[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 79 (Monday, May 24, 2010)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E917-E919]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        FAITH AND FOREIGN POLICY

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. FRANK R. WOLF

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                          Monday, May 24, 2010

  Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record a piece by Tom Farr, 
former American diplomat and senior fellow at the Berkley Center for 
Religion, Peace and World Affairs which recently ran in The Washington 
Post.
  Farr highlights several of the more alarming findings outlined in the 
recently released annual report of the U.S. Commission on International 
Religious Freedom.
  Whether it is the persecution endured by Tibetan Buddhist monks or 
the violence perpetrated against the ancient Christian community in 
Iraq--religious freedom is under assault around the world.
  Farr points out that the commission makes a host of policy 
recommendations which should prove invaluable to the U.S. State 
Department as it seeks to advocate for those whose voices have been 
silenced around the world.
  However, Farr also rightly notes that ``one could easily conclude 
that Obama Administration officials have no intention of giving 
priority

[[Page E918]]

to religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy, if for no other reason 
than the President's extreme lassitude in nominating an official to 
head the IRF (International Religious Freedom) operation--the 
ambassador at large for international religious freedom required by the 
IRF act.''
  I commend this piece to my colleagues. It is a sobering but realistic 
assessment of the diminished state of religious freedom advocacy in 
U.S. foreign policy. It ought to be cause of great concern for all 
Americans who cherish this first freedom.

              Obama at the Crossroads on Religious Liberty


                        faith and foreign policy

                            (By Thomas Farr)

       The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom 
     (IRF) has come down hard on the Obama administration for its 
     failure to promote international religious liberty. ``U.S. 
     foreign policy on religious freedom,'' said Commission 
     chairman Leonard Leo, ``is missing the mark.''
       The Commission, established by the 1998 IRF Act, is a 
     bipartisan group of nine men and women drawn from across the 
     American political and religious landscape, and it includes 
     Obama supporters. To its credit, the group's annual report, 
     released last week, is raising the right issues at the right 
     time.
       The report reminds us of a primary reason the United States 
     seeks to advance religious freedom. It recounts in disturbing 
     detail the cruelties practiced worldwide on human beings 
     because of their religious beliefs and practices, or those of 
     their tormentors. A small sampling: Rape victims still 
     languish in Pakistani prisons because religious laws require 
     women to produce four male witnesses to the act of rape. 
     Unable to do so, many rape victims have been accused of 
     ``adultery,'' found guilty, and imprisoned.
       In March 2009 Chinese security forces literally beat to 
     death a Tibetan Buddhist monk for passing out leaflets 
     supporting the Dalai Lama. In China, the torture and 
     ``disappearance'' of Buddhist monks and nuns, and of 
     disfavored Muslims, Christians, and adherents of Falun Gong, 
     occur with inhuman regularity.
       In Saudi Arabia a senior cleric recently issued a fatwa 
     calling for the death of anyone arguing that men and women 
     could work together professionally. Such edicts emerge from a 
     Saudi interpretation of Islam called Wahhabism, a malevolent 
     political theology that continues to be exported from the 
     desert kingdom worldwide--including to the United States.
       In Iran, Shi'a Muslims critical of the regime's brand 
     of Shi'ism were executed for ``waging war against God.'' 
     Iranian Baha'is live in constant fear of imprisonment, 
     torture and death.
       All this makes for dismaying reading, but the section on 
     Iraq is particularly wrenching. In a country whose 
     opportunity for ordered liberty has been purchased with 
     American blood, Christians are being targeted and murdered. 
     Thousands among this ancient but rapidly shrinking Iraqi 
     minority have been forced to flee their homes and villages.
       The slow death of Christianity in Iraq is a tragedy about 
     which most Americans know very little. Had this story gotten 
     the attention it deserved from the mainstream press, perhaps 
     public opinion would have brought more pressure on the Bush 
     administration to do something about it. The Commission, long 
     a leader in this area, has provided powerful reasons for the 
     Obama administration to act.
       These and other tragic stories in the report provide a 
     human face to the alarming trends published by the Pew Forum 
     in its December 2009 analysis, Global Restrictions on 
     Religion. It found that 70 percent of the world's population 
     live in regimes where citizens are vulnerable to religious 
     persecution. As a humanitarian matter alone, surely this is 
     unacceptable to the American people and their elected 
     representatives.
       Of course, no one supports persecution. The question is 
     what can, and what ought, the United States do about it? Most 
     Americans want their government to try and relieve the 
     suffering of innocent human beings. But are there other 
     reasons for action, reasons that might lead to U.S. IRF 
     strategies that both reduce human suffering and further 
     American interests? More on this below.
       The Commission provides a host of practical, country-
     specific recommendations, for example, linking the 
     substantial U.S. economic assistance to Egypt to improvements 
     in that country's respect for religious freedom, or taking 
     steps to ensure that the Chinese hear a consistent message on 
     this issue from all U.S. officials (which is not now, nor 
     ever has been, the case).
       The report urges more pressure on the Saudi government to 
     do what it has already pledged to do--reform the religiously-
     bigoted text books that teach Saudi children the wrong 
     lessons, and make their ``religion and morals police'' more 
     accountable. This is the same Wahhabi-inspired ``police'' 
     agency that a few years ago prevented Saudi schoolgirls from 
     fleeing a burning school building because they were not 
     sufficiently covered. Fourteen girls perished in the flames.
       Importantly, the report adds to the Commission's ``watch 
     list'' two key Muslim democracies--Indonesia and Turkey. The 
     commissioners judge, quite accurately, that those nations, 
     while making strides in other areas critical to democracy, 
     are lagging in religious freedom. This matter is important to 
     the United States, not only because we want to help the 
     victims, but also because the success of democracy in these 
     countries is vital to our own security.
       This brings us to the ``other'' reasons for advancing 
     religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy. The Commission's 
     findings tend to confirm what scholarship in International 
     relations and sociology are strongly suggesting: democracy in 
     highly religious nations cannot consolidate and yield its 
     benefits--including economic opportunity, security, low 
     levels of religious extremism, and peace with other 
     democracies--without religious freedom. That is a lesson our 
     foreign policy elites must learn, not only that we may help 
     influence the democratic consolidation of allies Turkey and 
     Indonesia, but also to ensure that our investments of 
     blood and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan succeed.
       Commission chairman Leonard Leo highlighted the connection 
     between religious freedom and national security in his 
     remarks: ``If the United States cares about human rights, if 
     we value international stability, if we are concerned about 
     countering extremism, freedom of religion . . . must be a 
     critical component of our nation's diplomacy, national 
     security and economic development objectives.''
       The Obama administration should pay close attention to 
     these words as it decides how to position its own religious 
     freedom policy. Whether it will do so or not is still 
     unclear. The report acknowledges that some good things are 
     beginning to happen inside the State Department. But it also 
     points to signs that IRF policy is being sidelined and may 
     assume an even lesser role than it has in previous 
     administrations.
       Decisions over the next several weeks will likely tell us 
     which path this President will take. Will he and Secretary 
     Hillary Clinton decide to retool and upgrade an IRF policy 
     that was neglected by prior administrations of both parties? 
     With proper leadership and training, U.S. religious freedom 
     strategies will not only help alleviate human suffering far 
     more effectively than they have to date, but they can also 
     help achieve the national security goals emphasized by 
     Chairman Leo.
       On the plus side, there are a few reasons for hope. Within 
     Foggy Bottom, a handful of officials are working hard to 
     convince skeptical senior Department leaders of what ought to 
     be obvious: the global resurgence of religion warrants 
     systemic training for foreign service officers in religions 
     and religious freedom. Our embassies abroad need expertise in 
     this area, just as they possess expertise in politics, 
     economics, or military affairs. This case has recently been 
     made by, among others, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs 
     in a series of recommendations to the administration.
       Unfortunately, as the Commission's report makes clear, many 
     within the administration are resisting the obvious. One 
     could easily conclude that Obama officials have no intention 
     of given priority to religious freedom in U.S. foreign 
     policy, if for no other reason than the President's extreme 
     lassitude in nominating an official to head the IRF 
     operation--the ambassador at large for international 
     religious freedom required by the IRF Act. Sixteen months 
     into the Obama presidency, with a bevy of envoys on issues 
     from outreach to Muslim communities to the closure of 
     Guantanamo long in place, the administration has not seen fit 
     to move on the IRF position.
       What the report does not mention is that the White House is 
     said to be on the verge of announcing the President's nominee 
     for ambassador at large. That person is reported to be a 
     pastor rather than a diplomat, and someone with no experience 
     in either foreign policy or religious freedom. Would the 
     President nominate someone to head his programs on Muslim 
     outreach, women's rights, disabilities, energy policy, 
     climate change, or any of the other issues that are 
     represented by senior envoys under his administration, if he 
     or she were not a seasoned expert in the field? Why would he 
     do so in the field of religious freedom?
       If this were not enough, the Commission also notes reports 
     that when the new IRF ambassador shows up for work, she will 
     have even less authority and less support than is the norm at 
     Foggy Bottom, and less than is required by the IRF Act 
     itself. Other ambassadors at large, such as the official in 
     charge of Global Women's Issues, work directly under 
     Secretary Clinton. The IRF ambassador, on the other hand, 
     will reportedly have four other officials between her and the 
     Secretary. And the office that has for 12 years served the 
     IRF ambassador (as required by the IRF Act) will now report 
     to someone else.
       Is the Democratic-controlled Congress paying attention? 
     Does it care that a law it passed unanimously under one 
     Democratic President is apparently being set aside by 
     another?
       One final point. The Commission report worries, correctly 
     in my view, that both the President and the Secretary of 
     State have taken to speaking publicly of ``freedom of 
     worship'' rather than ``religious freedom.'' Why should that 
     matter? Because ``worship'' is essentially a private 
     activity, far less threatening to authoritarian governments 
     or powerful majority religious communities than is religious 
     freedom. The latter encompasses both private worship and 
     public practice. It means protection for all religious 
     communities on an equal basis, including the right to engage 
     in the political life of a nation.

[[Page E919]]

       If the Obama administration wanted to downgrade U.S. 
     international religious freedom policy, it might prepare the 
     way by rhetorical shift such as this.
       Is that what the administration is doing? It is too soon to 
     tell, but there are reasons to be concerned. In a follow-up 
     post I will explore why the President and Secretary of State 
     might in fact be acting to move IRF to the obscure margins of 
     U.S. foreign policy, and, if they are, why their actions 
     would reduce our nation's capacity to undermine religious 
     persecution, and harm the interests of the American people.

                          ____________________