Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
State Department Identifies ‘Countries of Particular Concern’ on Religious Freedom
State Department Identifies ‘Countries of Particular Concern’ on Religious Freedom
Dec 2, 2025 12:50 PM

In 1998, the U.S. took an important step in promoting religious freedom as a foreign policy objective with the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRF Act). Designed to “strengthen United States advocacy on behalf of, individuals persecuted in foreign countries on account of religion,” the law authorized “actions in response to violations of religious freedom in foreign countries.”

The act also requires that that Secretary of State identify “countries of particular concern,” a designation reserved for nation’s guilty of particularly severe violations of religious freedom. The classification is used for countries that mitted “particularly severe violations of religious freedom,” including violations such as:

a) Torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment;b) Prolonged detention without charges;c) Causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction or clandestine detention of those persons; ord) Other flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, or the security of persons. Nations so designated are subject to further actions, including economic sanctions, by the United States.

Earlier this month, the State Department released this year’s list. The countries of particular concern are Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and — for the first time — Tajikistan.

At a press briefing, the State Department acknowledged that in accordance with the IRF Act, presidential actions have been implemented for Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, and Sudan.

However, an amendment to the act allows the president to waive punitive measures against a concerned country if he or she believes it is necessary to advanceother foreign policy interests. This year a presidential waiver was given to Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan following “determinations that the important national interest of the United States required exercising this waiver authority.”

In aresponse to the release, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) — mission created and authorized by the IRF Act — expressed concern about the waivers and the countries that were not named.

“USCIRF es the designation of these ten countries,” said Robert P. George, USCIRF’s Chairman. “The [country of particular concern] designation shines a spotlight on the ‘systematic, ongoing, and egregious’ violations of the freedom of religion or belief that are taking place in these nations. However, the Secretary also waived imposing any consequences on Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. The CPC designation brings with it a unique toolbox of policy options to effectively promote religious freedom, and USCIRF encourages the Administration to use these tools.”

mending the addition of Tajikistan, the USCIRF concluded that the country of particular concern list should be expanded to include seven other countries (Central African Republic, Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria, and Vietnam) and urged that waivers be limited to a set period of time and subject to review for renewal.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Gleaner Tech #2: The Global Village Construction Set
[Note: This is the second in an occasional series ongleaner technology.] The Global Village Construction Setis a collection of 40 machines needed to “create a small civilization with forts…like a life-size Lego set.” ...
Samuel Gregg: Inequality Anyone?
Over at National Review Online, Acton Research Director Samuel Gregg takes a look at a recent Charles Blow op-ed in the New York Times in which the writer hyperventilates about statements made by Rick Santorum on the subject of e inequality. Economically speaking, e inequality reflects the workings of several factors, many of which are essential if we want a dynamic, growing economy. Even your average neo-Keynesian economist will acknowledge that, without incentives (such as the prospect of a higher...
Libertarians, Religious Conservatives, and the Myth of Social Neutrality
When es to our view of individual liberty, one of the most unexplored areas of distinction between libertarians and religious conservatives* is how we view neutrality and bias. Because the differences are uncharted, I have no way of describing the variance without resorting to a grossly simplistic caricature—so with a grossly simplistic caricature we shall proceed: Libertarians believe that neutrality between the various spheres of society—and especially betweenthe government and the individual—are both possible and desirable, and so the need...
Madison on Religious Conscience
The HHS Mandate is troubling to so many simply because it’s a clear Constitutional violation. Any basic understanding of Constitutional rights and our religious freedom sees that this is primarily about religious liberty, and not solely an issue concerning contraceptives or Roman Catholics. Last week we heard from James Madison on religious liberty in my post “Religious Liberty or Government Tolerance?” In 1792, Madison wrote an essay titled “Property” in the National Gazette. This is a brilliant piece by Madison...
Biased in Favor of the Entrepreneur State
Yesterday I argued that since bias is inherent in institutions and neutrality between individual and social spheres is illusory we should harness and direct the bias of institutions towards a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles. One of the ways we can do that in the economic realm, I believe, is to encourage a bias toward entrepreneurship and away from corporatism. As Derek Thompson, a senior editor at The Atlantic, says, “It would...
Government and Gambling
Over at Mere Comments I note the recent invective against gambling leveled by Al Mohler and Russell Moore. I contend that as opposed to casinos, lotteries are in fact the most troubling example of state-sponsored gambling. And I also worry a bit about the use of legal means to prohibit gambling, as it isn’t so clear to me that gambling is always and in every case a moral evil. Thus, I write, that cultural rather than primarily political attempts to...
What does it mean to be On Call In Culture?
Most of us know what it feels like… this pull toward something. Whether it is art or science or writing or business—there is something inside you that says, “Yes, this is where I belong. This is what I was meant to do!” As Christians this realization e with a bit of disappointment mixed with the excitement of finding our place. We somehow wish that our calling were something of a more spiritual nature…something that mattered more. But here’s a question:...
No Olympic Dream: Monti’s wake up call to Italy
On Valentine’s Day, just one day before having to tender its application to the International Olympic Committee in Lausanne, Switzerland, Italy’s pragmatic Prime Minister Mario Monti showed no romantic spirit by canceling his nation’s dream to host the 2020 Summer Olympics. In a last-minute decision made Feb. 14, Prime Minister Monti explained at a press conference that the already overburdened Italian taxpayers simply cannot afford to finance the estimated $12.5 billion to bring the 2020 Olympic Games to Rome. “I...
Since Christ Died for Us
Yesterday my son asked me why today is called “Ash Wednesday.” In that question I could hear the echoes of another question, “Since Christ has died for us, why do we still have to die?” The latter question is found in the Heidelberg Catechism, and the brief but poignant answer has stuck with me since I first encountered it. First, the catechism clarifies that our death does not have redemptive power: “Our death does not pay the debt of our...
Happiness is Subjective
One of the conclusions from last mentary was that the government shouldn’t be in the business of promoting a particular vision of the good life in America. That’s not to say that the government doesn’t have some role in promoting mon good or making some normative judgments about the good life. But it shouldn’t get anywhere near the level of specificity of promising a family, home, college education, and retirement for all. In part this is because while moral good...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved