Still No News on Kidnapped Bishops in Syria

Greek Orthodox Archbishop Boulos Yazigi of Aleppo

______________________________

A spokesman for the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Aleppo said that there’s still no news about the two Syrian Orthodox archbishops kidnapped a week ago, on 22 April. The spokesman, who preferred to be anonymous for security reasons, spoke today with the Catholic NGO Aid to the Church in Need, saying, “We still don’t know where the two archbishops are or who has taken them. There are many Christians being kidnapped now, and this is the first time where we have absolutely no clue about what has happened, where nobody has taken responsibility for the abduction. Of course, this is very worrying… especially, as we’re now on Day Eight since [the kidnapping] happened”.

Gunmen abducted Greek Orthodox Archbishop Boulos Yagizi and Syriac Orthodox Archbishop Youhanna Ibrahim some five miles west of Aleppo, the city to which they were returning after travelling to the Turkish border to negotiate the release of two priests… Frs Michael Kayyal and Maher Mahfouz… kidnapped on 9 February. The kidnapped killed the archbishops’ driver, Deacon Fatha’ Allah Kabboud. Even if the archbishops are being held in a safe location, there’s concern for the health of Syriac Orthodox Archbishop Ibrahim, who takes medication for high blood pressure and diabetes, and isn’t thought to have had the medication with him when he was taken.

The diocesan spokesman said that Church leaders were combating pressure from the Christian community. He said that Christians were calling for demonstrations to appeal for the archbishops’ release, a move which that he said could antagonise the kidnappers. Saying that services and prayer vigils were taking place including one broadcast on Syrian TV, he added, “Christians are worried and want to express their anger about what’s happened, but we should carefully study every step… we have to think about what the response would be from the kidnappers”.

He went on to appeal for continuing international pressure for the archbishops’ release. Emphasising the bishops’ high status, he said that he was hopeful that diplomatic intervention would prove effective, noting, “So far, the international community has done very well in putting pressure. We don’t want that pressure to subside… government, civil society, churches, and NGOs… different levels of help might help”. He called on Christians “and all people of good will” to pray for the archbishops’ release, observing, “What’s so sad about this is that both men were among those working hardest for peace, yet, in this time of conflict, they’re amongst those paying the highest price”.

29 April 2013

Zenit

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/aleppo-spokesman-no-news-on-syrian-archbishops

******

Syriac Orthodox Archbishop Youhanna Ibrahim of Aleppo

______________________________

Maronite Patriarch Cardinal Mar Bechara Boutros al-Rahi appealed for the release of two Orthodox bishops kidnapped and held in Syria, saying that they should be set free in the name of humanity. Rai made his appeal whilst he served liturgy at Our Lady of Lebanon Church in Brazil, where he’s on an official visit. On 22 April, armed men kidnapped Greek Orthodox Archbishop Boulos Yazigi and Syriac Orthodox Archbishop Youhanna Ibrahim, both of Aleppo, as they were enroute to the northern city from the Turkish border. Rai said that all parties involved in the kidnappings should “play a part in their release”, and emphasised, “The kidnapping of the two bishops has nothing to do with current political disputes”.

29 April 2013

The Daily Star

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Local-News/2013/Apr-30/215527-rai-appeals-for-release-of-syrian-archbishops.ashx#axzz2RwEPtGYA

******

On Friday, in a strong message of solidarity, Muslim clerics in Damascus denounced the kidnapping of Greek Orthodox Bishop Boulos Yazigi, and Syriac Orthodox Bishop Youhanna Ibrahim, both of Aleppo. Last Monday, armed men abducted the two whilst they were travelling to Aleppo from a town on the Turkish border where they were carrying out “humanitarian work”. The official SANA news agency reported that imams and preachers at mosques throughout the Syrian capital said in Friday sermons that the kidnappers “ dishonoured the inviolability of Christian and Islamic clergymen”. On Saturday, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation joined in, calling for the “unconditional” release of the two bishops. Ekmeledin Ihsanoglu, the OIC secretary general, condemned the kidnapping. The OIC statement urged their “immediate and unconditional release because such acts contradict the principles of true Islam and the [high] status held by Christian clergymen in Islam”. It added that Christian clergy always “had dignity and honour in Islamic countries”.

28 April 2013

ICN: Independent Catholic News

http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=22424

Putin Sent Greetings to Muslims on Eid al-Adha

_______________________________

On Thursday, the Kremlin press service reported that President Vladimir Putin sent his greetings to Muslims on Eid al-Adha, which begins on Thursday and continues through the weekend. Putin wrote, “Over the centuries this holiday brought the brightest and most gracious feelings. It brings people closer, affirms the ideals of kindness, compassion, and respect, and reveals the depth of the timeless spiritual values of Islam”. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov offered the more specific wish for a ceasefire in Syria throughout the holiday period. After meeting with his Swiss counterpart, Didier Burkhalter, Lavrov said, “I very much expect that the attempts to organise a truce that are currently underway will succeed”.

The UN/Arab League special envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, called Syrian government forces and rebels to agree a truce throughout Eid al-Adha. On Wednesday, the Syrian government said that it agreed the proposal and some members of the armed opposition also responded positively. Speaking about his talks with Burkhalter, Lavrov said, “We’re convinced that there can only be a political solution to the [Syrian] crisis and that the sooner the violence ends and a dialogue without preconditions begins, the more hope all of us will have for exiting the crisis with the least harm done”.

Eid al-Adha, the Festival of Sacrifice, comes the day after pilgrims making the Hajj to Mecca in Saudi Arabia descend from Mount Arafat. It commemorates the Prophet Ibrahim‘s readiness to sacrifice his first-born son Ishmael. Nowadays, the holiday celebrates commitment, obedience, and self-sacrifice in the name of Allah. As a symbol of Ibrahim’s sacrifice, all Muslims who can afford it must slaughter a sheep or cow and distribute its meat equally among members of their family, friends, and the poor.

25 October 2012

RIA-Novosti

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20121025/176902101.html

UN Envoy to Syria Sez Invasion or Military Intervention Not in the Cards

______________________________

On Sunday, Lakhdar Brahimi, the new UN envoy to war-torn Syria, said that a military intervention by Arab forces isn’t in the cards. Brahimi said in an interview to al Arabiya television, “A military intervention in Syria means a failure of diplomatic efforts. For me, this option isn’t available, and, personally, this will be neither today nor tomorrow nor the day after tomorrow”. The 78-year-old diplomat called for a ceasefire in the conflict, which has claimed 25,000 lives since March 2011, according to UN estimates. Brahimi avoided apportioning blame, but said, “The government’s responsibility to stop the violence is greater” than that of the opposition.

Sunday marks the first day at the job for Brahimi, a former Algerian Foreign Minister, and a member of the Global Elders, a group of ex-world leaders and prominent public figures brought together by Nelson Mandela in 2007 to tackle various global issues. Brahimi replaced Kofi Annan, a former UN Secretary General who introduced a peace plan for Syria in February that Russia signed off on, but both the Syrian government and the opposition ignored it. The Arab League, a regional organisation comprised mostly of Syria’s opponents, repeatedly blamed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for the conflict and urged him to step down.

2 September 2012

RIA-Novosti

http://en.rian.ru/world/20120902/175724639.html

Syria: What Next?

______________________________

The latest aggravation of the Syrian crisis and the failure of Kofi Annan’s mission pose new challenges for Russia’s foreign policy. Russia confirmed its status as a key player in the Middle East and, so far, prevented (along with China) the development of a “Libyan scenario” in Syria. Now, Moscow faces another serious dilemma… what next? It’s clear that continuing the current policy (adherence to the Annan Plan and diplomatic support for Damascus), which made sense six months ago, is no longer a valid option.

It’s obvious that the Syrian crisis entered a new stage this summer. Judging by how well the double attack on Damascus and Aleppo and the 18 July terror attack were organised, we can say that the once-scattered groups of militants now appear to have a unified command. The opposition managed to acquire weapons and recruit new supporters. For that reason, the Syrian opposition, which has escalated combat actions in recent months, has little incentive to negotiate with the authorities. With the UN split over Syria… between Russia and China on the one hand, and the USA, Britain, and France on the other… the Syrian opposition is feeling pretty confident. The Western powers condemn the violence committed by Assad’s forces; yet, at the same time, they regard violence committed by the rebels as an unpleasant but unavoidable part of the fight against dictatorship.

Russia has a number of possible options, each with its own positive and negative sides. One option is for Moscow to stick to the existing course that, as noted previously, has proved to be fruitless. Moscow could, without any redirection of effort, continue its diplomatic support for the Assad government and block possible UN sanctions against Syria. This tactic saved Damascus from armed intervention last year. However, under the new conditions, it’ll only prolong the conflict, as the balance of forces in the civil war gradually tilts in favour of the opposition (due to arms and finances supplied from abroad and the engagement of mercenaries), ultimately leading to the fall of the Assad government. Another alternative is to pressure the Syrian president to resign in favour of someone close to him. That’d give Russian diplomacy an argument… “Assad’s gone; let’s negotiate”. However, the resignation of the head of the state would certainly be perceived by the opposition as evidence that anything can be achieved through violence, making it even less willing to begin a dialogue with the authorities. Finally, Moscow could try to shift the active engagement in the Syrian crisis onto the shoulders of other states, i.e. China and Iran, and step out of the limelight. Tehran is keen to stabilise the situation in Syria and maintain a friendly régime there, to avoid geopolitical isolation as it faces the threat of foreign incursions. However, China, whose main interests are in the Asia-Pacific region, would most likely follow Russia’s example. That might open up the possibility of a wider war in the Middle East entailing the violent destruction of the Syrian government and military action against Tehran.

Then again, Moscow can try to play a more active role. In addition to diplomatic support to Assad’s government, Moscow can supply the régime with the needed weapons and equipment (to compensate for the support of the opposition by the Western powers and the regional oil monarchies). With the help of intelligence agencies, it could organise the collection and transmission of information on armed opposition groups to the Syrian government. It could organise patrols of the Syrian coast by the Russian Navy to intercept vessels supplying arms to the opposition. It could put pressure on the major sponsors of the militant opposition… Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. The latter option would lead, inevitably, to greater Russian involvement in the Syrian conflict. On the other hand, it’ll show the irreconcilable opposition that it’ll face serious difficulties if it continues to prosecute the war, but it would carry diplomatic costs for Russia’s relations with the Western powers that, unlike Syria, remain Moscow’s key economic partners.

Of course, all these scenarios are purely theoretical. The choice of one or the other of them depends on the Kremlin’s assessment of all potential risks and benefits. Probably, the key role will be played by President Vladimir Putin’s stated allegiance to the principle that foreign interventions shouldn’t interfere in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. Now, we can only hope that the Kremlin’s choice will also reflect Russia’s national interests… and be beneficial for the people of Syria.

27 August 2012

Aleksei Pilko

Senior Research Fellow, Moscow State University (MGU)

Faculty of History

RIA-Novosti

http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20120827/175465119.html