WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 (UPI) -- An attempt by some members of the U.S. House of Representatives to require the State Department to monitor and combat global anti-Semitism raises questions about the proper role of the government and its diplomatic efforts worldwide in the modern era.
Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., several co-sponsors and Jewish special interests have pushed a bill this year -- the Global Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2004 -- that would require the agency to empower a section dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism and compiling an annual report on the state of anti-Jewish activity internationally and its efforts to fight it.
While proponents face what is at best an uphill battle given that the move is opposed by the State Department and getting little attention on Capitol Hill, the proposal begs the question whether such a division is a good idea, much less needed.
For one, it is arguable that supporters of the cause ignore the fact that while under the central tenants of the U.S. Constitution, anti-Semitism has no place in the government, it is questionable whether government funds should be directed specifically to monitor attacks or mistreatment of Jews, much less dedicated efforts to deal with problems any particular ethic or religious group has.
There is a long history of the U.S. government stepping in to help special interests when they are wronged and even, at times, causing harm to such groups themselves, but an effort to provide long-term protections to one specific group internationally would be essentially unprecedented.
The Hungarian-born Lantos, who is the only Holocaust survivor serving in Congress, wrote a letter in July to Secretary of State Colin Powell accusing his agency of "shocking and offensive ignorance about the nature of anti-Semitism."
The ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, Lantos told the Jewish News Weekly of Northern California in July that he was "outraged" by the agency's reaction, noting that there has not been an upsurge in "anti-Episcopalian feeling," while a wave of anti-Semitism has swept across Europe and after much success is confronting "governmental complicity in encouraging hate and intolerance toward Jews" in the state-controlled schools and media internationally.
While what Lantos says is not without merit, the State Department makes a credible argument that a dedicated anti-Semitism division could erode its credibility while showing signs of favoritism in its human-rights efforts.
The reports and actions taken under these programs are theoretically designed to monitor such problems as discrimination against Jews as well as other religious and ethic groups in the first place. A division dedicated to Jews is arguably overkill.
While Lantos and his supporters are correct in noting that other vulnerable groups -- including children, laborers and women, along with specific countries like Tibet and problem policy areas like human trafficking and religious freedom -- receive specialized treatment by the State Department, the comparison is not a direct parallel.
All of these groups, interests and policy problems do not constitute a particular religious or ethic identity except when a particular country may be concerned, and then geopolitical interests typically come into play.
In other words, nearly anyone -- no matter what race or creed -- can potentially be affected.
If an anti-Semitism division is created at State, why not one focused solely on persecution of Christians around the world? This is not an unheard of thing in the Muslim world or in countries like China.
It is also questionable about whether this is needed, as the work would potentially replicate what is already accomplished by the non-governmental organizations that already act as the arbiters of information on the subject.
Even if such a group did exist within the agency, it would be unlikely to have a great impact.
After all, the United States has done nothing to stop the genocide of Muslims in Sudan, only condemned it, despite finding enough evidence for Secretary Powell to announce last week that it was occurring.
It has been estimated that up to 50,000 non-Arabs in the country's Darfur region may have been killed with a million more made homeless in attacks led by an Islamic group thought to be in league with the Sudanese government, something the government denies.
Lantos also argued that it is the government's burden to take a stand against anti-Semitism.
But does such a stance necessarily mean special treatment?
Lantos' measure has the support of various Jewish interests, including the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies at Gratz College in Pennsylvania.
The Wyman Institute wrote its own letter to Powell arguing for the division, which it released earlier this week.
The letter was signed by more than 100 political, social and academic figures including former Sen. Jack Kemp, Reagan administration Ambassador to the U.N. Jeane Kirkpatrick, and leaders of several Christian religious seminaries.
It raises the specter of the State Department's effort to downplay the impact of Nazi Germany's genocide of European Jews and the U.S. government ignoring the need for "specific, focused attention" on the problem of anti-Semitism.
Jews clearly are attacked and mistreated the world over, but so are many other groups, and more than anything, these comments recognize that what it being asked for is special treatment.
Whether deserved or not, this one fact cannot be denied.
--
(Please send comments to [email protected].)
