2 of 6

First, I agree that the United States should speak clearly about religious persecution. I also believe, however, that the United States will be most effective when it speaks clearly not only about religious persecution, but clearly, consistently, and accurately about all major human-rights abuses committed by friends and foes alike.

Second, I also agree that the United States gives valuable moral and psychological support to those who are suffering from abuse of their human rights when it makes clear and principled statements of support for freedom of religion and belief. As a former representative of the State Department in discussions with people abroad who were suffering for their beliefs, I frequently heard: "You have no idea how much it means to us to know that the world's most powerful government is concerned about our situation."

Thus, active State Department involvement throughout the world helps provide this needed moral support.

Third, the United States has not done as much as it could to promote freedom of religion and belief. Nevertheless, we should avoid any urge to make this a partisan issue and frankly acknowledge that freedom of religion and belief was previously neglected by both Republican and Democratic presidents and their administrations.

Fourth, I agree that it is valuable to raise the consciousness of Americans to suffering around the world, particularly suffering that is due to religion and belief. But in doing so, it is important to be accurate in our descriptions and analysis.

While it is good to identify our points of agreement, it is also necessary to identify the harmful tactics that have been misused in the name of opposing persecution.

Of the many examples that might be discussed, I will note only two: the needlessly confrontational rhetoric that is used at home, and the misguided reliance on denunciation and sanctions abroad.

1. Needlessly confrontational rhetoric at home. Perhaps nothing better exemplifies the rhetorical excess of this campaign than Horowitz's mischaracterization of Robert A. Seiple's op-ed for ChristianityToday.com.
   
   Seiple, who served for two years as the first U.S. Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, had previously been president of World Vision-U.S. for 11 years. Seiple brings a highly proactive approach to his work, whether in dealing with religious freedom or economic relief. Under his leadership, the State Department issued two lengthy and substantive Annual Reports on International Religious Freedom, which catalogued abuses of religious freedom around the world. Both faith-based groups and secular human-rights organizations think highly of these reports.
   
   While at the State Department, Ambassador Seiple traveled extensively and dealt with hundreds of foreign officials—including officials in China, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia—to promote religious freedom and to urge constructive solutions. As a result of his broad experience throughout the world, rather than lobbying the U.S. government inside Washington, Seiple believes that engaged diplomacy is generally far more effective than denunciation in promoting religious freedom.
   
   Of course, one might honestly disagree with Ambassador Seiple's recommendations. But Horowitz falsely accuses Seiple of practicing "silence and passivity." This accusation is completely belied by anyone who reads Seiple's words, who has read the Annual Reports, who has heard him speak, who knows of his courage as a Marine combat pilot in battle, or who has seen him in action. Those who have worked with Seiple know that his quiet diplomacy (which should never be misrepresented as "silence and passivity") has freed scores from prison, changed laws and administration of laws, and reduced human suffering. For Horowitz to accuse Ambassador Seiple of "moral responsibility" for allowing the persecution to persist is to let rhetorical confrontation substitute for reality.
   
   But Horowitz continues in his misguided trajectory by simplistically denouncing the entire State Department. To make his point, he contrasts the "apoplexy" certain State Department officials felt on hearing Ronald Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech to his own admiration of the speech (which he credits for helping to bring about the end of the Soviet Union). I know from my own experience, working inside the State Department, that such broad-brush denunciations defame the hard work of many committed people. I certainly felt the frustrations inside the State Department when dealing with people who were unhelpful, but I also saw many people—including many people of faith—who were deeply committed to religious freedom and who worked hard to promote it.
   
   

next page... |  2 of 6

share this page

March 2003, Vol. 47, No. 3