Centennial Inaugural Address, October 23, 1997 at the Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C

Albright, Madeleine K.

English

bepress Legal Repository

Remarks on Religious Freedom at the Columbus School of Law, Tthe Catholic University of America

The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law

Catholic University Law Review Volume 47 Issue 2 Winter 1998 Article 3 1998 Remarks on Religious Freedom at the Columbus School of Law, Tthe Catholic University of America Madeleine K. Albright Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Madeleine K. Albright, Remarks on Religious Freedom at the Columbus School of Law, Tthe Catholic University of America, 47 Cath. U. L. Rev. 361 (1998). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol47/iss2/3 This Address is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact edinger@law.edu. CENTENNIAL INAUGURAL ADDRESSREMARKS ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AT THECOLUMBUS SCHOOL OF LAW, THECATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICASecretary of State Madeleine K. AlbrightCentennial Inaugural Address, October 23, 1997Thank you very much, Dean Dobranski, for that introduction. AndPresident Larson, thank you very much for that present. I have to openthe Marine Marathon this weekend, and now I know what I can wear.Faculty, students, guests and friends, good afternoon. It's a pleasure tojoin with you in observing the centennial of Catholic University's Co-lumbus School of Law. During the past few years, it seems we have cele-brated the 50th anniversary of everything from D-Day to the founding ofthe United Nations to the Marshall Plan. So it's nice to know that there'ssomething-besides myself-that is more than fifty years old.It is also nice to know that in a year when the fighting Irish are havingtheir troubles-the fighting Cardinals are 7-0.Obviously, much has changed since the first half dozen students tooktheir initial classes here. In 1897, gold had just been discovered in theYukon. The first subway in the United States was being completed inBoston. William McKinley was the President. And the United StatesSecretary of State had a beard.It was also a time when the prevailing mood in our country and aroundthe world was one of anticipation and hope. Our grandparents and theirparents looked out upon a world being brought closer together by suchamazing inventions as the motor car, the telephone and the electric light.Diplomats gathered at the Hague were expanding the scope of interna-tional humanitarian law. And editorial writers were looking ahead to thenew century and predicting an era of unprecedented peace and good will.There followed two world wars, several attempted genocides, theHolocaust, and the bloodiest hundred years in human history.Today, we, too, are about to begin a new century. We, too, live in ahopeful era of relative peace and startling technological change. And aswe look to the future, we know that we, too, will be tested by the clashbetween what is the best and worst in human character; between ourCatholic University Law Reviewmost selfish and aggressive instincts and what Abraham Lincoln referredto as the better angels of our nature.This contest will be engaged on many fronts, and it will have manyelements. Today, I'd like to focus on one that has been increasingly inthe news lately and that I believe will continue to play a significant rolein U.S. foreign policy and in the affairs of the world. That is the ceaselessquest for religious freedom and tolerance.In the United States, we believe in the separation of church and state.Our Constitution reflects the fear of religious persecution that promptedmany in the 17th and 18th centuries to set sail for American shores. Butthis principle has never blinded us to religion's impact on secular events,whether for the worse, as when intolerance contributes to conflict andstrife; or for the better, as when faith serves as a source of moral inspira-tion and healing.There are many examples of the latter in recent years, thanks to lead-ers of many faiths from many lands, including the efforts of the Ecumeni-cal Patriarch Bartholomew on behalf of the environment and inter-ethnicunderstanding; the eloquence of Archbishop Tutu in helping to consignapartheid to the dustbin of history; the inspiring and culturally-transcending ministry of Mother Teresa; and most dramatically, the his-toric contributions made by Pope John Paul II to the cause of freedom.As a native of Central Europe, and as a professor who has lectured onthe region, I will never forget the impact of the Pope's visit to his nativePoland while the nation was still behind the Iron Curtain and under mar-tial law. Those visits were arranged by the church, and not the state.And the outpouring of enthusiasm astonished the government, whichhad assumed that years of dictatorship had caused religious faith -toerode. They were wrong; for rarely has a message so important foundsuch a receptive audience. And never has a people been made aware sosuddenly of their own inner feelings and collective strength.His Holiness argued that if people are to fulfill their responsibility tolive according to moral principles, they must first have the right and abil-ity to do so. In this spirit, he spoke with carefully chosen words of theneed for solidarity with workers and among all human beings. In thisspirit, he challenged the dogmas of the Communist system, which deniedto millions the right to speak freely and to participate in shaping the so-cial and political systems of their societies. In this spirit, he challengedthe artificial division that Stalin had imposed by reasserting the funda-mental unity of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. And in this way,he helped unleash a tidal wave of intellectual renewal and personal cour-[Vol. 47:361Centennial Inaugural Addressage that helped bring down the Berlin Wall and transform the face of theworld.Now as we strive to shape this new era, it is an important part ofAmerican policy to promote greater freedom of religion and to encour-age reconciliation among religious groups. We take this stand because itis consistent with our values, and because it is one of the reasons peoplearound the world have chosen at critical times in this century to standwith us. We believe that nations are stronger, and the lives of their peo-ple richer, when citizens have the freedom to choose, proclaim and exer-cise their religious identity.We have also learned that the denial of religious freedom or threats toit can cause fear, flight, fighting and even all-out war. So we have devel-oped a focus in our policy on regions where religious divisions have com-bined with other factors to engender violence or endanger peace. Toimplement our policy, we have publicly identified the promotion of re-ligious freedom as a foreign policy priority.I have instructed U.S. diplomats to provide frequent and thorough re-ports on the status of religious freedom in the countries to which they areaccredited. Second, we have intensified the spotlight given to religiousfreedom in the reports we issue annually on human rights practicesaround the world. Third, we are modifying our procedures for reviewingrequests for political asylum to ensure that those fleeing religious perse-cution are treated fairly. Fourth, we promote religious freedom throughour foreign broadcasting, by sponsoring programs and exchanges thatfoster understanding, and through our work in international organiza-tions such as the UN Human Rights Commission and the Organizationfor Security and Cooperation in Europe. Fifth, we often raise issues re-lated to religious freedom with foreign governments and their represen-tatives.That was the case, for example, earlier this year when I discussed re-strictions on religious activity in Vietnam and, more recently, whenPresident Clinton raised with President Yeltsin our serious concernsabout Russia's new law on religion.Next week, during the US-China summit, we will be stressing to Presi-dent Jiang Zemin the importance of respecting the religious heritage ofthe people of Tibet and of ensuring that China's growing Christian com-munity is allowed to worship freely, without harassment or intimidation.Finally, we reinforced our commitment to religious tolerance last win-ter when my predecessor, Warren Christopher, established an AdvisoryCommittee on Religious Freedom Abroad. The Committee includes dis-tinguished scholars, activists and religious leaders representing the major19981Catholic University Law Reviewspiritual traditions in the United States. Its purpose is to help direct at-tention to the problem of religious persecution abroad and to provideadvice on how to achieve reconciliation in areas now sundered by relig-ious enmity. In February, I chaired the first meeting of the Committeeand I look forward to its recommendations and observations later thisyear.As we proceed with our efforts to promote religious freedom, weshould be mindful of one danger, which is the possibility that-as wepursue the right goal-we may choose the wrong means. For example,legislation has been introduced in Congress that would create a WhiteHouse Office for Religious Persecution Monitoring that would automati-cally impose sanctions against countries where religious freedoms are notfully observed.Although well-intentioned, this bill would create an artificial hierarchyamong human rights with the right to be free from torture and murdershoved along with others into second place. It would also establish a newand unneeded bureaucracy and deprive U.S. officials of the flexibility re-quired to protect the overall foreign policy interests of the United States.I have said many times-for I believe it in my heart and have experi-enced it in my life-that the United States is the greatest and most gen-erous nation on the face of the Earth. But even the most patriotic amongus must admit that neither morality, nor religious freedom, nor respectfor human rights were invented here-nor are they perfectly practicedhere.It is in our interest, and it is essential to our own identity, for Americato promote religious freedom and human rights. But if we are to be ef-fective in defending the values we cherish, we must also take into ac-count the perspectives and values of others. We must recognize that ourrelations with the world are not fully encompassed by any single issue orset of issues. And we must do all we can to ensure that the world's atten-tion is focused on the principles we embrace, not diverted by the meth-ods we use.Perhaps the clearest intersection between American interests and theprinciple of religious tolerance occurs in regions where ethnic and relig-ious differences contribute to division and the risk of violence. Here, theUnited States works to persuade parties of their mutual stake in learningto get along and their mutual responsibility for doing so. For example,President Clinton has been personally involved in encouraging multi-party talks aimed at achieving a durable settlement to the dispute inNorthern Ireland.[Vol. 47:361Centennial Inaugural AddressThose talks resumed recently, following a cease-fire declaration by theIRA, which shares with Unionist paramilitary groups the responsibilityfor maintaining a climate of nonviolence. We are very proud of the rolethat former Senator George Mitchell has played in establishing theframework for discussion. And we will continue to support ecumenicalinitiatives aimed at bridging differences between the Catholic and Protes-tant communities, and at addressing long-standing problems of economicinequity and discrimination.In Bosnia, we are working to promote reconciliation in a land that hasliterally been torn apart by conflict among three communities of differingethnicity and religious faith. To that end, we have reinvigorated ourcommitment to the implementation of the Dayton peace accords. Andalthough many serious obstacles remain, we have made significant prog-ress in recent months.For example, municipal elections have been held; and it is clear fromthe results that many Bosnians do not want, and will not accept, a coun-try permanently frozen along ethnic lines. They want to go home and, infact, the return of refugees and displaced persons has increased.In addition, the cause of justice received a boost earlier this monthwhen ten persons indicted for war crimes surrendered to the Tribunal inthe Hague. The cause of security has benefited from the destruction ofthousands of heavy weapons. The cause of truth has been served by asubstantial increase in independent television and radio broadcasting.The cause of prosperity is gaining ground in those communities that areimplementing the Dayton accords. And the goal of reconciliation is be-ing advanced by the emergence of a new leader of the Bosnian Serbs,who appears to understand that implementing Dayton is the key to a de-cent future for her people.Many Americans, when they think of Sarajevo, may remember theOlympics held there in 1984. But the Sarajevo of that time was also theecumenical city-host to mosques, churches-both Catholic and Ortho-dox, and synagogues, as well. So when cynics suggest that the people ofBosnia cannot live together, I can only say but they did, they have, theymust and they will again.In building peace, momentum matters. So I was encouraged by thePope's visit in April to Sarajevo where he delivered a passionate plea forreconciliation and inter-ethnic healing. I was pleased by the decision inJune of the leaders of the faith communities in Bosnia to create a jointcouncil to promote respect for human rights and to issue a Statement ofShared Moral Commitment. And I welcome the address earlier thismonth by the new Archbishop of Zagreb, who expressed warmth to-1998]Catholic University Law Reviewwards the leaders of other faiths in his country and cited the need for-and I quote-"the people of spirit who will bring understanding, negotia-tions and peace to an excessively radicalized and tense public life."Community and religious leaders play a vital role in Bosnia andthroughout the Balkans; for the ethnic hatred that splintered that regionwas not a natural phenomenon. It was not something in the water or avirus carried through the air. Rather, it was injected into the informa-tional bloodstream; it was taught, published, broadcast, and yes, evenpreached over and over again. And the fears aroused were manipulatedby ruthless leaders for the purpose of enhancing their own position,power, and wealth.The physical and psychological wounds that resulted from the devasta-tion of Bosnia were deep and will take time and treatment to heal. TheUnited States has made a commitment, which we should keep, to assistand persist in that healing process.There are some who see in the rivalries that exist in the Balkans andelsewhere-in the Middle East, the Gulf, Africa and Asia-the potentialfor a vast clash of civilizations, in which differences not only of spiritualtradition but of culture, history and ideology divide the world into bittercontending camps. The United States has a different view.We are the defender of no one faith, but the respecter of all and of theright of all to proclaim and exercise faith. We are friends with nations inwhich the predominant religion is Buddhist, and others where it is Chris-tian or Hindu or Islamic or Jewish. We are, ourselves, a nation of allthese faiths and more, and of those without religious faith and of thosewithin whom such faith and doubt engage in constant struggle.In our policy towards other nations, we do not act or judge on the basis,of religion or cultural tradition, but on behavior, on compliance with in-ternational norms. And when those norms are not observed, we expressour opposition to the acts in question, not to the religion of those in-volved.For this reason, we reject stereotypes; for we know that actions in vio-lation of international standards, including extremist violence and terror,are not the province of any particular religion, culture or part of theworld.In recent years, we have seen bloody acts of terrorism committed byHindu separatists in Sri Lanka and Kurdish separatists in Turkey. Wehave seen a Jewish man who had been raised in the United States mur-der 29 Arabs while they were at prayer in a Hebron mosque. We haveseen a Japanese cult release poison gas in the Tokyo subway. We haveseen Islamic suicide bombers destroy the lives of people riding on buses[Vol. 47:361Centennial Inaugural Addressor shopping in the streets of Jerusalem. We have seen extremists en-gaged in a grisly campaign of terror against their co-religionists in Alge-ria. And we have heard Serbian leaders justify the campaign of ethniccleansing and mass rape inflicted upon Muslims in Bosnia as a defense, intheir words, of "Christian Europe."Clearly, the central conflict in the world today is not between the ad-herents of one religion or culture and another. Rather it is betweenthose of all cultures and faiths who believe in law, want peace and em-brace tolerance and those driven, whether by ambition, desperation orhate to commit acts of aggression and terror.The great divide now is not between east and west or north and south,but between those imprisoned by history and those determined to shapehistory.Almost half a century ago, the nations of the world enshrined in theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights the principle that every personhas the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. To thosewho argue that the Universal Declaration reflects western values alone, Iwould point to the first Afro-Asian Solidarity Conference held in Indo-nesia more than four decades ago. There, the representatives of 29 na-tions from China to Saudi Arabia and from Sudan and Libya to Iran andIraq cited the Universal Declaration as "a common standard of achieve-ment for all peoples and all nations." And countries on every continentreaffirmed the Declaration just four years ago at the Vienna Conferenceon Human Rights.Today, our great opportunity in the aftermath of Cold War and the di-visions is to bring the world closer together around shared principles ofdemocracy, open markets, law, human rights and a commitment topeace.For almost as many years as I have been alive, the United States hasplayed the leading role within the international system; not as sole arbi-ter of right and wrong, for that is a responsibility widely shared, but aspathfinder-as the nation able to show the way when others cannot.Now we have reached a point in history when no nation need be leftout of the global system, and every nation that seeks to participate and iswilling to do all it can to aid itself will have our help in finding the rightpath.In that effort, religious freedom and tolerance are among the greatprinciples we strive to defend. By so doing, we maintain the vigor of ourown freedoms; we serve our interest in a world where civilizations coop-erate and communicate instead of clash and collide; and we honor not19981Catholic University Law Reviewone, but all of the great spiritual traditions that lend meaning to our timehere on Earth.By teaching the rule of law and broadening the horizons of a new gen-eration of leaders, this great school of law and this fine Catholic Univer-sity are contributing to the goals of freedom and tolerance upon whichour future depends. For that, I congratulate you. I wish you another 100years, at least, of prosperity and progress. And for the invitation tospeak today, I thank you very much.BIBLIOGRAPHYUniversal Declaration of Human Rights, Dec. 10, 1948, G.A. Res. 217A(I11), U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948).S. 772, 105th Cong. (1997).H.R. 2431, 105th Cong. (1997).H.R. 1685, 105th Cong. (1997).[Vol. 47:361

https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1491&amp;context=lawreview

Remarks on Religious Freedom at the Columbus School of Law, Tthe Catholic University of America

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

bepress Legal Repository

The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law