U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

64–167 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

THE FIRST ANNUAL STATE DEPARTMENT REPORT

ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1999

Serial No. 106–97

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

PETER T. KING, New York

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

MATT SALMON, Arizona

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

TOM CAMPBELL, California

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

PAT DANNER, Missouri

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff

KATHLEEN BERTELSEN MOAZED, Democratic Chief of Staff

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

PETER T. KING, New York

MATT SALMON, Arizona

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

GROVER JOSEPH REES, Subcommittee Staff Director

DOUGLAS C. ANDERSON, Counsel

GARY STEPHEN COX, Democratic Staff Director

NICOLLE A. SESTRIC, Staff Associate

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

WITNESSES

Honorable Robert Seiple, Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious

Freedom, U.S. Department of State ................................................................... 7

Ms. Nina Shea, Member, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom ........................................................................................................................ 26

Mr. Stephen Rickard, Director, Washington Office, Amnesty International

USA ....................................................................................................................... 29

Dr. Paul Marshall, Senior Fellow, Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom

House .................................................................................................................... 35

Rev. Nguyen Huu Le, Executive Director, Committee for Religious Freedom

in Vietnam, Former Religious Prisoner in Vietnam .......................................... 38

Mr. Abdughuphur Kadirhaji, Uighur Muslim from Urumqi City, Xinjiang

Uighur Autonomous Regon, China ..................................................................... 40

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a U.S. Representative in Congress from

the State of New Jersey, Chairman, Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights ................................................................................... 52

Honorable Dan Burton, a U.S. Representative in Congress from the State

of Indiana .............................................................................................................. 57

Ambassador Seiple ................................................................................................... 58

Ms. Shea ................................................................................................................... 73

Mr. Rickard .............................................................................................................. 77

Dr. Marshall ............................................................................................................. 85

Rev. Le ...................................................................................................................... 92

Mr. Kadirhaji ........................................................................................................... 96

Additional material submitted for the record:

List of Names of Sikh victims, submitted by Rep. Burton ................................... 100

List of Confiscated Church Properties, submitted by Reverend Le ..................... 121

(1)

THE FIRST ANNUAL STATE DEPARTMENT REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS

FREEDOM

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL,

OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS,

Committee on International Relations,

WASHINGTON, D.C.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.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.

Good afternoon. Today’s hearing is the latest in a series of Subcommittee hearings focusing on religious persecution around the

world. Over the last 5 years, we have heard from numerous government officials, experts, eyewitnesses and victims at a dozen hearings focusing on various aspects of the problem including worldwide anti-Semitism, the persecution of Christians around the

world, the 1995 massacre of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica, the

enslavement of black Christians in the Sudan, and the use of torture against religious believers and other prisoners of conscience.

Last year, this Subcommittee marked up H.R. 2415, Congressman Frank Wolf’s landmark legislation on the problem of international religious persecution. In November, an amended version of

the Wolf bill was enacted into law as the International Religious

Freedom Act of 1999. Among the most important provisions of that

act were an Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, a

Special Ambassador for Religious Freedom, and we are very happy

to have here today an independent bipartisan Commission on

International Religious Freedom.

Today we will hear testimony on the first annual report provided

to Congress pursuant to the Religious Freedom Act, and among our

witnesses are Ambassador Robert Seiple and Commissioner Nina

Shea, whose offices were created by the act. So today’s hearing is

living proof that the United States has taken some important steps

toward helping millions of people around the world who are persecuted simply because they are people of faith.

Unfortunately, we still have a long way to go. The first Annual

Report exhibits some of the strengths but also some of the weaknesses of the State Department’s annual Country Reports on

Human Rights Practices, which address a broader range of human

rights violations. As we learn year after year in our hearings on

2

the Country Reports, the production of an honest and effective report on human rights violences entails a series of struggles.

First, it is necessary to get as many facts as possible and to get

them right. Then it is important to state the facts clearly and honestly. It is important to avoid sensationalism, but it is at least as

important to avoid hiding the facts behind exculpatory introductions or obfuscatory conclusions.

Finally, and most difficult of all, it is necessary to translate a

clear understanding of the facts about religious persecution into a

coherent policy for ending it.

In general, I believe the first Annual Report on International Religious Freedom succeeds in getting the facts straight. There are

some important omissions, such as the Indonesia report’s failure to

examine the evidence of anti-Catholicism that has played an important role in the repression of the people of East Timor by elements

of the Indonesian military.

I would note parenthetically we just spent all of last week working on a 1-day hearing looking at the problem there, and we were

very pleased to have Jose Ramos-Horta as well as Xanana Gusmao

as two of our lead witnesses, in addition to Julia Taft and Howard

Koh. So that is one thing that we had in here.

But I am impressed with the extent to which the report states

hard facts even about governments with which the United States

enjoys friendly relations. For instance, the reports on France, Austria, and Belgium detail the recent official harassment and/or discrimination by the governments of these countries against certain

minority religions such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and some Evangelical and Pentecostal denominations.

Even more impressive is the first sentence of the report on Saudi

Arabia. It is a simple declarative sentence, and I quote, ‘‘Freedom

of religion does not exist.’’

Unfortunately, in some places, the report could not seem to resist

trying to mitigate the unpleasant appearances of the hard facts by

surrounding them with weasel words. In several reports on Communist countries, the government’s failure to enforce anti-religion

laws uniformly—which is typically due to inefficiency, favoritism or

corruption—is reported in words that suggest the possibility of secret first amendment sympathies on the part of local or central

governments. We are told, for example, that the Cuban government’s efforts to control religion, quote, ‘‘do not affect all denominations at all times.’’

The report on Laos even makes the remarkable assertion that

the central government was, and I quote, ‘‘was unable to control’’

harsh measures taken against Christians by local and provincial

authorities, although these measures were fully consistent with

Communism party doctrine and previous actions by the central

government.

Ambassador Seiple, in calling attention to these transparent attempts to sugar-coat the facts with meaningless and/or misleading

editorial comment, I do not want to detract from the very good

work that your office and the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights

and Labor have done on this report. On the contrary, these

nonsequiturs and disconnects are strong evidence that there was a

struggle within the administration between human rights workers

3

who tried to tell it exactly like it is and some of our embassies or

regional bureaus who were carrying water for their odious clients.

In general, the good guys appear to have won.

Despite these important victories that have led to this strong,

honest, and thorough report, I am deeply concerned that it might

not result in the necessary changes in U.S. policy. This is particularly sad because the International Religious Freedom Act provided

an important mechanism for bringing about such changes. Specifically, the law provides that on or before September 1st of each

year, the same day the annual report is due, the President shall

review the status of religious freedom in each foreign country to determine which governments have ‘‘engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom’’ during the proceeding

12 months.

These countries are to be designated as countries of particular

concern for religious freedom, and the President then must either

impose diplomatic, political or economic sanction against the governments of these countries or issue a waiver of such action. This

year, however, the President did not designate any countries of

particular concern until late last night, about 5 weeks beyond the

statutory deadline.

Ambassador Seiple, I want to congratulate you for prying that

list loose from wherever it was in the Federal bureaucracy in time

for today’s hearing. Unfortunately, this designates only five countries along with two de facto authorities that are not recognized by

the U.S. as natural governments.

In choosing these seven regimes—Burma, China, Iran, Iraq,

Sudan, Serbia, and the Taliban—the President made only the easy

choices. Six of them are pariah regimes, already under severe sanctions for reasons other than religious persecution. The seventh,

China, must have generated a warm debate within the administration, not because the evidence is unclear about the atrocities the

Chinese government commits every day against Roman Catholics,

house church Protestants, Uighur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, and

other believers, but because a designation of China as a country of

particular concern might be bad for the relationship.

Ambassador Seiple, I am glad the forces of light prevailed when

it came to designating China. But where is Vietnam, which brutally suppresses Buddhists, Protestants and others who will not

join official churches run by the government itself and which attempts to control the Catholic Church through a Catholic Patriotic

Association modeled closely after the Chinese institution of the

same name? Where is North Korea, whose government imprisons

evangelists and then treats them as insane? Where are Laos and

Cuba, which engage in similar brutal practices? Where is Saudi

Arabia in which, and again I quote, ‘‘freedom of religion does not

exist?’’

Does the administration really believe these governments have

not engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom? Or were the President and his advisers more worried about injuring the relationship or interfering with ongoing efforts to improve the relationship than with giving the honest assessment required by the plain language of the statute?

4

Mr. Ambassador, as you know, the Executive Summary of the report contains a description of U.S. actions to promote religious freedom abroad. Among other things, it states, ‘‘the most productive

work often is done behind the scenes. It happens when an ambassador, after discussing with his senior official his country’s important strategic relationship with the U.S., raises one more thing, access to the imprisoned mufti or information on a missionary who

has disappeared.’’

Unfortunately, this description tends to confirm rather than dispel some of the most frequent criticisms of this administration’s

treatment of religious liberty issues in its conduct of U.S. foreign

policy: First, that the administration is squeamish about holding

governments publicly accountable for their repression; second, that

the administration focuses on specific high-profile cases rather than

pressing for systemic improvements; and, third, that the administration too often treats religious liberty as ‘‘one more thing,’’ an addendum to other policy discussions, rather than mainstreaming it

into other larger deliberations concerning economic, trade, aid, security policies and the like, those things that might provide concrete incentives for repressive regimes to change their actions.

Mr. Ambassador, we need to convince, I believe, repressive governments that religious freedom is not just ‘‘one more thing.’’ Totalitarian regimes often come down harder on religious believers

than on anyone else. This is because nothing threatens such regimes more than faith. In the modern world, in which the rhetoric

of cultural relativism and moral equivalence is so often used to

make the difference between totalitarianism and freedom seem just

like just a matter of opinion, the strongest foundation for the absolute and indivisible nature of human rights is the belief that these

rights are not bestowed by governments or international organizations but by God. People who are secure in their relationship with

God do not intimidate easily.

So we must remind ourselves, and then we must remind our government, that human rights policy is not just a subset of trade policy, and refugee protection is not just an inconvenient branch of immigration policy. On the contrary, these policies are about recognizing that good and evil really exist in the world. They are also

about recognizing that we are all brothers and sisters, and we are

our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers.

Mr. Ambassador, this report is a good first step toward restoring

these human rights policies to the place they deserve as a top priority in American foreign policy, and I am very, very grateful to

have you here.

I would like to yield to my colleagues before introducing our very

distinguished guests.

The Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Gilman.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank our distinguished Chairman of the Committee

and ranking minority Member of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, the gentleman from New

Jersey, Mr. Smith, and the gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McKinney, for holding this important hearing today. I see we are joined

by Congressman Lantos, who has been a staunch supporter of religious freedom, and I want to especially commend Congressman

5

Frank Wolf, the gentleman from Virginia, for his leadership on the

important International Religious Freedom Act. Although we regrettably had to accept some weakening amendments to the bill

from the Senate at the time we adopted it, his leadership ensured

the strong bipartisan measure to final adoption.

In response to section 102 of the International Religious Freedom

Act of 1998, the State Department 1 month ago released its first

Annual Report on International Religious Freedom for 1999; and

while the report can be criticized for its lack of depth in many

areas, I want to thank our good Ambassador who is here with us

today for focusing resources in the right direction.

Ambassador Seiple has done an outstanding job as our first Ambassador on our international religious freedom issues. Besides the

mandate to provide detailed information with respect to religious

freedom around the world, the International Religious Freedom Act

also requires that the President or his designees, in this case the

Secretary of State, to determine which countries should be designated as countries of particular concern.

I am informed that the list is made of up of Burma, People’s Republic of China, Sudan, Iran, Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

While there are many other nations that could be mentioned, I was

concerned to learn that Vietnam, Laos, Cuba and Saudi Arabia

were not designated. Vietnam and Laos have the same restrictive

policies on unapproved and unregistered religious institutions as

the People’s Republic of China.

According to the Country Report on Human Rights Practices,

Saudi Arabia has a systematic discrimination based on religion,

and that is built into their law. Cuba imprisons and tortures

Protestant evangelists who refuse to work with denominations by

the government. Despite the opening of the talks that came about

through the Pope’s recent visit, they turned out to be just that,

talk.

We hope that the administration will not be reluctant to list

Vietnam and Laos as countries of particular concern because it is

trying to ensure that these repressive regimes obtain most favored

nations trading status. Our Nation’s foreign policy must never be

to ensure that business comes before the right to freely practice

one’s religion and the freedom of assembly.

We look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses;

and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for conducting this hearing.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Chairman Gilman.

Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me at the outset commend my friend from Virginia, Frank

Wolf, who emphatically pursued this goal, and we are all here to

celebrate what in fact is a victory for religious freedom in no small

measure, thanks to his commitments and his efforts.

I also want to pay tribute to you and to Chairman Gilman for

your unfailing support of religious freedom. I want to welcome our

distinguished Ambassador and look forward to many annual reports over the coming years.

I want to congratulate both you and the administration on this

report. I agree with my colleagues that the list of seven could easily

be expanded, and I hope that in coming years it will either be exVerDate 11-SEP-98 13:42 May 16, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 64167.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
6

panded or the performance of these countries will change so that

they will not have to be included in this infamous listing of countries that deny religious freedom.

I particularly want to commend the administration for including

China in the list. It is important for all of us in Congress to recognize that we have a far greater degree of freedom as individual

Members of Congress to express our views since it is not our responsibility to conduct official diplomatic relations with other countries.

It is far easier for a Member of Congress to recommend that

China be on the list than it is for an administration which has a

tremendous variety of relationships with China to include China.

So I commend you, Mr. Ambassador, and Secretary Albright and

the President and the Vice President for having the courage to include China in this list because China surely belongs on that list.

I also agree with my colleagues that a number of countries, ranging from Saudi Arabia to Vietnam to Cuba, should be included on

the basis of their performance; and I hope that in subsequent reports, they either will be included or their improved performance

will qualify them not to be included.

But I think it is easy to nitpick the first historic report on religious freedom globally. The United States is the only country on

the face of this planet—I want to repeat this—the United States

is the only country on the face of this planet which has an annual

report prepared by its administration and submitted to its Congress on this most important subject.

I think it is very important to underscore the positive. This is a

major legislative achievement and a major accomplishment by the

administration. The report is extensive, impressive, accurate and

overwhelmingly depressing. It is depressing because this fundamental human right, the right of religious freedom, is so little observed in so many countries of this world; and religious hatred and

bigotry still permeate the official public policy of large numbers of

countries on the face of this planet.

I think it is extremely important that we rejoice in our combined

and joint efforts as Republicans and Democrats and as a Congress

and as an administration; and I look forward to working with you,

Mr. Ambassador, and your staff, for years to come, hopefully, to improve the cause of religious freedom globally.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Lantos. I think you pointed out so well that we do work in a bipartisan way on human

rights in a town that seems to have partisanship written all over

it. At least this is one area where we can come together and promote the common welfare for people across the planet. So thank

you very much for your comments.

Mr. Pitts.

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this

hearing. Your efforts on behalf of religious freedom have positively

affected numerous people around the world, and I am honored to

work with you and commend especially Congressman Wolf and

Congressman Lantos, Chairman Gilman, to work on behalf of promoting human rights and religious liberty around the world.

7

I also want to commend Ambassador Seiple and the numerous

individuals in the State Department who spent, I am sure, a tremendous amount of time and effort in the report that we are examining today.

As a newly appointed member of the Helsinki Commission, I

have concerns regarding the state of religious freedom in Europe

and Central Asia and the Caucasus, concerns about how the 1997

Russian religious law is being implemented.

The 1998 Uzbek law, which I think is the most restrictive law

in the OSCE region, criminalizes unregistered religious activities.

It penalizes free religious expression. Over 200 individuals have

been imprisoned in Uzbekistan this year for their religious practices. In countries such as Hungary and Bulgaria and Ukraine and

Romania, new laws restricting religious freedom are in various

stages of legislative process. In Azerbaijan, the raid of the Baptist

Church on September 5th and last Sunday’s raid of the German

Lutheran Church underscore the price that religious believers pay

for their faith.

Because of time limitations, I won’t go into detail. But, like the

Chairman, I am very concerned about the religious liberty violations in the People’s Republic of China, Sudan, Pakistan,

Turkmenistan, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Burma, Egypt, Iran, and

others.

I am very disappointed that Vietnam and Pakistan were not designated as countries of particular concern, despite widespread religious liberty violations in both of these countries.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing. I look

forward to working with all of you, all of us together on behalf of

religious liberty around the world.

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

Mr. Wolf?

Mr. WOLF. No opening statement. That is OK.

Mr. SMITH. The prime sponsor of the bill has nothing to say.

Mr. SMITH. Let me introduce our distinguished witness, Ambassador Robert Seiple, who was confirmed as the State Department’s

first Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom on

May 5th of this year. For the last 11 years, he has served as president of World Vision, the largest privately funded relief and developmental agency in the world. A former Marine and recipient of

the distinguished Flying Cross and numerous other awards for his

service in Vietnam, Ambassador Seiple previously served as president of Eastern College and Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Mr. Ambassador, welcome to the Subcommittee. We look forward

to your statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. SEIPLE, AMBASSADOR-AT-LARGE FOR INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Mr. SEIPLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members

of Congress. With your permission, I will, in the interest of time,

read a shortened version of my prepared text and ask that the entire text be entered into the record.

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, the full text will be made a part

of the record.

8

Mr. SEIPLE. It is a pleasure to be here today to testify about the

Department of State’s first Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. I consider it an honor to appear before you, knowing as I do the key role you played in the Committee in promoting

religious freedom and in creating the International Religious Freedom Act.

We share a common vision, a simple but profound vision. It is

to help people who suffer because of their religious faith. Such people live literally around the globe, and they number in the millions.

They live in fear, afraid to speak of what they believe. They worship underground in 21st century catacombs, lest authorities discover and punish their devotion to an authority beyond the state.

They languish in prisons and suffer torture, simply because they

love God in their own way.

They are children stolen from their parents, sold into slavery and

forced to convert to another religion. They are Christian mothers

searching for their missing sons. They are Buddhist monks in reeducation camps, Jews imprisoned on trumped-up charges of espionage, Muslims butchered for being the wrong kinds of Muslims.

They hail from every region and race, and their blood cries out to

us. Not for vengeance, but for hope and for help and for redress.

Nor should we speak of human suffering merely in terms of numbers. Suffering has a face. You will forgive me if I repeat a story

I told elsewhere. But in my office there is a lovely watercolor painting of a house and a garden. The painted scene is one of peace,

which reflects the forgiveness in the artist’s heart. But that painting has its origins in hatred.

The artist is a young Lebanese woman named Mary, who at the

age of 18, was fleeing her village after it was overrun by militia.

Mary was caught by a militiamen who demanded with his gun that

she renounce her faith or die.

She refused to renounce her faith. The bullet was fired, severed

her spinal cord. Today Mary paints her paintings of forgiveness

with a paintbrush braced in her right hand. She represents both

the painful consequences of religious persecution and the best

fruits of religion. Mary is filled with physical suffering, yet she forgives. In so doing, she points the way to an enduring answer to religious persecution and that is, of course, reconciliation.

In order to have forgiveness and reconciliation, we must elevate

the notion of universal human dignity, the idea that every human

being has an inherent and inviolable worth. Lest we forget the face

of suffering, or of forgiveness, I have dedicated the first Annual Report on International Religious Freedom to Mary.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, you are to be

commended for your work on this issue and for calling this hearing.

Together with the International Religious Freedom Act and our

own new Report on International Religious Freedom, this hearing

will sharpen the focus for those of us who may be in a position to

help, while at the same time it will provide hope to believers in

every place where hope is in short supply and where each day

brings fear of more persecution.

We are all aware that religious liberty is the first freedom of our

Bill of Rights and is cherished by many Americans as the most precious of those rights granted by God and to be protected by governVerDate 11-SEP-98 13:42 May 16, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 64167.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
9

ments. This Congress was wise in recognizing that freedom of religion and—in a religious context—freedom of conscience, expression

and association are also among the founding principles of international human rights covenants.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International

Covenant on Political and Civil Rights, as well as other human

rights instruments, grant citizens of the world the right to freedom

of religion. As a consequence, when we go to officials of foreign governments to urge them to protect religious freedom, we are not asking them to do it our way. We are asking them to live up to their

commitments that they have made, both to their own people and

to the world.

Mr. Chairman and Members, as you well know, on October 27th

of last year, President Clinton signed into law the International

Religious Freedom Act of 1998. Section 102 of that bill calls for the

submission to Congress of an Annual Report on International Religious Freedom to supplement the Country Reports on Human

Rights Practices by providing additional detailed information with

respect to matters involving international religious freedom.

On September 9th, we submitted to Congress the first International Religious Freedom report. It is this. This is 1,100 pages

long. It covers 194 countries and focuses exclusively on the status

of religious freedom in each. I would like publicly to thank the hundreds of Foreign Service Officers worldwide who helped research,

draft, corroborate and edit this new report.

I want to extend a special thanks to officers in the Bureau for

Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, in particular, the staff of the

Office of Country Reports and Asylum Affairs. These dedicated officers worked overtime, literally and figuratively, in order to meet

the deadline and to produce the best possible product.

Finally, I wish to thank my own staff in the Office of International Religious Freedom, not only for their hard work but for

their love of their work. They are proud to say, as you do in the

International Religious Freedom Act, that the United States stands

with the persecuted.

The report applies to all religions and beliefs. It targets no particular country or religion, and it seeks to promote no religion over

another. It does, however, recognize the intrinsic value of religion,

even as it acknowledges that religious freedom includes the right

not to believe or to practice. Integrity has been our goal as we

sought to ascertain and report the status of religious freedom in all

countries around the globe.

The report includes an introduction, an Executive Summary, and

a separate section on each of the 194 countries. The introduction

lays the philosophical groundwork for promoting religious freedom.

While noting there is more than one understanding of the source

of the human dignity, it also acknowledges a religious understanding of that source, namely, the idea that every human being

possesses an intrinsic and inviolable worth that has a devine origin

and is part of the natural order of things.

So understood, religious freedom can provide support for all other

human rights. When the dignity of the human person is destroyed,

it is not simply a practical rule that is being violated, but the nature of the world itself.

10

Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will agree that if the idea of

human dignity is viewed merely as a utilitarian matter, solely the

product of legislation or treaties, it becomes perishable. Any national or international standard that reflects only the norms of a

given cultural or historical period can be abolished for the convenience of the powerful.

Drawing from the individual reports, the Executive Summary

provides a brief description of barriers to religious freedom in some

35 countries, grouped around five themes ranging from discrimination to harsh persecution. As required by the act, the Executive

Summary includes, but is not limited to, those countries that may

be designated countries of particular concern.

Each of the 194 Country Reports begins with the statement

about applicable laws and outlines whether the country requires

registration of religious groups. It then provides——

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Ambassador, I think your microphone just went

out. Thank you.

Mr. SEIPLE. Each of the 194 Country Reports begins with a statement about applicable laws and outlines whether the country requires registration of religious groups. It then provides a demographic overview of the population by religious affiliation, outlines

problems encountered by various religious groups, describes societal attitudes and finishes with an overview of U.S. policies.

The drafting process was similar to that used in preparing the

Human Rights Reports. We worked diligently to include as much

factual information as possible, relying not only on our other

sources but also on material from experts in the academia, nongovernmental organizations and the media. Our guiding principle

was to ensure that all relevant information was assessed objectively, thoroughly and fairly as possible. We hope that Congress

finds the report to be an objective and comprehensive resource.

The International Religious Freedom Act also requires that the

President, or in this case his designee, the Secretary of State, review the status of religious freedom throughout the world in order

to determine which countries should be designated as countries of

particular concern. As the Chairman and the Committee Members

know, we have delayed the designations in order to give the Secretary ample time to consider all the relevant data, as well as my

own recommendations.

She has been reading relevant parts of the report itself, which

was not completed until September 8th. Designations must be

based on those reports, as well as on the Country Reports on

Human Rights Practices, and all other information available to us.

I am pleased to tell you that the Secretary has completed her review. We will shortly send to the Congress an official letter of notification in which we will detail the Secretary’s decision with respect to any additional actions to be taken. While I am not prepared today to discuss those actions, I do wish to announce the

countries that the Secretary intends to designate under the act as

countries of particular concern. They are Burma, China, Iran, Iraq,

and Sudan.

The Secretary also intends to identify the Taliban in Afghanistan, which we do not recognize as a government, and Serbia,

which is not a country, as particularly severe violators of religious

11

freedom. I will be happy to take your questions about the restrictions on the exercise of religious freedom in all of these areas.

I would also note that there are many other countries that our

report discusses where religious freedoms appear to be suppressed.

In some instances, like Saudi Arabia, those countries are beginning

to take steps to address the problem. In some countries, such as

North Korea, religious freedoms may be suppressed, but we lack

the data to make an informed assessment. We will continue to look

at these cases and collect information so that, if a country merits

designation under the act, we will so designate it in the future.

Let me turn briefly to the subject of U.S. actions to promote religious freedom abroad.

Secretary Albright has said that our commitment to religious liberty is even more than the expression of American ideals. It is a

fundamental source of our strength in the world. The President,

the Secretary of State and many senior U.S. officials have addressed the issue of freedom in venues throughout the world. Secretary Albright some time ago issued formal instructions to all U.S.

diplomatic posts to give more attention to religious freedom both in

reporting and in advocacy.

During the period covered by this report, all of 1998 and the first

6 months of 1999, the U.S. engaged in a variety of efforts to promote the right of religious freedom and to oppose violations of that

right. As prescribed in the International Religious Freedom Act,

the Executive Summary describes U.S. actions to actively promote

religious freedom.

Drawing on the individual reports, it describes certain activities

by U.S. Ambassadors, other embassy officials and other high-level

U.S. officials, including the President, the Secretary, Members of

Congress, as well as the activities of my own office.

Our staff has visited some 15 countries in the last several

months, including China, Egypt, Vietnam, Uzbekistan, Serbia, Russia, Indonesia, Laos, Kazakhstan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, France,

Germany, Austria, and Belgium. We have met with hundreds of officials, NGO’s, human rights groups, religious organizations and

journalists, here and abroad. I am delighted to report to you that

our office has become a clearing house for people with information

about religious persecution and discrimination and for the persecuted themselves. By fax, telephone, E-mail and direct visits they

tell us their stories. We listen, record, and, when appropriate, we

act.

At the very least, we believe we have created a process by which

their stories can be verified and integrated into our annual report.

With persistence and faith, perhaps our efforts will lead to a reduction in persecution and an increase in religious freedom.

Mr. Chairman, I have provided in my written statement a description of U.S. efforts in three countries, China, Uzbekistan, and

Russia, where Congress has shown particular interest and in which

we have expended considerable diplomatic effort.

In China, our collective efforts on behalf of persecuted minorities,

and I include Members of Congress in that collective, have been

persistent and intense, but have unfortunately had little effect on

the behavior of the Chinese Government.

12

In Uzbekistan, our efforts have met with some success, although

it certainly is too soon to discern long-term or systemic change for

the better.

In Russia, our interventions with the Russian government have

apparently blunted the effects of a bad religion law.

Again, I am willing to discuss with you any country about which

you have concerns.

Let me close, Mr. Chairman, by thanking you for your leadership

in the promotion of international religious freedom and the entire

Committee for its willingness to hold this hearing. As I said at the

outset, we share a common vision. It is of a world in which people

of all religions are free from persecution. To create such a world,

we seek to change the behavior of those regimes which engage in

or tolerate abuses of religious freedom and to signal persecutors

and persecuted alike that they will not be forgotten.

But, Mr. Chairman and Members of Congress, there is a profoundly important point that I believe is sometimes missed in our

discussions of religious freedom, a point I briefly made earlier and

one with which I am certain you will agree. Let me return to it in

closing. To protect freedom of religion is not simply to shield religious belief and worship. It is that, but it is more. When we defend

religious freedom, we defend every human being who is viewed as

an object or a product to be used or eliminated according to the

purposes of those with power.

I believe that to guard religious freedom is to lift high the noblest of ideas, indeed the idea that is the seed bed of our own democracy. It is a religious understanding of human dignity, the conviction that every person, of whatever social, economic, religious or

political status of whatever race, creed or location, is endowed by

God, with a value which does not rise or fall with income or productivity, with status or position, with power or weakness.

Mr. Chairman, let us together renew our determination to combat religious persecution and to promote religious freedom. By so

doing, we hold out hope for those who live in fear because of what

they believe and how they worship. By so doing, we give pause to

those who contemplate tormenting others because of their religious

beliefs. By so doing, we strengthen the very heart of human rights.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Seiple appears in the appendix.]

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Ambassador Seiple, for your

very powerful statement and very persuasive words and for your

personal commitment to undertake so many trips abroad to meet

with the leaders of religious faiths and, perhaps even more importantly, with the government officials to personally convey our government’s deep concern about the plight of persecuted religious individuals or groups. I want to thank you very strongly for that.

I also want to commend Mr. Farr for his good work and other

members of your commission and your office for the fine work,

again, in producing this voluminous document which becomes the

basis for action; and we hope that that is what will follow.

Mr. Burton has joined us, and I would like to yield to him for

any opening statement.

13

Mr. BURTON. Yes, I have just have a real quick opening statement. I want to apologize, Mr. Chairman, because I do have to go

to another hearing.

I have heard good things about Mr. Seiple. Many times we have

people testify that we take issue with, but it sounds like to me you

are doing a pretty good job.

The Committee for Coordination on Disappearances in Punjab recently issued a new report on enforced disappearances, arbitrary

executions and secret cremations of Sikhs in the Punjab in northern India. It documents the names and addresses of 838 victims of

this policy, and I have those I would like to submit for the record.

The report is both shocking and distressing. The Committee is an

umbrella organization of 18 human rights organizations under the

leadership of a Hindu human rights activist. The report discusses

‘‘illegal abductions and secret cremations of dead bodies.’’ in fact,

the Indian Supreme Court has itself described this policy as ‘‘worse

than a genocide.’’ the report includes direct testimony from members of the victims’ families, other witnesses and details of these

brutal cases.

The human rights community has stated that over 50,000 Sikhs

have, quote, ‘‘disappeared’’ at the hands of the Indian government

in the early 1990’s. How can any country, especially one that

claims to be the world’s largest democracy, get away with so many

killings, abductions and other atrocities? It is going on not only in

Punjab but Kashmir and elsewhere in the India.

Will the Indian government prosecute the officials of its security

forces who are responsible for these acts? Will the Indian government compensate the victims and their families? I think not.

Mr. Seiple, I want to thank you for the reception you have given

my staff and other organizations that may have submitted various

reports and information for your review. I am encouraged by some

of the findings in your report that focuses the attention in India on

Christian persecution.

I also want to point out to Mr. Seiple and my colleagues that,

last week, Human Rights Watch issued a 37-page report that details violence against Christians in India that include killings of

priests, rapings of nuns and the physical destruction of Christian

institutions, schools and churches.

But I want to remind everyone that there is persecution in Indian of almost all religions. So I hope that you will take a hard

look at this report from the Committee for Coordination on Disappearances in Punjab, and I look forward to working with you in

the future.

Mr. Chairman, as I said before, I would like unanimous consent

to submit the names of 838 Sikh victims that have just disappeared

from the face of the earth and are believed to be cremated by the

Indian government. Also, Mr. Chairman, I would like to, since I do

have to leave, thank you for holding this hearing and also submit

a few questions for the record.

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, Mr. Burton, your submissions will

be made a part of the record.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Seiple.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

14

Mr. SMITH. The chair recognizes the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Gilman, who regrettably is on a short timeframe and

will have to depart, but he has some questions that he wanted to

ask.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I thank you for conducting this important hearing.

We thank Mr. Seiple for being here, for his good report, even

though it left out some of the countries we are concerned about.

Mr. Ambassador, is the President merely saying that there are

only seven regimes in the world that inflict torture or other cruel

treatment of prolonged detention without charge on religious believers? Is that contrary to the report itself?

Mr. SEIPLE. When we did the report, we looked at the language

in the act, and the bar created four countries of particular country

concern. It is very specific language. It talks about the government

that either engages in or tolerates ongoing, systematic and egregious—and then it goes on to define egregious as acts of persecution, which include things like prolonged interment, torture, rape,

disappearance and general mayhem about people and does that on

the basis to a significant degree because of religion. That is the

standard that we apply to every one of the countries.

I am prepared in anticipation of this question to talk about those

that either came close or came over the line or didn’t quite meet

the line, but simply to say that this in our mind was a very high

bar, and when a country is so designated, it is a very significant

blight on their record, and that is the approach that we took with

every country.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Ambassador, were any agencies outside the

State Department consulted about which countries should be included in the list?

Mr. SEIPLE. We talked to literally hundreds of people and NGO’s

and human rights organizations. We also went through this with

the commission head. The commission normally in a given year

would have a report to give to us by the 1st of May.

The commission is the independent commission started up late

this year. I did have those conversations with the commission, all

of which is to say that I think that we have inputs. In fact, a lot

of the reporting in places will show that those inputs came from

places like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, Freedom House, and

any place that we could get verifiable information. If we could sustain it with credibility, it is in the report.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Ambassador, did you discuss this with any Federal agencies?

Mr. SEIPLE. In the sanctioning process that we have begun and

that you will hear about when the official letters of designation

come for CPC’s, those other Federal agencies, like the Treasury Department and so on, have to be included as we discuss sanctions.

So, in that sense, there are other avenues and other venues and

other parts of the U.S. Government.

We have also worked very closely with this Congress in a couple

of countries, namely Uzbekistan and very recently Egypt, and continued to work with staffers here in Congress at all levels.

15

Mr. GILMAN. Did any of the other Federal agencies or departments recommend to you that you not include any of those countries that you were considering?

Mr. SEIPLE. Our recommendations were only based on the facts.

We wanted to make sure that we had the report right so that the

second exercise of designation would flow from the report and the

report would be an acceptable and credible rationale for that designation.

Answering your question specifically, no.

Mr. GILMAN. One last question, Mr. Ambassador. With regard to

Tibet, during the period covered by the report, diplomatic personnel

consistently urged both central and local Chinese authorities to respect religious freedom in Tibet. Figures as prominent as President

Clinton and Assistant Secretary Koh raised specific issues of concern about the human rights situation in Tibet. Yet at the same

time, by the report’s own reckoning, religious freedom in Tibet diminished, and the Chinese Government launched a 3-year campaign against religious exercise.

Given the inefficacy of admonitions in the Beijing regime, what

more can be done to address this deteriorating situation in Tibet?

We would welcome your recommendation.

Mr. SEIPLE. As we point out in the report, this has not been an

easy time with our relations with China and primarily because of

the human rights abuses. This has not been a year when the

human rights situation has improved. It has remained consistently

bad. You are right to point out the widespread abuses in Tibet and,

of course, we could go to other parts, as you will hear today, of

China, as to how that happened.

The silver bullet for making all of that right, for getting the attention, I don’t know. We will continue to look for a dialogue that

produces results. We will continue to talk to the Chinese in terms

of the international covenants they have signed which clearly spell

out their obligations for mutual accountability to the global community, on what they are doing in places like Tibet.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Ambassador, I noted and I was glad that you undertook the

trip to China last January; and one of the first items mentioned in

U.S. action to promote religious freedom abroad in the Executive

Summary was to raise the issue of Bishop Su of Hebei province.

I had met with Bishop Su when he was briefly out of prison. He

requested the meeting, and he actually celebrated mass with our

human rights delegation, and then for that, apparently, he was rearrested and has spent time in prison, and now his whereabouts

remains somewhat of a mystery.

In explaining that the new law does have some sanctions, however modest those sanctions may be, however waivable those sanctions may be, did you get information concerning Bishop Su then

or now or any time in between those conversations almost a year

ago? Second, did they take you as if you had credibility when you

say that there are some things, penalties, that could be imposed if

there is not a mitigation of your violations of these basic human

rights?

16

I would like to yield.

Mr. SEIPLE. As we point out in the report, the whereabouts of

Bishop Su Ahimin is still, as you say, unknown. Everyone that has

gone and every high-ranking official that has brought up this individual in this particular context has gotten the same information.

We have not been allowed to see people. We have not been allowed

to visit priests that had been put in prison, even though, in many

cases, as I pointed out to them when I was there in January, if you

would let me go and talk to the priest, maybe we could put to rest

the provocative stories that are coming out around the world. Still

they would not allow me to go. They would not allow our embassy

to go.

So our information comes from other sources. I think it is good

information, but it hasn’t come from government.

Have we been ignored as a representative of this country in

terms of human rights? We don’t have much to point to in this last

year, except that we had been faithful and persistent in explaining

the position, explaining our desires to promote religious freedom,

not to take punitive actions and point fingers and act in a

judgmental fashion but to find ways to take the ball forward in a

way that can be helpful to the government as well as to the people

who this day are repressed.

Whether there are larger issues that overshadow this, they are

very concerned about their anniversaries. They are very concerned

about their economy. They are very concerned about the bankruptcy of the Communist ideology. Maybe there are other issues

that overshadow this. But they know as a part of our foreign policy—and I think by designating China, it may have been a surprise, but by designating China, they know that we are not going

to sweep any of this under the rug when it comes to our bilateral

relationship.

Mr. SMITH. There is no doubt that light acts as a disinfectant,

and it is certainly helpful and gives us more moral suasion when

we would deal with them. But, again, did they convey back to you

then, or at any time since, that they take seriously the fact that

some penalty might be imposed upon them, some kind of sanction

so that they might curb some of their more egregious behavior?

Mr. SEIPLE. I have to answer that somewhat indirectly, because

specifically we never posed that with an answer to come back. I

think the penalty for the Chinese in a global community is putting

them in the group that we have designated today. I think that is

the largest thing we could have done to them.

I think that they will care more about that, and again from indirect intuition and conversations with a wide variety of Chinese in

this last year, I think that will mean more than any specific sanction that ultimately comes with the letter that you will be receiving

shortly from the Secretary.

Mr. SMITH. I do hope you are right. I know that you are very sincere and you believe that and it is likely that it could lead to some

good and we all certainly hope that is the case.

Let me just ask you and really followup to Mr. Gilman’s question

with regards to those countries that are included and those that

somehow didn’t make the bar. Were there countries—did the President accept your recommendations in its totality? Were there some

17

like Saudi Arabia which again had that very clear definitive, declarative sentence that there is no religious freedom in Saudi Arabia and we do know that there are arrests. We know that there are

punishments, including the use of torture, against people, especially if they convert from Islam to Christianity.

It is hard—it seems to be a real stretch to say they shouldn’t be

included in the list, even if our relationship as it is, is strategic and

close, all friends commit human rights abuses, since we are a mirror perhaps, why weren’t they on there?

Was there any kind of political vetting that went on with regards

to this country’s too much of a strategic ally or was this the plain,

unvarnished truth?

Mr. SEIPLE. This is the plain, unvarnished truth. We do not look

for political justifications. We didn’t talk to folks who perhaps

would bring that to the fore. We looked at the facts and, again,

took the facts up against a very high standard. If you look at the

standard that I mentioned before, the standard that comes out of

the act, we tried to be very faithful there, but as you look at that

standard, it is systematic, ongoing and egregious.

There is no question that Saudi Arabia is systematic, ongoing

and egregious in terms of the persecution as it is defined in the act,

not in the period of the report. I had a conversation with their foreign minister last February, and we talked about in these very narrow lines of realpolitik for us to negotiate—can we get non-Muslims

worshipping privately without threat of the Mutawwa coming in

and harassing them, beating them up and everything else? I got

from him a commitment that that would not happen. Non-Muslims

can worship as long as it is privately, and they can worship in a

secure environment.

To date, in the preparation of the report time, that has been a

faithful keeping of the word. That is not a major victory, it is not

a large step, it is a very small step, but in a very difficult context.

We want to move the ball forward, and I think that is positive. I

think we have a government there willing to work with us within

fairly tight restrictions. We wish it would be better. We wish that

there would be optimism to our way of thinking about this and the

international covenants that the global community has come up

with, but we have made progress in terms of Saudi Arabia over

where we were.

Mr. SMITH. Let me just ask you briefly about Vietnam, because

that is something that other Members and myself included in our

opening comments. Many of us know many people who have recently immigrated from there. We work with human rights organizations, and there is a question as to why that country was not included as well. Maybe there is a good answer, and we look forward

to hearing that. If you are outside the official government structure, as in China, you are in for almost like, very severe limitations, including incarceration. We know that they, just like China,

impose a quota on the number of kids you can have. That two child

per couple policy has real religious significance especially when

Catholic and other Christian denominations speak out against that.

As a matter of fact, they can be arrested for it.

What about Vietnam?

18

Mr. SEIPLE. First of all, I am not here to defend any of these

countries. Obviously, a lot of them are closed cases.

This was my 12th trip into Vietnam last July. I know the country well, I know the people well, and I know the groups well. What

I have seen over the last several years, although this was my first

year and my first visit going in for international religious freedom

and had confirmed by every religious group that I met with, Catholics, Buddhists, Protestants, evangelical Protestants, both belonging to the Temlon Church and other groups, that would be more

coming out of the hills, tribesmen and so on. Every group I talked

to assured me that things were better in terms of religious repression in the last 5 years. Things had come to a better place than

they had been.

Now, the shoe can drop at any time and things can change. But

in the period of this report, we saw progress, we saw general amnesties for the first time. Many of the people that had been in prison had been let out. We have been led to believe that there will

be more amnesties. We have seen the Marian devotion at Le Van.

Last year, 100,000 Catholics were allowed to gather. This year that

group is 200,000. This is progress.

Will it continue? I don’t think we should be Pollyanna-ish. I

think we have to watch it closely. We have a tremendous Ambassador in Pete Peterson there making these same cases and these

same points with the Vietnamese government. It was a close call,

but there was progress. They were receptive to diplomatic initiatives, unlike some of the countries that have been on the list.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Let me just followup. In Vietnam, reliable sources have described the Dien Bien region as the center of

a new anti-Christian campaign by Vietnamese officials. Vietnamese

government documents support these reports.

One particular document describes a pilot project aimed at preventing the growth of Christianity throughout the country. In certain areas of Vietnam, government officials encouraged villages to

attend seminars to learn about the government’s attitude toward

Christianity. Villages are required to sign a statement promising

that they will not study the Christian religion or take part in any

Christian activities such as Bible reading or worship services, and

they will actively tell them not to participate in the Christian religion.

I was just wondering, is this something that your commission is

aware of, is looking into, has spoken out against?

Mr. SEIPLE. I think you are talking about many of the Hmong

tribesmen, and we spent a lot of time on this issue in order to understand it, in order to help the Vietnamese understand it. By the

way, these are the folks that fought with us back in the 1960’s and

1970’s, and we should look for ways not only to take their part but

to raise their issue to the Vietnamese in terms again of the international covenants that they have signed, and we have done that.

It is complicated. Some are Christian, some are millennial cults,

and unfortunately, the Vietnamese government, not knowing the

difference, could come down with a hammer on all of them. It is

complicated, because they are historic enemies. As I say, they

fought on our side. It is complicated because of the ethnicity and

their location on the borders.

19

Again, in my recent trip, we spent probably the majority of the

time with every person we talked to talking about this issue. If

these issues that have come to light since the closing of the report

continue to rear their head, we can come back, obviously, and make

them a country of particular concern. I hope that won’t happen, I

hope the diplomacy will work, but obviously we have that option.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

Mr. Wolf.

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I am not a Member of the Committee, and I want to thank

you for the opportunity to be here and also for your helping in getting this passed. I think the record should show that Chris Smith

has done more to help the persecuted, the poor and the suffering

than just about almost anyone else in the Congress. So I just want

to thank you for that and thank you for having the hearings.

Mr. Ambassador, I want to welcome you here and thank you, too,

for the work and for the report. I have a couple of questions.

At the outset I was just wondering, China is of a particular interest, and it was one of the countries that you named. In the text

on China, you never used the word ‘‘persecution’’, and looking in

Afghanistan the word ‘‘persecution’’ is used on page 4 of the report

for Afghanistan. What would lead you to use the word ‘‘persecution’’ in Afghanistan and not use the word ‘‘persecution’’ in China?

You used the word—or the government in the report used the word

‘‘restrictions.’’ What would be the difference there?

Mr. SEIPLE. Let me answer that in general. First of all, we did

each country separately. I am delighted that you read the reports

to find that word. I am chagrined that you found that word by

reading the reports carefully, but let me say that we tried to write

without any kind of volatile——

Mr. WOLF. I didn’t mean that as a criticism, just so you know.

I am just trying to get the sense if there was a style of writing.

Mr. SEIPLE. I appreciate that. The style of writing was to be in

a narrative style without volatile language. A statement of facts,

just stating the facts as we know them, without biasing the fact

with a word that carries a little bit more emotion than perhaps we

want in the report. We felt in the countries-of-particular-concern

exercise we could do the denunciation, and that is where we would

use the language that would specifically talk about persecution.

Persecution is an important word to us. I am not sure how it escaped in one and not the other, but we take it seriously in terms

of the definition that the act provides us with.

Mr. WOLF. Thank you.

The law prescribes several actions by the State Department: web

site, training at the Foreign Service Institute, prisoner list. Where

does that sit with regard to those three?

Mr. SEIPLE. The web site is up and running—www.state.gov. You

don’t have to have your own hard-bound copy, but that is there. We

have worked extensively with the Foreign Service Institute specifically in two areas: What are the courses that are going to be provided on this issue for incoming Foreign Service Officers, and what

kind of training will we give our Ambassadors before we go into the

field?

20

In terms of the prisoner list, we have a lot of work to do. Where

we have them, they have been collected and collated in our office.

As you point out correctly by the act, we are the office that is supposed to keep them. In many countries, they are up to date and up

to speed, and we are pleased with how complete they are. In some

countries, we are still working on that.

Let me say in that regard, and this is also back to Chairman

Smith’s comment earlier, any of the information that you have that

perhaps we don’t have, we would love to take it off your hands to

make sure that it gets into the next report, or if there is a correction that has to go into the country reports that come out in January that we can make that correction as well.

Mr. WOLF. I would share the comment that was made by the

Chairman, Mr. Smith, and also Chairman Gilman with regard to

several of the other countries, Vietnam and North Korea, but I am

not second-guessing you, obviously, and I think it is a process that

you are moving through. I think the list that you selected—Burma,

China, Iran, Iraq, and Sudan—nobody could question, and maybe,

looking at it from your point of view, there has been a minor improvement and maybe that is a reason not to be on the list. I think

the fact that you made a fair report at the outset sends the message that the next time another country comes on that they will

show that they are slipping back, rather than making progress. So

maybe the fact that you have only limited it to these is really appropriate. But I think there are some other countries that other

Members, myself included, think that should be on there.

I think the question that I have is of the enforcement. I think

the fact that China made it is enough, to a certain degree, but I

think you are going to have to do more, and my sense is the first

enforcement that you take will be watched by the other countries.

I think it ought to be tough, but I think it ought to be fair. I think

it ought to be something that an objective group of people would

look at and say, this is tough, but this is certainly, certainly fair,

and I would emphasize fair as well as the tough.

But that all eyes will be watching, because if it gets to the point

that you make this list and nothing really happens, then some of

these countries will almost view the list as a badge of honor because of the types of some of the people that are running some of

these countries. I can almost hear some of the prison wardens just

kind of feeling that they are really doing great because they made

the list versus the other.

So I think how you enforce it and when you come out with whatever it will be—and of course, in the bill, the list ranges from almost nothing to fairly significant. But I would just urge you to be

very, very careful, because everyone is going to be watching. It is

like when you are in school and the first person is punished, I

think it sends a message to everybody else. We go from a private

demarche, which would be irrelevant, to prohibiting the U.S. Government from procuring or entering into a contract for the procurement of any goods for the foreign government. So there is a big list

that I know you are going to have a tough job with, but I hope it

is tough enough but fair enough that it sends a message to everyone that is not on the list.

21

I think also, because of the credible job that you have done here,

and I think if the enforcement is tough enough, although fair, my

sense is you are going to find other countries doing certain things

to make sure that they are not on the list. I think you are going

to find people who are never arrested solely because a country

doesn’t want to be on the list. I think you will also find that some

of the jail cells are open and people get out because they don’t want

to be on the list. Every year, it is like the battle for MFN in the

old days with the Soviet Union and others, things would improve.

I think your list may do more good that we never really see. But,

it is the crack down that doesn’t take place because the list is

ready to come out. So I think how that is done is very important.

One other—or two other questions. On page 7, you said, in some

instances like Saudi Arabia, those countries are beginning to take

steps to address the problem. What steps is Saudi Arabia taking?

Mr. SEIPLE. The step that I mentioned in terms of Saudi Arabia

was the commitment that not only could non-Muslims worship privately, but they would worship without harassment. That was not

the case—was not always the case; and, as I said, in the period of

this report, they kept their word.

Mr. WOLF. So next year, you will go and look to see if that commitment was kept. If it was not kept, that would be a negative for

them; if it were kept, that would move them farther forward?

Mr. SEIPLE. We would like to see a continuum going forward. We

are in the business of promoting international religious freedom

and, as I said, with Saudi Arabia the steps are going to be small.

It is going to take lots of time, but I hope this is the first of many

steps.

Mr. WOLF. Positive reinforcement can be as effective as negative.

Mr. SEIPLE. Absolutely.

Mr. WOLF. So I think it is the carrot and the stick.

One last question. Very, very appropriately I see you added the

country of Sudan on the list, and we know you know 2 million people have died. I am sure you watched or have heard about the

movie Touched by an Angel and how they covered it, Senator

Brownback’s recent trip there with Congressman Tancredo, and I

think it is so factual that nobody can even debate this issue. I am

pleased that it is on. I have been concerned. You have China and

Sudan, you almost get a two-for with regard to this.

The Chinese National Petroleum Company, who wants to raise

capital in the United States, has a project in Sudan. Their main

foreign investment is the oil fields and the construction of a pipeline in Sudan. If our government allows Sudan to earn an estimated $500 million, which I have seen in the articles that they

want to use for buying more weapons to kill more innocent people,

you will have a problem of the listing of the Chinese National Petroleum Company. They get the oil, they get the revenues, Sudan

doesn’t have to purchase oil on the open market, so they have more

that they can use to kill people, and then they get $500 million of

revenue from this that they can buy and develop an armament industry.

I have written to the Chairman of the SEC and the New York

Stock Exchange asking them not to allow CNPC to raise capital in

the U.S. I mean, to think that schoolteachers and retirees might

22

unwittingly invest in it, and I am a Presbyterian—maybe the Presbyterian fund for ministers will invest in it? Most people wouldn’t

know how CNPC is invested in Sudan. To think that American dollars of teachers and religious leaders or insurance agents or anybody would be invested on the New York Stock Exchange which

would allow the Chinese National Petroleum Company to earn revenue.

Then also where the PLA and others can do what they are doing,

and we know in Tibet and places and in China, and also enable

Sudan to proceed with the war, would you speak, or would the government speak certainly to the SEC and explain the concerns that

the State Department has with regard to terrorism? There are

many terrorist training camps in Sudan. The Sudanese government

was implicated in the assassination attempt on President Mubarak,

and the people who did this are still there in Sudan. There are stories of slavery and everything else.

Would you feel it is appropriate—and I would urge you if you do,

I don’t want to ask you anything that is not—but for the State Department to consider contacting the Securities and Exchange Commission, a Federal agency, and the appointments at the SEC are

made by the President, confirmed by the Senate, to not list—to

urge the New York Stock Exchange and Mr. Richard Grasso not to

list this company on the New York Stock Exchange for several reasons. One, China has now made the bad list, Sudan has now made

the bad list, and by listing this company, we are not even providing

a sanction, we are providing actually an encouragement, and I hope

they won’t be listed.

Mr. SEIPLE. That is a very interesting point.

Obviously, people at the State Department working on Sudan—

and our office works a great deal on Sudan—are very concerned

about what happens to the dynamic of a 16-year war once you have

this income stream coming into the north. I would appreciate very

much getting a copy of the letter that you have sent, and maybe

this is an area where we could work together to do some good.

Mr. WOLF. Good. I would appreciate it.

Again, let me just personally thank you and thank all of your

staff for the good efforts and work.

Years ago, there was a Congressman Mike Barnes who passed a

bill to raise the drinking age to 21, and I remember supporting the

bill on the floor at that time and saying, because of his efforts,

there will be a lot of people who never get the telephone call saying

that their son or daughter is dead. Because they don’t know why.

It is just because that law made a difference.

My sense is that if this is pursued as the way you have been

doing, there are many people who will never be thrown into jail,

many people who will never make the web site and maybe people

who will just never have the problem solely because this commission and the notoriety and the sanctions will keep countries in

check who care deeply about what the United States and the west

think. So, for that, future generations who won’t even know about

this report or about your position will really be able to be helped.

So thank you very much.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate you holding the hearing

to do this. Thank you very much.

23

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

Let me just conclude with a couple of followup questions, and we

will submit a number of questions for the record and ask you, if

you would, to respond.

The first is with regard to Iran. I noted in the September 29th

Jerusalem Post, Secretary Albright suggested that the 13 Jews now

being held in Iran will not be executed, which obviously is good

news. But do we have information as to whether or not they are

being held simply because they are Jews? Has there been any work

done by the Bureau to determine whether or not they are truly innocent victims and hopefully are going to be released?

Also, the situation of the Baha’i. As we know, there was an execution about a year ago of a man who was accused of converting

a woman from Islam to Baha’i. There are Baha’i on death row, two

simply for, quote, ‘‘apostasy.’’ What can we do to try to effect their

release or at least a downgrading of their sentence?

Mr. SEIPLE. Both of these issues are somewhat long-standing.

Obviously, the Baha’i is for a much longer time. Both of them are

very egregious, both of them speak I think to the act and partially,

certainly on the part of the arresting of the 13, why we have that

designation of country of a particular concern. The conjecture, the

conventional wisdom is that they are not spies. Everyone has said

that that knows them inside and outside the country. The conjecture is that this is part of the ongoing debate, fight, conflict within

Iran between the moderates and the clerics. We are concerned

about that debate and how innocent people might get chewed up

in the debate.

The person that you mentioned conducting the investigation, the

judiciary minister, he was one who had called for the assassination,

even before the investigation was finished, the investigation that

his ministerium leads. This, obviously, produces a chilling effect.

We would like to have more leverage in that country than we do,

but we have lots of friends, allies who are working this issue with

us. It is one that we have been very, very clear since it started.

They know the seriousness of this, and we will continue to pound

away as we must and as we can along with our allies to make sure

that this is properly and quickly resolved.

On the issue of the Baha’is, you have a classic case that fits the

act of a government that consciously, in an egregious, systematic,

ongoing way, on the basis of faith, tries to persecute and does persecute. Of the 300,000, 350,000 Baha’is that are still living in Iran,

this also is a very difficult time for them to live under that repression. We will do everything that we can—whether it is 350,000 people or 13 people or one person, we will do everything that we have

within our power to do to make sure that the repression stops.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. I really appreciate that.

On Russia, I noted in the report you used with regard to the

1997 Russian law that it was a potentially discriminatory law. I

will never forget, both Mr. Wolf and I undertook a trip a couple of

years ago as this law had just been signed by Yeltsin, and we were

talking about our hopes that it would not be enforced or perhaps

even overturned by the court, their court, because aspects of it are

such that it could very easily lead to draconian measures against

24

religious believers and especially groups that would then be left out

of the mainstream and would not be able to operate under the law.

Since this report has been issued, has there been any degradation or diminution of religious freedom under that law? We are all

watching with bated breath and hoping that it does not become

very quickly what it could become.

Mr. SEIPLE. That is the problem, the potential for it and the

chilling effect of waiting for the other shoe to fall. Russia does not

have the best implementation system in the world when it comes

to their laws and so you have an even more uneven implementation of this particular act. In some places there is total freedom and

in other places people are harassed.

This was a giant step backward, it was pointed out by everybody

from the President on down when they did it. It was contradictory

to their own constitution. We wish that they had stayed with their

1990 progressive law. We will have to continue to follow this, but,

at this time, we think we have the attention and we think, as I

mentioned in my statement, that we blunted any effectiveness of

this going in a negative direction.

Mr. SMITH. Let me just ask one final question, Mr. Ambassador.

Uzbekistan was not identified as a country of particular concern,

and your testimony notes positive changes in recent months, including reports that large numbers of Muslim prisoners may have

been released. That claim of a large-scale prison release was made

by the Uzbek government itself. Was it credible, in your view, and

has the Uzbek government given any information about the actual

charges against these prisoners or any details identifying their

cases?

Mr. SEIPLE. The report was that 300 Muslims would be released

and that as many as 1,000 or 2,000 would shortly be released. The

Uzbekis have made that statement. That is no longer an allegation.

In terms of seeing the flesh of those folks walk out of prison, we

cannot yet report that that has happened. The Uzbeki government,

however, has taken steps to release other prisoners, they have

taken steps in a positive direction to allow for registration, and

they have taken steps to look at, as you pointed out, that most horrific law that they put together in 1998, and hopefully we will see

some amendments in the future.

So there has been progress in Uzbekistan, more hopefully to

come, obviously much to watch.

Mr. SMITH. I would just note that we are planning on the Helsinki Commission, which I also chair, a hearing probably on the

18th, it is not set in concrete, on Uzbekistan and the hope is to try

to get further into that issue and other issues as well on human

rights.

I do have one final question and that is on Turkey. Ambassador

Hal Koh and hopefully I and many others will be traveling over

there for an OSCE ministerial. Yet many of us are concerned about

human rights in general, whether it be the use of torture, which

I raised during a bilateral recently with a number of parliamentarians, and the responses were very interesting. It wasn’t complete

denial, but it remains a major problem.

But 3 weeks ago we were told police raided a Turkish Protestant

church in Izmir and arrested 40 Christians. This past Sunday the

25

Istanbul security police interrupted a morning worship service, arresting most of the adult members of the congregation, along with

11 foreigners and five children. On August 3rd, a Turkish Christian was arrested for selling Christian literature at a convention

for intellectual discussion and exchanges. He was reportedly beaten

and then released without formal charges.

In your view, are these signs of increasing religious hostility toward non-Muslim faiths in Turkey?

Mr. SEIPLE. Very disturbing, very troubling. We have the same

reports.

As soon as they came, we started working on them with our desk

and with the Turkish, our own embassy there. I think it is something that we should be deeply troubled about, because this is a

close friend and ally. If you can’t tell candid truth to close friends

and allies, who can you tell them to? When we get to that point

where your visit is ongoing, we would like also to do some briefing

on this situation and others that ought to be brought to the attention of the Turkish authorities.

Mr. SMITH. I do appreciate that.

Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much for your testimony.

Thank you for the good work of your commission.

I hope you have sufficient resources, and it is something you

might want to comment on, if you have any closing comments,

whether or not you have sufficient staff, who are I am sure overworked and working many long hours not only to put this together

but to continue their fact-finding and also to develop a strategy for

implementation of what is outlined in the bill. So if you have any

comment on that, please.

Mr. SEIPLE. I think it is illegal for me to lobby for more money

to Congress, so please cut me off whenever you think I have

crossed that ethical line.

I have been in government now for one whole year. I have been

aghast at how underfunded and under-resourced this government

funds its arm into the global community. At a time when we have

all of the advantages of being the sole remaining superpower in

this transitional period, when we can be doing so much by way of

preventive and preemptive diplomacy, we are suffering the death

of a thousand cuts. It is not just our bureau, it is not just getting

mandates without funding—although that is true. I see it throughout the State Department.

I bring that to your attention. Thank you. I wouldn’t have said

it if you hadn’t asked, but I bring it to your attention more as a

private citizen who has only been in government for a year. The

taxpayers might feel good about that. I think we are mortgaging

the future.

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that. Just for the record, we are trying

to up at least the amount of money available to the Democracy,

Human Rights and Labor Bureau, Secretary Koh’s bureau. We envision at least a doubling. My travels, and you might see this as

you travel, have underscored in virtually every mission that I have

visited—particularly when we are in an area that is a frontline

country where human rights are nonexistent or violated to some

extent—that the human rights officer very often is outmanned or

is a very junior Foreign Service Officer. The number of Commerce

26

people far exceed him, usually to the second and third power.

There are just so many more of them, and less of the people who

care about human rights.

I am often told, ‘‘Well yes, but it is the Ambassador’s portfolio to

deal with human rights as well,’’ and that is true, but we do need

specialists who just do nothing but or spend a major part of their

time in government service working on that. We are trying to increase at least that portion of it.

I do appreciate your comments, and I admire your work.

Mr. SEIPLE. Thank you.

Mr. SMITH. The Subcommittee will resume its sitting.

I would like to introduce our second panel beginning with Ms.

Nina Shea, a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, as well as the Director of the Center for Religious

Freedom at Freedom House. As a lawyer specializing in international human rights for the past 12 years, she has focused exclusively on the issue of religious persecution. Ms. Shea is the author

of ‘‘In the Lion’s Den,’’ a book detailing the persecution of Christians around the world.

Second we will be hearing from Mr. Stephen Rickard, who is the

Washington Office Director for Amnesty International, USA. Previously, Mr. Rickard has served as the Senior Advisor for South

Asian Affairs in the Department of State, as well as a professional

staff member for the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on

Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs.

Next, Dr. Paul Marshall is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House and is the editor of that organization’s survey of Religious Freedom Around the World. The author

of 16 books, Dr. Marshall is also a visiting fellow at the Claremont

Institute and an adjunct professor of philosophy at the University

of Amsterdam.

Fr. Nguyen Huu Le is the Executive Director of the Committee

for Religious Freedom in Vietnam. He served as a Catholic priest

in Vietnam until the Communist government ordered his arrest in

1975. He was captured while trying to escape and spent the next

13 years in various reeducation camps. In 1978, he and four other

prisoners escaped but were recaptured and tortured, two of them

to death. He was shackled in solitary confinement for 3 years. He

was released in 1988 and escaped to New Zealand where he served

as the chaplain for the Vietnamese Catholic congregation.

Abdughuphur Kadirhaji is a Uighur Muslim from Urumqi City

in Xinjiang, China. For the past 15 years he was worked as a manager and then director of the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region

Government Foreign Affairs Office. He came to the United States

in March of this year and is currently living in Virginia with his

family.

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Shea, if you could begin.

STATEMENT OF NINA SHEA, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, FREEDOM HOUSE

Ms. SHEA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On behalf of the U.S. Commission on International Religious

Freedom, I wish to thank you for holding these critically important

hearings today. Mr. Chairman, your stalwart support over many

27

years for religious freedom throughout the world and your championing of the International Religious Freedom Act itself is to be

heartily commended.

I must say it is a real personal honor for me to be addressing

this topic in front of some of the great standard bearers in the

House of Representatives of religious freedom for persons all over

the world—Congressmen such as Frank Wolf and Congressmen

Pitts, Gilman, Lantos, Burton and yourself.

Continued attention on the part of the Congress to this most fundamental issue is, in the Commission’s judgment, essential to mobilizing the appropriate foreign policy tools to deal with religious

persecution abroad.

I am appearing here as the representative of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom of which I am one of 10

commissioners. Our Chairman, Rabbi David Saperstein, and Vice

Chairman, Michael Young, are both on travel today at conferences

dealing with issues relating to religious liberty. Ambassador Robert

Seiple, who is a witness for the State Department, is also on our

Commission as an ex-officio member.

As you know, the Commission was established under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which also mandated the

State Department report that we are discussing today. The Commission is charged with advising the President and the Congress

on strengthening religious freedom and combating religious persecution worldwide. It is part of the Commission’s mandate to evaluate the decisions of the administration whether to designate a

country for particular concern and to recommend effective responses where appropriate. In a few weeks, we will be holding our

own set of hearings on the State Department report.

Last month, the Commission welcomed the release of the State

Department’s first Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. Over 1,000 pages in length, it reflects a monumental effort on

the part of Ambassador Robert Seiple and his Office on International Religious Freedom at the Department of State. We appreciate that producing this report may have been a cultural wrench

for the State Department and Foreign Service Officers who are accustomed to dealing mostly with human rights reports on political

persecution and political prisoners.

Of course, it is always possible in this type of exercise to critique

specific country reports, but as the first historic attempt by the

State Department to describe the status of religious freedom worldwide in one compilation, it is a step in the right direction. We again

express our appreciation to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

and Ambassador Seiple for their diligence in producing the report.

What is most extraordinary, Mr. Chairman, however, is the priority listing of countries of particular concern, or CPC’s, that the

State Department released at today’s hearing. The report itself contains an overwhelming and unselective compilation of facts and information without reaching definitive conclusions or conveying a

sense of priority. In a report of this magnitude and type,

prioritizing American concerns becomes essential. Not to do so is

to lose sight of severe persecutors in a welter of detail. Congress

wisely understood this danger and foresaw the need to give real

focus and priority through CPC designations.

28

The Commission is especially pleased that the governments of

China and Sudan are on State’s brief CPC listing and will receive

appropriate focus and the concerted attention of the U.S. State Department, the Congress and our Commission, as well as others in

the nongovernmental sector, by virtue of this designation. It is this

CPC designation that triggers under the act a Presidential announcement within 90 days of what policies the administration will

adopt to improve religious freedom in the countries in question.

China and Sudan are the two countries that the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has decided to review during its first year of work as countries with severe and ongoing problems of religious persecution, China has the world’s largest number

of religious prisoners while Sudan’s government is waging the largest genocidal war in the world today, replete with enslavement,

scorched-earth bombings and calculated starvation against its religious minorities in the south and central part of the country.

Arguments can be made that many other countries should be included on today’s list. Mr. Chairman, I think I have a different

take on the question of the selectivity or the brevity of the list than

you do. I believe that the issuance of this highly selective CPC list

that includes China, the world’s largest religious persecutor, and

Sudan, the world’s most hideous persecutor, will send the strongest

possible signal both to officials here and to governments throughout the world of a renewed recognition of the salience of religious

freedom to American foreign policy.

I believe there is no better way to help the persecuted religious

believers in Vietnam, Pakistan, Egypt, North Korea, Saudi Arabia,

and elsewhere than to see China and Sudan become first cases on

a short list of countries where the U.S.—and if the U.S.—is prepared to spend political capital to end the scourge of religious genocide and persecution. Targeting a powerful nation like China and

a rogue state like Sudan in a foreign policy priority listing signals

that business may not be conducted as usual, that the United

States may be adopting a zero tolerance policy for hard-core religious persecutors. This possibility of a change in movement in foreign policy will be the best assurance to persecuted peoples everywhere. We have observed that foreign governments are keenly

aware of the report and, as of this morning, are on notice that

America has a deep, abiding concern for religious freedom for all

peoples and may be prepared to act accordingly in its foreign policy.

If this listing is meant for something more than a 1-day commentary, however, the United States must take appropriate followup action and apply pressure on the CPC’s from its range of foreign policy tools. Two steps in particular should occur:

First, the administration should exhibit leadership in making

Sudan the pariah state with the same concerted moral and political

action that succeeded in making a pariah out of the apartheid government of South Africa.

Today’s financial pages are reporting about the enormous

amounts of international investments going into Sudan from companies such as Canadian Talisman Energy, Inc. China National Petroleum. Mr. Wolf made reference to this issue, and I would like

to suggest that the record include an article from Investors BusiVerDate 11-SEP-98 13:42 May 16, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 64167.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
29

ness Daily yesterday about this very issue of China and Talisman’s

investment in Sudan. According to the Speaker of Sudan’s parliament, Hassan Turabi, the revenues from these oil investments

will be used to shore up Sudan’s military arsenal in its genocidal

war.

Ms. SHEA. Second, the administration must demonstrate that the

United States will not build its relations with China on sand and

that America understands that appeasement of a government that

persecutes as many as 100 million believers is neither consistent

with our values or our tradition nor will it serve our long-term interests. History has demonstrated that American interests are best

served by relations predicated on the defense of principles that are

shared by civilized nations around the world.

Mr. Chairman, the Commission believes that the administration

has made a great forward stride in producing the report and, most

importantly, in prioritizing American concerns. We look forward to

working with the administration and Congress over the next critical 3 months when policies are to be developed regarding China,

Sudan, and the other CPC’s.

It is critical now this process has begun that there be appropriate

followup in terms of policy action. As Mr. Wolf stressed, all eyes

will be watching how the list is enforced. If actions aren’t tough,

tyrants all over the world will be emboldened. In China, Sudan,

and the other countries of particular concern, the lives of millions

of religious believers are quite literally at stake.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Shea.

I want to thank you personally for the work you did and the insight you provided for the legislation itself when it was under consideration. As you know, it went through many evolutions and it

was changed very often. It went from Subcommittee to Full Committee and kept changing, but the essential character remained the

same. You were very, very helpful in that process as an individual,

and I do want to thank you for that and for the good work you do

on religious freedom issues.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Shea appears in the appendix.]

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Rickard.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN RICKARD, WASHINGTON OFFICE

DIRECTOR, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Mr. RICKARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be invited to testify today before you on the first Annual Department of

State Report on International Religious Freedom. Few people do as

much day in and day out as you do to help human rights victims

around the world, to raise human rights issues, and it is an honor

to be here to testify before you and with the other distinguished

panelists that I am appearing with.

Winston Churchill reportedly said of Clement Attlee that he was

a modest man who had much to be modest about, and I truly feel

a little bit like Clement Attlee testifying here with Nina and Paul

and with others who have actually suffered for their convictions

and before you, Chairman Smith. I am very grateful and I would

like to express appreciation on behalf of Amnesty and its members

to the many people, yourself included, other human rights chamVerDate 11-SEP-98 13:42 May 16, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 64167.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
30

pions in the Congress, Frank Wolf, Nina and Paul and others who

have done so much to raise the profile of this issue, to draw greater

attention to it, to mobilize people on behalf of this issue.

Four years ago, Amnesty International ran a worldwide campaign on the terrible human rights crisis in Sudan. We produced

videos, materials, and I can assure you that the 300,000 Amnesty

members in the United States and the more than 1 million Amnesty members around the world who sat at kitchen tables and in

church basements and in high school classrooms writing letters to

the State Department and to the government in Khartoum about

the human rights crisis in Sudan are delighted and even thrilled

that this issue is getting more attention. It certainly deserves it,

and we welcome and appreciate the help of all of those who have

put it front and center.

I am also grateful for the work that you and they have done to

build bridges between people working on human rights issues. That

is extremely important. Not everyone has done that. There have

been some harsh words spoken about the failure of some groups to

work on these issues, particularly our colleagues at Human Rights

Watch. I personally regret that, and I am delighted that others did

not join in that chorus. They are fantastic colleagues who do great

work, and I appreciate the work that people did to build bridges

between people who cared about this issue.

I don’t want to duplicate the testimony that Nina, Paul and others will do on particular countries. Instead, I would like to offer

some comments about policy, the issues of the record and report,

and then look at a limited number of reports. My remarks are not

intended to be a comprehensive survey; and, Mr. Chairman, with

your permission, I might ask that we be able to submit some additional written materials, as you say in the House, to revise and extend my remarks, more to extend rather than to revise.

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, your full remarks and any submissions you or any other witnesses would like to provide will be made

a part of the record.

Mr. RICKARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Mr. RICKARD. Mr. Chairman, this is Amnesty International’s

very first ever annual report that was published in 1961, just a

crazy group of people with the idea that individuals speaking out

for individuals could make a difference. It says here that the core

of Amnesty’s work was going to be to defend people’s right to practice Article 18 and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights. That was the original purpose of creating Amnesty

International.

As you well know, Article 18 is the article that states everyone

has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This

right includes the freedom to change one’s religion or belief and

freedom, either alone or in community with others, in public or in

private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Pursuant to that founding purpose, the very

first Amnesty conference ever held by an Amnesty section in Paris

in 1961 was a conference on religious persecution.

The very first investigative mission undertaken by Sean

MacBride was a mission to Czechoslovakia to protest and invesVerDate 11-SEP-98 13:42 May 16, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 64167.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
31

tigate the imprisonment of Archbishop Beran and to investigate the

other conditions of other religious prisoners. This is an issue that

is very, very dear to our hearts, and it is a real delight to see a

comprehensive report on this issue mandated by the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, one of the shortest and most powerful credos over

uttered was offered by the Apostle James when he wrote, ‘‘As the

body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead.’’

Faith without works is dead. It is a powerful challenge to any person of conviction no matter what their particular religion or beliefs.

So it is with any human rights report. Reports without action are

dead. This is an impressive report. I agree with Nina’s characterization of this report as a milestone. It is impressive, but much

more impressive will be a comprehensive plan to assess the violations that it documents.

The final legislation that the Congress adopted gave the administration a great deal of flexibility in terms of crafting a response to

these abuses. In the abstract, everyone agrees that flexibility is a

desirable thing to give policymakers. Let’s hope that the administration uses that flexibility wisely and forcefully and doesn’t give

flexibility a bad name. Trust is essential. It is better when we are

working together on these issues instead of at cross-purposes.

As I have said in the past when I have testified before you, Mr.

Chairman, all of the efforts of those in the State Department who

truly care about human rights are, unfortunately, undermined by

the perception that at critical moments when push comes to shove,

the U.S. commitment to human rights takes a back seat to fighting

for other goals. Whether it is fighting drugs or terrorism or promoting trade or the amorphous, ever-popular stability, there is, as

I have said, the view that human rights remains in far too many

ways an island off the mainland of American foreign policy. The report is impressive, and we look forward to impressive action that

matches the problems that it documents.

I would also like to say a few words about the role for Congress

here. It is Congress that mandated the report. It is Congress that

mandated the original report. It is Congress that mandated the creation of the Human Rights Bureau. In so many ways Congress has

led the U.S. Government on human rights issues.

But there are a number of critical things that the Congress could

do, considered doing, and then did not do that I think would help

to add additional weight to the effort that led to the mandating of

this report. As we said, one of the most important things in the

original Wolf-Specter legislation, and one of the things we were the

most deeply disappointed about that was not adopted in the final

form, was the beginning effort to turn back the tide on some of the

incredibly retrograde steps that have been taken on the issue of political asylum in the United States. I commend you, Mr. Chairman,

for leading that fight. It is a pity that you lost or that it wasn’t

in the final legislation, but I strongly encourage every American

who cares about religious persecution to call, to write, to visit their

Members of Congress to say that you don’t believe that people fleeing persecution should have to run the gauntlet to achieve a haven

from persecution in the United States. I don’t believe that Americans, if they understood the current situation, would think that

that is what the United States should stand for.

32

Last, it is the fundamental constitutional responsibility of the

Congress to determine how our tax dollars are spent, and you have

led the fight to try to increase funding for human rights activities

within the State Department, and I think that is extremely important. It is disappointing that the Department has resisted your proposal to increase funding for human rights activities. Even with the

severe reductions in foreign affairs funding which have occurred in

recent years and which Ambassador Seiple referred to, the priorities of the State Department are out of order. There can be more

funding for human rights activities. There needs to be more funding for human rights activities within the Department.

However, I also agree with Ambassador Seiple that the overall

context of decreasing funding for foreign affairs activities overall

also undermines our ability to have a powerful and effective human

rights strategy. Speaking solely for myself and not for the administration and with the caveat that I at least for 2 years served at the

State Department, I have to say that I have been increasingly reminded of the section of Exodus where Pharaoh says to his taskmasters in response to the appeals of Moses and Aaron, ‘‘You shall

no longer give the people straw to make bricks. Let them go and

gather straw themselves.’’

If the Department of State wants the Human Rights Bureau to

be an effective champion for human rights, it has to give it straw

to make bricks. If the Congress wants the United States to be an

influential and effective player on the world scene on behalf of

human rights and other issues, the Congress needs to give diplomats the straw to make bricks so that they can build a firm

human rights foundation.

Mr. Chairman, I do have one very specific recommendation on a

topic that I know you have been interested in. I think that this report is further evidence of the need for the Congress and the administration to work together to have a comprehensive approach to

controlling the potential export of repressive equipment from the

United States.

The administration has said many times that they support this,

that they don’t want repressive equipment like electric shock

equipment being exported from the United States, but we believe

at Amnesty that in fact it has happened, that electric shock equipment, for instance, has been exported to Saudi Arabia, a country

with a terrible problem of religious persecution and torture. I think

that, given the statements of the administration and your own interest in this, there ought to be the opportunity to sit down together and come up with a proposal where we will manage these

exports, at least as rigorously as we do, for instance, dual-use nuclear exports, where we say we are really going to watch where

these go and how they are used and demand lots of documentation.

Turning to the report itself, let me say overall that our initial review of the contents is quite positive. We have some disagreements,

not all of them minor; but, overall, it would be wrong not to commend the Department, Ambassador Seiple and Assistant Secretary

Koh for this important and useful document. Obviously, we have

not had the opportunity to review all of it; and, as I said, I would

like to just focus on some illustrative cases, not the case where religious persecution is the worst necessarily, not in any way a comVerDate 11-SEP-98 13:42 May 16, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 64167.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
33

prehensive survey, but a few countries that might illustrate whether or not the administration has flunked the litmus test for candor

standard: that is, countries where there may be the greatest temptations to shade the truth.

Saudi Arabia. One can hardly imagine a more forthright opening

sentence than ‘‘Freedom of religion does not exist in Saudi Arabia,’’

and that is welcome candor, particularly with a country where

there is great sensitivity. The State Department, however, in the

text that follows is much more dry and mechanical in explaining

the situation in Saudi Arabia, and I go into greater detail here, but

substantively we think that much more could be said and said

more forcefully about the degree of active harassment and persecution that exists within Saudi Arabia. There is an implication that,

while they have a system of rules and if you follow the rules everything will be OK, that really doesn’t capture the situation in Saudi

Arabia. It is not bad, but in tone it can be much better in terms

of describing the situation, and we think stronger language is justified.

Israel. The Israel report unflinchingly addresses an issue that is

not always addressed, which is the disparity between government

support for Israeli Arabs and other Israeli citizens in terms of the

quality of education, housing and employment opportunities that

they receive. I think the report was quite candid, frank and comprehensive in covering this issue.

One issue that it does not cover and should, and doubtless this

is an area where we can work with them, is the issue of Israel’s

treatment of conscientious objectors, which in fact, is not very good.

The trials that they use to handle those are not really free, fair

trials. There are disparities in who gets exemptions and who

doesn’t. It is one area where we think that we need to work with

the Department to raise the profile of this issue.

The Caspian Sea region. This is an area where I think the report

is good as far as it goes, but it illustrates a problem, which is that

there is not as much information available. Some of the areas that

are a little harder to get to, we don’t have as many diplomats

there. I list some of the items that have happened just in the last

few months, probably after the report went to print, in that region

which need to be reflected in next year’s report, and we look forward to working with the Department to enhance the coverage of

some of those areas that aren’t in the headlines as much.

I have talked about Turkey and Vietnam in my written report.

Let me just say about both countries that the issue that we highlight, although there are a couple of places, particularly in the Vietnam report, where we think there is very important information

that would have given a better picture of the degree of government

hostility to outside scrutiny on this issue—they mention the reaction to the U.N. Special Rapporteur’s report. They don’t really give

a sense of how vigorous it was. We welcome the fact that the U.S.

backed up the Special Rapporteur on that, but we think that more

could have been done to give a full flavor of the situation there.

But in both of those countries and in several others, the key

question is not what the report reports, the key question is policy.

We take no issue with Assistant Secretary Koh on this, particularly

34

his recent trip to Turkey. He was extremely forthright. We consider

his trip an extremely important step in the right direction.

There needs to be one U.S. policy on human rights in these countries which is supported across the board by the Departments of

State and Defense and Commerce and by the U.S. Ambassadors

and in the regional bureau, as well as Assistant Secretary Koh. It

is not enough to send Assistant Secretary Koh and Ambassador

Seiple out to read the riot act to people and then have others come

in and smooth the ruffled feathers afterwards.

Mr. Chairman, I address a number of other countries, and I

would like to submit additional comments in writing. Let me just

say, overall, we commend the administration’s efforts on the report.

It heeds Secretary Koh’s promise to tell it like it is in most cases.

There are cases where we look forward to working with them to

improve the report.

Mr. Chairman, religious persecution today is a depressingly ecumenical phenomena. Tyrants fear religion, and they fear people of

faith because they claim openly to have allegiance to a higher authority. Tyrants fear people who perhaps have others outside of the

national boundaries who care about them and worry about them

and are willing to mobilize on their behalf. We owe it to those people to stand with them. This step is an important milestone in the

right direction, and we look forward to seeing action to follow the

report.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Rickard, for Amnesty’s extraordinary work throughout the years.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rickard appears in the appendix.]

Mr. SMITH. Getting back to that 1961 document that you held up,

we mentioned the resistance we are finding with regard to enhanced funding for the Human Rights Bureau. I think the record

clearly shows, because you were part of that entire process as we

went through various drafts, that there was an incredible resistance to the bill itself.

Mr. SMITH. We were told by very responsible people within the

administration that we were establishing a hierarchy of human

rights. If that were the case, those of us who supported sanctions

against South Africa because of apartheid were wrong because we

established a hierarchy saying racism is egregious behavior that

would simply not be tolerated, and the same thing could be said

about Jackson-Vanik and the fact that we actually risked superpower confrontation to promote the cause of Soviet Jewry I think

that was one of our proudest moments.

So I think you know we got here through a very difficult process.

Now we need—and your words certainly and your work helps to

enhance that—to continue to keep on our eye on the ball. As you

said, quoting the Book of James, faith without works is truly dead.

I want to thank you.

Mr. RICKARD. Mr. Chairman, I want to steal a line again that I

stole from your staff director, which was that I regret the notion

that we need to treat everyone equally badly. The only concern we

have, and I think it is a legitimate concern, is that in an era of

shrinking resources you can have some situations on some issues

where you pit victims against each other. I know we all want to

35

avoid that. That is why the effort to increase funding for these activities to give people the straw to make the bricks is so important.

We applaud your effort in that direction.

We like to see it go across the board on U.S. foreign policy issues.

Again, I am speaking for myself on that point.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Rickard.

Mr. SMITH. Dr. Marshall.

STATEMENT OF PAUL MARSHALL, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER

FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, FREEDOM HOUSE

Mr. MARSHALL. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation

to be able to testify this afternoon. I will concentrate my remarks

on the report itself.

I believe that after Boswell and Dr. Johnson had been invited to

see a dancing dog Boswell remarked that the dog did not dance

very well. Dr. Johnson replied, the wonder is not that it is done

well, the wonder is that it is done at all. So, too, with the State

Department’s first annual report on international religious freedom.

The mere fact that this report now exists is an important step

and shows a growing awareness of the vital importance of religious

freedom and religious persecution around the world. Since Members of this Committee have played an important role in that movement, you deserve our commendations. But, contrary to the dancing dog, the report is very well done.

Currently, I am editing a survey, a world survey of religious freedom and working with about 60 writers and reviewers. So I am in

a good position to cross-check much of the information in the report, and it is in general very good and often a mine of information.

So I would like to commend the State Department and particularly

the people who worked on this report.

In addition, the list of countries of particular concern singles out

some of the worst persecutors, including two on which Freedom

House focuses particularly, China and Sudan. However, the report

does have some problems, and on these I will concentrate.

In several instances it downplays the severity or significance of

restrictions on religious freedoms, perhaps in deference to the government’s concern. This appears in the reports on Egypt, China,

and Saudi Arabia, and some of those instances have come up in

previous testimony.

I think my most important critique is this, the report sometimes

uses a truncated view of religion. This is not a mere definitional

quibble. It is central to the proper implementation of the entire

International Religious Freedom Act.

The focus of the act is not on human rights violations against religious people. That would probably include most human rights violations in the world. But the focus is with persecution where the

grounds themselves are in part religious. Hence, if we work with

a truncated and minimalist view of religion, this will lead inevitably to a truncated implementation of the provisions of the act.

This is particularly important as in much of our society, in discussions by diplomats or journalists or scholars, there is a tendency

to gloss over the realities of religion, particularly after redefining

it as ethnic.

36

We now have a famous expression ‘‘ethnic cleansing’’, but that

expression came into origin to describe the murder of Muslims who

are not an ethnic group, they are a religious group. So what we

have called ethnic cleansing is, in fact, religious cleansing in the

former Yugoslavia.

The report occasionally does this itself but at other times describes various events and actions and beliefs as political or cultural or economic rather than religious—that is a quote—as if

these were mutually exclusive categories. But many things are religious and political or cultural and religious or economic and religious. I include a lot of examples in the written testimony.

It is to be expected that religion will be intimately and complexly

connected with every other facet of human rights. This particular

problem comes to the floor in its coverage of the Sudan. The Sudan

report does a very good job of detailing religious persecution in the

areas under the direct control of the Khartoum regime, and it describes the practice of slavery.However, the war and the conduct of

the war itself whose details we know, with up to 2 million dead

and 4 to 5 million displaced with widespread massacre, rape, torture and forced starvation, that is absent from the report. It is not

covered. It is not dealt with.

We are not told why, but I presume the reason is that the war

itself must be defined as ‘‘not religious.’’ Hence, what may be in

terms of size and intensity the world’s worst situation of religious

oppression is absent from the report. This is akin to disregarding

race and describing South Africa’s repression of the opponents of

apartheid. After all, particular people arrested such as Nelson

Mandela were not singled out because of their race, white people

were also jailed, but because of certain acts, and anybody of any

race committing those acts would also have been arrested.

But on those grounds would we say that those arrests were political, not racial or cultural, because a policy was the cause of political unrest, of opposition, of demonstration, and then political repression? Race colors the entire thing. So even a war on South Africa’s borders, fighting in Namibia, is conditioned by the racial—was

conditioned by the racial policy of the government. A similar pattern holds for Sudan.

The report describes the Khartoum government as ‘‘an Arab regime that is Muslim’’ when in fact it is, legally and in self-description, a Muslim regime. The regime has repeatedly described its war

as a jihad and a religious duty and has publicly declared its goal

to forcibly Islamicize Sudan.

While there are many factors in this, as there are in every war,

and while the regime certainly persecutes those Muslims who oppose those views, which is a majority of the Muslim population of

the country, southern leaders have stressed repeatedly that the

government’s refusal to change its stand on shari’a and

Islamicization is a major barrier to peace. In this context, the war

itself should be understood as an extension of religious persecution.

In contrast, in dealing with Iraq, the report does outline Sudan’s

persecution of Shiite Muslims and of Assyrian Christians. I think

it is correct in doing so, but this simply makes the contrast with

the Sudan doubly jarring.

37

Just one other instance, Mr. Chairman, in describing the current

conflicts in the Indonesian islands of Muluka, in which several

hundred, perhaps several thousand people have died this year, the

report attributes the problems arising there to migration which is

again, I quote, the ethnic balance. But what is at issue there is,

again, the religious balance.

So I mention these points again that if these things are not seen

as religious, if they are defined in other terms, it means they will

not come under the purview of this legislation and will not be addressed by the State Department in a way that it should do so.

Finally, yesterday the government designated as countries of

particular concern, China, Sudan, Burma, Iran, Iraq, Serbia and

Afghanistan. I concur with these judgments. However, I would

question the exclusion of Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Vietnam, and

Pakistan. Politically it is wise to have a concentrated focus, and I

welcome it, especially the willingness to include China. But it does

not necessarily reflect the worst situations.

In closing, let me reiterate that my focus on problems should not

overshadow the fact that this welcome report is very good indeed.

We must now ensure that our actions are as full as our analyses.

President Clinton said to religious leaders 2 weeks ago, the cause

of religious freedom at home and around the world will continue

to be something that the United States will have to work and work

and work on.

Thank you very much.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Dr. Marshall.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall appears in the appendix.]

Mr. SMITH. I would like to yield to Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having these

hearings, and thank you for your continued work on religious

rights and human rights.

I think this report is a step forward in general. I think some of

its criticisms of Israel were beyond what was appropriate. I particularly take exception to one part of the report where it says the

government states that it protects the holy sites.

I think many of our colleagues have been there. These are among

the most protected sites in the world, and yet to imply that it is

merely a statement of the Israeli government that the sites are

protected implies that maybe the sites are not in fact protected.

In addition, I do not think that it is a denial of religious rights

for Israel to look at its northern area and see a need to encourage

settlement on vacant land by those who are most loyal to the regime. It certainly doesn’t interfere with the exercise of any religion

to find out that there is a village across the valley that practices

the majority religion of the country.

But I think, in general, this is a good report; and I look forward

to next year’s work. Thank you.

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

Mr. SMITH. Father Le.

38

STATEMENT OF REV. NGUYEN HUU LE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

COMMITTEE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN VIETNAM

Rev. LE. Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify

not only on behalf of the Committee For Religious Freedom in Vietnam but also for the victims of religious persecution in Vietnam.

Our Committee applauds the publication of the Annual Report on

International Religious Freedom. We are, however, troubled by its

lack of depth and its omissions of many critical facts and the inaccuracy of some information contained in the section on Vietnam.

First of all, the report gives the false impression that religious

repression in Vietnam does not stem from a sustained, consistent

policy of the central government but arises from the arbitrary actions of local authorities. Vietnam’s Communist government is anti

religion by virtue. Its Communist doctrine views religions as enemies of the people. Its policy is to ruthlessly weed out all religious

activities that it cannot control and exploit for its own ends.

Immediately after its takeover of South Vietnam in 1975, the

Communist government cracked down on the Protestant and the

Catholic churches and outlawed the Unified Buddhist Church of

Vietnam, or UBCV, the Hoa Hao Church and the Cao Dai Church.

Church leaders were arrested, detained, tortured, humiliated.

Many died in detention; and I, myself, spent 13 years in jail for

having defended religious freedom. I was tortured, beaten and sent

to 3 years in solitary confinement.

In order to wipe out all vestiges and influence of the independent

churches, the government replaces them with state-sanctioned organizations, whose role is to enforce government policies on religions.

The Committee of Hoa Hao Buddhist Representatives formed in

May of this year is a case in point. It is headed by a Communist

cadre.

The government has deftly created a church within a church to

divide and conquer the Catholics. The role of the government-created Catholic Patriotic Association is to drive a wedge into the

Catholic community. Priests who belong to this association are rewarded with special privileges. The wide latitude in practicing

their faith, including some educational and humanitarian activities

reported by the Department of State, is accorded only to religious

persons who work with or for the government.

In recent months, the government has stepped up its rigorous effort to harass, intimidate and persecute religious leaders and to impose further restrictions on religious activities such as the publication of religious books and documents.

In May, the public security police interrupted the summer retreat of Buddhist monks in Saigon and threatened harsh punishments if the latter were found to support the banned UBCV.

A group of recently released Buddhist monks were rounded up

for questioning around the time Secretary Albright arrived in Vietnam.

Mr. Tran Quang Chau, a Cao Dai leader, has been held under

house arrest after he cosigned an open letter last month asking the

government to recognize independent churches and to return all

39

confiscated church properties. The Department of State’s report

does not reflect this reality in Vietnam.

While the report recognizes ongoing religious repression, it attributes this to the arbitrary, isolated attitude of certain local officials in certain remote areas. In reality, religious repression is a

policy of the central government that is being carried out systematically throughout the country. But the repression is well camouflaged and therefore not easily detectable, especially to foreigners.

I would like to repeat—very well camouflaged and therefore not

easily detectable especially to foreigners. This may have contributed to the regrettable omissions and inaccuracies in the report.

While the government’s treatment of prisoners appears to have

improved in recent years, the reality behind this facade is as deplorable and as appalling as ever.

We understand that the Bureau of International Religious Freedom will make recommendations to the President based on its findings, so we would like to suggest the following:

First, the Department of State should work to facilitate the visit

to Most Ven. Thich Huyen Quang, Supreme Patriarch of UBCV, by

a delegation of American Buddhist leaders and medical doctors.

The Most Ven. Huyen Quang, 81 years old, has been detained for

the past 22 years. His health is deteriorating due to old age and

lack of medical care.

Second, the U.S. consular offices in Vietnam should make every

attempt to identify victims of religious persecution and process

their applications for refugee status.

Third, the U.S. should use all available diplomatic and trade-related leverages to persuade Communist Vietnam to release all the

religious prisoners, officially recognize the independent churches,

and to return all confiscated properties.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a

partial list of confiscated church properties for inclusion in the

Congressional Record of this hearing.

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, Father, your submission and that

of all of the witnesses will be made a part of the record.

[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]

Rev. LE. We hope that next year the Department of State will

include in its report a detailed account of the progresses and will

evaluate Vietnam’s degree of cooperation in these particular areas.

Thank you very much for listening to me, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much for your testimony. It really is

an honor to have a man who has suffered so much for his faith and

for freedom to be our distinguished witness today. Thank you very

much.

Rev. LE. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Rev. Le appears in the appendix.]

Mr. SMITH. I would like to ask our final witness, Mr.

Abdughuphur Kadirhaji, if he would present his testimony.

The INTERPRETER. To save time, I am just going to read the

English version off of his speech.

Mr. SMITH. OK.

40

STATEMENT OF ABDUGHUPHUR KADIRHAJI, UIGHUR MUSLIM,

URUMQI CITY, XINJIANG, CHINA

Mr. KADIRHAJI. Dear Mr. Chairman, Members of Congress, and

ladies and gentlemen, my name is Abdughuphur Kadirhaji. I am

a Uyghur Muslim from Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of

China. I thank you for giving me this precious opportunity to testify before you on the religious persecution of the Uyghur people

in China.

The Chinese Government perceives religion as the No. 1 threat

to its existence in China, especially in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. The Chinese Communist Party sees religion as opium

used to drug the people.

I came to the United States of America in this March. While I

was in China, I have seen the religious persecution and discrimination against the Uyghurs. As a devout Muslim myself and also a

state employee, I had never been able to publicly worship and express my religious beliefs. I was always afraid of losing my job and

social benefits.

For us Uyghurs, the most degrading and humiliating thing the

Chinese Government does is that the Chinese Government often receives the Uyghurs back from pilgrimage and offers them alcohol

to drink so as to desecrate their holy pilgrimage to Mecca. Many

people, including myself, for fear of losing our jobs and positions

have to drink without choice.

Not only in times of pilgrimage does the Chinese Government

humiliate the Uyghur people but also in times of Ramadan, the

holy month of fasting in Islam. During the month of Ramadan, the

Chinese Government often intentionally offers free food and alcohol

which is forbidden in the Quran in the form of banquets and feasts

to the Uyghurs who fast for the sake of God.

The government also offers bread and drinks to the Uyghur students in high schools and colleges and universities to make sure

that they are not fasting in Ramadan.

In December, 1994, after I came back from my pilgrimage and

visit to Mecca, Chinese officials poured wine on me when I refused

to drink alcohol because of my religious beliefs. In 1995, in the holy

month of Ramadan, the Chinese officials in my company constantly

offered me alcohol, cigarette and food which are forbidden in Islam,

so as to break my devotion to God and my religion. I had to comply

in many cases by asking God’s forgiveness.

Since 1994, the religious restrictions and the persecutions have

been so severe in Xinjiang that an ordinary Uyghur Muslim

couldn’t possibly pray five times a day and carry out his daily religious duties.

Now I want you to use some examples of religious persecution of

Uyghurs in Xinjiang to give you a clear account.

According to my wife who worked in the Foreign Relations Office

for the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Regional government, in

1996, the Chinese Social Science Academy and Xinjiang Uyghur

Autonomous Regional Social Science Academy conducted a joint research project and published a book on the religious history of the

Xinjiang from 1949 to 1996.

This research project was directly supported and funded by the

Chinese central government. This book clearly explains that Islam

41

and religious ideas are dangerous to the unity of nationalities in

Xinjiang and to the unification of China, and the government

should do whatever necessary to root out this religious threat. This

book was distributed to high-level Chinese government officials.

The name of this is called ‘‘Pan-Turkism and Pan-Islamism in

Xinjiang,’’ and my wife has a copy of this book in Chinese.

Religious education is also not allowed in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. Communist party members, teachers, students,

workers and any Uyghur who works for a state-owned enterprise

are not allowed to go mosques and religious schools. Those who disobey this rule will be fired from their jobs and will lose all of the

social benefits.

Many Uyghur students have been expelled from their schools for

going to mosques and for praying. Nevertheless, some Uyghur parents still secretly send their children to Muslim countries in Central Asia to study Islam, but the Chinese Government always put

diplomatic pressure on these Muslim countries’ governments to return the Uyghur students.

In one case, a group of Uyghur students were returned from

Pakistan to China. When they got to the Chinese border, the Chinese police immediately detained them. Some of the older Uyghur

students protested, but they were arrested and imprisoned. The

others though were released but denied many social benefits.

In April, 1998, Abdusalam, a young devout Uyghur Muslim in

my hometown, went to a mosque. The government-trained communist imam was saying that Allah says that if someone oppresses

you, you should be patient and not fight back and that you should

be obedient to your Chinese Government and shouldn’t complain

about your sufferings. Abdusalam, having profoundly studied

Islam, challenged this and said that, in the Quran, Allah said if

someone hurts you, you have the right to defend yourself. He pointed out what the communist imam was saying was false.

Abdusalam was soon arrested and put in jail. He was tortured

in prison by the Chinese guards and was later sent to a hospital

with serious injuries. However, after some time he was reported

dead. The Chinese police claimed that Abdusalam committed suicide by throwing himself out of the third floor window. But the people of Ghulja don’t believe he committed suicide because he was a

very pious Muslim, and in Islam committing suicide is a great sin.

A Muslim always has to be hopeful even in the worst situation of

his life.

Abdusalam’s parents obtained the body, and his body was so

mangled and deformed that they found it so hard to recognize their

own son. But the people of Ghulja believe that he was tortured to

death by the Chinese police before he was sent to the hospital.

Abdusalam had never been politically active. He had never participated in any demonstration. All he did was point out that the

communist Chinese government propaganda that the imam was

spreading to the Uyghurs in the mosque was wrong.

My sister’s husband, Abdushukur Kamberi, went to Pakistan in

1986. There he studied Islam with several renowned Islamic scholars. Therefore, he earned a reputation as a very knowledgeable

man in Islamic theology. The Chinese government felt threatened

by him after he came back and tried to use him by giving him a

42

religious title. By appointing him, the Chinese Government attempted to involve him in spreading the Chinese propaganda instead of the Islamic truth.

He defied them and visited all of the mosques in the city and told

the imams that the mosque was not the place for Chinese communist propaganda. It is only a place for the Quranic truth and the

traditions of the prophet Muhammad.

After several months, he went to Urumqui to bring his mother’s

and other relatives’ passports for visas to make the pilgrimage to

Mecca. But the Xinjiang Regional Public Security used this as an

opportunity and arrested him in July, 1997. The Chinese police

claimed that he was trying to escape China. But he wasn’t even

bringing his own passport.

The Chinese government put him in jail and severely tortured

him and sent him to a Chinese military hospital. Currently, he is

under house arrest.

Under Chinese constitution, people have the right to religious

freedom, but China is not ruled by law. The Chinese government

religious policies are totally different from what is written in the

law. The communist imams are government trained and only serve

the brutal, repressive communist Chinese regime. They worship

the Chinese communist party instead of God, and they put party

above God.

In their sermons, they only preach about obeying the Chinese

government and its policies, having a good relationship with the

Chinese government and Chinese people, unifying all nationalities

and implementing the one-child policy.

There are informants and spies disguised as pious Muslims inside many mosques to monitor what the Uyghur religious leaders

and people do and say.

The Chinese government claims that it sends thousands of religious students abroad each year to study, but almost all the

Uyghur religious students from abroad have been arrested and harassed. The Chinese government claims that it supports Uyghurs

going for pilgrimage to Mecca, but the Chinese government only

supports and funds the informants and spies in the pilgrimage

group to monitor the Uyghurs words and deeds throughout the entire journey.

In many cases, the Chinese government never approves those

Uyghurs who want to conduct pilgrimage to Mecca on their own.

Earlier this year, in February, while I was in Beijing, more than

400 Uyghurs who had legal passports, visas and round-trip tickets

to make the pilgrimage to Mecca were deported back to Xinjiang

because they were not part of the state-approved pilgrimage delegation.

Each year the Chinese government only approves a very small

number of chosen, well-checked, loyal Uyghurs to go for the pilgrimage. The Chinese government always associates Islam with the

so-called separatist activities and readily arrests those devout

Uyghur Muslims in the name of unification.

The religious freedom guaranteed in the Chinese constitution is

a sheer lie. It is aimed at deceiving the world that China respects

the right to religious freedom, especially the right of minorities to

choose and worship their own religion. On the contrary, the ChiVerDate 11-SEP-98 13:42 May 16, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 64167.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
43

nese government often denies the legitimate rights of Uyghur people to worship and to study Islam and force them to obey the government through communist Chinese propaganda. In China, religious freedom is only on the paper but not in practice.

There is not religious freedom for the Uyghur people in China

under the atheistic communist Chinese government, and we hope

that the U.S. State Department could address these issues in their

contacting with the Chinese authorities.

Thank you very much.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much for that excellent testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kadirhaji appears in the appendix.]

Mr. SMITH. I just have a few questions, and then will open things

up for any comments that our witnesses might have.

Ms. Shea, I think your point is very well taken about the moral

equivalency of the Sudan and China. I think as time goes on, especially since these countries were just announced as countries of

particular interest, that we will soon be seeing a blast from the

Chinese embassy in terms of refuting this. We hope that they respond. If they don’t, I can assure you additional hearings and perhaps site visits to that country will raise it.

Unfortunately, there were some omissions, at least in my view

and in the view I think of some of other members of the panel. But

I think your point was very well taken that the juxtaposition of

those two countries hopefully will not escape the notice of the world

because China certainly fashions itself somehow as—and it is—an

emerging superpower. But with that superpower status comes at

least the most basic of all recognitions, and that is the right of the

freedom of conscience and basic religion.

So I really appreciate you making that point.

Ms. SHEA. I think that American policy with regards to China

will reverberate throughout the world, particularly in Asia. Particularly in Vietnam. I have noticed in my own monitoring a deterioration in religious freedom in Vietnam alongside that with

American delinking of trade privileges with China. They take their

cues from the U.S. relationship with China. In a way I think China

and Sudan are both representative of two types of very serious

threats to religious freedom.

Mr. SMITH. I think it is important. On one of my human rights

trips to China when I met with members of the U.S. Chamber of

Commerce in Beijing, the assorted government affairs people who

were there for the various businesses that the Commerce folks at

our embassy had arranged for me to meet were totally disbelieving

that there was a religious persecution issue. Totally.

One of the CEO’s in a very dismissive tone of voice said, why

don’t you just go with my secretary to church. She goes to the

Catholic church. It is open.

I said, it is part of the Catholic Patriotic Association, the overseer of that being a branch of the Chinese government, and anyone

who is part of the Roman Catholic church is part of an underground church and faces severe persecution and disciplinary action.

He didn’t believe it. He said, ‘‘That is not true.’’

44

So this recognition in this report certainly will go a long way to

establishing a fact, to the best of our understanding, as to what the

real reality is in China.

Now this is news. We have known it for some time. We have

raised it. But now it gets the imprimatur of a report from a body

that has looked at it with a fresh set of eyes and come to that same

conclusion.

Ms. SHEA. I think this is a big departure for the State Department, and I am very hopeful that it will act on this now, this list

of priorities.

One thing that caught my eye in Ambassador Seiple’s testimony

is that he was, toward the end of it, talking about their success

cases, and he mentions that in Uzbekistan that there was—the

Uzbek government responded. He says that the U.S. Government

had pressed the Uzbek government at virtually every level to take

concrete actions in reducing the incident of religious persecution.

He said, while it was persistent and intense pressure—but I

think you put your finger on it, which is that maybe the Commerce

Department officials, the trade delegations that go over there don’t

give this intense and persistent message. It is the human rights officials who don’t have by themselves a lot of leverage who give that

message. If there was a continual pressing at every level, you

might see results in China, too.

Mr. SMITH. Plus they buy into the show that the Chinese government puts on, the Potemkin village that portrays any suggestion

that there is repression here as a myth.

Let me, with regard to the two-step process that Mr. Rickard

mentioned—and you have been utterly consistent. I have been in

Congress 19 years. Amnesty, whether it be Republican or Democrat

administration, tries to hold that administration to account for an

honest portrayal in the country reports. But there also needs to be

a linkage to policy.

When I first took the Chairmanship of this Subcommittee, when

the Republicans took control, you and each of your representatives

have always said that the country reports on human rights practices are excellent documents, notwithstanding some flaws, witch

you point out. But there is always this major disconnect between

facts on the ground, country by country, and any linkage to policy.

Probably the most glaring was and continues to be the delinking

of MFN with China, about which reasonable people can have differing opinions on. But there are other ways of engaging as well,

with many penalties that accrue to offending countries.

You made the point, and I hope it does not go unnoticed by Ambassador Seiple and everyone else in his shop and by Secretary

Madeline Albright, that hopefully this isn’t going to be just an exercise of good reporting followed by a lack of works or followup.

We will try within this Committee to see that even those modest

penalties with all the waivers that were provided are utilized to the

greatest extent possible in a cooperative venture with the administration. Our end game is just more religious freedom, that is all we

want, and those offending countries should know that.

I will never forget—and this was brought out by one of our witnesses, and I think Mr. Wolf mentioned this—just a couple of years

ago, slavery was dismissed as nonexistent in the Sudan—and I

45

know Nina Shea has spoken to this many, many times—and in

Mauritania, where it is probably less of a problem but still existed.

We had the first hearing on that in our Subcommittee in 1996 and

we were roundly criticized for believing a myth—that it just doesn’t

occur, it was exaggerated and hyperbole.

Now I think there is a consensus that it is a problem. So hopefully this report becomes the catalyst for, thinking ‘‘wow, it is as

bad as we thought in this country or that, and we need to do something about it.’’ We will try to give the administration, no matter

whose control it is under, maximum arrows in their quiver to prudently promote a policy that protects the free exercise of religion.

So perhaps you might want to speak to the two-step, and the

message is go forward from here: good report, now we need action.

It can’t be mitigated by that rose-colored lens of constantly saying,

oh, it might hurt commerce. It might do this. There are too many

people suffering.

Mr. Rickard.

Mr. RICKARD. Let me just make a couple of points.

First, I want to just very strongly endorse something that Nina

just said, and that is the ripple effect from the backing down on

human rights in China. I just think that has had a devastating impact throughout Asia, and I think the closer you get to China

maybe the more so. Amnesty never took a position on linking MFN,

for or against it. Whatever you think about it, taking that position

and then backing down was devastating to the most important

thing you have to have as a diplomat pushing any issue, and that

is credibility.

You don’t have credibility if they don’t believe you really care

about the issue. When push comes to shove, you will really care

about the issue, and it is going to be a serious fight about it, then

people just kind of say, OK, fine, we will hear you out; we will hear

your demarche.

I have to tell it you that in representing the United States, in

making human rights demarches at times following the delinking,

I got the very definite impression that the reaction of some foreign

diplomats was, to essentially say ‘‘I don’t like this. I don’t like that

you are coming in here and telling us what we ought to do.

At the end of the day, I know it is just talk, and I figure I have

got to put up with this for 20 more minutes. I am paid to that, OK;

and when does the trade delegation arrive?’’

I think that is why, when people say, why do we fight this meaningless fight in Geneva year after year? Gee, we lose. What is the

point? What you are trying to show the Chinese is that we do care

about this and that there is some point past which we will not retreat, and this is one of them. We will at least go to multilateral

fora that are designed to raise human rights issues, and we will

raise the gross human rights violations that you are committing,

and if we stop, a very different message will be sent. We are in a

hole. We have got to establish credibility on human rights issues.

I believe that the people of the Department care about it. I absolutely believe that, but they need help proving it to people, that

they will be there when push comes to shove.

I would like to make one little point that I actually meant to

make in my testimony. This is not a central or critical point, but

46

I think it is an interesting one about the way the United States reacts to criticism and scrutiny and the implications that that can

have for our ability to push human rights issues abroad.

Recently, we talked about the Special Rapporteur visit in Vietnam, and recently a head of state refused to let another Special

Rapporteur visit facilities, claiming reportedly that the Special

Rapporteur was just a tool of people that wanted to discredit the

state.’’ I have to tell you that the head of state was Governor John

Engler of my home State of Michigan refusing to permit the Special

Rapporteur on violence against women visit prison facilities in

Michigan.

I am a very proud native of the State of Michigan. I am not remotely suggesting that the situation in Michigan is comparable to

other places they might investigate. But you then see the Vietnamese government holding a press conference and saying in these

words, ‘‘individuals or organizations which come to Vietnam to conduct activities concerning human rights or religion and interfere

with the internal affairs of the country will no longer be accepted.’’

Whatever we may think about, that particular mission, the refusal to cooperate with it and to call the Special Rapporteur a tool

of people who are trying to simply discredit the state is unquestionably fodder for people who want to say, you don’t accept scrutiny.

Why should we accept scrutiny? We agree with you. They are just

tools.

I am not implying moral equivalence, although there are problems and we have documented a lot of them. But there is no question that when President Clinton issues an executive order that

says we ratified these human rights treaties and I want the Federal Government to look to make sure we are actually implementing them and we are taking them seriously and we are cooperating and we are filing our human rights reports on time, and he

gets 30 United States Senators sending him a letter saying, we are

really troubled about this, and we are very upset about it, and

what are you trying to do, it undercuts our ability to say to other

countries we take this seriously. We demand that you take it seriously. We are treaty partners. We have a right to demand that you

live up to these standards. We are not imposing our values on you.

These are internationally recognized norms that you voluntarily accepted when you agreed to these conventions, and now we want

you to live up to the obligations.

So there are implications for our reaction to understandable

prickliness from time to time about criticism. We just need to say,

come on in. We will take the suggestions. We will consider them

just like everybody else ought to.

Mr. SMITH. You may find it interesting that in the 1980’s, in the

Helsinki Commission, we initiated a policy that in our bilaterals especially with then what was the Soviet Union if they had complaints against the U.S., we wanted them in writing, and we would

followup those complaints or those criticisms with a written report.

We expected the same from them. It did provide for a much more

open dialogue.

So I think your point is well taken. We have nothing to hide, and

when we have problems we need to clean them up.

47

I would like to ask the question in terms of deeds again, and this

would be to Mr. Kadirhaji. The report correctly notes the harsh

treatment of the Uyghurs in Xingiang, China, including executions

and possible killings but U.S. Government policy says nothing

about U.S. interventions on behalf of Muslims who have been persecuted in Xingiang.

To the best of your knowledge, has the U.S. Government, any of

our embassy personnel, anyone made a representation on behalf of

Uyghurs?

The INTERPRETER. He has no idea. He doesn’t believe that any

U.S. Government officials addressed these issues.

Mr. SMITH. I will provide that question to Ambassador Seiple as

well. Hopefully there will be, if there has not and hopefully there

will in the future, representations on behalf of the Uyghurs. I suspect there probably have been.

Just one final question, and again it goes back to the Sudan, and

again talking about words and deeds. The report points out that

two clerics, two priests, had been arrested, two of many I am sure,

but their names are given in the report, Hillary Boma and Lino

Sebit, who may face possible execution and crucifixion for unsubstantiated charges.

I was wondering if any of our witnesses are aware of their plight.

Perhaps, Nina, being a member of the Commission, you might have

some insight as to what the government is doing on their behalf.

Ms. SHEA. I am aware of that case. I don’t know what our government is doing on their behalf. We don’t have an ambassador

there, as you know, and I am not sure—our Commission has not

undertaken that portion of its investigation yet to know what the

U.S. policy actually has been on the religious persecution in Sudan,

as opposed to terrorism where we know that there has been investigation and action.

Some of our Commission members that are Presidential appointees did not get appointed until very late and we had to get

special legislation to enable us to spend money, so we really didn’t

get off the ground until late summer or September. So that is

something that we are going to look into.

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask one question about North Korea which,

based on all of the available information that I have seen, should

have been on the list because of its very extreme and repressive

policies with regard to religion and every other human rights abuse

under the sun. Yet the report cites a lack of information or a lack

of the capability to report as one reason why it didn’t make the list,

which obviously would lead a country to be less open and more

closed in order to avoid any kind of penalty pursuant to this law,

if they were so inclined.

Is there not room for presumption based on best available information to put a country, a rogue nation like North Korea on the

list and not somehow give them a false sense of being excluded?

Ms. SHEA. Yes, I think there is. It is the most Stalinist state in

the world. That is why you can’t get in there and do an investigation. There are some refugee reports of Christians and other religious believers being punished to the third generation in prison. In

other words, if your grandmother was caught praying, the grandson is still in prison serving a term for that.

48

There is new evidence coming out. There is also the converse

that there is a cult built around the leader, and that there is a coerced religion really. People are forced to worship the Korean leader. So I think that is another argument you can make that it is—

there is no religious freedom. However, we don’t have any relations

with Korea or trade relations with Korea now, so you can argue

that all the tools are being used in that situation.

But I think—I always believe in highlighting. I think the reporting itself is important, of exposing the human rights violations. No

government likes to be accused of the most draconian human rights

violations, and for that purpose alone I think it is worth it.

Mr. SMITH. Yes. Dr. Marshall.

Mr. MARSHALL. Just to add to that, Mr. Chairman, the report is

correct, but it is very hard to check and authenticate anything

about North Korea. However, all the evidence there is, including

particular testimony from people going over into China, is that it

is highly repressive. I mean, it describes some of those things.

There are no reports or indications which would give a contrary

picture. So the weight of whatever evidence we have says this is

perhaps one of the worst situations in the world. The report should

certainly have mentioned that. I was stunned when I read that,

just almost an empty space in the report.

Mr. RICKARD. I will just add, I agree with what my colleagues

have said. I do think it is a dangerous precedent to say, well, we

can’t do this because there is a lack of reporting. Amnesty is about

to launch an international campaign on human rights violations in

Saudi Arabia, and it is another country where it is just very hard

to get information. This is the same sources, human refugees, you

do the best you can.

But my personal view is, personally, I think it is reasonable to

have presumptions in situations where there is a certain amount

of evidence that points in one direction. It depends upon what you

are looking at specifically, but there is no entitlement to some of

the items that are listed in the legislation.

Mr. SMITH. I will like to recognize the Chief Counsel and Staff

Director, Joseph Rees.

Mr. REES. I have a couple of questions for Father Le, following

up on some questions that the Chairman asked to Ambassador

Seiple. But I would like to note, on this question of North Korea,

that there is a presumption in the American legal system and civil

cases and in every other legal system I know about that once an

issue is before the court, if one side has destroyed or hidden the

evidence, you resolve solve that issue against that side.

Father Le, could you just state briefly. Is your organization, the

Association for Religious Freedom in Vietnam, an inter-faith organization with Buddhists and Catholics and Protestants and Hoa

Haos and others?

Rev. LE. Thank you for your question. The people sitting behind

me are from the different faiths including Buddhists and Hoa Hao

and Catholic as well, because our group is a combination of different communities, different religions in Vietnam, because we

have the same—the same fate. We have religious persecution, so

we unite ourselves, and we call ourselves Committee for Religious

49

Freedom for Vietnam, and we combine all different communities

and different religions.

Mr. REES. Are you active and in current touch with your coreligionists in Vietnam so that you have sources of information not

just about what happened before you left the country but what is

happening today?

Rev. LE. Yes, I do. Because we are concerned very much about

our situation in North Vietnam. I, myself, as a witness of the Vietnamese people itself, I have maintained contacts all the time with

my people inside the country.

Mr. REES. So you still do keep that contact?

Rev. LE. Yes, I do.

Mr. REES. I heard Ambassador Seiple testified that during his recent visit to Vietnam the people with whom he was able to meet

in different religious groups, all of them—Catholics, Protestants,

Buddhists—everybody said that things had gotten better in the last

5 years. What is your assessment of that view?

Rev. LE. Yes, this is very good indication for me to make clear

about the situation of the religious situation in Vietnam. We have

two kinds of looks. The first one is appearance. We do emphasize

that from the outside the situation looks OK. On Sundays and at

festivals, the government allows people to come to church as well,

but in the reality, the churches have no right, no right to do their

own business. Everything they do they have to get permission from

the government.

Second, is the government tries to create a church within a

church, during a wedge into the community to divide them so as

to control them.

Mr. REES. You did testify about that, Father?

Rev. LE. Yes.

Mr. REES. Let me just ask one more question. The report, and

our annual country report on human rights practices, talks about

organizational strictures on the Catholic church. It talks about the

issue of appointment of bishops, question of seminarians, church

property. It does not talk about any doctrinal constraints.

Now during a staff delegation to Vietnam, we were told by

Catholics there that in fact there are also serious doctrinal constraints. The example that was given was that if a priest tried to

preach from the pulpit that abortion was a sin that he would be

denied the right to preach from then on.He would probably be put

into internal exile, because that would be perceived an

antigovernment statement, even though he was only making a

moral statement of Catholic doctrine.

Is that correct? Or would he be allowed to do that as long as he

was organizationally regular, as far as the state is concerned?

Rev. LE. That is correct. Because all in the sermons of the

preachers who have been—belonged to the ideology of the government; because all church assemblies have to be submitted to be

checked by the government. This means you have to preach everything according to the will of the government only. That is what

the situation is in Vietnam.

Mr. REES. Do sermons have to be submitted in advance to the

government, approved in advance?

Rev. LE. Approved in advance, yes.

50

Mr. REES. This is recently true? You have spoken with people in

the country and that is still true today?

Rev. LE. Sometimes. In different areas. Sometimes this one—this

one area is OK and another area is completely different. But the

real situation is that the Communist government tries to control all

the activities of—all the religions, not only Catholics but all religions as well.

Mr. REES. I want to recommend that you give that information

and any other information you have to Ambassador Seiple’s office,

because I have seen a disconnect between some of the information

that the State Department has and some of the things that people

tell us about Vietnam.

Rev. LE. I will, because our main concern is very much so; so we

will try to give updated information about the situation of the

church in Vietnam. We will. Thank you.

Mr. REES. Thank you.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you.

Unfortunately, we have a vote on the House floor that I am going

to have to rush off to. It is a very significant vote on the health

care reform.

But I do have a whole series of questions I did want to pose, but

time does not permit. I would like to get to all of you some of the

questions that would be pertinent to some of your testimony today

and where I think you might provide some insight to the Subcommittee.

Again, I want to thank you for your excellent testimony, for the

good work that you do, your front-line leadership as human rights

activists. For that, the world owes you a debt of gratitude. We certainly respect your opinion and your insights and your courage.

And I want to thank you all for your testimony.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 5 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(51)

A P P E N D I X

OCTOBER 6, 1999

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126