Compromise act still has U.S. gov't favoring religion in foreign policy strategy

American Atheists, AANews, #448, 6 October 1998

Clinton May Sign Revised Religious Persecution Legislation

A vote is expected shortly on compromise legislation which puts the U.S. Government in the business of monitoring cases of religious persecution in foreign nations, and enacting a range of penalties in event of any violations. Late last month, solons from sides of Capitol Hill managed to hammer out a middle course acceptable to backers of the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, and a watered-down proposal version co-sponsored by Senators Don Nickles (R-OK) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT.) Word is that Sen. Trent Lott, Senate Majority Leader, will be calling for a full vote on the measure shortly, possibly later this week, introduced as the International Religious Freedom Act.

Sen. Arlen Specter and Rep. Frank R. Wolfe, key players in the religious persecution issue, announced their support for the IRFA; Mr. Wolfe described it as a good bill, and warned The failure to pass a bill would result in open season on people's faith. The New York Times noted that with support dwindling for the original FFRPA, Mr. Lott can now fulfill his promise to religious right groups that Congress would take up the issue prior to recess.

Although the FFRPA had enthusiastic backing from groups like Christian Coalition, key Republicans with ties to the business community voiced concerns about the measure. The act called for the establishment of an office within the White House organizational structure, with a director; the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring would have evaluated compliance of foreign nations with certain standards regarding treatment of religious minorities and foreign missionaries. Violation would have resulted in mandatory penalties such as loss of foreign aid and restrictions on trading.

The IRFA (S.1868) is considered somewhat broader than the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, however, and attempts to alleviate fears of a one- size-fits-all approach to dealing with offending nations which had been expressed by the U.S. Department of State and the White House. There is cautious optimism that President Clinton will sign on to the new compromise legislation. But in certain respects, while the IRFA provides the U.S. with greater flexibility in sanctioning offending nations, it involves Uncle Sam even more deeply than would the FFRPA in the business of favoring and promoting religion. The act would:

express United States foreign policy with respect to, and to strengthen United States advocacy on behalf of, individuals persecuted for their faith worldwide; to authorize United States actions in response to religious persecution worldwide; to establish an Ambassador at Large on International Religious Freedom within the Department of State, a Commission on International Religious Persecution, and a Special Adviser on International Religious Freedom within the National Security Council...

Other sections of the Act require establishment of an internet site containing major international documents relating to religious freedom, the Annual Report on Religious Persecution, and any other relevant documentation or references to other sites.

The measure gives the President a smorgasbord of sanctions to choose from when dealing with nations found guilty of religious persecution. This includes everything from public condemnation or cancellation of scientific and cultural exchanges to ending loans and tariff perks and restrictions on trade.

Religious Groups Close Ranks

Unlike the situation with the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, the Nickels-Lieberman scheme appears to have the support of most religious groups from the right to the mainstream Protestant denominations. FFRPA had the backing of Christian Coalition, other evangelicals and fundamentalists, some Jewish groups and the U.S. Roman Catholic bishops. The National Council of Churches, however, had opposed the FFRPA, suggesting that a blanket approach to sanctions may be ineffective, and could even result in a situation where religious minorities in offending nations would be blamed for whatever economic or social woes resulted from sanctions. Many foreign Christian groups were also skeptical of the House legislation. Rev. Raid Jarjour of the Middle East Council of Churches in Beirut came to the U.S. last April, and told Capitol Hill legislators that the FFRPA evoked memories of the Crusades among Muslims in his part of the world. They feel this bill is a new Crusade in the sense that it's a new invasion of American foreign policy and some evangelical groups who want to convert Muslims.

Jarjour added, They see the bill as a way to create dissension between Christians and Muslims...

Concerns Remain...

Despite the agreement and backslapping on the Hill, though, concerns remain about the compromise version—International Religious Freedom Act—and the wider issue of sanctions in general. The business group USA-Engage, a coalition of companies and organizations involved in international trade, remains in opposition. We obviously think it's a bad bill, said Dan O'Flaherty of the National Foreign Trade Council, a USA-Engage member. There are also worries in the farm belt, where even conservative senators are looking twice at how sanctions could affect agricultural exports. We predict that this segment of the economy might even receive a double-barreled hit when the full impact of the Asian meltdown is felt. Produce growers are already feeling the pitch, and have launched expensive advertising campaigns to inflate domestic demand for their products. Other questions remain as well:

• Do sanctions really work? The U.S. imposes some form of sanctions against 70 or more countries at any one time, from Guatemala to Colombia, Maldives, and Cuba. But as an editorial in The Detroit News pointed out...

  The trouble with sanctions, though, is that a) they rarely work, unless they are agreed to by a wide group of nations, as was the case with sanctions against South Africa in the apartheid days; and b) they have a way of boomeranging on you.

  Business and labor groups point out that often unilateral sanctions hurt Americans more than the target nation, and that in a global economy countries can often find alternative suppliers.

• There is no good evidence that sanctions are generally a useful tool in addressing human rights abuses, or the more narrow category of religious persecution. In fact, Fr. Robert A. Sirico, a Roman Catholic priest and president of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, argues that engagement is more effective in allowing the growth of independent, government-free religious institutions in China, than any punitive sanctions. He cites the role of free trade in strengthening the civil sector and in creating pockets of independent wealth free of the state. He argues that for Chinese Christians, their plight will be mitigated by more contact and trade, not less.

• This type of legislation could actually promote persecution of religious minorities, rather than assist them. Religious persecution IS a political reality in many countries; often, though, the offending nations have the equivalent of an established, official religion based on cultural traditions dating back centuries, even millennia. Understanding the unique circumstances of each culture is an important first step in addressing any human rights abuse.

Why Atheists, Separationists Should Oppose IRFA

Perhaps the most blatant weakness of any version of this legislation—whether it is the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, or the compromise IRFA—is that it clearly puts the U.S. Government in the business of monitoring and emphasizing religious ideology, and incorporates religious belief as a key element in how foreign policy is conducted.

• This legislation still subordinated a robust and vigorous notion of human rights and personal liberty to a narrower standard having to do with religious belief. None of this legislation addresses the many non-religious groups, movements and individuals who are victims of political oppression, nor does it speak to the outrageous cases of individuals who are being persecuted because of their Atheism or non-belief. The measure does nothing to address the plight of Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses who still remains under a death sanction from Islamic militants, or Taslima Nasrin, feminist writer who is another target of Muslim wrath, or anyone who dissents from religious belief.

• Legislation which subordinates foreign policy to the question of religious persecution ignores other examples of human rights abuses. What about labor movements? Rights for women, including international groups which call for access on behalf of women to birth control, abortion and other reproductive rights services? What about the problems faced by foreign journalists, teachers, writers and intellectuals? As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel noted in an editorial last May 21, Human rights violations occur for any number of reasons—political, cultural, economic and religious. The U.S. must work to end ALL such violations, and it must do so on a country by country basis, tailoring efforts to the circumstances at hand, rather than using a one solution-fits-all-approach.

• Selective indignation and millennialist fervor. Why the sudden interest by conservative religious groups, including fundamentalists and evangelicals? Generally, this segment has turned a blind eye toward political persecution in the past; Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, Billy Graham and others have often schmoozed with dictators, especially during the cold war.

In fact, much of the concern over international religious persecution has to do with the approach of the new millennium, and with what many fundamentalists see as the End Times. Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network is a good example of the growing excitement in anticipation of the Second Coming of Jesus, and the need to convert as many non-Christians before the millennium. This is one reason why at least some of the religious right groups supporting the FFRPA (and now even the compromise International Religious Freedom Amendment) have little interest in human rights for labor groups, women, journalists, intellectuals and political dissidents. Robertson's goal is to convert 500 million people in the so-called 10-40 Window, that area of the globe which covers most Islamic, Buddhist and Confucian societies, by the year 2000. This agenda centers on religious belief, not on gaining civil liberties, the right of workers to organize, free speech, sexual equality or anything which smacks of a secular civil liberties agenda.

The White House will be hard pressed to ignore the compromise version hammered out and incorporated into the International Religious Freedom Act. Business groups and other opponents of the measure, though, say that the Senate and the administration need to wait until the final report of the Senate Sanctions Task Force is completed. The 18-member Task Force was appointed last June 26, chaired by Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Joseph Biden (D-DE) to look into the need for any reform of sanction legislation, and to evaluate the efficacy of such sanctions in the first place. Supporters of religious persecution legislation, though, intend to bring up IRFA as soon as possible, even if it means ignoring the Task Force report which is now one- month overdue. The November elections beckon, and feel good legislation on issues such as religious persecution is expected to play well with voters at home.