abcnews--2019-01-04--Trump threatens to keep the government shut down for a year or longer

President Donald Trump said Friday he would keep the government shut down for months or even a year or longer if needed to get his way on border security and said he has considered declaring a national emergency to try to secure funding for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.  "Yes, I have. And I can do it," Trump said in the White House Rose Garden, answering a question from ABC News' Senior National Correspondent Terry Moran. He added he could do so "for the national security of our country."  The president remarks came after an ABC News report that he was seriously considering potential options to circumvent Congress, including declaring a national emergency, to reprogram funds from the Department of Defense and elsewhere to help pay for parts of his desired border wall, according to multiple sources familiar with the ongoing discussions.  Earlier, Trump had said he had had a "productive" and "very, very good meeting" after talks with top Democrats and other congressional leaders at the White House Friday in an effort to end the partial government shutdown now heading into the third week.  During the hastily arranged Rose Garden press conference with DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, and Vice President Mike Pence standing at his side in the cold, Trump said staff-level talks would continue over the weekend and expressed optimism about a resolution to the standoff over the president's demand that Democrats pass a measure to pay for the wall he wants.  Pence, Nielsen, and presidential adviser Jared Kushner will be leading a White House delegation for negotiations, at the direction of the president.  "We put together a team of people that will work over the weekend and they'll be negotiating on the border. On the look, on different things having to do with border security and including at the ports of entry," Trump said. "And I think they'll be very successful. Because I found the Democrats really want to do something."  Just minutes earlier, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters outside the White House that Trump told lawmakers in their nearly hour-and-a-half meeting that he is prepared to keep the government closed "for a very long period of time, months or even years."  Trump, answering a reporter's question about Schumer's remarks, confirmed that he made the threat and agreed that the meeting had been "contentious" despite his earlier upbeat tone.  Discussions between the president and Democratic leaders had a bumpy start weeks ago, with Trump declaring he would "own" the government shutdown. When reminded of his comments Friday, he said: "I'm very proud of doing what I'm doing."  "I don't call it a shutdown. I call it what you have to do for the benefit and for the safety of our country," Trump said.  Schumer said during the meeting on Friday that Trump resisted Democratic pleas to reopen the government as discussions continue.  "The bottom line is very simple. We made a plea to the president once again. Don't hold millions of Americans hundreds of thousands of workers hostage. Open up the government and let's continue the discussions," Schumer said.  "How do you define progress when you have a better understanding of each other's position? When you eliminate some possibilities?" Pelosi said. "If that's a judgment, then yes, we made progress," she said before turning on her heels with Democrats to leave the White House.  Friday's meeting largely mirrored a Situation Room briefing on border security Wednesday with the same eight members of leadership for both parties in the House and Senate. Friday's briefing took place in the Situation Room and was not open to press coverage.  The meeting also came after the House and Senate adjourned Friday morning. The two chambers are set to return next Tuesday, all but assuring that the partial government shutdown will likely continue well into next week.  Fresh off her election as House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi was expected to pressure the president to sign a series of measures House Democrats passed Thursday evening that would open the six federal agencies shuttered in the government shutdown and extend Department of Homeland Security funding through Feb. 8 to make time for negotiations on border security.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he would not bring the bills for a vote in his chamber without approval from the president, who has only dug in on his demands for more than $5 billion in funding for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.  "The package presented by the House's new Democratic leaders yesterday can only be seen as a time-wasting act of political posturing," McConnell announced on the Senate floor Friday morning.  He went on: "It does not carry the support of the president ... the president would actually veto it. And it cannot earn the support of 60 of my colleagues over here in the Senate. My friends across the aisle understand the ground rules perfectly well."  But there were new signs of cracks in the GOP line as Republican members awaited word from the White House on what exactly the president might sign that would satisfy a sufficient number of Democrats to pass out of the Senate, where a 60-vote threshold is required.  Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, both said they would support measures that would end the partial shutdown and not provide the funding demanded by the president for his border wall.  Reacting to Gardner and Collins' statements, press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters Friday the president wouldn't back down.  "Look the president has the support of the American people because they want to feel safe," Sanders said. "The number one duty that the president has and frankly that Congress shares with him is to protect the people in this country."  Both sides made no progress in the Wednesday meeting as President Trump and DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen sought to exclusively focus on the need for a wall, which Democrats have described as unnecessary and "immoral" in the broader argument for enhanced border security.

Meridith Mcgraw,, Alexander Mallin , Mariam Khan


abcnews--2019-01-05--Negotiations continue as government shutdown enters 3rd week

With the government shutdown entering its third week, negotiations between Republicans and Democrats are continuing in an effort to get federal workers back to work and paid.  Congressional leadership staff, Vice President Mike Pence, senior presidential adviser Jared Kushner, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and aides met today to work towards an agreement at the behest of the president.  On Saturday morning, acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Kushner, Pence, and Nielsen walked over to the vice president's ceremonial office together, which is located across the street from the White House. The meeting lasted nearly two hours, but it's unclear what progress -- if any -- was made. Currently, negotiations remain at an impasse as the president said he will not budge on his request for $5.6 billion in funding for a border wall.  During an unplanned press conference in the Rose Garden of the White House after a closed-door meeting with Democratic and Republican leadership Friday, President Trump said he is prepared to keep the government shut down for "a very long period of time, months or even years" in order to get border wall funding.  Following the meeting, Democrats said the president ignored their pleas to reopen the government as negotiations continue.  The stalemate has frustrated lawmakers and federal workers. Currently, over 800,000 federal workers are working without pay or have been sent home to wait for possible back pay. The consequences are being felt by civilians, too -- museums are closed, trash is piling up in parks, and vital, government-backed resources for farmers or housing, for example, are frozen.  Trump dismissed furloughed federal workers in a tweet on Saturday, writing: "I don’t care that most of the workers not getting paid are Democrats, I want to stop the Shutdown as soon as we are in agreement on Strong Border Security! I am in the White House ready to go, where are the Dems?"  During his Rose Garden press conference Friday, the president was asked about his message for furloughed federal workers. He said that negotiations for a border wall take priority, adding that he believes that federal works "agree with what we're doing."  The president has made the unsubstantiated claim that federal workers are Democrats before. Mulvaney told reporters last Friday the president meant that most federal workers live in districts around the D.C. area that are represented by Democrats.  President Trump also tweeted that ending the shutdown "would be so easy to do" if Democrats would approve "REAL Border Security" that includes the wall and claims there is support from both sides.  Coming out of the second meeting in the White House Situation Room with the president on Friday, Democrats said the discussions were "contentious." While Trump has continued to demand money for the border wall, Democrats say they are not willing to allocate any additional funds. Instead, Democrats have asked the president to reopen the government while the talks about border security continue.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who recaptured the speaker's gavel on Thursday, did not sound optimistic when she was asked how she would define the progress from the meetings.  "How do you define progress when you have a better understanding of each other's position? When you eliminate some possibilities? If that's a judgment, then yes, we made progress," she said before turning on her heels to leave the White House with her fellow Democrats.


abcnews--2019-01-09--The Note Trump losing sway in his own GOP over government shutdown

The Note: Trump losing sway in his own GOP over government shutdown

The TAKE with Rick Klein  As President Donald Trump pushes for his border wall, his wall of Republican support is showing signs of cracking.  A bipartisan meeting at the White House Wednesday morning will be important. But the bigger moments could come when Trump and Vice President Mike Pence make their case to Senate Republicans in the afternoon, amid weariness over the wisdom of an extended government shutdown and concerns about the president's endgame.  Republican moderates are already speaking out, calling for the government to be funded without the president's border wall. Senate Democrats are managing to grind business to a halt so long as the shutdown persists.  While the Senate no longer includes Jeff Flake or Bob Corker, it does include a few purple-state senators growing concerned about their next elections. It also includes some conservative stalwarts who aren't worried about such things -- including new Sen. Mitt Romney and retiring Sens. Lamar Alexander and Pat Roberts.  A big piece of the new Washington dynamic, of course, is Democratic control of the House, but Trump's lack of control over Republicans could be a more urgent concern for the president.  The Trump administration is starting to run into some rhetorical walls, as its arguments for a barrier on the southern border include a few intellectual inconsistencies.  For example, if crime, gangs and drugs are so dangerous south of the border, wouldn't that boost the asylum-seekers' claims?  The budget conversation in Washington the last few weeks has centered on priorities.  The president is prioritizing a physical barrier over other tools for beefing up national security. Democrats have said their priority is to not waste money on something they view as an ineffective idea and a symbol antithetical to American values.  But in all the back and forth, what priority or concession has been given to those traveling from South and Central America who might really be in need and have reasons for seeking refuge?  And if both sides agree there is a humanitarian crisis at the border -- as leaders from both parties said Tuesday night -- what are they offering to provide care, relief or to stem the tide?  FIRST ON ABC NEWS -- Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who has said he's actively considering a second presidential run, will team up Thursday with Reps. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., to unveil three new bills aimed at reducing the price of prescription drugs.  According to Sanders' congressional staff, the legislative package from the group includes:  -- The Prescription Drug Price Relief Act, which would “peg the price of prescription drugs" in the U.S. to the median price in five major countries: Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan  -- The Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Act, to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs under Medicare Part D  -- The Affordable and Safe Prescription Drug Importation Act, which would allow Americans to import safe, low-cost medicine from Canada and other major countries  "The United States pays by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs," Sanders wrote in a statement. "If the pharmaceutical industry will not end its greed, which is literally killing Americans, then we will end it for them."  The issue was central to his first presidential bid in 2016, and last year Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Amy Klobachar, D-Minn., each unveiled their own legislation on the topic too. They're each eyeing possible 2020 runs.  With health care front and center on voters' minds, Trump has also promised to continue to work to bring down drug costs.  ABC News' "Start Here" Podcast. In a special edition, we analyze the president's Oval Office address on border security and the Democratic response. http://apple.co/2HPocUL  WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TODAY  The Note is a daily ABC News feature that highlights the day's top stories in politics. Please check back tomorrow for the latest.


russiainsider--2019-06-17--A Russian-American-Israeli meeting in Jerusalem Syria and Iran on the table

A Russian-American-Israeli meeting in Jerusalem: Syria and Iran on the table

This month of June, the National Security Advisors of Russia, the US, and Israel, Nikolay Patrushev, John Bolton and Meir Ben-Shabbat, respectively, are expected to meet in Jerusalem to talk about Iran and Syria and what Israel considers the “threat to its security” in the Levant.  Well-informed sources believe the meeting will bring nothing new, mainly due to continued Israeli violations of Syrian sovereignty and its bombing of Iranian targets far from the borders. Israel cannot expect any support from Russia in this regard, and this is why. The Kremlin’s hands are tied, and it is unwilling to take a stand against the wishes of the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his allies.  However, this meeting is significant only because it has no precedent and is a concession to a request by Netanyahu to President Vladimir Putin last February during the Israeli Prime Minister’s visit to the Kremlin. Also, it shows US compliance with Netanyahu’s request to President Donald Trump during the visit to the White House last March.  High-ranking sources among decision-makers say this: “Netanyahu runs to his allies to cry on their shoulders when he is the aggressor, as in every single problem in the Levant, particularly when the Israeli military exceeds the limits and crosses red lines. Last year, Russia agreed with Iran to create a kind of safety perimeter for the Russian military to take control along the Quneitra-Golan Heights front. That would have made it possible to ease the situation on the borders and allow President Assad and his allies to concentrate on other fronts. Iran responded positively to the Russian request, following the approval of President Assad”.  “It is important to point out that Russia is not part of and doesn’t adopt the objectives of the “Axis of the Resistance”. It has excellent relations with Israel, Iran and Hezbollah, and considers Syria a strategic ally. Moscow tries to keep a balance in its relations with the countries of the Middle East. Nevertheless, Russia has rushed to support the integrity of Syria, its government and army. It has acted as a second Syrian Air Force, bombing all Syria’s enemies and helping the Syrian government recover the control of its territory. Of course, the situation in the north-east under US occupation and the north-west under al-Qaeda-like groups and pro-Turkish militants is more complicated and confusing. The destiny of these two areas is connected and mature political and diplomatic efforts at coordination will be necessary before moving towards a military option to liberate the north”, said the decision-maker.  Concernant the Iranian deployment in Syria, the source said: “Israel took advantage of Russian efforts and bombed Iranian positions in the heart of Syria and on the coast. These positions are valuable and linked to the organisation of the Syrian army’s strategic armaments (missile production industrial objectives and strategic military warehouses). Thus, it was Israel’s choice to change the Rule of Engagement (ROE), triggering the return of Syrian allies, i.e. Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), to the borders with the occupied Golan Heights annexed by Israel. Russia found itself in no position to intervene and prevent their return because it was Israel which dismantled what Russia had tried to achieve on these borders”.  As to why Syria and its allies did not respond to Israel’s aggressive violations of Syrian sovereignty and its bombing of hundreds of objectives in Syria, the source answered: “Iran’s National Security responsible Admiral Ali Shamkhani has said his country and President Assad will respond by bombing objectives (in Israel) if the Israeli Air Force bombs Syria. Nothing has happened, true. The late Secretary General of Hezbollah Sayyed Abbas al-Moussawi (assassinated by Israel in 1992) used to say that it is important to concentrate on the main objectives and avoid wasting time and energy, regardless of what Israel might do. Israel’s objective is to divert attention from Syria’s main strategic goals. Today Hezbollah and the IRGC have returned to the borders and Russia is no longer in a position to ask for another withdrawal. The destiny and the front of the Shebaa Farms (a Lebanese area occupied by Israel) and the Golan Heights are intertwined, and Syria and its allies are actively working on these objectives”.  Today in Syria there are priorities which take precedence over a battle with Israel. Fighting Israel is not an option for the Syrian President even if several high-value targets have been destroyed. Israel is conscious of the situation and feels disoriented and angry even though it is aware that Syria and its allies are not willing to open a wide military front during this critical period in the Middle East. What is also highly probable is that Israel cannot expect Hezbollah and Iran to remain silent for very long.  To any ordinary observer, it looks like Israel is mocking the Syrian leadership and its allies, enjoying an unstoppable free ride in Syria with no accountability for its actions. Nevertheless, it is President Assad who believes there is no compelling reason for Syria and its allies to bomb Israel. Idlib has priority, as does the reconstruction of Syria and the delivery of fundamental necessities to its inhabitants (energy, schooling, rebuilding societies and cities). The war with Israel can wait and is going nowhere, President Assad believes.  Russia is not in a position to offer Israel what it needs, simply because Netanyahu is unreliable. Netanyahu had his opportunity and has decided to throw it out of the window, prioritising the bombing of Iranian objectives in the country. This may well reduce the Russian-American-Israeli meeting to a picture-taking opportunity. The Israeli Prime Minister will have the opportunity to take credit for staging an unprecedented meeting and will temporarily benefit from this propaganda. However, he will definitely come away empty handed.


tass--2019-06-16--Moscow hopes for results from Russia-US-Israel meeting of security chiefs in Jerusalem

MOSCOW, June 16. /TASS/. Russia’s Security Council hopes that a meeting between Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolay Patrushev, US National Security Advisor John Bolton and Israeli National Security Advisor Meir Ben-Shabbat to be held in Jerusalem later in June will yield practical results in terms of stabilization in Syria and the Middle East, a senior Russian security official said on Sunday.  "As for our cooperation with the United States on Syria, dialogue has been failing for a long time. But to the credit of our American partners, they have demonstrated enough of political will and now we are getting prepared for a meeting of Russian, US and Israeli security chiefs that is to take place within weeks in Jerusalem," he said. "We hope our joint work will yield common practical steps aimed at stabilizing the situation in Syria and the entire Middle East."  According to Yevgeny Anoshin, spokesman for the secretary of the Russian Security Council, the talks will center round the Middle East problems. Meanwhile, US Special Representative for Syria James Jeffrey said the three nations had reached no agreements ahead of the Jerusalem consultations.


fortruss--2019-10-07--Russia hopes that Lavrov-Pompeo meeting will boost dialogue with the U.S.

Russia hopes that Lavrov-Pompeo meeting will boost dialogue with the U.S.  SAN FRANCISCO – The meeting of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, held within the framework of the United Nations General Assembly, could boost bilateral relations, said the Russian ambassador to the United States, Anatoli Antonov.  “The conversation of the ministers was sincere and open, we hope that the meeting will boost our dialogue,” he said at the Russian-American forum Fort Ross Dialogue, which is held in San Francisco.  The ambassador stressed that Moscow and Washington hold consultations on strategic stability and the fight against terrorism among other issues.  “We successfully exchanged opinions about North Korea and Afghanistan, our military maintains contact in Syria,” the diplomat added.  The meeting of Lavrov and Pompeo took place on September 27.  The US secretary of state declared after the meeting that the two countries must overcome current tensions and find a constructive path towards the future.  The United States and Russia must overcome their most recent tensions and find a constructive path towards the future, said US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo after meeting with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov.  Pompeo said at the time that he met with Lavrov to discuss bilateral issues and a variety of global challenges, including arms control.  The secretary of state added that while the U.S. has areas of tension with Russia and they must find a constructive path to the future and have worked together before and can do it again.  The heads of the Russian and US diplomacies reviewed the crises in Ukraine, Afghanistan and the Middle East, as well as the situation on the Korean Peninsula, according to a statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry.  “A wide variety of items on the common agenda were discussed. Ministers spoke about the prospects for a solution to the situation on the Korean Peninsula, about Afghanistan, Ukraine, the Middle East and North Africa, among other issues,” the statement said.  Lavrov expressed in particular his hope that the new Administration of Ukraine will begin to apply the Minsk Agreements in good faith .  Regarding bilateral relations, Lavrov stressed the futility of trying to pressure Moscow through sanctions.


inquisitr--2019-10-01--After Meeting With Donald Trump Ukraine President Announces Concessions To Russia Setting Off Prot

After Meeting With Donald Trump, Ukraine President Announces Concessions To Russia, Setting Off Protests

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky said Tuesday that he will pull troops out of a war-torn region invaded by Russia in 2014.  Just six days after a meeting with Donald Trump, in which he claimed that he did not feel “pushed” by the U.S. president in a July 25 phone call to investigate Democrat Joe Biden, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that he would order the pullout of troops from two towns in the war-torn eastern region of the country where Russia has been waging a bloody incursion since 2014, according to a report by The Kyiv Post.  The announcement by Zelensky, who was elected Ukraine’s president in April and inaugurated in May of this year, set off protests outside the presidential office in Kyiv, with demonstrators chanting “Zelensky out!” More than 13,000 people have died in the fighting that has devastated Ukraine’s Donbass region for the past five years, with 11 of the country’s soldiers killed there in September of this year alone, and 40 more wounded.  Zelensky also announced that Ukraine was now ready to sign on to the “Steinmeier Formula,” a plan to hold elections in the war-torn, Russian-occupied region proposed by German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier in 2015. Under the plan, the region would become self-governing after the elections. But according to Moscow-based journalist Neha Poonia reporting via Twitter, Ukraine had previously demanded a full ceasefire and pullout of all Russian troops before agreeing to the elections plan.  The new Ukraine president now appears willing to go ahead with the “Steinmeier Formula” without those preconditions, even though Ukrainian officials fear that free and fair elections there are impossible as long as Russian troops continue to occupy the region, according to Poonia’s report.  Even before the July 25 call with Trump, Zelensky and Ukrainian officials were aware that they had to “play ball” with the Trump administration in order to secure essential military aid from the United States in its war against the Russian forces in Donbass, according to an explosive whistleblower report that was made public last week, as The Inquisitr reported.  The whistleblower report and a partial transcript of the July 25 Trump-Zelensky call also made public last week have now led to impeachment proceedings against Trump in the House of Representatives, over the various laws Trump appears to have broken by pressuring Zelensky in the call, as The Inquisitr reported.  During his meeting with Zelensky at the United Nations General Assembly last week, Trump urged the new Ukraine president to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin to reach a settlement in the long war, telling Zelensky that Putin wants to “do something.” But according to a New York Times report, Putin wants United States sanctions against Russia lifted, and Trump’s push for a settlement in Ukraine will serve as a step toward that goal.  “Trump has quietly been urging a deal to reduce tensions between Ukraine and Russia that would pave the way for a removal of Western sanctions on Moscow, long a goal of Mr. Putin’s,” The New York Times wrote.


nationalinterest--2019-12-07--What Does Russia Expect from the Putin-Zelensky Meeting?

At first glance, the upcoming Putin-Zelensky summit appears to have all the necessary ingredients for a potential breakthrough meeting. But can the Putin-Zelensky summit live up to these high expectations?  Russian president Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky will come face to face for the first time during the Normandy Format peace talks in Paris on Monday.  At first glance, the upcoming Putin-Zelensky summit appears to have all the necessary ingredients for a potential breakthrough meeting. The last gathering of the Normandy Format—four-way meetings between Russia, Ukraine, Germany, and France aimed at ending the war in eastern Ukraine—took place in 2016. Much has changed since then. Over the past several months, Moscow and Kyiv have held a historic prisoner swap and brokered a troop withdrawal deal between Ukrainian government forces and pro-Russian separatists.  But can the Putin-Zelensky summit live up to these high expectations? The National Interest spoke with several prominent Russian foreign policy analysts to better understand Moscow’s goals and expectations for the latest round of the Normandy Format peace talks.  Zelensky won a landslide victory in Ukraine’s presidential election back in April on a pledge to fight corruption and restart dialogue with Russia to end the war in eastern Ukraine. The comedian-turned-politician demonstrated his strong popular backing again in July, which is when his Servant of the People party captured a majority of seats in the country’s parliamentary elections. With this mandate from the Ukrainian public, Zelensky has been able to take the first steps in easing tensions with Moscow.  In September, Russia and Ukraine exchanged dozens of prisoners. Then on October 1, the two countries and Moscow-backed separatist groups signed a peace roadmap that called for all sides to withdraw their troops from the front line to pave the way for elections conducted under Ukrainian law in the separatist-controlled territories.  But Zelensky’s overtures toward Moscow have not been popular with everyone. Following the announcement of Zelensky’s deal with Russia and the separatists, thousands of demonstrators rallied across Ukraine to accuse their president of “capitulating” to the Kremlin. Soldiers from ultra-nationalist Azov Battalion went so far as to initially refuse to obey Zelensky’s orders for withdrawal.  A recent poll from the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found that Zelensky’s approval rating dropped by 21 percent over the past two months, from 73 percent in September to 52 percent by the end of November. The pollsters noted that Zelensky’s handling of the conflict in eastern Ukraine, along with some unpopular reforms, was part of the reason why the president’s support fell so rapidly.  This backlash has convinced many in Moscow that while Zelensky may have good intentions, he lacks the political leverage to pursue a detente with Russia.  “Although Zelensky won more than 70 percent of the vote, he still has yet to consolidate his power and the aggressive nationalist minority is able to dictate its conditions to the current government,” said Andranik Migranyan, an informal advisor to the Russian presidential administration and a professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations.  Even Putin appears to have some misgivings about his Ukrainian counterpart’s political vulnerability. During an investment forum in Moscow on November 20, the Russian leader explained that while he does not doubt Zelensky’s sincerity, he questions whether the comedian-turned-president can actually follow through on his promise to bring peace to eastern Ukraine.  “What is my relationship with Zelensky? There isn't one. I have never seen him. I don’t know him. We spoke over the phone. I think he is a nice man, an honest one. I think that he really wishes to change the situation for the better, especially in Donbass,” the Russian president said.  "Whether he will be able to do it, I don't know yet," Putin added.  But while many in Moscow sympathize with Zelensky’s political predicament, there is little appetite for Russia to help relieve the Ukrainian president’s domestic pressure by offering him major concessions. On the contrary, some of the experts interviewed by The National Interest argued that Putin should adopt a tough negotiating stance with Zelensky.  “My opinion is that Russia should not give Zelensky any serious concessions or make any major steps to meet him halfway because there's no guarantee that he won't be a lame-duck by the end of next year,” said Alexei Chesnakov, Director of the Russian Center for Current Politics.  Chesnakov also explained that in Moscow there is growing doubt about whether Zelensky has a clear game-plan for addressing the most contentious issues in the conflict.  “For the two sides to even trust each other, it is important to understand whether Ukraine can implement the political points of the Minsk agreements—law on a special status for the Donbass, ratifying that law into the constitution, amnesty, etc.,” he said.  “As of now, Ukraine does not have any idea on how to resolve these questions that would be acceptable to Russia,” Chesnakov added.  Even more alarming for Moscow are recent signals from Kyiv that the Zelensky administration could walk away from the Minsk agreements. On October 10, Zelensky declared that Ukraine would pull out of the agreements as early as next year if the country’s parliament fails to adopt a law on a special status for the separatist-held territories. A month later, the head of Zelensky’s Servant of the People party in parliament stated that the purpose of meeting with Putin was for Ukraine “to get away from the Minsk agreements,” which he said were “enslaving” the country. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko announced that Ukraine might withdraw the agreements if it leaves the Normandy Summit dissatisfied.  Such an outcome would be unacceptable for Russia, explained Dmitry Suslov, an expert on U.S.-Russian relations at the National Research University Higher School of Economics.  “It is important for Russia to keep the Minsk agreements intact because otherwise it raises the question: For what did we endure all these years of American and European sanctions for,” he said.  The Minsk agreements refer to two deals signed by Russia, Ukraine, eastern Ukrainian separatists in September 2014 and February 2015 in the Belarusian capital of Minsk. The agreements attempted to provide a roadmap to ending the war in eastern Ukraine and reintegrating the separatist republics into Ukraine by mandating demilitarization of the conflict zone, amnesty for combatants, and constitutional reform that would provide the separatist regions with greater autonomy within Ukraine. More than five years after the second Minsk agreement, however, both Russia and Ukraine accuse each other of not honoring their commitments.  If Moscow is so pessimistic about the upcoming talks in Paris, then why did it agree to take part in them? The Russian experts interviewed by the National Interest stated that Putin is less interested in winning over Zelensky, than in gaining the support of French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.  “I think that Putin is hoping that Macron and Merkel will explain to Zelensky why he has to implement the Minsk agreements, which many in Kyiv don’t like,” Migranyan said.  “The outcome of the Normandy talks will greatly depend on what Macron and Merkel will do,” Suslov agreed.  “If they support Putin, then Zelensky will have no choice but to acquiesce. But if they side with Zelensky, I don’t exclude the possibility of renewed fighting in eastern Ukraine,” he said.  Dimitri Alexander Simes is a contributor to the National Interest.


osce--2019-11-07--OSCE supports bilateral meeting between Kazakhstan and Russia on rational use of Zhaiyk River water

OSCE supports bilateral meeting between Kazakhstan and Russia on rational use of Zhaiyk River water resources

An OSCE-supported technical meeting on rational use and protection of water resources of the Zhaiyk (Ural) River, including assessment of climate change on water resources, took place on 7 November 2019 in Oral, Western Kazakhstan.  The event was co-organized by the OSCE Programme Office in Nur-Sultan and the International Water Assessment Centre.  Some twenty representatives from the Ministry of Ecology, Geology and Natural Resources, Western Kazakhstan regional administration, civil society, as well as water management officials from Kazakhstan and Russia discussed individual action plans developed for each country. They also examined joint activities on the rational use of the Zhayik River’s water resources.  OSCE-supported experts from Kazakhstan and Russia presented findings on measures both countries should carry out independently on their territories to mitigate the effects of climate change and identified joint areas of co-operation to ensure sustainable use of the Zhaiyk River. The reports will be submitted to the governmental Kazakhstan-Russia Commission on the Joint Use and Protection of Transboundary Water Resources of the Zhayik River for review and adoption.  The event is part of the OSCE Programme Office’s continuous efforts to contribute to the transboundary dialogue on water and raise awareness among the state institutions on the sustainable management of water resources.


palmerreport--2019-02-25--The Russians appear to be crashing Donald Trumps meeting with Kim Jong Un

The Russians appear to be crashing Donald Trump’s meeting with Kim Jong Un

“President” Donald Trump is on his way to Vietnam, finally going there to serve his nation, decades after questionable doctor’s notes excusing him from serving in the war there. At least he is going there this week, ostensibly in the service of our nation – but perhaps not. We might never truly learn about what Trump and Kim Jong-un discuss.  In advance of the visit by Trump and what clearly must be a coincidence, the plane of Sergey Viktorovich Lavrov, Foreign Minister of Russia, reportedly has landed in Vietnam ahead of Trump’s arrival. Trump has been touting that if North Korea will give up nuclear weapons, it will be dominant on the world economic stage, tweeting:  This is doubtful on many levels, including unlike South Korea or Japan or any other country producing electronics and that is an economic powerhouse, North Korea has nothing in terms of infrastructure or technology, other than its nuclear capabilities.  Trump also is talking about his bromance with Kim, noting that “we fell in love.” While being on good relationship terms with North Korea is important, we fear that Trump has fallen for good old-fashioned propaganda from a leader who knows how to play the game.  This meeting between Kim and Trump will be their second. In recent months, North Korea has not only failed to provide any accounting of its inventory, it also has failed to stop its nuclear weapons or ballistic missile programs. Intelligence officials reportedly are worried that Trump, in order to get the appearance of a “win,” will give away much, and have expressed concerns that Kim has no intention to denuclearize.  Given the way Donald Trump does international relationships, with one-on-one meetings and no surviving minutes, we might not ever know what is agreed to in Vietnam or what he has given to Kim for little to nothing in return. Last meeting, he agreed to end some military testing. Those from the media and others must also watch to determine why Lavrov just happens to have landed twenty-four hours ahead of Trump.


rferl--2019-05-21--UN Security Council Rejects Russian Request For Ukraine Meeting

The UN Security Council has rejected a Russian request to hold a meeting on a new language law in Ukraine.  Russia managed to garner only four votes -- from China, South Africa, Equatorial Guinea, and the Dominican Republic -- out of the nine it needed from the 15-member council.  The United States and five other countries -- France, Germany, Britain, Belgium, and Poland -- voted against and four other countries --    Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Kuwait and Peru -- abstained.  The May 20 vote was held on the same day that Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, was sworn in.  Jonathan Cohen, the acting U.S. ambassador, called Moscow's request "a clear attempt by Russia to distract from the peaceful, democratic transfer of power happening today in Ukraine."  France's ambassador to the UN, Francois Delattre, told the council ahead of the vote that the Russian move was "not intended to have a constructive discussion" but to "put the new president of Ukraine in the worst light."  Ukraine's parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, passed the law in April.  Under the new legislation, Ukrainian-language TV and radio programming is increased and all citizens have the obligation to speak Ukrainian, which becomes compulsory for civil servants, doctors, teachers, and lawyers, under the threat of fines.  Russian, which is also widely spoken in the country, is permitted in personal communications.  Russian Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya said that the Russian language was being "pushed out" of Ukraine and accused the council of "censorship."  He said that the vote to refuse the meeting was "a blatant demonstration of double standards" by members who approved other meetings.  Ukrainian Ambassador Volodymyr Yelchenko said it was "not a coincidence" that Russia had asked for the council to meet on the day of Zelenskiy's inauguration.  Zelenskiy said after his inauguration that his main goal was to bring peace to eastern Ukraine.  Russia seized control of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and fomented unrest in eastern Ukraine, where the conflict between government forces and Moscow-backed separatists has killed some 13,000 people and continues despite a cease-fire and peace deal known as the Minsk accords.  Moscow's attempt "to send a very powerful message to the new leader from the Security Council" ended up instead being a message for Russia, Yelchenko said.


rferl--2019-12-05--Belarus's Lukashenka Touts Equal Partnership With Russia Ahead Of Meeting With Putin

Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka has reaffirmed his country's commitment to a strategic partnership with Russia, though there are no talks currently on establishing a joint parliament.  Speaking in an address to parliament on December 5, the Belarusian leader, often described as "the last dictator in Europe," looked to allay fears among ordinary citizens that the country was moving toward a rebuilding of the former Soviet Union.  Lukashenka's speech comes as he is scheduled to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin on December 7-8 to discuss further integration within the Russia-Belarus Union State, a grouping that has existed mainly on paper since it was established in the 1990s.  "No one will ever sign documents that could cause us harm," said Lukashenka, who has ruled Belarus for a quarter of a century.  "We have never planned to join another state, including Russia, which is our fraternal nation," he added.  In recent months, Putin and Lukashenka have held several rounds of talks on the integration, with the latter stressing that the partnership should be equal.  But many ordinary Belarusians have expressed concerns that further integration with Moscow will mean a dangerous erosion of sovereignty.  In a traditional, annual live interview with selected television channels on December 5, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev hailed the "very high" level of integration between the two countries.  "We have a union state. This is a big asset. Indeed, we often have disputes, and we utter some insults, especially in emotional outbursts. This does happen. But, objectively, the level of integration between our countries is very high," said Medvedev, who is due to hold talks with Belarusian Prime Minister Syarhey Rumas on December 5.  He also told journalists in Moscow that "there is no need" for the Belarusians to give up their sovereignty if they don't want to, but he pointed out that "any integration is a partial reduction of sovereignty."  Belarus is already a member of the Eurasian Economic Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organization, regional groupings that observers say Moscow uses to bolster its influence in the former Soviet Union and to counter the European Union and NATO.  Wariness about Moscow's intentions toward its neighbors has risen in the wake of Russia's 2014 annexation of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula and its military, political, and economic support for militants in parts of eastern Ukraine, leading to an armed conflict in which more than 13,000 people have been killed.  "The work on the program of deeper integration in the union state, the package of road maps, and the agreements pertaining to issues sensitive for both countries is at the final stage," Lukashenka said.  "The goal is to preserve our national values, which formed the basis of the political course of the country: people, fair treatment, and the sovereignty of Belarus," the 65-year-old added.


sottnet--2019-02-13--What are Russia and Turkey preparing for Syria Upcoming Sochi meeting will see disagreements

What are Russia and Turkey preparing for Syria? Upcoming Sochi meeting will see disagreements

The 14th of February meeting in Sochi between the three Presidents (Russia, Turkey and Iran) is not expected to find solutions agreeable to all parties about the two main problem areas left in Syria: northeast Syria (Manbij to Qamishli/al-Hasaka), currently occupied by US forces, and Idlib city and its rural areas occupied by jihadist groups friendly to Turkey.There are fundamentally different points of view. At the top of the agenda, the gathering is expected to have further discussions on a possible US withdrawal in the coming weeks - the month of April seems plausible - as announced by officials in Washington.Therefore, any step that help to reach this objective smoothly should be taken. Nevertheless, the main differences are triggered by the Russian desire and intention to conclude a "temporary deal" with Turkey over North-east Syria's status after the US withdrawal. These differences are related to the price Syria should pay to see US forces out of the country.Sources among decision makers in Damascus said "Russia is trying to find an excuse for Turkey to move into north-east Syria, within a 'buffer zone' of 12,000 sq km out of the 42,000 sq km that represent the zone east of the Euphrates under US occupation,".On January the 23rd,. A Syrian source reports, "The Russian President is trying to open the road for Turkey to regain a direct relationship with Syria on a higher level.".Russia has never abandoned the idea of Syrian unity and considers it important for the entire geographic area to return under the control of the central government. Nevertheless,if this is what Washington wants.On the other hand, the Syrian and the Iranian Presidents disagree with Putin's strategy becauseover the agricultural and natural energy wealth and resources in Northeast Syria under the pretext of fighting their sworn enemies, the Kurdish militants."Riyadh was aiming to return to Damascus and reopen its embassy very soon when the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo put pressure on the Arabs to stop the process and prevent the return of Syria to the Arab League, throwing obstacles in the way of their end run towards Damascus. Nevertheless,. Therefore, the US, Russia, Turkey and Qatar seem to agree on a Turkish presence in the Syrian "buffer zone" running from Manbij to Ayn al-Arab, Tal Abyad, al-Hasaka and Qamishli".The destiny of the Kurds and their families unwilling to live under Turkish occupation is clearly no longer an interest of the USA.The "revised Adana agreement" promoted by Moscow and Ankara will affect Syrian demography at the expense of the Kurds, who believed the US would provide them with an independent state, and never imagined a sudden US departure.Turkish ambitions in Syria are not limited to northeast Syria. Ankara is unwilling to depart from Idlib and is demanding that local groups sort out their differences, mainly between the al-Qaeda group of "Hurras al-Deen" and the jihadist group of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham.Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is no longer related to the al-Qaeda group led by Ayman al-Zawaheri; its leader Abu Mohamad al-Joulani likes his independence.In fact, Joulani doesn't need to follow ISIS or al-Qaeda and nothing prevents him from being an independent Syrian jihadist with slightly different objectives and priorities. He has foreign fighters from all over the world under his command and is based in the Levant which every jihadist believes is the "promised land" for establishing an "Islamic Emirates". Indeed, Joulani is the leader of "a jihadist group on the creed of Sunnah and Jama'a with the aim of imposing the Islamic Sharia through jihad and Da'wa," as he describes the objective of his group in his communiqué.. It compromises temporarily on alliances and practices until the group becomes strong enough to let go of some pragmatic policies that help it survive, gather strength and recruit.Turkey is the most powerful Islamic country present in Idlib, strong enough to hold back Russia and the forces of Damascus from attacking his stronghold. Turkey is happy to deal with a" as long as it serves both parties' purposes (Turkey and HTS).However, Ankara wouldn't mind delivering the skin of the Syrian al-Qaeda "Hurras el-Deen" for Russia to bomb and while Joulani to wears the skin of a jihadist obedient as a sheep. Joulani can help Turkey to resolve its awkward situation, if he shows pragmatism - Turkey has been embarrassed by its lack of commitment to the agreement signed with Russia in September last year, when it committed to end the al-Qaeda presence in Idlib and its surroundings. A metamorphosed Joulani is very convenient to both Ankara and Moscow.The situation in the Levant is still complicated and unsolved due to prevailing scepticism about impending full US withdrawal from the country, and the lack of trust among partners. Russia seems to be tolerating the Turkish presence temporarily. Iran, a close Turkish partner, would like to see the Syrian forces in control of the entire territory but also gives priority to seeing the "great Satan" leave permanently. Damascus and Tehran share the same fear of seeing Turkish troops hanging on in Syria for a very long time. These differences may prevent a successful Sochi meeting, where the destiny of Idlib and northeast Syria are still unknown and not agreed upon between allies until now.No perfect solution can be expected, since trust is clearly lacking - mainly over the future Turkish role and presence in Syria. Independently of this, the Kurds remain, regardless, the biggest losers.


windowoneurasiablog--2019-12-04--Religious Conflict in North Ossetia-Alania Threatens to Undermine Moscow’s Policies in North Caucasu

Religious Conflict in North Ossetia-Alania Threatens to Undermine Moscow’s Policies in North Caucasus

Staunton, December 1 – A conflict between the Russian Orthodox Church and the traditional faith of the North Ossetians has broken out with renewed vigor as the republic prepares to mark the 1100th anniversary of the founding of the Alania state, a state so important to Ossetian thought that in 1993, nationalists insisted Alania be named to the republic.  Alania, a medieval kingdom in the North Caucasus roughly coterminous with Circassia and North Ossetia that had its capital in Magas, which is now in Ingushetia, was not Christian but followed a traditional animist faith. Support for that faith remains high, but talking about it undermines the borders in the region and Moscow’s efforts to rope in South Ossetia.  (The best explication of this complicated and still sensitive history is provided by Victor Shnirelman in his 2007 article, “The Politics of a Name: Between Consolidation and Separation in the Northern Caucasus,” Acta Slavica Iaponica . It is available online at  The archbishop’s comments were then attacked by several commentators, and then 300 believers from the region published an open letter to Patriarch Kirill in which they said that they no longer recognized” the archbishop as their spiritual leader because of his attacks on the Ossetian nation.  Roman Lunkin, a specialist on religious affairs at the Moscow Institute for Europe, says that this is hardly the first time that such a conflict has broken out, but that it is serious both for the republic and for Moscow. In North Ossetia-Alania, many followers of the traditional faith remain angry that the Orthodox have taken over their religious sites without acknowledgement.  “The presence of Orthodox icons in holy places and groves is something the pagans consider a sacrilege,” the religious specialist says. And support for their position is far greater than for traditional religions in Mari El or Sakha, although pagans in those republics have received more attention in the recent past.  The civil authorities in North Ossetia-Alania have not been able to smooth this over, Lunkin adds; but they must make an effort because the clash between the Orthodox and the followers of the traditional faith creates serious problems for “the nationality policy of the center in the regions.”  Not only does it threaten to exacerbate tensions concerning borders in the North Caucasus by elevating the idea that North Ossetia-Alania has justified claims to far more territory than is now within its borders, but it also complicates Moscow’s task in dealing with South Ossetia, the republic that broke away from Georgia with Russian help in 2008.


newyorker--2019-04-22--A Scholar of Extremism on How Religious Conflict Shapes Sri Lanka

On Easter Sunday, terrorists slaughtered nearly three hundred people in Sri Lanka, in coördinated attacks at three churches and three luxury hotels. The government has said that the attacks were the work of suicide bombers from a single extremist group, and that thirteen people are being held in police custody. On April 11th, the country’s deputy inspector general had issued a letter to government officials saying that National Thowheed Jama’ath, a radical Islamist group based in South India, was planning a terrorist attack, but the Prime Minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, has said that he did not receive the warning. Since the attack, the government has shut down Facebook and other social-media platforms, which recently were used to incite anti-Muslim violence in the country.  Sri Lanka has experienced intermittent violence since the end of a brutal civil war, which lasted from 1983 to 2009. In it, the government, dominated by Sinhalese Buddhists, who make up a large majority in Sri Lanka, defeated the insurgent Tamil Tigers, a militant group that emerged from the Tamil minority, which is overwhelmingly Hindu and makes up about fifteen per cent of the country. Muslim and Christian minorities, both of which make up about eight-to-ten per cent of the population, have also historically faced discrimination.  To discuss Sunday’s atrocities and the political situation in Sri Lanka, I spoke by phone with Amarnath Amarasingam, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue who studies extremism in Sri Lanka and the region. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed social media’s role in exacerbating ethnic conflict, concerns about Islamic extremist groups gaining a foothold in Sri Lanka, and the Buddhist majority’s “majority within the minority” complex.  What, historically, has been the relationship between the Buddhist majority and the Christian minority?  The interesting thing about the Christian community is that they span ethnic lines. There are Sinhalese Catholics, there are Tamil Catholics, so largely they have been left outside of the conflict. They have never been seen as objects of suspicion the way that the Tamil side or Muslims were, as wanting to take over the country. With Tamils you had the war and the liberation conflict, and then with Muslims you had Sharia law and what was happening in other parts of the world with the rise of jihadist movements. There were reasons for that kind of suspicion, but the Christian community was never seen along those lines—as a suspect community that was going to lead to the division of the country, and things like that.  And the relations between Christians and Muslims?  As far as I know, there was no real conflict between the Muslims and the Christians. Particularly in the east, they lived quite happily. The Tamil communities, the Christian communities, the Muslim community—it is a very diverse area. And I would say the same thing about Colombo [Sri Lanka’s capital]. There was no real conflict like that. It is partly the targeting of the Christian population that makes me think it is not just a local-born and -bred Muslim organization that planned and carried out this operation. The targeting of churches, Christian communities, during Easter has a very international-jihadist component to it, even though it hasn’t really been proved and none of these organizations have claimed it yet. I am watching ISIS channels like a hawk, and they haven’t said anything. They are still talking about Afghanistan and what is happening in Syria.  Why do ethnic and religious relations in Sri Lanka remain so toxic, a decade after the war?  I think part of it has to do with the nature of Sinhalese nationalism, which continues to be debated as a topic both within conservative Sinhalese communities and more hard-line Sinhala Buddhist nationalist groups that are operative within the country. Ever since independence from the British [in 1948], the makeup of Sri Lanka as a sort of mono-ethnic state has been debated within its borders. From early on, in 1956, you had what was called the Sinhala Only Act, which stipulated that Sinhala was the only language in the country, and on and on to the different kinds of constitutions, which not only made the Sinhalese language the only language but also argued that Buddhism was the only official religion in the country.  More hard-line communities have often made an argument that has often been called this majority-within-the-minority complex. This idea is that they may be the majority in the country but they are actually the minority in the broader region. If you take into account [the Indian state of] Tamil Nadu, and things like that, with seventy million Tamils just across the border, there has often been this insecurity among more hard-line members of the Sinhalese community. The idea is that this is their country, and Buddha himself had kind of granted them this country, and it would be taken away from them by minorities—and that includes the Tamil community and the Muslim community. There is an ongoing insecurity among some in the majority that there are minorities among them that don’t have an allegiance to the country and have wanted to see it divided into different zones of self-determination, and that continues to play out, even now.  We don’t know who did this, so I don’t want to jump to conclusions, but to what degree has Islamic extremism become an issue since 2009? And to what degree was it an issue before 2009?  That’s the key question. Over the past several decades, from at least the time of the conflict, or the early nineteen-nineties, members of the Muslim community have been victims of various ethno-religious conflicts. The Tamil community, particularly the Tamil Tigers during the war, heavily victimized the Muslim community. And, after the war, you had Sinhalese Buddhist groups urging the burning of Muslim businesses, and urging attacks on mosques, and things like that. We have actually seen a campaign to destroy ancient mosques. Over time, they have always been victims of either Sinhalese Buddhist authoritarianism or the Tamil community. We have rarely seen much pushback from the Muslim community.  But, from the early nineties, there have always been rumors that some elements of the Muslim community are radicalizing, and governments from the Gulf states, like Saudi Arabia, are sending in money to the country, and things like that. The rumors always circulated in the community, but no one could really prove anything. But you could feel over time that there were some elements that were becoming more conservative. Not necessarily radical, but more conservative. But we have never seen attacks of this scale in the post-colonial period.  Right, and we should also say that Gulf money leading to radicalization seems to happen in places beyond where Muslims are victimized.  Exactly. For sure. I think it is particularly interesting because of the debate that was happening in the community in Sri Lanka, particularly in the east, where people were starting to get worried that foreign money was being sent to stir things up. It is not so much that the money is unique, but the conversation in the community is unique, and there were a lot of rumors and conspiracies that went along with that. Whether that actually went anywhere or did anything is almost impossible to tell.  And not to mention that these rumors were used by both the Tamil and Sinhalese communities to start to create fear of the Muslims and see them as mobilizing against the state, and wanting to implement Sharia law in the country, and all these kinds of things. All of that was starting to happen in the nineteen-nineties and really picked up postwar. You had episodes of violence, in 2013 and 2018, where Muslim businesses were burned. You had a strong economic component to this, as well, where a lot of the Buddhist hard-liners would say things like, “Don’t go to Muslim businesses, because Muslim-owned clothing stories are sterilizing women’s panties to keep the Sinhalese population down.” Crazy things like that were circulating on social media, and then you would see Muslim businesses being burned in Colombo.  Sri Lanka, in the decade since the conflict, has had some ups and downs, and there was a bit of a constitutional crisis last year. What do you fear or expect with any governmental response going forward?  There is another important component in this, which is that we are going into an election, in December. The Rajapaksa family, which was in power during the last days of the conflict, is trying to get back into power. If past years are any indication, we might see some flare-up in terms of anti-Muslim attacks, depending on how the government plays it. For now, I think they are playing it pretty smart. They have come out and said they had warnings about it. They have shut down social media, because of all the weird conspiracy theories that were popping up. And, unlike in the past, they have not partaken in communal division. For now, they have handled it quite well, but as the election season heats up we will see more using of minorities as a ploy to stir up their base. And I also think the Rajapaksa family will again use this as an argument against the Prime Minister, to say, “This guy is weak on terrorism. This guy is not supporting the country. And now we have seen the largest attack since the civil war on his watch.” It could get ugly quite fast.  There were a lot of headlines about social media exacerbating ethnic tensions in Sri Lanka last year. Have you seen social-media networks crack down?  I think, in the Sri Lanka context, it is mostly Facebook and WhatsApp that are quite prevalent, and Facebook quite famously was used as a mobilizing point in last year’s anti-Muslim violence. We saw a lot of conspiracies, a lot of misinformation, disinformation, and that resulted in real-life violence. Facebook has stepped up to the plate a bit and recognized what happened in Sri Lanka, what happened in Myanmar, and they have come out and said they are going to do something about it. I know they have been in contact with several N.G.O.s on the ground to monitor the situation and make sure it doesn’t happen again. But we will have to see. Facebook has been open about what is happening, but whether there are actual steps is another story.  A previous version of this post misstated the denomination of one church that had been attacked.


theepochtimes--2019-11-05--Religious Freedom Is a Fundamental Right That Needs Protection Amid Growing Conflict: Becket Attorne

Mother Loraine Marie Maguire, of the Little Sisters of the Poor, speaks to the media after arguments at the US Supreme Court in Washington on March 23, 2016. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)  Religious Freedom Is a Fundamental Right That Needs Protection Amid Growing Conflict: Becket Attorney  Last month, Attorney General William Barr warned that religious values that have been a bedrock for many American families are coming under increasing attack in the last 50 years.  From facing opposition for displaying religious symbols in public spaces to experiencing harassment for refusing to provide a service that would violate their conscience, some people of faith in the United States say they are facing increased hostility for exercising or expressing their religious rights.  The questions of why this fundamental right enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is coming under increasing attack and why we should protect it are emerging as important discussion topics in the public consciousness.  Luke Goodrich, an attorney at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, tries to address these questions in his newly released book “Free to Believe: The Battle Over Religious Liberty in America.” He told The Epoch Times that it is important to protect religious freedom as it is a fundamental right that is rooted in who we are as human beings.  One of the reasons Goodrich believes religious freedom should be protected is because it is intrinsically good. He says it affords people the opportunity to find a transcendent truth if they wish to seek it.  “Every human being is born with a thirst for truth, goodness, and beauty,” he said. “Every human being is born with reason, a mind that allows us to choose between competing goods. Every human being is born with an interior voice that urges us to choose good and reject evil, that you know, just another name for our conscience.”  Goodrich, who was part of the legal team in a multitude of religious rights cases including the landmark Supreme Court case Burwell v Hobby Lobby, argues that if the government attempts to coerce people on matters of transcendent truth, it goes against people’s nature, violating their human rights.  Moreover, religious freedom is a bulwark of protection for all of our other rights, Goodrich said. He argued that the core premise of religious freedom is that there’s something within each person that the government cannot touch or take away, adding that it is something higher than the government that the government must respect.  “[The] core principles that underlie religious freedom also underlie all rather rights—freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, [and] freedom from cruel and unusual punishment,” he said.  Goodrich said that by giving the government the power to interfere with religious freedom and violate inherent principles in every human being, it is the same as giving power to the government to “trample all other rights.”  Another point in his defense of religious freedom is that it is beneficial to society. He said by allowing religion to flourish, morality improves, hence allowing people of diverse backgrounds to live together in peace.  “It allows religion to flourish, which helps produce moral virtue, which is necessary for self-betterment,” he argued. “It benefits society by protecting dissent and diversity. And it benefits society by reducing social conflict, finding a way for people of diverse abilities to live together in peace.”  In his speech at the Notre Dame last month, Barr raised concerns about how a number of social issues are linked to a “growing ascendancy of secularism” in society. He argued that forces of secularism are using society’s institutions like mass media and popular culture to stifle opposing views, promoting greater reliance on government intervention for social problems, and using our legal and judicial institutions to eliminate traditional moral norms.  Goodrich agrees that religion is facing a threat in the United States but said his view as to why it is the case differs from Barr’s. He argued that the growing religious freedom conflicts boil down to several changing cultural shifts, particularly in the areas of life, sexual autonomy, and the belief in absolute truth. He said that the longheld religious understanding of these crucial issues is increasingly pitted against the values of modern society, leading to friction between the two sides.  He argued that our modern culture has made a distinction between what he calls “good” religion and “bad” religion.  “Good” religion is something modern society has deemed as “good” and acceptable. It is something that is practiced in private, that is it stays in the church or the home and subscribes to modern people’s understanding of tolerance—that is it doesn’t make absolute truth claims or tell other people they are wrong, Goodrich argued.  “It accepts people for who they are and who they want to be,” he said. “That kind of religion is perfectly acceptable in modern culture, and it’s not facing the same kind of religious freedom conflicts.”  On the other hand, “bad” religion is not bad in the proper sense of the word, rather it is something modern society deems as non-acceptable because it is practiced in the public, makes claims on absolute truths, makes moral judgments, especially on questions of life and sexuality, and condemns what it views as sin, he argued. These values are often labeled as discrimination when they conflict with modern values.  “And that particular type of religion is increasingly viewed as a threat to modern culture,” he said. “There are lawsuits and state and local governments that are seeking to punish it and minimize it.”  Goodrich said this is why the First Amendment is so important, as it makes no distinction when protecting people’s right to exercise their religion, but he added that this right is not without limitations.  “The limits come from the government’s duty to protect other rights and if religious freedom is violating other fundamental life rights, like the right to life, right to property, that is where restrictions on religious freedom are justified,” he said.  Meanwhile, Goodrich added that a contributing factor to the increase of attacks on religious freedom is that religion is playing a less important role in the daily lives of Americans.  According to a recent Pew Research, the number of Americans who identify as Christians fell 12 percentage points over the past decade, while the number of people who describe their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” is at 26 percent, up 9 percentage points from 2009.  “Fewer people describe religion as important in their lives,” Goodrich said. “And thus fewer people feel like they need religious freedom, and fewer people are willing to take out their necks to protect it. And that’s causing increasing pressure on religious freedom.”  Similarly, Nathan A. Berkeley, the communications director of the Religious Freedom Institute (RFI) in Washington, said in an email to The Epoch Times that they believe the decline in religious devotion is one of the contributing factors in the rise of hostility encountered by people of faith. The RFI is an organization that is committed to achieving broad acceptance of religious liberty as a fundamental human right, the cornerstone of a successful society, and a source of national and international security.  Berkeley said the decline of religious devotion and the push for secularism affect perceptions of what religion is and how it’s “free exercise” contributes to the well-being of American democracy and the common good. He said fighting for religious freedom in such an environment presents challenges, especially in the area of education.  “Across America’s high school and college campuses, religious freedom is often misunderstood, ignored, or thought to be irrelevant,” Berkeley said. “Confronted with rampant secularism and the rise of hot-button social issues, especially since the 1980s, America’s youth have turned inward in their search for truth.”  Berkeley said as a result young people are focusing more on individual autonomy, something he said actually undermines the very social good that young people claim to support.  “This framework of belief also advances a view of religious freedom as an abrogation of individual autonomy and basic human rights,” he added.  Meanwhile, Goodrich said that although culture has shifted in significant ways and the legal system is beginning to reflect more modern values, his hope is that the government would be able to adopt compromise solutions that would let individuals on both sides of the argument live according to their deeply held values.  “My hope would be that and the arguments that we’re making in court are that the government doesn’t have to pick one side of the cultural disagreement about sexuality or life or religion and crush everyone who disagrees,” he said.


foreignpolicy--2019-04-05--How to Defeat Political and Religious Extremism

How to Defeat Political and Religious Extremism  Ever since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. administrations have tried to both root out terrorist groups that pervert Islam and simultaneously reach out to the Muslim world.  Behind much of that outreach effort was Farah Pandith, a State Department official who served under several presidents, including George H.W. Bush and Barack Obama. Pandith is a Muslim American who immigrated to the United States as a child from Kashmir, India. She is also the author of a new book, How We Win: How Cutting-Edge Entrepreneurs, Political Visionaries, Enlightened Business Leaders, and Social Media Mavens Can Defeat the Extremist Threat.  Pandith is our guest on First Person this week.


theindependent--2019-05-15--Sri Lankaaposs shaky apospeaceapos is now 10 years old but conflict rages on as the elites pl

Sri Lanka's shaky 'peace' is now 10 years old, but conflict rages on as the elites play a dangerous game

When the 58th and 59th divisions of the Sri Lankan Army walked towards each other and met in the middle of the Puthumathalan beach on 15 May 2009, it was a piece of meticulously planned symbolism.  "We have liberated the whole country from terrorism,” Mahinda Rajapakse, former president of Sri Lanka announced a few days later. As he addressed the parliament in the Tamil language, he said the war was not waged against the Tamil people. He said back then: “We must find a homegrown solution to this conflict. That solution should be acceptable to all the communities. We have to find a solution based on the philosophy of Buddhism.”  We’re still waiting for that 10 years on from the end of the vicious civil war between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). About 200,000 people were killed over the 26 years, a period which also saw the second highest number of disappearances in the world. There is still a backlog of between 60,000 and 100,000 alleged disappearances dating back to the late 1980s. There is much we don’t have space to touch on here, but the picture is evident: Sri Lanka’s history is rooted in violence and blood.  After the end of the war, the international community raised war crimes allegations against the Sri Lankan government. The UN secretary general appointed a panel of experts to investigate the claims, and the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) held numerous sessions, most infamously on 26/27 May 2009, when it passed a resolution which congratulated and praised the Sri Lankan government – despite the war crimes allegations.  Sri Lanka masterfully orchestrated an alliance of powerful states to support its war against the Tamil Tigers. They were successful.  Ever since Sri Lanka gained independence in 1948 a clique of opportunist Sinhala elite politicians has ruled the country. Over the years, this elite has sourced its power from the alienation, marginalisation and disenfranchisement of minority communities. The device for this was Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism, which has manipulated the majority population and created the need for enemy to maintain its power. Now, Sri Lanka is a security state infused by Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism.  The UN’s efforts from 2009 onwards have brought little improvement. Different special sessions, visits of the UN secretary general and the high commissioners for human rights and subsequent reports by human rights experts have had little impact. After years of refusal to cooperate with the international human rights machinery under president Rajapakse, the current president Maithripala Sirisena decided to engage more openly after his election in 2015.  However, human rights can be a valuable token for third world leaders to bolster their international legitimacy and attract trade and investment. In Sri Lanka, little has been enacted to pave the way for transitional justice (aside from the painfully slow creation of an office of missing persons) or to achieve a culture of accountability.  Instead, it is a culture of impunity that defines Sri Lanka’s history. Meanwhile, of course, accountability for war crimes committed during the conflict and the fates of thousands of missing Sri Lankans go unaddressed. Add to that other key issues. Support for women-led households is stagnating in a patriarchal society, federalism is word largely banned from the public debate and the militarisation of public space remains in place.  In September last year, Michelle Bachelet, the new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights noted the start of consultations for the office of missing persons and noted that “more progress in advancing accountability and truth-seeking could have great weight in the long-term stability and prosperity of the nation.”  She also said that “recurrent incidents of racist and inter-communal violence are disturbing.” Her fears found its most violent manifestation on Easter Sunday.  Those horrific bombings were a painful reminder that violence is the constant shadow of Sri Lanka. Much about the attacks remains unanswered, but clearly there were admitted failings in the sharing of intelligence. In my view, it is hard to separate that from the constitutional crisis in 2018, when Sirisena removed Ranil Wickremesinghe from office.  Moreover, the inter-religious riots in 2014 and 2018 between the Buddhist community and the Muslim community have created a hostile environment for terrorism to grow. Now those tensions have defiantly returned. It seems that the ideology of Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism needs the maintenance of an enemy to thrive. Newly enacted emergency regulations, including a ban on head coverings, are products of ideological hegemony and ostracises an already marginalised segment of a minority community. Just as the Sinhala Only Act once did to the Tamils.  This island in the Indian Ocean, praised for its hospitality, generosity and beauty, is a place of violence. Sri Lanka might be post-war, but not post-conflict. The minority communities are not involved in common state crafting. Ten years on, the trials and tribulations of the common woman and man are not addressed. The current narrative and culture only serve the powerful few, while it wins its lifeblood from a fatal ideology. Mark Twain said once: “History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” Looking at the current developments, history is rhyming again.  Dr Thamil Venthan Ananthavinayagan is a lecturer for international law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law at Griffith College Dublin.


globalresearch--2019-01-08--Crisis in Ukraine Religious Schism and War

Crisis in Ukraine: Religious Schism and War

The signing of the Tomos or note of Autocephaly for the newly created Orthodox Church of Ukraine is not a church but a political act which may have catastrophic consequences for Ukraine.  So said the head of the Russian Federation Council’s international affairs committee, Konstantin Kosachev, on Saturday January 6, the day the document was issued.  One of the worst crises in the history of Christianity was the split between the Church centred in Rome and the Church centred in Constantinople, between the west and east regions of the old Roman Empire, that took place in the year 1054. Today, the NATO military alliance and its vassals in the Kiev regime in Ukraine have forced a further split within the Eastern or Orthodox Church by setting up a separate Orthodox church in Ukraine that rejects the age old authority of the Moscow Patriarchate with authority over the churches in Ukraine and purports to set up a separate Orthodox Church in Kiev.  This is not just a side issue in the Christian world or world politics. It is a key element of the NATO plan to use all forms of warfare in all realms of life to further their ambition of crushing the power of Russia. It is designed to engender hostility among the Slavic peoples, to reduce Russia’s prestige and Moscow’s reputation as the third Rome, to further divide the Ukrainian people against themselves and harden the artificial division between the Ukrainian and Russian peoples. But to understand the new division we have to review some history.  The split or schism within the Christian church had many complex causes which neither I, nor the reader, have the patience to enter into. Some of the causes were theological, some cultural, others political. To avoid boring you I will provide only what is essential from the past to understand the present.  For centuries the emperors in control of the eastern Roman Empire based in Constantinople, favoured Rome’s supremacy in Church matters because they wanted to safeguard the universality of the Empire and their claims to Italy. The separation of the churches in the two parts of the Empire evolved gradually over the centuries and reflected the long rivalry between Latins and Greeks, between Rome and Constantinople. But the Roman popes steadily expanded their control across Europe along with their spiritual and temporal power that the authorities in the second city of the Empire resented and feared. The eastern Romans, who considered their emperor as an equal of the apostles, and who believed that matters of church doctrine could be resolved only through the Holy Ghost speaking through the Ecumenical Council, were shocked by the pope in Rome, who to them was just first among equals among all the church patriarchs, yet claimed he could formulate dogma and had spiritual and temporal supremacy over all the other churches and patriarchs; for in the early Church and for a long period, spiritual authority was deemed to be held equally between the patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Aleppo.  The major split took place in 1054 when the Normans attacked some cities in southern Italy, defeated the army sent to stop them, and detained the Roman pope who was furious that the emperor in Constantinople had not come to his rescue. The patriarch and the Emperor in Constantinople tried to smooth things over but tempers and insults flared and the papal legates visiting Constantinople for the purpose of resolving the dispute only inflamed matters and ended their mission by excommunicating the eastern patriarch who in turn anathematised them.  This sequence of events resulted in the lasting separation of the eastern and western churches. The split need never have occurred. More goodwill, less bigotry, cooler tempers could have resolved all the issues but, as is the case now, ill will prevailed. Though the split of 1054 was not complete, for there were attempts in the 13th and 15th centuries to cement the two churches back together and an another attempt in 1965 at the Ecumenical Council, the injury could not be healed, has long festered and now has begun to bleed once again, but this time within the eastern church itself and within the context of a threatened general war.  When the Turks took Constantinople in 1453 they permitted the Orthodox Christians to remain and it was Mehmet the Conqueror, acting as a Roman emperor, who designated a new Patriarch for the city. Today the Istanbul patriarch claims authority over the scattered Greek Orthodox churches in Western Europe, the Americas and Australia and the eastern orthodox churches in Russia, the Balkans, Greece, Asia and Africa, though he has very few adherents in modern Istanbul.  As Christianity spread further east, first Kiev then Moscow became the important centres of the Orthodox Church and set up their own patriarchates or divisions of the  Church. But, partly as a result of the Mongol invasions and other complicated events Moscow assumed a more authoritative and primary role resulting in the Patriarchate in Constantinople assigning the Moscow patriarchate with authority over the eastern churches, including Ukraine, in 1686. This has been the situation more or less up to the present.  But on October 15, 2018 the Russian Orthodox Church announced that it would break off all relations with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew, the claimed leader of Eastern Orthodoxy, after he agreed on October 11, 2018, to the April request of Kiev leader Poroshenko, and his minions in the church in Kiev, to grant autocephaly, or self-governance, to what they are calling the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, not to be confused with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church that does not recognize this action, the sole objective of which is to attempt to divide Ukrainians from the historical influence of the Russian Orthodox Church and Russia.  Poroshenko who, along with NATO, backed this action, stated that this step “finally dispelled the imperial illusions and chauvinistic fantasies of Moscow.”  Ukraine currently has three Orthodox denominations, the largest of which is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. That branch remained subordinate to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union and contains more than 12,000 parishes. This is a third of all parishes under the Russian Orthodox Church, and Ukraine contains some of the most symbolic ones, such as the monastery Kiev-Pechersk Lavra and its catacombs. The other two denominations are the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate, with 4,800 parishes, and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, with 1,000 parishes, which adds to the confusion when trying to grasp what is going on here.  But Russia has long been unhappy with Constantinople’s first-among-equals status and has sought to challenge and erode its role since the Moscow patriarchate sees itself as the dominant bastion of Eastern Orthodoxy. The Russian Orthodox Church alone has more than 150 million followers, half of the world wide adherents and the two patriarchates also differ on some points of doctrine, with Constantinople seeking closer alignment with the Pope in Rome, while the number of Christians in Istanbul can no longer support the claim of that city’s Christian leader to be head of the eastern church.  After Patriarch Bartholomew’s decision, which he probably had no authority to make, Patriarch Filaret in Kiev stated that he would call a council of the leaders of the  Ukrainian Orthodox Church to choose a leader for this newly created church of Ukraine. The move marked the beginning of the establishment of an independent church in Ukraine, outside the control of Moscow and its patriarch, Kirill. It is also a self-serving decision because it serves to weaken the Russian Orthodox Church and strengthen the almost irrelevant Church in Constantinople that has long been under the sway of the NATO powers and serves their interests. It also is designed to destroy the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and force people to join this new church.  This has wider dimensions since Russian allies, Serbia and Belarus, already have backed the Moscow Patriarchate and condemned the granting of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine.  The split in the church may have other and more violent consequences arising from disputes over holy sites as several of Ukraine’s most holy sites and churches will be claimed by both the Russian and established Ukrainian churches and this upstart church. The Kiev Patriarchate has already laid claim to the famous 11th century Kiev Monastery of the Caves and the Holy Dormition Monastery in Pochayiv. Both sites are now controlled by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate and could face protests and vandalism.  Vadym Novinskyi, an opposition bloc member of parliament, predicted a “civil war and clashes over property “in every village and every town.”  There have already been reports of problems over the Christmas period.  It was reported in Tass that,  On December 26th Patriarch Kiril of Moscow and All Russia stated,  Already priests in Ukraine face persecution arising out of this development. Over the past few weeks, Ukraine’s Security Service, the SBU, has conducted searches in the Ovruch diocese in Ukraine’s Zhitomir Region. This resulted in 20 clerics of the UOC’s Rovno and Sarny dioceses being summoned for questioning. Searches were also conducted in the apartment of Metropolitan Paul, Abbot of Kiev Pechersk Lavra. According to the SBU, these police actions were part of a criminal case on inciting inter-confessional strife opened against him, but no doubt are meant to harass and intimidate. Some already face criminal charges.  The tensions being stoked within the Church and the broader society by Poroshenko and the NATO intelligence services will no doubt be used as fuel for the fire as Kiev ratchets up its military actions against the peoples of east Ukraine in the Donbass republics and can lead not only to arrests and detentions of religious leaders and their supporters but also assassinations of those opposing their maneuvers, for on top of all the other problems faced by Ukrainians has been placed the bloody thorn of religious persecution, a Christmas gift from NATO.  Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.  Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel “Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


nationalreview--2019-06-19--Two Painful Truths of Americas Religious Culture War

Two Painful Truths of America’s Religious Culture War

Secular government is breaking its promise of liberty, and the American church is breaking its promise of virtue.  The fundamental, founding structure of our American nation is relatively simple. While the federal government should seek the common good, its first responsibility is to secure the liberty of its citizens. Conversely, while citizens should seek to influence their nation through government, their first responsibility is to exercise their liberty toward virtuous ends. This is the essence of the ordered liberty envisioned by the Founders. Government protects our “unalienable rights,” yet at the same time our Constitution is made for a “moral and religious people” and is “wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  Failure on either end — failure of the government to protect liberty or failure of the people to be virtuous — breaks the compact and places unacceptable strains on our nation and culture. As Christian communities face increasing governmental hostility and struggle with declining church attendance, it’s time for both sides of our nation’s religious culture war to confront their role in disrupting these core principles of the American founding. Here are two painful truths: Secular government is breaking its promise of liberty, and the American church is breaking its promise of virtue.  First, the mainly progressive effort to restrict the free exercise of religion is plainly illiberal and contrary to the constitutional order. If there is one single legal strand that ties together the myriad threats to religious liberty and free speech in the United States — efforts to coerce Catholic hospitals and adoption agencies into violating their convictions, to toss Christian student groups off campuses, to force Christian institutions to facilitate access to abortifacients, to compel the speech of Christian creative professionals, or to place in doubt the accreditation and tax exemptions of Christian educational institutions — it’s that they depend for their success on inverting the proper constitutional order.  Progressive government passes sweeping and intrusive statutes and regulations and then treats the free-exercise and free-speech claims of religious individuals and institutions as a form of special pleading. Yet this gets the legal hierarchy upside down. The Constitution — including the First Amendment, of course — is the supreme law of the land, and statutes and regulations are making claims against it. Thus, the default proposition is that free speech, free exercise, and voluntary association enjoy protection, with that protection to fall away only in the face of compelling governmental interests, enacted through the least restrictive means.  Efforts to chip away at this default structure aim to disrupt the primacy of liberty and the legal primacy of the Constitution. So, when people of faith decry attacks on religious freedom, they’re not merely an interest group seeking accommodation; they’re citizens seeking to maintain the core principles of the American founding.  This brings us to the second truth. Even while religious conservatives are right to fight for their liberties, we need to understand that no government or cultural institution is more responsible for the decline of the church than the church itself. All too many Christians look at falling Sunday-morning attendance and increasing faithlessness and lash out — at Hollywood, at academia, or at (to take a recent example) “drag-queen story hour.”  Instead, we should be more focused on lashing in — at hypocrisy, at adultery, at abuse, and all the sins besetting our nation’s congregations. Drag-queen story hours could populate our libraries from coast to coast and they would do far less damage to American Christianity than the continued proliferation of the Catholic/Protestant abuse crisis.  Not one Christian parent has to take his or her child to see a drag queen at the library, but all too many Christian parents have had to explain the moral collapse of pastors and church leaders to their kids. All too many Christian wives have had to deal with the devastation of a husband addicted to porn, and all too many Christian spouses have had to pick up the pieces after infidelity and divorce.  Even worse, we often do the opposite of the thing that Paul commanded — we are oh so understanding of our own failings while oh so intolerant of the world’s sins. First Corinthians 5, verses 9 through 12 are among the least-observed and most-defied verses in the Bible:  I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler — not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?  He wrote those words from within a depraved Roman culture — a world that was replete with temptations of the flesh. While he did not ignore the world’s sin, his disciplinary focus was inward, even as his evangelistic focus was outward.  Wise members of the church are beginning to recognize this truth. Earlier this year, the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission — no slouch in the defense of Christian freedom — decided to change the focus of its annual conference to examine the crisis of sex abuse in the church. My wife has publicly discussed her own experience of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of a youth pastor, and that dreadful event had more adverse impact on her faith than any secular academic class ever could.  If we want the church to thrive, we should protect liberty, and that means progressive governments should be held accountable under law for their illiberal attacks on free exercise. But absent our own faithfulness, every legal or political victory will be for naught. We’ll continue to bleed members, lose our witness, and close our doors. Our true challenge lies not with the drag queens without but rather with the adulterers and abusers within.