The Department of State issues an annual report on international
religious freedom. The link for the site containing that report is as follows:
http://www.state.gov/
The report can be accessed at the following site:
http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/irf/irf_rpt/1999/index.html
A copy of the executive summary is appended below
U.S. Department of State
Annual Report on International Religious
Freedom
U.S. Department of State
Annual Report on International Religious
Freedom for 1999: Executive Summary
Released by the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
Washington, DC, September 9, 1999
The International Commitment to Religious Freedom
The vast majority
of the world's governments have committed themselves to respect religious
freedom. Indeed,
most have accepted one or more of the international instruments that explicitly
protect that
right. For example, 144 countries are parties to the International Covenant
on Civil and
Political Rights,
which acknowledges the right of every human being "to have or to adopt
a religion
or belief of
his choice" and "either individually or in community with others and in
public or private,
to manifest
his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching."
All have pledged
"not to discriminate
on the basis of religion."
Notwithstanding
the existence of this and other broadly accepted international instruments
protecting
religious freedom,
there remains in some countries a substantial difference between promise
and
practice. Much
of the world's population lives in countries in which the right to religious
freedom is
restricted
or prohibited. This gap between word and deed has several causes.
Totalitarian
and authoritarian regimes remain determined to control religious belief
and practice. The
result--inevitably--is
persecution. Other regimes are hostile to minority or unapproved religions.
Some tolerate,
and thereby encourage, persecution or discrimination. Although acts of
violence
against religious
minorities may have several causes--for example, ethnicity, or a perceived
security
threat--multicausality
does not necessarily diminish the significance of religion.
Still other
governments--often either democratic or aspirants to democracy--have adopted
discriminatory
legislation or policies that give preferences to favored religions while
disadvantaging
others, in
contravention of international instruments. Some democratic states have
undertaken
policies resulting
in the stigmatization of minority religions--the result of identifying
them
indiscriminately
and inaccurately with dangerous "sects" or "cults."
Occasionally
a nation's policy on religious freedom can be better understood in the
context of its
history, culture,
and tradition--a particular religion may have dominated the life of a nation
for
centuries,
making more difficult the acceptance of new faiths that offer challenges
in both cultural
and theological
terms. But tradition and culture should not be used as a pretext for legislation
or
policies that
restrict genuine religious belief or its legitimate manifestations. Legal
restrictions on
religious practice--permitted
under international covenants for the protection of public safety, order,
health, or
morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others--should be applied
scrupulously
and fairly,
in as limited a way as possible, without discriminating among religions.
The practice of
requiring religious
groups to register before they can engage in activities such as worship
is, by its
nature, subject
to abuse by local jurisdictions, even in cases where it is designed by
central
authorities
to be applied in a nondiscriminatory fashion. Nor should a legitimate concern
over the
destructive
and unlawful behavior of a small number of groups be employed so indiscriminately
that
new or minority
religions--perhaps poorly understood or controversial but nevertheless
posing no
danger to public
safety, health, or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others--are
wrongfully
stigmatized.
In the end,
every nation should meet the standards on religious freedom established
by the Universal
Declaration
on Human Rights and other international instruments and covenants that
they have
accepted. Each
nation is accountable to the international community for its failure to
meet these
standards.
The United States acknowledges and accepts its responsibility to meet these
standards in
the safeguarding
and protection of religious liberty.
There are no
good reasons for any government to violate religious freedom or to tolerate
those
within its
warrant who do. There are, however, many good reasons to promote religious
freedom
(see Introduction,
pp. 1-2). To that end, this Executive Summary identifies some of the barriers
to
religious freedom
that exist, provides examples of countries where those barriers are in
place, and
describes actions
that the United States has taken, is taking, and will continue to take
as a means of
fulfilling
its responsibilities under its own law and to the human family of which
it is a part.
Barriers to
Religious Freedom
Totalitarian
or Authoritarian Attempts to Control Religious Belief or Practice
Totalitarian
and authoritarian regimes are defined by the degree to which they seek
to control
thought and
expression, especially dissent. It is not uncommon for such regimes to
regard minority
religious groups
as enemies of the State because of the content of the religion, the fact
that the very
practice of
religion threatens the dominant ideology (often by diverting loyalties
of adherents toward
something beyond
the State), the ethnic character of the religious group, or a mixture of
all three.
When this association
occurs, the result is often religious persecution directed by the regime.
Afghanistan
lacks a recognized government, but is under the substantial control of
the Taliban
movement, which
has engaged in persecution and killing of Afghan Shi'a in significant part
because
of their religious
beliefs. The Taliban also has attempted to implement its version of Shari'a
law by,
inter alia,
reliance on a police force that imposes severe physical punishment and
imprisonment for
deviations
from codes of worship or dress. In Burma the Government continued systematically
to
arrest and
imprison Buddhist monks who promoted human and political rights. There
were
unconfirmed
reports that security forces tortured and killed four monks in 1997. There
were
credible reports
that security forces destroyed or looted churches, mosques, and Buddhist
monasteries
in some insurgent ethnic minority areas. There were credible reports that
security forces
in some insurgent
Chin ethnic minority areas used coercive measures, including exemptions
from
forced labor
on the basis of religion, to induce Christians to convert to Buddhism,
and detention and
physical abuse
of Christian clergy to prevent proselytizing.
In China government
intolerance of unregistered religious activity has led in some areas to
persecution
of persons on the basis of their religious practice, through harassment,
prolonged
detention,
and incarceration in prison or "reform through labor" camps, and police
closure of places
of worship
and other holy places. In other areas, government supervision of religious
activity is
minimal. There
were credible reports of incidents of abuse or torture of Buddhist monks
and nuns.
Some members
of the following religions have been subject to persecution--Tibetan Buddhists,
Uighurs of
the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, and Protestants and Roman Catholics
who do
not belong
to the "official" churches.
While these
practices are not uniform and do not affect all denominations at all times,
the
government
of Cuba engages in active efforts to monitor and control religious institutions,
including
surveillance,
infiltration, and harassment of clergy and members; evictions from and
confiscations of
places of worship;
and preventive detention of religious activists. It also uses registration
as a
mechanism of
control; by refusing to register new denominations, it makes them vulnerable
to
charges of
illegal association. Although in 1991 the Government abolished prohibitions
on religious
adherents joining
the Communist Party, it generally discourages members of the armed forces
from
permitting
members of their households to observe religious practices.
The Government
of Iran has implemented coordinated policies designed to eradicate the
Baha'i
Faith through
prolonged detention and imprisonment of Baha'is because of their religious
beliefs,
confiscation
and desecration of graveyards and other holy places, denial of the right
to assemble and
elect religious
officials, denial of access to higher education, and denial of civil rights
in general. The
Government
has executed Baha'is because of their religious beliefs. Other religious
minorities,
including Jews,
Sunni Muslims, and Christians, suffered varying degrees of officially sanctioned
religious discrimination.
In Iraq the
one-party Government controlled by Saddam Hussein has for decades conducted
a
brutal campaign
of murder, summary execution, and protracted arbitrary detention against
the
religious leaders
and adherents of the Shi'a Muslim population. Security forces have murdered
senior Shi'a
clerics, desecrated mosques and holy sites, arrested tens of thousands
of Shi'a, and
forcibly prevented
Shi'a from practicing their religion. The past 18 months have seen an acceleration
of a systematic
campaign to eliminate the senior Shi'a religious leadership. There is also
systematic
repression
of Iraq's more than 350,000 Christian Assyrians and Chaldeans, especially
forced
movements of
these groups from northern areas and denial of their political rights.
The Government
of Laos attempted to supervise and limit religious freedom among the majority
Buddhist population,
including mandatory Marxist-Leninist training for monks. It was unable
to
control harsh
measures taken by some local and provincial authorities against minority
religious
groups, including
detentions without charge and, in isolated cases, forced renunciations
of faith. The
Government
of North Korea persecutes all perceived opponents, including those engaged
in
religious practices
deemed unacceptable to the regime. Other harsh penalties--including
imprisonment--reportedly
result from unauthorized religious activity. Credible reports indicate
that
prisoners held
on the basis of their religion are regarded by those in authority as insane,
and are,
because of
their religion, sometimes treated worse than other prisoners.
The Government
of Vietnam uses a registration process to control and monitor religious
activity,
severely restricting
any practice by groups other than officially sanctioned organizations.
Clergy from
many religious
groups--including Cao Dai, Hoa Hao, Protestant, and Roman Catholic--reportedly
have been detained
arbitrarily without charge. Perhaps 30 to 50 persons are imprisoned in
Vietnam
because of
their religious beliefs.
State Hostility
Toward Minority or Nonapproved Religions
Some governments,
while not necessarily determined to implement a program of control over
minority religions,
are nevertheless hostile to certain religions and implement policies designed
to
intimidate
them, cause their adherents to convert to another religion, or cause their
members to flee.
In Pakistan
discriminatory legislation has encouraged an atmosphere of religious intolerance,
which
has led to
acts of violence by extremists against members of religious minorities,
including Christians,
Hindus, Ahmadis,
and Zikris. A colonial-era blasphemy law in recent years has been sharpened
to
include the
death sentence for acts considered blasphemous. While no one has been executed
under
its provisions,
some persons have been sentenced to death, and authorities and private
citizens have
used the law
to threaten and intimidate Ahmadis, Christians, and some orthodox Muslims.
Extremists
have killed persons accused under the law with impunity. The Government
severely
restricts Ahmadis
from practicing their religious beliefs in public. Ahmadis and Christians
in
particular
face harassment and intimidation; the generalized atmosphere of religious
intolerance has
led to false
charges against both groups.
The Government
of Saudi Arabia supports the Sunni majority, and some instances of arbitrary
detention,
travel restrictions, and political and economic discrimination against
members of the Shi'a
minority have
occurred. Non-Muslims are required to worship privately in Saudi Arabia,
and any
attempt to
convert a Muslim to another faith is subject to criminal prosecution. Public
religious
worship by
any non-Muslim is a criminal offense, as is any attempt to convert Muslims
to a
non-Muslim
religion. In Serbia, a predominantly Christian Orthodox country, authorities
employed
killing, torture,
rape, and forced mass emigration against Kosovar Albanians, who are
overwhelmingly
Muslim, in an effort to drive them from the country. In Sudan an ongoing
civil war
provided the
context for severe abuses against religious minorities by the controlling
regime.
Christians,
practitioners of traditional indigenous religions, and Muslims who deviate
from the
Government's
interpretation of Islam are subject to severe limits on religious freedom,
including
killing, prolonged
arbitrary detention or imprisonment, threats, violence, and forced conversion
to
Islam. The
Government's support of the practice of slavery and its bombing of villages
in the Nuba
mountains are
due in significant part to the victims' religious beliefs.
State Neglect
of the Problem of Discrimination Against, or Persecution of, Minority or
Nonapproved
Religions
In some countries
governments have laws or policies to discourage religious discrimination
and
persecution
but fail to act with sufficient consistency and vigor against violations
of religious freedom
by nongovernmental
entities.
The attitude
of the central Government of Bulgaria has been increasingly positive in
encouraging
religious tolerance,
and harassment of minority religions tended to decrease during 1998 and
the first
half of 1999.
However, local authorities continue to subject unregistered or unpopular
religious
groups to harassment.
In Egypt members of the non-Muslim minority generally worship without
interference,
but there is some societal and governmental discrimination. There remain
some
discrepancies
between official and unofficial accounts of a 1998 incident of police brutality
in the
village of
al-Kush, in which some assert that there were troubling religious elements.
The
Government
has since reopened the investigation. Human rights activists and the U.S.
Government
continue to
watch the situation closely. President Hosni Mubarak has delegated the
authority to
approve church
repairs, and the approval process is becoming less cumbersome.
In India state
governments initially downplayed a sharp upswing in violence perpetrated
by
extremists
against religious minorities and their places of worship. Responses by
state and local
prosecutors
to these events often were inadequate. In some cases, local police and
government
officials abetted
the violence. In Indonesia, while the central Government's policy is to
promote
religious tolerance,
there have been incidents of violence between groups of believers that
have gone
unpunished
by local authorities. While these incidents often involved long-standing
disputes between
communities
or ethnic groups, extremists have used them to stir up interreligious tensions.
The Government
of the Maldives does not permit places of worship--other than in private
homes--for
religions other than Islam. Authorities detained foreigners, including
children, for
proselytizing,
and expelled them for life. The Government of Uzbekistan adopted a new
law that
restricts religious
activity and implemented registration requirements enabling the Government
to
maintain control
over religious groups. Uzbek law criminalizes certain legitimate religious
activities,
and authorities
have used it to harass, arrest, and imprison some religious believers.
There are
widespread,
credible reports of authorities planting narcotics on clergy and members
of unapproved
religious organizations
to create false criminal charges leading to prolonged imprisonment.
Discriminatory
Legislation or Policies Disadvantaging Certain Religions
Some governments
have implemented laws or regulations that favor certain religions and place
others at a
disadvantage. Often this circumstance is the result of the historical predominance
of one
religion in
a country and may reflect broad social skepticism about new or minority
religions.
Sometimes it
stems from the emergence of a country from a long period of Communist rule,
in which
all religion
was prohibited or at best out of favor. In such countries, skepticism or
even fear of
certain religions
or all religions lingers within segments of society. This has led in some
cases to a
curtailment
of religious freedom.
In Armenia
the Armenian Apostolic Church, the national church, is not subject to some
restrictions
on religious
freedom that are imposed on members of other faiths. All other faiths must
register; of
the groups
that had applied by June 30, 1999, all except Jehovah's Witnesses were
granted
registration.
The Government denied registration to Jehovah's Witnesses because, authorities
contend, proselytizing
is central to their activity. In Azerbaijan the Government limits religious
activity by
foreigners and Azerbaijani members of what the Government considers to
be
nontraditional
religious groups. Restrictions include burdensome registration requirements,
limitations
on freedom
to proselytize, and interference with dissemination of printed materials.
Authorities have
broken up meetings
of Pentecostal Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses, who have faced
harassment,
arrest, detention, restrictions on preaching, fines, and in the case of
foreigners,
deportation.
Most of the groups affected by these restrictions note that they have been
applied
sporadically
and that most groups operate freely.
A 1995 cabinet
decree by the Government of Belarus regulating religious workers continues
to be
enforced, reflecting
an attempt by the Government to protect and promote one religion while
placing
others at a
disadvantage. Some religions that the Government considers to be
"nontraditional"--including
some Protestant denominations and the Belarus Orthodox Autocephalous
Church--are
prohibited from registering and having foreign leaders or clergy.
The Government
of Eritrea has singled out members of Jehovah's Witnesses for harsher treatment
than members
of other faiths who refuse mandatory national service, including detention
without
charge for
more than 4 years. Government entities in Jordan harassed evangelical Christian
groups,
by, for example,
detaining and deporting noncitizen Arab Muslim students of the Jordanian
Evangelical
Theological Seminary while the school awaits accreditation by the Ministry
of
Education.
The school has been granted permission to purchase land for a seminary
and campus on
condition of
accreditation. The Government of Kazakhstan requires religious organizations
to
register in
order to receive legal status. Evangelical Protestants and Jehovah's Witnesses
have
encountered
government harassment in some localities. The Government tabled a restrictive
religion
law but later
withdrew it. In Nepal conversion and proselytizing are constitutionally
prohibited, and
punishable
by fines or imprisonment, or, in the case of foreigners, expulsion from
the country.
In Russia a
restrictive 1997 law on religion replaced a 1990 law that had encouraged
religious
freedom. The
new law creates categories of religious communities with differing levels
of legal status
and privilege.
Communities that cannot prove their existence in Russia for 15 years are
placed at a
disadvantage
in status and rights, according to the law; however, in practice, implementation
of this
provision varies
widely around the country. Central authorities have pledged to implement
the law in
a manner consistent
with religious freedom and have diminished the impact of some of the law's
most troubling
provisions. However, local authorities have not always implemented the
law in a
manner consistent
with religious freedom. The vagueness of the law and regulations, as well
as
contradictions
between interpretations of the 1997 law and other federal and local laws,
have
permitted discriminatory
practices at the local level. Federal authorities have not taken sufficient
action to reverse
discriminatory actions taken at the local level or to discipline those
officials
responsible.
Other nations in central Asia and eastern Europe have looked carefully
at, and some
appear to be
adopting, this Russian model of handling religious minorities.
The Government
of Turkey has supported a ban on the wearing of religious head garments
in
government
offices and state-run facilities for 50 years. In June 1999, 75 defendants
went on trial
for protesting
Inonu University's ban on headscarves. Of these, 51 defendants, including
4 women,
could face
the death penalty on charges of attempting to change the constitutional
order by force.
However, in
August 1999 the new Ecevit-led Government introduced amnesty legislation
that would
allow those
students expelled for wearing headscarves and beards to reapply. The Parliament
also
in August 1999
amended the political parties law in order to make it more difficult for
the courts to
outlaw parties.
The Government
of Turkmenistan has a religion law that provides for significant government
control
of religion
and religious organizations. Only two religious groups--Sunni Muslims and
Russian
Orthodox Christians--have
enough members to meet the threshold for registration under the law.
This requirement
has disadvantaged several minority religions, especially the Baha'i Faith,
whose
adherents have
been prevented from conducting services since 1997. Religions other than
those
officially
approved by the Government, i.e., Baptists, Seventh-Day Adventists, and
Pentecostals,
face official
harassment, including the seizure of religious materials.
In Ukraine
a 1993 amendment to the 1991 Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religion
restricts
the activities
of nonnative, foreign-based, religious organizations (defined as other
than Orthodox,
Greek Catholic,
or Jewish), although the Government generally respects freedom of religion
for
native religions.
The Government's protection of religious freedom for nonnative religious
organizations
has deteriorated in recent years, but in 1999 nonnative religions reported
less difficulty
in obtaining
visas and registering. Individual believers do not experience discrimination.
However,
the organizations
continue to face difficulties in carrying out some of their activities
such as
registering,
buying, or leasing property.
Stigmatization
of Certain Religions by Wrongfully Associating Them with Dangerous "Cults"
or
"Sects"
During the
past decade, governments and parliaments in a number of countries have
focused their
attention on
the growth of new cults, in particular a number of dangerous organizations
such as Aum
Shinrikyo in
Japan, or the Solar Temple in Canada and Switzerland. Since 1995 the parliaments
or
governments
of Belgium, France, and Germany, as well as Sweden, and the Swiss canton
of
Geneva have
produced parliamentary reports on new cults and religions, and on elements
of
longstanding
religions.
In the French
and Belgian reports, the terms "sects" or "cults" were used to describe
the groups at
issue. The
1995 French parliamentary report admits that the French term "secte" is
a pejorative
word that evokes
negative stereotypes in the popular mind, but nevertheless used the word
to
describe a
broad range of groups. The Belgian parliamentary report also noted that
the word has
assumed pejorative
connotations in modern usage, but stated that it employed the term in the
traditional
sense--a group of organized persons espousing the same doctrine within
a religion.
Both reports
attached a list of groups; the lists have been used inside and outside
the government as
"sect lists."
In preparing these lists, neither parliamentary commission made a serious
attempt to
permit the
groups to respond to the allegations made about them. The Belgian parliamentary
report's
list did not
characterize the groups listed. The Belgian Commission stated that sects
and new
religious movements
are neither intrinsically dangerous nor harmful. The Belgian Parliament
adopted
the report's
recommendations but not the list of sects.
The Swedish
report, issued in 1999, criticized the absence of objective methodology
in the French
and Belgian
reports and asserted that the French commissioners had conducted their
efforts in
"common cause"
with biased private antisect groups. The European Union, in its statement
on
religious freedom
to a Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting of the Organization of Security
and Cooperation
in Europe (OSCE), stated: "The legitimate concern over the proliferation
of
dangerous sects
should not lead to the indiscriminate labeling of all new religions as
sects or cults, as
this engenders
distrust, and can influence the belief that all new religions threaten
society."
The Swedish
report identifies these groups by the more objective term of "new religious
movements."
The Swedish report's evidence was derived from public (rather than secret)
hearings
and interviews
with a wide range of persons. The German parliamentary commission's interim
report, issued
in 1997, bore a significant resemblance to the French and Belgian reports.
However,
the final report,
issued in 1998, presented a more balanced and objective assessment of the
situation.
It concluded, for example, that the new religious movements do not present
a threat to
society and
that their activities are not cause for political concern. The report nevertheless
urged
continuing
surveillance of the Church of Scientology.
In response
to the concerns about new religious movements, the governments of Austria,
Belgium,
and France
adopted new laws or established commissions and interministerial bodies
to address the
issues raised
by such groups. These commissions and bodies include, among their enumerated
responsibilities,
"monitoring" the activities of sects, combating groups that engage in harmful
or illegal
practices,
and coordinating intergovernmental actions against sects. The term "sect"
in recent years
has, on occasion,
taken on a pejorative connotation. In one form of usage, the closest equivalent
in
English is
"cult." When used without specificity, the term permits authorities to
blur distinctions
between new
religions and illegitimate groups and can focus attention on groups that
appear to be
different or
unusual, rather than on illegal activities.
* * *
U.S. ACTIONS
TO PROMOTE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ABROAD
Introduction
The promotion
of religious freedom involves far more than public airing of violations.
The most
productive
work often is done behind the scenes, for a very simple reason: no government
or nation
is likely to
respond with alacrity when publicly rebuked. It is, of course, sometimes
necessary for the
United States,
and the international community, openly to denounce particularly abhorrent
behavior
by another
nation. The 1998 International Religious Freedom Act mandates presidential
action in
cases of particularly
severe violations of religious freedom, although it grants considerable
flexibility
in deciding
on what action to take.
Religious freedom
is one of the fundamental human rights provided for international covenants.
In
general the
best public method of promoting religious freedom is to advocate the universal
principles--in
particular the inviolable dignity of the human person--that are nourished
when religious
freedom is
valued and protected. This approach increasingly is being integrated into
public U.S.
foreign policy
channels, through international exchanges, Worldnet and VOA broadcasts,
a religious
freedom website
within the homepage of the Department of State, conferences, public opinion
polling, congressional
hearings, and speeches and press conferences by senior U.S. foreign policy
officials.
Much remains to be done in our public diplomacy, but the following pages
indicate some of
the progress
that has been made.
Central to
the integration of religious freedom into the fabric of U.S. policy is
the training of U.S.
officials most
likely to encounter those persecuted because of their religious beliefs:
The consular
officer in
a U.S. embassy who interviews a refugee applicant; the U.S. political officer
seeking
information
on a prisoner; the asylum official at a U.S. airport hearing the plea of
a woman fleeing
religious persecution,
and the interpreter who must render her foreign tongue into English with
precision and
sympathy; and the U.S. immigration judge who must hear the case of the
alien in
danger of being
returned to his country, and into harm's way, because of his religious
beliefs.
It is in part
with these U.S. officials that the success or failure of our religious
freedom policy lies.
Some of their
efforts are highlighted in the following pages; others can be found in
the Appendices
to this report,
which detail the initial efforts of the Departments of State and Justice
to institutionalize
training for
their personnel in areas critical to promoting religious freedom abroad.
Finally, it
bears repeating that the United States seeks to promote religious freedom,
not simply to
criticize,
or to make headlines. There are many paths to this end, some of them involving
the difficult
work of scrutinizing
legal documents and draft legislation, mastering the history and culture
of
diverse societies,
and understanding religious beliefs and practices alien to our own. Some
paths
involve risk,
particularly when the objective is to liberate the prisoner, to stop the
torture, or to stay
the execution.
Such vital work usually is done out of the limelight, often without acknowledgement,
occasionally
without knowing its result.
But the work
must, and does, take place. It happens when a Foreign Service Officer,
sometimes at
the risk of
safety, presses authorities to know where the priest has been taken and
why. It happens
when an ambassador,
after discussing with a senior official his country's important strategic
relationship
with the United States, raises that "one more thing"--access to the imprisoned
mufti, or
information
on the missionary who has disappeared. It happens when senior U.S. officials,
responsible
for balancing and pursuing all of America's vital national interests, make
it clear that a
single persecuted
human being, perhaps obscure and insignificant in the grand affairs of
state,
matters to
the world's most powerful nation.
The Year in
Review
During the
period covered by this report--1998 and the first 6 months of 1999--the
United States
has engaged
in a variety of efforts to promote the right of religious freedom and to
oppose violations
of that right.
Its front line in pursuing these goals has been our overseas Missions--the
embassies,
consulates
general, and consulates of the United States. Frequently the Chief of Mission
has led the
way, as have
other members of the country team.
U.S. Mission
efforts inevitably are centered on human rights officers, as well as consular
officers,
who serve as
the eyes and ears of the mission in its search for information, and its
voice in the
advocacy of
religious freedom. Their work is facilitated by the wisdom and practical
knowledge of
local national
embassy staff colleagues, whose contributions to international religious
freedom
frequently
advance the interests of the United States. Public affairs officers coordinate
the vital work
of public diplomacy
in order to present U.S. policy with accuracy and thoroughness. This work
requires clear
explanations both of the "American approach" to religious freedom in the
United
States, and
of the U.S. practice of applying only international standards in its assessment
of foreign
governments.
No less important
is the tone and context set by senior U.S. officials when they speak publicly
on
the subject
of religious freedom, or privately with foreign heads of government and
other policy
makers. The
President, the Secretary of State, and many of her senior staff have addressed
the
issue in venues
throughout the world. Within the United States, a critical role is played
by the
Department
of Justice and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the agencies
responsible for
dealing with
refugees and asylum seekers who are fleeing religious persecution. The
Department of
State is responsible
for training some officials who interview refugee applicants; the Department
of
Justice is
responsible for training officials who interview both refugee and asylum
applicants, and
those who adjudicate
their cases (see Appendices).
The fulcrum
of the effort to promote religious freedom lies in a State Department office
established
in the summer
of 1998, and further mandated by the International Religious Freedom Act--the
Office of International
Religious Freedom in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
The office
is headed by an Ambassador at Large who serves as a principal advisor to
the President
and the Secretary
of State on religious freedom. As such, the Ambassador at Large recommends
U.S. policies
on religious freedom and oversees the implementation of those policies,
both in the
United States
and worldwide. The Secretary of State has instructed the Ambassador to
integrate
U.S. policy
on religious freedom into the mainstream of U.S. foreign policy, and--at
the same
time--into
the structure of the Foreign Service and the Department of State.
The Secretary
of State, through the Offices of International Religious Freedom and Country
Reports
and Asylum
Affairs (both in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor), is
responsible
for preparing
the annual report to Congress on the status of religious freedom worldwide.
In
carrying out
this task, the Bureau draws on U.S. mission reporting, visits by the Ambassador
at
Large and his
staff to individual countries, participation in multilateral meetings and
conferences, and
on evidence
provided by religious and human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGO's),
religious organizations
and individuals. In the future, the work of monitoring and reporting also
will
be guided by
the recommendations and annual report of the Commission on International
Religious
Freedom established
in the 1998 Act.
The following
section summarizes some of the many efforts undertaken by various elements
of the
U.S. Government's
foreign policy community to promote religious freedom. It is by no means
exhaustive,
but endeavors to provide by way of example a realistic portrait of U.S.
actions. Further
details may
be found in the individual country reports.
U.S. Missions
Abroad: Ambassadors
Responsible
for balancing and implementing the full range of U.S. foreign policy interests
in their
respective
countries, U.S. ambassadors frequently have been called upon to explain
and advocate
American policy
on religious freedom. Our Chiefs of Mission in countries throughout the
world have
discussed with
a variety of senior officials the U.S. commitment to freedom of religion,
the 1998
International
Religious Freedom Act, and U.S. policies designed to advance religious
freedom.
U.S. ambassadors
have been involved personally in individual cases of religious persecution.
For
example, when
underground Chinese Catholic Bishop Su Zhimin disappeared in late 1997,
our
Ambassador
in China began a mission campaign to determine his whereabouts--an effort
that
continues.
The Ambassador, and in his absence the Charge d'Affaires, have pursued
with Chinese
authorities
at the highest levels this and many other individual religious freedom
cases involving
disappearance,
imprisonment, and persecution.
The U.S. Ambassador
to Eritrea repeatedly raised cases involving religious minorities with
senior
officials,
as did our Ambassadors to India and Jordan. The U.S. Ambassador to Egypt
maintained a
regular dialog
with senior religious and government leaders, including the President,
on human rights
and religious
freedom issues that has sensitized authorities on U.S. concerns about treatment
of
Coptic Christians
and other religious minorities. In Kazakhstan following reports of government
harassment
of six groups of legally registered Jehovah's Witnesses, the Ambassador
raised U.S.
concerns with
senior officials. Our Ambassador in Laos made repeated demarches to senior
government
officials to release Christians jailed in Vientiane, to release others
detained for their
religious beliefs,
and to relax restrictions on freedom of religion.
Immediately
after the May 1998 Marina Roshcha synagogue bombing, our Ambassador to
Russia
publicly criticized
the act and visited the site. In Uzbekistan the Ambassador has discussed
with the
Foreign Minister
the disappearance of Imam Abidkhon Nazarov, and both the Ambassador and
Charge have
met with the Foreign Minister to discuss religious detainees and prisoners.
In countries
where restrictive laws or policies are proposed or implemented, Chiefs
of Mission have
involved themselves
in the delicate process of discussing domestic legislation with government
officials.
For example, in Austria the American Ambassador met with senior government
officials
and parliamentarians
to express U.S. concerns about new religion legislation. The Ambassador
also
has written
to the Austrian president concerning the legislation. In Azerbaijan the
Ambassador urged
the spiritual
leader of the Caucasus Muslims to adhere to their commitments to support
religious
freedom. The
Ambassador also met with the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of the Catholic
Church, which
had been seeking registration unsuccessfully since November 1997. As a
result of
this and other
efforts, the Catholic Church was registered officially in Azerbaijan.
In a series
of private meetings in early 1999 with senior Kazakhstani officials, our
Ambassador
raised concerns
about the restrictive draft amendments to a religion law. Following the
June 1998
expulsion of
foreigners from the Maldives, the U.S. Ambassador to Sri Lanka (responsible
for the
Maldives) repeatedly
stressed to the Government the importance of freedom of religion as a basic
human right.
In Russia the
American Ambassador regularly raises religious freedom issues with senior
officials in
the Government
and in the Presidential Administration. In Saudi Arabia the U.S. Ambassador,
the
Deputy Chief
of Mission, and the U.S. Consuls General in Jeddah and Dhahran raised issues
of
religious freedom
on numerous occasions. The U.S. Ambassador in Uzbekistan met with the
Foreign Minister
to point out shortcomings in a new and restrictive law on religion and
to discuss
cases of individuals
whose right to religious freedom has been restricted by implementation
of the
law.
Chiefs of Mission
also devote considerable time to hearing the views of local religious leaders.
For
example, the
U.S. Ambassador to Greece held a reception for the head of the Orthodox
Church in
North America,
to which leaders of all faiths in Greece were invited. The Ambassador also
participated
in the inauguration of a Holocaust Memorial in Thessaloniki and the newly
located
Jewish Museum
in Athens. In Israel the Ambassador and other officials routinely met with
Jewish,
Christian,
Muslim, and Baha'i leaders at a variety of levels. In Turkey the U.S. Consul
General in
Istanbul maintains
a close relationship with the Ecumenical Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, the
Armenian Orthodox
Patriarchate, and other religious minorities. In Ukraine our Ambassador
has
met with the
local Roman Catholic Archbishop to discuss his church's restitution claims
and has
spoken at a
founding conference of the Jewish Confederation of Ukraine, an umbrella
organization
composed of
over 250 Jewish organizations from across the country.
U.S. Missions
Abroad: Embassy Officers
Below the level
of Chief of Mission, there are scores of Foreign Service Officers worldwide
whose
portfolios
include religious freedom and other human rights concerns. Their truly
remarkable efforts
in pursuing
those concerns are recognized in the Department of State's Human Rights
and
Democracy Achievement
award, given annually for outstanding reporting on human rights issues,
including religious
freedom. While it would be impossible, even in the individual country reports,
to
catalog all
their activities to promote religious freedom, a few examples, listed alphabetically
by
country, will
highlight the kind of work being done.
While the U.S.
Embassy in Kabul has been closed for the past 10 years, the United States
maintains
contact with
all factions in Afghanistan. U.S. officials have raised religious freedom
issues with
representatives
of the factions, including the Taliban, and have called for the protection
of the rights
of religious
minorities. In Armenia embassy officials met with the Chairman of the President's
Human
Rights commission
and the military prosecutor on the issue of Jehovah's Witnesses. In Austria
embassy officials
met with representatives of the Government, Parliament, NGO's, and religious
groups to convey
U.S. concerns that the country strictly observe its commitments to religious
freedom.
In Belarus
the U.S. Embassy has raised religious freedom with the Government in the
context of
frequent demarches
on human rights. It has contacts with minority religious groups, and the
Belarusian
Interconfessional Association. Our Embassy in Belgium has discussed religious
freedom
with officials
from the Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs as well as with Members
of
Parliament.
An ongoing dialog exists between the Embassy and the Ministry of Justice
at the cabinet
level regarding
the implementation of recommendations of the 1997 parliamentary report
on
sectarian organizations.
The U.S. Embassy in Bulgaria regularly monitors religious freedom with
government
officials, clergy, lay leaders of minority communities, and NGO's. Embassy
officers
have met with
Orthodox clergy from both sides of the schism, the new chief Mufti of the
Muslim
community,
Jewish leaders, the Catholic Archbishop of Sofia, and Protestant leaders.
Our Embassy
in Rangoon has advocated U.S. policy to the Government of Burma both informally
and through
repeated formal demarches, as well as to the public, to representatives
of the
governments
of other countries and of international organizations, to international
media
representatives,
to scholars, and to representatives of U.S. and international businesses.
Embassy
staff have
met repeatedly with leaders of Buddhist, Christian, and Islamic religious
groups, members
of the faculties
of schools of theology, and other religious-affiliated organizations and
NGO's.
In China U.S.
Embassy officials protest when there are reports of religious persecution
or
discrimination.
If the facts are incomplete or contradictory, they press for further information.
When
underground
Catholic Bishop Su Zhimin of Hebei province disappeared, the Embassy immediately
began efforts
to ascertain his status and whereabouts, requesting information from Chinese
officials
in Beijing
and Hebei province. Chinese officials claimed that the Bishop was free
but rejected
embassy requests
to see him. Over the next year and one-half, there were conflicting reports
about
Bishop Su's
status, and the Embassy continued to press his case. Embassy officers also
regularly
raised with
Chinese officials the cases of other religious prisoners and reports of
religious
persecution,
including Pastor Xu Yongze, the boy recognized by the Dalai Lama as the
llth Panchen
Lama, Abbot
Chadrel Rimpoche, Tibetan monks and nuns reported to have been beaten in
prison,
and Pastor
Li Dexian.
The U.S. Interests
Section in Cuba maintained regular contact with the various religious communities
in the country,
and supported NGO initiatives to aid religious groups. The U.S. regularly
seeks to
facilitate
the issuance of licenses for travel by religious persons and for donated
goods and materials
for religious
organizations. The Interests Section reports on cases of discrimination
and harassment,
and the U.S.
Government continuously marshals international pressure on the Cuban Government
to
cease its repressive
practices.
In Egypt the
issue of religious freedom was raised by embassy officials at all levels
of government.
The Embassy
maintains formal contacts with the Office of Human Rights at the Ministry
of Foreign
Affairs and
conducts regular discussions with governors, Members of Parliament, local
religious
leaders, academics,
businessmen, and citizens outside of the capital area and from a lower-income
background.
The Embassy's expression of interest resulted in the release from temporary
detention
of two Muslim
converts to Christianity and the lifting of outdated travel restrictions
on these men and
two other colleagues.
Our mission staff in Eritrea met regularly with leaders of all faiths,
including
Eritrean delegates
to Norwegian-sponsored talks between Ethiopian and Eritrean religious leaders.
The U.S. Embassy
in France has met several times with the interministerial commission that
deals
with sects.
By raising concerns about some French official statements and policies
toward religious
minorities,
the Embassy seeks an understanding with the Government on acceptable actions
under
international
agreements, and to ensure that groups labeled as "sects" have an opportunity
to
address French
officials about their situation. In Germany embassy officers have been
involved in an
ongoing effort
to promote a dialog between German authorities and representatives of the
Church of
Scientology.
The U.S. Embassy
in Greece regularly met with officials responsible for religious affairs
in the
Ministries
of Foreign Affairs and Education and Religious Affairs, and with representatives
of
various religious
groups. It also has sponsored events to foster understanding between Orthodox
and non-Orthodox
religious groups. In India embassy officers met with government officials
on a
regular basis
to monitor religious freedom issues. The Embassy maintained contacts with
American
residents,
including the NGO and missionary communities.
The American
Embassy in Indonesia publicly calls on the Government to restore order
in
communities
torn by violence, including in areas where tensions between groups with
different
religious affiliations
have led to bloodshed. It repeatedly urged the Government to take all
appropriate
measures to halt interreligious killings in these and other areas, and
to prevent its
recurrence
or repetition elsewhere. The U.S. has provided significant funding for
NGO's
implementing
projects to promote religious tolerance.
Embassy representatives
in Laos discussed cases of religious persecution with the Human Rights
Unit of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and established an ongoing dialog with the
Department of
Religious Affairs
in the Lao National Front and with other high-ranking officials in the
National
Front. Embassy
officials met with all religious leaders in the country, including well-placed
Theravada Buddhist
monks. In coordination with the Embassy, visiting U.S. officials raised
the
question of
eight Christians who remained imprisoned until June 1999. In Nepal the
U.S. Embassy
raised with
the Government its denial of permission for a Good Friday ceremony. When
a
Seventh-Day
Adventist aid organization came under government scrutiny after rumors
that it
proselytized,
the Embassy raised the matter with government and Hindu officials.
The U.S. Embassy
and consulates in Pakistan closely monitor the status of religious legislation,
Muslim and
non-Muslim minority religious groups, and individual cases in which religious
discrimination
or persecution is alleged. Embassy officials repeatedly have urged the
Government to
alter the harsh
effects of its blasphemy law or to repeal it altogether. They also maintain
regular
contact with
major Muslim and non-Muslim religious groups and with local and international
human
rights organizations.
In Romania
embassy officers lobbied consistently in government circles for fair action
in property
restitution,
including religious and communal properties. The Embassy has a core group
of officials
that focuses
on fostering good ethnic relations, including between religious groups.
Embassy officials
participated
in Pope John Paul II's visit and a conference sponsored by the Community
of St.
Egidio.
The U.S. Mission
in Russia has engaged a broad range of Russian officials, representatives
of
religious groups,
and human rights activists. An embassy observer was present every day during
the
Moscow municipal
court trial of Jehovah's Witnesses in 1999, and a State Department officer
traveled to
the Russian far east city of Magadan to investigate allegations of religious
persecution of
Pentecostals.
The Embassy's political section works with the consular section, officers
from the
Agency for
International Development, and representatives of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to
gather information on religious freedom in the country.
In Saudi Arabia
the Embassy arranged meetings for Senator Arlen Specter with American,
Indian,
and Filipino
representatives of various Christian denominations, and with a senior government
official. The
Embassy also facilitated meetings between an assistant to Senator Sam Brownback
and
officials of
the Ministry of Interior, foreign diplomats, and representatives of a variety
of Christian
groups. The
meetings followed the detention of foreign citizens for distributing Christian
religious
literature,
and intensive efforts by the Embassy to ascertain the facts of the case.
The Embassy
arranged the
visit of Senator Brownback, including a discussion with the Foreign Minister
about
religious freedom.
In Serbia-Montenegro
U.S. Embassy staff met regularly with representatives of various faiths
until
the rupture
of relations in March 1999. In Montenegro the United States has provided
significant
support to
the reform-oriented Government, which seeks to ensure respect for human
rights,
including religious
freedom.
In Sudan, although
U.S. efforts were limited by the nonresident status of our diplomats since
1996
and the evacuation
of the Embassy's staff in August 1998, embassy officials raised religious
persecution
issues at all levels of government, including with the Foreign Minister.
The Embassy
focused on
specific cases, including the arrest of Archbishop Zubeir, the detention
of Faki Koko,
and the detentions
of Muslim cleric Imam Ahmed Yussuf. Embassy officials met with leaders
of the
religious communities,
including many of the Islamic orders, and Archbishop Zubeir. Embassy staff
briefed international
NGO representatives, United Nations Human Rights Commission Special
Rapporteur
Leonardo Franco, and representatives of the Sudan Council of Churches.
In Turkey
Embassy and
consular staff monitored and reported on incidents of detention and proselytizing,
and
remained in
close contact with local NGO's that monitor freedom of religion.
Our Embassy
in Ukraine raised with a regional government the issuing of the proper
religious
worker visa
to missionaries. The Embassy monitors anti-Semitism and maintains close
relations with
local Jewish
organizations. It holds regular meetings with Jewish community representatives;
in 1998
an officer
traveled to the city of Uman to observe the annual pilgrimage of Bratslav
Hasidic Jews to
a founder's
burial site and to verify that authorities had taken appropriate measures.
Embassy
officials in
Uzbekistan made frequent demarches on particular cases of disappearances,
the
treatment of
Muslims, religious detainees, and registration procedures for religious
groups.
In Vietnam
our Embassy regularly raised concerns with government officials in Hanoi,
Ho Chi Minh
City, and provincial
capitals, emphasizing that progress on religious issues and human rights
has an
impact on the
full normalization of relations. They have raised the detention and arrest
of religious
figures, and
restrictions on church organizational activities, such as training religious
leaders,
ordination,
church building, and foreign travel of religious figures. In several cases,
the Embassy's
interventions
on issues of religious freedom have resulted in improvements. The release
of eight
religious prisoners
in the fall of 1998, including Thich Quang Do, Thich Tue Sy, Father Nguyen
Chau Dat, and
Hoa Hao Buddhist Tran Huu Duyen, as well as other prominent advocates of
human
rights, including
Doan Viet Hoat and Nguyen Dan Que, followed long-term and direct advocacy
on
their behalf.
Embassy advocacy on behalf of detained Protestant Christians in the northwest
provinces may
have contributed to the release of some.
Actions by
Other U.S. Officials and Agencies
Senior U.S.
officials also have been active in advancing religious freedom abroad.
For example,
U.S. officials
have spoken out publicly on Afghanistan. On January 9, 1998, the Department
of
State Deputy
Spokesman issued a statement describing the Taliban blockade of central
Afghanistan
and bombing
of Bamiyan as indications of abuses directed against Afghanistan's Shi'a
population.
The Assistant
Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs raised reported Taliban persecution
of the
Shi'a in Senate
testimony on October 8, 1998; March 9, 1999; and April 14, 1999. The United
States also
has criticized Taliban persecution of religious minorities in international
forums and has
voted in favor
of U.N. Security Council and General Assembly resolutions criticizing persecution
of
the Shi'a.
In 1998 Department
of State officials met with Belgian officials in Washington and Brussels
to alert
the Government
of Belgium to U.S. concerns regarding Belgium's fulfillment of its OSCE
obligations
on religious
freedom. Similar meetings were held in Brussels in March 1999, following
the Vienna
International
Helsinki Federation meeting. At the 1998 OSCE Human Dimension meeting in
Warsaw, the
U.S. delegation expressed concern over growing intolerance toward minority
religious
groups in several
countries, including Austria, Belgium, France, and Germany.
With respect
to religious persecution in Burma, the U.S. Government has supported annual
resolutions
by U.N. bodies criticizing Burma's lack of respect for human rights and
religious freedom
and has imposed
comprehensive sanctions. At their October 1997 summit, the President secured
agreement from
President Jiang Zemin of China that a delegation of U.S. religious leaders
could
travel to China
to begin a bilateral dialog on religious freedom. Bishop Su's case also
was raised
during the
President's state visit to China in July 1998 and by the Secretary of State
in her meetings
with senior
Chinese officials. The U.S. regularly seeks to facilitate the issuance
of licenses for travel
by religious
persons to Cuba, and for donated goods and materials for religious organizations.
It
continuously
marshals international pressure on the Cuban Government to cease its repressive
practices.
In Egypt the
President, the Secretary of State, and the Assistant Secretary of State
for Near Eastern
Affairs have
discussed issues of religious freedom with their counterparts. The President
raised the
issue of Coptic
Christians with the Egyptian President, who since has initiated a high-level
investigation
of the al-Kush incident. Several members of Congress also met with the
Egyptian
President.
In France a visiting delegation from the State Department, the U.S. Institute
of Peace,
and the Helsinki
Commission met in 1999 with French officials from the Foreign and Interior
ministries,
antisect groups, and members of the National Assembly. Several other visiting
officials--including
the President, the Secretary of State, and the Assistant Secretary of State
for
Democracy,
Human Rights, and Labor (DRL)--also have discussed the religious freedom
issue with
their French
counterparts.
Assistant Secretary
of State for South Asian Affairs Karl Inderfurth met twice with senior
officials to
raise the issue
of persecution of Christians in India, as did Assistant Secretary of State
for
Democracy,
Human Rights, and Labor Harold Hongju Koh. The President has made a number
of
public statements
regarding the treatment of religious minorities in Iran, including a statement
criticizing
the execution of Ruhollah Rowhani, a member of the Baha'i Faith, in June
1998, and a
statement calling
on the Government of Iran to release 13 members of Iran's Jewish community
accused of
espionage in June 1999. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs
Martin
Indyk, in testimony
before Congress on Iran, highlighted the plight of Iran's religious minorities.
The U.S. Government
has cosponsored each year since 1982 a resolution on human rights in Iran
offered by
the European Union at the annual U.N. Commission on Human Rights. The United
States has
supported a similar resolution offered each year during the U.N. General
Assembly. The
U.S. has supported
strongly the work of the U.N. Special Representative on the Situation of
Human
Rights in Iran
and called on the Iranian Government to grant him admission--he has been
denied
entry visas
since 1996--in order to conduct his research.
The State Department
spokesman on numerous occasions has addressed the situation of the Baha'i
and Jewish
communities in Iran, notably following the execution of Ruhollah Rowhani
in June 1998,
following the
Government's actions against the Baha'i Institute of Higher Education in
September
1998, and following
the arrest of 13 members of the Iranian Jewish community in March 1999.
The
U.S. has encouraged
other governments to make similar statements and has pressed them to raise
the issue of
religious freedom in discussions with the Government of Iran.
The U.S. has
no diplomatic relations with Iraq, but the U.S. makes its position clear
in contacts with
other states.
The President regularly discusses the trauma experienced by Shi'a, Assyrian,
and other
religious groups
in his periodic reports to Congress on Iraq. The Assistant Secretary of
State for
Near Eastern
Affairs, in testimony before Congress on Iraq, has highlighted the plight
of persons in
the south.
The State Department spokesperson issued statements criticizing the deaths
of Ayatollahs
al-Gharawi,
al-Borojourdi, and as-Sadr, and the attempt on the life of Ayatollah al
Hussaini. He
also noted
particularly egregious instances in which villages and marsh areas were
destroyed in
southern Iraq.
The Voice of America has broadcast several editorials dealing with the
human rights
abuses committed
against religious groups in Iraq.
In March 1999,
for the seventh consecutive year, the United States joined other members
of the
United Nations
Human Rights Commission (UNHRC), to call on the U.N. Secretary General
to
send human
rights monitors to "help in the independent verification of reports on
the human rights
situation in
Iraq." However, the Iraqi Government continued to ignore these calls. As
in the past, it
did not allow
the U.N. Special Rapporteur to visit, nor did it respond to his requests
for information.
It continued
to defy calls from various U.N. bodies to allow the Special Rapporteur
to visit the
southern marshes
and other regions. Denied entry to Iraq, the Special Rapporteur based his
reports
on the Government's
human rights abuses on interviews with recent emigres from Iraq, interviews
with opposition
groups with contacts in Iraq, other interviews, and on published reports.
On March 26,
1998, a U.S. State Department spokesman publicly criticized the decision
of a court
in Laos to
convict 13 Lao who had participated in a week-long Bible-study session
in Vientiane on
charges that
they were assembling to create social turmoil (a violation of the Penal
Code). Three of
the 13 prisoners
were released for time served. Noting that the conviction cast serious
doubt on the
protection
of religious freedom in the country, the U.S. spokesman called on the Government
to find
a means under
the law to release the 10 persons remaining in jail. By mid-1999 all the
remaining
prisoners had
been released on probation, by decision of prison authorities.
The U.S. Assistant
Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs raised the subject of religious
freedom
in the Maldives
with Foreign Minister Fathulla Jameel in Washington in October 1998 and
later sent
him a copy
of the new International Religious Freedom Act. The Assistant Secretary
again
addressed the
issue during his February 1999 visit to the Maldives, when he met with
President
Maumoon Abdul
Gayoom and the Foreign Minister.
The President,
Vice President, and Secretary of State have raised Russia's 1997 law on
religion
with their
Russian counterparts. Senior State Department officials met regularly with
human rights
groups and
religious leaders concerned about religious freedom in Russia. In November
1998, the
Ambassadors
at Large for International Religious Freedom (IRF) and for the Newly Independent
States (NIS),
together with a senior White House official and Senator Gordon Smith, chaired
a
roundtable
discussion that helped refine the policy that successfully urged the Russian
Government
to reregister
Jehovah's Witnesses. During a speech to Moscow civic activists, the only
public event
of her January
1999 visit to Russia, the Secretary of State pressed for Russia to promote
a culture
of tolerance.
She criticized anti-Semitism and encouraged Russians to build a society
where "all are
free to worship
God in whatever way they choose." In March 1999, our Ambassador at Large
for
the NIS, with
Senators Orrin Hatch and Gordon Smith, cochaired another roundtable discussion
of
issues related
to religious freedom in Russia.
In Serbia Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright met with Bishop Artemije--a leading anti-Milosevic
official of
the Serbian Orthodox Church--in the summer of 1999 at Gracanica. Other
visiting senior
U.S. officials--including
the Assistant Secretary for DRL--have urged religious leaders to initiate
interfaith
programs to build trust and tolerance. In 1999 the Ambassador at Large
for the NIS and
our Ambassador
to Turkmenistan raised the issue of religious freedom with President Niyazov.
In
Ukraine the
U.S. has advocated just restitution of religious property confiscated by
the Nazi and
Communist regimes.
In a September 1998 visit to Kiev, the Under Secretary of State for Economic
Affairs raised
the issue of restitution in several high-level meetings with government
officials, and
with Ukrainian
Jewish leaders. The State Department's Senior Advisor for Property Restitution
toured Lviv
and Kyiv in 1999 and discussed restitution issues with government officials
and
community leaders.
In Uzbekistan
the Assistant Secretary for DRL discussed the arrests in the Ferghana Valley
with the
Foreign Minister
at the U.S.-Uzbek Joint Commission in 1998. Congressman Bob Livingston
discussed religious
freedom with the President of Uzbekistan in 1998, as did Senator Sam
Brownback.
Congressman Joseph Pitts expressed U.S. concerns to the chairman of the
National
Center for
Human Rights in 1998. The Ambassador at Large for the NIS discussed the
religion law
and issues
of religious freedom with the President and Foreign Minister in November
1998. The
Deputy Special
Adviser to the Secretary of State for the NIS met with the Foreign Minister
in
February 1999
to discuss religious detainees and religious freedom.
The Department
of State has commented publicly on the conditions for religious freedom
in Vietnam
on several
occasions.
Actions by
the Office of International Religious Freedom
Robert A. Seiple
was sworn in as Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom
(IRF)
in May 1999,
having served as the Secretary of State's Special Representative on IRF
since August
1998. During
the past year, Seiple or his staff have traveled to China, Indonesia, Uzbekistan,
Egypt,
Saudi Arabia,
Israel, Kazakhstan, Russia, Laos, Vietnam, Belgium, Austria, Germany, and
France.
In each of
these countries they explained the purposes of the 1998 International Religious
Freedom
Act. Noting
the importance of religious liberty in the American experience, they also
underlined the
Act's reliance
on international norms of religious freedom as the standards to which all
countries--including
the United States--must be held accountable.
Located within
the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, the Office of International
Religious Freedom
seeks to advance religious freedom in the most effective way possible.
This
requires a
constant focus on the victims of discrimination or persecution and tailoring
U.S. actions to
improve their
circumstances in a fundamental and enduring fashion. In most cases, achieving
these
results necessitates
quiet diplomacy, in which host officials are urged to adhere to those universal
principles
of religious freedom to which they have committed themselves in international
covenants.
In some cases,
it means private but candid talk about the consequences of particularly
severe
violations
of religious freedom.
In a January
1999 visit to China, Ambassador Seiple explained in some detail to Chinese
officials
the new International
Religious Freedom Act. He also raised a number of cases of religious
prisoners,
including Protestant minister Xu Yongze, Bishop Su Zhimin, and Catholic
priest Li
Qinghua, and
asked that an embassy official or an independent third party be permitted
to visit
Bishop Su and
Father Li. To date the Chinese Government has not responded to these requests
but
has expressed
willingness to continue its dialog with the Ambassador, who intends to
return to
China and to
visit Tibet as well. The Ambassador and his staff visited Indonesia, where
they
expressed deep
concern about interreligious violence, as well as Egypt and Saudi Arabia,
where
they met with
government and religious leaders. In April they traveled to Russia and
expressed U.S.
views about
the 1997 law on religion, noting that many states of eastern Europe and
central Asia
were looking
to Moscow's treatment of religion as a model for their own policies.
In May 1999,
the Ambassador and his staff traveled to Kazakhstan, where they urged the
President
to avoid infringing
on religious liberties as he sought to address concerns over extremism
and
subversion.
In Uzbekistan they emphasized to senior government officials the importance
of religious
freedom in
Uzbek-U.S. relations, and raised a number of human rights cases, met with
leaders of
Uzbek Christian
groups, and discussed religious freedom issues with NGO's. In July 1999,
they
discussed in
Vietnam that country's approach to religious freedom with senior government
and party
officials,
focusing on religious prisoners and detainees, as well as the draft religion
law, which is to
be presented
to the National People's Assembly in October. They offered U.S. assistance
in
crafting a
fair law that includes all religious groups in Vietnam.
Much of the
work of the office of International Religious Freedom involves hearing
directly the
views of human
rights and nongovernmental organizations, religious groups, and individuals.
By
providing evidence
to supplement reports from U.S. posts abroad, these organizations constitute
a
valuable and
prolific resource on the status of religious freedom worldwide. Their data
and reporting
are of particular
importance in countries where the United States has no direct diplomatic
presence,
or where governments
restrict the access of U.S. diplomats to persecuted groups or individuals.
Required by
the International Religious Freedom Act to consult NGO's as sources for
the annual
report, the
IRF office has endeavored to meet with every group or individual seeking
access--a
demanding and
rewarding task. The evidence provided by these groups and individuals has
been
weighed and
incorporated into the report.
An additional
and noteworthy product of these discussions has been the submission of
program
proposals to
the Office of International Religious Freedom by private organizations
seeking to
promote interfaith
dialog and ethnic tolerance abroad. Two such proposals--for Indonesia and
Lebanon--have
been approved for funding through the Human Rights and Democracy Fund of
the
Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights, and Labor. Another result has been the initiation of outreach
programs to
American religious communities, many of which have enormous--and in some
cases
untapped--potential
for constructive engagement with their coreligionists abroad. For example,
the
Office has
initiated the Islamic Roundtable--a periodic gathering of American Muslim
leaders to
discuss issues
of mutual concern. Such programs have the added advantage of deepening
the
Department
of State's understanding and appreciation of America's own rich religious
heritage and
how it might
be enlisted in the cause of advancing religious freedom worldwide.
Finally, the
Office of International Religious Freedom has an important relationship
with the
independent
Commission established by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.
The
Commission
is composed of nine eminent Americans from a variety of faiths and backgrounds;
their
mandate is
to monitor religious freedom worldwide and to recommend policies to the
President, the
Secretary of
State, and the Congress. The Ambassador at Large serves ex officio on the
Commission
as a nonvoting member. His role is, in part, to participate in their deliberations
as an
advisor and
colleague. Just as importantly, he and his staff serve as a liaison between
the
Commission
and the executive branch, providing information and advice as appropriate,
and
benefiting
from the wisdom and experience of its members.
The ultimate
objective of the Office of International Freedom is to help those persecuted
because of
their religious
faith. One important means to that end is emphasizing the value of religious
freedom in
articulating
and safeguarding the dignity of the human person. All men and women, whether
religious
or not, have
a stake in protecting the core truths expressed in the Universal Declaration
of Human
Rights: each
of us is "born free and equal in dignity and rights" and is "endowed with
reason and
conscience."
To preserve religious freedom is to reaffirm and defend the centrality
of those
truths--and
to strengthen the very heart of human rights.
Intolerance Toward “Non-Traditional Religions”
in both New and Established Democracies
Vienna, 16 March 1999. In its new report “Religious Discrimination
and Related Violations of Helsinki Commitments,” the International Helsinki
Federation for Human Rights (IHF) documents that numerous European democracies
and former Soviet republics violate their international commitments regarding
the freedom of religion or religious tolerance.
“Many OSCE countries are taking legal measures to suppress religious
activity and to interfere in the internal affairs of religious communities,
violating not only the Helsinki commitments but also the European Convention
on Human Rights,” according to Aaron Rhodes, IHF Executive Director. “Unfair
treatment of religious minorities expresses and increases the latent tendencies
toward chauvinism and intolerance, which threaten pluralism and political
stability in the region.”
Several countries, e.g., Austria, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Macedonia,
Russia, and Uzbekistan, have recently adopted restrictive domestic laws
on religious associations. Others have taken steps to restrict the spread
of "new religions" which they deem to be dangerous, for example Belgium,
France, and Germany. Anti-Semitism remains a problem, a recent example
being anti-Semitic statements by leading Russian politicians and the failure
of the State Duma to denounce them clearly.
In new democracies, the goal of restrictive laws often appears to
be to strengthen the position of the majority religious communities, which
are regarded as part of national identity, as in the case of the Russian
Orthodox Church in Russia. On the other hand, such laws sometimes
express the values of atheistic pro or former-communist circles, which
still reflexively attack religion as such. In Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, Uzbekistan) the main target seems to be Islamic fundamentalism
(or "Wahhabism"), but under this cover, the authorities have taken measures
that restrict the rights of most minority religions; in Western Europe,
hundreds of unpopular minority religions are targeted as dangerous and
harmful 'sects'.
Most European states require that religious groups have to be registered,
just like all other associations. Restrictive laws include various categories
of state recognition, providing privileges to majority religious communities,
and discriminating against minority communities. The most privileged religious
organizations are granted the right, for example, to enjoy significant
tax reductions; to give religious instruction in state-run schools and
religious counseling in public institutions such as hospitals; to establish
their own schools; to publish or import religious literature; or to be
represented in various state administrative bodies. Because of the
introduction of new restrictive laws in Russia and Austria, minority religions
will have to wait for 15 years and 20 years respectively before being allowed
to introduce an application for the status of the most privileged religions.
Moreover, the provisions typically include a minimum number of members
to be registered at all; restrictions on activities outside sites of worship;
limitations on publication, distribution and importation of religious literature;
prohibitions on the activities of foreign teachers or preachers; and imposition
of heavier taxes than those on majority religious organizations.
While Western governments and human rights groups have typically
focused their attention on increasing restrictions in formerly communist
countries, less attention has been paid to similar developments in the
established democracies of Western Europe. In addition to restrictive national
legislative and other measures, the European Parliament unsuccessfully
tried to draft a report on "cults"; it was rejected on two occasions by
the plenary session. The Council of Europe also prepared a report on "cults,"
but, in September 1998, it was rejected and sent back to the Committee
on Legal affairs and Human Rights for further examination. In several West
European countries inquiry commissions on sects have been established to
observe minority religions. On 19 June 1998, the German Enquete Commission
issued its report. It recommended that the so-called Church of Scientology
be kept under observation, but stated that "cults and psycho groups" do
not represent any danger to the democratic state. And recent Swedish and
Swiss reports take a relatively positive approach to minority religions.
In Russia, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are facing a trial that might
create a precedent for a ban on their activities-and those of other minorities.
Small Protestant churches have reported harassment equivalent to persecution
during the Soviet era.
In Austria, new religious groups have to wait for 10 years before
being allowed to ask for the most privileged status, which does not mean
they will be granted it. The French government has recently set up an Inter-Ministerial
Mission for Fight against Sects and has appointed its head Alain Vivien,
chairman of an anti-cult movement. Also, the government has for the first
time applied the new tax legislation revised in 1992 on a number of the
172 minority religions blacklisted as "dangerous or harmful sects". In
Greece, the Greek Orthodox Church can legally regulate the rights of the
minority religions, including the right to build sites of worship.
In Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, Islamic “Fundamentalism”
is the main target. In practice, however, most religious minorities suffered
under regulations supposedly meant to target the so-called “Wahhabism”.
In Uzbekistan, authorities carried out arbitrary mass arrests, tortured
persons in custody and practiced religious discrimination in the name of
the fight against Islamic Fundamentalism.
"Freedom of Thought, Conscience, Religion or Belief"
The US Position on Continuing Religious Intolerance in Europe: The
US Delegation's intervention on religious
liberty delivered in Warsaw, Poland on October 27, 1998 at the OSCE
(Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe) Implementation Review Meeting - Statement of Dr. Laila
Al-Marayati - You may read this text also in
French and Italian.
At previous OSCE meetings, the US Delegation has applauded the expansion
of religious liberty in this historic decade. At the
same time, we want to address concerns we have regarding the increasing
intolerance toward religious and belief groups in
many OSCE participating States. The US Delegation has three areas
of concern:
Laws That Hinder Religious Practice and Discriminate Among Religious
Groups
Recently, several participating States have enacted legislation disproportionately
and adversely affecting minority religious
communities. The enactment of these laws, the progression toward
more state control of religious institutions, and the similarity
of these legal provisions in restricting religious communities considered
less desirable reflects disturbing intolerance of minority
faiths.
Since our last meeting, two new laws have been enacted that restrict
religious liberty in Uzbekistan. On May 1, 1998, the
parliament of Uzbekistan passed amendments to the 1991 law on religious
organizations and the Criminal Code, which blatantly
violate virtually every Helsinki commitment on religious liberty.
Among other restrictions, the amendments now require 100
Uzbek citizens to sign a religious community's application for registration,
criminalize any unregistered religious activity, and
penalize free speech based on its religious content. The new amendments
particularly affect both non-Russian Orthodox
Christian minorities and Muslim communities who want to practice
their faith outside Uzbekistan's religious establishment.
In August 1997, the Parliament of Macedonia passed a religion law
that prohibits religious work and rituals from being
performed by unregistered communities or groups and requires the
signature of 50 citizens for registration. One of the more
disturbing sections of the law prohibits the existence of two "religious
communities" with the same creed, which in effect
establishes the government as the arbiter between religious factions.
Some harassment of non-Orthodox religious groups has
been reported and Protestant groups complain of being unable to
register their churches and obtain regular employment status
for their employees in violation of Macedonia's commitment in Paragraph
16.3 of the Vienna Concluding Document to "grant
upon their request to communities of believers, practicing or prepared
to practice their faith within the constit>
Transfer interrupted!
s, recognition of the status provided for them in the respective countries."
On September 26, 1997, President Boris
Yeltsin signed a law containing discriminatory provisions against
"new" religious faiths, onerous registration requirements, and
vague criteria for "liquidating" religious organizations. Although
this law has not led to widespread repression of religious
believers and sections of the law are being challenged in the Constitutional
Court, it is clear that Russian citizens now have less
religious freedom than in 1991. Furthermore, it is clear that certain
local officials in Russia are using this law arbitrarily to
discriminate against religious organizations whose presence or practices
are not to their taste. The Lutheran Church in Tuim,
Khakassia, is experiencing a series of harassing lawsuits under
the rubric of violation of this law, and was recently ordered
closed by local officials. Even in Moscow, city officials have commenced
a civil court case to ban a local Jehovah's Witness
organization under article 14 of the law presumably because the
Jehovah's Witnesses believe they should not accept blood
transfusions. The US Delegation acknowledges that there are instances
when a government may contravene a fundamental right
in the interest of health and safety of society. However, as agreed
in the Copenhagen Concluding Document Paragraph 24, any
restriction on a fundamental freedom is an exception, must be limited
and narrowly tailored to the problem. Banning a religious
group based on an aspect of their belief violates this OSCE principle
of proportionality.
While no new laws have been passed in Greece and in Turkey, it should
be noted that these countries have had constitutional
provisions, laws and government policies for many years that violate
OSCE commitments on religious liberty. With respect to
Greek law, especially onerous are the anti-proselytism provisions,
including Article 13 of the Constitution and the Metaxas-era
Laws of Necessity 1363/1938 and 1672/1939, which have been used
almost exclusively against religious minorities. These
statutes have an adverse impact on religious liberty in the Hellenic
Republic and are inconsistent with numerous OSCE
commitments, including paragraph 16 of the Vienna Document and paragraph
9 of the 1990 Copenhagen Document. We urge
repeal of these laws in order to help ensure the freedom of all
individuals in Greece to profess and practice their religion or
belief.
We are well aware of the controversy surrounding the selection of
individuals to serve as Mufti in the Hellenic Republic and
understand that relevant Muslim practices vary from country to country.
In this regard, we stress the importance of respecting
the right of members of the Muslim community to organize themselves
according to their own hierarchical and institutional
structure, including in the selection, appointment, and replacement
of their personnel in a manner consistent with relevant OSCE
commitments. We are particularly disturbed over the lengthy prison
sentences - a total of 49 months - handed down against
Mehmet Emin Aga for "usurping the title of Mufti." We are also concerned
by the burdensome Greek requirements imposed on
minority religious communities to obtain special permits issued
by "competent ecclesiastical authorities" and the Ministry of
National Education and Religious Affairs for the establishment or
operation of churches, including places of worship.
Reportedly, permission for the construction or repair of places
of worship is often difficult or impossible to obtain despite the
commitment of OSCE participating States to respect the right of
religious communities to establish and maintain freely accessible
places of worship or assembly.
Historically non-Orthodox churches have encountered difficulties
in securing so-called "House of Prayer" permits although it
appears the record for approval of permits is improving. Members
of the Muslim community have similarly reported difficulty in
securing permission for the repair of mosques, including the Suleymaniye
Mosque on Rhodes. The rights of individuals belonging
to minority religions or beliefs must be fully respected without
discrimination or subordination. In this regard, we are aware of
the pending request submitted by a community of the Macedonian Orthodox
Church seeking to open a church building to
conduct worship services in the Florina area.
The United States remains concerned over the inclusion of religious
affiliation on Greek national identity cards. The inclusion of
such information on this widely used document could lead to discrimination
against individuals from minority religions or beliefs.
Accordingly, we urge the repeal of the 1993 identity law. In addition,
we urge further action to implement the recommendations
of the advisory committee on anti-Semitic references in public school
textbooks.
In a positive development, we note the Greek law on conscientious
objection that came into force earlier this year and
understand that the authorities are instituting arrangements whereby
those objectors imprisoned under the old law will be given
the option of engaging in alternative civilian social service.
The situation in Turkey remains largely unchanged. Minority religious
communities face significant challenges and are
occasionally targeted for acts of violence and vandalism. Members
of the majority Muslim community may even face restrictions
on some religious practices or customs in certain settings. Minority
religions not recognized under the 1923 Lausanne Treaty, for
example, generally may not acquire additional property for worship
services. Even some recognized communities are prevented
from fully utilizing existing facilities, such as the Ecumenical
Patriarchate's Halki Seminary and the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox
Church's Holy Cross Seminary, both closed to theological studies
since 1971. In other cases, property of religious communities
has been confiscated by the state without compensation. Securing
the necessary permission to build new houses of worship or
the renovation of existing churches is often difficult, if not impossible,
to secure.
While proselytism is not outlawed per se, activist Muslims and evangelical
Christians have been jailed in Turkey on the pretext
of disturbing the peace for sharing their faith in public. Eight
Americans were arrested briefly in March for handing out New
Testaments on the streets of Eskisehir. The United States also takes
note that even among states with a long-standing tradition
of support for human rights and fundamental freedoms, there have
been unfortunate developments legalizing discrimination
among religious groups. For example, in December 1997, the Austrian
Parliament passed legislation on the "Legal Status of
Religious Belief Communities" that established a two-tier system
for receiving state funds and other privileges. In the first tier are
12 legally recognized communities, only a few of which could satisfy
the pre-requisites to gain such recognition under the new
law. For instance, the religious community must have existed for
at least twenty years and have a minimum number of members,
equal to 0.02% of the population or about 16,000 members.
Organizations that place themselves under government observation
for a period of time with the hope of becoming legally
recognized comprise the second tier. During the observation period,
legal status is denied and the religious organization is
liquidated if the government ascertains that the beliefs of the
group violate, among other criteria, democratic interests, public
security, public order, health and morals, or the protection of
the rights and liberties of others. The groups in this tier cannot
sponsor foreign religionists for visas and do not have other privileges
that the 12 legally recognized communities enjoy. The
requirement that the statutes of a religious body must include a
description of religious doctrine which is different from the
doctrines of existing religious belief communities or churches is
of concern to the US Delegation because this establishes the
government as the arbiter in theological disputes.
Some religious groups, including a number of independent Protestant
churches, are granted the status of "association" and have
rudimentary juridical personality to open bank accounts and own
property. However, they do not have visiting rights in prisons
or hospitals, cannot sponsor foreign co-religionists for visas,
and do not have other privileges that the 12 legally recognized
communities enjoy. A few groups have been denied "association" status,
including the Unification Church, which is barred from
countering potentially libelous reports in the press because they
do not have legal status under Austrian law. The inherent
inequality of this legal structure is of concern to the US Delegation,
especially in light of Austria's own authorship of the language
in Paragraph 16 of the 1989 Vienna Concluding Document, which calls
on the participating States to "foster a climate of mutual
tolerance and respect" for all religious groups. Several western
European parliaments, most notably France, Belgium and
Germany, have investigated and reported on the beliefs and activities
of minority religious groups in the last few years. These
parliamentary investigations have had a detrimental effect on religious
liberty as many groups being investigated or labeled
"dangerous" have experienced a public backlash. The French Parliament's
1996 report contained a list of "dangerous" groups in
order to warn the public against them. The Belgian Parliament's
1997 report had a widely circulated informal appendix that
listed 189 groups and included various allegations against many
Protestant and Catholic groups, Quakers, Hasidic Jews,
Buddhists, and the YWCA (Young Women's Christian Association).
In Belgium, some public officials have relied upon the unofficial
appendix to justify denial of access to publicly rented buildings
for Jehovah's Witnesses and Bahai'is merely because they were identified
in this appendix. A German Bundestag "Enquette
Commission" on June 18, 1998, issued a report on its two-year investigation
into "so-called sects" and "psycho-groups." While
concluding that such groups pose no danger to German society, the
report did recommend continued investigation and
surveillance of Scientology. A number of religious and belief groups,
such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Church of
Scientology, and independent Pentecostal Protestant churches have
complained about harassment, discrimination, and biased
media reports in Germany in connection with this Commission and
its work.
Also of concern is the establishment of government information centers
to alert the public about groups deemed by the
government to be "dangerous." The Austrian and French Governments
have set up hotlines for the public and, through
government-sponsored and funded advisory centers, distribute information
on groups. The German Enquette Commission
recommended that such a center be created there as well. The Belgian
information is scheduled to open in early 1999. We note
that the Government of France, only this month, created a new Interministerial
Mission to Battle Against Sects" ("Mission
interministerielle de luttre contre les sectes"). The very name
of this mission suggests confrontation with religious minorities rather
than tolerance.
The US Delegation notes that characterizations of religious beliefs
by government-operated centers, particularly the publication
of unproved or potentially libelous materials, create a climate
of intolerance towards members of groups. Government
dissemination of information that may be construed as propaganda
through these centers calls into questions the commitments
that Austria, France, Belgium, and Germany have made to "foster
a climate of mutual tolerance and respect." Furthermore,
these activities excessively entangle the government in the public
discussion on religious beliefs that foists the government into the
role of religious arbitrator.
The status of both immigrant and indigenous Muslim minorities and
majorities in the OSCE participating States is often
precarious. Many countries, such as Spain, Austria and Belgium,
are adopting a variety of measures to accommodate and
integrate their Muslim populations. Elsewhere, religious persecution
and intolerance of Muslims in the OSCE region is closely
linked to racial and ethnic hatred, xenophobia, social malaise,
and international political conflicts. Fear of potential violence or
terrorism spawned by "Islamic" fundamentalism or extremism is often
used as a pretext to justify gross violations of the human
rights of Muslims who are practicing their faith. Mindful of the
broad spectrum of religious and ethnic oppression of Muslims in
several participating States, the US Delegation calls on those countries
to re-examine their policies in light of existing OSCE
commitments. We are not seeking special rights for Muslims or any
other group for that matter. We seek to uphold the human
rights and fundamental freedoms of all of our citizens without distinction
of any kind.
A combination of ethnicity and religion underlie human rights violations
against Muslim populations in Europe. The most extreme
form of anti-Muslim sentiment manifested in Europe was the brutal
assault against Bosnian Muslims, today increasingly referred
to as Bosniacs, by Serbian forces of the former Yugoslavia. Recently,
the inhabitants of Kosovo, the vast majority of whom are
ethnic Albanians and Muslims, have suffered mass killings, arbitrary
detention, rape, destruction of property and forced
migration at the hands of the Belgrade regime. These atrocities
yet again test the will of the international community to take a
strong stand against such assault.
Muslims who are members of an ethnic minority, such as North Africans
in France, and Turks in Germany are subjected to
violent crimes often perpetrated by racists and sometimes by police.
Indo-Pakistanis have occasionally been the subject of
racist attacks in the United Kingdom. Inadequate efforts to convict
the perpetrators of these violent acts contributes to a climate
of impunity for such crimes.
Religious education is often abridged or denied to Muslims in the
OSCE region in direct violation of OSCE commitments
expressed in paragraph 16 of the 1989 Vienna Concluding Document.
In Turkey, the parliament enacted measures designed to
eliminate the system of state-funded Islamic education by extending
compulsory primary secular education. In Uzbekistan,
religious teachers Obidkhon Nazarov, Rahim Otagulov, Olinjon Glofurov
have been harassed, evicted and arrested by
government authorities repeatedly over the past 2 years. In addition,
unofficial Islamic teaching institutions have been closed.
Economic and political discrimination against Muslims is common in
the OSCE region. In Greece, particularly in Thrace,
Muslims experience discrimination through loss of promotion opportunities,
confinement to low-paying jobs, inadequate political
representation and prevention from advancement in the military.
Similarly, in the Bulgarian military, Muslims are consistently
assigned only to construction units. The Muslim minority in Russia,
which represents 10% of the population, also faces societal
discrimination in the workplace and in housing. Some Muslim minorities,
like other minorities, have difficulty obtaining citizenship
in countries such as Germany, Croatia, Serbia and Greece. There
are numerous reports that Muslims in Serbia, particularly in
the Sandzak region and in Montenegro, are arbitrarily fired from
their jobs and often driven from their homes. In Turkey, some
Muslims are labeled by the military and the government as "extremist"
and thereafter experience widespread discrimination.
Political participation is significantly denied, most notably by
the banning of the Welfare (Refah) Party earlier this year and the
recent conviction and banning of Istanbul Mayor Erdogan . Observant
Muslims are excluded from certain jobs, demoted or
expelled from the military and marginalized politically. Throughout
much of the OSCE area, wearing the hijab in a particular way
is interpreted as a sign of extremism, although the wearing of the
hijab normally represents to the woman modest dress and an
expression of faith. In Uzbekistan, Muslim women in hijab have been
expelled from universities. In France, the Ministry of
Education issued a decree stating that headscarf is an "ostentatious
display of a religious symbol" that should be strongly
discouraged in public schools. There has been a controversy in Baden-Wurttemberg
regarding a proposal to ban headscarves
worn by teachers, reflecting societal trends of intolerance against
Muslims. In Turkey, women who wear headscarves may
become targets of discrimination and be banned from public sector
jobs such as nursing, teaching, and judicial posts, and are
prohibited from registering at public universities.
Efforts to respond to global threats of terrorism may lead to further
restrictions and continued marginalization of Muslim
populations in the OSCE region. The US Delegation notes the disturbing
tendency of some OSCE participating States to
assume arbitrarily that Muslims are responsible for violence and
threats to national security. In the United States, Muslims are
too often victims of negative stereotypes in the media, as seen
in the recent movies GI Jane or True Lies, which contributes to
societal assumptions equating violence and terrorism with Islam.
Arbitrary detention of over 100 North African Muslims in
France at the opening of the World Cup similarly reflects a disregard
of rights in the name of security.
The United States supports freedom of religion, not criminal behavior.
The blanket condemnation of Muslims, or any other
marginalized group, is not only a violation of Helsinki principles,
but is counterproductive and dangerous policy. Such policies
could contribute to desperation in some quarters and lead to radicalization
that might not have occurred otherwise. If this
growing problem is to be addressed, OSCE participating States must
comply fully with their OSCE obligations, the core of
which is that the government cannot and should not control all aspects
of society and certainly not matters of faith and must
accept religious groups as a positive, integral part of society.
Conclusion
The US Delegation
Calls on the Governments of Austria, Belgium, France, and Germany
to foster a climate of tolerance and respect toward
minority religion or belief groups and insure through law and governmental
practice that religious freedoms for minorities are
protected;
Calls on all OSCE participating States to re-examine their laws,
governmental practices, and societal trends that discriminate
against Muslims and other religious minorities.
Counsel for Freedom of Religion
234 Ford House Annex
Washington DC 20515
tel: 202/225-1901 fax: 202/225-4394