International religious freedom efforts split on policies and structures

U.S. President George W. Bush walks past Vietnamese choir members after services at Cua Bac Cathedral in Hanoi, Vietnam on Nov. 19, 2006. His visit coincided with the State Department removing Vietnam from a list of religious freedom abusers, an action that still divides the community of International Religious Freedom advocates.

AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

Enlarge photo

Editor's note: This is the second of two articles on escalating threats to religious freedom and U.S. efforts to control those threats. Yesterday we outlined current problems and the competing values at home and abroad that make effective action difficult. Today, we survey U.S. policy responses since 1998, with emphasis a contentious governmental structure and strategic divisions among religious religious liberty advocates.

Part one: Religious freedom as a core human right: A three-sided, global debate

As Michael Cromartie concluded a February 2006 meeting with a high-ranking government official in Bangladesh, the two walked to the elevator. The official was in a friendly mood and offered to buy dinner the next time he was in Washington. "But meanwhile," he added as Cromartie stepped into the elevator, "get us off that damn list!"

The "list" appeared in the annual report issued by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and Cromartie was the commission's chairman at the time. The commission comprises half of a U.S. policy response to religious persecution abroad that was established by Congress in 1998. The other half is an Ambassador-at-large for International Religious Freedom embedded in the State Department. Together, these two bodies aim to catalog and expose abuses, keep American foreign policy focused on the issue and help nations improve the climate of religious freedom inside their borders.

Severe cases go on a list of Countries of Particular Concern, a finding that triggers flexible sanctions. For 14 years, the commission has recommended countries for the list and has placed less severe cases on a watch list. Only the State Department can actually designate a nation as a Country of Particular Concern.

In December, the controversial International Religious Freedom Commission was nearly allowed to expire when a last-minute congressional compromise saved it. At the same time, the Obama administration has significantly downgraded the role of the religious freedom ambassador in the State Department, critics say, leaving the agenda adrift there. The tale of these two entities demonstrates how international religious freedom became a core human right in U.S. foreign policy, though one whose place remains insecure and contentious.

Distrust leads to duality

See the original post:
International religious freedom efforts split on policies and structures