|
Promoting religious freedom and democratization in the Middle East
February 22, 2008
By Christina Caspersen
At a Wilson Center event Friday, a panel of experts discussed religious freedom and democratization and how the U.S. government can help promote these issues in the Muslim world.
Thomas Melia, Deputy Executive Director of Freedom House, began by discussing the religious freedom indicators that Freedom House assesses every year. Since 2006, only ten countries have improved religious freedom for their citizens, he said. Melia also stated that in order to promote democracy and, with it, religious freedom, U.S. officials must be aware of the United States’ story. The U.S. tries to avoid contact with religious observers in the Middle East because of assumptions about potential links to terrorism, he argued. But what the U.S. does not fully grasp, Melia said, is that everyone, including the people of the Middle East, wants to enjoy the same freedoms that Americans want to enjoy. Thus, ignoring individuals who are religious devout is ignorant, he said, adding that assumptions will only ruin the democratic progress the U.S. is trying to steward.
How can the U.S. make the argument that democracy is a good thing? Melia thinks illustrating how religion can thrive under democracy is the first step. The U.S. has tolerated religiosity in its own country, he said, and most countries with established democracies tolerate religious practice. The U.S. needs to portray this in a better light, Melia said.
Joe Stork, Deputy Director of the Middle East and North Africa Division at Human Rights Watch, discussed the challenges of U.S. policy with regards to religious freedom. He stated that, “freedom of belief is a core right.” In the U.S., he added, the freedom to practice religion, manifest, and express belief is also a core right. However in the Muslim world, countries do not deny what to believe, but how to express that belief. According to Stork, the challenge of U.S. policy is the politicization of religion. The idea of democracy is not clearly defined, he argued, and adopting democracy as a platform is great – but what is democracy? If we as Americans cannot define such a term, how can we expect people in the Muslim world to eagerly accept such a concept?
Thomas Farr, Visiting Associate Professor of Religion and World Affairs at Georgetown University, stated that “religious freedom is largely ignored by policy in the United States,” adding that the U.S. avoids the issue like the plague. Farr believes that it is imperative that the U.S. cares about religious issue not only from a humanitarian standpoint, but from a strategic angle as well.
The U.S. opposes religious persecution in other countries, but it never really works to ensure the establishment of religious freedom as a whole in those countries, Farr argued. “We aren’t attacking [the issue of religious freedom], we are reacting,” he said, adding that the U.S. has empty threats and allows countries to slip by. For example, Farr said, in Afghanistan after the Taliban was defused, religious persecution reduced significantly. However, Afghanistan does not have religious freedom. Farr also said that he believes that policymakers should do more in the area of public engagement in order to promote religious freedom. The U.S. “is foolhardy for not engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood,” he argued, warning that if the U.S. does not maintain contact with the Brotherhood, it will be clueless once they assume power. We won’t understand their language or their goals, Farr said, and “ignorance is not a good basis for foreign policy.” More generally, he argued that if the U.S. promotes religious freedom internationally, there will be an increase in female literacy and a reduction in infant mortality. Farr concluded his remarks by stating: “No democracy is stable without a religion nexus present.”
In the question and answer session, an inquiry was posed: “What should [the United States] actually be doing [in the Muslim world]?” Collectively, the panel reiterated one another’s answers, arguing that spending money for programs and not avoiding leading groups is necessary. They said that the U.S. should not assume every group that is potentially funded will use the money for terrorist actions. Risk-taking is a must, they argued, and preparation for criticism from the media is needed as well. The U.S. needs to stand up for what it implements. Also, focusing on religious literacy and knowing the story of the U.S.’s own religious freedom is pertinent, they maintained, adding that diplomats cannot sell what they do not understand. |
