How is Freedom of Religion or Belief observed in practice? An analysis of how Swedish embassies integrate Freedom of Religion or Belief in their work with special reference to the EU Guidelines from 2013

PAGE 2 of 26

Contents Foreword .................................................................................... 3 Introduction to the FoRB survey of Swedish Embassies .............................. 5 Background and aim .................................................................... 5 Selection of embassies ................................................................. 6 To what extent do Swedish embassies work with Freedom of Religion or Belief? 9 A varied score of proactive, reactive and inactive embassies.................... 9 Three examples of special concern ................................................ 12 Compromised credibility ............................................................. 15 To what extent are the EU Guidelines understood and used by the embassies? 17 Level of knowledge and practice ................................................... 17 The Guidelines and the EU cooperation ........................................... 18 FoRB and the EU cooperation ....................................................... 19 Untapped potential ................................................................... 20 Recommendations ....................................................................... 21 Appendix 1: Methodology ............................................................... 22 Appendix 2: Interview questions ...................................................... 24 Appendix 3: Statement chart .......................................................... 26

Swedish Mission Council March 2016 Text and analysis: Katherine Cash and Johanna Olofsson Research: Elisabeth Korswing Editor: Niklas Eklöv

PAGE 3 of 26

Foreword Violations and abuse of the right to Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) constitutes a global challenge which must be urgently addressed. It is estimated that three quarters of the world’s population lives in countries with severe restrictions on the right to FoRB, in fact it is one of the most widely violated human rights in the world 1. The Swedish Mission Council (SMC) has worked on FoRB as a strategic rights issue since 2007. The SMC is engaged in a continuous dialogue with Swedish policy makers, and has developed specific recommendations on how FoRB could be strengthened within Swedish Foreign Policy. 2 During the last years, FoRB has earned more interest and focus in the Swedish and European foreign policy discourse. An encouraging example is the adoption of the EU Guidelines on the promotion and protection of FoRB, by the Council of the European Union in June 2013. This report is an initiative to examine how FoRB is observed in practice, focusing on 14 Swedish embassies all situated in countries where the right is highly restricted. Areas of concern within the selected contexts, identified by the embassies themselves, include: violence towards religious minorities; attacks on priests; burning of churches; forced removals; blasphemy legislation and legislation prohibiting conversion; restrictions on building places of worship; and lack of protection or engagement from the authorities on behalf of persecuted or vulnerable groups. Two specific questions are addressed in this report: 1. To what extent do Swedish embassies promote and protect the right to FoRB

in their work in countries where this right is under constant threat? 2. To what extent are the EU Guidelines understood and used by these embassies

as a tool for promotion and protection of FoRB in the contexts concerned? Although some positive steps are taken to address FoRB in Swedish Foreign Policy, the report shows that there is an apparent lack of awareness - not only when it comes to the Guidelines - but also in relation to the reality individuals and groups have to deal with in the very contexts the embassies are operating. In most cases, FoRB is not prioritised as a right in itself in the Swedish human rights strategy for these countries. In a couple of cases, the embassy representatives appear to have such a fundamental lack of understanding of the right as to risk not only the quality and impact of Swedish and EU action on the issue, but also granting inherent legitimacy to the violations.

Pew Resarch Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2015. Latest Trends in Religious Restrictions and Hostilities. 2 See SMC report “Religionsfrihet för alla” 2014. 1

PAGE 4 of 26

The EU Guidelines provide an ambitious and valuable tool for the Swedish embassies in handling issues related to FoRB in the countries where they are situated. However the findings give a very mixed and inconsistent picture. While most respondents find the Guidelines valuable and relevant for their work, few of the embassies use them. Some officials have never heard of the Guidelines while others are well acquainted with them. Even though the Guidelines call for activity, every third embassy is completely inactive on the issue and most settle on monitoring and reporting. SMC calls on the Swedish Government and the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs to take a more proactive role, both bilaterally and in the EU cooperation to promote and protect FoRB and to use the EU Guidelines in practice. SMC firmly believes that the right to FoRB, internationally recognized as an early indicator of potential violence and conflicts when violated, must be prioritised to a higher extent by the Swedish embassies as a strategic right in their work towards peace, justice and sustainable development. Due to its fundamental, universal and interdependent nature, FoRB must be essential in analysis related to other rights within the Human Rights discourse, e.g. work focused on specific rights-holders as women or children. FoRB is a right that has to be promoted and protected both in policy and practice.

March 2016

Anders Malmstigen Acting General Secretary, SMC

PAGE 5 of 26

Introduction to the FoRB survey of Swedish Embassies Background and aim Across the world, the space for civil society is shrinking: a “global trend restricting the means for civil society to function” as the latest government report on the progress within the European Union puts it. 3 Closely connected to freedoms of assembly and association and freedoms of speech and expression, Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) 4 is in many places severely affected by forwarded restrictions and restraints. Those affected are not only denied the right to define and live by a faith-based identity, but in many cases also left out of enjoying a wide range of other fundamental rights. As for all universal human rights, although declared and adopted, FoRB is of little value for the rights-holders if it is not respected, protected and fulfilled in practice. The state as the primary legal duty bearer is responsible for the fulfilment of the right for all its citizens. Even so, the right is violated by various restraints ranging from restrictions to executions in numerous countries, affecting millions of people. In many places, people are forced to live their lives in hiding, or forced to convert or leave their homes, struggling with selective enforcement, fines, juridical requirements or restrictions imposed upon them only due to the identification with a certain belief. While the restrictions in some parts of a certain region, for example South Asia or Middle East and North Africa (MENA), consist of low intensity oppression, the situation in other parts of the same region comprise extreme forms of harassment and violence which might take the form of torture, abduction, sexual abuse or death. We do see a positive trend where awareness related to FoRB is growing. Countries are taking measures to strengthen their practical work with FoRB (e.g. in the Netherlands, UK and Norway). There is clearly an increasing interest also by the Swedish Government, parliamentarians and government officials which acknowledge the role of religion in our globalised world. There is increasing awareness that FoRB is a global rights issue which needs more attention and therefore needs to be addressed in its own right by policymakers, public officials and civil society in Sweden. A good example is the fact that the Swedish Ministers for Foreign Affairs have kept on emphasizing the importance of endorsing and enhancing FoRB through their Statements of Foreign Policy over the last five years. 5 At the EU level Guidelines on the promotion and protection of FoRB were adopted in June 2013 as an instrument for officials of EU institutions and EU

Reg. skrivelse 2014/15:65 UDHR Art 18 and ICCPR Art 18 – the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief. 5 See e.g. Statement of Government Policy in the Parliamentary Debate on Foreign Affairs 2014. 3

4

PAGE 6 of 26

Member States to use in contacts with third countries. This was in order to promote, protect and prevent violence in connection to religion or belief. After three years of implementation, the Guidelines are to be evaluated by COHOM in June 2016. 6 The EU Guidelines explain what the international human rights standards on freedom of religion or belief are, and give clear political lines to officials of EU institutions and EU Member States, to be used in contacts with third countries and with international and civil society organisations. They also provide officials with practical guidance on how to seek to prevent violations of FoRB, to analyse cases, and to react effectively to violations wherever they occur, in order to promote and protect freedom of religion or belief in the EU’s external action.1

The SMC recognizes the EU Guidelines as a valuable tool for Sweden to improve its work in connection to FoRB, both bilaterally and within the EU cooperation. Having had an active part in civil society consultations and cooperation with the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs during the development of the Guidelines, SMC intends to follow up on what effects the EU Guidelines might have in practice. In 2015, halfway through the implementation period of the EU Guidelines, the SMC conducted an assessment on how FoRB is observed in practice within the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Focusing specifically on the role and work of Swedish Embassies, the evaluation had two main questions, which are also the focus of this report:

1. To what extent do Swedish embassies promote and protect the right to FoRB in their work in countries where this right is under constant threat. 2. To what extent are the EU Guidelines understood and used by these embassies as a tool for promotion and protection of FoRB in the contexts concerned.

Selection of embassies The SMC contacted Swedish embassies in 17 religiously, geographically, economically and politically diverse non-EU countries 7. 11 of the 17 countries were designated as countries where governments engage in or tolerate severe violations of FoRB, by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). 8 According to the most recent data from the Pew Forum available at the time of selection, 9 14 of the 17 countries had a very high level of government restrictions and/or of social hostilities connected to religion. The three remaining countries had a high level of social hostilities, with moderate or low levels of government restrictions. 10 Based on this

The European Council’s working group on the human rights aspects of EU external relations. Full details of the methodology can be found in Appendix 1. 8 Meeting either all or a major part of the IRFA’s criteria for “Country of Particular Concern.” 9 The report used can be found at the following link http://www.pewforum.org/2014/01/14/religious-hostilitiesreach-six-year-high/ (last accessed 10 February 2016). 10 One of the 17 countries has (compared to the others) a relatively positive status in relation to freedom of religion or belief, with both a low level of government restrictions and a fairly low level of social hostilities (at the lower end of the Pew Forums ‘high’ category). This country has been included despite its positive status in order to see if embassies pick up on the specific issue of conscientious objection to military service, a right denied in this country and which falls within the framework of FoRB. 6 7

PAGE 7 of 26

information, numerous other sources and the SMC’s own knowledge and understanding of the contexts in these countries, it is our assessment that work to promote FoRB is of high relevance in all of these countries contexts. Out of 17 embassies contacted, 14 chose to participate. Six of them are situated in countries with a Muslim majority, four in countries with a Christian majority and four in countries with mixed (no clear) religious majority, or other majorities such as Hindu or Buddhist. Geographic distribution of participating embassies

Religious diversity

According to the United Nations Human Development Index, grading human development from very high to low, five of the embassies are situated in countries

PAGE 8 of 26

with high level of human development, another five in countries at medium level and four in countries with low level of human development 11. Ten of the 14 embassies are situated in countries designated as particularly problematic by the USCIRF. 12 11 of the countries had a very high level of government restrictions and/or very high level of social hostilities according to the Pew Forum. Level of restrictions and hostilities in selected countries GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS ON FORB 13

SOCIAL HOSTILITIES CONNECTED TO RELIGION 14

VERY HIGH HIGH MEDIUM LOW

The evaluation used semi-structured telephone interviews with the embassy officials assigned to represent the embassy in the survey, along with a statement chart in which participants agreed or disagreed with statements given. Throughout the report, we also try to give a voice to the personal and practical experiences of the embassy officials, and therefore we include numerous quotes. However, a number of embassies have expressed a wish to remain anonymous due to the precarious nature of the situation in the host country, or other sensitive circumstances. Therefore the specific countries included in the mapping are not named, and quotes from embassy officials are anonymized by removing names, places and in some cases, group identities.

For information about the Human Development Index see http://hdr.undp.org/en. The Index focuses on measuring knowledge, health and standard of living, placing countries within four levels of human development: Very high, High, Medium and Low. 12 The latest Annual Report (2015) positions six of them among the 17 with the world’s highest levels of abuses connected to FoRB meeting all the criteria; systematic, ongoing and egregious. Another four placed right behind with serious violations, meeting not all but at least one of the criteria “systematic, ongoing, and egregious.” 13 http://www.pewforum.org/files/2014/01/RestrictionsV-GRI.pdf (last accessed 10 February 2016). 14 http://www.pewforum.org/files/2014/01/RestrictionsV-SHI.pdf (last accessed 10 February 2016). 11

PAGE 9 of 26

To what extent do Swedish embassies work with Freedom of Religion or Belief? A varied score of proactive, reactive and inactive embassies Out of 14 embassies surveyed nine could be categorized as “active” when it concerns work with FoRB. 15 Some of the embassy officials in these nine countries showed a high level of awareness of the state of FoRB. Concerns related to violation of the right mentioned in the interviews included: •

• • • • • • •

Violence towards or in between religious groups; attacks on places of worship, religious pilgrims and religious leaders, violent conflicts with religious, economic and ethnic dimensions; Hate speech, politicization of religion, increased sectarian tensions; Blasphemy and apostasy legislation; the societal isolation of atheists; Limitations on the right to exercise religion, legal judgements classifying certain groups as extremists; Anti-conversion laws, coercive conversion campaigns directed towards poor minority groups; Lack of state action to protect vulnerable groups Family law – bans on inter-religious marriages; Forced removals.

Several of the embassies highlighted the inter-dependent nature of violations of FoRB and other human rights, especially freedom of expression. When it comes to practice however, the survey shows that freedom of religion or belief is in most cases not prioritised as a right in itself in the Swedish human rights strategy for these countries. In the nine countries with a somewhat active embassy policy on FoRB, the practical work takes very different shapes and levels of priority. Identified through the survey were seven different activities or methodologies: Method

Number of embassies

Monitoring and reporting

9

Interaction with civil society

8

Dialogue with the government concerned

5

Following specific cases of violations

4

One of the nine categorized as active is one of three who replied “yes and no” when asked about work on FoRB but since the embassy from the rest of the interview appears to work with the issues a great deal (although freedom of expression is their entry point) it is considered as actively working with FoRB in this report.

15

PAGE 10 of 26

Support to FoRB related development projects

2

Field visits/visiting sites of unrest

2

Support for human rights defenders

1

Two embassies excel compared to the others when it comes to activities in connection with FoRB. They are both situated in contexts with very high government restrictions and very high social hostilities in connection to religion. The first embassy is putting considerable effort into work with FoRB, both at an embassy level and within the EU cooperation. 16 The main strategy used is focused on support for civil society organizations working with FoRB in connection to other human rights such as freedom of expression and women’s rights. The other embassy is also addressing the issue at a practical as well as strategic level. Through advocacy, bilateral meetings, contacts with state representatives and civil society, the embassy is acting on violations and actively trying to promote FoRB as a prioritized area of concern. A couple of other embassies combine reactive work with pro-active long-term engagement through the EU cooperation. One embassy is apparently held back by the difficult country context and therefore dependent on work together with other countries. The rest of the active embassies must, by the face value of their statements, be considered reactive in their work with FoRB. They occasionally respond to specific events or cases but are in most parts settled on monitoring/reporting.

Voices from “active” embassy officials Embassy official in the MENA region: “FoRB gets actualised now and then. The situation is hard on minorities and despite a limited possibility of influencing the situation it is an important issue for us and other EU embassies. Focus is on collecting information. […] We are aware of not having a complete picture. It is hard to travel and get in contact with people”. Embassy official in East Africa: “We have an ongoing dialogue based on the Ambassador taking part in interfaith related contexts showing that Sweden values tolerance and mutual understanding”.

The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) provides financial development aid to half of the 14 countries included in the survey. Only two embassies mentioned support to development projects as a method used to work for the right to FoRB, and only one appears to have work on any significant scale with this right. From Sida’s website it is evident that significant

16

The EU Guidelines are also used as a tool on a regular basis both at the Embassy and at the EU delegation.

PAGE 11 of 26

humanitarian work connected with this right exists in a third country included in this mapping, in the form of support for refugees fleeing religious violence, although the embassy did not mention this. Sida’s support for FoRB related projects appears from embassies responses to be limited in extent, and to take other rights as the primary entry point.

Embassy official in the MENA region: “FoRB isn’t prioritised directly but freedom of speech and women rights are. […] We support organizations as XXX and XXX promoting education within the legal system and police force”. […] Supporting civil society in general in their work with Human Rights hopefully has a positive effect on freedom of speech and FoRB as well”. Embassy official that has attended trials to provide visible support and legal aid: “The clearest example [of a negative trend] is how Jehovah’s Witnesses and some Muslim groups are treated. There are legal judgements declaring them to be extremists. We collaborate with and support these groups. […] We give public support when we attend trials for Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example”. Embassy official in South Asia: “A major part of the human rights area has to do with having contact with human rights defenders, relatives of those imprisoned for their convictions, or people who themselves experience harassment. […] It’s frustrating sometimes considering what you actually could do, but it is great value in an embassy openly meeting with these people, allowing them to tell their story. We write reports and send them to Brussels, send follow up emails and keep in contact with those afflicted”.

With nine, to a various extent, active embassies, five embassies must be labelled as inactive. Those five embassies take no measures to influence the situation in the country where they are situated, often despite their knowledge of the EU Guidelines. While other embassies working under similar conditions try to approach the issues in an active, yet limited way, some of the officials in the “inactive” countries express an unsettling ignorance concerning the situation at hand. All the “inactive” embassies have a limited understanding of FoRB and they also have a seemingly low awareness of the situation within the country where they are situated. To summarise: there is a clear correlation between level of awareness of FoRB and of the situation in the country concerned – and level of activity, as shown in the table below:

PAGE 12 of 26

Level of activity in relation to level of knowledge/awareness

Three examples of special concern Out of 14 embassies surveyed, there are three examples that indicate evident cause for concern in relation to lack of awareness, understanding and practice. All three of these embassies report that they do not work with FoRB and do not think there is a problem related to the right in the country concerned. In two of these cases (examples A & B), the Swedish embassies are situated in countries designated as particularly problematic by the USCIRF, 17 with high level of social hostilities connected to religion and/or government restrictions on religion according to the Pew Forum as well as other institutes. 18 In the third case (example C) the embassy is situated in a country with a longterm conflict between the government and criminal groups. The conflict does not have religious causes and the country is not characterized by inter-religious tensions or by high levels of government restrictions. Nonetheless, two issues in connection to FoRB rise within the dynamics of the conflict. The first is the vulnerability to attacks faced by religious leaders and rural religious communities who speak out against or refuse to participate in the drugs trade/violence. The second issue arising is the right to conscientious objection to military service that is denied in the country. 19

United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. E.g. the ongoing study on Christian communities, Under Caesar’s Sword, at Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs, Georgetown University. 19 ICCPR Art 18 (General Comment No. 22) 17

18

PAGE 13 of 26

Example A – Swedish embassy in Africa A country where in several areas severe persecution has been going on for several years driven by an independent terror group killing thousands, targeting religious minority groups among others. Despite the situation in the country the Swedish embassy has chosen not to act on or work with issues related to FoRB. Embassy officials do not find the issue necessary to address since they are working with other Human Rights, in particular the rights of women and children. Statements by embassy official: “Freedom of religion or belief issues never come up, neither at EU coordination meetings, nor at the embassy. Many other issues are more acute. We do not relate the conflict to freedom of religion or belief. It’s not perceived as threatened.” Commenting on the terror group operating in the country the same official says: “It’s not really about religion. It’s not interpreted as such. The violence is indiscriminate and has a broader human rights perspective. It is about power, money and influence – a disguised struggle. Religion is not the driving force or cause. […] We are actively condemning the conflict, but we don’t use those words. We have a holistic approach. All human rights are violated.” The SMC certainly agrees that conflicts affect all human rights and a holistic approach is often necessary. In this case, however, this holistic approach appears to be lacking, given that the embassy fails to recognize the manifest violations of FoRB taking place within the context of the conflict, and instead perceive the right as not being threatened. The terror organization concerned has a faction with clear and radical religious motives. The relative influence of this faction is of key importance to monitor, in conducting conflict analysis and understanding possible future scenarios for minority and majority communities. Whilst much of the terror organization’s violence is indiscriminate, much is not. The terror organization has for example: • • • •

called on all members of the minority religious community to leave the region where the group operates; attacked minority places of worship and religious leaders; attacked majority religious leaders for opposing the terror group; been engaged in forcible conversion.

Whilst acknowledging the importance of neither simplifying nor contributing to the ‘religionising’ of conflicts, the SMC is deeply concerned that the dimensions of FoRB appear to be absent in the conflict and human rights analysis carried out by the embassy.

PAGE 14 of 26

Example B – Swedish embassy in Asia The embassy is situated in a country where religious groups and organizations operating separate from the state are considered a threat and restrictions on religious activity makes it exceptionally hard for certain churches to work legally. The state concerned enforces obligatory registration of all religious or belief communities. All unregistered religious activity, including for example prayer meetings in private homes, is illegal. Registration is not granted to all communities applying. Statements by embassy official: “We do not work with violations of freedom of religion or belief. X is a very tolerant country, more tolerant than Sweden. 20 […] The state has a friendly approach to the different religious communities, and no problem with atheists. […] “The President profiles himself on tolerance and meets with religious leaders from all over the world on how to promote FoRB and peace.” Asked about FoRB in connection to the Human Rights strategy the EU has for the country, the official says that: “It might say something about it but it is not a problem. I can only recall one problem– when some Jehovah’s Witnesses had to leave a building and angled it as religious persecution.” The diplomat’s description of the situation concerning FoRB in the country stands in stark contrast to the situation as reported by human rights organisations. Central to their critique is that the state has made all aspects of the right to FoRB conditional upon explicit state permission. Religious communities are raided by the police, and unregistered groups who continue to exercise their religion risk arrests, the imposition of fines, or prison terms for refusal to pay fines. The range of “offences” people can be punished for when exercising their right to FoRB has systematically increased and the censorship of religious literature is extensive. Hare Krishna devotees, Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Ahmadi Muslims are among those targeted by the state. The Swedish embassy representative appears to be totally unaware of the legal status of FoRB in the country concerned, of the actions of authorities towards religious communities and individuals and of the culture of fear that permeates religious communities. The embassy appears to have accepted state propaganda as truth resulting in a dismissive attitude towards religious groups who make legitimate complaints. Example C – Swedish embassy in Latin America This is a democratic country with constitutional protection of FoRB, but with significant problems connected to criminal networks, drug cartels and

20

The official is in this regard referring to a lower level of social pressure, in comparision to Sweden.

PAGE 15 of 26

paramilitary groups. Social hostilities and governmental restrictions are moderate or low but in some areas controlled by armed illegal groups FoRB is continuously violated in an on-going effort to keep churches and religious leaders who might question the authority of the militia, under control. Freedom of conscience is also violated as army officials systematically ignore conscientious objection. Statements by embassy official: “Standard of freedom of religion or belief in law and in practice is good. No major concerns.” Asked about conscientious objections the official says: “There are peace talks, and when these are completed people think it will change as there won’t be a need for such a large military force.” Neither the targeting of religious leaders nor the issue of conscientious objection was pointed out by the embassy, although these are two clear advocacy issues that would be natural to pursue in dialogue with the government. FoRB covers the right of free thought and conscience as well as religion or belief. The response of the embassy is surprising not only because they do not recognize the FoRB aspects of the conflict situation, but also as it has previously supported civil society organisations working for conscientious objection rights in the country. These organisations are still active on the issue as the right to conscientious objection is still denied despite the constitutional court having twice acknowledged the right in the last five years.

Compromised credibility Given the fact that all of the 14 Swedish embassies assessed in this survey are situated in countries where there are grave violations of FoRB, it is startling that only a handful of them indicate that they are proactively working for this human right. Even more surprising is the fact that five embassies do not work with the right at all. The fact that nine embassies are somewhat active (directly or indirectly) is of course positive, but it is worrying that the activities in most cases are limited to monitoring/reporting and contacts with civil society. It is clear that the embassies are not using the tools available to the extent both needed and intended. Whilst in some cases, this reflects limitations imposed by the context, in others it appears to reflect a lack of prioritization. That only five of a potential 14 embassies report dialogues with the government concerned on the issues is particularly disappointing. Within the group of embassies perceived as active in relation to FoRB, the answers in many cases also indicate lack of knowledge and consciousness concerning contents of the right and/or the situation in the country. In the light of responses from embassies A, B and C, the SMC found that two of the representatives appear to have such a fundamental lack of understanding of

PAGE 16 of 26

FoRB as to risk not only the quality and impact of Swedish and EU action on the issue, but also granting inherent legitimacy to the situation: •

•

In example A fear of ‘religionizing’ a conflict appears to have resulted in FoRB violations being entirely left out of human rights and conflict analyses at the embassy and in EU coordination. In example B, the official appear totally unaware of the legal status of FoRB in the country, accepting state propaganda as truth and showing a dismissive attitude towards groups who complain.

The SMC did not expect the diplomat at embassy B to be actively working on the issues him/herself, given that this is a small embassy. We did however expect the diplomat to be more aware and thereby capable of engaging constructively with any EU discussion or advocacy on the issues. In this case it appears more likely that Swedish diplomacy would undermine potential EU action and damage credibility. The diplomat’s lack of awareness of the impact of existing state controls on all faith communities was, in this light, most unhelpful. •

In example C, important dimensions of FoRB were clearly missing in the embassy’s policy and practice. The official concerned does not recognize the effects it has on religious communities and individuals when illegal groups in some areas target religious leaders or understand it as violations of FoRB.

The SMC looks seriously at these cases and questions the degree to which the embassies understand the nature of FoRB and the violations of it.

PAGE 17 of 26

To what extent are the EU Guidelines understood and used by the embassies? Level of knowledge and practice The EU Guidelines on the promotion and protection of FoRB are not well known amongst officials responsible for work with human rights at Swedish embassies. Most officials have, by some means, been in contact with the Guidelines but most are not very well acquainted with the contents. Some find them quite useful, but most do not use them. There is a correlation between knowledge and usage. The more acquainted an embassy is with the Guidelines, the more they tend to use them. Usage in relation to knowledge of the EU Guidelines

Two embassy officials with a fair knowledge of the contents of the Guidelines (one of them the same as in example B above), find the Guidelines uncalled for in their countries contexts. Two other embassies, with a lower knowledge of the Guidelines, also describe them as unnecessary since they find the right irrelevant within the context of their country. However the majority agrees on the Guidelines being a relevant and useful tool.

PAGE 18 of 26

There is no apparent relation between knowledge of the Guidelines and level of activity. The nine embassies categorized as (to some extent) active range from very well acquainted with the Guidelines, to not knowing of their existence at all. The level of activity is instead correlating to knowledge of the situation in the country. 21 Voices on the Guidelines Embassy official in Africa: “We used them when we wrote the Human Rights Strategy within the EU. They are at the back of your head. […] They also help when cases or incidents occur. They are a good checklist, how to express yourself in different contexts – writing letters, press releases, messages to the government. […] It provides a good platform for the EU countries, so that we know what our common bases are.” Embassy official, MENA: “The document has been helpful in drafting statements […] Guidelines also provide support at the local level. You can go back to the common starting point when you need to.” Embassy official in Asia: “We might have had a use for them if we had known they existed. Or not, since we already do so much on the issues and what is said in the document anyway.”

Three officials in the survey fully agreed that they are well acquainted with the contents of the Guidelines, whilst two officials actively working on FoRB issues, had never heard of the Guidelines before the Swedish Mission Council made contact. Four other officials also state that they have none or very limited knowledge of the Guidelines contents. Four out of 14 embassies report having used the Guidelines – as a reference or steering document, and as a starting point for dialogue and action within the EU coordination. Ten of the 14 embassies have not used the Guidelines at all. All of the “inactive” embassies consider the Guidelines as of assumptive importance for someone working with the issue. Only one official at an “inactive” embassy found the contents of the EU Guidelines completely irrelevant for his/her work. The same embassy was also the only “inactive” embassy with no knowledge on the contents of the Guidelines at all.

The Guidelines and the EU cooperation Only five of the embassies surveyed believe that other EU embassies are well acquainted with the contents of the Guidelines. Only two embassies report that Guidelines had been mentioned or used in a concrete manner within the framework of EU coordination activities. At the same time, a majority of the interviewed officials have a very positive impression of the Guidelines. Numerous positive comments were made and the mapping revealed broad agreement among

21

See table “Level of activity in relation to level of knowledge/awareness” on page 12.

PAGE 19 of 26

officials that the Guidelines provide good instruction in how to understand the meaning of FoRB, and that it was a useful tool in concrete situations that might occur. Embassies who work with the issue agree that the Guidelines are relevant to their work. Some offer explanations about why the Guidelines are not used even though they consider them useful. Explanations vary from lack of time and other more pressing needs, to too many EU documents to consider and the high quality of the embassies’ human rights work at large. Despite positive opinions concerning relevance and usefulness, Swedish officials surveyed do not believe that the Guidelines have made a difference to the quality of the embassies’ or the EUs work on the issues. Officials appear to consider that there is some potential for the Guidelines to improve the quality of Swedish work, but greater potential for them to improve work by other EU member states and by EU delegations. A vast majority of the officials who express an opinion on the matter agree that the Guidelines do not contribute to the issue of FoRB being prioritised more highly. Prioritisation is instead influenced by the inclusion of the issue in Country Human Rights Strategies by the EU delegation, the embassies’ own understanding of the gravity of the situation in the country and civil society pressure.

FoRB and the EU cooperation In relation to engagement within the EU cooperation there is also a distinct variation at country level. In some cases awareness and activity was high, but in others it was none existent. 22 The survey also came upon some instances where Swedish human rights work appeared to be largely divorced from the countrylevel human rights strategies that the EU delegation is responsible for. In these cases, Swedish officials had not been involved in the development or delivery of the strategy, and some had never read it. In other countries it was apparent that embassies and EU delegations worked closely together both on development and joint implementation of EU strategies. An official at one of the active embassies, situated in South Asia, says: “Some countries follow FoRB more than others, for example France, Spain and Italy (i.e. Catholic countries are more engaged). The United States are the most active and also most knowledgeable.” The survey gives no clear explanation to these variations, but two factors that seem to be of importance are “personal interest in the issue” and “level of activity and interaction within the EU coordination”.

Nine of the embassies have had discussions related to FoRB within the EU coordination/delegation. In five countries FoRB had not been discussed/brought up at all, neither at the embassy nor at the EU delegation.

22

PAGE 20 of 26

Untapped potential It is clear that the EU Guidelines have not yet gained the overall awareness and practical usage needed within the countries surveyed. The same goes for the Swedish embassies - that in most cases - are not aware of the full range of tools at their disposal: the EU Guidelines being one of these tools. The EU delegations bear primary responsibility for implementing the Guidelines so this is perhaps not surprising. However, the interviews with the Swedish embassy officials show that there is a perceived greater potential for improvement by other EU member states than by Sweden. This appears to reflect both self-confidence in how good Sweden is at working on human rights and a perceived lack of capacity in other member states. One official at a MENA embassy speculates: “This type of document is more important for some Member States than others. In Sweden, Human Rights is a comprehensive part of Foreign Policy. We don’t feel the need for this type of document since we already have a high level of competence and are very progressive. For some countries without the same tradition and focus on Human Rights it might be of greater importance.” Whilst acknowledging Sweden’s track record and focus on human rights there is a risk of self-congratulation which could blind embassies to failings and limit learning and development. Some results in this survey point in this direction. The EU Guidelines comprise a clear notion of an active approach concerning violations of FoRB. The EU calls through the document for its Member States to prevent violations, analyse cases and react effectively in order to promote and protect FoRB in the EU’s external action. The active embassies within this survey are the ones that also tend to worry about not being able to do enough. In the words of one embassy official: “The embassy’s work with FoRB is, unfortunately, only related to events, reactive work. We have to work with putting out fires. As the relationship between Sweden and country X is strained there is no possibility to conduct a dialogue and carry out long term proactive work.” In summary, it is encouraging that the embassies are positive about the contents and relevance of the Guidelines in general. This should be seen as a good entry point for a more strategic focus to improve the quality of the Swedish work on FoRB at embassy level as well as within the EU coordination, where the Guidelines would serve as the natural point of reference for putting policy into practice. A more proactive Swedish approach to take part in the EU’s Human Rights Country Strategies could also strengthen the promotion and protection of FoRB in practice.

PAGE 21 of 26

Recommendations Based on the findings from this survey the Swedish Mission Council has the following recommendations to the Swedish Government and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs related to its policy and practice on FoRB: 1. The Swedish Government should strategically and systematically strengthen the awareness of, and work with, FoRB as a human right in all national and international engagements, including a more holistic understanding of the forms violations of this right can take. 2. The Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs should secure the quality of conflict and human rights analyses by ensuring that religious dimensions of conflict and violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief in conflict situations are appropriately included. 3. The Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs should prioritize freedom of religion or belief so that it’s embassies: a. work on the issue in policy and practice, b. work directly and in more depth with the issue in its own right as well as in connection to other rights (e.g. freedom of expression), c. engage in long term proactive work on the issue including the use of a broader range of methods and tools. 4. The Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs should conduct in-depth analysis of the reasons for the great variation in the degree of awareness, activity and collaboration between the Swedish embassies showed by the survey, and in particular address the specific problems identified. 5. The Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs should, through its embassies and through the international development cooperation, take a more proactive role both bilaterally and in the EU cooperation to promote and protect the freedom of religion or belief and use the EU Guidelines in practice.

PAGE 22 of 26

Appendix 1: Methodology Choice of countries and embassies Note: Numerous embassies wish to remain anonymous due to the precarious nature of the situation in the host country, or other sensitive circumstances. For this reason the specific countries included in the mapping are not named and quotes from embassy officials are anonymized by removing names of places and in some cases groups affected. The SMC contacted embassies in 17 countries regarding participation in the mapping. Of these 14 embassies chose to participate, two declined and one was unable to do so within the timeframe available. The choice of countries was based on the following criteria: • •

•

•

There is a Swedish embassy in the country. There are significant problems for freedom of religion or belief in the country. The country is listed as having high or very high levels of government restrictions on religion and/or of social hostilities connected to religion in the most recent report of the Pew Research Centre. 23 The group of countries are diverse, with all continents being represented, varying types of religious majority and varying forms of governance and degrees of democratic and economic development. No EU countries are included as the guidelines concern the EU’s external relations.

The countries chosen had the following characteristics: The majority of countries selected have a colonial past. Communist, postcommunist, democratic, theocratic and dictatorial political systems are all represented. Some countries have recently experienced revolutions. 7 of the 17 countries are designated as Countries of Particular Concern by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. Another four are placed right behind with serious violations, meeting not all but at least one of the criteria “systematic, ongoing, and egregious”. According to the Pew Forum, 14 of the 17 countries had a very high level of government restrictions and/or of social hostilities connected to religion. The three remaining countries had a high level of social hostilities, with moderate or low levels of government restrictions. One of the 17 countries has (compared to the others) a relatively positive status in relation to freedom of religion or belief, with both a low level of government restrictions and a fairly low level of social hostilities (at the lower end of the Pew Forums ‘high’ category). This country has been included despite its positive status The report used can be found at the following link http://www.pewforum.org/2014/01/14/religioushostilities-reach-six-year-high/ 23

PAGE 23 of 26

in order to see if embassies pick up on the specific issue of conscientious objection to military service, a right denied in this country and which falls within the framework of freedom of religion or belief.

Interviews Semi-structured telephone interviews were carried out with the official deemed by the embassy to be most suitable to answer questions regarding work with freedom of religion or belief. Interviews were based on a written questionnaire (see appendix 2), but allowed for a dynamic conversation, with follow-up questions and reflections. Embassies were also asked to complete a statement chart (see appendix 3). Due to special circumstances, two embassies completed the questionnaire in written form and follow-up questions were communicated in writing. Unfortunately follow-up questions were not answered resulting in more limited insight into the work of these two embassies. The posts held by those interviewed varied, including: an Ambassador, first and second Secretaries of Political and Economic Affairs, Political and Trade Policy Officers, Regional Program Managers, Deputy Heads of Mission, Heads of Political and Trade Sections, and Heads of Development Cooperation. The majority of those interviewed have human rights issues as a major part of their portfolio. In preparation for each interview, the interviewer read reports from numerous sources describing the situation of FoRB in the country along with the Swedish foreign ministry’s own human rights report for that country (except where the report was more than two years old).

PAGE 24 of 26

Appendix 2: Interview questions The following questions were asked of embassy representatives during a telephone interview.* Name: Embassy: Job title: How long have you been working with human rights issues at this embassy? May we refer to your embassy specifically?

YES / NO

1. Has the embassy worked with freedom of religion or belief issues during the last 12 months? YES/NO If yes: i) What specific issues has this concerned, (e.g. hate speech, violence towards minorities, actions of the state, legislation, blasphemy). ii) What has prompted the work on the issues? (e.g. current events – if so which, long term planned work – if so please describe! Is there documentation we can read? Please attach!) iii) What methods has the embassy used in work with freedom of religion or belief (e.g. support for relevant projects, raised issues in diplomatic dialogues, followed specific cases, dialogue with vulnerable groups/individuals, active Swedish work within the framework of EU cooperation etc.)? Please describe as fully as possible! iv) Has the embassy had dialogue with civil society and faith communities on the issues during the last 12 months, if so in what way? 2. Has the embassy made use of the EU Guidelines on freedom of religion or belief, and if so in what way? 3. What is your impression of the degree to which the EU delegation in the country uses the Guidelines in their work? i) Has freedom of religion or belief issues been discussed at the EU coordination meetings where human rights are discussed during the last year? If so how often – occasionally, regularly?

PAGE 25 of 26

If yes: ii) Are the Guidelines discussed or used in the EU co-ordination activities and if so in what way? For example are the Guidelines used to analyse the situation, to understand the rights principles involved, to find language to use, to make decisions on how to act? 4. Does the Embassy or the EU coordination/delegation work more or differently with freedom of religion or belief since the Guidelines were adopted? If so is this due to the Guidelines or to a worsening situation? 5. Do you consider that the Guidelines have made any difference to Sweden or the EUs work and if so, in what way? 6. Is freedom of religion or belief prioritised in the EU country human rights strategy? Has this prioritisation or lack of prioritisation significance for the degree to which the Guidelines are made use of? 7. Do you consider that there is something missing in the Guidelines or that something that needs clarifying/exploring in more depth in order for them to be more useable and relevant for your work? Is there anything problematic about the Guidelines?

* The questions are an English translation of the Swedish original.

PAGE 26 of 26

Appendix 3: Statement chart Embassies were asked to complete the following table.* Statement

Completely disagree

Partly disagree

I am well acquainted with the contents of the Guidelines The Guidelines are well known among colleagues within the EU Coordination The contents of the Guidelines is relevant for my work The Guidelines provide clear guidance on how to understand the meaning of freedom of religion or belief The Guidelines are a useful tool in concrete situations that arise The Guidelines contribute to a higher prioritisation of the issues at the embassy The Guidelines contribute to a greater prioritisation of the issues within the framework of EU Coordination The Guidelines contribute to a higher quality of work on freedom of religion or belief issues at the embassy The Guidelines contribute to a higher quality of work with freedom of religion or belief issues at the EU Delegation/in EU Coordination The Guidelines risk becoming a shelf-filler

* This is an English translation of the Swedish original.

Partly agree

Completely agree

Don’t know