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

24–596PDF 2006

IN DEFENSE OF HUMAN DIGNITY: THE

INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN 

RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 15, 2005

Serial No. 109–119

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 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, 

Vice Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

PETER T. KING, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TOM LANTOS, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

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

ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL

OPERATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, 

Vice Chairman 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BARBARA LEE, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

MARY M. NOONAN, Subcommittee Staff Director 

GREG SIMPKINS, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member 

NOELLE LUSANE, Democratic Professional Staff Member 

SHERI A. RICKERT, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member and Counsel 

LINDSEY M. PLUMLEY, Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable John V. Hanford III, Ambassador-at-Large, Office of International Religious Freedom, U.S. Department of State .................................... 9

Michael Cromartie, Ph.D., Chair, U.S. Commission on International Religious 

Freedom ................................................................................................................ 34

The Most Reverend Ricardo Ramirez, C.S.B., Bishop of Las Cruces, New 

Mexico, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops ..................................... 60

Ms. Nina Shea, Director, Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom House ......... 72

Mr. Tom Malinowski, Washington Advocacy Director, Human Rights Watch ... 87

Mr. David Aikman, Author, ‘‘Jesus in Beijing: How Christianity is Transforming China and Changing the World Balance of Power’’ ............................ 95

Mr. Lawrence A. Uzzell, President, International Religious Freedom Watch .... 99

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global 

Human Rights and International Operations: Prepared statement ................ 4

The Honorable John V. Hanford III: Prepared statement ................................... 13

U.S. Commission on International Freedom: Recommendations to Advance 

U.S. Human Rights Diplomacy With China ...................................................... 37

Michael Cromartie, Ph.D.: Prepared statement .................................................... 44

The Most Reverend Ricardo Ramirez, C.S.B.: Prepared statement .................... 63

Ms. Nina Shea: Prepared statement ...................................................................... 75

Mr. Tom Malinowski: Prepared statement ............................................................ 90

Mr. David Aikman: Prepared statement ............................................................... 97

Mr. Lawrence A. Uzzell: Prepared statement ....................................................... 102

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith: Prepared statement of Vo Van Ai, 

International Spokesman, Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam .................... 122

The Honorable Henry J. Hyde, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, and Chairman, Committee on International Relations: Prepared 

statement of The Rev. Dr. David-Maria A. Jaeger, O.F.M., Israeli Catholic 

Priest ..................................................................................................................... 125

(1)

IN DEFENSE OF HUMAN DIGNITY: THE INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS

AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The Subcommittee will come to order, and good 

morning to everyone. 

Today, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and 

International Operations will hold an oversight hearing on the congressionally-mandated Annual Report on International Religious 

Freedom and on the designations of ‘‘countries of particular concern’’ for 2005. 

The hearing will focus on the countries of particular concern, or 

CPC countries, Eritrea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Burma, Vietnam, China, and North Korea, as well as other countries where the 

rights of believers are seriously threatened and undermined, such 

as Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Russia, and Cuba. We will also discuss why and 

how Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Pakistan managed to avoid 

CPC designation. 

The Subcommittee will consider what the U.S. has done in the 

past year to address these issues and what it intends to do in the 

coming year. By demonstrating the passionate concern of the 

United States Congress for religious liberty and by focusing national attention on the challenges this first freedom confronts in 

the world today, we have a real opportunity to advance freedom 

throughout the world. 

As Bishop Ricardo Ramirez, who will be speaking on our third 

panel, accurately points out in his testimony, religious liberty begins with the right to worship according to one’s conscience, but it 

does not end there. Religious freedom covers a broad range of religious activities, he said—and he is right—from freedom of worship 

to freedom of conscience, from the right to establish schools and 

charities to the right to participate in and to seek to influence public affairs. 

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights triumphantly states, and I quote, that ‘‘Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom 

2

to change his religion or personal belief and freedom, either alone 

or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest 

his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.’’ 

Yet all over the world one or more aspects of this fundamental freedom are threatened, violated or outright trampled upon, and in the 

totalitarian states of China, North Korea, and Vietnam there is 

open war against religious believers who will not tow the line and 

submit their consciences to the state. 

Burma’s continuing designation as a CPC country comes as no 

surprise to those of us who have supported Burma’s legitimate democracy movement. The assaults by China, Burma, Iran, and Cuba 

against religious freedom are inseparable from their general disregard for human rights. There are long overdue efforts to bring 

these countries before the UN, efforts which I hope this current 

hearing will advance, and religious freedom should be a part of any 

UN resolutions regarding those countries. Sudan has finally begun 

to acknowledge the need for religious liberty, but its practices remain unacceptable, and the situation of non-Arab Muslims in 

Darfur remains horrific. 

In established democracies like India and Sri Lanka, and emerging ones like Russia, Indonesia, and Bangladesh, members of minority religions face official discrimination and suffer physical violence in several of these countries, even death, at the hands of religious extremists who are allowed to act with impunity. 

In transitional states like Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, 

thuggish regimes excuse their persecution of religious groups by 

claiming to be acting against extremism and terrorism. Close 

United States allies like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt differ 

greatly in the degree to which religious freedom is violated, but all 

three have barely begun to face their terrible records on religious 

freedom. 

In Iraq, where so many have died to establish democracy, the 

rights of minority religious communities remain precarious. We 

must not relax our vigilance; otherwise, our brave soldiers, allies 

and countless Iraqis will have died in vain. 

We have waited a long time for this report. It was 2 months late, 

yet perhaps the delay was providential. President Bush is traveling 

to China for a summit meeting with Chinese President Hu on November 19th, and the report will help focus American attention on 

China. China stands out from all other nations, not only for the 

sheer magnitude of its violations, but also for its systematic violence. 

Last week a number of significant events occurred. The State Department released its Annual Report on International Religious 

Freedom, which again laid bare China’s war against faith and freedom. Secretary of State Rice announced that President Bush has 

again, for the seventh straight time, designated China a country of 

particular concern because of its egregious violations of religious 

freedom. The independent and bipartisan U.S. Commission on 

International Religious Freedom issued its report on its August 

visit to China, wherein the commission declared that, and I quote, 

‘‘The Chinese Government continues to systematically violate the 

right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief.’’ The 

State Department’s report makes clear that China’s already poor 

3

performance has deteriorated in the past year. President Bush met 

with the Dalai Lama, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and one of the 

most outstanding symbols of human rights and religious freedom, 

not just in China, but in the world. Beijing, predictably, denounced 

the meeting. 

Last week, also in an arrogant display of its total contempt for 

world opinion and its international obligations, Beijing sentenced 

Cai Zhuohua, the pastor of an underground Protestant church, to 

3 years in jail for illegally printing Bibles. It also fined Cai $20,000 

and sentenced his wife and brother-in-law to somewhat shorter 

terms. This happened in Beijing, not in some distant province 

where out-of-control leaders, local leaders, could be blamed. This is 

clearly government policy, and a timely example of China’s continuing refusal to observe its international obligations to respect religious freedom and human rights. 

For years we have been assured by China, and its American supporters, that trade with China and economic reform would usher 

a modicum of respect for basic human rights and fundamental liberties. The trade-off between economic freedom and human rights 

was only temporary, we were told, but as the commission’s report 

so aptly states, ‘‘This argument can no longer be sustained.’’ In 

fact, the commission demonstrates: ‘‘The room for political openness, public activism and greater civil and individual freedoms is 

narrowing.’’

The State Department report and the CPC designation both also 

make it clear that there has been no overall improvement and respect for religious freedom in China. Again, they point out that it 

is tightening. All religious people suffer, but members of the unofficial churches, such as Catholics, members of the Protestant house 

church movement, Falun Gong practitioners, and ethnic minorities 

such as Tibetan Buddhists and Uighur Muslims, bear the brunt of 

abuses, which range from harassment and arbitrary detention in 

prisons, psychiatric facilities, and reeducation through labor camps 

to torture and death. The simple fact of the matter is that the dictatorship in China oppresses, tortures and mistreats tens of millions of its own citizens. 

There is mounting concern in Congress, throughout the Government, and across the country concerning Chinese public policy. Yesterday I and 21 of my colleagues in the House from both parties 

sent President Bush a letter urging him to make human rights and 

religious freedom a major topic in his discussions with President 

Hu. I urge all Americans, indeed all concerned members of the 

international community, to express to the President the urgency 

of raising China’s violations against human rights and religious 

freedom in that summit meeting, as he has done before. 

We commend the President and his Administration for keeping 

religious freedom issues front and center, and declare our full support for his continuing efforts. Only by keeping the attention of the 

world focused on religious persecution in China can we hope to finally convince China’s leaders of its ultimate futility. 

The timing of this hearing is providential in perhaps another 

way. All this week in all Roman Catholic Churches throughout the 

world, every day at mass a passage from the Books of the Maccabees will be read. Those books tell of the terrible persecution the 

4

Jewish people suffered over 2,000 years ago to preserve their faith. 

The tales of torture against innocent men, women and children, unfortunately, are all too familiar and similar to what is still happening today to believers in other parts of the world. But the Books 

of the Maccabees are not just histories of persecution, they are also 

the record of resistance and the ultimate triumph of faith, a triumph that the Jewish people still commemorate every year in the 

Feast of Hanukkah. The cause of religious freedom will triumph. 

We must do our part to see that it does. 

The concern of the United States for religious freedom is rooted 

in thousands of years of tradition, authored and anchored by our 

Declaration of Independence as well as our Constitution. It is based 

on a fundamental dedication to and for individual human dignity 

and the rule of law. By passionately defending the rights of all believers everywhere, we demonstrate to a skeptical world that America is truly committed to freedom, and not just simply its own national interests or, perhaps better, that freedom is America’s natural interest. 

I would like to yield to Mr. Payne for any opening comments that 

he might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND CHAIRMAN, SUB- COMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

The Subcommittee will come to order, and good morning to everyone. 

Today the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations will hold an oversight hearing on the Congressionally-mandated International 

Religious Freedom report and on the designations of Countries of Particular Concern for 2005. The hearing will focus on Countries of Particular Concern (CPC): Eritrea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Burma, Vietnam, China and North Korea; as well 

as on other countries where the rights of believers are seriously threatened such as 

Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Russia 

and Cuba. The Subcommittee will consider what the U.S. has done in the past year 

to address these issues and what it intends to do in the coming year. By demonstrating the passionate concern of the U.S. Congress for religious liberty, and by 

focusing national attention on the challenges this first freedom confronts in the 

world today, we have a real opportunity to advance freedom throughout the world. 

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights triumphantly states 

that ‘‘Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this 

right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or 

in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief 

in teaching, practice, worship and observance.’’ Yet all over the world, one or more 

aspects of this fundamental freedom are threatened, violated or outright trampled 

upon. In the totalitarian states of China, North Korea and Vietnam, there is open 

war against religious believers who will not toe the line and submit their consciences to the state. Burma continuing designation as a CPC comes as no surprise 

to those of us who have supported Burma’s legitimate democracy movement. The 

assaults by China, Burma, Iran and Cuba against religious freedom are inseparable 

from their general disregard for human rights. There are long overdue efforts to 

bring all these countries before the UN, efforts which I hope this current hearing 

will advance, and religious freedom should be a part of any UN resolutions regarding these countries. Sudan has finally begun to acknowledge the need for religious 

liberty, but its practices remain unacceptable, and the situation of non-Arab Muslims in Darfur remains horrific. 

In established democracies like India and Sri Lanka, and emerging ones like Russia, Indonesia and Bangladesh, members of minority religions face official discrimination and suffer physical violence, in several of these countries even death, at the 

hands of religious extremists who are allowed to act with impunity. In transitional 

states like Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, thuggish regimes excuse their persecution of religious groups by claiming to be acting against extremism and terrorism. 

Close U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt differ greatly in the degree 

5

to which religious freedom is violated, but all three have barely begun to face their 

terrible records on religious freedom. In Iraq, where so many have died to establish 

democracy, the rights of minority religious communities remain precarious. We 

must not relax our vigilance; otherwise our brave soldiers, allies and countless 

Iraqis will have died in vain. 

We have waited a long time for this report. It is two months late. Yet perhaps 

the delay will prove providential. President Bush is traveling to China for a Summit 

meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao on November 19, and the report will help 

focus American attention on China. China stands out from all other nations not only 

for the sheer magnitude of its violations, but also for their systematic violence. Last 

week a number of significant events occurred. The State Department released its 

annual report on International Religious Freedom, which again laid bare China’s 

war against faith and freedom. Secretary of State Rice announced that President 

Bush had again, for the seventh straight time, designated China a ‘‘Country of Particular Concern’’ because of its egregious violations of religious freedom. The independent and bi-partisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom 

(USCIRF) issued its Report on its August visit to China, wherein the Commission 

declared ‘‘that the Chinese government continues to systematically violate the right 

to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief.’’ President Bush met with 

the Dalai Lama, a Nobel Peace prize winner, and one of the world’s outstanding 

symbols of human rights and religious freedom, not just in China, but in the world. 

Beijing, predictably, denounced the meeting. 

Last week also, in an arrogant display of its total contempt for world opinion and 

its international obligations, Beijing sentenced Cai Zhuohua, the pastor of an underground Protestant church, to three years in jail for illegally printing Bibles. It also 

fined Cai $20,000, and fined and sentenced his wife and brother-in-law to somewhat 

shorter terms. This happened in Beijing, not in some distant province, where out 

of control local leaders could be blamed. This is clearly government policy, and a 

timely example of China’s continuing refusal to observe its international obligations 

to respect religious freedom and human rights. 

For years we have been assured by China, and its American supporters, that 

trade with China and economic reform would usher a modicum of respect for basic 

human rights and fundamental liberties. The trade-off between economic freedom 

and human rights was only temporary, we were told. As the USCIRF Report so 

aptly states, ‘‘this argument can no longer be sustained.’’ In fact, as the Commission 

demonstrates, ‘‘the room for political openness, public activism, and greater civil and 

individual freedoms is narrowing.’’ The State Department report, and the CPC designation, also both make it clear that there has been no overall improvement in respect for religious freedom in China. All religious people suffer, but members of ‘‘unofficial’’ churches, such as Catholics, members of Protestant house churches, and 

Falun Gong practitioners, and ethnic minorities, such as Tibetan Buddhists and 

Uighur Muslims, bear the brunt of abuses which range from harassment and arbitrary detention in prisons, psychiatric facilities and reeducation-through-labor 

camps to torture and death. The simple fact of the matter is that the dictatorship 

in China oppresses, tortures, and mistreats tens of millions of its own citizens. 

There is mounting concern in Congress, throughout the government, and across 

the country concerning Chinese public policy. Yesterday, I and 21of my colleagues 

in the House of Representatives from both parties sent President Bush a letter urging him to make human rights and religious freedom a major topic of his discussions 

with President Hu Jintao. I urge all Americans, indeed all concerned members of 

the international community, to express to President Bush the urgency of raising 

China’s violations against human rights and religious freedom in that summit meeting, as he has done before. We commend the President and his administration for 

keeping religious freedom issues front and center, and declare our full support for 

his continuing efforts. Only by keeping the attention of the world focused on religious persecution in China can we hope to finally convince China’s leaders of its ultimate futility. 

The timing of this hearing is providential in perhaps another way. All this week, 

in all Roman Catholic churches throughout the world, every day at Mass a passage 

from the Books of the Maccabees will be read. Those books tell of the terrible persecution the Jewish people suffered over 2,000 years ago to preserve their faith. The 

tales of torture, against innocent men, women and children, unfortunately are all 

too similar to what is still happening today in other parts of the world to other believers. But the Books of the Maccabees are not just histories of persecution: they 

are also the record of resistance, and of the ultimate triumph of faith, a triumph 

the Jewish people still commemorate every year in the Feast of Hanukkah. The 

cause of religious freedom will triumph. We must do our part to see that it does. 

6

The concern of the United States for religious freedom is rooted in thousands of 

years of tradition, anchored by our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. It based on a fundamental dedication for individual human dignity and the 

rule of law. By passionately defending the rights of all believers everywhere, we 

demonstrate to a skeptical world that America is truly committed to freedom, and 

not simply to its own national interest. Or perhaps better, that freedom is America’s 

national interest.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for calling this 

very important hearing, and let me also commend you for being a 

voice for the question of religious tolerance in the world to be focused on. Even in some of our organizations, international organizations, European, the OSCE, you have continually urged them to 

take the same amount of concern that we have, and we are pleased 

to say that that is happening, so I do commend you on this issue. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this important and timely 

hearing on the 2005 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. This year, as you know, the President, in consultation with 

the State Department’s office on International Religious Freedom 

and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, decided to keep Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi 

Arabia, Sudan, and Vietnam on the list of countries of particular 

concern, the CPCs. As the Chairman said, we are pleased with 

that. This decision was reached because there were no developments which would seem to warrant the removal of countries from 

that list. 

Though no new countries were added to the CPC list, Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Freedom, our Ambassador here this 

morning from whom we will hear today, has indicated that there 

are potential CPC countries that he is closely monitoring; namely, 

Pakistan for discrimination against Shi’as, Ahmadiyahs, Hindus, 

and Christians; Uzbekistan for cracking down on certain Muslims 

that don’t describe to state-sanctioned practices; and Turkmenistan, which was referred to as one of the most repressive states in 

the world. 

It is very important that we remain watchdogs of religious freedom around the world, and I commend the Ambassador’s office and 

the commission, but I do have concerns about countries whose religious tolerance levels are vastly different but are grouped in the 

same category. 

I also think it is important that political determination not be 

made when determining who should be placed on the watch list or 

the CPC list. China is obviously a gross violator of human rights 

and religious rights and is known for the violation and brutality of 

practices against Falun Gong practitioners and the crackdown on 

the religious minorities such as the Muslim Uighurs, Tibetan Buddhists, and some Christian groups. So the PRC’s designation as a 

CPC since 1999 is certainly warranted. 

But then we have a case of Eritrea. Now, I am aware that the 

government has required all religious groups to either register or 

be forced to cease all activities and has closed some facilities, and 

this is certainly wrong. The government has also harassed and detained members of the Pentecostal, some independent evangelical 

groups, and Jehovah Witnesses. And I had an opportunity to speak 

to President Issayas in Eritrea about these and indicated that I 

thought that it was extremely wrong what he was doing, and that 

7

religious freedom should be practiced. Certainly wrong, and as I indicated to him, I would hope that he would stop that behavior. 

Eritrea should agree to sign a Memorandum of Understanding on 

Religious Freedom. However, the actions of the Government of Eritrea, designated as a CPC in 2004, are a far cry from the actions 

of Saudi Arabia, in a country where religious freedom does not 

exist at all, but was also just named a CPC in 2004. In Saudi Arabia there are no protections whatsoever for religious freedom, and 

only the state-sanctioned, strictly conservative strand of Sunni 

Islam is ever allowed. 

Now Muslims could face even torture if caught practicing by the 

Muttawa, which are religious police. The Saudis’ interpretation of 

sharia law for all exact criminal capital punishment for even petty 

crimes. In 2003, in Saudi Arabia, a Yemeni was sentenced to death 

by decapitation for insulting Islam. Last April six Somali men were 

beheaded for robbery. Of course we feel that insulting religion and 

robbery are wrong, but to decapitate by severing the head from the 

body seems a little extreme to me. 

I would like to hear very clearly in the witness’ testimony what 

we are doing to clearly show Saudi Arabia that we will not be 

friendly with a country that engages in such brutality against its 

people. Namely, I want to know what sanctions have been or will 

be applied to Saudi Arabia and when. 

In Sudan, and as I mentioned about Somalia, Islam is allowed, 

Christianity is allowed, many multi-religious groups have practiced 

for centuries as a matter of fact. However, there was a concern 

with some of the Pentecostals who were, in the name of the President, pitting young people against their parents, questioning the 

family laws in their country and felt that there was enough Christianity and Islam there without bending to the new groups. 

So I would like to see how we put people on the same levels. In 

Sudan, sharia law has been forced on all Sudanese, not just Muslims; and that is what the 20-year North/South fight has been 

about. The late Dr. John Garamond, the South Sudanese Liberation Army, has fought against sharia being imposed on Christians 

and Animists and agnostics, not just Muslims. But they are all Sudanese. If you are Muslim and you agree with sharia, that is your 

religious belief; however, there is something wrong when a country 

imposes that on others. We have seen the Sudan Peace Act; however, violations are still going on with the Government of Sudan. 

But that is another issue. 

I would like to see the Government of Sudan strongly condemned 

for repression against other religions, and I think as we continue 

to work toward the end of the brutal genocide in Darfur against 

Black Muslims and toward full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Sudan, we also should make clear to the 

Government of Sudan that repression, whether for religion, as it 

was used in the South, or for race, as it is doing in Darfur, will 

not be tolerated by the United States. 

Also, I will just conclude that most countries in Europe and even 

here in the United States do not have laws against religious intolerance. We do see in France what happens when people of a different religion have been persecuted, have been ghettoized, have 

been used when employment is up and unemployed when employVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:21 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\111505\24596.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
8

ment goes down, and much of that discrimination in France is due 

to religious beliefs. And we find in Germany, with Turks who also 

have—many practicing Islam have been ghettoized for decades, 

have been discriminated against in Germany because of their religion. 

And I must also say that even here in the United States we are 

finding communities rejecting applications for mosques to be built 

in towns, just saying, ‘‘We don’t have land, we don’t want you, and 

we will not approve for the building of a mosque.’’ Even in one New 

Jersey town they forced a mosque off on some back road and would 

not allow a sign to be put up to give directions to where the 

mosque was. 

And so as we look at officially sanctioned de jure religious persecution, we also need to look at de facto. De jure is ‘‘by law,’’ and 

it is very, very serious. De facto is ‘‘by practice;’’ however, it can 

be as serious. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I yield back the balance. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding these hearings, and let’s hear from the witness. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Sherman. 

Let me now introduce the very distinguished John V. Hanford 

III, Ambassador, who was sworn in as Ambassador-at-Large for 

International Religious Freedom on May 2, 2002. He serves as the 

principal adviser to President Bush and Secretary of State 

Condoleezza Rice on issues of religious freedom worldwide. From 

1997 to 2002, Mr. Hanford served as an expert on international religious freedom while working on the staff of Senator Richard 

Lugar. During this period, Ambassador Hanford organized numerous efforts involving U.S. House of Representatives Members, 

Presidents, and Secretaries of State to address some of the world’s 

most severe problems of religious persecution. In 1998, Mr. Hanford led a team of congressional offices in crafting the International 

Religious Freedom Act—I know because we worked so closely with 

him—and did a great deal of work on the Senate side to ensure the 

passage of that legislation, which was very much in doubt. As 

Members might recall, it was vigorously opposed then by the Clinton Administration, so it was a Herculean effort to get that legislation enacted into law, and the President did ultimately sign it. 

I want to thank him for his leadership. He has been dogged in 

his determination to promote respect for the sanctity of religious 

belief, and for believers who are incarcerated, tortured and mistreated in many, many parts of the world. He travels extensively 

and has advised this Subcommittee over and over again and has 

provided very valuable input. So I want to thank him for that exemplary leadership. 

Mr. Ambassador, the floor is yours. 

9

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN V. HANFORD III, AMBASSADOR-AT-LARGE, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ambassador HANFORD. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, it truly is an honor to be here today before the Committee, and I want to begin by thanking you for holding this hearing and for giving me the opportunity to discuss the recent work 

of the State Department on religious freedom. This Subcommittee 

has historically placed a very prominent emphasis on this issue, 

and it is known and noticed around the world. 

It has been my great pleasure to work with this Committee over 

the past several years, and I am grateful for your continued emphasis on this issue, for the support you give our efforts, and for 

the advocacy each of you do in your own right. 

We recently submitted to the Congress our seventh Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. This report demonstrates 

our Nation’s commitment to the ideal of religious freedom, and our 

compassion for those who are deprived of it. And now I want to abbreviate my remarks, but I ask that they be submitted in their entirety for the record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection. 

Ambassador HANFORD. Religious freedom has always been central to American life and public policy. It is the first freedom enumerated in our Bill of Rights, a reflection of the Founders’ belief 

that freedom of religion and conscience is the cornerstone of liberty. 

For nearly four centuries now millions have come to our shores 

seeking the freedom to worship according to the dictates of their 

own conscience. 

I wish to note with great approval the title chosen by the Committee for this hearing, ‘‘In Defense of Human Dignity: The 2005 

International Religious Freedom Report.’’ Indeed, religious freedom 

is at the core of human dignity, the notion that every human being 

possesses an inherent, an invaluable worth that transcends the authority of the state. 

Religious freedom is the cornerstone of all other human rights in 

the sense that it touches the most intimate sphere of the human 

spirit. The spiritual longings of the human heart have an innate 

dignity all their own. These longings deserve our respect and they 

demand our protection. 

Every violation of religious freedom, whether open or hidden, 

does fundamental damage to the individual and to the larger society. The international religious freedom report seeks to shine light 

on these violations, and in so doing serves as an important bulwark 

in the defense of human dignity. 

Today, there is international recognition that freedom of religion 

is an inalienable right. No external power or government should 

grant unto itself the authority to restrain or extinguish this right 

to religious freedom. To cry out against the torture of people because of their religion, to demand the release of those in prison because of their religious beliefs, to insist that religious minorities be 

protected, these are not simply acts on behalf of the oppressed, 

they are actions to affirm a precious and universal right, and it is 

this aspiration that we seek to serve through the work of our office. 

10

Since the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act of 

1998 we have made important strides in integrating religious freedom into U.S. foreign policy. President Bush and Secretary Rice 

strongly believe that promoting religious freedom is as much a national interest as it is a national ideal. Those nations that affirm 

religious liberty lay a cornerstone for democracy and the rule of 

law. Those nations that respect the rights of their own citizens are 

those most likely to respect the rights of their neighbors. It is no 

accident that radical movements most frequently gain strength and 

recruits under authoritarian regimes that restrict freedom of conscience and belief. As President Bush has said, the best anecdote 

to radicalism and terror is the tolerance and hope kindled in free 

societies. 

For all of our efforts, considerable challenges remain. Too many 

people continue to suffer for the belief or practice of their faith. The 

religious freedom report is a signal to both persecutor and the persecuted that they are not forgotten. 

The production of the international religious freedom report is an 

enormous undertaking, and this year’s report covers events and 

conditions in 197 countries and areas. I would like to express my 

profound gratitude for the exemplary work done by the hundreds 

of employees of the Department of State here and abroad who 

made this report possible, and I would like to commend in particular the officers of the Office of International Religious Freedom, 

which took over full responsibility for the editing and production of 

the report for the first time this year. 

In addition to maintaining the production of the report, the 

International Religious Freedom Act also requires the Secretary to 

designate as countries of particular concern, or CPCs, any country 

whose government has engaged in or tolerated particularly severe 

violations of religious freedom. The CPC designation is one of a 

number of tools in our arsenal, and we make every effort to use it 

in a way that offers the greatest potential to bring about positive 

change. This year Secretary Rice found it necessary to redesignate 

eight CPCs; namely, Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, 

Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Vietnam. 

In addition, I want to make clear that we are in final CPC negotiations on one or two additional fronts. We anticipate making an 

additional CPC announcement in the near future. 

Allow me to take a few moments to review the status of religious 

freedom in CPC countries. 

In Burma, the government infiltrated religious organizations and 

discouraged or prohibited non-Buddhist groups from constructing 

new places of worship. Some religious leaders, including a number 

of Buddhist monks who promote human rights, are imprisoned, 

and some Christian clergy face arrest and the destruction of their 

churches. 

In China, underground Protestant groups, Catholics who recognize the spiritual authority of the Pope, Muslim Uighurs, Tibetan 

Buddhists, and members of groups the government considers to be 

cults continue to experience intimidation, harassment, detention, 

and reeducation through labor camps. In prison the government 

abused members of unregistered religious groups like the South 

China Church for refusing to recant their beliefs. There are also 

11

credible reports of deaths in prison and labor camps due to torture 

and abuse. 

In Eritrea, the government continues to harass, arrest and imprison without trial members of Pentecostal and other independent 

evangelical groups, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some religious persons were held in harsh conditions that included placing them in 

shipping containers in the desert. As a result, in September, Secretary Rice approved a sanction to deny commercial export to Eritrea of any defense articles and defense services controlled under 

the Arms Export Control Act, with narrow specified exceptions. 

In Iran, members of religious minorities, including Sunni and 

Sufi Muslims, Baha’is, Jews, and Christians face imprisonment, 

harassment, intimidation, and discrimination based on their religious beliefs. 

In North Korea, religious freedom is nonexistent. Defectors continue to report that the regime arrested and executed members of 

underground Christian churches in prior years. Over the years, defectors have asserted that Christians were imprisoned and tortured 

for reading the Bible and talking about God. 

In Saudi Arabia, freedom of religion does not exist, and the government rigidly enforces conformity to the state-sanctioned 

Wahhabi tradition of Sunni Islam. Non-Wahhabi Sunni, Shi’a, and 

Sufi Muslims face discrimination and sometimes severe restrictions 

on the practice of their faith. The government prohibits non-Muslim religious activities. Some non-Wahhabi Muslim and non-Muslim worshipers risk arrest, imprisonment, lashing, and deportation 

for engaging in religious activity that attracts official attention. 

In September, Secretary Rice approved a temporary 180-day 

waiver to further the purposes of the International Religious Freedom Act as provided for under that legislation. As senior Saudi officials have increasingly recognized the need to improve the climate 

of religious tolerance, this waiver is giving us time to work with 

the government to further address our concerns. 

In Sudan, Islamization has been the objective of the governing 

party, and it continued to attempt to impose sharia on non-Muslims in some parts of the country. Many non-Muslims state that 

they have been treated as second-class citizens. We will be watching the actions of the new Government of National Unity to ensure 

that it fully implements the provisions of the comprehensive peace 

agreements and the new Constitution, both of which provide specific guarantees for religious freedom for all individuals. 

In the case of Vietnam, we are encouraged by a number of positive developments but remain concerned about continued reports of 

abuse. Vietnam’s legal framework continues to require religious denominations to be officially sanctioned by the government. We are 

concerned about the lack of universal implementation of the new 

legislation, particularly in light of reports that local officials have 

pressured ethic minority Protestants to renounce their faith. We 

are also concerned about the lack of normalized relations between 

the government and the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, the 

Mennonites and others. 

At the same time, our efforts to work with the Government of 

Vietnam on a wide range of issues of reform are bearing fruit. We 

have been particularly encouraged by the promulgation of new laws 

12

that have relaxed control of religious activities, and the promotion 

and transfer of clerics. The government has released 14 prominent 

prisoners and facilitated the registration and reopening of a number of Protestant house churches. 

On May 5 of this year, we concluded an agreement with the Government of Vietnam that addresses important religious freedom 

concerns. This is the first such agreement ever negotiated or signed 

under the International Religious Freedom Act. Under the terms of 

this agreement, the Government of Vietnam will fully implement 

the new laws on religious activities and render previous contradictory regulations obsolete. It will instruct local authorities to adhere 

strictly and completely to the new legislation. It will also facilitate 

the registration and opening of houses of worship, and continue 

working with us on the release of prisoners of concern. 

Vietnam must make additional progress before we can consider 

removing it from the list of CPCs, and we will continue working 

with the government to secure further reforms to facilitate greater 

religious freedom. 

Beyond these nations designated as CPCs, we are engaging a 

number of additional countries on serious violations of religious 

freedom. For example, the situation in Uzbekistan continues to involve heavy repression of religious freedom. In the past year, the 

government continued to mistreat Muslim believers that it suspected of extremism. Hundreds of Muslim believers are imprisoned 

for no reason other than the fact that they are outwardly observant 

of their religious beliefs. 

The government took important steps in 2004 to address torture 

and establish police accountability, but serious abuses continue. 

Unregistered religious groups continue to experience varying degrees of official interference, harassment, and repression, as did 

congregations of ethnic Uzbek Christians. 

At the same time, on many fronts this has been a good year for 

religious freedom. I would like to take a few moments to report on 

some positive developments. 

In Iraq, a country whose CPC designation was lifted in 2004, the 

new Constitution approved overwhelmingly in a national referendum last month gives every individual the freedom of thought, 

conscience and faith. The critical test will be in the Constitution’s 

implementation and interpretation. That said, the Constitution establishes a framework for religious liberty by not only explicitly 

providing for freedom of religion, but also by guaranteeing freedom 

of assembly, association, conscience, and expression. 

In Turkmenistan, Presidential decrees and amendments to law 

resulted in the registration of new minority religious groups and 

the release of a number of prisoners, and just recently the government conducted a first ever roundtable with representatives of religious minorities. Nevertheless, serious problems remain. 

In India, while problems remain, we observed a general improvement in the respect for religious freedom. The government refused 

to approve the Gujarat Control of Organized Crime Act, and also 

repealed a Controversial Prevention of Terrorism Act which has 

been criticized by Muslim groups as a tool to target them. The government also withheld controversial school textbooks that espouse 

a Hindu nationalist agenda. 

13

In Georgia, the government took a positive step by passing a law 

that allows religious groups to register. The government also imprisoned an excommunicated Orthodox priest and several of his associates who were primary instigators of religiously-motivated violence. 

In Indonesia, the country with the world’s largest Muslim populations, problems remain. However, it is worth noting that Indonesia has a centuries-long tradition of religious tolerance. President 

Yudhoyono’s administration is committed to promoting religious 

freedom and is working on a number of initiatives that address religious tensions in the archipelago. 

In the United Arab Emirates, government officials took the lead 

in encouraging moderation, showing respect for minority religions, 

and in June a law was promulgated establishing a cultural center 

with the goal of fostering interreligious tolerance. And in Qatar, a 

new Constitution which just came into effect explicitly provides for 

freedom of worship. 

In conclusion, promoting religious freedom is central to our Nation’s role in the world. Ensuring greater religious freedom means 

demanding changes in laws that are oppressive or discriminatory, 

and it means pressing for the release of religious prisoners and 

coming to the aid of victims of abuse. 

As a central part of President Bush’s freedom agenda, all of these 

efforts are about one thing, making life full and secure for individual people of faith around the world. Eleanor Roosevelt, a great 

champion of human rights, never lost sight of this focus on the individual. When she was asked where human rights begin, she answered:

‘‘In small places close to home, so close and so small that they 

cannot be seen on any maps of the world, yet they are the 

world of the individual person.’’

There is no right more central to the ‘‘world of the individual person’’ than religious freedom. 

Again, we offer sincere thanks to each of you for your commitment to religious freedom in every nation for every individual 

around the world. I look forward to continuing to work with you, 

and now would be very pleased to take any questions you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Hanford follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN V. HANFORD III, AMBASSADOR-ATLARGE, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: It is an honor to be here today 

before the Committee and I want to begin by thanking you for holding this hearing 

and for giving me the opportunity to discuss the recent work of the State Department on religious freedom. 

It has been my great pleasure to work with this Committee over the past several 

years, and I am very grateful for the Committee’s commitment to religious freedom, 

for the support you give to our efforts, and for the advocacy each of you do in your 

own right. 

We recently submitted to the Congress our seventh Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, and I appreciate this opportunity to formally present 

the report findings to the Committee. This report demonstrates our nation’s commitment to the ideal of religious freedom and our compassion for those who are deprived of it. 

14

Religious freedom has always been central to American life and public policy. It 

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

Founders’ belief that freedom of religion and conscience is the cornerstone of liberty. 

For nearly four centuries now, millions have come to our shores seeking the freedom 

to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience. Religious liberty has 

been an essential ingredient in the American experiment in self-government. Americans have always drawn great strength from the free exercise of their religion and 

from the diverse faith communities that flourish in our nation. As President Bush 

said earlier this year, ‘‘Our Founding Fathers knew the importance of freedom of 

religion to a stable and lasting Union. Our Constitution protects individuals’ rights 

to worship as they choose. . . . We reject religious bigotry in every form, striving 

for a society that honors the life and faith of every person. As we maintain the vitality of a pluralistic society, we work to ensure equal treatment of faith-based organizations and people of faith.’’

Religious Freedom and the Dignity of the Human Person 

Religious freedom is at the core of human dignity—the notion that every human 

being possesses an inherent and inviolable worth that transcends the authority of 

the State. Religious freedom is a cornerstone of all other human rights in the sense 

that it touches the most intimate sphere of the human spirit. It is an essential ingredient for the flourishing of the individual and of the whole of society. The spiritual longings of the human heart have an innate dignity all their own. These longings deserve our respect and demand our protection. Every violation of religious 

freedom, whether open or hidden, does fundamental damage to the individual and 

to the larger society. The International Religious Freedom Report seeks to shine 

light on these violations and, in so doing, serves as an important bulwark in the 

defense of human dignity. 

Religious freedom contributes decisively to producing a free and just society. The 

protection of the inherent and inviolable right of every human being to pursue ultimate truth and to believe and worship, or not, helps all individuals to be genuinely 

free and to gain a fuller understanding of their own inherent dignity. The ability 

to choose freely one’s beliefs gives meaning to the choice and ennobles the individual. Thus, religious freedom strengthens a society’s moral integrity: it unites its 

citizens and makes them more respectful and committed to each other and to the 

common good. 

Today there is international recognition that freedom of religion is an inalienable 

right of all humankind. Both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contain strong affirmations of 

the universality of this right. Religious freedom is indeed a universal right, not confined to any particular nation, culture or faith. It is a right which is not conferred 

from the outside, but arises from the person’s very nature. No external power or 

government should grant unto itself the authority to constrain or extinguish this 

right. To cry out against the torture of people because of their religion, to demand 

the release of those imprisoned because of their religious beliefs, to insist that religious minorities be protected—these are not simply acts on behalf of the oppressed. 

They are actions to affirm a precious and universal right. It is this aspiration that 

we seek to serve through the work of our office. 

Since the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998, we have 

made important strides in integrating religious freedom into U.S. foreign policy. 

President Bush and Secretary Rice strongly believe that promoting religious freedom is as much a national interest as it is a national ideal. Those nations that affirm religious liberty lay a cornerstone for democracy and the rule of law. Those governments that respect the rights of their own citizens are those most likely to respect the rights of their neighbors. It is no accident that radical movements most 

frequently gain strength and recruits under authoritarian regimes that restrict freedom of conscience and belief. As President Bush has said, ‘‘the best antidote to radicalism and terror is the tolerance and hope kindled in free societies.’’

For all of our efforts, considerable challenges remain. Too many people continue 

to suffer for the belief or practice of their faith. Too many governments, despite having pledged to abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, still refuse to honor this right. Religious freedom may be a reality for some, but for many others it remains illusive. 

The religious freedom report is a signal to both persecutor and persecuted that they 

are not forgotten. 

International Religious Freedom Report 

The production of the International Religious Freedom Report is an enormous undertaking, and I’d like to express my profound gratitude for the exemplary work 

15

done by the hundreds of employees of the Department of State here and abroad who 

make the report possible. I would like to commend the officers of the Office of International Religious Freedom, which took over full responsibility for the editing and 

producing of the report for the first time this year. I would also like to thank my 

colleagues in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor who provided so 

much invaluable support. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my colleagues in the Department’s regional bureaus and, most importantly, in our embassies and consulates around the world who worked so diligently to collect, report, and 

verify the information contained in this report. 

This year’s report covers events and conditions in 197 countries and areas from 

July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005. In our Executive Summary we survey different 

restrictions on religious freedom, highlight countries where religious freedom conditions have improved, and describe U.S. actions to promote international religious 

freedom. 

The annual report is instrumental in our efforts to promote religious freedom as 

a universal right. The report is a vehicle through which we seek to expose the wide 

variety of barriers to religious freedom. In some countries, totalitarian or authoritarian regimes strictly control religious belief and practice, imprisoning those who 

are caught expressing a prohibited faith. In others, governments impose discriminatory policies and laws that intimidate or harass certain religious groups, sometimes 

causing members of these groups to flee the country. And in still others, governments are negligent in their duty to protect religious minorities or adherents of ‘‘unapproved’’ religions from discrimination or persecution from local officials or from 

violence by members of the public. Even some of the most open societies in the 

world have used restrictive legislation and practices to limit religious expression or 

to brand minority religions as ‘‘cults’’ or sects.’’

Sometimes intolerance has several components, including a religious dimension. 

Anti-Semitism, for example, touches on both religious discrimination and ethnic discrimination, and it continues to be a problem of great concern to the U.S. Government and to the international community. We continue to monitor and report on 

anti-Semitism, which is as much a problem in Russia and certain other parts of the 

former Soviet Union as it is in some countries of Western Europe. In Moscow alone 

in 2005, as many acts of violence against Jews had been reported in the first four 

months—by April—as had been reported in all of 2004. Although the Government 

of Russia was quick to condemn the violence and provide better security to the area 

near the synagogue where most of the acts took place, we note that anti-Semitism, 

even among some representatives in the Duma, continued to be a significant concern. 

Countries of Particular Concern 

In addition to mandating the production of the annual report, the International 

Religious Freedom Act also requires the Secretary to designate as ‘‘Countries of Particular Concern,’’ or CPCs, any country whose government has engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom. 

The CPC designation is one of a number of tools in our arsenal, and we make 

every effort to use it in a way that offers the greatest potential to bring about positive change. Therefore, before designating a government as a CPC, we engage in 

sustained, vigorous and high-level diplomacy with authorities in countries where we 

have diplomatic relations, describing to them the religious freedom violations that 

place them at the threshold of designation, and suggesting specific steps they can 

take to improve religious freedom and avoid designation. We devote special attention to countries where there are severe violations of religious freedom. This year 

Secretary Rice found it necessary to re-designate eight CPCs, namely, Burma, 

China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Vietnam. We will continue to encourage these governments to guarantee internationally recognized 

standards of religious freedom. 

In addition, I want to make clear that we are in final CPC negotiations on one 

or two fronts. We anticipate making an additional CPC announcement in the near 

future. 

Allow me to take a few moments to review the status of religious freedom in CPC 

countries. 

In Burma, the government continues to place severe restrictions on religious freedom in a number of ways, including monitoring or infiltrating religious organizations and discouraging or prohibiting non-Buddhist groups from constructing new 

places of worship or repairing existing ones. Some religious leaders, including a 

number of Buddhist monks who promote human rights and political freedom, are 

imprisoned, and some Christian clergy face arrest and the destruction of their 

16

churches. Muslims face considerable discrimination, including travel restrictions 

and occasional state-orchestrated or tolerated violence. 

In China, the government continues to restrict religious practice to governmentsanctioned organizations and registered places of worship. Underground Protestant 

groups, Catholics who recognize the spiritual authority of the Pope, Muslim 

Uighurs, Tibetan Buddhists and members of groups the government considers to be 

‘‘cults’’ continue to experience intimidation, harassment, detention and reeducationthrough-labor camps. In prison, the government abused members of unregistered religious groups like the South China Church for refusing to recant their beliefs. 

There were also credible reports of deaths in prisons and labor camps due to torture 

and abuse. 

In Eritrea, the government issued a decree in 2002 that effectively prohibited all 

religious activities outside of four officially recognized groups. The government continues to harass, arrest, and imprison without trial members of Pentecostal and 

other independent evangelical groups and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some religious prisoners were held in harsh conditions that included placing them in shipping containers in the desert where they were exposed to extreme temperature fluctuations. 

There were also numerous reports of attempts to force recantations. Diplomatic efforts over the past year to work constructively with the Eritrean government on religious freedom have been unsuccessful. As a result, in September Secretary Rice approved a sanction to deny commercial export to Eritrea of any defense articles and 

defense services controlled under the Arms Export Control Act, with narrow specified exceptions. 

In Iran, members of religious minorities—including Sunni and Sufi Muslims, Baha’is, Jews, and Christians—face imprisonment, harassment, intimidation, and discrimination based on their religious beliefs. Baha’is are forbidden from practicing 

their faith, and the state-controlled media conducted a campaign of defamation 

against the group. The government has vigilantly enforced its prohibition on proselytizing activities by certain Protestant Christians by closing churches and arresting converts. In September of 2004, security officials arrested 85 leaders of the Assemblies of God Church. 

In North Korea, religious freedom is non-existent, and particularly severe violations of religious freedom continue. The regime continues to repress unauthorized 

religious groups. In addition, religious persons who proselytized or who had ties to 

overseas Christian groups operating in China were allegedly subjected to arrest and 

harsh penalties. Defectors continued to report that the regime arrested and executed members of underground Christian churches in prior years. Over the years, 

defectors have asserted that Christians were imprisoned and tortured for reading 

the Bible and talking about God. These reports are difficult to confirm because the 

regime severely limits our access there. 

In Saudi Arabia, freedom of religion does not exist and the government rigidly enforces conformity to the state-sanctioned Wahhabi tradition of Sunni Islam. NonWahhabi Sunni, Shi’a, and Sufi Muslims face discrimination and sometimes severe 

restrictions on the practice of their faith. Members of the Shi’a minority are subject 

to officially sanctioned political and economic discrimination, including limited employment opportunities, little representation in official institutions, and restrictions 

on the building of mosques and community centers. The Government prohibits public non-Muslim religious activities. Some non-Wahhabi Muslim and non-Muslim 

worshippers risk arrest, imprisonment, lashing, deportation and, in rare cases, torture for engaging in religious activity that attracts official attention. 

In September, Secretary Rice approved a temporary 180-day waiver ‘‘to further 

the purposes of the International Religious Freedom Act,’’ as provided for under that 

legislation. Senior Saudi officials have recognized the need to improve the climate 

of religious tolerance, and this waiver will give us time to work with the government 

to address our concerns. The Secretary has raised our religious freedom concerns 

with senior Saudi officials and has stressed the importance of continuing to work 

on this issue. In coming months we will press for the implementation of necessary 

reforms and improvements, such as improving religious freedom for non-Muslims, 

Muslim minorities and Muslims whose practice differs from the state-sanctioned 

Wahhabi interpretation of Islam. 

In Sudan, Islamization has been the objective of the governing party and it continued to attempt to impose ‘‘Shari’a’’ on non-Muslims in some parts of the country. 

The government continued to place restrictions on and discriminate against nonMuslims, non-Arab Muslims, and Muslims from tribes and groups not affiliated with 

the ruling party. Applications to build mosques generally were granted; however, 

the process for applications to build churches has been more difficult, so much so 

that it appears that the last permit was issued around 1975. Many non-Muslims 

state they have been treated as second-class citizens and discriminated against in 

17

government jobs and contracts. Some Muslims received preferential treatment for 

government services, such as access to medical care, and preferential treatment in 

court cases involving Muslims against non-Muslims. We will be watching the actions of the new Government of National Unity to ensure that it fully implements 

the provisions of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the new constitution, 

both of which provide specific guarantees for religious freedom for all citizens. We 

will pay special attention to the provisions in the constitution that state Shari’a is 

only to be a source of legislation in Northern Sudan, and that non-Muslims in the 

national capitol of Khartoum will be exempt. 

In the case of Vietnam, we are encouraged by a number of positive developments, 

but remain concerned about continued reports of abuses. Vietnam’s legal framework 

continues to require religious denominations to be officially sanctioned by the government. Restrictions on the hierarchies and clergy of religious groups remain in 

place. A number of persons remain in prison or under detention for religious reasons. We are concerned about the lack of universal implementation of the new legislation, particularly in light of reports that local officials have pressured ethnic minority Protestants to renounce their faith. We are also concerned about the lack of 

normalized relations between the government and the Unified Buddhist Church of 

Vietnam, the Mennonites, and other groups. 

At the same time, our efforts to work with the Government of Vietnam on a wide 

range of issues of reform are bearing fruit. Over this past year, the Government of 

Vietnam has taken a number of significant steps to improve religious freedom. We 

have been particularly encouraged by the promulgation of new laws that have relaxed control of religious activities and the promotion and transfer of clerics. The 

government has released fourteen prominent prisoners and facilitated the registration and re-opening of a number of Protestant ‘‘house churches’’ that had been 

closed in 2001. It has also permitted the Northern and Southern Evangelical 

churches to hold long-awaited congresses. 

On May 5 of this year, we concluded an agreement with the Government of Vietnam that addresses important religious freedom concerns. This is the first such 

agreement ever negotiated or signed under the International Religious Freedom Act. 

Under the terms of this agreement, the Government of Vietnam will fully implement the new laws on religious activities and render previous contradictory regulations obsolete, instruct local authorities to adhere strictly and completely to the new 

legislation, facilitate the registration and opening of houses of worship, and continue 

working with us on the release of prisoners of concern. Vietnam must make additional progress before we can consider removing it from the list of CPCs, and we 

will continue working with the government to secure further reforms to facilitate 

greater religious freedom. 

Beyond those nations designated as CPCs, we are engaging a number of additional countries on serious violations of religious freedom. For example, the situation 

in Uzbekistan continues to involve heavy repression of religious freedom. In the past 

year the government continued to mistreat Muslim believers that it suspected of extremism. Hundreds of Muslims believers are imprisoned for no other reason than 

they are outwardly observant of their religious beliefs. The government took important steps in 2004 to address torture and establish police accountability, but serious 

abuses continued. Unregistered religious groups continued to experience varying degrees of official interference, harassment, and repression, as did congregations of 

ethnic Uzbek Christians. We are continuing engagement with the government to encourage respect for religious freedom for all groups. 

Improvements in religious freedom 

On many fronts this has been a good year for religious freedom. I would like to 

take a few moments to report on some positive developments. 

In Iraq, a country whose CPC designation was lifted in 2004, the new constitution, approved overwhelmingly in a national referendum last month, gives every individual the ‘‘freedom of thought, conscience and faith.’’ The critical test will be in 

the constitution’s implementation and interpretation. In our ongoing dialogue with 

Iraqi authorities, we will encourage them to implement and interpret the constitution in a manner consistent with Iraq’s international human rights obligations. That 

said, the constitution establishes a framework for religious liberty by not only explicitly providing for freedom of religion, but by also guaranteeing freedom of assembly, association, conscience and expression. The constitution guarantees the freedom 

of worship and the protection of places of worship. It also contains a provision stating that Iraq ‘‘shall respect its international obligations.’’ These international obligations include the religious freedom guarantees found in the International Covenant 

on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iraq is a party. 

18

In Turkmenistan, where serious violations of religious freedom persist, we will 

continue to make clear to the government the need for greater and sustained improvements. That said, there were positive developments. Presidential decrees and 

amendments to law resulted in the registration of new minority religious groups. 

We also note the release of a number of prisoners and, just recently, the government 

conducted a first-ever roundtable with representatives of religious minorities. However, we continue to press hard for genuine reform that reflects authentic regard 

for religious freedom. 

In Pakistan, serious violations of religious freedom persist, and we are working 

for reform. The government has maintained its public call for religious tolerance and 

has taken some positive steps, including revising the implementation of the blasphemy laws and Hudood Ordinances that have led to past abuses. The government 

has also made efforts to curb sectarian violence and end the teaching of religious 

intolerance through reform of the public education curriculum. We welcome Pakistan’s consistent call for an end to religious extremism. We will continue to press 

the government on the need for further improvements on religious freedom. 

In India, while problems remained, we observed a general improvement in respect 

for religious freedom. During the year the government demonstrated its commitment to a policy of religious inclusion at the highest levels of government and 

throughout society. It also took steps to address expeditiously the failures of the Gujarat State government to halt the Hindu-Muslim riots that occurred there in 2002. 

The government refused to approve the Gujarat Control of Organized Crime Act, 

passed by the Gujarat legislature in June 2004, which Muslim groups feared would 

be used selectively against them. The government also repealed the controversial 

Prevention of Terrorism Act, which had been criticized by Muslim groups as a tool 

used to target them, and replaced it with a law considered to be fairer to minorities. 

The Government also withdrew controversial school textbooks that espoused a 

Hindu nationalist agenda and replaced them with more moderate editions. No new 

states passed anti-conversion laws, and Tamil Nadu repealed its anti-conversion 

law. 

In Georgia, the government took a positive step by passing a law that allows religious groups to register. The government also imprisoned an excommunicated Orthodox priest and several of his associates who were primary instigators of religiously motivated violence. 

In Indonesia, the country with the world’s largest Muslim population, problems 

remain. However, it is worth noting that Indonesia has a centuries-long tradition 

of inter-religious tolerance. President Yudhoyono’s administration is committed to 

promoting religious freedom and is working on a number of initiatives that address 

religious tensions in the archipelago. 

The Middle East continues to be one of our top priorities because of the widespread abuse of religious freedom by some in the region. However, we have noted 

improved conditions in some countries. In the United Arab Emirates, for example, 

government officials took the lead in encouraging moderation, showing respect for 

minority religions, and fostering understanding among religions. On a number of occasions, senior government officials met with representatives of non-Muslim faith 

groups to discuss religious tolerance, and in June a law was promulgated establishing an Islamic cultural center with the goal of fostering inter-religious tolerance 

and promoting a better understanding of Islam in the West. In addition, in Qatar, 

a new constitution which just came into effect explicitly provides for freedom of worship and guarantees the right of association and assembly in accordance with the 

law. 

Conclusion 

Promoting religious freedom is central to our nation’s role in the world. This commitment leads us to continually expand our efforts. Ensuring greater religious freedom means demanding changes in laws that are oppressive or discriminatory. It 

means insisting on enforcement of laws that promote religious freedom by government officials. It means devoting energy and resources to promote greater understanding of the importance of this universal value. And it means pressing for the 

release of religious prisoners, and coming to the aid of victims of abuse. As a central 

part of President Bush’s freedom agenda, all of these efforts are about one thing: 

making life full and secure for individual people of faith around the world. Eleanor 

Roosevelt, a great champion of human rights, never lost sight of this focus on the 

individual. When she was asked where human rights begin, she answered: ‘‘In small 

places, close to home—so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps 

of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person. . . .’’

There is no right more central to the ‘‘world of the individual person’’ than religious freedom. For all our many differences around this world, each of us holds cerVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:21 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\111505\24596.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
19

tain beliefs dear, and we all understand intuitively that we have the right to express them—especially through the practice of our faith. Societies that achieve respect for the freedom of religion defend human dignity and lay a cornerstone for democracy and the rule of law. 

Again, we offer sincere thanks to each of you for your commitment to ensuring 

freedom of thought, conscience, and religion for every individual, in every nation 

and society around the world. I look forward to continuing to work with you on behalf of religious freedom, and would be pleased to take any questions you may have.

Mr. SMITH. Ambassador Hanford, thank you very much for your 

very eloquent statement. 

Let me just begin the questioning by focusing first on China. As 

you pointed out, this is the seventh year that it has been so designated as a CPC country, and it seems, as in Michael Cromartie’s 

statement, as Chairman of the International Religious Freedom 

Commission, this makes it very clear that in its view and in the 

view of this Chairman—because I have long held hearings, made 

trips to China and studied the reporting on virtually all of the religious freedom and human rights organizations that cover China—

but as the International Commission does point out, it is getting 

worse. It has deteriorated, as it points out in its report, in the last 

year, and I am wondering what plan of action we might have in 

store for the PRC. 

As I said in my opening statement, I was one of those who felt 

that MFN, without conditions, was a lost opportunity. I also believe 

that when we made it permanent with PNTR, we really put the bar 

away for those to report the opportunity to press for religious freedom and other basic human rights freedoms in China. We made it 

less likely, not more likely. Others argued the other way and said 

that if you trade more, you will have a concurrent rise in human 

rights respect. And I think that was certainly sincere, but very 

much historically and present-day unfounded because it has grown 

its capabilities, militarily and other ways, with an economy that is 

booming while simultaneously repressing. 

I will point out that I do think we have got to be sure that when 

we talk about religious freedom it is not just the freedom to worship—and I have included this in my opening comments—and in 

your answer, if you could address this. We all remember that the 

Soviets allowed certain churches and synagogues to stay open, 

where they very carefully circumscribed freedom to worship, but as 

Bishop Ramirez pointed out, it begins with the freedom to worship 

but it doesn’t end there. Religious freedom, as he points out, covers 

a broad range of various activities, from freedom to worship to freedom of conscience, to right to establish schools and charities, and 

the right to participate and to seek influence in public affairs. 

We know that schools in the Soviet Union became all state-run, 

and it seems to me that we need to be very aware that worship is 

the beginning, it is not the end. And in your answer, if you might 

want to touch on that, as to how that definition plays in CPC designations and the like. 

But what are we going to do regarding China? It has deteriorated, it has gotten worse. We know that the number of deaths attributable to the torture for the Falun Gong and others continues 

unabated. I know that Bishop Su Zhimin of Guangdong Province, 

whom I met with in 1994, continues to the best of our knowledge 

to languish in some laogai somewhere, and there was even a report 

20

that he was seen in a hospital, his face was puffed, presumably as 

a result of a beating. And this is a man who is in his high 80s, if 

not older. What threat does a man of that senior status pose to a 

dictatorship like China? 

If you could speak to that, I would appreciate it. 

And again, what is the action plan? Will we do something similar 

to what we have done with Vietnam, where there is a Memorandum of Understanding with that government so that some 

progress can be made? 

And finally, again, not to overstate it, but in your testimony—I 

think it was in your testimony just now—you mentioned the fact 

that this is a core principle with the Chinese, talking human rights 

and talking religious freedom—it might have been in Michael 

Cromartie’s testimony. When I met with Frank Wolf and Li Peng 

years ago and raised the issue of human rights in general and then 

religious freedom in particular, he was very, very dismissive that 

a human rights dialogue has any place in a Chinese-United States 

relationship, that beginning with the Shanghai Declaration and 

other official declarations between the two countries, human rights 

were nowhere to be found. And it was very disturbing. It was as 

if it was an asterisk somewhere and a talking point with the State 

Department, but it was not on his sheet. And, I am wondering 

when that assertion is made that it is core to our relationship. Is 

it really? Do we really talk about it in a way that—I mean, will 

the President be speaking to it in a way that makes it central to 

the relationship, or is it just, ‘‘On page 4, see footnote?’’

Ambassador HANFORD. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I remember from my 14 years of working on the Senate side watching 

you with admiration as you have long championed the cause for 

human rights in China. 

I think we can rest very assured that the President will make 

this issue front and center on his trip, just as he has on previous 

trips. As people have said about President Bush, religious freedom 

is not a talking point, it is a breathing point. And he has addressed 

this issue in a major speech and so highlighted this issue on his 

first trip to China that it stunned officials. And I heard later that 

senior officials felt the need to be tutored in religion in order to be 

able to keep up with the emphasis that the President was putting 

on this. 

This gives me great pride to serve a President who places this 

issue at such a high level. And I can tell you, I have been at the 

White House at an event totally unrelated to religious freedom and 

had the President come over and tell me about raising this issue 

with yet another Chinese official. 

You mentioned Bishop Su. I have raised his case on my trips to 

China with the same concern. Where is this man? I have heard he 

is here, I have heard he is there. Why can’t we see him? And we 

continue to grieve over a number of prisoners. 

The last several years have not been good years for religious 

freedom in China. There have been a number of arrests for—major 

arrests of groups of house churches this year. Catholic clergy that 

do not submit to the government-controlled denomination continue 

to face arrest and harassment and house arrest. The Tibetan Buddhists, of course, notoriously suffer, as do the Uighur Muslims 

21

under this Communist regime. So there is a whole panoply of problems and issues. 

You ask how do we advance religious freedom in this situation? 

And I have found that it takes vigilance, and we do it incrementally. For example, one of the issues which I emphasized on my 

first trip to China was religious education for minors. And I remember raising this in a large group that had members of all sorts 

of religions present. And I told them how important it was to me 

to be able to raise my children in my faith, that there was nothing 

really more important than that. And I saw the look on the various 

religious leaders, various different denominations and groups, that 

they understood and they respected that, and yet while you will see 

this happening in Beijing, it is not happening in many other regions in the country. So we pressed and pressed on this and finally 

this year we have gotten the government to come forward and declare that this is a nationwide policy, not just do it privately. Now, 

we have a long way to go. This is why this is an incremental process of pressing the government. 

We have also pressed again and again for the freedom of unregistered groups to meet. This is true religious freedom. The government has now pledged that family and friends—it sounds like a 

telephone commercial, but friends and family can meet in homes 

and without government harassment. We can’t tell at this point 

how large those groups can be, but again, this is the result of years 

of pushing on these sorts of issues. 

USCIRF, the Commission on International Religious Freedom, 

will be able to testify today about their trip. This was one of the 

things which I demanded on my first trip to China, which I was 

promised on my second trip to China, and yet which took 3 years 

to occur. We have pressed for the rapporteur on religion to go. And 

there are just many issues where we press and press. We have secured this year the release of a prominent Muslim, Rebiya Kadeer. 

It took several years of pressing. 

You talk about the human rights dialogue and the importance of 

that. We are committed and willing to reenter into a formal human 

rights dialogue with the Chinese Government. I have participated 

in this in my role as Ambassador-at-Large, and we hope to be able 

to resume these talks soon. And yet we have made it clear that 

until the UN rapporteur on torture is allowed to visit that we are 

holding off on doing these. 

You ask about whether it might be possible to do an agreement 

as in the case of Vietnam. This is something which the International Religious Freedom Act emphasizes and encourages, and 

that is why I was pleased this year to negotiate the first such 

agreement under the act. 

I wish I could tell you that I plan to do this with China. I don’t 

see any hope for that in the near future. I felt like in the case of 

Vietnam that the issues were more specific and addressable. There 

was a clear number of prisoners that needed to be released, there 

was a clear need for a nationwide decree and policy banning forced 

renunciations of faith, there was a finite but large number of 

churches and other places of worship that needed to be reopened, 

there were clear identifiable issues. 

22

In the case of China, the problems are more widespread and complicated. I am at the ready to pursue this, and I would very much 

welcome the chance to discuss this possibility with the Government 

of China. I do not see it as a high percentage shot. I don’t think 

I will be placing my efforts there in the near future. 

I may have forgotten a point or two you that you raised. Let me 

mention——

Mr. SMITH. Part of it was the definition, a very carefully circumscribed definition of religious freedom which would say it is 

only to worship, but everything else you dare not do under penalty 

of them coming down hard on you. 

Ambassador HANFORD. That is an important issue. And I think 

the Chinese are beginning to recognize the value that religious 

groups can play across the social spectrum, and they have even 

told me that privately themselves. They see problems with youth 

just as we have problems here, and they have discerned a difference among religious youth, in some cases in terms of their ethics. So they are saying that they see a value to a society of minors 

being educated in the faith of their parents. 

The new law of religion that has been promulgated this past year 

holds some promise, even in this area where charitable activities 

of this sort seem to be given the opportunity for greater possibilities. And there are other provisions of this new law which may 

allow for easier registration of religious groups. Nevertheless, there 

are other provisions of the law which concern us because they seem 

to allow the government to clearly have control over aspects of religious practice which were not so clear in the past and we fear may 

be used as a pretext for additional arrests. 

On the issue that you raise, however, I think there is reason for 

hope that China is making progress. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask you, why isn’t it time now to go to a penalty phase? Seven years of dealing with the Chinese Government, 

would you agree with Mr. Cromartie’s statement that it has deteriorated, it has gotten worse? So, in spite of every admonition and 

hope and expectation on our side, it has moved in the opposite direction. And as a matter of fact, as you pointed out, the regulations 

on religious affairs actually have a darker side to them and may 

actually be worse for the people of China rather than better. 

Why not now? We prescribed in the law, as you know so well 

having helped write it, that a number of very specific penalties 

could be imposed. I think it is time. 

Ambassador HANFORD. Right. I think the jury is still out on this 

new law. I do not think it represents the panacea or the paradigm 

shift that some in China claimed. Nevertheless, there are possibilities in terms of accountability of local officials to abide by government regulations that could allow for increased religious freedom. 

It is going to depend on the interpretation. 

China currently faces a sanction under the International Religious Freedom Act. It involves the restriction of exports of crime 

control and detection instruments and equipment pursuant to the 

Foreign Relations Authorization Act. This sanction is double-headed, which is allowed under the International Religious Freedom 

Act, with another sanction that was imposed in part for human 

rights violations. 

23

Mr. SMITH. Again, I would hope that other sanctions, perhaps in 

a rolling way, would be imposed because we have not gotten their 

attention. Based on my observations and all the reading and work 

we have done on this Subcommittee—we have had in excess of 20 

hearings on human rights in the PRC over these 7 years since I 

have been Chairman—it is getting worse rather than better. 

Ambassador HANFORD. Well, I commend you for that vigilance, 

and I will be privileged to be a part of any of these that you have. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask you about Saudi Arabia, if I could. It received, as you know so well, a national security waiver last year, 

and now the clock is ticking with the 180 days. You know, Saudi 

Arabia, as we all know, is the heart of Wahhabism. I held hearings 

some time ago that looked at the textbook issue, and the fact that 

terrible hatred toward Jews and Christians and others is clearly 

stated in textbooks for young children. The Freedom House, Nina 

Shea, in her testimony, points out that the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs explicitly asserts in publications Freedom House has 

acquired that those who convert from Islam and out of Islam 

should be killed. There is no doubt that on that is the epicenter of 

the hatred that then spreads throughout the Muslim world and is, 

obviously, a more radical version of Islamic belief. And as this 

Committee has over and over again, as we do even in China, trying 

to help the Uighurs, who are people of the Muslim persuasion, it 

is all about freedom and all are included. But when it comes to 

Wahhabism and it comes to Saudi Arabia, it is just the opposite. 

Just to point out, parenthetically, that the priest that married 

my wife and I, who was the head chaplain during Operation Desert 

Shield/Desert Storm, was based in Saudi Arabia. He couldn’t even 

wear the cross on his uniform. And, he told my wife and me story 

after story about how even when he wanted to celebrate mass for 

our soldiers, the Saudi Arabians would not permit it. It had to be 

advertised as a social event being held in a gym or some other 

place. 

We know that for the Filipinos and others who are there in large 

number, many of them Catholic, they are very much discriminated 

against. And regrettably, in Saudi Arabia it is getting worse, not 

unlike China. I am wondering again here, why? Okay, the 180 

days; hopefully, there can be some significant changes in progress, 

but frankly I am not holding my breath. We have seen in the past 

that the Saudi Government has been profoundly unresponsive. So, 

I am wondering what actions we are going to take. What kind of 

benchmarks are we looking at during this 180-day review period? 

Ambassador HANFORD. Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know, my 

heart on this issue is always to look for the opportunity to advance 

religious freedom first. And in my judgment, I feel like there is a 

significant opportunity, and that is why I recommended to the Secretary of State that we exercise an option under the International 

Religious Freedom Act to grant—or to take a 180-day waiver, 

which is to further the purposes of the act. This is not a national 

interest waiver, but to further the purposes of the act. 

And I may clarify, there has never been a waiver on action under 

the International Religious Freedom Act on Saudi Arabia before. 

Last year they did not get a national security waiver. We are doing 

this because we feel like the discussions that we are having——

24

Mr. SMITH. Yield 1 second. But nothing was done penalty phasewise, or was there? 

Ambassador HANFORD. No. This is the first—last year Saudi Arabia was designated. This now is the action that we are taking, 

which is only temporary, and we are taking it because I believe and 

others believe there is the real promise for significant progress. 

Now I may be disappointed in that, but my heart is always to try 

for that option first and foremost, and at the end of the day, if we 

can come away with significant progress, it will be worth, I believe, 

the delay. 

You mentioned the textbook issue. This has deeply troubled me. 

The textbooks that Saudi children have been raised under have 

been incredibly inflammatory and hateful in many respects. I have 

raised this as I have traveled to Saudi Arabia and met with the 

minister of education and other officials, and Saudi officials who 

themselves now have suffered the consequences of this sort of hate, 

even with bombings and terrorism on their own soil, agree that 

this was a mistake and they are revising these textbooks. 

When I was there, I think they revised 36 of the 66 or so major 

textbooks that are used. We are monitoring this, monitoring not 

only the revision, but to make sure the new textbooks are used, not 

just revised and sitting on the shelf. I believe Freedom House did 

a great service in finding that hate literature had been disseminated in this country, and of course in other countries as well. 

This points to a very serious problem. I have discussed this with 

the Saudi Government very clearly. They are promising that this 

will not happen again and that this has not happened in recent 

months or very little in recent years, the last year or two. 

But it points to a larger issue. There are imams who are funded 

by the Saudi Government, both at home and abroad, who still 

preach very hateful messages toward Muslims, other Muslims that 

are not Salafi or Wahhabi Muslims, and toward Christians and toward Jews and toward America, and this is tolerated more than it 

should be. The Saudi Government claims that they have fired over 

1,000. In fact, they ran an ad on the local WTOP station to brag 

about this, they were so concerned to try to convey this to the 

United States audience. Yet our Government has even found that 

there were imams funded by the Saudis here in the United States 

that were preaching this sort of hateful material, and we have deported certain people who were guilty of this. 

The Muttawa, the religious police, have been very aggressive. 

The Saudis have claimed they have retrained these by the thousands. I do think there has been a pullback in the aggressiveness 

of the Muttawa, and yet there are very significant cases that continue to occur. 

So I think the issues you raise are extremely important because 

this is spreading a view of religion and a view of other religions 

that can foment hatred all over the world, and it is extremely important that we raise this issue at every opportunity. I can assure 

you that the President and the Secretary of State have both raised 

this with great concern. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me just ask you on Vietnam, a few months ago 

we held a day-long hearing on human rights in Vietnam, or the 

lack of them, and one of the submissions that we received was from 

25

Nam Linh. He is a Buddhist who talked about the repression in his 

country; obviously he could not make it here because he is suffering 

under that repression. As a result of that, he has now gotten a 7-

year prison sentence. As a matter of fact, I have requested a visa. 

Dennis Curry and I and members of my staff want to go to Vietnam in early December on a human rights trip, in part to raise his 

case directly and hopefully to visit with him. Seven years for providing a couple of pages of testimony, written pages, to our Committee. 

It is reminiscent of what happened to Father Lee, who, as you 

recall, provided testimony to the International Religious Freedom 

Commission and he got 15 years. Then in an act of benevolence 

they dropped it to 10 and went after his nephews and nieces, and 

then under great pressure, finally released him, although he is 

still, I think, looking over his shoulder. 

It reminds me of the release-and-replace strategy that was often 

employed by the Soviet Union. When MFN focus came on Soviet 

Jews and others, it often would let a few out, but meanwhile it 

would send out its bullies to pick up a few more and torture them 

and mistreat them. 

I would hope that as we look to see whether or not this agreement with Vietnam bears any fruit, that we would be looking very, 

very aggressively and focused with a lot of scrutiny on what is happening to the others. While it lets someone out over here, five others end up getting picked up. 

If you could speak to that, I would appreciate it. I am very concerned that somebody who gave testimony to us, to Mr. Payne and 

I at our Committee, is now in prison for 7 years in Vietnam. 

Ambassador HANFORD. I appreciate your compassionate concern 

for that gentleman, and I know it is not the first time someone who 

testified in this room has suffered, and I think it is the right thing 

to do, to follow up and do everything within your power, as we 

should, to secure this man’s release. 

In general, the plight of religious prisoners has improved in Vietnam. When I started in this work, virtually none were being released. I remember receiving promises on my first trip that Father 

Lee would soon receive something significant, and it took a while, 

and he got a 5-year reduction, and later another 5-year reduction, 

and we kept pressing and pressing, and finally he was released. 

Now, the government, after much interaction and dialogue, has 

started including religious prisoners in their America necessities, 

and we have seen significant releases this year of people held for 

a very long period of time and various faiths, some of them very 

poignant, tragic cases, such as Father Lee, who suffered in prison. 

So I think the trend is a good one. I think in general I would 

say that we don’t have the problem that I agree we sometimes have 

in China, where you release one and arrest two. I don’t think we 

see that pattern in Vietnam right now. I want to believe that the 

general trend is a positive one because when I began there was a 

very long list of prisoners that I presented on my first trip to Vietnam, in the dozens. Now, the number of prisoners would be less 

than a dozen and perhaps more like half a dozen. That is a very 

significant decrease. To be honest, far more success than I expected 

to have in this period of time. 

26

So we are hoping that we can get that number down to zero, including the Buddhist gentleman you are talking about. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Just a general question. Do 

you think that with what we have been doing with this Committee 

and with this legislation over the past number of years you see a 

general improvement? Is the glass half full or half empty? In general, if you could take the world, do you see more religious tolerance in general or do you see more repression? 

Ambassador HANFORD. That is a great question. I think the positive thing I see is a greater consciousness of the importance of religious freedom that has occurred, not only here in the United States 

with the annual processes that we go through, but even in other 

parts of the world. I am invited to speak to EU groups and others, 

who are curious about this special emphasis that our Government 

places. Of course, I explain our heritage and why this issue means 

so much to American people and continues to today, as people flee 

to America, including many Muslims seeking religious freedom. 

I am afraid that in terms of overall trends, I would be forced to 

point to a country here that is improving, a country here that is 

not improving, rather than saying that I believe that we are seeing 

an overall improvement in the world. 

I think if I had to generalize, I would say that in Communist 

countries, with terrible exceptions like North Korea, Cuba, and 

some other countries, we have seen a slow improvement. China 

would also be an exception. But in cases like, I believe, Vietnam, 

Laos, we have seen improvements. 

In other parts of the world there have been a rise in fundamentalism under certain conditions and we have had setbacks. In India 

this has occurred with Hinduism and a Hindutva movement. We 

now see the government moving back from this sort of emphasis 

and improvement. 

In Sri Lanka, we have seen the rise of a Buddhist fundamentalism that has threatened certain laws that would be highly restrictive on religious freedom. In other parts of the world the rise 

of an intolerant and extremist Islam that is very harsh on religious 

minorities. So these are trends that continue to make our work 

very challenging. 

Mr. PAYNE. Just dealing with China again, as the Chairman very 

vividly expressed, China continues to restrict religious practices, 

has to register places of worship, et cetera. It is kind of perplexing 

to me, because usually in areas where there has been limited opportunity, that when you have an opening of opportunity, you see 

a breaking down of religious or racial or gender discrimination. 

In World War II, the United States had to meet the axis, not of 

evil, but Germany, Japan, and Italy, and so the President, Roosevelt, just did an Executive order. These other folks had been 

building up their war resources, we sort of lagging, and we just 

need to build ships and planes and so forth. So my father was hired 

down at Port North to build ships and so forth. Race did not mean 

anything. They needed manpower. Women were hired in defense 

plants. 

Ambassador HANFORD. My father was on one of those ships. 

27

Mr. PAYNE. My daddy made sure it floated. So everybody, we saw 

a lessening of superficial barriers of religion, of race and so forth. 

Of course, when times get hard again, as I guess we are seeing 

in France, those barriers then tend to start to go up again, and if 

there is one job and there is a real Frenchman and a North African, generally the Frenchman will get the job. That is just the way 

it goes, even here in the United States when times get tough. 

My question though is, in China things are improving, they are 

making everything in the world, talking about economically. Textiles, they have just almost obliterated a little opportunity in African countries of making textiles. They can’t even come close to 

competing. China had a 1,800 percent increase in 1 month, in January, in trousers; 1,200 percent increase in shirts, and they were 

already delivering more than the whole world put together. 

With this booming economy, General Motors is building their 

cars there because they don’t have to worry about healthcare, they 

don’t do healthcare in China, it is cheaper. Everything is going economically. Of course, I always get concerned about our policy with 

China. On the one hand we are concerned about their moving into 

Latin America and Brazil, they are investing, they are building 

plants and taking timber down. They are producing paper, they are 

taking minerals. In Africa they are going into every country and 

buying their resources. 

On the one hand we have a love relationship with our industrial 

Chamber of Commerce folks. On the other hand, we have Secretary 

Rumsfeld saying we have got to watch them, because we think they 

are building too many submarines and so forth. 

Your thing is tough enough without having to clarify that socalled policy. 

Getting back to the point, it seems like when there is an explosion, it is unfortunate it has to be the economic wherewithal to 

make people change, because sometimes the rising tide does lift all 

ships. 

Why do you believe, in your opinion, that China is just doing the 

reverse? It seems to me that it would be more liberalization. I understand that they liberalize in other places. I haven’t been to 

Shanghai lately, but they say it is getting like it used to be in the 

old British days, eating places, clubs, bars and so on, on the one 

hand. But this whole thrust against people on religion. Do you 

have any rationale in your thinking of why this is going on? 

Ambassador HANFORD. I believe that as China has liberalized in 

other areas, we have over the long term seen an improvement in 

human rights. But I am looking back and comparing to 10 or 20 

years ago, the last 2 or 3 years have been a very discouraging period. 

I think it comes down to the government wanting to control aspects of society, including aspects that cause citizens to coalesce 

around anything other than the Communist Party or entities which 

the government can’t control. 

Now, there are ways in which, or enclaves in which you see 

meaningful religious practice and a certain degree of religious freedom. You see in government-approved churches and mosques and 

temples some freedom and some meaningful freedom for people to 

practice their faith. In some provinces you see nonregistered groups 

28

able to practice. In other regions, where the government fears any 

threat, I think there is just a great overreaction. Witness what we 

see in Tibet with the weaker Muslims, or certain regions where 

Catholic or Protestant house churches are particularly repressed. 

There is just an extreme overreaction. 

I believe, from my experience in meeting with high-level Chinese 

officials, there is even a real misunderstanding of religion. I remember one very high-level official asking me one time, ‘‘What is 

the difference between Catholics and Protestants?’’ That is a legitimate question and even many Americans would ask that sort of 

question. Yet, at his level, I think that reflects a real difficulty in 

understanding the positive role that religion can play. 

So I think our hope must be that the Chinese Government will, 

over time, realize that people of faith with very few exceptions pose 

no threat and instead offer one of the greatest hopes for building 

a strong civil society, humanitarian society. 

I have the hope that that will come. It is just coming much more 

slowly and with many more people suffering in the process than I 

would have hoped for. 

Mr. PAYNE. I agree with the Chairman that when we gave mostfavored-nation status, which I voted against, it sounded too good, 

so they changed the name to normal trade relations, because we 

didn’t want to look good to some bad guys, but we should have put 

some more stipulations. One, it shouldn’t have been permanent. 

Can you imagine if they had to come before the Congress today and 

say, ‘‘We want to renew for the next 3 years normal trade relations’’? Then we could ask, ‘‘Well, how are your normal religious relations going?’’; and have them before us to testify about what is 

happening. I am sure that the mistake we made by giving them 

permanent trade relations, we could have achieved so much more 

just with a question or two. The dollar, sometimes it is that almighty dollar that people bend to. 

One last question on China, and them I will go to one or two 

other quick questions. I, years ago from 1970 to 1973, was President of the YMCAs of the USA, the National President of the 

YMCA. I would be interested if you could have some research done. 

During the thirties and forties, twenties and thirties and forties, 

there was a tremendous YMCA movement in China. We had fraternal secretaries, they were called, in 50 or 60 places around 

China. The YMCA, which is basically nonsectarian, but it is primarily a Protestant movement. We all know about the YMCA. 

I had a question about the confiscation of the YMCAs by the government in 1949 when the government took over and the People’s 

Republic of China came in. I would be interested if records—and 

you might be able to contact the national YMCA, or I could—if 

there could be a question raised: One, if you could find out what 

is the status of those properties and whether YMCAs, Young Men’s 

Christian Associations, are allowed in China and, if they are, are 

they really free? I would be interested if you could research that 

and get back to me. 

Ambassador HANFORD. That would be my pleasure, Congressman 

Payne. I grew up in the YMCA myself in North Carolina and had 

stayed in the YMCA when I lived in Korea a while and was impressed with the even greater spiritual vibrancy that you find 

29

sometimes overseas in the YMCAs. So that would be a pleasure to 

see what has happened. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE JOHN V. HANFORD III TO

QUESTION ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE DONALD M. PAYNE

The YMCA has a long tradition of service in China, dating back to 1885. After 

the Communist party took over China in 1949, many YMCA programs at local universities were cancelled and other programs were scaled back. From 1966-1982, the 

Cultural Revolution brought YMCA operations to a complete halt. During this period, the Government confiscated all YMCA properties. In 1982, the Government 

began allowing YMCAs to resume their activities. The Government has returned 

some confiscated properties to the YMCAs. Properties that were not returned were 

generally not compensated. Today, there are YMCA centers in Beijing, Tianjin, 

Shanghai, Nanjing, Hangzhou, Xi’an, Wuhan, Chengdu, Guangzhou and Xiamen. 

There are more than 1.5 million members of the YMCA in China and there are no 

restrictions upon who may join a YMCA. YMCAs in China focus mainly upon providing educational, recreational and social services including medical aid. Some 

YMCAs conduct summer camps for children. YMCAs have close ties to the Chinese 

Christian Church/Three Self Patriotic Movement.

Ambassador HANFORD. Let me make one other comment in connection with your earlier question. I think there is an opportunity 

for all of us to press the business community as they now have 

these new entrees into China to press the government with the leverage that they have to grant greater religious freedom, if for no 

one else, for their employees. This is something I hope to do more 

of. 

There have been a few prominent businessmen who have stepped 

forward and had the guts to do this, John Cann being one. I think 

if there were many more like him, we would see greater progress. 

Mr. PAYNE. Let me just quickly get to the Soviet Union. We have 

seen, according to the report, that there seems to be growing antiSemitism there, where there were more reports of anti-Semitism in 

the first 4 months of this year than in the entire 2003. I wonder, 

although the government condemns it, have they arrested anyone? 

Have they really tried to protect synagogues? Have they really 

gone after people? 

We saw in perestroika and glasnost that even under the old system they did start to allow Jewish people to emigrate to Israel. But 

I wonder if there is some real activity on the part of the Soviet—

of the Russian Government to stem this anti-Semitism? 

Ambassador HANFORD. We are raising a number of issues of religious concern with the Russian Government, but certainly antiSemitism is prominent on the list. I would say—although conditions for Jews have improved over recent history, mostly because 

at the central government level there is no longer state support of 

anti-Semitism, and in fact there are strong statements discouraging it—incidents of anti-Semitism, including violent ones, continue to occur, sometimes with increased frequency. You are right, 

in Moscow alone this year we are already at a point—in the first 

several months we were already at a point where there have been 

more violent attacks than in the previous year. Also there are discouraging cases even where members of the Duma have signed on 

to antiemetic messages. So this will be an issue that we continue 

to vigilantly work on. 

Mr. PAYNE. I wish this hearing was a week or so ago, because 

we had the Duma here with a parliamentary meeting and intend 

30

to meet with them 6 months from now. So if I do go to that meeting, I will certainly have that high on the agenda. 

The last question regarding Africa, the Government of Sudan has 

a terrible record, and I wonder, in your view, has the Government 

of Sudan taken any steps over the past year to improve its record 

on religious freedom? The United States, certainly we all have accused them of what has happened in Darfur. Is there any pressure 

being brought to bear from a religious standpoint? As we know, we 

are from a political standpoint. 

Then I have one last question. 

Ambassador HANFORD. Well, as we have stated before, the resolution of the conflict in Darfur will definitely be a prerequisite to 

normalizing relations. But in terms of religious freedom, I think 

the promise stands with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, 

which provides important hard-won progress. The Constitution, the 

new Constitution, states that legislation in the North shall have as 

its source sharia and the consensus of the people, but with the exception of Khartoum, where Christians and others will not be subjected to sharia. Legislation applicable to the south of Sudan shall 

have as its source popular consensus, the values and the customs 

of the people of Sudan, including their traditions and religious beliefs. 

So this is a marked improvement over a situation where the Government of Sudan was determined to impose sharia law upon the 

whole nation. 

Mr. PAYNE. We have about three or four in disputed areas, like 

the Upper Nile, where, if they get control, then they will be able 

to impose sharia when the people in those areas are really not 

Muslim. 

Just finally, once again I raise the issue about Eritrea. The State 

Department says that the government has refused to provide the 

names. I wonder if the United States Government—like in China 

years ago, when they were anxious to show that they were doing 

the right thing, we would present them with a list and they would 

look at the list and many times we did see the release of those 

folks. 

Has the State Department asked the Government of Eritrea, 

given them a list of people, since they deny that they have detained 

people by virtue of this religious question, and the Government of 

Eritrea claims that a number of Jehovah’s Witnesses are denied 

trading licenses and government posts because of refusal of national service. In Eritrea one has to donate a service, and these are 

internal in the country. So over 200 people currently are in prison. 

Do you know how many are Jehovah’s Witnesses and are those 

that are not in prison allowed to practice their faith? 

Ambassador HANFORD. That is a very good question about 

whether we have provided names. We have provided some names 

to the government, and the retort continues to be, ‘‘We have no religious prisoners.’’ This has been one of the most frustrating experiences in my entire career. I view my role as a diplomat. My job is 

to try to see problems of religious freedom solved and to work hard 

to that end. I view it and I have conveyed this to them as somewhat of a personal failure when I have to come to the point of imposing or recommending that sanctions be imposed upon a country. 

31

But that time comes, and especially with a government that persistently denies that there are any problems, any religious prisoners, that everyone has freedom of religion. I ask then, ‘‘Why is 

it that so many churches are boarded up, even in the capital city?’’ 

They don’t seem to be able to have an answer for that. 

People live in fear in Eritrea. They live in fear even of their 

names being handed over, because the government has been guilty 

of terrible torture, they have been guilty of rounding up family 

members when attention is drawn to that family or other members 

of the same denomination. We have provided names, however, in 

some cases. 

The fact of the matter is that we know that they know that there 

are religious prisoners, and at this point we think the number may 

be as high as 1,600. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Let me just conclude by saying that, as you know, last year I even raised the question that 

they are the only country sanctioned when we have beheadings in 

Saudi Arabia, and religious discrimination is wrong anywhere. One 

person in prison is too many. I think we need to have a level playing field. 

The President points out that, yes, they have questioned some as 

in their mind being religion. However, Islam is allowed. Christianity, they said for 2,000 years we have had Christianity, and for 

at least 1,000 years Christianity and Islam, it is still flourishing. 

There is no discrimination to Jews in Eritrea. So they point to 

these things, where in other places they restrict—Jewish people 

cannot put up their Star of David. Christians cannot put up a 

cross. 

So I think what is happening in Eritrea is wrong. However, once 

again if we had some way to lift everybody to the same level, I 

would feel much more comfortable about the sanctions that we do 

and do not do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador HANFORD. Let me respond quickly. I think that is a 

valid point, and it is a strange position to be in, to in some way 

defend a comparison with Saudi Arabia, because their legal structure is as restrictive of religious freedom as any in the world, with 

the exception perhaps of North Korea. Yet interestingly there are 

far fewer, by many orders of magnitude, religious prisoners, and 

the instance of torture and brutality doesn’t compare with what we 

find in Eritrea. 

I am baffled. I am baffled by a lot of things with the leadership 

of Eritrea. But I am baffled as to why they have targeted peaceful 

religious believers. I attended church where there is a wonderful 

Eritrean woman who fought in the bush for 13 or 14 years, gave 

up her youth to fight for independence in Eritrea, and she and so 

many others say this is not what we fought for, to have thousands 

or hundreds of people locked up and put in shipping containers in 

the desert and even tortured. 

So I think the brutality, the level of brutality is, I would say, on 

a per capita basis among the worst in the world. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me just say that for the record, since we will be 

moving momentarily to our next panel, I am sure Mr. Payne and 

other Members of Committee have many other questions. Just beVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:21 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\111505\24596.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
32

cause it has not been posed does not in any way reflect a lack of 

concern, whether it be Iran, Burma, North Korea, or Russia or 

some of the other countries where more specific questions were 

going to be asked. 

But let me just ask, if I could, a couple of very final questions. 

Cuba last month issued new harsh regulations about people meeting in their homes for religious belief. A couple of years ago, you 

might recall, and I know you know, about 75 of the best and 

brightest and bravest in Cuba were rounded up and got 20-, 25-, 

27-year prison sentences: People in the Varela Project, librarians. 

Dr. Oscar Bichet, an Afro-Cuban who is an OB–GYN, an outstanding leader in the human rights movement, 25-plus years for 

him. So there has been this tightening in Cuba, and now we see 

that even house church or house meetings for religious meetings 

just a month ago were named as violations of Cuban law. 

On Uzbekistan, we know that Karimov has in no way provided 

any kind of insight or investigation into Andijan. We know that he 

has many pious Muslims that he is holding. Protestant churches 

continue to suffer very intense harassment. Even we were kicked 

out of K–2, where there was some collaboration on the war on terrorism. It would appear, based on the record, that Uzbekistan 

ought to be a country of particular concern. You might want to 

speak to that as well. 

Finally, one of our witnesses, a man I have known for almost 30 

years, Larry Uzzell, an expert on religious freedom, has some, I 

think, constructive criticism, and I would appreciate your reaction 

to it. He points out that the first flaw in the State Department report is that it places too much emphasis on cataloging facts, including individual cases of oppression, but too little emphasis on analyzing the causes, trends and overall patterns behind those facts. 

He says all too often, it lists individual trees, but misses the forest. 

He also points out, and I would appreciate your reaction to this, 

that the report flunks what ought to be a basic test of U.S. diplomatic efforts. He asks, ‘‘Is the U.S. Government truly working for 

religious freedom for all believers?’’ and cites a number of examples 

of indigenous churches and groups that don’t get the kind of attention that they ought, including in Russia, as Mr. Payne was talking 

about. There are some very serious problems there. But he also has 

one in Turkmenistan, where he talks about the Armenian Apostolic 

Church, a long-standing church, and yet it is severely repressed. 

How do you respond to those criticisms, and, again, if you could 

touch on Uzbekistan and Cuba? 

Ambassador HANFORD. Sure. Taking the last issue, the report is 

close to 800 pages long and requires an extraordinary amount of 

work. Having been the person who created this report, had the idea 

for it, put it in legislation, I am very pleased and in fact surprised. 

I am honestly surprised at how good it has turned out to be. I 

didn’t think it would ever be this comprehensive. So I want to give 

the State Department, even before I was there, a lot of credit for 

that. But, needless to say, it is always going to miss things, and 

we always welcome criticism, and we try to respond to those criticisms where we have missed things and can improve. 

There is an interesting trade-off that I even struggle with myself. 

Increasing reports are laid upon our human rights officers around 

33

the world. I think some reports, I would say that an interesting 

consequence of the international religious freedom report is it requires our human rights officers to maintain constant vigilance on 

the issue of religious freedom. That is a great byproduct. But if we 

keep placing report upon report upon report, I have become increasingly sympathetic to the officers’ claims that this forces them 

to stay at their desk and computer within the U.S. Embassy and 

not get out and meet with suffering people. So it is tough to find 

that balance. 

I think there are perhaps ways we could reformat the report. We 

try to be very comprehensive. There are things that people would 

like for us to do that really are not what is envisioned in the report 

that should be left to others, to scholars and others. 

We just simply are not there to be a think-tank. We are there 

to be the gold standard as best we can on the facts and let others 

draw connections and talk about themes and the like. I think it is 

asking a little too much of human rights officers to make theological reflections. For example, we might get more trouble than we 

want. Nevertheless, keep those recommendations coming. 

On Andijan, we are disturbed that the government has just sentenced a group of people, we think unfairly, without due process. 

We have spoken out about this and we will continue to. We are 

joining with our friends in Europe, Canada and elsewhere in condemning the lack of attention that has been given, the lack of 

international access that has been given to getting to the bottom 

of how the government responded to and in some cases massacred 

groups of people. 

In the case of Cuba, there continue to be very serious problems. 

I remember when I visited there the way in which there are neighborhood monitoring groups all over the country, and this issue you 

raise of prohibiting meetings in homes and the like has been a 

problem for a long, long time, and it sort of ebbs and flows in terms 

of how much freedom is given for this. But the amount of pressure 

at times can be surprising. 

One of the ones that I find most poignant is the pressure that 

the government has placed on the wives of political prisoners, 

where they are told that they will be arrested if they join with others in worship at a mass at Havana’s Santa Rita Catholic Church. 

Ministry of Interior officers reportedly show up at these services 

and sit near spouses of political prisoners in order to intimidate 

them to not go to mass. And then to take it one step further, they 

will wind up only allowing these wives access to talk to their husbands during church service times on Sunday, yet again to keep 

them from being able to worship. 

So, these sorts of stunts, these sorts of problems, are typical, not 

only for Catholics, but for others. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me just conclude. Last January, I went with 

some of my colleagues to the tsunami-ravaged areas, and part of 

that trip included Sri Lanka. We met with the prime minister and 

I raised the issues of the anti-conversion laws, and I was assured 

that they were dead letters, they weren’t going anywhere. 

We now know that the JHU Party, the government, has introduced a Draconian anti-conversion law. The government has its 

version that looks like it would incarcerate those who convert, and 

34

there is also an attempt to make Buddhist worship into the national religion. 

If Sri Lanka indeed passes this legislation, would that be sufficient to trigger CPC status, and what are we doing in the meantime to try to avoid such a Draconian new act of its Parliament? 

Ambassador HANFORD. First, to highlight the importance of this, 

there is no country in the world that currently has on a nationwide 

basis an anti-conversion law, and we have stressed this with Sri 

Lanka, that this would be a terrible step, putting them in a category all by themselves. Now, there are, one could argue, Muslim 

countries that de facto have a policy such as this. But this would 

be a terrible step, and I have had many meetings on this and we 

have devoted a lot of attention to it. 

We have received assurances that these pieces of legislation will 

not move forward. I have asked why it is that the governmentsponsored bill is even worse than the JHU-sponsored bill, and have 

not yet received a satisfactory explanation for that. But we will 

continue to press on this. 

My own honest belief is that most Sri Lankans do not support 

this sort of an intolerant policy and that most members of Parliament would dread the day that they would find themselves having to vote on this. I hope that it will never come to a vote. I think 

that is the case. If it does, let us hope and pray that it will be voted 

down. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Payne, anything further? 

Mr. PAYNE. I will wait until the next witness. I would like to 

ask—you are official, but I will ask Dr. Cromartie. 

Mr. SMITH. Ambassador, thank you again. We look forward to 

working with you going forward. 

I would like to now welcome to the witness table Michael 

Cromartie, who is the Chair of the Commission on International 

Religious Freedom and is Vice President of the Ethics and Public 

Policy Center in Washington, DC, where he directs the Evangelicals in Civic Life Program and the Media and Religion Program. 

Mr. Cromartie has contributed book reviews and articles to several publications, including First Things, Christianity Today and 

The World. He is the editor of 12 books on religion and politics, including most recently, A Public Faith: Evangelicals and Civic Engagement. He is the host of Radio America’s weekly show, ‘‘Faith 

and Life,’’ and serves as an adjunct professor at Reformed Theological Seminary. 

Please proceed as you would like. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CROMARTIE, PH.D., CHAIR, U.S. 

COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 

Mr. CROMARTIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, let me begin 

by thanking you for the opportunity to testify today at this important hearing. I plan to summarize the commission’s testimony in 

my oral remarks, but I would like to request that my full written 

statement be included in the record. 

The State Department’s Annual Report on International Religious Freedom and the work of our commission demonstrate that 

35

religious freedom concerns cut across the full swath of critical 

issues in American foreign policy. As President Bush recently said, 

‘‘When the United States promotes religious freedom, it is promoting the spread of democracy.’’ I would also add that the United 

States is also promoting universal values as enshrined in international human rights norms. 

The release of the annual report provides an opportunity to address some of the important challenges we face in doing so. I will 

focus here on our concerns about Iraq and China, with a few comments on the State Department’s countries of particular concern as 

well as the recently released 2005 annual report. 

Let me begin with Iraq. As Iraqis prepare for another round of 

elections in their historic transition from tyranny to democracy, the 

commission’s focus on the institutional dimension of the right to religious freedom and on securing the individual right to freedom of 

religion or belief for every Iraqi is more critical than ever. 

Iraq’s new Constitution, approved by 79 percent of the voters in 

last month’s referendum, incorporates positive provisions related to 

human rights protections, including constructive language on religious freedom. However, several of the articles are written in vague 

and ambiguous terms, resulting in a Constitution that sets out two 

potentially disparate visions for Iraq. 

The first vision proclaims a country that respects fundamental 

freedoms and democratic principles. However, the second lays out 

the foundation for a country in which Islamic law could be used to 

trump these freedoms. For example, the Constitution states that 

Islam is a basic source of legislation and no law can contradict Islam’s established principles. The Constitution also allows for the 

appointment to Iraq’s highest court of experts in Islamic jurisprudence who need not have any training in civil law or other relevant 

subjects. 

The need to continue to press for these human rights protections 

in the Constitution is reinforced by an ongoing stream of violence 

and extremism driven by religious intolerance. During this past 

year, thousands of Chaldo-Assyrians and other members of Iraq’s 

indigenous non-Muslim religious minorities have fled the country 

out of fear of persecution. There have been numerous reports of violence, including murder, directed especially against women and 

others in an extrajudicial effort to impose an extremist version of 

Islamic law that violates international human rights standards. 

Places of worship and religious clerics alike have been the target 

of insurgent attacks. These attacks have had a detrimental impact 

on the ability of all religious groups in Iraq, including Shia and 

Sunni Muslims to worship freely. 

Let me highlight a couple of our recommendations on Iraq. First, 

the commission has recommended that a high-level human rights 

official, reporting directly to the Ambassador, be stationed within 

Embassy Baghdad to advance human rights, including religious 

freedom, as a key United States policy objective. Designating a 

high-level official demonstrates support for Iraqi efforts to make 

human rights a high priority issue. Recently we learned that the 

Science, State, Justice, Commerce and related agencies conference 

report includes report language supporting this recommendation, 

36

and the commission hopes that the Department of State will implement this recommendation in a timely manner. 

Second, the United States should encourage a robust discussion 

during the upcoming election campaign of how candidates would 

seek to implement the permanent Constitution’s provisions on the 

role of Islam and at the same time implement protections for 

human rights. 

Third, following the elections, the new legislature will begin to 

consider how to implement the no less than 50 provisions in Iraq’s 

Constitution that require enabling legislation. This represents a 

window of opportunity for the United States and the international 

community. The U.S. Agency for International Development should 

be granted specific authority to undertake rule of law programs focused on those pieces of enabling legislation related to human 

rights issues. 

In August 2005, the commission traveled to China to engage senior officials responsible for the management of religious affairs and 

the protection of human rights in China and meet with representatives of China’s government-approved religious communities. 

Mr. Chairman, it is the commission’s assessment that the scope 

of political openness, public activism, and civil and individual freedoms is narrowing in China. China is in the midst of a crackdown 

on public opinion and public dissent that has included religious 

leaders and their communities. Moreover, the Communist Party’s 

recent campaigns to ‘‘halt foreign influence, to stamp out evil cults 

and to strike hard against ethnic separatism and religious extremism’’ have caused an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty among 

China’s religious communities and has occasioned some of the 

country’s most brutal human rights abuses. 

Mr. Chairman, all of China’s religious communities live in the 

long shadow of the Communist Party. Various government agencies 

maintain final authority over the leadership, the financial and the 

doctrinal positions of the five government-sanctioned religious bodies, Buddhist, Daoist, Protestant, Catholic, and Muslim. 

Religious groups must submit to government monitoring of their 

activities and the approval of many common religious activities. Religious groups must also accept restrictions on what doctrines and 

traditions can be conveyed and taught. 

Because unregistered religious activity is illegal under Chinese 

law, members of such groups are actively targeted for harassment, 

detention and arrest. Since March, there have been three large 

scale raids on unregistered Protestant churches. In addition, there 

are reports that two underground Catholic priests were arrested 

just last month in the city of Wenshou in eastern China. 

Tibetan Buddhists and Uighur Muslims face serious and ongoing 

restrictions. Muslim imams and Tibetan monks and nuns are required to be vetted for their political loyalty. All religious publications are controlled. There are severe restrictions on religious celebrations and religious education of minors, and there are tight restrictions on the number of religious venues and religious leaders. 

Given the continuing critical human rights problems in China, 

the commission concludes that these concerns must be raised at the 

highest levels and that United States officials should provide a consistent, candid and coordinated message about human rights, inVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:21 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\111505\24596.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
37

cluding religious freedom, in their interactions with Chinese officials. 

To this end, the commission has recommendations for United 

States policy to strengthen protection of human rights in China, 

and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, we would like to add 

those recommendations to the record. 

[The information referred to follows:]


245960001.eps
38


245960002.eps
39


245960003.eps
40


245960004.eps
41


245960005.eps
42

Mr. CROMARTIE. Now, concerning the CPC list, the commission 

welcomes the continued designation by Secretary of State 

Condoleezza Rice of Burma, China, Iran, North Korea, and Sudan 

as CPCs. We also welcome the fact that Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, and 

Vietnam were once again named, as there has been no developments in the past year in any of those countries to warrant their 

removal from the CPC list. 

At the same time, information in this year’s annual report makes 

clear that three other countries merit CPC status in addition to 

those that have been previously named by the Secretary of State. 

The commission finds that the Governments of Pakistan, 

Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan persist in engaging in or tolerating 

particularly severe violations of religious freedom and the commission regrets that they were once again not designated as CPCs this 

year. 

The omission of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan from the CPC list 

is particularly troubling and a discredit to Congress’ intent in passing IRFA. In addition to severe government restrictions that effectively leave most, if not all, religious activity under strict and often 

arbitrary state control, Turkmen President Niyazov’s ever-escalating personality cult has become a quasi-religion to which the 

Turkmen population is forced to adhere. 

The Government of Uzbekistan places restrictions on religious 

practice and continues to crack down harshly on individuals and 

groups that operate outside of government controlled religious organizations. The Ambassador-at-Large and the State Department 

has for years attempted to engage the governments of these two 

countries in an effort to seek improvements; however, the response 

has been extremely limited. In the face of severe religious freedom 

violations perpetrated by the Turkmen and Uzbek Governments, 

the continued failure to name them as CPCs undermines the spirit 

and letter of IRFA. More details about the conditions in these countries can be found in my written testimony. 

Now, on the subject of Turkmenistan, I would like to point out 

that the country report on Turkmenistan in this year’s religious 

freedom report is one of the most troubling in the entire report, not 

least because it makes the startling claim that ‘‘the status of government respect for religious freedom improved during the period 

covered by this report.’’

Mr. Chairman, this conclusion is regarded as erroneous, not only 

by the commission, but by most human rights organizations and 

other observers of Turkmenistan. Indeed, a number of United 

States and international human rights organizations have submitted statements to this hearing expressing their strong objection 

to the report’s assessment of the situation in Turkmenistan. 

The commission would like to note the recent introduction by 

Chairman Smith of legislation highlighting the political and human 

rights challenges facing the five countries in Central Asia. This legislation reflects long-standing commission recommendations that 

United States assistance to the Governments of Turkmenistan and 

Uzbekistan be linked more closely to the protection of religious 

freedom and that efforts continue to be made to support non-governmental actors seeking to promote democracy and human rights. 

43

Now, on Saudi Arabia. Last year the Department of State for the 

first time named Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam as CPCs. 

Though the response came well past the March 15th deadline, the 

commission welcomed the State Department’s announcement on 

September 23 of decisions on these three serious religious freedom 

violators in fulfillment of statutory obligations under IRFA. 

Concerning Vietnam and Eritrea, on Vietnam the State Department referred to last May’s conclusion of a binding agreement with 

the Vietnamese Government to work toward improvements in religious freedom conditions in that country. However, it remains to be 

seen if the promises made in the agreement will be met with measurable and durable improvements, not least because reports indicate that serious religious freedom violations persist in that country. 

In response to religious freedom violations perpetrated by the 

Government of Eritrea, the State Department announced the denial of commercial export of certain defense articles to Eritrea. Despite efforts by the United States Government to engage the Government of Eritrea, the already poor religious situation there has 

deteriorated in the past year and the commission believes that the 

imposition of export controls demonstrates the seriousness with 

which the United States views the violations being perpetrated by 

the Eritrean Government. 

Now, last year the commission applauded the long-awaited September 2004 CPC designation of Saudi Arabia, a country where, as 

the State Department itself has noted, religious freedom simply 

does not exist. In September 2005, fully 1 year after that CPC designation and with no ascertainable human rights progress in Saudi 

Arabia over the intervening year, the Secretary of State authorized 

a 180-day waiver of action ‘‘in order to allow additional time for the 

continuation of discussions leading to progress on important religious freedom issues,’’ yet the pattern of punishment and abuse by 

Saudi authorities of non-Muslim foreign residents for private religious practice has in fact increased since early 2005. 

In the absence of real progress in Saudi Arabia over the past 

year, the commission believes that the United States Government 

should use the 180-day extension to engage the Saudi Government 

directly to achieve demonstrable progress by the end of that period 

of time. If, however, no progress on religious freedom is seen after 

the 180-day period has ended, the U.S. Government must not hesitate in taking aggressive action, and the commission has made several specific recommendations in this regard. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say about the annual report on the 

whole, Ambassador Hanford has reason to be proud of this report. 

As in the past, many of the individual country reports in the 2005 

report are excellent, they are thorough and they are accurate. However, the commission is concerned about a number of troubling conclusions in several important reports. Details about specific country 

reports can be found in my written testimony. 

An often overlooked section of the report concerns the U.S. refugee program and training on religious freedom for refugee adjudicators. The importance of such training has been underscored by 

recent positions advanced by the Department of Justice and iniVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:21 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\111505\24596.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
44

tially adopted by the Federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 

in the case of Li v. Gonzales. The Li case involved a Chinese Christian who claimed persecution, including arrest, detention, beatings, loss of employment, and 

forced labor for organizing an unregistered church. An immigration 

judge granted the asylum seeker protection from removal, but the 

Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the decision and ordered 

that Mr. Li be removed back to China. 

The commission wrote the Department of Justice to make it clear 

that the United States’ foreign policy has long maintained that 

China’s control over registered churches and its prosecution of individuals like Mr. Li for engaging in unauthorized religious activity 

are clear violations of international law. We are pleased that the 

Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security 

were receptive to the commission’s concerns, and the Fifth Circuit 

subsequently vacated its original decisions. 

We urge that the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, 

and State better coordinate their efforts to ensure that legal positions on asylum, which are advanced in court by these agencies, do 

not undermine long-standing positions of the United States on 

international human rights. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me note that at 3 o’clock 

this afternoon in the presence of yourself and other Members of 

Congress, the commission will release a report on conditions for 

freedom of religion or belief in North Korea, relating the first-hand 

experiences of dozens of North Koreans. 

The report was authored by human rights expert David Hawk 

and describes severe violations of human rights, including the extent to which the regime attempts to control the very thoughts and 

beliefs of the North Korean people. Everyone in the room is invited 

to that 3 o’clock press conference. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing and inviting the commission to testify. I am happy to answer 

any questions you may have regarding my written or oral comments. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cromartie follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CROMARTIE, PH.D., CHAIR, U.S. COMMISSION ON

INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, let me begin by 

thanking you for the opportunity to testify today at this important hearing. I plan 

to summarize the Commission’s testimony in my oral remarks, but would like to request that my full written statement be included in the record. 

The State Department’s Annual Report on International Religious Freedom and 

the work of our Commission demonstrate that religious freedom concerns cut across 

the full swath of critical issues in American foreign policy. From constitutional developments in Iraq, to the propagation and export of religious extremist ideology by 

Saudi Arabia, to the persistence of religious freedom abuses in China, to the repressive nature of the governments in potentially destabilizing countries such as Iran, 

Uzbekistan, and North Korea, to the promotion of democracy and the fight against 

extremism in the Middle East, protecting the right to freedom of religion or belief 

is indispensable to advancing American interests. As President Bush recently said, 

‘‘when the United States promotes religious freedom, it is promoting the spread of 

democracy.’’ It is also promoting universal values as enshrined in international 

human rights norms. 

With the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA), Congress declared that it was the policy of the United States to stand for liberty and 

stand with the persecuted to promote respect for religious freedom by all governVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:21 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\111505\24596.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
45

ments and peoples. The release of the Annual Report provides an opportunity to address some of the important challenges we face in doing so. 

Along with the Commission’s comments on the Annual Report, my testimony will 

address the Secretary of State’s most recent designations of ‘‘countries of particular 

concern’’ (CPCs) and the U.S. government’s response to last year’s first-time designation of Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam as CPCs. In addition, my testimony 

presents a special focus on two countries on which the Commission has been particularly active in the past year. First, I will address Iraq’s new constitution, and 

offer specific recommendations for strengthening protections for religious freedom 

and other human rights during the next phase of political transition. The Commission continues to believe that the constitution and its implementation will be crucial 

to Iraq’s overall success as a stable and democratic state. Second, my testimony will 

report in brief on the Commission’s recent two-week trip to China, where we were 

able to visit not only Beijing but also Tibet and Xinjiang, among other areas. 

IRAQ’S NEW CONSTITUTION: FREEDOM OF RELIGION ON HOLD

Let me begin with Iraq. As Iraqis prepare for another round of elections in their 

historic transition from tyranny to democracy, the Commission’s focus on the institutional dimension of the right to religious freedom and on securing the individual 

right to freedom of religion or belief for every Iraqi is more critical than ever. However, fundamental questions remain about the final content of the constitution, and 

how the provisions on religious freedom and other fundamental rights will be implemented through enabling legislation. Ultimately, it will be the Iraqi Supreme 

Court’s interpretation of this legislation that will determine whether human rights 

principles will be applicable within the various regions of a federal Iraq, and also 

whether these rights will be subject to limitations in the event they are deemed to 

contradict the basic principles of Islam. 

Iraq’s new constitution, approved by 79 percent of voters in last month’s referendum, incorporates positive provisions related to human rights protections, including constructive language on religious freedom. However, several of the articles 

are written in vague or ambiguous terms, resulting in a constitution that sets out 

two potentially disparate visions for Iraq. The first vision proclaims a country that 

respects fundamental freedoms and democratic principles; the second lays the foundation for a country in which Islamic law could be used to trump these freedoms. 

For example, Islam is a basic source of legislation, and no law can contradict Islam’s 

established principles. The constitution allows for the appointment to Iraq’s highest 

court of experts in Islamic jurisprudence who need not have any training in civil 

law or other relevant subjects. Such limited training places Iraq’s Supreme Court 

requirements alongside those of Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and could run 

the risk of tipping the scales towards the second of the two visions previously described. 

Another problem is that nothing in the constitution explicitly provides that civil 

law, as opposed to religious law, will be applied in cases involving personal status 

issues. This means that women appearing in religious courts could be subject to discriminatory treatment in matters of marriage, divorce, and inheritance. The constitutional position on personal status also leaves open the questions of whether religious courts would be forced on unwilling parties and which court would rule on 

disputes between parties of different religions or beliefs. Personal status matters 

should generally fall under the jurisdiction of civil courts, and the free and informed 

consent of both parties should be required to refer a matter to religious courts, 

whose rulings should be subject to final review by the civil courts. 

These and other concerns are detailed in a legal analysis prepared by the Commission and released to the public in early October. Based on its findings, the Commission concludes that the enabling phase of constitutional reconstruction is vital 

and that the U.S. government must ensure that the fundamental right to freedom 

of thought, conscience, and religion or belief is strengthened by Iraq’s future government across all of its work. It should be pointed out that this is not a fanciful luxury; rather religious freedom is, as President Bush himself said, a foundation for 

other fundamental human rights and a touchstone of any democratic society. 

The need to continue to press for these human rights protections in the constitution is reinforced by an ongoing stream of violence and extremism driven by religious intolerance. During the past year, thousands of ChaldoAssyrians and other 

members of Iraq’s indigenous non-Muslim religious minorities have fled the country 

out of fear of persecution; there have been numerous reports of violence, including 

murder, directed against women and others, in an extrajudicial effort to impose an 

extremist version of Islamic law that violates international human rights standards; 

and places of worship and religious clerics alike have been the target of insurgent 

46

attacks. These attacks have had a detrimental impact on the ability of all religious 

groups in Iraq, including Shia and Sunni Muslims, to worship freely. 

Commission Recommendations on Iraq 

The Commission has developed several recommendations for the next critical 

phases of Iraq’s political transition: the upcoming election campaign and the new 

government’s implementation and possible amendment of the constitution. 

First, the Commission has recommended that a high-level human rights official, 

reporting directly to the Ambassador, be stationed within Embassy Baghdad to advance human rights, including religious freedom, as a key U.S. policy objective. Designating a high-level official demonstrates support for Iraqi efforts to make human 

rights a high-priority issue. Recently we learned that the Commerce, Justice, State 

Conference Report includes report language supporting this recommendation. The 

Commission hopes that the Department of State will implement this recommendation in a timely manner. 

Second, the United States should encourage a robust discussion during the upcoming election campaign of how candidates would seek to implement the permanent constitution’s provisions on the role of Islam and at the same time implement 

the protections for human rights. The Iraqi people deserve to know just how their 

representatives would address these issues. Related to this, U.S. contractors should 

conduct opinion polls designed to elicit how Iraqis understand the meaning and implementation of Islamic law, and the bearing such religious principles should have 

on their individual rights. 

Third, given its experiences over the past 18 months, the Commission believes 

that a greater effort should be made by U.S. contractors and other organizations operating with U.S. government funding to cultivate and promote elements of Iraqi 

civil and political society that advocate in favor of democracy and human rights. As 

it stands, a number of dominant Iraqi political parties reportedly receive funding 

and support from other countries, including Iran, which do not share our interests 

in promoting human rights. Congress and agencies providing assistance should seek 

additional ways to encourage the emergence of new political voices in Iraq committed to individual rights and equality for all Iraqis. 

Fourth, the Commission recommends that Congress urge the Administration to 

advocate the strengthening of constitutional human rights provisions during the 

four month period following the election when Iraqis are expected to consider 

amendments to the existing text. 

Fifth, following elections, the new legislature will also begin to consider how to 

implement the no less than 50 provisions in Iraq’s constitution that require enabling 

legislation. This represents a window of opportunity for the United States and the 

international community to communicate forcefully our desire to see that Iraq’s 

legal framework in the post-Saddam era incorporates and upholds clear human 

rights guarantees for every Iraqi. The U.S. Agency for International Development 

should be granted specific authority to undertake rule of law programs focused on 

those pieces of enabling legislation that are related to human rights issues. 

Finally, the Commission urges Congress and the Administration to press the UN 

and our international allies to engage directly with Iraqi political leaders concerning 

the strengthening of protections for human rights. Among other actions, Iraqi leaders should be encouraged to invite a field visit from the UN Special Rapporteur on 

Freedom of Religion or Belief, and to invite international human rights experts to 

consult on potential amendments to the constitution and on the drafting of any enabling legislation that may have an impact on human rights. 

THE COMMISSION’S VISIT TO CHINA

In August 2005, the Commission traveled to China to engage senior officials responsible for the management of religious affairs and the protection of human rights 

in China, and meet with representatives of China’s government approved religious 

communities. 

Mr. Chairman, it is the Commission’s assessment that the scope of political openness, public activism, and civil and individual freedoms is narrowing in China. 

China is in the midst of a crackdown on public opinion and public dissent that has 

included religious leaders and their communities. Moreover, the Communist Party’s 

recent campaigns to ‘‘halt foreign influence,’’ stamp out ‘‘evil cults,’’ and strike hard 

against ‘‘ethnic separatism and religious extremism’’ have caused an atmosphere of 

fear and uncertainty among China’s religious communities and occasioned some of 

the country’s most brutal human rights abuses. 

Mr. Chairman, all of China’s religious communities live in the long shadow of the 

Communist Party. Various government agencies maintain final authority over leadership, financial, and doctrinal positions of the five government-sanctioned religious 

47

bodies: Buddhist, Daoist, Protestant, Catholic, and Muslim. Religious groups must 

submit to government monitoring of their activities and the approval of many common religious activities. Religious groups must also accept restrictions on what doctrines and traditions can be conveyed and taught. There are numerous credible reports, for example, of Christian leaders having to refrain from teachings involving 

the second coming of Jesus, divine healing, the practice of fasting, the virgin birth, 

and religious perspectives on contraceptives, divorce, and abortion because these 

doctrines or practices are considered to be either ‘‘superstitious’’ or contrary to the 

Chinese Communist Party’s social policies. 

Over the last decade, the Party has made some accommodation for the spiritual 

aspirations of its people and openly praises the contributions of government approved religious organizations to Chinese society. The Commission was able to observe a distinct ‘‘zone of toleration’’ where members of religious organizations that 

accept government control are given some latitude to practice their faith traditions. 

China has introduced new Regulations on Religious Affairs that were heralded as 

‘‘a significant step forward in the protection of Chinese citizens’ religious freedom.’’ 

The regulations do include several provisions that are, on their face, potentially important advances, including the outlining of conditions under which religious organizations can provide social services in local communities, protect their property, sue 

abusive government officials, accept donations from overseas religious groups, and 

receive prompt responses from government agencies on registration applications. 

However, it is the Commission’s position that the new Regulations do not adequately protect the rights and security of religious believers and are not fully consistent with international norms on freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or 

belief. In fact, the Regulations extend Party officials control over all religious activity and groups. Moreover, the Regulations threaten criminal punishments and civil 

fines for ‘‘unregistered’’ religious activities. 

Because ‘‘unregistered’’ religious activity is ‘‘illegal’’ under Chinese law, members 

of such groups are actively targeted for harassment, detention, and arrest. Since 

March, there have been three large-scale raids on unregistered Protestant churches 

targeting leadership training, university Bible studies, and missionary activity. In 

addition, there are reports that two underground Catholic priests were arrested just 

last month in the city of Wenzhou in eastern China. 

The Chinese government reserves for itself the right to distinguish between ‘‘normal’’ religious activity and activities deemed to be ‘‘heretical’’ or ‘‘cultic.’’ Any religious or other group determined to be a ‘‘cult’’ is subject to brutal suppression, as 

is evidenced by the harsh crackdown on the Falun Gong and other spiritual movements. In recent years, some unregistered Protestant and Catholic groups have been 

officially designated as ‘‘cults.’’

Tibetan Buddhists and Uighur Muslims face serious and ongoing restrictions on 

the free practice of their religion. There are many similarities between the way the 

Chinese government controls Uighur Muslims and Tibetan Buddhists. The Chinese 

government fears secessionist activities and recent calls for greater autonomy in 

Tibet and Xinjiang. Crackdowns on religious activities in these regions are often 

harsher than in other parts of China. ‘‘Patriotic education’’ continues to occur in 

Tibet and Xinjiang. Muslim imams and Tibetan monks and nuns are required to be 

vetted for their political loyalty, all religious publications are controlled, there are 

severe restrictions on religious celebrations and religious education of minors, and 

there are tight restrictions on the number of religious venues and religious leaders. 

In Xinjiang, even government officials are subject to ‘‘patriotic education.’’ The Commission was told that religious affairs officials must complete political education to 

avoid ‘‘paralyzed thinking’’ and to ‘‘distinguish between normal and illegal religious 

activities.’’

It is our conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that conditions for freedom of religion or belief 

in China remain poor overall and have deteriorated in the last year. Current Chinese law and practice continue to contravene both international human rights 

norms and the rights enshrined in the Chinese constitution. 

Given the continuing critical human rights problems in China, the Commission 

concludes that these concerns must be raised at the highest levels and that U.S. 

officials should provide a consistent, candid, and coordinated message about human 

rights, including religious freedom, in their interactions with Chinese officials. The 

U.S. government should therefore continue to pursue broad-ranging policy options 

and discussions to ensure that progress on human rights and the rule of law remain 

core components of the bilateral relationship with China. The United States should 

also continue to help foster political, economic, and legal reforms in China. To this 

end, the Commission has recommendations for U.S. policy to strengthen the protection of human rights, in particular the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion 

48

or belief, in China. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, we would like to add those 

recommendations to the record. 

THE 2005 DESIGNATIONS OF COUNTRIES OF PARTICULAR CONCERN AND THE COUNTRIES

OMITTED FROM THE CPC LIST

The public identification by the U.S. government of the world’s most severe violators of religious freedom is a hallmark of the IRFA legislation. One of the purposes 

of the Annual Report is to make available the factual information necessary for the 

Department to carry out this task, that is, to determine which countries will be designated as ‘‘countries of particular concern,’’ or CPCs, for engaging in systematic, 

ongoing, and egregious violations of freedom of religion or belief. 

The Commission welcomes the continued designation by Secretary of State 

Condoleezza Rice of Burma, China, Iran, North Korea, and Sudan as CPCs. We also 

welcome the fact that Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam were once again named, 

as there have been no developments in the past year in any of those countries to 

warrant their removal from the CPC list. At the same time, the information in this 

year’s Annual Report makes clear that three other countries merit CPC status in 

addition to those that have been previously named by the Secretary of State. The 

Commission finds that the governments of Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan

persist in engaging in or tolerating particularly severe violations of religious freedom, and regrets that they were, once again, not designated as CPCs this year. 

Pakistan 

The government of Pakistan continues to provide an inadequate response to vigilante violence frequently perpetrated by Sunni Muslim militants against Shi’as, 

Ahmadis, Hindus, and Christians. Discriminatory legislation effectively bans many 

of the activities of the Ahmadi community. Blasphemy allegations, routinely false, 

result in the lengthy detention, imprisonment of, and sometimes violence against 

Ahmadis, Christians, and Hindus, as well as Muslims, some of whom have been sentenced to death. Belated efforts to curb extremism through reform of Pakistan’s 

thousands of Islamic religious schools appear to have had little effect thus far, and 

many of these schools continue to provide ideological training and motivation to 

those who take part in violence targeting religious minorities in Pakistan and 

abroad. After the terrorist attacks in London last July, President Musharraf renewed his call to fight extremism in madrassas; however, his record on this issue 

has unfortunately not been encouraging. 

Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan: Particularly Severe Violators Given a Pass 

The omission of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan from the CPC list is particularly 

troubling and a discredit to Congress’s intent in passing IRFA. Turkmenistan, 

among the most repressive states in the world today, allows virtually no independent religious activity. The government of Uzbekistan places strict restrictions 

on religious practice and continues to crack down harshly on individuals and groups 

that operate outside of government-controlled religious organizations. The Ambassador at Large and the State Department have for years attempted to engage the 

governments of these two countries in an effort to seek improvements. However, the 

response has been extremely limited. In the face of the severe religious freedom violations perpetrated by the Turkmen and Uzbek governments, the continued failure 

to name them as CPCs undermines the spirit and letter of IRFA. 

Since 2001, the Commission has recommended that Turkmenistan be designated 

a CPC. In addition to the severe government restrictions that effectively leave most, 

if not all, religious activity under strict—and often arbitrary—state control, 

Turkmen President Niyazov’s ever-escalating personality cult has become a quasireligion to which the Turkmen population is forced to adhere. His self-published 

work of ‘‘spiritual thoughts,’’ called Ruhnama, is required reading in all schools. In 

addition, copies of Ruhnama must be given equal prominence to the Koran and the 

Bible in mosques and churches. In the past year, in a move likely aimed at avoiding 

a possible CPC designation, President Niyazov passed several decrees that permitted the registration of five very small religious communities. Despite this alleged 

easing of registration criteria, religious groups continue to require permission from 

the state before holding worship services of any kind, making it unclear what—if 

any—practical benefits registration actually provides. Moreover, religious groups 

that do not meet the often arbitrary registration rules still face possible criminal 

penalties due to their unregistered status, and even newly registered religious 

groups have been raided by police. 

Even the rights of members of the two largest religious communities, the majority 

Sunni Muslims and the Russian Orthodox, are seriously circumscribed. Last year, 

seven mosques were destroyed in the country and President Niyazov forbade the 

49

construction of any new ones. Turkmenistan’s former chief Mufti, Nazrullah ibn 

Ibadullah, was sentenced to 22 years in prison because he apparently refused to elevate the Ruhnama to the level of the Koran. This past June, President Niyazov undertook various moves against the country’s only Muslim theological faculty. And, 

according to recent reports, the Russian Orthodox Church has been refused re-registration as part of an effort by President Niyazov to pressure Russian Orthodox 

parishes in Turkmenistan to sever ties with the Tashkent-based Central Asian diocese and to subordinate themselves to the Moscow Patriarchate. 

Turkmenistan is clearly a highly repressive state, where the Turkmen people suffer under the yoke of a personality cult that allows them few freedoms of any kind, 

including religious freedom. The Commission finds it extremely troubling that despite a few superficial legal changes regarding religious freedom, and little if any 

change to the situation on the ground, Turkmenistan continues to escape the CPC 

designation it so clearly deserves. 

The Commission has also recommended that Uzbekistan, which the Commission 

visited last year, be designated a CPC. The Uzbek government continues to exercise 

a high degree of control over the practice of the Islamic religion and to crack down 

harshly on Muslim individuals, groups, and mosques that do not conform to stateprescribed practices or that the government claims are associated with extremist political programs. This has resulted in the imprisonment of thousands of persons in 

recent years, many of whom are denied the right to due process. There are credible 

reports that many of those arrested continue to be tortured or beaten in detention, 

despite official Uzbek promises to halt this practice. Moreover, Uzbekistan has a 

highly restrictive law on religion that severely limits the ability of religious communities to function, leaving over 100 religious groups currently denied registration. 

The government of Uzbekistan does face threats to its security, including from 

members of Hizb ut-Tahrir and other political groups that claim a religious linkage, 

and the Commission’s recommendation of CPC status for Uzbekistan should not be 

construed as a defense of that or any similar organization. However, these threats 

do not excuse or justify the scope and harshness of the government’s ill treatment 

of religious believers nor the continued practice of torture, which reportedly remains 

widespread. 

The shooting by Uzbek troops of hundreds of unarmed protestors in Andijon in 

May of this year provides the most brutal example to date of the Uzbek government’s response to real or perceived threats to its security. In Andijon’s aftermath, 

the Uzbek authorities have mounted a repressive campaign against journalists; 

human rights activists; Uzbek employees of western non-governmental organizations; and religious adherents, particularly Muslims. The Uzbek government has refused requests from the U.S. and other Western governments for an independent 

international investigation into the Andijon tragedy and is reportedly cracking down 

on any human rights or other activists who have attempted to report on the events. 

According to a number of human rights organizations, as many as 11 activists have 

been imprisoned and at least 15 have been forced to flee the country. In addition, 

hundreds of Andijon residents have been arrested on suspicious of involvement. 

Many other civil society activists have been forced to cease their investigative activities after being arrested on false charges, detained, beaten, threatened, or put under 

surveillance or under de facto house arrest. 

The Commission would like to note the recent introduction by Chairman Smith 

of legislation highlighting the political and human rights challenges facing the five 

countries in Central Asia. This legislation reflects longstanding Commission recommendations that U.S. assistance to the governments of Turkmenistan and 

Uzbekistan be linked more closely to the protection of religious freedom and that 

efforts continue to be made to support non-governmental actors seeking to promote 

democracy and human rights. 

THE U.S. RESPONSE TO LAST YEAR’S DESIGNATION OF THREE NEW CPCS: ACTION ON

SAUDI ARABIA SHOULD COME SOON

Last year, the Department of State for the first time named Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam as CPCs. In order to ensure that the promotion of religious freedom be a consistently integral part of U.S. foreign policy, the U.S. government was 

required by IRFA to take active steps in response to that CPC designation. Though 

the response came well past the deadline of March 15, the Commission welcomed 

the State Department’s announcement on September 23 of decisions on these three 

serious religious freedom violators in fulfillment of statutory obligations under 

IRFA. 

Until this past September, the only official action taken by our government with 

respect to countries that to date have been designated CPCs has been to invoke alVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:21 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\111505\24596.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
50

ready existing sanctions, rather than to take additional measures pursuant to IRFA. 

Because neither Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, nor Vietnam were subject to pre-existing 

sanctions, their designation provided our government with an opportunity decisively 

and actively to engage in serious discussions with the governments of those countries against the backdrop of U.S. authority to take punitive steps. While Vietnam 

has taken some preliminary actions in response to U.S. engagement, this has unfortunately not been the case with Saudi Arabia and Eritrea. 

Vietnam and Eritrea 

On Vietnam, the State Department referred to last May’s conclusion of a binding 

agreement with the Vietnamese government to work towards improvements in religious freedom conditions in that country. The CPC designation of Vietnam has allowed the U.S. and the Vietnamese governments to talk seriously about religious 

freedom concerns, several of which are addressed in the binding agreement. However, it remains to be seen if the promises made in the agreement will be met with 

measurable and durable improvements in the situation in Vietnam. The Commission is concerned about reports that serious religious freedom violations persist in 

that country. The government of Vietnam continues to actively repress, and target 

as subversive, religious activity it cannot control or that which resists government 

oversight. Targeted in particular are leaders of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV), ethnic minority Christians in the Central Highlands and northwest 

provinces, ‘‘house-church’’ Protestants, and followers of religious minority groups 

such as the Hoa Hao and Cao Dai. This repression has not abated in the last year. 

In response to the religious freedom violations perpetrated by the government of 

Eritrea, the State Department announced the ‘‘denial of commercial export to Eritrea of any defense articles and services controlled under the Arms Control Export 

Act,’’ with some items excepted. The Commission welcomed the announcement of 

this action on Eritrea, the imposition of the first unique sanction to be taken under 

IRFA. Despite efforts by the U.S. government to engage the government of Eritrea, 

the already poor religious freedom situation there has deteriorated in the past year. 

To date, the government of Eritrea has not registered any of the religious groups, 

including various Christian groups as well as Baha’is, whose public religious activities were banned in 2002 pending registration. This year, the government’s religious 

crackdown has intensified with a series of arrests and detentions of members of unregistered religious groups. Those detained are typically held without charge or due 

process of law. The Commission believes that the imposition of export controls demonstrates the seriousness with which the United States views the violations being 

perpetrated by the Eritrean government. 

Delay on Response to Saudi Arabia 

Last year, the Commission applauded the long awaited September 2004 CPC designation of Saudi Arabia, a country where, as the State Department itself has noted, 

religious freedom does not exist. In September 2005, fully one year after that CPC 

designation and with no ascertainable human rights progress in Saudi Arabia over 

the intervening year, the Secretary of State authorized a 180-day waiver of action 

‘‘in order to allow additional time for the continuation of discussions leading to 

progress on important religious freedom issues.’’

Yet, the pattern of punishment and abuse by Saudi authorities of non-Muslim foreign residents for private religious practice has in fact increased since early 2005. 

There have been numerous reports of raids of private homes by the mutawaa or religious police; these reports describe detentions, beatings, and deportations of foreign 

workers engaged in private religious worship, the burning of religious literature, 

and the destruction of private non-Muslim places of worship. 

During the past year, the Commission has made several statements urging the 

State Department to select and implement one or more of the concrete actions for 

CPCs set forth in IRFA. In the absence of real progress in Saudi Arabia over the 

past year, the Commission believes that the U.S. government should use the 180-

day extension to engage the Saudi government directly to achieve demonstrable 

progress by the end of that period of time. The Commission has laid out in its reports several immediate steps that could be taken by the Saudi government. 

If such progress is not forthcoming, the Commission has made recommendations 

for U.S. government action in accordance with IRFA. These remain appropriate and 

include:

• order the heads of appropriate U.S. agencies, pursuant to section 405(a)(13) 

of IRFA, not to issue any specific licenses or grant any other specific authority 

for the export of any item on the U.S. Commerce Control List of dual-use 

items to any Saudi agency responsible for committing particularly severe violations of religious freedom;

51

• identify and render inadmissible for entry into the United States any Saudi 

government official who was responsible for or directly carried out religious 

freedom violations, as outlined in section 604 of IRFA; and

• issue a proclamation, under the President’s authority pursuant to section 

212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 USC 1182(f)), to bar those 

Saudi government officials from entering the United States who have been responsible for propagating globally an ideology that explicitly promotes hate, 

intolerance, and human rights violations.

The Commission notes that the State Department did not invoke a national interest waiver on Saudi Arabia. This may be a positive move, as it could allow for more 

options in the future to respond to religious freedom violations. The Commission 

hopes that genuine progress will be made in Saudi Arabia to justify the course of 

action taken by the State Department. We also encourage the State Department to 

consult with Congress and other parts of the U.S. government, including the Commission, during its discussions with the Saudis, and to make any agreement reached 

with the Saudi government public in the interest of the accountability that results 

from transparency. If, however, no progress on religious freedom is seen after the 

180-day period has ended, the U.S. government must not hesitate in taking aggressive action as suggested above which meets the requirements of IRFA to demonstrate that it will not disregard the persistent and egregious religious freedom 

violations committed by the Saudi government. 

THE ANNUAL REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Mr. Chairman, the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom continues 

to be a critical part of the process of promoting religious freedom throughout the 

world. As we have stated in the past, the Annual Report each year is proving to 

be an important achievement that consistently demonstrates the substantial efforts 

of the foreign-service officers in our embassies around the world, as well as the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom and his staff at the State Department’s Office of International Religious Freedom. The 2005 Annual Report is no 

exception. 

Individual Country Reports 

As in the past, many of the individual country reports in the 2005 Annual Report 

are excellent—thorough and accurate. However, the Commission is concerned about 

a number of informational inaccuracies and troubling conclusions in several important reports. 

Although we recognize the substantial achievements that have occurred in Afghanistan since the institution of the new government, the Commission continues 

to believe that the Afghanistan country report does not adequately address the problems faced by individual Muslims in that country, as a result in part of the insufficient religious freedom protection afforded to individual Muslims in the new constitution passed in January 2004. These constitutional pitfalls, including the 

repugnancy clause that states that ‘‘no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of Islam’’ and the fact that the Supreme Court is empowered to make this determination, have negatively influenced other legislation also, including legislation 

on press freedom. The report does mention that the vagueness in the wording of the 

clause prohibiting materials ‘‘offensive to Islam’’ in the press law could lead to potential abuse, but it does not give sufficient weight to the significance of this problem. 

The most recent—and perhaps most alarming—example of the seriousness of the 

inadequate constitutional guarantees occurred too recently to be included in the 

2005 Annual Report, but nonetheless deserves mention here. Just last month, a respected journalist and editor was convicted on charges of blasphemy and ‘‘insulting 

Islam.’’ His purported ‘‘crime’’ was to question the use of certain harsh punishments 

under traditional Islamic law, including amputation and public stoning. Particularly 

troubling is that certain authorities ignored Afghanistan’s own legislation stating 

that journalists cannot be arrested until the government’s Media Commission has 

examined the case. As it happened, the Media Commission found him not guilty of 

insulting Islam. Nevertheless, the journalist was found guilty and sentenced to two 

years in prison. Clearly, despite the many remarkable advances there, it remains 

clear that even today in Afghanistan, protections for human rights and democracy 

remain under threat from sources of religious extremism within the Afghan government. 

The report on China was quite positive about the new National Regulations on 

Religious Affairs implemented in March 2005, saying that they have the ‘‘potential 

to improve respect for religious freedom, to enhance legal protection for religious 

52

groups, and to strengthen the process of governing religious affairs according to 

law.’’ The Commission believes that the Regulations do include several provisions 

that may be important advances, including several of the provisions that I noted 

earlier in my testimony. 

However, contrary to the impression left by the report, the Regulations are not 

the ‘‘paradigm shift’’ promised by Chinese officials. In fact, given the vague and 

sometimes contradictory language of the Regulations, the Commission believes that 

they do not adequately protect the rights and security of religious adherents and 

are not fully consistent with international norms. For example, permission is now 

required for a number of commonplace religious activities, including holding meetings outside a place of worship, inviting a special speaker or teacher, printing religious material, or instituting a change in leadership. The Regulations also threaten 

criminal punishments and civil fines for ‘‘unregistered’’ religious activities. In fact, 

‘‘unregistered groups’’ have reported increased harassment, arrests, and detentions 

since the Regulations were implemented. Since March of this year, there have been 

four large scale arrests of ‘‘house church’’ Protestant leaders, apprehending over 500 

religious practitioners. 

Second, the China report tends to focus the primary blame for religious freedom 

abuses on ‘‘local officials’’ in China. Although the Commission continues to recognize 

as a result of its recent visit that religious freedom conditions do vary from province 

to province, it is unmistakable that recent campaigns to ‘‘halt foreign influence,’’ 

‘‘strike hard against religious extremism,’’ ‘‘stamp out evil cults,’’ ‘‘promote atheism,’’ 

and ‘‘eliminate the influence of the Dalai Lama’’ have all emanated directly from 

Beijing and are approved by top Communist Party leaders. Clearly, religious freedom abuses do not stem only—or even primarily—from local corruption or provincial 

officials misinterpreting the law. 

The Commission welcomes the inclusion of a country report on Iraq in this year’s 

Annual Report. The report offers a thorough summary of religious freedom conditions in Iraq and highlights areas of particular concern. However, in addressing religious freedom violations, the report tends to classify all abuses as stemming from 

‘‘terrorist organizations,’’ a generalized term that conflates the various groups in 

Iraq that seek to impose Islamic rule with terrorist groups that support the insurgency, and plays down the support the former may have in Iraq, particularly within 

the provincial and municipal government structures. For example, the report fails 

to mention the deteriorating situation in Basra, where local Islamic groups—not 

connected to the insurgency—are imposing a strict version of Islamic law that has 

resulted in human rights violations as severe as extra-judicial killings. The report 

makes no mention of the implications of these developments for religious freedom 

in Basra, its surrounding areas, and Iraq more generally. In addition, though the 

report notes that Law No. 105 of 1970 prohibits the Baha’i faith, it fails to make 

clear if any efforts have been made on the part of the U.S. government to encourage 

the Iraqi government to repeal this discriminatory law. The report also does not 

mention other difficulties faced by the the Baha’i community, including the fact that 

the Baha’i faith cannot currently be listed as a religion on Iraqi national identity 

cards. Finally, the report omits mention of religiously motivated attacks targeting 

the Roma and Sufi Muslim communities in Iraq. 

The Russia report provides a wealth of information on the complex status of religious freedom in that country, including more attention to a wider range of religious 

groups. Yet, the report should draw more attention to the increasingly troubling situation faced by the country’s largest religious minority: Muslims. Thus, while it 

gives admirably detailed coverage of the recent legal travails of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Church of Scientology, no mention is made of a secret Supreme 

Court decision which outlawed 15 Muslim organizations for alleged ties to terrorism. 

This secret decision reportedly has led to the prosecution of several hundred Muslim 

individuals and groups in various parts of Russia, based on reportedly unsubstantiated accusations. In addition, Muslims increasingly face instances of workplace 

and other discrimination and widespread media attacks. 

The report on Saudi Arabia is more comprehensive than in previous years, highlighting the problems of the Shia population and non-Muslim guest workers. However, as in past years, the report continues to omit any mention of the Saudi export 

of a highly intolerant and hate-filled ideology, despite the fact that this issue was 

mentioned publicly by the Ambassador at Large for Religious Freedom and other 

U.S. officials on several occasions during the past year. The subject was also mentioned at the press conference releasing this year’s Annual Report. 

One of the most troubling country reports in the 2005 Annual Report is the report 

on Turkmenistan, which makes the startling claim that ‘‘the status of Government 

respect for religious freedom improved during the period covered by this report.’’ 

Even more disturbing is that Turkmenistan is listed in the Executive Summary as 

53

one of the countries which has seen ‘‘significant improvements in the promotion of 

religious freedom.’’ This conclusion seems to contradict the State Department’s most 

recent Human Rights Report on Turkmenistan, which clearly states that ‘‘the Government’s human rights record remained extremely poor, and the Government continued to commit serious abuses.’’ The claim of this year’s religious freedom report 

is regarded as erroneous not only by the Commission but by most human rights organizations and other observers of Turkmenistan. Indeed, a number of U.S. and 

international human rights organizations have submitted a statement to this hearing expressing their strong objection to the report’s assessment of the situation in 

Turkmenistan and providing details of other inaccuracies in the Turkmenistan report. 

The conclusion of the Annual Report is based largely on the Turkmen government’s recent registration of nine extremely small religious communities, even 

though their registration has not ended police harassment and tight government 

control of them and other groups. The report appears to allow these insignificant 

improvements—on paper—for these small groups to overshadow the worsening situation for the country’s majority religious group, the Muslims. The report also does 

not mention the growing problems for the Russian Orthodox Church. Even more 

troubling, however, is that the report does not devote sufficient attention to President Niyazov’s quasi-religious, all-pervasive personality cult, which was discussed 

earlier in my testimony. The report also fails to mention the Turkmen government’s 

refusal to respond to repeated requests by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom 

of Religion or Belief for an invitation to Turkmenistan. Moreover, at the event 

marking the report’s release, the Ambassador at Large claimed that all religious 

prisoners in Turkmenistan had been released; yet the report notes that the former 

Grand Mufti remains incarcerated for his refusal to elevate Niyazov’s book of ‘‘spiritual thoughts’’ to equal prominence with the Koran. 

This year’s Annual Report claims that the status of religious freedom has also improved in Vietnam over the course of the past year. It is true that after Vietnam 

was designated as a CPC last year, the Vietnamese government released some 

prominent religious prisoners and issued new ordinances regarding religion. It also 

made promises to improve conditions for its ethnic and religious minorities—promises that have not yet been translated into concrete changes. 

The Commission does not believe that religious freedom conditions in Vietnam 

have improved during the past year. In fact, since the public announcement of a 

May 2005 binding agreement on religious freedom concerns between the United 

States and Vietnam, reports about restrictions and other abuses continue to surface, 

particularly against the country’s religious and ethnic minorities. In congressional 

testimony last June, the Commission described evidence of forced renunciations of 

faith occurring in the northwest provinces and central highlands. Although the 

State Department states that ‘‘a few’’ such renunciations occurred in the last year, 

the Commission submitted 21 police summons to the International Relations Committee from only one community in Vietnam. What is more, the Commission has reliable information on the arrests and detention of Hoa Hao and Protestant religious 

leaders and continued harassment of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam 

(UBCV), all since May of this year. Finally, the report also states that ‘‘almost all’’ 

the churches and meeting points closed in the Central Highland since 2001 have 

been reopened. Yet, 432 churches and meeting points reportedly remain closed in 

that region. 

Religious Persecution and the U.S. Refugee Program 

Section 601 of IRFA specifically directs that the Annual Report on International 

Religious Freedom serve as a resource for refugee and asylum adjudicators. In that 

sense, the Annual Report plays an important role not merely in documenting religious freedom violations, but in facilitating refuge for those who are fleeing religious 

persecution. 

Appendix E of the report, the Overview of Refugee Policy, continues to improve, 

with more comprehensive coverage of religious persecution and the Refugee Program than in past years. Once again, however, the 2005 report contains little acknowledgment of the serious problem of intra-religious persecution, but instead focuses almost exclusively on the persecution of religious minorities by a majority religious community. Moreover, this section contains no mention of significant refugeesource countries such as Afghanistan, Eritrea, or Iraq, where serious religious freedom problems persist. Indeed, the Secretary of State has designated Eritrea a CPC, 

and problems in Iraq—particularly with regard to the security of religious minority 

communities—are severe. 

The Overview of Refugee Policy section does cite Saudi Arabia, a CPC, as well 

as Pakistan, which the Commission has recommended be designated a CPC, for 

54

their mistreatment of religious minorities. The Overview fails, however, to indicate 

how the U.S. Refugee Program has been responsive to this mistreatment. 

In its Report to Congress on Refugee Admissions for FY2006, the Department of 

State provides a more complete description of the way in which it is facilitating access to the Refugee Program, at least for those asylum seekers who have fled CPCs. 

The Report to Congress is required to include such information under Section 304 

of the North Korea Human Rights Act of 2004. Such information should be in the 

Annual Report on International Religious Freedom as well, even if not required by 

law. 

The Commission does remain concerned that other refugee and asylum provisions 

of IRFA have been unevenly implemented. For example, Appendix D of the Report, 

‘‘Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the International Religious Freedom 

Act,’’ accurately describes the measures taken by the Asylum and Refugee Corps to 

train its refugee and asylum adjudicators in international religious freedom, as required by sections 602 and 603 of IRFA. Yet, this section makes no mention of the 

training—if any—on international religious freedom undertaken by DHS Border Patrol agents and inspectors exercising Expedited Removal authority, even though 

such training is also required under IRFA. Nor does the report mention the efforts 

by the Department of Justice to ensure that immigration judges comply with IRFA 

training requirements. 

The importance of such training has been underscored by recent positions advanced by the Department of Justice and initially adopted by the Federal Court of 

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Li v Gonzales. Li involved a Chinese Christian who 

claimed persecution—including arrest, detention, beatings, loss of employment, and 

forced labor—for organizing an unregistered church. An immigration judge granted 

the asylum seeker protection from removal, finding his claim to be credible and consistent with country conditions in China. The Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), on a motion from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), reversed the decision and ordered that Mr. Li be removed to China. When 

Mr. Li appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit, the Department of Justice continued to argue that Mr. Li should be removed because he had been subject to prosecution for violating China’s religious registration laws—not persecution for his religious beliefs. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the Department of Justice. 

The Commission wrote the Department of Justice to make it clear that U.S. foreign policy has long maintained that China’s control over registered churches—and 

its prosecution of individuals like Mr. Li for engaging in ‘‘unauthorized’’ religious 

activity—are clear violations of international law with regard to freedom of religion 

or belief. The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security were receptive to the 

Commission’s concerns, and the Fifth Circuit subsequently vacated its original decision. Although immigration judges are already required by IRFA to have training 

on religious freedom, other relevant entities are not: the BIA, the trial attorneys 

who work for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in DHS, as well as those 

who work for the Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL) in the Department of Justice. The BIA and OIL have recently invited the Commission to participate in training its attorneys. We urge ICE to do the same. All of these entities should make 

religious freedom a regular component of their training curricula, whether mandated by IRFA or not. We also urge that the Departments of Homeland Security, 

Justice, and State to coordinate better their efforts to ensure that legal positions on 

asylum which are advanced in court by these agencies do not set legal precedents 

which could undermine longstanding positions of the United States on international 

human rights. 

Finally, section 602(b) of IRFA requires that all consular officers be trained in refugee law and policy. Although consular officers do not adjudicate refugee applications, they are authorized to refer refugee applicants to the Department of Homeland Security for adjudication, since the vast majority of asylum seekers are not permitted to apply to the Refugee Program without a referral from a U.S. embassy or 

the UNHCR. Appendix C of the Report, ‘‘Training at the Foreign Service Institute 

Related to the International Religious Freedom Act,’’ states that consular training 

‘‘includes a lecture on Immigrant Visa (sic) that incorporates discussion of refugee 

and asylum issues as they pertain to consular officers. The subject is covered in further detail in the Self-Instruction Guide (SIG) on immigrant visa processing.’’ Based 

on inquiries made by the Commission, however, it appears that the only training 

received by consular officers relevant to the Refugee Program is on the processing 

of immediate relative petitions filed by refugees and asylees. Such training does not 

55

1Section 602(b) of IRFA holds that ‘‘(t)he Secretary of State shall provide sessions on refugee 

law and adjudications and on religious persecution to each individual seeking a commission as 

a United States consular officer. . . .’’

even begin to comply with the broad requirements of section 602(b).1 Consequently, 

the Commission is concerned that consular officers remain unaware of their ability 

to facilitate access to the resettlement program for asylum seekers in need of protection. Once again, the Commission urges the Department of State to comply with this 

training requirement, which could save the lives of bona fide refugees, particularly 

those who may have access to a U.S. consulate but not UNHCR. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to share with you the Commission’s 

views and recommendations. We look forward to continuing to work closely with the 

Congress to advance respect for the freedom of religion in U.S. policy. In that regard, I would like to highlight one upcoming Commission activity. This afternoon, 

in the presence of yourself and other Members of Congress, the Commission will release a report on conditions for freedom of religion or belief in North Korea, relating 

the first-hand experiences of dozens of former North Koreans. This report was authored by human rights expert David Hawk and describes severe violations of 

human rights, including the extent to which the regime attempts to control the very 

thoughts and beliefs of the North Korean people. 

Thank you again for holding this important hearing and inviting the Commission 

to testify. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have regarding my 

oral or written statements.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Cromartie, thank you very much for your testimony, for your leadership of the commission, and for the commission’s extraordinary work. It is a source, as you pointed out, the 

Central Asian Human Rights Act, which I have introduced, we are 

greatly indebted to your commission’s work on that. So, I want to 

thank you for not just mentioning it, but for, more importantly, the 

gist and the information you have provided to help us in crafting 

it. We hope to be marking that up very, very shortly. 

Let me just ask a couple of questions and start with the refugee 

program. When we marked up the Religious Freedom Act, you 

might recall my former Chief of Staff, Joseph Reese, who is now 

our Ambassador to East Timor, is the former general counsel for 

the INS, and is very, very pro-refugee and pro-immigration and 

was very helpful in crafting those very specific provisions. 

We had found through oversight hearings and, frankly, through 

his expertise that there was a—whether it be witting or unwitting—bias in many of our courts, as well as among many of our 

consular officers, against people of faith who are asserting discrimination, and that asylum cases routinely were dismissed as a direct 

result. That is what prompted inclusion in IRFA of the provisions 

dealing with the training and that that information be shared in 

such a way that it became part of law cases, like the Li v. 

Gonzales, as you mentioned. 

Perhaps in oversight, in our capacity as a Subcommittee that not 

only makes laws but tries to oversee them, it is time to have a 

hearing on how well or poorly that is. I think your comments 

prompt that, that we really need to see how well or poorly those 

provisions are being implemented, whether or not there needs to be 

any remedial legislation if there is a gap somewhere. 

But I thank you for paying some very good, close attention to 

that, because we will convene an oversight hearing within the next 

few months to look precisely at that. So I thank you for that as 

well. 

56

Let me just ask you with regards to North Korea, if you want 

to talk a little bit before we release the report at 3 o’clock today, 

whether or not there is much of a difference between that report 

and the State Department’s report. 

I would note that for years I have asked the State Department 

why North Korea was not a CPC country. Basically, the answer 

was, ‘‘We don’t have enough information.’’ But my argument right 

back was, we certainly have enough information that it could be 

construed to be a presumptive CPC country, because in and of 

itself, the fact we could not get that information was highly illustrative of the nature of the problem. 

Are there some aspects in this report that are new and perhaps 

startling that you might want to comment on? 

Mr. CROMARTIE. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. One of the finer points 

about this report is that the author, David Hawk, has interviewed 

at least two dozen people who escaped from North Korea into 

South Korea, and these represent long extensive interviews with 

these people who escaped the horror of North Korea. 

I think what is unique and original about this report is the 

amount of people he has talked to about the state of conditions in 

North Korea, and in fact the point you make about the lack of information is somewhat solved by this report because we are talking 

to people who were first-hand witnesses of the atrocities of the 

Government of North Korea. So I think it breaks new ground because of the amount of people that Mr. Hawk was able to meet 

with and talk to over several years of research. May I say, it is a 

groundbreaking study. 

Mr. SMITH. On Vietnam, have you seen any evidence to suggest 

that the agreement between our two countries is yielding any fruit, 

or is it a diversion? 

Mr. CROMARTIE. I see no evidence. There are a lot of promises. 

Promises need to be followed by deeds. There is an attempt by the 

Government of Vietnam, by at least coming to this agreement, to 

give us the impression that progress has been made, but I think 

time will tell. One is certainly glad for promises. Some of the countries we talk about in CPCs don’t even make promises, as you 

know. At least we have promises from that, so we can try to hold 

them to their promise, which would be a little bit of progress. 

Mr. SMITH. Is it your view that China ought to be sanctioned 

pursuant to the provisions in the act? 

Mr. CROMARTIE. The commission hasn’t, to the best of my knowledge, taken a position on that. We have recommendations about 

what to do about China. We have just issued, if I might advertise, 

a report last week on China, an extensive policy focus on China, 

because we made a trip there for 2 weeks in August, and we have 

at least 14 recommendations in that report about what we ought 

to do to China. 

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate your comments on Iraq, because I think 

we all have to maintain a very strong vigilance. I think, as you 

pointed out in your written testimony, or perhaps orally, some of 

this now is up to what the court will do in interpreting. And, I 

think we may have to be very vigilant that we don’t see these considerable sacrifices in blood and material by this country, by our 

country, and by the Iraqis themselves, squandered going forward. 

57

I asked Ambassador Hanford about Sri Lanka, the concerns that 

we all have that another tsunami is awaiting for believers that 

deals with the anti-conversion law. I was struck again, as I indicated in a limited way, by how we had no fears that this was going 

to go forward when I met with the prime minister last January in 

Columbo, but I am very concerned, and perhaps I would like to 

know how they feel, that this may be on a track toward enactment. 

Mr. CROMARTIE. Mr. Chairman, some of us on the commission 

have on-going discussions about the fact that we have a CPC list, 

we have a watch list, and some of us suggesting that we need a 

third list, a third list which we would call a gravely concerned list. 

It is of course—it is on-going discussion. Obviously, Sri Lanka 

would be on that third list. And certainly on-going discussions 

among the commissioners could well be that it move up to the 

watch list. And of course if it passes the law, which you suggest, 

other discussions will have to occur because it is a very important 

piece of legislation. 

Mr. SMITH. Now should Uzbekistan be a CPC country? 

Mr. CROMARTIE. Well, we certainly recommend it. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. I wanted to get it on the record. 

Mr. CROMARTIE. Yes, we recommend that that be such. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much for the work of the commission 

and your dedication. 

I just have a question, kind of in regard—I couldn’t agree with 

you more about the fact that the courts, the Department of Justice, 

the immigration judges, I think in many instances, are not properly 

trained or really do not feel that they are required to take into account the cases. In my relationship with the courts, it just seems 

that it is a failure if someone is given asylum, just seems that everyone should go back; it is unbelievable. And we have been trying 

to get some attention. There is a firm here in DC that is interested 

in this whole question because, of course, an immigrant person 

running from religious or political persecution is the least among 

us, that come from countries where in many instances very little 

is there, and when they get here, there is absolutely no sympathy. 

It seems that the goal is just to see if 991⁄2 won’t do, either 100 

percent out or you are a failure. And I sat in on a case where I 

was actually restricted from going into the court until—really in 

Newark Airport detention, the court—I had asked them did they 

know where funding from the courts came from, and I just had to 

remind them that it comes from the United States Congress. And 

if I didn’t get in there in a few minutes, that we were really going 

to have to have a real out-and-out hearing. 

Of course, I was allowed in and it was a person from Sudan, from 

Darfur, afraid to go back. They were going to deport them back to 

Khartoum, it was unbelievable. And that case went on for about 4 

or 5 months. And only, I believe, because I forced my way into the 

hearing, they postponed the decision 2 weeks out on a Friday—the 

decision was supposed to be done, when I went there Friday I 

found out that, well, the day before they agreed to give asylum. 

They were even so disappointed and angry that it seemed that 

they had to give asylum that they did it the day before, I guess, 

so that maybe I would have gotten some satisfaction from this poor 

58

person not being sent back to the murderous Government in Khartoum, and so they did it a day before. Of course, the final line is 

that the person did receive asylum. But I am really going to follow 

that whole thing. 

We have another fellow named Malik Garno, he is from Guinea. 

The young fellow is 12 or 13. His father was killed by the government. He escaped New Guinea. You know, an aging President, they 

don’t even know if he is running the country, it is next to Sierra 

Leone and Liberia where the RUF was cutting off arms of people 

when they would go across the border, and taking the diamonds 

and using them for weapons. And this kid, 12 years old, was put 

on a plane, got out of Guinea, got to France somewhere, ended up 

here in the United States. 

And don’t you know that this poor kid, he was—didn’t know the 

language, and he was really educatable and trainable, he had a 

problem with his intelligence quotient, but he was a person that 

did learn the language, he was put into a detention center with 

adults, he was taunted. The case—we have a law firm in DC that 

is taking the case pro bono, and we are still stretched out. 

So I just cite these two incidents to say there is so much insensitivity on the part. And I think that I will follow up personally 

with them, and maybe the Committee could talk about the fact 

that these immigration judges should have—become familiar with 

IRFA requirements. Neither of these were necessarily religious persecutions, however, I just think there needs to be more training in 

general. 

And to that end, even though—and I really don’t have a question, but a couple of things that have been on my mind, this is the 

best opportunity to get it out. These are the last two points, but 

in Botswana—and our Committee is a Committee on human rights, 

also—you have the Bushmen, who are being persecuted, being put 

in camps, being kept from their way of life. And even though the 

President of Botswana is a very credible person, President Mogae, 

who has done an outstanding job in fighting HIV and AIDS and 

has actually kept their country in a financial positive—out of 19 of 

the last 20 years, they have had more income than out-go—it 

shows that there is a great deal of credibility in the government. 

But the question of Bushmen who are the original people, really, 

everybody, they say, came from that region of the country, it goes, 

you know, undiscussed. Mrs. Stedman called me about this, and 

there is some concern, there is finally a group of people; Gloria 

Stedman, who is kind of getting interested in this. 

But the other point is the untouchables in India. It makes no 

sense that this country is going to grow to be one of the major 

world powers in the world, and there is still a sect of untouchables 

that have to remain in a particular class, that they are looked at 

as less than humans. This is something that has been going on for 

centuries. 

It seems to me that as we continue to give these most favorite 

nations sort of trade as we do with China and now India, that we 

should even tolerate, or do we ever raise the question of untouchables as it relates to just a group of people who are just considered, 

you are there, you can’t get out, you can’t climb out, we don’t want 

you around, you have to be over there? Could you comment on eiVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:21 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\111505\24596.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
59

ther one of those two? Although I know it is not directly with the 

religious questioning. 

Mr. CROMARTIE. Well, can I first, Congressman Payne, comment 

on the question about asylum seekers? The commission did a major 

study and a report that came out on asylum seekers and expedited 

removal. And one of the recommendations, of course, that we have 

is that judges, as you suggest, need to know more about the religious situation that people are fleeing from. Oftentimes, as you 

know, people who are coming here for asylum are fleeing religious 

persecution, and this needs to be taken into serious consideration 

as to why they are here. 

One of the things that we found out in our study is that asylum 

seekers are not given information about their rights, they are not 

asked questions about their experiences, religious or otherwise. 

They are held in prison-like facilities. In our study, our commission 

and the staff—especially the staff—visited a lot of these prison-like 

facilities and only found really one that was modestly humane in 

Broward County. Individuals are often held for months on end 

without any legal counsel. And judges, one of the most striking 

things is that judges are not aware of the USIRF reports, or the 

reports from the State Department about religious persecution in 

these countries and why these people might be there. 

So there are several layers of needs for education, as you suggested in your comments. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. On those other areas——

Mr. CROMARTIE. Well, let me say on Botswana and the Bushmen, 

the staff and the commission will take up that issue and perhaps 

get back to you on that, because we have not issued a report on 

that. 

Mr. PAYNE. And maybe take a look at the untouchables——

Mr. CROMARTIE. Absolutely. 

Mr. PAYNE. They have been around a long time. And as much as 

I love Ghandi and his leadership in nonviolence, this question of 

untouchables just continues to be something no one wants to talk 

about. And I just can’t see it in the new millennium that some 

caste system that started thousands of years ago is still tolerated. 

And so——

Mr. CROMARTIE. Well, let me just say that we will monitor that 

situation and get back to you on that. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CROMARTIE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Mr. Cromartie, thank you so much for 

your testimony. Both I, and I am sure Mr. Payne, have numerous 

questions we would like to pose, but time doesn’t permit it, but if 

you could get back to us in a timely fashion. 

Mr. CROMARTIE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just say that I 

commend you for your plans for an oversight hearing on asylum 

seekers. And we look forward to helping you with that and being 

part of that if we can. 

Mr. SMITH. I just got from the archives the original markup, 

which happened in our Committee, and we laid it out in great detail about the report. And just, you know, if this isn’t being followed the way it ought to be, we need to know it. So let’s work together on that. 

60

Mr. CROMARTIE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

I would like to ask the third panel to make its way to the witness 

table. And I just would point out that Bishop Ricardo Ramirez is 

in a meeting—or has to return to a meeting with the Catholic 

bishops who are meeting in an international meeting a couple of 

miles away from here, so he will have to leave. If it is okay with 

the other witnesses, I would like to ask him to go first. Maybe Mr. 

Payne and I will pose a couple of questions, and then ask the remainder of our panel to continue. 

So I will just introduce Bishop Ramirez now, and then more formally introduce our other distinguished guests, as well, after that. 

The Most Reverend Ricardo Ramirez is currently the Bishop of 

Las Cruces in New Mexico. Bishop Ramirez currently serves as a 

member of the New Mexico Advisory Committee on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and is a member of the U.S. Conference of 

Catholic Bishops’ International Policy Committee. He has also 

served as a member of the U.S. State Department Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad and was chairman of the 

USCCB’s Catholic Campaign for Human Development. 

Bishop Ramirez was also elected as delegate for the United 

States at the 1977 Synod for America. Bishop Ramirez is currently 

serving as commissioner of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. 

After his testimony, as I said, we will go to some questions, and 

then proceed with the remainder of the panel. 

Please, Bishop, proceed. 

STATEMENT OF THE MOST REVEREND RICARDO RAMIREZ, 

C.S.B., BISHOP OF LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO, UNITED 

STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS 

Reverend RAMIREZ. Mr. Chairman, and Distinguished Members 

of the Subcommittee, allow me to thank you for the opportunity to 

offer testimony on the topic of Religious Freedom. Let me also express my appreciation to you for your leadership in lifting up the 

importance of protecting religious freedom, and helping to make it 

a more central priority for U.S. foreign policy. 

While I am honored to be a member of the U.S. Commission on 

International Religious Freedom, I am here today representing the 

views of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops where 

I serve as a member of the Conference’s Committee on International Policy. So today I am wearing the bishop’s hat. 

I will summarize my remarks and ask that my full written testimony be entered into the record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, your full statement and that of all 

our panelists will be made a part of the record. 

Reverend RAMIREZ. From the perspective of Catholic teaching, religious freedom is a first of our freedoms. The late John Paul II 

said, ‘‘The most fundamental freedom is that of practicing one’s 

faith openly, which for human beings is the reason for living.’’

It is essential to point out that religious liberty begins with the 

right to worship according to one’s conscience, but it does not end 

there. Religious freedom covers a broad range of vital activities, 

from freedom of worship to freedom of conscience, from the right 

61

to establish schools and charities and to the right to participate in 

and seek to influence public affairs. Religious freedom is the right 

of both individuals and religious communities. 

As pastors within a universal church, we hear the cries of believers of all religions around the world who suffer persecution, violence and discrimination, simply because they are people of faith. 

Delegations of our bishops’ conference have journeyed to many 

lands to express our solidarity. We have issued public appeals for 

legal protections, protested killings and detentions, met with victims and promoted their rights with officials of the U.S. and foreign 

governments. We listen carefully to their pleas of those who suffer 

persecution and discrimination. Our experience is that the victims 

of religious persecution are often the most reliable providers of information and guidance. 

Before commenting on specific countries, I wish to highlight one 

broad trend that we believe deserves greater attention. Perhaps the 

most significant challenge to religious freedom and to forging constructive roles for religion in world affairs is a relationship between 

Christianity and Islam. 

The violence in Afghanistan and Iraq, on-going conflicts in the 

Middle East, and several conflicts in Africa come dangerously close 

to being perceived in simplistic terms as a new contest of East 

versus West, or Islam versus Christianity. 

Like Christianity, Islam is a religion with different expressions. 

Tensions among these expressions of Islam have been exacerbated 

by the rise of militant Islam and the misuse and perversion of faith 

to justify violence. In our own dialogue with Islamic leaders, we 

hear the question, What religious vision of Islam will gain ascendency in the hearts of minds of Muslims? A more tolerant, inclusive, 

and engaged Islam? Or a more fundamentalist, exclusive, isolationist Islam? All religions, including Christianity, have in the past 

and are today wrestling with a similar question, it is a source of 

pain to acknowledge that as Christians, we have, at times, failed 

to extend the tolerance and understanding that we ourselves expect. 

The response of major political leaders in the West has been to 

declare that the struggle against terrorism is not a war against 

Islam; our conference supports this view. But political leaders alone 

are unable to offer a satisfactory response to this challenging situation, religious leaders must assist by entering into serious dialogue 

that seeks deeper understanding. 

The Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian 

Religions of the Second Vatican Council, the name of it in Latin is 

Nostra Aetate, declared its esteem for Muslims and committed the 

church to interfaith dialogue. Authentic dialogue cannot be just 

vague expression of good will, empty of a search for truth and 

unity. Genuine interreligious dialogue can only be a force to heal 

divisions if dialogue safeguards and respects the truth in each religion and culture. Both the Holy See and our conference are carrying forward the important dialogues with Islamic leaders to deepen understanding and cooperation. 

Mr. Chairman, I now offer very brief commentary on three of the 

eight countries that are covered in our written testimony. 

62

Iraq. The efforts of the Iraqi people to determine their own future are commendable, and we hope they will lead to a stable democracy. However, we are very concerned about the religious freedom provisions of the new Constitution adopted in October. While 

the Constitution includes some helpful language regarding religious freedom, it also contains contradictory and ambiguous language that is deeply troubling. Although the Constitution promotes 

religious freedom, some provisions circumscribe religious liberty by 

not allowing any law to contradict the principles of Islam, and by 

authorizing the appointment of experts in Islamic law to serve on 

the Supreme Court, even if they have no training in civil law. 

Our conference has made these concerns known to the Administration and expressed our solidarity with the church in Iraq. We 

hope that the United States Government and the Congress will encourage Iraqis to adopt implementing legislation that respects religious freedom. 

The People’s Republic of China. I had the privilege of visiting 

China last August as part of a delegation of the U.S. Commission 

on International Religious Freedom. The People’s Republic of China 

continues to present a serious challenge to religious freedom. The 

Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA), the government 

agency that monitors the activity of the church, is an offensive 

anachronism that we hope will disappear in time. 

The unregistered Catholic Church suffers far greater restrictions 

as bishops, priests, religious and lay leaders are under constant 

surveillance. Many have been arrested and jailed for carrying out 

their sacramental ministry, another few have paid the ultimate 

price for their uncompromising fidelity. 

We are hopeful that the long break between the Holy See and 

the Chinese Government, begun with the 1951 expulsion of the 

Vatican representative, may come to an end. As the UN pursues 

its economic, diplomatic military and other relationships with 

China, religious liberty and other human rights matters must have 

a place in the United States-China dialogue. 

Cuba. The Catholic Church, in particular, continues to experience unacceptable limitations on its life and mission in Cuba. Parents are not free to choose alternatives to the state schools for the 

education of their children, and the church is not free to conduct 

such schools. The church is still denied access to the major media. 

A majority of clergy and other church workers from abroad are not 

granted visas. Church services are held freely, but Cuban bishops 

have noted an increase in the number of state security agents attending mass with the evident purpose of discouraging any dissident behavior. The Communist Party’s Office of Religious Affairs 

maintains strict control over church activities. 

As strongly as we stand with the bishops and the church in Cuba 

over the issue of religious freedom, we join them in opposing the 

United States embargo as an ineffective and counterproductive policy that harms the poor and the vulnerable and gives the Cuban 

regime an excuse for its own failed policies. 

As a religious community, our own faith and our respect for the 

faith of others commit us to defend and promote religious freedom 

as a moral priority. Religious liberty also lies at the heart of our 

Nation’s principles. The cause of religious liberty must be a fundaVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:21 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\111505\24596.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
63

1World Day of Peace Message, January 1, 1988. 

2Dignitatis Humanae, 1965 #2. 

mental priority in our Nation’s foreign policy and in our country’s 

own internal life. In the words of Pope Benedict XVI, ‘‘The defense 

of religious freedom . . . is a permanent imperative. . . .’’

And I would add this addendum. We are also concerned that our 

Nation is closing the door to those who flee religious persecution. 

The recent adoption of the REAL ID Act of 2005, which makes it 

more difficult for asylum seekers to obtain protection in our country, as well as the expansion of expedited removal along our southern border, are examples of our Nation retreating from its historic 

role as a safe haven for the religiously persecuted. Thank you for 

your consideration. 

[The prepared statement of Reverend Ramirez follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MOST REVEREND RICARDO RAMIREZ, C.S.B., BISHOP

OF LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO, UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, allow me to 

thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony before the committee on the topic 

of religious freedom. Let me also express my appreciation to you for your leadership 

in lifting up the importance of protecting religious freedom and helping to make it 

a more central priority for US foreign policy. While I am honored to be a member 

of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, I am here today representing the views of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I serve as 

a member of the Conference’s Committee on International Policy. The Committee’s 

mandate includes the promotion of human rights and religious freedom. I will summarize my remarks and ask that my full written testimony be entered into the 

record. 

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops welcomes the increased attention to, and seeks greater priority for, the issue of religious freedom. The creation 

of the Office of International Religious Freedom in the Department of State and the 

US Commission on International Religious Freedom are hallmarks of a growing 

commitment to make international religious freedom central to US foreign policy. 

Our Conference vigorously advocated for the establishment of both of these essential 

structures. We work cooperatively with the Office and the Commission and appreciate their efforts on behalf of religious freedom. The 2005 report issued last week 

on the status of religious freedom around the world is a vital sign of the importance 

of this issue and of the progress yet to be made for justice, freedom and world peace. 

Our Experience and Perspective 

From the perspective of Catholic teaching, religious freedom is the first of our 

freedoms. The late Pope John Paul II said that ‘‘The most fundamental human freedom is that of practicing one’s faith openly, which for human beings is their reason 

for living.’’ 1 In its Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae), the Second Vatican Council declared that ‘‘the right of religious freedom has its foundation 

in the very dignity of the human person, as this dignity is known through the revealed Word of God and reason itself.’’ 2 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

relies on human reason, and Catholic teaching is based on both reason and religious 

faith, but both the UN Declaration and Catholic teaching share the understanding 

that human dignity is the basis for human rights. This shared understanding has 

fostered collaboration among groups across a wide spectrum of the international 

community in promoting respect for the full range of inalienable and universal 

human rights, especially religious liberty. 

It is essential to point out that religious liberty begins with the right to worship 

according to one’s conscience, but it does not end there. Religious freedom covers a 

broad range of vital activities, from freedom of worship to freedom of conscience, 

from the right to establish schools and charities to the right to participate in and 

seek to influence public affairs. Religious freedom properly understood is inextricably linked to other fundamental human rights, such as freedom of association, 

freedom of speech, and legal recognition of voluntary associations. Religious freedom 

is a right of both individuals and religious communities. 

For the Catholic bishops religious freedom has many faces. As pastors within a 

universal Church, we hear the cries and share the pain of believers of all religions 

64

around the world who suffer persecution, violence and discrimination simply because they are people of faith. We stand in solidarity with our suffering brothers 

and sisters to offer our support and express their hopes. From religious persecution 

in the former Soviet Union and its satellites in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, 

to the human rights struggles in Central and South America, from today’s challenges to religious freedom in China and Vietnam, Sudan and Nigeria, to those in 

Russia and Saudi Arabia, the Holy Land and elsewhere, our Conference has 

worked—sometimes visibly, and sometimes of necessity quietly—to defend, promote 

and advance religious liberty. Delegations of our bishops’ Conference have journeyed 

to many lands to express our solidarity. The Conference has issued public appeals 

for legal protections, protested killings and detentions, met with victims and promoted their rights and dignity with officials of the United States and foreign governments. Our Conference is committed to continuing this defense of, and advocacy for, 

religious freedom consistently and persistently. 

In our activities, we listen carefully to the pleas of those who suffer persecution 

and discrimination and learn from their everyday experiences. We seek their counsel on how best to stand with them and help them to secure their rights. For us, 

this means consulting closely with local Catholic bishops, other religious leaders and 

with the Holy See. Our experience and conviction is that the victims of religious persecution are often the best informed sources of their situation and the most reliable 

providers of information and guidance. 

During the Cold War, violations of religious freedom were largely state-sponsored. 

Dictatorial and oppressive regimes often sought to crush any opposition or expression of liberty. Religion, because it is so important to people’s identity and self expression, was frequently a deliberate target of state suppression. To allow religion 

a space in the public square was too dangerous for many regimes. Even though 

there has been a global resurgence of religion in the post Cold War era, we must 

remain vigilant in protecting religious freedom from state control and interference. 

While global communism has receded, China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea and 

other states still often attempt to control and interfere with religious belief and 

practice. 

In our day there is also a new recognition of the pluralism of religious belief. We 

live shoulder to shoulder with others of different beliefs or no belief at all. Even in 

countries where one religion predominates, living in complete religious isolation is 

no longer possible. Religious pluralism is now a global phenomenon. Global communications make us a virtual village. Increased immigration makes us actual neighbors. These new realities can lead to either greater respect for others of differing 

religious belief or to potentially destructive conflicts. The challenge before all of us 

today is to help build a global culture of respect for religious freedom as a guarantor 

of human dignity and a contributor to justice. 

Two Major Challenges 

Before commenting on countries mentioned in the recently released 2005 report 

on religious freedom by the Department of State, I wish to highlight two broad 

trends that we believe deserve greater attention. 

First, we believe governments and elected officials have an important role to play 

in valuing and safeguarding the proper place of religion in public life. While the 

state and religion clearly differ in their roles, they share a goal of building up the 

common good for the benefit of the entire society. This value is enshrined in constitutional principle by protecting the autonomy of government and religious institutions but assuring the means by which they can cooperate over shared interests in 

education, healthcare, and public welfare. Faith should be respected and welcomed 

in public life and the particular character of religious communities should be valued 

along with other forms of association and civic engagement. History teaches that societies in which faith is marginalized and impoverished are diminished societies. 

We recognize that the issue of religious freedom in our own nation does not come 

under the purview of this Subcommittee; however, if the United States is to be a 

leader in supporting religious freedom, we must acknowledge that our nation’s 

treatment of religious freedom impacts the credibility of U.S. leadership as our nation seeks to influence other peoples and countries that look to us as an example. 

Let me turn to a second concern. Perhaps the most significant challenge to religious freedom and forging constructive roles for religion in world affairs is the relationship between Christianity and Islam. The violence in Afghanistan and Iraq, ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and several conflicts in Africa come dangerously 

close to being perceived, in simplistic terms, as a new contest of east versus west, 

of Islam versus Christianity. 

This challenge requires careful and deep reflection, respectful dialogue and candid 

discussion. Like Christianity, Islam is a religion with different expressions. Tensions 

65

among these expressions of Islam have been exacerbated by the rise of militant 

Islam and the misuse and perversion of faith to justify violence. In our own dialogue 

with Islamic leaders, we hear these kinds of questions: How will societies meet the 

social, political and economic aspirations and needs of their citizens? Will violence 

against the innocent be repudiated and resisted? What religious vision of Islam will 

gain ascendancy in the hearts and minds of Muslims—a more tolerant, inclusive 

and engaged Islam, or a more fundamentalist, exclusive, isolationist Islam? All religions, including Christianity, have in the past and are today wrestling with similar 

questions. It is a source of pain to acknowledge that as Christians, we have at times 

failed to extend the tolerance and understanding that we ourselves expect. 

The perception of a contest between east and west is exacerbated by the experience of colonialism that the lastis remembered by many in the Middle East, Africa 

and Asia. The introduction of outside secular influences often causes tensions in 

these societies. These conflicts in turn can lead some in the Islamic world to conclude, rightly or wrongly, that their culture and religious beliefs are under assault 

by the West. In this context misuse and distortions of religion tragically serve the 

political goals of extremists. Terrorism is used for many purposes, none defensible, 

including the goal of coercing other Muslims to abandon their own convictions and 

adopt a more extreme version of Islam. Casting their conflict as one with Christianity, or with Judaism, extremists attempt to make their political causes seem as 

religious obligations. 

The response of major political leaders in the West has been to declare that the 

struggle against terrorism is not a war against Islam. Our Conference supports this 

view. But political leaders alone are unable to offer a satisfactory response to this 

challenging situation. Religious leaders must assist by entering into serious dialogue 

that seeks deeper understanding. 

In The Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions 

(Nostra Aetate), the Second Vatican Council declared its ‘‘esteem’’ for Muslims and 

committed the Church to interfaith dialogue. Authentic dialogue cannot be just 

vague expressions of good will, empty of a search for truth and unity. Genuine interreligious dialogue can only be a force to heal divisions if dialogue safeguards and 

respects the truth in each religion and culture. Attempts to denigrate or distort the 

particular character, beliefs or practices of respective religious communities can 

itself be an offense against human dignity and basic human rights. Efforts to compel 

religions to alter fundamental tenets or moral principles can lead to further stumbling blocks on the path to peace. 

Promoting religious freedom and improving relations between Christians and 

Muslims are complementary goals that demand honesty, intellectual rigor and commitment to one’s own faith tradition. As Pope Benedict XVI said in his August 20 

meeting with Muslim leaders: ‘‘Interreligious and intercultural dialogue between 

Christians and Muslims cannot be reduced to an optional extra. It is in fact a vital 

necessity. . . .’’ Both the Holy See and our Conference are carrying forward important dialogues with Islamic leaders to deepen way to foster understanding and to 

determine what can be done cooperatively. Dialogue can clarify differences, increase 

understanding and reduce tensions. Our bishops’ Conference remains committed to 

this vital task. 

The Religious Freedom Report and Country Concerns 

Mr. Chairman, I will offer very brief commentary on a few of the issues raised 

in the Report on International Religious Freedom, concentrating principally on those 

countries with which our Bishops’ Conference has concerned itself in recent years. 

I emphasize that these remarks are not comprehensive and refer you to more detailed articulations of our concerns. 

Iraq. The efforts of the Iraqi people to determine their own future are commendable and we hope they will lead to a stable democracy that respects the full range 

of human rights, including religious freedom. However, we are very concerned about 

the religious freedom provisions of the new constitution adopted in October. While 

the constitution includes key affirmations of basic human rights, including some 

helpful language regarding religious freedom, it also contains contradictory and ambiguous language that is deeply troubling and confusing. Even though the constitution promotes the concept of religious freedom, some provisions circumscribe religious liberty by not allowing any law to contradict the principles of Islam and by 

authorizing the appointment of experts in Islamic law to serve on the Supreme 

Court, even if they have no training in civil law. 

These concerns are alarming to the Chaldo-Assyrian community and other religious minorities within Iraq. Chaldean Patriarch Emmanuel Delly III of Baghdad 

met with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari on 

September 18 requesting that Article 2.1(a) be removed from the constitution. This 

66

3 cf. Letter to Secretary Condoleeza Rice and National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, 

Bishop John Ricard, August 8, 2005; Letters to Secretary Colin Powell and Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi on Iraqi Christians, Bishop John Ricard, October 22, 2004. 4 cf. Letter to Secretary-Designate Condoleeza Rice on Negotiations between Israel and the 

Holy See, Bishop William Skylstad, January 13, 2005; Letter to Ambassador Daniel Ayalon on 

Negotiations between Israel and the Holy See, Bishop William Skylstad, January 18, 2005; Letter to Ambassador Ayalon on Visas for Church Personnel in the Holy Land, Cardinal William 

Keeler and Bishop John Ricard, April 7, 2004; Letter to President George W. Bush on the Deteriorating Situation in the Holy Land, Bishop Wilton Gregory, April 13, 2004. 

article states that ‘‘no law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may 

be established.’’ The Patriarch, together with other bishops and religious leaders of 

other minority communities, rightfully worry about the possibility of discrimination, 

second class citizenship and persecution unless the constitution and laws that will 

implement the constitution guarantee full and unhindered religious freedom. Already thousands of Christians and other minorities have fled Iraq fearing discrimination and persecution in the wake of repeated instances of violence and harassment. Our own Conference has made these serious concerns known to the Administration and other government officials and expressed our solidarity with the Church 

in Iraq. We hope that the U.S. government, the Congress and this subcommittee 

will encourage Iraqis to adopt implementing legislation that respects religious freedom.3

The Fundamental Agreement with Israel. Our Conference very much welcomed the 

Fundamental Agreement of 1993 between the Holy See and the State of Israel and 

the mutual recognition that it brought about. The Fundamental Agreement is needed to govern the legal status of the Church in Israel, but we are deeply dismayed 

at the lack of progress over the last dozen years. We fear there may be a lack of 

commitment on the part of elements of the government of Israel to conclude successfully the negotiations with the Holy See over economic matters and other vital concerns to the Catholic Church and the wider Christian community in the Holy Land. 

We should be clear that the institutions whose tax status is under discussion in the 

1993 agreement with the Holy See are at the service of the people of the Holy Land 

and are not simply investments or holdings of the Vatican. Our concerns as Catholic 

bishops for the Church in the Holy Land do not ignore or minimize the suffering 

of Israelis and Palestinians in that conflicted region. However, we believe the issues 

between the government of Israel and the Holy See are of great importance for religious liberty, not only for the Catholic Church but for the vitality of the all Christian communities within Israel. We urge the Administration and Congress to address these matters with the government of Israel and to encourage these essential 

negotiations to move forward expeditiously and judiciously to a resolution satisfactory to both parties.4

The People’s Republic of China. I had the privilege of visiting China last August 

as part of a delegation of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom. 

The Peoples Republic of China continues to present a serious and unavoidable challenge to religious freedom. The state-approved and state-controlled religions, including the registered Roman Catholic Church, are apparently freer today than they 

were some few years ago, and are treated better than they were during the years 

of harshest persecution during the Cultural Revolution. Nevertheless, control over 

the everyday life of the Church, less intrusive in some places than in others, still 

represents an unwarranted interference of the State in the life of the Church. The 

Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA), the government agency that monitors the activity of the Church, is an offensive anachronism that, one hopes, will 

disappear in time. 

As is widely known, the unregistered Catholic Church suffers far greater and unacceptable restrictions. Its bishops, priests, religious and lay leaders are under constant surveillance, many have been arrested and jailed for simply carrying out their 

sacramental ministry, and not a few have paid the ultimate price for their uncompromising fidelity to their faith. The Church in the U.S. continues to stand with and 

support the rights of our Chinese sisters and brothers in faith. The U.S. should do 

the same in concrete and continuing ways. Fortunately there are indications in recent months that the ‘‘two faces of the Church in China,’’ as the Holy See has often 

referred to the Catholic community in China, are overcoming in practice some of the 

divisions that the State seeks to perpetuate. Also in recent months, we are hopeful 

that the long break between the Holy See and the Chinese government, begun with 

the 1951 expulsion of the Vatican representative, may come to an end. As the U.S. 

pursues its economic, diplomatic, military and other relationships with China, reliVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:21 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\111505\24596.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
67

5 cf. Letter to Chinese Ambassador on Detained Priests and Bishops, Bishop John Ricard, 

March 11, 2005; Letter to Chinese Ambassador on Arrest of Priests, Bishop John Ricard, August 

24, 2004; Letter to President George W. Bush on Religious Freedom in China, Bishop Wilton 

Gregory, February 13, 2002. 6 cf. Letter to Indian Ambassador on Anti-Christian Attacks, Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, 

February 22, 1999; Letter to Pakistani Ambassador on Intolerance in Bahawalpur, Cardinal 

Bernard Law, November 2, 2001; Letter to President Bush on Violence in Bahawalpur, Cardinal 

Bernard Law, November 2, 2001; Letter to Secretary Albright on religious Freedom, Archbishop 

Theodore McCarrick, December 2, 1998; Letter to Pakistani Ambassador on Blasphemy Law, 

Bishop Daniel Reilly, February 22, 1995. 7 cf. Letter to Hon. Jose ́ Serrano on Travel Restrictions to Cuba, Bishop John Ricard, July 19, 

2005; Cuba Background Paper, USCCB Department of Social Development and World Peace, 

February 2005; Letter to House of Representatives on Travel to Cuba, Bishop John Ricard, July 

22, 2004; Statement on Arrest of Cuban Dissidents, Bishop John Ricard, April 8, 2003. 8We also note that the US Office of Foreign Assets Control has recently changed its policy 

for the issuance of travel licenses to Cuba that hinder the ability of religious entities to engage 

in religious activities in Cuba. This new policy is a hostile treatment to religious entities that 

are mediating communities distinct from the Cuban regime. 

gious liberty and other human rights matters must have a central and continuing 

place in the U.S.-China dialogue.5

The Indian Subcontinent—India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. These three countries have relatively small, but disproportionately influential Christian, including 

Catholic, minorities. In each of them, there have been shameful attacks on Christians, resulting in the burning of churches, false accusations of blasphemy—a capital offense in some Muslim states—and not a few killings. In each country, the 

State has stated or made excuses about its inability to control isolated groups of fanatics, but it seems abundantly clear that much more can be done to insist that 

each of these states act with greater conformity with international law and greater 

respect for religious rights.6

Burma. The decades-long pattern of the denial of fundamental human rights, including religious rights, in Burma is well known. The situation in Burma clearly 

merits consistent and active monitoring and requires a serious effort to work for 

greater freedom and respect for human rights and religious liberty, but we would 

register the opposition of the Catholic Church in Burma to the imposition of economic sanctions as counter-productive and as likely to impact most harshly the vulnerable in society. 

Cuba. The state of religious freedom in Cuba has gone through several phases 

since 1959. From the outright persecution and expulsion of clergy and religious sisters and brothers of the early years to the present, the Catholic Church, in particular, continues to experience unacceptable limitations on its life and mission. 

In Cuba parents are not free to choose alternatives to the state schools for the 

education of their children and the Church is not free to conduct such schools. In 

recent years the Church has been able to publish a number of small diocesan papers, but is still denied access to the major media. Some clergy and other church 

workers from abroad have been permitted to work in Cuba for a set period of time, 

but the majority of requests for visas have not been granted. Church services are 

held freely throughout the country, but Cuban bishops have noted that there has 

been an increase in the number of State Security agents attending Mass with the 

evident purpose of discouraging any dissident behavior. This practice has been especially observed at Havana’s St. Rita’s Church where the Damas de Blanco, the Ladies in White, gather weekly for Mass and then hold their peaceful march in support of their imprisoned husbands. These women have just been awarded the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize. Most of their husbands were part of the 2003 

arrests of independent journalists and of people associated with the Varela Project 

of Oswaldo Paya ́. Our Conference has strongly urged their release. 

The Constitution of 1976 states that it ‘‘is illegal and punishable by law to oppose 

one’s faith or religious belief to the Revolution.’’ As in other countries under Communist rule, the Communist Party has an Office of Religious Affairs which maintains strict control over church activities. This necessarily represents a type of interference in the freedom of religion that is incompatible with human rights and religious freedom.7 As strongly as we stand with the bishops and Church in Cuba over 

the issue of religious freedom, we join them in opposing the embargo as an ineffective and counter-productive policy that harms the poor and the vulnerable and gives 

the Cuban regime an excuse for its own failed policies.8

Russian Federation. Another nation that has gone through dramatic changes in 

recent years is the Russian Federation. While the Catholic Church has seen some 

improvements in the last two years, the overall situation of human rights remains 

tenuous, uncertain and in some ways is deteriorating. Local officials often act on legitimate religious concerns arbitrarily and unfairly. For these reasons, developments 

68

9 cf. Letter to Representatives Young and Kolbe on Religious Freedom in Georgia, Bishop John 

Ricard, October 27, 2003; Letter to the Embassy of the Russian Federation on Actions Taken 

against the Catholic Church in Russia, Gerard Powers, April 23, 2003. 

in Russia require continued careful monitoring and government leaders need appropriate encouragement to observe, practice and comply with international norms regarding fundamental human rights and religious freedom.9

Conclusion 

As a religious community, our own faith and our respect for the faith of others 

commits us to defend and promote religious freedom as a moral priority and human 

responsibility. We seek to protect the right of our Church and all other religious 

communities to exist and to express their faith in society and the public sphere as 

well as in private worship. Our bishops’ Conference defends the right of religious 

communities to engage in public debate and to offer their moral vision, their values 

and their view of the common good. What our government says and does to protect 

and promote religious freedom and to advance other human rights has much to say 

about what kind of society we are and how our nation can exert a positive or negative influence on others. 

Our own society needs to understand better the contributions that religious communities can make toward the resolution of conflicts and the building up of a culture of justice and peace. There is little doubt that we must devote more attention 

to understanding and engaging Islam. This direction is imperative in today’s world 

and perhaps the most significant challenge we face. 

Promoting religious freedom is critical to the Church’s life and mission and to 

international peace. It is also at the heart of our nation’s principles. The cause of 

religious liberty must be a fundamental priority in our nation’s foreign policy and 

in our country’s own internal life. My hope is that this religious freedom report and 

the work of our government, in cooperation with religious communities and human 

rights advocates, can advance religious freedom and human rights in important and 

concrete ways. In the words of Pope Benedict XVI, ‘‘The defense of religious freedom 

. . . is a permanent imperative. . . .’’

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much, Bishop, for your testimony, 

for your extraordinary service and for your trip most recently to 

China. And if I could ask you on that, if you might give us some 

insights as to what you saw. I know that in the past, the commission was reluctant to travel to China because of restrictions that 

were put on it. I remember talking to Cardinal McCarrick when he 

was concerned that if you don’t have access to people without the 

fear of retaliation, you don’t have access. And I am wondering, for 

example, did you meet with individual believers, or were you able 

to while you were in China? 

And secondly, I am glad and not surprised to hear you say that 

the Catholic Patriotic Association is an offensive anachronism. I 

have met with those people as well in Beijing, and it always struck 

me as strange that governments—Communist governments—

throughout the world always have atheists in charge of associations 

and government ministries, like in Cuba, as we saw for years in 

Charcesko’s Romania and elsewhere, who not only are nonbelievers, but in many cases, absolutely loathe everything religious, 

and they are then in charge of the office. Talk about an adversarial 

relationship, there are few that compare. 

But if you can talk a little bit about the Catholic Patriot Association and your thought that it may disappear at some time. 

Reverend RAMIREZ. We would hope that would happen. We understand there are negotiations between the Vatican and the Chinese Government, but we are not privy as to exactly what is going 

on. We do know that in the appointment of the new bishop of 

Shanghai, for example, that there were negotiations with the Vatican, that the present bishop went to the Vatican and then negoVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:21 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\111505\24596.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
69

tiated with the government so that the new bishop who was about 

to take over after the old bishop dies or resigns, would have the 

approval both of the government and of the Vatican. So we see that 

as a breakthrough, and it gives us hope that for the future, there 

will be better relations between the Vatican and the government on 

bishops’ appointments. 

Mr. SMITH. Can I just ask you with regards to Russia—I have 

talked to a number of government leaders in the Duma, as well as 

in Putin’s Government, about the inability of many Catholic 

bishops to get their visas and go to serve in Russia. And I am wondering if that has abated at all, or is it still a problem——

Reverend RAMIREZ. In Russia? 

Mr. SMITH. To move to Russia. 

Reverend RAMIREZ. I am not familiar with the present details of 

that, I can get back to you on that. But we know that in the recent 

past, there was a denial of visas for religious workers to come into 

Russia. 

Mr. SMITH. If you could, that would be great if you would get 

back to us on that. 

And, finally on Islam. You point out that religious leaders must 

take the lead in serious inter-concessional dialogue to bring about 

greater understanding. How can governments facilitate that as 

well? You heard in response when I talked about Larry Uzzell’s 

criticism of the State report, Ambassador Hanford said, I am paraphrasing, that government workers are not theologians, but if we 

don’t properly analyze the trends and really get into the heads of 

people of faith—which I am one that I am talking about—in a bureaucratic sense, how are you going to understand what they are 

doing and why things happen? Then you wonder why it happened 

because you don’t have that understanding. What can we do to—

is there a way of facilitating more of that? 

Reverend RAMIREZ. Speaking as a bishop, speaking for the 

Catholic Conference, I think what we are promoting is dialogue, 

first of all, that we understand, bishops understand what Islam is 

all about. I am glad that some of our Catholic Universities, in particular, have Islamic studies. For example, Georgetown has established an Institute of Islamic Studies, Notre Dame has a similar institute, and some of the other Catholic universities. So that needs 

to be done. But we also need to educate our people on all this. People make general statements on Islam that are unjust and don’t 

serve to the betterment of relations. And I think we just have a lot 

of education to do. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me just conclude by, again, thanking you and 

thanking the bishops, thanking the Pope for the leadership on 

human rights in general, but religious freedom in particular. As 

the Pope has said so well, this is the first right which all others 

cluster around. And I know that my work, I have been in Congress 

25 years, everywhere I go on religious freedom, on any human 

rights issue, the church is there offering me great, great suffering 

itself of its people, of its bishops, of its priests to speak clearly and 

unambiguously about the value and the dignity of human life and 

human rights. 

And I recall in the Sandinistas, several trips down to Central 

America, it was the human rights offices of those Central American 

70

countries, but particularly the cardinal who stood up under great 

pressure from the Sandinistas to make clear that rights abuses 

committed by anyone, left or right are absolutely unacceptable. The 

church has been very, very clear on that. 

And even in Zimbabwe today, the bishop there is speaking out 

very candidly against the cruelty of that dictatorship. So there are 

concerns all over the globe. 

But before you were here, I mentioned that in the early 1990s, 

I visited and mass was celebrated by Bishop Shu of Balding province, and the clarity that he had and the lack of malice toward the 

dictatorship that had cruelly imprisoned him and tortured him, 

and like so many of us, I found saintly. If somebody did this to me, 

I would want to retaliate. He had nothing but love and compassion 

for those who had so mistreated him. We see that among many 

clergy who are suffering in China and elsewhere today, and I want 

you to know it is an inspiration that such men and women of God 

are bringing light where there is a lack of it, so I want to thank 

you. 

Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. 

I, too, would like to commend you for the work that you do, and 

the people of the church and Catholic Church. I remember Cardinal 

McCarrick’s trip to China where he insisted that he be allowed to 

visit some dissenters that were in prison. And he was—we miss 

him in the Newark Archdiocese. He got promoted to bigger things 

here in Washington, but he did a fantastic job and was a person 

that I still admire tremendously. And I agree—and we recently had 

trips from bishops from Darfur and from Juba in Sudan, and they 

stand up against this ruthless regime of murderers in Khartoum. 

And they have so much courage. 

Even Catholic University of New Jersey, my alma mater, Seton 

Hall, had the courage to invite the former President of Iran—not 

the current President before the election—to come to Seton Hall to 

have a dialogue. Of course it took courage, but they were criticized, 

why would you have an Islamic person come to the Catholic University? But I think it showed that they were strong and attempting to have understanding and dialogue, because when you have 

dialogue, you keep from fighting. When you stop dialogue, then you 

many times do the next thing and go to war. And once you go to 

war—as we see, it is easy to go to war, it is hard to get out of war. 

In your opinion, did the late Pope John Paul’s trip to Cuba have 

any immediate effect positively after that? And of course, in your 

opinion, has that waned? And would another—if it would be allowed—visit from the new Pope, you think, have any impact on the 

Castro regime in changing his position? 

Reverend RAMIREZ. Well, I think you used the correct word when 

you said ‘‘the immediate reaction.’’ The immediate reaction was 

positive. There was a feeling that things were going to get better. 

Unfortunately that spirit and that reality did not change, it may 

have taken a step forward but it took two or three steps backwards. 

And then you heard of some of the things that I reported on and 

some other things that have been reported, things are not better, 

they may even be worse than they were when John Paul II visited. 

71

I don’t know anything about the possibility of Benedict XVI visiting, but I doubt if there is anything at all in the making. 

Mr. PAYNE. Finally, I agree with you on—I, too, oppose the embargo, I think it is an ineffective and counterproductive policy, it 

harms the poor. It, as I said, gives the Cuban regime an excuse for 

a failed policy to say, ‘‘Look what they are doing to us.’’ And I think 

it really makes no sense to hinder the ability of religious entities 

from going into Cuba and engaging. I think when Perestroika and 

Glasnost happened in the USSR at the time was because there was 

a liberalization and people from the United States of America could 

get into that place and have discussions. And the people decided 

gradually that they were able to throw off the yolk of communism. 

And so I am very saddened by this new policy which makes it 

almost virtually impossible for—even difficult—for Members of 

Congress to visit. Thank you. 

Reverend RAMIREZ. Thank you very much. Thank you, Congressman, for your interest, your profound interest in these issues. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Bishop, I appreciate it. 

I would like to now introduce our four remaining panelists and 

thank them for their extraordinary work. I know each of you—both 

of us know you very well, and you all have been leaders in the 

human rights support for so many years. 

Let me begin first of all with Nina Shea, who serves as a Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. She is co-author of a newly released book on governance by 

extreme sharia, Radical Islam’s Rules, and the author of a widelyacclaimed book on anti-Christian persecution around the world titled, In the Lion’s Den. In 2005, she edited a path-breaking report on publications by the 

Government of Saudi Arabia promoting an ideology of hate in 

America. She has written and contributed to several articles and 

publications, such as the New York Times and the Wall Street 

Journal. And in 2001, Ms. Shea was appointed by President Bush 

to serve on the U.S. Delegation to the UN Commission on Human 

Rights in Geneva. 

Then, we will hear from Tom Malinowski, who has been Washington Advocacy Director for Human Rights Watch since April 

2001. Prior to joining Human Rights Watch, he was a special assistant to President Bill Clinton. From 1994 to 1998 he was a 

speechwriter for Secretary of State Christopher and Secretary of 

State Albright, and a member of the State Department Policy Planning Staff. He has also worked for the Ford Foundation as a legislative aid to U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Mr. 

Malinowski is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. 

We will then hear from David Aikman, who is an award-winning 

print and broadcast journalist, an author, and foreign policy consultant. He is the author of two groundbreaking books, A Man of 

Faith: The Spiritual Journey of George W. Bush, published in April 

2004, and Jesus in Beijing: How Christianity is Transforming 

China and Changing the World Balance of Power, published in 

2003. 

After leaving TIME Magazine in July 1994, Mr. Aikman joined 

the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center as a senior 

fellow from 1998 to 2002. He has been a witness at congressional 

72

hearings on China and on Christian persecution, and most recently, to the Congressional-Executive Commission on China in 

July 2003. Mr. Aikman is also a founder and chairman of 

Gegrapha, a global fellowship of Christian journalists. 

Let me note that after Tiananmen Square, when General Cho Ha 

Tien made that infamous statement at the War College that nobody died indeed at Tiananmen Square, within 2 days we put together a group of people who were there and saw the killing and 

the maiming that occurred on Tiananmen Square. We invited General Chu, who didn’t show up, or anybody from the Chinese Embassy, but Mr. Aikman, who was there, gave expert eyewitness testimony about what had happened during those infamous days. 

Then we will hear from Larry Uzzell, who is a Jamestown fellow 

who opened Jamestown’s Moscow office in 1992. He is a specialist 

in the former Soviet Union, and I remember when we used to rely 

on him with the Helsinki Commission from the Kenston Institute 

for so many years, and other works that he did, he has been a specialist and has worked for many, many years, is widely published 

in the American, British and Russian media. Mr. Uzzell is president of International Religious Freedom Watch, an independent research center that analyzes threat to freedom of conscience in totalitarian and authoritarian countries. 

Nina, if you could proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MS. NINA SHEA, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR 

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, FREEDOM HOUSE 

Ms. SHEA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting Freedom 

House’s Center for Religious Freedom, to testify on today’s important hearings on the State Department’s report on religious freedom. 

At the outset, I want to thank you and Mr. Payne for coming to 

these important hearings and for your dedication to ensuring that 

religious freedom concerns remain a force in U.S. foreign policy. 

Such oversight is vitally important both in mobilizing appropriate 

foreign policy tools by American policymakers, and in sending a 

powerful message to governments throughout the world that the 

American people are not indifferent to violations of religious freedom wherever they occur. 

The State Department’s religion report constitutes the most detailed religious freedom compilation in the world. And this year’s 

report reflects a monumental effort on the part of Ambassador 

Hanford and his Office of Religious Freedom. They and all the 

American foreign service officers throughout the world who contributed to it deserve to be commended. 

I will make critical comments today about the report, but this 

should not obscure the fact that they are an important contribution 

to the field of human rights. 

I have in my testimony, my written testimony, critiqued about 11 

countries. I am going to single out a few in the interest of time 

today. 

I would like to start with Saudi Arabia. It is a CPC, and that 

is good, I am grateful for that; but I found its report to be the 

weakest. The summary of the Saudi Arabia section accentuates the 

positive, it places a lot of emphasis on promises of reform, it talks 

73

about a campaign of toleration that is underway, about reeducation. But I am afraid that the so-called ‘‘security days,’’ that were 

conducted this year for Saudi children to teach them tolerance, will 

be absolutely useless if the government doesn’t make fundamental 

reforms regarding religious freedom and its attitudes toward toleration toward other groups. 

The government has embraced an extremism version of Islam 

known as Wahabism as its official ideology and this is constantly 

indoctrinated through textbooks, fatwah collections, other publications, media and so forth. 

Ten months ago, the Center for Religious Freedom produced a report analyzing such documents that were found here by MuslimAmericans who were very concerned about them, and who brought 

them to us asking for our help to expose what was happening. 

Saudi Arabia not only indoctrinates its own people, but tries to export its extremism around the world. And I would like to just point 

out two quotes from the documents to give a flavor of them. 

The first one is from a textbook, it is published by the Government of Saudi Arabia and the Ministry of Islamic Religion Affairs, 

and it says, I quote:

‘‘Our doctrine states that if you accept any religion other than 

Islam, like Judaism or Christianity, which are not acceptable, 

you become an unbeliever. If you do not repent you are an 

apostate, and you should be killed because you have denied the 

Koran.’’

Mr. Chairman, this was found here in the United States. And 

these are put forward as authoritative religious directives. The 

Government of Saudi Arabia claims to be the Vatican of Islam, that 

is what its spokesmen has told Tony Snow on Fox News. It basically says if you don’t believe this as a Muslim, then you yourself 

are an apostate. 

Another one comes from a pamphlet that was distributed by the 

Embassy of Saudi Arabia here in Washington. And it has ‘‘Greetings from the Cultural Attache’’ right on its cover. In it, a Muslim 

asks whether it is permissible to become a naturalized American 

citizen. And the answer is emphatic, it claims to be authoritative 

once again, and again it is a directive on how Muslims should live 

their lives in the West, that they should live them with hostility 

and enmity toward everyone else. 

The answer is emphatic, it says:

‘‘It is forbidden for a Muslim to become a citizen of a country 

governed by infidels because this is a means of acquiescing to 

their infidelity in accepting all their erroneous ways.’’

Again, it is from the Embassy. There is no date on this publication. 

It was found in several locations. Obviously the vast majority of 

American-Muslims have rejected that, they are outstanding citizens and neighbors. We do not assess its impact here on the United 

States, it is not a survey of the American-Muslim community. But 

it is a study on Saudi propaganda and does ask the question, What 

is Saudi Arabia doing to undermine us in the War on Terror right 

within our borders? 

74

I am disappointed that the State Department country report does 

not even analyze Saudi textbooks in the study on Saudi Arabia. I 

think it should. Iran is another obvious place where there is fanatical bigotry and xenophobia. I think that these reports should start 

looking, when they discuss Saudi Arabia, instead of just saying 

things have gotten better, improved or reformed, that they actually 

take a look at the textbooks. I am sure that they are available. 

The GAO came out with a report in September saying that the 

U.S. Government agencies actually have no idea as to the nature 

and extent of the reforms in any of these textbooks or fatwah collections produced by Saudi Arabia. 

I would like to turn now to Vietnam. Again, it is another CPC, 

it deserves to be, but the religion report places a lot of emphasis 

on a new law, which you talked about earlier today. And it is very 

troubling because as Hanoi is signing a bilateral agreement with 

the United States, sub rosa, it also appears to be circulating secret 

documents in the Hmong region—out of the international focus, out 

of the public spotlight—directing the police and the security forces 

to crack down, to force these Hmong Christians to recant their 

faith and to close their churches. The Center for Religious Freedom 

released those secret documents—which were dated in February—

earlier this year. The Cao Dai, the Hoa Hoa and other groups that 

may not have strong links with the West, are also treated harshly. 

There has been a campaign against the Hmong carried out, as 

far as we know, until just a month or 2 ago. There were reports 

that we made public beatings of Hmong Christians in September 

by security forces, by public officials and border controls with electric batons to force them to recant their faith. The foreign minister 

then denied it and staged a cover-up. We then released photos, and 

here they are of two Hmong Christians who were reportedly beaten 

in September with electric batons and cattle prods, one is Vang Seo 

Dung and the other is Ly Van Dung, they are both from Ha Giang 

Province in Vietnam. Mr. Vang suffered a broken rib from the beatings, and the bruises are clearly visible in the rib cage area, and 

Mr. Ly reportedly suffered a fractured sternum. 

I would like to briefly mention Iraq. Mr. Cromartie from the commission spoke about that earlier. I also would like to register my 

concern for the degree of religious violence in Iraq. Obviously it affects all groups, Muslims, Shiites, Sunnis and so forth. But the 

non-Muslim minority, I think, are in particular risk right now because they actually may disappear completely from Iraq under the 

pressure that they are receiving. They are being squeezed on the 

one hand by the Islamic extremists who have bombed their churches and have carried out a wave of assassinations, beheadings, 

kidnappings for ransom. And on the other hand in the north, these 

Chaldo-Assyrian people, also the non-Christian, Sabean Mandeans, 

the Yizidis, and the Shabak people who are an offshoot of Islam, 

are being squeezed in the north by Kurdish militias who they fear 

are trying to ethnically cleanse the area, take over their villages 

and annex them for a greater Kurdistan. And we fear that American policies are not really paying attention to this. And U.S. reconstruction aid, which could be used to help support the villages, 

keep them safe in the north, are not going to them. 

75

I wish to mention our concern about the Constitution as well, 

that the Supreme Court is to follow a model found only in three 

places, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan; none of which bode 

well for freedom of religion. That is a Supreme Court model in 

which the Justices need not have a civil law education, but could 

be Shariah judges who would then find, under article II of the new 

Constitution, under the repugnancy law that states no law can be 

repugnant to Islam, would find that basic rights like religious freedom could be negated. 

We urge the United States to use its leverage to influence the 

amendment process, which is now, through an 11th-hour decision, 

made easier. 

India. The Indian Catholic Union reported that 200 episodes of 

anti-Christian violence occurred so far this year. While the Federal 

Government of India is now more responsive to the plight of minorities and there is an increase in judicial action against the perpetrators of violence, there is still a problem with the Sangh 

Parivar movement, which is a Hindu extremist movement. There 

is particular concern that they are raising money in the United 

States. We ask that they be checked by the Foreign Contribution 

Regulation Act of 1976 to prevent this extremist movement from 

raising money here to fund the majority of incidents there. 

I would just like to conclude by saying that the reports have very 

good, detailed, textured accounts of religious persecution of groups 

in Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan, but are weak on the individual 

dimension of religious freedom, that when you have a state-enforced religious law, individuals are not free to voice their individual beliefs. And in all three of these places, blasphemy laws are 

being used to to persecute Muslims themselves, those who wish to 

propose more moderate versions or discuss aspects of the law or aspects of their religion. Also, I should say that the individual dimension of religious freedom is not just a group right of worship, but 

an individual right. It also pertains to China. And we see the situation in China where a very brave individual has tried to protest 

forced abortions and then was arrested. I don’t know if he is a religious believer or not, but the fact that Mr. Chen was speaking out 

against coerced or forced abortions, and then was arrested for it 

and has disappeared into the Gulag, is really very troubling. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Shea, thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Shea follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. NINA SHEA, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR RELIGIOUS

FREEDOM, FREEDOM HOUSE

INTRODUCTION

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting Freedom House’s Center for Religious 

Freedom to testify at today’s hearings on the State Department’s Country Report 

on Religious Freedom. 

At the outset, I wish to express our deep appreciation for these important hearings, and for your dedication to ensuring that religious freedom concerns remain a 

force in U.S. foreign policy. Such oversight is vitally important both in mobilizing 

appropriate foreign policy tools by American policy makers, and in sending a powerful message to governments throughout the world that the American people are not 

indifferent to violations of religious freedom wherever they may occur. 

Religious freedom is pivotal to a free society. Thomas Jefferson called it the ‘‘first 

freedom.’’ It is enshrined in the first clause of the first amendment of the U.S. ConVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:21 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\111505\24596.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
76

stitution. And it is first in another sense: freedom of thought, conscience and religion is the prerequisite for the exercise of all other basic human rights. In theory 

and practice, free expression, freedom of press and freedom of association depend 

on the prior guarantee of a free conscience. The historical reality is that where religious freedom is denied, so too are other basic human rights. 

Religious freedom has two dimensions. It belongs to individuals and also to religious groups. It includes a person’s right to walk down the street wearing a cross, 

a yarmulke or a headscarf, or not to do so, and to express and live out one’s beliefs 

in society. It also includes the rights of groups to worship God as they wish in community, to run schools, hospitals and other institutions, to publish and possess sacred literature, and order their internal affairs. 

In recent decades, the institutional dimension of religious freedom has proved crucial in opening up social space and offering essential political protection for reformers in repressive societies as diverse as Poland, Chile, the Philippines and South Africa. Today, we see a new generation of dissidents claiming their individual rights 

to religious freedom—including courageous Iranian and Saudi reformers who are 

being imprisoned and silenced for crimes of ‘‘blasphemy’’ when they dissent from 

their governments’ policies. 

The fundamental nature of religious freedom found worldwide acceptance in the 

1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, it was above all the horror 

of the Nazi Holocaust against the Jewish people, a religious genocide as well as an 

ethnic one, that stirred support for it. In its preamble, the Declaration states that 

‘‘recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all 

members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in 

the world.’’ It is precisely this shared recognition of human dignity as the basis for 

religious freedom—and all human rights—that enables practical collaboration between believers of various faiths or no faith, despite irreconcilable differences regarding the ultimate source of human dignity. 

Religious freedom is as salient today as it was half a century ago. 

State-sponsored religious persecution—going far beyond even pervasive discrimination and bigotry—occurs today under three types of regimes: the remaining officially atheistic communist governments, such as China, North Korea, and Vietnam; 

repressive Islamist states, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan; and nationalist 

authoritarian states, such as Burma and Eritrea. These are the countries that have 

been officially designated by the U.S. State Department as ‘‘countries of particular 

concern’’ for their egregious, systematic, and continuing violations of religious freedom. In such countries only those who uphold government-approved orthodoxies—

religious or secular—are tolerated. Others risk torture, imprisonment, and even 

death. 

Despite its central importance historically, politically and socially, the issue of religious freedom has been the most neglected human right in U.S. foreign policy. Because of either lack of interest or an understanding of religion’s importance to most 

of the world’s people, America’s foreign policy establishment has typically failed to 

defend religious freedom as a principle or speak out on behalf of beleaguered believers. This is one reason why, for example, U.S. intelligence turned down a 1978 proposal to study the role of religion in Iran, calling it ‘‘mere sociology’’; a year later, 

the Islamic revolution in Tehran caught the United States unaware. 

In 1998, the U.S. Congress sought to correct this failure by passing overwhelmingly the International Religious Freedom Act or IRFA. One of its main purposes 

is to make the issue of religious freedom an integral part of the U.S. foreign policy 

agenda, in order to combat a ‘‘renewed and, in many cases, increasing assault in 

many countries around the world’’ against religious freedom. The promotion and 

protection of religious freedom abroad is now official U.S. policy. 

Religious freedom faces hard new challenges. Recent decades have seen the rise 

of extreme interpretations of Islamic rule that are virulently intolerant of other traditions within Islam, as well as of non-Muslims. Many in our policy world still find 

religious freedom too ‘‘sensitive’’ to raise. But since 9/11, the link between our own 

security and freedom, between our national interests and our ideals, has never been 

clearer. Winning the War on Terror turns on the battle of ideas and at its heart 

is the principle of religious freedom. 

The State Department Religious Freedom Report, numbering some eight hundred 

printed pages in length, constitutes the most detailed religious freedom compilation 

in the world. This year’s report reflects a monumental effort on the part of the Office of Religious Freedom. They and all the American Foreign Service officers 

throughout the world who contributed to it deserve to be commended. We will make 

critical comments about the Reports, but this should not obscure the fact that they 

are an important contribution to the field of human rights. 

77

CHINA

To a greater or lesser extent, China has repressed religion throughout the over 

fifty years of Communist Party rule. Its aim has been to make religion serve the 

interests of the communist state until it disappears from Chinese society. This remains the dominant view. Under the leadership of President Hu Jintao, Communist 

party policy regarding religion remains to ‘‘actively guide religion so that it can be 

adapted to socialist society.’’ In furtherance of this policy, the Chinese Communist 

Party Standing Committee instructed all government agencies in 2004 to ‘‘strengthen Marxist atheism research, propaganda and education’’ and to wipe out ‘‘the cultic 

organization of ‘Falungong’ and various pseudo-sciences and superstition and the 

new trend toward ‘Western hostile forces’ attempt to ‘westernize’ and ‘disintegrate’ 

China in the name of religion.’’

Unregistered Catholic, Protestant, Tibetan Buddhist, Muslim, and various Asian 

religious groups, such as Falun Gong, continue to report that many of their followers endure arrests, fines, imprisonment, and severe economic discrimination, and 

that some of their leaders and laymen have even been tortured and killed. According to the Catholic online news service, AsiaNews.it, in 2004 alone the Chinese government invested over $53 million to eliminate unregistered religious activities. 

Many unregistered places of worship have been shut down or bulldozed in recent 

years. In 2003, a 1,500 member unregistered church in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, was demolished despite peaceful protests by over 300 congregates. A report 

issued by the Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy based in Hong 

Kong, documented 392 temples and churches destroyed or forcibly converted into 

‘‘entertainment centers’’ by Chinese officials in 2003. 

China’s stringent birth-control campaign is objectionable on religious grounds to 

members of Christian and Muslim groups, among others. Women, restricted in the 

number of children they may bear, must seek state permission before becoming 

pregnant in a particular year. Compliance is coerced through steep fine; job loss; 

demolition of housing; denials of birth certificates; educational opportunities for children; forced abortion, sterilization and infanticide. The scope of China’s coercive 

population control policy was revealed in 2003 in Jeishi, Guangdong Province. In 

order to meet provincial quotas, ‘‘family planning’’ officials were directed to perform 

271 abortions, fit 818 women with Intrauterine Devices (IUD’s), and have 1,369 

women sterilized, all in a thirty-five day span. A blind Chinese activist, Chen 

Guancheng, who tried to organize a protest against coerced abortions, was arrested 

in September and placed under house arrest in Linyi, Shandong Province. 

Beijing controls the five ‘‘authorized’’ religions (Protestantism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Islam, and Taoism) by the State Administration for Religious Affairs (SARA, 

formerly the Religious Affairs Bureau) , which is controlled by the United Front 

Work Department, which is itself controlled by the Committee of the Communist 

Party. In turn, party officials by law must be atheists. SARA registers and controls 

all religious groups through the Three-Self Patriotic movement and the China 

Christian Council for Protestants, the Catholic Patriotic Association and Bishops 

Conference for Catholics, and similar patriotic associations for Buddhists, Muslims, 

and Taoists. 

The heightened crackdown stems from frustration and political insecurity as authorities realized the astonishing revival of religion throughout China, particularly 

through unregistered groups, is much larger than previously believed. The booming 

growth and potential cultural and political impact of house-church Christianity in 

China was documented in the 2003 book Jesus in Beijing and the documentary film 

The Cross. 

Along with the current crackdown, China’s government continues to push an aggressive public-relations campaign to convince the West that there is no religious 

persecution in China, that whatever incidents of repression occur are either the unauthorized acts of ‘‘overzealous cadres,’’ a ‘‘distortion of facts,’’ or else necessary 

measures against dangerous criminals, cultists, and practitioners of ‘‘abnormal activities.’’ China’s March 2005 repressive religion law was marketed to the West as 

a ‘‘paradigm shift’’ toward liberalizing religion policy. The March 2005 Religious Affairs Provisions provides incentives for registration such as greater property rights 

only for registered religious venues as well as the ability to operate orphanages, 

medical clinics, kindergartens, and other humanitarian initiatives. The new law further protects registered religious adherents by declaring that government officials 

who abuse their power in managing religious affairs are criminally liable. Those 

that refuse to register risk financial penalties, criminal punishment, and the wrath 

of government officials who are allowed to act with considerable discretion. 

Registration requires that both Catholic and Protestant churches desist from 

speaking about the Second Coming of Christ, the gifts of the Spirit, the story of CreVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:21 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\111505\24596.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
78

ation in Genesis, certain sections of the Catholic Catechism, and the evils of abortion. For Catholics, registration also means severing ties to the Vatican; submitting 

to bishops appointed by the communist government, not the Pope; and rejecting 

spiritual authority of the Pope. The ‘‘Patriotic’’ Protestant churches have to be organized in the same undifferentiated church body, as denominations are unrecognized 

within the Communist party management scheme. 

China has an unknown number of religious prisoners and detainees—unknown 

because the judicial and penal system is not transparent. One detainee is Catholic 

Bishop James Su Zhimin, who was arrested in Hebei in October 1997, after issuing 

an appeal to authorities for greater religious freedom for Roman Catholics. As of 

2005, Bishop Su has been imprisoned for over 27 years. According to reports, Bishop 

Su’s whereabouts were unknown until being seen at Hebei hospital under heavy 

guard in late 2003. He has not been seen since. Requests by the U.S. Commission 

on International Religious Freedom to meet with him were refused by Chinese officials. 

Another is Cai Zhuohua, a Protestant pastor in Beijing, who was sentenced in 

early November to three years in prison, along with two others, for printing and distributing Bibles. His lawyer, the prominent civil rights attorney Gao Zhisheng, who 

defended the religious freedom of Falun Gong members, was also punished this 

month by having his law firm shut down and his law license suspended. 

Also on November 4, the Vatican-linked news agency Zenit reported that two 

Catholic priests, Fr. Wang Xhow Fa and Fr. P. Paulus Shao Gu Min, were arrested 

after giving an interview to an Italian newspaper. 

Once supported by the government, since October 1999, Falun Gong has been officially banned by law as a ‘‘heretical cult.’’ The State Department reported that over 

100,000 Falun Gong practitioners have been detained since 1999. Overseas practitioners allege that over 1,000 have been killed for their beliefs by Chinese government officials, and many more brutally tortured. Repression has continued since the 

release of a 2004 directive from Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to ‘‘expand and deepen 

[the government’s] battle against cults.’’ Those found practicing Falun Gong are sent 

to ‘‘re-education through labor’’ camps for up to three years, without formal prosecution or trial. Others are sent directly to mental institutions and pressured to recant 

their beliefs. After a number of high profile public demonstrations by Falun Gong 

practitioners, China’s swift and severe measures have driven the spiritual movement deep underground. 

Tibetan Buddhists face persecution and open devotion to the Dalai Lama is considered a threat to ‘‘public order’’ by the authorities. The state aims to eradicate his 

influence, by tightly controlling religious institutions and schools and by creating 

parallel structures of authority within Tibetan Buddhism, as well as through harsh 

measures. The activities and education of monks and nuns are closely monitored. 

The Communist Party demands the right to approve the designation and training 

of all lamas thought to be reincarnate by Tibetan Buddhists. As the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom learned on its recent mission to China and 

Tibet, monks and nuns are required to renounce the Dalai Lama as the spiritual 

leader of Tibetan Buddhism. When asked why, government officials answered that 

the Dalai Lama represented a ‘‘splittist’’ threat and/or is a hindrance to economic 

modernization. The whereabouts of the young Panchen Lama remain unknown after 

being seized by Chinese authorities upon receiving recognition by the Dalai Lama. 

Tibetan minors are generally not permitted to receive religious education, except in 

rare cases. 

As with the other religions, the Chinese government tightly controls and represses 

Uighur Muslims’ religious activities. The government restricts the building of 

mosques, the training and appointment of religious leaders, edits orthodox versions 

of the Koran and the content of sermons and fatwas. Mosques that resist the Communist Party’s ideological control are often closed or destroyed. In order to ensure 

political loyalty toward the Chinese Communist Party, all local imams are forced 

to attend yearly political ‘‘re-education’’ seminars. Novel and offensive doctrines 

such as the introduction of female imams have been imposed on the Uighur Islamic 

community by the Chinese government. 

The prohibition against religious education of minors remains particularly rigid 

among Uighurs, despite the March 2005 assurance from China’s Foreign Minister 

that religious education of minors is tolerated in China. 

CUBA

In Cuba, human rights, including those pertaining to religion, continue to be repressed. The Castro regime denies the proclaimed constitutional right of its citizens 

to freedom of religion. This is the case especially towards those churches and deVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:21 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\111505\24596.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
79

nominations that choose to remain independent of the State-sponsored Cuban Council of Churches. 

This repression has continued since the period covered by the Report. The Catholic Church has made repeated public complaints against the Cuban government’s inaction in opening up the sphere of religious freedom to the level advocated by Pope 

John Paul II during his visit in 1998. In early September 2005, after the Cuban ambassador to the Vatican accused the Catholic hierarchy of serving the interests of 

the US and the exile community in Miami, Cardinal Jaime Ortega publicly rejected 

his remarks as ‘‘truly outrageous’’ and ‘‘insulting.’’ A few days earlier that month, 

the government had arbitrarily denied permission in several areas of Cuba to publicly celebrate the feast of Our Lady of Charity of El Cobre, the patron saint of 

Cuba, on the grounds that they were ‘‘not convenient,’’ and, in other cases, arguing 

that ‘‘there was no tradition’’ of processions in the effected locations. In March and 

September 2005, the Church of Pinar del Rio reported burglaries that it suspected 

were instigated by the Cuban authorities. In October 2005, the Bishop of Holguı ́n 

province denounced in an open letter to the government repeated attacks against 

a deacon in his province, who suffered two ‘‘Actos de Repudio’’ (acts of repudiation) 

and other acts of intimidation by thugs and officials. The deacon is active in the 

Varela Project, an initiative seeking political and social change in Cuba. 

In a distressing sign of increased religious control, sweeping new regulations restricting religious meetings in private homes went into effect in October 2005. 

Protestant house church leaders reportedly fear that these could severely curtail 

their ability to meet for worship. Services that have not been authorized are banned, 

while those organizing approved services must submit the names of and signed approval from owners of the house churches, days and times when services are to be 

held and the number of worshippers. The full name and place of residence of the 

pastor and details on his theological education must also be given. In addition, no 

more than one church of any one denomination can exist within two kilometers 

(1.25 miles) of each other. Foreigners cannot attend house churches in mountainous 

areas, and they are required to obtain specific permission to attend churches elsewhere. Violations will lead to the church being closed and both the leader and the 

foreigner being fined $1,000. 

EGYPT

Egypt is home to the indigenous Coptic Christian community, the largest nonMuslim group in the Middle East, as well as small Jewish, Bahai and other religious communities. 

The religious freedom of Egypt’s some 10 million strong Coptic Christian community, while generally able to practice its religion, is threatened in varying degrees 

by terrorism from extreme Islamic groups, by the abusive practices of local police 

and security forces, and by discriminatory and restrictive Egyptian Government 

policies. 

Material vilifying Jews and Baha ́’ı ́s appears regularly in the state-controlled and 

semi-official media. Human rights groups also cite persistent, virulent anti-Semitism in the education system, which the Egyptian government has not adequately 

addressed. Though the government maintains control over all media, it allowed the 

airing of a virulently anti-Semitic series based on the forged ‘‘Protocols of the Elders 

of Zion’’ on a private television channel in recent years. 

In Egypt, ID cards require a statement of religious affiliation. Moreover, the system allows only for one of the three recognized religions of Egypt—Islam, Christianity, or Judaism—to be entered. All members of the Egyptian Baha ́’ı ́s community 

face the prospect of being left wholly without proper ID Cards by the year’s end—

a situation in which they would essentially be denied all rights of citizenship, and, 

indeed, would be unable to withdraw money from the bank, to get medical treatment at public hospitals, or to purchase food from state stores. 

The Egypt Report gives an extensive review of the problems faced by Coptic 

Christians in building or repairing churches, but is weak on other problems faced 

by Copts. It states there were ‘‘reports of forced conversions of Coptic women and 

girls to Islam by Muslim men’’ but that ‘‘reports of such cases are disputed.’’ Reports 

of such cases are usually disputed and, no doubt, some are false. However, there 

are credible reports of kidnapping and forced conversion. On March 23, 2004, the 

Coptic Pope, Shenouda III, publicly condemned the kidnapping and forced conversion of Christian girls, particularly highlighting their abduction from supermarkets. 

It is very unusual for the Pope to speak out publicly on this type of issue (he has 

previously been under house arrest for remarks critical of the government), so this 

may indicate that it is escalating. This underscores the need for a transparent, independent investigation into reports of various instances of religious persecution. 

80

The Report often uses excessively mild language. For example, it states that there 

are ‘‘occasional reports that police harass Christians who had converted from Islam.’’ 

‘‘Harassment’’ is much too weak a word here to describe the fact that such converts 

have been arrested, imprisoned, interrogated and tortured, and that in November 

2003, one such convert died in police custody. Converts also fear attack and even 

murder by Muslim radicals. The Report states: ‘‘In contrast to previous years, there 

were no reports of authors facing trial or charges related to writings or statements 

considered heretical during the reporting period.’’ This is correct but fails to emphasize that writers face even greater pressure from extremist violence outside the government. For example, on July 13, 2005, a well known Muslim Egyptian writer, 

Sayyid al-Qimni, received a message from extremists saying that unless he renounced his views he would be killed. On July 16, he announced that he was recanting his past work and would forgo future writing assignments. Because of his more 

liberal Islamic views and his criticism of Islamic theology, he has been called an 

‘‘apostate’’ (one who has forsaken Islam) by those of more conservative views. In his 

statement, he referred to the fate of a previous Egyptian writer in a similar situation, Farag Fouda, who was shot and killed in 1992, and believed that the same 

future would await him unless he renounced his beliefs. 

It also omits some highly significant cases. For example, in early 2005, Gaseer 

Mohamed Mahmoud, who converted to Christianity from Islam in 2003, was tortured by police, who, among other things, pulled out his toenails, and, on January 

10, 2005, with the assistance of state security police, was forcibly confined to Cairo’s 

El-Khanka mental hospital after his adoptive parents discovered his conversion. He 

was kept in solitary confinement, put in a water filled room, beaten, whipped, and 

told that he would be confined until he renounced his new faith. After international 

publicity he was released on June 9, but was forced into hiding. On April 6, 2005, 

Baha al-Aqqad, another recent convert to Christianity from Islam, was arrested on 

the grounds that he had ‘‘defamed Islam’’ and held in Doqqi prison. After 45 days 

he was transferred to Tora prison in Cairo, typically a prison for political prisoners. 

Reports that we receive from Egypt indicate that Copts have felt under increasing 

religious pressure. Since the State Department Report was compiled, this tension 

has exploded. On October 13, 2005, a news report in the newspaper Al-Midan

claimed that a newly discovered CD of a play performed in St. George’s Church in 

Alexandria two years ago showed that the play ‘‘insulted Islam.’’ Subsequently, a 

mob of at least 5,000 people surrounded the church. There have been riots, with 

four people dead and ninety injured, including a nun who was stabbed. Seven other 

churches in Alexandria have been attacked, and one church in Cairo was also surrounded by a mob. Seven Coptic businesses in Alexandria were attacked. Extremist 

websites have published death threats against Coptic Pope Shenouda and against 

priests in Alexandria. Coptic houses in Alexandria were marked by unknown people 

with a cross as a sign that they are owned by Christians and it is generally believed 

that this was to identify them for possible subsequent attack. The Egyptian government needs to answer questions about who instigated the violence; whether it organized or spontaneous; whether the perpetrators of the violence are being identified 

and brought to justice; and what Egyptian authorities are doing to prevent such incidents in the future. 

The utter failure of Egypt to bring the guilty to justice in the murder case of over 

20 Copts in January 2000 in the town of Al-Kosheh can only be understood as a 

sign that Copts in Egypt can be attacked and even killed with impunity. It is now 

incumbent on Egypt prove that this is not so. 

Brave leaders who are committed to individual civil and political freedoms exist 

within Egyptian society. Saad Eddin Ibrahim and Ayman Nour are two, but they 

are harassed and punished through imprisonment and intimidation. Mubarak’s destructive policies are leading to the radicalization of its society. 

INDIA

This month, the All India Catholic Union reported that 200 episodes of anti-Christian violence have occurred so far in 2005. The 2005 Report’s Executive Summary 

highlights India’s ‘‘state neglect . . . of abuses against religious groups’’ while praising the country for ‘‘significant improvements in the promotion of religious freedom.’’ 

While the Federal Government has been more responsive to the plight of minorities 

and there has been an increase in judicial action against persecutors and steps 

taken to redress the atrocities in Gujarat, we are concerned about the continued 

presence and growth of extremist Hindu organizations that use violence against religious minorities. 

In particular, the ‘‘Sangh Parivar’’ is an unregistered international network of organizations that raises money in the United States and Europe to advance a radical 

81

Hindu agenda involving the eradication of all minority religions. The 1976 Foreign 

Contribution Regulation Act, mentioned in every State Department Religious Freedom report, requires monitoring and registration of all foreign-funded organizations 

and has been used by the state against Christian and Muslim organizations. Yet 

reports indicate that the Sangh Parivar has eluded FCRA requirements and continues to facilitate the transfer of tax-deductible US dollars from extremist Hindu 

organizations in the United States to violent activists in India. 

Allowing the Sangh Parivar to continue its activities while pursuing action 

against individual perpetrators of atrocities against religious minorities undermines 

the beneficial attempts by the United States and India to work for greater respect 

for religious freedom in India. The Sangh Parivar is the movement most responsible 

for atrocities in India, including the Gujarat riots. The United States and India 

should formally investigate the funds and activities of the Sangh Parivar and the 

organizations under its umbrella, including the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh 

(RSS) and the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP). 

IRAN

The Report’s discussion of Iran is detailed and insightful. It is especially thorough 

in analyzing the treatment of the various non-Muslim minorities, the Christians, 

Jews, Zoroastrians and Baha ́’ı ́s, as well as the Sunni and Sufi Muslim communities. 

It also correctly discusses in the context of religious freedom the Shiite regime’s 

harsh treatment of dissidents for the ‘‘crime of thinking,’’ as one Iranian Shiite dissident called it, and the denial of equal treatment under the law to women, as well 

as minorities. 

Since the Report was compiled, Iran’s President has threatened Israel with eradication. This is shocking but hardly a new position for Iran. The Report should include in its reporting an analysis of the official speech and educational materials 

and other publications of the regime to determine the extent and nature of official 

expressions of religious hatred and extremism. A regime in which the law allows 

the spilling of Bahai blood with impunity and where Christian and Jewish grocery 

shop owners are required to post their religion on their store fronts is certain to include systemic bigotry in its curriculum and official propaganda. The 9/11 Commission makes clear that the indoctrination in religious hostility and enmity toward the 

other is a key challenge in defeating Islamic terror. It should be examined in this 

Report. 

Rule by the clerical elite in Iran has also undermined democratic institutions, including the legislature and the media. The Report should examine how the Guardian Council and sharia courts, comprised of men who claim to know Divine Will, 

directly conflict with democratic processes and contradict the democratic principle 

that power resides in the people. As neighboring Iraq establishes its new order and 

grapples with the role of Islam in government, it is crucially important for the 

United States to understand the problems posed to democracy itself by sharia rule 

in Iran. 

IRAQ

Iraq’s Christians and other non-Muslim minorities are being driven out of their 

ancestral homeland by a devastating wave of persecution and targeted discrimination and intimidation by both Islamic extremists and Kurdish militants. 

Tens of thousands of Iraq’s nearly one million ChaldoAssyrians, as the indigenous 

cultural and linguistic ethnic group of Christians is called, have fled into exile over 

the past two years. The State Department’s Religion Reports state that up to a 

quarter of a million have left their homes for security in other parts of the country. 

Their leaders fear that, like the Iraqi Jews—who accounted for a third of Iraq’s population until facing relentless persecution in the middle of the last century—they 

may leave en masse. Though many Iraqis, particularly moderates, suffer violence, 

the ChaldoAssyrians, along with the smaller non-Muslim minorities of Sabean 

Mandeans and Yizidis, may be as a group all but eradicated from Iraq. Their exodus 

began in earnest in August 2004 after the start of a terrorist bombing campaign 

against their churches. With additional church bombings around Christmas time 

last year, and a series of targeted kidnappings, beheadings, and assassinations 

throughout the year, hundreds more Christian families escaped in fear to Jordan 

and Syria. 

They also worry that they are experiencing an ethnic-cleansing campaign by 

Kurds, with whom they live in close physical proximity in the north. Some Christian 

and non-Muslim villages, along with the villages of the Shabaks, a separate ethnic 

Muslim off-shoot, have been denied essential infrastructure projects and have been 

deprived of American reconstruction aid by Kurdish leaders and poorly adminisVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:21 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\111505\24596.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
82

trated U.S. programs that favor the Kurds. The aim of the Kurdish leaders appears 

to be to annex these ancestral villages of non-Kurdish peoples. 

Though Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Sistani has denounced the attacks against the 

Christians, the persecution has not abated, as the State Department Report amply 

details. The ChaldoAssyrians, along with the Mandeans, Yizidis, and Shabaks, have 

endured much throughout the last century in Iraq, including brutal Arabization and 

Islamization campaigns. But this current period may see their last stand as cohesive 

communities. 

Should the ChaldoAssyrian community disappear from Iraq, it would mean the 

end of their Aramaic language (spoken by Jesus), and their customs, rites, and culture. A unique part of Christian patrimony would disappear along with this firstcentury church. The United States would have presided over the destruction of one 

of the world’s oldest Christian communities. Its reverberations would be keenly felt 

beyond Iraq’s borders. If the democratic project of Iraq ends in dismal failure for 

the ChaldoAssyrians, the future will be bleak for all the historic churches of the 

Middle East. 

Further loss of ChaldoAssyrian influence in Iraq would also have dire implications 

for Iraq itself and for American foreign policy. The ChaldoAssyrians are a disproportionately skilled and educated group, and they also possess that increasingly scarce 

trait in the Middle East: the virtue of toleration. They are a natural political bloc 

for building a democracy with minority protections and individual rights. Their presence bolsters Muslim moderates who claim religious pluralism as a rationale for 

staving off governance by Islamic sharia law. 

It is in the direct political interest of the United States to keep the 

ChaldoAssyrians, the Mandeans, the Yizidis and the Shabaks in Iraq. 

Though Iraq’s new Constitution represents a milestone toward the creation of the 

Arab world’s only electoral democracy, those of us who work to defend religious freedom internationally are deeply troubled by it. We are concerned that it may be the 

first step in creating what is called an ‘‘illiberal democracy,’’ or even in undermining 

democracy altogether. We fear the powerful role given to Islam in the constitution—

a role that is likely to negate the positive language on religious freedom and other 

individual human rights. 

The new constitution fails to guarantee the fundamental human rights and freedoms contained in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 

that are consistent with America’s core values and President Bush’s articulated foreign policy goals. 

Instead, it sets forth two competing and diametrically opposed visions of society: 

one based on individual rights and principles of equality, and the other grounded 

in a sharia (Islamic law) regime of group rights, in which rights are conditioned on 

a person’s membership in a discriminatory hierarchy of groups (male or female, 

Muslim or non-Muslim, etc.), and where the basic rights of all individuals are subordinated to the group. 

The provisions of the bill of rights are subject to ambiguities and contradictions 

contained elsewhere in the constitution. For example, the carefully crafted provisions asserting rights to religious freedom and equality before the law are placed 

in doubt by the repugnancy clause of Article 2, which states that ‘‘no law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established’’ (in contrast, Article 

2’s vague language that no law may contradict ‘‘the principles of democracy’’ and 

the ‘‘rights and freedoms stipulated in this constitution’’ is self-referential: it simply 

says that unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional). 

The constitution leaves open the crucial question of how to reconcile these conflicting political ideologies—one based on individual freedoms and rights and the 

equality of all, and the other based on ensuring that society conforms to religious 

interpretations that discriminate according to gender and religion or belief. 

Under Article 89, the Supreme Court will have the important role of ‘‘interpreting 

the provisions of the constitution,’’ and ultimately settling this defining question. 

Hence, it is additional cause for great concern that, under Article 89, the supreme 

court is to include a yet to be determined number of ‘‘experts in Islamic jurisprudence,’’ as well as of judges who are ‘‘law experts.’’

In specifically requiring the supreme court to include sharia experts who need not 

have an education in civil law, the new constitution follows a supreme-court model 

found only in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. The first official act of the Afghan supreme court was to press blasphemy charges against the only female member of President Karzai’s cabinet after she criticized sharia rule. Since then, it has 

ruled to ban all cinema and female vocalists. Sharia judges in Iran rig elections, and 

in Saudi Arabia have ruled that democracy itself is ‘‘unIslamic.’’ Clearly much more 

is at stake than even the rights of Iraq’s non-Muslim minorities and women. 

83

Article 5 of the new Iraq constitution claims that ‘‘The law is sovereign. The people are the source of authorities and its legitimacy.’’ But under Article 89, ‘‘experts 

in Islamic jurisprudence’’—that is, those men of the religious elite who claim to 

know Divine Will—may well be the ones who determine the direction of the state. 

The new constitution is deceptive in asserting that its human rights provisions 

are ‘‘guarantees’’—since the actual status of basic rights is left to future decisions 

by sharia judges, who may decide that they conflict with their version of Islam and 

thus are null and void. 

The eleventh-hour agreement reached after the Sunnis threatened to vote ‘‘no’’ in 

the constitutional referendum will facilitate amendments to the constitution. The 

administration should use its considerable leverage—leverage that was effectively 

used to secure a federal form of government for the Kurds and concessions for the 

Sunnis—to require civil-law education for all the judges who serve on the supreme 

court, and require other such amendments to ensure that religious freedom and 

other fundamental human rights are finally guaranteed in the country’s founding 

document. The U.S. must also ensure that American aid is not discriminatorily applied according to ethnic and religious identities and that it not be used to further 

ethnic cleansing in either the north or the south of the country. 

NORTH KOREA

As the State Department’s Religion Report records, though reliable information is 

difficult to obtain, all evidence shows that North Korea continues to be one of the 

most religiously repressive regimes on earth. For example, the Report states, ‘‘There 

is evidence of the execution of approximately 60–70 individuals in late 2004 and 

early 2005. Unconfirmed reports allege that the reasons for execution included, in 

a few cases, contact with missionaries and other foreigners while in China.’’

Later today, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom will release 

a first-of-its-kind study on the conditions of freedom of religion and belief in North 

Korea. To carry out this study, David Hawk, author of the acclaimed ‘‘Gulag Study’’ 

on North Korea, interviewed dozens of North Korean escapees currently residing in 

South Korea. The interviews have yielded the following information: All of the 

North Koreans interviewed say that there is no freedom of thought, conscience or 

belief in North Korea. All report, in fact, that it is absolutely prohibited. They have 

been taught from youth that ‘‘religion is an opiate.’’ The subjects described an official state ideology known as ‘‘Kim-Il-Sungism,’’ which is taught in school, promulgated on television, and indoctrinated through special Revolutionary Thought Study 

Halls with mandatory weekly attendance. None had ever seen churches in North 

Korea. Most did not know of the churches in Pyongyang. 

The North Korean Human Rights Act, approved by Congress last year, provides 

for increased funding of pro-democracy groups and human rights organizations that 

actively aid North Korean refugees. It also streamlines the process through which 

North Koreans can seek refuge in the United States. Resources have also been earmarked for radio stations that transmit freedom-oriented broadcasts into North 

Korea, hopefully bypassing government censors. The U.S. Administration should 

make full use of these powers. 

So far, in the six-party talks concerning North Korea’s nuclear program, South 

Korea, China, Japan, Russia, as well as the United States have resisted adding 

other topics, especially human rights in North Korea to the agenda. Given the urgency of the North’s nuclear threat and potential for proliferation, this reluctance 

is understandable, but it is a grave mistake. A wide range of religious groups and 

other human rights organizations in the U.S. are combining to call for a Helsinkistyle regional security pact that would include monitoring humanitarian aid, resettlement of refugees, family reunification, and religious freedom. The U.S. should 

also push China to honor its obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and 

its 1967 Protocol, including giving temporary asylum for refugees, providing the 

U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees unrestricted access to North Koreans in 

China, ensuring that refugees are not forcibly returned, and allowing greater access 

by international humanitarian organizations. 

The U.S. now has a new Special Envoy to North Korea, Jay Lefkowitz. This is 

an important development that will signal the administration’s intensified attention 

to human rights concerns in North Korea. We eagerly await a report on his efforts. 

PAKISTAN

The Religious Freedom Report reports the oppression of the country’s religious minorities—Hindus, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis, Ahmadis, Ismailis, 

Zikris and Baha ́’ı ́s—especially under the country’s blasphemy laws. This repression 

is ongoing. 

84

On November 12, 2005, in Basti Asyia, Sangla Hill village, in the Province of Punjab, a Muslim mob burned and ransacked churches, Christian homes and schools, 

and destroyed Bibles, Christian books and crosses after Yousaf Masih, an illiterate 

janitor, who is a Christian, was charged with blasphemy for burning discarded documents that allegedly included copies of the Koran. 

However, we are concerned that, apart from brief allusions to the problems faced 

by liberal Muslims, the Report does not adequately consider the effects of restrictions on religious freedom on the Muslim population as a whole. Individual Muslims 

as well as minority groups suffer from these grave restrictions. As the Report notes, 

between 1986 and 2004, 634 people were accused of blasphemy: 309 Muslims, 236 

Ahmadis, 81 Christians, and 8 Hindus. 

In Pakistan, where the political and legal order is closely tied to a prescribed religious orthodoxy, political debate and dissent is necessarily closely tied to religious 

debate and dissent. Hence, without religious freedom, including religious speech, 

then there can be no effective political freedom. However, freedom of speech is constitutionally limited by ‘‘reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the 

glory of Islam.’’ Similarly, blasphemy laws provide the death penalty for ‘‘defiling 

Islam or its prophets,’’ and 10 years in prison for ‘‘insulting the religious feelings 

of any citizen.’’ Criticism of the blasphemy laws and the constitutional provisions 

concerning Islam can itself be considered blasphemy. Since these provisions are so 

broadly and vaguely worded, they can be used to repress any call for political and 

religious reform. If political dissent and debate may be treated as crimes against 

God, then genuine democratic and religious reform is closed off. The problem is compounded in the Northwest Territory where hardline sharia is being adopted at the 

provincial level. 

While the Government enacted a law in January 2005 that requires senior police 

officials to investigate any blasphemy charges before a complaint is filed, the laws 

themselves remain as a form of state-sponsored repression against its own people. 

Hence we are concerned that the U.S. Government has not designated Pakistan as 

a Country of Particular Concern, as was recommended by the U.S. Commission on 

International Religious Freedom. It should do so until the blasphemy laws are repealed and those accused of blasphemy are released from prison. 

SAUDI ARABIA

As the Religious Freedom Report states, there is no religious freedom in Saudi 

Arabia and everyone there, Muslim or not, must obey the rules of the extreme 

sharia of the kingdom’s established religion, the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam. 

The Saudi state indoctrinates its nationals from an early age in the Wahhabi ideology of zero tolerance for the ‘‘other.’’ Government textbooks and publications teach 

that it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate Christians and Jews and warn 

against imitating, befriending, or helping them in any way, or taking part in their 

festivities and celebrations. The state teaches a Nazi-like hatred for Jews, treats the 

forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion as historical fact, and avows that the Muslim’s 

duty is to eliminate the state of Israel. 

The substantial number of Christians and other non-Muslims among the quarter 

of the kingdom’s population who are foreign workers suffer greatly from the denial 

of religious freedom. The State Report provides many examples. An Indian Christian pastor who served the Indian expatriate community for a quarter of century 

in Saudi Arabia was one of those arrested, threatened, abused and humiliated this 

year for worshiping as a Christian; he was expelled from the country a few weeks 

ago. 

But Christians, Hindus and non-Muslims are not the only ones to suffer: Saudi 

Arabia’s nationals, by law Muslim, find that a broad range of their freedoms are 

limited because of the state’s monopoly on religious expression. 

For example, Muslims who follow the Sufi and Shiite traditions are viewed as heretical dissidents and viciously condemned and discriminated against by the state. 

Regarding those who convert out of Islam, the Saudi Ministry of Islamic affairs explicitly asserts in publications Freedom House has acquired that they ‘‘should be 

killed.’’ Muslims who object to even particular tenets of Wahhabism, such as advocates of greater religious tolerance, also are viewed as the ‘‘other’’ and condemned 

as ‘‘infidels.’’ Under Saudi law, such ‘‘blasphemers’’ and ‘‘apostates’’ from Islam can 

be sentenced to death. 

Political reformers, too, are crushed on religious grounds. Until being released 

earlier this year, three Saudi professors had languished for over a year in prison 

after proposing that the country adopt a written constitution. Among other charges, 

their terminology was denounced as un-Islamic or ‘‘Western.’’ State publications condemn democracy itself as un-Islamic. As made explicit in the Saudi state documents 

85

we collected here, they instill contempt for America because the United States is 

ruled by ‘‘infidel’’ legislated law, rather than Wahhabi-style Islamic law. 

A direct consequence of there being no religious freedom is that every Saudi 

woman is forced by the state to conform to Wahhabi religious edicts restricting 

dress, transportation, movement, due-process rights, and the ability to participate 

in civic life. Earlier this year, Freedom House’s Center for Religious Freedom released a report based on a year-long study of the radically intolerant Wahhabi ideology contained in documents spread, published, or otherwise generated by the government of Saudi Arabia and found in the United States. Extremist Wahhabism is 

Saudi Arabia’s state religion; it is also the Saudi government’s aim to propagate it 

and have it replace traditional and moderate interpretations of Islam worldwide, including within the United States. 

In one example, a publication for the ‘‘Immigrant Muslim’’ bearing the words 

‘‘Greetings from the Cultural Department’’ of the Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington, D.C., gave detailed instructions on how to ‘‘hate’’ the Christian and Jew: 

Never greet them first. Never congratulate the infidel on his holiday. Never imitate 

the infidel. Do not become a naturalized citizen of the United States. Do not wear 

a graduation gown because this imitates the infidel. The opening fatwa of another 

a book distributed by the embassy that was published by the Saudi Air Force responds to a question about a Muslim preacher in a European mosque who taught 

that it is not right to condemn Jews and Christians as infidels. The Saudi state cleric’s reply emphatically rebukes the Muslim cleric: ‘‘He who casts doubts about their 

infidelity leaves no doubt about his.’’

Within worldwide Sunni Islam, followers of Saudi Arabia’s extremist Wahhabi 

ideology remain a distinct minority. This is evident from the millions of Muslims 

who have chosen to make America their home and are upstanding, law-abiding citizens and neighbors. It was just such concerned Muslims who first brought these 

publications to the attention of Freedom House. 

The Saudi state’s propagation of Wahhabi extremism is more than hate speech; 

it is a totalitarian ideology of religious hatred that can incite to violence. 

The State Religion Report should address the issue of how the Saudi state’s enforcement of one extreme interpretation of Islam impacts religious freedom for 

Sunni Muslims in greater detail. The individual dimension of religious freedom 

should be given emphasis in State’s analysis. The content of Saudi textbooks should 

be routinely reviewed for anti-Semitism and religious hatred in the Religious Freedom Report. 

Disturbingly, the State Religious Report on Saudi Arabia, in its brief summary 

of the country, puts forth routine declarations that the Saudis have ‘‘made some efforts to improve the climate of tolerance,’’ and that they have ‘‘removed some disparaging references to other religious traditions from educational materials,’’ as well as 

assertions that the Saudi government has ‘‘continued a campaign to foster greater 

moderation and tolerance of religious diversity,’’ and ‘‘stated publicly that its policy 

is to allow non-Muslims to worship privately.’’ These assertions are so far off mark 

they should be omitted from the summary altogether or unequivocally refuted for 

what they are—Saudi state disinformation. 

For these reasons, we believe that the Report on Saudi Arabia is possibly the 

weakest in the State Department’s compilation, employing spin rather than letting 

the facts speak for themselves. It is all the more distressing because the expansion 

of civil and political freedoms in the kingdom hinges on religious freedom. Furthermore, since the 9/11 terrorist attacks—and the discovery that two thirds of the hijackers were Saudis—Saudi state ideology has become a matter of U.S. national security. 

SRI LANKA

The Government of Sri Lanka has for years faced intense pressure from militant 

Buddhists demanding a solution to the ‘‘problem’’ of a perceived growth in minority 

religions in this overwhelmingly Buddhist country. These militants are reported to 

have perpetrated over 200 attacks against religious minorities, largely Christians, 

over the past two years, yet the Government of Sri Lanka has failed to prevent the 

violence or to prosecute the perpetrators. Even faith-based relief efforts, such as 

those by World Vision, have been targeted with violent attacks. 

Intended or not, the Government’s toleration of violence against religious minorities has encouraged radical Buddhists to propose religious discriminatory laws. On 

May 6, 2005, the nationalist JHU party introduced an anti-conversion bill into Parliament which would punish religious minorities with up to seven years in prison 

for the crime of ‘‘attempted conversion.’’ This bill is currently pending in Parliamentary committee. On June 27, 2005, the government of Sri Lanka also unveiled its 

86

official version of an anti-conversion law, which may be introduced into Parliament 

at any time. On October 4, 2005, the JHU attempted to reintroduce a discredited 

constitutional amendment to establish Buddhism as the state religion and revoke 

citizens’ freedom to attempt to ‘‘convert a Buddhist into other forms of worship or 

spread other forms of worship among the Buddhists.’’ Such proposals have increased 

tensions and have prompted significant public protests from a broad array of religious groups. On October 26, 2005, the Sri Lankan Catholic Bishops’ Conference, 

in a statement on the upcoming presidential election, said that ‘‘In the last few 

years there has been a growing tendency of religious extremism and intolerance infecting and contaminating our society to its detriment. . . .The basic rights and freedoms in relation to our religious practice have come under great threat from proposed draconian legislation in the form of an anti-conversion bill.’’

The U.S. State Department has shown increased concern about these developments. It must continue to press Sri Lanka, one of the first recipients of Millennium 

Challenge Account development funds, to respect religious freedom. 

VIETNAM

Vietnam again has rightly been designated as one of the world’s most egregious 

violators of religious freedom. However, I disagree with Secretary of State 

Condoleezza Rice’s assessment that religious freedom in Vietnam has improved in 

the past year, and that, if it continues, State should remove Vietnam from its list 

of Countries of Particular Concern. 

Vietnam’s Communist government originally set out to eradicate religion. After 

the collapse of its patron, the Soviet Union, in 1991, and wanting to attract Western 

trade and capital, the regime eased religious repression while continuing control 

over religious activity. Now it tends to imprison, torture, and harass only those believers who are outside the international spotlight such as the Hmong and other 

ethnic Christians from remote villages, as well as those of the Cao Dai and Hao Hao 

religions that have few proponents in the West. Better connected and/or hierarchical 

religions, such as Catholicism, urban Protestantism, and Buddhism suffer more sophisticated and hidden methods. These include prohibitions on printing and distribution religious literature; confiscating and controlling places of worship; refusing 

to grant independent churches with official legal standing; restricting seminaries, 

religious schools and other institutions from propagating religious teachings; and restricting faith-based charities. 

In May, the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom announced an agreement that Vietnam would release twelve prisoners of conscience, 

fully implement Vietnam’s November 15 legislation on religious freedom and its 

February 4 ‘‘Special Instruction Concerning Protestantism,’’ and ensure that local 

authorities ‘‘strictly and completely adhere to the new legislation,’’ especially with 

respect to the practice of forcing prisoners to recant their faith. 

However, Vietnam’s repression of tribal Christians has continued since the agreement; leaders of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV) continue to be 

harassed and detained, and there is no legal framework for the UBCV, the Hoa Hao, 

Cao Dai, and others to register with the government and operate independently 

with leaders of their own choosing. There are an estimated 100 religious prisoners 

in jail or under some form of house arrest for religious activity and hundreds of 

churches, home worship centers, and meeting places remain closed. 

One has seen the brutal and ongoing suppression of ethnic Montagnards who 

marched for land rights and religious freedom in April of 2004, the jailing of Pham 

Song Hong and others for posting articles critical of the government on the Internet, 

the silencing and jailing of journalists for exposing corruption, and the mass arrests 

of Buddhist monks from the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV), despite 

promises by Prime Minister Khai that pressure on the group would cease. UBCV 

monk Thich Thien Minh, released in February after sixteen years in prison, did not 

see many improvements in human rights and religious freedom. He said, ‘‘I have 

exchanged my small prison for a bigger one.’’

The Center recently obtained and released a secret document issued on February 

25, 2005 by a local Vietnamese communist party branch revealing the continuation 

of an official policy (also previously released by Freedom House) of forcing Hmong 

Christians to give up their faith and of ‘‘eradicating’’ Christian meeting places. The 

document, from the Muong Nhe District Party Office (Task force 184, No. 30–KH/

184, in Dien Bien Province), describes a comprehensive campaign by local Party and 

government officials, in partnership with the police and military, that was scheduled 

to have been waged from March 2 through June 30, 2005. The document calls for 

‘‘mobilizing the masses to fight and resist religion and religious belief, and eradicate 

places complicating public security,’’ that is to say, churches. Cadres will ‘‘get the 

87

people to give up their religion and return to their traditional beliefs and customs. . . . and inspect the areas not yet infiltrated with the Vang Chu [the Hmong 

term for God] religion so it does not ‘‘infect other places.’’ Village leaders would be 

required to ‘‘to develop regulations and pledge forms’’ to be signed by those pressured to give up their faith. The document gives no consideration to the fact that 

Hmong Christians are identified with the legally-recognized Evangelical Church of 

Vietnam (North), and that the church had issued certificates of acceptances to 981, 

mostly Hmong, ethnic minority congregations as of September 30, 2005. 

Last month, the Center received new reports showing that Vietnamese officials 

are continuing a campaign of violent repression against ethnic Hmong Christians. 

According to these reports, security forces cracked down on Protestants in the Chi 

Ca Commune, Xin Man District of the Ha Giang Province in late August and early 

September. In an attempt to get them to renounce their faith, officials reportedly 

imprisoned seven local Christians and tortured them with electric batons and beatings so vicious that two suffered broken bones. Following the Center’s public protest 

about this incident, Vietnam’s Foreign Ministry denied the report. 

On November 10, the Center released photographs appearing to confirm the torture. The men in the photographs have been identified to the Center by sources in 

Vietnam as Vang Seo Dung and Ly Van Dung, the two victims who were reported 

to be most severely injured in the raids. The physical trauma shown in the photos 

is consistent with our previous report that several Hmong Christians were severely 

beaten with electric batons by border patrol police and local defense forces, resulting 

in a broken rib in one case and a fractured sternum in another, as well as other 

injuries. 

The Report emphasizes that a recent reform measure is the 2004 ‘‘Ordinance on 

Religion & Belief.’’ The example of apartheid South Africa shows that the rule of 

law may not result in improved rights and freedoms without a fundamental ideological acceptance of freedom by the state. In short, the Ordinance is being touted by 

the State Department as an advance, but without the political will to respect religious freedom, the state is more likely to employ it as yet another tool of repression 

against religious believers, especially those, like the Hmong, outside the international spotlight. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we would like to thank you holding these important 

hearing and for this opportunity to appear before you.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Malinowski. 

STATEMENT OF MR. TOM MALINOWSKI, WASHINGTON 

ADVOCACY DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Payne. And thank you, as always, for your extraordinary 

leadership on this issue, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to summarize my remarks, mostly focusing on this issue 

of countries of particular concern, and suggest that one way to 

think about it is to divide the countries into two categories. I think 

one group consists of countries that violate religious freedom, but 

they are allies of the United States, or at least they are countries 

that see an interest in having a reasonably cooperative relationship 

with the United States. Such countries, I think, are probably more 

likely than others to want to avoid being criticized in this report, 

avoid being named CPCs. They are probably more likely to respond 

to diplomatic efforts from Mr. Hanford, from others to improve 

their records. 

Yet even for this group of countries, I think we need to recognize 

that the novelty of being named and shamed in this report does 

begin to wear off over time, and so our diplomatic efforts to be effective over time do increasingly need to be backed by willingness 

to show that their relationships with the United States will be affected by lack of progress. 

A second group of countries consists of those that already had adversarial relationships with the United States before being named, 

88

and most of the CPCs, frankly, fall into this category, which means 

that ironically the designation is tended to be used against those 

countries least likely to be affected by it because these countries 

are already under sanction and facing considerable pressure from 

the United States on other issues. 

And I think the question with respect to these countries is not 

so much what additional pressure is generated by the CPC designation, but whether we have an appropriate effective comprehensive strategy in place to change the overall behavior of the government concerned. 

So with that in mind, let me talk very briefly about a couple of 

countries that I think fall into the first category, Saudi Arabia and 

Vietnam, and a couple that I think fall into the second category, 

Burma and Uzbekistan. 

Saudi Arabia. We have heard the honest judgment of the State 

Department that religious freedom does not exist there. We have 

heard, I think, general agreement amongst us that no progress has 

been made in recent years. We all have our favored horror stories 

coming out of Saudi Arabia. Human Rights Watch, just yesterday 

we received two reports about two school teachers in Saudi Arabia, 

both of them Muslims, who have fallen afoul of the country’s strict 

laws. One was a chemistry teacher who was accused of mocking 

Islam simply for discussing Jews and the Bible with children in his 

classroom. He was sentenced to 3 years in prison and 750 lashes, 

50 lashes per week for 15 weeks for that crime. The other, another 

teacher, was sentenced to 3 years and 300 lashes ‘‘for sanctioning 

adultery and sodomy, sanctioning singing and smoking, and suggesting that one should love, not fear, God.’’ And the interesting 

thing about this is that his arrest was ordered by the Saudi Vice 

Minister for Defense and Aviation, an interesting example of how 

things work there and the high-level involvement in these cases. 

Now, the State Department has named Saudi Arabia a CPC, and 

we welcome that. It took a long time to get there, and I think it 

is a good sign that the Bush Administration wants to mean what 

it says when it comes to promoting human rights in the Arab 

world. But we also know the deadlines have passed, come and 

gone. We have not really seen any sign that the Saudis are taking 

advantage of the opportunity that Ambassador Hanford wants to 

give them. There appears to be very little movement even in the 

modest steps that we know that the United States is asking them 

to take, like a public announcement that private worship will be 

protected, or improvements in bringing non-Muslim books into the 

country or allowing visits by non-Muslim clergy, even those little 

things I don’t think the State Department is getting anywhere on 

those. So my sense, frankly, is that the department is buying time 

for itself more than buying time for Saudi Arabia. 

And you know, the question we have to ask is whether we are 

really conveying to the Saudis in a credible way that this is a priority for us? Secretary Rice was there over the weekend, announced 

a deeper partnership with Saudi Arabia, a new strategic dialogue 

on a whole host of issues that are important to the United States, 

I don’t believe this is one of them. What message would you take 

from that, Mr. Chairman? I think it is pretty clear. 

89

On Vietnam. I agree with everything that Ms. Shea said. This is, 

of course, a country that wants to have a good relationship with 

the United States, they want our help on a number of very important issues. I think the CPC designation got their attention, which 

is a good sign that this is a constructive and worthy process. There 

have been prisoner releases, there have been promises made. And 

someone else mentioned that at least Vietnam is making promises 

to us, and that is a good thing. But the promises are not, at least 

as far as we can tell, yet being implemented in an effective way. 

Ethnic minority Christians, Montagnard, ethnic Hmong are still 

being persecuted, detained, beaten, pressured by local authorities, 

to renounce their religions, cease religious gatherings. 

And we have heard that there is this agreement between the 

State Department and Vietnam in which the Vietnamese made a 

number of commitments. I would at least like to see that agreement made public so that at least we can hold Vietnam publicly to 

the commitments that it made. We have sort of a general sense of 

what is in there, but it is hard to evaluate it if we don’t actually 

see the specific commitments. 

As I suggested at the outset, there is another category of countries that probably aren’t going to be moved merely by CCPC designation, one of those obviously is Burma, which clearly deserves 

to be designated, but it is an equal opportunity abuser, as you well 

know, Mr. Chairman. 

The question here is whether we can mobilize effective international pressure. We already have an array of sanctions quite appropriately imposed against the Burmese Government. I think that 

pressure has helped keep the opposition, led by Yung San Sushi, 

alive all these years, alive to fight another day. But to get the 

progress we want we need international multilateral pressure. And 

an effort like that is now underway, as I think you know, at the 

United Nations. The Administration has endorsed a call recently 

made by former Czech President Hovell, South African Bishop 

Tutu, to bring Burma before the UN Security Council where its 

atrocious record can at least be discussed, as well as its destabilizing impact on the region. 

And ultimately, we would want to see the council take action on 

Burma, for example, by doing what it did with respect to Darfur 

recently, appointing a commission of inquiry to determine if war 

crimes have been committed against the minority people of that 

country. 

This is something that I think is achievable. All we need is nine 

votes in the Security Council. And simply putting something on the 

agenda can’t be vetoed by any member, including China. But we 

are going to need high-level effort from the President, personally, 

and Secretary Rice to make it happen. And I certainly hope that 

this is an issue, in addition to the one you raised, Mr. Chairman, 

on China, that is going to be high on the President’s agenda this 

week when he visits Asia. 

Finally, Uzbekistan. If we would have been having this discussion a couple of years ago I would have put it in the first category 

of a country that was an ally of the United States. And that has 

obviously changed, though I think some folks, particularly in the 

Pentagon, may still be in denial about it. Uzbekistan is not even 

90

pretending to be a friend or ally of the United States right now, 

it is certainly no longer pretending to heed American concerns 

about human rights. We saw the brutal Andijan massacre, hundreds of people gunned down in broad daylight. 

We have seen these terrible show trials. Frankly, I was a bit concerned about Ambassador Hanford’s statement that they made 

progress on torture. To say that, just a couple of days after we saw 

these poor souls stand up before these show trials and beg to be 

executed by their government, obviously as a result of having been 

brutally tortured in ways we haven’t seen since Stalin’s days, I 

think that is a pretty egregious example of trying to spin the positive that we should call them on. 

Again, this is a country that, had we named them as a CPC a 

few years ago, might have made a difference because they wanted 

a close relationship with us then. They should have been named as 

CPC this time around. I think they weren’t, mostly because the 

State Department was embarrassed that they didn’t do it a few 

years ago, and they didn’t want people to say we only did it this 

time because they kicked us off that base. 

Nevertheless, for the sake of this discussion, let’s treat them as 

a CPC because they deserve to be, while honestly acknowledging 

that much more than designation is going to be needed to bring 

them around. We need a strategy now that is going to convey to 

people around President Karimov, the man who rules Uzbekistan, 

that whichever direction he may be wanting to take that country, 

it is not in their interests to follow them. 

The European Union has imposed targeted sanctions on a list of 

Uzbek leaders who were responsible for the Andijan massacre. We 

have not done so. Despite all the condemnations, the only action 

taken in the United States-Uzbek bilateral relationship since the 

massacre was taken by the Uzbeks when they kicked us off the 

base. We haven’t done anything apart from issuing condemnations. 

We do need to move to a point where we are imposing I think 

carefully targeted sanctions, in the way that we did effectively in 

Serbia several years ago, against those people around Karimov, 

who I think can make the difference in terms of which direction the 

country goes. 

On all these issues, Mr. Chairman, we need the continued oversight and leadership of the Congress. We wouldn’t have this religious freedom process if it was not for your efforts and the efforts 

of the Congress. We wouldn’t have the Administration prodding 

any of these countries if you weren’t prodding the Administration 

to prod them. So I am only telling you what you know and what 

you are already going to do, but I do want to tell you that we need 

it and we appreciate it a great deal. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Malinowski follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. TOM MALINOWSKI, WASHINGTON ADVOCACY DIRECTOR, 

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and for inviting me to testify. 

Since the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998, a great deal 

has been achieved. Religious freedom has increasingly been recognized as a fundamental human right. Its promotion around the world has become a greater priority 

for the U.S. government. The annual report issued by the State Department has 

91

given us perhaps the most comprehensive picture we’ve ever had of the state of respect for religious freedom around the world. It has shined light into some very dark 

places. When this right is denied, we can still choose not to act. But we can no 

longer pretend not to know. 

Knowledge of human rights abuses can help deter them; even the most repressive 

governments, on some level, are ashamed of what they do. But seven years after 

the law’s passage, we also need to ask what we’re doing with this knowledge. Is the 

U.S. government doing what we can reasonably expect it to do to aid the victims 

of religious persecution around the world? Is it living up to its own promise to make 

this issue a consequential one in its relationships with countries around the world? 

In answering that question, I would divide the countries of concern addressed by 

the religious freedom report into two categories. 

One group consists of countries that violate religious freedom, but that are also 

U.S. allies or at least feel they have an interest in maintaining reasonably friendly 

relations with the United States. Such countries—Saudi Arabia for example—are 

probably more likely than others to want to avoid being criticized in the religious 

freedom report and to be named Countries of Particular Concern (CPCs). They are 

more likely to respond to diplomatic efforts by the United States seeking improvement in their records. Yet even for this group of countries, the novelty of simply 

being named and shamed likely wears off over time. Seven years into this process, 

effective diplomacy with this group needs to be backed by a willingness to take actions that affect their relationship with the United States. Otherwise, they will not 

continue to take the process seriously. 

A second group consists of countries that already had adversarial relationships 

with the United States before they were named violators of religious freedom. Most 

countries that have been named CPCs belong to this category. And that means that 

the State Department has tended to use the CPC designation against those countries least likely to be affected by it. For the governments of many of these countries 

are already subject to political and economic pressure from the United States over 

other issues. The question in these cases is not what additional pressure results 

from the CPC designation. It is whether the United States is pursuing an effective 

and comprehensive strategy to change the overall behavior of the government concerned. 

To illustrate these points, I’d like to discuss two countries in the first category 

I mentioned—Saudi Arabia and Vietnam—and two in the second—Burma and 

Uzbekistan. 

Saudi Arabia 

This year’s State Department report accurately describes the situation in Saudi 

Arabia. It says: ‘‘Freedom of religion does not exist.’’ Only the officially sanctioned 

version of Islam is permitted. The public practice of other religions is forbidden. 

Though the Saudi government claims that people in the country are free to practice non-sanctioned religions privately in their homes, it often does not respect this 

right in practice. The Saudi religious police have continued to arrest and deport 

Christians for conducting private religious services. Saudi religious police continue 

to raid private homes where they suspect such services are taking place. They also 

continue to brutally enforce the country’s overall policy of religious persecution, 

harassing, detaining, and beating people who they believe are straying from the officially sanctioned path. 

Ironically, in terms of numbers, most victims of religious persecution in Saudi 

Arabia are Muslims. The Shi’a and Isma’ili Muslim communities suffer officially 

sanctioned political and economic discrimination. Even in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern 

Province, where Shi’a Muslims constitute a majority of the population, virtually no 

Shi’as are allowed to serve in positions of authority in government, judicial or educational institutions. 

Just yesterday, we received reports about two schoolteachers in Saudi Arabia, 

both Muslims, who have fallen victim to the country’s strict laws on religion. One, 

a chemistry teacher named Muhammad Al-Harbi was accused of ‘mocking Islam’ 

simply for discussing Jews and the Bible with children in his classroom. He was 

sentenced to three years in prison and 750 lashes—50 lashes per week for 15 weeks. 

The other, a Riyadh teacher named al-Sahimi, was sentenced to 3 years and 300 

lashes for ‘‘sanctioning adultery and sodomy’’,’’ sanctioning singing and smoking,’’ 

and ‘‘suggesting one should love not fear god.’’ Interestingly, Sahimi’s arrest was ordered by the Saudi Vice Minister for Defense and Aviation. He did not see a lawyer 

or even attend his own trial. 

Also troubling, though more rare, are cases where defendants are sentenced, 

sometimes to death, for ‘witchcraft’ and ‘sorcery’—a weapon the authorities have 

92

wielded against non-conforming Muslims and sometimes simply to put an unwanted 

foreigner in jail. 

Last year, the State Department for the first time designated Saudi Arabia as a 

Country of Particular Concern. The administration deserves credit for taking this 

long overdue step. It was a small but welcome sign of its growing willingness to 

raise human rights issues with allies in the Arab world. Yet by any reasonable 

measure, the administration has not followed through on this designation with effective action. 

The U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom has recommended that 

the administration impose a limited set of punitive measures on Saudi Arabia as 

a result of its CPC designation, including a visa ban for officials responsible for 

egregious violations of religious freedom, and banning the export of dual use items 

to the Saudi government agencies involved. According to the Commission, in 2004, 

the Commerce Department approved $67 million of articles for export to Saudi Arabia, including such items as thumb cuffs, leg irons, and shackles. 

After the CPC designation, however, the administration asked for time for diplomacy to work before taking action. The deadline of 180 days after designation 

passed, and still no action was taken. In September, President Bush formally 

waived sanctions, in hopes that progress would soon be forthcoming. But today, 

there appears little movement in Saudi Arabia to address international concerns, 

even in the form of modest steps, such as a public announcement that private worship will be protected, or improvements in bringing non-Muslim books into the country, or allowing visits by non-Muslim clergy. Meanwhile, on Sunday, Secretary Rice 

announced a new strategic dialogue with Saudi Arabia—a deepening of the relationship—without any hint of progress on religious freedom or human rights. The 

Saudis will undoubtedly draw the obvious lesson from this concerning America’s priorities. 

I recognize that diplomacy should be tried first in these situations, and that it 

can sometimes achieve important results. But Saudi Arabia has resisted diplomatic 

overtures on this issue for a very long time. The United States is going to find it 

harder and harder to convince the Saudi government that it is serious about promoting religious freedom if it is unwilling to take any action that affects the bilateral relationship. 

Vietnam 

The Vietnamese government continues to persecute followers of officially unrecognized religions, including ethnic minority Christians, Mennonites, members of the 

Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, and Hoa Hao Buddhists. Security officials disperse their religious gatherings, confiscate religious literature, and summon religious leaders to police stations for interrogation. 

In 2004, the United States designated Vietnam as a Country of Particular Concern. International pressure convinced Vietnam to pass a new ordinance on religion 

in 2004, and to release a number of religious prisoners in 2005. In February, 2005 

the Prime Minister of Vietnam issued a decree banning forced recantations of faith 

and loosening restrictions for Christian organizations to register with the government. 

Nevertheless, the government continues to require religious organizations to register with the government in order to be legal, and prohibits religious activities that 

it claims cause public disorder, harm national security or sow divisions. Local authorities have used the new regulations as grounds to arrest minority Christians 

suspected of belonging to churches that operate independently of the government. 

In addition, officials continue to force Christians to abandon their religion, despite 

the new directives banning such practices, and no offenders have been brought to 

justice. 

Ethnic Hmong Christians in the northwest, ethnic Roglai in Ninh Thuan province, 

Montagnard Christians in the Central Highlands, and Hre Christians in Quang Nai 

have continued to be beaten, detained, and pressured by local authorities to renounce their religion and cease religious gatherings. In February and March 2005, 

religious repression and a heightened military presence in Lai Chau province caused 

a number of Hmong Christian families to flee to neighboring China, Burma and 

Laos. In March 2005, officials in Dien Bien province launched an official four-month 

campaign to eradicate Protestantism amongst the Hmong. This is described in a 

document written by the government’s Task Force 184 in Dien Bien province, dated 

February 25, 2005, and entitled: ‘‘Mobilize People to Fight against Taking Advantage of Religion and Belief, and Against Illegal Propagation of Religion, and to 

Eradicate Gathering Places which Infringe on Public Security in Cha Cang Commune, Muong Nhe District.’’

93

In the Central Highlands, the government has continued to persecute ethnic minorities (collectively known as Montagnards), particularly those thought to be following ‘‘Dega Christianity’’—a form of evangelical Christianity banned by the Vietnamese government. Since 2001 more than 200 Montagnard Christians have been 

imprisoned, many on charges that they are separatists using their religion to ‘‘undermine national unity.’’

Buddhists have also been victims of the government’s religious policies. One monk 

from the banned Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV), Thich Thien Mien, 

was released from prison in 2005. However the government continues to persecute 

UBCV members and withhold any recognition of this group, once the largest organization of the majority religion in the country. The UBCV’s Supreme Patriarch, 

Thich Huyen Quang and its second-ranking leader, Thich Quang Do have been confined without charges to their monasteries for years, under police surveillance. The 

Foreign Ministry restricts visitors to the monks, including diplomats and journalists, on grounds they are under investigation for possession of ‘‘state secrets.’’

I welcome the State Department’s decision to maintain Vietnam’s status as a 

Country of Particular Concern. The United States did reach an agreement with 

Vietnam in May, 2005, that addressed religious freedom concerns—a sign that the 

CPC process may be having a constructive impact. But whatever promises Vietnam 

may have made, there is not yet evidence that its record has improved to the point 

that its CPC status can be lifted. Moreover, the text of that agreement has not been 

publicly released. I urge the State Department to make it public so that Vietnam 

can be held accountable for implementing the commitments it has reportedly made. 

Burma 

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned at the outset, the governments of most countries 

the State Department has designated as CPCs already have adversarial relationships with the United States. Being named to this list of religious freedom violators 

will likely mean nothing to them. But that doesn’t mean there is nothing we can 

do. 

Plainly, one of those countries is Burma. Burma deserves to be named a CPC. For 

over 40 years, the generals who rule Burma have abused their citizens’ right to religious freedom. It has used the dominant religion of the state, Theravada Buddhism, 

as part of its effort to ‘‘Burmanize’’ ethnic minority populations. Burma’s Christian, 

Muslim, and other religious minority populations continue to suffer from state monitoring, harassment, and discrimination. 

But Burma is also an equal opportunity abuser. Its government restricts the basic 

rights and freedoms of all its people. It continues to attack and harass the winner 

of the 1990 elections, the National League of Democracy, and its leader Aung San 

Suu Kyi, who remains under house arrest. It continues to commit systematic, widespread, and well-documented abuses in conflicts with ethnic minority rebel groups, 

including extrajudicial executions, rape, torture, forced relocation of entire villages, 

and forced labor. As of late 2004, an estimated 650,000 people were internally displaced in eastern Burma alone, and at least 240 villages have been destroyed, relocated or abandoned since 2002. Some 2 million Burmese have moved to Thailand, 

including 145,000 refugees living in camps. 

For these reasons Burma is already, appropriately, subject to economic sanctions 

by the United States and the European Union. The question now is now whether 

the U.S. can add to its own package of sanctions, but whether it can work with allies in Asia and Europe to mobilize effective pressure for change. 

Such an effort is now underway at the U.N. The administration, to its credit, has 

endorsed a call recently made by former Czech President Vaclav Havel and South 

African Bishop Desmond Tutu to bring Burma before the U.N. Security Council, 

where its atrocious human rights record and destabilizing impact on its region can 

at least be discussed. Ultimately, we would want to see the Council take action on 

Burma. One possible step would be the appointment of a U.N. Commission of Inquiry to investigate the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity 

against Burma’s ethnic minority population. 

A U.N. Security Council resolution can, of course, be vetoed by any permanent 

member. But to put an issue on the Council Agenda simply requires nine votes, with 

no vetoes allowed. Getting Burma on the agenda is clearly an achievable goal, if the 

administration pushes hard enough at a high enough level. I hope this issue will 

be high on President Bush’s agenda as he travels to Asia this week. 

Uzbekistan 

Had we been having this discussion a couple of years ago, Mr. Chairman, I would 

have put Uzbekistan in my first category of countries with poor records but relatively close relations with the United States. Had the State Department named 

94

Uzbekistan a CPC then, a designation it richly deserved, it might have had an impact on that country’s policies. During those days, when the U.S. military was deeply engaged in Uzbekistan, when U.S. aid was increasing, when U.S. officials were 

making a bee line to visit Tashkent and when the Uzbek President was visiting the 

White House, Uzbekistan very much wanted to avoid being named and shamed as 

a CPC and, if named, might have made significant concessions to get off the list. 

Now, though some in the administration may still be in denial about this, 

Uzbekistan is no longer even pretending to be a friend or ally of the United States. 

It is certainly no longer pretending to heed American concerns about human rights. 

Earlier this year, Uzbek security forces massacred—deliberately, in broad daylight—

hundreds of civilians who were peacefully demonstrating for their basic human 

rights in the city of Andijan. It has since launched a brutal crackdown on democratic dissent, staging show trials reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union, in 

which tortured defendants confess to their ‘‘guilt.’’ When the United States complained about this, the Uzbek government staged hate rallies vilifying the United 

States, and kicked the U.S. military off its base in southern Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan 

has utterly defied U.S. demands to allow an international investigation of the 

Andijan massacre. 

This year, once again, the State Department rejected the recommendation of the 

U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom to name Uzbekistan a CPC. 

It’s hard to explain this bizarre decision. Uzbekistan clearly merits designation. It 

follows the old Soviet model of allowing religious activity only if it follows a script 

written by the state. Uzbek law requires all religious groups to register with the 

government, and criminalizes all efforts to organize a unregistered religious group 

or to resume activity in a group once it has been denied registration. This system 

results in the repression of Muslims as well as various Christian groups, who during 

this year, had a number of applications for registration that were ignored. 

In the last few years, thousands of people have been imprisoned in Uzbekistan 

as part of a campaign against extremist, but non-violent, Muslims. In fact, many 

of those arrested are merely observant Muslims, not members of any extremist organization, who wished to meet with others to pray or study Islam. Those arrested 

are sentenced them to lengthy jail terms and routinely tortured. 

So why did the State Department refuse to name Uzbekistan a CPC? I don’t think 

that the Department is trying to protect a relationship with Uzbekistan that no 

longer exists. My best guess is that it is worried that if it designated Uzbekistan 

this year, after never designating it before, people would say that it’s just a reaction 

to getting kicked off the base. Perhaps the State Department recognizes that the 

only difference between Uzbekistan now and Uzbekistan then is that the relationship with the U.S. isn’t as close, and so its previous decisions not to name 

Uzbekistan would look like they were based on political, not objective, criteria. It 

seems to me that the State Department has really tied itself in knots over this case. 

The decision not to name Uzbekistan undermines the integrity of the CPC process. But in all honesty, I don’t think that naming Uzbekistan would have made 

much difference for the people of that country. As I’ve suggested, the time when 

Uzbekistan might have responded to such a step with concessions has come and 

gone. What’s needed now is a much more ambitious, sustained and comprehensive 

U.S. strategy to change the Uzbek government’s calculations. And here, I think the 

administration is also tied up in knots. Since the Andijan massacre, the State Department has rhetorically condemned Uzbekistan. It has, rightly, insisted on a credible international investigation of those events, even though that insistence risked 

losing the Pentagon its basing rights in the country. But when it comes right down 

to it, in the six months since the massacre, the only real action affecting the bilateral relationship was taken not by the United States, but by Uzbekistan, when it 

did, in fact, kick the U.S. military out. The European Union has imposed sanctions 

on Uzbekistan; the United States has not. I have no idea what the administration’s 

overall strategy for dealing with this country is. I don’t believe that the 

administartion itself has an idea what its stategy is. 

At the very least, the administration should join with its European allies in imposing sanctions carefully targeted at Uzbek government officials implicated in the 

massacre and the crackdown and show trials that followed. Uzbek President 

Karimov probably can’t be dissuaded by the United States from leading his country 

in a disasterous direction. But those around him should understand that it is not 

in their personal interest to follow where Karimov leads. 

Mr. Chairman, on all these issues, we need the continued oversight and leadership of this Committee and the Congress. There would be no religious freedom report and no CPC process if not for action by the Congress. There would be little 

prodding of Saudi Arabia or Vietnam or Uzbekistan or Burma by the administration 

if there was not prodding of the administration by the Congress. For that, you have 

95

our gratitude, and more important, the gratitude of people all around the world who 

struggle for their human rights.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Tom. Your point on the Uzbek 

leaders—we would like to talk with you after the hearing—but I 

think at a minimum, that deserves a letter immediately, and we 

need to look at maybe some legislation or resolution to try to get 

that more focused. 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. I fear, like many good things, it may require 

legislation. It shouldn’t have to, but we may need it. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Aikman. 

STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID AIKMAN, AUTHOR, ‘‘JESUS IN BEIJING: HOW CHRISTIANITY IS TRANSFORMING CHINA AND 

CHANGING THE WORLD BALANCE OF POWER’’

Mr. AIKMAN. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Payne, thank you very 

much for giving me the opportunity of being here. 

I have been asked to comment on the section of the report dealing with China and, in particular, with the situation of Christians 

in China. I will, of course, make reference to the Chinese Government’s treatment of other religions, but my focus will be on the situation with regard to religious freedom of Protestant and Catholic 

Christians. 

As the report makes clear, China, unfortunately, has given no 

reason since the last report not to continue to be included in the 

category of intense repression of religious freedom that the Secretary of State has categorized as ‘‘of particular concern.’’

In Tibet Buddhism, in Xinjiang Islam, and throughout China, 

both Protestant and Catholic Christianity and practitioners of 

Falun Gong, during late 2004 and early 2005, were the target of 

deliberate attempts by the central government and local officials to 

suppress the freedom and autonomy of people of faith. 

I would like to draw particular attention to continuing efforts to 

break up house church communities and to hamper severely the activities of Chinese Catholics who are not affiliated with the Chinese 

Catholic Patriotic Association. 

In December 2004, the arrest and detention of Henan Province 

Protestant leader Zhang Rongliang was an egregious example of an 

entirely unjustified persecution of a prominent Chinese Protestant 

leader. 

I first met Mr. Zhang 7 years ago, and he made it clear that he 

had no political argument with the Chinese Government. In August 

1998, he and several other Chinese Protestant house church leaders agreed on a document, ‘‘The United Appeal of Various Branches 

of China’s House Church,’’ which appealed to both the government 

and to government-approved organizations responsible for Protestant Christian activity in China, to allow China’s unregistered 

Christian communities not to be persecuted merely because they 

did not want to be registered with the authorities. 

In the fall of that year, he signed another document, ‘‘A Confession of Faith,’’ which was a carefully thought-through statement of 

Evangelical Protestant belief, regarded by theologians in this country and elsewhere as entirely orthodox from the perspective of 

Evangelical Protestant theology. 

96

Nevertheless, when a senior Chinese official responsible for the 

administration of China’s faith community came through the 

United States in 2004, he gave as his reason for the Chinese Government’s failure to respond to the united appeal the entirely specious reply that the signatories of the document had been members 

of cults. In November 2004, the United Nations Working Group on 

Arbitrary Detention, after reviewing the case of Mr. Zhang 

Rongliang, found that his detention was indeed arbitrary. 

Two months ago, another prominent Chinese Protestant Christian was released after 2 years of imprisonment in a reform 

through labor camp. As is well known, sentences of up to 3 years 

can be given in such camps by the Chinese authorities without the 

inconvenient formality of a trial. The individual was Mr. Zhang 

Yinan, an intellectual from Henan Province, who had studied closely the development of Christianity in China, particularly in the 

past four decades. 

Mr. Chairman, may I notify you of the heinous offense for which 

Mr. Zhang was confined for 2 years in a labor camp? He had written in a private prayer journal that he was praying that someday 

China would have a Christian Constitution and Christian leaders. 

Note that the prayer journal had not in any way been made public 

at the time it was ceased in a search of Mr. Zhang’s home. 

A Chinese friend of Mr. Zhang who phoned the Public Security 

Bureau investigator in charge of the case asked why Mr. Zhang 

was being held. ‘‘Zhang Yinan does not have a criminal problem,’’ 

the investigator replied on the phone, ‘‘he has a mind problem.’’

If a local Chinese investigator is free to label as a ‘‘mind problem’’ the comments of a private man of Christian faith in the center 

of China, it is very easy to see why China should continue to be 

regarded as a country of particular concern in the State Department Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. In March 2005, new regulations on religious affairs came into effect in China, having been signed by Premier Wen Jiabao at the 

end of November 2004. Singled out in the new regulations for special prohibition were the publishing and distribution of religious 

texts, including simply the printing of Bibles. 

Just 8 days ago, a prominent Beijing Christian pastor—Mr. 

Chairman, you have already mentioned him—Mr. Cai Zhaohua, 

was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for allegedly illegal business activities. When police searched his warehouse they found, 

amongst other things, 200,000 Bibles. 

Now, the interesting thing is, the Bible is not illegal in China. 

China provides a hospitable environment also for enterprising publishers of all kinds of things, including just-released pirated DVDs 

of American movies which you can buy without fear of action 

against you by the authorities on Beijing’s main streets. Yet it is 

somehow illegal for a Chinese businessman to print a Bible, a book 

that is legally permitted in China and for which there is no copyright at all. By the way, Mr. Cai just liked to give away his Bibles. 

I am not going to read the rest of my report in the interest of 

time, but I would like to draw your attention to the fact that one 

of the extreme problems of religious suppression in China is the 

tendency or, rather, the insistence of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement which controls the Chinese Protestant Church to insist in imVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:21 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\111505\24596.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
97

posing a theology upon all of Chinese Christians, which for many 

of them is quite unacceptable. 

For example, the gentleman who is almost continuously referred 

to as the authority of Protestant Christianity in China is an elderly 

bishop called Bishop Ding Guangxun, who is 90 years old. He is apparently not retired. Mr. Ding Guangxun has developed something 

that he calls ‘‘reconstruction theology,’’ which is sort of a sophisticated version of 1950s liberal Protestantism, where he is insisting 

that every single official seminary in China teach every single one 

of its students; and that, furthermore, every single one of the authorized Protestant clergy proclaim the same theological message 

in China’s seminaries. 

Mr. Chairman, one of the things we have also seen is the detention of Chinese Catholic bishops who run afoul of the Chinese authorities. Catholic Bishop Gao Kexian died in August 2004 at the 

age of 76 in an unknown prison camp in north China. According 

to an American Catholic writer familiar with the situation, there 

are at least 18 bishops of China’s unrecognized Catholic Church, 

loyal to Rome and not recognized by the State, who are in some 

form of detention today. 

Four Chinese bishops from the officially-recognized Chinese 

Catholic Patriotic Association were even denied permission to attend a worldwide synod of bishops in Rome last month. In Hebei 

Province, center of the most concentrated community of Catholics 

in China, police activity aimed at suppressing China’s unrecognized 

Catholic priesthood and laity is a constant reality of Catholic life. 

Mr. Chairman, Americans in general harbor no ill-will toward 

China and indeed wish the country the greatest possible success in 

raising the living standards of its people. But most Americans also 

hope that the Chinese Government will recognize that religious 

freedom is not just a right to be grudgingly granted to people by 

its rulers, but, when embraced, a blessing for every nation that 

chooses to practice it. 

As I said, Mr. Chairman, most Americans wish the very best for 

the Chinese people. But most Americans would also agree that of 

all the good things Americans desire the Chinese to enjoy as soon 

as possible, freedom of conscience and freedom of faith are among 

the first. Without that, few of the other blessings of prosperity are 

worth very much. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aikman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID AIKMAN, AUTHOR, ‘‘JESUS IN BEIJING: HOW

CHRISTIANITY IS TRANSFORMING CHINA AND CHANGING THE WORLD BALANCE OF

POWER’’

Mr. Chairman, members of the sub-committee, Members of the House, ladies and 

gentlemen, I would like to begin by congratulating Ambassador at Large for Religious Freedom John Hanford, his staff in the Department of State, and foreign service officers in many different nations and cities for an excellent document, the International Religious Freedom Report of 2005. 

I have been asked to comment on the section of the report dealing with China, 

and in particular with the situation of Christians in China. I will, of course, make 

reference to the Chinese government’s treatment of other religions, but my focus 

will be on the situation with regard to religious freedom of Protestant and Catholic 

Christians. As the report makes clear, China unfortunately has given no reason 

since the last report not to continue to be included in the category of intense repression of religious freedom that the Secretary of State has categorized ‘‘of particular 

98

concern.’’ In Tibet Buddhism, in Xinjiang Islam, and throughout China both Protestant and Catholic Christianity during late 2004 and early 2005 were the target of 

deliberate attempts by central government and local officials to suppress the freedom and autonomy of people of faith. I would like to draw particular attention to 

continuing efforts to break up and intimidate leadership of Protestant House church 

communities and to hamper severely the activities of Chinese Catholics who are not 

affiliated with the Catholic Patriotic Association. 

In December 2004 the arrest and detention of Henan province Protestant leader 

Zhang Rongliang was an egregious example of entirely unjustified persecution of a 

prominent Chinese Protestant leader. I first met Mr. Zhang seven years ago, and 

he made it clear he had no political argument with the Chinese government. In August of 1998 he and several other Chinese Protestant house church leaders agreed 

on a document, ‘‘The United Appeal of Various Branches of China’s House Church,’’ 

which appealed to both the government and to government-approved organizations 

responsible for Protestant Christian activity in China to allow China’s unregistered 

Christian communities not to be persecuted merely because they did not want to 

be registered with the authorities. In the fall of that year, he signed another document, ‘‘A Confession of Faith,’’ which was a carefully thought-through statement of 

evangelical Protestant belief, regarded by theologians in this country and elsewhere 

as entirely orthodox from the perspective of evangelical Protestant theology. Nevertheless, when a senior Chinese official responsible for administration of China’s 

faith community came through the United States in 2004, he gave as his reason for 

the Chinese government’s failure to respond to ‘‘The United Appeal’’ the entirely 

specious reply that the signatories of the document had been members of cults. In 

November, 2004, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, after 

reviewing the case of Mr. Zhang Rongliang, found that his detention was indeed arbitrary. 

Two months ago, another prominent Chinese Protestant Christian was released 

after two years imprisonment in a reform through labor camp. As is well known, 

sentences of up to three years can be given in such camps by the Chinese authorities without the inconvenient formality of a trial. The individual was Mr. Zhang 

Yinan, an intellectual from Henan Province who had studied closely the development of Christianity in China, particularly in the past four decades. Mr. Chairman, 

may I notify you of the heinous offense for which Mr. Zhang was confined for two 

years in a labor camp? He had written in a private prayer journal that he was praying that some day China would have a Christian constitution and Christian leaders. 

Note that the prayer journal had not in any way been made public at the time it 

was seized in a search of Mr. Zhang’s home. A Chinese friend of Mr. Zhang who 

phoned the public security bureau investigator in charge of the case asked why Mr. 

Zhang was being held. ‘‘Zhang Yinan does not have a criminal problem,’’ the investigator replied, ‘‘he has a mind problem.’’ If a local Chinese investigator is free to 

label as a ‘‘mind problem’’ the comments of a private man of Christian faith in the 

center of China, it is very easy to see why China should continue to be regarded 

as ‘‘a country of particular concern’’ in the State Department annual report on 

Internatiional Religious Freedom. 

In March 2005, new regulations on religious affairs came into effect in China, 

having been signed by Premier Wen Jiabao at the end of November 2004. The Vice 

President of the China Islamic Association, and organization approved by the authorities, said that the regulations were ‘‘designed to protect Chinese citizens’ religious freedoms., a basic human right.’’ But singled out in the new regulations for 

special prohibition were the publishing and distribution of religious texts, including 

simply the printing of Bibles. Just eight days ago, a prominent Beijing Christian 

pastor, Cai Zhaohua, was sentenced to three years imprisonment for allegedly illegal 

business activities. When police searched his warehouse they found, among other 

things, 200,000 Bibles. Now the interesting thing is that the Bible is not illegal in 

China. China provides a hospitable environment for enterprising publishers of all 

kinds of things, including just-released pirated DVD’s of American movies, which 

you can buy without fear of action by the authorities on Beijing’s main street from 

East to West into Tiananmen Square, Yet it is somehow illegal for a Chinese businessman to print a Bible, a book that is legally permitted in China and for which 

there is no copyright at all. By the way, Mr. Cai liked just to give away his Bibles. 

Mr. Cai’s real challenge to the government, however, was that he was the pastor 

of an unregistered house church group of Protestant Christians. As is well known 

both inside and outside China, many of China’s Protestants don’t want to register 

with the government because they know that it is probable that they will be forced 

to submit to the Three Self Patriotic Movement, the organization under the supervision of the State Administration for Religious Affairs that is authorized to oversee 

all permitted Protestant Christian activities in China. Why don’t China’s house 

99

churches want to submit to the theology of the TSPM? One reason is that the TSPM 

is dominated by the theology of a 90-year-old Chinese biship, K.Ting, or Ding 

Guangxun, who does not believe in justification by faith, a key Protestant theological point, or the inerrancy of the Bible, a doctrine share by Protestant 

evangelicals all over the world, or even the theological difference between Christian 

faith and unbelief. Bishop Ding has been forcing down the throats even of TSPM 

official pastors a theology the vast majority of them deeply resent, the so-called 

Theological Reconstruction. This is an attempt to interpret as Christian the doctrines of socialism, or more precisely, the Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought 

version of socialism. Since China’s own political leadership seems to have wandered 

far from such doctrines in its directing of the national economy, there is a certain 

irony in a nonagenarian Chinese bishop trying to force China’s entire community 

of Protestant pastors to espouse it. 

Age, however, proves to be no protection for Chinese Catholic bishops who run 

afoul of the Chinese authorities. Catholic Bishop Gao Kexian died in August 2004 

at the age of 76 in an unknown prison in north China. According to an American 

Catholic writer who is informed on this subject, there are at least 18 bishops of China’s unrecognized Catholic church, loyal to Rome and not recognized by the state, 

who in some form of detention today. Four Chinese bishops from the official recognized Chinese Catholic church, the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, were 

even denied permission to attend a worldwide synod of Catholic bishops in Rome 

last month. In Hebei Province, center of the most concentrated community of Catholics in China, police activity aimed at suppressing China’s unrecognized Catholic 

priesthood and laity is a fairly constant reality of Catholic life. 

Mr. Chairman, these examples I have cited of egregious Chinese government suppression of religious freedom confirm why the Secretary of State has been correct 

in pronouncing China, with regard to religious freedom, ‘‘a country of particular concern.’’ Now, Mr. Chairman, most Americans harbor no ill-will towards China, and 

indeed wish the country the greatest possible success in raising the living standards 

of its people. But most Americans also hope that the Chinese government will recognize that religious freedom is not just a right to be grudgingly granted a people by 

its rulers, but, when embaced, a blessing for every nation that chooses to practice 

it. As I said, Mr. Chairman, most Americans wish the very best for the Chinese people. But most Americans would also agree that of all the good things Americans desire the Chinese to enjoy as soon as possible, freedom of conscience and faith are 

among the first. Without that, few of the other blessings of prosperity are worth 

very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Uzzell. 

STATEMENT OF MR. LAWRENCE A. UZZELL, PRESIDENT, 

INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WATCH 

Mr. UZZELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always a pleasure 

and an honor to testify before your hearings, whether it is in this 

venue or in the U.S. Helsinki Commission. My thanks also to Congressman Payne for your participation. 

I think we don’t always realize how much of a difference these 

hearings make. Even if they don’t lead to legislation, just the fact 

of Congress doing what it is doing today often makes a concrete difference to persecuted believers. It is also noticed by those who are 

doing the persecuting. 

In the interests of time, I would request that my full written 

statement be part of the hearing record. I have also attached an 

appendix in the form of two statements on Turkmenistan and 

Uzbekistan from my friends at the Forum 18 News Service which 

I would like included as well. 

Mr. SMITH. They will be, without objection, as well as those of 

all of our witnesses. 

Mr. UZZELL. Thank you very much. 

In commenting on the State Department report, I find I can’t improve on what I was told 2 years ago by Thomas Farr, who was 

the senior career official in the very office in charge of producing 

100

this report in the State Department. He said, ‘‘So far, at best, we 

have merely laid the tracks for something that still needs to move 

up to another level.’’ I think that is still true. These reports should 

be getting better with each passing year. In some ways they are; 

but in some ways there is still lots of room for improvement. 

You were kind enough to quote me, Mr. Chairman, on the two 

fundamental flaws which I identified, so I will not repeat those 

words. I will just talk about one or two of the indigenous religious 

groups that I think are neglected. 

The first is Russia’s unregistered Baptists, the so-called 

‘‘initsiativniki.’’ The State Department is slowly making progress in 

its coverage of this denomination, but I think it still has a long way 

to go. 

I spoke just last week with Andrew Okhotin, a Russian American 

divinity student, who testified on behalf of the unregistered Baptists at a hearing of the Helsinki Commission here on Capitol Hill 

last April. The hearing was something of a breakthrough in getting 

Washington to focus on the initsiativniki. It led to introduction of 

a congressional resolution on unregistered religious bodies in Russia, and, in my opinion, the mere existence of this resolution, even 

just as a proposal, has already made a difference. 

I found, during my visit to Russia last month, that the authorities have now given the Baptists in Lyubuchany, in the countryside 

south of Moscow, formal permission to rebuild their house church. 

These are the very same authorities who mounted a massive police 

raid on that congregation in the summer of 2004, the same authorities who are suspected of being behind the mysterious arson attack 

that destroyed the house church, the same authorities who then 

threatened legal action against the Baptists merely for trying to rebuild their own property. Obviously, this is a major change of 

course, and it is one that the U.S. Congress can take credit for. But 

I think we need to emphasize this was a breakthrough launched 

not by the State Department, but by Members of the Congress. 

Ambassador Hanford said earlier, and I agree with him, that it 

is not a good thing for diplomats to be spending too much time behind their desks. They should be going out and meeting people, and 

indeed that is one of the things that I am criticizing the State Department for. I think they haven’t done enough to go out and meet 

people who are not always grinding out press releases and are not 

always expert at media and government relations. 

Andrew Okhotin, who I think was the star witness at last April’s 

Helsinki Commission hearing, is here in the United States. He is 

readily available. He is fluent in English, as those know who were 

present at that hearing. He told me last week that the State Department has not contacted him to get a briefing on the overall situation of the unregistered Baptists in Russia. There was one brief 

contact about the caucasus but they haven’t taken advantage of 

this resource that is available to them right here. I will leave out 

the rest of what I have to say about that. 

Let me mention, briefly, one other body. I thought this was a 

particularly egregious case. There are several Orthodox Christian 

groups that are independent from the mainstream Moscow Patriarchate. They would be regarded by mainstream Orthodox Christians as schismatics, the way one might regard disciples of ArchVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:21 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\111505\24596.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
101

bishop Lefevre as being schismatics from the Roman Catholic 

Church. But whatever you may think of these people theologically, 

they have the same rights of religious freedom from a human 

rights standpoint or from a government standpoint as other Orthodox Christians. And it was very sad to see that the State Department’s coverage of these extremely vulnerable groups in this year’s 

report was limited to a single generalized sentence, which was an 

exact repetition of the language about them in last year’s report. 

You mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the Armenian Apostolic Church 

in Turkmenistan. I realized as I was reviewing my notes last night 

that I had forgotten to include the Shi’ite Muslims in Turkmenistan. Because of its location right next to Iran, which is predominantly Shi’ite, across the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan, which is 

also predominantly Shi’ite, Turkmenistan has a Shi’ite minority. 

There are probably more Shi’ite Muslims in Turkmenistan than 

there are Protestants, although Turkmenistan itself is 

prodominently a Sunni Muslim country. But there is far, far more 

coverage of Protestants and Jehovah’s Witnesses than there is of 

Shi’ites, and I think that sends a signal that Washington should 

not want to be sending about its interest in indigenous religious 

groups and in their freedom. 

I will skip over most of what the rest of what I had to say in 

my written testimony for lack of time. 

The other flaw that I mentioned is too little analysis as distinct 

from the mere recitation of facts. Again, Ambassador Hanford commented on that. I have some sympathy for his comments. You don’t 

want the human rights reporters to be like thumb-sucking Op-Ed 

writers. You don’t want them to try to be brilliantly original, going 

off on wildly original interpretations; you want these reports to be 

solid and reliable. 

But maybe I can suggest a middle ground, Mr. Chairman. When 

I read the newspaper about politics, often I find the most valuable 

things in my daily newspaper are neither the daily news story, 

which tells me what happened in the last 24 hours, nor the Op-Ed 

piece with the Republican- and the Democratic-leaning columnists 

taking their predictable positions. It is the news analysis. It is that 

middle ground that tries to sum up the current House race or the 

current Presidential campaign and draw larger patterns, larger 

trends in ways that conservatives and liberals would agree on, Republicans and Democrats would agree on. I think there is not 

enough of that in the State Department. It is too much mere recitation of facts. 

I hate to disagree with Nina Shea, but I am going to on one 

point. I think the most egregious report is not the one on Saudi 

Arabia, but the one on Turkmenistan, beginning with the first sentence in which the State Department’s report says, ‘‘The government continues to monitor all forms of religious expression.’’ ‘‘Monitor’’ is an extraordinarily limp-wristed word to use in that context. 

In reports on other oppressive countries, they justifiably use much 

harsher language, words like ‘‘repress’’ and ‘‘restrict’’ and ‘‘persecute,’’ which are fully justified in the case of Turkmenistan. The 

Turkmenistan report says that there are no religious prisoners now 

in Turkmenistan. Most human rights activitists would consider 

that former Chief Mufti is indeed a religious prisoner. 

102

I am running out of time. One more point about Russia. Just 

today, the distinguished expert on minority ethnic groups and religions in Russia, Paul Gogle, has a report out on the Kremlin seeking tighter controls over religion in Russia. The Justice Ministry of 

Putin’s own Government has floated a proposal which, among other 

elements, would require all members of one religion to be subordinate to a single center so that, if this is put into effect, there would 

be only one recognized Jewish leader for all the Jews in Russia, despite all the different theological movements within Judaism. 

There would be only one recognized Muslim leader. I think this is 

a serious development which bears close watching. 

One last point. I was glad to see that the report section on Russia has almost completely stopped using the word ‘‘proselytism,’’ 

but I wish I could say the same about the rest of the report. The 

word ‘‘proselytism’’ has a connotation that implies that any vigorous advocacy of religious belief intended to convert others is inherently fanatical, inherently in some way illegitimate. 

We don’t apply that standard to secular belief standards like 

feminism or environmentalism. We recognize that people who hold 

these strong beliefs have the right to win converts all over the 

world, even in cultures where their beliefs are profoundly alien. No 

matter how much one may dislike religious missionaries, either in 

substance or in style, they have every right to preach their message. And I would suggest that the State Department’s choice of 

words should reflect that principle. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Uzzell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. LAWRENCE A. UZZELL, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WATCH

In commenting on the latest State Department report on religious freedom, I find 

that I cannot improve on what I was told two years ago by Thomas Farr, formerly 

the senior career official in the office in charge of producing that report. He said 

that ‘‘so far, at best we have merely laid the tracks for something that still needs 

to move up to another level.’’ Unfortunately that is still true. 

These annual reports should be improving with each passing year as State gains 

more experience in producing them. In some ways they are: For example, coverage 

of Russia’s crucial Muslim minority is better today than it was in 1999, though still 

in need of improvement. But in too many other areas State is essentially coasting. 

All too often its sections on individual countries simply repeat the same language 

from one year to the next, falling back on standard formulas rather than providing 

new insights into the changing dynamics of repression. Sometimes they even repeat 

factual errors. 

Today I would like to focus on two fundamental flaws. My specific examples of 

these flaws will come mostly from the report’s section on Russia, but I would like 

to add my voice to those who have criticized the sections on Uzbekistan and 

Turkmenistan. I have with me some excellent analyses from the Forum 18 News 

Service; let me request that these texts be added to the written record of this hearing. Like others, I find it utterly incomprehensible that the State Department has 

not formally designated Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan as ‘‘countries of particular 

concern’’ for their gross violations of religious freedom. 

The first flaw is that the State Department report still places too much emphasis 

on cataloguing facts—individual cases of repression—and too little emphasis on analyzing the causes, trends and overall patterns behind those facts. All too often it 

lists the individual trees but misses the forest. 

Second, this year’s report like those of previous years flunks what ought to be a 

basic test of U.S. diplomatic efforts in this area: Is the U.S. government truly working for religious freedom for all believers, or is it working primarily to help denominations with large numbers of members in the United States? Is Washington proVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:21 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\111505\24596.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
103

moting equal rights for all religions, including indigenous religions, or is it just 

clearing the path for American missionaries? 

Let me discuss that second flaw first. I concede that it is difficult to meet my suggested test; good intentions are not enough. Imagine yourself as a human-rights officer in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow: You are bombarded with information from 

groups such as the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which are highly skilled 

in media and government relations. These groups know how to present their material so as to earn your confidence and make it as easy as possible for you to do your 

job. They are often much easier to study than purely indigenous Russian religions 

such as the Old Believers or the ‘‘initsiativniki’’ Baptists; to the indigenous minority 

faiths the very concept of a western-style press release may still be something of 

a novelty. The indigenous minorities may not be especially interested in building relations with their own government, much less with foreign governments. They also 

may not be interested in dialogue with other religions; essentially they may just 

want to be left alone. 

Thus it is all too easy for U.S. diplomats to fall into the trap of paying too little 

attention to indigenous minorities, even if those minorities may be suffering harsher 

repression than American missions and missionaries. The result of such disproportion is to play into the hands of ultra-nationalists in Russia and elsewhere who 

claim that America’s professed interest in religious freedom is simply a cloak for cultural and political imperialism. Too many Russians dismiss America’s efforts for religious freedom because America seems to dismiss Russia’s religions. 

Let me stress that I do not think that U.S.-based religious bodies are getting too 

much attention from Washington. If I were writing the State Department report I 

would not omit a single one of its references to the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. The problem is that the report gives too little attention to other groups. 

Consider Russia’s unregistered Baptists, the so-called ‘‘initsiativniki.’’ The State 

Department is slowly making progress in its coverage of this denomination, but it 

still has a long way to go. Last week I spoke with Andrew Okhotin, a RussianAmerican divinity student who testified on behalf of the ‘‘initsiativniki’’ at a hearing 

of the U.S. Helsinki Commission here on Capitol Hill in April. That hearing was 

something of a breakthrough in getting Washington to focus on the ‘‘initsiativniki.’’ 

It led to introduction of a congressional resolution on unregistered religious bodies 

in Russia, and in my opinion the mere existence of this resolution—even just as a 

proposal—has already made a difference. I believe that the resolution was the key 

element in pushing the Russian authorities to back off in their harassment of two 

initsiativniki congregations in Tula and Lyubuchany. I found during my visit to 

Russia last month that the authorities have now given the Baptists in Lyubuchany 

formal permission to rebuild their house church. These are the very same authorities who mounted a massive police raid against the Lyubuchany congregation in the 

summer of 2004; the same authorities who are suspected of being behind the mysterious arson attack that destroyed the Lyubuchany house church in September 

2004; the same authorities who then threatened legal action against the Baptists 

merely for trying to rebuild their own property. Obviously this is a major change 

of course. As in previous cases, members of the U.S. Congress have been able to 

help endangered religious believers just by publicly talking about them. 

Let me emphasize, however, that this was a breakthrough launched not by the 

State Department but by members of Congress. I learned last week that to this date 

State has still not sought a briefing from Mr. Okhotin, the star witness at last 

April’s congressional hearing, on the unregistered Baptists’ problems with Russian 

officials. To its credit, this year’s State report discusses the arson attacks on the 

house churches in Tula and Lyubuchany. But the report’s section on Russia makes 

no specific references to the unregistered Baptists other than to these two extreme 

events. Short of such gross atrocities, the initsiativniki often experience harassment 

by the police when they try to hold open-air revival meetings or to distribute religious publications on the street. For example, in June the police detained 

initsiativniki evangelists in the town of Spas-Klepiki in the province of Ryazan, simply because these evangelists were exercising what ought to be their constitutionally 

protected right to proclaim their faith in public. This year’s report has about twice 

as many references to the Mormons as to the unregistered Baptists, even though 

the latter are far more numerous in Russia and are clearly suffering harsher repression. As in previous years, the effect is to create the impression that the United 

States government is primarily interested in protecting American religious bodies 

that have strong constituencies in our own country, and less interested in protecting 

indigenous Russian religious minorities. 

Even more inadequate is the State Department’s coverage of the various Orthodox 

Christian bodies that are independent from the mainstream Moscow Patriarchate. 

These groups are extremely vulnerable for two reasons. First, the country’s largest 

104

and most powerful religion has special reason to target them since they are direct 

competitors for that religion’s core constituency. Second, they have few adherents 

in the United States and no visible presence here in Washington. Sadly, State’s coverage of them in this year’s report is limited to a single generalized sentence, virtually an exact repetition of a sentence in last year’s report with no new information 

or analysis. The report does not mention any specific cases such as one in Stavropol 

province reported in February by the Forum 18 News Service: Local police accompanied by clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate forced their way into a residence used 

as a place of worship by the breakaway Orthodox Rossiskaya Church. A bishop of 

this alternative Orthodox group was detained for three hours at a police station, and 

the Moscow Patriarchate clergy pressured him to submit to the authority of their 

own bishop. 

A similar example, this one from the report’s Turkmenistan section, is the insufficient coverage of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Armenians constitute one of the 

largest, long-standing Christian minorities in Turkmenistan, where they were free 

to organize formal church life before 1917. The Armenian Church is now legally registered in adjacent Uzbekistan, but not in Turkmenistan despite its deep historical 

roots there. State mentions that it is not registered but fails to provide the historical 

context showing what a particularly gross abuse this is; by contrast its report goes 

into great detail (as it should) about persecution of Protestants and Jehovah’s Witnesses. State is also still inadequate in its coverage of the Old Believers. This year’s report mentions two disputes over the return of Old Believer church buildings confiscated by the Bolsheviks, but it fails to mention another, crucial property issue 

that is peculiar to the Old Believers. This issue was the main cause of the Old Believers’ decision to oppose Russia’s controversial 1997 law on religion: the government’s connivance with the Moscow Patriarchate in stealing Old Believer valuables 

such as icons and bells. On Red Square, for example, the Moscow Patriarchate’s 

newly restored Kazan Cathedral houses a magnificent bell commissioned a century 

ago by a wealthy Old Believer merchant. The Soviet regime seized that bell from 

Moscow’s largest Old Believer church and kept it in storage for decades; the postSoviet state then transferred it to the mainstream Moscow Patriarchate, which thus 

became a willing recipient of stolen property. The Moscow Patriarchate not only refuses to return such items to their rightful owners, but has successfully lobbied 

against efforts by the Old Believers to amend the law so as to bar such thievery. 

By failing to champion the cause of the Old Believers, the State Department is 

missing a golden opportunity to show that Washington is committed to religious 

freedom for tradition-minded Russians, not just for the ‘‘foreign sects’’ demonized by 

Russian ultra-nationalists. The Old Believer faith is the most uniquely Russian form 

of Christianity: To this day it exists only in Slavic countries or in places where it 

was brought by Slavic emigrants. Intentionally or not, State’s neglect of the Old Believers and the alternative Orthodox reinforces the ultra-nationalists’ accusation 

that Americans are interested only in helping religions alien to Russia, religions 

newly imported by western missionaries. 

This flaw is reinforced by the other flaw that I mentioned earlier: too little analysis as distinct from mere recitation of facts. One example of this is the report’s failure to link the repression of the initsiativniki Baptists and the alternative Orthodox 

to certain specific provisions of the 1997 law. The report discusses the law’s invidious distinction between so-called ‘‘religious organizations’’ and ‘‘religious groups,’’ 

but makes it seem that this is a problem only for brand-new religions such as the 

Hare Krishnas. In fact, the law is cleverly written in such a way as to disfavor religious confessions which have been present in Russia since the 19th century or before, but which refused to collaborate with the Soviet regime. The 1997 law has created a systematic presumption against religious believers such as the initsiativniki 

and the True Orthodox, who managed to function underground during the Soviet 

era but were not formally recognized by the Soviet state. In effect the Yeltsin and 

Putin administrations have retroactively legitimized and partially restored Soviet 

standards of church-state relations—the standards of an explicitly anti-religious, totalitarian state. The Kremlin’s willingness to repudiate such standards should be a 

key test of its commitment to making the transition from tyranny to freedom. Unfortunately, the State Department continues to fail to frame that issue clearly. 

The report’s discussion of Russia’s Muslims also suffers from this lack of in-depth 

analysis. The list of specific rights violations is welcome, but State needs to go beyond that to probe underlying causes. A crucial point is that the Kremlin’s deeprooted penchant for centralized control makes it unwilling to accept the reality that 

Islam is one of the most non-hierarchal of all world religions. Moscow has continued 

the Soviet practice of artificially elevating the country’s ‘‘Muslim spiritual directorates,’’ originally created in the 18th century as tools of control for the czarist 

105

state. These bureaucratic structures have no historic or spiritual legitimacy in 

Islam, and the Kremlin’s use of them to promote its own puppet muftis makes it 

far harder for Russia’s Muslims to produce legitimate leaders who would be in a 

far stronger position to combat extremism and terrorism. 

More generally, both the Russian and the Central Asian sections of the report 

give too much weight to the question of formal registration: They encourage the 

false assumption that if a religious body can get legally registered, its problems are 

over. But human-rights monitors have found many cases where congregations have 

all their formal documents in order but still experience repression. When I visited 

Russia last month the head of the registered Baptists told me that in the city Moscow alone some 10 congregations had had to go out of existence because they were 

barred from renting places in which to worship. 

I also mentioned earlier the problem of factual errors. In any report of this magnitude some errors are inevitable; the more initiative State takes in exploring new 

subjects, the more factual errors it will probably make. But when errors are repeated from one year to the next they undermine the report’s credibility. For example, both last year and this year the report mistakenly calls the Roman Catholic 

church in Magadan a ‘‘cathedral’’ when in fact the Catholic cathedral for eastern Siberia is in Irkutsk. Both last year and this year the report states that ‘‘the 1997 

law ostensibly targets so-called ‘totalitarian sects’ or dangerous religious ‘cults’.’’ Actually, neither of those terms is specifically used in the law. 

One last point: I was glad to see that the report’s section on Russia has almost 

completely stopped using the invidious term ‘‘proselytism’’; I wish I could say the 

same about the rest of this year’s report. The word ‘‘proselytism,’’ with its connotation of sectarian fanaticism, is almost never applied to adherents of secular belief 

systems such as feminism or environmentalism; it is taken for granted that disciples 

of these movements should be free to pursue converts all over the world, even in 

cultures where their beliefs are profoundly alien. If we are truly committed to the 

principle that religious believers have the same free-speech rights as non-believers, 

we should avoid the all too common practice of selectively using the unsavory label 

of ‘‘proselytism’’ to discredit religious speech. No matter how much one may dislike 

religious missionaries in either substance or style, they have every right to preach 

their message. The State Department’s choice of words should reflect that bedrock 

principle. 

TURKMENISTAN: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM SURVEY, OCTOBER 2005

By Felix Corley, Forum 18 News Service

This article was published by F18News on: 18 October 2005

In its survey analysis of religious freedom in Turkmenistan, Forum 18 News 

Service reports on the almost complete lack of freedom to practice any faith, including denials of the right of legally registered religious communities to worship. In a typical example of this approach—which other religious minorities 

have also experienced—police raided a legally registered Baptist church in northern Turkmenistan, claiming that ‘‘individuals can only believe alone on their 

own at home.’’ Unregistered religious activity continues—in defiance of international human rights agreements—to be attacked. There has been an increase 

in attempts to impose a state religious personality cult of President Niyazov on 

all Turkmen citizens, with mosques being particularly targeted. Turkmenistan 

continues to fail to implement its international human rights commitments, and 

also continues to take direct governmental action to deny religious freedom to 

peaceful Turkmen citizensIn its survey analysis of religious freedom in 

Turkmenistan, Forum 18 News Service reports on the almost complete lack of 

freedom to practice any faith, including denials of the right of legally registered 

religious communities to worship. In a typical example of this approach—which 

other religious minorities have also experienced—police raided a legally registered Baptist church in northern Turkmenistan, claiming that ‘‘individuals can 

only believe alone on their own at home.’’ Unregistered religious activity continues—in defiance of international human rights agreements—to be attacked. 

There has been an increase in attempts to impose a state religious personality 

cult of President Niyazov on all Turkmen citizens, with mosques being particularly targeted. Turkmenistan continues to fail to implement its international 

human rights commitments, and also continues to take direct governmental action to deny religious freedom to peaceful Turkmen citizens

Turkmenistan regularly claims that religious freedom exists in the country, one 

example being Foreign Minister Rashid Meredov’s statement to the United Nations 

106

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in August 2005. 

However, in practice, people in Turkmenistan are not permitted by the government 

to practice a faith or belief alone or with others, to meet freely for worship and 

spread their religious beliefs, or to freely choose to change their beliefs. The government tries to control the extremely limited legal religious activity it permits, which 

often does not—even for registered religious groups—include the right to worship. 

All unregistered religious activity remains banned and the government actively tries 

to suppress such activity along with its attacks on registered activity. 

Places of worship have been confiscated and destroyed in recent years, while those 

still open are tightly restricted—with many faiths not being allowed any place of 

worship. Sharing religious beliefs in public and in the media is impossible, while 

formal religious education, apart from at a basic level, within places of worship or 

elsewhere is impossible. The exception to this is a small Muslim theological faculty 

in the capital Ashgabad [Ashgabat], and this faculty has this year had all its foreign 

(Turkish) staff expelled, its student numbers reduced, and its status downgraded. 

Religious believers have been fired from their jobs because of their faith, evicted 

from their homes and harassed, fined and beaten for meeting—even in private 

homes—for unsanctioned meetings. 

The changes to the religion law in March 2004 to allow small religious communities to register has allowed about nine previously ‘‘illegal’’ religious communities 

to gain legal status. But this seems to have been a move purely for purposes of foreign publicity, as it is rendered worthless due to government refusal to allow religious communities to meet, especially outside Ashgabad. 

The March 2004 changes to the religion law and the subsequent registration by 

the Adalat (Fairness or Justice) Ministry of some religious minority communities, 

together with the removal of criminal penalties for unregistered religious activity—

which came under strong international pressure—were much trumpeted by the 

Turkmen government. The state’s record has encouraged religious communities to 

view the changes with suspicion (eg. see F18News 28 February 2005 http://

www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article—id=521). Unregistered religious activity remains an administrative offence and state agencies have continued to behave as if 

unregistered religious activity was still a criminal offence. 

The statistics given by Foreign Minister Meredov showed the limited impact of 

the changes. He said there are 91 registered Muslim communities, 12 registered 

Russian Orthodox communities, plus about nine registered communities of other 

faiths. A special commission attached to the Adalat Ministry is entrusted with processing registration applications, he added. It is believed this commission includes 

representatives of law enforcement agencies and other ministries. 

Maysa Durdiyeva of the Adalat Ministry department that registers religious communities and non-governmental organisations told a conference in Ashgabad on 19 

August that her ministry has registered 118 religious communities. Durdiyeva did 

not specify which denominations the 118 registered communities belong to and, contacted by Forum 18 in the wake of the conference, refused absolutely to give any 

information on registered communities or the numbers who have sought registration 

in vain. Significantly, she reminded conference participants—who came from a 

range of civil society groups and international organisations—that all activity by unregistered NGOs and religious communities remains illegal. 

Strangely, in its written submission to the CERD, the Turkmenistan government 

had spoken of 382 mosques, 12 Orthodox churches and houses of prayer of other 

faiths in the country, without further explanation. The latest figures for registered 

religious communities are likely to be more accurate. Shirin Akhmedova, then an 

official of the Adalat Ministry, told Forum 18 in March 2004 that 152 religious communities currently had registration, 140 of them Muslim and 12 Russian Orthodox. 

She admitted that far more religious communities had registration before 1997, 

when the harsh restrictions on registration came in. In 1997 there were some 250 

registered Muslim communities, as well as communities of many other faiths. 

However, the 12 Russian Orthodox communities cited by officials are known to 

have been refused re-registration up to the present time, because the Turkmen government has tried to pressure the Russian Orthodox Church to take the Turkmen 

parishes from the jurisdiction of the Central Asian diocese based in Tashkent in 

neighbouring Uzbekistan and put them directly under the Patriarch of Moscow. Patriarch Aleksi wrote to President Niyazov in July 2005 politely rejecting this proposal. A Moscow-based priest familiar with the situation told Forum 18 in July that 

he personally believes President Niyazov is trying to create ‘‘independent Orthodoxy’’ in Turkmenistan. ‘‘He wants the Orthodox Church to exist, but a Church that 

is in his hand, just as he has done with Islam.’’ (see F18News 11 July 2005 http:/

/www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article—id=603). 

107

Appeals from the Russian Orthodox Holy Synod for the parishes to be re-registered have gone unanswered. Given the refusal to re-register the parishes, it remains unclear why government officials continue to include them in the statistics 

they give out. 

There are signs that the international community increasingly does not believe 

Turkmen official statements. The CERD in August 2005, whilst noting what it 

called ‘‘the relaxation of registration rules in 2004,’’ was unimpressed by 

Turkmenistan’s human rights claims and amongst its recommendations pointedly 

called on the government ‘‘to respect the right of registered and unregistered religions to freely exercise their freedom of religion, and register religious groups who 

wish to be registered.’’

Despite the government’s emphasis in its report to the CERD that Article 154 of 

the Criminal Code punishes ‘‘obstructing the exercise of freedom of conscience and 

religion’’, Forum 18 is not aware of any government officials punished for organising 

or taking part in harassment of religious communities, whether beatings, threats, 

detention, fines, demolition or seizure of places of worship, confiscation of religious 

literature or denial of the right to travel for religious purposes. 

In the wake of the government’s proclaimed liberalisation in 2004, harassment of 

religious communities continued. On 29 March 2004 President Niyazov told officials 

of the Gengeshi (Council) for Religious Affairs—which runs the Muslim community 

for the government—that he was handing over three new mosques to it and that 

no further mosques would be allowed. This appears to bar both Sunni and Shia 

Muslim communities that have been denied registration from taking advantage of 

the relaxation of the harsh registration requirements. 

Religious meetings continued to raided (with a new wave in summer 2005 which 

saw Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Hare Krishna devotees harassed), places 

used for worship have been confiscated or demolished and believers have been beaten, fined, detained, deported and sacked from their jobs in punishment for religious 

activity the government does not like. Some believers have been given long prison 

sentences in recent years for their religious activity (most of them Jehovah’s Witnesses, though all of them have now been freed) or have been sent into internal 

exile to remote parts of the country. 

Jehovah’s Witness sources have expressed concern to Forum 18 that although 

their last conscientious objectors imprisoned for refusing compulsory military service 

on grounds of religious conscience were freed in April 2005, the lack of any alternative service means that any of their young men could still be arrested at any 

time. 

Turkmenistan’s restrictions on religious activity come despite constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion (repeated in the March 2004 presidential decree and 

reiterated to the UN CERD). Yet whilst the CERD was in session, police raided a 

registered Baptist church in Dashoguz [Dashhowuz] claiming that ‘‘Individuals can 

only believe alone on their own at home.’’ (see F18News 18 August 2005 http://

www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article—id=632). 

Forum 18 was told that when church leaders strongly disputed this, the police 

were unable to find Article 11 of Turkmenistan’s constitution, which reads: ‘‘The 

state shall guarantee the freedom of religions and confessions and their equality before the law. Religious organizations shall be separate from the state and may not 

fulfill state functions. The state education system shall be separate from religious 

organizations and shall be a secular nature. 

Everyone shall have the right independently to define his attitude toward religion, 

to profess any religion or not profess any either individually or jointly with others, 

to profess and disseminate beliefs associated with his attitude to religion, and to 

participate in the practice of religious cults, rituals, and rites.’’

This police raid on a legal religious community was a further indication of the 

emptiness of official claims that Turkmenistan’s constitution and legal system defends human rights. 

Turkmenistan’s restrictions on religious freedom also break its international 

human rights obligations. Freedom of religion or belief is enshrined in the requirements for membership of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe 

(OSCE) and the UN, as well as being within the international human rights conventions which Turkmenistan has voluntarily signed. The country has pointedly failed 

to respond to repeated requests from the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief, Asma Jahangir, to be allowed to visit the country to investigate 

the religious freedom situation for herself. 

In her annual report covering 2004, Jahangir noted that her repeated requests for 

further information about specific violations of religious freedom had elicited only 

one bland response from the government with no information on the specific cases 

108

she was seeking further clarification on. The government response merely claimed 

that her facts ‘‘did not correspond to the reality’’. 

With a dictatorial ruler, who has appointed himself for life, President Saparmurat 

Niyazov (who likes to call himself ‘‘Turkmenbashi’’ or Father of the Turkmens), 

Turkmenistan already suffers from an absence of political and social freedom. State 

control was tightened even more in the wake of a failed assassination attempt on 

the president in November 2002, which some observers believe may have been 

staged to provide a pretext for repression. 

Niyazov’s rule is characterised by a grotesque cult of personality, with everpresent statues and portraits. Works published in his name—especially the two volume ideological book, the Ruhnama (Book of the Soul), which officials have likened 

to the Koran or the Bible—are compulsorily imposed on schools and the wider public. Russian Orthodox priests and Sunni Muslim imams are forced to quote approvingly from it in sermons and display it prominently in places of worship. One 

Ashgabad mosque has a dedicated Ruhnama room. The personality cult includes a 

massive mosque built at taxpayers’ expense in the president’s home village of 

Kipchak, in southern central Turkmenistan, decorated with quotations from the 

Ruhnama, a gold statue in Ashgabad that revolves to follow the sun and a monument to the Ruhnama. 

The government-enforced cult of Niyazov’s personality was stepped up at the beginning of the year, with Muslims facing mounting pressure to venerate the 

Ruhnama and local officials insisting that Russian Orthodox churches must have a 

minimum of two copies of it in parish libraries. Also important in the President’s 

cult are his books of poetry, and Muslim clerics were told in February 2005 that 

‘‘it was a priority task for clergymen to disseminate the lofty ideas in our great leader’s sacred books on the duties of parents and children’’. An apparently full-time official at the massive Saparmurat Haji mosque in the village of Geok-tepe near the 

capital Ashgabad is present to ‘‘remind’’ the imam which pages of the work he is 

to read from at prayer times (see F18News 1 March 2005 http://www.forum18.org/

Archive.php?article—id=522). 

Some Muslims have objected to this attack on the content of Islamic belief. Anonymous anti-government leaflets circulating in Ashgabad in July 2004 contained calls 

for Muslims not to go to mosques where the Ruhnama is cited together with the 

Koran. There have been reports of attendance at such mosques declining. 

One Jehovah’s Witness told Forum 18 in September 2004 that they had not applied for registration because they would not accept official demands made of other 

faiths to hang the country’s flag and a portrait of the president in places of worship. 

‘‘These are unacceptable demands,’’ he insisted. 

Religious parents—Muslim, Christian and members of other faiths—face a dilemma over whether to send their children to state-run schools. The Ruhnama plays 

a major role in the school curriculum from the very first year. (English, for example 

being taught using translations of the Ruhnama). The all-pervasive use of the 

Ruhnama, together with recitation of the oath of loyalty to the country and president, is objectionable to many religious parents do not wish to subject their children 

to what they see as blasphemous practices. 

The oath of loyalty, which is printed at the top of daily newspapers, reads in 

translation: ‘‘Turkmenistan, you are always with me in my thoughts and in my 

heart. For the slightest evil against you let my hand be cut off. For the slightest 

slander about you let my tongue be cut off. At the moment of my betrayal of my 

motherland, of her sacred banner, of Saparmurat Turkmenbashy [Father of the 

Turkmens] the Great [i.e. President Saparmurat Niyazov], let my breath stop.’’

After the adoption in July 2002 of the law on guarantees of the rights of the child, 

the unregistered Baptist Church complained bitterly about Article 24 part 2 which 

declared: ‘‘Parents or the legal representatives of the child are obliged . . . to bring 

him up in a spirit of humanism and the unshakeable spiritual values embodied in 

the holy Ruhnama.’’ Pointing out that officials are promoting the Ruhnama as ‘‘the 

last word of God to the Turkmen people’’, the Baptists declared: ‘‘In practice this 

law is a direct infringement on the freedom of conscience of citizens professing faith 

in Jesus Christ or another faith not recognised by the state.’’

Orthodox Christians echo the Baptists’ concerns, telling Forum 18 that the issue 

has put Russian Orthodox priests in a difficult position. ‘‘Worried parents have come 

to their priests,’’ one Orthodox Christian reported. ‘‘The priest can’t tell his parishioners not to send their children to school. All he can do is tell them to do as their 

conscience dictates.’’ Some parents have begun to teach their children privately at 

home. 

Turkmenistan’s deliberate isolation from the outside world and the punitive measures taken against those engaged in unauthorised religious activity make religious 

freedom reporting very difficult. Believers often fear retribution for reporting their 

109

difficulties, and so Forum 18 is unable to give the names or identifying features of 

sources within the country. 

Religious activity is overseen by the secret police’s department for work with social organisations and religious groups. This department, formerly the sixth department of the National Security Committee (KNB) secret police, is one of the six or 

seven main departments of the State Security Ministry (MSS) secret police and was 

created when the KNB was restructured in late 2002. The social and religious affairs department of the secret police is believed to have 45 officers at the headquarters in Ashgabad, with a handful of officers in each local branch. 

People known to be active in religious communities are recorded with the security 

agencies locally and can be summoned at any moment for interrogation. ‘‘All our believers are on file at the State Security Ministry secret police and we are treated 

as though we have a criminal record,’’ a Hare Krishna devotee told Deutsche Welle 

in July 2005. The Turkmenistan Helsinki Foundation reported that since August 

2005, the secret police in Ahal region have been summoning young men who go to 

the mosque five times a day for prayers. It also reported that the secret police summoned the parents of a devout Muslim conscript who prayed regularly in his military unit and warned that they should extract a statement from him declaring that 

he was renouncing his faith. 

Local MSS secret police officers regularly summon Muslim and Orthodox clerics 

to report on activity within their communities. Some believers have told Forum 18 

that the MSS also runs ‘‘spies’’ in each Muslim and Orthodox community, sometimes 

as many as half a dozen. In addition to their spies—who attend the religious community solely at MSS behest to gain information—there might be another ten or fifteen believers who are regularly interviewed by MSS officers and forced to reveal 

details of the community’s religious life. 

The MSS secret police and the ordinary police also try to recruit spies in unregistered religious groups, such as with the attempted recruitment of a member of a 

Baptist church they had detained in June 2003 in the north-eastern city of 

Turkmenabad (formerly Charjew). 

The Gengeshi for Religious Affairs—which is headed by an imam, Yagshimurat 

Atamuradov—has nominal responsibility for religious affairs, and has a headquarters in Ashgabad and branch offices in each of Turkmenistan’s five velayats (regions). The Gengeshi’s main job appears to be approving clerical appointments in 

the Sunni Muslim and Orthodox communities. ‘‘Imams are chosen by the Gengeshi 

and are then approved by the president,’’ one source told Forum 18. Niyazov confirmed this in March 2004, when he instructed Gengeshi officials to make sure they 

appointed all imams, warning them not to allow local believers to do so. 

Places of worship of a variety of faiths have faced demolition—as with numerous 

mosques most recently in 2004, as well as the Adventist church in Ashgabad in 

1999 and two Hare Krishna temples in the eastern Mary region in 1999—and confiscation—as with the Baptist and Pentecostal churches in Ashgabad in 2001. The 

six mosques were demolished in Ashgabad in autumn 2004 and one was turned into 

a police outreach post. The imam of one of the demolished mosques—40-year-old 

Abdylla Geldymuradov—was held for several days by the MSS for interrogation. His 

father Shirmolla, an imam in a village near Ashgabad, was also harassed, the exiled 

Turkmenistan Helsinki Foundation reported. No compensation has been offered to 

the Muslims, Adventists or Hare Krishna communities and the authorities have refused to return confiscated places of worship. 

It was only with difficulty and after six months’ effort that Ashgabad’s Adventist 

community could find somewhere to rent for worship after regaining registration in 

2004 after seven years. Yet renting somewhere for worship—even for registered 

communities—can be highly difficult. One director of a government-owned house of 

culture in the capital Ashgabad told Deutsche Welle in July 2005 that the city authorities had warned him and fellow directors in the city that providing premises 

for religious minorities is ‘‘unacceptable’’. 

Unregistered religious communities face regular raids by MSS secret police officers, backed up by ordinary police officers (especially from the 6th Department, 

which notionally counters terrorism and organised crime), officials of the local administration and local religious affairs officials, who work closely together in suppressing and punishing as criminal all unregistered religious activity. Summer and 

autumn 2005 saw a spate of new raids on Jehovah’s Witnesses, with one, 

Konstantin Vlaskin, detained for two weeks in Turkmenabad in July, raids, threats, 

beatings and fines and even the refusal to continue medical treatment on one (see 

F18News 13 September 2005). When in July 2005 police raided the private home 

in Turkmenabad where unregistered Baptists gather regularly for Bible study and 

prayer, they beat the host, Asiya Zasedatelevaya, with her own Bible and even 

110

threatened to hang her (see F18News 29 July 2005 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article—id=621). 

But congregations of registered religious communities have faced similar raids. 

Anti-terrorist police raided the Sunday worship service of the registered Baptist 

church in Dashoguz [Dashhowuz] on 14 August 2005. After the service, police questioned church members, confiscating all Turkmen-language Bibles and hymnbooks. 

The police took particular interest in children at the service, and were disappointed 

they were in the service with parental permission. Interrogation of church leaders 

followed, with officers insisting the Baptist Church’s national registration in 

Ashgabad did not extend to other towns (see F18News 18 August 2005 http://

www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article—id=632). 

Baptist congregations in Turkmenabad and Mary (see eg. F18News 10 June 2005 

http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article—id=582) and a Pentecostal congregation 

in the port city of Turkmenbashi ([Tu ̈ rkmenbashy] formerly Krasnovodsk) faced 

similar raids earlier this year (see F18News 31 March 2005 http://www.forum18.org/

Archive.php?article—id=535). In July 2005 local authorities warned Hare Krishna 

devotees in the Mary region not to meet for religious rites in private homes, despite 

the fact that the Hare Krishna community also has registration. 

Even the two major faiths—the Sunni Muslim Board and the Russian Orthodox 

Church—face government meddling and require government approval for the nomination of all officials. In January 2003 President Niyazov ousted the Chief Mufti, 

Nasrullah ibn Ibadullah, an ethnic Uzbek who had led Turkmenistan’s Muslims for 

the previous ten years, and replaced him with the 35-year-old Kakageldy Vepaev, 

someone widely believed to be more pliant. However, he too was soon ousted and 

Rovshen Allaberdiev was appointed the new chief mufti in August 2004. 

In the wake of his dismissal, Nasrullah ibn Ibadullah apparently lived quietly in 

his home town of Dashoguz [Dashhowuz] until his arrest in January 2004, apparently accused of being an accomplice in the apparent November 2002 assassination 

attempt. An MSS-compiled ‘‘confession’’ allegedly written in prison by the chief plotter, Boris Shikhmuradov, alleged that the former chief mufti had been a key associate with the code name ‘‘Rasputin’’. Nasrullah ibn Ibadullah was sentenced to 22 

years’ imprisonment at a closed trial in Ashgabad in March 2004. The government 

has refused repeated international requests to make the verdict public. It remains 

unclear whether he was punished for his lack of enthusiasm for the president’s book 

the Ruhnama, for taking part in the plot, or as a prominent member of the Uzbek 

minority. 

Vepaev then took over Nasrullah’s role in enforcing the president’s religious policy. His dual role—as a Muslim leader and a state official (he was also one of the 

deputy chairmen of the Gengeshi for Religious Affairs)—became all too apparent 

during the crackdown on Protestant and Hare Krishna communities in spring 2003: 

he personally took part in raids on Protestant churches in Ashgabad and in followup meetings at hyakimliks (local administrations) when church members were questioned and threatened. In a similar move, local mullahs have frequently been involved in raids on local religious minorities elsewhere in the country—most recently 

in August 2005 on a Jehovah’s Witness meeting in Turkmenabad—threatening 

them and calling them to renounce their faith and, if they are ethnic Turkmens, to 

‘‘return’’ to their ancestral faith. 

Sunni Muslim mosques are reported to have seen attendance slump as, in response to government orders, imams placed copies of the Ruhnama in mosques with 

equal prominence as copies of the Koran. At least one mosque has been closed down 

after its imam refused to put the Ruhnama in a place of honour. The grand mosques 

constructed on the president’s orders—and with state funds—are likewise reported 

to be largely empty, as Muslims decline to regard them as places of worship. Imams 

are, at least in theory, required to recite the oath of loyalty to the president and 

country at the end of the namaz (daily prayers). President Niyazov told Muslims 

in 2000 that they were to renounce the hadiths, sayings attributed to the Muslim 

Prophet Muhammad which do not appear in the Koran but are valued by devout 

Muslims. 

On 1 July 2005 Niyazov told his cabinet that Turkmen Muslims had their own 

way of praying and ordered the publication of a list of common religious rituals for 

all Turkmens. ‘‘Officials from the Turkmen National Security Ministry secret police 

are going around mosques identifying Muslims who perform religious rites in a way 

that differs from Turkmen practice,’’ Khaitbai Yakubov told Forum 18 from 

neighbouring Uzbekistan of what was happening in ethnic Uzbek-populated regions 

of Turkmenistan. 

Devout Muslims have expressed concern about the government-sponsored ousting 

of imams who have theological education in favour of those who have never been 

formally educated in Islam. In the past, imams were educated in neighbouring 

111

Uzbekistan, but that appears to have come to a halt. Even in areas dominated by 

Turkmenistan’s ethnic Uzbek minority, such as in the Dashoguz region of northeastern Turkmenistan, the authorities have ousted ethnic Uzbek imams and replaced them with ethnic Turkmens. 

Muslim education has become almost impossible in recent years. The madrassah 

(Islamic college) in Dashoguz was ordered closed in 2001, leaving the Faculty of 

Muslim Theology at Magtymguly Turkmen State University in Ashgabad as the 

only institution in Turkmenistan authorised to train imams. In 2002 the president 

set limits on the number of students who could study there. These were further reduced under a 30 June 2005 decree passed by President Niyazov, which also ordered 

the merger of the Theological Faculty with the History Faculty from the new academic year beginning in autumn 2005, with the theological section now merely a 

sub-department with 55 students. 

Foreign lecturers, who were all Turkish, were forced to leave the country to be 

replaced by local, less qualified teachers. Under a decree issued by the education 

ministry on 5 July, 20 students were expelled from the preparatory department of 

the Theological Faculty. A local staff member at the faculty described the enforced 

cut-back to Forum 18 in July 2005 as ‘‘a virtual catastrophe for us’’ (see F18News 

22 July 2005 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article—id=614). 

One source told Forum 18 that the decline in the level of education among practising imams has led to a growth in respect for the artsakal, or traditional religious 

leaders. ‘‘They have preserved their authority and people go to them for weddings 

and funerals,’’ the source reported. ‘‘The authorities don’t attack them.’’

Government tolerance of Sunni Islam has not extended to Shia Islam, which is 

mainly professed by the ethnic Azeri and Iranian minorities in the west of the country who are traditionally more devout than ethnic Turkmens. Shia mosques failed 

to gain re-registration during the compulsory round of re-registration in 1997 after 

the adoption of the much harsher law on religion. Judging by the president’s remarks in March 2004, they also appear unable to apply for registration now. An unregistered Shia mosque in Turkmenbashi was raided in December 2003 as local 

Shias commemorated the death of the former Azerbaijani president Heidar Aliev. 

The president’s dislike of Shia Islam has also extended into history. Among the 

accusations levelled at the writer Rahim Esenov was that he had correctly portrayed 

Bayram Khan, a sixteenth-century regent of the Mughal Empire and the hero of one 

of his novels, as a Shia rather than a Sunni Muslim. Niyazov had warned Esenov 

in 1997 to amend his text, but the writer had refused to comply. Detained in early 

2004, national security officers repeatedly asked him about why Bayram Khan was 

depicted as a Shia. Freed from prison in March 2004 under international pressure, 

Esenov awaits trial accused of inciting social, religious and ethnic hatred under Article 177 of the criminal code. 

The Russian Orthodox Church, which is nominally under the control of the 

Church’s Central Asian diocese led from the Uzbek capital Tashkent by Metropolitan Vladimir (Ikim), is in fact under the direct control of the Ashgabad-based priest 

Fr Andrei Sapunov, widely regarded with suspicion by members of the Orthodox 

Church and other Christian faiths who have suffered from his actions. 

The Turkmen government tries to isolate the local parishes from the Tashkent diocese and the wider Russian Orthodox Church. In recent years, three or four priests 

who are Russian citizens who the diocese wished to send to serve in Turkmenistan 

have been denied visas. Church delegations to Turkmenistan from both Tashkent 

and Moscow have in recent years been forced to reduce the numbers of participants. 

President Niyazov and successive chief muftis (as leader of the largest faith in the 

country) have refused to invite Patriarch Aleksi to make a pastoral visit to 

Turkmenistan. 

However, although Muslims are not allowed to travel abroad for religious education, Russian Orthodox men from Turkmenistan are allowed to study for the 

priesthood at the Tashkent seminary. 

In an echo of the practice in Sunni Muslim mosques, Orthodox priests reportedly 

received instructions from the end of 2000 to quote from the Ruhnama in sermons 

and to ‘‘preach to us about the virtues of living in Turkmenistan and of the policies 

of Turkmenbashi,’’ one parishioner complained. 

Close to President Niyazov, Fr Sapunov frequently deploys the extravagant personal praise of the president required of all officials. Many Orthodox regard such 

statements as close to blasphemy. Some Orthodox have told Forum 18 that they 

have evidence he passes information received in the confessional—which the church 

teaches he should never reveal to anyone—to the secret police. 

In addition to his duties in the Church, Fr Sapunov is also one of the deputy 

chairmen of the Gengeshi for Religious Affairs, with particular responsibility for 

Christian affairs. This gives him an official power of veto over the affairs of other 

112

Christian denominations. He is also well-known in the secret police, even to local 

officers outside Ashgabad, and has praised a ban on the importation of literature 

from Russia, which includes a ban on the official Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. During numerous raids on Protestant churches in different regions, secret 

police officers have told the Protestants that they must gain permission from Fr 

Sapunov before they can operate. 

Article 205 of the Code of Administrative Offences, which dates back to the Soviet 

period, specifies fines for those refusing to register their religious communities of 

five to ten times the minimum monthly wage, with typical fines of 250,000 Turkmen 

Manats (363 Norwegian Kroner, 44 Euros or 48 US Dollars at the inflated official 

exchange rate). Fines can be doubled for repeat offenders. Many believers of a variety of faiths have been fined under this article, including a series of Baptists and 

Hare Krishna devotees last year after the series of raids on unregistered religious 

meetings. 

There is a Catholic mission in Turkmenistan, based at the Holy See’s Nunciature 

in Ashgabad. However, at present Catholics can only celebrate Masses on this Vatican diplomatic territory. The priests have diplomatic status. 

One of the biggest religious communities that has been denied registration is the 

Armenian Apostolic Church. An estimated fifteen per cent of those who attend Russian Orthodox churches are said by local people to be Armenians, although the Armenian Church is of the Oriental family of Christian Churches, not of the Orthodox 

family. ‘‘Sapunov told parish priests to accept Armenian believers,’’ one local Orthodox told Forum 18. However, the Orthodox Church would stand to lose a sizeable 

proportion of its flock were the government to allow the Armenian Church to revive 

its activity. 

The one surviving pre-revolutionary Armenian church—in the Caspian port city 

of Turkmenbashi—is said to be in a ‘‘sorry state of repair’’. The Armenian ambassador to Turkmenistan has repeatedly sought permission for it to be restored and 

reopened as a place of worship but in vain. When the Armenian priest last visited 

from neighbouring Uzbekistan he had to conduct baptisms and hold services in the 

Armenian embassy in Ashgabad. Asked at the UN CERD meeting in August about 

why no Armenian Apostolic communities had gained registration, foreign minister 

Meredov said this was because no application had been submitted and claimed that 

if the Church does submit an application there is no reason for it not to be approved. 

The obstructions to travel abroad have made it difficult to take part in international gatherings. In March 2004 border guards took two female Jehovah’s Witnesses off the aeroplane at Ashgabad airport while on route to a Jehovah’s Witness 

meeting in Kiev. They were barred from leaving the country. 

This January’s pilgrimage to Mecca, the haj, as in previous years, saw only 188 

pilgrims allowed to travel, far below the quota allocated to Turkmenistan by the 

Saudi authorities. One Ashgabad imam reported that he knew at least one person 

who had been on the haj waiting list for at least 10 years and who found out that 

somebody else who had been on the waiting list for less than 2 years went on the 

haj by paying a bribe. 

Believers who want to receive information from fellow-believers abroad face virtually insurmountable obstacles. Access to the Internet is possible only via state 

providers that exert strict control over what information can be accessed. The majority of international religious websites are simply not accessible by an Internet user 

in Turkmenistan. Moreover, a special computer program searches emails for coded 

words that could be used to send ‘‘unreliable information’’, while ‘‘a suspicious message’’ will simply not reach the addressee. 

Religious literature is no longer published in Turkmenistan. Mosques and Russian 

Orthodox churches often have small kiosks where a limited quantity of literature 

is available. A typical Orthodox church bookstall might have a few prayer books, 

small icons and calendars, with the Bible available only erratically—and often, at 

about 12 US Dollars [62,400 Turkmen Manats, 78 Norwegian Kroner, or 10 Euros], 

too expensive for the badly-paid local people. Supplies of religious literature and articles to Orthodox churches are equally erratic, with no official distribution of books, 

icons, candles and baptismal crosses. 

Customs officers sometimes allow travellers returning to the country to bring in 

a small quantity of religious literature for personal use. However, one Orthodox believer told Forum 18 that on at least five occasions known to him, Orthodox priests 

had had literature taken from them at the border on their return to the country. 

Hare Krishna devotees, Protestants and Jehovah’s Witnesses have complained to 

Forum 18 they cannot import religious literature. Religious literature is routinely 

confiscated from members of unregistered religious minorities during police raids on 

their homes. 

113

Orthodox believers trying to receive alternative information are in a more difficult 

situation than Sunni Muslims. Under a September 2002 presidential decree, direct 

subscription to Russian newspapers and magazines, including religious publications 

such as the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, is banned in Turkmenistan. Even 

Orthodox priests do not receive the Journal regularly, being forced to rely on old 

copies they pick up when they are visiting Moscow or Tashkent. 

Of the Russian television channels, only a few hours a day of the ORT channel 

are broadcast, and then only with a day’s delay after programmes have been approved by a censor. Currently there are a number of broadcasts on Russian television covering Orthodox issues. The broadcast of Russian cable programmes is forbidden in Turkmenistan, so that unlike in other Central Asian states, local Orthodox believers cannot use this as an alternative source of religious news. Richer local 

people try to evade these restrictions by installing satellite receivers. 

Officials have not simply restricted themselves to banning the receipt of political 

information from the former metropolis. Purely religious communications between 

local Orthodox believers and Russia have inevitably also been obstructed. As 

Turkmenistan has become even more isolated from Russia, individual Orthodox believers have become more isolated from the Moscow Patriarchate. 

Much religious activity has of necessity to be shrouded in secrecy, with believers 

of having to hide their faith and worship from the knowledge of intrusive state officials. In response to the pressure, all unregistered communities have seen the numbers of their active members fall. Yet despite the severe controls and the threat of 

punishment, the religious believers practice their various faiths as best they can, 

while waiting for better times. 

Governmental attacks on religious freedom in Turkmenistan are wide-ranging 

and permeate society. For religious freedom to be a reality, the Turkmen government would have to:

1.) implement in full the international human rights commitments it has freely accepted, such as the the Helsinki Final Act of 1975—to which all OSCE 

states are committed—which states the binding importance of ‘‘respect for 

human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of 

thought, conscience, religion or belief’’;

2.) respect and defend the right of all individuals and religious communities—

whether registered or unregistered—to exercise their right

— a.) to freedom of religion or belief, to worship and witness,

— b.) to not change (or change) a religion or belief

— and c.) to join together and express a religion or belief

3.) register all religious communities that wish to apply for registration;

4.) cease attacking unregistered religious activity, including abolishing all 

legal barriers to peaceful religious activity;

5.) stop interfering with the beliefs and internal affairs of religious communities, including their internal personnel appointments;

6.) stop imposing a religious personality cult of the President on citizens;

7.) end ordinary police and secret police raids on religious meetings, whether 

in private homes or elsewhere;

8.) end interrogations and fines of peaceful religious believers;

9.) compensate people punished by the state for peacefully practising their 

faith;

10.) reinstate believers fired from their jobs for their membership of religious 

communities;

11.) bring to legal accountability all those responsible for attacking citizens’ religious freedom;

12.) allow believers to publish and distribute religious literature;

13.) and permit believers to freely give voluntary religious education.

Only if the authorities implement, and not continue to break, the international 

human rights obligations they have voluntarily accepted, will religious believers in 

Turkmenistan believe that the situation has changed for the better 

114

UZBEKISTAN: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM SURVEY, APRIL 2005

By Igor Rotar, Forum 18 News Service

This article was published by F18News on: 20 April 2005

In its survey analysis of the religious freedom situation in Uzbekistan, Forum 

18 News Service reports on the government’s wide-ranging defiance of its international religious freedom commitments. Unregistered religious activity is illegal 

and believers are routinely punished even for religious meetings in private 

homes. Missionary work is banned, while religious teaching is tightly controlled. 

Religious literature is censored by the government’s religious affairs committee. 

Virtually all religious communities are subject to harsh government control, especially Islam. The government even controls the numbers of Muslims who can 

travel on the haj pilgrimage.

Uzbekistan’s legal infrastructure contains a whole series of laws that restrict religious believers’ rights in defiance of the country’s international human rights commitments. With Muslims constituting over 90 per cent of Uzbekistan’s population, 

the authorities see Islamic radicalism as a serious threat to the country’s security. 

To counter what they regard as this threat, they have adopted harsh measures 

against ‘‘fundamentalists’’, which in their turn ‘‘ricochet’’ to affect the rights of ordinary believers of all faiths. 

Ban on unauthorised religious activity 

Religious believers suffer most frequently under Article 8 of Uzbekistan’s religion 

law, under which an organisation may acquire the status of a juridical person and 

become active only after registering with the justice agencies. This ban on unregistered religious activity is underpinned by articles in the criminal code, which punishes serious crimes, and the code of administrative offences, which covers lesser 

offences. Under Article 240 (breaking the law on religious organisations) of 

Uzbekistan’s administrative code, unlawful religious activity is punishable by a fine 

of between 5 and 10 times the minimum monthly wage (the minimum wage in 

Uzbekistan is 5,400 sum, or some 32 Norwegian kroner, 4 Euros or 5 US dollars), 

or administrative detention of up to 15 days. Where the law is repeatedly broken 

(where a believer has already been found guilty under the parallel article of the administrative code), Article 216 (2) is applied (breaking the law on religious 

organisations, punishable by a fine of between 50 and 100 times the minimum wage 

or up to three years’ imprisonment). 

The very term ‘‘unlawful religious activity’’ is not defined in law. ‘‘No-one stops 

believers in an unregistered community from meeting together, praying and talking 

about God,’’ the head of the government’s religious affairs committee, Shoazim 

Minovarov, insisted to Forum 18 last year. ‘‘But if they have their own leader and 

are teaching religion, we see this as unlawful religious activity.’’

In fact, the hazy definition of ‘‘unlawful religious activity’’ has led to at least one 

case every month where believers have been sentenced under Article 240 of the administrative code. As a rule, members of religious minorities are fined (cases of administrative arrest are very rare). Sentencing of members of religious minorities 

under Article 216 (2) of the criminal code is also very rare: not one case has been 

recorded where a person has been sentenced to imprisonment under this article. 

Moreover, there have been several cases where the authorities have known about 

meetings of members of unregistered communities but have not taken any action. 

For example, Jehovah’s Witness Rustam Satdanov, who has now emigrated from 

Uzbekistan, told Forum 18 last year that officials of the National Security Service 

(NSS) secret police showed an astonishing knowledge of the apartments at which 

‘‘unlawful’’ meetings of Jehovah’s Witnesses were held, but nevertheless were in no 

hurry to take repressive action. 

Although repression against unregistered religious groups often comes at the initiative of local authorities, some campaigns encompass the entire country. After the 

terrorist attacks in Uzbekistan in March and April of last year numerous apartments where believers of unregistered religious communities had gathered were 

raided (see F18News 13 April 2004 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article—

id=298). In March this year the police and the NSS carried out a large-scale operation against Jehovah’s Witnesses, raiding numerous services commemorating the 

death of Jesus (see F18News 1 April 2005 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article—id=536). 

The authorities react far more aggressively towards the activity of unregistered 

Muslim communities. In such cases, Article 240 of the administrative code and Article 229 of the criminal code are not applied. As a rule they are given prison sentences of several years’ duration on the basis of Article 159 (undermining the conVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:21 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\111505\24596.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
115

stitutional basis of the Uzbek republic), Article 242 (organising a criminal society) 

and Article 156 (stirring up national, racial and religious hatred) of the criminal 

code. 

It is also not uncommon for ‘‘unlawful’’ Muslims to have weapons or drugs planted 

on them. However, there are exceptions to this attitude to Muslims. For example, 

in Kokand (in the Uzbek section of the Fergana [Farghona] valley) there is an unregistered kanaka (Sufi monastery), where the leader of the Sufi Nakshbandi 

tarikat in Uzbekistan, Sheikh Ibrahim, teaches his murids (Sufi pupils). ‘‘We don’t 

have any problems with the authorities,’’ Sheikh Ibrahim told Forum 18 last November. ‘‘We are poets and mystics and are quite uninterested in political issues. 

Anyone who is interested in politics is not a Sufi follower. The state understands 

that we don’t represent any danger to it, and doesn’t touch us.’’

Forum 18 has established that the authorities generally do not prevent Sufi believers from meeting in private apartments to perform the zikr (a ritual dance). 

‘‘After the terrorist attacks in March and April, many Sufi believers were called in 

to the NSS offices and asked about our meetings. But we were left in peace once 

they understood that we are removed from politics,’’ Sabir Tokhirov, a surgeon and 

a Sufi follower, told Forum 18 on 28 March in the southern town of Karshi [Qarshi]. 

One explanation for the authorities’ tolerant attitude towards Sufism is that this 

movement, in which regional customs are quite closely intertwined, is a reasonably 

effective alternative to fundamentalism—the main ‘‘enemy’’ of the authorities. 

Religious believers do not voluntarily become ‘‘law-breakers’’. It is virtually impossible to register new religious communities. As Forum 18 can testify, mosques 

throughout the country have been closed since the current law on religion came into 

force. Moreover, the authorities’ policy varies in different regions. In the Fergana 

valley, where the population is most actively religious, Forum 18 saw mosques being 

used as warehouses, and in Kashkadarya region there are mosques which the authorities allow to open only for the Id al-adha (Kurban-bairam) and Id al-Fitr 

(Uraza-bairam) festivals. It is also virtually impossible for religious minorities to 

register a new place of worship: during the whole of 2004 only one religious minority community was registered—a Jewish community in Fergana (see F18News 16 

February 2005 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article—id=512). 

In a continuing anti-Protestant Christian campaign in the Karakalpakstan 

[Qoraqalpoghiston] autonomous republic in north-western Uzbekistan, it is almost 

impossible for Christian churches to gain official registration and therefore to meet 

legally for worship. As part of this campaign, Protestant university students have 

also been expelled from their university (see F18News 13 December 2004 http://

www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article—id=476). 

Ban on private religious instruction 

Article 10 of the religion law bans the teaching religion in a private capacity. According to this article of the law, ‘‘religious educational establishments acquire the 

right to operate after registering with the ministry of justice of the Republic of 

Uzbekistan and receiving the appropriate licence . . . persons teaching religious 

subjects at religious educational establishments must have a religious education and 

carry out their work with the permission of the appropriate agency of the central 

administration’’. 

Violations of this provision are punished. According to Article 241 of the administrative code, ‘‘the teaching of religious beliefs without specialist religious training 

and without permission from a religious organisation’s central agency of administration, and the teaching of religious beliefs in a private capacity, will be subject to 

a fine of between 5 and 10 times the minimum wage or up to 15 days’ imprisonment’’. Article 229 (2) of the criminal code prescribes up to three years’ imprisonment where the law is repeatedly broken. 

Currently, ten medressehs operate in Uzbekistan. Generally a medresseh will 

offer courses on Islam. However, the imam of a normal mosque has no right to set 

up courses on Islam, even if he has a teaching licence. ‘‘Courses on Islam are forbidden in the mosques, but an imam may gather believers after Friday prayers and 

answer their questions if he has a licence to teach,’’ former imam-hatyb Rustam 

Klichev told Forum 18 on 29 March in Karshi. ‘‘There is also no prohibition on a 

believer coming to the mosque and asking an imam about issues that interest him.’’ 

However, Klichev found it hard to explain how this form of instruction differed from 

formal courses. ‘‘There can’t be a clear plan or study timetable. Then you can say 

that the imam is simply talking to believers.’’

Members of religious minorities have slightly better opportunities to acquire a religious education than Muslims. Orthodox, Baptists, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews and Hare Krishna followers told Forum 18 that the authorities do not prevent them from setting up courses in religious subjects at registered 

116

places of worship, even if there is no registered educational establishment attached 

to them. 

The authorities admit that they are ‘‘liberal’’ on this issue. ‘‘Under the law, it is 

only possible to teach religious subjects at a religious establishment that is registered with the justice ministry,’’ Begzot Kadyrov, chief specialist at the government’s religious affairs committee, told Forum 18 last year in Tashkent, ‘‘but there 

are religious clubs attached to places of worship belonging to religious minorities, 

and we turn a blind eye to them. For example, the Baptists even have an unregistered seminary, but we don’t stop them from functioning.’’

However, religious instruction of this kind is only possible in towns where religious minorities have registered communities. If representatives of religious minorities start teaching in towns where their community is not registered, they are prosecuted under Article 241 (breaking the law on the prescribed manner of teaching 

of religious beliefs) of the administrative code, and sometimes (though very rarely) 

under Article 229 (2) (breaking the law on the prescribed manner of religious instruction) of the criminal code. Late 2004 saw an unusual surge of criminal prosecutions of religious minorities—Pentecostal Christians including one punished with a 

massive fine, and a Jehovah’s Witness—and threats of criminal charges against a 

Baptist pastor (see F18News 17 November 2004 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article—id=455). 

Yet Muslims who teach Islam illegally, and even their pupils, are almost never 

prosecuted under the above articles. Such Muslims are generally sentenced to 

lengthy prison terms under Article 242 (organising a criminal society) and Article 

244–2 (establishing, leading and participation in extremist religious organisations) 

of the criminal code. In such cases it is very hard to understand precisely for what 

reason the Muslims are being prosecuted. The authorities see any informal group 

of Muslims as a potential terrorist organisation and sentence its members to lengthy 

prison terms. It is clear that the majority of Muslims arrested after the terrorist 

attacks in March and April 2004 were ‘‘guilty’’ only of meeting to read the Koran 

and talk about God. Karshi-based human rights activist Tulkin Karayev told Forum 

18 that the authorities often adopt preventative measures. The police pressure devout Muslims to sign statements declaring that if they join ‘‘extremist Islamic 

groups’’ or participate in illegal clubs they will face criminal prosecution. 

Ban on proselytising and missionary activity 

Article 5 of the religion law states: ‘‘Actions aimed at turning believers from one 

faith to another (proselytism) are forbidden, as is any other form of missionary activity.’’ Sentences for proselytism are contained in the criminal and administrative 

codes (Articles 216–2 and Article 240). A first offence is punishable by a fine or up 

to 15 days’ imprisonment. Subsequent infringements will be subject to criminal law, 

in the shape of a fine of between 50 and 100 times the minimum wage or up to 

three years’ imprisonment. 

However, generally the authorities restrict themselves to sentencing Jehovah’s 

Witnesses—who are active in promoting their faith despite the restrictions—under 

the administrative code and as a rule hand down a fine. In 2004, there was one recorded case where a Jehovah’s Witness accused of missionary activity faced criminal 

prosecution: Dilshod Akhmedov was sentenced to 15 days’ imprisonment in 

Tashkent in May 2004 under Article 240 of the administrative code for preaching 

in public places. After serving his sentence, Akhmedov continued his preaching 

work. In October, the Yaksarai district police department brought a criminal case 

against him under Article 216 (2) of the criminal code. However, the case was 

dropped because of ‘‘insufficient evidence’’ (see F18News 20 October 2004 http://

www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article—id=435). 

In some cases, the authorities have failed to respond to complaints about kangaroo courts against individuals of Muslim background who have converted to another faith. A Protestant who preferred not to be named told Forum 18 in Tashkent 

on 3 April that a local resident Khaldibek Primbetov who had become a Christian 

had been beaten several times by his fellow-villagers in Yanboshkala, in Takirkul 

district on the outskirts of Nukus, the capital of the Karakalpak autonomous republic. Primbetov was told to ‘‘return to Islam’’ or leave the village. He appealed to the 

district police and to the NSS, but both organisations refused to respond to his complaints. 

In 2004–2005, there were 14 successful prosecutions against Muslim missionaries—Uzbek citizens belonging to the international missionary organisation 

Tabligh Jamaat. However, in these instances, as is generally the case with Muslims, 

the Tabligh missionaries were sentenced not for missionary work but under Article 

159 (undermining the constitutional basis of Uzbekistan) and Article 244 (2) (establishing, leading or participating in religious extremist organisations) of the criminal 

117

code. Interestingly, 12 Tabligh members received 5 years’ imprisonment, while two 

received six months under the same articles. It appears that the international interest in the case led to the relatively lenient sentence given to the last two members. 

Uzbekistan’s former mufti Muhamad Sadyk Muhamad Yusuf has questioned the 

punishments. ‘‘In 1994 members of Tabligh came from India to visit me and we 

went round Uzbekistan together,’’ he told Forum 18 on 2 April in Tashkent. ‘‘I believe Tabligh Jamaat is doing work that is pleasing to God and I can’t understand 

what members of the organisation have done to make them suffer.’’

Restrictions on the dissemination of information 

According to Article 19 of the religion law: ‘‘The manufacture, storage and distribution of printed items, films, photographs, audio and video recordings and other 

materials containing ideas of religious extremism, separatism and fundamentalism, 

will be prosecuted in accordance with the law’’. According to Article 241 (1) of the 

criminal code of Uzbekistan, harbouring and distributing documents containing 

ideas of religious extremism, separatism and fundamentalism will attract a sentence 

of up to three years’ imprisonment. The analysis of potentially ‘‘extremist’’ literature 

is carried out by the government’s religious affairs committee or—in provincial 

areas—by teachers at local university philosophy departments. Additionally, mainstream theological tracts are often deemed to be extremist (see F18News 12 July 

2004 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article—id=361). 

The religious affairs committee also controls the import of literature, photographs, 

videos and audio recordings into Uzbekistan. ‘‘Under the law a registered religious 

organisation has to submit religious literature for expert analysis before importing 

it,’’ Kadyrov of the religious affairs committee told Forum 18 on 11 March. ‘‘If it is 

found that the literature is not extremist and does not contain any incitement to 

inter-ethnic or inter-religious hatred we will give permission for it to be imported.’’ 

In some cases, literature including the Bible imported into Uzbekistan without permission from the religious affairs committee has been burnt following a court decision (see F18News 17 March 2005 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article—

id=527). 

Persecution of believers unauthorised by the law 

The authorities also select the Muslims who wish to make the haj pilgrimage to 

Mecca. In 2005 the religious affairs committee permitted only 4,200 Uzbek citizens 

to make the pilgrimage, even though around 6,000 people wanted to do so (the quota 

for the haj pilgrimage given to Uzbekistan by Saudi Arabia was for more than 

25,000 pilgrims). The authorities’ control over Muslims who wish to undertake the 

haj is possibly the result of an agreement between Riyadh and Tashkent according 

to which the Saudi Arabian embassy in Uzbekistan will give visas for the haj pilgrimage only to Uzbek citizens whose names were included in a list approved by 

the religious affairs committee and the country’s muftiate. Who gets permission is 

decided by a special commission which includes representatives of the religious affairs committee and the muftiate. Unlike Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, 

where people can make the pilgrimage independently (either in a private car or in 

a rented tourist bus), Uzbek pilgrims have to fly to Medina using Uzbek airlines 

in a single delegation (see F18News 19 January 2005 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article—id=493). 

Numerous cases have been recorded where religious believers’ rights have been 

violated in prisons. Muslims are not allowed to say their morning prayers before the 

official wake-up call for prisoners. Additionally, prisoners are not allowed to observe 

fasts. 

In several cases, believers have been subjected to pressure from the local authorities acting on their own initiative without having received instructions from 

Tashkent. A Muslim woman who preferred not to be named told Forum 18 in April 

that the local authorities in Sokh (an Uzbek enclave surrounded by Kyrgyz territory) had ‘‘advised’’ a devout Muslim to serve alcohol to guests at his wedding. On 

occasion in Karshi the authorities of some residential suburbs have told women to 

stop wearing the hijab, the headscarf many Muslim women prefer. Following the 

terrorist attacks in March and April 2004, directors of schools in towns in the 

Fergana valley and in Tashkent made similar demands of their female pupils. However, Forum 18 has discovered that all these cases were at the initiative of local 

officials and were not underpinned by genuine support from higher up. The Muslims 

were therefore able to resist this arbitrary rule.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

I think the only thing I would disagree with is when you said you 

are running out of time. As you note, one of the things we try to 

118

do in our hearings, and it is only on rare occasion that we do keep 

within a very limited time frame, is to allow the maximum focus. 

So no red light went on to tell you you are out of time. 

Let me just thank our very, very distinguished knowledgeable 

panel, not just for your time today and your patience—being the 

third panel usually is more difficult, but you do get to hear at least 

what the Administration gets to say. I thank you for your patience, 

but, more importantly, for the commitment of time in your life on 

behalf of human rights issues, religious freedom issues. I don’t 

know what the world would be without people like you. You just 

make all the difference in the world. 

Let me ask one or two questions. Let me just say, parenthetically, we have a markup, Mr. Uzzell, right after this hearing is concluded, on H. Con. Res. 190, which was originally inspired by your 

work at our previous hearing. So I want to just say that we do try 

to follow with legislation on these things. 

Let me, on Burma, if I could, Mr. Malinowski. I like the way you 

broke up friends, the two categories. I would agree that Uzbekistan 

should have been on it previously, and I don’t think our ousting 

from K–2 should have anything whatsoever to do, perception aside. 

If the facts on the ground warrant it, and a country is an egregious 

violator, it should be so named. So I hope that that is not causing 

the delay on behalf of the Administration in naming Uzbekistan a 

country of particular concern. 

If you could just speak a little bit further on the situation in 

Burma. It seems like Burma was very much in focus. Aung San 

Suu Kyi is a global hero for many of us. But it does seem that the 

dictatorship there is able to just weather it, the abuses that it commits, and people kind of look askance and go somewhere else. So, 

your point about Bishop Tutu and Havel calling for an accountability session at the UN, I think, is a great one. But what can we 

do further? 

As you know, Tom Lantos and all of us, Mr. Payne and I, we always raise the issue of Aung San Suu Kyi and the ongoing repression of her human rights and democracy movement. But what else 

can we do right now? 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. First of all, you have made a difference. As 

horrible as the situation is there now, I firmly believe there would 

be no opposition in Burma, there would be no Aung San Suu Kyi, 

at least as a living presence and leader inside the country, if it 

wasn’t for the international pressure that you and other Members 

of the Congress of the United States have helped to generate. So, 

you know, keep hope, is one recommendation. 

I would also say this: As bizarre as this government is, it is sensitive to what the rest of the world thinks. One of the strange 

things that has happened in Burma the last few weeks is that the 

government packed up and moved, announced that the new capital 

of Burma would be a small town in a kind of fortress-like setting 

in the mountains in central Burma, a place called Nay Pyi Daw, 

I believe, not in Rangoon. 

It is a bizarre move. People think they are worried they are sort 

of next on the U.S. list, because Secretary Rice put them on the list 

of evil countries. I forget the phrase that she used. But they are 

119

very paranoid. They are very sensitive about the possibility that 

the rest of the world might make things more difficult for them. 

This gets us back to the Security Council, because I don’t think 

there is any stronger way of expressing not just American, but 

international concern about a situation like this, than through the 

UN Security Council because of the association between the UN 

Security Council and effective action. By that, I don’t just mean 

military action, which I don’t think is in store in this case, but economic sanctions, political action. See what is happening in Syria 

right now where we have mobilized the Security Council in a fairly 

effective effort that is making a difference with respect to that 

country. 

So I think the Burmese Government is worried about what we 

in the international community might do, particularly if we succeed 

in this effort at the Security Council. So rather than sort of list a 

dozen different things, I really did want to focus in on that one central goal that the Administration is committed to, but I think we 

need to constantly remind them to be committed at a very high 

level until they succeed. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask the panel, who would like to answer. On 

Vietnam, I thought the point was very well made about promises 

made—I think you made that comment, Tom. Why aren’t we 

doing—first of all, you might speak to this. Are you optimistic that 

Vietnam will fulfill its obligations? And, I would agree that the 

agreement ought to be made public, so that the transparency aspect and the fact of, how do you hold somebody to account for something you don’t even have a copy of? 

But what about the other CPC countries? Why aren’t we, in your 

view, like Saudi Arabia—why don’t we have an agreement, or at 

least seek an agreement, so that there are doables, deliverables, if 

you want, so that everyone knows on the page what it is that we 

expect from them? Why just Vietnam and not the others? That 

would be part two. 

Ms. SHEA. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think regarding Vietnam—and 

this probably applies to China too—that there is no political will 

to grant their citizens or the nationals freedom. So until there is 

an ideological shift, I am not that optimistic. I think they are going 

to try to outmaneuver us at every turn. 

However, that said, I think shining the light, publicizing the 

worst of it, is extremely important. And that is why the forgotten 

groups, like the Hmongs or the Montagnards and others, should be 

mentioned. 

Dr. Uzzell talked about the indigenous groups. They have got to 

be on the radar screen too, because they will receive the brunt of 

the oppression if these governments, who are not ideologically committed to freedom, think they can get away with it. 

The other point I would like to make is that I think the Administration has to be more consistent in its message. On one hand, 

there is an avalanche of detail in these reports about such places 

as Vietnam or Saudi Arabia, yet there are mixed signals with Secretary Rice saying that Vietnam is improving and that if it keeps 

up, if it continues, they will come off the list. The Ambassador said 

something different today—and I was glad to see it rephrased—

that they have much more to do before they come off the list. 

120

But the same with Saudi Arabia. Warming, closer relations, that 

is the constant message they are getting. Or the spin in the introduction to the report in Saudi Arabia, how much they have reformed and improved. So I think we have to have a consistent message. I think that is extremely important as well. 

Mr. SMITH. For all of you, aren’t other countries having such 

similar promises made, documents drawn up they would agree to? 

Do you know if the department is actually trying to get that kind 

of agreement, an MOU with any other country that is on the CPC 

list? 

I will just point out that in the follow-up to this hearing, we are 

going to hold a series of hearings on CPC countries and do them 

in a country-specific manner, because as important as I think this 

hearing is, it doesn’t do justice to the depth of the repression in 

country X, Y or Z. So I think this is the beginning, and then we 

will do breakouts. 

That will be one persistent question I will ask the department: 

What are you doing specifically to get them to agree? I was just 

concerned with Dr. Rice’s statement too, as if Vietnam is moving 

in the right direction. Well, show me. Let’s see some real deeds and 

not those paper promises. 

Let me finally ask one final question with regards to China. My 

understanding is, David, your book has been banned there, which 

is probably a compliment. 

Mr. AIKMAN. Mr. Chairman, it has been both banned and translated. It has been translated for the benefit of the senior religious 

leaders, and, indeed for the politburo, with the permission of the 

publishers in the United States, I must say. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask you on this—and I have heard from some 

of the dissidents and recent emigres that they feel in some of the 

upper echelons of the government there is an understanding of how 

important religion is to a sane and benign government, especially 

to the people. 

What is your view in terms of what is happening at those upper 

echelons? Are they as committed to that etiology of atheism that 

they said they were a few years back? 

Mr. AIKMAN. No. I think the only people who are committed to 

the etiology of atheism are some officials at the high levels of the 

Three-Self Patriotic Church. I am being a bit facetious. 

But the left-wing core of etiology in China is, oddly enough, alive 

and well in the religious sphere, and the chief fear of the Communists are that if enough people look at each other and say, ‘‘We 

don’t believe in this stuff anymore,’’ then there will be a dangerous 

sense that the party has lost its legitimacy. 

While there are officials at quite high levels who understand the 

beneficial effects of religious belief, a study was done in the 1980s 

that showed that people of religious faith in Henen Province in certain villages, compared with those villages which did not have 

many believers, had lower levels of crime, corruption, and so forth. 

So I think the larger question is, When will China grasp that it 

has to face the political reality that it is governing a people who 

no longer believe in the etiology that brought the Communist Party 

to power? 

121

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, let me ask that Vo Van Ai, the 

international spokesman for the Unified Buddhist Church in Vietnam, that his testimony be included in the record. And at the request of Chairman Hyde, there is testimony by Dr. David-Maria A. 

Jaeger, who is the Vatican legal consular in the Holy Land. His 

testimony as well, without objection, will be made part of the 

record. 

[The information referred to follows:]

122


24596a0001.eps
123


24596a0002.eps
124


24596a0003.eps
125


24596a0004.eps
126


24596a0005.eps
127


24596a0006.eps
128


24596a0007.eps
129


24596a0008.eps
130


24596a0009.eps
131


24596a0010.eps
132


24596a0011.eps
133

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. I too appreciate the tremendous work that you do, and it is really appreciated by us here as 

legislators. We really encourage you to keep the pressure on. 

I don’t know, Mr. Aikman, maybe the translation of your book 

will get some converts indirectly. I was going to comment before 

with the Most Reverend Ricardo Ramirez, that he said in Cuba, 

you know, the Catholic Church still had an opportunity to have 

services but that there were more agents from the government attending. He didn’t look like he was ready for a joke, but I thought 

maybe they were converting some of the secret police and they 

were coming to church on their own. 

Mr. AIKMAN. If I may just comment on that, Congressman Payne, 

there was a documentary movie, made by a Chinese Christian, 

called The Cross. It is a 4-hour documentary, which was one of the 

other items along with my book that was banned in 2003, and this 

was shown at all of the Religious Affairs Bureau offices in the various provinces of China. And apparently many of the Public Security Bureau and Religious Affairs Bureau officials saw the movie, 

looked at each other and said, ‘‘This is bad?’’

Mr. PAYNE. Sometimes there are unintended consequences. The 

question about the report, Ms. Shea indicated that she thought 

Saudi Arabia was the one that was least characterized correctly, 

and of course Mr. Uzzell said that he thought that Turkmenistan 

was. 

I think what Ms. Shea was kind of leaning to is that you hear 

very little discussion at a cocktail party, or even in a college class, 

or any question where people in international relations are talking, 

you hear a little bit about Turkmenistan. However, our longtime 

relations with Saudi Arabia and the way they are able to get away 

with what they get away with, I kind of concur with Ms. Shea that 

we have had former Presidents that are inextricably tied to Saudi 

people. Prince Bandar served here for over 18 years as the longestserving diplomat. He is invited to almost every President’s big 

State Department black-tie affairs, regardless of the party, and he 

has just been brought back with the change in Government in 

Saudi Arabia. 

So the longtime, close, buddy-buddy type of interrelationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia that continues—and we 

know the reason why—think it is more egregious to look at the report and how Saudi Arabia sort of has been given a wink and a 

nod. 

I think it really gets to the point that Mr. Malinowski brings, 

and I think that at the end of the day, it is really kind of what 

much of this is all about: Countries that want to have a relationship with the U.S. and are trying to keep what they want to do but 

kind of fudge what they are doing, and the United States sort of 

fudges back, like PRC, Saudi Arabia, even Russia at one point, opposed to those—I was going to say Sudan, but it now it looks like 

we are trying to get a little more cozy with Sudan. But the countries who don’t care how we think—Burma, they don’t care. 

So I think that your analysis is very important because policy is 

driven by, necessarily, as we know what happens there, but the relationship with the United States and whether it is business, 

134

whether it is defense, Pakistan, whether it is, you know, like I said, 

business with PRC, whether it is cooperation with the war on terrorism, where they say Sudan might be giving us information on 

al-Queda, so let’s forget Darfur and kind of normalize relations. 

So I do believe that we are going to have a more difficult time 

where the U.S. feels that it has an interest; who are those countries that we feel are trying to get along, go along to get along, soto-speak. 

Even, finally, on Aung San Suu Kyi, I went to Burma 4 or 5 or 

6 years ago, and somehow Tom Campbell and I, the former Congressman from California, were able to get in to see her and we 

took pictures. We talked. I am sure the place was bugged, but we 

were able to whisper with each other, and we met with her separate from the Old Guard fellows. 

It is just a shame that she still is under house arrest, she still 

is being denied her rights. She still is not being able to assume the 

leadership of that government, although she was duly elected. The 

conditions in Burma are so bad that people leave Burma to go to 

Thailand where they are making even less than $2 a day. But it 

is better than Burma. Can you imagine in Burma they don’t even 

get paid? They may get some food. They work, they have to do 

roads, they have to work in hard labor, but are paid maybe a bowl 

of rice. Maybe. 

However, on the border with China, they got a big casino where 

Chinese gamblers come. There is such an unbelievable kind of juxtaposition of vice and things on one hand at the border, and then 

on the other hand, people going into Thailand with no protection 

at all, simply to make a dollar or $2 a day, working 12 and 14 

hours a day in these sweatshops. 

So sort of, well, Burma doesn’t matter much to anybody, it sort 

of kind of goes away. But, you know, those are just my thoughts. 

I usually ramble at the end of these kinds of meetings because all 

of you bring in such good points. If anyone would like to comment 

on any of the rambling, I would be glad to hear you. 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. I will just maybe say one thing. I didn’t mean 

to suggest that countries like Burma are beyond our reach, beyond 

our influence. I think they are beyond Ambassador John Hanford 

sitting down with their foreign minister and working out a cooperative deal wherein they agree to make some promises. They are beyond that kind of diplomacy. But we have learned and seen that 

countries like that can be reached. We have levers of influence and 

power that we can bring to bear. But that is a much more difficult 

enterprise than something that just the Religious Freedom Office 

of the State Department can do. It requires comprehensive strategy 

at the highest levels of our Government. 

Mr. PAYNE. I actually agree with you, and I wasn’t trying to say 

that Burma was not important. I just think there is hypocrisy in 

the amount of pressure that we intend to put on countries by virtue of where we think we are at, politically or economically. It is 

very clear we allow things to happen in PRC, and look the other 

way and come up with excuses. They are making some movement, 

whatever. 

Saudi Arabia, well, you know, they said they might let women 

drive 20 years from now. Well, women don’t drive. Just don’t give 

135

me 500 lashes, or 50 lashes every week. How do you live? You 

know, you stole something and crime is bad, you know, criminals 

must pay, but not by cutting their head off. 

It is unbelievable what continues to go on there. As the Chairman said, the priest that married him couldn’t wear his cross or 

he might be thrown in prison. That is unbelievable. It still goes on. 

However, you hear, well, we think we are breaking some new 

ground and we think we might have some indication of a movement in the future. Gobbledegook. It is a pity. But it is going to 

change. I am no diplomat. I guess the State Department, they are 

full of diplomats. They have to be diplomatic. They try to keep our 

U.S. interests going, because regardless of what Administration is 

in there, Republican or Democrat, I guess they have to live with 

the world. But it is really a shame that we do allow these things 

to exist. 

I have no other questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Payne. 

Would any of you like to say anything before we conclude? 

Mr. UZZELL. Just a quick comment on the last comments of Congressman Payne. At the risk of being excommunicated by my fellow 

human rights advocates, I think we actually have to recognize 

there are times when you have to balance human rights concerns 

against other concerns. 

You can’t let one issue, even my favorite issue that I specialize 

in, be the sole issue that you think about in foreign policy. That 

is especially true when you are thinking about sanctions, about 

concrete measures that you take with countries. 

But it seems to me that these reports, this annual publication of 

the State Department, should be an exercise in truth-telling, and 

that includes the designation of CPCs. The report is not going to 

have any credibility unless it calls the shots as they are, tells it 

like it is, and lets the chips fall where they may. There may be excellent strategic reasons why you can’t penalize some dictator concretely, even though he richly deserves it, but we can and should 

always tell the truth. 

Mr. PAYNE. Actually, it seems to me it would be a weapon in the 

hands of the State Department and the Administration, the people 

that sit in the White House and sit at the head of the State Department, where their job is different than our job. They make policy, we don’t. We either approve it or condemn it and maybe try 

to modify it. 

But it seems to me they did it honestly. They can say these crazy 

Congresspeople, especially Smith and Payne, you got to change because you don’t know what they may do. They may just say, you 

know, we can’t buy your products anymore or we are not going to 

buy your oil. That is a joke. 

But it would give them, it seems, a stick to say you better 

change. And I am sure that since this legislation is in, I imagine 

that is whispered. You know, Congress is going to do it to you. So 

you know where we stand. However, you better do it before they 

get really angry at you, you know. So I do think that it would be 

better for them to be honest rather than to fudge it. 

Thanks. 

136

Ms. SHEA. I just want to second that, but I would put it, I guess, 

in a different way, which is this is an opportunity for moral clarity. 

While there may not be outright falsehoods, it is just that there is 

a distortion in emphasis in some places in these reports. This is an 

opportunity for moral clarity. 

Thank you very much for holding the hearings. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me conclude by saying when we wrote the law, 

and we did the same thing with the Trafficking in Victims Protection Act of 2000, we left some flexibility with the Administration 

to try to make whole and come up with some strategies that will 

lead to a greater recognition of the right we are trying to promote. 

You could argue, but perhaps even the trigger of the 180 days 

that now has been used by the Administration with regards to 

Saudi Arabia, that does give them some time. But, hopefully, the 

boom will be lowered substantially if after that 180 days we don’t 

see significant progress. I think that is what our next hearing—

other than country-specific hearings, we will have a hearing, on or 

around the 180 days, on Saudi Arabia. 

Thank you so much, all of you. You have been tremendous. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ