About the IRF Summit: When propaganda prevails to reflection

On January 30 and 31, the "International Religious Freedom Summit 2024" was held in Washington D.C. This event, which is primarily promoted by the Lantos Foundation, unites leading representatives of the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States of America to connect resources and advocates interested in religious liberty and highlight the personal testimonies of survivors of religious persecution and restrictions on religious freedom.

According to their estimates, 80 percent of the world's inhabitants live in countries where there are high levels of governmental or social restrictions on religion. While it is true that religious persecution is not a novelty in the history of humanity, we should not ignore certain principles that characterize our "advanced" Western society in the 21st century.

As a European, we should reflect on when we deal with this issue three matters.

The first is the importance of properly focusing the topic of discussion. At a time when access to information seems to know no limits and therefore in which we take the license to be able to give our opinion on practically everything, we confuse addressing issues in a transversal way with the danger of introducing elements alien to the supposed objective. In this particular case, it is striking that a forum on religious freedom is discussing the defence of an American legislative proposal on the extension of corporate responsibility for companies operating in China (The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act - Public Law No. 117-78). Although it is an interesting issue, its relationship with religious persecution is difficult to justify, and the discussion of whether it is really a protectionist measure of the US market against Chinese production does not arise. In fact, in the European Union we are in the middle of discussing the proposal for a directive on corporate responsibility in similar terms, with the difference that it is not designed exclusively for one country and that we do not renounce other types of international tools, such as bilateral investment agreements or dialogue between States (something highly criticized by the US administration). especially with regard to the positions of the French, German and Community administrations).

Returning to religious freedom, and secondly, we cannot ignore from the debate a fundamental element such as the limit to this freedom. If there is one thing we have discussed in the West throughout our history, it is that this limit is national security and social coexistence. We cannot deny that setting such limits is always controversial and is not exempt from controversy, criticism and, therefore, from an iron and constant control. But if we in Europe and the United States of America have accepted these limits, can we question the fact that other sovereign and recognized states do not also put them into practice? Simplifying this question, not everything has to be black and white.

Of course, not all states share our political system, nor do all civilizations have our legal standards or our legal and political language. But in an era in which we cannot be oblivious to the so-called "globalization", it is worth remembering that before passing judgment on a fact, we must demand that what jurists know as the principles of criminal procedural law (officiality, legality, opportunity, hearing, equality, publicity and contradiction) are complied with. Therefore, in cases such as the case of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement that affects the Chinese border or independence movements such as what happened in Hong Kong in 2019 and 2020, we must properly collect and contrast all the evidence provided by the parties in order to be able to take sides and therefore defend or veto a cause. no matter how legitimate it may seem at first.

And third, let us not fall into the trap of using religion as a pretext to initiate a political or economic confrontation. Again, I would like to focus on the case of the People's Republic of China. Once again, from my European point of view, and in an exercise of coherence, he defended our political and legal system (which does not mean that he is not critical of several issues that can be improved or that are deliberately manipulated). In Europe, it has taken us centuries to reach our current standards and we have even made the mistake of wanting to impose them, when imposition has only led to confrontation. In the face of this, let us opt for conviction. To convince, we must be willing to discuss, to dialectical confrontation. We need to know who we have in front of us and listen to the reasons why they make certain decisions. In the case of the People's Republic of China, we are going to have differences, without a doubt, but perhaps we are surprised that we share some minimums that we did not consider (such as order, security or respect for tradition, but facilitating social coexistence). Because whether we like it or not, and nostalgic aside, the Europe, the United States of America or the China of 2024 are different from those of the year 2000 (not to mention those of the 20th or 19th century).

Let us Europeans show off our idiosyncrasy made up of Greek logic, law, the contribution of scholasticism and the constant criticism and questioning so represented in Descartes, Kant or the French and British Enlightenment, to give a few examples. If we create forums in which criticism and discussion are absent, it will only lead us to arrogance and propaganda, something that we should remember has led to very bad experiences for us.

To summarize, religious freedom and religious practice is a conquered right, but only if the idiosyncrasies of the society in which they are exercised must be taken into consideration.

Javier Porras Belarra

PhD in European Studies

Adjunt professor of Public International Law and International Relations