Search
Displaying results 1 - 10 of 10
July 30, 2018
Jul 30, 2018
This op-ed originally appeared in The Hill on July 27, 2018.
By former USCIRF Commissioners Tenzin Dorjee and Kristina Arriaga
To the surprise of many, there is a foreign policy issue on which the White House and Democrats and Republicans in Congress have agreed for over two decades: the global promotion and protection of religious freedom, defined as the fundamental human right to believe in and be guided by any faith, or none.
As articulated in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and codified in the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA), freedom of religion or belief means the rights of citizens are not dependent on their religious identity, practices or beliefs. This “first freedom” is the basis for many other rights, like the freedoms of speech, expression and association. In many countries where religious freedom is denied, not only are those countries’ inhabitants at risk, their national security and stability is undermined. Relatedly, freedom of religion or belief is crucial to America’s national security.
Republicans and Democrats alike recognize that where freedom of religion or belief is restricted, poverty and violence begin. It is in the countries that deprive their citizens of freedom of conscience that human trafficking and forced labor flourish. And it is in these countries that the roots of terrorism are sown.
The Trump administration seems to be especially cognizant of these threats to human dignity and regional and global security and stability. This week, the Department of State hosted the first Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom, which drew hundreds of those involved in the global fight to defend religious freedom. Representatives of governments, international organizations, religious communities, civil society and others shared information, built awareness, debated policies and collaborated on solutions for people worldwide who are oppressed and persecuted because of their beliefs.
Religious freedom violations — ranging from discrimination to forced conversions to mass atrocities — are increasing in countries with authoritarian regimes that are aligned with their countries’ majority religions, or fearful of the influence of moral principles or alternative expressions they can’t control.
Among the 16 countries that the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) considers “Countries of Particular Concern (CPC),” Pakistan is an example of the former; the government both actively persecutes religious minorities and turns a blind eye to discrimination and violence perpetrated against them by others. Examples of the latter include Vietnam, where communism is the only respected ideology or “belief.”
USCIRF has recommended to the State Department that these two countries (plus the Central African Republic, Nigeria, Russia and Syria) be designated as CPCs, which, under IRFA, would require the administration to take actions such as imposing Global Magnitsky sanctions, economic sanctions or travel limitations, to encourage improvements in freedom of religion or belief.
Tools the United States and other like-minded countries can use to promote and defend religious freedom were chief among the topics raised at the ministerial.
Another issue discussed is the link between violations of religious freedom and women's rights. Along with increased rates of sex trafficking, child and forced marriages, and gender-based violence in countries that deprive their citizens of freedom of conscience, there is little room for human rights defenders to mobilize to advocate for women’s rights.
In addition to addressing the countries that violate religious freedom, ministerial attendees sought solutions to the egregious religious freedom violations being committed by “Entities of Particular Concern (EPCs)." USCIRF has identified as EPCs and called for action against three of the most violent such groups: ISIS, which has committed genocide against Yazidis, Christians, and Shi’a Muslims in Iraq; the Taliban, whose extremist interpretations of Sharia law have led to honor killings and denials of women’s right to education and other basic rights in Afghanistan; and the al Qaeda-aligned al-Shabaab that that has killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, in Somalia.
Countries and organizations that suppress religious freedom threaten American and global security. Everyone should be encouraged by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s initiative to hold this ministerial. Protecting this fundamental right is not just a means of demonstrating our country’s bipartisan commitment to human dignity and global peace and stability, it’s in our national security interest.
Tenzin Dorjee serves as chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). Kristina Arriaga serves as vice chair of USCIRF.
January 27, 2017
Jan 27, 2017
The following op-ed appeared in Deseret News on January 27, 2017
By former USCIRF Commissioners Clifford D. May and Tenzin Dorjee
As the world commemorates International Holocaust Remembrance Day, marking the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp 71 years ago, European Jews no longer face a single, continent-wide regime seeking their destruction.
Nonetheless, today, 71 years after liberation from Hitler, they face a rising anti-Semitism across European societies. From denying the Holocaust to threatening another Shoah, from painting Nazi swastikas and scrawling death threats on synagogues and graves, to taunting, accosting and assaulting Jews in religious garb, Jew haters are revealing themselves through word and deed.
This rise has diverse sources, including jihadists, neo-Nazis and members of political organizations. All of them share a propensity to use bigoted words, imagery and stereotypes drawn from Europe’s ancient legacy of hatred of Jews.
The problem is clear. The question is what governments, officials and others are doing about it.
Unfortunately, in Eastern Europe, some governments and political parties are doing worse than nothing. While some are denying or downplaying the rise in anti-Semitism, others are fueling it by displaying pro-Nazi sympathies and tolerating Holocaust revisionism among their members and supporters.
Fortunately, in Western Europe, governments and officials largely admit that anti-Semitism is real and is growing.
They acknowledge that since the turn of the century, anti-Jewish graffiti increasingly has appeared in Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Malmo, London, Rome and other cities. They admit that there have been repeated threats and acts of violence. They agree that since World War II, Jewish citizens have never been more afraid to wear or display religious articles — from skullcaps (yarmulkes) on their heads to mezuzahs on their doorposts — revealing themselves to be Jews.
But in practice, the governments or political parties of some of these same leaders still fall short in at least two ways.
First, in an ironic twist, rather than allaying the fears of some Jews to don religious garb or engage in familiar religious practices, some are adding to these fears by supporting legal bans or restrictions. France and Belgium bar some students and government workers from wearing “conspicuous” religious symbols, including yarmulkes. At least four countries — Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland — ban kosher slaughter. In Norway and Germany, efforts have been advanced to ban infant male circumcision.
These restrictions and bans also affect members of other religious groups. For instance, Christians confront limitations on wearing crosses, and Muslims face restrictions on donning head scarves and bans on halal slaughter. Behind these infringements on religious freedom is an ideological impetus to sweep the public square clean of religious expression or practice, confining such expressions and practices to homes and places of worship.
Second, when haters attack Jews, criminal justice systems in Europe often fail to deem the perpetrators anti-Semitic.
Earlier this month, a court in Wuppertal, Germany, upheld a lower court’s ruling in the 2015 sentencing of three Germans of Palestinian descent to probation for setting fire to a synagogue in July 2014, the same synagogue the Nazis had burned in 1938 during the Kristallnacht pogroms. The court concurred that since they were incensed about Israel’s actions in the Middle East, their act of arson did not constitute anti-Semitism.
Similarly, in a speech titled, “Combating Global Anti-Semitism in 2016,” Ira Forman, the U.S. special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism, noted that, according to Jewish leaders in Sweden, police in Stockholm classified recent graffiti with swastikas as “actions against Israel,” not anti-Semitism. He quoted a leader as saying, “If you are hurt wearing a kippa [yarmulke], it is classified as anti-Zionism. …”
In these instances, criminal justice systems were confronting two phenomena — anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. While rightly affirming one can oppose Israeli policies without automatically being anti-Semitic, they wrongly denied the obvious:
Deliberately targeting Jewish property, or demonizing or attacking people simply for being Jewish inescapably is anti-Semitic. These actions should neither be excused nor minimized, rationalized nor redefined, but called out and condemned.
It is time for nations to deal forthrightly with the problem. Holocaust denial must be confronted and refuted. Religious freedom must be honored by protecting Jews from violence and removing restrictions on peaceful religious practices. Jews should be free to live as Jews and as citizens of their respective countries, and to speak, write, assemble and associate without fear or intimidation.
And as Europeans confront anti-Semitism, so must people everywhere reject hatred and embrace dignity and humanity. There is no greater lesson from the Holocaust. While the attempt to eradicate the entire Jewish people was horrifyingly unique in planning, effort and intent, the mindset of hatred extended to others. From the Roma to the mentally and physically disabled, it degraded, dehumanized and destroyed the lives of millions more.
And so, as we mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day, and its U.N. theme this year, “Educating for a Better Future,” let us stand against all forms of hatred and bigotry.
August 27, 2018
Aug 27, 2018
This op-ed originally appeared in The Globe Post on September 18, 2018.
By former Commission Chair Daniel Mark
Hamed bin Haydara, a leader of the Baha’i faith in Yemen, has been imprisoned since 2013 over charges of apostasy and insulting the Islam. He has reportedly been tortured and denied both medical and legal assistance. Over the past five years, his trial date has repeatedly been postponed, raising and dashing the hopes of his community. When the Houthi courts of northern Yemen finally issued a ruling on January 2, 2018, their decision brought shock, not relief. Not only is bin Haydara sentenced to public execution, but the country’s Baha’i institutions are to be legally disbanded, leaving the community leaderless and in fear of further persecution.
Tragically, in the five months since this blatant act of religious persecution, conditions for Baha’is in Yemen have worsened, prompting the U.S. State Department to issue a statement in May condemning “actions and rhetoric by Houthi leaders [that] exemplify the vilification and oppression of the Baha’is in Yemen” and calling on the Houthis to “end their unacceptable treatment of Baha’is” and to “allow the Baha’i community to practice their religion without fear of intimidation or reprisals.”
This comes following a baseless claim by the leader of the oppressive Houthi regime that Christians, Baha’is, Ahmadi Muslims, and other religious minorities are waging a “Satanic war” against Muslim Yemenis. He urged his followers to engage in cultural and religious warfare against these religious minorities and since, Houthi authorities have organized official training on fighting this “soft war.” Houthi-affiliated media and clerics have also warned of the dangers posed by Baha’is, and a prominent Houthi activist has called for the slaughter of all Baha’is.
This escalation of hateful rhetoric conjures up frightening memories of what Baha’is in Iran faced immediately after the 1979 revolution: nearly 200 Baha’i leaders were executed, and thousands were imprisoned. A 1991 Iranian government memo called for the eradication of Baha’is, not only in Iran but beyond its borders. Nearly four decades later, the execution of this policy continues and has now spread to Yemen.
Houthi forces have been receiving training and political support from Iran since the early days of the Yemeni conflict. After taking control of northern Yemen, they arrested dozens of Baha’i youth at a 2016 meeting and issued arrest orders without cause for more than 20 Baha’i leaders and teachers in April 2017. Local sources have reported that Iranian authorities are directing the Houthis in this crackdown, and there can be no doubt of the similarity in rhetoric: both the Iranian government and the Houthi authorities deny that the Baha’i faith is a religion at all, rather, a heretical “sect” or “movement.”
At the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a bipartisan government agency tasked with monitoring and advising the State Department, Congress, and Administration on violations of freedom of conscience, we strenuously denounce the death sentence issued to bin Haydara and the threats issued against Baha’is and other religious minorities in Yemen. We join the State Department and organizations worldwide in calling upon the Houthi authorities to immediately release bin Haydara and the other five Baha’is who are imprisoned in northern Yemen solely for their beliefs.
Many of the young Baha’is of Iran who are today denied education and employment have never known a world in which they were not demonized by the government ruling their country; we cannot let the same fate befall the Baha’is of Yemen.
Daniel Mark is a former U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom commissioner and is currently Assistant Professor of Political Science at Villanova University.
January 23, 2017
Jan 23, 2017
The following op-ed appeared in Philadelphia Inquirer on January 23, 2017
By former USCIRF Commissioners Thomas J. Reese and Daniel Mark
As our nation commemorated National Religious Freedom Day on Jan. 16, marking Virginia's adoption in 1786 of Thomas Jefferson's Statute for Religious Freedom, we recalled the billions of people who live in countries where this fundamental right is violated. From onerous religious registration requirements to imprisonment, torture, and mass murder, religious freedom abuses betray the universal values that most nations endorsed in documents such as Article 18 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
A single, undeniable fact spotlights these dismal conditions:
Nearly every government and entity - from China to ISIS - that poses a major foreign policy challenge to the United States also commits monumental religious freedom abuses.
How should the Trump administration respond? We urge a firm and resolute stand for this liberty.
The abuses of such governments and entities are long-standing and notorious.
For example, China and North Korea are secular tyrannies that consider religious beliefs potential competitors of Communist state ideology.
Chinese officials have torn down churches and crosses, repressed Tibetan Buddhists, cracked down on Uighur Muslims, tortured and sought to "re-educate" the Falun Gong, and jailed and harvested organs from prisoners.
Religious freedom is nonexistent in North Korea. Individuals secretly engaging in religious activity are subject to arrest, torture, imprisonment, and execution. The government often inflicts added punishment by sentencing their entire families to decades in brutal slave labor camps.
In Russia, the Kremlin favors Russia's majority religious organization, the Russian Orthodox Church's Moscow Patriarchate, as a bulwark of state power, while discriminating against religious minority communities. Peaceful religious practitioners often are jailed or fined after being charged with crimes of extremism or terrorism.
Iran is a religious tyranny run by leaders who elevate their own interpretations of Sh'ia Islam above all other beliefs, religious or secular. Authorities have detained, tortured, and even executed Iranians, from Shi'a, Sunni, and Sufi Muslim dissenters to Baha'is and Christians.
Pakistan's government strictly enforces its blasphemy law, with more prisoners sentenced to death or life imprisonment based on blasphemy convictions than anywhere in the world. Pakistan's religious minorities suffer in at least four distinct ways. They bear the brunt of government enforcement of such religiously repressive laws; extremists assault them as perceived transgressors of such statutes; the government fails to protect them against such attacks; and it frequently fails to bring perpetrators to justice, even when the accusations are false.
Syria is another obvious challenge. A civil war triggered by the Assad regime's failure to respect human rights devolved into a sectarian conflict which helped fuel the rise of ISIS and a massive refugee crisis.
ISIS's depredations as a nonstate actor are notorious, including committing genocide through summary executions, rape, sexual enslavement, abduction of children, destruction of houses of worship, and forced conversions of Yazidis, Christians, Shi'a Muslims, and other religious minorities.
Every one of these nations and entities, representing the most critical foreign policy challenges the Trump administration will likely face, is a religious freedom abuser.
What should the new administration do?
Follow the lead of the past three administrations and designate China, North Korea, and Iran as "countries of particular concern (CPC) under the International Religious Freedom Act, marking them as among the world's worst religious freedom violators and subject to sanctions.
Take the lead and designate Pakistan and Syria as CPCs as well.
Designate ISIS as an "entity of particular concern," a new category from Congress which holds violent religious extremist groups, including terrorist organizations, as responsible as recognized governments for religious persecution.
Swiftly nominate a well-qualified ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, and make religious freedom for everyone, everywhere, a top priority.
As we remember National Religious Freedom Day and celebrate our own liberty, let us also stand for this pivotal right for others.
March 28, 2020
Mar 28, 2020
This op-ed originally appeared in the Arkansas Gazette on Saturday, March 28, 2020.By Gayle Manchin and James W. Carr
How far can a government limit religious freedom in the name of fighting the coronavirus (COVID-19)? As the global pandemic continues, many national and local governments are grappling with this question. Religious gatherings are important opportunities for people to practice and share their beliefs, but they are also sites for transmission of COVID-19, endangering not only participants in these gatherings but everyone with whom they interact. Crises require decisive government action, but governments often use times of crisis to encroach on individual freedoms or target minority groups long after the crisis has passed.
As commissioners on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), we have also had to figure out how to advance our mission to monitor and promote freedom of religion and belief around the world while recognizing the pressing public health needs. Fortunately, as we document in a new factsheet, international human rights standards offer some guidance.
Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees freedom of religion, but also allows governments to narrowly restrict religious freedom by law when necessary to protect public health. Freedom of religion is not absolute, but it also cannot be limited disproportionately, or in a way that discriminates against believers and non-believers of a certain religion or belief. Public health emergencies should also not be used to target or stigmatize certain religious groups. Unlike other rights, religious freedom cannot be suspended in times of public emergency, which means that governments must balance this fundamental right in efforts to combat the impact of the virus.
Compliance with international law not only protects human rights, but also should ultimately create more effective implementation of public health measures to slow COVID-19. Many governments have asked religious groups to voluntarily take measures that limit the spread of COVID-19, including cancelling services, disinfecting houses of worship, and limiting the length of prayer times. These requests utilize a cooperative approach in which governments treat religious groups as partners rather than potential threats. As such, we expect wider implementation and stronger individual adherence to these public health measures.
Across the globe, religious authorities are limiting gatherings in response to COVID-19. On March 5, Saudi Arabia closed the Grand Mosque in Mecca for disinfecting, and reopened it nine days later with restrictions. The Vatican suspended public masses on March 8 and has begun livestreaming the Pope’s general audience. The United Arab Emirates has prohibited children from attending church activities and limited Friday prayer times in mosques to 15 minutes. Tajikistan’s semi-official Council of Ulema issued a fatwa calling on clergy to close mosques and cancelled public celebrations of the Nowruz holiday.
In other countries, existing limitations on freedom of religion might be exacerbated during the response to COVID-19. In China, where the outbreak originated, the Communist Party’s ongoing detention of more than one million Uighurs and other Muslims in concentration camps creates conditions for a rapid spread of the virus should it enter these sites. The Iranian government has released 70,000 prisoners on furlough to prevent the spread of COVID-19, but has reportedly placed prisoners who are part of the Sufi religious minority in wards that are overcrowded, increasing their risk. And, although the South Korean government’s response has generally drawn praise for balancing rights and public health, there are worrying signs that some local authorities are scapegoating a small religious sect known as the Shincheonji church because some of its members were infected.
The United States has an important role to play in monitoring how the international community balances freedom of religion with public health concerns, even as the COVID-19 pandemic reaches our own shores. Americans cannot allow fear to override our values. We must not wash our hands of our responsibilities as the world’s leading champion of international religious freedom. When governments use public health as a mask for persecuting religious communities, the United States must use its uniquely loud voice to sound the alarm.
April 06, 2020
Apr 6, 2020
This op-ed originally appeared in Opinio Juris on Monday, April 6, 2020. By Gayle Manchin and James W. Carr
How far can a government limit religious freedom in the name of fighting the coronavirus (COVID-19) under international law? As the global pandemic continues, many national and local governments are grappling with this question. Religious gatherings are important opportunities for people to practice and share their beliefs, but they are also sites for transmission of COVID-19, endangering not only participants in these gatherings but everyone with whom they interact. Crises require decisive government action, but governments often use times of crisis to encroach on individual freedoms or target minority groups long after the crisis has passed.
As commissioners on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), we have also had to figure out how to advance our mission to monitor and promote freedom of religion and belief around the world while recognizing the pressing public health needs. Fortunately, as we document in a new factsheet, international human rights law offer some guidance.
Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees freedom of religion, but also allows governments to narrowly restrict religious freedom by law when necessary to protect a legitimate state interest, including public health. The Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the ICCPR explains that public health measures that limit rights must be specifically aimed at preventing disease or injury, or providing care for the sick and injured.
Given the fundamental nature of freedom of religion or belief, it is subject to fewer restrictions than other rights. Only manifestations of this freedom can be limited, but never holding beliefs itself. Unlike other rights, religious freedom cannot be derogated in times of public emergency, which means that governments must continue to balance this fundamental right even in efforts to combat the impact of the virus. While freedom of religion is not absolute, it also cannot be limited disproportionately, or in a way that discriminates against believers and non-believers or a certain religion or belief. Public health emergencies should also not be used to target or stigmatize certain religious groups.
As stressed by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, “human dignity and rights need to be front and [center]” in the effort to contain and combat the spread of COVID-19. UN Experts also emphasized that restrictions must be based on public health concerns and not used “simply to quash dissent” or target particular groups, minorities, or individuals. The World Health Organization (WHO) has noted that in the response to this pandemic, “[a]ll countries must strike a fine balance between protecting health, minimizing economic and social disruption, and respecting human rights.” To this aim, WHO has provided guidelines and planning recommendations for mass gatherings to aid authorities in mitigating the public health risks of large events, including religious services. These tools urge public health authorities to conduct a detailed risk assessment to determine whether a mass gathering should be cancelled to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.
Compliance with international law not only protects human rights, but also should ultimately create more effective implementation of public health measures to slow COVID-19. Many governments have asked religious groups to voluntarily take measures that limit the spread of COVID-19, including cancelling services, disinfecting houses of worship, and limiting the length of prayer times. These requests utilize a cooperative approach in which governments treat religious groups as partners rather than potential threats. As such, we expect wider implementation and stronger individual adherence to these public health measures.
Across the globe, religious authorities are limiting gatherings in response to COVID-19. On March 5, Saudi Arabia closed the Grand Mosque in Mecca for disinfecting, and reopened it nine days later with restrictions. The Vatican suspended public masses on March 8 and has begun livestreaming for the Pope’s general audience. The United Arab Emirates has prohibited children from attending church activities and limited Friday prayer times in mosques to 15 minutes. Tajikistan’s semi-official Council of Ulema issued a fatwa calling on clergy to close mosques and cancelled public celebrations of the Nowruz holiday.
In other countries, existing limitations on freedom of religion might be exacerbated during the response to COVID-19. The Iranian government has released 85,000 prisoners on furlough to prevent the spread of the virus, but has reportedly placed prisoners who are part of the Sufi religious minority in wards that are overcrowded, increasing their risk. And, although the South Korean government’s response has generally drawn praise for balancing rights and public health, there are worrying signs that some local authorities are scapegoating a small religious sect known as the Shincheonji church because some of its members were infected.
Religious freedom must be balanced with public health concerns, even as the COVID-19 pandemic continues. We cannot allow fear to override human rights principles, including the unique protections afforded to the freedom of religion or belief. Instead, we must be vigilant that governments carefully balance this right and enact neutral responses that do not unduly target religious communities. We at USCIRF will continue to monitor government responses to ensure compliance with international human rights standards and use our voice to sound the alarm when public health is used as a mask for persecuting religious communities. We urge others to be vigilant in ensuring that our most sacred right is not forsaken, even in this time of crisis.
A version of this article was published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
October 03, 2020
Oct 3, 2020
This op-ed was originally published in The Hill, on October 2, 2020.
By USCIRF Commissioners Gary Bauer and Nury Turkel
Late last month, Belarusian officials blocked Catholic Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz from reentering the country, in an unprecedented move that President Alexander Lukashenko ordered because the senior cleric “mixed church and politics.”
The Lukashenko regime views religious organizations—which are among the few remaining autonomous institutions in Belarus—as a particular threat.
President Lukashenko refers to himself as an ‘Orthodox Communist’ and makes no secret of his atheism. He has mostly refrained from overt actions against religious groups, relying instead on bureaucratic obstruction and administrative harassment. Now, amid the current unrest, there are worrying signs that the Lukashenko government is actively undermining the independence of religious groups.
For example, on August 25, the Russian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate (ROC-MP) relieved Metropolitan Pavel, the head of the Belarusian Orthodox Church (BOC), of his duties after he visited protestors in the hospital and spoke out against regime violence. In recent years, the Kremlin has used the ROC to exert its influence in neighboring Ukraine. The removal of Metropolitan Pavel is a worrying sign it is now doing so in Belarus.
Unlike in Ukraine, popular attitudes in Belarus are generally positive toward Russia, and the avowed atheism of the Lukashenko regime only lends to the perception of BOC autonomy. This could change significantly, depending on ROC-MP policy toward the current unrest. In the immediate aftermath of the disputed election—which outside observers and internal opposition consider blatantly falsified—ROC-MP leader Patriarch Kirill congratulated Lukashenko on his victory, and spoke of the need for continued cooperation between Belarus and Russia, as well as the ‘patriotic education’ of younger generations.
The BOC is not typically a bulwark of the regime—despite its relatively privileged position in Belarus, where it is formally acknowledged as an essential part of the national heritage and allowed special influence in spheres like education and healthcare.
In the past, in fact, the BOC has joined forces with Catholics and Protestants to demand a review of Belarus’ 2002 Religion Law, which mandates official registration for religious communities, restricts religious activity to state-approved locations, and punishes violations with steep fines and imprisonment. Although the BOC hierarchy was initially reticent to intervene in the current unrest, individual clergy have participated prominently. Metropolitan Pavel’s rapid removal as head of the church after criticizing the regime sends a clear signal that Lukashenko and his supporters will not tolerate any such political involvement.
The Catholic Church actively supported opposition to the regime even prior to the elections. It has spoken out against regime violence, organized protests, and protected protestors within its facilities since the beginning of the current unrest. Catholicism has a long history in Western Belarus, which was once part of Poland. Although the church remains popular with ethnic Poles and Lithuanians, the majority of Catholics in the country are ethnically Belarusian and represent the second largest religious confession, after Orthodox Christianity.
Nevertheless, the relative lack of training facilities means that nearly half of the Catholic clergy are foreign citizens—mostly from Poland. The government has made a concerted effort to diminish Catholic leadership for years by making it difficult for foreign priests to obtain residence and even ejecting long-serving clerics from the country. The recent denial of reentry to Archbishop Kondrusiewicz, a Belarusian citizen, represents an alarming escalation. On September 14, the Church revealed that Belarusian authorities had annulled the Archbishop’s passport.
Combined with these actions against BOC and Catholic clergy, reports have emerged of police beating cross-shaped bruises on the backs of protestors or forcing detainees to pray during torture. These actions represent an outright assault by the Lukashenko regime on religious freedom in Belarus. Religious freedom encompasses, among other things, freedoms of expression, assembly, and conscience. While it is troubling, it is not surprising that the Belarusian struggle for democracy has a religious dimension.
On September 14, a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators introduced a resolution condemning the crackdown in Belarus and calling for sanctions. Although the resolution documents key moments in Lukashenko’s crack down on civil society, it makes no reference of his assault on religious freedom.
It is essential that U.S. officials cooperate with regional allies and religious leaders to present a united front of unwavering support for freedom of religion or belief in Belarus. In addition, the United States and its allies should join representatives of the Catholic and Orthodox Christian Churches in condemning Lukashenko’s recent actions, and urge Russian Orthodox leadership to refrain from using their church to exert political influence in Belarus.
June 15, 2020
Published Op-ed
Jun 15, 2020
This op-ed was originally published by Forward, on June 15, 2020
By USCIRF Vice Chair Gayle Manchin, USCIRF Commissioner Gary Bauer, and Senator James Lankford
While the United States was celebrating American Jewish Heritage Month in May, the global Jewish community was experiencing a further increase in anti-Semitic incidents, which cannot continue.
As the world reeled from the COVID-19 global pandemic in March, the Iranian Ministry of Health decided to hold a cartoon contest entitled “We Defeat Coronavirus,” garnering more than 2,000 submissions. Coming from Iran—a government that Elan Carr, the US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, called the world’s chief trafficker in anti-Semitism—contestants unsurprisingly submitted grotesque anti-Semitic images. One drawing was of three, hook-nosed Israeli doctors holding a beaker of COVID-19, insinuating that Israel invented the novel coronavirus. Sticking to that absurd accusation, the state-aligned Press TV claimed that “Zionist elements” created the deadly disease to use against Iran. Indeed Iran has a history of anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist propaganda, especially involving the Holocaust.
And Iran is not the only country disseminating this preposterous misinformation and spreading anti-Semitic messages.
From the Middle East to Europe, to Australia, to the Americas, Jews are blamed for starting the COVID-19 crisis and perpetuating its spread as a means of achieving a number of alleged goals. Germany’s top minister for combatting anti-Semitism says that Jews and Israel are the main targets for Internet hate speech related to COVID-19. The Anti-Defamation Commission in Australia detailed the rise of conspiracy theories on Australian sites and social media pages. Public figures in Turkey have asserted that Jews engineered the novel coronavirus to acquire world domination. A Jordanian journalist said the virus is a consequence of Jews’ hatred for the entire world. A cartoon circulating on French social media shows Agnes Buzyn, France’s Jewish former health minister, pouring a vial of coronavirus in a well.
Anti-Semitism has steadily grown in severity over the past few years, and the ever increasing challenge of confronting anti-Semitism is why our respective bodies—the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) and the Senate Bipartisan Task Force for Combatting Anti-Semitism—both work to move the issue of combatting anti-Semitism to the forefront of our country’s foreign policy.
USCIRF’s 2020 Annual Report and January 2020 hearing document increases in anti-Semitic incidents throughout 2019, including discrimination, defamation, Holocaust denial, hate speech on the Internet, and vandalism of synagogues, cemeteries, and other community institutions. As highlighted in the Annual Report, these attacks are worldwide, not just isolated to nations that USCIRF recommends for “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) designation or placement on Special Watch List (SWL), such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Anti-Semitism is a growing trend that must be stopped in countries including Argentina, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Sweden.
The US Senate Task Force is committed to engaging with stakeholders to educate and empower communities in the US by calling out hate with one voice, supporting legislation that tackles the issue head-on, and promoting Holocaust education. To advance the Commission’s similar goals, USCIRF has provided recommendations on ways the US government can work to combat anti-Semitism, including: (1) insisting that fighting anti-Semitism be a top priority of the International Religious Freedom Alliance; (2) recommending the creation of positions similar to the U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism in governments around the world and at the United Nations; and (3) providing technical support to foreign law enforcement officials to update and standardize hate-crime reporting procedures.
Our bipartisan entities are committed to this issue because fighting hate is a non-partisan priority. Ideological differences do not preclude us from working together to fight for universal values and basic human dignity. When we see anti-Semitism or hate anywhere, every one must call it out and do their part to combat the scourge of anti-Semitism.
As we paid tribute throughout the month of May to the generations of Jewish Americans who have made remarkable and invaluable contributions to American society, we must also turn to our diplomatic allies and other governments to actively improve the situation for their Jewish communities who live in fear for their own safety.
April 26, 2021
Apr 26, 2021
Read full article
This op-ed was originally published by Newsweek, on April 26, 2021.
June 25, 2020
Jun 25, 2020
This op-ed was originally published by Newsweek, on June 25, 2020.
By USCIRF Commissioners Nury Turkel and Johnnie Moore
Human rights activists don’t often think first of countries like France, Germany, Belgium, Montenegro, Bulgaria, and the Netherlands when they worry about religious freedom violations.
This is a mistake.
Conditions across the European continent are getting worse for believers of many types. So, it’s time for advocates to stop giving Europe a “free pass” on human rights.
Last year, four in ten European Jews reported that they considered emigrating from their home country because they are concerned for their safety. The same survey indicated that nearly half of those interviewed had been a victim of at least one anti-Semitic incident in the past twelve months. The incidents are not isolated.
As noted in our 2020 Annual Report of the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom, anti-Semitism is on an alarming rise in Europe in virtually every country with a sizable Jewish population. France, with the largest Jewish population on the continent, had a 27 percent increase. There was a seven percent increase in Anti-Semitic sentiments in the United Kingdom while the Labour Party also experienced a historic reckoning on growing anti-Semitic attitudes within its ranks. Germany saw an increase of about 12 percent. And the Netherlands, the home country of Anne Frank, saw a 35 percent increase compared to 2018.
But statistics can obscure the life-or-death nature of this problem. Physical assaults on Jews occurred in many European countries. In perhaps the most brazen anti-Semitic attack of last year, a gunman in Halle, Germany sought to break into a local synagogue during a Yom Kippur service — this after German authorities turned down a request for police protection. Only a special security door which the murderer could not blast his way past, saved fifty plus Jews at prayer from being massacred.
Many European Jews also feel that their religious practices are under legal attack. Just this week, the president of the Conference of European Rabbis, Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt issued a statement warning about a bill proposed by Belgian lawmakers that would ban shechita, the “Jewish method of slaughtering animals for human consumption.” Some European countries have also sought to ban the slaughter of animals according to Muslim traditions. The U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Elan Carr called these laws “disgraceful.”
All of this is happening within living memory of the Holocaust. Declining religious freedom conditions in Europe also extend beyond anti-Semitism.
Pew Research reported that Europe saw one of the largest increases in government restrictions on religious activities from 2007-2017 much of which reflects an increase in violent attacks and discrimination directed at Muslims across the continent, as well. Like in France where full facial coverings were banned in 2011 and in Moldova where public Muslim worship was banned in 2012.
The discriminatory actions of governments aren’t just for Europe’s Jews and Muslims, either.
In Montenegro it’s the Christians who are under attack. Since December, there have been ongoing protests following the passage of a law on religion that many believe will allow the government to confiscate religious properties. The Serbian Orthodox Church rightfully fears that the law is a pretext to seize their property. These concerns have led to large and sustained protests across the country. With restrictions on religious gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbating tensions, these protests have led to clashes and the repeated detention of some of the country’s most well-known Orthodox leaders, including by interrogating Metropolitan Amfilohije of Montenegro this week (the second time the Archbishop has been interrogated this year).
Instead of being a champion for religious freedom Europe’s commitment to this fundamental human right abroad is also being neglected. The European Commission recently decided not to extend the position of the European Union’s (EU) Special Envoy whose mandate has been the promotion of the Freedom of Religion and Belief.
Then there is European foreign policy, especially as it relates to China. As China continues to escalate its anti-Muslim and anti-Christian policies it is granted a license by certain European leaders, as best illustrated by the truly absurd and cowardice words of EU’s senior official for foreign affairs, Josef Burrel, “I don’t think that China is playing a role that can threaten the world peace.”
Of course, some European leaders have issued statements at the UN condemning China's assault on religious freedom, the sad truth is the actions of other European governments have rarely matched those words.
Take Bulgaria, for example, which was willing to repatriate five Uyghurs back to China, where the government has detained millions of Uyghur and other Muslims in concentration camps, until the European Court of Human Rights blocked the move in February.
The human rights situation in Europe is deteriorating rapidly.
History reminds us that religious persecution is a precursor to cultural annihilation and ethnic cleansing, and yes, genocide. Europe - because of its history - ought to know better. As Commissioners at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and knowing full well America’s own struggles and shortcomings, we are obligated to put Europe on notice: you are not exempt from the obligations you call the world to embrace.