Latest news with #InternationalReligiousFreedomAct
The Diplomat
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Diplomat
Assessing Religious Freedoms in Central Asia, USCIRF Delegations Visit Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan
In late June, United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) Chair Vicky Hartzler led delegations to both Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, joined by Vice Chair Asif Mahmood in the former and Commissioner Mohamed Elsanousi in the latter, to assess the state of religious freedoms in the two countries. USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan federal body established by the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA), which monitors the status of freedom of religion abroad in order to make policy recommendations to the president, secretary of state, and Congress. Each year, USCIRF releases an annual report covering the previous year's developments and making recommendations on the designation of 'countries of particular concern' (CPCs) where there is 'systematic, ongoing, and egregious' violations of religious freedoms. In its 2025 report, released in March, USCIRF recommended that Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, among others, be designated as CPCs and subject to sanctions, and Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan be listed on the special watch list (SWL), which entails no immediate punishments, but indicates concern. The Diplomat interviewed USCIRF Chair Hartzler about her recent visits to Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, the reasons USCIRF is concerned about religious freedoms in these countries, and the commission's encouraging the Trump administration to consider lifting the national security waiver typically paired with Tajikistan and Turkmenistan's CPC designations. You recently led a USCIRF delegation to Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan to assess religious freedoms in these states. Can you tell us about what kinds of people you meet with on these sorts of trips? Whose voices are you taking into consideration? We met with a wide range of stakeholders, including leaders and members of majority and minority religious communities, human rights activists, non-governmental organizations, and relevant government officials. To understand the religious freedom situation in any country, it is essential to speak with a wide range of individuals and, in particular, representatives of diverse religious communities. This is particularly true for Central Asian countries, where broad and vague laws restrict freedom of religion or belief. Officials enforce such legislation arbitrarily, resulting in some individuals being unable to freely practice their religion. In USCIRF's most recent annual report (2025), the Commission recommended that the U.S. State Department include Kyrgyzstan in the Special Watch List for 'engaging in or tolerating severe violations of religious freedom.' USCIRF first recommended that Kyrgyzstan be included in the SWL in 2024. What changed in Kyrgyzstan that triggered its inclusion in USCIRF's recommendations? In its 2024 and 2025 Annual Reports, USCIRF recommended Kyrgyzstan's inclusion on the State Department's Special Watch List due to the government's ongoing and systematic violations of freedom of religion or belief. Over the past few years, the Kyrgyz government increasingly enforced long-existing restrictive legislation regulating religion. Authorities rigorously penalized religious practices, including online religious expression, collective religious worship and studies, and the possession of unauthorized religious materials, through raids, forced renunciations of faith, administrative fines, and prison sentences. In January 2025, a new religion law was passed, further restricting religious activities, including requiring religious groups to obtain registration from 500 people and places of worship to obtain registration, as well as continuing to ban the distribution of religious literature, among other things. Kazakhstan has also been recommended for the SWL for several years, though the State Department has never designated it as such. Can you discuss some of the conditions that led to USCIRF recommending Kazakhstan's inclusion in the SWL again? Since 2013, and most recently in our 2025 Annual Report, USCIRF has recommended Kazakhstan for inclusion on the State Department's Special Watch List due to the government's ongoing and systematic violations of freedom of religion or belief. The Kazakh government restricts the religious activities of all groups, including Muslims who deviate from the state's preferred interpretation of Hanafi Sunni Islam. For example, the government continues to target activities such as peaceful religious expression through observing religious holidays or gathering for religious services, and distributing religious materials with fines, detainments, and, in some cases, prison sentences. The 2011 religion law includes broad and vague provisions that authorities arbitrarily enforce. The law requires government approval to engage in virtually any religious activity and includes administrative burdens that allow officials ample opportunities to deny permission. This essentially permits the government to use the same law to approve the religious activities of those groups it finds favorable, while preventing or penalizing the activities of 'unfavorable' groups. How can vague or broadly applied definitions of 'extremist' harm religious communities? And do you think that this has an adverse effect on security as well? Each Central Asia government applies a broad and vague definition of 'extremism' under its extremism law. Within such legislation, 'extremist' acts are not limited to those that involve violence or calls to violence. This gives authorities broad discretion to investigate and prosecute individuals for a range of peaceful religious activities. There are several individuals imprisoned under 'extremism' charges for peaceful religious activities. In Kazakhstan, there are at least three Muslim men who are imprisoned related to their peaceful, online religious activities: Anatoli Zernichenko, Beket Mynbasov, and Ernar Samatov. In Kyrgyzstan, USCIRF monitors two religious prisoners of conscience, a Muslim man named Asadullo Madraimov, who criticized an official religious policy, and a Christian man named Pavel Schreider. The outgoing Biden administration did not make Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) or SWL designations by the end of 2024, leaving in place the 2023 designations. Do you expect the Trump administration to make designations? Have you had any productive interactions with the Trump administration on religious freedom issues? USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan legislative branch agency tasked under the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) to monitor freedom of religion or belief globally and make policy recommendations to the U.S. government, including the president. Since its creation, USCIRF has consistently held meetings with the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom. We look forward to working with the next Ambassador-at-Large once confirmed. Currently, former Congressman Mark Walker has been nominated and is waiting for Senate confirmation. Under IRFA, the President is required to make designations 90 days after the State Department submits its annual International Religious Report. However, Secretary Blinken failed to make the required designations before the change in administration. In January 2025, USCIRF welcomed Marco Rubio's confirmation as Secretary of State and called for him to review USCIRF's recommendations for designations, most recently updated in the 2025 Annual Report. To reiterate USCIRF's recommendations in Central Asia, USCIRF recommends Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan for inclusion on the Special Watch List, recommendations that the State Department has not traditionally implemented. In addition, USCIRF recommended that Turkmenistan and Tajikistan be designated as CPCs. While we applaud the State Department for implementing these recommendations, USCIRF encourages the Trump administration to lift the national security waiver paired with these CPC designations not only to reinforce that religious freedom is a priority for U.S. foreign policy, but also to emphasize the severity of religious freedom violations in these countries. Under IRFA, the administration may waive any presidential action typically paired with a CPC designation if it furthers U.S. policy on religious freedom or if it is in the important national interest of the United States.
The Hill
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Religious freedom is at a crossroads in US foreign policy
It is both ironic and tragic that the Department of State has implemented a massive reorganization, which may have troubling implications for America's international religious freedom policy. As recently approved, the reorganization subordinates the International Religious Freedom Office to the agenda and operational authority of the human rights bureau, foreshadowing a return of religious liberty to its former bureaucratic isolation. If this move stands, it may harm international religious freedom policy during the Trump administration, and provide a dangerous precedent that the next progressive secretary of State will certainly exploit. Here's the irony: In his first term, Trump issued an executive order accurately declaring that religious freedom is a 'moral and national security imperative,' and ordering steps to strengthen America's largely ineffective international religious freedom policy. That policy, which was established in 1998 by the International Religious Freedom Act, had languished within the State Department's liberal bureaucracy since its passage. It began to flourish under Trump's international religious freedom ambassador, Sam Brownback, when the International Religious Freedom Office was elevated out of the bureaucracy and finally given a degree of authority and responsibility commensurate with its foreign policy significance. The tragedy is that the vast potential of this policy, both for the global victims of cruel religious persecution and for the national security of the United States, may again go unfulfilled with the International Religious Freedom Office and the ambassador returned to their former station within the State Department's vast bureaucracy. To understand why this is so, a bit of history is in order. The International Religious Freedom Act created the position of ambassador at large for international religious freedom, with the mission of 'advancing religious freedom' as America's founders understood it — an inalienable right that warranted protection for all peaceful religious individuals and communities. Democrats have long rejected this understanding. In 1998, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made the claim that international religious freedom creates an illegitimate 'hierarchy of human rights,' enabling religious freedom to endanger other human rights. Albright placed the international religious freedom ambassador and the office under the human rights bureau; State's repository of progressive rights, such as abortion and gay marriage. It remained there for almost two decades. In 2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) cosponsored amendments to the International Religious Freedom Act to fix the problem by increasing the authority of the ambassador at large. No longer embedded in the human rights bureau, the ambassador was now 'to report directly to the secretary of State,' with the authority 'to coordinate international religious freedom policies' throughout the government. These changes coincided with Trump's first election and set the stage for Ambassador Brownback. Brownback used his authority to demonstrate the practical 'moral and national security' role that U.S. international religious freedom policy can play. He enticed scores of foreign ministers and thousands of civil society leaders to Washington to learn why the U.S. was committed to international religious freedom and how it could benefit their own nations. They heard the case that religious freedom is an inalienable right and at the core of human dignity, that it combats terrorism, that it can limit the powers of government and discourage external aggression, that nations committed to respecting religious freedom prosper significantly more than nations that do not. Brownback traveled the world to make these arguments. He roundly condemned the worst persecutors, including China's Xi Jinping, Iran's theocratic Ayatollahs, ISIS and Taliban terrorists and Russia's Vladimir Putin. He demonstrated that a bold and robust U.S. international religious freedom policy can benefit human rights and human dignity for everyone, and can benefit America's national security. Under the last administration, however, Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared that human rights were 'co-equal,' that is, that there are no inalienable rights. The enhanced authority of Biden's international religious freedom ambassador, given him by the 2016 International Religious Freedom Act amendments, was undercut. But Republican concessions to Democrats in the amendments, namely placing the rights of 'atheists and humanists' in the International Religious Freedom Act, were vigorously pursued by Blinken's human rights bureau. Programs promoting atheism were funded under the auspices of 'religious freedom.' Earlier this year, Trump named religious freedom champion Marco Rubio as his secretary of State, and the future of international religious freedom seemed bright again. And, the final rollout of the reorganization has revealed the designation of an undersecretary for Foreign Assistance, Humanitarian Affairs and Religious Freedom, a leadership position which had not previously existed in that form. But these salutary developments do not change the fact that the international religious freedom ambassador and his office should not have been moved back under the human rights bureau. It is unclear how the reorganization is compatible with the 2016 International Religious Freedom Act amendments. What, then, can be done? First, State Department leadership must preserve the full authority of the international religious freedom ambassador given him by law amid these sweeping structural changes. The value of the ambassador's work to America and the world was clearly demonstrated by Brownback. Second, such a massive reorganization should be followed by a mandatory, comprehensive assessment at six months of its efficacy across State's major functions and policy areas. When that time comes, the liabilities of placing the International Religious Freedom Office back in the human rights bureau should be scrutinized by House and Senate committees with jurisdiction. If the operational authority of the International Religious Freedom Office has been compromised and its ability to shape foreign policy limited by bureaucracy, then the office should be returned to its place directly under the secretary of State. Finally, history suggests that the precedent this reorganization is establishing may pave the way for a future administration to sideline U.S. international religious freedom policy yet again. State Department leadership must proceed with extreme caution in this reorganization to avoid the mistakes of their predecessors, who all-too-often weakened U.S. international religious freedom policy by isolating it within the State Department's enormous bureaucracy. Thomas Farr was the first director of the Office of International Religious Freedom, serving under Ambassadors Robert Seiple (Clinton) and John Hanford (Bush). He is president emeritus of the Religious Freedom Institute. David Trimble is president of the Religious Freedom Institute.
Business Recorder
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
US lawmakers warn Pakistan over ‘repression', hint at possible sanctions
KARACHI: The US Congress may soon urge President Donald Trump's administration to consider imposing sanctions on countries that suppress religious freedom and violate human rights, Republican Congressman Christopher H Smith suggested during a congressional hearing on Pakistan on Tuesday. 'One of the biggest disappointments — regardless of who is in the White House or at the State Department — is the absence of sanctions,' said Smith, who co-chairs the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission (TLHRC). Smith recalled that the only individual ever sanctioned under US religious freedom laws was Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, following the 2002 Gujarat riots. 'We are going to call on the Irfa office to consider imposing (sanctions) — especially in light of the terrible acts committed against people of various faiths,' he said. The Irfa office, based at the State Department, enforces the International Religious Freedom Act, which authorises the US government to designate and penalise countries that engage in or tolerate severe religious persecution. 'That's it. We've got 18 sanctions here, and we are going to impose them on you,' Smith declared during the hearing on Pakistan's current political and human rights situation. Amnesty International's advocacy director for Europe and Central Asia, Ben Linden; PTI leader Zulfi Bukhari; law firm Perseus Strategies' Managing Director Jared Genser; and Afghanistan Impact Network founder Sadiq Amini provided their testimonies during the hearing. Although the TLHRC does not directly recommend sanctions, Smith's remarks were widely seen as a signal that such measures may be under consideration if current trends persist. His Democratic counterpart, Congressman James McGovern, echoed the concern. 'A vibrant Pakistani community in Massachusetts engages me all the time, and quite frankly, they are worried about the signals coming from our government right now,' he said. The hearing also addressed last week's White House meeting between Trump and Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir. Bukhari, a former close aide to Imran, told the panel: 'President Trump wanted to meet someone who is calling the shots. That's why he met the army chief.' Bukhari claimed nearly 200 politically motivated cases had been filed against Imran and his wife, Bushra Bibi. He alleged that 'fundamental rights had been suspended' in Pakistan, the media silenced, and judicial independence undermined through 'coercive' amendments. He also questioned the legality of the February 2024 elections, which PTI has repeatedly alleged were rigged, and criticised the military trials of civilians that he said led to the conviction of dozens of party members and supporters. 'This is a purge,' he said. 'It's not justice.' Toward the end of Bukhari's statement, Smith urged the US administration to sit up and take notice of the situation in Pakistan. He also urged the Trump administration to 'redouble its commitment to democracy and human rights' in the South Asian country. Speaking about the political climate in Pakistan, McGovern added: 'They need to know that people are watching. They need to know we don't like what we are hearing.' The bipartisan hearing focused on civil liberties and political freedoms in Pakistan, highlighting reports of repression, persecution of minorities, and efforts to silence dissidents abroad. Amnesty's Ben Linden opened his testimony by raising concerns over the situation in Balochistan. 'Dr Mahrang and other Baloch detainees should be freed,' he said, referring to the rights activist who has been in prison for more than three months over cases on allegedly 'attacking' the Quetta Civil Hospital and 'inciting people to violence'. Linden warned that recent crackdowns on PTI supporters should be seen in the context of a broader assault on fundamental rights. In 2024 alone, over 300 new blasphemy cases were registered — most against Muslims. 'Several of the accused were killed extra-judicially,' Linden said, calling the trend 'a tragedy'. He also condemned the recent blocking of US-based YouTube channels critical of Pakistan's military, describing the move as 'totally unacceptable'. However, Jared Genser of Perseus Strategies stressed that Washington could not afford to disengage entirely. 'We don't act that way with any regime. We have to engage. The key is for President Trump and Secretary (of State) Marco Rubio to say very clearly: we want a strong relationship with Pakistan, but this is what needs to be done to get there. And that includes releasing (ex-prime minister) Imran Khan and other political prisoners,' Genser said. He noted: 'We need to talk about the tragedy that Pakistan is today in terms of human rights. The Pakistani diaspora is a ray of hope.' McGovern concurred: 'We need to talk. We need to engage. And we need to be talking about political prisoners, the future of Imran Khan … but also how you do it.' In earlier remarks, TLHRC Co-chair Smith warned that the US 'cannot stand by' while military influence allegedly subverts civilian rule in Pakistan. Earlier on Tuesday, US lawmakers also heard disturbing accounts of harassment faced by Pakistani dissidents in the US. Multiple speakers alleged that within 48 hours of a protest outside the Pakistani Embassy in Washington on June 14, 'family members of critics were abducted in Pakistan.' Lawmakers, including Democratic representatives Jimmy Panetta, Suhas Subramanyam and Greg Casar, expressed support for safeguarding the civil liberties of Pakistani Americans. During the commission's hearing, speakers also urged Congress to oversee foreign surveillance operations on US soil and to press technology companies to resist censorship demands from foreign military courts. Established in 2008 and named after Holocaust survivor and former House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Tom Lantos, the TLHRC holds bipartisan hearings to guide US human rights policy. Tuesday's session underscored longstanding concerns about Pakistan's democratic trajectory and signalled growing interest in potential policy responses — including targeted sanctions. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Indian Express
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Ram Madhav writes: What the current discourse on religious freedom gets wrong
In an interesting report, 'Changing the conversation about religious freedom: An integral human development approach', published in June last year, the Atlantic Council, a US-based think tank, claimed that it was seeking 'a new approach to religious freedom that integrates it with integral human development (IHD)'. In a welcome departure from the earlier practice of demonising countries in the name of religious freedom, the report argued that religious freedom should not only be treated as a human right but also as 'a crucial component of overall human flourishing and sustainable development'. Religious freedom became a bogey to defame countries after the US Congress passed the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) in 1998 and created the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) to 'monitor, analyse and report on violations of religious freedom worldwide'. The commission's annual reports have acquired notoriety for misrepresenting facts, often with an alleged political bias, in branding several countries as 'Countries of Particular Concern' (CPCs). Several countries have questioned its locus standi in interfering in their sovereign affairs. India took an aggressive stand by refusing to recognise the commission and denying visas to its officials. Earlier this year, the Ministry of External Affairs not only rejected the commission's 2025 report, which included India as one of the CPCs, but went further to brand the commission an 'entity of concern'. The USCIRF's reports have no sanctity outside the four walls of the US Congress. Yet, they have helped create a 'religious freedom industry'. A breed of 'religious freedom ambassadors' has emerged in over 30 countries. Religious freedom, per se, is not contentious. Several democracies, including India, hold it as sacrosanct. Articles 25 to 30 of the Indian Constitution offer various freedoms to religions including the freedom of conscience, the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate, and the freedom to manage their affairs without state intervention. Minority religions enjoy positive discrimination by way of special rights to run educational and cultural institutions. The same rights are not available to the majority Hindu religion. India is the only country where people of all religions, including several Christian denominations and Muslim sects, coexist in harmony. It's not that there are no religious tensions, but they must be seen in the context of India's population of a billion-plus Hindus, almost 200 million Muslims and 40 million Christians. In its long history, Hindu society has endured enormous religious persecution by invading Mughal armies as well as violent religious inquisitions by Christian rulers like the Portuguese in Goa. The country was partitioned in 1947 on religious grounds after a brutal and violent campaign led by the Muslim League. That history has made the leaders of modern India recognise the need for strengthening the bond of national unity based not only on political and constitutional foundations but also on cultural and civilisational ethos. Religious bigotry and fundamentalism — majority or minority — were rejected and emphasis was laid on creating a national mainstream. For a vast and diverse country with a long history of religious strife, that's not an easy task. Yet, occasional outbursts notwithstanding, India has achieved commendable success in demonstrating unity and harmony. Still, India remained in the USCIRF's crosshairs. There are two important reasons for that bias. One is that the commission places its religious freedom discourse in a Eurocentric framework. It refuses to take into account country-specific sensitivities. Two, it relies on scholars who are reportedly biased. I was at a conference in Rome recently where the Atlantic Council's initiative to view religious freedom from the prism of integral human development was the central theme. Propounded first by Jacques Maritain, a French Catholic philosopher, in 1936, and followed three decades later by Deendayal Upadhyaya, the ideological father figure of the BJP, Integral humanism emphasises the need to rise above religions to secure not only the material but ethical, moral and spiritual well-being of individuals. It advocates a pluralistic approach for achieving such an integral development. It is imperative that the religious freedom discourse be situated in the national context to achieve a proper understanding of the role of religions in the integral growth of people. The Indian Constitution imposes reasonable restrictions on public order, morality and health on all fundamental rights, including the freedom of religion. That calls for religions that came from outside to internalise the cultural experience of India, in which pluralism and respect for all religions is an important basic principle. No religion can claim universality or superiority. Hence, in the Indian context, the religious narrative should shift from 'one god' to 'only god' — everything is divine — and 'one truth' to 'only truth'. Religious conversions are an important challenge in this context. In a landmark judgment in Rev. Stainislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), the Supreme Court held that the right to 'propagate' does not include the right to proselytise and hence there is no fundamental right to convert another person. The Court clarified that it does not impinge on the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution, but rather, protects it. It may be worthwhile to recall that Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis had criticised proselytism, albeit in the limited context of Catholics being won over by other denominations. A proper understanding of the cultural and civilisational experiences of various nations helps in reframing the religious freedom discourse in the right perspective. Otherwise, the Atlantic Council's efforts will also be seen as 'a form of 'cultural imperialism' or a 'Western' endeavour with a hidden agenda', to borrow from its own report. The writer, president, India Foundation, is with the BJP. Views are personal
Times of Oman
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Times of Oman
USCIRF should be designated as entity of concern: India slams US panel's religious freedom report
New Delhi : The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has said that the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) should be designated as an entity of concern and noted that the USCIRF 2025 Annual Report "once again continues its pattern of issuing biased and politically motivated assessments. In response to media queries regarding the 2025 Annual Report of USCIRF, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, "We have seen the recently released 2025 Annual Report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), which once again continues its pattern of issuing biased and politically motivated assessments." "The USCIRF's persistent attempts to misrepresent isolated incidents and cast aspersions on India's vibrant multicultural society reflect a deliberate agenda rather than a genuine concern for religious freedom," the MEA spokesperson said. Jaiswal noted that India has a population of 1.4 billion people who are adherents to all religions known to mankind and stressed that India has no expectation that USCIRF will "engage with the reality of India's pluralistic framework or acknowledge the harmonious coexistence of its diverse communities." Randhir Jaiswal said, "India is home to 1.4 billion people who are adherents to all religions known to mankind. However, we have no expectation that the USCIRF will engage with the reality of India's pluralistic framework or acknowledge the harmonious coexistence of its diverse communities." "Such efforts to undermine India's standing as a beacon of democracy and tolerance will not succeed. In fact, it is the USCIRF that should be designated as an entity of concern," he added. In the report, USCIRF urged the US government to designate India as a "country of particular concern" or CPC "for engaging in and tolerating systematic, ongoing, and egregious religious freedom violations", as defined by the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA). The report alleged that the religious freedom conditions in India in 2024 continued to deteriorate as attacks and discrimination against religious minorities continued to rise.
