Article 27

In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.<sup>3</sup>

The covenant has been ratified by many countries, with well documented human rights abuses including North Korea and signed, though not ratified, by China. In 1981 concerned at the continuing discrimination and persecution of religion a Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief reemphasised the UN's commitment, along with its 182 signatory nations, to protecting the freedom for people to practice their faith individually and in community. The Declaration further emphasised the emancipatory value and role for religion in the aims and objectives of the United Nations:

Convinced that freedom of religion and belief should also contribute to the attainment of the goals of world peace, social justice and friendship among peoples and to the elimination of ideologies or practices of colonialism and racial discrimination.<sup>4</sup>

The enthusiasm for incorporating IRF as an important aspect of US foreign policy has its origins in a growing awareness and concern by initially Christian advocacy groups, and prominent evangelicals of the persecution of Christians around the world in the immediate post-Cold War era. The 'suffering or persecuted church' had been an area of particular concern behind the iron curtain, spearheaded by the work of tortured Romanian pastor Richard Wurmbrand and God's Smuggler Brother Andrew's Open Doors organisation during the Cold War, and attracted much support among American evangelicals (Wurmbrand 2004; Andrew 2015). Amongst this group there was an increasing concern about the continued persecution of Christians in the remaining communist countries, including Vietnam, North Korea and China, and in a number of Muslim-majority countries (Bettiza 2019, pp. 57–58).

Bettiza identifies a coalition emerging about the plight of Southern Sudanese Christians in Sudan's civil war (1983–2005). The group consisted of evangelicals identified with the Christian Right, such as Richard Land (president of the Southern Baptist's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission), Pat Robertson (Christian Coalition), James Dobson (Family Research Council) and Beverly LaHaye (Concerned Women of America). The National Association of Evangelicals released a Statement of Conscience Concerning Worldwide Religious Persecution in 1996, highlighting the importance of the issue. These were joined by anti-persecution and missionary organisations including Voice of the Martyrs, Open Doors, Christian Solidarity International, International Christian Concern and Christian Freedom International. The final part of this coalition were those Christian and Jewish policy analysts in conservative think tanks, including Paul Marshall and Nina Shea at Freedom House and Michael Horowitz at the Hudson Institute (Bettiza 2019, pp. 57–60; Marshall and Gilbert 1997; Marshall and Shea 2011; Marshall et al. 2013).

<sup>3</sup> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Available at https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/ CCPR.aspx Accessed 2 April 2020.

<sup>4</sup> Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Available at https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/ReligionOrBelief.aspx Accessed 3 April 2020.

The coalition coalesced around support for Congressman Frank Wolf (R-Virginia) and Senator Arlen Specter's (R-Pennsylvania) IRFA.<sup>5</sup> Wolf's original concern had been largely for persecuted Christians, with limited appeal across both houses of Congress, by expanding an anti-persecution rhetoric into a positive a ffirmation and promotion of religious freedom internationally, the coalition was able to draw in those other faiths or those concerned about them (Bettiza 2019, p. 60; Castelli 2007; Hertzke 2004; Jewish Telegraph Agency 1998). The IRFA brought international religious liberty to the attention of the US foreign policy community, creating the O ffice for International Religious Freedom (OIRF) in the US State Department, and the position of Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom. The Ambassador-at-Large would be a key driver of IRF policy, working closely with the Secretary of State, and being the main conduit for information on IRF to the President.<sup>6</sup> The Act requires the President to designate those nations which commit 'systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom' as 'countries of particular concern' (CPCs), and for the State department to produce an annual report on the state of religious freedom in all the countries of the world. In addition, it created the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an independent and bipartisan federal governmen<sup>t</sup> commission made up of five appointees from the President's party, and four from the opposition (three presidential appointments—one selected by the leaders of the House and Senate of the President's party, and two each from the leaders of the House and Senate from the non-presidential party.

Each year, USCIRF produces an annual report on the state of IRF and provides policy recommendations to the US government, in accordance with IRFA. The Act requires the President, who has delegated this function to the Secretary of State, to designate as "countries of particular concern" (CPCs) those nations that qualify as the world's most severe religious freedom violators. The Commission recommends countries that, in its view, meet the CPC threshold (Leo and Argue 2012, p. 67). Under the IRFA both the State Department and USCIRF submit reports annually on international religious freedom. The USCIRF di ffers from State's by only reporting on selected countries it has particular concerns over. USCIRF's report discuss conditions in those countries, analyses US policy toward them and make policy recommendations. These reports hold the executive branch to account over their implementation of IRFA (USCIRF 2016).

As an indication of the continued traction of IRF as a foreign policy concern, the legislative branch has added two further pieces of legislation: The Near East and South Central Asia Religious Freedom Act of 2014 with a Special Advisor for Religious Minorities in this region, and at the very end of the Obama administration, in December 2016, the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act, which strengthened the 1998 act by mandating the US executive to introduce a Special Watch List for those countries not ye<sup>t</sup> deemed as bad as the designated CPCs. The Frank Wolf Act further introduced "Entities of Particular Concern" and "Designated Persons List" for non-state actors abusing religious freedom. The State Department was also obliged to develop an online training course on IRF for all foreign service o fficers.<sup>7</sup>

### **2. International Religious Freedom as a US Foreign Policy Instrument**

The IRF advocacy coalition has developed and grown in confidence since the early campaigns around the IRFA. While it is undeniable that leading supporters of mainstreaming IRF as a US foreign policy strategy are overwhelmingly Christian, they have developed a broad-based coalition across political and religious divides to strongly advocate for IRF as an indispensable component of human

<sup>5</sup> Freedom from Religious Persecution Act of 1997—Establishes in the Executive O ffice of the President the O ffice of Religious Persecution Monitoring. Available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/2431/summary/00 accessed 1 May 2020.

<sup>6</sup> H.R. 2431. International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. Available at https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll\_call\_lists/ roll\_call\_vote\_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2&vote=00310 accessed 1 May 2020.

<sup>7</sup> Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act 2016. Available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/housebill/1150 Accessed 1 May 2020.

flourishing. The USCIRF has included Muslims, Jews, a Hindu, alongside evangelicals, mainline Protestants and Catholics among its commissioners. The five Ambassadors-at-Large to date have included a Jewish rabbi. For Thomas Farr, who served as the first director of the OIRF and founded the Religious Freedom Institute in 2016, religious freedom has emancipatory potential and is an essential component of stable self-government because it:

... protects the rights of individuals and groups to act publicly in ways consistent with belief. This positive understanding of religious freedom implicates justice for individuals and communities, and the long-term stability of the democratic state. It includes, most importantly, the right to influence public policy within limits roughly similar to those that apply to other individuals and associations in civil society. (Farr 2008, p. 18)

Chris Seiple, of the Institute for Global Engagement (IGE), considers that it is a function of the 'innate dignity' of humans to 'possess the inherent freedom to believe in whatever they want, religious or otherwise, as well as practice and share those beliefs in private and public settings'. As such ... 'religious freedom is the legally-protected and culturally-accepted opportunity to choose, change, share, or reject beliefs of any kind, including religious ones, and to bring those beliefs to public discussions' (Seiple 2012, p. 98). This is interpreted as a universal value, which he argues, with fellow IGE member Dennis Hoover, is necessary for sustainable security, and which Allen Hertzke claims is essential for societies to flourish peacefully (Seiple and Hoover 2012; Hertzke 2012, p. 4).

The linkage of religious freedom and human flourishing is echoed by Brian Grim, formerly of Pew Forum, and author of numerous reports tracking religious harassment and discrimination around the world, before establishing the Religious Freedom and Business Foundation. Grim is one of a number of scholars, including Roger Finks, Daniel Philpott and Alfred Stepan, linking religious freedom to economic prosperity, stable societies and the promotion of other human rights as necessary components for healthy democracies, and therefore an essential component of US foreign policy, to bring about a more prosperous and pacific international order (see (Grim 2008; Grim and Finke 2010; Grim et al. 2014; Philpott and Shah 2016; Stepan 2000).

As the currency of democracy promotion as a US foreign policy strategy has devalued, following the policy failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, so increasingly IRF is presented by its proponents as a necessary tool in the United States' diplomatic box. IRF is presented as national security issue in the same way democracy promotion has been, and attracting similar criticism of universalising American values. Where countries are not persecuting domestic minorities and are accepting of those of other beliefs or no beliefs, then, the argumen<sup>t</sup> goes, they are more likely to live peaceably with other countries, and to increase the wellbeing of their own citizens (Chicago Council on Global A ffairs 2010; Inboden 2012; Farr 2014). Promoting IRF, it is argued, helps to di ffuse the suspicion of religion as a potential cause of conflict and disempowers radical religionists:

Real or imagined security threats emanating from religion inspire overzealous repression of religion, which ironically creates the conditions that genuine religious radicals are seeking: an atmosphere in which the radicals are the only opposition to the state, which builds sympathy for them among those who would otherwise be religious moderates, therefore decreasing the legitimacy of the state. (Seiple and Hoover 2012, p. 321)

Although the IRFA became law in 1998, it was slow to gain traction. Neither the Clinton or Bush administrations accorded the IRFA high priority, US foreign policy misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq identified the Bush administration as intervening militarily in Muslim majority countries and showing little regard for interfaith dialogue. While the USCIRF continued to highlight religious freedom abuses around the world, and o fficials within the OIRF worked diligently to try and raise the profile of IRF, it was not until the Obama administration that IRF began to gain momentum as a US foreign policy instrument. Obama's Cairo speech was intended to kickstart a new relationship with the Muslim majority world and engage in interfaith dialogue, in distinction to his predecessor's

more unilateralist approach.<sup>8</sup> In February 2010, the Interagency Working Group on Religion & Global A ffairs brought together federal agencies to enhance religious engagemen<sup>t</sup> and establish a Religion and Foreign Policy Working Group. Religious education training was developed for foreign service operatives and according to Judd Birdsall, a practitioner serving in the IRF O ffice it became 'integrated and respected in ways that were unimaginable in previous administrations' (Birdsall 2012, p. 37). The OIRF worked with other State Department o ffices, the White House and US Embassies, in organising inter-faith conferences, in the belief that dialogue and diplomacy could advance the cause of religious freedom more than the blunt instrument of sanctions. Diplomatic e fforts by the OIRC working with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and building alliances managed to overturn the OIC's resolution on Defamation of Religions, which had received majority UN General Assembly backing, seeking to protect and extend blasphemy laws (Birdsall 2012, p. 37). The OIRF received a significant boost when Rabbi David Saperstein was appointed Ambassador-at-Large in January 2015. Saperstein already enjoyed a significant reputation for interfaith dialogue and as lobbyist on Capitol Hill. Saperstein worked closely with the Canadians to develop an intergovernmental contact group bringing together like-minded governments eager to promote religious freedom. Although the annual IRF report and the USCIRF reports provided ample opportunity to castigate countries of particular concern, Saperstein's style, which enjoyed bipartisan support, was to travel extensively visiting 25 countries to build alliances and win support for religious freedom. He raised concerns with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Sudan, Burma, Iraq and Nigeria about blasphemy and apostasy laws and laws pertaining to the defamation of religion.<sup>9</sup> Saperstein used diplomacy to persuade governments to make incremental changes to their approaches to IRF, and set piece events, such as the launch of the annual IRF Report, to challenge serial o ffenders, including Iran, for its treatment of Sunnis, Bahais, Christian converts, Sufis, Yarsanis and Zoroastrians; Vietnam, Burma, Russia, China and Tajikistan. Working closely with Secretary of State John Kerry, the OIRF was better resourced and able to pursue diplomacy in advancing the IRF agenda.

And since my appointment, we have been given significant increases in sta ff and resources, allowing us to expand our country monitoring work, to increase our visits to country where our religious freedom advocacy can make a constructive di fference, and to increase our already robust programmatic work internationally.<sup>10</sup>

Following the 2016 election, the work of the OIRF continued, but waited twelve months to appoint a successor to Saperstein as Ambassador-at-Large. Sam Brownback, an early and enthusiastic supporter of the IRFA and a Catholic, had represented Kansas in the House, Senate and as governor. Democrats resisted his nomination because of his record on LGBT and pro-life issues, and his nomination was secured only with the casting vote of Vice President Mike Pence in the Senate vote. The appointment of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State in April 2018 added renewed zeal for the promotion of IRF as a foreign policy strategy, in pursuit of US national interests. On 24–26 July 2018, just three months after being sworn in as Secretary of State, Pompeo and Sam Brownback organised and hosted an inaugural Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom in Washington, DC. The event brought together around 350 faith ministers and activists representing 80 nations to discuss ways to advance IRF. The Secretary of State opened the event, setting out the priority accorded religious freedom in the Trump administration:

<sup>8</sup> Barack Obama speech 'On a New Beginning' at Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. 4 June 2009. Available at https: //obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-o ffice/remarks-president-cairo-university-6-04-09 accessed 2 May 2020.

<sup>9</sup> David N. Saperstein. Remarks at the Release of the 2014 Report on International Religious Freedom. Washington, DC. 14 October 2015. Available at https://20092017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/10/248201.htm accessed 2 May 2020.International Religious Freedom Report and Briefing on the Release of the 2015 Annual Report on International Freedom (IRF). Available at https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/238390.pdf 2014, accessed 2 May2020 and International Religious Freedom Report for 2015. Available at https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom//index.htm, accessed 3 May 2020.

<sup>10</sup> David N. Saperstein. Briefing on the Release of the 2015 Annual Report on International Freedom (IRF). Washington, DC. 10 August 2016. Available at https://20092017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/08/260962.htm accessed 4 May 2020.

The Trump administration recognizes that religious freedom is a fundamental American liberty, and this has been clear from the administration's earliest days and indeed the earliest days of our nation.

The United States advances religious freedom in our foreign policy because it is not exclusively an American right. It is a God-given universal right bestowed on all of mankind. Seventy years ago, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a ffirmed this when 48 nations declared that "everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion."<sup>11</sup>

Vice President Pence brought greetings to the Ministerial from the President, and assured delegates that 'religious freedom is a top priority of this administration' ... 'We do this because it is right. But we also do this because religious freedom is in the interest of the peace and security of the world'.<sup>12</sup> The Vice President used his speech to castigate China for its treatment of the Uighur and Tibetan Buddhists, Russia for its treatment of Jehovah's Witnesses, Iran for persecution of Sunni Muslims, Christians, Jews and Bahai, the Nicaraguan governmen<sup>t</sup> of Daniel Ortega for attacks on the Catholic Church, ISIS abuses of the Yazidis and Turkey for its incarnation of pastor Andrew Brunson. He also announced the establishment of a Genocide Recovery and Persecution Response Program. The most significant outcome of the Ministerial, however, was the launch of the Potomac Declaration.

The Potomac Declaration builds on Article 18 of the UDHR celebrating religious freedom as a universal, God-given right. It a ffirms the reality of widespread persecution based on religion, and the obligation of all countries to promote religious freedom to contribute towards international peace and human flourishing. There should be no discrimination or coercion in religion to force religious observance or conformity. Individuals should be free to worship, or not, as they chose, and free to exercise their conscience in all things. Further, the Declaration a ffirms that religious freedom is an individual, rather than a collective right:

Religious freedom applies to all individuals as right-holders. Believers can exercise this right alone or in community with others, and in public or private. While religions do not have human rights themselves, religious communities and their institutions benefit through the human rights enjoyed by their individual members. (OIRF 2018a)

The Declaration was followed by a plan of action for countries around the world to put into practice to promote religious freedom. Sixty-five policy recommendations were divided into seven subsections, including: Defending the Human Right of Freedom of Religion or Belief; Confronting Legal Limitations; Advocating for Equal Rights and Protections for All, Including Members of Religious Minorities; Responding to Genocide and other Mass Atrocities; Preserving Cultural Heritage; Promoting and Protecting Religious Freedom and Tolerance in Schools; Protecting persecuted minorities in conflict and crisis settings; and Strengthening the Response, which calls for greater attention and resourcing in pursuance of religious freedom (OIRF 2018b).

The 2018 Ministerial enabled IRF to gather further momentum, and the following year a second one took place again in Washington DC in July. On this occasion, the first time a Secretary of State has held back-to-back ministerials on the same human rights issue, over one thousand civil society and religious leaders from one hundred countries attended. In his opening address, Pompeo described the countries represented as di fferent, but having the same objective in advancing religious freedom, and to rea ffirm the principle that: 'All people from every place on the globe must be permitted to practice their faith openly—in their homes, in their places of worship, in the public square—and believe what

<sup>11</sup> Michael R. Pompeo, Remarks at the Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom, Washington DC, 26 July 2018. Available at https://www.state.gov/remarks-at-the-ministerial-to-advance-religious-freedom/ accessed 1 April 2020.

<sup>12</sup> Michael Pence. Remarks at Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom, Washington DC, 26 July 2018. available at https:// www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-vice-president-pence-ministerial-advance-religious-freedom/ accessed 2 April 2020.

they want to believe'.<sup>13</sup> The delegates renewed their commitment to actively promote IRF around the globe. Rather than positioning the advancement of religious freedom as a uniquely US responsibility or passion, religious freedom must become normative in national and international politics. Poland took responsibility to host a third Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom in Warsaw July 2020.

In their first two years at the State Department, Mike Pompeo and Ambassador Brownback have been relentless in pursuing and expanding the reach of IRF in terms of raising its profile and bringing together like-minded countries in support. In June 2019, the Secretary of State announced the establishment of a Commission on Unalienable Rights, to advise on the promotion of individual freedom, equality and democracy through US foreign policy, linking this to the principle of religious freedom and an appeal to the Declaration of Independence and natural law (Pompeo 2019; Risse 2020, p. 13). The status of the OIRF has been increased, with additional sta ffing resources for OIRF, and the Ambassador-at-Large Sam Brownback continues to report directly to the Secretary of State.<sup>14</sup> Brownback has visited numerous countries during his tenure, pursuing diplomacy to seek to bring about internal change on IRF. He has used set piece speeches to bring international attention to the plight of the Rohingya and Uighur Muslims; the treatment of Buddhists by the Chinese authorities in Tibet; and human rights and religious freedom abuses in Eritrea, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Pakistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.<sup>15</sup> Brownback has also used Twitter, speeches and remarks to call for the release of Bahai hostages held by the Houthi in Yemen, and to denounce Boko Haram and Fulani herdsmen for their targeted persecution of Christians in Nigeria. The ill treatment of religious minorities in Bahrain, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Cuba., Haiti, Russia's Jehovah's Witnesses, Nicaragua and North Korea has also been emphasised. Rather than the United States being a lone voice, diplomatic e fforts have brought together a growing number of countries around the world seeking to advance religious freedom. Over the course of the Obama and Trump administrations, IRF policy has become increasingly multilateral and international.

The international momentum for religious freedom has developed with Poland leading a UN initiative to declare an annual International Day Commemorating the Victims of Violence Based on Religion or Belief on 22 August. An event on religious freedom at the United Nations in September 2019 was addressed by President Trump, Vice President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. Trump chaired meetings and publicly chastised Iran, Iraq, China, Venezuela and Nicaragua for religious freedom rights abuses.<sup>16</sup> In February 2020, Pompeo and Brownback were able to announce the formation of a 27 nation International Religious Freedom Alliance, committed to advancing the cause of IRF, and based on existing international legislation on human rights and the emphasis on religious belief that critics have found so problematic.

The Alliance intends to advocate for freedom of religion or belief for all, which includes the right of individuals to hold any belief or none, to change religion or belief and to manifest religion or belief, either alone or in community with others, in worship, observance, practice and teaching. (OIRF 2020)

<sup>13</sup> Michael R. Pompeo. Remarks at the Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom, Washington, DC 16 July. Available at https://www.state.gov/secretary-of-state-michael-r-pompeo-at-the-ministerial-to-advance-religious-freedom/ accessed 2 April 2020.

<sup>14</sup> Michael R. Pompeo. Remarks at the Release of the 2018 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom Washington, DC, 21 June 2019 available at https://www.state.gov/secretary-of-state-michael-r-pompeo-at-the-release-of-the-2018-annualreport-on-international-religious-freedom/ accessed 2 April 2020.

<sup>15</sup> Samuel D. Brownback, Special Briefing on International Religious Freedom Report 2018. Washington, D.C. 21 November 2019. Available at https://www.state.gov/ambassador-at-large-for-international-religious-freedom-samuel-brownback/ accessed 2 May 2020.

<sup>16</sup> Donald J. Trump. Remarks at the United Nations Event on Religious Freedom. United Nations Headquarters, New York, NY 23 September 2019. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-unitednations-event-religious-freedom-new-york-ny/ accessed 1 April 2020.
