FOR its own safety's sake, America should give much higher priority to promoting global religious freedom. Whenever governments in unstable places persecute believers, that policy is not merely bad in itself but dangerous because it has the perverse effect of weakening moderate people of faith and empowering extremism. Those were some of the broad conclusions drawn by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom as it prepared its 2013 annual report, released today. Some of its harshest words were reserved for religious repression in former Soviet places like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Russia itself, including the north Caucasus. The Boston bombings had lent a grim topicality to the report's findings, said Katrina Lantos Swett, who chairs the panel.

So much for the big bold ideas, with which most people will agree. The Commission's verdict on particular countries is more controversial. As usual, the bipartisan body (named by Congress as well as the White House) takes a harsher view of global religious liberty than does the State Department, with which it shares the job of watching freedom of conscience and naming violators. State currently lists eight "countries of particular concern" (CPC): Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Uzbekistan. The Commission wants to add seven more: Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Vietnam.
But the Commission is divided, and volatile, in its judgement of Turkey. Last year, it named Turkey as a CPC, after 5-4 vote; this year Turkey is not even on the "watch list" of nearly-CPCs, a category which is given the new name of Tier 2. Instead Turkey merely features in a list of "other countries and regions monitored". In a sign of a hot internal debate, four members of the commission (whose makeup has changed a lot since last year) dissent from the latest report. They acknowledge that last year's denunciation of Turkey as a top-league violator was too harsh, but they think this year's verdict is too lenient, given there has only been a "negligible change" in the country's behaviour.
The report on Turkey lists some positive developments, including the return of properties to religious minorities, and state-funded restoration of Greek, Armenian and Jewish religious sites. It praised the recent easing of bans on the wearing of Muslim headscarves for students and lawyers. Turning to the Turkish-held part of Cyprus, it said Orthodox Christians still faced restricted access to places of worship, although things had become a little easier. It noted, without endorsing or rejecting it, an allegation by the Greek-Cypriot government that up to 500 monasteries, churches and cemeteries had been desecrated or wrongly used.
However, two members of the Commission dissented from that section, saying they "strongly objected" to the inclusion of Cyprus in the chapter on Turkey, because no part of the island was under Turkish sovereignty, and because religious-freedom issues in all parts of the island should have been considered. The Commission's less-than-unanimous response to allegations over Cyprus marks a second diplomatic disappointment for the Greek-Cypriots this month; in a little-noticed move, the European Court of Human Rights recently signalled its rejection of any automatic right of return for displaced Greek-Cypriots to their properties and homes.
In other findings, the Commission noted some mildly positive moves in Saudi Arabia, including curbs on the religious police, and efforts to revise text books that spread hatred; but a "high degree of repression is baked into the cake" of the Saudi system, Ms Lantos Swett noted. It demanded a tougher line with Uzbekistan, where thousands of Muslims of various peaceful persuasions were said to have been jailed—despite that country's strategic role as a conduit to Afghanistan. In a separate report, the Commission has expressed deep concern about Syria, where two Christian bishops were kidnapped on April 22nd, and it reserves the right to name it a "country of particular concern" at short notice, Ms Lantos Swett said.
But the Syrian case highlights a difficulty with the Commission's mandate, laid out by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. The system assumes that most religious repression is practised by state authorities, and can be corrected by putting pressure on governments. But some of the world's worst persecution is practised by what political scientists call "non-state actors" who may be relatively immune to diplomatic pressure. Nobody knows for certain who kidnapped those Syrian bishops but it happened in a rebel-controlled area, so calling the government names might not help very much.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2013/04/monitoring-religious-repression