RELATED PROGRAM
Religion and US Foreign Policy
RELATED EVENTS
April 29, 2011
Religious Freedom and the Politics of Proselytism
March 1, 2011
Religion in American Politics and Society: A Model for Other Countries?
February 24, 2011
Religion and U.S. Immigration Reform
October 28, 2010
Religious Freedom and National Security Policy
March 2, 2010
Proselytism and Religious Freedom in the 21st Century
February 22, 2010
Engaging Religious Communities Abroad: A New Imperative for U.S. Foreign Policy
February 3, 2010
Congressional Event on U.S. International Religious Freedom Policy
January 20, 2010
Rabbi David Novak's 'In Defense of Religious Liberty'
January 8, 2010
Berkley Center Hosts Task Force on Religious Liberty
November 9, 2009
America and the World, featuring Jean Bethke Elshtain
more >>
AT THE CENTER
EVENTS (56)
PUBLICATIONS (85)
September 1, 2012
INTERVIEWS (84)
July 14, 2010
October 29, 2009
LETTERS (73)
POSTS (17)
RELATED RESOURCES: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
The Bush Administration and America's International Religious Freedom Policy
Thomas Farr
June 1, 2009
In the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Berkley Center Senior Fellows Thomas F. Farr and William L. Saunders, Jr. explore how IRF policy fared under the George W. Bush Administration. In attempting to gauge success and failure, and strength and weakness, they focus on three issues: "the extent to which U.S. diplomacy actually reduced religious persecution, how well it advanced the institutions and habits of religious freedom, and what basis it provided the Obama Administration to make further progress." In each of these areas, they argue, "the record is, unsurprisingly, mixed. Our overall judgment is that the [Bush] Administration focused a critically important spotlight on governments that persecute and managed to free some number of religious prisoners. In at least three countries Sudan, Vietnam, and Saudi Arabia, significant structural steps were taken. Notwithstanding these successes, however, the Bush Administration did not make significant progress toward either reducing persecution or advancing religious freedom. Surprisingly, it appears that IRF policy, isolated within the State Department, had virtually no role in democracy promotion, public diplomacy, or counterterrorism strategy."