Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Tuesday, October 3. 2006
On September 15, 2006, the State Department released the latest International Religious Freedom Report and concludes that a "generally free practice of religion" is possible in Germany, but also has some criticism:
Although the country's religious demography grew increasingly complex, the generally amicable relationships among religious groups in society contributed to religious freedom. Important religious concerns included the organization of Islamic religious instruction in schools; social and governmental (federal and state) treatment of certain religious minorities, notably Scientologists and Jehovah's Witnesses; and bans in certain states on the wearing of headscarves by female Muslim teachers in public schools. The U.S. government discusses religious freedom issues with the Government as part of its overall policy to promote human rights. The U.S. government placed particular emphasis on support for direct dialogue between representatives of minority religious groups and relevant government officials.
Read the full report on Germany at the State Department. John R. Hamilton, who retired last year after 35 years as a Foreign Service officer, incl. ambassadorships to Peru and Guatemala, criticizes the many annual State Department reports as
"foreign policy by report card," the issuing of public assessments of the performance of other countries, with the threat of economic or political sanctions for those whose performance, in our view, doesn't make the grade. The overuse of these mandated reports makes us seem judgmental, moralistic and bullying.
He argues that these reports "nurtured seething resentment abroad", because "the tolerance of other societies for being publicly judged by the United States has reached its limits." (I don't think Germans pay that much attention to these annual reports, but some newspapers do take notice.) Mr. Hamilton explains in the Washington Post:
Each year we issue detailed human rights reports on every country in the world, including those whose performance appears superior to our own. We judge whether other countries have provided sufficient cooperation in fighting illegal drugs. We place countries whose protection of intellectual property has been insufficient on "watch lists," threatening trade sanctions against those that do not improve. We judge respect for labor rights abroad through a public petition process set up under the System of Generalized (trade) Preferences. We publish annual reports on other countries' respect for religious freedom. And more: We seek to ensure the adequacy of civil aviation oversight and the security of foreign airports through special inspections and categorizing of government performance. (…) We report on trafficking in persons and categorize the performance of every country where such trafficking is a problem, which is just about everywhere. And we withhold military education, training and materiel assistance from countries that do not enter into agreements with us to protect our nationals from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
Mr. Hamilton's conclusion "Our public reports have reinforced the view abroad that we set ourselves up unilaterally as police officer, judge and jury of other countries' conduct." explains in part why America is more often criticized than any other country in much of the international media. Fareed Zakaria made such an argument in Newsweek last year:
I often argue with an Indian businessman friend of mine that America is unfairly singled out for scrutiny abroad. "Why didn't anyone criticize the French or Chinese for their meager response to the tsunami?" I asked him recently. His response was simple. "America positions itself as the moral arbiter of the world, it pronounces on the virtues of all other regimes, it tells the rest of the world whether they are good or evil," he said. "No one else does that. America singles itself out."
The State Department does a good and necessary job of criticizing human trafficking, lack of religious freedom and other human rights violations around the world. However, while some countries get punished, some U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia do not. Nobody should be surprised that many of America's critics are not fair and balanced either. That's how the cookie crumbles. (As always, emphasis in bold was added)
Welcome! You are reading the ATLANTIC REVIEW -- a Press Digest on Transatlantic Relations combined with commentary and analysis by four young professionals from Germany, the Netherlands and the United States. More about us.
The horizontal menu bar at the top helps to navigate this site.
Subscribe to one of our RSS-Feeds or to our newsletter, which is emailed twice per month.
We appreciate any thoughtful comment!
Would you like to read more? Have a look at our directory of Atlantic Review posts.
Or check out the constantly updated reading recommendations from our readers in the sidebar: "Tips From Our Readers." More information on this project in this post. Feel free to comment on any article recommended in the sidebar.
BBCode format allowed. You can make a clickable link with this code: If you write "[url=http://america-germany.atlanticreview.org]Carnival of US-German Relations[/url]", then this will be displayed: "Carnival of US-German Relations". And if you write "[url]http://atlanticreview.org/mustreads.html[/url]", then this will be displayed: "http://atlanticreview.org/mustreads.html"
|