INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE

PUBLISHED with THE NEW YORK TIMES AND THE WASHINGTON POST

September 12, 1997

Rights for Religion

Among those persecuted by authoritarian regimes today are millions of Christians denied, often brutally, the freedom to practice their faith. This is so in China, where only the "official" -church is tolerated and where independent bishops and believers are harassed and imprisoned. It is so in some - but by no means all - Islamic countries, including some that are harshly criticized by the U.S. government, such as Sudan and Afghanistan, and others that remain close allies, such as Saudi Arabia.

Reports of this harsh persecution have provided the impetus for a bill -now gathering steam in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1997, sponsored by Virginia Representative Frank Wolf and Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, would create a new Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring in the White House. The director, subordinate only to the president, would be charged with reporting on abuses against religious minorities. Serious abuses would trigger automatic economic sanctions. The bill would have the director examine first and foremost the treatment of Christians, Tibetan Buddhists and Baha'is, but then the office could move on to other faiths. Those fleeing religious persecution would get special -treatment from U.S. asylum officers.

The bill, opposed by the Clinton administration for, among other things, restricting its flexibility in foreign policy matters, has attracted support from a wide spectrum, ranging from liberal Democrats to conservative Republicans. Some welcome it primarily as a vehicle to express displeasure with China, others as a means to force more attention to human rights matters in general, and still others primarily as a defense of the Christian groups that the initial inspiration for it.

Some long time advocates of religious freedom around the world raise objections to aspects of the bill while supporting its goals and intentions. There is concern, well-founded in precedent, that a separate White House office removed from State Department and National Security Council policymakers could end up marginalizing the issue rather than elevating it. Naming some persecuted groups while neglecting others could send a message that Congress values Baha'is in Iran, say, more than Sunni Muslims there.

More broadly, singling out the freedom to worship risks sending a message that some human rights are more cherished than others. Proponents believe that they are simply righting past

imbalances, but it is important that China understand that a brave political dissident like Wei Jingsheng is no more, nor less, important to Americans than equally courageous Catholic bishops or Tibetan Buddhists now suffering in labor camps. This potential hierarchy is particularly troubling in the area of granting asylum, which should be made more accessible for all who are persecuted.

The narrowly drawn sanctions contained in this bill would actually provide "less rather than more protection than existing human rights law," according to a letter, signed by the heads of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and a handful of like-minded organizations. The difficulty is that neither the administration nor Congress has shown the political will to enforce existing law when it comes to close strategic or commercial partners such as China and Saudi Arabia.

The proposed legislation is flawed. But if, as it moves through Congress, it elevates the role of human rights in U.S. foreign policy, it will represent an achievement.

THE WASHINGTON POST