Friday, September 15, 2023
Recently there has been an outcry among many Christians in Europe over the attacks against Christians in Pakistan that followed after even stricter blasphemy laws have been introduced in that country. Churches and whole neighborhoods were attacked and the Pakistani police indicated that they could not provide protection against the extremist mobs. Although arrests were made after some of the worst pogroms against these Christians, it became obvious that no effort would be made to prevent them and to amend or abolish the blasphemy laws that were taken as a sign that it was ‘ok’ to attack Christians in Pakistan. As usual MP’s and MEP’s here in Europe who are standing up for freedom of religion and belief (most of them Christians) filed questions over this situation in Pakistan. By now we have become accustomed to the reality that the civil servants and diplomats that determine most of foreign policy do not think that persecuted Christians are a priority. Even if MP’s or even a clear majority of a national Parliament of an EU Member State or the European Parliament make their concerns known, it is quite obvious that this does not lead to any different attitude, let alone policy, by the actual policy makers. One notorious example is the fact that it took years to fill the vacancy of the EU Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief (FORB) which only happened very late and clearly was not a priority for Mr. Borrell (the head of the EEAS). This is the reality in terms of policy making on foreign affairs while by any measurement millions of Christians as well as people of other faiths are persecuted based on what they believe in. Clearly, there is a problem of democracy if civil servants and diplomats can ignore those elected to this extend and at such a wide scale. It is fairly obvious that this tarnishes the credibility of both national governments and EU institutions in the eyes of significant sections of the populations of EU Member States. The indifference towards the torture, abuse and killing of people based on their religion also raises questions over the ethics of those who decide to ignore that reality. However, neither of those two points is my focus here. My first question is what religion is if we look to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Article 10 of this Charter protects freedom of religion as follows: ,,Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.” We see that it is a right that everyone has both as individual and as community. Article 21.1 of the same Charter allows for a slightly sharper understanding of what ‘category’ religion is in this context: ,,Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.” Read from this legal perspective, religion is a category of identity. It is something that defines and shapes both individuals and communities. Article 21.1 lists a number of types of identity and treats these types of identity equally. Obviously almost all people would identify with several types of identity as listed in 21.1. The interesting thing however is that when it comes to foreign policy, the EEAS does treat the different types of identity very differently. While there is almost no attention for discrimination based on ethnicity and very scant attention for persecution based on religion, there is a serious investment in discrimination based on sexual orientation (also known as LGBTIQ+). This becomes very clear if one looks to the actual EEAS policies as communicated by the EEAS. For example, in the 2023 – 2025 diversity and inclusion agenda, religion is only a category of attention within the EEAS and absent as category of action by the EEAS. A whole array of action for LGBTIQ+ rights is presented by the EEAS while FORB is left with some micro projects and is in practice being ‘parked’ under ‘dialogue’ (meaning no meaningful action will be undertaken). Let me be absolutely clear that I do not want here in any way pitch the one category against the other. What I am doing is comparing, not juxtaposing. What I am pleading for is that the logic of the Charter is followed with much more consistency. The logic of article 21.1 would imply that all categories of identity are treated equally as no hierarchical order is indicated. Purely reasoned from this article, one would expect that all forms of discrimination based on these categories of identity are given equal attention or proportionally in relation to the severity of a situation. In the case of FORB, neither is happening, either in comparison to discrimination on the basis of other categories of identity or in relation to the severity of a situation. So both from the perspective of equality between types of identity as well as the severity of many cases of persecution on the basis of faith, it seems reasonable to state that the EEAS should dedicate as much effort in time and budget to FORB as they do now for sexual orientation. Given that the EEAS itself describes FORB and sexual orientation as categories of identity based on article 21.1 in its diversity agenda, the question is why they (as well as many Ministries of Foreign Affairs) do not treat them equally in practice. The reality is that two irrational factors are decisive in this regard. First of all the majority of foreign affairs personnel seem not to like to treat anything related to Christian faith or any other religion as relevant. This reality creates the impression that some may have a personal aversion to religion and/or specifically Christianity that then spills over in policy. Hopefully this impression is not correct. The second factor is the lack of effective lobbying and assertive or even aggressive ‘base’. FORB advocacy is often limited to awareness raising and incident-based and does not claim equal treatment and funding based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU within foreign policy. Usually, Christians as community are not an aggressive ‘online swarm’ that demands equal support for persecuted Christians. Often we see that mob-like assertive/aggressive behavior indeed leads to attention by policy makers. But this creates a really questionable dynamic. The problem is that actual implementation of combating various types of discrimination seems to depend to either the preferences of the powerful or the degree of assertiveness/aggression applied in the advocacy regarding a specific type of discrimination. But it is very problematic if power and aggression determine whether or not a category of human rights plays a serious role in foreign policy. If we clearly analyse this, it is giving the message that only through power grab and aggression it is possible to achieve equal treatment. Moreover it gives the message that victims of discrimination who are in the ‘wrong category’, are of less human dignity (which by definition cannot be accepted unless we intend to undermine the European legal order). The current policy that neglects discrimination based on ethnicity and religion only leads to more migration as there is little to no prospect that anything will change. It can also lead to more aggression either against or out of fear of oppression as no other help will come. Therefore, by any measure, it is very unhelpful to ignore persecution based on faith or ethnicity and much more helpful to treat all categories of discrimination equal in foreign policy. It is time for policy makers to listen to the politicians when they raise these issues to them. With sincere Christian greetings,
As before at maximum some empty statements were made and nothing more by various Ministries of Foreign Affairs and (as far as I could see) so far the EEAS (the ‘EU Ministry of Foreign Affairs’) has not made any comment so far.
Johannes de Jong
