State Department Decision on Saudi Arabia Calls for Response

The following is a press release put out by the U.S. State Department on July 19, 2006:

Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom John Hanford briefed Congress today on religious practice and tolerance issues in Saudi Arabia. Ambassador Hanford's briefing focused on the results of bilateral discussions on these topics, as well the problem of intolerant language in textbooks and educational curricula.

Ambassador Hanford explained that this process has made it possible to identify and confirm a number of key policies that the Saudi Government is pursuing and will continue to pursue for the purpose of promoting greater freedom for religious practice and increased tolerance for religious groups. These include policies designed to halt the dissemination of intolerant literature and extremist ideology, both within Saudi Arabia and around the world, to protect the right to private worship, and to curb harassment of religious practice. For example, the Saudi Government is conducting a comprehensive revision of textbooks and educational curricula to weed out disparaging remarks toward religious groups, a process that will be completed in one to two years. The Saudi Government is also retraining teachers and the religious police to ensure that the rights of Muslims and non-Muslims are protected and to promote tolerance and combat extremism. The Saudi Government has also created a Human Rights Commission to address the full range of human rights complaints.

Saudi Arabia was first designated a Country of Particular Concern under the International Religious Freedom Act in 2004. In light of these ongoing developments, and in view of the policies that the Saudi government has put in place to promote greater tolerance for members of the various religious groups in Saudi Arabia, the Secretary has decided to leave in place a waiver "to further the purposes of the Act," as provided for under the legislation.

Ambassador Hanford commented, "I am pleased that the Government of Saudi Arabia has been willing to engage with us in a substantive manner on these critical issues. These policies are significant developments, and I appreciate the Saudi Government's interest in confirming them publicly so that all interested parties may follow progress made in these areas."

Pardon me if I sound cynical, but does anybody really believe that this decision was not made without pressure from the White House to find some reason not to have to impose sanctions on America's favorite Muslim ally in the Middle East? These same promises to reform have been made before by the Saudis and broken. As a nation described as being "of particular concern" in the department's two last annual reports on religious freedom in the world, Saudi Arabia should be subject to commercial sanctions. But Washington has been doing everything possible to avoid this. In December, Saudi Arabia was granted a "temporary added extension of 180 days" to implement reforms requested. The March deadline came and went. And surprise, surprise...nothing changed. Now, because the Saudis set up a human rights commission and made even more promises, the Secretary of State decided to continue waiving punitive measures. Human rights commissions are only as good as the people who sit on them and I think it very unlikely that the Saudis will appoint dissidents who will criticize the government and hold it accountable. Religious freedom simply does not exist in Saudi Arabia for its own citizens. What "various religious groups" can the Saudis possibly be referring to granting more liberties to, when it is illegal for a Saudi to be anything but a Muslim?

This decision is foolish and mocks the intent of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. In 2005, we saw a similar response when Vietnam avoided sanctions by signing a May 2005 agreement with the U.S. undertaking to address religious freedom concerns. It seems that any country that is potentially beneficial to US interests is exempt from the consequences of being designated a Country of Particular Concern. To the best of my knowledge, only Eritrea has suffered sanctions under the Act this year and Eritrea, of course, has little strategic importance to the U.S.

It is unfortunate that President Bush's administration seems willing to sacrifice persecuted Christians and other religious minorities and the ideals of the International Religious Freedom Act on the altar of political pragmatism. But also unfortunate is the silence of the U.S. Christian non-governmental organizations in regards to this decision. For the past week I have waited in vain for one of the many organizations in the United States who work on behalf of persecuted Christians to make a public statement critiquing this announcement. Searching through several of their websites this evening, most make no reference to it at all and only one made a brief and rather muted comment expressing cynicism that the Saudis would really change.

Come on, my dear American friends. I understand that many of you consider President Bush an ally and supporter of religious liberty. But our support of religious liberty must transcend foreign policy and domestic politics if we are to be faithful to God rather than Caesar. Surely faithfulness to God calls for a thoughtful response to an issue like this. I am certainly not pretending to offer one here. As a Canadian, I am hesitant to venture too far into U.S. politics. But I, for one, would welcome a thoughtful American perspective on this decision. Any takers?