A Summary

November 30, 2004

Keynote Address:
Preeta Bansal, Chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom

Panelists:
Saman Zia-Zarifi, Deputy Director, Asia Division of Human Rights Watch
Peter Awn, Professor of Religion and Dean of General Studies, Columbia University
Andrew Nathan, Class of 1919 Professor of Political Science, Columbia University (moderator)

International law and religious experts met at Asia Society to explain a relatively new United States law that many in Asia regard suspiciously as a Christian Right tool but even skeptics applaud as one of the strongest defenses yet of the universal concept of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which requires US Administrations to promote international religious freedom as part of US foreign policy, has among other foci, strengthened the draft form of Iraq’s Transitional Administrative law to include religious protections. It has commented on headscarf persecution in France and put Saudi Arabia, where there is no form of religious freedom, on a special list which requires sanctions. But the act, called IRFA, had its origins in efforts by the Christian Right to protect its missionaries abroad, which has tainted the act in the eyes of outsiders. And critics say its use by an Administration known for its easy dismissal of international institutions seems insincere and manipulative.

Preeta D. Bansal, an appellate and constitutional lawyer whose career spanned government service, academia and private law practice before being appointed chair of IRFA’s Commission, championed and exposed IRFA, warts and all. IRFA was indeed first proposed by fundamentalist Christians to protect their missionaries as well as Tibetan Buddhists and moderate Muslims. But the Act as passed during the Clinton Administration was much broader, encompassing all religions and beliefs. IRFA requires US Embassies to monitor religious freedom, culminating in an annual report widely used by human rights groups. Once countries are put on a Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) list, they are open to sanctions. A non-political, bipartisan Commission was created as an independent watchdog, to ensure that the State Department keeps religious rights and freedom in mind when promoting policy. Just how much the current Administration values IRFA will soon be seen as Saudi Arabia has been put on the CPC list, requiring sanctions.

Promoting religious freedom and related human rights abroad is vital to US foreign policy, said Ms. Bansal. IRFA is broad based, she noted, and other faith-based movements, like Gandhi’s, are useful for highlighting religious freedoms. If denied religious freedom, she added, generations of hatred and societal instability are sown. Downplaying its origins for the moment, IRFA has catapulted the US into being the world’s leading promoter of freedom of religion and IRFA’s Commission into the world’s only governmental body responsible for monitoring and promoting this freedom.

Moderator Andrew Nathan, an authority on China as well as human rights in Asia, pointed out the complexity of talking about religious freedom in the international arena. For instance, the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the later International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) protects an individual’s rights of holding a religion, conscience or belief, not necessarily a movement’s rights. And it upholds the right to manifest said belief. It is not clear, however, whether manifestations like wearing headscarves or discriminating against a class of people, such as Untouchables in India, are protected by international law. Governments are allowed to limit certain religious manifestations in order to protect society but there are concerns that some governments are passing laws that limit religious actions with no regard for international human rights law.

Saman Zia-Zarifi, a lawyer and activist, has conducted several research missions in Afghanistan and Iraq as a member of various Human Rights Watch teams. He noted that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has clarified and amplified the right to religion and belief beyond just the language of the ICCPR and yet governments attack religious groups regardless, largely because they don’t want a parallel organizational structure challenging their monopoly on power. Human Rights Watch is concerned about China’s repression of Tibetan Buddhists, and the Falun Gong and North Korea and Burma’s challenges to even sports groups that might threaten their authority. Unexpected religious intolerance is being seen more in Malaysia and Thailand, he added, and the targeting of Muslim activist groups seems a byproduct in part of the US War on Terror. The UNHCHR goes out of its way to point out that national security is no excuse for restricting religious freedom, he said, regardless of what the United States and other countries say. Based on international law, he continued, Human Rights Watch agrees completely with the fundamental premise of IRFA, that protection of religion and belief is a key component of individual rights.

Mr. Zia-Zarifi noted that many Asian governments are suspicious of IRFA because of its origins in the increasingly powerful Christian Right. In addition, the fact that the US government picked one law out of the many the ICCPR protects, embracing its language almost completely, is very difficult to explain to the rest of the world. The Bush Administration seems disingenuous to be championing this right after disengaging from other international covenants, he said. And it remains to be seen whether IRFA can be objective when issues like abortion rights and gay rights become involved in a religious struggle abroad. Why, he added, isn’t Israel or Turkey mentioned at all regarding violations? Furthermore, IRFA says nothing about working with the UN system and the Human Rights Committee, which support the international human rights system. IRFA focuses instead on unilateral US action, which adds to the ambivalence the international community feels about the act. But IRFA is welcome, he added, and hopefully is the “thin end of the wedge” of human rights standards being embraced in the United States.

Peter Awn, a long-time professor of religion and currently Principal Investigator on the Ford Foundation’s Muslim Communities in New York research project, was very direct in his criticism of IRFA. One of the major reasons for IRFA is to allow proselytizing by Evangelicals, the Mormon church and Roman Catholics, he said, arguing that nothing happens in a political realm that is purely altruistic. By defending proselytizing religions, he added, you are defending the religions that would love to impose their views on the world. The US should be defending minority religions, he argued, wherever we find them. He spoke against the tendency of all societies to be homogenous and the cultural colonialism of economically strong countries like the United States.

The subject of proselytizing Christians came up in a question from the audience about what rights are accorded to these people under the ICCPR. Ms. Bansal said that while international law gives everyone the right to change their religion, the status of proselytizing is hotly disputed at the moment, especially as it relates to asylum-seekers, who convert for convenience. The audience was further interested in how tough IRFA could be with offenders like China and Saudi Arabia, given their status as American allies and/or creditors. Mr. Zia-Zarifi agreed that power politics plays too big a role and that Iraq was taken off the CPC list, since it would be awkward to occupy it under those circumstances. But as Peter Awn pointed out, if the US wants more freedom and political change in Saudi Arabia, it isn’t just the government and its policies that will be in play. American consumers have to do their part by giving up fuel-thirsty cars, thereby affecting Saudi petroleum sales and the economic power of the anti-human rights Kingdom.

Reported by Pamela Simons