Posted on 02/11/2004 8:55:25 PM PST by DTA
Testimony of Joseph K. Grieboski Founder and President Institute on Religion and Public Policy
Hearing on State Department Annual Report on International Religious Freedom Before the House International Relations Committee Subcommittee on International Terrorism, Nuclear Non-proliferation, and Human Rights
Thank you, Mister Chairman, for inviting me to testify at today's hearings on the 2003 State Department Report on International Religious Freedom.
Before beginning, I wish to express my deep gratitude for your leadership in holding these important hearings on the status of freedom of religion and belief globally and for your personal dedication to ensuring that human rights and freedom of religion and belief remain at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy. Background
Religious freedom is a principal reason for the success of the American republic. It is the "first freedom" of the Bill of Rights, the first sixteen words of which - by guaranteeing free exercise and banning establishment - were designed to encourage the religious enterprise. The first amendment is based on the conviction that believers can and will do good things for themselves, their co-religionists, and America, and that they should be encouraged to do so. Most important, however, the first amendment also protects the rights of those who choose not to believe. Our founders did not see religion as a "private matter" with no relationship to public policy. Rather, they saw religion and religious people as the cornerstone of our democracy and representative of our vitality as a nation.
By the same token, American foreign policy has always drawn on the impulses provided by the first amendment. Promoting religious freedom as a core element of our foreign policy is not only "being true to our character as a people," but also deeply rooted in America's security interests.
Religious liberty, in the full sense of the term, is the first human right. It is, therefore, a liberty that should not be confined to the private sphere only.
In Central Asia, China, the Indian sub-continent, the Middle East and elsewhere, the state's repressive actions empower radicals by criminalizing non-threatening behavior. For this reason, it is vitally important that governments around the world nurture environments of free expression so that moderate views may predominate. Democracy and Security
Promoting freedom of religion and belief globally is vital to our national security in two ways. First, it promotes democracy and therefore strengthens internal and regional stability, and encourages economic prosperity. Second, it helps fight the war on religion-based terrorism. I am not aware of a single regime in the world that both respects religious freedom and poses a security threat to the U.S.
A government's guarantee of freedom of religion indicates acceptance of the premise of democracy: that every individual has value and worth, and that the state is constituted to serve society, not vice versa. It is in this sense that freedom of religion serves as the cornerstone of democracy.
A guarantee of religious freedom also supports the other fundamental human rights necessary to democracy: because it is grounded in the universal dignity of the human person, religious freedom encourages other related rights. A government that denies the right to freedom of religion and belief is far more likely to deny other rights central to human dignity, such as freedom from torture or murder. The reverse is also true. Freedom of religion and belief is also closely connected to other civil and political rights necessary to democracy. Religious individuals and groups need and deserve freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to be secure in their homes from unwarranted government intrusion.
In many countries with religious minorities, the most that is thought to be achievable is a commitment to religious tolerance. True religious freedom, however, is more than mere tolerance. It constitutes an embracing of universal human dignity because of - rather than in spite of - one's religious convictions. The great project of the 21st century is to encourage and empower religious communities - especially Muslims - who have this view, i.e., that adapting to non-Muslim religions within Islamic societies is not a compromise of Islam but a deepening and clarifying of it. This case cannot be limited exclusively to Islam, as other religious traditions are susceptible to the kinds of intolerance that leads to violence. We see this, for example, in the rise of Hindu nationalism in India, and growing religious tensions in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. U.S. religious freedom policy should be at the forefront of this project.
Where freedom of religion and belief is protected by governments and valued by citizens, religion-based terrorism will not take root. It may take advantage of an open society, but sustained support will not emerge. In this sense, freedom of religion is an antidote to terrorism, especially religion-based terrorism, because it encourages a theological and political awareness of the need to accept the "other." To discriminate against religious beliefs, or to discredit religious practice, is exclusion contrary to respect for fundamental human dignity that will eventually destabilize society by creating a climate of tension, intolerance, opposition, and suspicion not conducive to social peace.
It is indeed a fine and fragile balance that needs to be maintained between a state's secular nature and the positive role of believers in public life. To avoid such a twist is as necessary as it is to prevent the misuse of the concept of freedom. This corresponds, among other things, to the demands of a healthy pluralism and contributes to the building up of authentic democracy.
As Pope John Paul II recently stated, "When States are disciplined and balanced in the expression of their secular nature, dialogue between the different social sectors is fostered and, consequently, transparent and frequent cooperation between civil and religious society is promoted, which benefits the common good."
A systematic and systemic discrimination and persecution of any minority, particularly a religious minority, create security, economic, and social consequences for itself, its neighbors, and the international system. The estrangement of one sector of a state´s population by the government or by another segment of the population with the government´s active or passive support establishes resentment and alienation among those groups.
Religion-based discrimination and persecution by a government, actively or passively, serve to create a security dilemma for said state among its neighbors, and may escalate to raise the attention of other interested states and international organizations.
Social and political tensions and conflicts created by feelings of inadequacy potentially lead to coercive measures and imposition of tougher laws. One such law is under consideration in France as we speak. There could be no real power in laws that so many religious believers will resent or will try to circumvent. Alienating people and making them feel unwelcome is not the solution. The state has a responsibility for the common good, social peace and coexistence within the nation. Consequently, it has the duty and responsibility to guarantee these benefits by respecting pluralism.
Such feelings of isolation, separation, and inadequacy - created by inequitable social, economic, educational and other standards based solely on differences in religion - in addition to actual incidents of state-sponsored or supported persecution, are cause for entire migrations of targeted peoples. Such migrations create internal displacement and potential refugee issues for neighboring states.
Mass movements of populations across borders potentially become a security threat to states neighboring a religiously repressive state. This can grow to be a true security dilemma if the religiously repressive regime chooses to use force against religious minorities. While the situation in North Korea is horrific all the way around, the treatment of North Korean refugees by Chinese authorities provides an adequate example of concern for such an issue.
The security dilemma caused by a lack of religious freedom is amplified when religious repression and lack of religious freedom serve as an impetus for acts of violence and terrorism by religious minorities. These acts against the government are not and can never be justified, but may seem to the perpetrators as the only recourse to a regime that represses their fundamental religious rights. Denial of the fundamental right of religion freedom can indeed directly impact the state´s own security. The respect of every expression of religious freedom is, therefore, seen to be a most effective means for guaranteeing security and stability within a state.
It is very important to emphasize that freedom of religion must not be confused with freedom from religion. A policy of secularism should not be promoted in any way as a cover for unintentional intolerance and atheism as a state policy.
Current Concerns
Mr. Chairman, we see today before us an ongoing regression and devolution of religious rights globally. Most dangerously, we are sadly observing many former havens of freedom and religious expression becoming new and subtle arenas for religious discrimination. The bill under discussion by the French Government to ban the wearing of religious garb is an example of this new and potentially dangerous trend.
Similarly, the creation of blacklists of minority religious and spiritual movements by the French and Belgian parliaments severely restricts the rights of their members and all religious communities, since such lists - no matter how misconceived and steeped in misinformation - have been and continue to be considered authoritative by both government and private sector bodies.
European democracies such as France, Belgium and Germany ought to be models for states seeking to develop into full-fledged democracies, yet instead we find China citing France's actions against minority faiths as a justification for its own treatment of the Falun Gong and Christian groups. Germany, in the wake of 9/11, has enacted amendments to its Association Law that give the government full discretion to simply shut down religious organizations that it considers a threat to national security without due process. Governmental actions of this kind by European democracies limits and restricts the rights of all people from practicing their beliefs according to the dictates of their consciences, and serves as a dangerous model for other states worldwide.
The exercise of the right of religious freedom cannot be considered a dispensation granted by the state to its citizens or residents. Additionally, the assurance of this right cannot be deemed an exception. Therefore, it is atypical that more limiting legal or administrative procedures should be implemented with regard to religious beliefs and institutions than those for which the juridical system provides its organization in general.
In areas of the world where American influence is most direct and pervasive, religious freedom may be lost. Article Two of the Afghan Constitution states, "The religion of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam. Followers of other religions are free to perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law." Such a statement, while seeming to respect the rights of all religious believers in Afghanistan, in fact only allows the right of worship, not the right of freedom of religion. While the state certainly has the right to limit religious expressions that safeguard public security, order, health, and moral standards, these limitations cannot be arbitrary or applied in such a way as to make the interventions of government so restrictive that the very substance of freedom of religion becomes insignificant.
Furthermore, the new Afghan constitution enshrines the supremacy of a particular interpretation of Islam over individual rights and freedoms. Article Three clearly states, "In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the sacred religion of Islam and the values of this Constitution." Sharia law has been established as the law of the land in Afghanistan with the mandate that no law be in opposition to Islamic law.
Senator Rick Santorum clearly and unequivocally pointed out in a January 16, 2004 letter to Ambassador Paul Brememer a grave and growing threat to religious freedom in Iraq: "The most immediate threat to religious freedom lies in proposals to overturn the religious neutrality of Iraq's interim constitution." The interim constitution must be completed by February 28, 2004 and cannot be amended until replaced by a permanent constitution in mid-2005. The November 15 agreement requires that the interim constitution contain religious freedom as an essential element.
The establishment of a secular system with respect for and equal treatment of all religious faiths under the law is a fundamental imperative of any democracy and should certainly be desired for Iraq. The time has come for the Iraqi people to enjoy the same benefits and vitality that freedom of religious pluralism and practice promote and ensure. On the contrary, the creation of an Islamic system in Iraq will inevitably lead to conflict over authority to interpret Islam and oversight of its enforcement by the state. The transitional constitution must not permit the use of language that could be interpreted as establishing an Islamic state. Almost five years ago, the United States led NATO into a war to liberate the peoples of Kosovo-Metohija from the oppression of Slobodan Milosevic's regime. Five years later, Kosovo's Serbian Orthodox have become second-class citizens in their own country, deprived of their basic human rights. Under the eye of tens of thousands of NATO troops, including Americans, over 115 churches and monasteries have been leveled - more than half dating back to the Middle Ages; priceless frescos and icons have been desecrated; monks and priests have been attacked as they walk the streets of now-ethnically pure Albanian cities and towns.
Mr. Chairman, the situation is intolerable and it is happening under our watch. Two-thirds of the pre-war Kosovo Serbian Orthodox population has been cleansed from the province, their homes burnt to the ground. And thousands have been murdered. Those Orthodox who remain live in ghettos, segregated from the mainstream of Kosovo society. No one has been held responsible for this human rights catastrophe.
Kosovo's Serbian Orthodox feel that America is permitting all this destruction and violence to take place. They see that Albanians hang our flag everywhere, and they see those same Albanians continue to attack them and their religious heritage. We must pressure Kosovo's Albanian leadership to prosecute those in their midst who commit these atrocities. Inaction on our part makes us moral accomplices to these crimes. Ignoring the horrors in today's Kosovo empowers those who oppose democratic values of religious freedom in places like Afghanistan and Iraq to stand up to us, and this we cannot allow. On the brighter side, there do exist around the globe models of developing, secular, predominantly Muslim states that respect, protect, and promote religious freedom.
Morocco is a tremendously important model as an Arab Muslim state that recognizes the integrity and importance of religious freedom as a national policy. The promotion and advancement of the religious rights of all religious minorities by the Moroccan government distinguish it as a unique paradigm in the Arab Muslim world. While the King of Morocco also serves as head of religion, no one is persecuted or denied their rights because of their religious beliefs. No discrimination or privileges based on affiliation or rejection of affiliation to a religion is acceptable to the King or the Government.
Kazakhstan as a predominantly Muslim, non-Arab state should be recognized for its contributions to the discussion of respect for religious rights. The Kazakh Government under President Nursultan Nazarbayev has promoted the global inter-religious dialogue and cooperation as a means to combat religious intolerance and violence. Further, the Kazakh Government has taken steps to improve human rights standards and practices in Kazakhstan itself. All citizens and residents are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of their rights, thanks to the establishment of a human rights ombudsman, standards of civic governance, and other measures. The government respects the equality and rights of all religious believers before the law and all are entitled without discrimination to equal protection of the law.
It is vitally important that the United States encourage and advance such states as alternative models to those of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Pakistan, and Iran, whose suppression of religious rights and pluralism are pervasive.
In order to encourage and advance such alternative models and to establish consistency in the U.S. policy regarding international religious freedom, and in consistency with the categories of countries already established under the State Department Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, I would recommend that the International Religious Freedom Act Section 402 << NOTE: 22 USC 6442. >> (b) (1) (A) be amended in such as way that the President shall designate each country in the world into categories such as those below: Totalitarian or Authoritarian Attempts to Control Religious Belief or Practice; State Hostility Toward Minority or Nonapproved Religions; State Neglect of The Problem Of Discrimination Against, or Persecution of, Minority or Nonapproved Religions; Discriminatory Legislation or Policies Disadvantaging Certain Religions; Stigmatization of Certain Religions by Wrongfully Associating Them With Dangerous "Cults" or "Sects"; Significant Improvement in the Area of Religious Freedom Significant Protection and Promotion of Religious Rights.
Expanding the categorization of countries serves to advance the cause of religious freedom and of overall United States foreign policy, as well as to more clearly establish consistency within United States foreign policy.
First, the expansion of the list into more defined categories allows the United States to holds its allies and friends to the same standards of freedom of religion and belief to which it holds its opponents and enemies
Second, it clears the charge of duplicity in U.S. foreign policy often raised by foreign governments and actors.
Next, the expansion of the list allows the United States to engage all nations on equal footing, without focusing on the most egregious actions, therefore not losing sight of discrimination and other factors, which can lead to persecution. It provides an opportunity to demonstrate distinctions in and recognition of difference in treatment of religious rights.
Finally, such expansion also allows the United States to recognize positive changes in countries, an action not often taken in U.S. human rights policy, which can serve as a very positive carrot to many states. Conclusion
Domestically, religious freedom issues enjoy tremendous grassroots and political support. It is perhaps the only human rights issue that attracts widespread interest among Americans. It is also the human rights issue with the most support and interest on Capitol Hill, as evidenced in the unanimous passage of the International Religious Freedom Act.
In recent years, the United States Government has increased its advocacy on behalf of religious freedom worldwide. However, these efforts are too often uncoordinated, inefficient, and marginalized from the rest of U.S. foreign policy. Some important steps need to be taken to integrate more fully freedom of religion into overall U.S. foreign policy. The United States Government must accept its awesome responsibility of both protecting American vital interests and promoting American values in its bilateral relationships and discussions, as well as in multilateral fora. The U.S. Government must remind the international community of its commitments regarding freedom of conscience and protection of minority rights. The United States must have a flexible foreign policy that allows it to hold its allies to the same human rights and freedom of conscience criteria and levels to which it holds its opponents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.