2 of 5

By highlighting the religiously marginalized and persecuted, this legislation gives hope to those whose situations seem hopeless. I am not naive concerning the role of hope. As we used to say in the Marine Corps, "Hope is not a methodology." It is not surprising that hope is not a prominent word in the lexicon of realpolitik. But to the more than 600 million individuals worldwide who suffer aggressive resistance to the practicing of their faith, hope is absolutely essential. Ask Solzhenitsyn and Mandela what their faith and their hope meant to them. When "the last remaining superpower" speaks on behalf of the religiously oppressed, legitimate hope is extended to them. This legislation means that they are not forgotten. We will take up their cause. The International Religious Freedom Act, then, ranks as one of our finest moments, reconnecting us with our best instincts and highest values.

The act has three components: the forming of the Commission on International Religious Freedom; the appointment of an ambassador at large, who works within the Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Bureau but reports directly to the Secretary of State; and the requirement of an annual report (drawn up by the ambassador at large).

The annual report institutionalizes this issue within the U.S. government. The report looks at the status of religious freedom in 194 countries around the world. It is a mammoth challenge, made possible only through the help and support of hundreds of Foreign Service officers, nongovernment organizations, and religious organizations around the world. This massive effort (the latest edition came out in September), more than any other factor, has helped to mainstream the issue both within the State Department and among Foreign Service offices.

The mantra for the report was "truth without surprise." This involved visiting virtually every country where religious freedom was at risk. During my tenure, for example, I traveled to France in the name of Scientologists, to China in the name of the "house church," to Uzbekistan in the name of Muslims, and to Saudi Arabia in the name of private worship. Additionally, office staff met with denominational leaders, foreign ambassadors, and concerned citizens—all with an eye to explaining the legislation, debating the issues involved, and listening to the specific issues emerging from a given country.

It has been said that the beginning of wisdom is calling something by its proper name. The annual report is an attempt to do that. It is unarguably the best compilation of data and research that exists on this subject. And, while all of this was getting done, the positive, unintended consequence was the creation of a network of people sensitive to this issue and, increasingly, willing to work toward a better reality.

Unfortunately, some troubling signs accompany the early successes. The first is the report itself.

Though this report covers 194 countries, the United States is not one of them. At the very least, this presents the potential for hubris, arrogance, and hypocrisy. It suggests an inclination to report only on others, refraining from any sort of self-criticism. If a certain level of humility is important in implementing this legislation (and I believe it is), this abscence works against that characteristic.

next page... |  2 of 5

share this page

October 22 2001, Vol. 45, No. 13