At the end of his speech he noted that there were also disagreements, about which he had this to say:

"Just as we respect China's ancient and remarkable culture, its remarkable achievements, we also strongly believe that the religion and culture of all peoples must be respected and protected, and that all people should be free to speak their minds. And that includes ethnic and religious minorities in China, as surely as it includes minorities within the United States."

Once again, as he did in his June 4 Cairo speech, President Obama has given prominent mention to the issue of international religious freedom. This is a welcome and unexpected development, for which he and his advisers deserve credit. But thus far his words are just that -- "prominent mentions" without policy significance. Secretary Clinton did not touch on the issue of human rights, let alone religious freedom, in her speech to the plenary session or in her July 27 Wall St. Journal editorial with Tim Geithner. In her closing remarks July 28, all she could manage was an amemic: "In areas where we do not always agree, such as human rights, we had candid and respectful exchanges."

The danger here is twofold. First, the Obama admininstration risks having its paeans to religious freedom be viewed abroad -- and within Foggy Bottom -- as an ad hoc rhetorical device to appease domestic constituencies. So understood, U.S. international religious freedom policy can safely be ignored by American diplomats and our "strategic partners" overseas.

Second, the administration is treating the subject of religious freedom as if it had nothing to do with "the real world" of economics and politics. When she wrote of China's need to "take additional steps to lay the foundation for balanced and sustainable growth,"  Secretary Clinton might well have made a critical link: without religious freedom, neither China nor any other country with large numbers of religious believers is likely to achieve sustained economic growth and political stability. The administration would do well to consult the work of sociologists Brian Grim (available here or here with subscription) and Roger Finke, whose studies, derived in part from State Department reports, make this link clear.

In sum, the United States should move its policy of advancing international religious freedom into the mainstream. It is not a "nice to have" humanitarian issue to be shoved aside when more "strategic" imperatives (the environment and trade) loom. Religious liberty is intimately connected to all human affairs, including the defeat of those who, in the President's well-crafted words,  "would murder innocents." It should be treated as such.