The world has not become safer and less turbulent for 15 years of progressive Western disengagement. There are many reasonable justifications for the non-interventionism of recent years, but there can be little question that we have now entered an era for the autocrats and despots. The likes of China, Russia, and Iran have seized on the opportunity to step into the vacuum created by the withdrawal of Western governments while making a grab to expand their influence and territories without fear of intervention. In an interview in early April, outgoing NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg warned that an authoritarian alliance, including China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, is increasingly collaborating. He stated that in 2024, the world has become “much more dangerous, much more unpredictable,” and “much more violent.”

Inevitably, this has tracked with a deterioration in the international religious freedom (IRF) landscape with minority religious communities the target of scapegoating, repression, and violence by government authorities and extremist communities around the world. Christians, Muslims, Jews, and a variety of smaller and even more vulnerable religious communities are at the sharp end of the riotous global unbridling of tyranny without consequence. Putin’s assault on Ukraine has included concerted attacks on the Evangelical Christian population of occupied territories. Beyond the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) brutal persecution of their Uyghur Muslim population, recent reports also demonstrate the great lengths to which the CCP has gone in the sinification or destruction of Chinese mosques. Iran’s pursuit of Baha’is, Christians, and other religious communities that do not submit to the regime’s own brand of Twelver Shi’ism continues unabated. Less prominent authoritarian powers, such as Algeria, Belarus, and Eritrea, have doubled-down on their repression of religious communities, likely emboldened by the example of the more influential despots, and the evident absence of repercussions emanating from the international community.

Despite the growing non-interventionism by Western countries, the international community, often led by US and UK diplomacy, has developed a reasonable foundation for IRF policy. The International Religious Freedom and Belief Alliance (IRFBA) has been a positive addition in this space too. IRFBA is a coalition of more than 40 countries with national leadership-level participation, and the group continues to grow and gain momentum since it was established by US Secretary of State Pompeo early in 2020. The efforts of this alliance have seen a number of “prisoners of conscience”, spotlighted by their monthly campaign, released from prisons around the world. 

Considering the party manifestos on offer in today’s election, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have both committed to installing a Special Envoy or Ambassador for Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB). Labour makes no mention of religious freedom in their manifesto though, in the House of Commons prior to the election announcement, they committed in principle to reintroduce legislation placing the FoRB envoy role on a statutory footing. All such commitments are welcome. However, the appointment of a Special Envoy is just the beginning of what is needed if incoming governments in the UK and the US wish to move the needle in the right direction on this foundational and universal value.

The first critical step to advance IRF policy is for leading governments and alliances to develop positive, proactive, and preventative approaches to their engagement. It is important to call out and react to violations and condemn governments that flagrantly abuse their own citizens. In truth, punches are pulled when strategic partners are the guilty party but, putting to one side Western diplomatic inconsistency, a wider view needs to be taken. Efforts need to be made to target intelligently, beyond the worst offenders such as Nigeria, Iran, North Korea, and China. Tools need to be developed and deployed to persuade the many countries that tolerate or instigate lower-level forms of societal or governmental injustice, or have the potential to slide into further decline. Clear road maps for improvements that safeguard religious minorities should be presented and encouraged. This requires placing greater expectations on diplomats working in-country to engage with an urgency and proactivity that remains uncommon. 

The second much needed IRF policy development would be more “stick” than “carrot”. In spite of the heightened focus on religious persecution, and a greater willingness to publicly denounce abuses against people of faith, the global landscape is deteriorating. Countries that have been added to the State Department’s “Countries of Particular Concern” (CPC) list and “Special Watch List” (SWL) more often sustain or intensify their violations rather than reforming. Algeria for example, upon its redesignation as a SWL country, set about issuing closure orders for all but one of the Église Protestante d’Algérie (EPA) churches that had been left alone to that point. Now, 46 of 47 evangelical protestant churches have been ordered to cease their peaceful assembly, and the most senior clergy continue to face prosecution. The facts and key perpetrators are known. However, in Algeria, as with so many other countries, offenders move with a sense of impunity, believing that Western democracies might speak but won’t act. 

The IRF Act provides tools to the US President that are seldom deployed. UK and European powers have fewer options to deter religious freedom abuses when diplomacy fails. Sanctions alone are very rarely useful. However, Western powers should develop options for targeted penalties that can be applied against persecutors and those who permit persecution in their land. Even the threat that the little darlings of violating officials might not have the luxury of an education at Oxford or Harvard, and that their wives might not be able to go shopping at Selfridges in London or at Bloomingdales in New York City, might genuinely give them pause. Further, religious freedom concerns should be tied to trade, aid, and investment, placing specific expectations on nations that receive support and with which Western governments are developing strategic relations.

A final, critical step to advance religious freedom globally is the development of stronger partnerships between governments and civil society experts. Western governments need to move beyond simply using NGOs as a source for information about issues and violations. Rather, specialists need to be fully incorporated in efforts to assess the global religious freedom landscape, as well as develop and implement responses. 

In the UK and US, IRF policy platforms have been established, which can guide any government that sincerely wishes to contribute to a more stable and secure world. Now, in the interest of essential human flourishing and peaceful coexistence, intelligent action is needed. We can but hope and pray.