Rep. Wolf opened the discussion, expressing his concern about the “precarious situation” of the Christian minority in Morocco. Chairman Wolf focused primarily on the deportation of over 40 American citizens and other foreign nationals from Morocco in recent months on charges of violating Morocco’s law against proselytizing. Observing that the Moroccan government did not provide documented evidence for the charges or submit to due process of law, Rep. Wolf stated that the action “calls into question” the longstanding friendship between Morocco and the United States.
The hearings seemed pretty one-sided. One witness mentioned positive aspects about the legal status of women, but no one from the Moroccan government (or supporting the Moroccan government) testified to defend their actions. Of course, it's quite understandable. When you expel dozens of people from your country without presenting evidence and giving them scant time to pack their bags, you are going to have a lot of witnesses willing to testify against you.
I'm not defending the Moroccan government here, but I think that their clear explanation of the events would be beneficial to all involved. So far, the only statements they have released can be disproved by spending a few hours with Moroccans, are patently ridiculous, or are couched in silly meaningless language. (What does it really mean to "shake someone's faith"?) With the exception of Tel Quel, Moroccan media has done little to question the official narrative. Instead it has actively promoted the government's line, and in some cases has printed incendiary rhetoric against foreign residents. Since the press had dropped the ball, probing questions about the events would be welcomed from anyone.
But I also think the government's answers to such questions would have helped guide the discussion away from the direction it took during Representative Wolf's hearings.
On the one hand, the Moroccan government actions are pretty reprehensible according to any conception of the rule of law, empathy, or liberal democracy. And these hearings seemed to cover those flagrant violations pretty well.
But on the other hand, there seemed to be a remarkable lack of historical and regional context, based on the summary I read of the hearings. Morocco did not develop like European countries or like the United States. It consisted of a bunch of unruly tribal areas until very recently. It was colonized. It is a Muslim country, not a secular country based on Christian principles and culture. These are all important differences.
Morocco has attracted so many missionaries mainly because it is so open. College students can come on vacation; they're not that different from other tourists. Many people speak English, and since Americans by and large don't speak Arabic, that enables conversation about religion. Despite recent crackdowns on political dissidents, the press and on non-Sunni Muslims, Morocco is still a better country to be a Westerner or a Christian than almost any other Arab country.
It seems to me we need to stop pretending that all countries come from the same Western mold (liberal democracies based on rule of law and certain fundamental rights). Sure, that would be nice if all countries were. But they're not. And these congressional hearings start from the premise that all countries should be, and when they don't meet the standard, something is terribly wrong.
On another note, it's interesting that all the members of Congress quoted in the coverage of the hearing are Republicans. Their criticism of Obama and his foreign policy cannot be separated from their desire to score some political points, even at the expense of the American ambassador.
Rep. Smith joined in, commenting that the U.S. embassy in Morocco has been “AWOL” regarding its response to the issue, and tied the problem in Morocco to what he called the “feckless” and “ineffective” human rights policy of the Obama administration. Smith said that the fact that the administration has only recently appointed an Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom indicates President Obama’s “lack of prioritization” regarding these issues.
Regarding what kind of assistance the deported Americans had received from the U.S. State Department, Cloud indicated that he had not been contacted by U.S. Ambassador to Morocco Samuel L. Kaplan, whereas Boonstra stated that Ambassador Kaplan’s Dutch counterpart had called him personally on the phone to discuss the deportation.
As I recall, Kaplan pretty roundly denounced the way in which the deportations were carried out while trying to respect Moroccan law as it stands. Not telephoning all the deported Americans strikes me as poor criteria for being "AWOL".
In the end, there are many more important issues in U.S.-Moroccan relations than due process for expelled American missionaries: the Western Sahara question, Islamic terrorists in the Sahara, business and economic links, etc. So it's hard to see the Obama administration taking a firm stand on this small issue at the expense of those others.
Thus, even if the Republicans are correct in pointing out a sad situation, the lack of contextualization, the absence of a Moroccan voice, American political partisanship, and more pressing foreign policy matters all substantially reduce these hearings' significance.
Posts
