Designating Countries of Particular Concern: Religious Freedom within the U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda
By: Judith Oliver
April 22, 2008
Later
this week, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom will
issue its annual report. The
Commission’s mandate is to use the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998
(IRFA) as a platform from which to track religious persecution around the world
and make policy recommendations to the Executive branch and Congress. The Commission was created to ensure
“that the President and the Congress receive independent recommendations and,
where necessary, criticism of American policy that does not promote
international religious freedom.”[1]
The
focus on religious liberty as an important part of the foreign policy agenda wasn’t
apparent until a decade ago when Congress passed the IRFA. At the time, legislation sponsored by Senator
Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA) sought “to establish
an Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring [and] to provide for the
imposition of sanctions against countries engaged in a pattern of religious
persecution."[2] Their proposed bill was not concerned to a
great degree with protecting all forms of religious expression. It appeared to specifically
target Islamic or Communist regimes where Christians were in the minority and
perhaps suffered persecution. The IRFA
was a compromise. Congress passed the
Act, but created the Commission at the same time to guarantee political
independence.
The IRFA
mandated the establishment of the State Department’s Office of International
Religious Freedom. The office is directed
by an Ambassador-at-Large and is responsible for promoting religious freedom as
a normal tenet of diplomatic activities.
The State Department issues its own Annual
Report on International Religious Freedom.
The report identifies those countries that restrict or curtail religious
freedom and labels the most egregious violators Countries of Particular Concern,
or CPCs. Violations are defined as acts that go
against the tenets laid out in such international instruments
as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights.
The Commission labeled eleven countries CPCs in their 2007 annual
report. These include Burma, China,
Eritrea, Iran, North Korea,
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan,
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. There are eight more on the Commission’s
“Watch List,” countries where religious freedom is curtailed: Afghanistan, Bangladesh,
Belarus, Cuba, Egypt,
Indonesia, Iraq, and Nigeria. There is no expectation of drastic changes to this
list in the upcoming 2008 report.
The State Department further designated eight of these countries
as CPCs: Burma,
China, Eritrea, Iran,
North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan,
and Uzbekistan. CPC designation makes certain relationships
more difficult. Saudi Arabia and China
are strategic partners and Uzbekistan
has provided material support to the U.S. in the War on Terror. Asking for cooperation and then offering a
rebuke on the status of their free expression of religious belief is a
diplomatic dance that becomes more intricate as time progresses.
Troubling developments in the CPCs
and elsewhere point to growing concern over the protection of religious freedom.
Vladimir Putin has moved recently to align his authoritative regime with the
Russian Orthodox Church to the exclusion of all other denominations. Protestant denominations which proliferated
there after the break-up of the Soviet Union are now labeled ‘sects’ and specifically
required to register, or their ability to gather and worship is forbidden.
The western perspective sees religion
as a consideration in China’s
relationship with Tibet
as well. China
recently signaled its intention to speak to envoys of the Dalai Lama about the
situation in Tibet. This proposal appears to be a result of China’s
intention to address the protests that have accompanied the Olympic torch relay. There is little optimism that the meeting
will occur, or lead to a breakthrough if it does.
The U.S. should follow through on
specific actions available once it designates a country a CPC. These run the gamut from private criticism of
the status of religious freedom, to sanctions.
It would not only promote U.S.
reputation and standing as the most vocal proponent and advocate for the right
to freedom of religion worldwide, it would allow the U.S. to find common ground with
citizens elsewhere by recognizing and taking a stand against persecution.
[1]Annual Report of the United States Commission on
International Religious Freedom, May 1, 2007, p. 7. http://www.uscirf.gov/images/stories/pdf/Annual_Report/2007annualrpt.pdf
[2] Gunn, T. Jeremy. “When Our Allies Persecute,” Religion
in the News, Vol. 4, No. 3, (Fall 2001): 30. http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol4No3/contents_vol4no3.htm
Judith Oliver is a Congressional Fellow with the Security for a New Century program at the Henry L. Stimson Center.
