‘Real sanctions, real consequences’ are needed for countries on religious freedom watchlist

“It has been disappointing to see how seldom a CPC designation has resulted in real consequences for those responsible for religious freedom violations,” U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom Chairman Stephen Schneck told CNA. / Credit: U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom Public Hearing/Screenshot

Washington D.C., Feb 5, 2025 / 17:30 pm (CNA).

Placing countries that violate religious liberties on a watchlist of the world’s worst offenders is not enough to prevent future violations, according to a panel discussion at the International Religious Freedom (IRF) Summit held in Washington, D.C., this week. 

The Tuesday afternoon panel, “Rallying Behind the CPC Designation: Enhancing Collaboration for Greater Impact,” discussed the limitations of the State Department’s tool for combatting global religious persecution: the country of particular concern (CPC) designation.

United States Commission on International Religious (USCIRF) Chairman Stephen Schneck explained: “The CPC designation really only works as an instrument for naming and shaming.” 

“Real sanctions, real consequences on the ground in some practical way of effectiveness — that’s just not there in the way that the CPC designations currently work,” Schneck said. “We need to change the CPC designation in such a fashion that it has actionable consequences on the ground.”

Since the United States adopted the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, the State Department has issued annual reports designating countries of particular concern. The designation is reserved for countries with “systematic, ongoing, and egregious” violations of religious liberty, such as torture and other types of inhumane treatment, prolonged detentions, abductions and disappearances, and other flagrant denials of life, liberty, or security of persons.

According to the USCIRF chairman, many countries that receive a CPC designation can “largely ignore” it through waivers that have been put in place for diplomatic geopolitical reasons.

“There needs to be something — whether a waiver is applied or not — that has meaningful consequences for these countries, regardless of the larger geopolitical situation in the world and U.S. foreign policy, and so forth,” Schneck said. 

He further suggested application of the Global Magnitsky Act, a U.S. law that allows the government to issue sanctions against religious freedom violators at an individual rather than national or statewide level so as not to cause economic suffering to those already experiencing religious persecution in those countries. 

Piero Tozzi, staff director of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, called for the State Department to exercise more comprehensive oversight over countries it designates as CPCs. He also suggested its officials receive more training on how to recognize religious freedom violations. 

“Sometimes they see the world and they think the rest of the world has the same secular outlook that they do,” Tozzi said, explaining that if State Department officials are not trained to recognize religious persecution, issuing a designation and holding countries accountable becomes more difficult. 

Tozzi gave the example of the persecution of Christian farmers by Muslim Fulani herdsmen in the Middle Belt region of Nigeria. He said that some at the State Department had incorrectly described it as a land resource dispute brought on by climate change.

The Biden administration notably left Nigeria off its CPC designation list despite its own reports highlighting the violent persecution of Christians taking place in the country.