Paul Keenan
Religious leaders are working hard for peace across the Middle East, writes Paul Keenan
“A truly great document. One that will influence our time and history.” If you cannot assign this quote – uttered just last week – to a leading prelate of the Catholic Church, you can hardly be blamed. Similarly, it might be equally as difficult to identify the document in question, despite its great significance towards ending Christian persecution across the Middle East.
The uttered words came from Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, retired Archbishop of Washington, during his visit to Marrakesh in Morocco for the purpose of attending a major international conference of Muslim leaders. The document in question is the fruit of that January 25-27 gathering, the Marrakesh Declaration, to which no fewer than 300 of the leaders added their signatures.
In short, the Marrakesh Declaration is an act which Western commentators have been calling for since the eruption of ISIS’ slaughter in Iraq and Syria, and which many now fail to acknowledge in media coverage of the ongoing search for peace in the region. The latest drive for a political settlement taking place in Geneva, Switzerland, has, by comparison, had no end of cheerleaders and commentary.
Record
Invited to Morocco by King Mohammed VI, the delegates listened as he set the tone of the meeting on day one by boldly declaring: “We in the Kingdom of Morocco will not tolerate the violation of the rights of religious minorities in the name of Islam.” (In this, Morocco stands on its record, affording right of worship to Christians and Jews – the latter community was protected throughout World War II. Today, one of the king’s closest advisors is Jewish.)
Thus the ball was set rolling for a call to action in the Muslim world against the excesses against minority groupings and faiths which have come to demonise the whole by the actions of some.
In its final draft, the Marrakesh Declaration denounces as “unconscionable” the use of religion “for the purpose of aggressing upon the rights of religious minorities in Muslim countries”. It goes on to call for “full protection for the rights and liberties to all religious groups in a civilised manner that eschews coercion, bias, and arrogance”.
Of no less significance, the document also calls for “Muslim educational institutions and authorities to conduct a courageous review of educational curricula that addresses honestly and effectively any material that instigates aggression and extremism, leads to war and chaos, and results in the destruction of our shared societies.”
Further, it calls “upon the various religious groups bound by the same national fabric to address their mutual state of selective amnesia that blocks memories of centuries of joint and shared living on the same land; we call upon them to rebuild the past by reviving this tradition of conviviality, and restoring our shared trust that has been eroded by extremists using acts of terror and aggression”.
By the end of the conference, no fewer than 300 leaders had added their signatures to the Marrakesh Declaration, representing both Sunni and Shia strands of Islam, their unity on a single document a message of contempt for the divisiveness of ISIS.
“[The Marrakesh Declaration] is a document that our world has been waiting for and a tribute to the Muslim scholars who prepared it,” said Cardinal McCarrick.
The world has been waiting, but the fact is, most of the world missed it.
In fact, one of the earliest sources in the West for the fact that the Marrakeh Declaration had come about was to be found on the front page of the Vatican’s own newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, which described the outcome in Morocco as “a very important step forward”.
The leaders of Islam are, however, not alone in this lack of coverage – which is ironic in a conflict underpinned by twisting religion and whose main targets are decided upon based on religion. Over the course of the week encompassing the Marrakesh conference, leaders of the Catholic Church have continued in their efforts to defend the defenceless and influence a change of course in Syria.
In relation to the Geneva talks, ahead of their commencement, US Secretary of State John Kerry received a letter from Bishop Oscar Cantú, chair of the US Bishops’ Committee on International Justice and Peace urging him to highlight persecuted Christians (and those Muslims who dissent from the “distorted and extremist ideology” of ISIS) to the particpants.
Bishop Can-tú’s letter was based on his own fact-finding mission to the refugee camps of the Middle East, which he found “harrowing”.
On the issue of migrants, last week also saw the little covered intervention of Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the UN in Geneva, who argued for the plight of Christians and other minorities to be remembered as the political representatives began their drive for peace.
“We hope the specific needs of the Christians, the Yazidis, and other communities that are not part of the Muslim majority be taken into serious consideration,” he said, adding: “We hope, if not directly and specifically represented in the negotiations… at least indirectly and then later on when other participants will join in the dialogue, that Christians, in particular, be specifically represented.”
Also virtually unheard last week beyond religious news feeds was the voice of Archbishop Jacques Behnan Hindo, leader of the Syrian Catholic Archdiocese of Hassakè-Nisibis in Syria. With little time for platitudes as his community in the central Syrian city of Deir al Zor continues to starve in the wake of the January 17 invasion by ISIS, Archbishop Hindo issued a warning from the very coalface where he continues to serve.
“Many of [ISIS],” he said, “begin to think that Raqqa, their capital in Syria, could fall. Therefore, they are moving to Deir el Zor, perhaps with the intention of turning it into their new stronghold.”
Despite the prelate’s proximity to events, it is a safe and cynical bet that the secular press will only report on an ISIS move to Deir el Zor when a stony-faced Pentagon official speculates that this is so.
To suggest, based on the efforts now being made by Christians Muslim representatives alike to formulate peaceful solutions, that ‘the wrong people’ are at the Geneva talks is a step too far – Syria needs an overarching political settlement if the four-way intervention of Russia, America, Saudi Arabia and Iran is to cease.
But is it a stretch to speculate on what progress could be made if the same vocal religious leaders had real access towards pricking the consciences of the negotiators who, despite the excitement generated by the talks, won’t even enter the same room as each other as Syria’s voiceless millions continue to suffer?