but many South Asian experts are warning against it.

International security specialist, Ashley J. Tellis, who is with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and has particular expertise with Asian strategic issues, told the BBC that he does not agree with the ideas espoused by either Obama or Holbrooke.

“It was a bad idea before the Mumbai attacks and a bad idea after the Mumbai attacks. The faster we get away from it, the better it will be not only for the US but for peace in South Asia.”

He said the essential problem is “a weak Pakistan that is unable to control its national territory….The other half of the problem is the elements of the Pakistan state that are complicit with groups that pose a threat to Pakistan and the international community. The incoming US government will have to confront these issues directly.”  That does not seem to square with what Obama means when he talks about “outreach” to the Muslim world or with his ideas of a regional solution in South Asia.

The history of US involvement in Middle East peace talks also provides a series of cautionary tales about attempted regional approaches to international conflicts.  Whether it was President Bill Clinton’s failed efforts at the 2000 talks in Camp David and Taba; or President George W. Bush’s more recent Annapolis initiative; these things simply have not worked.  And there are several reasons for that.

They presume a depth of knowledge that does not exist.  One would be hard pressed to find even the most well renown American or European who has a sufficient grasp of the many South Asian conflicts even to identify those who would need a place at the negotiating table.

They assume that individual conflicts are easily solved.  Kashmir alone is a hornet’s nest of competing sovereignties from India and Pakistan to Kashmiris demanding a state of their own; not to mention the part of Kashmir that China controls.  Any guesses what happens to that?  Speaking of China, it claims a northeastern Indian state, Arunachal Pradesh, which India has no intention of relinquishing.  Does Obama believe that his silver tongue can untie that Gordian knot?

They assume that trading the rights of some for those of others will result in everyone agreeing for some greater good.  Most of the conflicts feature Islamists on one side and democracies on the other; or even Muslims and Hindus opposed to each other.  Do we sacrifice Bangladesh’s Hindus to the Islamists there in exchange for Hindu control in Kashmir?  If we prevail on Pakistan to close (or allow others to close) its borders to Afghan Islamists, what does it get in return and who suffers?  That is not as far-fetched as it might seem to some.  Numerous reports tie the Mumbai terrorists to the Bangladesh-Nepal area and even more tie them to Kashmir; because the two bundles of issues are related.  If the United States could not get Jews and Muslims to agree on what to do with the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, it should not expect any better results with Hindus and Muslims over the Ram Temple.They assume that there are common loci of control and equal determination to enforce the agreements.  Just as Hamas has made it clear that it will not abide by any Middle East peace that recognized the State of Israel, the various Islamist terror groups in South Asia cannot be counted on to lay down their weapons for any sort of compromise.  Who will force the Taliban in Afghanistan to do it?  Who will make sure that Lakshar-i-Taibi respects any agreement on Kashmir?  Pakistan will not; if we leave it to India, that will mean more not less conflict.  That same approach continues to fail in the Middle East because it does not force the Arabs to rein in the terrorists; it expects Israel to do so and accept the approbation when it does.

Because these conflicts in the Middle East and South Asia involve democracies that want peace and will live with compromise sitting across the table from tyrannies and parties that have stated they will not compromise on their maximalist demands; a West frustrated, embarrassed, and confused about its impotence, leans on the democracy to make concessions.  But they demand nothing from the other side in return.  In essence, they reward uncompromising, even genocidal, positions; and history has made it clear that the only thing to come from rewarding bad behavior is more bad behavior.

In the end, attempts to resolve the many South Asian conflicts is doomed to failure until the third parties (whether the United States, the European Union, or the United Nations) recognize that the essence of any solution is the defeat of radical Islam and all that goes with it from ethnic cleansing to hate-infused education; and they make action—not words—on this front contingent on any attempt at a “regional solution.”

Are Today’s would-be Peacemakers Really Blessed?

(Originally published 13 December 2008 in Canada Free Press)

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

“Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9) truly are inspiring words.  Especially at this time of year we hear sermons and pious statements from religious and secular leaders on that very theme.  Indeed, in light of the recent carnage in Mumbai, India, these words are particularly poignant.  And what could be wrong with making peace?  Nothing; so long as we understand that peace is not the mere cessation of hostilities; that peace without justice is a chimera; that a peace which does not address the difficult issues underlying the conflict is a temporary truce at best that actually encourages more war.  Unfortunately, our contemporaries hunger for peace so terribly that our would-be peacemakers ignore these important distinctions with alacrity.

In a week when Americans gathered with their families to give thanks for their blessings and pray for guidance, Islamist terrorists carried out coordinated deadly attacks across the Indian city of Mumbai.  If Delhi is India’s Washington, Mumbai is its New York.  And just as Islamic radicals chose New York as their primary target on 9/11, their choice of Mumbai for this terror strike was made to let Indians know that even their country’s greatest cities were not invulnerable.

Two Sundays later, I addressed a memorial for Mumbai’s victims in the Chicago suburb of Naperville, IL.  The people who attended the ceremony and certainly the people who spoke were good people. The weather was nasty, and most Chicagoans were preoccupied with our professional football team at the time; but we all felt that this was more important than any of that.  I was preceded on the dais by Naperville’s Mayor George Pradel and India’s Consul General in Chicago Ashok Kumar Attri; I was followed by a local Chabad rabbi, a friend of Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife Rivka, who ran Mumbai’s Chabad House and whom the terrorists tortured and murdered.  (Chabad is an arm of the Orthodox Lubavitcher Chasadim, based in Brooklyn, NY.)

These people certainly had reason to be angry, and they were.  Their condemnations of the attacks and words of mourning for the victims were sincere.  But it is no coincidence that I was the only speaker that day that identified the terrorists as Islamists and our foe as radical Islam.  While genuine, the other speakers could have been talking about any terrorists or even run of the mill criminals.  In fact, before the event, its master of ceremonies telephoned me and made a point of saying that this was not to be a time for “blaming anyone or any country” and that they wanted the event to be free of any “emotional” speeches.  I responded rather bluntly that the people who asked me to speak did so for a reason, and in doing so they knew exactly the sort of speech they would get.  Still, he took me aside prior to the event’s start to make the same point and did so again in his opening remarks, which called for peace.

“Peace.”  It is difficult to hear that word without thinking “just peace,” which is its lingua franca these days and has come to mean a peace process that is more concerned with appeasing aggressors who cry crocodile tears about perceived injustices than with genuine peace.  The week before the ceremony in Naperville, US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was flying around South Asia—on our nickel, by the way.  Was she there to coordinate anti-terrorist strategy with India or force Pakistan to end its support for Islamist terror?  No, she was in South Asia to “reduce tensions” between India and Pakistan.  India had just been attacked by a terrorist group based in Pakistan and supported by its Pakistani intelligence, and Rice was there to be “even-handed”?  Neither she nor any other US official urged Americans to refrain from military action after 9/11; A hostile power had invaded our country and murdered our fellow citizens; and we were not ready for someone to tell us to calm down.  We all stood with President George Bush when he rightly said “you’re either with us or against us.

”Yet, my government repeatedly asks others to do what we would not do.  Many journalists were calling the Mumbai attacks “India’s 9/11.”  It might have been on a smaller scale, but that nation experiences continuing Islamist attacks, most of them Pakistani-based, too.  When I was in India earlier this year, there was a terror attack or counter terrorist action every day.  Similarly, when Islamists from Hamas or Hezbollah send rockets or suicide bombers into Israel, our Administration almost invariably flies in envoys to “reduce tensions.”  But they have in reality reduced nothing, except the period of calm that ultimately follows a justified retaliation against the terrorists’ supporters.  In fact, the most Rice, the European Union’s Javier Solano, and others ever achieve is “peace in our time.”  Their efforts have not stopped terrorism; if Arab terrorism against Israel is down, it is due to Israeli efforts.  There is ample evidence of almost daily attempts at terror attacks by the Arabs.  When I asked an Israeli official if they stop them at the border, he smiled and told me, “We stop most of them in their beds.”

My fellows on that podium were no less passionate than I am; they might have felt pretty much the same as I do.  The difference is, as I put it that day, I am “not retrained by the shackles by political correctness, protocol, or politeness.”  As average citizens, that is our strength—and our duty.  If politicians have to worry about lawsuits and public attacks, we do not.

If our governments have issued directives that officials never speak of Islamist terror or radical Islam, it has no power over us.  If our mainstream media fears the reaction of CAIR and other groups; we do not.And we need to exercise that power and identify our enemy every chance we get; in every venue available to us; until the rest of the people wake up to the threat.  Some of us are already organizing our fellow citizens to do just that.  For we know that refusing to face our adversaries head-on only strengthens them.  Remember the attacks on President Ronald Reagan after he called the Soviet Union an evil empire—in contrast to his predecessors?  But it took that sort of honesty to force the collapse of Communism in Europe.  Nobody in their right mind wants war or longs for it; but history has shown us time and again that if we go after a false peace, war is exactly what we will get.

Causes of Mumbai Terror; Potential Reaction

(Originally published 29 November 2008 in Canada Free Press)

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Chicago, USA—Many journalists have referred to the recent Mumbai terror attacks as “India’s 9/11.”  Noted anti-terrorist and human rights expert on South Asia, Dr. Richard Benkin, has been warning about the terrorist threat in India for years.  “On my last trip there,” he said.  “There was a terrorist attack or counter-terrorist action every day.  The carnage in Mumbai was new only in the attention it received.

”Whether or not the anger those attacks generated will be translated into a sustained resolve to overcome terror at its multifaceted source will depend on a number of factors, Benkin said.  “But all of it is within the control of the Indian and allied governments.”  He also warns not to let the attacks in western India take focus from the much more volatile and dangerous northern and northeastern front.

Dr. Richard L. Benkin, Founder of Interfaith Strength, is an anti-terrorist and human rights activist who has traveled to South Asia on multiple occasions to free political prisoners, visit refugee camps, identify the alliance among South Asian Islamists and Communists, oppose Islamist radicals, and protest the ethnic cleansing of Bangladeshi Hindus.  He currently is working with South Asians in the United States and elsewhere to develop anti-terror and human rights organizations.

Benkin is available for interviews and commentary and can be contacted via telephone (+1-847-922-6426) or email (drrbenkin@comcast.net).

Just what we Need, More Bias from USA Today

(Originally published 21 November 2008 in Canada Free Press)

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Once upon a time, people believed that newspapers maintained a firewall between news and editorials.  The first was governed by the big “W’s,” which confined the articles to reporting What, When, Where, and Who.  Only on the editorial page were readers to find the editors’ or individuals’ opinions, and they were identified as such.  Perhaps it never existed in reality.  Perhaps a pristine pure reporting of the news is not even possible, given the role of editorial decisions about what is and what is not included in newspapers.  Even so, today’s news media go well beyond the inevitable judgments made by individual editors who must determine what information goes into the limited space at their disposal.

For years, the media and their sycophants scoffed at notions of a leftist bias and worked overtime trying to discredit them.  When an insider, CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg, dared to speak publicly about it, his bosses and their competitors ostracized him.  Today, Goldberg is a recognized authority on the media and does not appear in the least damaged by the mainstream’s jihad to marginalize him and his message.  The American public seems reconciled to the bias.  In a 2007 Zogby Poll, only eleven percent of the respondents said “the media doesn’t take political sides.”  On the event of the last US Presidential election, almost eight of nine respondents told the Pew Research Center “most journalists want to see [Democrat Barack] Obama, not [Republican] John McCain, win on Nov. 4.”  Eight percent said the media does not take political sides.  A Rasmussen poll found a ten to one opinion that reporters are “trying to hurt [Republican Vice Presidential candidate] Sarah Palin with their news coverage.”  Successive polls by the Gallup organization, Harvard and other universities, and more from Rasmussen, Pew and others come to the same conclusion.

The stock market suffered another severe loss on November 19 and, naturally, newspapers all over the country had banner headlines about the economic crisis.  But there is a difference between reporting that (bad) news and purposely fanning the flames of insecurity and fear that contribute to more dire economic news.  Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, for instance, led with “Stocks, Bonds Tumble to New Crisis Lows.”  It also featured a prominent story on the same front page with the headline “Before the Bust, These CEOs Took Money Off the Table,” which reported on “fifteen corporate chieftains of large home-building and financial-services firms” who received over $100 million each over the last five years in compensation and profit from stock sales.  Bad news?  Certainly, but it was reported in a straightforward manner that did not try to move readers to any particular opinions.

Compare that with USA Today:  “Anxiety surges, stocks plunge.”  Stocks plunge—a fact; anxiety surges—not so objective.  The tenor of the article that followed was that the US economy is headed to its worst performance since the Great Depression.  Now, to be sure, things are bad.  But the worst since the Great Depression?  Hardly.  Where are the breadlines, the executives jumping out of windows, and so forth?  It is possible we could get there, but not a certainty, and individual confidence can have a lot to do with what happens.  If people see the current prices as the best they will get for their investments, more will sell meaning more supply and less demand.  Many Americans already are cutting back; cut back too much out of fear and more retailers will tank.

The drop in stock prices, according to USA Today, “Put Wall Street on track for its worst year since 1931, as a deepening economic gloom gave investors little reason to wade into a market that has wiped out nearly $10 trillion in wealth since the October 2007 peak.”  Interesting how neither USA Today nor its other biased cronies were seen cheering the Bush Administration as an economic wonder for reaching that peak.  Nor does the paper recall the “stagflation” of the Carter years—double-digit inflation, high unemployment, and low or no growth.  And previous USA Today editorials and articles seemed to think it was just fine for American taxpayers to “invest” in the three blind mice from Detroit.

At the close of its article, USA Today has a little box with five time periods and the percentage of value lost by the Standard & Poor’s 500 during those times.  The text in the box says, “The benchmark S&P 500 index is on track for its worst year since 1931.”  But what it means by “on track” or even a year varies wildly.  The worst drop was September 7, 1929 to June 1, 1932 (-86.2 percent); then March 6, 1937 to March 31, 1938 (-54.5 percent); the most recent one, March 24, 2000 to October 9, 2002 (-49.1 percent), which began in the Clinton administration but the media seems to have ignored that for the past eight years; this one October 9, 2007 to November 19, 2008 (-48.5 percent); and January 11, 1973 to October 3, 1974 (-48.2 percent).  Considering that the periods are 33, twelve, 30, 13, and 22, it is difficult to know what USA Today means by a “year.”  In fact, ten percent of the value lost in the current period measured by USA Today occurred after the one year mark, making the one year drop since October 9, 2007 43.6 percent.  This sort of phony comparison would not pass muster in a freshman economics class; yet, USA Today is comfortable putting it on its front page.

Nobody today is looking for feel-good reporting about the economy, but neither do they need deliberate fear mongering.  It appears that media bias, however, has trumped quality.  The mainstream media is intent on doing all it can to lay the current crisis at the feet of the Bush Administration.  We can expect them to engage in a chorus of “Happy Days are Here Again” once Barack Obama is inaugurated in January.  This way, they can help Obama indemnify himself against public disappointment in his (likely) inability to fix the ailing American economy by doing what the Democrats and the media have been best at over the past eight years:  blaming George W. Bush, saying he left Obama with an economy in its “worst crisis since the Great Depression.

”The media and the Democrats did not mind a crisis that would be laid at the feet of the party in the White House—so long as that party was Republican.  But the midterm elections will be upon the American people all too quickly, and is not likely that things will be too much better by then; and they certainly will not improve with the big government policies promised by Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress.  The last time this scenario played out was in 1992 when Americans elected Bill Clinton to the White House on a promise of change (sound familiar?); and in 1994, when public revulsion at his policies brought in a wave of Republicans in midterm elections.  Just as they shilled for Obama and the Democrats in the last elections, the media are hoping for to repeat their victory in 2010—and in 2012 when Obama will be asked to account for ongoing problems, and the media again will tell us to just blame George Bush.

What Happened to Border Control?

(Originally published 17 November 2008 in Canada Free Press)

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Even before the US economic crisis pushed all other issues out of the recent Presidential election, an issue that many thought would be a dominant one mysteriously dropped out of the public dialogue: illegal immigration and border control. Not only is that curious but dangerous as well. Most of the Democratic leaders who will try to shape US policy over the next four years have stated their preference for the sort of “comprehensive” immigration reform that a massive popular action defeated in the Senate last year. During the primaries, candidate Barack Obama charged the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement with “terrorizing” people when they crack down on illegal immigrants. The subsequent silence about this during the campaign, has given Obama and his allies a sense of entitlement to affect their agenda even though it is at odds with the sentiments of most Americans. In an August 2008 Rasmussen poll, 69 percent of Americans said that border enforcement is more important than legalizing aliens and only 14 percent thought the government is doing enough to secure the borders. The survey also showed that 56 percent of Americans favor an enforcement-only approach to immigration reform with no path to citizenship for illegal aliens.

“Enforcement of existing laws is the Number 1, Number 2, and Number 3 priority for immigration reform among Americans”, said Scott Rasmussen.

If anything, sentiments like these have hardened in response to new economic realities. If the crisis does not end quickly—and no one seems to think it will—conflict between “illegals” and citizens likely will become more intense. The argument that illegal aliens take jobs Americans refuse to take will be even less compelling for the radicals’ open borders policy. Already, according to an ABC news report, more English-speaking citizens are competing for jobs previously held by English-impaired citizens.

Earlier this year, I traveled along India’s borders with Nepal and Bangladesh. The former is an open border, which allows free movement and transportation of goods without so much as an inspection. The latter is merely out of control. Conditions there could very well be a cautionary tale of what the future might look like for us if our new leaders follow an open borders agenda and provide amnesty for people who broke the law and became squatters in the United States.

Proponents of this policy have alleged that it lets the United States act as a “safety valve” to relieve the pressure on Mexico’s economy and prevent economic catastrophe, if not outright revolution. Economic problems in Bangladesh and Nepal make Mexico’s seem minor. Bangladesh is the world’s poster child for poverty; and when I was there, I saw a reality much worse than the poster. Nepal’s economy is even worse. While, according to the World Bank, Mexico’s per capital income was $8240 in 2007; Bangladesh’s was $430 and Nepal’s was $260. Both countries also had a greater percentage of their populations living below the poverty line, according to the World Bank. It should come as no surprise, then, that the “mules” who carry out massive smuggling activities are—like the border jumpers to our south and many of the Palestinians stopped by the Israeli border fence—only trying to make a living, their partisans tell us.

One early February afternoon, my Indian colleagues and I arrived at the tiny border town of Panitanki. Not unlike those in border towns elsewhere throughout the world, Panitanki’s streets were lined with small shops and itinerant peddlers hawking every sort of ware, legal and otherwise. There was even a plastic tote bag with the words Mazel Tov in Hebrew. How it got there is anyone’s guess since I was probably the only Jew ever to visit the town. Panitanki’s main road ends in a bridge over the Mechi River that forms the border between India and Nepal and where people and vehicles could cross freely. As a steady stream of trucks, covered wagons, and men carrying large packages on their heads crossed into India, my Bengali colleagues would point to one and say ‘Arms’; to another and say ‘Drugs.’ And they would do so again and again. ‘That one,’ they would say, ‘has counterfeit banknotes. A big smuggling business.’ I knew that we were in the “Chicken’s Neck”; a 24 kilometer wide strip of Indian territory bordered by Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Tibet. The area is notorious for arms, drug, and counterfeit banknote smuggling and a known entry point for Islamist and Communist terrorists into India.

The illegal activity is so open that it did not raise so much as an eyebrow among the people of Panitanki. Worse, the Indian Border Security Force (BSF) soldiers did not react either. So, I pulled out my video camera and started shooting. The contents were carried into India so brazenly that even I got somewhat adept at identifying which parcels contained arms or other contraband. As we moved closer to the bridge, the shops and rickshaw drivers gave way to official outposts. Many were abandoned; many simply empty. Soldiers remained at some posts but were inert to the illegal activity that threatened their nation. No one checked any packages or stopped a single individual—until I came along with my camera. As we passed a pile of sandbags, two soldiers emerged and brandished their rifles.

“Put away your camera.”

(Sometimes we spoke through my Bengali friends; sometimes directly in English)

“Why?”

“Put away your camera!”

Pointing to their rifles and uniforms, “What? Are you afraid that I will pick up some great military secret for the US Army?”

“If you do not put your camera away now, we will confiscate it.”

“You got me.” Then putting my camera away, I turned to my friends and said, “I thought this was a free country.” Turning back to the soldiers, “Gee, I guess I was wrong.”

Having complied with the soldiers’ orders, I told them we were moving on to the bridge. But there was a problem. As an American citizen, I needed a visa from the Nepalese government to cross. So the soldiers demurred (even though third country nationals frequently take rickshaws or other conveyances across the border without any difficulty. A discussion ensued, and we established that the border was in the middle of the bridge and that if I kept my camera packed and did not go even a millimeter into Nepal; we could proceed. But the soldiers made sure to tell me that if I violated either of those conditions, they would arrest me and confiscate my camera.

As we moved forward, it became clear why the soldiers did not want me taking pictures. The flow of dangerous contraband across the border was heavy, continuous, and apparent to anyone with eyes, as was the lack of response by the BSF. Moreover, it was the dry season. From the middle of the bridge, one could see people crossing the border through the dried river bed on either side of the bridge, most carrying large parcels with them.

My own observations are not anomalous. Bengali informants explained the BSF’s inaction. They insisted that the BSF and other military units (such as the Assam Rifles) are not corrupt, but they have been told that they have no authority to stop smuggling. That is the responsibility of the local police, in this case that of Communist West Bengal. But the West Bengali police are thoroughly corrupt and are easily bribed to allow the illegal activity. The same is true in the impoverished areas of Uttar Pradesh bordering Nepal. Moreover, Panitanki is one of only 22 check points along the 1,400 kilometer border; most of the area is open to smuggling and terrorist infiltration.

The situation, according to evidence published in The Hindustan Times (HT) and other major Indian papers, is extremely damaging. In February, HT ran a series about the India-Nepal border. HT and others write that it is a conduit for illicit activity, including arms and drugs, illegal and impoverished Nepalese immigrants, and terrorist infiltration. Islamist terrorists originate in Pakistan and Bangladesh (although many of the latter cross across the porous India-Bangladesh border as well). Maoist terrorists originate in China or communist Nepal. These terrorists have been responsible for attacks throughout India and not only in the border areas. This past summer, for instance, Indian authorities arrested one Sheikh Nayeem from Bangladesh. He was able to transport four Islamist terrorists into India by bribing junior officers 200 Indian Rupees or about $4.00 apiece. In 2007, those four terrorists carried out terrorist bombings in Hyderabad, a state thousands of miles from Bangladesh in the India’s far south.

With Hezbollah terrorists long established in Central and South America, the United States could face the same future if its citizens allow the same open border policy in their country.

Fundamentalist Muslim wants Bangladeshi Government to end its ban on travel to Israel

(Originally published 17 September 2008 in Canada Free Press)

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Meet Kazi Aziz Huq. While many Bangladeshis only whisper their support for anti-Islamist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, he shouts his! Kazi Aiz Huq has written to countless members of the government, calling the charges against Shoaib false and demanding that they be withdrawn. Almost alone in his country, he has sided publicly with Shoaib in calling on the government to end its ban on travel to Israel. He helped found the multi-religious Human Rights Forum, with a Hindu chairman, one of its goals being “the security and rights of the religious and ethnic minorities of” South Asia. And as such, they have unequivocally condemned Islamist violence against Bangladeshi Hindus and Christians, even joining forces with us in opposing these attacks and government inaction.

Huq also calls “Palestinian daily rocket firing from HAMAS’s Gaza strip into Israel provocative.” And he has written to the leaders of Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as Bangladesh, often lecturing them about how their anti-Jewish policies are contrary to the Quran. And, oh yes, Kazi Aziz Huq is a fundamentalist Muslim and an official of an Islamic organization, Khalefat Andolin Bangladesh [KAB]. He does all of this in the third largest Muslim-majority country in the world and one that has seen the rise of a sometimes violent, ever threatening radical Islamist movement.

I first met Huq in the Bangladeshi capital of Dhaka in January 2007. I had come to stand with self-declared Muslim Zionist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury whom rogue Islamists and an Islamist-appeasing government were threatening to kill. Three days after I arrived, however, a military coup ousted the crowd that imprisoned and tortured Shoaib, however; and he was insistent that Huq and I meet. Huq had never met an American or a Jew, and this was his chance to do both.

After a brief and formal meeting, we nevertheless agreed to meet more extensively the next day in my hotel room. Shoaib was with me, and Huq brought a colleague who, like him, was dressed in traditional Muslim garb. He introduced his non-English speaking friend as a “commander of mujahadeen forces in Afghanistan.” I stiffened.

“Was he there fighting the Americans or the Soviets?”

“The Godless Russians,” Huq said.

“That’s good,” I said, “because if he was involved in killing young Americans, this meeting would have been over right now!”

If it sounds as if I was tense and a bit testy, so was Huq. As Shoaib recalls the meeting, both Huq and his friend “refused to shake [my] hand at first or accept food from [my] hand,” which I had provided in traditional Bengali fashion. Still, no one wanted to pass up this opportunity.

“Look,” I said. “I consider this a great honor and a real opportunity. Just as you’ve never met someone like me, I’ve never had the chance to speak with someone like you. But if we are going to make this effort to talk, we have to do so with complete honesty for it to be worthwhile. Otherwise, it’s a waste of our time.”

He agreed and I continued, “I understand that you’re going to defend your faith and your people. I should expect nothing less. But you must realize that I’m going to be every bit as passionate in defending mine. I’m an American, a Jew, and a Zionist, and am very proud of all three—even here in a Muslim country. You need to know this. There’s no point in talking if we are only going to show each other how weak we can be.”

So, we spent the next four hours talking about Israel, Osama Bin Laden, the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; and many other things. Naturally, we agreed on very little; yet, as I pointed out, “Well, we’re not throwing bombs at each other, are we?” Huq concurred and said that “we must agree to disagree.” This is a refrain he has used countless times since and with many different people; something that most of us would not expect to hear from a Muslim fundamentalist; and that what Huq is. Moreover, he is proud of and committed to his faith. The fact is that the warming relations between us were not significant in spite of our disagreements, but because of them.

Our fight is not against people who disagree with us but against people who deny our right to disagree with them. As our relationship grew in the succeeding months, Huq continuously agreed with that and acted accordingly. In their attempt to demonize the entire Muslim faith, people can cite as many Quranic verses as they want that talk about jihad; and I will cite just as many from the Torah, the Gospels, and writings of the saints that should make our skin crawl. What has and continues to separate Islam is not what these holy books say but what people do. For the most part, when Muslim clerics condemn Islamist terrorism, they do so with a “but.” We condemn terrorism—but others are also terrorists; but we must understand the terrorists’ alleged frustrations; but certain people, like Israelis, cannot be called innocent victims; but we refuse to tell the world that the terrorists do not represent Islam and harm Muslims more than anyone else. That has to be our litmus test; what people do; how public and unequivocal are people and consistent in their claims to morality.

Kazi Azizul Huq—a profoundly religious Muslim—passes that test with flying colors.

Shortly after our Dhaka meeting, he used his influence as a Muslim leader to confront Bangladeshi intelligence over its persecution of Shoaib Choudhury. Huq told him that the false prosecution and not Shoaib has hurt Bangladesh’s image. “We do not know why Shoaib chose to openly defend Israel while no one in Bangladesh openly defends Israel. It seems he is an upright man who spent many months in jail for taking up a stand which previous two regimes disliked. I do not know any other journalist in Bangladesh who spent so many months in jail for expression of opinion or for standing by a policy disliked by rulers.” That is, the issue for Huq is the same as it is for all of us: justice and admiration for a man who is willing to sacrifice for principle.

Recently, Huq and the KAB circulated a statement entitled: “Identifying Friends and Foes.” They posted it on their blog and sent it to various Muslim political officials. The statement begins, “We have found that neither the Zionists nor the Americans are the real enemy of the Believers and the Muslims. The actual enemy of Believers and Muslims are European racists and atheists.” For many people today, the world can be divided into two camps: Muslims and non-Muslims; and for many on both sides of the war we are waging, it is the most important division on the planet. But for Kazi Azizul Huq, there is a far more critical distinction: that between Believers and Non-Believers. That is, there are those people who recognize that there is a God and strive in all ways to act as He would want us to act; and there are those who do not. But for Huq that division is a false one. “Faith and Righteousness is more important today than religious ethnicity….Is it piety for any Muslim to call the Jews sons of pigs and apes?”

He has complained that Islam’s biggest problem is that only a small percentage of its members actually study the religion. This, he has said, makes them vulnerable to those who use Islam for their own partisan causes. “Many of the so-called modern western educated Muslims hate Jews at heart and [only] pretend to be friends,” he told me. “Materialist education and culture increases ego and makes people revengeful and hateful. Materialists do not know what love is, what compassion is.”

He noted in the recent statement that “probably about 50 percent ethnic Muslims of Bangladesh today do not even know the very Qalimah without which one can not be counted as a Muslim, while more than 50 percent ethnic Christian population of USA make prayer to God before taking their food. US Government continues to inscribe on its Dollar “In God we trust”. People may criticize but they declare proudly that they are Believers in God. Maybe this is why they continue to be the leader of the world [and] because US Government [allows] Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Choice including Religious Freedom.”

Many times in our interaction, Huq and I have expressed serious disagreements. In some cases, each of us presented the other with information that helped us learn. In others, we continued to “agree to disagree.”

No one who knows me can say I am soft on Islamist terror, or that I try to create pretend “moderates” that do not exist. Yet, I am distressed at the regular flow of articles insisting that Islam itself is evil. Moreover, these diatribes are written by astute individuals; people who have studied history and source material; people who are important allies in our war against Islamist extremism. We also read the same opinion—albeit less reasonably expressed—on blogs and radio talk shows with numbing frequency. Many of those who take that position are our allies; many are erudite; most are passionate. But we have to understand that all of them are wrong.

There are several alternative explanations for the historical patterns they cite in defense of their position. There is the fact that Islam younger today than Christianity was at the time of church-sanctioned blood libels, the murder of heretics, the Inquisition, and regular murder of Jews with the blessings of local priests and ministers. If official Christianity can so develop, is it impossible for Islam to do the same? There is also the theory that religion is only sullied when it is firmly wedded to political power—as Christianity was in the past and as Islam still is today. But even these arguments are academic. We are rather told by our traditions to judge people by what they do. We should rather direct those who claim Islam is evil to tell their tale to Muslims like Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury (who has been imprisoned and tortured and remains a devoted Muslim), to Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi (one of Europe’s most passionate Zionists and a Muslim leader); and to Kazi Aziz Huq a fundamentalist Muslim whose stated goal is to “end suspicion and barriers between us,” and who more importantly acts on it.

Threats against Muslim Hero all too Common

(Originally published 20 August 2008 in Canada Free Press)

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Picture the following scenario.  You live in a country that long ago declared itself a “people’s republic” with Islam as its official religion.  Although you are a Muslim, you have openly declared yourself to be a “Muslim Zionist” and are known for advocating relations with Israel and other positions that are very unpopular with the Islamic radicals who have accrued considerable power in your country. 

For your stance, you have been persecuted, jailed and tortured, your family harassed and your brother beaten, your place of business first bombed and later taken over by a mob that was allowed to do so with impunity. 

Earlier this year, a group known for its human rights violations took you into its custody and it required nothing short of an international outcry to force them to release you.  Now, you find yourself on trial for “sedition, treason, and blasphemy” and could receive the death penalty (or more likely a very long prison term) if convicted.

Welcome to the world of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury.  The Bangladeshi journalist has garnered the support of people and governments around the world in the years following his 2003 arrest.  He and I had been working together for some time in an effort to provide Bangladeshis with unbiased news about Israel, the United States, and the Jewish people.  We even saw signs that we were beginning to succeed. 

We did not know, however, that radicals had him under surveillance and were preparing to force his arrest ever since he begin publishing articles that exposed their growing power and use of madrassas [Muslim religious schools] to teach young Bangladeshis jihad.  At first, no one was interested in the fate of this one man, but as more and more people became aware of what he stood for and what was happening to him, that changed.  The previous Bangladeshi government that took these actions did so, according to several of their officials, to appease the Islamist radicals in their coalition.  They also counted on the world being indifferent to their actions.  They miscalculated about that, but continued to tell us that they knew the charges were baseless but were “afraid of how the radicals will react” if they drop them.  In a 2005 meeting that eventually led to Choudhury’s freedom, then Bangladesh Ambassador Shamsher M. Chowdhury told US Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL) and me that the case was “a purely personal financial dispute, nothing more.”

Choudhury’s trial on those charges began this month and while it is far too early to draw any firm conclusions, its first days have been marked by a level of judicial fairness that was unknown under the previous government.  (On January 11, 2007, a bloodless coup brought a new “caretaker” government to power with the military’s backing.)  But at approximately 10am on August 7, while Choudhury was in court for the trial’s second day, his household staff saw someone speed up to his home on a motorbike and start taking videos of the house.  When they confronted him, the man identified himself only as “Sohel” and claimed to be a journalist from Daily Manabzamin, a Bangla-language newspaper edited by Voice of America correspondent Mathiur Rahman Chowdhury.  He handed them a slip of paper with a cell phone number for Shoaib to call, continued filming, and left.

Unfortunately, this was far and away not the first incident of suspicious activity at Choudhury’s home or business.  The pro-US, pro-Israel Muslim receives threats regularly—some credible, others not.  There was one 2006 incident in which he called me to report that the Islamist group Khatmey Nabuat Movement (KTM) threatened him with “dire consequences” after we had written articles critical of it and thwarted its attempted attack on a minority Muslim sect, the Ahmadiyyas.  Islamists hate the Ahmadiyyas for believing in Jesus’s virgin birth and that Mohammed was not “the final prophet.”  The Pakistani government has declared them to be non-Muslims and Islamists were trying to do the same in Bangladesh.  In response to KTM’s threatened “dire consequences,” Choudhury gathered dozens of supporters, representing every religious group in Bangladesh, who stayed with him throughout the night in case the Islamists tried to carry out their threat.  In a more recent and even more harrowing incident, Choudhury was abducted by the notorious Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), a government paramilitary group whose captives often “disappear.”  We responded more directly to that immediate danger and helped force his release after a few hours.

Choudhury is almost stoic at times.  “You get used to it,” he said.  But not complacent.  When his younger brother, Sohail Choudhury, called him to report the “Sohel” incident, the senior Choudhury sent text messages to the police and members of the government; and to the Daily Manabzamin.  He also called his own newspaper, Weekly Blitz, and asked one his staff, Rana Masud, to get to the bottom of the matter since Masud’s brother is a senior journalist with Manabzamin.  That newspaper confirmed that it employs no one named Sohel and in any event did not send anyone to the Choudhury home.

Masud then called the phone number that Sohel left, and the latter admitted that he lied when he said he worked for Manabzamin.  He said that he actually worked but for Daily Aparashkantha, “an underground newspaper known for blackmailing people,” according to Choudhury.  Masud asked , “Why did you go to Choudhury’s residence? Why did you take video footage?”

Sohel:  “Ask Choudhury to call Aparadhkantha editor Rashedul Hassan. Choudhury owes 100,000 Taka [roughly $1,500 US] to Rashed.”

Masud: “100,000 Taka? No it is false. Rashed came to our office in April and asked for TK. 1 million as ‘loan.’ But Mr. Choudhury declined to give such loan. Why you are trying to put false pressure to extract money from us?”

Sohel: “Ask Choudhury to call Rashed and settle the matter.”

Roughly translated as “Crime Voice,” Aparashkantha had been running screaming front page headlines about Shoaib’s trial since its start the day before.  The headlined and accompanying articles were sensationalistic and urged that “the Zionist spy” be convicted of sedition, treason, and blasphemy.  The paper was now demanding that Choudhury provide a payoff of 100,000 Bangladeshi Taka, roughly $1500 in US currency to Rashed.

Choudhury has filed a formal complaint about the incident with the Dhaka police, but so far has received no response.  Aparashkantha is rumored to have ties with both organized crime and the government’s paramilitary group, Rapid Action Battalion.  When I spoke with representatives of the Bangladeshi government, who wish to remain anonymous, they reminded me that this is essentially a criminal matter (unless Choudhury also wants to press a civil suit) and not the province of the central government.  They did assure me, however, that they would look into the matter nonetheless.

Obama Sides with Islamists in Choudhury Case

(Originally published 29 July 2008 in Canada Free Press)

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has touted himself as a friend to the oppressed, as a politician who stands up for justice and human rights.

This is a cornerstone of his campaign to the American people.  It’s easy enough, however, to define oneself in whatever way one wants; especially when no one in the media challenges you on it. The real test of moral courage is how one acts—not just talks—in real-life situations.  And in the one concrete instance when the Illinois senator was called upon to stand up for justice, he was nowhere to be seen.

In fact, Barack Obama demonstrated a level of moral cowardice unmatched by anyone in either the US House or Senate.

The case in point should be familiar to Canada Free Press readers by now:  the case of Muslim Zionist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury.  When I began fighting to free Shoaib from imprisonment and torture, it was clear that success would be elusive unless I garnered support from only both sides of the political divide.  And it seemed like a good bet.  Shoaib was in prison, being tortured, and risking his life by exposing the rise of Islamist radicals in Bangladesh, urging relations with US ally Israel, and advocating genuine interfaith dialogue based on religious equality.  Moreover, he was a pro-US voice in a part of the world where we sorely need one.  Clearly this was a matter of human rights, of basic American principles, and everyone with an ounce of human decency should support us.

And, thankfully, things have turned out that way.  Shoaib Choudhury’s support on Capitol Hill has been a celebration of bi-partisan cooperation.  When the Bangladeshi paramilitary force, Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) kidnapped Shoaib recently, I called four members of Congress—two Republicans, two Democrats.  All four lawmakers had previously been outspoken in their support for Shoaib, and they came through again.  Not only did all of them call the Bangladeshi government, but they also had other lawmakers do the same, which enabled us to secure Shoaib’s release before it was too late.

Last March, Congress passed House Resolution 64, authored by Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and co-sponsored by Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY).  The vote was 409-1, Ron Paul being the lone dissenter.  I was present for the debate on the Resolution.  After a pantheon of Democratic and Republican lawmakers offered impassioned speeches on Shoaib’s behalf—and not incidentally in praise of Rep. Kirk—the Republican and Democratic floor leaders (Gary Ackerman of New York and John Boozman of Arkansas respectively) both commented on the bi-partisan nature and strong solidarity of the afternoon.  Boozman called it “a very bipartisan effort.”  Ackerman said he hoped “we might bring this kind of approach and dedication” to all issues before the Congress.

A really telling incident occurred not long before the 2006 election when I approached two senators at about the same time:  Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), about as far on the left as a Senator goes; and then Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), equally far on the right.  Yet, both men responded with identical support, which included a letter of protest to the Bangladeshi government.  I later suggested to Santorum that it might have been the only time that he and Durbin agreed on anything because this is simply a matter of human decency.  In fact, I approached about 15 percent of the House and a handful of Senators:  Democratic, Republican, left, right, moderate; you name it.  And every one of them reacted with support; every one of them, that is, except one.  Who was the one lawmaker that took a pass on saving the life of an imprisoned US ally and opponent of Islamist extremism?  That’s right, my own Illinois Senator Barack Hussein Obama.

I first met with his staff in April 2005 in his DC office, the same week that Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) spent hours learning about the case and then well after “working hours” engaged in a very long and often difficult meeting with the Bangladeshi ambassador and me to secure Shoaib’s release.  I brought Obama’s staff extensive documentation of the injustice, as well as other evidence of Shoaib’s activities.  Most significantly, I told them how Shoaib was one of those rare and courageous Muslims who publicly opposed the Islamist radicals while refusing to leave his home inside the Muslim world.  He proudly proclaims himself a Muslim Zionist and pro-US.  I told Obama’s staff all of that, as we spoke for quite a long time, but they never called back.  In fact, they ignored all my subsequent follow-up contacts.  But it was, after all soon after his election; perhaps early disorganization was to blame.  I even spoke with Obama personally 13 months later at a meeting he and Durbin hosted.  To my delight, when my name was mentioned, Durbin responded immediately with praise and support, saying that it was “an important human rights case,” and asked to see me privately about the matter.  I spoke with both he and Obama, who at his best moments looked quizzical and confused.  While Durbin remained on top of the case and later sent a formal protest to the Bangladeshis, Obama never responded; nor again did he or his staff reply to my subsequent entreaties—not even a form letter.

I spoke with Obama one other time about Shoaib’s case, less than six months later.  It was a chance meeting, and I reminded him of our last encounter.  I updated him on the case and suggested several ways in which he could support the besieged journalist.  He hesitated a moment then held out his hand and said in a used-car-salesman kind of way, “Well, we’re sure happy for all the work you are doing.”  Propriety prevents me from verbalizing what I was thinking then.  I offered to send him more information, which he asked me to do.  And, not surprisingly, I never heard back despite the reams of evidence I did send.  Another Illinois resident wrote Obama about the case and asked for help, but he, in fact, got that perfunctory form letter.  It stated that the Senator was “aware of the case” and would forward the information to the State Department.  The fact is, however,  if he really was aware of the case he would have known that the State Department has been involved rather extensively for months.

Obama-pologists might be forgiven if they attribute all of this ire to “a vast right wing conspiracy” but he is the only one out of dozens of lawmakers I contacted from both parties who failed to act. The fact that support was never contingent on ideology speaks volumes about his real commitment to justice, as opposed to his empty and disingenuous rhetoric.  I often wondered if his refusal to act was strategic, ignorant, or simple cowardice.  No matter, the impact on Shoaib Choudhury was the same, as it would be on any freedom fighter.  Of equal importance, it is clear freedom fighters and human rights victims worldwide will be unable to count on Obama standing by them.  What sort of signal does that send to Muslims around the world who might be thinking of opposing the terrorists?  It tells them that they are on their own, indicating that Obama has already surrendered in this most crucial battle in the war against Islamist radicals.

Having observed Obama punt when a life hung in the balance, potential voters should consider this question.  If Barack Obama does not have the ability to stand up against injustice in Bangladesh, where is he going to find the moral courage to stand up to Iran, North Korea, or China?

OPPOSING BARACK Obama

(Originally published 21 July 2008 in Canada Free Press)

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

It has long been an article of faith on the left that the United States has lost the support of its allies around the world.  It is a major Democratic major talking point, and the mainstream media has never challenged it, even though it is based on a false and Euro-centric premise.  (See my Has America Lost its Moral Authority, CFP, April 25, 2008.)I was in India this year to advocate for Bangladeshi Hindus, refugees from Islamist terror and ethnic cleansing and spent time in Delhi before leaving for the border areas.  It was there I met anti-Islamist Amitabh Tripathi, introduced to me by Daniel Pipes.  Tripathi represents a point of view shared by many Indians but rarely given voice in India’s mainstream media.  He is profoundly interested in the US Presidential election primarily because he believes the results will be critical for successful prosecution of the war against Islamist extremism.  In this interview, which he insisted on titling Opposing Barack Obama, Tripathi talks about why an Obama victory would be disastrous for Indians and others who live on the front lines of a war for our very survival.RB: Results of US Presidential elections always have significant implications for the rest of the world.  What makes this one even more significant for Indians?AT:  With it, the world will witness a post Bush America. George W. Bush was the man who initiated war on terror, and both friends and enemies are watching closely to see how his successor will act.  Americans need to know that the war on terror is different for Indians in three ways.  The first is that what Dr. Daniel Pipes calls “lawful Islamism,” which has made great advances in India.  We have Muslim parties, which are all really radicals that want to “return” India to Muslim rule.  They believe that India was Muslim-ruled before the British came and every Muslim party in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh believes that India must be made Muslim again.  Imagine if the US had Christian or Jewish parties and that their goal was to overthrow the government.  That is what we have in India.RB: You said there were three ways.  What are the other two?AT:  In the West, the USA defeated Communism, which made most westerners think that Communism is no longer any threat.  But that is not true in Asia.  Communists run three Indian states and Nepal.  All of them are supported by China, which is a bigger threat than Iran or any Muslim state.  The other thing is that there are terrorist attacks in India all the time.  You have said that when you were in India this year there was one almost every day.  That is true.  And then you went to the border areas where Maoists and Islamists are coming in from Nepal and Bangladesh to attack people.RB: When I was there, the Indian media was little more than an uncritical advertisement for Barack Obama as the inevitable winner in November.  Has that changed at all?AT:  When Barack Obama first entered this presidential race, he was presented by world media as a new phenomenon.  When you [RB] first wrote an article in India that exposed his artificiality and lack of gravity, and later it was translated into Hindi by [my web site] Lokmanch; it was nothing other than a sensation for Indian readers. Since then people have developed some apprehensions about Obama, even in mainstream media.RB: What do Indians know about Senator John McCain?AT:  We don’t get much news about John McCain.  Some of us know that being a war prisoner in Vietnam he would fall heavily against Islamists forces and give new dimensions to the war on terror.RB:  Do you see any difference between the two American parties?
 
AT: Yes, we have the impression that Democrats are liberal and appeasers in their response to Islamist extremism. In contrast, Republicans are more prompt and preemptive.
 
RB:  Yes, but not long ago Obama spoke to the American Israel Political Action Committee, for instance, and said that Jerusalem had to remain Israel’s undivided capital.  Isn’t that a strong signal that he will oppose Islamists?AT:  No because a few days later, he changed his position after [Palestinian leader Mahmoud] Abbas and others criticized him.  Flow of information has changed things to such an extent that leaders cannot hide behind a veil of deceit for long. This incident certified Obama’s artificiality and lack of statesmanship.  Instead of using the disagreement as a way to negotiate from strength, he showed he is weak and vulnerable to pressure.  That proves that he is a moral coward.  If he changes so quickly on an issue so important to US voters, he will change on everything.  So, how can we believe that he will be strong and not let Islamists overtake India?RB:  There is a growing Indian-American population.  Do they share your perspective?AT:  They want the same thing from the US in fighting radical Islam, but they don’t know that Obama would not be good for them in this way.  There are Indian-Americans who understand this, but most of them get the same leftist news that others get about Obama.  There are Indian radio stations and web sites, and Senator John McCain could easily capture that vote bank.RB:  How?AT:  By showing that he will not appease the terrorists we are fighting.  We Indians also have worried about US funds to Pakistan.  Those funds are not used to fight the terrorists, but will certainly be used against India.  And many Indians would be angry if they knew that Obama wants to stop US corporations from outsourcing.RB: Senator Obama has said that, as President, he would sit down and talk with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad without preconditions. How would Indians see that?AT:  Some Indians consider Iran a longtime ally and ignore his rhetoric; but even many on the right who oppose him really just don’t want another nuclear powered nation in their neighborhood.  Most Indians have little curiosity about Middle Eastern politics and affairs.  We need to educate people about the implications of Middle Eastern politics for us and the Islamist threat facing India.  Ahmedinejad is an ambitious politician who wants gullible people to believe his “intellectual and reasonable” logic of Islamist movement and its goals to abolish Israel and consolidate the Muslim world under a caliphate.  He has realized that Osama Bin Laden’s brand of jihad has its limitations, but consolidating anti-America and anti-Israel forces always works—especially with help from leftists who always aid such efforts no matter who is behind them.  This makes Ahmedinejad more dangerous than any other terrorist.RB: Senator Obama has said that he will begin withdrawing American troops from Iraq soon after taking office. Senator McCain has said that there will have to be a US presence in Iraq for many years to come. What do these policies mean for India and its fight against terrorism?AT:  The presence of American troops in Iraq has little to do directly with India’s fight against terrorism, which is based in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal.  But America is portrayed in media as [having broken with the] consensus on Iraq.  Whether this is right or wrong, it is the only thing most Indians hear, giving ammunition to Islamist apologists who justify anti-American terrorism as fighting the enemy of Islam.  The radical Muslim seminary near Delhi, Deoband, just made big headlines with fatwa against terrorism. But we will see how they will not condemn terrorism against US troops in Iraq.  They will call it defending Islam.  People in media and leftist governments use these things to justify terrorism and are not fighting it.  If America starts pulling out of Iraq quickly after the new President takes office, it will make the situation everywhere worse.  It will give al Qaeda and all Islamist forces a sanctuary, like Afghanistan under the Taliban.RB: Both of us have written about the alliance among leftists and Islamists. How do you think an Obama victory would affect that alliance in South Asia?
 
AT:  In last assembly elections in [southern province of] Kerala, the Communist Party won by making foreign policy the key issue and condemning the Indian government for voting against Iran in IAEA.  They carried pictures of Yasser Arafat to gain Muslim support.  They appealed to the international Islamic Ummah, and garnered huge support among Muslims as a result.  An Obama victory would be a big setback in our fight against Islamism, especially “lawful Islamism” and its leftist allies. They would take Obama’s victory as their own, and the resistance forces against Islamism will become demoralized.  Islamist and leftist forces will say they defeated the US and will defeat their common enemies of Israel, US, and pro-Hindu Indians.RB: Are you saying that the radicals are hoping for an Obama win?AT:  Yes, they see McCain as a successor to George W. Bush, and they don’t expect any concession in the fight against Islamism.  They also fear preemptive actions against the promoters of terrorism.  In contrast to McCain, Obama is a natural ally for them,  not only because they see his Muslim childhood, but because he acts as if we can become friends with them.  I have had a chance to see several comments and articles where Muslims declare Obama as their man who will allow them to see the whole world under Islam.  They know that America is the only country that is stopping them now.  In South Asia, they believe John McCain will make India the major ally in the war on terror.  Obama will ignore Islamist terrorism in South Asia.Media and leftist government tell one story about Barack Obama, but more Indian people are seeing the other side.  We are not sure about the future course of US action if he is elected.  He seems to be a very deceptive person that we can’t trust.  We have learned of many controversies that prove him a man with leftist and Islamist leanings.  His leftist leanings are very clear.  His Islamist sympathies are hidden though, but his policies would make for an America that tolerates Islamist actions and sees Islamists as just another political party.  Obama has proved himself a good orator who can draw a crowd, but who changes his positions because he is very vulnerable to pressure. We have our own experience of such leaders who succumb to pressure, and they are basically moral cowards who normally compromise on critical issues.RB: There seems to be a terror attack in India almost every day. Is India at risk of an Islamist or Communist takeover or at least greater influence by these groups in the Indian government?AT:  Your second assessment is the one to watch.  Islamist forces have influence because of what we call pseudo-secularism.  In India, all parties are supposed to be secular; that is in the constitution.  The [ruling] Congress and [right-wing opposition] BJP are; so are the Communists.  But the whole system is pseudo-secularism because what they call secularism really means Muslim appeasement, which is very blatant here, and favoring all minorities over Hindus.  Every party is bound to give maximum concessions to Muslims; they are all afraid of losing vote banks and of the public riots that Muslims are known for.  The so-called secular constitution gives Muslims special privileges, too.  They do not have to follow the law of the land and instead are governed by their religious Shariyat law.  Even Supreme Court of India cannot interfere with their Shariyat in divorce, polygamy, and other matters. Communists are their natural allies in India as both target Hindus, Jews, and Americans.  The ruling coalition is dependent on them, and they have held Indian foreign policy hostage for the past four years.  It now looks like they have killed the US-India nuclear agreement, placing their interests over the national interest.  But regardless of who is in power, the real problem is Muslim appeasement.  In the last four years Islamist terrorists have killed more than 3,000 people, but no one in politics, media, or academia is willing to identify the Islamist nature of these attacks. Even the right wing BJP is afraid to point out the ideology and inspiration behind these ghastly acts is Islam. We are working day and night to make people aware of this threat.
 
RB: What can the next American president do to strengthen the forces fighting to preserve a free India?AT:  First of all, the new American president should identify its friends and foes and then work to root out the enemies of a free South Asia.  Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal are the emerging hub for the Islamist-Leftist nexus. New American president should contain Islamists in Pakistan and Bangladesh with those forces in India fighting this menace.  Nepal is a surrogate for China that uses our open borders to infiltrate India.  Containing China’s ambitions in Asia in general and South Asia in particular should be a priority of the American president.

Nepalese Communists Showing their True Colors

(Originally published 30 June 2008 in Canada Free Press)

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

A friend recently mentioned that he had been “hearing about the Communist victory in Nepal on NPR [National Public Radio].”  This network, funded by US taxpayers, reports news and commentary from a generally liberal or leftist stance; although it would be incorrect to dismiss NPR as worthless or any sort of hack journalism.

“Yeah, I’ve been listening to NPR and they say they’re not like the Soviet Communists,” he continued.  They won power through participation in electoral politics.  And in fact that is the image that Nepal’s new Maoist leaders have been trying to project ever since joining the previous governing coalition.

News out of Nepal, however, presents a very different picture.  According to information in the South Asian Terrorist Portal, “Maoist atrocities” are coming in from all over the country.  In some cases, it appears Nepal’s new rulers are exacting a brutal revenge on those who previously opposed them, especially in the countryside.  The crackdown was brutal enough for women to take to the streets in protest.  Journalist Niraj Aryal writes in Telegraph Nepal, “It was in the district of Dailekh-Nepal, women folk took to the topsy-turvy Ghodeto and Godeto (Horse and Foot trails) protesting against the Maoists’ atrocities.”  He made sure to add, “No male counterparts as of then had the courage to protest against the Maoists.”  It is significant to note that in the bloody days before the communists got their rebel feet in the constitutional door, it was women who were the backbone of the Maoists’ support network in the Nepali countryside.  Aryal writes that they worked as “underground party cadres or even carried weapons in the Peoples’ Liberation Army.”  Now many of them are rebelling against the communists’ turning their backs on their promises people’s paradise.

Another Nepali journalist, identified in articles only as “TGW,” reports that “Comrade” Netra Bikram Chand alias Biplav told a Kathmandu gathering on June 28, “The Nepali Congress has become the stooge of the foreigners and its final objective is to disintegrate the country.”  He also warned the people that foreigners (code words in Nepal for Indians) were threatening their independence and accused “centric parties” of collusion with them.

“The imperialists and the feudal forces have joined hands to sideline the victory of the Nepali people and that they are the ones who have been provoking the [centrist] parties to prolong the deadlock.”

Biplav is a party official and member of the Central Committee.  Speaking in their name he said that as a result of this danger, the Maoists “will no longer resort to the competitive politics… complete freedom is possible through establishing a peoples’ democratic republic.”

NPR failed to inform my friend that Nepal’s Maoist conducted a brutal insurgency that caused over 15,000 deaths in the impoverished Himalayan country.  Through an arrangement with Pakistani intelligence, Maoist rebels provide safe haven for Al Qaeda troops on the run from coalition forces in Afghanistan; and it was in exchange for those services that the Pakistanis secured them a place in Nepal’s emerging coalition.  That allowed them to get their steel toed boots in the democratic door, which led to their electoral victory this past spring.  With their transformation into a political party both recent and tactical, however, Nepal’s new communist rulers have been systematically destroying both opposition and individual rights in that country.

*Republican Senator Tom Coburn: US Taxpayers Forced to Fund our Enemies

(Originally published 12 June 2008 in Canada Free Press)

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

On June 4, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) demanded that the United States stop funding the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) “until its director steps down.”  In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Coburn criticized FAO Director General Jacques Diouf for inviting Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to address FAO’s World Food Summit in Rome this week.

In doing so, Coburn said, Diouf “has made a mockery of this event….Providing a U.S. taxpayer-funded forum for these men to present themselves as humanitarians in unconscionable.”  Moreover, their high-profile presence does nothing to advance the organization or the summit’s mandated goals.  Diouf’s actions have no rationale other than a political one to inflame anti-American sentiments and embarrass conservative Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi who refused to invite them to the state dinner he hosted for the event.  Mugabe and Ahmedinejad are both persona non grata in Italy, and were able to enter Italy only under UN auspices.

Neither despot disappointed.  Mugabe blamed the West for world hunger; Ahmedinejad blamed the Jews.  Mugabe said the West caused his people’s suffering by imposing “illegal economic sanctions” and cutting off “all developmental assistance.”  But of course, the problem is Mugabe himself.  Aid was stopped only after it became clear that Mugabe was lining his pockets with it and keeping it from the people.  Moreover, his own brutal policies, including his communist land seizures, are what turned the former “breadbasket of Africa” into a beggar nation.  Ahmedinejad said that people “are trying to save themselves from the oppression of the Zionists.”  He did not make it clear how that caused a food crisis, but he had a solution for one nonetheless.  The Holocaust denial supreme said the UN should form “an independent and powerful [international] body, obeyed by all countries” that would control food prices “and all its related issues from production to consumption.”

But, of course, the world is used to their incoherent rants and socialist “solutions.”  Coburn’s question is why US taxpayers are forced to pick up the tab for them.  In addition to feeding “a bunch of world bureaucrats at luxury hotels,” Coburn’s office notes, taxpayers are footing the bill for over 50 US government employees from the Departments of State and Agriculture (USDA), and USAID to listen to this drivel.  Coburn sent letters to Agriculture and USAID similar to the one he sent to Rice.

Coburn, a physician, sits on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and is the ranking Republican on its Federal Financial Management, Government Information and International Security subcommittee.  In May, he exposed how the USDA spent over $90 million sending its employees to “conferences” in places like Las Vegas, Hawaii, the Virgin Islands, and Australia’s Surfers Paradise Resort in 2006.  He also was one of only 15 senators who last month voted against the $300 billion Farm bill, which he called “not a farm bill [but] a nutrition/social programs bill, with a few farm programs thrown in.”  Before casting his “nay” vote, Coburn tried to make the bill more palatable by offering several amendments.  His Senate colleagues defeated them all including one that would prohibit payments to farmers who had been dead for more than two years.  Being from Chicago, I suppose I can understand how the Senators found it unreasonable not to pay dead people!

Senator Coburn has been in the forefront of the fight against high taxes and government waste ever since he came to Washington in 1995 to represent Oklahoma’s second district.  He was elected to the Senate in 2004.  Recently, his focus has shifted to wasteful spending that also undermines the United States in the war against Islamist extremism.  Certainly, paying for an international podium for Mugabe who in Coburn’s words, “has brutally repressed his own people,” and Ahmedinejad who “is calling for the destruction of our ally Israel”—is one example.  Coburn and his staff are also looking at Alhurra TV, a US funded television station that is supposed to be broadcasting unbiased information to the Arab world about the war on Islamist extremism and the United States.

A member of the Subcommittee staff, contacted me for information on an October 2007 Alhurra program with Muslim Zionist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury.  It was pitched to us as an honest discussion about Saudi Arabia and charges that it exports radical Islam abroad.  Shoaib was asked to join the panel to talk about how the Saudis are behind the growth and development of radical Islam in Bangladesh.  But the show turned out to be a Saudi puff piece.  Shoaib was the only member of the panel who did not ape the transparently disingenuous Saudi line but presented evidence of its involvement in the radicalization of his country.  The program’s host, however, would have none of it.  He allowed the Saudi government representative to drone on and on at will without any challenges.  On the other hand, he kept Shoaib’s time limited; and whenever he began confronting the Saudi with evidence of his perfidy, the host would quickly go to a break and make sure that Shoaib and his topic received no further airing when they returned.

Coburn and the Subcommittee also asked for and received evidence in two other incidents Shoaib and I uncovered.  One involved a Voice of America (VOA) employee who edits a newspaper and hosts a news television program in Bangladesh in the nation’s vernacular of Bangla.  One day in 2006, I was on the phone with Shoaib who had the TV show on in the background.  Suddenly, he told me to wait while he took down several virulent anti-American remarks by the VOA employee.  The US and UK had just foiled an attempted terrorist plot to blow up trans-Atlantic flights using liquid explosives.  Chowdhury called the arrests a “game of the British government” and accused the US and the UK of deliberately fabricating the terror plot to deflect world attention from what he called “Hezbollah victories.”  Chowdhury said rather that the claims about the plot are part of a “conspiracy against Islam” by the United States.

The other involves Firoz Ahmed, employed by the US Embassy in Bangladesh.  He has been on the US State Department’s payroll for over a decade and was even honored by State as an outstanding employee.  But, it turns out Firoz Ahmed is also a member of the radical Jihadist party, Jamaat i-Islami.  He even carries the rank of “Roqan.”  The matter came to light in the aftermath of a 2007 attack on Shoaib by Bangladeshi Islamists.  I informed US Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL), who has been the leader of Shoaib’s defenders in Washington, and he contacted our embassy.  But the embassy denied that the incident had anything to do with Shoaib’s pro-US and pro-Israel writings but resulted from a financial dispute.  Kirk’s office contacted me and told me to investigate because “something’s fishy” about the response they received.  Our investigation exposed Ahmed’s radical activities as well as identifying Islamists behind the attack on Shoaib.  It should be mentioned that the embassy never denied Ahmed’s Islamist credentials, it and still employs him—at taxpayer expense.

The fact that US agencies around the world rely on local informants and employees who are conversant with the nation’s local languages and how to get information should not be cause for alarm.  But the fact that our agencies do not check their backgrounds or monitor their activities should be.  As I told the agencies and Coburn’s aide, if we uncovered these problems in Bangladesh—the world’s third largest Muslim-majority country—we “can bet the house that the same thing is happening in Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan, and everywhere else.”  As a result, our embassies have been basing their policies on unvetted and made-to-order information; and our agencies are providing a platform for anti-American propaganda.  And taxpayers are funding it.

Senator Coburn fighting to expose this travesty and overcome the vested interests in Washington that would prefer not to confront it.  If he is forced to stand alone and does not succeed, there is virtually no chance to end these self-destructive actions.  Recently, Coburn received some publicity from Senator Barack Obama.  Trying to explain his association with unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, Obama compared it to his being “friends” with Coburn because the Oklahoman suggested that the death penalty might be appropriate those who perform abortion.  If Obama really believes there is a moral equivalency between Coburn who is fighting to protect the US and its citizens, and Ayers who tried to blow them up, then the outcome of this year’s election is more critical than we even imagined.

*Republican Senator Tom Coburn: US Taxpayers Forced to Fund our Enemies

(Originally published 26 May 2008 in Canada Free Press)

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

What is the harm in talking after all? We hear that from the political left time and time again. It is the oft-repeated and “too-oft-implemented” position of former President Jimmy Carter, and it is the sort of thinking that led him to meet with terrorist leaders in Syria recently. While the talks predictably produced nothing of substance, they encouraged our enemies. First they indicated that US resolve to oppose them as a moral imperative is weak; second, they suggested that this moral weakness can become US policy with the right occupant in the White House.

But Carter discredits himself more and more every time he opens his mouth. Of far greater concern is the fact that we hear the same refrain from the man who is about to accept the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, Barack Obama. In fact, it has been one of the few specifics about which Obama has been consistent. He has made it clear on numerous occasions that he believes the best way to resolve the world’s problems in the Middle East and with radical Islam is through “aggressive diplomacy,” which translates into direct talks between him and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. So, what is wrong with talking?

On Sunday, May 25, 2008, a local radio show here in Chicago inadvertently gave us a pretty good answer. There was a panel discussing—what else—politics, and one of the participants was a democratic operative. He praised Obama’s intention to “talk with the Iranians” and said it would be “accepted by the rest of the world” as a very positive sign that there was “a new United States” that does not act out of the belief that “it is the greatest nation in the world.” Now to be sure, the statement revealed a basis belief among many of Obama’s supporters that the United States is not such a great place and that we would do better to become more like the Europeans; but that attitude has been characteristic of the left for decades.

The operative said that Obama would be talking “with the Iranians.” But in fact he would not be speaking with the Iranians. He would be talking with the ruthless dictator who rules an otherwise pro-Western and pro-US people. He would be talking with an individual who openly and proudly supports genocide and denies one of the most well-documented historical atrocities in the Holocaust; and he identified that man with an old and venerable culture that predates his millenarian version of Islam by millennia. It should be US policy to encourage those resistance groups in Iran—and there are many; but instead, Obama has cut their legs out from under them. As someone who works extensively with and in the Muslim world, I can say without the slightest fear of contradiction that such messages and symbols are enormous there. Moreover, if the point is ever lost on anyone, our enemies will trumpet it to the tune of their modern-day Internacionale.

That is, by “just talking,” we have acknowledged Ahmedinejad as the legitimate representative of the millions of people living under his oppressive rule. When Carter sat down with Hamas, he stated explicitly that the terror group was a legitimate representative of the Palestinians and needed to be treated as such. Carter saw no problem with lecturing Israel to acknowledge Hamas’s legitimacy when the latter refuses to return the favor. And Obama is saying the same thing to Israel about Ahmedinjad. And it is not just about Israel as both groups have made it abundantly clear that they find the United States no more legitimate than they find Israel. But in the world of Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, there is nothing harmful to our citizens by paying homage to them as equals—something they will wave successfully in front of every dissident that tries to stand up for freedom in the Islamist world.

That, Messrs. Obama and Carter is “the harm in talking.”

False Accusations Harm Cause of Human Rights: The Case of Mary Mandol

(Originally published 20 May 2008 in Canada Free Press)

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Editor’s Note: On April 29, Canada Free Press (CFP) picked up a story sent by Christian Newswire about a persecuted mother and her infant son in Bangladesh.  From the outset, people trying to help could not find Mary Mondol, the woman who was the subject of the story.  The Chicago-based Dr. Richard Benkin, who successfully fought for the release of Bangladeshi journalist, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, imprisoned after writing articles in the Weekly Blitz warning the outside world about the rise of Islamic radicals, urging Bangladesh to recognize Israel, and advocating for religious equality, contacted Choudhury to track down Mary Mondol, a Christian woman living in Dhaka.  Following are the results of their investigation.  Since 2006, Dr. Benkin has been investigating and exposing the emerging South Asian threat stemming from the cooperation of radical Communists and radical Islamists.  He has termed this the “Red-Green Alliance” and continues to speak about the atrocities and strategic advantages it already has carried out, as well as the very real threat it poses to us all.

On April 29, I read an article in Canada Free Press about anti-Christian activity in Bangladesh.  The story concerned Mary Mondol, a Christian woman who, according to Christian Freedom International (CFI), was approached by a Muslim man in 2001 and given the following choice:  either marry him and convert to Islam or be killed. Having no choice, she acquiesced and spent the next several years in virtual captivity, faced regular beatings even while pregnant, and was finally kicked out with her infant son in January.  She sought refuge with Christian “pastor,” William Gomes, and the two then began building a case against her husband; but the authorities refused to act.  Now, Gomes reportedly said, “They are threatening me to stop working for her. Now I cannot give her shelter any longer…I may be killed any time, as they are very strong and are from the majority community. Being a Christian, I am a minority, and the government doesn’t give support for us. But we are praying to save her from the Muslim family.”

It was a terribly moving story and one that is not unknown by any means in the Muslim world.  Unfortunately, however, it is also false, and as such has set back the fight for human rights in South Asia, of which I am part.  Having met with religious minorities who had faced persecution from Bangladeshi Islamists, I was determined to act. Moreover, the reported inaction by Bangladeshi authorities in the Mondol case also rang true and mirrored my own experiences with Bangladeshi officials in the Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury case and others.  So, in fact, I called my brother, friend, and confidant, Shoaib, the famous “Muslim Zionist.” He has experienced Islamist persecution and has a history of supporting persecuted Bangladeshis no matter what their faith.  He is also an accomplished journalist with an extensive network of sources.  He also secured the help of Kazi Azizul Huq, a fundamentalist Muslim—that’s right, a Muslim fundamentalist—and the International Affairs Secretary of Khalafat Andolin Bangladesh (KAB).  I met Huq when I was in Dhaka in 2007.  We spoke for hours and though we agreed on very few issues, as I said, “Well, we’re not lobbing bombs at each other” (not too much of a stretch, especially with the “mujahadeen” in the room).  We have maintained an ongoing dialogue that continues to find commonality among believers of different faiths.  Huq and KAB have demonstrated their sincerity by taking public positions that are unpopular in this nation of almost 150 million; most notably, that the government should drop all charges against Shoaib and also end its ban on travel to Israel.

For several days, however, Shoaib and Huq continued to tell me that they could find no evidence of the case or even Mondol’s existence.  Concerned, I contacted James Jacobson, head of CFI, on May 4 who said they had “solid documentation on [Mondol’s] situation.”  He asked his “coworker in Dhaka…to contact [me] about Mary,” but thought he might not “because of security issues.”  He never did, and as Shoaib and Huq continued to come up empty, things turned nasty.  On May 7, Huq sent an email to a number of people calling the entire story “dubious,” based on the absence of evidence.  One of the recipients, Rosaline Costa had previously said she intended to raise the issue at a May 9 Congressional Briefing on Bangladesh and responded to Huq by questioning the veracity of his contacts.  That same day, Shoaib’s Weekly Blitz received a phone call from William Gomes who asked to meet Shoaib at the newspaper office, which he did on May 8.  He began by clarifying that he was no pastor and that the entire story was false.  At that point, Shoaib provided a car to bring Mary Mondol herself to the newspaper.

She denied most of the allegations in the story, stating unequivocally that her marriage and conversion were voluntary.  Her husband became abusive only recently, and she and William Gomes filed a complaint under Bangladesh’s Women and Children Repression Act.  According to Mondol and Gomes, authorities promptly arrested the husband who is still in jail awaiting trial.  She said that the story took on its current form only after she went to Costa for help.  She was destitute, she said, but Costa did not help her despite being part of NGOs that are supposed to do such things.

Shoaib Choudhury stands by these allegations and has offered to provide a tape recording of his interview with Mondol and Gomes if needed.  Moreover, once these matters were uncovered, things began to change.  Costa admitted that she knew Gomes was not a pastor as alleged, but that one of her informants added that because he thought it would “give the story more credibility”.  It is also significant that no one brought up the Mondol case at the May 9 Congressional briefing, of which I was part—and the alleged actions in the story were germane to the briefing’s purpose.  Gomes also contacted me and confirmed the Weekly Blitz account, repeating an allegation he made on tape that Bangladeshi NGOs “are becoming fabulously rich by cashing in on the agonies of religious minorities in Bangladesh” by issuing false reports like the Mondol case.  On the other hand, no one ever provided evidence of the initial story’s allegations.  This, too, is not atypical.  Most NGOs go to the same set of informants (mostly on the left) who tend to have the same political agenda and often give it higher priority than religious freedom.

The false allegations already have hurt the fight against minority persecution in Bangladesh whether they are the product of noble or venal intentions.  That persecution does exist and is a very serious problem.  Fighting it often means confronting out and out denials, even by people holding credible positions.  Our most powerful ally in those confrontations is truth.  False accusations enable both friends and foes alike to question the credibility of all allegations we bring.  Bangladeshi officials on condition of anonymity already have made it clear to me and others that they “know these things do exist” but must “show up liars” and others who “want to hurt Bangladesh.  They expect the Mondol case to come up again and again.  It almost seems in response to the revelations in the Mondol case that a flood of minority persecution stories has been flooding cyberspace.  What is truly unfortunate is that many—or even most—of them are true, but people are giving them less credibility than they did previously.

The fight against Islamist injustice is difficult enough.  Far too often, we come up against western officials who would rather give Islamists and their fellow travelers the “benefit of the doubt” and accept their “assurances” that “everything possible is being done” to secure minority rights, as I was told recently by another government official.

Murdered Lebanese can Thank UN

(Originally published 12 May 2008 in Canada Free Press)

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

The sound of war was heard in the Middle East again this week—and it was not by any means the first time that Israel was not one of the parties involved.  Unfortunately, this Arab vs. Arab war will not silence those who out of either prejudice or ignorance claim that Israel is the cause of all Middle East conflicts; but, then again, facts were never their strong suit.

Watch for the convoluted explanations to hit the internet.  Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces stormed the Lebanese government centers in West Beirut then trained their sites on Sidon in the south, Lebanon’s second largest city.  This is clearly a strategic move by the terrorist group, as the seizure of Sidon gives it control of a continuous coastal strip from its southern Beirut district all the way to Tyre. According to Debka, a reliable news and information network with military and intelligence sources, Hezbollah next is planning an offensive against Sunni Muslims around the northern slopes of Mt. Hermon, which sits at the junction of the Lebanese-Syrian-Israeli border area.  According to the same sources, Syria already has moved advance units of its 10th armored division into Lebanon and has another one on the way along with the rest of the 10th.  Syria has long been a client state of Iran, especially in supporting the Hezbollah proxies.

Ever since the succession of disastrous offensive wars against Israel, the Arab states have used various terrorist groups to attempt to do what they were unable to accomplish:  harass and ultimately defeat the Jewish State of Israel.  Thus far, terror groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Fatah have been partially successful with the former goal, impotent with regard to the latter one.  The lack of an offensive war by sovereign nations against Israel since 1973 has allowed many with their heads in the sand to believe that those forbearing states overnight developed peaceful intentions.  It also enabled the myth to grow that the Arab states had no problem with Israel so long as it quits its ancient territories that were seized from it in 1948 and which it regained in 1967.  But the reality is that those states have never given up their goal to eradicate the State of Israel.  Tired of perpetual humiliation at the hands of the smaller Jewish State, they merely changed tactics.

The good news for them is that their subterfuge was the excuse that signers of the 1973 European-Arab Dialogue needed to adopt an anti-Israeli position without recognizing themselves as anti-Semites—something most Europeans cared about back then.  It allowed them to say they opposed Israeli actions but not the concept of the Jewish State of Israel.  Or so they thought.  While passing on bromides and palliatives to the gullible Europeans, their Arab counterparts were supporting and building up terror groups such as those mentioned above, as well as several others that eventually disbanded.  And the Arabs were willing to continue along that path indefinitely—until the consequences of their duplicity started becoming apparent.

What was clear to Arab leaders, who as a group were never squeamish about Arab deaths (far more inflicted by them than by Israel), was not the terrorist and immoral nature of these groups.  It certainly was not the deaths they caused in Israel during their hey day of terrorist bombings.  It was the growth of an aggressive Iran in the region; an openly anti-Sunni Iran that became the major sponsor of both Shiite and Sunni terrorist groups.  The first open sign of it came in 2006, when the Saudi Foreign Minister—joined by the representatives of most other Arab nations—blamed Hezbollah for that summer’s war with Israel and the civilian Lebanese deaths that ensued.  At a meeting of the Arab League, he labeled the terror group’s actions “unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible.”  A Saudi press release said that Hezbollah “alone bears the full responsibility of these irresponsible acts and should alone shoulder the burden of ending the crisis they have created.”  The Saudis also warned that Hezbollah’s actions in the end would benefit “extremist external forces,” a reference to Iran.  Saudi Arabia is the leader of the Sunni Muslim world, with pretensions that it is the keeper of the faith for all Muslims.  The influence of anti-Sunni Iran throughout the Muslim, and particularly the Arab, world was and is extremely troubling to the Kingdom.

Unfortunately, the growing intensity of this rift between leaders of the Sunni and Shiite worlds has not really hit their acolytes in Western Europe or the United Nations—which brings us back to the title of this article.  Why indeed is the UN culpable for the deaths occurring right now in Lebanon?  One of the conditions for a cease-fire in the 2006 summer war between Israel and Hezbollah was that the latter would disarm and that the Lebanese Army would re-take control of the southern part of that country.  A defeated and nearly disarmed Hezbollah did in fact accept this provision.  For one of the basic principles of national sovereignty is that the nation itself maintains military control.  Any other entity that asserts control is an “occupying” force; and Hezbollah had been forcing an occupation on the people of Southern Lebanon.  Israel intended to be the party monitoring compliance with that provision of the cease-fire. 

But international talking heads objected to Israel to assuring Lebanese sovereignty, so instead UN forces were to prevent Hezbollah’s rearming and occupation of Southern Lebanon.  Bad move!  Almost immediately after the guns were silenced, Hezbollah began violating the agreement.  Iran and Syria channeled arms to the terrorist group while the UN looked the other way and even countenanced Hezbollah’s violation of UN Resolution 1701. The more they tacitly allowed it, the bolder Hezbollah’s masters grew.  And reacting to the current Hezbollah offensive war, the Lebanese government admitted in a statement subsequent to an 11-hour cabinet meeting that Iran has been flying weapons to Hezbollah continuously.  Syria, too, has acted as the cipher for arming the terrorists.

Why did the UN so brazenly ignore its explicit responsibilities?  That’s easy.  Until this week, they saw the matter as an Arab-Israeli one, and if the only potential victim was Israel, the UN was willing to look the other way.  That should not come as any surprise.  When did any of these bodies condemn the wanton murder of Israelis in the same way they condemn even terrorist Arab deaths?  When did the General Assembly last issue a balanced resolution or one that recognized the terrorist nature of Hamas and its ilk or the deliberate targeting of Jewish civilians?  The UN’s tolerance for criminal activity as long as the victims are not to their liking is the reason why Lebanon is under terrorist attack today!

If UN forces had done the job they were sent to do and prevented Hezbollah from rearming after its stock was destroyed in its disastrous war with Israel, Lebanese civilians would not be dying or holed up afraid in their homes today.  If the UN did not believe that international law, right and wrong, was a matter of political expediency, Lebanon would still be a sovereign nation.  As it is,  that status is hanging by a very thin thread—thanks to the world body that exists to protect it.

Media Cover Up – Not really news, is it?

(Originally published 12 May 2008 in Canada Free Press)

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

On April 29, 2007, the Associated Press (AP), BBC, Reuters, the Press Trust of India (PTI), and the French Press Agency (AFP), all distributed the story of an American mountain climber being deported by the Nepalese government.  Police arrested him at the Mount Everest base camp because, so all the accounts relate, they discovered a “Free Tibet” banner in one of his bags.

That banner, a police spokesman said, “breached the terms and conditions of the permit we issued him”; terms and conditions that prohibit any pro-Tibet (or anti-China depending on the account) activities.  The Olympic torch is scheduled to arrive in the Mount Everest area soon, these news agencies explained, and the government of Nepal has agreed to make sure their Chinese neighbors are not embarrassed.

At least one correspondent asked the climber, William Brant Holland of Virginia (Reuters just calls him “an American national”), about his motives and what he thought about being expelled from Nepal.  Holland responded this way.  “You can say I’m totally for the home of the brave and the land of the free.  That’s where my heart is.”  Funny, only the AP ran Holland’s patriotic response; although none of the news organizations shrunk from including any number of details and minutiae.  They dutifully reported the unchallenged apologetics by Nepalese functionaries.  Some even mention that Amnesty International and others criticized the Nepalese earlier this year for using excessively harsh measures to subdue pro-Tibet protesters.  Some articles reveal that Nepal has dispatched troops to the northern side of Everest already; and that it intends to keep them there until after the torch passes on or about May 10 to prevent any pro-Tibet actions that might reflect poorly on the Chinese; but only some.  The Indian account adds that the soldiers were posted “under pressure from Beijing.”  The BBC reports that China’s ambassador actually accompanied Nepalese troops to the Everest base camp.  So there is a good deal of variation in the details reported.  But with respect to one detail in particular, the news agencies are unanimous.

All of them omitted any reference to the fact that the new Nepalese government is a communist government, and that it took over the country just last month.  Neither did they mention that an openly pro-Chinese, communist party was in the ruling coalition that the new government just supplanted, thus affecting previous policy as well.  Not one of them took note of the fact that those Nepalese leaders working overtime to support the Chinese identify themselves as Maoists in homage to the late Chinese Communist leader.

They do, however, tacitly suggest a number of other motivations for Nepal’s pro-Chinese actions; none of them sinister; all of them understandable.  Nepal receives extensive aid from China; and the pieces explicitly contrast “tiny” Nepal with the superpower just across the Himalayas.  All of them also make sure to emphasize the temporary nature of the restrictions, tied to the upcoming Olympics and driven by basic courtesy.  There can be no suggestion that they might be symptomatic of a longer term and oppressive government policy toward pro-Tibet and other activists.

It is utterly baffling why none of these news giants would consider that Nepal’s new leaders might be acting in concert with their communist brothers across the way.  It is even more baffling that there was such unanimity in not even mentioning the new communist leaders when they reported other details like the height of Mount Everest in feet and meters and—stop the presses—that Mount Everest can be reached from both Nepal and China.  So what is it: bias or ignorance; a conscious conspiracy or bumbling incompetence?

Reuters mentions that “Nepal regards Tibet as part of China,” but draws no connection between that policy and Nepal’s communist government or communist participation in the previous one.  Perhaps it seems too simple, but the Reuters stringers are quite transparent with their bias.  Clearly, they expect that we insulated and naïve Americans will not know about the communist takeover in Nepal and will fail to see a connection between repression and communism.  Even more transparent, these journalists include a statement about the “globetrotting” Olympic torch but mention only communist cities on its route:  Pyongyang, North Korea, and Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.  As one Nepalese journalist explained it to me, “Reds are Reds everywhere….China too is expanding its wings in Nepal.”  That journalist is very uncertain about the state of press freedom under the new commissars and how they might react to statements like the one just quoted.

The fact is that the entire region of South Asia is at serious risk, and no western media have been reporting it.  Journalists seeing an iron fist of repression coming down in a communist Nepal have few options, and the number is getting smaller.  China/Tibet run along Nepal’s entire northern border; fleeing there would be moving from the frying pan into the fire.  You can pretty much walk from Nepal to Bangladesh, cutting through a tiny portion of unpatrolled Indian territory; but Bangladesh is coming increasingly under the thumb of radical Islamists who long have coveted the world’s third largest Muslim-majority nation.  In large part because of that, The New York Times and others have called Bangladesh one of “the world’s most dangerous countries for journalists.”  Since 2005, there also have been credible reports of al Qaeda forces on its perimeter or inside the country.  Even the tiny nation of Bhutan—which the media consistently portrays as the last Himalayan Shangri-La—for decades has been ruthlessly expelling its Hindus, most of whom now lead lives of statelessness and desperate poverty in eastern Nepal.  Informed sources of mine in at least two neighboring countries also report that Bhutan has become “infested with Maoists.”

That leaves India, but there are problems there, too, despite the two nations having an open borders policy.  People exiting from the east, however, will find themselves in a sort of no man’s land between Nepal and Bhutan.  Called the “Chicken’s Neck,” the area is notorious for arms and drug smuggling and as a sanctuary for both Islamist and Maoist terrorists.  Chinese agents are reportedly active there, as well.  Leaving by Nepal’s southern border brings one into Uttar Pradesh province and one of the world’s largest Shi’ite populations.  Additionally, India has been complaining about Nepalese and others taking advantage of the open border to escape their countries’ poverty.  (Does that sound familiar to Americans?)  Impoverished Nepalese are also quick to take jobs smuggling contraband into India.  Terrorists, Islamist and Communist alike, use the open border to bring in funds, fighters, and directives that strengthen their position in the country.  (Will this sound familiar to Americans?)

The western media and the large news gathering cliques that feed them have not reported this, even though almost one in four human beings live in what is fast becoming a tinder box.  Though monumentally incompetent, certainly negligent, it is not the result of a vast left-wing conspiracy.  Author and commentator, Bernard Goldberg, probably the most insightful analyst of bias in the news media, provided the best explanation on Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor.  “News executives are willing to jump through hoops in the name of racial and ethnic diversity.  They ought to ump through a few hoops and start an affirmative-action program for conservative journalists.”  Goldberg’s point was that it is not an active conspiracy in the newsroom but simply the result of everyone sharing the same leftist orientation.  That orientation tells them—as our own tells us—what is noteworthy and what is not; what is important enough to be in the article and what is not.

The problem is that news organizations—as well as high profile NGOs like Amnesty International—go to the same pool of people for information and to fill their reporting needs.  In the Middle East, that means “Palestinian witnesses” and openly partisan Arab reporters, photographers like the Lebanese man Reuters had to fire for doctoring pictures in Qana and then passing them off as evidence condemning showed.  For the periodic Israeli fig leaf, these same groups invariably go to the left for one.  In South Asia, they suspect conservatives and assume they are aligned with the military or a repressive regime.  The people they go to share the same left-wing philosophy and tend to see socialism as the only hope for helping the downtrodden and upholding human rights.  Shahriar Kabir, who media, human rights organizations, and certain agencies of our own government consider the go-to guy in Bangladesh, wrote in 2007 that the fall of the “socialist camp” in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union made it very difficult to fight “extreme poverty…[It] left a tremendous vacuum in the intellectual world that has been fully exploited by the American imperialists.”  Those who follow the trials and tribulations of US Presidential candidate Barack Obama take note that in discussing radical Islam on the same page, this committed leftist writes that “people who live in a perpetual state of poverty understandably turn to faith.”

Had the media been doing an unbiased job, it would have been no surprise when in 2006, we revealed that one of our State Department employees in Bangladesh was affiliated with radical Islamist groups; when in the same year, a Voice of American correspondent claimed on Bangladeshi television that the United States concocted the story of British terrorists trying to bring down planes with liquid explosives; or that in 2007, a panel show on US-funded Al Hurra TV turned into a forum for Saudi officials to issue unchallenged denials of any role in exporting radical Islam, while the show’s host marginalized and effectively silenced the lone Muslim dissident.

Has America Lost its Moral Authority?

(Originally published 25 April 2008 in Canada Free Press)

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

How many people remember US Senator John Kerry’s “global test” remark?  During his unsuccessful bid for the presidency, Kerry said that US troops must be used only if “that passes the global test…and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.”  To be sure, the comment was one of many that Kerry made that showed just how out of step he was with American voters—and he paid the price at the polls.  But more importantly, it was a comment that was not his alone but stemmed from one of the basic articles of liberal faith:  that under President George W. Bush, the United States has lost its standing and moral authority in the world.  It is an article of faith that 2008 presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama return to again and again.

It is based, however, on a fallacy; a fallacy that shows how American liberals are as far removed from reality as their 2004 standard bearer was.  And here’s why.

For the most part, when they speak of us “losing the rest of the world,” they are referring to Western Europe.  To be sure, there is a certain compelling logic to it since Europe has been seen as a great ally over the last century and in two world wars—wars fought mainly part against Europeans, too.  But the strength of the argument is only apparent.  It is a vestige from a “white man’s burden” world; one in which Europe was seen as the only arbiters of taste and international politics; a world that no longer exists except in the minds of some European chauvinists.  A world that still sees relevance in vestigial racial and cultural ties, and an argument that reflects the elitist and racist perspective of those (primarily on the Left) who make it.

US and European interests have been traveling divergent paths for several decades now.  It was anything but a match made in heaven to begin with.  Charles De Gaul and other European leaders demonstrated their contempt with numbing regularity.  But concrete interests began diverging in 1973.  While the United States defended Israel against a combined Arab assault, armed and funded by the Soviet Union, Europe backed down.  Threatened with the same Arab Oil Boycott that the US was facing, European governments genuflected to their new potentates.  They signed the European-Arab Dialogue that year, which formally opened the door to massive Arab immigration and a decidedly anti-Israel tilt to its foreign policy.  Do people remember how France was once Israel’s major arms supplier?  Eighteen years later, the Soviet Union collapsed.  For 45 years, the only thing that stood between a prospering Europe and a massive Soviet invasion was the American nuclear umbrella.  Now, Europeans were free of that annoying dependence.  The anti-US rhetoric grew louder and louder; and more and more anti-US policies took hold.  Today, the two entities are direct economic competitors and have been charting diametrically opposed courses in the realm of domestic policy and morality.  And that had far more to do with US-Europe relations than either George W. Bush or Iraq.

We cannot say we “lost” the Saudis; I doubt that we ever “had” them.  Today, however, they are bolder and more openly contemptuous of the United States whenever it shows its new capacity for self-effacement.  But there are Arabs and Muslims all over who eschew the anti-democratic monarchies and the Islamists alike.  They see the United States as their best hope for freedom and prosperity.  And we can be just that, but only so long as we recognize their cries and our moral obligation to defend them.  In 2004, I was fighting for Bangladeshi journalist, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury.  A Muslim, Shoaib was imprisoned and tortured for exposing the rise of Islamists in his country, urging relations with Israel, and advocating real interfaith dialogue based on religious equality.  He is unrepentantly pro-Israel and pro-US.  While he was in jail, my primary contact in Bangladesh was his brother Sohail.  It was a difficult and lonely battle often beset with danger; but we continued fighting side by side.  After one particularly nasty incident, he thanked me for my intervention.  I told him that what I do comes directly from my basic American and Jewish values.  Then, he said:

“I can tell you that in Bangladesh—all over Asia—whenever people are oppressed and are looking for someone to fight for them, they look to the United States.  Only the United States is the one true friend of the people.”

During my trips to South Asia, the Middle East, and elsewhere, I heard the same sentiment time and again.  They do not look to Europe; not to radicals like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez; and certainly not to Osama Bin Laden.  We have not “lost” our moral authority among the people of the world; only among the elites.

This past February, I traveled to India intent on helping Bangladeshi Hindu refugees in that country.  They are victims of Islamist terror and have been subjected to all sorts of terrible abuses.  But when they fled to India, instead of being welcomed as terror victims by their co-religionists, they were placed in camps; some legal, most not.  In one camp in particular, I was struck by the spirit that a group of teen-aged girls displayed.  They were proud of their people and wanted to help them reclaim their rights.  They were strong and resolute; confident and committed.  They saw their people’s current state as something they were obliged to rise above.  One of them said she intended to become a school teacher so she could help Bengali children grow up with the same spirit.  She told me she had never seen an American before and said,

“I think the people in the US are very considerate.  They think for the “Mankind” and [for] the democratic rights of all human beings. Of the men who are deprived of political rights, US people are the main soldiers who are working against communist terror, all over the world. As a Hindu, I offer my pranam [blessings] to the people of the US.

”Now, that’s a global test I am proud to pass!

The Man Islamists Cannot Silence

(Originally published 23 March 2008 in Canada Free Press)

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

He fired the first salvo in 2003 and has been sticking his thumb in Islamist eyes ever since.  Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury describes himself as a “Muslim Zionist.”  He is unabashedly pro-US, pro-Israel, and anti-Islamist.

More importantly, he remains all of that from within the Muslim world, which he refuses to leave.  I have fielded any number of asylum requests for him, and he declined them all.  “Retreat is not in my vocabulary,” he says, for he believes that if he were to leave his country, his credibility would be gone, and Islamists would claim victory; a satisfaction he refuses to give them.  “Bangladesh is my country,” he says.  “Let the radicals leave!”

Since 2003, we have fought not only a battle of ideas but also a battle of wills with our adversaries; and the skirmishes never end.  Shoaib has been imprisoned and tortured.  He has been beaten, and Islamists bombed his newspaper before they and their cronies in the ruling party seized the premises.  All of this happened after Shoaib published articles that exposed the rising strength of Islamist radicals in Bangladesh, urged relations with Israel, and advocated genuine interfaith dialogue based on religious equality.

In November of that year, he was about to board a plane for Bangkok and then Israel (there are no direct flights between Dhaka and Tel Aviv), agents grabbed him.  Eventually, they charged him with sedition, treason, and blasphemy, which are capital offenses and could send Shoaib to the gallows.

In 2005, however, after an intense seventeen month campaign for his freedom, Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL) took on his case.  He summoned then Bangladeshi Ambassador Shamsher M. Chowdhury to his Washington office, and the three of us had a sometimes acrimonious, always difficult, hours-long meeting.  As Kirk (a member of the House Appropriations Committee) describes it, we had a “full and frank discussion,” after which Dhaka agreed to free Shoaib Choudhury.

Our elation was short-lived, however, when Shamsher Chowdhury clarified that Shoaib would be freed on bail even though the ambassador had just admitted that there was no substance to the charges.  To be sure, we had won the most important point: Shoaib would be free.  Still, I looked up and said, “Not good enough.  It’s an old and tired ruse used by tyrants,” I continued.  “Free the dissident but keep the charges pending in order to silence him.”  And so we argued some more until Chowdhury relented and agreed that Dhaka would drop the charges not long after Shoaib’s release.

That was three years ago.  The charges remain, even though numerous Bangladeshi officials have made the same admission as the ambassador; that the charges are baseless and are maintained only to placate the country’s radical Islamists.  Bangladesh’s population is about 88 percent Muslim, a figure that is growing constantly, especially as Hindus are being ethnically cleansed from that country, falling from 18 to nine percent of the population.  Although radical Islamists affiliated with Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations represent only a small proportion of the population, they have infiltrated and taken charge of almost every major institution in Bangladesh from education and banking to police and the judiciary.

For months, both sides had settled into a sort of stasis until this past fall when the Bangladeshis tried illegally to revoke Shoaib’s bail and send him back to prison.  The fact that we continued to frustrate these attempts could have had something to do with what happened next.  On the evening of March 18, as Shoaib sat at his desk working on another edition of his newspaper, Weekly Blitz, a large contingent of armed goons from the government’s paramilitary squad—the hated and feared Rapid Action Battalion or RAB—burst into his office.  They ordered all employees out, seized Shoaib’s means of contacting the outside, and began “interrogating” him.

Fortunately, his driver quickly alerted Shoaib’s brother, Sohail, who telephoned me in the United States.  Shoaib’s life was in very real danger, so we determined on an immediate course of action.  Sohail called Luke Zahner, Second Secretary at the US Embassy in Dhaka, and a long time supporter of Shoaib’s.  Zahner, who had previously helped set up USAID’s elections support program in Iraq, notified U.S. Chargé d’Affaires Geeta Pasi.

I telephoned Kirk’s office and described the events unfolding in Dhaka and their life-and-death nature to Andria Hoffman, who is Kirk’s point person on the Choudhury case.  “These [RAB] are bad people.  I know them, and you don’t even want them as friends, let alone be on their bad side.  They’re the kind of group where people sometimes go into their custody and ‘disappear.’”

Hoffman got to Kirk, and they set up an emergency command center in his Longworth Building office.  I then called three other legislators who have been especially supportive of Shoaib:  Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rep. Steve Rothman (D-NJ), and Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-PA).  Their staffs—who had frequently worked with me on Shoaib’s case—said they would take action and coordinate further with Kirk’s office.

That done, I telephoned Bangladesh’s DC embassy and told them the following:  “If I don’t receive a telephone call confirming that Shoaib has been released unharmed and soon, you’re going to have a s**t storm like you’ve never even imagined.” Within a short time, the embassy received calls from all four members of Congress mentioned above, as well as several others who they got involved.  Hoffman called the Embassy’s political secretary, Sheikh Mohammed Belal on his personal cell phone, demanding action.

Cut to Bangladesh.  After holding Shoaib for about an hour an a half, an RAB officer said (and I am paraphrasing here), ‘Oh look, it appears he has some illegal drugs in his desk drawer.’  Now, I have known Shoaib as a brother for years, and we have spent a lot of time together.  The man is simply not involved in any way with drugs.  Moreover, he and I have spoken on many occasions of the paramount importance of his remaining “squeaky clean” in every way so as not to give his enemies an excuse to further persecute him.  According to Sohail Choudhury, the evidence had to be planted, a tactic that RAB has been known to use rather liberally.  No matter; they blindfolded Shoaib and took him to a “detention center” within RAB’s office in the capital.  According to Shoaib, the officers continued the verbal assault non-stop.  They threatened him specifically and journalists in general for their criticism of the current military-backed government.  They repeatedly called Shoaib a “Zionist spy and agent of the Jews.”

At one point, Shoaib reminded them that they were violating a US Congressional Resolution that calls for an end to this sort of harassment, something with which the government said it would comply.  House Resolution 64, authored by Kirk and co-sponsored by Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) calls on the Bangladeshis to drop all charges against Shoaib and end all harassment of him and his family. It passed last year by an overwhelmingly 409-1 margin.  Their response was a string of expletives about the United States and the value of its resolutions.

As they approached the three hour mark, things were turning even nastier.  RAB officers told Shoaib that he could expect a steady diet of this, or even worse, unless he began working for them; something that he called “ridiculous.”  Then the phone rang.  The officers told Shoaib that the call came from “a high government official” ordering them to let him go.  He phoned Sohail and asked him to bring him home.

Before they allowed them to go, however, Shoaib’s captors forced the pair to sign an affidavit giving RAB the power to enter their home or business at any time and for any reason; although it should be added that it had no warrant or other sort of order when its men broke into his newspaper earlier.  As such, Shoaib remains in danger, especially as his legal status remains equivocal at best.

Although Shoaib was released unharmed, the action represents a serious escalation of the government’s and its Islamist cronies’ attempt to silence this courageous journalist who now counts supporters on every continent.  Equally important, we have learned over the years that they do these things periodically to probe us and test our resolve.  They want to know if we are going to react or note.  They want to know if we still are ready to defend Shoaib and other anti-Islamists or if we have lost interest.

Unfortunately, they started this false persecution on the assumption that no one would care what happened to Shoaib, and many in the government still believe that we Americans have little resolve—and actually have told me that.  And so they go after us.  Our enemies count on this and point to success when they hear proposals to make concessions in Israel or to pull up stakes in Iraq and elsewhere.  If we don’t respond, and respond with strength, they’ll continue persecuting Shoaib and others like him.

Because, in fact, the stakes go beyond even the fate of this hero.  Muslim editors from Pakistan to Indonesia (and even the United States) have told us that Muslims throughout Asia are watching this case.  They want to know if it is possible to stand against the radicals and prevail—without running to the safety of the West, as they put it.  If Shoaib prevails, they will be emboldened to act similarly.  If we let him go down—and that is exactly how they will see it—they will remain silent.

When Shoaib was in prison, his brother told me that people all over the world who need a champion to save them from oppression look only one place, the United States; not to Europe; not to tyrants like Mahmoud Ahmedinejad or Fidel Castro who claim to be freedom fighters; and not to terrorist like Osama Bin Laden.  When we stand with Shoaib, we reinforce their belief in us.

In the meantime, Shoaib Choudhury refuses to be silent, especially he says given all the support he received.  Two days after his abuse at RAB’s hands, he published another edition of Weekly Blitz.  Two of its headline articles were “RAB Cocoon of Terror” and “They want to Appease Islamists.”  He is our ally; he is my brother; he is the bravest man I know.  He is the man whom Islamists cannot silence

More Shenanigans in Bangladesh

(Originally published 4 February 2008 in Canada Free Press)

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

“There they go again.”

The late US President Ronald Reagan used that phrase a lot.  He said those words in good humored frustration when his political opponents (usually Congressional Democrats) would persist with the same policies that failed Americans time and again.

Most often, he was reacting to their proposals that sought to solve problems by increasing taxes and the role of the federal government; although it often was their opposition to his aggressive foreign policy.  More than anything else, the 40th President simply could not understand how these holders of the public trust could make the same mistakes over and over again.

Well, “there they go again”; but “they” are not tax-and-spend legislators; people with whom we might disagree—even vehemently—but not our enemies.  “They” are the Islamist tormentors of heroic Bangladeshi journalist, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, whose struggle has been championed by the Canada Free Press.  Since we secured Shoaib’s release in 2005—after seventeen months of torture and imprisonment—we have been engaged in a dialogue and game of teeter-totter with the various Bangladeshi governments that have been in power during that time.

When then-Bangladeshi Ambassador to Washington Shamsher M. Chowdhury agreed to Shoaib’s release, he also promised (at the insistence of US Congressman Mark Kirk [R-IL] and me) that the government would drop all charges against the self described “Muslim Zionist.”  We agreed to the promise, but Kirk also let Shamsher know that his government’s Holy Grail—a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United States—would never happen as long as the charges stood.  Since that day, we have been subjected to more promises, some sincere efforts on their part, but a string of broken promises and successive disappointments.  We already have had to stop four attempts to re-incarcerate Shoaib.  Almost three years since the promise was made, Shoaib still faces capital charges of sedition, treason, and blasphemy for his advocacy of relations with Israel, interfaith dialogue based on mutual respect and religious equality, and his exposure of and opposition to the radical Islamists who have wormed their way into almost every Bangladeshi institution.  They were even part of Bangladesh’s coalition government and would have realized more gains were they not stopped by a military coup last January.

And that last item is the key.

During a 2005 meeting in New York Lutfuzzamen Babar, Home Minister of the previous Bangladeshi government tried to explain why other diplomats present should not be concerned that his Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) had Islamist parties in its coalition and even its cabinet.  Babar told us that this allowed the BNP to keep the Islamists under control.  “If we did not let them in, where would they go except the streets,” he said.  Then and in subsequent conversations, Babar was trying to make the point that the BNP had the upper hand in its relationship with the Islamists.  But if Babar was not being disingenuous, he certainly misread the situation.

I believe it is the latter, and here is why.  The United States imports roughly 70 percent of Bangladesh’s garment exports, and is therefore critical to its economy.  In 2006, the lack of progress on the FTA, as well as ongoing signs that importers might be getting nervous about Bangladeshi goods—and all largely due to Shoaib’s persecution—threatened millions of Bangladeshis.  At the same time, BNP officials continually were telling us how they had to be careful not to offend the Islamists both inside and out of their coalition.  (That’s right.  They even admitted appeasement was their official policy.)  Thus, they hit on a back door way to salvage their economy (i.e., trade with the US) and political power (i.e., sufferance of the Islamists).  They told us that there was an item in the Bangladeshi law that said if the government brought the defendant to court three successive times without calling any witnesses, the case would have to be dropped.  And so that is what they did.  The first hearing went as planned; so did the second.  After that one, the government’s own public prosecutor congratulated Shoaib’s pending victory.  But when the third and final hearing arrived, the judge (known as an Islamist) made sure that he already had a few witnesses lined up to thwart the government’s effort.  When Babar learned about it, he was furious.  Ambassador Chowdhury phoned him for direction on how to respond to an angry Congressman Kirk and others.  Babar told him to stonewall them, just tell them anything.  Babar called Shoaib on the carpet and verbally abused him over the Americans’ angry response.  I said that Babar was not angry at Shoaib but angry at the realization that his party no longer controlled the Islamists.  And in fact, we have had a few subsequent actions by Islamists that undermined government attempts to end the matter quietly.

When you lie down with dogs, however, you really do get up with fleas.  As recently as this past November, the trial judge attempted to revoke Shoaib’s bail and return him to prison.  He did this even though he knew it was contrary to Bangladeshi law since the matter is before the Supreme Court.  We were able to stop the attempt and a repeat performance the following month by arranging to have international observers in the court from the United States, European Union, and the UK.  But, as Ronald Reagan might have said, “There they go again.”

According to an observer from the US embassy, the January hearing “lasted all of five minutes.”  The matter of bail did not come up in the court.  At the very end of the session, however, the presiding judge said that Shoaib’s trial would begin on the next court date, February 17.  Shoaib himself has insisted that this is the intent and that his local attorney, S N Goswami of the Bangladesh Minority Lawyers Association is “doing everything he can” to prevent it.  Shoaib’s insistence should be taken seriously because as a journalist, he has various sources that feed him information like this.  I also informed Shoaib’s international human rights attorney, former Canadian Law Minister Dr. Irwin Cotler.

The fact is that with the matter before the Supreme Court, the judge’s actions are illegal.  But legality and judicial ethics have played almost no part in Shoaib’s persecution.  Yet, the Islamists persist with these harassing tactics—even though they continue to harm the Bangladeshi people by reducing the likelihood that the US will continue to import their goods at the same rate they have.  Already, they have taken the FTA off the table and are holding up even a consolation prize bill in the Senate that could give Bangladesh some tariff relief.

Shoaib’s supporters are hoping that international outrage will stop the Islamists as before.  Again, we are trying to arrange international observers for the February 17 court date.  We also hope that protests to the Bangladeshi Supreme Court and Law Advisor will help.  Last month, the previous Law Advisor who was actively harassing Shoaib, was sacked which hopefully promises an adherence to law and justice.

Shoaib Choudhury’s Fate Cloudy Entering 2008

(Originally published 5 January 2008 in Canada Free Press)

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Supporters of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury closed out 2007 not knowing if the coming year will be “The Good, The Bad, [or] The Ugly.”  We do know, however, that whatever course his tormentors choose for this anti-jihadi Muslim, they first and foremost will be testing our resolve.

For our enemies believe that we take up issues only for as long as they entertain us.  More than one of them has said to me, “We can wait [you] out on this.”

They can cite plenty examples, too, when they tell it to masses worldwide of it.  They point to an Islamicized Europe, where mosques teem and churches go empty; where the Islamist position on almost every critical issue is either adopted or tolerated.  They note the fact that only sixty years after Israel’s birth, they have cowed many quarters into calling its very legitimacy into question.  And they say that despite all of our bluster, Iran’s nuclear program is a fait accompli, as Western nations seize upon every pretext to avoid dealing with it.  Meanwhile, its president is honored by a major university as he persecutes minorities at home and calls for an anti-Israeli genocide abroad.  The same lack of courage, they note, allows the West to tolerate Islamists’ systematic destruction of ancient Christian communities in the Middle East and Hindu communities in South Asia.

This is why the case of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury has taken on an importance to both sides beyond the fate of one man.  In 2003, he broke several taboos by exposing the rise of Islamist radicals, calling for full Israel-Bangladesh relations, and advocating interfaith dialogue based on religious equality and mutual respect.  Islamists were determined to show that such things cannot be done without severe consequences.  So they engineered his arrest as he was about to board a plane to visit Israel.  They held him under deplorable conditions; even tortured him in an effort to extract a false confession that he was a spy for Israel (and I his Mossad contact).  His family was harassed and his brother twice had to flee the capital for a safe house.  When Islamists beat him, the police refused to take action, saying it was all the Choudhurys’ fault for their “alliance with the Jews.”  But Shoaib did not crack; nor did he give them the false confession they wanted.  His family did not try and dissuade him because of the pressure they faced, but continued to stand by him and support him.  Plus, they expected to do these things without anyone caring.  To their surprise, however, people did care.  Neither have we shown any sign of letting up in our struggle, to the utter chagrin of the Bangladeshi government.  When I walked into the Bangladeshi embassy in 2004 and demanded Shoaib’s release, it was more than symbolic that I did so alone.  Now, we are an international movement with support from governments that hold Bangladesh’s economic fate in their hands.

In November, however, Shoaib returned home to increased harassment after triumphal trips to the United States and Monaco where HRH Prince Albert presented him with the first Monaco Media Forum Award, as decided by a panel headed by Elie Wiesel.  A few days later Shoaib was in the court for the 36th time in the 31 months since his release.  These appearances had taken on an enervating sameness:  Shoaib is summoned to arrive in the court early, forced to wait for hours, and told to return in three to five weeks after a perfunctory hearing.  But this one was different.  Judge Azizul Huq berated him because his appeal before the Supreme Court was taking so long.  The judge did this knowing that under Bangladeshi law Shoaib has no control over the Court’s pace.  He then asked the Public Prosecutor what they should do.  On cue, as rehearsed, he suggested the judge revoke Shoaib’s bail, which he did.  It was soon re-instated after Shoaib’s attorney S N Goswami, General Secretary of the Bangladesh Minority Lawyers Association, produced a letter from the Supreme Court confirming the case’s status; but the government’s ploy worked because bail was re-instated only until the next court appearance, three weeks hence.  This is precisely what I protested when Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL) and I had the often difficult meeting with the Bangladeshis that resulted in Shoaib’s freedom.  I objected then to freeing him without dropping the charges (which they admitted are baseless); and they agreed to do so only on Kirk’s and my continued insistence.

But the capital charges remain and we had to stop further courtroom debacles.  I began mobilizing various friends in the governments of the United States, Canada, the European Union, and Australia.  I also called the US Embassy in Dhaka and recalled that it previously sent observers to Shoaib’s hearings.  I was convinced that it would take a strong showing of international observers to prevent a further miscarriage of justice in Bangladesh.  And it worked.  The US and EU were present, and representatives of other governments, including Canada, made their displeasure known to the Bangladeshis.  Bail revocation did not arise, although it is now valid only from court appearance to court appearance.  But I have received assurances that the US and others will sent courtroom observers for as long as it takes.

Shoaib also was “visited” by a representative of one of the government’s most powerful advisors, who is an Islamist supporter as well.  He informed Shoaib that the government was reviewing his press credentials for possible revocation for his ongoing revelations of government corruption and radical appeasement.  He did not even try to be oblique about it, since most of the press has been muzzled.  While revocation would be damaging, it no doubt would draw protests from the Committee to Protect Journalists, PEN, and other writers organizations that have supported Shoaib in the past.

Previously, the current government appeared promising.  Physical attacks stopped, and Shoaib is permitted to travel outside the country.  We have since been told that the government let him travel only in the hope of Shoaib leaving Bangladesh for good—something he refuses to do, having said. “Bangladesh is my country.  Let the radicals leave.”

Everyone can help in at least two ways.  One is to inform larger retailers that we are not purchasing Bangladeshi goods (or those who import them) as long as the charges against Shoaib remain.  The other is to lobby our representatives to cut off our nations’ aid to Bangladesh (something we are working on in the US Congress right now.  People can also reach me at http://www.InterfaithStrength.com, or by email at  drrbenkin@comcast.net.