Why the U.S. Designates Countries as “Countries of Particular Concern” – It’s Not Just About Protecting Christians
When examining the list of nations that the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) and the U.S. Department of State classify as “Countries of Particular Concern” (CPCs), it becomes clear that the designations are not driven solely by whether the U.S. supports Christian communities. Rather, the benchmark focuses on systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom, regardless of faith tradition.
Below is an expanded and updated blog-style explanation of the recent situation, the legal framework, and real-world examples, showing how the U.S. approach to religious freedom is broader than a “pro-Christian” narrative. This is particularly relevant for audiences everywhere—including readers in Nigeria—who often assume bias in favour of Christian-communities or Christian persecution only.
What are CPCs and why they matter
The International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) of 1998 and subsequent amendments require the U.S. Secretary of State (on behalf of the President) to identify countries whose governments engage in or tolerate particularly severe violations of religious freedom and designate them as “Countries of Particular Concern” (CPCs).
According to the statute:
> “Particularly severe violations” means systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom including: (A) torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; (B) prolonged detention without charges; (C) causing disappearance of persons by abduction or clandestine detention; or (D) other flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, or security of persons.
In addition to CPCs, there is also a “Special Watch List” (SWL) for countries whose religious freedom violations are “severe” but do not meet all three of the CPC criteria (systematic, ongoing, egregious).
Why it matters: A CPC designation is more than a label. It sets the stage for possible U.S. actions—ranging from public naming and shaming, diplomatic pressure, to sanctions and other consequences. It also underscores that religious freedom is a foreign-policy concern for the U.S., not just a domestic or Christian issue.
Latest 2025 recommendations: what’s new
In its 2025 Annual Report (assessing violations in 2024), USCIRF recommended:
The re-designation of 12 countries already listed as CPCs: Burma (Myanmar), China, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan.
The designation of four additional countries as CPCs: Afghanistan, India, Nigeria, and Vietnam.
The maintenance of Algeria and Azerbaijan on the SWL, plus the addition of ten other countries to the SWL list: Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Turkey, and Uzbekistan.
These expanded recommendations are recent and signpost shifting global patterns where not only traditional “repressive regimes” but also populous democracies with rising religious-freedom concerns are under scrutiny.
Debunking the “just Christians” narrative
A common misconception is that the CPC designations are primarily a tool for protecting Christians globally. But the facts tell a different story:
Several CPC countries target Muslims or minority Islamic sects. For example, in China, the Uyghur Muslims face mass-detention and systemic controls over religious practice. In Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, independent Muslim worship is suppressed.
Some CPCs focus on other religions: For instance, in Russia, the case of the Jehovah’s Witnesses being banned shows that the crackdown is not simply on Muslims or Christians exclusively.
The legal definition focuses on denial of religious freedom in any form, including minority religions, new religious movements, and those dissenting from state-preferred faiths.
Thus, the CPC designation mechanism is faith-neutral in formal terms: its trigger is the pattern and magnitude of violations, not the faith group under threat. It’s designed to name governments, not specific religions.
Real-world examples where Muslims were targeted
To illustrate the breadth of the CPC regime, here are examples where Muslim communities (or Muslim-majority states) figure significantly:
China: The Uighur Muslim minority in Xinjiang face mass surveillance, internment camps, forced political re-education, and suppression of religious practice. These actions meet the “systematic, ongoing, egregious” criteria for CPC designation.
Tajikistan / Turkmenistan: These Central Asian states impose heavy state control over Islam — only state-approved interpretations allowed; independent mosques shut; individuals penalised for “unauthorised” religious study or practice. USCIRF’s 2025 report re-emphasised this region.
Pakistan: Listed as a CPC (as of 2023) largely because of its blasphemy laws and persistent persecution of religious minorities (including Christians, Ahmadis, and non-Sunni Muslims).
In short: the U.S. mechanism is not simply “we protect Christians abroad,” but “we recognise when any government is repressing religious freedom at an extreme level.”
How this applies to Nigeria and India
Why is this relevant for Nigeria (or Nigeria-based audiences)? Because Nigeria was among the four countries USCIRF recommended for CPC status in 2025. The reasoning: rising attacks on religious minorities, including Christian pastors and congregations; inter-communal violence with religious overtones; and concerns about state responses.
India, similarly, was recommended by USCIRF for CPC status because of the increasing role of state-level laws targeting religious conversion, harassment of minorities, and transnational repression of dissenting faiths.
These developments confirm three things:
The CPC list is dynamic and responds to evolving conditions.
Large democracies (not only autocracies) are under scrutiny for religious-freedom violations.
The mechanism is not about Christian vs. Muslim only—it can apply to any faith community or where religious freedom is suppressed.
Why critics accuse bias – and what the mechanism says
Critics often argue that the U.S. applies CPC designations inconsistently, especially when strategic allies are involved. Some of that criticism has merit. For example:
Although USCIRF recommended India and Nigeria for CPC status, as of the report the Department of State had not designated them.
Some CPC waivers have been issued, meaning countries technically designated as CPCs are exempted from certain sanctions for “national interest” reasons.
But these criticisms do not invalidate the core logic: the criteria are declared, and they include all faiths, all regions, and any state that meets the threshold of repression. The fact that non-Christian communities (particularly Muslims) are named underscores this.
What this means for Nigeria and global stakeholders
For Nigeria, this mechanism has several implications:
It offers an external benchmark: if religious freedom is seriously eroded, Nigeria could face reputational and diplomatic consequences.
It emphasises that state or non-state violence around religious identity (Muslim, Christian, Indigenous faiths) draws international attention—not just the persecution of Christians.
Civil society, faith groups and media within Nigeria can use the CPC framework to press for better protections for all religious communities, including Muslims, Christians and others.
The broader global context: A country like Nigeria should note that the U.S. is looking at global patterns—e.g., torture, forced disappearance, detention without charge (the IRFA criteria). That means accountability efforts in Nigeria are linked to global standards.
Key take-away: broadened lens, not a narrow “Christian protection” tool
To sum up:
The CPC designations are guided by a legal standard not a religious bias.
The U.S. doesn’t designate because a country “harms Christians” only—but whether a government is engaging in “systematic, ongoing, egregious” violations of religious freedom across any faith communities.
Muslim-majority states and Muslim minorities appear in the list, demonstrating the faith-neutral application of the standard.
Nigeria and India’s potential inclusion signal that large countries with rising religious-freedom concerns are now part of this global spotlight.
For stakeholders in Nigeria (faith groups, government, media), this mechanism underscores that religious freedom for all (not just one group) is increasingly central to international norms and scrutiny.
Final Thought
In a world where religious identity often intersects with politics, violence and national security, it’s important to recognise that the U.S. mechanism of designating “Countries of Particular Concern” is not about favouring one faith over another. It’s about flagging those governments whose conduct toward any faith group is so abusive that it meets a defined threshold of severity. For Nigeria—as you work on content that addresses governance, human rights, and civil society—this tool offers a useful lens: protect all faith-communities, press for meaningful accountability, and recognise that religious freedom is increasingly a metric on the global stage.
0 Comments