Advancing International Religious Freedom

Overview

Executive Order 13926, issued by President Donald Trump on June 2, 2020, focuses on advancing international religious freedom, an imperative that the order identifies as fundamental to U.S. foreign policy. The order aims to integrate religious freedom considerations into the United States' diplomatic and foreign assistance framework. By emphasizing religious freedom as a moral and national security issue, the Executive Order elevates it to a strategic priority. The backdrop to this executive action includes growing international religious persecution and a perceived need to assertively address these issues in global interactions.

The order mandates the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to, within 180 days, craft a plan to prioritize international religious freedom throughout American foreign policy and assistance programs. Additionally, the order allocates at least $50 million annually, funding initiatives tailored to promoting religious freedom, responding to religiously motivated violence, and ensuring that vulnerable communities remain intact. This effort underscores the United States' commitment to uphold the rights of religious minorities and protect them from coercion and violence.

The order involves embedding religious freedom as a paramount concern in the diplomatic missions of the United States. Part of this includes directing U.S. Chiefs of Mission in sensitive countries to develop comprehensive action plans, thus ensuring that American foreign policy addresses religious freedom violations head-on. Moreover, the Executive Order prescribes training for federal employees stationed overseas, enhancing their awareness and ability to advocate for religious freedom in foreign societies.

Further, the order suggests employing economic tools and adjustments, such as potentially imposing sanctions and reallocating foreign aid, to meet its objectives. This coupling of diplomatic and economic strategies reflects an understanding that coercive diplomacy, combined with incentivizing compliance through aid, can serve as a compelling mechanism for encouraging foreign governments to adhere to religious freedom norms. The initiative aims to provide comprehensive policy and planning frameworks for advocating and securing international religious freedom.

However, it is essential to recognize that such measures, while aligned with American values, must navigate complex geopolitical landscapes. Given the varying degrees of religious tolerance or repression across different countries, the effective implementation of this Executive Order demands nuanced understanding and tactful diplomacy. In many regions, religious identity intertwines with deep-seated cultural and political factors, posing significant challenges to U.S. diplomatic efforts.

Legal and Policy Implications

The Executive Order leverages and intersects with several existing laws and policies, such as the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 and the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act of 2016. Each of these legislative frameworks establishes a foundation for promoting religious freedom globally, setting the stage for a more assertive executive intervention under EO 13926. The incorporation of religious freedom training underscores a broadened interpretation of these statutes in operational terms, stressing their application within the apparatus of foreign diplomacy.

From a statutory perspective, the Executive Order expands on earlier legislative measures, which already provide mechanisms for monitoring and addressing human rights violations, including religious persecution. This Order uses these frameworks as a stepping stone, intending to increase their visibility and effectiveness within the sphere of U.S. foreign policy. The policy maneuvers described in the Order not only aim to reinforce existing laws but also stress the integration of religious freedom as a core function of the State and its diplomatic missions.

Economically, the Executive Order utilizes statutory authorities to wield sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. This showcases a broadened application of legal tools to address violations of religious freedom, suggesting nofford that under EO 13818, connected to human rights violations more broadly. By marrying these tools with specific acts of religious freedom violations, the Order suggests a proactive, rather than reactive, use of economic penalties to deter violations.

Policy-wise, this Executive Order projects a more interventionist foreign policy, positioning religious freedom as a keystone of U.S. diplomacy. It aligns American international relations with a moral framework, arguably recalibrating the scales of foreign policy from primarily transactional engagements to value-based diplomacies where moral imperatives guide bilateral and multilateral interactions. This repositioning reflects a strategic shift, aiming to hold countries accountable for religious freedom violations while engaging them constructively.

Nonetheless, the order's emphasis on faith-based organizations and ensuring funding access without discrimination brings to light potential policy tensions. This aspect evokes dialogues about government involvement with religious institutions, possibly stirring debates around secularism and government funding, thereby challenging the boundaries of church-state separation principles inherent in U.S. law.

Who Benefits

The primary beneficiaries of this Executive Order are religious minorities and communities experiencing persecution or discrimination worldwide. By prioritizing international religious freedom, the Order leverages U.S. influence to advocate for these vulnerable groups' rights, aiming to alleviate their plight through diplomatic and economic measures. Program funding aims to support these communities not only in immediate amelioration but through long-term sustainability initiatives to preserve their cultural heritage.

Faith-based and religious organizations, both domestically and internationally, stand to benefit significantly. This Order formalizes their role as key partners in U.S.-led international religious freedom initiatives, potentially increasing their access to government resources and leading to more coordinated global efforts to promote religious freedoms. The heightened engagement prescribed between the U.S. and these organizations can lead to more informed and locally attuned policies and interventions.

Another set of beneficiaries includes U.S. government employees who will undergo specialized training focusing on religious freedom issues. This boosts their capacity to effectively advocate for persecuted communities in their official duties, potentially leading to more nuanced and culturally sensitive diplomacy. This training translates into broader benefits for international policy-making strategies that increasingly consider religious freedom as a pivot point in geopolitical strategy.

U.S. diplomatic missions benefit from clearer directives and the consistent integration of religious freedom into their mandates. This alignment with a broader policy framework allows for more focused and potentially effective interventions, working towards cohesive foreign relations efforts. Such clarity also enhances accountability within diplomatic infrastructure, leading to potentially more robust measures against countries with poor religious freedom records.

Lastly, countries that show progress against religious persecution might gain improved relations with the U.S., resulting in diplomatic goodwill and economic incentives. By positioning themselves as partners in promoting religious freedoms, these nations could experience favorable shifts in trade, aid, and policy negotiations with the U.S., incentivizing further positive change in their domestic policy landscapes.

Who Suffers

The Executive Order, while aimed at improving religious freedoms, might inadvertently strain diplomatic relations between the U.S. and certain countries known for religious repression. These governments may view the Order as an intrusion into sovereign affairs, potentially sparking retaliation, diplomatic cooling, or economic reprisals against U.S. interests. This tension could affect broader diplomatic negotiations, particularly in areas unrelated to human rights.

There could be challenges for secular entities or advocates for strict separation of church and state within the U.S. Skepticism may arise amidst concerns that the increased focus on religious freedom might implicitly privilege religious considerations over secular governance principles. This might also lead to perceived tensions regarding the balance of religious and secular interests in government policy-making.

Some foreign governments may view the allocation of U.S. resources towards religious freedom initiatives as a selective intervention that disregards other critical issues, such as poverty alleviation or healthcare. When religious freedom takes precedence in policy negotiations, it might fuel criticism from these governments or opponents who argue that such prioritization overlooks other urgent humanitarian issues.

The focus on religious freedom through a use of targeted sanctions or aid realignment might trigger economic disadvantages for the civilian populations of countries that see their governments resistant to reform. As these economic tools could diminish the available resources, ordinary citizens might face the unintended repercussions of restricted economic activity and international support.

Lastly, the Order may elicit criticism from groups arguing a potential bias towards particular religions over others, sparking debates over the universality of the U.S.'s approach and prompting accusations of selectivity or favoritism. Such critiques might damage the effectiveness of the policy or fuel divisive narratives within both domestic and international contexts.

Historical Context

Executive Order 13926 builds on a legacy of U.S. engagement with religious freedom, one that has evolved markedly since the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. Historically, religious freedom advocacy has been a recurring theme in American foreign policy, often reflecting deeper ideological narratives. This Executive Order represents an intensification of such advocacy, aligning with the Trump administration's broader foreign policy agenda that at times leveraged religious sentiments domestically and globally.

The administration's focus on religious freedom fits into an era marked by heightened geopolitical tensions and concerns about rising authoritarianism worldwide. By emphasizing religious freedom, the administration echoed a broader narrative of Western values clashing with authoritarian regimes, using religious freedom as both a moral compass and a strategic leverage point in diplomatic engagements.

This Executive Order also aligns with President Trump's broader strategy of enhancing America's international influence by redefining foreign aid and diplomatic engagements. Through reallocating resources to prioritize religious freedom, the administration signaled a move towards a more ideological and value-driven foreign policy, contrasting with more transactional strategies focused solely on economic or security interests.

The order can be viewed within the context of the administration's evolving approach to human rights. While critics have argued that the Trump administration often overlooked certain human rights issues, this focus on religious freedom indicates a selective prioritization, perhaps reflecting domestic political calculations and the influence of faith-based constituencies within the U.S.

Furthermore, EO 13926 reflects an intensification of the use of executive actions to achieve policy aims amidst a climate of congressional gridlock. The reliance on executive orders to implement substantial policy changes underscores a period marked by strained executive-legislative relations, where unilateral executive action was often necessary to realize significant policy objectives.

Potential Controversies or Challenges

The potential controversies surrounding Executive Order 13926 largely stem from its implications for international diplomatic relations, domestic policy dynamics, and the interplay between religious and secular governance. One foreseeable challenge is the international perception of U.S. interference in the domestic religious policies of sovereign nations. This could lead to heightened diplomatic tensions, accusations of Western imperialism, and even reciprocal policies targeting U.S. interests.

Domestically, the order might face legal challenges, particularly related to the separation of church and state. By formally integrating religious freedom as a major component of U.S. policy and expanding the role of faith-based organizations, the Order may open the door to disputes over the extent of government support to religious entities. Legal battles could emerge regarding federal funding allocation and potential breaches of First Amendment principles.

Additionally, operational challenges loom in the effective implementation of the Order's initiatives. Coordination among various federal agencies and with international partners is vital for this policy to meet its objectives. The complexity inherent in aligning foreign assistance programs with religious freedom priorities could lead to inefficiencies or policy fragmentations, diminishing overall efficacy.

Comprehensive training programs as prescribed by the Order also face practical hurdles. Ensuring consistency and effectiveness across different federal departments, along with evaluating the long-term impact of such training, may present logistical and evaluative challenges that require ongoing oversight and adaptability.

Political pushback is another potential source of controversy. Critics may argue that the Order represents an ideologically driven approach to foreign policy which could alienate allies who prioritize different aspects of human rights or have established stances on secular governance. This could foster perceptions of bias or favoritism that undermine broader U.S. diplomatic initiatives.