|
Event: Georgetown hosts second of three forums on religious freedom and U.S. foreign policy
April 21, 2008
By Christina Caspersen
In a series of three sessions organized by Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, an assessment of the last 10 years of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom was critiqued by practitioners, scholars, and policy makers.
Officials from the State Department, the Commission, and the White House provided insight into the ups and downs of the Commission and its effect on foreign policy to date. Robert Seiple, the former U.S. Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, encouraged both the private and public sectors to form collaborative efforts for the promotion of religious freedom. “National interest and national policy are one, we live for it – but don’t have it,” Seiple said. He believes moral imperative should be outsourced to the groups that he says have the most time: nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
Tad Stahnke, a former senior staffer with the Commission, spoke about it as a private entity that can speak directly to foreign governments to find out what is needed for religious freedom to take hold. The Commission also has the power to raise issues that have been ignored, such as Sudan and its civil war, he noted, adding that the body is an opportunity provider with the utmost potential. Agreeing with this, William Inboden, a former senior staffer at the National Security Council, added that progress can be made if one can “follow the money” and “place good personnel in charge.”
Taking the scholars’ perspective, Thomas Farr, the forum moderator and a senior fellow at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, asked the panel if religious freedom was “the skunk at the garden party” and why Foreign Service schools do not focus on religious freedom. In response, Philip Gordon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that “international relations scholars do not address religious freedom as they should in the classroom,” causing the metaphorical ‘skunk’ to emerge. The Commission is only as good as the goals it achieves, and without teaching religious freedom in the classroom, the goals will be difficult to reach, he said. He added that America’s commitment to so many rights and freedoms creates too many broad foreign policy goals that often don’t address the issues at hand, and religious freedom often gets lost in the shuffle.
Ruth Wedgwood, the director for International Law at Johns Hopkins, believes there are many reasons why religion is not studied. A main issue is the fact, she said, that “America is so proud of its liberalism” and its commitment to the separation of church and state. Although important, the study of religious freedom needs to be carefully worded, Wedgwood warned. She said that “religious freedom to the Muslim world means room for crusade,” which concerns many Muslim countries. Also, if misunderstood, it can be a “code for violence and not just a conversation of religion.”
After a brief lunch reception, a panel assembled for a critique of the Commission from a Muslim perspective. Radwan Masmoudi, the founder and president of the Center of the Study of Islam & Democracy, said that “freedom of religion is needed for religion to have meaning.” There must be freedom to believe or not to believe, he said, a freedom of conscience. Masmoudi warned that the U.S., which talks about freedom of religion, must really mean it, because if not, it “causes harm to these ideals,” adding that “speech without action is very dangerous.”
Remarks throughout the conference suggested that the Commission has much potential, and most agreed that this potential has not been maximized – especially considering the pervasive lack of religious freedom in the world today. |
