Inside the USCIRF - The people, the commission and their selective list

We have an agenda, do you know what it is?

Later this month the US Commission on International Religious Freedom will come up with its 2015 report. The media will offer it extensive coverage to the findings of the report, like it did in the past. Last year the commission placed India in its tier II list, along with Afghanistan, Russia, Indonesia, Turkey and five other countries. The Tier II is a category where there is some degree of concern on religious freedom. The other categories being, Tier I with “particular concerns” and the milder, “other countries and regions" mostly in Western Europe. The list of countries exclude the entire Americas, except for Venezuela, Cuba and French Guiana. It also excludes all countries in North Africa, except for Egypt and Sudan.

 

It’s interesting why some countries are excluded from the list while some like French Guiana (with a population of 250,000) are included in the list. But before giving that a thought, let us see who the people behind the commission are. The commission is a bipartisan organization, enacted by law, with members appointed by both the Republicans and Democrats. It essentially means that both parties get to drive their agenda. Here is a short introduction of the Chair, Vice Chair and the Commissioners.

Name and Designation	Best known for	Appointed by
Dr. Katrina Lantos Swett, Chair	President of Lantos Foundation, daughter of the only Holocaust survivor elected to the US House of Representative	Democrat, Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader
Dr. Robert P. George, Vice Chair	Most influential conservative Christian, opposition to same sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, anti-abortion	Republican, Speaker of the House John Boehner
Dr. James J. Zogby, Vice Chair	Founder of Arab American Institute, subtly justified Muslim outrage against the Danish cartoons	Barack Obama, president of US
Dr. M. Zuhid Jasser, Commissioner	President of American Islamic Forum, served as medical officer in US Navy	Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
Professor Mary Ann Glendon, Commissioner	Former US ambassador to Vatican, consultant to the US council of Catholic Bishops, refused to share stage with Obama for his alleged anti-Catholic views	Republican, Mitch McConnell Senate Minority Leader
Dean. Eric P. Schwartz, Commissioner	Former assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration, dean of Hubert Humphrey School of public affairs	Barack Obama, President of US
Dr. Daniel I Mark, Commissioner	Professor at Vilanova University, works with Tikvah Fund, formerly taught at Yeshiva University	Republican, John Boehner, Speaker of the House
Rev. Thomas J. Reese, Commissioner	Catholic Jesuit priest, believes in missionary activities, member of the Society of Jesus	Barack Obama, President of US
Hannah Rosenthal, Commissioner	Head of Jewish Council for Public Affairs, combats anti-Semitism, works for other Jewish matters	Democrat, Minority leader US house of representatives, Nancy Pelosi.

 

An institution claiming to look at the religious freedom of other countries, which are more diverse and multicultural than the country it is based in, has virtually no religious diversity in its own management. The people representing the commission are either conservative Christians or Jews who work for Jewish cause. Of course there is a token Muslim face.

It will be unfair to assume that Christians or Jews are not capable of judging the religious freedoms of countries with Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, Atheist or Hindu populations. But one should be concerned when the people on the board have clear conflict of interest. How is an ultra-orthodox Dr. George or Professor Glendon supposed to view religious freedoms in other countries when they themselves espouse opinions which are contrary to other people’s freedom (anti-abortion or dislike for a President’s views on Church)? How is a Dr. Swett or Ms. Rosenthal or Dr. Mark supposed to judge other countries when all that they do is to further only the Jewish cause (Dr. Swett however does some work on human rights by awarding meagre grants of USD 500 – USD 2,500)?

The exclusions & inclusions

The list includes most of the Middle Eastern countries in its tier I list, which is hardly surprising given their harsh rules to suppress other religions. But surprisingly it excludes the rich kingdoms of United Arab Emirates and Qatar, which offer next to nothing when it comes to freedom of speech or basic human rights let alone freedom of religion. Both monarchies happen to be flush with oil, gas and cash, a key American requirement. It also excludes the war torn Yemen where sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni Muslims has claimed thousands of lives in the past years. Apparently religious freedoms of failed countries is not important. Israel, a country that blatantly discriminates against its Muslim Arabs is not on any of the three categories. No surprises here.

The commission has put most west European countries on its list. This is primarily because the European secular and human rights laws are apparently at odds with view of American religious freedoms. Banning of religious symbols in public by France, or protests by activists against male genital mutilation, also known as circumcision, in other European countries is a terrible cause of concern for America. A country, which has passed a law on religious freedom at federal and state level, with potential to be abused against other religions and communities.

Strangely enough Cuba and Venezuela (both with majority Christian population and hardly any religious diversity) feature in the list. The only reason for their inclusion is their communist government, which is not friends with Uncle Sam. Poor French Guiana is there just because France is on the list. What is also interesting is to see why Morocco (with its national motto, “Allah, Homeland, King”) is not on the list but Egypt is, or why the Philippines with its Christian-Muslim conflict is not on the list but Vietnam is? It will not be unfair to say that most of the times the concern boils down to the presence of Christians in the countries. So while Morocco with hardly any Christian population is off the list, Egypt with Coptic Christians is in the list. A Catholic majority Philippines is out but Vietnam (a communist country) with a Christian population is in. Another reason why countries make it to the list is to further the agenda of the missionaries working in those countries. The evangelical and proselytization activities by the missionaries, like the Joshua Project in India, will find special attention from the ultra-orthodox members of the commission.

One of the main objectives of the commission is to use the information and rankings as a tool of America’s foreign policy. It is no surprise that countries, which the American government wants to deal with but finds it difficult are on the list.  The commission serves the two pronged strategy of furthering the religious agenda of the ultra-orthodox Christians in America and the department of state of the US government.

So the next time you read the report released by the commission (most likely on 30^th April) or its coverage by the print and electronic media make sure you know what the commission really is. It is a tool like many other to further vested interest of individuals, organisations and the US government.

Avenging national shame

It all started at home. The opposition accused the Congress lead UPA government of policy paralysis when it failed to come up with a worthy policy reform in its second stint. Inflation was riding high, foreign investment was slowing down and a string of corruption scandals battered the government. A home grown middle class movement against corruption and the government’s poor handling of the whole movement further damaged its image. The government’s inability to perform and slowing down of the economy brought the corporate India to the front-line. Corporate India openly blamed the government of failing to live up to the expectation and deliver long promised reforms. All was bearable till this point. But suddenly the matter started to get international attention.

It was The Economist which published first of the series of the “damning” articles against the Indian prime minister. In its December 17^th, 2011 edition (India’s political paralysis – Gasping for breath) the newspaper started the article saying, “A LESSER man might have quit by now. Even Manmohan Singh's fabled ability to endure humiliation is being tested”. The reference was made to Mr. Singh being undercut by his colleagues including Mrs Sonia Gandhi. If this was not enough, the same newspaper yet again in its April 14^th 2012 blog called Banyan, accused Mr. Singh of leaving a job half done (referring to the economic reforms). The matters became worse with the Time magazine branding the prime minister an underachiever in its mid July edition. Quickly after the report, The Independent of the UK branded him a poodle of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi.

Will the real underachiever please stand up

This generated a huge uproar in the country; the politicians first ignored it but later lashed out at the foreign media and accused them of spreading false information and insulting the head of the state. The opposition parties took the opportunity and the BJP (the main opposition party) said the Time magazine is late to the party (implying that the prime minister was always an underachiever). Public opinion rode high on patriotism and social media buzzed less with support for the prime minister and more with, “how dare you say something about my prime minister?” The common man took it too personally and eventually The Outlook, a weekly Indian newspaper came up with its own version of Mr. Obama being the real underachiever.

No one can deny that Mr. Singh has failed to deliver in his second stint. There was no big ticket reforms pushed through parliament. The only policy decision worth remembering was to allow foreign direct investment (FDI) into multi brand retail, which sadly was reversed within a fortnight. The Indian middle class loathes the ruling UPA due to high inflation and a consistent inflow of corruption scandals. However, the moment criticism comes from foreign countries it’s not welcome.

In all this madness, what comes out clearly is the relevance of India to rest of the world. How many times does The Economist or the Time magazine talk about the head of the state of Lesotho, or Estonia, that too on their cover? All the attention that Mr. Singh and India is attracting now is because India is too big to be ignored. Indian economy is now linked to the world economy. Stung by domestic slowdown western companies are looking towards the untapped markets in India. Policy paralysis or underachievement by Indian government is as much a worry to the west as it is to Indians.

The Outlook can always launch a counter attack, which at its best was juvenile, given the usual scope of coverage by the magazine. The masses can pour their anger on the Internet, politicians can use the situation for personal gains, industry can feel vindicated, but in all this cacophony there is a subtle message which says India is becoming important in world affairs. Someone in the government should read this message. Stand still too long and others will overtake. There are many of them by the way.