Religions in the Global Village

U.S. diplomacy counts on excellent observers and writers, capable of narrating, like the best journalists, what is happening in the countries where they are stationed. If anyone doubted this, the quality of the secret U.S. Department of State cables, or “Cablegate” — which Wikileaks published starting in December 2011, including the most famous of all, of a mafia wedding in Dagestan, signed by William Burns, then ambassador in Moscow — has proven it.

In addition to possessing the qualities of reporters and columnists at the highest level, U.S. diplomats must frequently perform other labors not demanded of diplomats from other countries, some of which resemble the functions of nongovernmental and international human rights organizations more than classic diplomacy.

One of these activities is the Department of State’s annual report on religious freedom in the world, a work expressly commissioned by the legislature through the International Freedom of Religion Act, approved in 1998 and signed by President Bill Clinton. The army of Washington diplomats must annually evaluate these different countries’ levels of religious freedom and designate those that allow or promote the biggest violations. This work then obliges this same diplomatic body and those most responsible to pressure, negotiate with or even impose sanctions on the worst and most recalcitrant “students in the class.”

If we pay attention to the general information in the 2012 report, the diagnosis about religious liberty in the world leaves much to be desired and gives a little bit of attention to all, including those countries with a better conscience, like Spain. Rhetoric and actions against Muslims are in decline, particularly in Europe and Asia. Use of anti-blasphemy laws and laws against apostasy or change of religion have continued proliferating until they constitute an authentic problem in many countries. There is a constant global increase in anti-Semitism, which includes denial and defense of the Holocaust, and which in some cases justifies itself in opposition to Israel’s policies. Christians are the most important bull’s-eye for social discrimination, abuse and violence in certain parts of the planet, where followers of other religions and even of Islam also suffer. One of the conclusions we can deduce from an attentive reading of the report is that no one suffers more from the violent effects of radical Islamism than Muslims themselves. If Stalin was the main assassin of Communists in history, the same can be said of violent Salafism and al-Qaida.

Each year, the Department of State designates the countries that deserve special attention: those registering the highest levels of intolerance and even of organized and lethal persecution of the faithful of certain religions. There are eight, and two of them — China and Saudi Arabia, both with tight relations with the U.S., not just economically speaking — have retained this infamous mark since receiving it in the first report in 1999. Coinciding with its democratic transition, a third, Burma, lost the shameful title last year but has regained it this year with the 2012 report, considering the little progress it has made in religious freedom and the continued persecution of unofficial Buddhist sects and followers of Islam. The other five countries in the leading pack of persecutors are Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Uzbekistan. Vietnam has not been on the list since 2006 and in this way, is one of the successes of U.S. diplomacy.

Reading the report reveals that its function is not only to keep watch, but also to stimulate governments to improve. With respect to Burma, the report recognizes that the government “implemented considerable political reforms, but did not demonstrate a trend toward either improvement or deterioration in respect for and protection of the right to religious freedom.”

Of China, which just finished elevating its new leader, Xi Jinping, it says that “the government’s respect for religious freedom declined” during the year.

It is difficult to embed religion into countries’ domestic issues, as if we were still in the world that came out of the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 with its classic saying, “Cuius regio, eius religio” (Whatever the religion of the king, that would be the religion of his kingdom). Coexistence among identities, languages, religions and customs in the global village is found more in the simplicity of these beautiful words than in the hard realities. The mature laïcité* perspective is inadequate — blind as it is to the depth of beliefs and the difficulties of coexistence. Neither is it easy for many countries, including the European ones, to accept Washington’s lessons without further ado. However, there is no doubt that the attentive watch of U.S. diplomacy over the world does a good service to religious freedom and gives an orientation to its foreign policy from which we Europeans should learn.

*Editor’s Note: French for “secularism”