Commission Impossible: The International Religious Freedom Act and its Impact on U.S. Foreign Policy with Particular Reference to Iraq and Burma, 1999-2012.

摘要

The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 positions religious freedom at the center of U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. seeks as part of its foreign policy to impose sanctions, including the designation of certain egregious violators of religious freedom as Countries of Particular Concern, (CPCs). This dissertation explores whether the congressionally mandated United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) is an effective body for determining which countries should be labeled CPC's and, more significantly, whether this designation is effective in encouraging countries to cease religious freedom persecutions. The dissertation examines the relationship between the State Department's office of International Religious Freedom and the USCIRF (the Commission) and will critically examine whether the State Department is taking seriously the recommendations of the Commission as per its congressional mandate by the IRFA. However, the implementation of certain congressional mandates within the IRFA, namely USCIRF, stretch beyond their intended reach, and have inconsistent levels of success in regard to making useful recommendations the State Department feels compelled to follow. I arrive at these claims through a four-chapter examination of these issues. Chapter one explains what the IRFA is, what it represents, and how it came to be. Chapter two addresses questions such as: is religious freedom a ploy used to protect U.S. interests abroad, including but not limited to the role of American Christian missionaries? Chapter three is a two-part case study of Iraq and Burma, leading to the suggestion that the Commission's role as the global religious freedom "watch-dog" is inconsistent with U.S. foreign policy. Chapter four address concerns regarding favoritism, privilege, bias, unfairness and racism amongst the Commission members and how these issues ultimately plays a part in the Commission's recommendations to the State Department. In the end, I do not call for a total dismantling of the IRFA or the Commission because I believe in the altruistic intentions of the framers and of the Commissioners. Although the IRFA emphasizing religion as central to foreign policy is hardly unethical, it is for all purposes expressed throughout this dissertation, inappropriate.