[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Interview: Amb. Seiple Discusses U.



Subject: Interview: Amb. Seiple Discusses U.S. International Religious

Freedom Report 
To: burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32)
X-Sender: strider@xxxxxxxxxxxx

03 September 1999 

Interview: Amb. Seiple Discusses U.S. International Religious Freedom Report 
(Aim is to work with governments to promote religious freedom) (1200)

USIA Staff Writer Rick Marshall recently interviewed Robert Seiple,
the U.S. Ambassador-at-large for International Religious Freedom,
about the upcoming International Religious Freedom Report.

Q: Your office will release the first International Religious Freedom
Report to the U.S. Congress on September 9th. Would you explain what
the purpose of the report is?

A: The number one focus of the report is to let those people who this
day are being discriminated against, marginalized, or persecuted
because of their faith, know that in America there is a report that's
going to be discussed and debated in the Congress and in America that
is concerned about their fate, wherever they are, whoever they are,
whatever faith they have, in any corner of the world. To use the
metaphor of a kite, we want to make sure that this new emphasis on
this particular human right flies so high that in this age of
information, everyone will see it, even those in jail and that this
will bring them hope. Their fate is being discussed, their issues are
being fought over in the American Congress and with the American
people and the American government.

Q:  What prompted your office to write it?

A: The report was mandated by the International Religious Freedom Act
of 1998. The Act says a great deal about the need to monitor and
report on violations of international religious freedom as well as
promote international religious freedom. One of the ways we promote
this issue is to draw attention to it. This first report will draw
attention to 194 countries of the world.

In preparing it, we wanted to make sure that the process was right,
that it was inclusive and that we could be able to tell the truth,
with integrity, but also without surprise.

Q:  Does the report focus on any specific religion or region?

A: In accordance with the International Religious Freedom Act, the
report does not target any one group, any one region, any one faith,
but looks at all faiths, all beliefs, all thought in 196 countries.
One of its strengths is that it is inclusive in terms of religion,
faith, belief, and thought. As such it parallels the international
instruments that have already been written and approved by so many
countries around the world. This is an extremely important point for
foreign governments. Religious freedom is an issue that is very
important to the American people, but it needs to be stressed that
this is not an issue that was invented in America.
  
So the report will look at countries and what's going on in them.
Specifically, it will cover what is happening that the government has
some control over, regardless of faith or beliefs or background. It
will look at what societal attitudes are, again regardless of faith,
inclusive of all faiths, and it will look at what the U.S. government
does when it is made aware of issues of religious freedom. It could be
on the positive side, where positive changes have taken place. Or it
could be on the negative side, where something has gone awry and needs
attention by other individuals in the international community.

Q: So the point is not to single out countries where violations of
religious freedom have been particularly egregious?

A: We want to work with governments. We don't want to sit in judgment
of governments. We want to work with the indigenous NGOs and the
indigenous human rights community internationally. We want to work
with the primary actors, the impact players in a host country, to
improve a situation that is bad. That's where methodology becomes very
important: it's tied to this concept of an act that is designed to
promote.

Does the bill also give us the ability to enact punitive measures?
Yes. But they are a last resort. Sanctions are always a last resort.
Our strong feeling is that they should be imposed only when they have
to -- preferably multilaterally and only as a last resort unilaterally
-- and they should be imposed only when every other option is
exhausted. So this is not primarily a sanctions bill. It is designed
to promote religious freedom internationally, to work with people, as
opposed to working against them.

Q: How does the report fit within the framework international human
rights law?

A: If you look at the signatories to the international covenants
around the world, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, there
are now 144 countries that have human rights legislation that deal
with, among other things, religious freedom. So this is obviously
something that is important to the world. Inherent in those covenants,
in those instruments, is the assumption of mutual accountability, and
you can't have mutual accountability unless there is an inclusivity
also built into the process.

Q: What circumstances led to the passage of the International
Religious Freedom Act? Was there anything specifically different about
last year that gave the issue more importance to the Congress than
previously?

A: The Act stemmed from a number of people from different groups,
different backgrounds, different faith commitments who were very
concerned about the persecution of people of faith around the world.
Is there more evidence of such persecution today than there was 10 or
100 years ago? Yes. Is it worse now? I'm not sure, but the evidence
comes via the fax and the cell phones and the Internet as well as
through more traditional sources like the press. Through the process
of globalization we simply know more today. And so there was exposure
the likes of which we had never seen before on this issue. In certain
parts of the world people are being persecuted for their deeply held
faith and beliefs.

So this came to the attention of the Congress through the American
citizen and through private groups and individuals and
non-governmental organizations. These human rights supporters got the
attention of Congress. It was a very real issue. It took about 18
months, lots of discussion, lots of expert advice, lots of
participation on the part of the government, including the State
Department. Eventually Congress came out with a bill that was passed
unanimously by both the House and Senate and then signed by the
President.

So, in a sense, this is democracy at its best. The seeds of change
were planted by the American citizen, looking at legislation
internationally, and in the context of international instruments that
are already on the books, and putting America's shoulder to that
wheel. This is an act that puts America front and center on the
international human rights issue of religious freedom.