The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) is a US government agency based in Washington, DC. This federal bipartisan body was created by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to monitor the status of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief abroad, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related international instruments. It gives independent policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and the Congress. In gathering information to formulate those recommendations, the Commissioners or staff may meet with foreign officials and diplomats. Such meetings are always coordinated with the State Department.
It is funded entirely by the federal government on an annual basis and its staff members are government employees. The White House and congressional leadership appoint the Commissioners. Per the Commission's authorizing legislation, "Members of the Commission shall be selected among distinguished individuals noted for their knowledge and experience in fields relevant to the issue of international religious freedom, including foreign affairs, direct experience abroad, human rights, and international law." Under the IRFA, three Commissioners are selected by the President, four by the congressional leaders of the party not in the White House, and two by the leaders of the President's party in Congress. Currently they are appointed for two years. Commissioners are eligible for reappointment. Within the law, the five different appointing authorities work to provide for a diverse group of Commissioners.
The Commissioners are: the Chair, Felice D. Gaer, the Vice Chairs, Elizabeth H. Prodromou and Michael Cromartie, and Don Argue, Talal Eid, Richard Land , Leonard Leo, and Nina Shea. The State Department's Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom serves as an ex-officio, non-voting member of the Commisison. Past Commissioners include Preeta D. Bansal, John Hanford, Khaled Abou El Fadl, Charles J. Chaput, Michael K. Young, Firuz Kazemzadeh, Shirin R. Tahir-Kheli, John R. Bolton and Elliot Abrams.
Contents |
Conflict of Interest
USCIRF is suppose to champion "Freedom of ALL thought, conscience, and religion". However, Current make-up of USCIRF is lopsided. Majority of present commissioners are current or former high ranking executive of religious entities like Southern Baptist Convention, National Association of Evangelicals, Evangelicals in Civic Life etc.[1] Collectively they have significant knowledge and advocacy experience. However, Advocacy style of some of these entities may not be appropriate at USCIRF.
It is USCIRFs obligation to prepare each and every report in compliance with section 202(a) (2) of International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. Every formal submission of USCIRF report carries an International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 compliance statement. USCIRFs website states “Commissioners are supposed to act as individuals on the commission’s behalf and not as representative of their private sector or religious organizations”. [1] However, Commissioner’s duel public and private role can produce conflict of interest and biased recommendation favoring one religion over other. There is no published procedure to avoid conflict of interest, misuse of power and no independent audit or verification of International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 compliance.
Criticism
First ever U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, Robert Seiple, said that “The USCIRF is only cursing the darkness. The increasingly irrelevant U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom seems intent on attacking even those countries making improvements...that which was conceived in error and delivered in chaos has now been consigned to irrelevancy. Unless the Commission finds some candles soon, Congress ought to turn out the lights.” [2]
U.S. IRF policy is often viewed abroad as an attack on majority religious communities, as cultural imperialism, and as a front for American missionaries. U.S. IRF policy to date has focused more on rhetorical denunciations of persecutors and releasing religious prisoners than on facilitating the political and cultural institutions necessary to religious freedom. Accordingly, U.S. policy has had minimal effect on global levels of persecution and even less on the institutions of religious freedom. [3]
The USCIRF was set up after intense lobbying by Christian evangelical groups and often draws criticism for preparing highly partisan or politically motivated reports on other countries. Very often, their annual reports are based merely on media reports that have little credibility, or on the word-of-mouth rumors.[4] The reports are published often without having done any field work on the ground of the subject countries.
In 2009, the UCSIRF, under pressure from the US Christian Right, chose to add India to its "watch list" countries, alongside Afghanistan. This was done because Christian Missionary activities and Forced conversions to Christianity were being hindered[5]. This move was highly criticized by several groups and organizations. The Christian minority in India condemned this move by UCSIRF and defended the secularism and religious pluralism of India.[6]. Indian archbishop Raphael Cheenath said
| “ | What the Commission said is against our country's Constitution.India believes in respecting all religions and one should not forget it "thrives on secular character since ages".[6] | ” |
The president of the "Orissa Minority Forum", Swarupananda Patra, said that India has been target of a hate campaign by a small section and the “civil society of the majority community has been extremely cordial and supportive."[7][8]. Likewise, the report was condemned by the Hindu American Foundation as misleading, biased and anti-Hindu[6][9], and motivated by the political wishes and religious bigotries of the commission's members rather than a genuine desire for monitoring the state of religious freedom in the world. HAF's press released criticized UCSIRF for demonizing a secular democracy like India and ignoring the persecution of Hindus in Muslim-majority Bangladesh, which has a disenfranchised Hindu minority, thus concluding
| “ | A closer look at the India designation, however, shows the Commission's innate bias, lack of insight, absence of understanding, and loss of credibility. Worse, putting India on the watch list will be perceived as a self-defeating and egregious act that needlessly complicates relations between two diverse, pluralistic and secular democracies.[9] | ” |
In a similar vein of criticism, the Indian government has termed the UCSIRF report "regrettable". Vishnu Prakash, a spokesperson for India's Ministry of External Affairs, rejected the claims against India made in the report and said that India is "a country of 1.1 billion people, is a multiethnic and multi-religious society", with a secular democratic Constitution of India that guarantees freedom of religion and equality of opportunity to all its citizens, who live and work together in peace and harmony. Aberrations, if any, are dealt with promptly within our legal framework, under the watchful eye of an independent judiciary and a vigilant media[10][11]
An editorial in DNA noted the irony of the United States attacking India for a perceived "lack of religious freedom" while American officials engaged in religious profiling and discrimination against Indian Muslim Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan (see My Name Is Khan#Newark Airport incident )[12]
Following this controversy, the US government has distanced itself from the USCIRF. Observers have noted that the United States State Department will be displeased with the determination of the UCSIRF, which will give the Indian government the mistaken notion that UCSIRF has any real power in shaping foreign policy. A US State Department spokesperson stressed that the commission is an independent federal commission that does not speak for the United States government[9].
Washington Post columnist Jacqueline Salmon writes that the USCIRF has faced funding problems and internal sectarianism since its inception. US congressional representative Trent Franks has recently proposed that the organization's funding be "drastically cut back", and has proposed phasing out the organization by 2010. Other senators, such as Howard Berman, have called for an investigation into the commission for malpractices, but lobbying efforts by the commission have stymied such efforts so far.[13]
See also
References
- ^ a b "USCIRF FAQ". USCIRF. http://www.uscirf.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=337&Itemid=44#5. Retrieved November 22, 2009.
- ^ "Speaking Out: The USCIRF Is Only Cursing the Darkness". Christainity Today. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/octoberweb-only/10-14-31.0.html. Retrieved August 19, 2009.
- ^ "The Future of U.S. International Religious Freedom Policy (Special Report)". http://www.globalengage.org/research/reports/829-the-future-of-us-international-religious-freedom-policy-special-report-.html. Retrieved August 19, 2009.
- ^ "Surpassing Goebbels". Daily Pioneer. http://www.dailypioneer.com/196685/Surpassing-Goebbels.html. Retrieved August 19, 2009.
- ^ [1]
- ^ a b c [2]
- ^ [3]
- ^ [4]
- ^ a b [5]
- ^ [6]
- ^ Indian rejects US criticism on religious freedom
- ^ [7]
- ^ [8]
External links
| Wikimedia Commons has media related to: United States Commission on International Religious Freedom |
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)




