GlobalColonnade

Mapping World Domination..er...Evangelism

I really like looking at maps - I think it satifies an urge we all have to conquer this vast thing called the earth by boiling it down to pretty pictures. Call it a world domination impulse, looking at maps gives us a satisfying comforting feeling that really it's all pretty simple. But ThinkChristian.net's Andy Rau posted a quick snippet about mapping global faith a few weeks ago that made me question this desire we have. He gave some links to a couple of maps he liked that attempt to diagram the geographic range of different faiths. This one at the German magazine Der Spiegel is mostly helpful if you kind of squint at it. The uniform color choices for whole regions imply that the population there are 100% of that faith. (It's unfair to Christians in Sri Lanka for instance to color the whole island Buddhist.) By contrast the global maps of evangelical Christianity at worldmap.org at least makes a clearer demarcation of uninhabitated areas but the color shading they chose (against a black background) makes it harder to process the information and the scaling of the four maps. At least both of these are NOT Mercator projections - you know, the kind that stretch the spherical surface of the earth to a rectangle that makes Greenland bigger than Africa. But why is there such a deficit in mapping faith well? The folks at gapminder do a brilliant job using U.N. development indicators to plot out global trends in literacy, poverty, HIV/AIDS etc. There's brilliant, highly-detailed and reliable data by folks like Todd Johnson over at the World Christian Database. So why hasn't anyone mapped the abundant faith data that exists in a compelling way against other indicators? Would it reveal disturbing trends, like the fact that Nigeria's Muslim half has much lower AIDS prevalence than its Christian half? What do you think?

Best PowerPoint You've Ever Seen...and it's on Global Poverty Statistics

Technology, Entertainment and Design (T.E.D.) is an annual gathering in California of the so-called "brightest and best" and they recently started to post video of past presentations. I stumbled across this presentation by Hans Rosling on global poverty statistics in 2006. (He did a follow-up at TED in 1997.) I've seen a lot of presentations on global poverty statistics and read the UNDP Human Development Report over the years, but Rosling blew my preconceptions out of the water. He had people applauding in the middle of his talk! Smart, funny and gives the best darned PowerPoint presentation I have ever seen. To top that off, the tools he used for his presentation are available free at Gapminder, the non-profit organization Rosling founded to combine information technology and statistics to better understand poverty and development.

Reviews and Views: Bob Roberts' "Glocalization"

Texas pastor Bob Roberts Jr, author of Transformation: How Glocal Churches Transform Lives and the World, has published his second title in this series, Glocalization: How Followers of Jesus Engage the New Flat Earth.

For those who enjoyed the breathless recreational theology coupled with a sampling of sociology and philosophy that was the hallmark of Transformation, Roberts does not disappoint with Glocalization. The core thesis - "Nothing is purely local and nothing purely global" - is consistently emphasized with quotes from Thomas Friedman, Fareed Zakaria and a host of other journalists writing on international affairs.

So what do you think?

Is Roberts' right to single out syncretism, survival, hedonism, pragmatism and collaboration as major issues? Do you think the values of convergence, glocal, innovation, network and faith are sufficient to equip a 21st century missional Church for global relevance? Do you agree with Roberts' list of the top ten global problems the church must confront: communicable disease, hunger, water & sanitation, government/corruption, migration/refugees, climate change, education, armed conflict, economy, and trade subsidies?

We invite you to post your feedback here using the comment feature.

Day 5 - Airplane Reflections - Robert Seiple

On 11 January, Robert and Margaret Ann Seiple returned for their 13th visit to Laos, a country where they have been integral in efforts to promote religious freedom. During their trip, they will meet with representatives from the Lao government, including Vice President of the Lao Front for National Construction, Mr. Tong Yeu Tho, and provincial governors; U.S. Ambassador to Laos, Patricia Haslach; and Lao religious representatives at the national and local level.

We ended our visit on a “high”, a very good meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Somsavat Lengsavad.

We have become friends over the years and were greeted with genuine affection. Somsavat was instrumental in successfully solving the various issues in Keng Kok (mentioned previously), and meetings that celebrate “win-win” solutions always seem to go better.

Somsavat has recently been elevated to the Politburo, one of the top 11 leaders in Laos today. His star continues to rise, his power increased, and the case for long-term relationships building has been clearly made yet again.

Following a spirited, light hearted “give and take”, I gave Somsavat the details of the second co-opted church outside of Keng Kok. He promised to look into it immediately (“I will call the Governor tomorrow”). The U.S. Embassy will follow up with a “diplomatic note” which will cover all of the other problem areas discussed at lower government levels.

Summary reflections:

• The value of our “top-down, bottom-up methodology was proven again and again. We have gained respect and credibility with the powerful, the implementers, and the ultimate receivers. Relational diplomacy is key, an approach proven by what we have been able to accomplish.

• I would resist the temptation to establish a more former MOU with the Lao government. We have been able to go anywhere in the country, see any official or group desired, have access to decision makers and implementers alike, talk to the press, be hosted at all levels of government, provided pulpits to make our case. No one else has this freedom. Plus we receive critically important logistical and informational support from both the U.S. and Lao Embassies. Each government has strongly suggested we avoid the entanglements of bureaucracy. I agree.

• Given the above, we need to be very intentional as to how we pass the baton. At the very least Chris (Seiple) and I will need to travel to Laos together for a couple of times. The Lao always reference our family (as well as the number of visits we have made) when they talk about “our friends.” We need to extend that with Chris.

• It is time for another Lao delegation visit to the States. We planted the seed and it immediately began to produce fruit. Invitations should be sent directly from IGE to Mr. Tong Yeu Tho, Vice President of the Lao Front for Construction with copies to the U.S. and Lao Embassies. The invitation should be signed by both Chris and me. It will be helpful to the Lao for us to explain the visit, articulate a rationale, and be specific concerning individual meetings.

• There were two critical events in creating our relationships with the Lao. The first was the Delegation visit to the U.S. (this, according to Dr. Siho). The second was finding a mutually beneficial solution to all the people of Keng Kok. Both of these events produced trust, diminished paranoia, and bought time for relationships to mature. Nothing easy or quick here. Invest for the long term, or keep your money in your pocket.

• Transitions, lots of transition. We will have a new Lao Ambassador in D.C. and new U.S. Ambassador in Vientiane. Greg Chapman is gone, Terry Mobley leaves in May but Harvey Summers (a good guy and a great disposition for the Lao) is already aboard to track our issues from his perch in the U.S. Embassy. Dr. Siho has retired. We will miss his wisdom and his clout (which almost totally evaporates with retirement). Mr. Tong Yeu Tho will be critically important to us and, of course, Deputy Prime Minister Somsavat Lengsavad is most important.

16 January - Speech at the Lao Foreign Affairs Institute - Robert Seiple

On 11 January, Robert and Margaret Ann Seiple returned for their 13th visit to Laos, a country where they have been integral in efforts to promote religious freedom. During their trip, they will meet with representatives from the Lao government, including Vice President of the Lao Front for National Construction, Mr. Tong Yeu Tho, and provincial governors; U.S. Ambassador to Laos, Patricia Haslach; and Lao religious representatives at the national and local level.

I want to begin with a “thank you.”  You have known the Seiple family for a long time and your hospitality over the years has been very generous.  We have spent many days with members of this department:  eating crabs in Maryland, boating from the Lao “Summer Dacha” (our home), playing numerous rounds of golf together, and being introduced to sticky rice and Beerlao on our multiple visits to Laos. Our friendship is based on trust, working together for positive solutions over many years.  Our accomplishments together include a high level Lao delegation visit to the United States, two religious freedom conferences here, a Prime Minister’s decree on religious freedom, and a Permanent Normal Trade Relationship. Most importantly, the greatest compliment I ever received came from Dr. Siho on our last visit. “You are family. Welcome home!”

I welcome the opportunity to be here today to discuss Religious Freedom. Why does the United States take this issue so seriously? We consider this freedom to be America’s first freedom. This freedom of thought, conscience, and belief – the freedom to believe or not to believe – is woven into the fabric of our Rule of Law. Like good law, it is predictable, transparent, easily understood, and fair. Religious Freedom protects the minority faiths as much as it protects majority populations. This issue has its historical heroes in the United States. Thomas Jefferson put forth one of the most critical statements of who we are as a people when he introduced the Virginia Statue in 1786. James Madison carried this language of religious freedom over to the Bill of Rights and America’s Constitution. No issue is more deeply imbedded in the DNA of a nation than Religious Freedom.

America is not perfect. We have been working for over 220 years to get to our present level of imperfection! But it has certainly been worth the work. For example, we have never had the kind of sectarian violence so prevalent in other parts of the world. Minority populations are as protected and embraced as majority populations. Our Amish minority (visited by the Lao Delegation in 2002) want to dress differently, worship differently, and work differently (no electricity). Local, state and federal laws allow them to do so freely. For their part, they continue to contribute positively to our national values. A few months ago, we had a horrible event take place in this community. A depressed man took over an Amish elementary school, tied up the young girls, and started to execute each one. He managed to kill five little girls before taking his own life. That night, in spite of the massive trauma that occurred during the day, members of the Amish community went to the home of the depressed man’s widow. Forgiveness was extended and help was offered. When the man was buried, 70 Amish folk went to the funeral. The Amish began to collect money for the man’s children. A redemptive moment and an amazing lesson, taught to all Americans by this small minority community.

In the end, a country’s human rights are determined by how that country’s government treats minority populations. This, then, is also important in terms of a country’s stature in the international community, and whether or not it is on the “right” side of history. But just as important as the moral imperative are the major pragmatics that evolve from religious freedom. When a minority population knows that the government has their best interests in mind, that minority becomes loyal to the government. Loyalty always increases the stability of a national population. Stability is foundational to a country’s security. So religious freedom is not only a moral imperative; it is also a pragmatic that enhances a nation’s security. It is important for a country to link knowledge and respect if greater security is going to be achieved. Understand your faith, or your atheism, at its deepest and richest best, and enough about your neighbor’s beliefs in order to show them respect. It is a government’s responsibility to create an environment where this can happen.  This, by the way, is where Osama bin Laden got it so horribly wrong.  He never understood the best of his faith and he has absolutely no respect for the faith of his neighbor.  A misunderstood faith, an inappropriately applied faith, a partial faith in the hands of a religious zealot, is very scary indeed.  We all need to work to provide the freedom necessary so that this kind of outcome is precluded.  The linkage of knowledge and respect, then, is a homeland security issue of great importance.

One other pragmatic: there is no question in my mind that PNTR [Permanent Normalized Trade Relations] was ultimately accomplished for Laos because of the positive strides taken by this government, for religious freedom. Again, religious freedom is a great objective for all kinds of reasons.

How might Laos continue this progress for its citizens? I realize that my thoughts are coming from “outside” Laos, but I offer them in the spirit of trust and friendship. When I first began to pursue this issue of religious freedom with the Lao government, I was advised to work at all levels of government: nationally, at the province level, at the district and even the village level.  It was sound advice. Similarly, I think that religious freedom needs to be taught, and subsequently embraced, at all levels of the Lao culture. When we held the Religious Freedom conference here, I was delighted that we were talking primarily with the more “distant” officials of the Lao government, village and district heads. This needs to continue, with an emphasis on the rationale for this issue, namely both the moral imperative and the security/trade pragmatics mentioned previously. 

Second, I suggest that a lasting linkage be created between the government and religious groups. I know that various religious groups were contacted for their input to the Prime Minister’s Decree on this issue. That exercise was very positive. Religious groups felt that they were heard and that their input was taken seriously. Nothing builds trust between government and governed better than such an exercise. Trust, confidence, understanding, loyalty, transparency are some of the positive enhancements that emerge from this kind of dialogue. Such contact needs to be institutionalized and made a permanent part of the internal discourse in Laos.

Third, both the government and the religious groups need to find ways to facilitate the education of religious leaders.  Religious leaders are interpreters of culture and national events.  They are looked up to by the people they serve.  It is in your own best interest that they be knowledgeable.  Following our own “9/11” experiences, for example, our houses of worship were filled to overflowing.  Congregational members were looking for answers to this tragedy, to find spiritual rationales for this most awful day.  In many cases, the geo-political aspects of “9/11” were more complex than our religious leaders could know.  Answers were incomplete.  The lack of knowledge overwhelmed many of the religious leaders.  At a critical time, many came up short.  We need knowledgeable, sophisticated, learned leaders, not only in government but also in our religious institutions.  Remember, there is a relationship between education and knowledge, and knowledge and respect, that benefits both governments and citizens alike.

Fourth, embrace diversity and honor differences. We are not all alike. One “size” does not fit all. Take Laotian Christians for example. There are both Catholics and Protestants, and some who worship on Saturday and others who worship on Sunday. But there are a host of other differences, differences that create multiple Christian denominations. Each one is important. Each wants an environment of religious freedom. Find a way to accommodate all of them. This will preclude the need for a stealth church, an underground community of faith, as well as the foreign deceit of missionaries here under false premises. When it comes to religion, make all of your citizens truly free. Once again, this will be very helpful to the government and the governed alike.

Finally, encourage your officials, both governmental and religious, to attend international conferences that are available to them on this issue.  See what is working in other countries, in your own region, as well as around the world.  Most of these conferences will be free.  They will provide a great deal of knowledge to Lao officials but, more importantly, it will be an opportunity for the Lao to share this Laotian story.  It is one of success, and one that needs to be heard by others.

Let me conclude by saying something here that I have said many times in the United States. I have been privileged to travel all over the world for the last couple of decades. It has been a fascinating experience for me and one for which I am most grateful. The highlight of my life, however, as a religious person who believes deeply in religious freedom, has been the involvement, along with my family, in this great Laotian story. We thank you for making all of this possible. Thank you very much!

Day 4 - Measuring Progress - Robert Seiple

On 11 January, Robert and Margaret Ann Seiple returned for their 13th visit to Laos, a country where they have been integral in efforts to promote religious freedom. During their trip, they will meet with representatives from the Lao government, including Vice President of the Lao Front for National Construction, Mr. Tong Yeu Tho, and provincial governors; U.S. Ambassador to Laos, Patricia Haslach; and Lao religious representatives at the national and local level.

The Governor of Savannakhet was in command. We were meeting on his turf. Members of the Lao Front, the ministry of Foreign Affairs, and 5 different note takers comprised an entourage of 15 people. The meeting was relaxed. Our questions were each thoughtfully and honestly answered. There was no defensiveness. A friendly atmosphere, full of smiles, dominated the proceedings.

What a difference a few years makes! In 2003 we were in this same room, pleading for the Christian community of nearby Keng Kok, threatening international condemnation if any of the protesting demonstrators would be punished. This group met us that day behind a church that was confiscated by the local government and turned into an elementary school. Their leaders were dressed in sackcloth and ashes. The pastor greeted us with "we are the face of persecution." Their request of us that day was to let the world know that they still existed, forced renunciations of faith to the contrary. "We want you to be brave, as we are brave, and make our situation known."

We went into a full court press with the Governor's office, wrote letters to the Deputy Prime Minister and officials of the Lao Front, had the U.S. Embassy keep the issue alive with pressure on the central government. We also offered to build a new school for the village if the government would return the church to the Christians.

It took six months of intense negotiations but we finally got everything in place: the return of the church, a new school for Keng Kok, and an unpunished group of demonstrators who could begin again to practice their faith without fear. Today we revisited Keng Kok to see how sustainable our efforts have been.

We met a number of members of the church, including the new pastor who was part of the demonstration four years ago. No one was ever punished for that display, even though the government was acutely embarrassed that it took place. The church has grown considerably. Relationships within the community, and with other faiths, are strong. The spectra of persecution has clearly passed.

We next visited the school. More smiles, deeply appreciative adults, and equally grateful children. A Baci ceremony was offered to honor our visit (gratefully, without the witch doctor and the animal parts). This cultural event was designed to share blessings, to wish us safe travels, to invite our return. We listened to the children sing for us as we sipped our coconut milk, took some pictures, and made their happiness our own.

This is sustainable development, but it is never quite finished. Before we left, we were apprised of another church that had been taken over by local officials some years before. The congregants meet in houses now, a couple of miles from Keng Kok, while the government officials enjoy the free use of a church. Could we do something? Could this injustice be confronted and dealt with? Could the people have their church back?

We will be meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister in Vientiane later in the day, and this will be the key subject of our visit with him. In the meantime, we are reminded of how fragile success can be, the uneven dispensing of justice that still characterizes Laos, the work yet to be done, and the patience required to see that work through to completion.

Day 3 - Hope and Reality - Robert Seiple

On 11 January, Robert and Margaret Ann Seiple returned for their 13th visit to Laos, a country where they have been integral in efforts to promote religious freedom. During their trip, they will meet with representatives from the Lao government, including Vice President of the Lao Front for National Construction, Mr. Tong Yeu Tho, and provincial governors; U.S. Ambassador to Laos, Patricia Haslach; and Lao religious representatives at the national and local level.

The Governor of Bolikhamxay made a beautiful statement about religion diversity. Margaret Ann had just received a bouquet of flowers from the Province official. "One flower does not a bouquet make," he said. "There needs to be diversity in the whole." He specifically stated that he was not suggesting the glossing over of religious differences, rather emphasizing respect, especially for the minority faiths. This is the same governor who made space for a Christmas celebration, who allowed for a symposium put on by the Lao Evangelical Church in the area. Lao officials like this are a great source of encouragement, and their actions produce hope that is credible.

Against this backdrop there are systemic issues that call for patience. Religion at its best is not viewed as transcendent, nor do most government officials see it through a sacred prism. Rather religion, according to these officials, should "make good citizens" (read: loyal followers of government dictates), "harmonious", and "patriotic." Prime Minister Decree #92, written and implemented as a tremendous step forward, is a quality control mechanism totally in the hands of the government. Admittedly, "sometimes religious people make mistakes. Sometimes government officials make mistakes." But only religious leaders go to jail!

The Lao system of government creates an "enforcer" mentality. As such, even the best parts of this legislation are intrusive—well-meaning and progressive from where Laos has been in the past—but still susceptible to abuse at points of implementation. Good religious freedom legislation is rare anywhere in the world (usually history, culture, and political systems dictate the amount of freedom available) and we will have to constantly tease out the best of what we have come to know in the U.S. as the "free exercise" of religion. Again, patience is the key. Listening, discernment, and understanding are a must. Finally, never miss a hopeful sign, like a beautiful bouquet of flowers.

Day 2 - A Proper Celebration - Robert Seiple

On 11 January, Robert and Margaret Ann Seiple returned for their 13th visit to Laos, a country where they have been integral in efforts to promote religious freedom. During their trip, they will meet with representatives from the Lao government, including Vice President of the Lao Front for National Construction, Mr. Tong Yeu Tho, and provincial governors; U.S. Ambassador to Laos, Patricia Haslach; and Lao religious representatives at the national and local level.

It was a treat today to deliver an address to the Lao Foreign Affairs Institute on the subject of religious freedom. January 16 is National Religious Freedom Day in the United States, the date 221 years ago when Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Statute, perhaps the most important legislative building block for human rights in general and religious freedom specifically, was adopted as Virginia Law. It would become the law of the land a few years later as the First Freedom in the First Amendment to our federal Constitution. We have often said this represents our most significant gift to the world. It was somehow fitting to be giving the following message in a country inextricably linked with our own, through a difficult history, a history still unfolding 8,000 miles away. Jefferson would be pleased. De Tocqueville would understand.

The Q and A that followed was most interesting as the issues were generated from religious and government officials alike.

For example:

1. When you become a Christian, can you stop obeying the government?

I stressed the necessity of obeying laws, respecting culture, while practicing faith. “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God, the things that are God’s,” was my proof text.

2. The Sunni/Shia violence was questioned as to rationale.

I was grateful for the global inquiry and responded that this was not the best of faith, but rather the worst of religion.

3. A number of questions re: the power of religion.

I discussed religious passions, the role of religious identity, and the aberrant religions that bring harm to others, the caveat in all international covenants that call for responsibility with that freedom.

4. Many wanted to know how to continue progress in the future.

I suggested that both government and religious figures alike needed to better articulate the recent religious freedom legislation.

5. One asked if Laos was owed an apology for the spillover of our war in Vietnam.

My reply: governments do not do apologies well. Individuals can and should. As I have done on other occasions, I offered my apology for participating in the secret air war over Laos.

6. An attendant question, one asked about the issue of unexpended ordnance and the victims still being created 30 years after the war.

Basically, the United States’ moral authority was being questioned. The casualty numbers averaged 140/year for the last three years. The U.S. has a program to diffuse unexpended ordnance (and has for some time), expending $5.6 million dollars in 2006. I marvel how close to the surface this conflict continues to be. This is one place where we need to stay and finish the job.

Day 1 - Settled Culture - Robert Seiple

On 11 January, Robert and Margaret Ann Seiple returned for their 13th visit to Laos, a country where they have been integral in efforts to promote religious freedom. During their trip, they will meet with representatives from the Lao government, including Vice President of the Lao Front for National Construction, Mr. Tong Yeu Tho, and provincial governors; U.S. Ambassador to Laos, Patricia Haslach; and Lao religious representatives at the national and local level.

The first day of any trip is spent on briefings – the U.S. Ambassador, old friends from the Lao government, leaders of the present religious denominations in the country. As in recent trips to Laos, there is a constantly recurring, somewhat disconcerting theme. Much has changed for the better since the dark days of 1999. “The right to believe or not to believe” gets more than lip service today. However, this sense of new found freedom is always hedged with a caution, “We must be careful. This is all very new and the hardliners in government can make changes if they want.”

Such an environment begs the question: How do we “lock in” the gains made in religious freedom over the last several years? Unfortunately, there is no easy answer, because Laos has been hard-pressed to establish rule of law. In a country where there are fewer than 60 national laws there is no legal concept remotely approaching “settled” law. Laos is a country known for its opaqueness, a country that invented plausible deniability. One can never count on a justice system that is less than totally transparent, predictable and fair to the individual. The State always comes first.

But this is not simply a function of communist ideology. This is also very much tied to Lao culture. The most important values of the Lao culture are integration, harmony, and patriotism. When someone chooses to become a Christian in an all-Buddhist village, for example, the act is potentially very disruptive and divisive to that village. Besides, Christianity (especially Protestant) is a “western religion”, represented by the same nation that sent a military force to bomb the country in the early 1970’s. One’s patriotism, then, is also immediately challenged. As an aside, this is where many missionaries from outside the country get it wrong. While it is important to respect the government, it is absolutely essential to understand the role of culture.

There are two components in every reconciliation exercise that are fundamental to success: mercy and justice. Simply put, mercy forgives the past; justice makes sure the past does not repeat itself. In 1999 the United States government chose not to punish Laos with sanctions, choosing rather to work with the Lao government in promoting religion for all. It was a wise choice and much good has been seen in the intervening years. It was also merciful, but the lack of a strong system of justice, rule of law, makes religious freedom in Laos a fragile success. We have come a long way, and there is still nothing that can be taken for granted.

Why I'm returning to Laos - Robert Seiple

On 11 January, Robert and Margaret Ann Seiple return for their 13th visit to Laos, a country where they have been integral in efforts to promote religious freedom. During their trip, they will meet with representatives from the Lao government, including Vice President of the Lao Front for National Construction, Mr. Tong Yeu Tho, and provincial governors; U.S. Ambassador to Laos, Patricia Haslach; and Lao religious representatives at the national and local level.

Forty years ago, as a young Marine Corps aviator, I was engaged in what at that time was known as a “secret air-war” over Laos. More bombs were dropped on Laos during the Vietnam War than were dropped over Germany during four years of World War II. Today there are still over 400 crash sites that are under investigation, sites where American aircraft and, in all too many cases, those who flew them experienced their final mission. Our war with Vietnam finally ended, but Laos remained forgotten for decades to follow. When Laos finally reappeared on the international scene, it was as a bad-news story.

Religious persecution was rampant in Laos, especially against those practicing what the Lao authorities regarded as “Western religions.”  This negativity toward the West, and the increased persecution being sanctioned inside Laos, reached its height in 1999.  Forced renunciations of faith, jailings, killings, and destruction of houses of worship all became the norm during that year.  But 1999 was also the year that the United States government formally engaged the government of Laos on these issues and, in what would become a careful creation of trust and positive relationship-building, the Lao government began to seek, and implement, an intentional program of religious freedom for all of its citizens.  Progress was sometimes slow, and there were moments when no progress was being made at all, but there is no question that on the issue of religious liberty, Laos is a changed country from what it was just eight years ago.  Furthermore, the United States completed a trade agreement with the Lao that puts that country in the same category as other “most-favored nations.”  Bilateral wounds continue to heal, relationships continue to grow, and although nothing can ever be taken for granted in a country that still faces multiple challenges, the future for Laos is as bright as it has ever been.

This is the context for my 13th visit to the country, a series of visits that began in 1989.  The purpose of the visit is multiple:  To maintain relationships that have been fostered over many years, to meet with new government appointees at a time of some transition within Laos, to discuss how our relationships can be less personality-dependent and more formalized as we go forward, to meet with all the various faith-expressions in Laos today, and to call attention to those individuals who are still being imprisoned because of their faith.  All of this will revolve around a speech to the Lao Institute for Foreign Affairs that I have been asked to give on the subject of religious freedom.  I plan to report back on a daily basis.  Hopefully, there will be photos as well to provide visual data points for the travelogue that follows. 

As is always the case, not everyone can travel to a country like Laos.  We consider it a privilege, but one that we wish to share with as broad an audience as possible.  I trust that you will return to this web site for the next week and, if I create more questions than answers, please email me and we’ll keep the conversation going.  For all too long, Laos was the forgotten country, by friends and enemies alike.  That cannot continue, and I invite you to vicariously accompany me on this trip. 

Note:  Robert A. Seiple was the first Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom from 1998 to 2000.  He and his wife, Margaret Ann, then founded the Institute for Global Engagement, an organization that works in the most difficult regions of the world, fostering religious freedom for all faiths.  In 2006, Seiple took over the CEO and Presidency of the Council for America’s First Freedom, headquartered in Richmond, VA.