Feb 19, 2004

Status of International Religious Freedom: An Analysis of the State Department's


2003 Annual Report Testimony by Tom Malinowski before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on International Relations
Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for holding this hearing and for inviting me to testify. If you would like us to analyze the State Department's annual report on religious freedom around the world, then you've given us a relatively easy task. I believe that the report does what the Congress intended and required when it passed the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998. It gives us a comprehensive picture of violations of religious freedom around the world. It does so honestly, pulling no punches in its description of abuses by America's friends and foes alike. And it recognizes that promoting religious freedom is in America's national interest, in part because it "dampens the appeal of religious extremism and religion-based terrorism."

Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for holding this hearing and for inviting me to testify. If you would like us to analyze the State Department's annual report on religious freedom around the world, then you've given us a relatively easy task. I believe that the report does what the Congress intended and required when it passed the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998. It gives us a comprehensive picture of violations of religious freedom around the world. It does so honestly, pulling no punches in its description of abuses by America's friends and foes alike. And it recognizes that promoting religious freedom is in America's national interest, in part because it "dampens the appeal of religious extremism and religion-based terrorism."

The State Department, and particularly Ambassador Hanford and his team, deserve great credit for publishing this kind of candid report on human rights violations around the world. At times, however, the Department has acted as if merely describing such problems is enough. Time and again, American diplomats, when asked "what are you doing" about human rights violations in a particular country, have responded: "We put out an excellent human rights report or religious freedom report - doesn't that prove we care?" But of course, a report is not a policy. To make a difference, words must be backed by actions. And those actions must follow from a coherent strategy, consistently pursued. Our focus, therefore, should be on how the administration is using these reports. Is it applying the tools Congress has given it to combat the abuses described in the report? Is respect for religious freedom truly a consequential issue in America's bilateral relationships with governments that restrict religious freedom?

How seriously, in other words, does the State Department take the very serious concerns it raises in this report? A critical test of the Department's seriousness is its response to countries that try to justify the suppression of religious freedom by claiming it is part of the struggle against terrorism. One such country is China, which has repeatedly sought - and claimed -- American support for its crackdown against Muslims suspected of separatism in its western province of Xinjiang, asserting that all those it is persecuting are terrorists. As the State Department report makes clear, authorities in Xinjiang have in fact cracked down on all independent manifestations of faith by Muslims. Officials have prohibited the building of new mosques and the teaching of Islam to children, and forbidden teachers, professors and university students from practicing their religion openly. The administration needs to make equally clear, at the highest possible level, that this kind of persecution is wrong, and that it undermines any legitimate struggle against terror, and that it will hurt China's relationship with the United States.