World’s worst religious freedom violators ‘escaping accountability’

THE WORLD’s worst violators of religious freedoms, including Egypt and Pakistan, are ‘escaping accountability’, the Vice Chairman of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom has warned.

Professor Robert George, who the New York Times called America’s ‘most influential conservative Christian thinker’ said the US State Department and Obama administration had failed to designate countries that allow ‘systematic, ongoing, and egregious’ religious freedom violations as ‘countries of particular concern’ (CPCs).

Professor George was giving the Annual Templeton Lecture on Religion and World Affairs in Philadelphia.

During his lecture, Professor George explained that despite the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA) requiring US administrations to designate CPCs, ‘some of the world’s worst violators—such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Vietnam—are escaping accountability’.

Obligations

He called on the ‘executive branch’ to take its own ‘obligations and responsibilities’ seriously by ‘making designations and doing so in a timely manner’.

Professor George also blamed the Obama administration for allowing IRFA sanctions to expire on already designated CPCs such as China and North Korea.

 The law states any sanctions imposed on a CPC will expire after two years.  Professor George said allowing these sanctions to expire sends a ‘disturbing message that the United States will not implement its own law on religious freedom.’

His comments were later reinforced by Tom Farr from the Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs. 

Farr said: ‘As the most powerful and the most influential country in the world, [the United States] should be leading the fight against religious persecution and for religious freedom…American diplomats, foreign governments, and the victims of religious persecution understand quite well that US international religious freedom policy is anaemic, and ineffective.’

Ineffective

Human rights ‘naming and shaming’ both by UN human rights committees and the US CPC designation system is viewed by many experts as ineffective.

In ‘Repressive States and Human Rights Treaties: International Human Rights Law and the Politics of Legitimation’ Professors from Princeton, Stanford and Michigan Universities argue ‘formal agreements by national governments intended to improve human rights practices have not only done little to achieve the goal but also seem to have sometimes resulted in worse practices’.

According to their research, when policies are not backed by force or sanction, they have little to no impact in directly changing governments' abusive practices.

But Professor George argued the prospect of being designated a CPC (which is the first step toward imposing sanctions) can ‘move certain repressive governments… to make changes’. He cited Vietnam and Turkmenistan as positive examples.

Shaming

International affairs and human rights journalist, Rachel George believes the CPC designation can ‘help anchor domestic activism to pressure governments to feel more compelled to comply.’

‘Often these governments feel more uncomfortable being perceived as hypocritical or rights abusing, and thus international naming and shaming can help pressure them to change policies (indirectly) by anchoring local activists to help set their agendas and mobilise their activism around internationally sanctioned language of human rights to call out their own governments.’

She cites Beth Simmons’ work, which shows that Japan, who ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women in 1985, did not instantly reform its policies.

‘Simmons argues that the international women's convention helped mobilise Japanese women's rights activists to incorporate language and anchor activism around the internationally sanctioned language of women's rights to ultimately pressure their government into landmark legislation for gender equality in employment which was achieved in Japan in 1986.’

Priority

Professor George encouraged his audience to ‘make it clear to those in public office that we expect them to honor religious freedom.

‘We must insist that religious freedom be given the priority it is due in the conduct of our international diplomacy and our foreign policy.’

International human rights lawyer and Director of the Center for Religious Freedom Nina Shea believes there is no ‘single action’ that can solve the issues raised. However she says the ‘immediate appointment’ of a religious freedom ambassador and a special envoy on religious minorities ‘would go a long way to finding policy solutions.’

Baroness Berridge of the Vale of Catmose who initiated the All Party Parliamentary Group on International Freedom of Religion or Belief after discovering '76 per cent of the world’s population live in countries with high levels of government restrictions on freedom of religion’ joined 30 politicians from 20 nations in Oslo last weekend to sign what the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom called an ‘unprecedented joint statement’ which commits those gathered to advancing religious freedom for all. The group also sent letters to the heads of state of Pakistan and Burma expressing concern about religious freedom violations.