SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
31–566PDF
2007
EXAMINATION OF A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN
RIGHT: THE 2006 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM REPORT
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
DECEMBER 21, 2006
Serial No. 109–243
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey,
Vice Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
RON PAUL, Texas
DARRELL ISSA, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
CONNIE MACK, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
MICHAEL McCAUL, Texas
TED POE, Texas
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
BARBARA LEE, California
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM SMITH, Washington
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel
ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director
SHERI A. RICKERT, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member and Counsel
LINDSEY M. PLUMLEY, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
WITNESSES
Mr. Stephen M. Liston, Director, Office of International Religious Freedom, U.S. Department of State
Ms. Felice D. Gaer, Chair, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
Thomas F. Farr, Ph.d., former Director, Office of International Religious Freedom, U.S. Department of State
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. Nina Shea, Director, Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom House
Pastor Bui Thien Hue, Hoa Hao Church, Houston, Texas
Mr. Joseph Kung, President, The Cardinal Kung Foundation
Mr. Berhane Sium, Eastern United States Coordinator, The Eritrean National Salvation Front (ENSF)
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Mr. Stephen M. Liston: Prepared statement
Letter from the Honorable Christopher H. Smith to Secretary Rice dated December 13, 2006
Ms. Felice D. Gaer: Prepared statement
Thomas F. Farr, Ph.d.: Prepared statement
Ms. Nina Shea: Prepared statement
Pastor Bui Thien Hue: Prepared statement
Mr. Joseph Kung: Prepared statement
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Berhane Sium: Prepared statement
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
EXAMINATION OF A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT: THE 2006 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 o'clock a.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith (Vice Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The hearing will come to order, and good morning to everyone.
During this holiday season—and of course that term derives from ''holy season''—it is especially appropriate for our Committee to proclaim in advance the universality and surpassing importance of religious freedom for every woman, man and child on Earth, with no exceptions.
Thus the Committee on International Relations is holding this oversight hearing on the congressionally-mandated International Religious Freedom Report and on designations of Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) for 2006. We are following up on some timely issues that were raised during the hearing that I chaired in June 2006, entitled ''The Plight of Religious Minorities: Can Religious Pluralism Survive,'' under the auspices of our Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations. We are also examining United States policy generally with respect to the promotion of religious freedom, with the attention given to the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 which mandated the annual report.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In this country, we tend to take for granted the freedom to exercise our conscience and to practice our faith according to our personal beliefs. However, we need to remind ourselves that freedom of religion is a fundamental human right that must be vigorously and robustly safeguarded not only for the well-being of the individual, but also for society as a whole.
In the letter that he authored in 1980, Pope John Paul II emphasized that freedom of conscience and religion—and I quote him here—''is a primary and inalienable right of the human person . . . insofar as it touches the innermost sphere of the spirit, one can even say that it upholds the justification, deeply rooted in each individual, of all other liberties.'' The Pope went on to say that ''suppression, violation or restriction of religious freedom have caused suffering and bitterness, moral and material hardship, and that even today there are millions of people enduring these evils. By contrast, the recognition, guarantee and respect of religious freedom bring serenity to individuals and peace to the social community; they also represent an important factor in strengthening a nation's moral cohesion, in improving people's common welfare, and in enriching the cooperation among nations in an atmosphere of mutual trust.''
The former director of the Office of International Religious Freedom, Dr. Thomas Farr, who will be testifying on the third panel here today, I believe, wisely sums up the centrality of religious freedom to a properly functioning democracy and the respect for all human rights. He states in his written testimony, and I quote a pertinent part:
''A regime of religious liberty is characterized by much more than the absence of persecution. Religious freedom anchors a political order in which individuals and religious communities are free to act publicly in significant ways—to worship, to manifest religious truth claims, and to influence public policy, bounded only by the norms of liberal democracy. Where religious liberty exists, the natural tensions between the claims of religion and the claims of the liberal state have been reconciled in ways that can be sustained by the political culture. If U.S. diplomacy were successful in encouraging this aspect of democratic development, it would help ensure that democratic elections and democratic constitutions yielded stable, liberal governments rather than fragile concoctions of sectarian interest groups.''
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Congress gave expression to our commitment to international religious freedom with the passage in 1998 of the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA), which concretely established the promotion and protection of religious liberties as a foreign policy goal. Several of our witnesses will recall that IRFA was strongly opposed on the record. John Shadegg stood right here—good man, the former Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Democracy and Labor—and said it would establish a hierarchy of human rights under U.S. law. And, of course, I and others—because I chaired those hearings—pointed out that when we fought against apartheid and said that that abomination of racism in South Africa, and any laws that we could enact to try to mitigate and end it, certainly did not detract from other human rights policies, it was always value added.
And in like manner, when we took up the cause of Soviet Jewry, and the Jackson-Vanik amendment was employed with such effectiveness, and we risked superpower confrontation in order to effectuate the release of Jews who were being harassed and persecuted in the former Soviet Union, it did not detract. It was not a hierarchy of human rights; it was all value added.
And in like matter the International Religious Freedom Act was also an increase, an addition to, and I think an important addition to it. And of course we persisted, and eventually the President did sign the bill into law, which was authored by my good friend and colleague, Frank Wolf.
A critical component of the law, as I think most here know, is the requirement that foreign countries be reviewed each year. Now, those found to be engaged in or tolerant of particularly severe violations of religious freedom during the preceding 12 months are to be designated as Countries of Particular Concern. Last month the Department of State notified Congress that seven countries had been designated as CPCs in 2005, had been so designated again in 2006, and they include China, Burma, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. Vietnam, which was a CPC in 2005, was removed from the list in 2006. Uzbekistan was duly added to the list in 2006 and again brings the total number of CPC countries to eight.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to applaud Secretary Rice for designating Uzbekistan as a Country of Particular Concern. The situation for religious liberties has deteriorated significantly since the Andijon massacre in May 2005 when Uzbek security forces indiscriminately fired on a crowd of protestors. Over the past 18 months, the Karimov regime has increased its efforts to prohibit unregistered religious activity, to heavily fine individuals who meet illegally for worship, to jail thousands because of their Islamic affiliations or beliefs, and to prohibit the ability of individuals to share their religious views. I strongly believe that if the recalcitrant Karimov regime does not markedly improve religious freedoms within 90 days, Secretary Rice would be well justified to use the strict provisions given to her under the act.
Along with Uzbekistan, in recent years I and others have called for the designation of Turkmenistan as a CPC country, and, in fact, I am the author of a bill, H. Con. Res. 486, which focuses on the range of human rights concerns in Turkmenistan. With today's news of the sudden cardiac arrest and death of President Niyazov, the new leadership of Turkmenistan has the opportunity to ensure the right of their oppressed people to exercise their religious beliefs without hindrance. The new Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations, if properly implemented, would allow freedom of religion, but to date government authorities in Turkmenistan have continued to harass registered and unregistered religious groups, unregistered religious activity is illegal, religious speech is severely limited, and conscientious objection to military service is criminalized.
I believe we should not lose focus on Russia either. To be sure, there are many positive religious activities taking place in Russia nowadays. However, as the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recently reported, problems in the consolidation of religious freedom in Russia remain, especially for religious minorities.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While Russia is certainly entitled to combat terrorism and maintain domestic security, we note that even Muslim religious leaders who generally support Kremlin policies have complained about the tendency of some law enforcement officials to indiscriminately treat devout Muslims as terrorists. Moreover, this year's controversial NGO law could have damaging effects on religious organizations. Although the results at this writing have not been as catastrophic as some of us have feared, we still need to monitor that situation.
Let me point out to the audience and to the witnesses that I have deep reservations about the Secretary's decision to remove Vietnam as a Country of Particular Concern. During my last trip to Vietnam 1 year ago, I met with almost 60 religious political dissidents in dozens of meetings in Hanoi, Hue and in Ho Chi Minh City. Included in those meetings was one with Father Ly, who was under House arrest, and another with Father Loi, also under house arrest. These were two Catholic priests who were incarcerated for their faith and still remain under that arrest. Father Ly's crime consisted in writing and sending testimony to the U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom—who will testify shortly—detailing religious repression in Vietnam. Only after 4 years and a rigorous campaign to effectuate his release was he removed from prison to house arrest.
Based upon this and other meetings, I was certainly convinced at the time that Vietnam was rightly designated as a Country of Particular Concern, and it is difficult to believe that in only 1 year the situation in Vietnam has improved sufficiently to warrant its removal from the list.
We will be interested to hear in greater detail the Administration's justification for taking this action; to what extent the Department of State's enthusiastic support for PNTR (permanent normal trade relations) for Vietnam played, if any, in the CPC decision; and what measures are in place to continue to pressure the Vietnamese Government to respect religious freedom now that PNTR status has been granted. We all remember that after the bilateral trade agreement, the Vietnamese Government went out of its way to remind us that there was no linkage whatsoever to that trade agreement and to fundamental human rights. We hope maybe that has changed.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As we will hear from some of our witnesses today, the condition in the remaining CPC countries continues to be of extreme concern. China is upholding its reputation as one of the worst human rights violators in the entire world and of religious freedom. They continue to make new lows. In 1994, I visited China with another congressional colleague, and we were privileged—Joe Kung, one of our witnesses here, was also with us on that trip—to meet with Bishop Su Zhimin of Baoding Province, part of the underground Roman Catholic Church. Bishop Su was arrested in 1997 again and has spent approximately three decades of his life under arrest, and we don't know where he is. Mr. Joseph Kung hopefully can provide some insights as to his whereabouts, although based on everything I have seen, we still don't know, and the Chinese Government has been totally nonresponsive to State Department requests and private requests to provide his whereabouts and hopefully to release him.
Let me just say a word or two about Eritrea and President Isaias Afwerki, who was praised as one of Africa's promising new leaders; however, his government has been responsible for what is arguably the worst, sustained series of violations of religious freedom in Africa. The Eritrean Government has harassed, arrested and detained members of churches not listed among the four approved religious groups, which are the Eritrean Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church and Islam. According to some reports, there may be as many as 1,700 prisoners of conscience in detention in Eritrea.
Concerning the International Religious Freedom Act's framework more generally, I believe the act would support increased involvement in—and should support increased involvement—by the Office of International Religious Freedom in the formulation of United States policy in the Middle East. If we are trying to win hearts and minds in the Islamic world, shouldn't we be employing this office and its assets who knows best, I think perhaps more than anybody else in the government, just what it needs to do to promote democracy and freedom there and to understand even the radical Islamic mind and try to promote democracy there?
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The United States has been in the leadership on efforts to combat anti-Semitism, another issue that this Committee and the Commission on Security and Cooperation has taken a lead not only here, but in other parts of the world, especially in the OSCE region.
It is ever more important that we work internationally to combat hate, intolerance and violence based on religion that fuels extremist ideology and terrorism and the conflicts they produce throughout the world. Only by devoting the appropriate resources, personnel and high-level attention to these issues can we combat the spread of anti-Semitism and other forms of religious and ethnic intolerance.
I would be interested in hearing the perspective of our witnesses today as to how the discussion on religious liberty may be used to further combat the scourge of anti-Semitism.
Another area for increased IRF Office involvement would be in the work of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which is at the forefront of combating anti-Semitism and Islamaphobia. At the same time, the OSCE needs no step up its attention to discrimination against Christians, a topic that has received scant coverage. In Europe we continue to see troubling trends, especially when it comes to restrictive laws on religion. European Union countries like Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Portugal maintain legal systems that unfairly discriminate against minority religious groups. Meanwhile Romania, a country poised to enter EU within the new year, is considering a draft which, if signed by the President in its form, would give Romania the dubious distinction of having the most burdensome religious registration system in the entire 56-nation OSCE region.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would note, if Felice Gaer is here, she remembers the fight in the 1980s when we tried to suspend most favored nation status to the Ceausescu Government primarily because of the crackdown and its onerous registration requirement, and obviously the torture that was visited upon so many pastors and others like Father Calciu in Romania. We don't want to see the clock turn back when it comes to Romania, and this law sets them on a course which goes backwards.
These are but a few examples of government-sponsored prejudice inconsistent with international commitments on religious freedom and discrimination. Meanwhile others under the cloak of promoting tolerance are aggressively attacking the biblically-based doctrines of some Christian churches. We witnessed an outrageous example of this in Sweden with the prosecution of a Pentecostal pastor for the content of one of his sermons. While reason ultimately prevailed in that case, I fully expect that others will be targeted by those seeking to advance their agenda at the expense of those trying to peacefully follow their faith. Such disturbing developments require vigilance on the part of those truly committed to religious liberty.
Again I want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today, particularly during this busy holy season and holiday season, and I look forward to hearing your testimony and your perspectives on religious freedom around the world.
I would like to now ask our first panel—if Stephen Liston would make his way to the witness table. Mr. Liston has been a member of the Foreign Service since 1990. Before joining the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor in 2005 as director of the Office of International Religious Freedom, he served as deputy coordinator for the Summit of the Americas. His most recent posting was to the United States Embassy in Lima, Peru, where he served as head of the economic section.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Liston has received a number of State Department awards including Superior and Meritorious Honor Awards, and again I welcome the director of the Office of International Religious Freedom, Mr. Liston. Please proceed as you would like.
STATEMENT OF MR. STEPHEN M. LISTON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. LISTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have summarized our statement for the purposes of our time today and would ask that the full statement be entered into the record.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. LISTON. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to be here today before the Committee, and I want to begin by thanking you for holding this hearing.
Ambassador Hanford was very sorry to have to miss this hearing as a result of a severe illness in his family. He asked me to convey to you his deep regrets as it has been his great pleasure to work with this Committee and with you over the past several years and to testify every year regarding the work of the State Department in promoting and protecting the precious right of religious freedom.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
He especially asked me to note his gratitude for the Committee's commitment to religious freedom, for the support you have given to our efforts, and for the advocacy each of you do in your own right.
Religious freedom is deeply rooted in our principles and history as a Nation and is enshrined in our first amendment. It is also contained in numerous declarations, protocols and agreements which represent the ideals the international community has embraced, laying the foundation for our work with like-minded nations. But at its core, religious freedom is about individuals and the right to believe what they choose to believe, and this is why our efforts to promote that freedom unite us with people of faith all around the world.
In September, Secretary Rice submitted to Congress the Department's eighth Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. The report has become one of the most visible signals to both persecutor and persecuted of the importance we attach to religious freedom. The production of the report is an enormous undertaking. This year's report covers events and conditions in 197 countries and areas.
But there is no question of the importance and value of this effort. In many countries, we are pleased to be able to document efforts by governments to protect religious freedom. In others, we hope that when the report brings to light abuses, this will spur governments to uphold their international commitments to provide for full freedom of religion and will encourage the international community to stand with those who are suffering for their beliefs.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of the key functions of the report is to serve as the Department's basic tool for determining the worst violators of religious freedom around the world. Although we make every effort to work with governments to advance religious freedom, a number of countries not only fall far short of international standards, but have demonstrated little improvement. Therefore every year the Secretary of State finds it necessary to designate Countries of Particular Concern. Just last month, as you mentioned, Secretary Rice designated one new CPC, Uzbekistan, and redesignated seven countries which were on the CPC list last year, Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Sudan.
I would like to briefly mention today three of those countries where Ambassador Hanford and the Office of International Religious Freedom have focused our efforts over the last year.
Vietnam no longer meets the legal criteria set out in the International Religious Freedom Act and so was not designated a CPC this year. When Vietnam was first added to the list of Countries of Particular Concern in 2004, conditions for many religious believers were truly dire, with campaigns to force people to renounce their faith in certain regions, dozens of religious prisoners, and the harassment and physical mistreatment of some believers.
Over the last 2 years, the Government of Vietnam has put into place new laws prohibiting forced renunciations, which provided opportunity for registration of many hundreds of congregations. It legalized hundreds of meeting places and allowed for training of hundreds of new clergy members. The government has provided training for officials on how to interpret and implement these laws and has released all prisoners held on the basis of their religious beliefs.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today the Government of Vietnam can no longer be identified as a severe violator of religious freedom. This marks the first time that a country has made sufficient progress as a result of diplomatic engagement to be removed from the CPC list. We view this as a very important milestone.
Now, there is no question that there still remains important work to do to advance religious freedom in Vietnam. Although registrations of congregations have begun in the North and Northwest Highlands, they have still not reached a majority of believers in these regions. At times, local officials still take the law into their own hands, ignoring the central government's policies and creating problems for religious believers. Some Buddhists, in particular the leadership of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, or UBCV, remain restricted in their freedom to move and to meet. And some Montagnards in the Central Highlands have faced similar harassment because of their views.
Removal from the CPC list does not mean that religious freedom conditions are fully achieved, but the Government of Vietnam has addressed the central issues that constituted severe violations of religious freedom, and the decision not to redesignate Vietnam is an important signal that our purpose is to improve conditions for religious believers and that we will recognize progress when it occurs.
The remaining problems in Vietnam merit immediate attention and there is still a great deal of work for the Government of Vietnam to do to achieve full religious freedom. The President raised religious freedom issues in his meetings with the Prime Minister and President of Vietnam when he was in Hanoi in November. The Secretary of State also met with religious leaders on the margins of the APEC conference in Hanoi and stressed our continued dedication to this issue. We are all committed to securing further progress there, but we also hope that the real improvements achieved in Vietnam can be a model for progress and engagement in other nations.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Uzbekistan is just such a country where we hope to repeat our model of engagement and progress. The Secretary added the Government of Uzbekistan to the CPC list because violations of religious freedom in Uzbekistan are systematic and ongoing, and the situation has continued to deteriorate since last year. The government continues to target observant Muslims for arrest, often viewing conservative Islamic practice alone as evidence of extremism and terrorism. The already restrictive religion law has been further tightened. Christian congregations have been harassed and deregistered, and fines have been dramatically raised.
We recognize that the Government of Uzbekistan faces a legitimate security threat from groups that have used religion as an excuse for violence. It is important to be clear that our designation of Uzbekistan as a CPC is not in any way a defense of such groups. However, these legitimate security concerns cannot be used to justify the Uzbek authority's use of religious observance to target religious believers and brand them as extremists.
The Secretary took the step of designating Uzbekistan a Country of Particular Concern in the hope that the Uzbek Government would be encouraged to rethink its policies and undertake necessary reforms. I am pleased to say that Ambassador Hanford had several positive meetings with the Ambassador from Uzbekistan since we announced the designation, and it is our hope to be able to work with the Uzbek Ambassador and Government in Tashkent to help them meet international standards for protecting and promoting religious freedom.
Finally let me turn to Saudi Arabia where Ambassador Hanford and other Department officials have established continuing discussions with the Government of Saudi Arabia on religious freedom. Saudi Arabia was first designated a Country of Particular Concern in 2004 because, as the International Religious Freedom Report notes, religious freedom is not legally recognized as a right, nor is it protected for either citizens or guest workers. All citizens must be Muslims, and basic religious freedoms are limited to all but those who adhere to the state-sanctioned version of Sunni Islam.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
However, we are seeing indications that the government takes seriously the issue of increasing religious freedom as part of its broader efforts to combat extremism. We were especially pleased last summer that the Saudi Government outlined for us the steps it is taking to address concerns about intolerance and the status of freedom for religious practice. Saudi officials confirmed with our office a number of concrete steps to advance these goals. Their policies are designed to halt the dissemination of intolerant literature and extremist ideology both inside Saudi Arabia and around the world, which includes educational curriculum and textbooks. In addition, their policies also include protection of the right to private worship, curbing the harassment of religious groups, and empowering the Saudi Human Rights Commission.
By making these policies public for the first time, the Saudi Government has provided a baseline against which concerned groups can measure its actions. They recognize that this is just the beginning. Some religious practice is permitted, and tolerance is growing in Saudi Arabia, but there is no question that most religious groups, particularly non-Muslim religious groups, must worship in private and are still vulnerable to harassment by the religious police or others. Through our continuing engagement, we will press for full implementation of stated Saudi policies on religious practice and tolerance to create space for greater freedom.
The work we do to promote religious freedom in such countries as Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Vietnam, and the effort we make to produce the International Religious Freedom Report each year are only the beginning of our work. Added to these efforts is work by my colleagues here and abroad day in and day out in countries around the globe to ensure greater religious freedom by seeking changes in laws that are oppressive or discriminatory, pressing for the release of religious prisoners, and coming to the aid of victims of abuse. This work is central to who we are as Americans and to our role in the world, and it is work to which President Bush and Secretary Rice, no less than Ambassador Hanford, are fully committed both for its own sake and as an important facet of our national security strategy. As President Bush has said, ''The best antidote to radicalism and terror is the tolerance and hope kindled in free societies.''
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, we offer sincere thanks to you and to this Committee for your sincere commitment to promoting freedom of thought, conscience, and religion for every individual in every nation and society around the world. I would be pleased to take any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Liston follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. STEPHEN M. LISTON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: It is an honor to be here today before the Committee and I want to begin by thanking you for holding this hearing.
Ambassador Hanford was very sorry to have to miss this hearing as a result of a severe illness in his family. He asked me to convey his deep regrets, as it has been his great pleasure to work with this Committee over the past several years, and to testify every year regarding the work of the State Department in promoting and protecting the precious right to religious freedom. He especially asked me to note his gratitude for the Committee's commitment to religious freedom, for the support you give to our efforts, and for the advocacy each of you do in your own right.
Religious freedom is deeply rooted in our principles and history as a nation, and is enshrined in our First Amendment. It is also contained in numerous declarations, protocols, and agreements, which represent the ideals that the international community has embraced, laying the foundation for our work with like-minded nations. But at its core, religious freedom is about individuals and their right to believe what they choose to believe. And this is why our efforts to promote that freedom unite us with people of faith all around the world.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998, we have made important strides in integrating religious freedom into U.S. foreign policy. Each year, literally hundreds of officers and staff at our embassies and consulates abroad, and here in Washington in my office and regional bureaus, are engaged in monitoring, defending, and promoting religious freedom.
International Religious Freedom Report
In September, Secretary Rice submitted to Congress the Department's eighth Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. The Report has become one of the most visible signals, to both persecutor and persecuted, of the importance we attach to religious freedom. The production of the Report is an enormous undertaking—this year's report covers events and conditions in 197 countries and areas. But there is no question of the importance and value of this effort. In many countries, we are pleased to be able to document efforts by governments to protect religious freedom. In others, we hope that, when the Report brings to light abuses, this will spur governments to uphold their international commitments to provide for full freedom of religion, and will encourage the international community to stand with those who are suffering for their beliefs.
Countries of Particular Concern
One of the key functions of the Report is to serve as the Department's basic tool for determining the worst violators of religious freedom around the world. Although we make every effort to work with governments to advance religious freedom, a number of countries not only fall far short of international standards, but demonstrate little improvement. Therefore, every year the Secretary of State designates Countries of Particular Concern. Just last month, Secretary Rice designated one new CPC, Uzbekistan, and re-designated seven countries which were on the CPC list last year: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan. I would like to briefly mention today three countries where Ambassador Hanford and the Office of International Religious Freedom have focused our efforts over the last year.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Vietnam
Vietnam no longer meets the legal criteria set out in the International Religious Freedom Act, and so was not designated a CPC this year. When Vietnam was first added to the list of Countries of Particular Concern in 2004, conditions for many religious believers were truly dire, with campaigns to force people to renounce their faith in certain regions, dozens of religious prisoners, and the harassment and physical mistreatment of some believers.
Over the last two years, the Government of Vietnam has put into place new laws prohibiting forced renunciations, which provided the opportunity for registration of many hundreds of congregations. It legalized hundreds of meeting places, and allowed for training of hundreds of new clergy members. The government has provided training for officials on how to interpret and implement these laws, and has released all prisoners held on the basis of their religious beliefs.
Today, the Government of Vietnam can no longer be identified as a severe violator of religious freedom, marking the first time that a country has made sufficient progress as a result of diplomatic engagement to be removed from the CPC list. We view this as a very important milestone. Now, there is no question that there still remains important work to do to advance religious freedom in Vietnam. Although registrations of congregations have begun in the North and Northwest Highlands, they have still not reached a majority of believers in those regions. At times, local officials still take the law into their own hands, ignoring the central Government's policies, and creating problems for religious believers. Some Buddhists, in particular the leadership of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, or UBCV, remain restricted in their freedom to move and to meet, and some Montagnards in the Central Highlands have faced similar harassment because of their views.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Removal from the CPC list does not mean that religious freedom conditions are fully achieved. But the Government of Vietnam has addressed the central issues that constituted severe violations of religious freedom, and the decision not to re-designate Vietnam is an important signal that our purpose is to improve conditions for religious believers, and that we will recognize progress when it occurs. The remaining problems in Vietnam merit immediate attention, and there is still a great deal of work for the Government of Vietnam to do to achieve full religious freedom. The President raised religious freedom issues in his meetings with the Prime Minister and President of Vietnam when he was in Hanoi in November. The Secretary of State also met with religious leaders on the margins of the APEC conference in Hanoi and stressed our continued dedication to this issue. We are all committed to securing further progress there and hope that the real improvements achieved in Vietnam can be a model for progress and engagement in other nations.
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan is just such a country where we hope to replicate our model of engagement and progress. The Secretary added Uzbekistan to the CPC list because violations of religious freedom in Uzbekistan are systematic and ongoing and the situation has continued to deteriorate since last year. The Government continues to target observant Muslims for arrest, often viewing conservative Islamic practice alone as grounds for suspicion of involvement in terrorism. The already restrictive religion law has been further tightened, Christian congregations have been harassed and deregistered, and fines have been dramatically raised.
Muslims have long borne the brunt of the Government of Uzbekistan's harsh repression. The Government's ongoing campaign against extremist Muslims has resulted in the arrest of many observant, non-extremist Muslims, as well as allegations, dozens of them confirmed, that law enforcement has physically mistreated or tortured hundreds, perhaps thousands over the years. There are credible estimates that hundreds of Muslims who have no ties to extremist organizations are in prison, simply on the basis of their religious beliefs and practices. Furthermore, authorities often resort to planting evidence. Thus, despite documented growth in mosque attendance in general in the wake of the Andijon massacre, the result of such abuses is that many observant Muslims are afraid to be seen praying, attending mosque, or otherwise expressing their faith, particularly if they have adopted a religious expression that is seen as not conforming to the government's sanctioned version of Islam.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We recognize that the Government of Uzbekistan faces a legitimate security threat from groups that have used religion as an excuse for violence, such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, a group that is on the U.S. list of international terrorist organizations. In addition, we recognize that although the group Hizb ut Tahrir claims it is committed to non-violence, it is in fact an extremist political organization that promotes hatred, whose members have praised acts of terrorism, and whose writings have motivated terrorist acts. The Government of Uzbekistan has banned these two groups, and it is important to be clear—our designation of Uzbekistan as a CPC is not intended in any way to be a defense of these groups. However, we do take issue with the Uzbek authorities' use of religious observance to profile religious believers as extremists, offering little, if any material evidence that these individuals have been involved in or planned any specific acts of violence.
In addition to these acts against Muslims, the Uzbek Government's repression of Christians has increased markedly in the past year. We have seen raids, detentions, court trials, imprisonment, heavy fines, deportations, and congregations closed. The Uzbek Government has tried and convicted selected Protestant religious leaders for ''offenses'' such as meeting without being registered, as well as illegally distributing religious materials. Even registered congregations have been targeted by Uzbek authorities, who have fined leaders and de-registered some groups.
The Secretary took the step of designating Uzbekistan a Country of Particular Concern in the hope that the Uzbek Government would be encouraged to rethink its policies and undertake necessary reforms. Uzbekistan has a long history of religious tolerance, with Jewish, Russian Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant congregations practicing and coexisting peacefully with the Muslim majority, and we hope to build on that history. I am pleased to say that Ambassador Hanford has had several positive meetings with the Ambassador from Uzbekistan since we announced the designation, and it is our hope to be able to work with the Uzbek Ambassador and the Government in Tashkent toward helping them meet international standards for protecting and promoting religious freedom.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Saudi Arabia
Finally, let me turn to Saudi Arabia, where Ambassador Hanford and other Department officials have established continuing discussions with the Government of Saudi Arabia on religious freedom. Saudi Arabia was first designated a Country of Particular Concern in 2004 because, as the International Religious Freedom Report notes, religious freedom is not legally recognized as a right, nor is it protected for either citizens or guest workers. All citizens must be Muslims, and basic religious freedoms are limited to all but those who adhere to the state-sanctioned version of Sunni Islam.
However, we are seeing indications that the Saudi Government takes seriously the issue of increasing religious freedom as part of its broader efforts to combat extremism. We were especially pleased last summer that the Saudi Government outlined for us the steps it is taking to address concerns about intolerance and the status of freedom for religious practice. Saudi officials confirmed with our office a number of concrete steps to advance these goals. Their policies are designed to halt the dissemination of intolerant literature and extremist ideology, both in Saudi Arabia and around the world, which includes educational curricula and textbooks. In addition, their policies also include protection of the right to private worship, curbing the harassment of religious groups, and empowering the Saudi Human Rights Commission.
By making these policies public for the first time, the Saudi Government has provided a baseline against which concerned groups can measure its actions. The Saudi Government recognizes that this is just the beginning. Some religious practice is permitted and tolerance is growing in Saudi Arabia, but there is no question that most religious groups, particularly non-Muslim religious groups, must worship in private and are still vulnerable to harassment by the religious police or others. Through our continuing engagement, we will press for full implementation of stated Saudi policies on religious practice and tolerance to create space for greater freedom.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Allow me to say a few words about the status of religious freedom in the other CPC countries:
In Burma, the government infiltrated religious organizations and discouraged or prohibited non-Buddhist groups from constructing new places of worship or repairing existing ones. Some religious leaders, including a number of Buddhist monks who promote human rights and political freedom, are imprisoned, and some Christian clergy face arrest and the destruction of their churches. Muslims, particularly the Rohingyas in Northern Rakhine State, suffer severe legal, economic and social discrimination and widespread prejudice.
In China, the underground Protestant groups, Catholics who recognize the spiritual authority of the Pope, Muslim Uighurs, Tibetan Buddhists, and members of groups the government considers to be ''cults,'' including the Falun Gong, continue to experience intimidation, harassment, detention and reeducation-through-labor camps. In prison, the government abused members of unregistered religious groups like the South China Church for refusing to recant their beliefs. There were also credible reports of deaths in prisons and labor camps due to torture and abuse.
In Eritrea, the government continues to harass, arrest, and imprison without trial members of Pentecostal and other independent evangelical groups and Jehovah's Witnesses. Some religious prisoners were held in harsh conditions that included placing them in shipping containers in the desert. As a result, in September Secretary Rice approved a sanction to deny commercial export to Eritrea of any defense articles and defense services controlled under the Arms Export Control Act, with narrow specified exceptions.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In Iran, members of religious minorities—including Baha'is, Sunni and Sufi Muslims, Jews, and Christians—face imprisonment, harassment, intimidation, and discrimination based on their religious beliefs.
In North Korea, genuine religious freedom is non-existent. Defectors continued to report that the regime arrested and executed members of underground Christian churches in prior years. Ownership of Bibles or other religious material is reportedly illegal and may be punished by imprisonment or execution.
In Sudan, Islamization has been the objective of the governing party and it continued to attempt to impose ''Shari'a'' on non-Muslims in some parts of the country. Many non-Muslims state they have been treated as second-class citizens. We will be watching the actions of the new Government of National Unity to ensure that it fully implements the provisions of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the new constitution, both of which provide specific guarantees for religious freedom for all citizens.
Positive Developments
In contrast to these problems, in other countries we see governments taking important steps to open the door to greater religious freedom. Although serious problems remain in Pakistan, for example, that government is among those making efforts to curb extremist ideology and encourage religious tolerance. In Afghanistan, the government is seeking to uphold constitutional guarantees of religious freedom, despite a long-standing culture of intolerance.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In India, the national government is leading efforts to promote greater respect for freedom of religion, although there have been instances in which some state and local governments have attempted to limit this freedom. Indonesia and other religiously diverse countries face similar challenges, and we support efforts by governments in such countries to counter extremist sentiments, to ensure equality for religious minorities, and to encourage interfaith understanding.
Conclusion
Promoting religious freedom in such countries as Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam, and producing the International Religious Freedom Report each year, are only the beginning of our work. Added to these efforts is work by my colleagues here and abroad, day in and day out, in countries around the globe, to ensure greater religious freedom by seeking changes in laws that are oppressive or discriminatory, pressing for the release of religious prisoners, and coming to the aid of victims of abuse. This work is central to who we are as Americans and to our role in the world, and it is work to which President Bush, Secretary Rice, and Ambassador Hanford are fully committed, both for its own sake and as an important facet of our national security strategy. As President Bush has said, ''the best antidote to radicalism and terror is the tolerance and hope kindled in free societies.''
Again, we offer sincere thanks to you and to this Committee for your sincere commitment to promoting freedom of thought, conscience, and religion for every individual, in every nation and society around the world. I would be pleased to take any questions you may have.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you so very much, Mr. Director, and I hope you will convey to Ambassador Hanford our hope for a speedy recovery for his family member. I spoke to him yesterday, and he did say how very much he would like to be here, but he would be very proud of the job you have done. Thank you.
Let me first ask a couple of questions. The first has to do with Vietnam. I understand the tension and the fact that Ambassador Hanford is obviously very much involved with the actual negotiations creating agreements that then are shared, letters that are shared, between the two governments. And it is a very difficult way; it is hard to measure. Have you gotten enough prudent men and women to make that decision?
And I point out that you have made the point that removal from the CPC list does not mean religious freedom conditions are fully achieved in Vietnam, and I would have to agree, but on the other side of the coin, Felice Gaer will be testifying in the next panel and makes the point that the Commission is disappointed, that it is much too soon for the United States to drop Vietnam from the list, and that very importantly, I think, it is the Commission's view that Vietnam's new laws on religion are being used to restrict and control freedom rather than fully protect it.
I would note, parenthetically, when I first read the law, because I did read it, I was struck by how it seemed to me it was a double-edged sword, that it could very easily be used to restrict, while it purports to expand religious liberty. And Ms. Gaer makes the point, while she pointed out that the law adopted by Vietnam proscribes forced renunciations, that forced renunciations of faith continue—this is the Commission—particularly among ethnic minority Protestants and Unified Buddhist Church in Vietnam, monks and nuns. And I am wondering about that disconnect.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What is the best available information about the terrible and despicable use of the Vietnamese Government of forcing people, under pain of torture and degrading and inhumane treatment, to recant their faith? In many cases it is in Christ, but others as well. The monks have also been subjected to such extreme and barbaric behavior. There seems to be a disconnect. Has it abated? Has it gone away?
Mr. LISTON. I can't speak to where the Commission is getting this information. I will say that not designating Vietnam this year has not in any way changed our commitment to working on this issue. And as I said, it does not mean everything is perfect. We recognize that there are still major problems that need to be addressed there. The government, I think, recognizes this as well.
What I can tell you about where we have our information from is that Ambassador Hanford traveled there twice this year, including in August most recently. Each time he has met with religious leaders. I can also tell you that our office is in almost daily engagement with our Embassy, and I would like to say that Ambassador Marine and our Embassy in Hanoi have been extremely vigilant in terms of checking up on reports that the Commission receives and going out and meeting with religious leaders. The Ambassador was just in the northern part of the country doing just that recently. We know that the Embassy has met with religious leaders as recently as this week to ask them their opinions of how things are going, if this is making a difference, and we expect that there may be additional cases. And of course we will look at those and raise those with the government. And we continue to do that. We continue to talk to the government about these issues.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
All that said, what is happening with regard to religious freedom in Vietnam now is completely different from what it was when it was designated. And it was a very difficult decision for Ambassador Hanford to make, to make the recommendation to the Secretary that he did. But based on his trips there, based on all the information he was receiving, he felt that it was the right time to do that, that they no longer met the legal definition of a CPC country. And that is the criteria that we are using.
We will continue to work on this issue, and what I can tell you is that we are working with the government even now. They know there are continuing problems. We raised those with them. We have seen them addressed. And I can also tell you that very recently religious leaders in the country have told us that they continue to see improvements, that the difference really is dramatic in just the last few months, and that it continues. So that is very encouraging.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. If that is the trend line, certainly that is encouraging, but if Vietnam were to stagnate at this level or begin further deterioration, or if we realized that they had been duplicitous, which is not above happening, would we be willing, would the political will exist to reimpose a CPC status based on those facts?
Mr. LISTON. Well, the law gives the Secretary the ability to designate a CPC at any time, which means we don't have to wait until next year. She can do that at any time. The encouraging thing is that at this time, what we are seeing is a continuing trend toward improvement. We are seeing additional registrations in the last month, and we are seeing—we expect to see more. We are being told there will be more. So we continue to be very hopeful that this, in fact, is a real change, and that while it may take some time to work its way into all the places in the country, it is doing that, and that that will happen.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Let me commend you on the report as it relates to China. The 25 pages of text that documents one human rights abuse after another by the Chinese Government, I think, makes for very disturbing reading, and the fact that they continue to be a CPC country is absolutely warranted. But I am wondering, you know, the dialogue with the Chinese, the fact that we have a very robust trading relationship with them, the balance of trade is in excess of $200 billion, all in their favor, and there are many people beginning to rethink about whether we are wittingly or unwittingly enabling dictatorship with our trade policies.
Yesterday I was at the State Department with Paula Dobriansky when they announced a new initiative on the whole issue of Internet freedom, and you might recall I introduced the Global On-line Freedom Act, held a hearing here where we heard from Google, Yahoo!, SISCO and Microsoft, and the fact that again, wittingly or unwittingly, they are enabling dictatorship, because dictatorship needs two things, as we all know, to prosper—at least two—and that is the ability to engage in propaganda in an unfettered way—and certainly they are controlling that with Google's help—and also a strong secret police that is able to track down, incarcerate and torture dissidents, religious and human rights as well.
Now, when I read this report—and I think all of us when we read it—it seems to me things are getting worse in China. The Uyghurs are suffering more, the Tibetans; the Buddhists are suffering more, the Catholic underground church, the Protestant underground church; the Falun Gong have been subjected to extreme torture, and the Chinese Government follows them here, too, and to other Western countries or anywhere else that they may be in, and hopefully the FBI is doing more to try to stop that.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But if you could speak to the China record, but also what we are doing in terms of the penalty phase. One of the—you know, there are in excess of a dozen specific things that this country can do as prescribed in the International Religious Freedom Act, and to date I am not sure if any of those have been used other than perhaps the demarche to get their attention.
There are things we can do in international lending, there are actions that we can take, sanctions if you will, and since China has been on that list—as a matter of fact, former Ambassador Bob Seipel was instrumental in getting them on that list, and I think that was a very brave bit of leadership on his part. But it seems to me that given the fact that virtually everyone who is part of the underground movement or the illegal movement, like Falun Gong, they—we need to step up to the plate, I would respectfully submit, and do much more.
And are you contemplating a penalty phase for China? And if not, why not? But I would say this is the most opportune time. The time has come, long past.
Mr. LISTON. Thank you very much. Obviously we have no disagreement that the record of China on religious freedom is extremely poor. They are a Country of Particular Concern, and they remain one. And they belong among the eight worst violators of religious freedom in the world, and that is where they are.
And I think we are constantly looking at new ways to address this issue with the Chinese. I know that the President has raised it, and I know that it is something of great concern to the Secretary. Ambassador Hanford has been working this issue, and I think we are open to looking at new ways to work on this issue with the Chinese.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The fact is that for many people, conditions have gotten worse there, and we need to reassess and look at new ways that we can address this issue. It is a large country. There are many things happening. But frankly, some of the things that we had hoped would work have not, and I think we need to continue looking for new ways.
So I very much appreciate your suggestion, and I think that we can certainly look at new ways that we can address this with the Chinese that will hopefully get their attention and lead to more changes.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. When Hu Jintao visited the United States, the day before he came, I chaired a hearing on human rights abuses in China. We heard from a number of prominent leaders, including Harry Wu and others who spoke truth to power. My concern is that with all the diplomatic niceties that went along with that visit and virtually every other visit, it seems to me that when it comes to looking people in the eye and talking about their record, does your office get the kind of attention within the regional bureau, the China Desk, right up to the very top?
I mean, it is important that you have designated China a CPC. I don't think you could do anything other than that. But how do you mainstream the policies? And I quoted from Tom Farr before. He also makes a very good statement that our Foreign Service officers clearly need to more fully incorporate a view that respect for religion isn't some appendage somewhere, some asterisk at the bottom of a talking point. I know you don't believe that, but for far too many—we were working on the Religious Freedom Act, and I chaired the hearings right here in this room. It was as if this was an alien philosophy that was being discussed, an ''us and them'' type of relationship, although when you talk economic and other issues, everybody is on board. And I have seen this everywhere I have traveled—that very often the Foreign Service officer is the junior man or woman in that Embassy, and while the Ambassador will say, Well, I do it, too, how mainstream is it?
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My question is with China in particular, are we doing enough at every level starting with President Bush, Dr. Rice, and on down to say, This isn't something we are just doing to fill in some time. This is profoundly important, and it will have consequences—again the penalty phase—if you indeed do not begin to reform immediately.
Mr. LISTON. Mr. Chairman, I think I have never seen anything but a sincere commitment on the part of everyone in the regional bureau and the Embassy with regard to this issue.
I think Ambassador Hanford communicates with our Ambassador in China. I think we have raised this issue. When we have gone to them and raised issues with our Embassy, with others in the regional bureau, they take them very seriously. And I think that there is—again, we are always looking for new ways to go at this issue. And as long as the situation remains as it is, we have to be looking for new ways to address this issue. So I think we will do that.
If I could just say for a moment regarding Foreign Service officers and working this issue, it is still a fairly new issue and one that we in our office are working very hard, with a lot of support, to educate people on and to work very hard on. But my experience has been that most of the people we work with from our office are actually very receptive. They may not know how to go about it, but they work with us, and they work very hard to address this issue.
I think there has been a recognition that this is something that we need to be working on, and that it is appropriate for us to be working on. And we have been very pleased by the help we get.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I appreciate that, and let's work together with that going forward.
Finally on China, if I could ask one final question. You point out on page 11 that the government had not responded to a request to clarify the status of Bishop Su at the end of the reporting period. I just want the record to clearly show, when I met with Bishop Su in 1994, before he was rearrested and let go and then rearrested again in 1997, I have never seen such clarity in a man's—and kindness—clarity of his eyes. He looked me in the eyes and he said, ''I have no malice toward this government. I pray for the government''; and talked about, you know, faith and goodness and generosity and compassion. And yet for that he gets 30 years in the Gulag in the laogai.
My question is, What kind of requests do we make that have gone unanswered by the Chinese Government? It seems to be very simple for them to say, Here is where he is at. He is under house arrest. He is under—we know he is not that—but he is in a laogai, or he is deceased. Why can't they provide that basic information for a Roman Catholic bishop? And he is one of many, as you know, who are incarcerated today.
Mr. LISTON. Mr. Chairman, I can't answer that question today.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Could you get back on that? And how is it being raised? Who is raising it, the Ambassador?
Mr. LISTON. I can't remember—Ambassador Hanford certainly has raised it during his visits there, and I know we continue to raise that question. Why they don't answer it, I can't tell you.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I don't know of—I agree with you. Why would that be a difficult question to answer? It is something that we are very much following, we are very much raising, we are very much concerned about, as well as the broader plight of many, many Catholics in China, which remains simply unacceptable in terms of their treatment.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Just very briefly if you could on Saudi Arabia, and I know we have other witnesses, so I won't—and I will submit a number of questions for the record, but what are the problems or concerns? I am encouraged that the Saudis seem to be at least talking.
I point out parenthetically that the former chaplain of Desert Storm is the priest that married my wife and me 30 years ago, and he made it so clear as to how onerous the mutawaa were. If somebody converts, they are subjected to capital punishment. But a lot of the internationals from the Philippines, including the United States, you can't outwardly show something other than Muslim beliefs. They are not tolerated.
What specific steps? I know that there seems to be a promise, and maybe it is not all that vague, maybe it is concrete, but the textbooks, as we know, are rife with anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, anti-Christianity, and we have had hearings here in this room where we have had people who have read from the textbooks that have emanated from Saudi Arabia.
My question is, What specific steps and when in Saudi Arabia?
Mr. LISTON. Well, the government has committed—with regard to textbooks, Mr. Chairman, the government has committed to revising, finishing a revision process, in 1 to 2 years. Now, it has been less than 6 months since that commitment was made to us, so we know that it is a process that is ongoing, and we continue to follow it and discuss with appropriate officials in Saudi Arabia that process. We are very interested in following that and are doing that as well.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our office continues to work very hard on Saudi Arabia. Our officer covering Saudi Arabia returned from a 10-day trip there just last week. And I think conditions obviously remain severe, and there are problems with religious freedom that make it a CPC, very much so.
But what we are hearing is that indeed there have been changes; that we are hearing from non-Muslims in the country that there are changes, that conditions are improving, that harassment has been reduced, and that the religious belief, in fact, is now being given free rein. This is very encouraging. And obviously it is a beginning, not an end.
And we—the list of policies and in terms of allowing people to bring in and use their own religious materials, we are continually monitoring these issues, the religious beliefs, the ability of people to bring in religious materials for their personal use and the ability to worship in private. And what we are seeing is improvements on all of these fronts, and that is very encouraging. It is a first step.
We remain very concerned about the continued violations of religious freedom in that country, but we are encouraged by the small steps that are being taken.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Let me ask you with regard to Iraqi Christians, obviously an area where we should have additional leverage with the government for all obvious reasons. I was in Baghdad in September and met with the reconciliation commission with four other Members, including the Chairman, and brought with me testimony that we had received from a witness who spoke of the extreme discrimination against ChaldoAssyrians and the fact that there have been beheadings, churches have been destroyed, young people have been killed, and the UNHCR estimates that although they only constitute about 3 percent of the total Iraqi population, they are about 40 percent of the Iraqi refugees over the past 3 years, and they are leaving for an obvious reason: They seem to be profoundly unwelcome and are being discriminated against.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What are we going to try to ensure—and I raised it with our military, I raised it here, and that goes also—and this is again why this integration is so important, in my view—we are providing significant humanitarian and reconstruction aid, and yet they seem to be left out of that as well. Not just are they discriminated against by their own government, but by our foreign aid as well.
Without objection, I would like to include a letter I sent to Dr. Rice on this very issue.
[The information referred to follows:]
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. But I would ask you, What is your office doing with regards to these Christians in Iraq?
Mr. LISTON. We—the suffering that is going on there, and not by Christians, but also by others on the basis of their—simply of their religious beliefs and affiliations is truly disturbing, and it is something that we are very much concerned about and are very aware of.
We are working—with regard to Christians in particular, we work very closely with our Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration in terms of the issues, the refugee issues, that have arisen there, and we, through them and others working, are working with the UN High Commissioner on Refugees to extend its temporary protection regime for Iraqis who are in other countries seeking refugee status there.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have urged the UNHCR to accelerate the pace of its refugee status determination, screenings for Iraqi refugees, and to refer for resettlement consideration those who are particularly at risk. So we are working within the structures of the UN High Commission for Refugees to try to address the very serious problems there.
Obviously, the best we can do is to seek an end to the sectarian violence more broadly and work toward that end for all those who are suffering, whether Christians or others.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Could I ask you if you would speak as to why Turkmenistan was not included?
Mr. LISTON. Turkmenistan, obviously there are ongoing problems there. And we—I don't think the lack of a designation doesn't mean that things are perfect there either. There are some serious problems.
What we have seen in Turkmenistan is the limited progress, and we are very hopeful that the government will build on that progress going forward. There have been registrations. There has been more contact, more willingness to meet with religious groups. We have been very encouraged by that, limited though it is, and we would hope that we would see more progress going forward.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. With all due respect, I hope that you would seriously consider naming that country.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Commission has recommended that Pakistan also be included. What is your take on that recommendation?
Mr. LISTON. Well, again, there are serious problems there. We don't minimize that. We don't believe they rise to the level of a Country of Particular Concern as it is set out in the International Religious Freedom Act. We are also seeing real efforts by the government to address these issues and to work with us and to work with others on these issues. We are encouraged by that. We think they are serious about this, and we want to encourage them to continue. We are monitoring that situation very closely.
And again, the Secretary has the ability to designate at any time, and I think with regard to both Turkmenistan and Pakistan, we continue to watch, and if we think the legal threshold has been met, I think Ambassador Hanford would have no qualms about making a recommendation.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. If you could—and we have had three hearings on North Korea so far this Congress focusing on the work that Jay Lefkowitz is doing and the implementation of the North Korean Human Rights Act. Would you want to make any comments with regards to North Korea?
Obviously Iran, a CPC country, bitterly and systematically discriminates against huge numbers of minorities, including the Baha'i. If you would touch on that; Sudan as well.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And then on Eritrea, I know, as Chairman of the Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations Subcommittee, that we have tried ourselves repeatedly to get the Eritrean Government to realize the misguided path they have chosen, and so again I applaud you for including them. But any insights you might have on any hope of any progress there, because I know Ambassador Hanford has raised that issue with their high leadership repeatedly to no avail as well. This is my final question.
Mr. LISTON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Starting with Eritrea, I think that in some ways is one of our largest disappointments, the effort we have put into working with them before designation and since to try to raise these issues. And in some ways the issues they face should be fairly simple to deal with. But we continue to raise that. Our Embassy at all levels has made them aware of our concerns. We are particularly concerned about the treatment of the head of the Eritrean Orthodox Church there. It is just hard to imagine the type of repression that is going on with regard not only to unregistered religious groups, but even registered religious groups. We continue to try to raise this issue. We are not getting responses.
In some ways Eritrea is very much like the situation in Iran and in North Korea. These are very difficult countries for us to work on. The other two where we don't have diplomatic relations for us to raise these issues, I think on North Korea and Iran, our effort really is to work with like-minded governments to raise this issue in multilateral forums and to really push forward to get the international community more actively engaged in terms of addressing these issues where we can. The situation in both of those countries remains disturbing, especially in North Korea, where we have no access and where the reports coming out are just, frankly, heart-breaking in terms of the types of abuse that religious believers are suffering.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I do have one final question. We keep hearing that many of the ASEAN countries are increasingly fed up with the Burmese junta and its threat, the fact that it is an embarrassment to the region, and obviously they are a CPC country, as they should be. Do you see any hope in Burma with regards to that government softening its stance toward believers?
Mr. LISTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess we always have to have hope. But, again, the main way that we are working this right now is through the international community, trying to raise the awareness there. We raised this within those multilateral forums. We have been pushing for resolutions on Burma in the Security Council and the Human Rights Commission. I think these are appropriate. Those in and of themselves won't change conditions, but what we hope they will be do is raise the profile of these issues and encourage other countries to continue pressing for change as well.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Liston, is there anything else you would like to add?
Mr. LISTON. No thank you.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you so very much.
Mr. LISTON. Thank you for having us here.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I would like to now welcome to the witness table Ms. Felice Gaer, who serves as the chairwoman on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. She is also the director of the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights of the American Jewish Community, and in her 20 years in the field of human rights, Ms. Gaer has conceptualized, planned and conducted research and advocacy on many aspects of human rights, including freedom of religion, the human rights of women, the rights of national religious minorities and the prohibition against torture.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. Gaer, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MS. FELICE D. GAER, CHAIR, U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
T4Ms. GAER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin also by thanking you not only for the opportunity to testify at this hearing, but for your leadership on these issues over these many years. I plan to summarize the Commission's testimony in my oral remarks. I would like to request that our full written statement be included in the record.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. GAER. Thank you very much.
The Department of State's Annual Report on International Religious Freedom and the work of our Commission continue to demonstrate that the issue of religious freedom intersects with and shapes numerous U.S. foreign policy concerns. The Annual Report on International Religious Freedom issued by the State Department last September provides an opportunity to assess the status of religious freedom throughout the world, to focus on the countries that are particularly serious violators of religious freedom, and to appraise U.S. efforts to integrate this important freedom within foreign policy.
The Commission's testimony not only addresses the annual report but also the designation by the Secretary of State of Countries of Particular Concern, including the decisions you, yourself, have just asked about this morning; adding Uzbekistan, removing Vietnam, et cetera. The testimony also discusses the Commission's concerns about deteriorating conditions in China, another CPC country, and the Commission also addresses two countries it has visited in the last year, Russia and Bangladesh.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, the testimony comments on the absence of protections for religious minorities in Iraq and the subsequent refugee crisis. Now, like you, the Commission welcomed the designations of Countries of Particular Concern. As you noted, we supported the fact that Eritrea and Saudi Arabia were again named since there has been no developments in the past year to warrant their removal from the CPC list. The Commission also welcomed the addition of Uzbekistan as a CPC. We have recommended that previously. The Uzbek Government continues to exercise a high degree of control over the practice of the Islamic religion and to crack down harshly on Muslim individuals, groups, and mosques who do not conform to state-prescribed policies and practices that the government claims are associated with extremist political programs. Our Commission has been quite outspoken in criticism of extremist groups and extremist threats in Uzbekistan, but the imprisonment of thousands of persons in recent years, most of whom are denied due process rights, where there are credible reports that many of those arrested continue to be tortured or beaten in detention, put into question, severe question, Uzbek promises to halt this practice.
The highly restrictive law and religion compound the problem. The Government of Uzbekistan, as you know, has had serious problems, with those of us following the country, since the Andijon events, which I know you have been very concerned with, Mr. Chairman.
We welcome the opportunity to work with the State Department as it prepares to take action in response to Uzbekistan's designation as a CPC because this opens up new opportunities, including the development of benchmarks regarding the steps necessary to improve Uzbekistan's record.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Well, you have stolen our thunder, Mr. Chairman, about the disappointment of the Commission about the dropping of Vietnam from the list, and, as you know and you have just heard again, the State Department had reached an agreement with Vietnam on benchmarks. The government agreed to consider taking Vietnam off the list if it met those benchmarks. You have just heard from Mr. Liston a list of the positive things that have happened. In fact, Ambassador Hanford, who we are sorry is unable to be here today and who is in our thoughts and prayers, indicated that ''major progress has been achieved on all points of concern.'' I think the Commission agreed with that, and I think you probably do as well; that there has been major progress. The question is, the other side of the coin, and we heard this from Mr. Liston, that there are very severe problems that remain. And the devil is in the details here, how implementation of the laws, of the decrees and instructions are being carried out at the local level. And it is the judgment of the Commission that this was too soon to take them off of the CPC list.
The May 2005 agreement stipulated that Vietnam needed to implement fully its new laws on religion. In fact, the new laws on religion are not fully implemented according to the assessment reached by our commission. And, in some cases, these laws are being used to restrict and control freedom rather than fully protect it. The Commission has stated that these facts alone warrant Vietnam's redesignation as a CPC, and the Commission views the lifting of CPC designation as potentially removing an important incentive that has stimulated United States-Vietnamese discussions on religious freedom. You and I have talked before about how one calibrates policy, and the judgment on whether or not this removal of the CPC status will promote or hinder further positive developments in Vietnam is exactly the issue that needs to be calibrated. You have our views on that subject. It was much too soon.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In our view, retaining the CPC designation would have indicated that U.S. human rights concerns remain a priority and are critical to the scope and progress of United States-Vietnam relations. In our view, it would have continued to provide incentives for the Vietnamese Government to address remaining United States concerns to establish permanent legal protections for religious and ethnic minorities, and to promote cooperation with U.S. assistance programs that advance legal reform, rule of law, economic development for ethnic minorities and capacity building for emerging civil society.
On the matter of Saudi Arabia, the Commission welcomed the State Department's announcement that by having legal discussions with Saudi Arabia, it enabled the United States to publicly confirm a variety of Saudi policies to improve religious practice and tolerance. Many of those were first recommended in Commission reports.
However, in the past, Saudi authorities have made statements regarding religious freedom reforms but did not act on them. The Commission therefore has recommended that the Department continue to press the Saudi Government to the specific steps that it will implement, that it will take to implement these policies and that it report publicly to this Congress every 120 days on what the Saudis have done or not done in that regard. Public reporting seems extremely important in this context.
Now the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom this year makes clear that two other countries merit CPC status. You have already discussed them with Mr. Liston: Pakistan and Turkmenistan.
We think the omission of Turkmenistan from the list is particularly troubling, and I look forward to discussing that with you further in view of last night's announcement and the transition that is currently underway. Turkmenistan has been among the most repressive states in the world, and we think this is—should have been on that list.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And we find it extremely troubling, we found it perplexing that despite a few superficial legal changes regarding religious freedom and little, if any, changes on the ground, that they have continued to escape the CPC designation so clearly deserved.
Now, Mr. Chairman, you know about our views on violation of religious freedom in China and the ongoing crackdown, and you will be hearing from others on that today. The cases that silence human rights defenders, in our view, clearly demonstrate Beijing's vow to fully demonstrate the rule of law are still thus far empty promises.
The Commission recommends congressional oversight of the strategic dialogue with China to ensure that religious freedom and other human rights goals are given prominent focus. And we also urge the United States Government to press Chinese authorities to implement more effectively rule of law reforms and human rights protections and to target United States assistance programs toward programs that will advance religious freedom in China, including programs on legal reform and training and civil society building.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Commission visited Russia this year, and we had five major areas of concern: The failure to adequately prosecute hate crimes, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and other hate crimes, crimes against Muslims; the Russian Government's attempt to challenge international human rights institutions and to undermine domestic rights advocacy was of particular concern; the increasing official harassment of Muslims; and the restrictive NGO law that also applies to religious organizations were among these concerns; and the local and regional level restrictions on religious practice as well. We have made extensive recommendations on these. We have just published a new policy brief on Russia, and I would like to submit them, too, for the record along with our testimony for you. We have a number of very specific recommendations about the importance of continuing a mechanism for public monitoring of human rights in Russia and ensuring that United States assistance and engagement is more effective.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We think Russia is a highly influential model for many countries, particularly the other countries of the former Soviet Union, and is an increasingly vital partner for the United States as well. Therefore, the United States should neither abandon nor neglect its efforts to strengthen human rights protection in Russia.
Mr. Chairman, our testimony also addresses the situation in Bangladesh where a crucial national election is coming, the last one having been marred by violence mainly directed against, largely directed against Hindus and other minorities. And we are concerned about the upsurge in violence by religious extremists and the vocal public campaign against the Ahmadi community. Only recently has the Government of Bangladesh become concerned or more public about the problem of violence, and we urge the U.S. Government to face up to the seriousness of the threat facing Bangladesh, encourage the government there to address the growing problem of religious extremists and violence to prevent anti-minority violence during this pre-election period and during the time of the polling, and that the U.S. Government could engage leading the international community in monitoring those elections which will take place in January. Again, our new policy brief on Bangladesh contains more information.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, in this holiday period, I wanted to also mention the Commission's concern about the failure to protect religious minorities in Iraq. The several ancient religious communities in Iraq, particularly the Assyrians and the Mandeans, are currently facing dire situations that have forced them to flee the country. The Commission has written to Under Secretary Dobriansky recommending that the U.S. Government create new or expands existing options for allowing members of the Assyrian and the Mandeans minority communities to access the United States refugee program and to urge UNHCR, the High Commissioner for Refugees, to resume full refugee status determinations for all Iraqi asylum seekers without delay.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We met with some representatives of these communities on a recent visit to Turkey.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the annual report is an important achievement that demonstrates the significant efforts of Foreign Service officers in our Embassies around the world as well as the Ambassador at Large for Religious Freedom and his staff at the State Department's Office of International Religious Freedom. We think many of the individual country records in the annual report are first rate, thorough and accurate. We have raised concerns about some of those. I think you are familiar with the attention we have called to the country report on Saudi Arabia in particular, but our testimony runs through the report on Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, Turkmenistan, Vietnam, and I won't go into that, but I look forward to engaging with the Committee and the Department on those because these reports are vitally important in the effort to promote freedom and to promote religious freedom worldwide.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for providing us the opportunity to share our views. And I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have regarding our oral or written statements.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gaer follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. FELICE D. GAER, CHAIR, U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, let me begin by thanking you for the opportunity to testify today at this important hearing. I plan to summarize the Commission's testimony in my oral remarks, but would like to request that my full written statement be included in the record.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Department of State's Annual Report on International Religious Freedom and the work of our Commission continue to demonstrate that the issue of religious freedom intersects with and shapes numerous U.S. foreign policy concerns. No longer viewed as solely a human rights matter, the issue of religious freedom is now understood to have a profound impact on our own political and national security interests as well as on political stability throughout the world.
In passing the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA), Congress determined that it would be the policy of the United States to promote respect for this right as a matter of U.S. foreign policy. The State Department's Annual Report, which was released last September, provides an opportunity to assess the status of religious freedom throughout the world, to focus on the countries that are particularly serious violators of religious freedom, and to appraise U.S. efforts to integrate this important freedom within its foreign policy.
Along with the Commission's comments on the Annual Report, my testimony will address the Secretary of State's designations last month of ''countries of particular concern'' (CPCs), including the decision to add Uzbekistan to and remove Vietnam from the list. I will then discuss the Commission's concerns about the deteriorating religious freedom situation in China, another CPC country. In addition, I will focus on two countries which the Commission visited in the past year: Russia, where protections for religious freedom and other human rights are being deliberately whittled away by the present government, and Bangladesh, a country in which religious extremism appears to be gaining ground. I will also comment on the absence of protections for religious minorities in Iraq and the subsequent refugee crisis.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
THE 2006 DESIGNATIONS OF COUNTRIES OF PARTICULAR CONCERN AND THE COUNTRIES OMITTED FROM THE CPC LIST
One of the most critical elements of the IRFA legislation is the public naming by the U.S. government of the world's most severe violators of thought, conscience, and religion or belief. One of the purposes of the Annual Report is to make available the factual information necessary for the Department to carry out this task, that is, to determine which countries will be designated as ''countries of particular concern,'' or CPCs, for engaging in systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of freedom of religion or belief.
The Commission welcomed the continued designation last month by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of Burma, China, Iran, North Korea, and Sudan as CPCs. We also supported the fact that Eritrea and Saudi Arabia were once again named, since there have been no developments in the past year in either of those countries to warrant their removal from the CPC list.
Uzbekistan Named a CPC
The Commission also welcomed the designation of Uzbekistan as a CPC, which the Commission has recommended for two years. The Uzbek government continues to exercise a high degree of control over the practice of the Islamic religion and to crack down harshly on Muslim individuals, groups, and mosques that do not conform to state-prescribed practices or that the government claims are associated with extremist political programs. This has resulted in the imprisonment of thousands of persons in recent years, many of whom are denied the right to due process. There are credible reports that many of those arrested continue to be tortured or beaten in detention, despite official Uzbek promises to halt this practice. All mosques are subject to state control and independent mosques have been closed by the government.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Allow me to cite one recent case, that of the independent imam, Ruhiddin Fahrutdinov. The Uzbek government alleges that he is a ''Wahhabi'' and therefore a religious extremist, a term often used by the Uzbek government to describe any Muslim who works outside the government-sponsored Muslim religious organization. On 15 September, 2006, the Tashkent City Criminal Court sentenced Fahrutdinov to 17 years' imprisonment for setting up an illegal religious organization and engaging in extremist activities. The court building was surrounded by about 50 Interior Ministry officers armed with automatic weapons. No observers and none of Fahrutdinov's close relatives were allowed into the court.
Moreover, Uzbekistan has a highly restrictive law on religion that severely limits the ability of religious communities to function, leaving over 100 religious groups currently denied registration. Twenty Protestant churches have been closed in the Karakalpakstan region in recent years.
The government of Uzbekistan faces threats to its security, but these threats do not excuse or justify the scope and harshness of the government's ill treatment of religious believers nor the continued practice of torture, which reportedly remains widespread. Existing restrictions on religious freedom for all religious denominations in Uzbekistan have deepened since last year's violence in Andijon, when the Uzbek government ordered the shooting of hundreds of unarmed protestors.
The Commission has traveled to Uzbekistan and issued numerous reports on the severe religious freedom problems there. We would welcome the opportunity to work with the State Department as it prepares to take action in response to Uzbekistan's designation as a CPC, including in the development of benchmarks regarding the steps necessary to improve that country's record on freedom of religion or belief.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Removal of Vietnam from the List
The Commission has expressed disappointment that the State Department dropped Vietnam from the list. As you know Mr. Chairman, in May 2005, the State Department announced it had reached an agreement with Vietnam on benchmarks to demonstrate an improvement in religious freedom conditions. The U.S. government agreed to consider taking Vietnam off the CPC list if these conditions are met.
Although the Vietnamese government has taken some positive steps over the past year to address religious freedom concerns, the Commission has concluded that Vietnam has not yet fully complied with the May 2005 agreement. The Vietnamese have released prominent prisoners of concern, however, in the last year a dozen new arrests have been made and prominent leaders remain under house arrest. Even those recently released remain under intense government surveillance.
The May 2005 agreement stipulated that Vietnam needed to implement fully its new laws on religion. Over the past two years, the Vietnamese government issued orders banning forced renunciations of faith and two ordinances intended to loosen restrictions on religious practice and registration. It is the Commission's view, however, that Vietnam's new laws on religion are being used to restrict and control freedom rather than fully to protect it. For example, forced renunciations of faith continue particularly among ethnic minority Protestants and Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV) monks and nuns. Additionally, it has come to our attention that security forces are using the new laws to detain religious leaders and deny legal status to the UBCV and some Hoa Hao Buddhists, Vietnamese Mennonites, and Hmong and Montagnard Protestants, particularly those who refuse to join the government-approved religious organizations.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These facts alone warrant Vietnam's re-designation as a CPC. Moreover, in the Commission's view, lifting the CPC designation potentially removes an important incentive that has stimulated U.S.-Vietnamese discussions on religious freedom. Over the last year and half, religious freedom concerns have been made a diplomatic priority with productive results. Despite fears to the contrary, the CPC designation did not hinder progress on economic and security interests that the United States shares with Vietnam.
Therefore, in our view, it was much too soon for the United States to drop Vietnam from the list. Retaining the CPC designation would have indicated that U.S. human rights concerns remain a priority and are critical to the scope and progress of U.S.-Vietnamese relations. In addition, it would have continued to provide incentives for the Vietnamese government to address remaining U.S. concerns, to establish permanent legal protections for religious and ethnic minorities, and to promote cooperation with U.S. assistance programs that advance projects of legal reform, rule of law, economic development for ethnic minorities, and capacity building for an emerging civil society.
In the past year, the Commission has made many such recommendations regarding U.S. assistance programs in Vietnam, including the following recommendations for the U.S. government:
Support the full and vigorous implementation of the Montagnard Development Program (MDP), which was created last year as part of the House and Senate Foreign Operations conference report. The MDP would provide targeted humanitarian and development support to the Montagnard/ Hmong people and would provide needed development funds for ethnic minorities whose demands for land rights and religious freedom are closely connected. This program is consistent with Vietnam's own stated goals of reducing poverty in the Central Highlands and northwest provinces and with the need for reform, transparency, and access to regions where many religious freedom abuses continue to occur.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Reallocate the funds that formerly supported the STAR (Support for Trade Acceleration Program) to new projects on human rights training, civil society capacity building, and non-commercial rule of law programs in Vietnam. The Commission suggests the funds go to the creation of the Promoting Equal Rights and the Rule of Law (PEARL) program. Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung has said he is committed to reform, democracy and rule of law. The U.S. government should take him at his word and assist in that process.
Bilateral Discussions with Saudi Arabia
Last July, the Commission welcomed the State Department's announcement that bilateral discussions with Saudi Arabia have enabled the United States to confirm a variety of Saudi policies to improve ''religious practice and tolerance''—many of which were first recommended in Commission reports. As far as we can tell, the newly-reported Saudi policies—if actually implemented in full—could advance much-needed efforts to dismantle some of the institutionalized policies that have promoted severe violations of freedom of religion or belief in Saudi Arabia and worldwide. The new policies reportedly aim to halt dissemination of intolerant textbooks and extremist ideology, protect the right of Muslims and non-Muslims to worship in private, and change the composition, powers, and practices of the Mutawaa (the religious police). Changes in these areas are necessary first steps for Saudi reform.
However, in the past, Saudi authorities have made statements regarding religious freedom reforms, but did not act on them. Because previous Saudi reform pledges have not been implemented in practice, the Commission is concerned about whether and how these reported Saudi policies will be implemented and how the United States will monitor them. The Commission therefore has recommended that the State Department continue to press the Saudi government on the specific steps that it will take to implement these policies and report publicly to Congress every 120 days on what the Saudis have done or not done in that regard.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Eritrea Continues to Deteriorate
The government of Eritrea continues to engage in systematic and egregious violations of religious freedom. Current violations include a prolonged ban on public religious activities by all religious groups that are not officially recognized, closure by the authorities of the places of worship of these religious groups, inordinate delays in acting on registration applications by religious groups, disruption of private religious and even social gatherings of members of unregistered groups, arbitrary arrests and detention without charge of their members, and the mistreatment or torture of religious detainees, sometimes resulting in death. Unfortunately, the situation has continued to deteriorate since the CPC designation was made in 2004.
Countries Not Named
The information in this year's Annual Report makes clear that two other countries merit CPC status in addition to those that have been previously named by the Secretary of State. The Commission finds that the governments of Pakistan and Turkmenistan persist in engaging in or tolerating particularly severe violations of religious freedom, and regrets that they were, once again, not designated as CPCs this year.
In Pakistan, discriminatory legislation effectively bans many of the activities of the Ahmadi community. Blasphemy allegations, routinely false, result in the lengthy detention, imprisonment of, and sometimes violence against Ahmadis, Christians, and Hindus, as well as Muslims, some of whom have been sentenced to death. Though two persons were acquitted of blasphemy charges last month, that same month, a Pakistani court sentenced two men to 10 years in prison on blasphemy charges. In the wake of rumors in October that the two men had committed blasphemy, it was reported that a mob of 500 persons attempted to kill them. What is more, even those who are acquitted are not able to return to their former lives, as the threat of violence frequently forces them to move or live in hiding. In addition, the government of Pakistan continues to provide an inadequate response to vigilante violence, sometimes in response to false blasphemy allegations, against Shi'as, Ahmadis, Hindus, and Christians.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The omission of Turkmenistan from the CPC list continues to be troubling and a discredit to Congress's intent in passing IRFA. Turkmenistan, among the most repressive states in the world today, allows virtually no independent religious activity. Severe government restrictions that effectively leave most, if not all, religious activity under strict—and often arbitrary—state control. In addition, Turkmen President Saparmurat Niyazov's ever-escalating personality cult has become a quasi-religion to which the Turkmen population is forced to adhere. His self-published work of ''spiritual thoughts,'' called Ruhnama, is required reading in all schools. In addition, copies of Ruhnama must be given equal prominence to the Koran and the Bible in mosques and churches. In the past few years, President Niyazov has passed several decrees that permitted the registration of nine very small religious communities. However, despite this alleged easing of registration criteria, religious groups continue to require permission from the state before holding worship services of any kind, making it unclear what—if any—practical benefits registration actually provides. Moreover, religious groups that do not meet the often arbitrary registration rules still face possible criminal penalties due to their unregistered status and, according to the State Department, publishing religious literature is banned by government decree.
Even the rights of members of the two largest religious communities, the majority Sunni Muslims and the Russian Orthodox, are seriously circumscribed. In the past two years, seven mosques were destroyed in the country and President Niyazov forbade the construction of any new ones. Turkmenistan's former chief Mufti, Nazrullah ibn Ibadullah, refused to elevate the Ruhnama to the level of the Koran and was sentenced in 2005 to 22 years in prison on political motivated charges. Last year, President Niyazov undertook various moves against the country's only Muslim theological faculty.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, it is clear to virtually every observer, including to the members of the Helsinki Commission, of which you have been chair, that Turkmenistan is a highly repressive state, where the Turkmen people suffer under the yoke of a personality cult that allows them few freedoms of any kind, including religious freedom. The Commission finds it extremely troubling—and frankly, perplexing—that despite a few superficial legal changes regarding religious freedom, and little if any change to the situation on the ground, Turkmenistan continues to escape the CPC designation it so clearly deserves.
CHINA: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM VIOLATIONS CONTINUE UNABATED
In the past several months, the Commission has issued several statements expressing concern about continued violations of religious freedom in China. We have also drawn attention to an ongoing crackdown that aims to intimidate and silence lawyers, scholars, journalists, and other human rights defenders who attempt to use Chinese law as a means to protect individuals, including religious leaders, who often face persecution from government officials. In August of this year, the Commission condemned the arrests of prominent Chinese lawyers Gao Zhisheng and Xu Zhiyong. Xu Zhiyong was preparing to defend Chen Guangcheng, a blind legal activist who has campaigned against China's harsh population control measures. Although Xu was released shortly after Chen's trial on charges of incitement to disrupt traffic and commit vandalism, local officials in Shandong repeatedly used threats, beatings, and detention to intimidate several members of Chen's legal team throughout the investigation and trial period. Following Chen's re-trial last month, the Commission again expressed concern when three witnesses for the defense failed to appear in court, reportedly due to government efforts to intimidate them. These witnesses had signed affidavits stating that, before Chen's original trial, police tortured them in order to force them to give testimony implicating Chen. One day after the re-trial hearing, police abducted and beat Chen's wife, Yuan Weijing, leaving her hospitalized. On December 1, without considering any evidence outside of confessions that are credibly alleged to have been obtained through torture, the court upheld Chen's original conviction and again sentenced him to 4 years and 3 months imprisonment.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Following his August arrest, civil rights attorney Gao Zhisheng was held without charges for over a month and his family placed under house arrest. Gao was well known for his defense of religious leaders, his criticism of the crackdown on Falun Gong, and his outspoken open letters appealing to Chinese leaders to respect provisions in their own laws that protect human rights. On December 12, Gao Zhisheng, who had not been permitted to meet with his lawyer for the duration of his detention period, was tried in secret and forced to plead guilty on charges of ''incitement to subvert state power.'' His lawyer and family members were also not present at the trial.
The Commission's concerns about continuing religious freedom violations in China were heightened by the more recent reports of torture and other due process violations by Chinese authorities in the prosecution of the three sons of exiled Uighur human rights advocate Rebiya Kadeer. Last month, a court in Urumqi sentenced one of Kadeer's sons to seven years imprisonment on charges of alleged tax fraud. The condition of another son, detained on more serious charges of subversion, remains unknown. Because the arrest of Kadeer's sons coincided with efforts of local authorities to prevent members of the Kadeer family from meeting with a U.S. congressional staff delegation to discuss human rights conditions for Uighurs, observers suspect that the charges are politically motivated. Reports indicate that all three sons were tortured to confess their guilt to the charges against them.
These cases to silence human rights defenders clearly demonstrate that Beijing's vows to fully promote the rule of law are, thus far, still empty promises. Moreover, the cases I have described here come at a time of worsening human rights conditions in China. During the past year, the Commission has received reports nearly every week of raids on unregistered religious gatherings and multiple cases of arrest, detention, and harassment of religious leaders, journalists, and human rights lawyers and activists.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Commission continues to urge the U.S. government to engage in a systematic and high level human rights dialogue with China that prominently addresses China's deteriorating religious freedom conditions. The previous U.S.-China human rights dialogue was folded into an all-encompassing ''Strategic Dialogue'' which has recently been superseded, at China's insistence, by the recently concluded ''Economic Dialogue.'' The Commission recommends congressional oversight of the Strategic Dialogue to ensure that religious freedom and other human rights goals are given focus equal to economic and security interests. The Commission also urges the U.S. government to 1) press Chinese authorities to implement more effectively rule of law reforms and human rights protections and 2) target U.S. assistance programs toward programs that will advance religious freedom in China, including programs on legal reform and training and civil society building. Everyone's right to due process and to freedom from torture should be protected in China, and the Chinese government should take immediate steps to ensure that these rights are not denied.
RUSSIA: HUMAN RIGHTS UNDERMINED
Let me begin by talking about Russia. In June this year, a delegation of the Commission traveled to Russia, visiting Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Kazan, the capital of the Republic of Tatarstan. As a result of its visit, the Commission noted five major areas of concern in Russia:
The Russian government's failure adequately to prosecute hate crimes. Although most attacks are motivated by ethnic hatred, some attacks against Muslim, Jewish, Protestant, and other religious communities are explicitly motivated by religious factors. Hostile articles in the de facto state-controlled Russian media contribute to intolerance, as do statements of some public officials and religious leaders. Persons who have investigated or been publicly critical of hate crimes in Russia have themselves been subject to violent attacks. Many Russian officials label crimes targeting ethnic or religious communities simply as ''hooliganism.'' More should be done to ensure that law enforcement agencies prevent and punish such crimes, particularly those involving ethnicity and religion. While vigorously promoting freedom of expression, public officials and leaders of religious communities should take steps to discourage rhetoric that promotes xenophobia or intolerance, including religious intolerance.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Russian government's attempts to challenge international human rights institutions and undermine domestic human rights advocacy. The problem of rising ethnic and religious intolerance has been exacerbated by the repeated efforts of Russian government officials to label foreign funding of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as ''meddling'' in Russia's internal affairs. Although Russia has ratified international human rights treaties, Russian officials and other influential figures have challenged international human rights institutions, as well as the validity of human rights advocacy in Russia, charging that it is being used for political purposes. Moreover, the branding of human rights organizations as ''foreign'' has increased the vulnerability of human rights advocates and those they defend. The Commission heard similar views expressed by Metropolitan Kirill, Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad and External Affairs spokesman of the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church—a cause for concern, given the increasingly prominent role provided to the Russian Orthodox Church in Russian state and public affairs.
Increasing official harassment of Muslims. The Russian government faces significant challenges as it addresses genuine threats of religious extremism and terrorism in Russia. One challenge is protecting the freedom of religion and other human rights of all persons, even as counter-terrorist efforts are undertaken. However, Russian human rights defenders provided evidence of numerous cases of Muslims being prosecuted for extremism or terrorism despite no apparent relation to such activities. Human rights activists also presented evidence that dozens of individuals have been detained for possessing religious literature such as the Koran, or on the basis of evidence planted by the police. In several regions, mosques have been closed by Russian government officials. These arbitrary actions may increase instability and exacerbate radicalism in Russia.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The restrictive NGO law that applies to religious organizations. Sergei Movchan, the director of the Federal Registration Service (FRS), confirmed that some of the law's most intrusive provisions do apply to religious organizations. The FRS' 2,000 employees who are charged with oversight of NGOs have broad discretion to attend NGO events and demand documents, as well as to cancel programs and ban financial transactions of the Russian branches of foreign organizations. One key purpose of the new legislation was to prevent NGOs—especially those receiving foreign funding—from engaging in so-called political activities, a purpose not spelled out or defined in the legislation.