The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released prior to January 20, 2001.  Please see www.state.gov for material released since President George W. Bush took office on that date.  This site is not updated so external links may no longer function.  Contact us with any questions about finding information. NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

Stuart E. Eizenstat, Under Secretary for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs; John Shattuck, Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; and Robert Seiple, Special Representative for International Religious Freedom U.S. Department of State On-the-record briefing on the International Religious Freedom Act Released by the Office of the Spokesman Washington, DC, October 9, 1998

UNDER SECRETARY EIZENSTAT: Thank you very much, Jim. I am pleased that the Administration is able to support the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which passed the Senate a short time ago by a 98-0 vote. I want to thank Senators Nickles, Lieberman, Biden, Baucus, Hagel, Feinstein, Lugar and Grams for all their help in working so closely with the Administration on this legislation.

With the changes that we have now negotiated, the bill advances the cause of religious freedom while giving the President the flexibility he needs, and without undermining relations with important countries around the world, which had been among the causes of our objection to earlier versions of similar legislation. This bill allows the President to choose among a range of actions; provides appropriate presidential waiver authority; avoids a piling-on effect by taking into account prior actions by the President to advance human rights. The bill avoids also stigmatizing any country or group of countries. This effort demonstrates the kind of accommodation between the legislative and executive branches needed on sanctions legislation. With an appropriate bipartisan show of comity between the branches, progress can be made in advancing important American values, such as religious freedom, as an integral part of our foreign policy. We enthusiastically support the goals of this legislation to advance the cause of religious freedom for believers everywhere. These goals are fully consistent with the Administration's firm and long-standing support for all human rights, including the right of all believers to practice their faith without fear. We've worked hard with the bill's sponsors to help craft legislation that will accomplish that, to the benefit of practitioners of all religions -- whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or other faiths -- and I am convinced that this legislation will help do that. In supporting this bill, I can assure you it is not directed against any particular religious group; against any country, or against any particular region. It is intended to benefit all believers of all faiths.

We're pleased that the bill is consistent with many of the sanctions reform principles that we've sought to advance, and that I outlined in my testimony recently before the Senate.

The constructive dialogue that we've had with the bill's sponsors over the last few weeks -- and in particular with Senator Nickles, Senator Lieberman and Senator Feinstein Wednesday night and Thursday -- demonstrates in a most concrete way the principle we have sought to advance: That we most effectively advance our common goals when we work together in a spirit of comity to forge a common and effective approach. This spirit of cooperation demonstrates the kind of flexibility that's the hallmark of the broader question of sanctions reform that we'll be taking up in the months ahead. The bill provides that the decisions under the act will not automatically trigger a broad variety of actions under other human rights legislation. It offers the President a menu of actions to advance the cause of religious freedom, which will give him increased flexibility to tailor our response to specific (situations) -- something the original House bill did not.

The bill mandates applications of restrictive economic measures only against countries that engage in systematic, ongoing and egregious violations of religious freedom. For sanctions to apply, such violations must be accompanied by reprehensible practices such as torture, prolonged arbitrary detention without charges, or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty or security of person.

The bill also allows the President to take into account other substantial measures which have already been taken to advance the cause of human rights and which are still in effect in order to avoid a cascade effect of ever-increasing sanctions.

The inclusion of important national interest waiver authority will also give the President and Secretary the flexibility and discretion to use the required economic measures most effectively. Only the President can balance the complex range of US interests that such decisions may involve, and to tailor our response so it most effectively advances our national interest.

Ultimately, this principle of presidential flexibility is so crucial; and I believe this bill will effectively help promote the end we seek with that flexibility -- namely, the protection of religious freedom worldwide -- rather than becoming an issue of contention between us and our partners around the world.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHATTUCK: I'd like to put in a broader context of our work on human rights and the promotion of religious freedom the legislation that's just been described by Under Secretary Eizenstat.

Our overarching purpose is to promote respect and enjoyment of universal human rights; and religious freedom is among the most cherished of human rights. It is an internationally accepted principle of human rights, recognized particularly in the International Covenant on Civil Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Our own country was founded on the right to worship freely and to exercise tolerance and respect of others. President Clinton and Secretary Albright have made this issue a central element of US foreign policy. They've raised the issue with foreign leaders, created an Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad, and most recently, established the position of Special Representative on International Religious Freedom, Dr. Robert Seiple, whom I will introduce in just a moment.

Religious freedom is interconnected with other human rights, such as freedom of expression; freedom of conscience; freedom of association; and freedom of movement, among others. As we promote religious freedom, we promote a set of human rights principles and encourage tolerance of all faiths and beliefs. As we look around the world, we see that the denial of religious freedom not only brings suffering to many individuals, but also can lead to conflict and violent instability where communities cannot live with religious differences. Much of the work we do on religious freedom is aimed at building the foundation for peace and the opportunity for democratic governance. This bill, as passed by the Senate this morning, offers a serious and effective means to pursue greater religious freedom around the world. For this reason, the Administration supports the bill. I'd like to introduce now Dr. Robert Seiple.

DR. SEIPLE: Thanks, John. As the Secretary's Special Representative for International Religious Freedom, I am very pleased to be here today to announce my support for the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. The bill, introduced by Senator Don Nickles and Senator Joseph Lieberman, provides serious and effective tools to pursue religious freedom around the world.

Just as important, the bipartisan cooperative process we've engaged in over the past few weeks in crafting the bill's provisions, has demonstrated to the world that the United States speaks with one strong voice on this critical issue.

My job is to coordinate US Government policies to advance religious freedom. The strong consensus supporting this bill will support our continuing efforts to convince friends and foes alike that they must act to protect this very basic universal human right. We want to work with governments, religious organizations, NGOs and others to promote religious freedom and tolerance everywhere. This bill will help us do that.

QUESTION: Can any of you get country-specific -- how the bill might impact, say, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia?

UNDER SECRETARY EIZENSTAT: The sponsors of the bill made clear that they intended to promote religious freedom and tolerance without targeting any particular religion or region. We're not in a position now, certainly, to make any determinations. What is important about this legislation is that it sets a very reasonable but tough standard for egregious violators. In order to be in the first category of countries of egregious violators, to which more of the menu of sanctions would apply, you have to have been guilty of systematic, ongoing, egregious violations. And these include things such as torture, prolonged detention, disappearance, flagrant denial of life and liberty. We will have to go through this analysis to determine which countries would meet that definition.

For the second category of countries -- those who tolerate discrimination -- we are not required to make a finding of violation. This is very important: Because it avoids a list and automatic sanctions; it gives us a great deal of discretion. What is so different about this bill from its earlier versions in the House -- and for that matter, in the Senate, but particularly in the House -- first, it provides a menu of actions which can be taken all the way from a private demarche through voting against a country in international financial institutions. Second, it provides the kind of waiver authority that we have been seeking more broadly in sanctions reform legislation, so that presidents can use that in an effective way to balance other foreign policy interests. Third, the definition of particularly severe violators -- this first tier of countries -- is one that we think is appropriately limited and targeted. And fourth, we were able to get -- in certain sections where the President was mandated to do things like consult with NGOs -- discretion to do so. So this gives us the flexibility; it accomplishes the purposes, as John and Robert indicated, but it allows us to take our broader foreign policy interests into effect, and it will not be perceived as targeting any particular group of countries.

QUESTION: Mr. Eizenstat, this bill, if I understand correctly, will have to go to committee, to conference?

UNDER SECRETARY EIZENSTAT: The bill goes to the House. A statement has been made on the Senate floor -- and I can only repeat the statement; I can't speak for the Senate or the House. The statement that was made was that the House had agreed to accept identical legislation. Now again, that is up to the House; I can't speak for the House, but that is the understanding we have been given.

QUESTION: Okay, and also, what are the range of actions? Could you be more specific about what latitude the President would now have under this Senate bill?

UNDER SECRETARY EIZENSTAT: Under the Senate bill there are a variety of actions that can be taken: anywhere from a private demarche through, again as I mentioned, voting against countries in international financial institutions; cutting off foreign aid; denying state visits; denying visas -- it's a whole menu. For those who are in the most egregious violator category, that menu starts with the more difficult sanctions; I think it's nine through 16. For those who are in the earlier category, you can choose from a wider range. But I think it's important to know what we already do. First of all, this is the first Administration -- and Secretary Shattuck is significantly responsible, along with Secretary Albright, for this initiative -- to issue a religious freedom report. This has already been done; it's been done this year. Second, we already demarche every year each country on a global basis about their religious practices. So those kinds of activities will simply continue for this second tier of countries; although we can, if we wish, take some of the actions that are allowed in the menu of options.

The House version -- the original House bill -- did not have that menu. There was an automaticity that was required for those who fit the definition. This Senate bill provides much greater flexibility for the President to balance interests; and again, it has a waiver provision that is, we think, a more systemically important waiver provision for other sanction legislation. So in that sense, this is an example of how, on a very complex, very emotional issue, we can work out sanctions bills, taking into account the concerns the Congress and the Administration have on issues like religious freedom, at the same time giving the President the necessary flexibility and discretion to balance other foreign policy interests.

QUESTION: You talked a great deal about the sort of flexibility this legislation will give the President, and the menu of options. Can you talk a little bit about what is it about this legislation that makes it more effective in achieving the stated goals? I mean, what is it about this legislation that increases religious freedom abroad?

UNDER SECRETARY EIZENSTAT: I'll talk about that briefly, and then I'll ask John and Robert to talk about this.

By elevating the whole issue of religious persecution, we think that this will heighten awareness around the world of the concern. And although we do have a menu of options, particularly for egregious violators, there will have to be determinations made and sanctions potentially used. So it will certainly elevate the whole issue. It gives the President a menu of options that he can use to promote those interests. In that sense, it advances the cause of religious freedom beyond that which existed in general human rights legislation, where religious persecution was not particularly identified.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHATTUCK: I think this also provides a strong platform for the work that's being done in the area of religious freedom and the centrality that that work has to our foreign policy.

The appointment of Dr. Seiple is certainly the best concrete example of that. But now we're going to be seeing, I think, whenever an approach is made to another government, clearly the backing of the entire United States Government in a broad consensus with, basically, the interests of the American people being reflected in that consensus.

I think that will strengthen our hand in international arenas in a whole variety of ways that this legislation demonstrates. So the legislation brings the Administration and the Congress together behind what is clearly a foreign policy priority, in this world where conflict is such a major part of our foreign policy concerns in the instability of the world, and where religious persecution is sometimes behind that conflict. Bob, do you want to add anything?

DR. SEIPLE: Just one additional thought that I don't think should be overlooked. In a town that institutionalizes differences, it is no small thing to have this overwhelming support from both branches of Congress and the American people. This is an issue that essentially came from the people -- small groups, coalitions, churches, faith-supported from private citizens to other coalitions of people; sometimes strange bedfellows. And to the place where we now have something that has received this kind of unanimous endorsement, essentially, I think it's a tremendous statement for what really is at the heart of how we feel as a people. And obviously it's a tremendous statement for all the people around the world who are suffering because of their faith.

QUESTION: I just wonder what you would be doing, Dr. Seiple. Will you be meeting with religious groups, traveling, researching, compiling reports?

DR. SEIPLE: We will be promoting religious freedom in its broadest scope, which is to say meeting, establishing relationships, continuing the coalitions, continuing the work of monitoring, working with other folks in the State Department, outside of government, inside of government. We'll also be promoting reconciliation where the issue of conflict has been implemented along religious lines -- a situation like Bosnia. And obviously we'll also make sure that these kinds of things are interwoven into the foreign policy of the United States. That's a quick answer; that's also a mouthful.

[end of document]

|| Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor | Department of State ||

This is an official U.S. Government source for information on the WWW.
Inclusion of non-U.S. Government links does not imply endorsement of contents.