Protecting faith and religious freedom

As most Christians around the globe wrap up one of their faith’s biggest holidays, it seems like an apt time to reflect on the place and protection of religion in the world today. Inevitably at Christmas time, stories of persecuted Christians make the rounds of Western newspapers and news agencies and in some places, that persecution is real. One need only to look at the killing of 58 Iraqi Christians at a Catholic church in Baghdad this past October to see that. But as Christians in the non-Christian world honor the birth of the founder of their faith, whether openly or discreetly, it is important to note that the lack of religious freedom is something that touches adherents of all faiths throughout the world.

Nothing illustrates this more than the annual International Religious Freedom Report compiled by the State Department and released last month. In it, every country in the world* is reviewed for “challenges to religious freedom” with a particular emphasis on tolerance of minority faiths. Reviewing the full report would take hours, but a quick perusal demonstrates the ongoing challenge to religious freedom as well as the frequent political connections behind religious discrimination.

As to be expected, some states have become regular offenders of religious tolerance with no sign that they will change their ways. The report highlights the crackdowns by the Chinese government against Uigher Muslims and Tibetan monks following outbreaks of political tensions in those regions, as well as the expected intolerance of groups like Falun Gong. Pakistan saw a rise in religious intolerance, geared towards several minority religious groups including Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, and Ahmadiyya Muslims. Similarly, several African nations saw an increase in religious tensions spurred on by local officials. The case of Nigeria, which made headlines several times in the past year for communal violence between Muslims and Christians, is an example of this trend where the report remarks that the national government generally respected religious freedom but noted numerous instances where local officials stoked communal violence on religious lines and freely discriminated against practitioners of minority faiths. Unfortunately, the Christmas attacks on Christian churches in Jos state would seem to highlight just this phenomenon.

In Europe, the report finds that while governments largely respected religious freedom, there was a notable increase in “societal abuses and discrimination based on religious affiliation” for almost every country.  The rise of Islamaphobia was evident in the report, but there were also numerous incidents of anti-Semitism throughout the continent, perhaps reminding us all that old prejudices can be hard to fully eradicate.

However what the report makes clear is that governments can only do so much to protect religious freedom; often social abuses of religious freedom are far harder to eradicate, prevent or control. The Swiss minaret ban from last year poses an excellent example of this, as the ban came from a popular referendum not supported by the state who is now working on overturning it. Such incidents highlight the need for religious tolerance campaigns to begin at the grassroots level as the issue cannot remain only within the purview of formal law. As intolerance is a trend that effects followers of all faiths (or those who choose to not follow any) in all parts of the world, it is appropriate to remember that we all have a role to play in preserving and protecting freedom of the religion, especially for those who do not enjoy strength of numbers within their communities.

*The US is the only country not included in the report as challenges to religious freedom and the protection of religious minorities within the US is overseen by the 

Originally published on Foreign Policy Blogs

Finding steps forward

The legal standing of indigenous people improved earlier this week when Nicaragua ratified the only binding international law for tribal people, the International Labour Organization Convention 169.

While ILO Convention 169 covers many of the same provisions as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, unlike the UN Declaration it is legally binding on governments that ratify it and provide mechanisms for indigenous people to seek redress when their rights under the ILO Convention are violated. Nicaragua’s ratification is the latest in a series of events over the last few months that has given new momentum to the indigenous rights movement, including Canada and New Zealand’s recent change of heart for the UN Declaration and the Central African Republic’s ratification of the ILO Convention last month.

Despite these advancements, exploitation of indigenous groups continues throughout the world with little attention being paid to its consequences. One key example is the awarding of the Botswana Tourism Board the prestigious Tourism for Tomorrow award by the World Travel and Tourism Council despite continued human rights violations against the Kalahari Bushman in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve for the promotion of tourism and mining interests.  Even though books like Heart of Dryness by James Workman have brought this particular issue more into mainstream knowledge, the Botswana government continues its program of denying the Bushman access to water in a way to force them out of the homelands that even the country’s High Court acknowledges they have a right to. This past March, the Bushman marked eight years without access to the water source they relied on for years.

The situation in Botswana highlights the importance of the advancements in indigenous rights as seen in Nicaragua, Central African Republic, and New Zealand. The more states that recognize the value of indigenous culture and the universality of human rights as they apply to everyone, including indigenous peoples, the more force provisions such as the UN Declaration and ILO Convention will have and the better off we will all be.

Originally published at Foreign Policy Blogs

Saying enough is enough

It’s rare that human rights activists get truly excited about anything happening in Washington, let alone celebratory. But that is not the case this week as yesterday the US took a step forward in helping end Africa’s longest running conflict with the House of Representatives passing the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act (full text available here). The Senate already passed the bill by unanimous consent so it will now go to President Obama to sign into law. Once that happens, the administration will have 180 days to present a viable strategy to Congress on how to deal with the LRA and its leader, Joseph Kony.

The conflict in Northern Uganda between the LRA and the Ugandan government has been going on since the late 1980s as a remnant of the Ugandan Bush Wars.  It is perhaps best known for the tens of thousands of child abductees that make up the bulk of its forces and the conflict’s displacement of over 90% of Northern Uganda’s population, both as a result of the actual conflict and the government’s failed attempts to deal with it. Until recently, the conflict went largely ignored by the international community, leaving the head of UN Humanitarian Affairs to dub it the “world’s biggest neglected crisis” in 2004.

Shortly after that statement was made, several new developments brought Northern Uganda into the public spotlight. Most notably, the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the Sudanese government and Southern Sudan in 2005 gave hope for stability in the region and placed pressure on the LRA in their traditional hiding areas in Sudan. Likewise, the increased involvement of UN peacekeeping forces in neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo highlighted the destructive nature of foreign groups like the LRA to peace prospects in the DRC. Meanwhile, grassroots movements like the Invisible Children campaign educated a new generation of Westerns on this conflict and urged them to do more while the indictment of the entire top tiers of the LRA leadership by the International Criminal Court raised awareness among scholars, lawyers, and policymakers. Yet, despite the new international interest in the conflict, numerous military operations, and marathon peace negotiations, the conflict continues across central Africa in a case where close in never going to be good enough.

Enter the LRA Bill. Introduced last year and supported by activist groups such as Resolve Uganda and The Enough Project, it requires the US government to make resolving this conflict a higher priority than it has been and put forth a concrete and viable plan to actually do so while also focusing on the protection and empowerment of civilians in Northern Uganda.

That may seem simple, but the significance of this bill should not be overlooked. After all, as noted by Jonathan Broder in Congress Quarterly, “It’s not every day that liberals, humanitarian groups and theologians support a bill that could deepen U.S. military involvement in the most violent corners of Africa.” In many ways, this is “responsibility to protect” — American style. Given the misgivings that most American policymakers have had towards R2P, that alone is significant. But add in that the LRA Bill is the most co-sponsored policy bill so far in this Congressional session and the most co-sponsored bill regarding Africa in US history and it becomes clear how momentous yesterday’s vote is, not just for Northern Uganda but for US foreign policy in general.

Of course, passing a bill does not make wishes into reality. How effective this bill is will depend largely on the strategy that the Obama administration presents to Congress in six months time. Despite assurances by some members of Congress that the LRA Bill does not equal support for a military solution, there are others who see no other real option given Kony’s refusal to sign the Juba Peace Agreement after two years of painstaking negotiation. With the LRA’s history of retaliating against civilians for battlefield losses, any type of military approach could make things far worse before they get better. The success of this bill if put into action will be based on how well the US is able to come up with a plan that fulfills the two main purposes of the bill: the protection of civilians and the permanent neutralization of Joseph Kony.

Nonetheless, regardless of the if, when, and how of ending this conflict, it is important to look beyond Joseph Kony in finding a lasting solution to the violence. That is why the bill includes funding and aid provisions for justice and reconciliation efforts, rebuilding activities, and rehabilitation programs for former combatants who are often victims just as much as they are perpetrators in this conflict. As noted by Senator Russ Feingold last year, “Ultimately, as we have seen with so many other conflicts, our success may depend less on how we end the violence and more on how we build the peace.”

That peace has the potential to give Northern Ugandans back their lives free of the fear that has defined the region for more than two decades. It can reintegrate the region with the rest of Uganda which has rapidly developed since coming out of war in the 1980s while Northern Uganda has stood still. It can allow Acholi and Langi children to have childhoods again, free of the abductions they know now. And every step taken towards possibly realizing any of those things is definitely something to get excited about.

Originally published on Foreign Policy Blogs