Ambassador Seiple Discusses U.S. Religious Freedom Report

Aim is to work with governments

toward religious freedom

September 3, 1999

---

USIA Staff Writer Rick Marshall recently interviewed Robert Seiple, the U.S. Ambassador-at-large for International Religious Freedom, about the upcoming International Religious Freedom Report.

QUESTION: Your office will release the first International Religious Freedom Report to the U.S. Congress on September 9th. Would you explain what the purpose of the report is?

ANSWER: The number one focus of the report is to let those people who this day are being discriminated against, marginalized, or persecuted because of their faith, know that in America there is a report that's going to be discussed and debated in the Congress and in America that is concerned about their fate, wherever they are, whoever they are, whatever faith they have, in any corner of the world. To use the metaphor of a kite, we want to make sure that this new emphasis on this particular human right flies so high that in this age of information, everyone will see it, even those in jail and that this will bring them hope. Their fate is being discussed, their issues are being fought over in the American Congress and with the American people and the American government.

Q: What prompted your office to write it?

A: The report was mandated by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. The Act says a great deal about the need to monitor and report on violations of international religious freedom as well as promote international religious freedom. One of the ways we promote this issue is to draw attention to it. This first report will draw attention to 194 countries of the world.

In preparing it, we wanted to make sure that the process was right, that it was inclusive and that we could be able to tell the truth, with integrity, but also without surprise.

Q: Does the report focus on any specific religion or region?

A: In accordance with the International Religious Freedom Act, the report does not target any one group, any one region, any one faith, but looks at all faiths, all beliefs, all thought in 196 countries. One of its strengths is that it is inclusive in terms of religion, faith, belief, and thought. As such it parallels the international instruments that have already been written and approved by so many countries around the world. This is an extremely important point for foreign governments. Religious freedom is an issue that is very important to the American people, but it needs to be stressed that this is not an issue that was invented in America.

So the report will look at countries and what's going on in them. Specifically, it will cover what is happening that the government has some control over, regardless of faith or beliefs or background. It will look at what societal attitudes are, again regardless of faith, inclusive of all faiths, and it will look at what the U.S. government does when it is made aware of issues of religious freedom. It could be on the positive side, where positive changes have taken place. Or it could be on the negative side, where something has gone awry and needs attention by other individuals in the international community.

Q: So the point is not to single out countries where violations of religious freedom have been particularly egregious?

A: We want to work with governments. We don't want to sit in judgment of governments. We want to work with the indigenous NGOs and the indigenous human rights community internationally. We want to work with the primary actors, the impact players in a host country, to improve a situation that is bad. That's where methodology becomes very important: it's tied to this concept of an act that is designed to promote.

Does the bill also give us the ability to enact punitive measures? Yes. But they are a last resort. Sanctions are always a last resort. Our strong feeling is that they should be imposed only when they have to -- preferably multilaterally and only as a last resort unilaterally -- and they should be imposed only when every other option is exhausted. So this is not primarily a sanctions bill. It is designed to promote religious freedom internationally, to work with people, as opposed to working against them.

Q: How does the report fit within the framework international human rights law?

A: If you look at the signatories to the international covenants around the world, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, there are now 144 countries that have human rights legislation that deal with, among other things, religious freedom. So this is obviously something that is important to the world. Inherent in those covenants, in those instruments, is the assumption of mutual accountability, and you can't have mutual accountability unless there is an inclusivity also built into the process.

Q: What circumstances led to the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act? Was there anything specifically different about last year that gave the issue more importance to the Congress than previously?

A: The Act stemmed from a number of people from different groups, different backgrounds, different faith commitments who were very concerned about the persecution of people of faith around the world. Is there more evidence of such persecution today than there was 10 or 100 years ago? Yes. Is it worse now? I'm not sure, but the evidence comes via the fax and the cell phones and the Internet as well as through more traditional sources like the press. Through the process of globalization we simply know more today. And so there was exposure the likes of which we had never seen before on this issue. In certain parts of the world people are being persecuted for their deeply held faith and beliefs.

So this came to the attention of the Congress through the American citizen and through private groups and individuals and non-governmental organizations. These human rights supporters got the attention of Congress. It was a very real issue. It took about 18 months, lots of discussion, lots of expert advice, lots of participation on the part of the government, including the State Department. Eventually Congress came out with a bill that was passed unanimously by both the House and Senate and then signed by the President.

So, in a sense, this is democracy at its best. The seeds of change were planted by the American citizen, looking at legislation internationally, and in the context of international instruments that are already on the books, and putting America's shoulder to that wheel. This is an act that puts America front and center on the international human rights issue of religious freedom.