U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

77–695PDF 2002

COMMUNIST ENTRENCHMENT AND RELIGIOUS

PERSECUTION IN CHINA AND VIETNAM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 13, 2002

Serial No. 107–77

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

PETER T. KING, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

AMO HOUGHTON, New York 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

NICK SMITH, Michigan 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

ERIC CANTOR, Virginia 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

TOM LANTOS, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia 

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

GRACE NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel 

ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairwoman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

RON PAUL, Texas 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

GRACE NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

MAURICIO TAMARGO, Subcommittee Staff Director 

JEFFREY PILCH, Democratic Professional Staff Member 

YLEEM POBLETE, Professional Staff Member 

SANDY ACOSTA, Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Michael K. Young, Commissioner, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom ................................................................................. 8

Paul Marshall, Senior Fellow, Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom House . 26

John Ackerly, President, International Campaign for Tibet ................................ 30

Ningfang Chen, Falun Gong Practitioner .............................................................. 35

Penelope Faulkner, Vice-President, Vietnam Committee for Human Rights ..... 41

Dan Duy-Tu Hoang, Vice-President of Public Relations, Vietnamese-American 

Public Affairs Committee .................................................................................... 46

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Florida, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights: Prepared statement ................................................ 4

The Honorable Cynthia A. McKinney, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Georgia: Prepared statement ......................................................... 7

The Honorable Michael K. Young: Prepared statement ....................................... 13

Paul Marshall: Prepared statement ....................................................................... 28

John Ackerly: Prepared statement ......................................................................... 32

Ningfang Chen: Prepared statement ..................................................................... 38

Vo Van Ai, Founder and President of CUME, Action for Democracy in Vietnam: Prepared statement .................................................................................... 43

Dan Duy-Tu Hoang: Prepared statement .............................................................. 48

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 55

(1)

COMMUNIST ENTRENCHMENT AND 

RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION IN CHINA 

AND VIETNAM 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, 

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:20 p.m. in Room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, 

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, all of you, for your patience in awaiting the vote. I always say it is wonderful when democracy gets in the way of our work here in our Subcommittee. 

Speaking of democracy and human rights, that is what brings us 

here today. 

After the deplorable acts of September 11, President Bush established a nexus between terror and democratic principles. He rightly 

underscored that it was not simply the United States, a powerful 

nation, which had been attacked. It was the ideas and the beliefs 

that we represent, the freedoms that define us throughout the 

world. We were the targets of the attacks. 

Conversely, the President illustrated the correlation that exists 

between the behavior of these states, the treatment of their own 

population, and their actions worldwide. Therefore, after unveiling 

the atrocities committed by the Taliban against women, religious 

and ethnic minorities and its people in general, it became abundantly clear that a regime which had no regard for the lives nor 

for the basic human rights of its own people could not possibly 

place any significance on the lives of Americans thousands of miles 

away. 

From the ashes of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon 

emerged a stronger, more determined United States, a country 

with a reinvigorated vision of our own global commitment and our 

role as the vanguard of democratic principles and freedoms. 

Religious freedom has always been at the core of American life 

since the inception of our society. Its place as the first of the ten 

freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights is a reflection of our 

founding fathers’ assessment of it as the cornerstone of liberty. It 

is, therefore, not surprising that the United States Congress placed 

such an emphasis on the passage and enactment of the International Religious Freedom Act which delineates U.S. policy, acVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:54 Jun 10, 2002 Jkt 077695 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\IOHR\021302\77695 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
2

tions and advocacy on behalf of individuals persecuted on account 

of their religious or spiritual beliefs. 

The application of the act to the terrible conditions found in 

China and Vietnam will be a critical part of our discussion today, 

discussions that are going to be guided by the testimony that we 

will hear of the U.S. Commissioner of International Religious Freedom, a body that was created by the law which was passed in 1998. 

However, freedom of religion and conscience are not concepts exclusive to the U.S. psyche. These are universal rights endowed to 

all human beings. The importance of safeguarding against religious 

oppression and defending those who are persecuted for their beliefs 

and spiritual conviction—that is, the need for today’s hearing and 

related action—is manifested in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The preamble states,

‘‘Disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in 

barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind.’’

The Subcommittee and the United States Congress cannot be 

idle as Uighur Muslims are killed by members of China’s military 

police. We must give a voice to the increasing numbers of Falun 

Gong practitioners who are arrested, who are sent to labor camps, 

who are beaten and tortured because they refuse to renounce their 

beliefs. 

It is this Subcommittee’s responsibility to serve as the conduit for 

the presentation of evidence about the persecution, horrific torture 

and deaths of worshipers from Tibet, particularly monks and nuns, 

and for their courage to practice their faith. It is our duty to highlight how Chinese officials have destroyed, closed or confiscated approximately 3,000 churches, temples and shrines, and these are of 

all faiths, in recent years. 

We cannot turn a blind eye to recent reports obtained by Freedom House detailing the arrest and the severe beatings of at least 

25 South China Christian Church followers and the torture of other 

members with electric prods. These deplorable and inhumane acts 

are part of a systematic and coordinated policy by China’s Communist regime to smash and destroy those unauthorized religions 

by whatever means necessary. 

We will hear testimony today from Freedom House detailing the 

contents of top secret Chinese government documents which provide chilling evidence of secret orders to persecute a wide range of 

religious and spiritual groups inside China. 

Two years ago, Freedom House obtained similar documents 

about the horrific practices designed and implemented by the Vietnamese authorities to severely suppress religious freedom. The 

similarities in the official documents of these two Communist regimes and the methods they employ, combined with the frightening 

parallels in their internal conditions regarding religious worship, 

requires a joint examination of the religious persecution in the two 

countries. 

As has been noted in numerous reports on China and Vietnam, 

religious freedom is severely repressed in the manner common to 

Communist countries; that is, through registration requirements, 

restricting religious practice to government approved organizations 

3

and leaders, through monitoring and infiltration, through propaganda discrediting the nature of the various religions and through 

coercive and violent forms of control. 

Both countries, according to the State Department’s International Religious Freedom Report, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and many others, have taken major steps backwards, particularly in the realm of religious freedom and tolerance. 

In Vietnam, the terrifying abuses against the Montagnard people 

of the Central Highlands has been the subject of numerous human 

rights reports and recent articles. They chronicle how Vietnamese 

authorities have destroyed their church buildings, have burned 

their house/churches and have forced them to drink a mixture of 

liquor, goat’s blood, raw chicken liver and raw pig intestine all in 

an attempt to force them to renounce God and to promise not to 

tell others about Christianity. 

Members of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and the 

Hoa Hao Buddhists—sorry about the mispronunciation—have disappeared threatened. They have been persecuted, and they have 

been targeted for arrest. The Unified Buddhist Church’s top patriarch remains under house arrest. Another spiritual leader of the 

Unified Buddhist Church died while under house arrest just in 

January of this year. He had spent 9 years in one of Vietnam’s 

squalid jail cells under trumped up charges of trying to overthrow 

the Communist regime in Hanoi. 

In March of last year, two to four million Hoa Hao Buddhists 

were forcibly prevented to assemble on their sacred ground. Key 

leaders were arrested, their houses surrounded by police. Other 

devotees were reportedly detained on their way to the site. 

The preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

talks about a world where people enjoy freedom from fear and persecution. Unfortunately, for the Hmong Christians in Vietnam this 

is only a dream. They must also endure the most horrific forms of 

suppression of their religious liberties. 

To summarize the disdain demonstrated by Vietnamese authorities toward fundamental freedoms guaranteed to its people as 

human beings, I must mention the arrest of dissidents on the eve 

of the debate on the House Floor of the Vietnam Human Rights Act 

and would like to end my statement with the case of the Roman 

Catholic priest, Father Thaddeus Van Ly. He was sentenced in October of 2001 to 15 years in prison for undermining national unity 

and public slandering of the Vietnamese Communist Party. His 

crime? He gave written testimony to the U.S. Congress about religious persecution in Vietnam. 

Thus, as President Bush prepares to embark on his tour of Asian 

countries, including meetings and a press conference with the Chinese leader, we ask him and his advisers to listen to the testimony 

which will be presented here today and use it as a catalyst. Let the 

U.S. send the message throughout China and throughout the East 

Asian region of the world that this country proudly stands with the 

oppressed and will continue to fight for their right to practice their 

religion and their beliefs. 

I am very proud to present the Ranking Member of our Subcommittee, my good friend Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of 

Georgia. 

4

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ros-Lehtinen follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

After the deplorable attacks of September 11th, President Bush established a 

nexus between terror and democratic principles. He rightly underscored that, it was 

not simply the United States, a powerful nation, which had been attacked. It was 

the ideas and beliefs that it represents—the freedoms that it defends throughout the 

world—which were the targets of the attacks. 

Conversely, the President illustrated the correlation that exists between the behavior of these states—their treatment of their own population—and their actions 

worldwide. 

Therefore, after unveiling the atrocities committed by the Taliban against women, 

religious and ethnic minorities, and its people in general, it became abundantly 

clear that a regime which had no regard for the lives nor for the basic human rights

of its own people, could not possibly place any significance on the lives of Americans, 

thousands of miles away. 

And from the ashes of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon emerged a 

stronger, more determined United States—a country with a reinvigorated vision of 

its global commitment and role as the vanguard of democratic principles and freedoms. 

Religious freedom has always been at the core of American life since the inception 

of our society. Its place as the first of ten freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights 

is a reflection of our Founding Father’s assessment of it as the cornerstone of liberty. 

It is therefore not surprising that the U.S. Congress placed such emphasis on the 

passage and enactment of the International Religious Freedom Act, which delineates U.S. policy, actions, and advocacy on behalf of individuals persecuted on account of their religious and spiritual beliefs. 

The application of the Act to the pernicious conditions found in China and Vietnam will be a crucial part of our discussions today—discussions which will be guided by the testimony of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a 

body created by the 1998 law. 

However, freedom of religion and conscience, are not concepts exclusive to the U.S.

psyche. These are universal rights endowed to all human beings. 

The importance of safeguarding against religious oppression and defending those 

who are persecuted for their beliefs and spiritual conviction—that is, the need for 

today’s hearing and related action—is manifested in the preamble of the Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights. 

The preamble states that: ‘‘disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted 

in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind.’’

This Subcommittee and the U.S. Congress cannot be idle as Uighur Muslims are 

killed by members of China’s military police. We must give a voice to the increasing 

numbers of Falun Gong practitioners who are arrested, sent to labor camps, 

beatened, and tortured because they refuse to renounce their beliefs. 

It is this Subcommittee’s responsibility to serve as a conduit for the presentation 

of evidence about the persecution, horrific torture, and deaths of Tibetan worshipers, 

particularly monks and nuns, for the courage to practice their faith. 

It is our duty to highlight how Chinese officials have destroyed, closed or confiscated approximately 3,000 churches, temples and shrines (Christian, Buddhist 

and Daoist) in recent years. 

We cannot turn a blind eye to recent reports obtained by Freedom House detailing 

the arrests and severe beatings of at least 25 South China Christian Church followers and the torture of other members with electric prods. 

These deplorable and inhumane acts are part of a systematic and coordinated policy by China’s Communist regime to ‘‘smash’’ and ‘‘destroy’’ these ‘‘unauthorized religions’’ by whatever means necessary. 

We will hear testimony today from Freedom House detailing the contents of top 

secret Chinese government documents which provide chilling evidence of secret orders to persecute a wide range of religious and spiritual groups inside China. 

Two years ago, Freedom House obtained similar documents about the horrific 

practices designed and implemented by the Vietnamese authorities to severely suppress religious freedom. 

The similarities in the official documents of these two Communist regimes and 

the methods they employ, combined with the frightening parallels in their internal 

5

conditions regarding religious worship, required a joint examination of the religious 

persecution in the two countries. 

As has been noted in numerous reports on China and Vietnam, religious freedom 

is severely repressed in the manner common to Communist countries—that is, 

through registration requirements; restricting religious practice to government-approved organizations and leaders; through monitoring and infiltration; through 

propaganda discrediting the nature or the various religions; and through coercive 

and violent forms of control. 

Both countries, according to the State Department’s International Religious Freedom Report, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and others, have taken 

major steps backward, particularly in the realm of religious freedom and tolerance. 

In Vietnam, the terrifying abuses against the Montagnard people of the Central 

Highlands, have been the subject of numerous human rights reports and recent articles. 

These chronicle how Vietnamese authorities destroy Montagnard church buildings, burn their house-churches, and force them to drink a mixture of liquor, goat’s 

blood, raw chicken liver, and raw pig’s intestine—all in an attempt to force them 

to renounce God and promise not to tell others about Christianity. 

Members of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and the Hoa Hao Buddhists 

have been disappeared, threatened, persecuted, and targeted for arrest. 

The Unified Buddhist Church’s top patriarch remains under house arrest. Another senior spiritual leader of the Unified Buddhist Church died while under house 

arrest in January of this year. He had spent nine years in one of Vietnam’s squalid 

jail cells under trumped up charges of trying to overthrow the Communist regime 

in Hanoi. 

In March of last year, two to four million Hoa Hao Buddhists were forcibly prevented to assemble on their sacred ground. Key leaders were arrested or their 

houses surrounded by police. Other devotees were reportedly detained on their way 

to the site. 

The preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights talks about a world 

where people enjoy ‘‘freedom from fear’’ and persecution. 

Unfortunately for the Hmong Christians in Vietnam, this is only a dream. They 

must also endure the most horrific forms of suppression of their religious liberties. 

To summarize the disdain demonstrated by Vietnamese authorities toward the 

fundamental freedoms guaranteed to its people as human beings, I must mention 

the arrests of dissidents on the eve of the debate on the House floor of the Vietnam 

Human Rights Act and would like to end my statement with the case of Roman 

Catholic priest Father Thaddeus Van Ly. 

He was sentenced in October 2001 to 15 years in prison for ‘‘undermining national 

unity’’ and ‘‘public slandering’’ of the Vietnamese Communist Party. His crime: giving written testimony to the U.S. Congress about religious persecution in Vietnam. 

Thus, as President Bush prepares to embark on his tour of Asian countries, including meetings and a press conference with Chinese leader, Jiang (yahn) Zemin 

(zeh-mihn), we ask him and his advisers to listen to the testimony which will be 

presented here today and use it as a catalyst. 

Let the U.S. send a message throughout China and throughout the East Asian 

region and the world, that this country proudly stands with the oppressed and will 

continue to fight for their right to practice their religion and beliefs.

Ms. MCKINNEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me apologize in 

advance for the failure to pronounce correctly some of the names, 

but I would hope that there would be not one hesitation at all to 

correct us so that we can make these mistakes only once. 

I would like to thank the Chairwoman for convening this important hearing on religious freedom in China and Vietnam. The right 

to worship or not to worship as one sees fit is among the most fundamental rights an individual or group can have. 

The American people feel strongly about religious freedom, as do 

I. We must be vigilant in defending that right for all people in all 

countries, including our own. At the same time, however, we must 

recognize our own role in tolerating, excusing or facilitating human 

rights abuses, including attacks on religious freedom, particularly 

in the wake of September 11. 

6

The war on terrorism seems to have inspired a wave of abuses 

of human rights around the world. Governments around the world 

have seized the war on terrorism as an opportunity to justify massive human rights abuses against their own or neighboring peoples. 

On January 16, Human Rights Watch warned that ‘‘the anti-terrorist campaign led by the United States is inspiring opportunistic 

attacks on civil liberties around the world.’’ Two days later, Amnesty International issued a report entitled ‘‘Rights At Risk’’ warning that the global war on terrorism risked ‘‘degenerating into a 

dirty war of torture, detentions and executions.’’ These reports are a wake up call to the free world. The United 

States must be careful not to give the world’s war criminals and 

despots a green light to carry out mass arrests, illegal detentions, 

torture, military attacks on civilians, restrictions on religious liberty and other abuses with impunity. 

Under the pretext of combating terror, for example, Chinese authorities have initiated another round of repression against ethnic 

and religious minorities, particularly the Uighur Muslims of the 

Xinjiang province. During the last several years, thousands of 

Uighurs have already been detained, imprisoned and tortured, but 

since October Chinese officials have launched a new wave of repression justifying their latest crackdown as an extension on the 

war on ‘‘terrorism’’ and ‘‘religious extremism.’’ Meanwhile, representatives from Amnesty International say that 

evidence of Uighur ties to al-Qaeda or other terrorist networks is 

‘‘scanty.’’ Chinese authorities have also stepped up repression of Tibetan Buddhists, Christians, practitioners of Falun Gong and other 

groups. 

The religious freedom situation in Vietnam is similarly bleak. Vietnamese authorities continue to impose severe restrictions on 

Buddhists, Christians, Hoa Hao, Cao Dai and others while banning 

‘‘unrecognized’’ religious groups from operating altogether. Recent 

detentions and arrests of prominent religious leaders such as Thich 

Huyen Quang and Thich Quang Do of the Unified Baptist Church 

of Vietnam and the sentencing of Father Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly 

to 15 years in prison following his written testimony to the Commission last year are especially worrisome. 

We must find ways to encourage other countries to respect 

human rights and religious freedom and not allow them to use the 

security pretext to oppress religious, ethnic and other dissidents, 

but we cannot do that unless we live up to the same standards we 

hold out to others. America must lead by example. 

Today, the United States risks losing its moral authority as an 

advocate of human rights and religious freedom because of our own 

recent behavior. Recent mass arrests of Muslim men, including religious leaders, the closing of several Islamic charities, the use of 

inflammatory and inciteful rhetoric by some in the media and by 

public officials may lead others to question our own commitment to 

religious freedom. 

When a nationally syndicated columnist writes about Muslims 

that we: ‘‘Should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.’’ Or when the Chairman of the House 

Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security quips at a 

town hall meeting down in Georgia that the best way to combat 

7

terrorism is to ‘‘just turn [the sheriff] loose and have him arrest 

every Muslim that crosses the state line.’’ Or when the highest 

ranking law enforcement official in the country, the Attorney General himself, makes religiously intolerant remarks about Muslims, 

that cannot do much to inspire religious tolerance at home or 

abroad, and it certainly does not help us make the case that we are 

the world’s premiere voice for religious freedom. 

We should bear in mind that everything Americans say and do 

is broadcast all over the world and translated into all languages. 

We ought to ensure that what is being broadcast is an accurate reflection of our own cultural and religious diversity and, most importantly, of our values as Americans. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate hearing from each of 

our esteemed panelists. I would like to take this special opportunity to extend a personal welcome to Mr. Dan Day-Tu Hoang 

who is here today from Georgia’s 4th congressional district. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McKinney follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Thank you Madame Chair for convening this important hearing on religious freedom in China and Vietnam. The right to worship, or not to worship, as one sees 

fit is among the most fundamental rights any individual or group can have. The 

American people feel strongly about religious freedom—as do I. We must be vigilant 

in defending that right for all people in all countries, including our own. 

At the same time, however, we must recognize our own role in tolerating, excusing, or facilitating human rights abuses—including attacks on religious freedom—

particularly in the wake of September 11. 

The war on terrorism seems to have inspired a wave of abuses of human rights 

around the world. Governments around the world have seized the war on terrorism 

as an opportunity to justify massive human rights abuses against their own or 

neighboring peoples. On January 16, Human Rights Watch warned that ‘‘the antiterror campaign led by the United States is inspiring opportunistic attacks on civil 

liberties around the world.’’ Two days later, Amnesty International issued a report 

entitled ‘‘Rights at Risk,’’ warning that the global war on terrorism risked ‘‘degenerating into a dirty war of torture, detentions, and executions.’’

These reports are a wake-up call to the free world. The United States must be 

careful not to give the world’s war criminals and despots a green light to carry out 

mass arrests, illegal detentions, torture, military attacks on civilians, restrictions on 

religious liberty, and other abuses with impunity. 

Under the pretext of combating terror, for example, Chinese authorities have initiated another round of repression against ethnic and religious minorities, particularly the Uigher Muslims of the Xinjiang province. During the last several years, 

thousands of Uighers have already been detained, imprisoned, and tortured. But 

since October, Chinese officials have launched a new wave of repression on Uighers, 

justifying their latest crackdown as an extension of the war on ‘‘terrorism’’ and ‘‘religious extremism.’’ Meanwhile representatives from Amnesty International say that 

evidence of Uigher ties to al-Qaida or other terrorist networks is ‘‘scanty.’’ Chinese 

authorities have also stepped up repression of Tibetan Buddhists, Christians, practitioners of Falun Gong, and other groups. 

The religious freedom situation in Vietnam is similarly bleak. Vietnamese authorities continue to impose severe restrictions on Buddhists, Christians, Hoa Hao, 

Cao Dai, and others, while banning ‘‘unrecognized’’ religious groups from operating 

altogether. Recent detentions and arrests of prominent religious leaders, such as 

Thich Huyen Quang and Thich Quang Do of the the Unified Buddhist Church of 

Vietnam (UBCV), and the sentencing of Father Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly to 15 

years in prison following his written testimony to the Commission last year, are especially worrisome. 

We must find ways to encourage other countries to respect human rights and religious freedom and not allow them to use the security pretext to oppress religious, 

ethnic, and other dissidents. 

8

But we cannot do that unless we live up to the same standards we hold others 

to. America must lead by example. Today, the United States risks losing its moral 

authority as an advocate of human rights and religious freedom because of its own 

recent behavior. Recent mass arrests of Muslim men, including religious leaders; the 

closing of several Islamic charities; and the use of inflammatory and inciteful rhetoric by some in the media and by public officials may lead others to question our 

own commitment to religious freedom. 

When a nationally syndicated columnist writes about Muslims that: ‘‘We should 

invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.’’ Or when 

the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security 

quips that the way to combat terrorism is to ‘‘just turn [the sheriff] loose and have 

him arrest every Muslim that crosses the state line.’’ Or when the highest-ranking 

law enforcement official in the country—the Attorney General himself—makes religiously intolerant remarks about Muslims, that can’t do much to inspire religious 

tolerance at home or abroad, and certainly doesn’t help us make the case that we 

are the world’s premier voice for religious freedom. 

We should bear in mind that everything Americans say and do is broadcast all 

over the world and translated into all languages. We ought to ensure that what is 

being broadcast is an accurate reflection of our cultural and religious diversity and, 

most importantly, of our values as Americans. 

Thank you, Madame Chair. I looking forward to hearing from each of our esteemed panelists.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Congresswoman McKinney. 

Mr. Tancredo of California? Thank you. 

Today we would like to welcome a panel of witnesses that will 

put forth not only an analysis of the religious persecution that 

takes place in China and Vietnam, but they will also offer a portrait of the abuse that religious practitioners endure under rigid 

Communist regimes. 

Our first panel today is composed of Commissioner Michael K. 

Young from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which he chairs. Chairman Young is also the dean of the 

George Washington University School of Law, as well as having 

taught at Columbia University’s Law School. In addition to being 

a prolific scholar on Asian legal systems, Commissioner Young also 

served in various posts under the first Bush Administration. 

We welcome you here, Chairman Young, and we look forward to 

your testimony and your recommendations, and we will enter it in 

full in the record. If you could briefly summarize your statement, 

we would appreciate it. 

Thank you, Commissioner. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL K. YOUNG, COMMISSIONER, U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 

Mr. YOUNG. Madam Chairperson, thank you very much for inviting me today to this very important hearing. Congresswoman 

McKinney, Congressman Tancredo, thank you for the opportunity 

to be here. 

In light of your eloquent statement, as well as Congresswoman 

McKinney’s eloquent statement, I will shorten my remarks some, 

as you mentioned. Many of the things——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Tom’s was internally eloquent communicated 

through my dental fillings. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. You did highlight many of the abuses 

about which we have been very concerned. We want to start by 

thanking the Commission and commending the Commission for 

holding this hearing. I think it is timely and very important. 

9

The widespread and serious abuses of the right to freedom of religion and belief in China are well documented by our Commission, 

by the State Department, and by religious and other non-governmental organizations. In October of 2001, for the third straight 

year, the Secretary of State concluded that the Chinese Government severely and systematically violated freedom of religion and 

belief and, therefore, once again named China as a country of particular concern under the International Religious Freedom Act 

passed by this Congress. 

The Commission concludes that the Chinese Government’s respect for freedom of religion and belief has deteriorated even further in the past year. The Government of China has committed numerous serious violations against members of many of China’s religious and spiritual communities, including Evangelical Christians, 

Roman Catholics, Tibetan Buddhists, Uighur Muslims, as well as 

the Falun Gong and other groups that the government has labeled 

evil cults. 

In the wake of being granted permanent normal trade relations 

status by the United States and then successfully bidding to host 

the 2008 Olympics, the government has even further tightened its 

control over religion in China. 

At China’s December 2001, National Religious Affairs Conference, President Jiang Zemin stated, and I quote,

‘‘Religion must never be allowed when it opposes the direction 

of the party or the socialist system or destroys national reunification or ethnic unity.’’

The government put this doctrine into very clear practice just last 

month when it intensified its crackdown on the religious association and practices of the Uighur Muslims. 

Immediately after the Religious Affairs Conference, China further demonstrated its resolve to tighten its control of religious organizations and their activities by handing out a death sentence to 

Pastor Gong Shengliang of the underground Protestant South 

China Church. Other church members were given sentences up to 

life imprisonment. Their major crime? Using a so-called evil cult to 

undermine the enforcement of the law. 

Last month, the same law was used to indict Mr. Li, a Hong 

Kong businessman, for allegedly smuggling Bibles to an underground Protestant church. Mr. Li was released last weekend in advance of President Bush’s state visit. 

The Chinese Government also continues to deny foreign diplomats and human rights monitors, including UN representatives, 

access to the boy designated by the Dalai Lama to be the 11th Panchen Lama. He has not been seen since 1995. 

Muslim Uighur businesswoman Rebiya Kadeer remains in jail 

serving an 8-year sentence for harming national security. Her 

crime? Sending her husband in the United States clippings from a 

Chinese newspaper that were then used in a broadcast on Radio 

Free Asia. 

The Commission has adopted a new set of recommendations for 

the U.S. Government that fall under four headings. It is this Commission’s conclusion that in order to protect freedom of thought, 

conscience, religion, and belief, the Chinese Government must take 

10

effective steps in the following four critical areas. We release those 

findings today at this Committee hearing, and they have also been 

communicated to the President and to the Secretary of State. 

Our four points are relatively simple. First, China must end its 

current crackdown on religious and spiritual groups. This has obviously heightened. It has been a targeted activity, and it must end. 

China must also reform its repressive legal framework that it uses 

to control religion, as well as establish an effective mechanism to 

hold officials accountable for religious freedom and related human 

rights violations. 

Third, China must reaffirm the universality of religious freedom 

and China’s international obligations, and ratify the International 

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Finally, China must take 

concrete, demonstrable, practical, measurable steps to foster a culture of respect for human rights. 

The Commission is making this full set of new policy recommendations public for the first time at this hearing. In the interest of time I will not review those, but I do ask that a full copy 

of those be entered into the record. 

Do let me focus on just a couple of——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Without objection. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. Allow me to focus on just a couple of key 

points from those recommendations. 

It is very clear that the Chinese Government has used torture, 

detention, intimidation, surveillance, discrimination and a broad 

range of unconscionable practices against an untold number of persons simply because they practice their religion or belief. This must 

stop. The United States should use every diplomatic opportunity to 

urge the Chinese to cease these abuses and should integrate this 

effort into all aspects of bilateral cooperation and dialogue, including security and counterterrorism. 

In addition, the President should insure that religious freedom is 

a prominent agenda item for all state visits in either direction. Indeed, after President Bush publicly expressed his concern for the 

Hong Kong businessman accused of smuggling Bibles, the charges 

against him were reduced, and he was sentenced to a term much 

less than he had originally been charged with. 

Before any state visit to China, the President should also receive 

assurances that he will have the opportunity to address a Chinese 

audience on human rights in a live and uncensored broadcast. 

President Reagan’s similar address to Russian students at Moscow 

State University in 1988 was a stirring, memorable moment among 

Russians and galvanized their people, as well as educating them 

about why the United States is concerned about their human 

rights, as well as about human rights around the world. We wrote 

the President on January 31 of this year, to urge him to seek precisely those assurances. 

The U.S. should also emphasize to the Chinese Government the 

positive contributions that religion and believers can make to Chinese society, as well as the need to permit both faith-based and 

secular organizations to provide humanitarian and social services 

freely within China. This we think is a very important point and 

benefits the Chinese people enormously, and we urge that this be 

11

a major point of our dialogue between the United States and 

China. 

The Commission welcomes the resumption of the human rights 

dialogue between China and the United States. We believe, however, that such a mechanism should not only communicate U.S. 

concerns about human rights in China; it must establish measurable goals and practicable steps for improvement. Mere dialogue 

should not be the end in itself. 

The U.S. should also work multilaterally to foster human rights 

improvements in China. As a key component of this effort, we 

should continue to propose and promote a resolution to censure 

China at annual meetings of the U.N. Commission on Human 

Rights. We recently wrote to that effect to Secretary Powell stating 

that it was extremely important that the United States serve as an 

active member of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, as the 

U.S. stands virtually alone in its striving to focus world attention 

on specific violations of human rights. 

Further, the U.S. Government should seek to establish a diplomatic presence in Tibet and Xinjiang to demonstrate our concern 

and to monitor religious freedom and other human rights in those 

areas. I should note, thanks to the work of the International Relations Committee, the House has adopted language calling for a 

branch consular office in Lhasa as part of the Foreign Relations 

Authorization Act, which is awaiting action by the Senate. We applaud that recommendation. 

The U.S. Government’s China policy should also include a number of practical steps to promote religious freedom and other 

human rights. These include support and, as appropriate, funding 

for human rights advocates within China, as well as those outside 

China who are promoting the rule of law, legal reform and democracy. The U.S. Government should make sure that Tibetans and 

other ethnic minorities, as well as representatives of religious communities and other non-governmental organizations, are included 

in exchange programs with China. 

Madam Chairperson, it is U.S. policy to oppose violations of religious freedom and human rights throughout the world, not just in 

China. Through enhanced public diplomacy, the United States 

should directly and frankly explain to the Chinese people this message and the reasons for our concern. Such efforts should include 

an expansion of Radio Free Asia and Voice of America broadcasts 

throughout China. 

In addition, since the U.S. permits Chinese media, including the 

official Chinese Central Television company, access to American 

markets access that is expanding considerably—we should insure 

that U.S. media, including broadcast companies, are allowed a 

similar presence in Chinese markets. We think this is a very important point as well. 

In addition, the U.S. Government should insure that U.S. companies doing business in China do not engage in practices that would 

facilitate violations of freedom of religion or other human rights, 

such as disclosing employees’ religious beliefs, spiritual activities, 

or affiliations to Chinese authorities. 

Now that the PNTR status has eliminated the annual review of 

human rights in China, the work of this Subcommittee in holding 

12

these kinds of hearings and continuing such reviews on an ongoing 

basis takes on even greater importance. The Commission on International Religious Freedom stands ready to join with you and cooperate with you in this effort, as well as to applaud you for this 

hearing. 

Let me turn to Vietnam for just a few moments if I may. The 

Commission has closely followed the situation there for quite some 

time. In both 2000 and 2001, we noted that the Government of 

Vietnam had committed grave violations of religious freedom, and 

we urged the State Department to monitor carefully the conditions 

there. 

In February, 2001, we held a public hearing on Vietnam here in 

Washington at which several overseas representatives of Vietnamese religious communities testified, as well as experts on U.S.-

Vietnam relations. Also, in May of 2001, we issued a set of recommendations to the U.S. Government in our annual report. 

A delegation from our Commission soon will be conducting a factfinding mission to Vietnam at the invitation of the Vietnamese 

Government. We have sought this since December of 2000 and believe it will afford us an opportunity for additional firsthand information and direct dialogue with that government, and we look forward to that visit. 

It is fair to say from all information available to us religious freedom conditions in Vietnam have deteriorated since the release of 

our report in May. In particular, several leading religious figures 

have been imprisoned or placed under house arrest, as you mentioned. 

In October, Vietnamese authorities sentenced Father Ly to 15 

years for undermining national unity. Father Ly has been a persistent critic of the Vietnamese Government’s failure to protect religious freedom, and he provided written testimony to the Commission for its Vietnam hearing. Shortly thereafter, he was arrested. 

The government took this action against Father Ly despite protests 

by several Members of Congress, the Administration and our Commission. 

The Vietnamese Government has also recently detained or imprisoned several leaders of religious groups that are not officially 

recognized, including many that you mentioned: The Venerable 

Quang and the Venerable Do of the United Buddhist Church of 

Vietnam, the Rev. Quang of the Mennonite Church in Ho Chi Minh 

City and Mr. Liem of the Hoa Hao Buddhist Church. 

In addition, serious reports continue to emerge from ethnic minority regions in Vietnam where the government has severely restricted access. A government sponsored reunification campaign appears to continue against the ethnic Hmong Christians in the 

northwestern provinces, as well as the Montagnards in the Central 

Highlands. Montagnards who have fled to Cambodia to escape unrest in their home provinces have reportedly been subject to ill 

treatment upon their repatriation to Vietnam. 

While conversations between the Vietnamese Government and 

leaders of the Catholic church have led to some improvements, 

which we acknowledge, there remain a number of issues, such as 

admission of men to seminaries and licensing of priests, that indiVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:54 Jun 10, 2002 Jkt 077695 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\IOHR\021302\77695 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
13

cate an unnecessary degree of control by the government of church 

activity. 

Finally, while the government early last year did recognize the 

Evangelical Church of Vietnam in the south, again a measure we 

applaud, we have yet to see substantial evidence of that organization’s independence from the state. 

That kind of behavior does not help the Vietnamese Government 

make its case that it deserves international loans or additional 

trade benefits from the United States while it fails to uphold its 

international human rights commitments. I would note that Father 

Ly was sentenced not 2 weeks after the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral 

Trade Agreement was ratified. 

In light of these actions that the Vietnamese Government has 

taken in the past several months, it remains imperative for our 

government to send the message that the protection of human 

rights, including religious freedom, is a continuing priority for the 

United States. In this regard, the Commission praised the House 

for passing the Vietnam Human Rights Act in September of 2001. 

The act not only expresses Congress’ concern over violations of religious freedom by the Vietnamese Government, but it would implement several Commission policy recommendations. We support the 

bill and urge the Senate to pass it. 

In addition, the Commission made several other recommendations in our May, 2001, report, and with your permission I would 

request that these also be made a part of the hearing record. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Without objection. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. Madam Chairperson, violations of religious freedom continue in both Vietnam and China, but we continue to hope that U.S. policy actions will precipitate a positive 

change in behavior by the governments of both those countries. 

Hearings like this one can only help focus the attention of the Administration and the general public on these grave issues and put 

these governments on notice that their abuses will not be overlooked. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today and assure you that the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, consistent with the statutory mandates, stands ready to work 

with you and your colleagues to encourage religious freedom in 

these countries and throughout the world. 

I would be happy with that to answer any questions that you 

might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL K. YOUNG, COMMISSIONER, U.S. 

COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Thank you, Madame Chairman for the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee on religious persecution in China and Vietnam, and I commend you and 

the members of the subcommittee for holding this important hearing. 

CHINA

The widespread and serious abuses of the right to freedom of religion and belief 

in China are well documented by our Commission, the State Department, and religious and other nongovernmental organizations. In October 2001, for the third 

straight year, the Secretary of State concluded that the Chinese government severely and systematically violates freedom of religion and belief, and therefore 

named China once again a ‘‘country of particular concern’’ under the International 

14

Religious Freedom Act of 1998. The Commission concludes that the Chinese government’s respect for freedom of religion and belief has deteriorated in the past year. 

The Government of China has committed numerous serious violations against members of many of China’s religious and spiritual communities, including Evangelical 

Christians, Roman Catholics, Tibetan Buddhists, Uighur Muslims, as well as the 

Falun Gong and other groups that the government has labeled ‘‘evil cults.’’

In the wake of being granted Permanent Normal Trade Relations status by the 

United States and successfully bidding to host the 2008 Olympics, the government 

has tightened its control over religion in China. At China’s December 2001 national 

religious-affairs conference, President Jiang Zemin stated, ‘‘Religion must never be 

allowed when it opposes the direction of the party or the socialist system, or destroys national reunification or ethnic unity.’’ The government put this doctrine into 

practice just last month, when it intensified its crackdown on the religious association and practices of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang. 

Immediately after the religious-affairs conference, China further demonstrated its 

resolve to tighten its control of religious organizations and their activities by handing down a death sentence to Pastor Gong Shengliang of the underground Protestant South China Church. Other church members were given sentences up to life 

imprisonment. Their major crime? Using a so-called ‘‘evil cult’’ to ‘‘undermine the 

enforcement of the law.’’ Last month, the same law was used to indict Li 

Guangqiang, a Hong Kong businessman, for allegedly smuggling Bibles to another 

underground Protestant group. Mr. Li was released last weekend in advance of 

President Bush’s state visit next week. 

The Chinese government also continues to deny foreign diplomats and human 

rights monitors, including UN representatives, access to the boy designated by the 

Dalai Lama to be the 11th Panchen Lama. He has not been seen since 1995. 

Muslim Uighur businesswoman Rebiya Kadeer remains in jail serving an eightyear sentence for ‘‘harming national security.’’ Her crime: sending her husband in 

the U.S. clippings from Chinese newspapers, on which he commented over Radio 

Free Asia. 

The Commission has adopted a new set of specific recommendations for the U.S. 

government that fall under four headings. It is this Commission’s conclusion that, 

in order to protect freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, the Chinese 

government must take effective steps in the following four critical areas. U.S. policy 

should encourage such steps and effectively respond, whether they are or are not 

taken. 

(1) China must end its current crackdown on religious and spiritual groups. 

(2) China must reform its repressive legal framework and establish an effective 

mechanism to hold officials accountable for religious-freedom and related human 

rights violations. 

(3) China must affirm the universality of religious freedom and China’s international obligations and must ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 

(4) China must foster a culture of respect for human rights. 

The Commission is making its full set of new policy recommendations public for 

the first time at this hearing. In the interest of time, I won’t review all of them now, 

but I respectfully request, Madame Chairman, that the full set of recommendations 

be included in the formal hearing record. I will focus on a few key points. 

The Chinese government has used torture, detention, intimidating surveillance, 

discrimination, and other unconscionable practices against an untold number of persons simply because they openly practice their religion or belief. This must stop. The 

U.S. should use every diplomatic opportunity to urge the Chinese to cease these 

abuses and should integrate this effort into all aspects of bilateral cooperation and 

dialogue, including security and counterterrorism. In addition, the President should 

ensure that religious freedom is a prominent agenda item for state visits in either 

direction—indeed, after President Bush publicly expressed his concern for the Hong 

Kong businessman accused of smuggling Bibles, the charges against him were reduced and he was sentenced to a term much less than was originally sought. Before 

any state visit to China, the President should also receive assurances that he will 

have the opportunity to address a Chinese audience on human rights in a live and 

uncensored broadcast. President Reagan’s similar address to Russian students at 

Moscow State University in 1988 was popular and memorable among Russians. The 

Commission wrote to the White House on January 31 to urge that the President 

obtain assurances from the Chinese government before he goes to China this week 

that he be given such a speaking opportunity. 

The U.S. should emphasize to the Chinese government the positive contributions 

that religion and believers can make to Chinese society, as well as the need to perVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:54 Jun 10, 2002 Jkt 077695 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\IOHR\021302\77695 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
15

mit both faith-based and secular organizations to provide humanitarian and social 

services freely within China. 

The Commission welcomes the resumption of the bilateral human rights dialogue. 

We believe, however, that such a mechanism should not only communicate U.S. concerns about human rights violations in China. It must also establish measurable 

goals and practical steps for improvement. Mere dialogue should not be an end in 

itself. 

The U.S. should also work multilaterally to foster human rights improvements in 

China. As a key component of this effort, we should continue to propose and promote a resolution to censure China at annual meetings of the UN Commission on 

Human Rights. We recently wrote to Secretary Powell, stating that it was extremely 

important that the United States serve as an active member of the UN Commission 

on Human Rights as the U.S. stands virtually alone in striving to focus world attention on specific violations of human rights. Furthermore, the U.S. government 

should seek to establish a diplomatic presence in Tibet and Xinjiang to demonstrate 

our concern and to monitor religious freedom and other human rights. I should note 

that, thanks to the work of the International Relations Committee, the House has 

adopted language calling for a branch consular office in Lhasa as part of the Foreign 

Relations Authorization Act, which is awaiting action by the Senate. 

The U.S. government’s China policy should include a number of practical steps 

to promote religious freedom and other human rights. These include support and, 

as appropriate, funding for human rights advocates within China, as well as those, 

wherever found, who are promoting the rule of law, legal reform, and democracy 

there. The U.S. government should make sure that Tibetan and other ethnic minorities, as well as representatives of religious communities and other nongovernmental 

organizations, are included in exchange programs with China. 

Madame Chairman, it is U.S. policy to oppose violations of religious freedom and 

other human rights throughout the world, not just in China. Through enhanced 

public diplomacy, the United States should directly and frankly explain to the Chinese people this message and the reasons for our concern. Such efforts should include the expansion of Radio Free Asia and Voice of America broadcasts throughout 

China. Since the U.S. permits Chinese media, including the official Chinese Central 

Television company, access to American markets, we should ensure that U.S. media, 

including broadcasting companies, are allowed a similar presence in Chinese markets. Also, the U.S. government should ensure that U.S. companies doing business 

in China do not engage in practices that would facilitate violations of religious freedom and other human rights, such as disclosing employees’ religious or spiritual activities or affiliations to Chinese officials. 

Now that PNTR status has eliminated the annual review of human rights in 

China, the work of this subcommittee in holding these kinds of hearings and continuing such reviews on an ongoing basis takes on even greater importance. The 

Commission on International Religious Freedom stands ready to join with you and 

cooperate in this effort. 

VIETNAM

Moving now to Vietnam, the Commission has closely followed the situation there 

for quite some time. In both 2000 and 2001, we noted that the government of Vietnam had committed grave violations of religious freedom, and we urged the State 

Department to monitor carefully the conditions there. In February of 2001, we held 

a public hearing on Vietnam here in Washington, at which several overseas representatives of Vietnamese religious communities testified, as well as experts on 

U.S.-Vietnam relations. Also, in May 2001, we issued a set of recommendations for 

the U.S. government in a chapter of our annual report. A delegation from our Commission soon will be conducting a fact-finding mission to Vietnam at the invitation 

of its government—which we have sought since December of 2000. This visit hopefully will afford us additional first hand information and direct dialogue with that 

government. 

Religious-freedom conditions in Vietnam have deteriorated since the release of our 

report in May. In particular, several leading religious figures have been imprisoned 

or placed under house arrest. In October, Vietnamese authorities sentenced Father 

Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly to 15 years in prison for ‘‘undermining national unity.’’

Father Ly has been a persistent critic of the Vietnamese government’s failure to 

protect religious freedom, and he provided written testimony to the Commission for 

its Vietnam hearing. As you know, the government took action against Father Ly 

despite protests by several members of Congress, the Administration and our Commission. 

16

The Vietnamese government has also recently detained or imprisoned several 

leaders of religious groups that are not officially recognized, including The Venerable Thich Huyen Quang and The Venerable Thich Quang Do of the United Buddhist Church of Vietnam, The Rev. Nguyen Hong Quang of the Mennonite Church 

in Ho Chi Minh City, and Mr. Le Quang Liem of the Hoa Hao Buddhist Church. 

In addition, serious reports continue to emerge from ethnic minority regions of Vietnam, where the government has severely restricted access. A government-sponsored 

renunciation campaign appears to continue against ethnic Hmong Christians in the 

northwestern provinces as well as Montagnards in the Central Highlands. 

Montagnards who have fled to Cambodia to escape unrest in their home provinces 

have reportedly been subjected to ill-treatment upon their repatriation to Vietnam. 

While conversations between the Vietnamese government and leaders of the Catholic Church have led to some improvements, there remain a number of issues, such 

as admission of men to seminaries and licensing of priests, that indicate an unnecessary control by the government of Church activity. Finally, while the government 

early last year did recognize the Evangelical Church of Vietnam in the south, we 

have yet to see substantial evidence of that organization’s independence from the 

state. 

This kind of behavior does not help the Vietnamese government make its case 

that it deserves international loans or additional trade benefits from the United 

States while it fails to uphold its international human rights commitments. I would 

note that Father Ly was sentenced not two weeks after the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral 

Trade Agreement (BTA) was ratified. In light of the actions that the Vietnamese 

government has taken in the past several months, it remains imperative for our 

government to send the message that the protection of human rights, including religious freedom, is a continuing priority for the United States. 

In this regard, the Commission praised the House for passing the Vietnam 

Human Rights Act (H.R. 2833) in September 2001. The Act not only expresses 

Congress’s concern over violations of religious freedom by the Vietnamese government, it would implement several Commission policy recommendations. We support 

the bill and urge the Senate to pass it. In addition, the Commission made several 

other recommendations in our May 2001 report, and with your permission I would 

request that those also be made a part of the hearing record. 

Madame Chairman, violations of religious freedom continue in both Vietnam and 

China, but we continue to hope that U.S. policy actions will precipitate a positive 

change in behavior by the governments of both these countries. Hearings like this 

one can only help focus the attention of the administration and the general public 

on these grave issues and put these governments on notice that their abuses will 

not be overlooked. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today and assure you that the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, consistent 

with its statutory mandate, stands ready to work with you to encourage religious 

freedom in these countries and throughout the world. 

I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Chairman Young. Could 

you please elaborate on the process by which you evaluate the statute of religious freedom and nominate specific countries to be designated by the State Department as countries of particular concern? 

In the case of China and Vietnam, what have been the determining factors throughout the years in recommending China for 

such a designation, but not Vietnam? You were alluding to it in 

your testimony. 

Mr. YOUNG. Madam Chairperson, thank you. This process is, it 

is fair to say, not an exact science, but what the Commission does 

is reviews information that we are able to secure certainly from the 

State Department in its report. We also have some, although in our 

judgement too limited, access to reporting cables from the State 

Department consulates and embassies. 

We then look at information from human rights organizations 

and religious organizations. We hold hearings. We invite specialists, as well as those intimately familiar with these countries, to 

17

come in and to brief us. In the end, we collate that information and 

try to measure it against a standard provided in the statute. 

What the statute calls for is designation of a country if it is engaged in systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom, and then it lists some possible examples. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. So you believe that in the case of Vietnam 

it is not systematic, it is not egregious, and it is not government 

sanctioned? 

Mr. YOUNG. I think it is fair to say that we think it is close to 

the line, and I have said so publicly in our reports, and that it 

bears watching. We did not think it had, at least in the 3 years we 

have looked at it, risen to the level of China’s problem, but it is 

very serious, and we have said so. It bears serious watching, and 

we have said that. 

We also feel like we would like an opportunity to engage the Vietnamese in Vietnam and see for ourselves, but I think the fact 

that we have not designated it in precisely the same category as 

China should be taken as a signal of our lack of enormous concern 

over it in this country. As I say, in the last year in particular it 

seems to have deteriorated even further. 

It is also fair to say there has been some small, modest, positive 

improvement in Vietnam that I think we really have not seen in 

the case of China, and that has also given us a sense that engaging 

in a sustained dialogue with the Vietnamese is a very important 

step in this process. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. In the recommendations that 

were released by the Commission today regarding U.S. policy toward the Chinese regime, you list, for example, that the U.S. Government should urge the Chinese to

‘‘halt the harassment, the surveillance, arrest, detention of persons on account of their manifestations of religion or belief and 

of use of practices such as detention, torture and ill treatment 

in prisons, labor camps, psychiatric facilities, et cetera.’’

In your testimony you state that, ‘‘Mere dialogue should not be 

an end in itself.’’ Would you agree that without the use of strong, 

definitive measures toward both China and Vietnam that the U.S. 

will not be successful in our efforts on behalf of religious freedom? 

Do you believe that the International Religious Freedom Act 

needs to be more dutifully implemented with regard to China and 

Vietnam? Please specify which presidential action should be applied in these cases. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, we have not as a Commission recommended 

any specific presidential action from that particular list. I think it 

is fair to say we, for the last 3 years, have urged that it be designated as a country of particular concern, and indeed the State 

Department has designated that. 

Under the statute, in the absence of a waiver the President is required to impose some sort of sanction. We were notified by the 

Clinton Administration about sanctions. We have not yet been notified by the Bush Administration. In the event they do not waive 

the sanctions, they are required to do something. 

The sanctions are those that are coterminous with the sanctions 

under the Tiananmen Square events, which are the prohibitions on 

18

the sale of crowd control materials for the police. This seems to us 

an extraordinarily modest way of signaling our displeasure with 

that country. 

I do think that it is essential to get the attention of the Chinese, 

so they know that the United States does indeed take these very, 

very seriously. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Ms. McKinney? 

Ms. MCKINNEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Young, you said that dialogue is important, and I agree that 

dialogue is important, but we have to be sure that we are saying 

the right thing in the dialogue. 

Now, recently we had an incident where the Chinese President 

ordered a plane, and when the plane was delivered it had bugs in 

it, including a bug in the presidential bed. What do you think that 

does to the quality of the dialogue that we can have with the Chinese as we want to talk about human rights in the President’s 

visit? 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, that is a very good question. I think it is fair 

to say that it probably does not help the dialogue. At the same 

time, our concern has been that as we institute these dialogues 

that those issues that are important to the American people, that 

are important to Congress, also be part of the dialogue. 

We have recommended that representatives of the Commission 

be invited to go with the President on the trip—he takes many 

businessmen—which certainly signals the importance of our relationship. He takes—— Ms. MCKINNEY. Has the Administration responded to that request? 

Mr. YOUNG. They have not yet. 

Ms. MCKINNEY. You should keep us informed of that. 

Mr. YOUNG. We will do that. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Also, when they have the bilateral human rights dialogue between China and the United States we would very much like Commission members to be included in that as well. Freedom of religion needs to be a central part of that dialogue. We believe in 

thinking about the role of American businesses that human rights 

needs to be an important part of that. 

In cultural exchanges, in all these areas, we need to reward 

those individuals within China, who are championing the cause 

which are important to the Chinese people. Conversely, those individuals who are not should not be the object of exchanges and cultural activities and so forth. 

American businesses should be required to be consistent with our 

values when doing business anywhere in the world, but especially 

in China. Those are at least major elements of the dialogue that 

we would like to see make human rights central to our interaction 

at all different levels. 

Ms. MCKINNEY. I have a piece of legislation, which we call the 

Corporate Code. I will make sure that we get a copy of it over to 

you. I would like to hear your reaction to our corporate responsibility piece of legislation because I, too, believe that American corporations ought to behave in a way that is consistent with American values, and certainly respect for human rights is an important 

American value. 

19

How would you characterize China’s treatment of the Uighur 

Muslims? 

Mr. YOUNG. We would at the moment characterize it as very bad. 

It is difficult to get adequate access there to be entirely clear, but 

there seems to be very credible, reliable evidence that there have 

been a large number of arrests and imprisonments of Uighur Muslims. I mentioned a few individual cases, such as Rebiya Kadeer, 

who have garnered international attention, but she is merely illustrative of a large number of people that have been arrested. 

The Chinese Government asserts that there is a separatist insurgency movement out of that part of the country. That indeed may 

be correct. Certainly we do not fault the Chinese for their own appropriate actions with respect to terrorism. At the same time, it is 

very hard to argue I think at this stage that the sweep is not much 

too broad; that religion is being used as a surrogate for terrorist 

activity. This is a very oppressed part of China right now. 

Ms. MCKINNEY. What would you say about the reports that we 

have in this country of a sweep of some 300,000 men of Arab-American descent, some who are citizens, some who are legal residents 

here, but who are experiencing similar treatment? 

Mr. YOUNG. Congresswoman McKinney, I would say that it 

seems to me appropriate with what we have said in the context of 

our countries we ought to be consistent. We have in the context of 

Afghanistan, for example, deplored the round up of a large number 

of Muslim men often merely for carrying religious literature of such 

an innocuous nature as the Koran. 

We have stated our objections to the President. In our recommendations regarding China we have highlighted the problem of 

the Uighur Muslims and the inappropriateness of simply sweeping 

up large groups of people because of their particular identification 

with a religion. It would be shameful to not apply the same standards in the United States. 

Ms. MCKINNEY. Thank you, Mr. Young. Thank you, Madam 

Chair. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Ms. McKinney. 

There are many kinds of religious persecution that is going on 

in China and Vietnam to the detaining of certain individuals because of their possible ties to terrorist organizations. I have not 

heard of anyone saying that they had been beaten, that all of these 

horrendous acts had been committed against them. I just want to 

clarify my view on that to my dear friend, Ms. McKinney. 

Mr. Tancredo? 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Along those lines, I want to take just a moment to express my 

appreciation to the President of the United States for his outstanding leadership in this area and his often heard remarks to the 

people of the United States cautioning them against overreacting 

to people of the Muslims states, people from the Middle East who 

are here in the United States here legally and here doing nothing 

harming this country, that could be characterized as harmful to the 

country. 

It is to his credit that he has so often spoken out against that 

kind of activity and cautioned us against it. It is also to the credit 

of the people of the United States that they have expressed a deVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:54 Jun 10, 2002 Jkt 077695 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\IOHR\021302\77695 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
20

gree of tolerance probably unheard of in any other part of the world 

under similar circumstances. 

The fact is that we do not see any violent reaction on the part 

of the general people to people from the Middle East or people of 

Islamic faith. We do not see communities rising up with pitchforks 

and torches and storming mosques or in any other way terrorizing 

in a systemic way people of the Islamic faith or people from the 

Middle East. 

There have been countless thousands of incidents of outreach on 

the part of millions of Americans to the Middle Eastern community. There have been countless instances of compassion; far, far 

more instances of compassion and tolerance shown toward Muslims 

in American than any other kind of actions of intolerance or discrimination. It is to our credit as a nation that we behave in such 

a way. 

To try to draw comparisons to constantly torture ourselves to 

come up with these bizarre comparisons between the United 

States, our culture and the rest of the world in some sort of vain 

attempt to rationalize our own distorted view of America is not 

worthy, I think, of people in this body. 

At any rate, Commissioner Young, could you please just comment 

upon one thing? The fact is that during the debate here in this 

Congress on PNTR many of our colleagues, many people who supported PNTR, indicated that with its passage we could look forward to within a very short period of time some indication of a 

change of heart in China on a variety of fronts, one being, of 

course, religious intolerance. 

They suggested that opening up China through the activity of 

trade with the west and the United States in particular would force 

some sort of metamorphosis on the Chinese Government that 

would make them—I do not know—break out in a fit of Jeffersonian democracy. 

Is it fair to say, Commissioner Young, that from your point of 

view, from the Commission’s point of view, that that has not occurred, especially with regard to religious tolerance? 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Tancredo, yes. I would like to respond to that, 

although I wonder if I could just clarify my remarks earlier to Congresswoman McKinney to make clear what I meant because I think 

I agree with you on almost every level. 

We, too, as a Commission have actually applauded President 

Bush in our China report for speaking out on freedom of religion 

in particular, which seems to be an issue which he has raised directly with the Chinese on more than one occasion. We think there 

is much more to be done, but we do applaud him even on that, certainly as well as the other things that you have identified. 

Secondly, by suggesting that we have objected to the treatment 

of the Uighur Muslims and the Muslims in Afghanistan and that 

we would object to similar treatment in the United States, I really 

do mean to suggest similar treatment. That is to say if people are 

being picked up in the United States solely because of their religious belief. We are making no judgement at all as to what has actually happened in the United States. 

Moreover, I think you are absolutely right. We would not equate 

the treatment in an Afghan prison with the treatment that one reVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:54 Jun 10, 2002 Jkt 077695 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\IOHR\021302\77695 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
21

ceives in detention in the United States. I just want to be clear 

that we did not mean anything different as I was laying that out. 

Yes, I take your point exactly. We testified with respect to PNTR 

suggesting that the year had been a bad one and that while we——

Mr. TANCREDO. I recall. 

Mr. YOUNG [continuing]. Were not objecting in principle to 

PNTR, but international merit badges matter to the Chinese. This 

was one that mattered to them very much and this was a very bad 

year to award it to them, in light of behavior in which they had 

engaged and which we were assured, as everyone else was, that the 

Chinese would change. Well, change they did. 

Mr. TANCREDO. They got worse. 

Mr. YOUNG. They got worse. We have pointed that out. 

Mr. TANCREDO. It should teach us a lesson, I would think. 

Mr. YOUNG. One would think. They also said not to expect 

changes soon, so we were surprised when the changes did occur 

soon. But they did all occur in a negative direction. 

Mr. TANCREDO. You know, somewhat a tiny bit more philosophical question I would pose to you, I suppose, is the degree to 

which you think they ever could change. 

Let me preface this by saying that the intolerance that this regime and every other similar type of regime around the world historically has shown toward religious expression, and this is certainly not unique to China and Vietnam, Communists in Russia. 

People all over the world, dictators all over the world, fear the free 

expression of religious conviction, so maybe they are right to do so. 

Maybe that expression of religious conviction in some way threatens their hold on the minds of their people. 

With that possibility in mind, what makes us think that the Chinese, the present regime, would ever change? Regardless of what 

we promise or think or propose, if they see that any sort of liberalization of their policy would lead to their own demise, why would 

we think that we have any hope to actually change the situation 

in China without changing the regime in China? 

Mr. YOUNG. That is a very good and important and complex 

question. I cannot hope to answer it in a comprehensive or probably even intelligent way, but let me offer just a couple of thoughts 

if I may. 

Number one, I think there is some inherent threat in religion to 

totalitarian regimes, because religion is generally premised on the 

notion that there is an allegiance which one may have—which one 

must have—to something higher than the state. 

Now, that is part of the reason it becomes such a wonderful principle. It feeds into the notion of a limited government that allows 

people to identify their own method of living their lives consistent 

with respect and the dignity of their fellow citizens. So there is 

that level at which it is potentially a threat on the one hand. 

On the other hand, first, at the theoretical level the great 

Lockean principle that a government actually earns more allegiance by providing people more freedom has been demonstrated 

with such inclusiveness in so many different places and ways that 

you would think even the Chinese would figure this out at some 

point. 

22

Second, I do not think that is so unrealistic because one of the 

things that I see as I look at China is some substantial difference 

between Beijing and the provinces. 

Our recommendation that Safe Face and other organizations be 

permitted to provide humanitarian services and so forth is actually 

reflective of what the local authorities not only seem to tolerate, 

but to welcome. At the same time the central government is repressing religion, the local mayor, and we can cite instance after 

instance of this, is giving an award to a religious organization for 

running an orphanage or providing medical care. 

Those on the ground who deal with the people see this and see 

that these organizations are not threats to the Chinese way of life. 

They are not threats to a fundamentally stable, orderly society in 

the throes of aggressive economic development. Beijing does not see 

it. 

Can the regime change? Well, if some of the local mayors could 

become President perhaps it could be done without a regime 

change. I do not know that, but I do know the Chinese themselves 

see it. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Young, for your very insightful 

comments. I sincerely appreciate it. I know it is a very complex 

issue, but I think your observations are very profound. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

We are very please to have with us Congressman Pitts from 

Pennsylvania, who has really been a goodwill ambassador for our 

Committee traveling to hot spots and horrible areas of the world 

where people have been very much abused. We welcome your opening statement that you might have, Joe, or questions. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will submit my opening statement for the record, but I would just like to thank you for 

holding this very important hearing. 

It is very timely in light of the upcoming visit of the President 

to Asia and his meetings with the Chinese leadership, as well as 

the recent release this week from the Committee for the Investigation for Persecution of Religion in China, which documents government documents which have provided chilling evidence of secret orders to persecute a wide range of religious groups in China. Of 

course, with these policy recommendations from the Commission on 

International Religious Freedom, it is very, very timely. 

Thank you, Mr. Young, for your testimony. I have a couple of 

questions. All credible sources, including the Commission and the 

State Department, concur that the situation in both China and 

Vietnam has worsened in the last few years. To what do you attribute the crackdown in these countries? Has the U.S. policy contributed to or ameliorated the intensification of religious suppression? 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Pitts, that is a very good question. I would profess no capacity to get inside the minds of Chinese leaders or Vietnamese leaders, but I would speculate as follows: 

It is interesting that in both cases it seemed to follow some rather positive action on the part of the United States, such as the passage of PNTR with China and the passage of the bilateral trade 

agreement in the case of Vietnam. That is an unsettling development. 

23

I am a passionate free trader. I teach trade. I have written about 

trade. One has the hope somewhere that expanding these kinds of 

interactions leads to improvement. The Chinese and the Vietnamese at the moment seem determined to prove us wrong, and 

that is problematic. One may speculate that once the spotlight is 

turned a bit off them they feel they can get away with more. 

The other possibility, a somewhat more optimistic possibility, is 

that in fact these regimes feel increasingly threatened and they are 

losing their control, that their repressive measures are not working 

and they sense that. The tides of history are turning against them. 

I am not sure, but I think the reality of what you observe is important. 

Mr. PITTS. Now, the Commission repeatedly recommends that 

China be determined by the Department of State as a country of 

particular concern. The act establishing the International Religious 

Freedom Commission lists several actions which the President can 

take in case——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Congressman Pitts, if I may interrupt you? 

Unfortunately, our lead witness has to go teach a class. I had mentioned that he is a scholar in addition to everything else he is 

doing. 

I wanted to see if you could get your question in and Chris Smith 

and Congressman Burton, and then maybe he could give us the 

written answers——

Mr. PITTS. Okay. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN [continuing]. Because we have a very important vote right now. 

Mr. PITTS. All right, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Mr. PITTS. I just would like your recommendations as to what 

presidential action should be applied in the China case. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Pitts, I will be delighted to submit that. We 

have released today our report regarding China. It contains some 

specific recommendations, not of a sanction sort, although we think 

the failure of the Chinese to respond to these certainly should warrant some action on the part of the United States. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Congressman Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Thank you, Mr. Young, for your very fine testimony. I apologize 

for being late. I was chairing a hearing on veterans, which precluded me from being here. 

You know the history of this legislation and how it was vigorously opposed by the previous Administration, claiming it would 

set up a hierarchy of human rights. Madeleine Albright stood right 

where you are and testified. We said that was a bogus argument 

then because obviously, you know, in the past we have emphasized 

different human rights, but it does not mean you diminish your respect for advocacy for others, namely apartheid when we fought 

that, the Jackson-Vanik amendment with regards to the Soviet 

Jewry. 

It is a very good tradition to say sometimes there are human 

rights abuses that need to be raised to a very high level. Certainly 

24

the work you are doing in the Commission is so valuable to this, 

and I want to just commend you and thank you for it. 

A couple of specific questions, very brief. I met with Madam Picard in Paris recently during the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. 

She is the prime sponsor of the anti-cult law, so-called. The concern 

I have is that the Chinese and other despotic countries with tyrannical regimes will cling to using that kind of forum to further repress the Falun Gong, the underground Catholic church and 

Protestant church and Buddhists and others. 

Is that your concern as well that this could be misused? It is already bad enough that mature democracies like France and Austria 

are using it to exclude people with whom they disagree with. My 

2 hour meeting with her was very discouraging as to her jaundiced 

view about religion and people of faith. Then we see the Chinese 

picking up on it and running with that anti-cult mentality. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Smith, this is a mutual admiration society. We 

watch with great admiration what you and all of your colleagues 

on this Committee do for human rights. We appreciate that, as well 

as, as I had mentioned earlier, the opportunity to testify here. 

Yes, we are very concerned about it. In fact, we had a group of 

specialists on European registration laws spend about 4 hours with 

the Commission just a few weeks ago. Dr. Land and I will actually 

be traveling to Europe to meet in Brussels for precisely that reason. 

Whatever concerns one has about its application in Belgium and 

Austria and Germany, and one does have legitimate concerns even 

on that score, when it is imported into a country without the traditions of liberty, without the independent court system and the competent bureaucracy that those western European countries have, it 

is a disaster. 

Hong Kong has talked about adopting a similar law. China has 

talked about it. A number of countries in eastern Europe, as well 

as in central Asia, have talked about it. It is a very, very disturbing trend, and we are examining it. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Chairman Burton? 

Mr. BURTON. I know that we have to get down to the Floor to 

vote, so I will be very brief. 

I believe that bullies or tyrants only understand one thing, and 

that is strength. China bullies its people. I think when we rewarded them with most favored nation trading status and we did 

not really demand much in return and we started recognizing Vietnam, even though we had not had a complete report on our MIAs 

and POWs that have never been accounted for, those were signals 

to both of them that they did not need to pay much attention to 

what we have demanded in the past, and they could get away literally with bloody murder. 

There are still ten million people in Communist gulogs making 

tennis shoes and everything else, slave labor people, in China. We 

keep our eyes closed to that. Chris knows that. A number of us do. 

They are still selling body parts from prisoners. They take them 

alive. Some of them are killed. They take their kidneys and their 

other vital organs, and they sell them on the world market. They 

actually perform the operations right there at the prison someVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:54 Jun 10, 2002 Jkt 077695 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\IOHR\021302\77695 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
25

times, in addition to the religious persecution you are talking 

about. 

Now, you are in a position, Mr. Young, Commissioner Young, to 

use some very strong influence on what happens here in the United 

States in our dealings with China and Vietnam. What I hope you 

will do, and you do not have to respond to this today, but what I 

hope you will do in your position is when you write reports mention 

these things and mention your experiences. 

Tell this Administration and every Administration that the only 

way to deal with tyrannical regimes and bullies in the world is 

from a position of strength. We should have learned that from 9–

11. Although China is a very strong power and Vietnam is a pretty 

independent country now, there are things we can do economically 

and in trade and other things to put pressure on them to bring 

about positive change. If we do not do it, who will? 

You have a very important job, a very strong charge. I hope that 

you will think about the things that I have just said because you 

might be able to influence this Administration and our State Department and others to put a little pressure on China and Vietnam 

to bring about positive change in these areas. 

I thank you for being here. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. We have a vote. You are dismissed, Commissioner Young. We will be then reconvening with 

our second panel. Thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. The Subcommittee is in recess. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, and thank you very much for the privilege. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Our second panel will begin with the testimony of Paul Marshall. Dr. Marshall is a senior fellow at the Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House. Dr. Marshall has lectured before U.S. and foreign government entities on the topic of 

religious persecution around the world, as well as having written 

and edited scores of books and booklets on the subject. We welcome 

you, Paul, today. 

Following is Mr. John Ackerly. He is the President of the International Campaign for Tibet. Mr. Ackerly received his law degree 

from American University and has worked with the Freedom of Information Clearinghouse and McTiery Bailey, a Mississippi based 

law firm. He has done work with the International Committee of 

Lawyers for Tibet, the International Human Rights Law Group and 

the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. We look forward to your testimony and welcome you back to our Subcommittee. It is interesting how many sentences you can make out 

of human rights and law. You did a good job there. 

Our next panelist is—I am going to do my best—Ms. Ningfang 

Chen. How did I do? Pretty well. I have a hard name also to me 

for everyone else, too. 

Ms. MCKINNEY. Yes. Your name is very hard. 

26

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. My name is very hard. Blame my husband 

for that. 

A Falun Gong practitioner whose belief led her and her family 

down a path of harassment and persecution. Once a prominent musician in China, her compelling testimony will serve here today as 

a mere example of the inescapable treatment of abuse all religious 

practitioners and human rights defenders endure under the Chinese Communist regime. She is accompanied by her daughter, Ying 

Chen, who will be translating for her. Welcome, and thank you for 

sharing your family’s personal story with us here today. 

Our next witness was scheduled to be Mr. Vo Van Ai, Founder 

and President of CUME, Action for Democracy in Vietnam and 

spokesperson for United Buddhist Church of Vietnam and an advocate for religious freedom and a victim of Vietnam’s religious persecution since the age of 11. Unfortunately, as he was to depart Paris 

where his organization is based, he fell ill and had to be rushed 

into open heart surgery. Our thoughts and our prayers are with 

him as he undergoes such a serious procedure. 

In his stead, we welcome Ms. Penelope Faulkner, Mr. Vo Van 

Ai’s colleague for over 20 years and Vice-President of both CUME 

and Vietnam Committee on Human Rights. We welcome you, and 

we thank you for traveling such a distance to be with us today in 

his place. 

Lastly, we are joined by Mr. Dan Duy-Tu Hoang, Vice-President 

of the Vietnamese-American Public Affairs Committee, VPAC, a 

national grassroots organization both focusing on voter education 

and issue advocacy. Mr. Hoang was born in Vietnam and came to 

the U.S. as a refugee in 1975 after the fall if Saigon. 

Thank you, all of you witnesses, very much for being with us 

here today. We are going to ask that you keep your remarks brief, 

and we will enter your entire testimony into the record. 

Dr. Marshall, we will begin with you. If I could have someone 

with the clock for the 5 minute warning? Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL MARSHALL, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER 

FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, FREEDOM HOUSE 

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for this opportunity to testify. We would commend you and all the Members of 

the Subcommittee for these hearings. I will summarize my written 

testimony and respectfully request that the full text be put into the 

record. 

Freedom House’s Center for Religious Freedom is alarmed at the 

increasing repression of the major religious groups in China—

Protestants and Roman Catholic Christians, Tibetan Buddhists, 

Falun Gong, Uighur Muslims. Currently, some dozen Catholic 

Bishops are in prison or under house arrest in China. Bishop Su 

Zhemin has disappeared since October, 1997. 

Secret Chinese Government documents released this week by the 

Committee for an Investigation on Persecution of Religion in China 

show that China’s government at the highest level aims to repress 

religious expression outside its control, and it is using systematic 

and harsher criminal penalties to do so. Hu Jin-tao, the designated 

successor of President Jiang Zemin, is quoted in the documents as 

endorsing this drive. 

27

As a result, normal religious activity is criminalized. As the December, 2001, death sentences against Pastor Gong Shengliang and 

others attest, the directives outlined in these documents are being 

carried out with ruthless determination. Other documents list 

Falun Gong, several Christian churches and the Unification 

Church as evil cults which must be smashed. 

They also indicate that Beijing feels it may be losing its battle 

to control religious expression. They note, and I quote, ‘‘inner circles’’ of the Communist party and government officials have secretly joined banned churches. 

Documents also have an extremely crude understanding of religion. Part of this is because China is an officially atheist state, but 

it arrogates to itself the authority to define what is religious orthodoxy for many religions to determine their dogma and designate 

their religious leaders. 

In the documents, even praying for world peace and having ecumenical relations are described as dangerous activities. Several of 

the documents repeatedly refer to using secret agents to infiltrate 

what it calls cults, but also unregistered Catholic churches, businesses, joint ventures and colleges and universities within China. 

We would urge President Bush on his visit to China next week to 

speak out both forcefully and publicly on these matters. 

In 2001, while Vietnam sought to gain full normalization of relations with the United States, it intensified its persecution against 

non-approved religions. There is a section in my written testimony 

dealing with Buddhism. Since my esteemed friend Penelope Faulkner is here, I will pass over that section, and I think she will well 

deal with it. 

In terms of Roman Catholics in Vietnam, we have alluded several times to the courageous Father Thaddeus Ly sentenced to 15 

years in prison for speaking the truth about religious repression in 

China to the U.S. Government. It is important to remember that 

what happens to Father Ly is not an isolated case. 

The Vietnamese Government has an ongoing policy of restricting 

the number of entrants and graduates from seminaries and also 

the number of priests which can be ordained. This has created an 

acute shortage of priests within Vietnam and is a means of suppressing Catholic religious expression. 

In the last year, while Vietnam has legalized the Evangelical 

Church of Vietnam, it has brutally attacked other Protestant 

groups, especially amongst tribal peoples. In early 2001, thousands 

of Christian ethnic Montagnard tribespeople demonstrated about 

land and religious freedom. The authorities reacted by deploying 

troops, helicopters and riot police to brutally quell the protests. 

Hundreds of Montagnards have fled to Cambodia for political asylum. Many have been forcibly repatriated, and many of those have 

been tortured within Vietnam upon their return. 

The Vietnamese Government has also systematically attacked 

Christian groups among the Hmong people. It has threatened to 

destroy the homes of those who do not reconvert and indeed has 

forced people to destroy their own homes. In the last 5 years, about 

10,000 Hmong have fled the areas where they live. 

I have appended to the testimony a list from a reliable source in 

Vietnam which contains the names and locations of 20 Hmong 

28

church leaders who were in prison as of last month in Vietnam. I 

have also appended three official complaints to the Vietnam Government from Hmong Christians who describe they are being subject to forced conversion, beatings and being driven from their 

homes. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL MARSHALL, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR RELIGIOUS

FREEDOM, FREEDOM HOUSE

Thank you, Madame Chairman for the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee on these issues of religious persecution in China and Vietnam. Freedom 

House commends you and the members of the subcommittee for holding this important hearing. I respectfully request that my full written testimony be entered into 

the record as I will be summarizing it. 

CHINA

Freedom House’s Center for Religious Freedom is alarmed by mounting repression 

against the major religious and spiritual groups in China—Protestant Christians, 

Roman Catholics, Tibetan Buddhists, Falun Gong, and Uighur Muslims. We are 

concerned that some dozen Catholic bishops are in prison or under house arrest, including Bishop Su Zhimin of Baoding in Hebei Province, who has been disappeared/

in custody since October 1997, according to the Cardinal Kung Foundation. I wish 

to enter into the record today’s press release of the Vatican-based press service, 

Fides. 

I will focus the remainder of my remarks concerning China on what has been revealed in secret, Chinese government documents, released this week, detailing an 

official crackdown against large, unregistered churches and other religious groups 

nationwide. Copies of the documents, along with translations, were provided to 

Freedom House’s Center for Religious Freedom by Mr. Shixiong Li and Mr. Xiqiu 

(Bob) Fu of the New York-based Committee for Investigation on Persecution of Religion in China. The Center had the official documents authenticated by renowned 

expert and exiled former Chinese government journalist, Su Xiaokang and it released a detailed analysis of the documents on February 11. 

The seven documents, issued between April 1999 and October 2001, detail the 

goals and actions of China’s national, provincial and local security officials in repressing religion. (The Freedom House analysis and links to the seven documents 

are available online at: www.freedomhouse.org/religion). They show that China’s 

government, at the highest levels, aims to repress religious expression outside its 

control, and is using more determined, systematic and harsher criminal penalties 

in this effort. Hu Jin-tao, designated as the successor of President Jiang Zemin is 

quoted in the document as endorsing the drive against the Real God church. The 

Minister of Public Security is quoted giving the order to ‘‘smash the cult quietly.’’

(Document 4). 

Ye Xiaowen, the head of China’s Religious Affairs Bureau, wrote in January 2002 

that repression is not working and suggested that a more nuanced approach is needed. In fact, the documents reveal that a brutal, but more clandestine approach, is 

being employed to crush unregistered churches and religious groups. 

As a result, normal religious activity is criminalized, and, as the December death 

sentences brought against South China church Pastor Gong Shengliang and several 

of his co-workers attest, the directives outlined in these documents are being carried 

out with ruthless determination. 

Several documents focus on measures to ‘‘smash’’ the Christian South China 

church and the Real God church, which, Chinese authorities state, rivals Falun 

Gong in its reach and dangerous effects. Other documents list several Christian 

churches, Falun Gong, the Unification Church, and other banned religious groups. 

In all, 14 religious groups are identified in Document 1 as ‘‘evil cults.’’

The documents indicate that Beijing may feel it is losing its battle to control religious expression. They note with palpable alarm that the Real God group is growing 

rapidly throughout 22 Chinese provinces. Document 4 says that ‘‘inner circles’’ of 

the communist party and government officials have secretly joined the banned Real 

God church, and instructs officials to find out who among them are members of the 

group. 

The documents are notable for their crudeness in understanding the religions the 

government purports to control. Revealing a fundamental misunderstanding or deliberate misinterpretation of the New Testament, Document 1 uses a basic Christian 

29

doctrine that Christ is in every believer to accuse churches of ‘‘deifying’’ their leaders, a practice defined as ‘‘cult-like.’’ China is an officially atheist state that—as 

Center Director Nina Shea found out first-hand while participating in the official 

U.S.-China human rights dialogue last fall—arrogates to itself the authority to define orthodoxy, determine dogma and designate religious leaders. 

Document 2 betrays deep paranoia on the part of Chinese officials. It raises particular concerns about public unrest over China’s entry into the WTO which it ties 

to Western support of democracy movements (‘‘Democratic Party of China’’), and religious groupings, especially Falun Gong; it accuses the Vatican of ‘‘still waiting for 

any opportunity to . . . draw the patriotic religious believers up to them and incite 

them to rebel.’’

In Document 4, ‘‘Praying for world peace,’’ ecumenical relations between churches, 

printing religious publications, and developing a diocesan, parish and prayer grouplike organizational structure, are all seen as dangerous activities. 

Document 4 also views with alarm ecumenical relations between the Protestant 

house-church Real God and the underground Catholic Church. Real God is also said 

to have ties with Tianenmen Square student protest leaders. 

Measures to be taken against banned religious groups include surveillance, the 

deployment of special undercover agents, the gathering of ‘‘criminal evidence,’’ ‘‘complete demolition’’ of a group’s organizational system, interrogation, and arrest, as 

well as the confiscation of church property, and homes in which meetings are held. 

Document 2 repeatedly refers to the use of ‘‘secret agents’’ to infiltrate ‘‘cults,’’ underground Catholics, businesses, joint ventures, people with ‘‘complicated political 

backgrounds,’’ prestigious colleges and universities, and other organizations. 

President Bush, who has repeatedly voiced concern for religious oppression in 

China, should speak out forcefully and publicly in support of religious freedom during his state visit to China next week. 

VIETNAM

In 2001, while Vietnam sought to gain full normalization of relations with the 

United States with the approval of the Bilateral Trade Agreement by Congress, it 

intensified persecution against all non-approved religious communities. Freedom of 

religion continues to be severely curtailed and followers were subjected to grave 

abuses of their freedoms and rights. Secret Vietnamese government documents released by the Center for Religious Freedom over the past two years, titled ‘‘Directions for Stopping Religion’’ and ‘‘Correct Thinking in Vietnam’’, reveal government 

policies to repress tribal Christians. The major concerns are: 

Buddhists: The independent Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV) remains the major target of religious repression. The UBCV Supreme Patriarch Thich 

Huyen Quang (84-years-old) continued to be held under house arrest in the remote 

village of Nghia Hanh in Quang Ngai Province after 20 years of detention without 

trial. In 2001, Security Police repeatedly subjected him to interrogations and harassment. Supreme Patriarch Thich Huyen Quang is seriously ill as a result of harsh 

detention conditions and malnutrition, yet he is refused access to medical care. 

In May-June 2001, a widespread crackdown was launched against the UBCV. All 

over Central and Southern Vietnam, UBCV Pagodas were surrounded, and phone 

lines to 115 Pagodas were cut. Hundreds of UBCV monks and nuns were placed 

under house arrest. On June 1, the Ho Chi Minh Police sentenced Thich Quang Do 

to two years ‘‘administrative detention.’’ He is still detained incommunicado at the 

Thanh Minh Zen Monastery in Saigon, deprived of all right to communicate or receive visits. The crackdown on the UBCV was launched after Venerable Thich 

Quang Do announced his intent to lead a delegation of UBCV monks and followers 

to Quang Ngai to escort detained Patriarch Thich Huyen Quang to Saigon for medical treatment. In September 2001, repression against the UBCV reached such a 

pitch that a leader of the ‘‘Buddhist Youth Movement’’, 61-year-old lay-Buddhist Ho 

Tan Anh immolated himself in protest on September 2nd 2001 in the central city 

of Danang. 

Hoa Hao: Several members of this Buddhist group were arrested and detained in 

2001 for taking part in celebrations of their founder, Huynh Phu So. Truong Van 

Duc and Ho Van Truong were sentenced, respectively, to 12 and 4 years in prison 

by a court in An Giang Province on May 11, 2001. 

Catholics: On October 19, 2001, 55-year-old Father Thadeus Nguyen Van Ly, a 

Roman Catholic priest from the diocese of Hue in Central Vietnam was sentenced 

to 15 years in prison and 5 years probationary detention at a one-day, closed trial 

in Hue on charges of ‘‘undermining national solidarity.’’ He had been arrested on 

May 17 and detained incommunicado for 5 months on charges of ‘‘blackening socialist Vietnam and distorting the party and state policies’’ for testimony he had subVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:54 Jun 10, 2002 Jkt 077695 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\IOHR\021302\77695 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
30

mitted to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, as the annual 

U.S. State Department religion reports note. Father Ly had previously spent 10 

years in prison for his religious beliefs. The government also continues to restrict 

the number of entrants and graduates from seminaries and the number ordained, 

thereby creating an acute shortage of priests and suppressing Catholic religious expression. 

Protestants: While Vietnam has shown some increased openness with registered 

groups, legalizing the Evangelical Church of Vietnam (South) (ECVS) on March 16, 

2001, it has attacked other protestant groups ferociously. Christians in the Northwest and in Northern and Central Highlands have in the last year been persecuted, 

beaten and arrested on account of their beliefs. In February-March 2001, thousands 

of ethnic Christian Montagnard tribespeople in the Central Highlands demonstrated 

to protest official confiscation of land and a government ban on conversion to Protestantism. The authorities reacted by deploying troops, helicopters and riot police 

to brutally quell the protests, and forced people to renounce their Christianity. Martial law has since been installed in the Central Highlands and a media black-out 

has been imposed. Hundreds of Montagnards have fled to Cambodia to seek political 

asylum, and many have been forcibly repatriated. At a closed trial on September 

26, 2001, fourteen Montagnards were condemned to sentences of between 6 and 12 

years in prison for taking part in demonstrations in the provinces of Dak Lak and 

Gia Lai. In late December, 2001, Siu Kron, Rmah Nui and three other Montagnard 

Christians were reportedly tortured to get them to reveal the location of a Christmas prayer vigil. About a dozen others were arrested. The Montagnard Foundation 

reports that 300 Degar (Montagnard) refugees were stopped as they attempted to 

flee to Cambodia. The Foundation gives information on 169 of these, including 

women and children, who were subsequently tortured. In this respect the January 

12, 2002, tripartite agreement between Cambodia, Vietnam and the UNHCR to 

(nonvoluntarily) repatriate 1,000 Montagnards currently in Vietnam is a cause of 

great concern. 

The government has also systematically attacked Christians among the Hmong in 

the Northwest. It has threatened to destroy the homes of those who do not reconvert, and forces people to destroy their own homes, before being chased away. About 

10,000 Hmong Christians have fled the area in the last five years. I have appended 

a list from a reliable source in Vietnam of twenty Hmong church leaders who were 

in prison as of January 2002. I have also appended three official complaints to the 

Vietnamese government from Hmong Christians that describe their being subject to 

forced conversion, beatings and being driven from their homes.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. I hope the microphones are working better. 

Mr. Ackerly? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN ACKERLY, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL 

CAMPAIGN FOR TIBET 

Mr. ACKERLY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for inviting us to 

testify today. 

In the last year, there have been no significant improvements in 

religious freedom in Tibet. The highest ranking religious leader left 

inside Tibet, the Panchen Lama, remains in detention since 1995. 

The elderly teacher who was the head of the monastery where the 

Panchen Lama should be training today, Chadrel Rimpoche, was 

scheduled to be released last summer and then last month, but 

China has inexplicably refused to release him, too. 

These are two of the foremost examples of China’s continued repression of Tibetan Buddhism which President Bush should raise 

when he visits China later this month. He should raise these issues 

not only because religious freedom is a priority of the United 

States, but simply because it is a priority of the Tibetan people, 

and it is at the very heart of their culture. 

There has been one recent notable release of a political prisoner, 

Ngawang Choephel, a Tibetan Fulbright scholar who I think most 

of you are familiar with. He received a sentence of 18 years and 

31

was released last January after serving a little more than a third 

of his sentence. 

He was the opposite of the prominent prisoners such as the Panchen Lama and Chadrel Rimpoche, which partially explains why it 

was he who was released. He was one of the thousands of people 

swept up into China’s prison system in Tibet. His only notable exception was that he had attended Middlebury College. If it were 

not for the perseverance of Members of the Congress, including 

many on this Committee, he would certainly still be in jail today. 

This shows that pressure can work in some cases, but it also 

shows that China is apparently still unwilling to make significant 

steps toward improving religious rights and religious freedom in 

Tibet. Last year, China’s strict regulations controlling permissible 

expressions of Buddhism came sharply into focus at two remote locations in eastern Tibet now under Szechuan Province at Larung 

Gar and Yachen Gar. 

At both of these monastic centers, and there are likely more we 

do not know about, Chinese security personnel came and demolished or ordered the demolition of large parts of the monks’ and 

nuns’ living quarters and expelled thousands of monks and nuns. 

China maintains limits on the number of monks and nun allowed 

in each monastery, often not allowing entrance into the monastery 

before the age of 18. 

Here is testimony from one nun at Larung Gar.

‘‘Two armed policemen entered my wood hut and threw my 

Buddhist statue on the floor. They dragged me out of the hut, 

and one of the policemen tossed my daily recitation book into 

the wood stove.’’

It was just like in the last 1960s, she said, referring to the massive destruction of Tibetan monasteries during the cultural revolution. The destruction at Larung Gar is indeed ominously reminiscent of the physical destruction of monasteries during the cultural 

revolution. Over 2,000 meditation huts and homes were destroyed 

at Larung Gar. ICT obtained images of this destruction immediately after it happened, which I brought here today and which we 

would like to give to the Committee. 

Because of the unique opportunity to receive a comprehensive 

Buddhist education, Larung Gar was one of the few places on the 

Tibetan plateau that was attracting students. That is now a thing 

of the past. It is also important to know that there is no political 

activity at Larung Gar. This crackdown is entirely based on religion exceeding the narrow scope that China deems appropriate. 

There are approximately 3,000 Tibetans who flee to India each 

year. About one-third are monks and nuns. Some have been imprisoned, some mistreated, others expelled from their monastery or 

nunnery and others simply citing the desire to receive religious 

education that they cannot obtain in Tibet. Two of the very top 

leaders left in Tibet decided to flee as well, the Karmapa and Ajia 

Rimpoche. 

In the last week alone, thousands of Americans have sent messages to the White House asking President Bush to honor the commitments he gave to the Dalai Lama to urge a negotiated solution 

for Tibet when he meets with President Jiang Zemin. We are also 

32

urging the President to include the special coordinator for Tibet, 

Paula Dobrianski, on his official delegation to Beijing. 

In addition to the opportunity for a frank discussion with President Jiang on Tibet, President Bush should use the occasion of his 

remarks at Qinghua University to express concern for religious 

freedom in Tibet. The importance of dialogue between the Chinese 

leadership and the Dalai Lama or his representatives cannot be 

underestimated for the realization of human rights and especially 

religious freedom in Tibet. 

We also call on the Administration not to bargain away U.S. concern for human rights in Tibet at the upcoming session of the 

United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, which 

starts on March 16. The U.S. should stand firm and express our 

desire to support and co-sponsor a resolution on China if there are 

not significant improvements on Tibet. 

Finally, I want to reiterate how important the perseverance of 

the Congress has been for the people of Tibet in their struggle for 

human rights and freedom. I also want to thank the Chairwoman 

of the Committee and other Members of the Committee who are cosponsors of the Tibetan Policy Act of 2001. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ackerly follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN ACKERLY, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN

FOR TIBET

Thank you Madam Chairwoman for inviting us to testify before this Committee. 

In the last year there have been no significant improvements in religious freedom 

in Tibet. The highest-ranking religious leader left inside Tibet, the Panchen Lama, 

remains in detention since 1995. 

And the elderly teacher who was the head of the monastery where the Panchen 

Lama should be in training today, Chadrel Rimpoche, was scheduled to be released 

from prison last summer and then last month, but China has inexplicably refused 

to release him. 

These are two foremost examples of China’s continued repression of Tibetan Buddhism which President Bush should raise when he visits China later this month. 

He should raise these issues not only because religious freedom is a priority of the 

United States, but because it is a priority of the Tibetan people and is at the very 

heart of Tibetan culture. 

There has been one recent, notable release of a political prisoner, Ngawang 

Choephel, a Tibet Fulbright scholar who studied ethno-musicology at Middlebury 

College. Arrested while conducting research in Tibet in 1995 and sentenced to 18 

years on a trumped up charge of espionage, he was released in January after serving more than a third of his sentence. Ngawang Choephel was the opposite of prominent leaders such as the Panchen Lama and Chadrel Rimpoche, which partially explains why it was he who was released. He was one of the thousands of unknown 

young Tibetan boys and girls swept through a brutal system maintained by China’s 

occupation forces in Tibet. His only distinction was that he had studied at 

Middlebury College in Vermont, and if it weren’t for the perseverance of the 

Vermont Congressional delegation, he would certainly still be in prison. 

This shows that pressure can work in some cases, but it also shows that China 

is still apparently unwilling to make significant steps toward improving in human 

rights and religious freedom in Tibet. 

The President should also raise the systemic, structural forms of religious repression in Tibet in addition to the imprisonment of prominent religious leadership. 

China permits a carefully orchestrated degree of religious freedom for laity and officially sanctioned monks and nuns. In addition, there are many monks and nuns 

practicing their religion outside of China’s strict bureaucracy and regulations, often 

simply because they live in such remote areas that the long arm of the police state 

has not yet reached them. China’s emphasis on building more roads and now a railroad to Tibet is in part meant to address this. A majority of traffic on many roads 

in Tibet is the military and security services and they are still the primary beneVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:54 Jun 10, 2002 Jkt 077695 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\IOHR\021302\77695 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
33

ficiary of Tibet’s transportation network. Tibetans, and Tibet’s economy, are secondary beneficiaries. 

Last year, China’s strict regulations controlling permissible expressions of Buddhism came sharply into focus at two remote locations in eastern Tibet, now under 

Sichuan Province: Larung Gar and Yachen Gar. At both of these monastic centers, 

and there are likely more that we don’t even know about, Chinese security personnel came and demolished or ordered the demolition of large parts of the monks’ and nuns’ living quarters and expelled thousands of monks and nuns. China maintains limits on the numbers of monks and nuns allowed at each monastery, often 

not allowing entrance into a monastery before the age of 18 and forcing monks to 

leave after the age of 60. Chinese officials have established these and other kinds 

of restrictions on religion to ensure that the rejuvenation of Tibetan Buddhism and 

culture does not outpace the nearby Chinese governmental infrastructure to keep 

control of it. 

CRACKDOWN AT LARUNG GAR

‘‘Two armed policemen entered my wood hut and threw my Buddha statue on the 

floor. They dragged me out of the hut and one of the policemen tossed my daily recitation book [of Buddhist scripture] into the wood stove,’’ a nun recalled of her treatment in June of last year. ‘‘It is just like in the late 1960s,’’she said, referring to 

the massive destruction of Tibetan monasteries during the Cultural Revolution. 

The destruction at Larung Gar, to be repeated at Yachen Gar later in the year, 

is ominously reminiscent of the physical destruction of monasteries in the Cultural 

Revolution. Over two thousand mediation huts and homes were reportedly destroyed 

at Larung Gar. (mention of the photos ICT obtained). 

The crackdown was overseen by an official named Wang, head of the ‘‘United 

Front’’ for Sichuan province, according to new reports. He is known as Wang 

Putrang, (‘‘chief Wang’’). Wang led officials from the United Front in Beijing and 

troops of armed police and work teams that descended upon Larung Gar to carry 

out the expulsions and demolition in June. Although their living quarters were torn 

down and monks and nuns were expelled, no retaliation by monks or nuns was reported. 

Larung Gar is a monastic encampment, not a monastery, and its inhabitants have 

come on their own accord based on Larung Gar’s reputation that has spread by 

word of mouth. Students have been drawn by a charismatic teacher, Khenpo Jigme 

Phuntsok, who established Larung Gar a decade ago as mountain hermitage. Its 

monks and nuns from all areas of Tibet and China form a loose-knit community 

where students have to provide for themselves and are not under the formal control 

of any abbot. 

The encampment numbered between 7,000–8,000 monks and nuns, of which nearly 1,000 were Chinese. The majority of the inhabitants were nuns. Often the Tibetans who came to this remote area study for a limited period of time before returning 

to their home monastery to teach others. 

Larung Gar is a place where ‘‘the sacred landscape of Tibet was being revived,’’

and is a ‘‘marked contrast to the alienated state in which institutionalized Buddhism finds itself in many parts of Tibet,’’ according to Professor David Germano 

of the University of Virginia in the 1998 book Buddhism in Contemporary Tibet. Because of the unique opportunity to receive a comprehensive Buddhist education, 

Larung Gar was one of the few places on the Tibet Plateau that was attracting students. That is now a thing of the past. Today, Larung Gar is neither attracting students, nor training them as it once was. The official ceiling of 1,000 monks and 400 

nuns is now being enforced, dealing a severe blow to one of the very few institutions 

in Tibet which was providing genuine and complete religious training for monks and 

nuns. 

It is also important to note that there was no political activity at Larung Gar 

which authorities deemed subversive. This crackdown was entirely based on religion 

exceeding the narrow, strictly controlled scope that China has deemed appropriate. 

CRACKDOWN AT YACHEN GAR

Just months after the demolition of thousands of homes at the Larung Gar monastic encampment in Serthar, Chinese authorities ordered the demolishing of 

monks and nuns living quarters at Yachen, another large monastic encampment in 

eastern Tibet. As of October 10, more than 800 homes had been destroyed at Yachen 

Gar by order of the Pelyul (Chinese: Baiyu) County Government officials. 

According to recent interviews with four nuns who have fled Yachen Gar after 

their homes were destroyed, work teams of five to nine officials from Pelyul came 

to Yachen every other week from July to the beginning of September. The nuns said 

34

officials were making extensive notes and maps of the monastic encampment situated in the remote grasslands of Tromthar in eastern Tibet. 

During the first week of September officials arrived and painted numbers on the 

houses marked for destruction along with the Chinese character ‘‘chai’’ (meaning ‘‘demolish’’). Officials told the nuns that only those monks and nuns from Pelyul 

County could remain at Yachen and that if their homes had been marked with the 

Chinese character ‘‘chai,’’ the monks and nuns themselves must destroy their home. 

If they did not destroy their homes, a work team would come and demolish the 

home and the monk or nun would be charged 200 Yuan ($25), the nuns said. The 

official government notice said, ‘‘If these homes are not destroyed, Pelyul County 

People’s Government will forcefully demolish the living quarters, and in accordance 

with the current legal framework, legal action will be taken against those individuals who have not abided by this order.’’

MONKS FLEE TO INDIA

Are Tibetans content with the carefully calculated amounts of religious freedom 

that China permits? Two of the very top religious leaders in Tibet, the Karmapa 

and Ajia Rimpoche, voted with their feet: they fled to exile, citing the impossibility 

of exercising their religious duties under the demands that China imposes on religious leaders. 

Of the approximately 3,000 Tibetans who flee to India each year, about one third 

are monks and nuns. Some have been imprisoned and mistreated, others expelled 

from a monastery or nunnery, and others simply cite their desire to receive a religious education that they cannot obtain in Tibet. 

Another factor cited by many monks is the ongoing intrusion of ‘‘work teams,’’

teams of officials who come to monasteries for days or weeks and conduct political 

reeducation classes. The teams force monks and nuns to state their loyalty to the 

Party, to the Party’s choice of reincarnations, such as the Panchen Lama, and to 

renounce the Dalai Lama. This process is also, of course, a calculated way to uncover who harbors nationalist views and who is willing to publicly verbalize them. 

Work teams also inspect the monastery to see if they display banned photos of the 

Dalai Lama. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

The International Campaign for Tibet and our colleagues in the human rights 

community continue to battle for serious consideration of human rights in the foreign policy debate. The Presidents’ summit in Beijing is an important focus for us 

and the many Americans who support our work. In the last week alone, thousands 

of Americans have sent messages to the White House asking President Bush to 

honor the commitment he gave to the Dalai Lama to urge a negotiated solution for 

Tibet when he meets with President Jiang. 

In addition to the opportunity for a frank discussion with President Jiang on 

Tibet, President Bush should use the occasion of his remarks at Qinghua University 

to express concern for the fundamental importance of religious freedom in Tibet. 

The importance of dialogue between the Chinese leadership and the Dalai Lama 

or his representatives cannot be underestimated for the realization of human rights 

and especially religious freedom in Tibet. Although the Chinese government claims 

to guarantee religious freedom for its citizens, that guarantee merely papers over 

a policy of control and repression which is causing further resentment of Chinese 

rule and undermining the ability of Tibetan Buddhism to transmit teachings from 

one generation to another. 

Important religious leaders and many clergy continue to be held for their religious 

beliefs and we ask the President to urge for their immediate release, including the 

Panchen Lama and Chadrel Rinpoche, whose sentence has already expired. In addition there is a group of 14 Tibetan nuns who have suffered terrible torture and reprisals in Drapchi prison and whose sentences have been extended in connection 

with singing songs of freedom while in prison. Among them are Ngawang Sangdrol, 

who has already served nearly 10 out of 22 years in prison and Phuntsog Nyidron 

who has served 12 out of 17 years. Both are imprisoned for peaceful expressions of 

their national identity. 

We also call on the Administration not to bargain away U.S. concern for human 

rights in Tibet at the upcoming session of the United Nations Commission on 

Human Rights in Geneva which starts on March 16. The U.S. should stand firm 

and express our desire to support and co-sponsor a resolution on China if there are 

not significant human rights improvements. 

The International Campaign for Tibet would also ask the administration to press 

for an invitation for the UN Special Rapporteur on Religious Freedom to conduct 

35

a return visit to Tibet this year to assess any progress made in implementing the 

recommendations resulting from his November 1994 visit. In addition the U.S. 

should press for an agreement to the terms of a visit by the new UN Special 

Rapporteur on Torture and Ill-Treatment including a visit to Tibet. 

Finally, we want to reiterate how important the vigilance of the U.S. Congress 

has been for the people of Tibet and their struggle for human rights and religious 

freedom.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Ackerly. 

Now I would like to introduce for his opening statement before 

we get to our next witness the former Chair of the International 

Relations Committee and now the Chairman of the Middle East 

and Europe Subcommittee, Chairman Gilman, for his remarks. 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just briefly want 

to commend our panelists for taking the time to be here today, and 

I want to commend our Chairlady, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and the 

Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights for 

conducting this timely hearing 2 days before our President leaves 

for Asia. 

An article in today’s Washington Post points out that, and I 

quote,

‘‘Internal Chinese Government documents confirm the ruling 

Communist party’s determination to expand its crackdown on 

the Falun Gong into a nationwide campaign against a wide 

range of unauthorized spiritual organizations.’’

Those documents further

‘‘include efforts to crush underground Catholic churches, use of 

secret agents to infiltrate illegal Protestant congregations in 

order for forceful measures against the banned Falun Gong 

spiritual movement.’’

Madam Chairman, human rights organizations inform us that 

the Vietnamese Government has similarly targeted religious practitioners such as the Unified Buddhists, Hoa Hao Buddhists and 

Catholics and Protestants. For the past several years, we were assured by those who led the effort here in Washington to normalize 

trade relations with China and with Vietnam and that economic 

liberalization would bring about political pluralism in those two 

countries. Regrettably, religious persecution in China and Vietnam 

continues to rise despite China’s accession in the WTO and our 

normalization of relations with Vietnam. 

We are here today to learn more about these serious human 

rights violations. Our government has to find ways to correct our 

policy in order to accurately reflect the level of importance that we 

place on human rights and religious rights. I look forward to hearing the balance of our panelists. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Ms. Chen? 

STATEMENT OF NINGFANG CHEN, FALUN GONG 

PRACTITIONER 

Ms. CHEN. Ms. Chairwoman, distinguished Committee Members, 

thank you very much for holding this important hearing. 

36

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. You do not need a translator. That is very 

good. 

Ms. CHEN. My name is Ningfang Chen. I am 60 years old and 

a U.S. permanent resident living in New Jersey. Since my English 

is not good enough, I will read it in Chinese and ask my daughter 

to translate simultaneously. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Did you say you were 60? 

Ms. CHEN. I am sorry? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. How old did you say you were? 

Ms. CHEN. I am 60 years old. 

Ms. MCKINNEY. Sixty as in six zero? 

Ms. CHEN. Yes. 

Ms. MCKINNEY. Wow. You are beautiful. That is wonderful. 

Ms. CHEN. Because I practice Falun Gong for 6 years. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. That is it. That is the secret. Okay. Now we 

know. Cynthia, forget all those moisturizer creams we are spending 

our money on. Thank you. 

Ms. CHEN. I am a flutist and my husband a cellist. We were 

members of the Central Philharmonic Orchestra, China’s most 

prestigious orchestra, for 33 years. My husband was also the manager of the orchestra for 8 years. Because of our outstanding contribution to music, the Ministry of Culture in China honored both 

of us with the lifelong title of the country’s first class artists. We 

enjoy the prestige and are well respected in China. 

We had a good life. My son, Gang Chen, has a wonderful wife 

and was a manager in a foreign company in Beijing. My daughter, 

Ying Chen, is a manager in a major U.S. corporation. All of us 

practice Falun Gong. We have gained peace in our hearts, enjoy 

good health and were living a more fulfilling life. 

However, since the persecution of Falun Gong began in China, 

our lives were turned upside down. On the morning of July 20, 

1999, my son was suddenly taken into police custody on his way 

home from the park. For 10 days, he was not allowed to go home 

or go to work and was put into a series of re-education; that is, 

brainwashing classes. 

We were constantly monitored. Our home in Beijing has been 

ransacked twice. Every possession related to Falun Gong has been 

confiscated. Our home is tabbed, and even friends who call us to 

express sympathy to us have been sent to re-education classes, 

even though they do not practice Falun Gong themselves. On days 

considered sensitive by the police, we were forced to stay in the 

local police station. 

Since we experienced firsthand the benefits of practicing Falun 

Gong, we wanted to peacefully tell the government the truth about 

it, so in November, 1999, my son went to the Bureau of Appeals 

in Beijing to make peaceful appeals as an individual citizen. Just 

for doing that, he was detailed in the Chaoyang Detention Center 

for 30 days. 

The same thing happened to my husband and I in February, 

2000, when we visited the Bureau of Appeals. The police took us 

right from that building to the Chaoyang Detention Center. My 

husband and I were separated into female and male cells and jailed 

next to thieves, prostitutes, murderers and drug dealers. In my 

37

cell, half of the people were Falun Gong practitioners who were detained without any legitimate reason. 

The condition in China’s detention centers is extremely awful. To 

give you an idea, here are some examples. About 40 people share 

one wooden board for sleeping, and each person had a space less 

than one foot wide so there was not even room for us to lie on our 

back. We had to lie sideways. To save room, we had to lie in such 

a way that the feet of the person on either side of me were next 

to my head. I had to sit on the hard wood board for most of the 

day, and we were only allowed to go out of our cells for 10 minutes 

on certain weekdays when the guards felt like it. 

In my husband’s cell, six people would share one plastic spoon 

when they ate. They had to go to the toilet at specific times and 

had to finish within a few minutes. What helped us go through this 

terrible treatment was our firm belief that we did not do anything 

wrong and reminding ourselves to practice truthfulness, compassion and forbearance even in the worst circumstances. 

In the detention center, some Falun Gong practitioners went on 

hunger strikes to protest the violation of their most basic rights. 

They were put through the painful process of force feeding and 

were tortured. One Falun Gong practitioner in my cell had huge 

blisters resulting from wearing handcuffs all the times. I also saw 

a Falun Gong practitioner painfully walking with her hands 

chained to her feet. She could not stand up at all. 

We were released after 30 days, but the ordeal was far from over. 

At 1 in the morning on June 25, 2000, about 17 or 18 people suddenly showed up in our home and dragged my son and I from our 

beds to the detention center of the Beijing Public Security Department’s 7th Division. I relived the nightmare of detention for another 30 days. When I was released, my son was not. He was subsequently sent to the Tuanhe Labor Camp in the suburb of Beijing 

to serve a 1-year term. 

We found out from different sources that in the labor camp my 

son was often not allowed to sleep. He was forced to do labor work 

while others were sleeping. On one occasion, he was not allowed to 

sleep for more than 10 consecutive days. He was also badly beaten 

by a group of people. They tied him up tightly with his head touching his legs before they beat him and left him under a bed for 

hours after the beating. He was severely injured. How can any 

mother bear to learn this kind of news about their child? All of this 

torture was to change what he believes in. 

My son’s monthly visitation rights were arbitrarily denied many 

times. Even at times when we were able to see him briefly, we 

could not say much because we were monitored, so I could only 

imagine what he was going through. It is painful for me to remember his bright smile, his strong body, his hearty laughter and his 

sweet expressions. He used to be so happy and healthy. 

On June 25 of last year, the end of his 1 year term, someone at 

the 610 office phoned his wife that they had to keep him in the 

labor camp for another 6 months. The reason they gave was simply 

that he had not met their requirements. On December 25, 2001, his 

6 month extension was finally up, but instead of releasing him they 

detained him for another 10 days before letting him go free. 

38

All of these things have been done arbitrarily in the absence of 

any trial or legal procedures. He was finally allowed to go home on 

January 4, 2002, but he is still so closely monitored that we cannot 

get much detailed information about him. Not a single day goes by 

when we do not worry deeply about what might happen to him 

next in that horrific world. 

We have not done anything against the government. We have 

simply wanted to seek a balanced life for health and spirituality by 

following the practice of Falun Gong, which is a part of traditional 

culture, and exercise our rights as guaranteed in the Chinese Constitution. Because of this, we went from prominent artists to prisoners. 

My family’s story is only one case out of the millions of stories 

like this in China. Actually, many of those stories are much worse. 

Countless families of Falun Gong practitioners have been destroyed 

with small children deprived of their parents, forced divorces, 

forced abortions and deaths by painful torture. These others do not 

have the opportunity to speak outside China and tell their stories 

of terror. 

We particularly appreciate the generous support from the U.S. 

Congress, the American people and the rest of the world. By speaking out for justice and human rights, we hope to soon bring an end 

to this relentless persecution and save the lives of millions of Falun 

Gong practitioners in China. 

Now the Chinese Government not only harasses Chinese Falun 

Gong practitioners in China, but they also harass Falun Gong practitioners in the U.S. They have on several occasions given pressure 

to the local U.S. Government to prevent them from supporting 

Falun Gong. We have a package of information that we have gathered from media news reports, and we hope to file that with our 

testimony. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes, of course. 

Ms. CHEN. We appeal to President Bush that he raise the issue 

of stopping the persecution of Falun Gong when he visits China. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chen follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NINGFANG CHEN, FALUN GONG PRACTITIONER

Mr. Chairman, distinguished Committee Members, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

My name is Ningfang Chen. I’m 60 years old and a US permanent resident, living 

in New Jersey. I thank you for holding this important hearing as it gives millions 

of Chinese Falun Gong practitioners an opportunity to voice their sufferings, as the 

Communist regime’s persecution intensifies in China. 

Since I cannot read English very fast, I’ll ask my daughter, Ying Chen, to read 

my testimony. 

I am a flutist and my husband a cellist. In 1963 we joined the Central Philharmonic Orchestra—China’s most prestigious orchestra—and worked there until 

we retired in 1996. My husband was also the manager of the Orchestra for 8 years. 

In our 33-year career with the Orchestra, we have made recordings of symphonies, 

chamber music, music for small ensembles, motion picture soundtracks, and so on. 

We performed for China’s most distinguished guests, including many presidents and 

prime ministers. We have performed with Isaac Stern, Seiji Osawa, Yehudi Menuhin, and others world-known musicians. We toured with the Orchestra throughout 

China, in the United States, and in many other countries. Because of our outstanding contribution to music, the Central Philharmonic Society and the Ministry 

of Culture of China specially honored both of us with the lifelong title of ‘‘The Country’s First-Class Artists.’’ We enjoy the prestige and are well-respected in China. 

39

We had a nice family, too. My son, Gang Chen, has a beautiful wife and had a 

good job—a manager in a foreign company in Beijing. He was good at his job and 

everyone in the company respects him. My daughter, Ying Chen, is a manager in 

a major US corporation. We are a close family, and all of us practice Falun Gong. 

Shortly after my husband and I started practicing, all of our health problems disappeared. By following Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance—the principles of 

Falun Gong—in our everyday life, we gained peace in our hearts, enjoyed good 

health, and were living a more fulfilling life. 

However, since the persecution of Falun Gong in July, 1999, our lives were turned 

upside down. 

On the morning of July 20, 1999, my son was taken into police custody from the 

park where he did the Falun Gong exercises every day. He was detained for 10 

days, and put into a series of brainwashing classes. Our home in Beijing has been 

ransacked twice; every possession related to Falun Gong has been confiscated; our 

phone is tapped, and even friends who called us to express support for Falun Gong 

have been sent to ‘‘re-education,’’ that is, brainwashing, classes, even if they are not 

practitioners themselves. On days considered ‘‘sensitive’’ by the police, we were 

forced to stay in the local police station the entire day. In November 1999, my husband was expelled from the Communist party because he refused to renounce the 

practice of Falun Gong, despite the fact that he has always been widely acknowledged by his colleagues to be an honest and upright man. 

Since we experienced firsthand the benefits of practicing Falun Gong, we wanted 

to peacefully tell the Government the truth about Falun Gong. So in November 

1999, my son went to the Bureau of Appeals in Beijing to make peaceful appeals 

for Falun Gong as an individual citizen. But just for making the appeal—a right 

provided by China’s Constitution—he was detained in the Chaoyang Detention Center for 30 days without any official reason. 

In February 2000, it was reported in the news that Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji 

visited the Bureau of Appeals and told the staff that the Bureau of Appeals should 

be a window and a bridge through which the Government could connect to the people. After watching this news on television, my husband and I thought that the Government might start listening to us, so we visited the Bureau of Appeals the next 

day. What happened to us, however, was no different from what happened to our 

son—the police took us to the Chaoyang Detention Center straight from the Bureau 

of Appeals. 

We were separated into female and male cells, and jailed next to thieves, prostitutes, murderers, drug dealers, etc. In my cell, half of the people were Falun Gong 

practitioners who were detained without any legitimate reason. The condition in 

China’s detention centers is extremely terrifying. To give you an idea, here are some 

examples: About thirty people shared one wooden board for sleeping, and each person had a space less than one foot wide. So there wasn’t even room for us to lie 

on our back—we had to lie sideways! And to save room, we had to lie in such a 

way that the feet of the person on either side of me were next to my head! We had 

to sit on hard wood for most of the day, and were forced to watch propaganda each 

night. We were only allowed to go out of our cells for ten minutes on certain weekdays (when the guards felt like it). We could only wash ourselves from a faucet, and 

were given limited amount of hot water each day. In my husband’s cell, 6 people 

would share one plastic spoon when they ate. They had to go to the bathroom at 

a specified time, and had to finish within a few minutes. What helped us go through 

these terrible treatments was our strong belief that we did not do anything wrong, 

and that a person should practice Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance in any circumstances. 

In the Detention Center, some Falun Gong practitioners went on hunger strikes 

to protest the violation of their most basic rights, and they were put through the 

painful process of force-feeding and were tortured. One Falun Gong practitioner in 

my cell was forced to wear handcuffs all the time, and she had big blisters because 

of it. I also saw a Falun Gong practitioner painfully walking with her hands chained 

to her feet—she couldn’t stand up at all. 

We were released after 30 days in detention. Yet, the ordeal was far from over. 

At 1:00 a.m. on June 25, 2000, while we were sleeping, about 17 or 18 security 

agents suddenly showed up in our home and took my son and I to a detention center. As of today we still haven’t been given any explanation for it. At the Detention 

Center of the Beijing Public Security Department’s 7th Division, I relived the nightmare of detention for another 30 days. When I was released, my son was not. And 

about a month later we learned through the company where my son worked that 

he had been sent to Tuanhe Labor Camp in the suburb of Beijing to serve a oneyear term. He then lost his job. 

40

We found out from different sources that in the labor camp my son was often not 

allowed to sleep. He was forced to do a lot of manual labor while others were sleeping, and at least at one point he was not allowed to sleep for more than 10 consecutive days. He was also badly beaten by a group of people there. They tied him up 

tightly with his head touching his legs before they beat him and left him under a 

bed for hours after the beating. He was severely injured. How can any mother bear 

to learn this kind of news about her child! All of this torture was to change his 

mind! Although inmates at this Labor Camp are allowed to be visited by their families once a month, visitation rights for my son were arbitrarily denied many times. 

Even at the times when we were able to see him briefly, we couldn’t say much because our conversations were always monitored. I could only imagine what he was 

going through. 

On June 25th, 2001, the end of his one-year term, someone at the ‘‘610’’ Office 

phoned his wife that they had decided to keep him in the Labor Camp for another 

6 months. The reason they gave was that he had not met their ‘‘requirements.’’ My 

son is a good young man. As parents, nothing pains us more than knowing that he 

was undergoing all kinds of inhumane treatments. 

On December 25th, 2001, his 6-month extension was up. But instead of releasing 

him, they detained him for another 10 days before letting him go free. All of these 

things have been done arbitrarily in the absence of any trial or legal procedures. 

He was finally allowed to go home on January 4, 2002, but he is still so closely monitored that we cannot talk over the phone or in e-mails about what he went through 

and what they are doing to him now. A few days ago some people told his wife that 

he would be arrested again soon. 

Not a single day goes by when I don’t think about what my son has gone through. 

I worry deeply about what may happen to him under that regime. It’s painful for 

me to remember his bright smile, his strong body, his hearty laughter, and his 

sweet expressions. He used to be so happy and healthy. 

We are musicians and have no political interests whatsoever. We have not done 

anything against the Government. We simply wanted to seek a balanced life for 

health and spirituality by following the practice of Falun Gong, a part of traditional 

culture, and exercised our rights as guaranteed in the Chinese Constitution. But because of this, we went from well-respected artists to prisoners! 

The suppression of Falun Gong is against the will of the Chinese people. They 

try to deceive people using state-run media and propaganda, but most people we ran 

into respected us nonetheless. After getting to know the practice of Falun Gong and 

the practitioners, many inmates and even some guards at the Detention Centers respectfully called me ‘‘aunt Chen’’, ‘‘teacher Chen,’’ etc. Some inmates said, ‘‘if I had 

known about the principles Falun Gong teaches, we would not have committed the 

crimes.’’ Some even told us that they would learn Falun Gong after they get out of 

jail; some started learning it from us in the Detention Center. One policeman said 

to me: ‘‘I know that you’re good people. But because Jiang Zemin doesn’t allow you 

to practice, we have no choice.’’

Our family’s experience is only one case out of the millions of the Falun Gong 

practitioners in China. Many of their sufferings are much, much worse, but they 

don’t have the opportunity to tell their stories. This modern-day human atrocity has 

lasted too long. 

My family’s story is only one case out of millions of stories like this in China. Actually, many of those stories are much worse. Countless families of Falun Gong 

practitioners have been destroyed, with small children deprived of their parents, 

forced divorces, forced abortions, and deaths by painful torture. These others do not 

have the opportunity to speak outside China and tell their stories of terror. 

We particularly appreciate the generous support from the US Congress, and the 

rest of the world. By speaking out for justice and human rights, we hope to soon 

bring an end to this relentless persecution and save the lives of millions of Falun 

Gong practitioners in China. Thank you.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. That is an incredible testimony. 

We thank you very much. 

Ms. CHEN. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Very powerful. Thank you. 

Ms. Faulkner? 

41

STATEMENT OF PENELOPE FAULKNER, VICE-PRESIDENT, 

VIETNAM COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 

Ms. FAULKNER. Thank you, Madam Chairperson and distinguished Members of the Congress. I would first like to again convey Vo Van Ai’s sincere apologies. I think only—— Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. How is he doing? 

Ms. FAULKNER. I do not know. He was in hospital when I left 

Paris, but I know it would be only something as serious as heart 

surgery that would prevent him being here today. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. As I said, our prayers are with him. 

Ms. FAULKNER. That is very kind of you. Thank you very much. 

I am his Deputy Director, and I have worked for 20 years with 

him. These problems are not new, so I do hope I will be able to actually read his testimony, but I hope I will be able to answer any 

questions that you may have to ask. 

This is the testimony. Thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, which I shall call 

the UBCV, at this critically important hearing. In the aftermath of 

September 11, this hearing underscores the crucial role of religious 

tolerance in building a peaceful world. It also allows us to sound 

the alarm on another form of terrorism that is wreaking mass destruction today—state terrorism. 

In China and Vietnam, repressive regimes are waging a daily 

war of terror against their own people, crushing their democratic 

aspirations and brutally violating their fundamental freedoms and 

rights. The past year was a black year for religious freedom in 

Vietnam. It was also a year of paradox. Hanoi obtained one of its 

most coveted awards—the ratification of the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral 

Trade Agreement—at the same time that it embarked on a frenzied 

repression campaign against Buddhists, ethnic Montagnard Christians, Catholics, Protestants and Hao Hoa followers all over China. 

Buddhism, which is followed by three-quarters of the population, 

was the major target of repression. Even as this hearing takes 

place today, Vietnam is intensifying its campaign to suppress the 

outlawed UBCV. On February 6, just last week, security police 

began to tear down the Li Quang Buddhist Cultural Center in Hue. 

The authorities have confiscated this renown institution and are 

demolishing it to build a pleasure park for a government sponsored 

tourist festival to be held in Hue in the spring. 

Two of the UBC’s most prominent leaders and outspoken dissidents, the patriarch Thich Huyen Quang and his deputy, Thich 

Quang Do, are particular targets of persecution. Thich Huyen 

Quang, who has been under house arrest in the Province of Quang 

Ngai for the past 20 years, was subjected to increased controls and 

even death threats by the local police. 

On June 1 of last year, the Ho Chi Minh city police sentenced 

Thich Quang Do to 2 years administrative detention, arbitrarily reactivating a sentence for which he was amnestied in 1998. Thich 

Quang Do is currently detained incommunicado in his monastery 

in Saigon. His crimes, according to Hanoi, are twofold. One was to 

launch an appeal for democracy in Vietnam, which I respectfully 

submit for entry on the record. 

This appeal, which he sent to the Communist party on the eve 

of their Ninth Congress in Hanoi, set forward an eight point transiVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:54 Jun 10, 2002 Jkt 077695 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\IOHR\021302\77695 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
42

tion plan for democratic change. It was held by Vietnamese and 

international personalities around the world, including 36 prominent Members of Congress, many of whom are on this distinguished panel today, as a tremendous leap forward in the democracy movement because it rallied together Vietnamese from all different religious and political families. For Hanoi, the appeal was a 

violation of national security. 

Thich Quang Do’s second crime was to call on Vietnam to release 

the Patriarch Thich Huyen Quang and transfer him to Saigon for 

medical treatment. Thich Huyen Quang is now 84 years old and seriously ill as a result of his long detention. 

Since the government refused, Thich Quang Do announced that 

he would personally lead a delegation to escort the Patriarch back 

to Saigon. Hanoi responded brutally. Security policy surrounded 

UBCV pagodas, cut off phone lines and placed hundreds of monks 

under house arrest to prevent them traveling with Thich Quang 

Do. Over 100 Buddhist monks from Hue and the central provinces 

were intercepted and beaten by gangs of hooligans under the very 

eyes of the security police. Repression reached such a pitch that Ho 

Tan Anh, a leader of the lay Buddhist Youth Movement, immolated 

himself in protest in the City of Danang. 

Madam Chairperson, Buddhists are not the only victims of religious persecution in Vietnam. Throughout the year, Hanoi clamped 

down on all religious denominations, crushing peaceful protests 

and sentencing religious practitioners to exorbitant prison sentences for the peaceful expression of their beliefs. Persecution 

against the ethnic Christians, particularly the Montagnards in the 

Central Highlands, was especially harsh. 

As we have heard, in February and March peaceful demonstrations of thousands of Montagnards were crushed with incredible violence. In September, 14 Montagnards were condemned from 6 to 

12 years in prison, and many more were arrested and beaten for 

taking part in demonstrations. 

On October 19, as has been frequently said also, Father Nguyen 

Van Ly, a Roman Catholic priest from the diocese of Hue, was sentenced to 15 years in prison and 5 years’ probationary detention 

simply for criticizing the government’s religious policies and lack of 

democratic freedoms. 

Several members of the Hoa Hao Buddhist sect were detained. 

On May 11, Truong Van Duc and Ho Van Truong were sentenced 

respectively to 12 and 4 years in prison simply for taking part in 

religious celebrations. 

Madam Chairperson, these are not just isolated incidents. Religious persecution is a state policy in Vietnam. Under Vietnam’s 

legal system, which I describe in more length in my written testimony, religious freedom is conditioned on compliance with the policies of the one party Marxist-Leninist state, a state that is fundamentally hostile to all religious beliefs. 

There can be no religious freedom in Vietnam until this restrictive legislation is repealed. I call on the United States to press 

Vietnam to do this urgently. Especially, Vietnam should abolish 

Article IV of its Constitution on the mastery of the Communist 

party so that all religious families may be free to exercise their beVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:54 Jun 10, 2002 Jkt 077695 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\IOHR\021302\77695 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
43

liefs and equally participate in building a stable and prosperous 

Vietnam. 

As a matter of priority, I also call on the U.S. to press Vietnam 

to immediately release Patriarch Thich Huyen Quang and the Venerable Thich Quang Do and allow the Patriarch to receive medical 

treatment in Saigon. 

In conclusion, Madam Chairperson, I believe it is vital that Vietnam be placed on the list of countries of particular concern so that 

under the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act the United 

States may take specific measures to promote religious freedom in 

Vietnam. This is the only way to halt state terrorism and prevent 

Hanoi from persecuting religious practitioners with impunity. 

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vo Van Ai follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VO VAN AI, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT OF CUME, ACTION

FOR DEMOCRACY IN VIETNAM

Madam Chairwoman, 

Distinguished Members of Congress,

I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify on behalf of 

the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam at this critically important Hearing in 

Congress today. Coming in the aftermath of the shattering events of September 

11th, this Hearing underscores the crucial role of religious tolerance in combating 

extremism to build a peaceful world. It also allows us to sound the alarm on another 

form of terrorism that is wreaking destruction on a massive scale—the terrorism of 

States against their people. In China and Vietnam, totalitarian regimes wage a 

daily war of terror against their own citizens, crushing their democratic aspirations 

and brutally violating their fundamental freedoms and rights. 

2001 was a black year for religious freedom in Vietnam. It was also a year of paradox: Hanoi obtained one of its most coveted awards—the ratification of the U.S.-

Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement by Congress—at the same time that it embarked on a frenzied repression campaign against Buddhists, Montagnard Christians, Catholics, Protestants and Hoa Hao followers all over Vietnam. 

Buddhism, Vietnam’s most widely practised religion, is a major target of religious 

persecution because of the continuing conflict between Hanoi and Buddhists of the 

independent Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV). Since the Communist 

Party took power after the end of the Vietnam war, it has systematically suppressed 

the UBCV, seizing its property, banning its activities and placing its members in 

prison or under house arrest. 

The reason for this fierce repression is that the UBCV has an authority independent of the ruling one-Party state. Representing a religious tradition of over 20 

centuries and adhered to by over three quarters of the Vietnamese population, the 

UBCV represents a tradition of social activism unique in South East Asia. For 

UBCV Buddhists, practising Compassion does not just mean meditation and prayer, 

but an active engagement in the daily combat against social injustice and oppression. Buddhists are thus at the forefront of the movement for religious freedom, democracy and human rights in Vietnam, and because of this, Hanoi’s leadership is 

intensifying efforts to suppress the independent UBCV:

• Only last month, on January 21st 2002, Venerable Thich Duc Nhuan, one of 

the UBCV’s most respected leaders and prominent dissident died under house 

arrest in Saigon. A fierce advocate of democracy and human rights, he was 

placed under house arrest in June 2001 after a nation-wide clamp-down 

against the UBCV. He had previously spent nine years in reeducation camp 

for his religious beliefs. Immediately after his death, Security Police sealed 

off Thich Duc Nhuan’s room at the Giac Minh Pagoda and seized all his personal papers. The family were ordered to cremate his body immediately instead of burying him to prevent his grave from becoming a focus point for 

UBCV dissent. No funeral ovation was allowed. Many UBCV monks and nuns 

from the central provinces and Saigon were prevented from attending the funeral, and Security Police detained Thich Khong Tanh and a number of other 

monks for interrogation, releasing them only after the funeral was over.

44

• The UBCV’s Deputy leader and Nobel Peace prize nominee Thich Quang Do

was arrested several times in 2001 and is now detained incommunicado at 

the Thanh Minh Zen Monastery in Saigon. He was first arrested for launching a landmark ‘‘Appeal for Democracy in Vietnam’’ in February, on the eve 

of the Vietnamese Communist Party’s Ninth Congress in Hanoi. (I respectfully submit the full text of this Appeal for entry in the Hearing record). The 

appeal, a radical 8-point transition plan for democratic change, received overwhelming international support, with the endorsement of over a hundred 

international personalities and some 300,000 Vietnamese around the world. 

Thirty six prominent Members of Congress—many of whom are on the distinguished panel today—hailed the Appeal as a ‘‘enormous leap forward in the 

democracy movement’’ because it sought to rally together Vietnamese of all 

different religious denominations and political affiliations in a common democratic initiative. Thich Quang Do was accused of ‘‘threatening national security’’, and repeatedly interrogated by the Ho Chi Minh City Police. Controls 

were intensified around the Thanh Minh Zen Monastery, and Thich Quang 

Do’s telephone was cut off on April 9th.

• UBCV Patriarch Thich Huyen Quang was also subjected to intensified Police 

controls. Police surrounded the Phuoc Quang Pagoda in Nghia Hanh district, 

Quang Ngai Province, where Thich Huyen Quang has been detained without 

trial since 1982, blocking all visits and communications. The 84-year-old Patriarch even received death threats from the local Security Police who claimed 

that the ‘‘CIA’’ was plotting to assassinate him. Patriarch Thich Huyen Quang

and Venerable Thich Quang Do have both spent more than 20 years in prison 

for their advocacy of religious freedom and human rights.

• In May-June, the authorities launched a full-scale crack-down on the UBCV. 

This was sparked off by a letter written to the Vietnamese leadership by 

Thich Quang Do on March 29th, in which he called on the Vietnamese government to immediately release Patriarch Thich Huyen Quang and allow him 

to return to Saigon for medical care. Thich Huyen Quang, who suffers from 

high blood-pressure, arthritis and stomach ulcers, is gravely ill as a result of 

harsh detention conditions. Thich Quang Do announced that if the Patriarch 

was not released before June 2001, he would personally lead a delegation to 

Quang Ngai to escort him to Saigon. 

This announcement unleashed a wave of Police repression against UBCV 

followers all over central and southern Vietnam. UBCV Pagodas in Saigon, 

Nha Trang, Phu Yen, Binh Dinh, Quang Nam, Da Nang and Hue were surrounded, and phone lines to 115 Pagodas were cut. Hundreds of UBCV monks 

and nuns were placed under house arrest, and subjected to quasi-daily interrogations. 108 UBCV monks who were preparing to join Thich Quang Do’s delegation to Quang Ngai were harassed, beaten and forcibly obstructed by 

Security agents and gangs of youths acting in connivance with the local Police.

• On June 1st, 30 Security Police and local officials broke into the Thanh Minh 

Zen Monastery and sentenced Thich Quang Do to two years ‘‘administrative 

detention’’. Thich Quang Do is now denied all contacts with the outside and 

not even allowed to visit the hospital to receive treatment for his diabetes, 

high blood pressure and stomach disorders. A jamming device has been set 

up outside the Pagoda to block telephone communications, and the local Post 

Offices and fax kiosks have received strict instructions not to accept any letters or faxes sent by Thich Quang Do. A Member of the European Parliament, 

Olivier Dupuis, attempted to visit him on June 6th, and staged a peaceful 

protest outside the Monastery calling for the monks’ release. Mr Dupuis was 

arrested and immediately deported by the Ho Chi Minh City Police. 

The Vietnamese Government has announced that Thich Quang Do’s two 

year sentence is a ‘‘reactivation’’ of a 5-year probationary detention sentence 

for which he was amnestied in 1998. This is a gross violation of international 

law. The ‘‘reactivation’’ of an amnestied sentence is tantamount to a second 

punishment, and therefore gravely violates Article 14 (7) of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Vietnam 

acceded in 1982, which stipulates that: ‘‘no one shall be liable to be tried or 

punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted 

and acquitted’’.

• On 2nd September, Vietnam’s National Day, a 61-year-old farmer and leader 

of the Quang Nam Province Buddhist Youth Movement (Gia dinh Phat tu) 

Ho Tan Anh immolated himself in the central city of Danang to protest persecution against the UBCV. In letters addressed to President George Bush, the 

45

UN Secretary General and other world leaders, which he sent through my 

Committee in Paris, Ho Tan Anh said he had set fire to his body to alert 

international opinion to persecution against all religious denominations in 

Vietnam. Police tried to cover up the incident, but his family found his body 

after hearing the report by my Committee broadcast over Radio Free Asia. 

In the aftermath, Police arrested Buddhist Youth leaders Vo Tan Sau, Dinh 

Ngoc Thu, Huynh Chung, Nguyen Quang Ca, Le Tan Hung, Nguyen Cam and 

subjected them to intensive interrogations. Their wives and children were also 

harassed and terrorised by the local Police.

• On 11th November, 64-year-old Venerable Thich Nhat Ban was beaten unconscious and gravely wounded in the head by unidentified assailant acting in 

connivance with Security Police. The man, armed with a knife and a wooden 

club, told the monk to cease his support for the UBCV. Thich Nhat Ban had 

photographs taken of his wounds so he could lay a complaint, but the photos 

were confiscated by the local Police.

• Buddhists are not the only victims of religious persecution. Throughout the 

year, religious followers from all denominations were brutally repressed for 

the peaceful expression of their beliefs.

— In February-March the authorities deployed tanks, military troops and 

riot police to crush peaceful demonstrations of thousands of ethnic 

Christian Montagnards in the Central Highlands with incredible violence. The Montagnards were protesting official confiscation of land and 

the government’s classification of Protestantism as an ‘‘illegal religion’’. 

Martial law has since been installed in the Central Highlands and a 

media black-out has been imposed. Hundreds of Montagnards have fled 

to Cambodia to seek political asylum, and many have been forcibly repatriated. At a closed trial on September 26, 2001, fourteen Montagnards were condemned to sentences of 6–12 years in prison for taking 

part in demonstrations in the provinces of Dak Lak and Gia Lai. Many 

were arrested and beaten in December 2001 as they gathered peacefully to celebrate Christmas;

— On October 19th 2001, 55-year-old Father Nguyen Van Ly, a Roman 

Catholic priest from the diocese of Hue in Central Vietnam was sentenced to 15 years in prison and 5 years probationary detention at a 

one-day, closed trial in Hue on charges of ‘‘undermining national solidarity’’. He had been arrested on May 17 and detained incommunicado 

for 5 months on charges of ‘‘blackening socialist Vietnam and distorting 

the party and state policies’’ because he had urged the U.S. Congress 

in a written testimony to postpone approval of the US-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement. Father Ly had previously spent 10 years in prison for his religious beliefs;

— Several members of the Hoa Hao Buddhist sect were arrested and detained in 2001 for taking part in celebrations of their founder, the 

prophet Huynh Phu So: Truong Van Duc and Ho Van Truong were sentenced respectively to 12 and 4 years in prison by a court in An Giang 

Province on May 11th 2001.

The above cases are not isolated incidents, nor are they due to excesses committed 

by overzealous Security Police or local officials. The fact is that religious persecution 

is a State Policy in Vietnam today, orchestrated at the highest echelons of the Communist Party and the government. It is this policy, which imposes the monopoly of 

Marxist-Leninism as a State religion, which is the real impediment to religious freedom in Vietnam. 

A glimpse at Vietnam’s legislation illustrates how deeply the seeds of religious 

persecution are implanted in domestic law. The 1992 Constitution guarantees religious freedom but states that ‘‘no-one can . . . misuse belief and religion to contravene the law and State policies’’ (Article 71). Religious Decree 26, adopted in 

1999, guarantees the same freedom but warns that ‘‘all activities using religious belief in order to oppose the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam . . . will be punished in conformity with the law’’ (Article 5). The exercise of religious freedom is 

further restricted by a whole range of legislation under the catch-all notion of ‘‘endangering national security’’. The 1986 Vietnamese Criminal Code provides prison 

sentences of up to fifteen years for vaguely-defined offences such as ‘‘sowing division 

between religious believers and non-believers’’ . . . ‘‘undermining national solidarity’’

(Article 87)’’ abusing democratic rights to encroach upon the interests of the State’’

(Article 258a). Under Decree 31/CP on ‘‘Administrative Detention’’ (adopted on 

46

14.4.1997), local Police have extrajudicial powers to arrest and detain anyone suspected of ‘‘threatening national security’’ for up to two years without a Court order. 

Religious freedom in Vietnam is thus conditioned to compliance with the policies 

of the one-Party, Marxist-Leninist State—a State that is fundamentally hostile to 

all religious beliefs. Such legislation enables Vietnam’s leaders to jail prisoners of 

conscience as simple common criminals, and to cynically claim in international forums that ‘‘there are no religious or political prisoners in Vietnam’’. 

There can be no true religious freedom until such laws have been amended or repealed, and this fact must be publicly denounced. Vietnam is aware that it must 

move towards the rule of law in order to attract economic investment and aid. But 

it is seeking to do this by developing an increasingly sophisticated machinery of repression to give the regime a mantle of impunity, enabling it to persecute religious 

communities at home whilst reaping the benefits of economic and diplomatic relationships abroad. 

I believe it is therefore vital that Vietnam be placed on the State Department’s 

list of ‘‘countries of particular concern’’ so that, under the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act, the United States may adopt specific policies to promote religious freedom in Vietnam. The recent massive violations against all the religious 

communities more than justify such a step. 

In respect to the Buddhists in particular, I urge the United States to press Vietnam to:

a) reestablish the legitimate status of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, 

and guarantee it full freedom of religious activity;

b) immediately release the Patriarch Thich Huyen Quang and ensure that he 

may return to Saigon to receive urgent medical treatment;

c) lift the arbitrary ‘‘administrative detention’’ sentence on Nobel Peace Prize 

nominee Venerable Thich Quang Do, and restore his full religious and citizenship rights;

d) repeal or amend all legislation which restricts religious freedom and bring 

religious legislation into line with the provisions of the UN International 

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Vietnam is a State party. 

In particular, Article 4 of the Constitution on the mastery of the Communist 

Party should be abolished so that all religious and political families may 

equally participate in reconstructing a democratic and prosperous Vietnam.

During a Congressional Hearing in May 2001 following the publication of the US 

Commission on International Religious Freedom’s Annual Report, Congressman 

Henry Hyde warned that if the United States did not stress the critical importance 

of religious freedom as part of the ‘‘normalization’’ process, it ‘‘risk[ed] sending a 

message to Hanoi that it doesn’t matter how brutally they treat their people; they will 

get what they want from the United States no matter what’’. By pressing Vietnam 

to respect its binding international commitments and implement the above points, 

the United States will effectively combat State terrorism in Vietnam, and protect 

the victims of religious persecution.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. 

Dan, we are very happy to have you with us. It is good to see—

no offense—a good looking, young person active in the community 

and really advocating the issues which you so proudly hold and trying to enthuse more young people into the cause. 

We hear so much about what is wrong with young people. We do 

not get to hear often about what is good. It is so wonderful to see 

a fresh face on our panel talking about the issues and the principles that you so proudly hold. 

Welcome to our Subcommittee. 

All of you are looking really young. No offense. 

STATEMENT OF DAN DUY-TU HOANG, VICE-PRESIDENT OF 

PUBLIC RELATIONS, VIETNAMESE-AMERICAN PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE 

Mr. HOANG. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson. Madam 

Chairperson, Congressman McKinney, distinguished Members of 

47

the Committee, it is a privilege for me to testify today on behalf 

of the Vietnamese-American Public Affairs Committee. 

Our organization is deeply concerned by the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam’s persecution of religion and its monopoly on all forms of 

religious worship. My testimony today will focus on two areas. 

First, I will summarize briefly the situation of religious freedom 

now through the example of a number of religious leaders, and the 

second, more importantly, is to focus on a few concrete suggestions 

for Members of Congress. 

Madam Chairperson, at this moment the Venerable Thich Huyen 

Quang, the 84-year-old patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church 

of Vietnam or UBCV, is confined to a pagoda in a remote area of 

central Vietnam where he has been kept under house arrest for the 

last 20 years. His sole crime is to be the leader of a religious organization not sanctioned by the government. 

Just like there are newspapers in Vietnam, but no freedom of the 

press, there are religious organizations, but no freedom of religion. 

This is because the government monopolizes all religious activity in 

organizations under its firm control. 

In Saigon, the deputy leader of the UBCV, Venerable Thich 

Quang Do, has been under house arrest since June, 2001, with no 

prospect of a trial in sight. Under Hanoi’s administrative detainment policy issued in 1997, security forces can detain individuals 

for up to 2 years without trial. These are renewable 2 year terms. 

Venerable Thich Quang Do’s apparent offense was to publicly announce that he would bring the UBCV’s ailing patriarch, Venerable 

Thich Huyen Quang, back to Saigon for urgent medical care. 

Finally, in a remote prison camp in northern Vietnam Catholic 

priest Nguyen Van Ly is serving a 15 year jail sentence for ‘‘undermining the national unity.’’ What he had actually done was publicly call for religious freedom, including in written testimony, as 

we have heard, from a hearing last year by the U.S. Commission 

on International Religious Freedom, in which Father Ly had urged 

the Congress to delay ratifying the bilateral trade agreement until 

Hanoi eases restrictions on religion. 

Vietnamese authorities waited exactly 2 days after President 

Bush signed the BTA into law when they convicted Father Nguyen 

Van Ly in a 2-hour trial without a defense lawyer on October 19, 

2001. 

I believe that these three cases epitomize the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam’s repressive policy on religion. The 20 year house arrest 

of Buddhist patriarch Thich Huyen Quang symbolizes the intolerance for independent religious organizations and, thus, true religious freedom. The confinement of the Venerable Thich Quang Do 

highlights the use of arbitrary arrest and detention to silence 

peaceful dissent. The heavy prison sentence of Father Nguyen Van 

Ly shows that economic engagement alone will not magically turn 

Vietnam into a freer society. 

These are just a few examples. Vietnamese of other faiths like 

the Hoa Hao, Cao Dai and Protestants continue to be persecuted 

also. Now, clearly human rights, including freedom of worship, are 

not just an American concept or something that Americans invent 

for others. Rather, they are basic rights which the Vietnamese 

48

themselves desire and which many are risking their lives to 

achieve. 

The U.S. Congress can and must play an active role in supporting aspirations for freedom. We in the human rights community were very heartened when earlier this year 48 Members of 

Congress, including the distinguished Chairperson of this Committee and also Representative Chris Smith and Representative 

Adam Schiff, nominated two Vietnamese religious leaders, Buddhist monk Thich Quang Do and Catholic priest Nguyen Van Ly, 

for the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of their courage and sacrifices for freedom. We strongly appreciate such public expressions 

of support. 

Now let me please conclude by offering three further suggestions 

to address religious persecution in Vietnam. The first is organizing 

a congressional delegation to Vietnam. This is the most direct way 

to gain insights on the religious situation and communicate concerns to the government. 

While meetings arranged by Vietnamese authorities may yield 

some value, I would think that Members should also take the opportunity to visit with the full spectrum of Vietnamese society, including monks belonging to the non-sanctioned UBCV, Christian 

house churches in the Central Highlands and also imprisoned religious leaders, such as Father Nguyen Van Ly. 

The second suggestion is insisting on reciprocity in the bilateral 

relationship. Vietnamese nationals and government officials in the 

U.S. can go anywhere in this country, meet with any person and 

attend any place of worship, but it is an outrage that Americans 

in Vietnam, from our embassy officials to NGOs, face restrictions 

on where they can go and who they may face. 

The third suggestion is enacting mechanisms to promote human 

rights. Last fall, the House, under the leadership of the Committee 

and also this Subcommittee, passed by a vote of 410–1 the Vietnam 

Human Rights Act, H.R. 2833. This legislation conditions non-humanitarian assistance to Vietnam on verifiable human rights improvements and provides for key democracy promotion programs. 

Equally important, it sends a message to the Vietnamese government that trade with America cannot be construed as tacit approval for ongoing human rights abuses. 

We would welcome your help in urging Senate colleagues to support this much needed legislation. Furthermore, we believe a U.S. 

human rights commission on Vietnam similar to the one created for 

China to monitor human rights abuses is also necessary. 

Finally, I think that it is in the interest of the United States to 

encourage Vietnam’s progression into the community of nations. 

Such a progression, however, cannot be achieved in a climate of religious persecution. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoang follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAN DUY-TU HOANG, VICE-PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC

RELATIONS, VIETNAMESE-AMERICAN PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Dear Madame Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

It is a privilege to testify before you today on behalf of the Vietnamese-American 

Public Affairs Committee (VPAC), a national grassroots organization of Vietnamese 

49

American voters. VPAC is deeply concerned by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam’s 

monopoly on religious worship and persecution of religious leaders. 

My testimony will summarize these abuses through the example of several religious leaders and offer suggestions on what Congress could do to promote greater 

openness and religious liberty in Vietnam. 

REPRESSION OF RELIGION IN COMMUNIST VIETNAM

At this moment, the Venerable Thich Huyen Quang, the 84-year old patriarch of 

the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV) is confined to a pagoda in a remote area of central Vietnam, where he has been kept under house arrest for the 

last 20 years. His sole crime is to be the leader of a religious organization not sanctioned by the government. Just like there are newspapers in Vietnam but no freedom of the press, there are also religious organizations but no freedom of religion. 

This is because the government monopolizes all religious activity in organizations 

under its control. 

In Saigon, the deputy leader of the UBCV, Venerable Thich Quang Do, has been 

under house arrest since June 2001 with no prospect of a trial in sight. Under Hanoi’s administrative detainment policy issued in 1997, security forces can detain individuals for up to two years without charges (for what are renewable two year 

terms). Venerable Thich Quang Do’s apparent offense was to publicize his intent to 

bring the UBCV’s ailing patriarch, Venerable Thich Huyen Quang, back to Saigon 

for urgent medical care. 

In a remote prison camp in northern Vietnam, Catholic priest Nguyen Van Ly is 

serving a 15-year jail sentence for ‘‘undermining the national unity.’’ What he had 

actually done was publicly call for religious freedom—including in written testimony 

for a hearing last year by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom 

in which Father Nguyen Van Ly urged the Congress to delay ratifying the Bilateral 

Trade Agreement until Hanoi eases restrictions on religion. Vietnamese authorities 

waited exactly two days after President Bush signed the BTA, when it convicted Father Nguyen Van Ly in a two-hour trial, without a defense lawyer, on October 19, 

2001. 

The three aforementioned cases epitomize the Socialist Republic of Vietnam’s repressive policy on religion:

• The 20-year house arrest of Buddhist patriarch Thich Huyen Quang symbolizes the intolerance for independent religious organizations and, thus, true religious freedom.

• The confinement of Venerable Thich Quang Do highlights the use of arbitrary 

arrest and detention to silence peaceful dissent.

• The heavy prison sentence of Father Nguyen Van Ly shows that economic engagement alone won’t magically turn Vietnam into a freer society.

And these are just a few examples. Vietnamese of other faiths like the Hoa Hao, 

Cao Dai, and Protestants continue to be persecuted also. 

SUGGESTIONS FOR CONGRESS

Clearly, human rights—including freedom of worship—are not an American concept or something that Americans invent for others. Rather, they are basic rights 

which Vietnamese themselves desire and of which many are risking their lives to 

achieve. 

The US Congress can and must play an active role in supporting aspirations for 

freedom. We in the human rights community were very heartened when earlier this 

year 48 Members of Congress—including the distinguished Chairwoman of this subcommittee, Rep. Chris Smith, and Rep. Adam Schiff—nominated two Vietnamese religious leaders, Buddhist monk Thich Quang Do and Catholic priest Nguyen Van 

Ly, for the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of their courage and sacrifices for freedom. We strongly appreciate such public expressions of support. 

Let me conclude this testimony by offering three additional suggestions to address 

religious persecution in Vietnam:

• Organizing a congressional delegation to Vietnam. This is the most direct way 

to gain insights on the religious situation and communicate concerns to the 

government. And while meetings arranged by Vietnamese authorities may 

yield some value, Members should take the opportunity to visit with the full 

spectrum of Vietnamese society: Monks belonging to the non-sanctioned 

UBCV, Christian ‘house churches’ in the central highlands, and imprisoned 

religious leaders such as Father Nguyen Van Ly.

50

• Insisting on reciprocity in the bi-lateral relationship. Vietnamese nationals 

and government officials in the US can go anywhere in this country, meet 

with any person, and attend any place of worship. It is an outrage that Americans in Vietnam, from embassy officials to NGOs, face restrictions on where 

they may go and who they may see.

• Enacting mechanisms to promote human rights. Last fall, the House passed 

by a vote of 410–1 the Vietnam Human Rights Act (H.R. 2833). This legislation conditions non-humanitarian assistance to Vietnam on verifiable human 

rights improvements and provides for key democracy promotion programs. 

Equally importantly, it sends a message to the Vietnamese government that 

trade with American cannot be construed as tacit approval for on-going 

human rights abuses. I would respectfully ask you to urge Senate colleagues 

to support this much needed legislation.

It is in the interest of the United States to encourage Vietnam’s progression into 

the community of nations. Such a progression, however, cannot be achieved in a climate of religious repression. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

Because Chairman Gilman has to go to another hearing that he 

is Chairing, we are going to recognize him to begin the round of 

questioning. Chairman Gilman? 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to thank our 

panelists for taking the time to be here with all of their pertinent 

testimony. 

Mr. Ackerly, according to statute, the State Department annual 

report on human rights is supposed to address the human rights 

problems in Tibet under its own section in alphabetical order, but 

the State Department has ignored this for a number of years. 

Have you asked the special coordinator for Tibet, Paula 

Dobrianski, why this is so? 

Mr. ACKERLY. We have, Mr. Congressman. I know my colleague, 

Mary Beth, here has also been working on that. I am not sure. It 

is not clear to me that it is going to change this year, although 

there is some language in there that will change, but it still will 

not be a full separate section. 

Mr. GILMAN. The next time you talk to Paula Dobrianski, tell her 

we are very much concerned about that, if you would. We will also 

tell her that. 

To all of our panelists, how best and most efficiently can this 

panel or Congress and the Administration address these human 

rights violations that you have all recited? What do you think is 

the most effective thing we can and should be doing? 

Mr. HOANG. You pick a good time. Its important to the regions 

of the world to show your interest in those areas has made a profound impact on public opinion and also the behavior of governments in those areas. 

Again, I think if the Committee or specifically the International 

Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee would consider leading a delegation to Vietnam to show directly to the Vietnamese 

Government these concerns and also to request to meet with Vietnamese religious leaders, that would be very helpful because the 

interesting thing is a lot of these religious leaders have never been 

charged with any crime. However, they are being basically punished extrajudicially. 

I think Members of Congress who visit them would send a very 

strong signal to these very brave leaders and also to the VietVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:54 Jun 10, 2002 Jkt 077695 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\IOHR\021302\77695 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
51

namese people in general that their struggles for religious freedom, 

they are not alone, and the outside world is very interested. 

Ms. FAULKNER. Could I just add to that? 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you. Yes, please. 

Ms. FAULKNER. In Vietnam, I would say I think that is very important, the fact of visiting, members of the embassy visiting religious leaders. 

Thich Huyen Quang was visited in 1999 by an official from the 

American Embassy. It was the first westerner he had seen in 17 

years in detention, and it really gave him the morale to keep going. 

Also, we found that it concretely improved at least his detention 

position, so certainly visits are helpful. 

Also, I would just like to add that I think public statements are 

very important because we also find as human rights activists that 

governments, and it is understandable, say that the dialogue with 

their partners and government is important. Therefore, it is not 

productive to make public statements too often, but sometimes it 

does help. It helps people inside Vietnam because these statements 

are relayed over Radio Free Asia and over the radio inside Vietnam. It encourages the activists on the spot. 

Also, Hanoi is very aware of its international image. Therefore, 

although it does not immediately change things, the fact that it is 

publicly criticized especially by the United States, that is very helpful, and it does make real change in their policies. 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you very much. Any other panelists want to 

comment on that? 

Yes, Mr. Marshall? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes. I would just like to add that, you know, one 

of the human rights levers is shame or embarrassment. In a world 

of armies that sometimes seems so very weak, but it does have its 

effect firstly on an audience other than the government. Many people in the country hear and they rejoice when these things are said. 

Also, with governments such as China and Vietnam when there 

is a possibility of embarrassment with a resolution at the United 

Nations Human Rights Commission or other settings, they mobilize 

very great resources to fight it. At one level they say it does not 

mean much. At the other level, they fight very hard not to have 

these things said. 

I think they should be raised. They should be continually raised, 

and they should be an irritant in our relationship. 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you very much. 

Any other panelists want to comment? 

Ms. CHEN. I think in China under the totalitarian regime it is 

usually very easy to suppress a voice in China. In the 50 years of 

the Communist history, it has always been very easy to suppress 

the smaller groups. 

This time, when they wanted to suppress Falun Gong, Jiang 

Zemin initially said that it would only take 3 months. Now it has 

been more than 21⁄2 years. One aspect of that is because in Falun 

Gong we practice compassion, and the power of compassion is 

many parts in their actions, so the people in China could all see 

that. 

It is also very important. It has to do with the support from the 

international community, including the U.S. Government, the 

52

American people, all the proclamations that have been issued for 

Falun Gong and the resolutions that this Committee has initiated 

and passed last year. 

We think that has really made a tremendous impact in China because, like some of the other people mentioned, the Chinese Government has to come up with ways to justify what they have done, 

and it only makes them look sillier. 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you very much, and thank you, Madam 

Chairman, for allowing me to—— Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

Ms. McKinney? 

Ms. MCKINNEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really do not have 

any questions of our witnesses, but I would like to thank them for 

coming. I would like to thank them for their testimony. I think you 

have made it very clear that visits to the area do not hurt. They 

help. 

I would just like to recommend that our Chairwoman consider 

leading a delegation to the area so that we could discuss these 

issues. Very good. Thank you all. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Ms. Chairman. 

Dr. Marshall, in light of the upcoming visit by President Bush 

to China, what would you advise the President to raise with the 

Chinese officials as far as human rights are concerned? Would you 

suggest he give them specific prisoner lists? What can he do to 

help? 

Mr. MARSHALL. He should give specific prisoner lists, but he 

should not stay with that because what happens with China is it 

is so much like throwing a bone. I mean, it is very important for 

the people concerned, but you release one or two people from prison 

around the visit so it looks better, and then you go back to normal. 

I think the specific policies need to be addressed, the questions 

raised in these documents that peaceful religious activity is 

criminalized. These matters should be raised. There are indications 

the President will give a public address. I think he should use that, 

as Ronald Reagan did at Moscow State University in 1988, to make 

a positive affirmation of why these issues are important to Americans. This is not simply U.S. Government policy. This is what the 

American people believe. 

We can never be at ease with countries that repress their own 

citizens for what they do peacefully. I think that type of affirmation 

made publicly in order to make the Chinese Government aware 

that this is an issue for America which will not go away. It is a 

continuing problem, and in that way it puts an additional pressure 

on the Chinese Government not to continue this repression because 

I think it hurts themselves. They are arresting thousands of peaceful people. The government has better things to do with its time. 

Mr. PITTS. Have you communicated that to the White House, or 

will you do that? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, we have, and we are continuing to do that. 

Mr. PITTS. Are there any other ideas any of you have that the 

President should raise on his visit to Asia? 

[No response.] 

Mr. PITTS. Let me then go to the tools that he has. As you know, 

in view of the U.S. Commission on International Religious FreeVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:54 Jun 10, 2002 Jkt 077695 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\IOHR\021302\77695 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
53

dom’s listing of China as a country of particular concern, there are 

a whole list of options, of actions, the President could take. 

What actions would you recommend that President Bush take in 

regard to China? Just to refresh your memory, they include private 

demarche, public demarche, public condemnation, delay or cancellation of exchanges, withdrawal limitations, suspension of development assistance, all types. There is a whole range. 

Do you have any recommendations as to what the President 

should do, any of you? 

Mr. ACKERLY. One thing is I just want to reiterate that I did 

mention in my testimony is that with the U.N. Commission on 

Human Rights coming up I think it is important that the President 

not give up on that forum, even though we do not have a seat this 

year. 

Also, not to rely overly on the dialogue, the U.S. dialogue for 

human rights. We feel that that dialogue has not really produced 

tangible results and should not be given much credence by the 

President. 

Mr. PITTS. We have received several good suggestions—an official 

codal urging MC visits in prison, public statements, resolutions in 

international bodies. 

Could you deal briefly with what needs to be done multilaterally 

in working with other countries and other organizations, international organizations, to foster human rights improvements in 

China and Vietnam? Do you have any specific recommendations in 

securing assistance from other countries? 

Mr. HOANG. I think in terms of multilateral efforts, recently 

within the last several years the United Nations’ special reporter 

on religious freedom attempted to go to Vietnam. Unfortunately, he 

was denied the ability to visit with most of the key religious leaders, and he was only able to go to where, you know, his government 

chaperon took him to. 

I think, you know, if we can help international bodies such as the 

U.N. have access to meeting with religious leaders in Vietnam and 

emphasize the importance of that, then I think it can be very helpful. 

I think that this is a cause obviously that is not just near and 

dear to this Congress, but has been expressed by other members 

of Parliament, including Lars Reese of the Norwegian Parliament 

and Albert Dupree of the European Parliament. Both have gone to 

Vietnam in the last year to meet with religious leaders, so I think 

if we want to take a more international focus then we can perhaps 

find ways to coordinate with these leaders to shine light on the religious problem in Vietnam. 

Ms. FAULKNER. Could I also——

Mr. PITTS. Yes. 

Ms. FAULKNER [continuing]. Just suggest also that the United 

Nations is a very useful forum. It is regrettable and it is in fact 

scandalous that the United States is not a member of the United 

States Human Rights Commission at the moment, but certainly if 

it is possible to work within the United Nations co-sponsoring resolutions or working in any way through the U.N. to forward the religious freedom issue because certainly the United Nations was at 

the forefront of that movement. 

54

Without the United States’ voice in the U.N., as somebody living 

in Europe I am very worried that there are not going to be countries who are going to support this. 

Speaking of Europe, I think it is working most drastically. The 

European Union in July passed a resolution on religious freedom 

in Vietnam, and they also suggested that a European Parliamentary delegation should go there, so I think the idea of working together with the parliaments of the world to have visits to Vietnam 

is very important. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. 

Dr. Marshall? 

Mr. MARSHALL. There is also an initiative in which Freedom 

House is involved called the Community of Democracies. This is related to the fact that, for example, the United States is not on the 

U.N. Human Rights Commission. 

You know, that Commission has an awful lot of the world’s worst 

human rights violators on it because they very much want to be 

on there to shut up any comment, so that a universal commission, 

an avenue for multilateral action includes the worst violators. The 

idea we have is can we focus along with those countries that are 

committed to freedom of democracy, religious freedom and work together with them? 

In systematically looking for countries, some of our strongest allies on this score are in eastern Europe because they have learned 

about these issues firsthand. With like minded democratic governments, we should seek common statements and approaches, which 

would include visits. 

Also, business codes of ethics would be useful with how we deal 

particularly when there is continuing slave labor in China. I think 

common policies can be worked out amongst coalitions as distinct 

from either unilateral action or attempting a universal umbrella 

under the United Nations. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you very much. Excellent testimony. 

Mr. TANCREDO [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Pitts. 

Before we conclude this, however, I would like to express the 

Committee’s concern. Ms. Ningfang, we know that your testimony 

here today does not come without the possibility of peril to yourself 

perhaps and even certainly to your son. We recognize that. 

We want to, therefore, extend you our heartfelt appreciation for 

the courage that you have shown in being here, number one, and, 

number two, to encourage you to make us aware immediately if 

there is in fact any recriminations that accrue as a result of your 

testimony here. We would take whatever action we could. 

Ms. CHEN. Thank you. We will. 

Mr. TANCREDO. All right. With that, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(55)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

APPEAL FOR DEMOCRACY IN VIETNAM

BY THE VERY VENERABLE THICH QUANG DO

UNIFIED BUDDHIST CHURCH OF VIETNAM

THANH MINH ZEN MONASTERY, SAIGON

21 FEBRUARY 2001

As the Vietnamese Communist Party launched consultations on the political platform of its Ninth Party Congress, Venerable Thich Quang Do addressed an ‘‘Appeal 

for democracy in Vietnam’’ to VCP Secretary-general Le Kha Phieu, President Tran 

Duc Luong, Prime Minister Phan Van Khai and National Assembly President Nong 

Duc Manh. The Appeal was also circulated clandestinely inside Vietnam, and to the 

Vietnamese community abroad. 

Written on behalf of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV), Thich 

Quang Do’s Appeal begins by recalling the spirit of freedom and social justice inherent in Vietnamese Buddhism and the active participation of Buddhists in the nation’s social and political life over the past 2,000 years. Inspired by this strong commitment to social justice, ‘‘the UBCV cannot stand idle as our country plunges into 

a profound crisis and our people sink into poverty, deprived of their fundamental 

freedoms and human rights’’. 

Thich Quang Do calls on Vietnamese people from all different religious and political currents to ‘‘rally together in a common movement to seek radical solutions to 

the grave problems threatening our country today’’. He launches a worldwide appeal 

to all concerned peoples, governments, international institutions, human rights organizations, democracy and labour movements to support this 8-point proposal for a 

peaceful transition towards democracy in Vietnam. Below are extracts from the Appeal.

... ‘‘Today, as countries all over the world are racing to develop increasingly 

prosperous, free and democratic societies, our country remains paralyzed and poor, 

our people stifled and oppressed. In his Message for the Lunar New Year in 2001, 

the Most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang (. . .) resumed this in one sentence: ‘‘We 

have endured 35 years of war followed by 25 years [under the present regime], deprived of human rights or religious freedom!’’ A total of sixty miserable, dark years 

that have led us to this impasse with no possible means of escape. 

This tragic situation persists because it is supported by three factors:

1. A pretentious, self-absorbed government that rejects all alternative opinion, 

resulting in a one-Party, authoritarian regime;

2. A government that excludes the people and rejects their legitimate demands 

for human rights and civil liberties, resulting in a ruthless, repressive dictatorship;

3. A government that imports everything from abroad, from its ideology to the 

organizational structures of the State apparatus, and imposes it unilaterally, 

resulting in the total disruption of Vietnamese society and civilization. This 

has reduced our people to cultural alienation and slavery, provoking the 

decay of moral values and the nation’s decline.

The Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (. . .) cannot stand idle and watch with 

indifference as our country plunges into a profound crisis and our people sink into 

poverty, deprived of their fundamental freedoms and human rights. We therefore 

solemnly call upon Vietnamese from all walks of life, regardless of their political 

opinions or religious beliefs, as well as UBCV monks, nuns and lay-followers to moVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:54 Jun 10, 2002 Jkt 077695 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\IOHR\021302\77695 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
56

bilize their energies and rally together in a common movement to seek radical solutions to the grave problems threatening our country today. 

The Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam considers that:

— To counter the current trend of one-Party dictatorship, a popular alliance 

composed of different religious and political tendencies should be formed to 

lay the foundations of a democratic and pluralist government. Specifically, 

Article 4 of the Constitution [on the supremacy of the Communist Party and 

Marxist-Leninist doctrine] should be abolished (. . .);

— To counter the entrenched control of the totalitarian regime, all UN human 

rights instruments and international covenants on political and civil rights 

to which Vietnam is state party must be fully implemented. Concretely, freedom to form associations should not be subjected to approval by the Fatherland Front, which is a political tool of the Vietnamese Communist Party 

(VCP); freedom of expression should not be subordinated to Marxist-Leninist 

doctrines and thinking; freedom of the press should include the right to publish privately-owned newspapers independent of VCP control; freedom to form 

free trade unions outside VCP structures to protect worker rights should be 

fully guaranteed. The respect of these fundamental freedoms will safeguard 

the free expression of the people’s democratic aspirations and the exercise 

of their right to life;

— To counter the blind imposition of an alien, imported ideology upon all aspects of the society and state, the renaissance of a tradition-based Vietnamese civilization should be encouraged. This civilization should uphold 

the national cultural heritage whilst remaining open to modern cross-cultural 

communication, with the capacity to absorb the quintessence of cultural currents from all over the world to enrich its own culture.

The Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV) calls upon, and pledges its full 

support to, all individuals or organizations that seek to realize the eight-point political programme for national salvation underlined below:

1. To build a tolerant, peaceful, pluralist and egalitarian society, one that refrains from internal and external warfare, governed by democratic institutions within a multiparty system;

2. Dismantle all discriminatory, antidemocratic mechanisms of control, notably 

the threefold mechanism of the ly lich (curriculum vitae), ho khau (compulsory residence permit) and the network of cong an khu vuc (local security 

police). Organize free and fair general elections under United Nations’ supervision to elect a National Assembly truly representative of the people; guarantee universal suffrage and the right to run for office of all independent 

candidates and political formations outside the VPC. Separate the powers of 

the executive, legislative and judiciary organs and build a society grounded 

on the rule of law, based on the principles enshrined in the UN Universal 

Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and 

Political Rights;

3. Definitively close down all Reeducation Camps. Release all political prisoners 

and prisoners of conscience detained in northern Vietnam after the 1954 Geneva Agreement and in southern Vietnam since 1975, and encourage all 

former prisoners with specialist skills and knowledge to participate in the 

process of national reconstruction. At the same time, encourage all professionals, intellectuals, scholars, business leaders, individuals and organizations within the Vietnamese exile community who left Vietnam as ‘‘boat people’’ after 1975 to return home and contribute the techniques and experiences learned in advanced countries to rebuilding their homeland. Repeal all 

arbitrary legislation and restrictions on religious freedom, and prohibit the 

practice of ‘‘administrative detention’’;

4. Guarantee the right to private property, free enterprise, and the right to establish free trade unions. Accelerate policies to industrialize agriculture and 

modernize the rural economy, and improve the living standards of the peasants and farmers, who form the potential of our nation. Abandon the ‘‘market-based but socialist-orientated economy’’—the manifest failure of the outdated socialist economic model to generate prosperity and growth after a 74-

year experiment in the Soviet Union provoked the enmity of its people and 

led ultimately to its demise in the early 1990s. Develop the free market sector in accordance with Vietnamese societal norms, stimulate the development 

of a knowledge-led economy and protection of the environment. Embrace the 

trend towards globalization as a means of enhancing sustainable developVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:54 Jun 10, 2002 Jkt 077695 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\IOHR\021302\77695 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
57

ment and promoting global peace and security, but combat the serious dangers posed by the current economic globalization process, which promotes 

free trade without due respect of human and worker rights. Concentrate all 

efforts on reducing the widening gulf between the rich and poor, which is 

alienating our people and splitting Vietnamese society apart;

5. Protect our territorial sovereignty. Make a clear separation between politics 

and the military; the army, security and secret services should not be used 

as instruments of any one political party. Reduce the manpower of the armed 

forces to that of normal peacetime strength. Reduce the military budget and 

transfer excess spending to education and health. In the field of education, 

urgently train people of talent and specialists capable of restoring the nation’s prosperity; encourage the emergence of a young transitional generation—young people who can forge a transitional path [towards democracy] 

between the aspirations of the old, revolutionary generation, partisans of war 

and anachronistic class-struggle (. . .)and the modern preoccupation with 

consumerism, money-worship and the daily pressures of making ends meet. 

Health access must be improved. Priority should be given to solving the 

grave problem of child malnutrition and improving health infrastructures in 

rural areas;

6. (. . .) Promote the development of vibrant, traditional Vietnamese culture 

based on a spirit of openness, creativity and the capacity to absorb the richness and diversity of cultures from all over the world. Uphold the fundamental moral values of Humanism, Wisdom and Courage exhorted by our 

ancestors. Guarantee social justice, the equal status and full participation of 

women, nondiscrimination between religions; respect the autonomy and cultural differences of ethnic minorities; protect the interests of foreigners living 

and investing in Vietnam through due process of law, on the basis of reciprocity; guarantee the rights and dignity of Vietnamese living abroad;

7. Respect the territorial sovereignty of neighbouring nations. Promote a policy 

of friendship, dialogue and cooperation on an equal footing with 

neighbouring countries in all economic, cultural, religious and social domains. Consolidate efforts to promote peace, security and prosperity in the 

Asia-Pacific region. Join with neighbouring countries in a common effort to 

foster the values of Asian humanism. By maintaining mankind’s central 

place within society, we can prevent the free market from becoming a slave 

market where human beings are reduced to simple commodities of trade;

8. In foreign policy, uphold the Vietnamese tradition of friendly and peaceful 

relations, and implement ‘‘tam cong’’ (‘‘winning the hearts’’) diplomacy in relationships with countries around the world. Promote dialogue, cooperation 

and mutual aid in order to bring reciprocal benefits to one and all without 

sacrificing national identity and sovereignty. Apply this policy as basis for 

accelerating economic growth and expanding industrialization on a parallel 

with social progress, in order to catch up and keep pace with the civilized, 

progressive and prosperous democratic nations of the world at the dawn of 

the 21st century’’.

(Translated by the International Buddhist Information Bureau). 

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR TIBET

Photos demonstrating the destruction by Chinese police and army units of meditation huts used also as residences at Larung Gar Budhist encampment near Serthar 

in Kartse Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture. The number of students at Larung Gar 

was forcibly reduced from some 10,000 to 1,400 in the spring and summer of 2001.

58


77695a.eps 77695b.eps
59


77695c.eps 77695d.eps
60

U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR U.S. POLICY ON CHINA

FEBRUARY 13, 2002

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Despite the Chinese government’s signature and/or ratification of several international human rights treaties, and its stated adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it has continued to commit severe violations of freedom of 

religion and belief and to discriminate against individuals on the basis of their religion or belief. The widespread and serious abuses of the right to freedom of religion 

and belief in China are documented by the State Department, this Commission, and 

religious and other nongovernmental organizations. In October 2002, for the third 

straight year, the Secretary of State has concluded that the Chinese government severely and systematically violates freedom of religion and belief, and named China 

as a ‘‘country of particular concern’’ under the International Religious Freedom Act 

of 1998 (IRFA). There are numerous egregious violations against members of many 

of China’s religious and spiritual communities, including Evangelical Christians, 

Roman Catholics, Tibetan Buddhists, Uighur Muslims, and other groups, such as 

the Falun Gong, that the government has labeled ‘‘evil cults.’’

In order to protect freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, the Chinese 

government must take effective steps in the following four critical areas. U.S. policy 

should encourage such steps and effectively respond to whether or not such steps 

are indeed taken. 

(1) Ending the Crackdown 

The Chinese government should end the abusive practices in its current crackdown on religious and spiritual groups throughout China. 

(2) Reforming the Repressive Legal Framework 

The Chinese government should substantially change its system of laws, policies, 

and practices that govern religious and spiritual organizations and activities. It 

should establish an effective mechanism of accountability for alleged violations of 

the human rights of religious believers, and for related abuses, and the right to freedom of religion and belief. 

(3) Affirming the Universality of Religious Freedom and China’s International Obligations 

The Chinese government should fully respect the universality of the right to freedom of religion and belief along with other human rights. The Chinese government 

should also ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). 

The U.S. government should undertake to strengthen scrutiny by international and 


77695e.eps
61

1See infra. explanatory text for recommendations 3.1 for those international human rights 

treaties that China has signed and/or ratified. 

U.S. bodies of China’s human rights practices and the implementation of its international obligations. 

(4) Fostering a Culture of Respect for Human Rights 

In light of its international obligations to ensure and protect human rights, the 

Chinese government should take steps to initiate and foster a culture of respect for 

human rights in China. The Chinese government can be assisted and motivated in 

this effort through U.S. government action in the areas of foreign assistance, public 

diplomacy, securities disclosure requirements, business practices, as well as other 

avenues. 

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Ending the Crackdown 

The Chinese government should end the abusive practices in its current crackdown on religious and spiritual groups throughout China. 

1.1. The U.S. government should urge the Chinese government to: 

(a) Halt the harassment, surveillance, arrest, and detention of persons on 

account of their manifestation of religion or belief; 

(b) End abusive practices such as detention, torture, and ill-treatment in 

prisons, labor camps, psychiatric facilities, and other places of confinement 

against such persons; 

(c) Cease practices that coerce individuals to renounce or condemn any religion or belief; 

(d) Cease discrimination against individuals on the basis of their religion 

or belief, which currently exists in the areas of government benefits, including education, employment, and health care; and 

(e) Provide access to religious persons (including those imprisoned, detained, or under house arrest or surveillance) in all regions of China (including Tibet and Xinjiang) by foreign diplomats, humanitarian organizations, 

and international human rights and religious organizations, as well as the 

U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Despite the Chinese government’s signature and/or ratification of several international human rights treaties, and its stated adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it has continued to repress and discriminate against individuals on the basis of their religion or belief.1 The widespread and serious abuses of 

the right to freedom of religion and belief in China are documented by the State 

Department, this Commission, and religious and other nongovernmental organizations. In October 2002, for the third straight year, the Secretary of State has concluded that the Chinese government severely and systematically violates freedom of 

religion and belief, and named China as a ‘‘country of particular concern’’ under the 

International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA). The most recent State Department report on China concludes that the Chinese government’s ‘‘respect for freedom 

of religion and freedom of conscience worsened’’ during the period of that report 

(July 2000–June 2001). 

The Chinese government’s crackdown on freedom of religion and belief targets 

several groups, including Evangelical Christians, Roman Catholics, Tibetan Buddhists, Uighur Muslims, and other groups, such as the Falun Gong, that the government has labeled ‘‘evil cults.’’ It has resulted in torture and scores of deaths at the 

hands of police and other security officials, as well as surveillance, detention, imprisonment, and other abuses in confinement. As part of its violent repression of the 

Falun Gong, the government has undertaken to ask individuals to condemn Falun 

Gong adherents and renounce that group’s beliefs. The U.S. government should continue to strengthen its efforts to oppose these and other abusive practices that constitute the Chinese government’s crackdown on religious and spiritual believers. 

The Chinese government continues to deny access to religious persons in all parts 

of China by international human rights and religious organizations, humanitarian 

groups, and in many cases, foreign diplomats. As an example, the State Department, in its 2001 International Religious Freedom Report, stated that Chinese authorities ‘‘were increasingly unwilling to allow’’ U.S. diplomatic personnel stationed 

in China to visit Tibet. The Chinese government also continues to deny foreign diplomats and human rights monitors, including UN representatives, access to the boy 

designated by the Dalai Lama to be the 11th Panchen Lama. He has not been seen 

since 1995. The Chinese government has hosted a visit by the UN Special 

Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, and has reportedly invited the UN Special 

62

Rapporteur on Torture to visit China (although the visit has not taken place at the 

time of this report). However, the Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance reported that he was not given the access that he requested, and the Chinese government has failed to implement recommendations made in the Rapporteur’s report. 

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has visited China on several occasions since 1998 and has made several recommendations for human rights reforms. 

Nongovernmental organizations have not been allowed access to investigate reports 

of human rights violations. Finally, since 2000, this Commission has made three formal requests to the Chinese government for permission to visit China. The government has either failed to respond or denied the Commission’s requests. 

1.2. The President of the United States should ensure that efforts to promote 

religious freedom in China are integrated into the mechanisms of dialogue 

and cooperation with the Chinese government at all levels, across all departments of the U.S. government, and on all issues, including security 

and counter-terrorism. 

The U.S.-China bilateral relationship encompasses a broad range of issues, including security matters, counter-terrorism cooperation, and a sizable bilateral economic 

relationship. In 2000, U.S. companies directly invested approximately $4.3 billion in 

China. Total trade between the two nations rose from $4.8 billion in 1980 to $116.4 

billion in 2000, making China the 4th largest U.S. trading partner. Since September 

11, 2001, U.S.-China relations have expanded as the U.S. government welcomed 

Chinese cooperation in the international campaign against terrorism. In October, 

President Bush attended the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit 

meeting in Shanghai and met with Chinese President Jiang Zemin. 

As one of the human rights most abused by the Chinese government, the right 

to freedom of religion and belief must be a part of U.S. initiatives to promote human 

rights in China. The U.S. government has stated that human rights is an issue over 

which there is disagreement with the Chinese government, and President Bush 

raised religious freedom concerns directly with President Jiang Zemin during their 

meeting in October 2001. Following the President’s example, abuses of religious 

freedom, alongside other human rights, should be raised and progress should be reviewed at all levels of interaction on all issues with the Chinese government, including security, counter-terrorism, trade, and investment. Isolating concern for human 

rights from other aspects of the relationship—for example to the bilateral U.S.-

China human rights dialogue—may signal a lack of concern on the part of the U.S. 

government or a false compartmentalization within U.S. foreign policy toward 

China. 

Given the human rights situation of Uighur Muslims in China, it is particularly 

important to raise religious freedom concerns in the context of counter-terrorism cooperation with China. Although the Chinese government claims that Uighurs are 

associated with international terrorism, the State Department has documented serious human rights abuses as part of the crackdown, including religious freedom violations. President Bush in his address to the UN General Assembly in November 

2001 cautioned against using the anti-terrorism campaign ‘‘as an excuse to persecute’’ ethnic minorities. Moreover, in January 2002, in response to a question relating to the Chinese government’s issuance of a report on the alleged terrorist activities of Uighur separatists in Xinjiang, the State Department spokesperson reiterated that while the U.S. government ‘‘oppose[s] terrorist violence in Xinjiang or anywhere else in China . . . we have made clear to Beijing that combating international terrorism is not an excuse to suppress legitimate political expression. Effective counter-terrorism requires a respect for fundamental human rights.’’

1.3. Prior to any state visit by the respective heads of state of the United States 

and the People’s Republic of China, the President of the United States 

should obtain assurances that: (a) freedom of religion and belief will be 

included as a prominent agenda item for his discussions and (b) he be 

given an opportunity to address the Chinese people directly by live, uncensored broadcast in a major speech on fundamental human rights and freedoms, particularly freedom of religion and belief. 

1.4. During any state visit, the President of the United States should take further steps to promote religious freedom in his activities and those of the 

delegation. The Commission should be invited to designate representatives 

to participate in the delegation. 

In February 2002, President Bush will be conducting a state visit to China. The 

Commission recommends that before the President undertakes the visit, he should 

obtain assurances from the Chinese government that freedom of religion and belief 

will be included as a prominent part of the agenda, and that the President will be 

63

2President Bill Clinton, during his 1998 state visit to China, addressed the Chinese people 

directly and freely by live television, discussing democracy, human rights, and other issues in 

three separate venues. 3This recommendation would not apply to government officials who are ‘‘responsible for or directly carried out’’ religious freedom violations. See Recommendation 1.7, infra. 

given an opportunity to directly address the Chinese people about U.S. concerns for 

the protection of freedom of religion and belief in China. These conditions will not 

only demonstrate U.S. resolve on promoting religious freedom in China, but the reaction to them by the Chinese government will be a measure of their commitment 

to a meaningful dialogue on human rights, including religious freedom. 

An important aspect of promoting religious freedom in China is for representatives of the United States to inform the Chinese people why the U.S. government 

is concerned about human rights practices in China. In 1988, President Ronald 

Reagan gave an address to Russian students at Moscow State University during his 

state visit to the former Soviet Union in which he described in detail the commitment of Americans to democracy, freedom of speech and the press, and freedom of 

religion. The address was well received among Russians. 

The Commission urges the President, in his upcoming visit to China, to follow this 

precedent and address the Chinese people directly in similar fashion to express why 

the U.S. government, on behalf of the American people, is concerned with violations 

of internationally recognized human rights, including religious freedom, and why it 

is U.S. policy to oppose such violations anywhere in the world—and not just in 

China. Recalling that Chinese state television essentially censored Secretary of 

State Colin Powell’s remarks during his visit to China in July 2001, the President 

should obtain assurances from the Chinese government that his address would not 

be censored and would be accurately translated into the Chinese language in its entirety.2

In addition to raising religious freedom concerns with Chinese leaders, the President should also personally express his support for renewed U.S.-China human 

rights dialogue and the hope that such dialogue will produce concrete results in the 

protection of religious freedom. He should also invite Chinese officials, religious 

leaders, scholars, and others concerned with religious freedom to visit the United 

States and seek opportunities for American counterparts to visit China.3 Finally, the 

President should invite the Commission and the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom to participate in the presidential delegation as a demonstration of the U.S. government’s concern for promoting religious freedom in 

China. 

1.5. The U.S. government should consistently raise with the Chinese government at the highest levels individual cases of violations of the right to freedom of religion and belief. 

1.6. The U.S. government should instruct the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and 

U.S. consulates in China to continue to monitor the status of individuals 

who are arrested or detained in violation of their human rights. 

As part of its crackdown on religious and spiritual believers, individuals have 

been charged with, or detained under suspicion of, offenses that essentially penalize 

the otherwise harmless manifestation of freedoms of religion or belief, speech, association, or assembly. In addition, prominent religious figures have been detained or 

charged with trumped-up criminal charges (such as rape and other sexual violence, 

or financial crimes). The U.S. government should consistently raise these cases at 

all levels of interaction with the Chinese government. Recent examples include a 

Hong Kong resident, Mr. Li Guangqiang, who was arrested in May 2001 and 

charged with importing Bibles associated with an ‘‘evil cult.’’ The President, the 

State Department, and members of Congress publicly raised concern about this case, 

and Mr. Li’s charges were reduced and he was given a sentence of two years—much 

less than was originally sought—following this public intervention. Mr. Li was apparently released earlier this month. In addition, for reportedly the first time since 

adoption of the 1999 ‘‘evil cult’’ law, a Protestant Christian pastor has been sentenced to death. Pastor Gong Shengliang of the underground ‘‘South China Church’’ was sentenced to death in December for founding an ‘‘evil cult’’ and on reportedly 

questionable charges of assault and sexual violence. 

Other prominent cases include Bishop Su Shimin, who has spent over 20 years 

in prison, and who is perhaps the most prominent leader of China’s underground 

Catholic Church movement. He was re-arrested in October 1997 after spending 17 

months in hiding. Ms. Wang Yulan was arrested, along with 35 Chinese Christians, 

in May 2001 in Inner Mongolia while attending a religious service held at a house. 

Ms. Wang was sentenced to serve three years in a re-education labor camp. Dr. 

64

4 IRFA, § 402(b)(2) (22 U.S.C. 6442(b)(2)). 

Teng Chunyan is a U.S. permanent resident and Falun Gong practitioner who was 

arrested in China in May 2000. She was sentenced to three years in prison on 

charges that she provided state secrets to foreigners while documenting the illegal 

detention and abuse of Falun Gong practitioners in China’s mental hospitals. 

Khenpo Jigme Phuntsok was chief abbot of Serthar Buddhist Institute, or Larung 

Gar, a semiofficial Buddhist academy in Kanze, Sichuan Province. Thousands of his 

followers reportedly were expelled from the academy, following his arrest in June 

2001. Mr. Jalaliddin Abdumanak has been reportedly detained in Urumqi Bajahu 

Prison since June 1995 for engaging in illegal religious activities. 

U.S. diplomatic personnel in China should continue and expand their efforts to 

monitor the status of individuals such as these who have been arrested or detained 

in violation of their human rights, including, where appropriate, by visiting these 

individuals and attending legal proceedings. 

1.7. In its reporting on conditions of religious freedom in China, the State Department should 

(a) articulate regional and local variations in the protection of the right 

to freedom of religion and belief; 

(b) identify specific individuals and/or entities who commit violations of 

this right; and 

(c) consider the record of provincial and local officials in protecting freedom of religion and belief when deciding whether to deepen cultural and 

economic cooperation between the United States and China.

There are significant regional and local variations in the protection of the freedom 

of religion and belief in China. The State Department’s Annual Reports on International Religious Freedom chronicle Chinese government abuses of the freedom of 

religion and belief. The reports, however, would benefit from an analysis of regional 

and local variations in the protection of religious freedom. The State Department 

should also identify government agencies, instrumentalities, and specific individuals 

who are responsible for violations. The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 

(IRFA) requires the identification of parties responsible for particularly severe violations of religious freedom in CPC countries.4 Identification of responsible parties is 

important for several reasons. IRFA explains that designation is to be made in order 

to target appropriately the sanctions imposed under that Act. In addition, developing a list of individual responsible parties is necessary to enforce immigration provisions excluding them from the United States. Section 604 of IRFA provides that 

government officials who are ‘‘responsible for or directly carried out’’ particularly severe violations of religious freedom are ineligible for visas or entry to the United 

States (including spouses and children of the said officials). The State Department 

has in the past committed to identifying responsible parties when reliable information becomes available. The Commission believes that the Department should now 

have such information in at least some cases. Finally, when promoting cultural or 

economic activities in China, the U.S. government should consider the record of provincial and local officials in protecting the freedom of religion and belief. 

2. Reforming the Repressive Legal Framework 

The Chinese government should substantially change its laws, policies, and practices that govern religious and spiritual organizations and activities. It should establish an effective mechanism of accountability for alleged violations of the human 

rights of religious believers, and for related abuses, and the right to freedom of religion and belief. 

2.1. The U.S. government should urge the Chinese government to respect and 

fully implement the freedom for individuals and organizations to engage 

in religious activities outside of state control and free from government interference, in accordance with international human rights standards. This 

freedom must not be limited to the five state-sanctioned religious groups, 

but encompass all groups that are engaged in the manifestation of religion 

or belief. This freedom includes among others—as affirmed in the international instruments to which the Chinese government is a party—the 

human rights: 

1. to worship publicly; 

2. to express and to advocate religious beliefs; 

3. to distribute religious literature; 

4. (for parents) to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions; 

65

5See Religious Affairs Bureau directive governing religious activities of foreigners in China, 

promulgated August 11, 2000. 6See UN Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based 

on Religion or Belief, arts. 6(f) and (i). 7See e.g. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 29; UN Declaration on the Elimination 

of all Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, art. 1(3). 

5. (for religious groups) to govern themselves according to their own rules, 

including: 

a. to select and train their leaders; 

b. to define and teach the beliefs and doctrines to which they adhere; 

c. to solicit and receive voluntary financial and other contributions; 

d. to establish and maintain associations for religious and spiritual 

purposes; and 

e. to freely establish and maintain communications with individuals 

and communities—both inside and outside China—in matters of religion and belief.

The Chinese government has a policy to control religion and the activities of religious groups to ensure that religious believers and their activities do not interfere 

with the authority and policies of the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese Socialism. In order to enforce this policy, the Chinese government maintains a framework 

of laws, regulations, and practices that organize the relationship between religious 

communities and the state and that set out the boundaries of ‘‘legal’’ and ‘‘illegal’’

religious activities in China. Important aspects of this framework are laws that 

allow for the banning of so-called ‘‘evil cults,’’ and those that require groups to register with the government in order to conduct religious activities. This system not 

only provides legal cover for the crackdown on religious and spiritual groups and 

their members described above, but also substantially constricts the ability of all religious communities in China—whether or not they are recognized or registered 

with the government—to manifest religion or belief. Other aspects, such as excluding religious believers from membership in the Communist Party (and the access 

to employment, education, health care, and other services that such membership 

brings), constitute discrimination on the basis of religion or belief. 

In several important ways, these restrictions violate the right to freedom of religion and belief (as set forth in international human rights instruments such as the 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights) in that they prevent groups from undertaking basic activities such as worship and other expressions of religious beliefs, and 

education. They also prevent groups from organizing and operating according to 

their own religious principles, including the training and selection of leaders. The 

Chinese government has essentially decided that it should be the judge of the correctness of what are essentially the theological decisions of religious groups. Restrictions also prevent parents from providing for the religious and moral education of 

their children in conformity with their convictions. 

One prominent feature of Chinese control of religious and spiritual activities is 

the heavy restrictions placed on foreigners in China. A Religious Affairs Bureau Directive of August 2000 (updating State Council Regulation No. 144 from 1994) prohibits foreigners from ‘‘interfering’’ with religious activities in China, including prohibitions on establishing places of worship, conducting religious education, and 

being involved with the appointment of clergy or any other internal decisions of a 

religious group.5 The application of these prohibitions contravene specific provisions 

in the 1981 UN Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief that guarantee the freedom of religious 

groups to receive financial and other contributions and otherwise communicate or 

interact with coreligionists abroad.6

Under international human rights standards, a government can restrict the freedom to manifest religion or belief, but only in ways that are directly proportionate 

to the actual need to promote specific interests, such as the protection of public 

order, safety, health, and the rights and freedoms of others.7 Chinese restrictions 

on religious freedom go well beyond these permissible limitations. The U.S. government should urge the Chinese government to bring its laws and practices into conformity with international standards on the freedom of religion and belief, and in 

particular to eliminate facets of state control and undue government interference 

with religious groups and the conduct of religious activities. 

66

8 UN Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on 

Religion or Belief, art. 6(b). 

2.2. The U.S. government should urge the Chinese government to establish a 

mechanism for reviewing cases of persons detained under suspicion of, or 

charged with, offenses relating to state security, disturbing social order, 

‘‘counterrevolutionary’’ or ‘‘splittist’’ activities, or organizing or participating in ‘‘illegal’’ gatherings or religious activities. This mechanism 

should also review cases of detained or imprisoned religious leaders (many 

of whom have been charged with specious criminal offenses). 

2.3. The U.S. government should urge the Chinese government to drop charges 

against, and/or to release persons from imprisonment, detention, house 

arrest, or surveillance who are so restricted, on account of their manifestation of religion or belief, as well as any others, who in contravention of 

international human rights standards, have been detained or sentenced 

unjustly. 

An untold number of individuals in China have been detained, imprisoned, or otherwise limited in their movements or subjected to surveillance because they manifest their religion or belief. Many religious leaders and members of ‘‘illegal’’ religious 

groups in China have been subjected to multiple instances of detention and harassment, forcing them to be constantly in hiding to evade the Chinese authorities. As 

described above, these individuals include those who have been charged with, or detained under suspicion of, offenses that penalize the manifestation of religion or belief, as well as individuals that have been charged with criminal offenses for the 

purpose of harassing those individuals. In order to take meaningful steps to protect 

the right to freedom of religion and belief, the U.S. government should urge the Chinese government to review these individual cases, and individuals who have been 

either improperly charged or unjustly confined should be released or have such 

charges removed, as appropriate. 

2.4. The U.S. government should urge the Chinese government to allow both 

faith-based and secular nongovernmental organizations formally to establish and maintain institutions to provide humanitarian and social services in China. 

The State Department’s 2001 International Religious Freedom Report states that 

both Christian and Buddhist groups have worked with local officials in China to operate schools, orphanages, and other social service programs. In these cases, both 

foreign and domestic groups have been permitted to operate as long as they agree 

not to engage in proselytism as part of the programs. Moreover, many of the groups 

associated with these institutions are not officially registered, leaving them (and the 

institutions) in a tenuous legal position. The U.S. government should emphasize to 

the Chinese government the positive contribution that religious and secular nongovernmental organizations can make to Chinese society, and urge that such groups 

be permitted to freely establish and maintain institutions to provide humanitarian 

and social services. This freedom is explicitly mentioned in the 1981 UN Declaration 

on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion 

or Belief.8

3. Affirming the Universality of Religious Freedom and China’s International Obligations 

The Chinese government should fully respect the universality of the right to freedom of religion and belief along with other human rights. The Chinese government 

should also ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). 

The U.S. government should undertake to strengthen scrutiny by international and 

U.S. bodies of China’s human rights practices and the implementation of its international obligations. 

3.1. The U.S. government should urge the Chinese government to: 

(a) Reaffirm its commitment to the protection of the internationally recognized right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief; 

(b) Ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 

(ICCPR); and 

(c) Abide by its international commitments and recognize as refugees 

North Koreans who have fled that country and who meet international criteria.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1981 United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based 

67

9 According to the State Department, China and North Korea have a treaty that requires the 

Chinese authorities to repatriate all North Koreans who enter China illegally. The Chinese government has enforced this treaty only sporadically, but has significantly increased forced repatriation of the North Koreans since 2000. 

on Religion or Belief proclaim the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, which includes the freedom ‘‘either individually or in community with others 

and in public or private, to manifest . . . religion or belief in worship, observance, 

practice or teaching.’’ Since the 1980s, the Chinese government has ratified a number of international human rights treaties that contain binding obligations to protect 

the freedom of religion and belief: the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms 

of Discrimination against Women (ratified in 1980); the International Convention on 

the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ratified in 1981); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified in 1992); and the International Covenant 

on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ratified in 2001). Although China signed 

the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1998, it has yet 

to ratify it. 

The Chinese government has on several occasions publicly stated its adherence 

to international human rights standards that guarantee the freedom of thought, 

conscience, religion, and belief. Notably, in 1997, on the occasion of Chinese President Jiang Zemin’s state visit to the United States, the two governments issued a 

joint statement recognizing ‘‘the positive role of the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights and other international human rights instruments’’ and reiterating ‘‘their 

commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.’’ Systematic, egregious violations of the right to freedom of religion and belief by 

the Chinese government breaches its commitment to protect human rights and 

abide by its international obligations to do so. The U.S. government should urge the 

Chinese government to reaffirm to the Chinese people, along with the international 

community, its commitment to protecting human rights as set forth in international 

instruments, including the right to freedom of religion and belief. One important 

concrete step China can take is to ratify the ICCPR and uphold its commitments 

on the other human rights treaties. 

Concerning refugees, China is a party to both the 1951 Convention Relating to 

the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol to that convention. Under these treaties, China has committed to not expel or return refugees to a country where their 

life or freedom would be threatened on account of their religion or other status. The 

1967 Protocol commits China to cooperate with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). 

Between 30,000 and 300,000 North Koreans are now in China who have fled to 

escape the dire conditions in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), including the denial of religious freedom in that country, along with other human 

rights. Since 2000, many North Koreans in China have been forcibly repatriated.9

Moreover, the Chinese government does not grant refugee status to fleeing North 

Koreans who would meet international criteria for that status. Nor does it currently 

allow the UNHCR to operate in the border region to conduct interviews to assess 

refugee status or to provide services to refugees and arrange for orderly transit to 

other countries that would be willing to resettle such persons. 

The U.S. government should urge the Chinese government, in accordance with its 

international commitments, to recognize as refugees those North Koreans who have 

fled the DPRK and who meet international criteria as refugees. In addition, the U.S. 

should urge the Chinese government not to permit forcible repatriation of North Korean refugees. 

3.2. The U.S. government should take steps to ensure that the annual U.S.-

China human rights dialogue involves high-level officials and, along with 

consideration of other human rights, serves as a forum to (a) communicate 

U.S. concerns about the protection of freedom of religion and belief in 

China, (b) review the requirements of international human rights standards regarding the right to freedom of religion and belief, and (c) establish 

measurable goals and practical steps for improvement. 

In October 2001, the U.S.-China annual bilateral human rights dialogue was resumed after a hiatus of over two years. While the resumption of the dialogue is a 

welcome step, its usefulness as a mechanism to promote respect for human rights 

will be measured by concrete results. The Commission met in Washington with the 

Chinese delegation to the dialogue, and they appeared to view the dialogue as an 

end in itself, rather than a means to specific steps to improve the protection of 

human rights. In this regard, the parties should establish measurable goals and set 

68

out practical steps that should be taken to reach those goals. Steps along the lines 

of those articulated in recommendations 1.1 and 2.1 above could be used as benchmarks for improvement in respect for the right to freedom of religion and belief. The 

U.S. government should also—as means to establish goals and benchmarks for improvement—negotiate a binding agreement within the context of the dialogue and 

as authorized under section 405(c) of (IRFA). 

In addition to concerns being raised by the State Department in the formal sessions of the dialogue, religious freedom issues were also discussed with the Chinese 

delegation to the bilateral dialogue during a meeting with the Commission in October. The Department should continue to consider ways within the context of the dialogue—in addition to its formal sessions—that religious freedom can be addressed 

and improved. If the dialogue is successful in establishing measurable and practical 

steps, the Commission should continue to participate. 

3.3. Until China significantly improves its protection of freedom of religion 

and belief, the U.S. government should propose and promote a resolution 

to censure China at the annual meeting of the UN Commission on Human 

Rights and engage in sustained efforts to enlist the support of other governments at the highest levels to both vote for and advocate such a resolution. 

In the last decade, the U.S. has played a leading role in sponsoring and lobbying 

for resolutions criticizing China’s human rights practices at the annual sessions of 

the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). In 1995, the U.S. and other members of the UNCHR, for the first time, succeeded in defeating a Chinese procedural 

motion to take ‘‘no action’’ on a resolution, and thus brought to a vote on substantive 

issues a resolution censuring China, which was defeated by a single vote. As before, 

China has continued to lobby intensively and successfully against such resolutions. 

During the 2001 session, the U.S. again sponsored a resolution, but the Commission 

voted 23–17 (with 12 abstentions) in favor of China’s ‘‘no action’’ motion on the resolution, thereby ensuring that the resolution would not be discussed or voted upon. 

Although the U.S. will not be a member during the 2002 UNCHR session, it should 

continue its leadership on this issue by proposing and promoting a resolution to censure China at the session, and it should engage in sustained efforts to enlist the 

support of other governments at the highest levels to both vote for and advocate 

such a resolution. 

3.4. The U.S. government, at the highest levels, should urge foreign governments and appropriate international entities (such as the European 

Union) to join the United States in a common policy that vigorously promotes the freedom of religion and belief in China along with other human 

rights. The components of such a policy should include monitoring human 

rights and a dialogue with the Chinese government that incorporates specific benchmarks. 

Several foreign governments, along with the European Union (EU), have expressed concern about human rights in China, including religious freedom. For example, the EU has established a dialogue with the Chinese government on human 

rights. The U.S. should make promotion of human rights in China—through both 

bilateral and multilateral means—a feature of its discussions with interested foreign 

governments and the EU and encourage them to join in a common policy with the 

U.S. to promote vigorously the freedom of religion and belief, along with other 

human rights. 

3.5. The U.S. government should endeavor to establish an official U.S. government presence, such as a consulate, in Lhasa, Tibet and Urumqi, Xinjiang 

in order to monitor religious freedom and other human rights. 

As noted above, the Chinese government has at times restricted access of U.S. 

diplomats to both Tibet and Xinjiang province. This lack of access has hindered the 

ability of U.S. diplomats to monitor and investigate reports of serious human rights 

abuses in those regions. Both Houses of Congress have passed provisions in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 calling on the State 

Department to use its best efforts to establish an official presence in Lhasa, Tibet. 

The Commission believes that it is important for the U.S. government to establish 

an official presence in both Tibet and Xinjiang in order to engage in consistent monitoring of the conditions of religious freedom and other human rights in those parts 

of China. 

69

3.6. The U.S. Congress should continue to engage in and expand its ongoing 

review of human rights practices in China jointly with the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The U.S. Congress should also 

extend an invitation to the Dalai Lama to address a Joint Session of the 

Congress. 

The U.S. Congress, through the offices of its members as well as its formal and 

informal bodies (including the House International Relations Subcommittee on 

International Operations and Human Rights and the Congressional Human Rights 

Caucus), has taken the lead in spotlighting human rights abuses committed by the 

Chinese government. One important occasion for such scrutiny was the annual review of China’s trade status, which was discontinued with the advent of Permanent 

Normal Trade Relations for that country. The Commission urges the Congress to 

continue to engage in and expand its ongoing review of human rights violations in 

China, and it welcomes the opportunity to work closely with the Congress to ensure 

a consistent monitoring of the conditions of religious freedom in China. The Commission also urges the Congress—as a reflection of its ongoing commitment to reviewing the status of human rights in China—to invite the Dalai Lama, as the leader of Tibetans around the world, to address a Joint Session of the Congress. 

4. Fostering a Culture of Respect for Human Rights 

In light of its international obligations to ensure and protect human rights, the 

Chinese government should take steps to initiate and foster a culture of respect for 

human rights in China. The Chinese government can be assisted and motivated in 

this effort through U.S. government action in the areas of foreign assistance, public 

diplomacy, securities disclosure requirements, business practices, as well as other 

avenues. 

4.1. In its promotion of religious freedom, the U.S. government should resolutely oppose other human rights violations in China that are closely connected to violations of religious freedom. Such violations include, among 

others, torture; unlawful arrest or detention; arbitrary executions; absence 

of due process and discriminatory treatment under the criminal procedure 

code (including the lack of access to family members, human rights monitors, adequate medical care, and a lawyer); and violations of the rights 

of freedom of expression (including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information), freedom of association, and peaceful assembly. 

The U.S. government should urge the Chinese government to abide by its international obligations and ensure that the basic human rights of religious believers 

are not violated. In order to ensure protection of religious freedom in China, improvements must be made in the protection of many basic rights. As discussed 

above, violations of the right to freedom of religion and belief in China are closely 

related to violations of other rights. To ensure a comprehensive approach to promoting religious freedom, the U.S. government should resolutely oppose these other 

human rights violations. Such actions also emphasize the interrelatedness of religious freedom to other human rights. 

4.2. The U.S. government should, through its foreign assistance, visitor exchanges, and other public diplomacy programs, expand its efforts to promote and protect human rights, including freedom of religion and belief, 

in China through supporting and, as appropriate, funding: 

(a) individuals and organizations in China that are advocating respect for 

China’s international human rights obligations, including freedom of religion and belief; 

(b) exchanges between Chinese (including Tibetan and other ethnic minorities) and U.S. scholars, experts, representatives of religious communities and 

nongovernmental organizations, and appropriate officials (both at the central and local levels) regarding the relationship between religion and the 

state, the role of religion in society, international standards relating to the 

right to freedom of religion and belief, and the importance and benefits of 

upholding human rights protection, including religious freedom; and 

(c) the efforts of those both inside and outside China to promote the rule 

of law, legal reform, and democracy in China.

Despite the critics who claim that the United States is already giving China a 

‘‘free pass’’ on employing repressive human rights measures in exchange for its cooperation in the war against terrorism, the U.S. government must not encourage or 

acquiesce in such a trade-off. The State Department is currently planning the expansion of its foreign assistance programs for the promotion of democracy and the 

rule of law in China, including Tibet and Xinjiang. U.S.-assisted rule of law and 

70

10This recommendation would not apply to government officials who are ‘‘responsible for or 

directly carried out’’ religious freedom violations. See Recommendation 1.7, supra. 

legal reform programs are not currently focused on promoting human rights, but 

many believe that these programs are helping to create structures and promote 

practices within the Chinese legal system that will be consistent with, and perhaps 

in the future supportive of, the protection of human rights. The Chinese government 

has prevented these programs from including democracy or human rights components. 

The U.S. government should continue and expand its efforts to promote legal reform and rule of law in China. At the same time, however, the U.S. should also be 

seeking ways to support, with funding if appropriate, those groups and individuals 

both inside and outside of China that are concerned with promoting democracy and 

protecting human rights. One goal of these programs should be to raise the awareness of such groups and individuals of the importance of the protection of the right 

to freedom of religion and belief as a necessary component of the overall protection 

of human rights in China. The U.S. government should also be seeking expanded 

opportunities to bring to the United States Chinese citizens (including persons belonging to religious and ethnic minorities) concerned about human rights, as well 

as Chinese officials with responsibility for the protection of human rights.10 Topics 

for such exchanges should include the role of religion in American society; the importance of the protection of religious freedom, along with other human rights, to 

the American people; and international standards relating to the right to freedom 

of religion and belief. Opportunities should also be sought for Americans to travel 

to China to speak about these issues and learn more about the views of the Chinese 

people on topics related to human rights, including religious freedom. 

4.3. The U.S. government should seek expanded opportunities to speak frankly 

and directly to the Chinese people to express why the U.S. government, on 

behalf of the American people, is concerned with violations of internationally recognized human rights, including freedom of religion or belief. 

The U.S. government should expand its public diplomacy efforts in China and 

seek every opportunity to explain directly to the Chinese people why it is U.S. policy 

to oppose violations of religious freedom and other human rights anywhere in the 

world—and not just in China. In explaining that policy, core American values—such 

as tolerance, openness, meritocracy, civil activism, and democracy—must routinely 

be highlighted. In this regard, the U.S. should continue to support Radio Free Asia 

(RFA) and Voice of America (VOA) broadcasts throughout China, including in Tibet 

and Xinjiang, and take steps to overcome jamming of such broadcasts. The U.S. government should also seek other avenues of communication, such as encouraging use 

of the internet by the Chinese people and, as noted above in recommendation 1.3, 

uncensored appearances in the Chinese media by U.S. officials. A guiding principle 

with regard to U.S. public diplomacy efforts should be reciprocal access, i.e. that 

U.S.-supported broadcasting is accorded the extent and avenues of access in China 

as are available to the Chinese government in the United States. For example, the 

official Chinese Central Television company has an ongoing and expanding presence 

in the U.S. market. Similar presence in China should be granted to U.S. broadcasting companies, including RFA and VOA. 

4.4. The U.S. government should prohibit U.S. companies doing business in 

China from engaging in practices that would constitute or facilitate violations of religious freedom or discrimination on the basis of religion or belief. 

The Commission is concerned over reports that the Chinese government, in its efforts to crack down on ‘‘evil cults’’ and ‘‘illegal’’ religious organizations and activities, 

has pressured foreign companies operating in China (including at least one American company) to monitor and disclose the religious or spiritual activities or affiliations of their Chinese employees. The U.S. government should respond firmly and 

vigorously to protest such Chinese practices and to prohibit U.S. companies who are 

operating in China from engaging in practices that would constitute or facilitate violations of religious freedom. Such prohibitions might include requiring U.S. companies to refrain from inquiring into or disclosing to the Chinese government the religious or spiritual activities or affiliations of any of their employees. 

71

11See Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, May 1, 

2001, 155–167. 

4.5. The United States should require any U.S. or foreign issuer of securities 

that is doing business in China to disclose in any registration statement 

filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for any 

new offering of securities the following information: 

(a) the nature and extent of the business that it and its affiliates are conducting, (i) including any plans for expansion or diversification and any 

business relationships with agencies or instrumentalities of the Chinese government and (ii) specifying the identity of such agencies or instrumentalities; 

(b) whether it plans to use the proceeds of the sale of the securities in connection with its business in China and, if so, how; and 

(c) all significant risk factors associated with doing business in China, including, but not limited to: (i) political, economic and social conditions inside China, including the policies and practices of the Chinese government 

with respect to religious freedom; (ii) the extent to which the business of the 

issuer and its affiliates directly or indirectly supports or facilitates those 

policies and practices; and (iii) the potential for and likely impact of a campaign by U.S. persons based on human rights concerns to prevent the purchase or retention of securities of the issuer, including a divestment campaign or shareholder lawsuit.

The United States should require any issuer that is doing business in China to disclose the information specified in items (a) and (c) above in its filings with the SEC, 

including its annual proxy statement or annual report, in the case of a U.S. issuer, 

or its U.S. markets annual report, in the case of a foreign issuer. 

As the Commission reported in its May 2001 annual report, there is a significant, 

undesirable gap in U.S. law regarding China and other ‘‘countries of particular concern’’ under IRFA (i.e. egregious religious-freedom violators): In some cases, companies that are doing business in China can sell securities on U.S. markets without 

having to disclose fully (1) the details of the particular business activities in China, 

including plans for expansion or diversification; (2) the identity of all agencies of the 

Chinese government with which the companies are doing business; (3) the relationship of the business activities to violations of religious freedom and other human 

rights in China; or (4) the contribution that the proceeds raised in the U.S. debt 

and equity markets will make to these business activities and hence, potentially to 

those violations.11 Across-the-board full disclosure of these details would prompt corporate managers to work to prevent their companies from supporting or facilitating 

these violations. It also would aid (a) U.S. investors in deciding whether to purchase 

the securities; (b) shareholders in exercising their ownership rights (including proposing shareholder resolutions for annual meetings and proxy statements); and (c) 

U.S. policymakers in formulating sound policy with respect to China and U.S. capital markets. The Commission recommends that the United States require such disclosure. The Commission has recommended that this level of disclosure be required 

for all companies doing business in CPCs, and therefore this requirement would also 

apply to those Chinese companies that are doing business in Sudan and issuing or 

listing securities in the United States. In May 2001, the SEC announced that it 

would seek disclosure of some of the information described above for companies 

doing business in countries subject to sanctions administered by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control. Because China is not subject to OFAC 

sanctions, this initiative would not apply to companies because of their business activities in China. 

4.6. The U.S. government should raise the profile of conditions of Uighur Muslims by addressing religious-freedom and human rights concerns in bilateral talks, by increasing the number of educational opportunities in the 

United States available to Uighurs, and by increasing radio broadcasts in 

the Uighur language. 

The deteriorating conditions of the human rights, including religious freedom, of 

Uighur Muslims over the last year, especially since the attacks in the U.S. of September 11, makes it particularly important for the U.S. government to document 

these abuses and raise concerns about these abuses with the Chinese government. 

Moreover, the Commission continues to recommend that the U.S. government increase the opportunities for Uighurs to participate in educational and cultural exchanges in the United States. As part of its efforts to reach Chinese audiences, U.S. 

sponsored radio broadcasts in the Uighur language should be increased. 

72

12The increase in religious practice in Vietnam has coincided with a loosening of government 

restrictions over social life in Vietnam. 13 Associated Press, ‘‘Vietnam detains Catholic priest for testimony against U.S. trade pact,’’

March 5, 2001; Steve Kirby, ‘‘Vietnam punishes priest who dared to speak out to US freedoms 

panel,’’ Agence France Presse, March 4, 2001. 14 Information pertaining to ethnic and religious demography is based on the following 

sources: Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2000, Washington, D.C., 2000; House 

Committee on International Relations and Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Annual Report on International Religious Freedom 2000, report prepared by U.S. Department of State. 

UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM—MAY 2001 

ANNUAL REPORT

XI. VIETNAM

A. Introduction 

Despite a marked increase in religious practice among the Vietnamese people in 

the last 10 years, the Vietnamese government continues to suppress organized religious activities forcefully and to monitor and control religious communities.12 The 

government prohibits religious activity by those not affiliated with one of the six officially recognized religious organizations. Individuals have been detained, fined, imprisoned, and kept under close surveillance by security forces for engaging in ‘‘illegal’’ religious activities. In addition, the government uses the recognition process to 

monitor and control officially sanctioned religious groups: restricting the procurement and distribution of religious literature, controlling religious training, and 

interfering with the selection of religious leaders. 

There have been significant developments in U.S. policy toward Vietnam in the 

past year. In July 2000, after a one-year delay by the Vietnamese government, the 

United States and Vietnam signed a Bilateral Trade Agreement, which, if ratified 

by the U.S. Congress, would pave the way for the granting of conditional normal 

trade relations status to Vietnam. In November 2000, President Clinton visited Vietnam, marking the first visit to that country by a U.S. president in more than 30 

years. 

In February 2001, the Commission held a public hearing in Washington, D.C., on 

religious freedom and U.S. policy in Vietnam. The Commission heard testimony 

from representatives of a number of Vietnamese religious communities, as well as 

experts on Vietnam and its relations with the United States. In addition, the Commission and its staff have met with representatives of the Vietnamese government, 

Vietnamese religious communities, and human rights organizations with expertise 

in Vietnam (including Vietnamese-American organizations), as well as academic experts and U.S. government officials. It has also solicited information from organizations and individuals that were unable to meet with the Commission or its staff. 

Moreover, at the invitation of Ambassador Dinh Thi Minh Huyen, Director of the 

International Organizations Department at the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry, the 

Commission made a formal request in November 2000 to visit Vietnam. Although 

the Vietnamese government has ‘‘welcomed’’ the Commission’s visit, it has informed 

the Commission that such a visit should be hosted by Vietnam’s Commission on Religious Affairs, which would be unable to accommodate the Commission until at 

least May 2001. This fact has prevented the Commission from traveling to Vietnam 

prior to the release of this report. 

The Commission invited Father Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly, a Roman Catholic 

priest based near Hue, Vietnam, to testify at its February hearing and Fr. Ly submitted written testimony. Fr. Ly has been persistently critical of the Vietnamese 

government’s failure to protect religious freedom—activity that led to his imprisonment for close to a decade. On March 5, 2001, the Vietnamese official media confirmed that the government placed Fr. Ly under administrative detention (i.e. house 

arrest) for ‘‘publicly slandering’’ the Vietnamese Communist Party and ‘‘distorting’’

the government’s policy on religion.13 The Commission remains deeply concerned 

that the Vietnamese government may be punishing Fr. Ly for his response to the 

Commission’s invitation. The action of the Vietnamese government is clearly a demonstration of the government’s continued suppression, not only of religious freedom, 

but of other fundamental human rights as well. Moreover, the Commission believes 

that the United States has the moral responsibility to support and protect those Vietnamese citizens, including Fr. Ly, who have the courage to speak to us in the pursuit of the realization of fundamental human rights. 

B. Religious Demography 

Vietnam is the world’s 13th most populous country, with a population of nearly 

80 million people.14 The oldest and largest religion is Buddhism, and approximately 

73

106th Cong., 2d sess., 2000, Joint Committee Print, 231–233; Amnesty International, Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Religious Intolerance—Recent Arrests of Buddhists, January 2, 2001; Embassy of Vietnam, Some Facts on Religious Freedom in Vietnam, Washington, D.C., February 

2001; Kevin Boyle and Juliet Sheen, ed., Freedom of Religion and Belief—A World Report, (1997). 15 According to the State Department, an estimated 130,000 Baha’i followers resided in Vietnam prior to 1975. 2000 Religious Freedom Report, ‘‘Vietnam,’’ 233. 16 Vietnam Constitution, art. 70. 17 Vietnam Constitution, art. 4, 9. 18 Vietnam Constitution, art. 3. 19Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Decree of the Government Concerning Religious Activities 

(April 19, 1999), trans. Stephen Denney. [Translated from Vietnamese to French by Eglise 

D’Asie.]

20 Ibid., art. 14. 21 Ibid., art. 20, 21. 

50 percent of Vietnamese are Buddhists. The Roman Catholic Church in Vietnam 

has a following of approximately 6 million people. The Cao Dai and the Hoa Hao 

Buddhists are two indigenous religious communities, each of which has from 1 to 

3 million adherents. The Cao Dai religion was formally organized in the 1920s and 

its religious center is located in Tay Ninh province in southern Vietnam. It is syncretic in nature, combining elements of Catholicism, Buddhism, Taoism, and the traditional worship of spirits and ancestors. The Hoa Hao religion is considered by 

many of its followers as a ‘‘reformed’’ branch of Buddhism. Huynh Phu So founded 

the religion in 1939 at Hoa Hao Village in the southern province of An Giang, and 

most Hoa Haos continue to live in that region of the Mekong River Delta. The Hoa 

Hao religion does not have priests, builds few temples, and eschews many of the 

ceremonial aspects of other Buddhist traditions. Protestants in Vietnam reportedly 

number approximately 700,000 to 800,000. About two-thirds of the Protestant population are members of ethnic minority groups, including the Montagnards in the 

Central Highlands and the Hmong in the northwestern provinces. By all accounts, 

the number of Protestants in the country has grown substantially in recent years. 

There is also a small, primarily Sunni, Muslim population estimated at 50,000 persons spread throughout Vietnam. Finally, there are between several hundred and 

2,000 Vietnamese Baha’i followers, who are largely concentrated in the south.15

C. Religious Freedom 

1. Legal Framework 

The Constitution of Vietnam provides for the freedom of religion and belief for 

citizens of the country.16 However, the Constitution also permits restrictions on 

these freedoms in furtherance of vaguely defined interests of the state and the Vietnamese Communist Party (VCP). The Constitution guarantees that all aspects of 

the polity and society are controlled by the VCP (‘‘the vanguard of the Vietnamese 

working class’’ and the ‘‘faithful representative’’ of the whole nation) and the Fatherland Front (the umbrella organization of non-communist elements, which along with 

its member organizations ‘‘constitute the political base of people’s powers’’).17 Several constitutional provisions also allow the government to punish ‘‘severely’’ all acts 

that violate the undefined ‘‘interests of the motherland and the people.’’ 18

In April 1999, the Vietnamese government issued a Decree Concerning Religious 

Activities (1999 Religion Decree), which establishes the basic legal framework within which religious activities take place and codifies state control over religious organizations. The 1999 Religion Decree defines the extent of the Vietnamese government’s control of religious communities and activities. Article 5 states:

All activities which threaten freedom of religious belief, all activities using religious belief in order to oppose the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 

to prevent the believers from carrying out their civic responsibilities, to sabotage the union of all the people, to go against the healthy culture of our nation, 

as well as superstitious activities, will be punished in conformity with the law.19

The decree stipulates that religious organizations must be registered with the 

state and religious activities must be approved by the relevant levels of government, 

including, in some cases, the prime minister. For example, the ‘‘printing and dissemination,’’ and ‘‘the production, the commercialization, and the export and import’’

of religious products and literature ‘‘must be submitted to the regulation of the 

State.’’ 20 The government must also approve the nomination, ordination, and the 

transfer of clergy and lay ‘‘specialists.’’ 21 Furthermore, religious organizations and 

officials must report, and obtain when necessary the authorization of the Bureau of 

Religious Affairs for, their interactions with foreign organizations and individuals, 

74

22 Ibid., art. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. 23 Ibid., art. 11, sec. 3 states, ‘‘The buildings, land and other items transmitted by these organizations or by religious officials to the organs of the State for it to manage and use, in application of the political line of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, of the Provisional Revolutionary 

Government of South Vietnam, or of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, or given or offered to 

the State, are now the property of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.’’ 24 UN Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, Civil and Political Rights, Including the 

Question of Religious Intolerance, E/CN.4/1999/58/Add.2, December 29, 1998, ¶ 17, 18, 19. [Government Decree CP/31.] 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. 27 Vo Van Ai, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Hearing on Vietnam, February 13, 2001, 26; Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Projet d’une Ordonnace sur la Religion (2000), trans. International Buddhist Information Bureau (2000). 28 Ibid. 29The Rev. John Tran Cong Nghi, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, 

Hearing on Vietnam, February 13, 2001, 44. 30 In the 1940s, from their base in southern Vietnam, the Hoa Hao Buddhists actively participated as a key group in the fight for independence from the French. However, the relationship 

between the Hoa Haos and the Vietnamese Communists was strained when the Communists 

reportedly attacked Hoa Haos without provocation in 1945. In 1947, the Communists reportedly 

killed Huynh Phu So, the founder of the religion, when he attended a meeting of the Vietnamese 

pro-independence forces convened by the Communists. Nguyen Long Thanh Nam, ‘‘Hoa Hao 

Buddhism, A Revolutionary Religion,’’ 1987 (E-mail message received December 13, 2000). 31Zachary Abuza, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Hearing on Vietnam

(written testimony), February 13, 2001, 5.

and their activities abroad.22 Finally, the decree essentially ensures that the Vietnamese government need not return confiscated religious properties to their original 

owners.23

In addition to the 1999 Religion Decree, the government decree on administrative 

detention is frequently used to detain and harass religious believers for unofficial 

religious activities.24 This decree permits the use of administrative detention without trial for six months to two years as a means to punish those who contravene 

national security.25 Activities that contravene national security are further defined 

in the Vietnamese Criminal Code to include activities seeking to overthrow the 

Communist government and attempts to undermine national unity, such as promoting division between religious believers and nonbelievers.26

The Vietnamese government’s Religious Affairs Bureau is reportedly preparing a 

new ordinance on religion for consideration by the National Assembly.27 The draft 

law apparently contains provisions similar to the 1999 Religion Decree. One addition in the proposed ordinance is that religious organizations may apply for recognition by the state. However, the proposed definition of a religious organization—‘‘an organization founded with a religious objective, endowed with a Charter in conformity with state law and a leadership approved by the State’’—essentially precludes the recognition of religious organizations that are not controlled by the government.28

2. State Control of Religious Activities 

In Vietnam, as one witness before the Commission testified, ‘‘there is no freedom 

of religion, because the freedom of religion is controlled by the governmental authorities at all levels.’’ 29 The preconditions of official recognition constitute the primary mechanism for this pervasive state control of religious communities and activities. The utilization of this mechanism as a means of control reportedly stems from 

the Vietnamese Communist Party’s fear, due in part to historical factors, that independent, organized religions and religious communities could serve as alternative 

bases of loyalty, social organization, and political power.30 Hence, religion ‘‘is controlled by its incorporation as an organ of state and by denying it any autonomy.’’ 31

a. Officially recognized religious groups

The Vietnamese government officially recognizes Buddhist, Roman Catholic, 

Protestant, Cao Dai, Hoa Hao, and Muslim religious organizations. The recognized 

Buddhist, Cao Dai, and Hoa Hao religious organizations were created and are operated by the government. The official Buddhist organization, the Vietnamese Buddhist Church, was created by the government in 1981 to put into place an officially 

controlled Buddhist organization that would subsume the popular Unified Buddhist 

Church of Vietnam (UBCV), which has been effectively banned since that time. Hoa 

Hao organizations were dissolved after the fall of Saigon in 1975, and no Hoa Hao 

institution was recognized by the state until 1999. At that time, the government created the Committee of Hoa Hao Representatives (CHHR). This organization is made 

up almost entirely of Communist Party members and apparently is not recognized 

75

32Sergei Blagov, The Cao Dai: A New Religious Movement (1999), 130–151. 33 2000 Religious Freedom Report, ‘‘Vietnam,’’ 237. 34 Ibid. 35 Hum D. Bui, written statement submitted to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, March 9, 2001. Blagov, The Cao Dai, 130–151. 36 Blagov, The Cao Dai, 132. 37The Rev. Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly, written testimony submitted to the U.S. Commission 

on International Religious Freedom, Hearing on Vietnam, February 13, 2001, 2–4. 38David Brunnstrom, ‘‘Hanoi recognizes southern protestant church branch,’’ Reuters, April 3, 

2001. 39 USCIRF Interview with Protestant representative, December 6, 2000; Reuters, ‘‘Vietnam 

Protestants gather for historic conference,’’ February 7, 2001; Reuters, ‘‘Vietnam Protestants to 

pass ‘conforming’ chapter,’’ February 8, 2001. 40 Vo Van Ai, Hearing on Vietnam (written testimony), 12. 

as legitimate by the vast majority of Hoa Haos. Nevertheless, the CHHR has sought 

to control all Hoa Hao religious activity, particularly at the Hoa Hao village, which 

is the center of Hoa Hao religious life. 

Although the government has recognized some Cao Dai denominations, the large 

majority of Cao Dai organizations and their followers reportedly are opposed to the 

government-appointed committee that manages all Cao Dai affairs.32 Indeed, the 

government continues to control the official Cao Dai denominations tightly and to 

suppress the unofficial ones through this committee. A number of independent Cao 

Dai followers reportedly have been imprisoned for their opposition to government 

interference.33 In October 1998, two Cao Dai followers apparently were arrested and 

imprisoned after attempting to meet with the UN Special Rapporteur on Religious 

Intolerance during his visit to Vietnam.34 The government also prohibits spiritist 

practices, which are key elements in the religion’s leadership selection process.35 Finally, the Vietnamese government reportedly confiscated much of the Cao Dai religious properties after 1975.36

Although the Roman Catholic Church has generally fared better than other religious communities, they continue to face significant government restrictions. For example, the government controls the organization, agenda, and publications of the 

annual Pastoral Assembly of the Catholic Bishops Conference of Vietnam (CBCV); 

intervenes in the selection process of bishops, priests, and seminary students (resulting in a shortage of bishops and priests); influences the content of seminary instruction; and prohibits CBCV publications at the national or local levels.37 The government has reportedly imprisoned or detained a number of Catholic priests who 

have carried out pastoral activities without government permission or who were ordained without government approval. The government has confiscated thousands of 

Catholic Church properties, including churches, schools, hospitals, and seminaries 

in the north (since the 1950s) and in the south (since 1975). A great number of these 

properties have not been returned and have been converted into meeting halls, storage facilities, and Communist education centers. 

The state-controlled Buddhist organizations and the Protestant Evangelical 

Church of Vietnam (the officially recognized Protestant community in northern Vietnam) share many of the problems the Catholic Church faces, including government 

influence over the selection of religious leaders and the management of religious 

properties, prohibitions on religious publications, and the failure to return confiscated property. 

In April 2001, the Vietnamese government reportedly recognized the Evangelical 

Church of Vietnam in the south and its member churches.38 Legal status would be 

granted to 300 individual churches, which apparently represent just a fraction of the 

Protestant churches in the country. The government would not recognize the majority of the ethnic minority Protestant churches in the Central Highlands. It has been 

reported that not all southern Protestants support the government’s planned recognition for fear it would mean the end of the Church’s autonomy, a concern that 

has been substantiated by reports that the Church’s new constitution must be approved by the Vietnamese government.39

b. Unrecognized religious communities

Notwithstanding the extensive state control over recognized religious communities, the Vietnamese government’s harshest repression is reserved for members of 

unrecognized communities, including the UBCV, the Hoa Hao, and independent 

Protestant churches. 

Over the past three years, the Vietnamese government has adopted what one witness who testified before the Commission called ‘‘a subtle, insidious strategy’’ to isolate UBCV clergy and followers.40 Although no longer in prison, several prominent 

76

41 Ibid., 23. On February 4, 2001, prior to the Commission’s February 13, 2001 hearing, the 

Ven. Thich Quang Do, the UBCV deputy head, and his colleagues were arrested, interrogated, 

and strip-searched by local security personnel on their return from a traditional Lunar New 

Year visit to Ven. Thich Huyen Quang, the UBCV supreme patriarch. 42The Ven. Thich Thai Hoa, written testimony submitted to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Hearing on Vietnam, February 13, 2001, 2. According to one source, 

only 5 to 10 percent of the confiscated Buddhist properties in the south have been returned. 

USCIRF, Hearing on Vietnam (Abuza written testimony), 6. 43 Bhikkhu Thich Thai Hoa, Report No. 1 of the Week of Prayer, Free Vietnam Alliance, February 9, 2001 (E-mail message received February 14, 2001); USCIRF Interview with Vietnamese-American organization, February 12, 2001; Deutsche Presse-Agentur, ‘‘Vietnam clamps 

down on religious fete in Hue,’’ February 14, 2001. 44The four principles are: Respect parents and ancestors; serve the country; maintain one’s faith in Hoa Hao Buddhism; and serve humanity. Huynh-Mai Nguyen, U.S. Commission on 

International Religious Freedom, Hearing on Vietnam, February 13, 2001, 1. 45 USCIRF, Hearing on Vietnam (Huynh-Mai Nguyen written testimony), 3–4. 46David Brunnstrom, ‘‘Vietnam sect leaders allowed home, status unclear,’’ Reuters, March 19, 

2001; David Brunnstrom, ‘‘Vietnam restricts travel by dissident Buddhist,’’ Reuters, March 25, 

2001. The Vietnamese authorities recently sentenced two other Hoa Hao Buddhist leaders to 

prison terms of two and five years, respectively. Nguyen Van Diem, Le Quang Liem’s deputy, 

was sentenced to two years in prison after he was arrested in March 2001, in connection with 

Liem’s arrest. Ha Hai, the third highest-ranking Hoa Hao leader, was sentenced to five years 

in prison in January for violating house arrest rules and ‘‘abusing democratic rights of the 

state.’’ Hai was placed under house arrest in March 2000 for attempting to hold a commemoration of the founder’s disappearance. In November, he was re-arrested when he attempted to visit 

Ho Chi Minh City on the eve of President Clinton’s visit to Vietnam. 47 USCIRF, Hearing on Vietnam (Huynh-Mai Nguyen written testimony), 6; Central Council 

of Administrators of the Hoa Hao Buddhist Church in the United States, ‘‘List of Confiscated 

Hoa Hao Buddhist Church Properties in Vietnam,’’ February 2001. 

UBCV leaders, including Venerable Thich Huyen Quang and Venerable Thich 

Quang Do, are under house arrest or strict police surveillance and are denied the 

ability to register their respective temples as their place of residence, thereby making their stay at their own temples illegal. Even when UBCV leaders manage to 

travel, they suffer from police harassment (including detention and strip 

searches).41 The Vietnamese government also prohibits works of charity and humanitarian relief by UBCV clergy; it blocked a recent attempt by UBCV leaders to provide relief to flood victims in the Mekong Delta. Moreover, the government continues to ‘‘demolish religious buildings, architectures, and statues; and confiscate 

church properties, some of which were then used as storage or transformed into government buildings.’’ 42 In February 2001, UBCV monk Thich Thai Hoa (who submitted written testimony to the Commission hearing) organized a weeklong interfaith religious event near the city of Hue. Local officials reportedly set up roadblocks, forced students to attend school on the weekend that fell during the event, 

and engaged in other forms of harassment to prevent people from attending the 

gathering. Local officials reportedly also placed Father Ly under temporary house 

arrest in order to prevent his attendance at the event.43

The Vietnamese government restricts the activities of the unofficial Hoa Hao Buddhist organizations and their members. Many Hoa Hao Buddhists cannot obtain 

permits to visit Hoa Hao village, the birthplace and center of the religion. The Vietnamese government also interferes with the Hoa Haos’ efforts to conduct charitable 

works (including recent attempts to provide relief to flood victims), which apparently 

is one of the four central principles of Hoa Hao Buddhism.44 Moreover, the government prohibits the public celebration of major ceremonies, such as the ceremony to 

commemorate the disappearance of the religion’s founder, as well as the public display of important religious symbols, such as the Hoa Hao Buddhist flag.45 The government actively harasses and arrests Hoa Haos who seek to participate in religious 

celebrations or appeal for religious freedom. For example, in September 2000, five 

Hoa Hao Buddhists were sentenced to prison terms of one to three years for appealing to the central government against local police brutality that occurred during a 

December 1999 meeting to plan for the celebration of the founder’s birthday. In 

March 2001, local police officials arrested Le Quang Liem, a Hoa Hao leader in Ho 

Chi Minh City. It was reported that he was severely beaten and that the arrest was 

in anticipation of the planned March 19 commemoration of the Hoa Hao founder’s disappearance. Liem was released shortly after his arrest; however, he reportedly 

was later placed under ‘‘administrative surveillance,’’ which went into effect on 

March 17 and restricts his ability to travel in Vietnam for a period of two years.46

The government has not returned any of the hundreds of Hoa Hao properties confiscated after 1975.47

The government continues to repress forcefully the activities of Protestants who 

are ethnic minorities or who are members of independent house churches (these 

77

48 Center for Religious Freedom, ‘‘Directions for Stopping Religion’’: Official Secret Vietnamese 

Documents on How to Arrest the Spread of Christianity and other Evidence of Religious Persecution, Freedom House, October 2000. 49The Rev. Paul Ai, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Hearing on Vietnam, February 13, 2001, 36–42. 50 Religious Liberty Commission, ‘‘Exhibit 1,’’ On the Cruel Edges of the World: The Untold 

Story of the Persecution of Christians Among Vietnam’s Minority Peoples, World Evangelical Fellowship, Bangkok, Thailand, March 1999. 51Margot Cohen, ‘‘Thunder From the Highlands,’’ Far Eastern Economic Review, March 1, 

2001 (http://www.feer.com/—0103—01/p024region.html, accessed March 26, 2001).

groups make up the large majority of Vietnamese Protestants). Official documents 

recently published by Freedom House indicate that the Vietnamese government is 

conducting a campaign to co-opt and suppress the growth of the Protestant community, especially among the Montagnards, the Hmong, and other ethnic minorities.48

Independent Protestants face constant harassment from the Vietnamese authorities, 

including police raids on homes and house churches, detention and imprisonment, 

confiscation of religious and personal property, physical and psychological abuse, 

and fines for engaging in unapproved religious activities (such as collective worship, 

public religious expression and distribution of religious literature, and performing 

baptisms, marriages, or funeral services).49 In addition, it is reported that ethnic 

Hmong Protestants have been forced by local officials to agree to abandon their 

faith.50 Finally, none of the 398 Montagnard Protestant Church properties seized by 

the Communist Party after 1975 have been returned. 

The ethnic minorities in the Central Highlands and the northwestern provinces 

of Vietnam have a long history of strained relationship with the ethnic Vietnamese 

and successive governments, including during French rule and during the Vietnam 

War. After 1975, the relationship between the Communist regime and the 

Montagnards in the Central Highlands was further strained by the mass migration 

of ethnic Vietnamese (at times encouraged and approved by the government) into 

the region. These migrants came to occupy lands traditionally held by ethnic minorities. Furthermore, the fact that ethnic minorities constitute approximately twothirds of the Protestant population in Vietnam introduced another volatile element 

into the already tense relationship. Indeed, the tenuous nature of the relationship 

between the government and ethnic minorities was demonstrated in February 2001, 

when thousands of Central Highlanders protested, seeking the return of ancestral 

lands and the freedom to practice their religion.51

D. The Bilateral Trade Agreement and Normal Trade Relations Status 

For three consecutive years, from 1998 to 2000, President Clinton granted Vietnam a waiver from the requirements of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Trade 

Act of 1974 that restrict economic aid to countries with non-market economies that 

also have restrictive emigration policies. Each year, congressional efforts to disapprove the presidential waiver have failed. 

In July 1999, the United States and Vietnam announced an ‘‘agreement in principle’’ on a bilateral trade agreement (BTA). The agreement was not officially signed 

until a year later (due to internal divisions among the VCP leadership) and must 

be ratified by the U.S. Congress. If the Congress approves the BTA, the United 

States would extend temporary normal trade relations (NTR) status to Vietnam, 

which would significantly reduce U.S. tariffs on most imports from Vietnam. In addition, it would grant Vietnam access to U.S. government financial facilities that extend credits, credit guarantees, or investment guarantees. In return, Vietnam 

agreed to undertake a wide range of market-liberalization measures, including extending NTR treatment to U.S. exports, reducing tariffs on goods, easing barriers 

to U.S. services, committing to protect certain intellectual-property rights, and providing additional inducements and protections for foreign direct investment. The 

agreement does not address the Vietnamese government’s interference with the distribution of literature, multi-media broadcasts, and other forms of transmission into 

Vietnam, for example Radio Free Asia broadcasts. 

However, notwithstanding an approved BTA, Vietnam would be still subject to the 

Jackson-Vanik restrictions, unless they are waived by the President (and the waiver 

is not overturned by Congress). In other words, even with the BTA in place, the 

President can suspend NTR by not promulgating a Jackson-Vanik waiver or the 

Congress can suspend NTR by overturning a presidential waiver. 

E. Commission Recommendations 

With a new administration in place and as Congress prepares to consider the ratification of the Bilateral Trade Agreement, the time is ripe for the U.S. government 

to assess how the promotion of religious freedom factors into U.S. policy toward 

78

52 International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, § 404(c), 22 U.S.C. § 6444. 

Vietnam. The Commission believes that approval of the BTA without any U.S. action with regard to religious freedom risks worsening the religious-freedom situation 

in Vietnam because it may be interpreted by the government of Vietnam as a signal 

of American indifference. We note that after approval of Permanent Normal Trade 

Relations status for the People’s Republic of China, unaccompanied by any substantial U.S. action with regard to religious freedom in that country, religious freedom 

in China has declined markedly in the past year. With this background in mind, 

the Commission makes the following recommendations: 

1. The U.S. Congress should ratify the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) only after it passes a sense of the Congress resolution calling 

for the Vietnamese government to make substantial improvements in the 

protection of religious freedom or after the Vietnamese government undertakes obligations to the United States to make such improvements. Substantial improvements should be measured by the following standards: 

1.1. Release from imprisonment, detention, house arrest, or intimidating 

surveillance persons who are so restricted due to their religious identities or 

activities. 

1.2. Permit unhindered access to religious leaders by U.S. diplomatic personnel and government officials, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and respected international human rights organizations, including, if requested, a return visit by the UN Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance. 

1.3. Establish the freedom to engage in religious activities (including the 

freedom for religious groups to govern themselves and select their leaders, 

worship publicly, express and advocate religious beliefs, and distribute religious literature) outside state-controlled religious organizations and eliminate controls on the activities of officially registered organizations. Allow indigenous religious communities to conduct educational, charitable, and humanitarian activities. 

1.4. Permit religious groups to gather for annual observances of primary 

religious holidays. 

1.5. Return confiscated religious properties. 

1.6. Permit domestic Vietnamese religious organizations and individuals 

to interact with foreign organizations and individuals.

The items listed in Recommendation 1 above are standards by which the progress 

of the Vietnamese government in the protection of religious freedom can be measured. The Commission believes that the BTA should not be approved until the Congress calls on the government of Vietnam to make substantial improvements in protecting religious freedom or until that government has demonstrated its commitment to protecting religious freedom as measured by these standards. 

The BTA does not currently include any provision that would safeguard human 

rights and religious freedom in Vietnam. The Commission believes that the seriousness and extent of religious-freedom violations in Vietnam warrant a commitment 

on the part of the Vietnamese government to make substantial improvements in the 

protection of religious freedom. The Commission does not endorse a particular method of securing such a commitment, but notes that IRFA authorizes the President 

to ‘‘negotiate and enter into a binding agreement with a foreign government to 

cease, or take substantial steps to address and phase out, the act, policy, or practice 

constituting the violation of religious freedom.’’ 52

2. If Congress ratifies the BTA and approves conditional Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status for Vietnam, it should review Vietnam’s progress on the 

protection of religious freedom as part of an annual review of that status. 

Upon ratification of the BTA, Vietnam’s conditional NTR status would still be 

subject to review by Congress on an annual basis if and when the President issues 

a Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam. Should Congress decide to approve the BTA, 

the Commission urges that it examine Vietnam’s progress on the protection of religious freedom and human rights as part of this annual review. 

79

53Sec. 701, International Financial Institutions Act of 1977, 22 U.S.C. § 262d; IRFA 

§ 405(a)(12), 22 U.S.C. § 6445. 54 In March 2001, the Commission wrote to the Secretary of the Treasury communicating this 

recommendation. 

3. The United States should withhold its support for International Monetary 

Fund (IMF) and World Bank loans to Vietnam (except those providing for 

basic human needs) until the government of Vietnam agrees to make substantial improvements in the protection of religious freedom, as measured 

by the standards itemized in 1.1 through 1.6 above. 

The IMF and the World Bank reportedly are considering loans to the Vietnamese 

government of up to $800 million to further Vietnam’s economic reform programs. 

The proposed loan package would provide up to $400 million during the first two 

to three years of the program. An additional $400 million would be conditional upon 

the Vietnamese government making satisfactory progress in the implementation of 

its economic reforms during the program’s initial period. While these loans are part 

of the two organizations’ ongoing assistance to the Vietnamese government, they reportedly would represent the first set of IMF and World Bank loans to Vietnam in 

five years. Officials of the IMF and the World Bank apparently are hopeful that 

their respective executive boards will approve the loans in April 2001, with implementation to follow in May. As of the date that this report went to print, no decision 

has been made. 

As mentioned above in connection with congressional approval of the BTA, the 

Commission believes that supporting economic aid through international financial 

institutions that primarily benefits the Vietnamese government without requiring 

that government to make a commitment to substantially improve its protection of 

religious freedom may be interpreted as a signal of U.S. indifference. The Commission recognizes that Congress has set down policy guidelines for the withholding of 

U.S. support for IMF or World Bank loans on human rights grounds in both the 

International Financial Institutions Act of 1977 and IRFA.53 The Commission believes that the severity of the Vietnamese government’s violation of religious freedom, and its apparent unwillingness to make sustained improvements in the protection of religious freedom, warrants the use of this sanction. The United States, as 

a member of the IMF and World Bank Executive Boards, should withhold its support for loans to the government of Vietnam until that government agrees to make 

substantial improvement in the protection of religious freedom. The U.S. should not 

withhold its support for loans made for the purpose of providing for the basic human 

needs of the Vietnamese people.54

4. The U.S. government should make the protection of religious freedom a 

high-priority issue in its bilateral relations with Vietnam, including in the 

annual human rights dialogue with the Vietnamese government and in future trade negotiations, advocating substantial improvement in the protection of religious freedom as measured by the standards itemized as 1.1 

through 1.6 above. 

The U.S. Department of State should advise the office of the U.S. Trade 

Representative (USTR) on the state of religious freedom and other human 

rights in Vietnam, and should request that the USTR advance the U.S. 

government’s interests in human rights in and through the negotiations 

and the provisions of any further trade agreement or companion agreement between the two countries. 

The United States and Vietnamese governments have held bilateral human rights 

dialogues since 1995. The U.S. government should ensure that the discussion of religious freedom receives high-priority attention in these annual dialogues, as well as 

in other bilateral contacts. The United States should press vigorously for substantial 

improvement in the protection of religious freedom in Vietnam, as measured by the 

specific standards referred to above. 

The State Department should ensure that the USTR, as the executive branch’s 

interagency coordinator of U.S. trade policy and the lead trade negotiator, is advised 

of the state of religious freedom and other human rights in Vietnam prior to and 

during its trade negotiations with its Vietnamese counterpart. Furthermore, the 

State Department should request that the USTR advance the U.S. government’s interests in promoting human rights and religious freedom in the conduct of its trade 

negotiations with the Vietnamese government and that such interests should be reflected in the provisions of any further trade agreement or companion agreement 

between the two countries. 

80

55This appears to be in conflict with the government’s own regulations. Article 17 of the 1999 

Religion Decree provides that ‘‘the clergy and religious can carry out economic, cultural and social activities as all other citizens.’’ 56 Association for Southeast Asian Nations, Bangkok Declaration, March–April 1993 (http://

www.rwgmechanism.com/asia.html, accessed March 26, 2001). 

5. The U.S. government should insist that the Vietnamese government permit 

domestic Vietnamese religious and other non-governmental organizations 

to distribute their own and donated aid. 

One important aspect of many Vietnamese religious communities is their commitment, as a matter of conscience, to humanitarian relief and other works of charity. 

However, the Vietnamese government has prohibited indigenous religious groups 

and their members from providing relief and social services to the Vietnamese people.55 For example, in October 2000 the Vietnamese government barred UBCV leaders such as the Venerable Thich Quang Do and the Venerable Thich Khong Tanh 

from providing much-needed relief to victims of one of the largest floods in Vietnam’s recent history, despite the fact that the Vietnamese government was incapable of providing sufficient relief and was openly courting international relief aid. The 

Hoa Hao Buddhists were also prevented from providing flood relief. 

While the U.S. government should continue to provide humanitarian and relief 

aid to Vietnam should the need arise, the Commission believes that the United 

States should insist that the Vietnamese government permit domestic religious and 

other non-governmental organizations to distribute their own and donated aid. 

6. The U.S. government should, through its foreign assistance and exchange 

programs, support individuals (and organizations, if they exist) in Vietnam that are advocating human rights (including religious freedom), the 

rule of law, and legal reform. It should also support exchanges between 

Vietnamese religious communities and U.S. religious and other non-governmental organizations concerned with religious freedom in Vietnam. 

The United States currently gives Vietnam around $8 million in direct foreign assistance, primarily humanitarian aid and support for economic reform. Although 

there are individuals in Vietnam who advocate for legal reform and human rights 

(including religious freedom), the Vietnamese government generally prohibits independent human rights, humanitarian, and other such organizations. In order to promote religious freedom in Vietnam, the U.S. government should support such individuals (and organizations, if they exist) in these efforts. This could be done through 

direct support as well as educational and other exchanges with appropriate U.S. 

partners. 

7. Until religious freedom significantly improves in Vietnam (as measured by 

the standards itemized as 1.1 through 1.6, above), the U.S. government 

should initiate or support a resolution to censure Vietnam at the annual 

meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights and should engage in 

a sustained campaign to persuade other governments to support it. 

8. The U.S. government should continue to support the Association for Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Human Rights Working Group, and should 

encourage the Vietnamese government to join the working group. 

In 1993, the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organization adopted a Declaration on 

Human Rights that included a provision encouraging the ASEAN member states to 

form a regional human rights mechanism.56 Following this formal declaration, 

ASEAN—through consultations among representatives of the ASEAN member 

states, regional organizations, and Southeast Asian non-governmental organizations—established the Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism 

(Working Group). The Working Group is comprised of national working groups in 

member states which in turn are made up of representatives from the academe, 

non-governmental organizations, government, business, media, and ‘‘national human 

rights institutions.’’ To date, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand 

have formed national working groups, and Singapore is in the process of forming 

one. In July 2000, the Working Group submitted to ASEAN a draft agreement that 

calls for the establishment of a permanent human rights commission. 

The Commission believes that the U.S. government should continue to support the 

Working Group and its efforts to promote the creation of a permanent ASEAN 

human rights organization. The U.S. government should urge the Vietnamese government to join the Working Group and establish its own national working group 

as a sign of its commitment to protecting religious freedom and other human rights. 

The establishment of such an organization in Vietnam would lay the foundation for 

regular discussions on human rights between Vietnam and other Southeast Asian 

81

countries. The Vietnamese government discussed with Working Group officials the 

possibility of forming such a national body in Vietnam during a recent visit to 

Hanoi. 

9. The United States should continue to support Radio Free Asia (RFA) broadcasts into Vietnam as a vehicle for promoting religious freedom and 

human rights in that country. 

It is widely reported that the Vietnamese government jams RFA broadcasts into 

Vietnam. The reported efforts by the Vietnamese government to block RFA transmissions reflect RFA’s importance to the Vietnamese people as a source of news and 

information about Vietnam that is independent of the Vietnamese government. The 

Commission recommends that the U.S. government should continue to support RFA 

broadcasts into Vietnam not only as a source of news and information but also as 

a vehicle for promoting religious freedom and human rights in that country. 

82

Beyond National Borders: China’s Harassment of 

Falun Gong Practitioners in the United States 

REPORT (JANUARY 2002)

CONTENTS 

I. Cases before January of 2001

Part 1. Interfering with Decisions of Local Governments and Businesses 

• Local Governments’ Proclamations Interfered with by Chinese Consulates 

• Multiple Honors Rescinded Under Pressure from Overseas Chinese 

Government 

• Proclamation Rescinded under Pressure from Overseas Chinese Government 

• Chinese Consul Harasses Mayor’s Office in Michigan 

• Chinese Embassy Interferes with Falun Gong Proclamation 

• A Mysterious ‘‘Mr. Hue’’ Blocks Falun Gong Proclamation

Part 2. Blocking Participation in Local Events 

• Chinese Consulate Blocks Falun Gong Booth at Expo in LA 

• Practitioners Denied Participation at Delaware Festival

Part 3. Pressuring Local Media 

• Houston Businesses Pressured to Discriminate 

• Borders Bookstore Pressured To Stop Carrying Falun Gong Books 

• California Bookstore Stops Carrying Books Under Pressure

II. Cases after January of 2001

Part 1. Interfering with Decisions of Local Governments 

• Chinese Embassy interferes with Gov. Mike Leavitt’s decision to 

proclaim ‘‘Falun Gong Day’’ in the state of Utah 

• Houston Mayor pressured by Chinese Consulate not to issue proclamation to Falun Gong practitioners 

• AP: China expanding campaign overseas to discredit Falun Gong 

• Westland mayor rescinded his proclamation after receiving defamation materials against Falun Gong from Chinese Consulate in Chicago

Part 2. Other Harassment 

• Jiang Zemin’s Regime Pressures Singtao Daily to Stop Carrying Articles about Falun Gong 

• San Francisco Examiner: Supes side with oppression 

• Jiang Zemin Extends ‘‘Implication System’’ Overseas 

• Six Hunger Striking Practitioners Presenting Letter to the United 

Nations are Hindered and Harassed by Chinese Special Agents 

• Newsday: Silencing the Movement Crackdown from afar 

• Press Release: Los Angeles Chinese Consulate Representatives Attempted to Disrupt Falun Gong Global Appeal 

• Jiang Zemin Stretches Out His Sullied Hands To Overseas Chinese 

College Students

III. China’s Harassment of Falun Gong in the Southern California 

Area

83

Cases before January of 2001

PART 1. INTERFERING WITH DECISIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND 

BUSINESSES 

Local Governments’ Proclamations Interfered with by Chinese Consulates

Date of Incident: July 1999 to October 2000

Victim(s): Residents of the State of California, Falun Gong Practitioners 

Location of incident: Throughout California

Description: 

Falun Gong practitioners in Northern California applied to several cities and 

counties for proclamations recognizing Falun Dafa Week. While dozens of proclamation and commendation letters were awarded, in several cases mayors or supervisors 

suddenly reversed their decisions—changing from initial approval to sudden, firm 

rejection. Soon the reason became evident. As it turns out, officials from the San 

Francisco Chinese Consulate had been busy visiting local government offices in 

Northern California. It was revealed that in some cases Chinese diplomats had demanded of mayors that they retract their proclamations, and alarmingly, that this 

was even done by way of subtle economic threat and intimidation. 

When those mayors were later approached by the surprised Falun Gong practitioners, the reasons given for the rejection were obscure, and sometimes no reasons 

at all were given. 

The following are some descriptions from the Falun Gong practitioners who were 

involved. 

San Francisco—July 1999

In July of 1999, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown issued a proclamation declaring July 20, 1999 Li Hongzhi Day (Li Hongzhi is the founder and teacher of Falun 

Gong). A ceremony was planned for City Hall on July 20, and five-hundred guests 

from around the country planned to attend, including Mr. Li Hongzhi himself. On 

July 18, we sent an invitation letter to the Chinese Consulate of San Francisco. On 

July 19, one day before the day of celebration, Mayor Brown’s office suddenly announced to the media that the mayor had rescinded the proclamation. The practitioners who had received the award certificate were not even notified, and no explanation was offered whatsoever. Mr. Li had to turn back while on route to San Francisco, and the ceremony had to be canceled. To date, the mayor’s office has provided 

no explanation. 

Saratoga—November 2000

After issuing a proclamation of Falun Dafa Week in late October 2000, Saratoga 

Mayor Stan Bogosian received a request from the Chinese Consulate’s officials, asking for a meeting. After meeting with them, Mayor Bogosian disclosed that he was 

‘‘astounded’’ when the officials handed him a letter from the consul demanding that 

he rescind his proclamation. Mayor Bogosian remained firm in his decision, and did 

not rescind the proclamation. The mayor was so disturbed by the Chinese government’s actions that he called a press conference of his own initiative to disclose the 

event. 

Palo Alto—November 2000

The city clerk of Palo Alto reviewed the city’s proclamation honoring Falun Gong, 

and wrote to practitioners stating that it had been accepted and that the mayor 

would sign it. Later, however, she informed the practitioners that the mayor could 

not issue proclamations for ‘‘quasi-religious or political groups.’’ The nature of the 

terms used by the mayor’s office are those of the Chinese government, and not members of the free world, who recognize Falun Gong as a self-improvement or spiritual 

practice. No explanation was offered for the sudden change of thinking. 

Santa Clara County—December 2000

While the Santa Clara County board was considering a resolution on Falun Gong, 

it was learned from the county office that Supervisor McHugh was under pressure 

from outside sources regarding the resolution, and that those pressuring him ‘‘were 

not voters.’’ There are no known incidents of anyone other than Chinese embassies 

and consulates interfering in Falun Gong proclamation requests. The board has not 

approved the resolution as of the time of this report. 

Contra Costa County—November 2000

Contra Costa County received an application package requesting the proclamation 

of a Falun Dafa Week. The secretary called the practitioners who sent the package 

84

and asked for a date to issue the proclamation. But just one week later, she notified 

them that the county wanted to ‘‘learn more’’ about Falun Gong first, and could no 

longer issue any certificate. 

San Mateo County—October 2000

Initially, President Richard Gorden agreed to award Falun Gong a proclamation, 

and his secretary began preparing it. Two days later, however, the Falun Gong practitioners who put in the request were told that the board had decided not to issue 

the proclamation. No explanation was given.

Multiple Honors Rescinded Under Pressure from Overseas Chinese Government

Date of Incident: 1999

Victim(s): Residents of Seattle, Baltimore, San Francisco, and the State of Maryland; , Falun Gong Practitioners 

Location of incident(s): Seattle, Baltimore, San Francisco, and the State of Maryland

Description: 

The mayors of Seattle, Baltimore, and San Francisco were pressured by the Chinese government to rescind proclamations given to Falun Gong in their respective 

cities. 

The Governor of Maryland, Parris N. Glendening, was even pressured into writing 

a letter of apology to the Chinese government for an Honorary Citizenship Award 

her office had given to the founder of Falun Gong. In each case it is believed trade 

and economic threat were used as a means of coercion.

Proclamation Rescinded under Pressure from Overseas Chinese Government

Date of Incident: July 19, 2000

Victim(s): Residents of San Francisco, Falun Gong Practitioners 

Location of incident: San Francisco, California

Description: 

In July 1999, Mayor Willie Brown issued a proclamation declaring July 20, 1999 

Li Hongzhi Day (Li Hongzhi is the founder and teacher of Falun Gong). A ceremony 

was planned for City Hall on July 20, and five-hundred guests from around the 

country planned to attend, including Mr. Li Hongzhi himself. On July 18, we sent 

an invitation letter to the Chinese Consulate of San Francisco. On July 19, one day 

before the day of celebration, Mayor Brown’s office suddenly announced to the media 

that the mayor had rescinded the proclamation. The practitioners who had received 

the award certificate were not even notified, and no explanation was offered. Mr. 

Li had to turn back while on route to San Francisco, and the ceremony had to be 

canceled. The next day, news of the cancellation was run in a major Chinese newspaper and described in celebratory fashion. To date, the mayor’s office has provided 

no explanation.

Chinese Consul Harasses Mayor’s Office in Michigan

Date of Incident: December, 2000

Victim(s): Residents of Rochester Hills, Michigan, Falun Gong Practitioners 

Location of incident: Rochester Hills, Michigan

Description: 

Three officials from the Chinese Consulate in Chicago unexpectedly showed up at 

City Hall in Rochester Hills, Michigan, the first week of December, 2000. Then, saying that they were acting on behalf of the Chinese Government, they demanded to 

meet with Mayor Pat Somerville to obtain an apology from the city for its awarding 

of a proclamation to Falun Gong, and to have the award rescinded. 

The mayor’s secretary told the three uninvited visitors that it was impossible to 

arrange a meeting with Mayor Somerville without a prior appointment due to her 

busy schedule. In response to the visitors’ stubborn insistence, the mayor eventually 

gave them 15 minutes. After meeting with them, it was decided immediately that 

‘‘the unjustifiable demands by the Chinese consuls are totally unacceptable.’’

It was also reported that the mayor’s office received a harassing phone call from 

an anonymous woman shortly before the appearance of these three officials. She 

claimed to be a student at Oakland University, but would not give her name, address, or telephone number. This case has been brought to the attention of the relevant agency. 

Mayor Somerville’s office can be contacted at 248–656–4664.

Chinese Embassy Interferes with Falun Gong Proclamation

85

Date of Incident: December, 1999

Victim(s): Residents of Columbia City, Boone County, and St. Louis City, Missouri, 

Falun Gong Practitioners 

Location of incident(s): Columbia City, Boone County, and St. Louis City, Missouri

Description: 

The last week of December 1999 and the first week of January 2000 were proclaimed Falun Dafa Week in Columbia City and Boone County, Missouri, respectively. The Chinese Embassy called and faxed the city’s and county’s governments, 

asking them to withdraw their proclamations. They refused. The same thing occurred in St. Louis City. 

Contact: Lin Chuan (tel: 703 892–6196)

A Mysterious ‘‘Mr. Hue’’ Blocks Falun Gong Proclamation

Date of Incident: September, 2000

Victim(s): Residents of Newark, Delaware 

Location of incident: Newark, Delaware

Description: 

Mayor Godwin of Newark, Delaware proclaimed September 9, 2000 Falun Dafa 

Day. On September 29, however, a Chinese news agency reported the following 

item: Some Falun Gong practitioners in Delaware ‘‘cheated’’ Mayor Godwin into giving Falun Gong the proclamation, and that Mayor Godwin had apologized to the 

Chinese government for the ’misunderstanding.’’’ On November 6, a number of concerned Delaware residents met with Mayor Godwin. At the meeting, Mayor Godwin 

said that the U.S. State Department had called and asked him to drop the proclamation two weeks after he issued it. He claimed that the person who called him 

on behalf of the State Department went by the last name of ‘‘Hue’’ (a Chinese surname). This ‘‘Mr. Hue’’ also sent the Mayor some CDs, pictures, and brochures defaming Falun Gong—an action unique to the Chinese government. The Mayor said 

that if the U.S. State Department really did not have any concerns regarding the 

proclamation, neither did he. After this conversation, some Falun Gong practitioners 

visited the U.S. State Department to inquire. According to the State Department’s 

representatives, they never called Mayor Godwin about the proclamation, nor have 

they called any other mayor with such instructions. 

PART 2. BLOCKING PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL EVENTS 

Chinese Consulate Blocks Falun Gong Booth at Expo in LA

Date of Incident: December, 2000

Victim(s): Falun Gong Practitioners in Los Angeles 

Location of incident: Los Angeles, California

Description: 

The 2000 China Expo, held by the China Expo (USA) Inc., took place at the Los 

Angeles Convention Center from December 8 to 10, 2000. A Falun Gong practitioner, Teresa Chao, had reserved and paid for a booth at the Expo (see Figure 2). 

However, several departments of the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles called China 

Expo (USA) Inc. and demanded that it cancel the Falun Gong booth. If the booth 

was not canceled, the Consulate threatened, it would withdraw the dozens of booths 

the nation of China had reserved. After communicating with China Expo (USA) Inc., 

the Falun Gong practitioners decided to withdraw their booth in order not to cause 

business losses to China Expo (USA) Inc.

86

Figure 1. Completed Agreement Form To Participate in 2000 China Expo

What follows is a chronology of the incident:

Nov. 15: Teresa Chao, a business owner and practitioner of Falun Gong, saw an advertisement for the 2000 China Expo.

Nov. 17: Teresa contacted the agent of the Expo, Jennifer Lee, and received a fax 

from her about the price, location, and schedule of the Expo. Teresa told Jennifer 

that she was interested in having a booth for Falun Gong.

Nov. 20: After consulting other Falun Gong practitioners in Los Angeles, Teresa 

called Jennifer back.

Nov. 20: Jennifer faxed the contract to Teresa. After several phone conversations, 

Teresa decided to reserve Booth #1025, and paid the Expo by check (# 2605), in the 

amount of $1,380.00 (see Figure 3). Teresa confirmed with Jennifer that the booth 

was for Falun Gong, and Jennifer said it was okay because another ‘‘traditional religion’’ had also reserved a booth. Teresa told Jennifer that Falun Gong is not a religion. Jennifer said it would be okay.

Nov. 21: Jennifer sent a set of documents to the Expo.

Nov. 27: Jennifer made another call, with three faxed documents, asking Teresa to 

fill in the forms and return them. The forms were: a) Swapmeets Flea Market or 

Special Events Certification, b) City of Los Angeles Declaration of Business Activity, 

and c) Sellers Permits Number.

Nov. 28: Jennifer Lee called Teresa and told her that she would go back to Taiwan 

on November 30. She also asked Teresa if there were anything else she could help 

with.

Dec. 4: Jennifer called Teresa and asked what type of activities the Falun Gong 

booth would have. Teresa answered that there would be a practice demo, video 

demo, book selling, and flyer distribution. Teresa asked Jennifer if there were any 

problems and Jennifer answered that she was not clear because her boss wanted 

to know.

Dec. 4: A gentleman called Teresa around three in the afternoon and introduced 

himself as the organizer of the Expo. He said the Expo was under pressure from 

the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles, because the Consulate had seen the ad for 

Falun Gong’s planned activities at the Expo in Singtao Daily, a Chinese newspaper. 

Several departments of the Consulate had called and pressured him to cancel the 

Falun Gong booth. They told him that the Consulate would withdraw dozens of 


77695f.eps
87

booths reserved by China if Falun gong were allowed to join the Expo. This would 

hurt the business of the Expo company, but the organizer also knew that he had 

no right to cancel the Falun Gong booth, so he asked Teresa if she could remove 

our sign (he said that he thought this would solve the problem later).

Dec. 4: The organizer made the second call to Teresa five minutes after the first 

one and asked if we could cancel our ad on Singtao Daily. Teresa answered that 

she needed to talk to other practitioners.

Dec. 4: The organizer called the third time (around 5:00 p.m.) and told Teresa that 

the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles did not agree to allow Falun Gong to join the 

Expo on any grounds. He apologized to Teresa.

Dec. 4: After discussing the matter with other practitioners, Teresa decided to withdraw the booth in order to spare the organizer the severe business consequences 

keeping the booth would entail. Teresa called the organizer before 6:00 p.m. and told 

him that she agreed to withdraw the booth but needed an official cancellation notice 

explaining why.

Dec. 4: That evening, Teresa called the organizer again to confirm that the interference indeed originated from the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles. The organizer 

confirmed this, saying that the pressure came from several departments in the Chinese Consulate.

Dec. 5: At about 3:30 p.m., the organizer said the notice would be sent out the next 

day.

We have received the returned check from China Expo. The organizer of the Expo 

told us that he would tell the truth if asked about the case. For more information, 

contact Falun Gong practitioner John Li, California Institute of Technology; tel: 

626–568–8889 (h); or the organizer of the Expo, Mr. Wu, at 626–582–1068.

Practitioners Denied Participation at Delaware Festival

Date of Incident: August 7, 2000

Victim(s): Residents of Delaware, Falun Gong Practitioners 

Location of incident: Delaware State

Description: 

In early July of 2000, the Chinese Association of Delaware held its annual Chinese Festival. The Association declined a request from Delaware Falun Gong practitioners to rent a booth at the festival. Practitioners would soon learn why. 

When practitioners handed out literature about the persecution of Falun Gong (in 

China) outside the festival entrance, they were asked to stop distributing literature 

because the Chinese Embassy’s agents were there. The practitioners stopped. It was 

learned that the Embassy’s terms for allowing the Association to borrow the Embassy’s traditional Chinese clothing (to be worn at the festival) were that the Association would have to display CDs and other so-called ‘‘informational materials’’ that 

defame and attack Falun Gong. 

PART 3. PRESSURING LOCAL MEDIA 

Houston Businesses Pressured to Discriminate

Date of Incident: varied 

Victim(s): Residents of Houston, and Houston Falun Gong Practitioners 

Location of incident: Houston, Texas

Description: 

The Chinese-language newspaper, Chinese Southern Daily News was pressured by 

the Chinese Consulate in Houston to stop publishing advertisements and articles 

about Falun Gong. 

Dr. Zheng Wu, a Falun Gong practitioner in Houston, Texas, had an agreement 

with Chinese Southern Daily News to advertise articles about Falun Gong for six 

months. Due to pressure from the Chinese Consulate, however, Chinese Southern 

Daily News broke its contract with Wu after it published Falun Gong articles for 

only one month or so. A reporter from the newspaper told Wu that a Consulate representative had talked to the newspaper’s president and his family about this matter. The reporter explained that the paper had to do as told, because they do business with China and would be punished. 

Mr. Xu Ying, consul for press and cultural affairs at Houston’s Chinese Consulate, 

invited Mr. Wu to have a talk at Starbucks coffee. Xu asked Wu to stop publishing 

articles on Falun Gong in the Chinese Southern Daily News and to stop gathering 

in front of the Chinese Consulate in Houston to protest the Chinese government’s 

88

persecution of Falun Gong. During the conversation, Xu told Wu that their would 

be consequences for his supporting Falun Gong, including forcing him and his family to return to China (where harsh punishment would await them). 

In another instance of pressure from the Consulate affecting local business decisions, Greatwall Bookstore in Houston decided to stop carrying any books on Falun 

Gong. 

Similarly, the Chinese Civic Center’s Jing Bao Shan Library was pressured by the 

Consulate in Houston to stop carrying all Falun Gong books. The head of the Library in turn asked Mr. Zheng Wu to stop advertising that the Library carries 

Falun Gong books. 

Other incidents have seen Falun Gong practitioners in Texas be monitored and 

investigated by officers and agents of the Chinese Consulate. 

Contact: Dr. Zheng Wu (tel: 713–272–6046)

Borders Bookstore Pressured To Stop Carrying Falun Gong Books

Date of Incident: July, 2000

Victim(s): Residents of Pasadena, and Pasadena Falun Gong Practitioners 

Location of incident: Pasadena, California

Description: 

In the summer of 2000, Borders bookstore in Pasadena, California was pressured 

by its headquarters to stop carrying Falun Gong books and stop allowing a weekly 

study group to meet there. This happened because an influential person from the 

Chinese government heard an interview on radio station KPCC, which featured 

Pasadena Falun Gong practitioners discussing the persecution; in the interview Borders had been mentioned as a place to learn more about Falun Gong. This Chinese 

government representative then called Borders’ headquarters to complain. At this 

time the Pasadena Borders now offers the books again, but only through special 

order. For details, contact Michael Graziano, Community Relations Coordinator, 

Pasadena Borders.

California Bookstore Stops Carrying Books Under Pressure

Date of Incident: July of 1999

Victim(s): Residents of Monterey Park, California, and Falun Gong Practitioners 

there 

Location of incident: Monterey Park, California; United States

Description: 

Sino United Publishing (SUP) Bookstore in Monterey Park, CA, was pressured by 

its headquarters in Hong Kong to stop selling Falun Gong books in July of 1999; 

apparently the Hong Kong headquarters was itself under severe pressure from the 

Mainland Chinese government. Up until that time, SUP had been the distributor 

of Falun Gong books in North America. 

Cases after January of 2001

PART 1. INTERFERING WITH DECISIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 

Chinese Embassy Interferes With Gov. Mike Leavitt’s Decision to Proclaim 

‘‘Falun Gong Day’’ In The State Of Utah

Summary: Excerpted from Deseret News article on January 15, 2002. . . . Gov. 

Mike Leavitt changed his original decision on proclaiming January 8, 2002 as 

Falun Gong Day in State of Utah after meeting with Yafei He, minister and 

deputy chief of mission at the Chinese Embassy . . . It isn’t the first time a 

member of the Chinese Embassy or consulate has attempted to sway a U.S. 

leader about Falun Gong...

Date of Incident: Deseret News article on January 15, 2002

Victim(s): Falun Gong 

Location of incident: State Of Utah

Description: 

According to Deseret News article on January 15, 2002, Falun Gong claimed that 

Gov. Mike Leavitt changed his original decision on proclaiming January 8, 2002 as 

Falun Gong Day in State of Utah after meeting with Yafei He, minister and deputy 

chief of mission at the Chinese Embassy, who openly said he would vent China’s 

concerns about Falun Gong to Leavitt. 

89

The article says, ‘‘The group has been banned in China since July 1999, a date 

which, according to its members, coincided with its membership outpacing the number of registered Chinese in the ruling[party’s name omitted] . 

Since that time, Falun Gong members say, the government has undertaken a 

smear campaign against the movement both inside and outside China. 

He’s comments to Leavitt are part of that campaign, they say. 

It isn’t the first time a member of the Chinese Embassy or consulate has attempted to sway a U.S. leader about Falun Gong. 

Stan Bogosian, the former mayor of Saratoga, Calif., told the Associated Press last 

year that a few days after he signed a proclamation declaring a week in honor of 

Falun Gong, two officials from the Chinese consulate urged him to rescind it. 

When he refused, Bogosian said the Chinese asked him to remain ‘‘neutral’’ on 

the issue. 

Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson, who declared Jan. 22–28, 2001, Falun Gong 

week, also met with He. 

Falun Gong, also called Falun Dafa, was a topic, and He expressed Olympic safety 

concerns, which Anderson forwarded to the police department. 

It was Anderson’s administration that granted the Falun Gong permission to protest during the Winter Games. 

Members, who insist they are a peaceful group, say they will use that time to conduct their yoga-like spiritual movements and distribute literature about Chinese 

persecution. 

They say thousands have died from torture at the government’s hands.’’

Excerpted from the original article at 

http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,365007991,00.html

Houston Mayor pressured by Chinese Consulate not to issue proclamation 

to Falun Gong practitioners

Date of Incident: April, 2001

Victim(s): Jason Wang 

Location of incident: Houston

Description: 

In April of 2001, Jason Wang (a Falun gong practitioner) requested to Houston 

Mayor (Mayor Lee Brown)’s office for a proclamation of Falun Gong. Chinese Consulate Office is Houston put economic and political pressure to the Mayor so the 

mayor did not issue the proclamation. In a phone conversation , a staff in Mayor’s 

office, Helen Chang, told me that, ‘‘We got too much of pressure. If you can convince 

the Chinese Consulate to agree on, we will definitely issue you the proclamation.

AP: China expanding campaign overseas to discredit Falun Gong

Summary: At least a dozen mayors from cities in California, Illinois, Washington, 

Maryland and Michigan have reported pressure from Chinese officials who often 

pointedly mention the importance of U.S.-Chinese trade.

Date of Incident: Posting date: 7/10/2001

Location of incident: California, Illinois, Washington, Maryland and Michigan 

Victim(s): All practitioners in the United States

Description: 

HONG KONG (Helen Luk, ,AP)—While forging ahead with its attempt to eradicate the Falun Gong movement at home, China is taking its campaign against the 

spiritual group abroad. 

Chinese diplomats are seeking to discredit the [group] and undermine its image 

in the United States, Australia and other countries by pressing public officials not 

to have dealings with the group or allow its participation in local activities. 

Critics of the Beijing regime say Hong Kong authorities are caving in to the antiFalun Gong campaign. They contend officials weakened the enclave’s autonomy by 

barring about 100 Falun Gong practitioners from entering in early May during a 

visit by Chinese President Jiang Zemin. 

Falun Gong remains legal in Hong Kong, under Western-style freedoms left behind by the British. But its active presence here has provoked much local friction 

as members lash out against China’s suppression. 

The conflict between China and the [group] escalated last week over the deaths 

of some imprisoned Falun Gong practitioners at a labor camp in the northeastern 

province of Heilongjiang in June. 

Chinese officials offered conflicting numbers, with some saying three deaths and 

others 14, but all said the women hanged themselves in a mass suicide. Falun Gong, 

90

which says its teachings prohibit suicide, insisted Chinese authorities had fatally 

beaten 15 inmates to death. 

China’s government is drawing criticism for its efforts to weaken Falun Gong overseas. In the United States, some mayors have complained that Chinese diplomats attempted to stop them from giving public recognition to Falun Gong. 

Falun Gong members in Australia accuse the Chinese Embassy of spreading distorted information about the group and attempting to persuade Australian officials 

to ban its participation in local events such as village festivals. 

Beijing’s attempts to use diplomatic pressure to silence Falun Gong have enraged 

members and government officials in the United States. 

Stan Bogosian, the former mayor of Saratoga, Calif., said that a few days after 

he signed a proclamation late last year declaring a week in honor of Falun Gong, 

two officials from the Chinese consulate urged him to rescind it. 

When he refused, Bogosian said, the Chinese asked him to remain neutral on the 

issue and asked about his stance on Taiwan, which Beijing considers a renegade 

province. Angered, Bogosian called a news conference to denounce the Chinese government for ‘‘highly irregular’’ actions. ‘‘The Chinese government should not be interfering in the political process,’’ Bogosian told The Associated Press. ‘‘The issue of whether Falun Gong is a xx or 

not is not important. For me, these are basic human rights.’’ To Bogosian and many others, Falun Gong is a harmless qigong group, whose adherents, clad in their yellow T-shirts, practice [. . .] exercises and move slowly to 

ethereal music in parks. 

At least a dozen other mayors from cities in California, Illinois, Washington, 

Maryland and Michigan have reported pressure from Chinese officials who often 

pointedly mention the importance of U.S.-Chinese trade. ‘‘The whole thing sounded like a propaganda pitch to me,’’ said Tod Satterthwaite, 

mayor of Urbana, Ill., who ignored the Chinese demands. 

[. . .] 

Falun Gong adherents in Australia say Chinese officials have sent letters to civic 

leaders describing the group as [Jiang Zemin government’s slanderous terms omitted] ‘‘The letters were sent to local government offices in order to try and persuade 

them to disallow perfectly legal activities being conducted in the area,’’ said Michael 

Molnar, a spokesman for Australia’s Falun Gong. 

The Australian government said the Chinese Embassy had denied sending the letters. 

Rebecca Tromp, spokeswoman of the Blacktown City Council, said officials from 

the Chinese consulate in Sydney raised the issue of Falun Gong participation in a 

festival sponsored by the city government. 

‘‘We advised them that any participation Falun Gong has is within our festival 

and that is what they do and we would continue to allow them to participate,’’

Tromp said.

Westland mayor rescinded his proclamation after receiving defamation materials against Falun Gong from Chinese Consulate in Chicago

Date of Incident: March 14, 2001

Location of incident(s): Westland, Michigan

Description:

Michigan cities that have issued proclamations to Falun Dafa received defamation 

materials from Chinese Consulate in Chicago. Among all the mayors who issued 

proclamations, only Westland mayor rescinded his proclamation after reviewing the 

Chinese Consulate’s package. Upon receiving Westland mayor’s letter, practitioners 

called mayor’s office and sent mayor an open letter, asking him to verify the information he received from the Chinese Consulate with credible sources such as the 

US State Department and Amnesty International. However, the mayor refused to 

directly communicate with practitioners. 

Other mayors have rejected the request to rescind the proclamation. The defamation package that the Chinese Consulate sent out included many horrifying pictures 

that were made up to instigate hatred and fear from people. Also, officials from the 

Chinese Consulate directly interfered with elected official’s daily function. Without 

any appointment, two officials from Chinese Consulate in Chicago took a flight to 

Detroit and walked in the office of Rochester Hills’ mayor’s office and demand a 

meeting with the mayor despite mayor’s busy schedule at the time. They demand 

the mayor to rescind the proclamation. Mayor Pat Somerville rejected the demand 

firmly.

91

Picture 1: Letter from Westland mayor after receiving defamation package against 

Falun Gong


77695g.eps
92

Westland drops Falun Gong week under pressure from 

China 

BY LISA M. COLLINS/ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WESTLAND—In January, China had its first public spat with the Bush administration over Washington support for the Falun Gong spiritual movement. 

Last month, the communist nation claimed another person set himself on fire to 

prove devotion to the outlawed Falun Gong, also called Falun Dafa. 

Last week, China claimed a victory over the Falun Dafa in the blue-collar Detroit 

suburb of Westland. 

According to China’s official Xinhua News Agency, Westland Mayor Robert J. 

Thomas canceled Falun Dafa Week—saying he’d been ‘‘hoodwinked’’ by local followers of the meditative and health-conscious religious movement. 

Thomas’ action vaulted Westland into the ranks of cities such as Seattle, San 

Francisco and Los Angeles, who declared Falun Gong observances and then canceled 

them at the urging of the Chinese government. 

Officials in hundreds of other U.S. communities, including at least 20 in Michigan, 

have proclaimed a Falun Gong week or day. Some, including the mayor of Santee, 

Calif., have loudly protested when approached by the Chinese government to remove 

the declarations. Others, like Westland and Seattle, apologized and rescinded the 

honor. 

The Chinese Embassy says the declarations are a campaign of propaganda meant 

to gather attention and show false support for the movement. 

‘‘There are practitioners (of Falun Gong) in this country that have taken advantage of this very fine custom in America of proclamations and declarations,’’ Zhang 

Yuanyuan, spokeswoman for Chinese Embassy in Washington, said Friday. 

Zhang said the Chinese Embassy tries to alert each local government that adopts 

declarations for the Falun Gong that it is an ‘‘evil cult.’’

‘‘We feel we have a duty to tell Americans, to tell the local governments, what 

they’re doing. They’re doing something unconsciously that could hurt Americans. 

What the Falun Gong are doing to the Chinese might become a nightmare for the 

Americans.’’

Supporters of Falun Gong say that’s absurd. 

‘‘It’s amazing the Chinese government is getting so up in arms about (Falun 

Gong),’’ said Adam Montanaro, spokesman for the Falun Dafa Information Center. 

‘‘It’s free, nice, healthy exercise that makes people feel better. It’s not surprising 

that local governments are granting the proclamations. What’s surprising is that the 

Chinese government is getting up in arms about what happens in a small town halfway around the planet.’’

China banned the Falun Gong in 1999, declaring it an ‘‘evil cult.’’

‘‘You cannot be a friend of China and a friend of the Falun Gong at the same 

time,’’ said Zhang. 

Human rights groups have rallied around the banned Falun Gong, claiming that 

China’s crackdown has left at least 112 dead and thousands of others injured or sentenced to prison or labor camps. 

China accuses the group of deceiving people, endangering society and causing the 

deaths of 1,600 practitioners who went insane, committed suicide or refused medical 

treatment. 

The group practices an eclectic mix of traditional Chinese exercise, Taoist and 

Buddhist cosmology and the teachings of founder Li Hongzhi. 

Millions who practice Falun Gong claim its slow-motion exercises and New Age 

philosophy promote health, morality and supernatural powers. 

Charlie Lu, a Falun Gong member, estimated that 300 to 400 practitioners live 

in the Detroit area. Other Michigan communities that have proclaimed Falun Gong 

weeks, and not rescinded them, include Ann Arbor, Madison Heights, Roseville, 

Rochester Hills, Southfield and Troy. 

The Oakland County Board of Commissioners recognized the group last year. 

Commissioner Shelley Taub said she was shocked Friday to hear that China had 

such a strong stance against the Falun Gong. 

‘‘I didn’t see any harm in it. I just though it was a nice thing to do for nice people, 

just as I would do something to remember the Holocaust, or the Armenian holocaust, or library week,’’ Taub said. 

‘‘We did one for the Falun Gong, not to be an insult to any government, but to 

recognize this group for their spirituality and clean living. We saw it as a cultural 

and ethnic resolution. What does this have to do with the Chinese government?’’

93

Thomas, the Westland mayor, declined comment on the Xinhua news agency’s report that he withdrew recognition for the Falun Gong. But City Council President 

Sandra Cicirelli said Falun Gong members asked Thomas to issue a proclamation 

and he agreed to do so. She said she didn’t know anything about it because it never 

came before City Council. 

Falun Gong members ‘‘haven’t called much attention to themselves’’ in Westland, 

Cicirelli said. 

According to Xinhua, the mayor apologized in a letter to the Chinese Consulate 

in Chicago, saying he had acted on insufficient information about the group. 

Xinhua reported that the consulate’s letter to Thomas was accompanied by grisly 

photos of suicides blamed by China on the Falun Gong. 

On the Net: 

Falun Gong: http://www.faluninfo.net and www.falundafa.org 

Chinese Embassy: http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/index.html 

PART 2. OTHER HARASSMENT 

Jiang Zemin’s Regime Pressures Singtao Daily to Stop Carrying Articles 

about Falun Gong

Summary: Singtao Daily stopped carrying articles about Falun Gong on November 

4, 2001. According to news disclosed by informed sources, this decision was the 

direct result of pressure that Mainland China put on Singtao Daily’s Headquarters in Hong Kong.

Date of Incident: November 4, 2001

Victim(s): Falun Gong 

Location of incident: USA

Description: 

Singtao Daily stopped carrying articles about Falun Gong on November 4, 2001. 

According to news disclosed by informed sources, this decision was the direct result 

of pressure that Mainland China put on Singtao Daily’s Headquarters in Hong 

Kong. 

For more than two years, Falun Gong practitioners bought a half page from the 

paper every Sunday (later switched to Singtao Weekly), publishing news about 

Mainland China’s persecution of Falun Gong and about how Falun Gong is deeply 

welcomed around the world. Because of this publication, more and more overseas 

Chinese benefited and gradually got to know the truth about Falun Gong’s persecution in Mainland China. 

Although Singtao Daily is a newspaper distributed outside of China in free countries, it still cannot avoid the suppressive influence of Jiang Zemin’s regime.

San Francisco Examiner: Supes side with oppression

Summary: ‘‘. . . The People’s Republic of China and its proxy are making sure that 

our city’s policy is a pro-PRC one, instead of one honoring the value of 

freedom...’’

Description: 

San Francisco Examiner: Supes side with oppression 

By Winnie Ji 

[. . .] 

The People’s Republic of China and its proxy are making sure that our city’s policy is a pro-PRC one, instead of one honoring the value of freedom. 

The PRC consul’s simple denial of any death from the persecution, despite a wide 

range of reports of such, and his outright request of ‘‘let’s forget about this and find 

common interest,’’ send a chill through my body. It reminds me of the PRC’s blatant 

denial that anybody died in Tiananmen Square during the 1989 events. 

What will it take to see through the words of the PRC?

http://www.examiner.com/opinion/default.jsp?story=OPletters.1022w

Jiang Zemin Extends ‘‘Implication System’’ Overseas

Summary: ‘‘The People’s Republic of China and its proxy are making sure that our 

city’s policy is a pro-PRC one, instead of one honoring the value of 

freedom...’’

Date of Incident: Oct. 23, 2001

Victim(s): Falun Gong, other Chinese organizations and individuals in the US 

Location of incident: Washington DC

94

Description: 

Clearwisdom.net article on Oct. 23, 2001: During a welcoming ceremony for a new 

Chinese ambassador, where a Falun Gong practitioner was present, the ambassador 

slandered Falun Gong. The practitioner stood up immediately to clarify the truth. 

Later on, the hosting Chinese organization received tremendous pressure from the 

Chinese Embassy, and the director of the organization was forced to resign his position. As we have just learned, this incident is not yet over. The Chinese Embassy 

continues to apply pressure regarding this issue and is still conducting further investigations. 

Overseas media are reporting that, in addition to the various brutal tortures, 

brainwashing and mental abuse used in the persecution of Falun Dafa, Jiang Zemin 

and Luo Gan have been using the so-called ‘‘implication system against Falun 

Gong.’’ [Note: If one practitioner is persecuted for practicing Falun Dafa, his or her 

family members, relatives and work unit will also be implicated by association, and 

will all be punished through various means] We can see from the above example 

that overseas Chinese organizations are receiving pressure from the Chinese Embassy. This shows that through their ambassadors, Jiang Zemin and Luo Gan are 

exporting overseas the ‘‘implication system’’ used to persecute Falun Gong in China, 

to force overseas Chinese to attack and isolate Falun Gong practitioners abroad. 

Overseas Chinese organizations, including Chinese schools, are registered, local 

organizations. They are independent and, from a legal standpoint, have no relationship with China. Most of the members are non-Chinese citizens who usually work 

for companies in the countries of their citizenship. However, in the eyes of Jiang 

Zemin and Luo Gan, all Chinese people and Chinese organizations must obey their 

commands. If not, Jiang and Luo will have personnel from the Chinese Embassy 

threaten them, and let them ponder the fate of their mainland relatives. If anyone 

does business with China, then the Embassy will threaten the viability of his or her 

business.

http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2001/10/23/14968.html

Six Hunger Striking Practitioners Presenting Letter to the United Nations 

are Hindered and Harassed by Chinese Special Agents

Summery: Six Falun Gong Practitioners on hunger strike wanted to present a letter, 

which carried the collective wishes of the practitioners on hunger strike from 

various locations, to the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. While walking into 

the U.N. building, several Chinese agents repeatedly asked security officer to 

intervene. They even tried to grab the camera from newspaper reporter who 

took their pictures on the spot. Then the practitioners under police escort went 

New York senators’ office asking for assistance.

Date of Incident: August 27, 2001

Victim(s): Six Falun Gong Practitioners 

Location of incident: United Nation in New York

Description: 

Six of us practitioners on hunger strike embarked on our journey to the UN in 

the afternoon on August 27. We wanted to present a letter, which carried the collective wishes of the practitioners on hunger strike from various locations, to the UN 

Secretary-General Kofi Annan. 

On August 28, we held a press conference outside the UN. After the press conference, we made our way into the UN building. A security officer told us to wait 

in the hall and someone from Annan’s office would come to accept the letter. At that 

moment, several Chinese people came hurriedly from upstairs, and said something 

to the security officer. The officer then took us outside, and told us to wait there. 

We waited patiently for about 20 minutes, then another bunch of Chinese appeared. 

They asked a security officer to accept our letter. They then disappeared together 

with the security officer into the crowd. When a female reporter from Epoch Times 

took pictures of the officer accepting the letter, three special agents attempted to 

grab the camera, but were stopped by the police. 

Under police escort, we went to the offices of the New York Senators including 

that of Mrs. Clinton, and requested their assistance forwarding our letter to Mr. 

Annan. We also sought their help to stop China’s brutal persecution of Falun Gong. 

They said they would do their best to help us.

Newsday: Silencing the Movement Crackdown from afar

By Paul Moses and Mae Cheng, Staff Writers

September 6, 2001

95

Summery: An article from NEWSDAY described how the Chinese Consulates in 

New York tried to slander Falun Gong and intervene local government in New 

York from issuing proclamation to Falun Gong.

FOR TWO YEARS NOW, Janet Xiong has felt the chill. 

In the streets of New York, her adopted city, there have been taunts and jeers 

against the meditation movement she follows, called Falun Gong. In her native 

China, friends have been hauled off to prison for those same beliefs. 

Halfway around the world, the 47-year-old city researcher from Flushing was told, 

Chinese authorities were asking questions about her. Police wanted to know about 

the role that Xiong, a U.S. citizen who arrived from China 14 years ago, plays in 

the Falun Gong spiritual movement, target of a brutal crackdown in China. First, 

the word came back from a Falun Gong practitioner from Forest Hills, who was detained and interrogated while in China on business. ‘‘He told me, ’Never go back 

again because they are watching you,’’’ she said. Then another practitioner, a 

woman, was questioned. ‘‘She was asked the same questions about us,’’ Xiong said. 

The Chinese government’s relentless drive to beat down the popular meditation 

movement echoes, faint but chilling, in New York. Government officials have appeared at ‘‘seminars’’ in Manhattan to decry [Jiang Zemin government’s slanderous 

terms omitted], egging on local Chinese immigrants to oppose the movement. In one 

session, the consul-general told his audience that immigrants who have not become 

U.S. citizens were expected to obey Chinese laws, which ban Falun Gong. Further 

poisoning the atmosphere for local Falun Gong practitioners, powerful organizations 

in Chinatown—which had expressed no concern about Falun Gong before the government crackdown started in July 1999—began holding countermarches against 

the group, their charges echoing the government’s virulent accusations. Even small 

details have not escaped the government’s hawklike attention: The New York consulate contacted a councilman in Queens when he issued a routine proclamation 

praising Falun Gong. 

It is a highly unusual attempt by a foreign government to tackle a spiritual movement within U.S. borders—complementing a campaign inside China that the State 

Department and human rights monitors say includes widespread brainwashing and 

torture. ‘‘It just shows how desperate, in my experience, the PRC [People’s Republic 

of China] really is,’’ said Gail Rachlin, Manhattan-based spokeswoman for Falun 

Gong. 

For those who have watched Falun Gong adherents practice their slow-motion exercises in public parks, it’s hard to imagine what the fuss is about. 

The movement’s founder is Li Hongzhi, once a clerk and trumpet player in China. 

He studied with a Buddhist monk and then Taoist masters, he told Newsday in 

1999 in one of his rare interviews. Li, said to live at an undisclosed location in 

Queens, explained that in the late 1980s, his spiritual masters encouraged him to 

teach qigong, a traditional Chinese meditative exercise. 

[. . .] In 1992, Li began to teach. According to the Master, as he is called, there 

is a wheel of energy within the lower abdomen that spins off a healing force. (Falun 

Gong means ‘‘wheel of the law.’’) Through exercises and meditation, followers try to 

cultivate this force, which Li says brings both mental and physical benefits. The 

idea that the connection between body and mind can improve health is hardly new 

in the Far East, but the focus on physical well-being—Li, 50, says he has never been 

sick—helped make the movement hugely popular in China. 

‘‘The Chinese government chose for a long time just to ignore them,’’ said James 

Richardson, dean of the law department of the University of Nevada in Reno and 

a sociologist who has studied the crackdown on Falun Gong. ‘‘They were under the 

guise of just an exercise regime. The medical care in many parts of China is so poor 

that the Chinese government actually recommends these exercise regimes.’’

[. . .] 

But in April 1999, Falun Gong members protested outside a student newspaper 

in China that would not recant its negative coverage. The government refused to 

order it; 10,000 Falun Gong adherents responded by protesting outside party headquarters in Beijing, seeking recognition for their movement. While Li says he has 

no interest in political might, this show of force sent shock waves through [party’s 

name omitted] leadership in China, [. . .] 

[. . .] 

On July 22, 1999, President Jiang Zemin ordered a crackdown. According to 

Falun Gong, 50,000 of its practitioners have been detained in China; 10,000 sentenced to labor ‘‘re-education’’ camps; 1,000 committed to mental hospitals where 

torture and forced use of psychiatric drugs are common. So far, the group says, it 

has identified 265 people tortured to death in police custody. 

96

Amnesty International, finding that torture or force-feeding hunger strikers had 

caused many of the deaths in police .custody, called the abuses ‘‘appalling’’ and 

urged the international community to speak out. And a State Department report on 

religious freedom that covered the early months of the crackdown largely confirmed 

the Falun Gong allegations to that point. It said ‘‘there were numerous credible reports of police involvement in beatings, detention under extremely harsh conditions, 

torture (including by electric shock and by having hands and feet shackled and 

linked with crossed steel chains), and other abuses of detained Falun Gong practitioners.’’ THE CHINESE CONSULATE in Manhattan is in a shopworn building that used 

to house a ‘‘motor inn’’—a portion of the sign is visible—at the end of 42nd Street, 

across from the Hudson River. The ground floor has a brightly lit office where people line up for passports and visas. 

In most consulates, the walls display colorful, scenic pictures of the homeland, a 

welcome to tourists. But at the Chinese Consulate, visitors are welcomed with posters featuring graphic pictures of dead bodies: charred by fire, ripped open with scissors, beaten on the head with a spade, hung from a rope. 

[. . .] 

These same posters, in English and Chinese, found their way into the hands of 

counterdemonstrators who jeered Falun Gong members when they marched through 

Chinatown on April 21. About 500 practitioners marched, hoping to counter the government propaganda campaign. 

[. . .] 

Wai Lind Lam, 54, a Falun Gong practitioner from Manhattan, said one of the 

opponents tried to burn her hair with a cigarette lighter during the China.town 

march. ‘‘They said, ‘Don’t burn yourself,’ and that kind of thing,’’ said Yun Song, a 30-

year-old actuarial consultant from Manhattan who is a Falun Gong practitioner. 

‘‘This is one of many instances that we got disturbed or harassed.’’ Guan Liang, chairman of the umbrella group that led the Chinatown 

counterdemonstration, the United Chinese Associations of Greater New York, said 

in an interview that his association has not had contact with Chinese Consulate officials about Falun Gong. 

And a spokesman for the Chinese Consulate in New York said he had no information about meetings between government officials and the Chinese community in 

New York about Falun Gong. 

But information on a Web site maintained by the Chinese Consulate in Manhattan makes clear that the government has, in fact, been urging Liang and the New 

York Chinese community to join its crusade against Falun Gong. 

[. . .] 

ACROSS the country, Chinese consulates have not been shy about expressing that 

view to American elected .officials. 

City Councilman Sheldon Leffler, a Queens Democrat, said he recalled issuing a 

proclamation on behalf of the council in support of Falun Gong practitioners on a 

Thursday. On Saturday, he went to his district office and found a two-page letter 

with a book and a videotape from the New York Chinese Consulate. 

‘‘It was basically saying they were disappointed I had presented such a proclamation,’’ he said. Leffler didn’t consider it threatening, but added, ‘‘When you get something from [party’s name omitted] China saying you shouldn’t have done this . . . 

it’s a bit of pressure.’’

But because of China’s importance in international trade, officials in some U.S. 

cities, including Seattle, have rescinded proclamations. More than a dozen mayors 

have reported pressure from Chinese officials who often mention the importance of 

China-U.S. trade, The Associated Press reported. 

In a speech in New York, Consul-General Zhang Hongxi even suggested that China’s ban on Falun Gong was binding on Chinese immigrants living here if they have 

not yet become U.S. citizens. 

‘‘Of course, if you still hold the Chinese passports, that is, if you are still Chinese 

nationals without being naturalized as the U.S. citizens, you have dual obligations, 

you must abide by both the Chinese and the U.S. laws,’’ he told the audience, according to a transcript on the consulate’s Web site. 

While the Chinese government can’t enforce its ban in the United States, a number of New Yorkers have felt its force. In some cases, Falun Gong practitioners here 

said they’ve been unable to return to China to visit relatives. 

Zhen Mei Xu, a 44-year-old Jackson Heights resident who works as a secretary 

at the United Nations, said she was turned back at Beijing International Airport 

when she went to visit her ailing father in August last year. 

‘‘I was not allowed to enter my own country,’’ she said. 

97

Wei Lu, 50, a textile designer from Manhattan who is an organizer of local Falun 

Gong activities, said she had gotten a passport extension pending a background 

check. ‘‘They canceled it,’’ she said, adding that the consulate would not explain 

why. But Falun Gong practitioners assume the Chinese government knows of their 

connection to the group by photographing demonstrations or exercise sessions. 

For some, the stakes have been higher. 

Chunyan Teng, a Flushing woman who is a professor of traditional Chinese medicine at New York College for holistic Health, Education and Research in Syosset, 

was sentenced to three years in prison in China for leaking information about the 

abuse of Falun Gong adherents in mental hospitals to foreign reporters. The State 

Department has urged that Teng, 38, a legal permanent U.S. resident, be released 

on humanitarian grounds and allowed to join her family in the United States. 

Last month, her mother, Yun Fang Qiu, 70, of Flushing, made a tearful plea at 

a news conference outside the Chinese Consulate for her daughter’s release. 

‘‘Chunyan did nothing but telling the truth,’’ she said. ‘‘For telling the truth, she 

was put into prison and was tortured there.’’

The following week, a colleague at the school, Lorraine Kabacinski of Huntington 

Station, took part in a hunger strike for 48 hours to call attention to Teng’s plight. 

‘‘She actually introduced me to Falun Gong,’’ Kabacinski said, adding that it had 

given her an inner calm. ‘‘I’m so grateful to her.’’

Janet Xiong, too, joined portions of a 130-hour sit-in across the street from the 

Chinese Consulate on 42nd Street, hoping to help Teng, a friend and .fellow Falun 

Gong practitioner in Flushing. 

‘‘We met almost every day, even in the snow,’’ she said. ‘‘She was very determined. We practiced meditation for two years.’’

Xiong gestured toward the river. ‘‘You have the Statue of Liberty here—New York 

is like a symbol of democracy,’’ she said. ‘‘It’s a harbor for liberty. But people are 

suffering in mainland China, and what are we doing here? Keeping quiet?’’

For the first time in three interviews, Xiong’s emotions pushed to the surface. As 

the emotions surged in her throat, she said she was crying. ‘‘I put myself in their 

shoes,’’ Xiong said. ‘‘If I were there, I would probably do the same thing. I would 

probably be in jail. It’s like something that could happen to me.’’

http://www.newsday.com/features/ny-feat-fcov906.story

Press Release: Los Angeles Chinese Consulate Representatives Attempted 

to Disrupt Falun Gong Global Appeal

Summary: Chinese Consulate representatives, enraged by Falun Gong’s peaceful 

demonstrations, confronted police and pulled down Falun Gong appeal banners 

across the street from the consulate building Friday (June 1), as Falun Gong 

sympathizers and the public looked on. A few people from the consulate came 

and swear at practitioners demanding that practitioners move away the two 

banners right in front of the Chinese Consulate building.

When: June 8, 2001

Location: In front of Chinese Consulate, Los Angeles 

Victim(s): 20 Practitioners appealed In front of Chinese Consulate, Los Angeles

Description:

LOS ANGELES, June 8, 2001—Chinese Consulate representatives, enraged by 

Falun Gong’s peaceful demonstrations, confronted police and pulled down Falun 

Gong appeal banners across the street from the consulate building Friday (June 1), 

as Falun Gong sympathizers and the public looked on. 

Police quickly restored order and allowed Falun Gong practitioners and supporters to continue their appeal, which was permitted by the city of Los Angeles and 

took place on public property. 

Twenty Falun Gong practitioners had gathered in front of the Los Angeles Chinese Consulate as they joined the global appeal to call for the release of thousands 

of practitioners forcibly detained and abused in Chinese labor camps. Friday’s appeal sought to call attention especially to the illegal imprisonment of U.S., Canadian, Japanese, Irish and Hong Kong residents whose conditions remain uncertain. 

This is not the first time that consulate representatives have lashed out against 

the practice of Falun Gong in Los Angeles. In mid-February, the Consul General 

sent a letter to the general manager of the Pasadena Civic Auditorium demanding 

that the venue cancel a scheduled Falun Gong conference. The auditorium turned 

down the Consul General’s request. 

Lisa Li, a practitioner from Los Angeles describes, ‘‘After the Los Angeles conference in February, Los Angeles practitioners started to appeal to the Chinese Consulate every day. In the beginning of March, the Chinese Consulate planted some 

98

bushes inside and circling around the two pieces of grass area right in front of the 

Chinese Consulate building so that we could not gather there anymore. We had to 

move to the third piece of grass areas on the side of building.’’ Ms. Li continues, ‘‘Most of us quietly practiced Falun Gong on the grass area on 

the side of the Chinese consulate. Only a few of us distributed flyers to passersby 

or talked to people who were interested. Then, all of a sudden, a few people from 

the consulate came out and started to swear at us demanding that we move away 

the two banners right in front of the Chinese Consulate building. We refused, and 

then one of them took out banners and wood-sticks and threw them onto the 

ground.’’ After arguing with police for several minutes, the three consulate workers returned inside. Falun Gong practitioners resumed their silent appeal and raised their 

banners. One banner written in Chinese reads, ‘‘Stop Persecuting Falun Gong.’’

Jiang Zemin Stretches Out His Sullied Hands To Overseas Chinese College 

Students

Summary: Chinese Consulate officials of the San Francisco Bay area paid a visit 

to Berkeley and Stanford, two prestigious universities, where they forced Chinese Student Union members to sign a declaration affirming their support of 

Jiang Zemin’s ludicrous crackdown on Falun Gong.

Date of Incident: Posting date: 5/4/2001

Location of Incident: University of California, at the Berkeley and Stanford University 

Victim(s): Chinese Graduate Students

Description: 

Jiang Zemin regime, who has directed Chinese Consulate officials on the West 

Coast of the United States to extend their persecution into American public institutions. Not too long ago, diplomats from the Chinese Consulate in the San Francisco 

Bay area paid a visit to Berkeley and Stanford, two prestigious universities, where 

they forced Chinese Student Union members to sign a declaration affirming their 

support of Jiang Zemin’s ludicrous crackdown on Falun Gong. These ‘‘diplomats’’ created controversy, spread absurd slander about Falun Gong, and inoculated students with the government’s lies and propaganda. Chinese citizen-students studying 

abroad are now under tremendous pressure. 

China’s Harassment of Falun Gong in the Southern 

California Area 

China’s Leadership brings the Persecution Of Falun Gong to American Soil

AUGUST 2001

LIST OF INTERFERENCES WITH FALUN DAFA PRACTITIONERS IN THE SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA AREA SINCE THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT CRACKDOWN ON FALUN DAFA

The Chinese Consulate Interferes with US Internal affairs 

December 2000: The Chinese Consul General in Los Angeles, Mr. Lan Lijun, sent 

a letter to each city in the Southern California to ask the city not to give any positive proclamation and support to Falun Gong, and not to offer registration to Falun 

Gong. Meanwhile, he slandered Falun Gong in his letter. 

Los Angeles County proclaimed December 11 thru December 17 as the ‘‘Falun 

Dafa Week’’ of that County and issued a certificate to the local Falun Gong practitioners. Mr. Xue Bin, a diplomat from the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles, lied 

in a Chinese newspaper that, ‘‘There does not exit such a thing. That (the proclamation) is a fabrication.’’ His words constituted a slander against the local Falun Gong 

practitioners. 

December 2000: The City of Alhambra proclaimed a Falun Dafa Week. However, 

the Chinese Consulate again sent diplomat to the City office. Later, they claimed 

in a Chinese Newspaper, ‘‘The Mayor of the City of Alhambra has already apologized to the Chinese Consulate for this matter.’’ It is the right of a US Mayor to 

issue a proclamation to the citizens, and it should not be interfered by the Chinese 

Consulate that represents Chinese government. If the Chinese Consulate forced a 

US Mayor to apologize, it was evidence that the Chinese Consulate was interfering 

with the internal affairs of the United States. 

January 13, 2001: The Consul General, Mr, Lan Lijun, went to the local Chinese 

Community Associations to ask them to fight against Falun Gong and attack its acVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:54 Jun 10, 2002 Jkt 077695 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\IOHR\021302\77695 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
99

tivities in the Sountern California. Falun Gong is a legal organization in US. However, the Consul General instigated the local people to attack Falun Gong, and to 

bring instability to the American democratic society. 

November 21, 2000: Falun Gong practitioners signed a contract for participating 

the China Expo to be held in the Los Angeles Convention Center from December 

8 to December 10, and also made the full payment. However, the Chinese Consulate 

repeatedly pressured the organizer of the China Expo to cancel the booth reserved 

by Falun Gong practitioners. In order not to bring trouble to the organizer, Falun 

Gong practitioners decided to withdraw the contract voluntarily. 

December 27, 2000: The Consul General, Mr, Lan Lijun, wrote a letter to the 

Mayor of the City of Sante, to demand him not to issue the Falun Dafa Week proclamation. The Mayor refused his unreasonable demand and issued that proclamation 

to the loal Falun Gong practitioners. 

The above facts clearly indicate that the officials from the Chinese Consulate are 

knowingly violating the US Constitution and interfering with the US internal affairs, and trying to mislead the American people, in order to achieve the goal of persecuting local Falun Gong practitioners. 

Consulate Staff Member Steals Truth-Clarifying Materials 

On August 3, 2001, at 8:30 am, a few practitioners gathered outside the Los Angeles Chinese Consulate in order to appeal to the Chinese government. Although the 

consulate had not yet opened, many people had already lined up outside its door 

waiting to get in. The practitioners had brought with them a large quantity of truthClarifying materials. For the convenience of the people waiting in line, they placed 

these materials on top of one of the pillars opposite the visa-service door. 

The practitioners then started to meditate with their eyes-closed. Meanwhile, several practitioners noticed a female staff walking out of the front door of the Chinese 

Consulate and did not pay any attention to her. Ten minutes later, practitioners discovered that the pile of materials was gone. The people waiting outside for the visa 

service informed the practitioners that that female staff had taken the materials 

away. 

The practitioners then went to find that female staff and asked her to return the 

materials. This staff did not deny stealing the materials, and began verbally abusing the practitioners. 

Practitioners then reported the incident to Los Angeles City Rampart Police, 213–

485–4061. 

In front of the Chinese consulate:

• Consulate spayed water in the grass area in front of the Chinese consulate 

before local Falun Gong practitioners went to hold demonstrations.

• Consulate feeds cats and dogs so the remains they left there are dirty and 

smelled bad, making it hard for Falun Gong practitioners to stay there for 

demonstration.

• Grow dense small trees and flowers in front of the consulate, leaving no open 

space for Falun Gong practitioners to sit and demonstrate in front of the 

building.

• Most recently, they talked with police and forbid us to put up banners and 

picture boards in front of the consulate. We need help from local government 

to allow us to peacefully demonstrate. 

Cases of Interference in Pasadena, Monterey Park, El Monte

1) Pasadena Borders Bookstore was pressured by its headquarters to stop carrying the Falun Dafa books and allowing a weekly study group last summer 

after an influential person from the Chinese government heard an interview on KPCC with Pasadena Dafa practitioners discussing the crackdown 

and called the headquarters to complain. Eventually the Pasadena Borders 

began selling the books again through special order. Contact: Michael 

Graziano, Community Relations Coordinator at Pasadena Borders.

2) SUP Bookstore in Monterey Park was pressured by its headquarters in 

Hong Kong to stop selling the Falun Dafa books last July. Up until that 

point, SUP had been the distributor on Falun Dafa materials in North 

America.

3) The Caltech website was blocked in China last summer until late fall. After 

the crackdown, the Chinese consulate in Los Angeles asked Caltech to remove the Falun Gong website run by the Caltech Falun Club or else they 

would continue to block all internet connections of Caltech to China. 

100

Caltech carefully reviewed the contents of the Falun Gong website and denied the Chinese consulate’s request. Then China was forced to release the 

block, because Caltech wouldn’t budge. While the block was in place it especially inconvenienced new incoming students from China to Caltech.

4) At least three people believed their phones were tapped in the past year. 

Among them, only one person contacted the FBI. Many practitioners may 

be unaware of the laws protecting them and need to know the procedure 

for reporting such suspected things.

5) Los Angeles rescinded an award to Li Hongzhi last year.

6) In February of 2000, the Los Angeles Chinese consulate asked Caltech to 

cancel an annual Falun Dafa conference. Not only did Caltech refuse the 

Chinese consulate’s request, they provided two guards to guard both entrances into the auditorium. The Caltech security took action to stop what 

appeared to be people from the Chinese consulate trying to photograph the 

attendants.

7) At the last sit in at the Chinese consulate, the Chinese consulate’s agents 

were caught on film hosing down the lawn in front before the practitioners 

arrived. A Chinese newspaper ran the story and picture.

8) Following the crackdown, at local practicing sites many practitioners and 

their cars’ license plates were repeatedly photographed by unknown people. 

Some practitioners think it might have been scare tactics.

9) The case of Yun Shan Tian. Yun Shan Tian works for a Chinese subsidiary. 

In May 1999 she went to the Chinese consulate to extend her passport, as 

it expired that month. It turned out that the Chinese consulate knew a lot 

about her. They knew her name; they knew that Li Hongzhi once stayed 

in her home; they knew she practiced Falun Dafa. The foreign affairs administration which controls travel business called her parent company operation manager and said that because she practices Falun Dafa they won’t 

extend her passport. Her company became scared. The foreign affairs administration then suspended passport access to other employees in China, 

because of her case. Even though she continued to work for the company, 

the company told the administration that she was gone. In order to have 

those restrictions removed on other employees, the boss had to write a 

guarantee that she was no longer with the company. To keep things under 

wrap, the boss told her not to practice Falun Dafa in public and not to let 

others know that she practices Falun Dafa. After July, the foreign affairs 

administration changed their excuse. They said the reason that they 

wouldn’t extend her passport is that she was on a business trip and thus 

should go back to China. Currently she has an L1 status but no valid passport. The only way to go back to China is to get a temporary passport from 

the Chinese consulate.

10) When Xiaoxiao Xie, a practitioner in El Monte, California, was demonstrating in front of the Chinese embassy in Washington D.C. and doing 

the exercises at the Capitol Mall, someone videotaped her and the other 

practitioners from different angles at a close range. Since then, she has 

been followed and videotaped at her practicing site in El Monte. She also 

believes her phone was tapped.

11) Guidong Li, a very prominent local Falun Dafa practitioner, tried to extend 

her passport on March 15, 1999, because it was to expire on March 25. She 

submitted all required documents and got a receipt (#23075) from the Chinese General Consulate in Los Angeles. One year and four months has 

passed and she has not received any response from the Chinese consulate. 

Xue Bin, the spokesperson of the Chinese consulate, was notified of this 

matter and mentioned he would look into it, but has issued no answer yet.

12) John Li, president of Caltech Falun Club, is a prominent volunteer for 

Falun Dafa. As a result, he has been subject to a lot of interference. Ke Ye, 

the former Chairman of the Chinese Student and Scholarship Association 

at the University of Southern California, said that the current association’s 

chairman told him the Chinese consulate is spreading rumors that John Li 

is working for the U.S. government as a spy and is paid by the CIA to overthrow the Chinese government. An agent working for an unidentified agency told John that the Chinese consulate in Los Angeles has a copy of his 

passport. She claims that he is being followed. John was also told by 

Caltech students that the Chinese consulate asked them to watch him and 

to lobby the Caltech administration to turn against the Caltech Falun Club 

101

and John Li. John’s phone appeared to be bugged and reported it to the FBI 

several times.

13) The case of Dongliang Zhang. Because Dongliang Zhang had incriminating 

photos of police beating practitioners in China sent by his son in China to 

him in the United States, his son was physically attacked, forced to quit 

high school and go into hiding. His story was misrepresented on CCTV, a 

Chinese television station. His tense circumstances are still unresolved. For 

the details, read the attached hardcopy of his story. 

Harassment at Vincent Lugo Park in San Gabriel 

In San Gabriel 20–30 practitioners gather every morning between 6:00–8:00am to 

practice the peaceful exercises of Falun Gong together. This park became a practice 

site in 1996. There had been no instances of harassment until the Chinese government began its persecution of Falun Gong in July of 1999. Over the past two years, 

however, there have been an increasing number of incidents. 

In April 2001, a Chinese woman arrived at the practice site and began 

photographing the group while they practiced the exercises. One of the practitioners, 

Mr. Chui, asked her to stop taking pictures. She refused and continued taking unauthorized pictures from a distance. On April 25, she was observed entering the Chinese Consulate after office hours by Mr. Chui who was outside the Chinese Consulate participating in a Candlelight Vigil. 

On August 2, 2001 at 7:15am, an unidentified short Chinese man, roughly 25 

years old, wearing dark green clothes arrived at the practice site and began taking 

pictures of the practitioners without permission. Dr. Guidong Li, the contact person 

for the San Gabriel practice site, asked him to stop taking pictures. This man reacted by yelling loudly: ‘‘I am from the American government, it could not be better 

to make trouble for you, etc...’’. When the practitioners warned that they would 

call the police this man ran away. Dr. Guidong Li followed him to his car and wrote 

down his license plate number (3WE711). Mrs. Lili Hu, an elderly woman, followed 

him to ask for the pictures. He refused and hurriedly drove off, nearly hitting her. 

Since Hong Kong immigration officials admit to the existence of blacklists in each 

country (CNN May 22, 2001), practitioners are concerned that these pictures will 

be used to discriminate against them. Ms. Guidong Li is among many Falun Gong 

practitioners who were not allowed to renew their Chinese passport by the consulate. 

On August 5, 2001 two unidentified men harassed a young female practitioner 

while the group practiced the meditation with their eyes closed. They knelt down 

by the practitioner and made vicious remarks in Chinese. She did not respond to 

them and continued in her meditation. Before the practice ended, these men ran to 

their car. 

General Cases of Interference: 

1) Twice this year three important websites were hacked: Minghui, 

Falundafa.org and Buhuo.net. These hackings were reported to the FBI.

2) The Falun Dafa radio station, which reports the truth about Falun Dafa to 

the Chinese people and is run by overseas practitioners, has been jammed 

by the Chinese government ever since the first day of its broadcasting.

3) On July 7 and 8, the consulate-sponsored Chinese television program played 

20 minutes each of Parts I and II of a program in Chinese via a local TV 

station. The program was made by the CCTV, the official Chinese government TV station which has been used to denounce Falun Gong in Mainland 

China during the past year. There are a lot of scary scenes in the program. 

It is very likely that showing this could violate U.S. laws.

4) There is a 30-minute videotape, which has been shown on CCTV and U.S. 

public television stations, which contains false information. It claims Li 

Hongzhi lives in a big house in New York and even shows a picture. In fact, 

Li Hongzhi doesn’t live there at all. This videotape can supposedly be picked 

up at any Chinese consulate. 

China Expo: 

• Chinese Consulate exerted pressure to the organizer of China Expo, to not 

allow Falun Dafa to participate in the event. 

Interference to American government: 

• Former mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Giordon, withdrew the proclamation 

he issued to Falun Dafa in 2000 as a result of pressure from the Chinese consulate. 

102

Media slandering: 

• In addition, we are witnessing more and more media penetration from the 

Chinese government slandering Falun Gong in the United States. These penetrations, which employ the same techniques the Chinese government has 

been using to successfully brainwash its own people in China, fabricate stories to demonize Falun Gong and instigate hatred among Chinese communities against local Falun Gong practitioners in this country. While denying 

people’s freedom of speech and belief and implementing information blockade 

in China, the Chinese government is vigorously promoting its programs in the 

free world to brainwash people outside China.

• A most recent example: The December 17, 2001 People’s Daily (Chinese Communist Party official newspaper) overseas edition (p4), carried an article 

about a ‘‘murdering’’ case done by an insane person in Beijing. Like numerous 

similar slandering articles in China, this article claimed a Falun Gong practitioner did the crime.

• China Press (or QiaoBao in Chinese), the voice newspaper of the Chinese government in the United States, frequently carried articles to slander Falun 

Gong.

• CCTV (China Central TV station) is doing more and more slanderous work 

overseas. For example, those ‘‘suicide’’ and ‘‘murdering’’ pictures have been 

shown repeatedly to brainwash Americans and Chinese living in the United 

States.

Contacts:

Gina Sanchez: (626) 798–1814

Lisa Li: (310) 208–2064

Æ