Religious Persecution Abroad: Congressional Concerns and Actions

Religious Persecution Abroad: Congressional Concerns and Actions

97-968 F
Updated June 25, 1998
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Religious Persecution Abroad: Congressional
Concerns and Actions
Vita Bite
Analyst in International Relations
Foreign Affairs and National Defense
Summary
The 105 Congress has sought to raise the priority of combating religiou
th
s
persecution worldwide among U.S. foreign policy objectives. The difficulty has been
in agreeing on legislation that would effectively deal with religious persecution without
adversely affecting other important U.S. interests. On May 14, 1998, the House passed
H.R. 2431 (the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act of 1998) establishing in the
State Department a Director of the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring who is
to issue an annual report assessing religious persecution abroad. The legislation places
sanctions on countries and groups that carry out or permit such activities. The Senate
may soon consider S. 1868 establishing an office in the Department of State to monitor
religious persecution headed by an Ambassador at Large and requiring the President to
take some action from a broad list of options against countries found engaging in or
tolerating religious persecution.
Introduction
Religious intolerance persists in many part of the world today, and many religious
groups face persecution and discrimination in practicing their faiths1. In some cases,
religious intolerance, religious persecution, and the exploitation of religious differences
for political and other ends may be intensifying.
In recent years, the United Nations, the U.S. government, and especially Congress
have put a spotlight on religious intolerance in many countries. Congress has been
especially interested in placing greater priority in U.S. foreign policy on combating
religious persecution abroad. Congressional leaders have expressed their commitment to
enact legislation addressing religious persecution abroad. This report outlines activities
to address the issue of religious intolerance worldwide focusing especially on
1 Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1997. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998; and the report released on July 22, 1997 on U.S. Policies
in Support of Religious Freedom: Focus on Christians.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-2
congressional concerns and actions. It does not discuss congressional actions focusing on
religious persecution issues in individual countries .
2
Background
U.N. Actions
Article 1 (3) of the U.N. Charter enshrines "fundamental freedom for all without
distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion". Subsequently Article 18 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated that
everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this
includes the freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom whether
alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his
religion or belief in teaching , practices, worship, and observance.
This provision was further amplified and put into a binding treaty form in Article 18 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.3 In 1981 the U.N. General
Assembly adopted a Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and
Discrimination Based on Religious Belief. Efforts in the United Nations to adopt a treaty
or convention on religious intolerance thus far have not succeeded.
The U.N. Commission on Human Rights has, however, appointed Special
Rapporteurs to "examine incidents and governmental actions in all parts of the world
which were inconsistent with the provisions of the [1981] Declaration, and to recommend
remedial measures for such situations." The Rapporteurs have issued annual and other
reports on their findings since 1986 and initiated dialogues with governments (including
on-site visits). Recent on-site visits by the U.N. Rapporteur have included: China,
Pakistan, Iran, Greece, Sudan, India, Australia, and Germany. From January 22 to
February 6, 1998 the Rapporteur visited the United States .
4
2 For discussion of some of these activities see CRS Report 97-882, China’s Treatment of
Religious Practices; CRS Report 97-696, Russia’s Proposed Religion Law: Assessments and
Implications; and CRS Report 98-444, Religious Discrimination in the Middle East.
3 Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1966 and in force in 1976. The United States
ratified in 1992 and the treaty entered into force for the United States on September 8, 1992.
4 In a press statement on January 22, 1998, James P. Rubin, Spokesman for the U.S.
Department of State said:" As a nation that has an exemplary record on religious tolerance, and
is one of the world's more religiously and ethnically diverse, we are particularly pleased to
welcome Mr. Amor to the U.S." Rubin further explained U.S. policy: "the U.S. government
strongly supports the Special Rapporteur system which brings to light human rights abuses
worldwide. By welcoming and facilitating his visit, we are able to establish an international
norm of cooperation with United Nations efforts to ensure respect for human rights and help
ensure that the special rapporteurs have access to other countries, including those with poor
human rights records."

CRS-3
Administration—State Department Actions
In recent years, the U.S. government has intensified its activities with regard to
religious freedom abroad. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has made advancing
religious liberty a foreign policy priority of the United States. She has instructed U.S.
embassies to give greater attention to religious liberty, report more actively on such
issues, and provide suggestions on how the U.S. government might most effectively
address questions of religious intolerance. The State Department’s annual human rights
reports give more attention to religious persecution and procedures for reviewing asylum
requests have been modified to make reviewers more sensitive to religious persecution.5
On June 18, 1998 President Clinton announced the appointment of Robert Seiple,
President of World Visions, U.S., to the new State Department position of Senior Advisor
for International Religious Freedom.6
In November 1996, the Department of State established an Advisory Committee on
Religious Freedom Abroad, a panel of twenty U.S. religious leaders and scholars, chaired
by Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. The
Committee is to provide the U.S. government information about religious persecution
around the world; and develop recommendations to combat religious intolerance and
assist those seeking refuge from religious persecution. The Committee’s interim report
to the Secretary of State and the President, submitted on January 23, 1998, included
extensive preliminary recommendations for U.S. actions.
On July 22, 1997, the Department of State released a report on United States Policies
in Support of Religious Freedom: Focus on Christians. After a general overview of U.S.
government policies and actions in support of religious freedom, the report describes the
status of religious liberty in 75 countries including a description of U.S. government
actions in response to each situation.
Congressional Actions
Congressional concerns about religious intolerance issues have been addressed in
hearings highlighting restrictions on religious liberty in many parts of the world.
Legislation relating to specific country situations has been passed, and congressional
leaders have expressed support for enactment of legislation to combat religious
persecution worldwide. Agreeing on a bill that would effectively deal with religious
persecution, however, has proven complex and difficult.
Bills were introduced in May 1997 (Representative Wolf sponsored H.R. 1685 and
Senator Specter sponsored S. 772). Representative Wolf modified his proposed
legislation and reintroduced it as H.R. 2431 in September, 1997, and that measure has
been revised a number of times. S. 1868 was introduced by Senator Nickles on March 26,
1998. These legislative proposals have proven controversial because of their possible
adverse impact on U.S. foreign relations and because they create a new bureaucracy.
5 Department of State, U.S.. Policies in Support of Religious Freedom: Focus on
Christians, July 22, 1997. See especially pp. 1-8.
6 Remarks by President Clinton to religious leaders at the White House, June 18, 1998.

CRS-4
H.R. 2431, the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act of 1998, as passed (375-41)
by the House on May 14, 1998, establishes an office in the Department of State to monitor
religious persecution and requires the Director to be appointed by the President with the
advice and consent of the Senate. The Director based on his findings of fact about
violations of religious freedom is to: 1) make policy recommendations to the Secretary
of State; 2) identify the entities responsible for persecution and maintain lists of religious
persecution facilitating products and responsible entities; 3) annually report to Congress;
and 4) make policy recommendations to the President. The Secretary of State is to make
determinations about whether a country exhibits category 1 religious persecution
(conducted by government officials or agents) or category 2 religious persecution
(conducted by non-governmental entities or persons, but which the government fails to
undertake serious and sustained efforts to eliminate). H.R. 2431 prohibits aid to entities
which carry out persecution and prohibits export of goods which might be used in
persecution. The President may waive sanctions. U.S. executive directors of multilateral
financial institutions must vote against loans to persecuting countries. H.R. 2431 bans
visas to individuals involved in religious persecution and seeks to ensure equal treatment
in U.S. refugee policy for those claiming religious persecution . The House also agreed
7
to three amendments: the Brady amendment provides measures to promote religious
freedom and establishes a five-member commission on international religious
persecution; the Hastings amendment establishes an awards program for meritorious
service by foreign service officers in the promotion of human rights including the right
to religious freedom; and the Campbell amendment permits the President to waive
sanctions against Sudan.
S. 1868, the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, establishes within the
Department of State an office of international religious freedom headed by an
Ambassador at Large appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the
Senate. The Ambassador is to be the principal advisor to the President and Secretary of
State on religious freedom abroad, prepare an annual report to Congress, and establish a
religious freedom internet site. S. 1868 expresses the sense of Congress: encouraging
establishment of a Special Adviser to the President on Religious Persecution within the
National Security Council; that U.S. diplomatic missions support programs which
promote freedom of religion; and that the executive branch prepare prisoner lists and
issue briefs to facilitate increased advocacy for religious freedom. It establishes a
Commission to make policy recommendations to the President, Secretary of State, and
Congress relating to religious persecution. Some members of the Commission are to be
appointed by the leadership of the House and Senate. S. 1868 requires the President to
impose at least one of a number of listed measures if a country is named in the
Ambassadors' annual report to Congress as engaging in or tolerating religious persecution.
The President also must determine whether a named country has engaged in "a consistent
pattern of gross violations of the right to religious freedom". If so, the President must
impose an economic sanction, or, alternatively, take commensurate action, or negotiate
and enter into a binding agreement regarding cessation of the violative practices. The
President may waive imposition of sanctions. The measure authorizes foreign assistance
funds for promotion of religious freedom abroad and increases training for officials who
consider refugee and asylum applications.
7 For an analysis of the immigration-related provisions see CRS Report 97-978, Immigration
Provisions of the "Freedom from Religious Persecution Act" (H.R. 2431).

CRS-5
Congressional leaders have indicated support for legislation on religious persecution
abroad. However, initial hearings before the House International Relations Committee
on September 9 and 10, 1997 revealed serious concerns about parts of H.R. 2431 raised
by both Republican and Democratic Members. The Administration also expressed its
opposition to the legislation as introduced. The House International Relations Committee
amended the measure so that the Secretary of State rather than the Director of the Office
of Religious Persecution Monitoring makes the determination of whether category 1 or
category 2 religious persecution exists in a foreign country. On May 6, 1998, the House
Judiciary Committee amended the immigration section, and the House Committee on
Ways and Means amended the Sudan provisions. The Senate has thus far taken no action
on S. 772 (or H.R. 2431). The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on S.
1868 on May 12, 1998 and June 17, 1998.
While there is universal praise for the goals of legislation to deter or punish severe
forms of religious persecution, there is unease about specific provisions and possible
effects of the legislation. The Administration opposes H.R. 2431 and S. 1868 because of
their likely deleterious effect on U.S. bilateral relations, and some trade and business
groups oppose the legislation as do some non-governmental human rights and other
organizations including some religious organizations. The legislation is supported by a
large number of religious groups and conservative organizations.
Supporters stress that the measure is intended to increase the priority given to
religious persecution issues in U.S. foreign policy.8 They feel that the U.S. foreign affairs
establishment has simply avoided the subject of religious persecution. Proponents argue
that the United States cannot remain silent while serious religious persecution occurs and
point to numerous examples. Proponents argue that the measure focuses on the mos
9
t
heinous forms of persecution, abduction, enslavement, imprisonment, killing, forced mass
resettlement, rape, and torture. Proponents stress that the sanctions are carefully focused
and limited.
10
8 In his testimony on September 10, 1997, William J. Bennet, Co-Director of Empower
America argued that the legislation redresses the past lack of attention to horrific religious
persecution. While recognizing that there are limits to what the United States can do to influence
internal policies in other countries, he felt that the United States should, where appropriate and
effective, restrict trade and non-humanitarian aid to nations sponsoring religious persecution.
9 Representative Frank Wolf in testimony before the House Committee on International
Relations on September 9, 1997 described the legislation as a fundamental departure from the
"business as usual" U.S. human rights policy of words with few actions to back up the words.
He characterized his bill as attempting to address the most severe violations which are
widespread and demonstrate direct threats to life and limb.
1 0 Don Hodel in testimony on behalf of the Christian Coalition on September 10, 1997
described religious persecution as an international crisis which needs to be addressed by creation
of an office to monitor religious persecution in the White House. Such placement would give
powerful visibility to persecution issues and thereby send a strong and consistent message to all
federal agencies to take appropriate measures. In his view, the legislation does not seek to alter
U.S. trade policies except in very narrowly defined area of "persecution-enhancing goods and
services" which are banned from export. Enhancing asylum and refugee status for victims of
religious persecution, he argues, is appropriate for a country founded as a haven for victims of
religious persecution.

CRS-6
Critics of the bill fear that it would hurt the United States more than the countries at
which it may be directed. It might lead, they argue, to sanctions against countrie
11
s
important to the United States such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. All those
countries count themselves as U.S. allies, and some get U.S. assistance. Another country
likely to be affected is China.12 Some critics feel that the legislation takes a meat-ax or
one-size-fits -all approach to a very delicate issue touching on sensitive internal affairs
of many countries and which requires, in their view, persistent quiet dialogue with the
governments involved.13
The Administration while expressing strong commitment to religious liberty and to
the objectives of eliminating religious persecution opposes H.R. 2431 and S. 1868.14
Among Administration objections to H.R. 2431 are that: it is a blunt instrument more
likely to harm than aid victims of religious persecution; it is likely to harm U.S. bilateral
relationships with key allies and important regional powers; it will create a confusing and
unnecessary bureaucratic structure just when the Department of State is upgrading and
expanding its activities on this issue; and that it establishes a hierarchy of human rights
violations, severely undermining the long-standing U.S. policy of ensuring that all human
rights are equally protected. The measure, in the Administration's view, would also allow
little flexibility in tailoring policies to promote religious freedom to differing
circumstances in different countries. President Clinton in designating the State
Department's Senior Advisor for International Religious Freedom on June 18, 1998
expressed the view that "America is not strengthened in fighting for religious liberty or
in fighting against religious persecution by laws that are so rigid a President's hands are
tied."
1 1 Robert P. O’Quinn, policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation argues that the bill’s
sanctions provisions “could undermine U.S. security, harm the U.S. economy, and needlessly
constrain the economic freedom of Americans—and, in the process, be of little if any effect in
advancing religious liberty abroad.” He asserts that the bill's sponsors overestimate the ability of
the United States alone, to pressure abusive countries to end persecution through unilateral
economic sanctions. See To Promote Religious Liberty, Cut Aid, not Trade, Issue Bulletin No.
246, September 18, 1997, The Heritage Foundation.
12 See CRS Report 97-882, China's Treatment of Religious Practices.
1 3 The National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA did not support the legislation
as introduced, in particular opposing: creation of an Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring
in the White House as too political a placement; automatic imposition of sanctions as a first
option as too simplistic; and singling out of religion as more important then other forms of
persecution in the refugee determination process. They support activity within the State
Department using an advisory committee representing a diversity of religious communities rather
than placing responsibility on one individual, and suggest that the U.S. government seek ways
to help victims of persecution. See letter from Oliver Thomas, NCCC Special Counsel, to the
Members of the International Relations Committee, inserted in the Congressional Record,
September 16, 1997, p. E1760 by Representative Lee Hamilton.
14 Statement of John Shattuck, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights,
and Labor, before the House International Relations Committee on September 9, 1997, and
before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on May 12, 1998.