A Hanseatic League for FoRB

Northern European Opportunities to Lead on Religious Freedom

The Hanseatic League, a loose confederation of city-states around the Baltic Sea, existed from the 13th to 15th centuries. Cooperation among the League centered on shared interests in trade and the safe passage of goods across the Baltic. While pre-modern in its approach to religious freedom and rooted in sectarianism, its historic cooperation raises an interesting question: whether the littoral countries of the Baltic Sea can increase collaboration in the 21st century to advance religious freedom globally.

History Spurring a Question

Can the former Hanseatic League countries do more to advance freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) worldwide? The question, admittedly obscure, arose during a recent visit to Visby, a quaint Swedish village on the island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea. Once each year, Sweden’s political elite descends on the town for a week of discussions and speeches. Called Amedalen, I experienced Sweden’s open-access democracy firsthand when invited to speak about strategies to advance FoRB. The level of interest was encouraging.

With impressively well-preserved walls still surrounding the medieval town, tourism is now Visby’s primary industry. However, walking the cobblestone streets and visiting active and ruined cathedrals, I was constantly confronted by the town’s past. Visby was a center of trade during the Hanseatic period, with the League including cities in modern-day Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Norway, and Poland, as well as trade connections to cities in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

As a researcher of persecution and student of history, experiencing Visby sparked an interesting question: could concern about global religious persecution among former League members translate into greater leadership to advance FoRB? All modern-day Hanseatic countries are actively engaged on human rights and religious freedom. While positive, more action is needed to confront the pandemic of persecution impacting millions.

FoRB Advocacy Among the League

Sweden is known for its global leadership in peace and security. However, growing domestic interest in FoRB has increased due to new religious minority populations who sought asylum in Sweden after fleeing persecution. While in Visby, I spoke about strategies to counter religious persecution, thanks to an event organized by Läkarmissionen and the Swedish Evangelical Alliance. I met with Swedish MPs Yusuf Aydin and Katarina Tolgfors, as well as Sweden’s Minister for Social Affairs and Religion, Jakob Forssmed, all of whom demonstrated a clear interest in FoRB. In addition, the cross-party collaboration between Aydin and Tolgfors was notable, with one being a Christian Democrat and the other from the Moderates. Despite the reorganization of Sweden’s aid program reducing FoRB work in some cases, these MPs want to enhance Sweden’s FoRB activity, such as establishing a new FoRB ambassador.

Sweden is not the only Hanseatic country with a focus on FoRB; far from it. Norway, also a global leader in promoting human rights worldwide, has quietly played a crucial role in advancing FoRB and protecting religious minorities. Norway was the first European nation to create a special envoy on freedom of religion or belief in 2012. Building on this, in 2013, Foreign Minister Espen Barth-Eide, during a previous stint in the role, issued guidelines for Norwegian diplomats on the importance of promoting religious freedom and minority rights. Norwegian leadership and financial support helped launch the International Panel of Parliamentarians for FoRB a decade ago, bringing together parliamentarians from diverse political, geographic, and religious backgrounds who are committed to religious freedom. Norwegian MP Abid Raja has played a critical leadership role, and IPP FoRB headquarters are in Oslo at the Stefanus Alliance.

Across the Baltic, both Germany and Denmark created FoRB ambassador positions in 2018. Germany established the Federal Government Commissioner for Global Freedom of Religion or Belief in early 2018. Despite leadership changes, governments on both sides of the political spectrum have named parliamentarians to the role, with the Merz government recently naming Germany’s third FoRB Commissioner. Notably, due to previous coalition government politics, the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) hosted the position for six years. However, the Merz government transferred responsibility to the foreign ministry in June. Nevertheless, the BMZ placement did not prevent the office from promoting religious freedom internationally, and Germany hosted a ministerial meeting in 2024.

Denmark created the position of Ambassador and Special Representative for Freedom of Religion or Belief in 2018 as well. With a broader mandate, the diplomat also monitors instances of anti-Semitism for the Danish Foreign Ministry. Denmark has also made notable contributions to funding civil society efforts that promote religious freedom globally. Nearby Poland has also focused on FoRB in recent years. It convened a special meeting of the UN Security Council in 2019 to discuss protecting religious minorities in conflict zones. The following year during COVID, it hosted a virtual ministerial-level meeting.

FoRB has also been a priority with historic Hanseatic League trading partners, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. 2018 saw the creation of the British Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief. This built upon guidelines issued in 2010 (and updated in 2016) on how the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (FCDO) could advance FoRB globally. Despite the changing occupants of Number 10 Downing Street, PMs have consistently filled the role. The Netherlands’ foreign ministry has also steadfastly advocated for freedom of religion or belief, one of the most consistent voices within the European Union. In 2019, the government established the position of Special Envoy for Religion and Belief. While the word “freedom” was absent from the title, it wasn’t to exclude the human rights focus that Dutch diplomats have consistently carried but rather to broaden the scope to include interfaith engagement work.

Increasing Leadership

Hanseatic countries have progressively focused more on FoRB. While welcome, more is required to confront the persistently high global restrictions on religious practice. In addition, with war in Europe and the Middle East and shrinking aid budgets, a greater commitment—not less—is necessary to meet the challenge of persecution. In this context, there is an opportunity and need for greater Hanseatic leadership on freedom of religion or belief.

One opportunity is the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance. While all Hanseatic countries, with the exception of Sweden, are full members (Sweden is a “friend”), the only countries from this group to chair the Alliance are the Dutch and the Brits. The current chair from Czechia has already served for almost two years. Chairing the Alliance takes time, but a steering committee and an advisory council of independent experts provide support. Denmark, Germany, Norway, Poland, and Sweden (after upgrading its status) would be capable chairs with their diplomatic FoRB commitments, experience, and resources. Collaboration among three Scandinavian countries in a leadership troika would not be out of the question.

Separate but connected is hosting ministerial-level meetings. The ministerial process, a significant undertaking of which I am personally familiar, ensures that FoRB concerns remain on the global agenda. With the increasing number of global challenges distracting policymakers, keeping these meetings alive—even if only every two years—gives vitality to the movement and requires political leaders to focus on FoRB in ways they might not otherwise. Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom have all hosted. The current IRFBA chair from Czechia will soon host a second ministerial in Prague due to a lack of other options, although IRFBA chairmanship does not require hosting. Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, or Sweden could follow in 2026 or 2027.

Lastly, turning the tide on persecution will require greater joint advocacy towards oppressing governments directly and in multilateral fora. Scandinavian countries are, in particular, known for their affinity for working through the United Nations, as well as other multilateral bodies. The Alliance has yet to leverage its diverse membership in these venues to press for change. Hanseatic nations could play a crucial role in demonstrating the utility of these forums for human rights advocacy at a time when interest and support are waning. Additionally, it would provide another avenue for advocating on behalf of the oppressed and persecuted.

Conclusion

The Hanseatic League analogy is admittedly imperfect. However, the medieval confederation offers an interesting perspective for examining collaboration on shared values like freedom of religion or belief among these nations. Issues of religious persecution have existed throughout history and continue to do so today. However, in the 21st century, we have the networks, resources, and commitment to address the issue—if we choose to act.

https://open.substack.com/pub/knoxthames/p/a-hanseatic-league-for-forb