Will US religious freedom designations drive real actions?

On Dec. 2, Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced the latest designations of severe violators of religious freedom. The annual designations are intended to serve as a critical tool in shaping U.S. international religious freedom policy and triggering clear, coherent actions to hold persecutors accountable and to advance greater respect for religious freedom where it is at risk.

As longtime State Department official Knox Thames commented, they can be the “most potent tool in [the department’s] religious freedom toolbox.” However, these designations will be most effective when the rationale is clear, the ramifications are real, and they are part of a roadmap toward progress. 

As required by the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA), the Secretary of State is to name Countries of Particular Concern (CPCs) and Entities of Particular Concern (EPCs) that have “engaged in or tolerated systematic, ongoing and egregious violations of religious freedom.” A 2016 amendment to that law created an additional Special Watch List (SWL) category for those who do not fully meet the most egregious standard but are determined to engage in or tolerate severe violations of religious freedom.

In the 2022 determinations, Blinken included as CPCs: Burma, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. The SWL included Algeria, the Central African Republic, Comoros and Vietnam.

While many of those determinations are accurate, there are also some notable exceptions. Afghanistan is not included as a CPC, despite the horrific conditions for religious freedom, though the Taliban itself is included as an EPC. The Christian nongovernmental organization Open Doors listed Afghanistan at the top of its World Watch List of the worst places to be a Christian.  

The United States Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), which makes recommendations to the State Department, expressed outrage over the exclusion of Nigeria and India from either the CPC or SWL designations.

India has experienced intensifying levels of attacks on non-Hindus, including Muslims and Christians, as the State Department itself documented in its latest report. As two Nigerian Christian leaders described, “Nigeria is in the eye of the storm for insecurity and persecution, where the rights of minorities — including Christians — are violated with reckless abandon.” The BBC reported there were at least 23 attacks on churches in Nigeria through the first five months of 2022, as well as the murder of a 25-year-old college student, Deborah Samuel, for alleged blasphemy.     

USCIRF Chair Nury Turkel said, “There is no justification for the State Department’s failure to recognize Nigeria or India as egregious violators of religious freedom, as they each clearly meet the legal standards for designation as CPCs.”

The importance of clarity on the rationale behind these decisions led the Senate in its appropriations language to require the State Department to explain to Congress the divergence between USCIRF recommendations and the State Department’s designations. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) wrote a letter to Blinken asking for the report, “in light of a number of troubling omissions from the department’s designations as compared to USCIRF’s recommendations and the factual religious freedom conditions reported by the department.”

This act of congressional oversight can be essential for improving the effectiveness of the religious freedom designations tool. The IRFA not only calls for designations but requires the U.S. president to take one or more actions, ranging from a private demarche to sanctions. The law provides authorization for — and requires — significant steps to be taken to advance religious freedom.

In practice, however, the action most often taken has been to refer to preexisting sanctions or issue a waiver based on national interest. As the Congressional Research Service reported, this was the case for all 10 countries named in the 2021 CPC designations.

While U.S. diplomats — such as Rashad Hussain, the ambassador-at-large for International Religious Freedom, and the Office for International Religious Freedom — play a vital role in communicating a commitment to religious freedom, failure to take explicit presidential actions as a result of the CPC designations would be a missed opportunity to communicate a clear priority to combat persecution and advance religious freedom.

In pursuit of real progress, designations should be just the first step. Thames highlighted from his two decades in government that “these lists do help — but only if they are followed up with consequential diplomacy.”

Particularly for countries on the Special Watch List, such as Algeria, this can be part of a process to establish a road map toward religious freedom rather than just a bludgeon or a tool to “name and shame.” A clear understanding of the religious freedom landscape can identify legal, political and social challenges that need to be addressed and provide tools and resources to do that.

While addressing these dynamics requires far more than external diplomacy, U.S. efforts can play an essential role in calling out abuses and promoting the development of greater freedom for all. 

“Around the world, governments and non-state actors harass, threaten, jail, and even kill individuals on account of their beliefs,” Blinken said in his announcement. “In some instances, they stifle individuals’ freedom of religion or belief to exploit opportunities for political gain. These actions sow division, undermine economic security, and threaten political stability and peace. The United States will not stand by in the face of these abuses.”

The U.S. has a chance to demonstrate by its actions that these are not just words, and that it will take concrete steps to advance this right for everyone.

Jeremy P. Barker is the director of the Middle East Action Team at the Religious Freedom Institute. Follow him on Twitter @jaybark7.