Security, Stability, and Religious Freedom
Robert Seiple Friday, 13 February 2004
Ambassador Robert Seiple's February 11, 2004 testimony before the House Committee on International Relations:
It is both a pleasure and an honor to be here today. There is no déjà vu in this hearing—not even, in Yogi Berra's immortal phrasing, déjà vu all over again-because the Report on International Religious Freedom has changed over the years. It now boasts greater clarity, stronger scholarship, more comprehensive inputs, and, most importantly—significantly more impact.
The beginning of wisdom is calling something by its proper name. The Report does that. "Truth without surprise" continues to be the mantra of compilation. The Report reconstructs reality and holds accountable those who need to stand in its harsh glare. The annual exercise of producing such a report has done more to institutionalize the issue of religious freedom than any other single activity. Hundreds of Foreign Service Officers, the Human Rights Community, international NGOs, the press, foreign governments—all continue to make contributions to this ongoing process of reporting. We now have five years of historical markers. Simply put, there is nothing quite like the Report.
Of course, such a product will always have detractors. We comment on 194 countries around the world. America is not one of them. The hubris and arrogance this conveys to the rest of the world, however unintentional, works against the effective implementation of IRFA.
Then, too, an annual report, by definition, is faced with the artificial restraints of time. The development of religious freedom takes time. Linear timelines are almost non-existent. "Two steps forward, one step back" dominates this work. Twelve- month cycles may not explain where a country was or, more importantly, where it is going. Unfortunately, this sometimes hinders our ability to applaud small steps.
Additionally, the Report should be used to articulate more intentionally the United States' goals regarding this issue as well as to provide a rationale for the importance of this agenda. Many of the countries that have the most difficulty with religious freedom are those experiencing massive poverty, high illiteracy rates, reconstruction efforts from nasty military activities, diminished trade opportunities, and so on. Religious Freedom may be at the top of our agenda. It won't be for them. Annual Reports tend not to be patient with endemic problems. Greater clarity concerning long-term goals would be helpful.
A word about designating sanctions for the most egregious offenders of religious freedom. The emphasis placed on punishment—in an Act designed, after all, to promote international religious freedom-has always been problematic. The fascination with "the list" seems to unfairly trivialize the enormous amount of work that goes into the Report. I have been consistently clear concerning sanctions—i.e., "blunt instrument checkered career"—but since "9/11" something has happened to make me revisit this issue.
We are now engaged in a worldwide battle against terrorism. Security has claimed the top spot in our hierarchy of values. Countries that help us in this battle, even if they more than qualify for designation and sanctions because of religious freedom violations, are given a "pass." Security and religious freedom are no longer seen as compatible and the conflict between them is represented as a zero sum game.
How shortsighted! Time does not permit a long discourse on this point, but consider the following from the International Crisis Group's 1 March 2001 Report, focusing on Central Asia:
Treat religious freedom as a security issue, not just a human rights issue, and advocate unequivocally that regional security can only be assured if religious freedom is guaranteed and the legitimate activities of groups and individuals are not suppressed.
Show me a country that jails believers and I will show you a country that is insecure. Governments that suppress minority beliefs cannot claim security for the majority. The curtailment of religion in the name of security only diminishes both.
Our long-term goals should be the development of a values-based civil society here and abroad. This is the coin of the realm—and the two sides of that coin are religious freedom and legitimate security. To take this freedom "off the table" for the sake of security concerns demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of each issue. Religious freedom and its undergirding rationale connect the moral imperative with realpolitik, provide the nexus point between national values and national interests, and allow for both individual security and institutional stability.
It has never been more necessary to highlight religious freedom than today. I am grateful for the Report, an annual process for drawing attention to this issue here and around the world. Again, it is my honor and privilege to be here.