[Senate Hearing 107-44]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-44
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN EUROPE AND AROUND THE WORLD
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS
AND THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 1 AND JUNE 5, 2001
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-558 WASHINGTON : 2001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JESSE HELMS, North Carolina, Chairman
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
BILL FRIST, Tennessee RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BARBARA BOXER, California
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
BILL NELSON, Florida
Stephen E. Biegun, Staff Director
Edwin K. Hall, Democratic Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon, Chairman
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Religious Freedom in Europe
May 1, 2001
Page
Baker, Rabbi Andrew, director, International Jewish Affairs, The
American Jewish Committee, Washington, DC...................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Clark, Elizabeth A., associate director, BYU International Center
for Law and Religious Studies, Provo, UT; representing Dr. W.
Cole Durham, Jr., Gates University Professor of Law, director,
BYU International Center for Law and Religious Studies, Provo,
UT............................................................. 14
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Parmly, Michael E., Acting Assistant Secretary of State for
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Department of State,
Washington, DC................................................. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Annual Report of the U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom
June 5, 2001
The following witnesses appeared together as a panel:
Kazemzadeh, Dr. Firuz, former Vice Chairman, U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom, and senior advisor, National
Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is, Alta Loma, CA
Saperstein, Rabbi David, former Commissioner and Chair, U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom, and director,
Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism, Washington, DC
Shea, Nina, Commissioner, U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom, and director, Center for Religious Freedom,
Freedom House, Washington, DC
Young, Michael K., Commissioner, U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom, and dean, George Washington University
School of Law, Washington, DC.................................. 41
Prepared statement of the Commission and the Executive
Summary of the Commission's report......................... 47
(iii)
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN EUROPE
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on European Affairs,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:24 a.m. in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Gordon H.
Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll convene this
hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on
European Affairs. We thank all of you for your presence. We're
here on a topic I think that goes to the fundamental values
that we hold in the United States and about which we remain
concerned.
Let me just say parts of my opening statement that I don't
read I'll include them in the record, but I know we need to be
careful in this hearing in the sense that we recognize our
European allies as in many ways the parents of this nation.
They are sovereign countries. They are our friends, and from
them the American nation has drawn much of its law and its
traditions, its values, its customs, and we in no way want to
suggest in any of our testimony today that we condone under the
cloak of religion that which would be criminal. But we do want
to express clearly how concerned we are about some recent cases
that we find cropping up around Europe that certainly don't
square with the Western democratic traditions in human rights
that Europe has fostered in so many ways for so many centuries.
So we are going to hold this hearing on a rather general
topic of religious freedom in Europe. I've asked our witnesses
to focus on what we see as a disturbing trend in a few European
countries who actually target religious organizations through
the establishment of official government lists and whose
official government departments do keep tabs on different
churches.
In addition, we've also asked Rabbi Baker to speak briefly
about anti-semitism in Europe in conjunction with the ongoing
problems with religious freedom. Rabbi Baker will be joined
with David Harris at a later hearing that will specifically
focus on anti-semitism, specifically as we see it manifest
abroad in so many ways. It will be a more in-depth hearing on
that more narrowed issue, a very critical one.
This last January Senator Hatch and I traveled to Europe to
participate in the Davos Conference. We stopped off in Paris
for a series of meetings with French officials regarding
pending legislation in the French Senate that would criminalize
so-called ``mental manipulation'' a term so broad that it would
allow authorities to convict Sunday School teachers in a number
of churches. It also authorizes the dissolution of religious
groups if one of their leaders has committed two or more
crimes, and it penalizes attempts to reconstitute these
religious organizations or cults as they're termed under
another name.
There has been a huge outcry from countless human rights
groups since the introduction of this legislation last year,
and I have joined in that outcry. That legislation last year
passed the National Assembly, its lower house, and I'm told
that the French Senate may vote on it as early as this
Thursday, May 3.
Again, our concern about this legislation has nothing to do
with the legitimacy of any government, particularly France's
Government, to go after criminality, such that we witnessed in
the 1995 Solar Temple suicides, but our concern is how this
could spill over into the human right of worshiping God.
Unfortunately, this sentiment that we see in France is
being manifest in other countries as well. It was interesting
in our meetings with the French officials they indicated the
difference of our tradition versus theirs. In France the
government's duty has always been to protect their citizens
against religion. That was how they described it. In our
country, which was in part built by French Huguenots, the duty
of our Constitution is to protect religions from government,
and so we do come at this issue from a different perspective.
But clearly France's status and standing among--and stature
among the family of nations is one of enormous influence, and
neighboring Belgium recently established a list of dangerous
sects or churches and the list would shock Americans if they
knew what churches were regarded as dangerous in Belgium. I
want to first acknowledge that since this came out and
criticism arose the Belgians have made some progress on this
score and are treating a number of these churches better in
their visa policies than was the case in the not to recent
past.
So I thank the Belgians for improvements they've made, but
the list of these dangerous churches includes the Amish
amazingly, the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Assemblies of God,
the B'ahais, the Calvary Christian Center, the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints, aqnd the Pentecostals, the
Jehovah's Witnesses. I can't imagine such a list existing in
any Western country. Many of these faiths have been in this
country for a century and more. They contribute dramatically to
our society in America and they have existed peacefully in
Belgium for centuries as well.
This difficulty, targeting religions, extends to Austria
and Germany, who've set up quasi-governmental bodies to deal
with religious movements. In Austria there is a Federal office
on sects, and in Germany a parliamentary commission was set up
to investigate these sects. We look forward to hearing from our
witnesses about this trend.
I'd first like to welcome Mr. Michael Parmly, Acting
Aassistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and
Labor, and then after Mr. Parmly we'll hear from Elizabeth
Clark. She is the associate director of the BYU International
Center for Law and Religion Studies. Ms. Clark is an expert in
the field of religious freedom and works with Professor Cole
Durham, director of the same BYU center.
Ms. Clark, we welcome you, and I understand that both you
and Professor Durham have collaborated on your testimony.
And on this panel also we'll have Rabbi Andrew Baker,
director of International Jewish Affairs from the American
Jewish Committee. Rabbi Baker, I thank you for coming and
giving your perspective on religious freedom in Europe.
So we'll start with our first panelist, Michael Parmly.
Thank you for coming here and representing our Government in
this important area.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PARMLY, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU
OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Parmly. Thank you, Senator. Thank you very much, and
let me start by thanking you and your committee, but especially
you personally for your active involvement in this issue. You
may want to ask questions about this. I don't address it in my
testimony, but you have made an enormous difference in the
situation on the ground in Europe by the concern that you have
shown, and I can list out a number of instances where I've seen
that effect.
So thank you----
Senator Smith. Thank you for that comment. I would also
note--well, Senator Biden isn't here because he's been detained
by other Senate duties. He has also been an absolute stalwart
in support of my efforts and in support of his efforts on
this--what I regard as the first human right, and that's the
right of conscience.
And so I note his absence but thank him for his support and
offer that apology that he's not here, but he has other things
that hold him away from us today.
Mr. Parmly. I understand.
If I could start with some of my prepared remarks--I won't
go through the full statement but I'd like to highlight some
points in it.
It is my privilege to appear before you today to testify on
this issue. I was just in a meeting with the Secretary, by the
way, with the International Religious Freedom Commission, which
presented its annual report to him, and we talked about the
issue of religious freedom in Europe, and the Secretary
expressed his concern as well.
It's important to note that it is not our differences with
European democracies regarding religious freedom that we wish
to highlight, but rather to bring the discussion to what we
share: a demonstrated commitment to protecting the dignity of
all human beings. Our respective historical and cultural
backgrounds have produced however, as you highlighted, Senator,
different path ways to the goal of freedom of conscience and
religion.
We must keep these differences in mind as we review the
status of religious freedom in Western Europe and as we engage
with the Europeans as you have done so effectively, Senator.
I do want to be clear, and I who have spent much of my
career in Europe, it must be said religious minorities are
treated better in Western Europe than in most other regions of
the world. In relative terms the citizens of Western Europe
enjoy a measure of freedom that is the envy of aspiring
democracies around the globe. Persecution on the basis of
religion in the form of brutal activities by governments,
things such as prolonged detention without charge, torture,
slavery simply do not exist there as tragically they do
elsewhere in the world.
Our differences can be seen at both the institutional and
societal levels. Pluralism within our culture and diversity
within religions has marked American society since its origin.
The search for religious liberty compelled the very first
migrant groups to America from Europe, whose religious history
was often dominated by the monopoly of one faith in each
national context. Less mobile societies with a far more
homogeneous tradition and culture have influenced the evolution
of attitudes of European countries toward religion.
There are distinctly different attitudes among European
countries toward religion, some almost non-practicing, others
deeply religious, others you've got both traditions, and I
think it's important to highlight that in France you have both
traditions.
In most European countries, however, neither religious
expression nor minority religions have played the same positive
role and there's not a recognition of the positive role in
civil society that we recognize in our country. The relative
recent increase of minority religions in Europe and their
emergence into the public arena has been viewed as a source of
disruption and a cause for alarm.
All too often the initial reaction of public officials,
which is generally supported by most European populations, is
that minority religions need to be regulated and controlled
rather than welcomed and encouraged. It is the difference of
perspective that you highlighted, Senator.
The recognition of religious communities by the state as
demonstrated in for example Belgium, Germany, Spain, and Italy
means that the state determines what is officially a religion.
If the criteria set by the state are met a legal recognition of
the new religion is granted and its relationship with society
at large is regulated. This regulation may evidence itself in
such areas as prayer permits, tax benefits, right to perform
marriages, and chaplains in the military.
We are concerned, we in the State Department--but I think
we in America--are concerned that in some European countries
the regulatory tradition is being expanded and is increasingly
subject to abuse. Whether the Western European countries have
state religions as in Denmark or the United Kingdom, or
alternatively have a so-called strict separation of church and
state as in France and the Netherlands--and perhaps in the
questioning we can talk about why I say so-called--the same
basic approach is taken.
It appears to reflect a belief that religious expression
should either be compatible with commonly accepted social
traditions or remain totally in the private sphere of the
believer. As Europe's population becomes more culturally and
religiously diverse this so-called privatization of belief is
coming under challenge, not only from new religions but from
traditional religions as well.
Senator, you did pay special attention to France and as you
may know from my background I was the Political Minister
Counselor at our embassy in France 3 years up until last year
so I might be able to address that in even more detail perhaps
than you would actually want. But I do want to call your
attention to pending legislation in France that you're aware of
that we believe has the potential to adversely affect religious
freedom.
The About-Picard bill provides for the dissolution of
associations, including religious associations, whose leaders
have two or more convictions on any of a variety of offenses.
Among applicable offenses elaborated under the current French
law are two or more convictions for fraudulent abuse as the
result of a state of ignorance or of a situation of weakness,
for example, abuse of a minor. Although the proposed bill does
not apply exclusively to religious groups it is clearly
intended to target the new and less familiar religions in
France.
We are concerned that the language in this context is
dangerously ambiguous and could be used against legitimate
religious endeavors such as religious schools, seminaries,
monasteries, or retreats.
It's important to note here that many in France have spoken
out about the About-Picard bill, including leaders of
recognized religions who have had a significant impact I think
on the legislation, as well as a number of senior French
political leaders. We understand that the bill will be
considered, as you indicated, on May 3 by the French Senate,
and that there is still an opportunity for substantial
alterations. I don't want to overplay that, but there is a
chance.
We will be watching very closely. I was on the phone with
the embassy this morning. Even though it's May 1 and therefore
a holiday I had colleagues in the embassy and they're working
on this issue as we speak.
We understand that the Council of Europe issued a
declaration on April 26 calling on the French Senate to delay
its May 3 vote, and citing its concern that the legislation
could be discriminatory and violate human rights standards.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the example in France is not
an isolated one. We're equally concerned about the other
phenomena that you mentioned regarding religious sects in
Austria and Belgium as well as in France, and perhaps more
importantly, because Europe does have this attraction quality,
the fact that countries that are applying to join the European
Union are considering similar legislation. Europe does have a
special responsibility, especially as it is moving to expand,
and that is a special responsibility that I hope they are fully
conscious of.
In some cases European officials are actively promoting the
``French model'' of regulating religious activity. Typically
these policies involve the creation of a government agency as
you indicated to protect citizens against dangerous cults.
Under the proposed French legislation as it currently stands
definitions of dangerous--of quote ``dangerous'' extend to
ambiguous categories such as mental subjection.
I've had a hard time coming up with a legal definition of
what mental subjection is, but I don't think I like the
implications. Few if any religions could withstand prosecution
under such a charge. The French Interministerial Commission to
Combat Sects investigates suspected cults after receiving
public complaints, and there are a few dangerous organizations,
as you indicated, such as the Solar Temple that have been
identified, but other mainstream religious groups such as
Jehovah's Witnesses have learned that they too are included on
the list, a list of some 168 organizations.
At the direction of the Belgian Parliament, the Belgian
Government has established a Center for Information and Advice
on Harmful Sectarian Organizations in October of last year. The
center collects and disseminates information on so-called
harmful sectarian groups, including some mainstream religious
groups and lay organizations--and you cited a number of them.
It really does curl the hair.
It also devises evaluative criteria for the groups in order
to assess the risk for activities such as brainwashing,
financial exploitation, and isolation from the family. A
separate coordination cell in which various law enforcement
agencies are represented has been established.
I don't want to go on too long. I think I'd rather let my
statement speak for itself. There are other details in there.
You might ask legitimately what are we doing about it? We are
concerned that such policies are becoming institutionalized in
some parts of Europe and have the effect of appearing to
justify restrictive laws elsewhere, such as Russia, Central
Asia, and China.
You're doubtless aware that in late September the House
passed unanimously Resolution 588, which expresses grave
concern about these developments and calls upon the President
and the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom
to press the issue with the OSCE countries. In response the
head of the U.S. delegation to the OSCE implementation review
meeting in Warsaw in October of last year detailed U.S.
concerns regarding religious freedom in Austria, France,
Belgium, and called upon those governments to close their sect
offices.
In addition, the Director of the State Department's Office
of International Religious Freedom, Tom Farr, who is
accompanying me here, and who is as valiant a spokesman on this
issue as I think the U.S. Government could ever have, has
traveled to Europe to express U.S. concerns directly to the
government's concerned. But I think really, Senator, nothing
can replace the effect that your trip to Europe had earlier
this year. The effect I think was profound.
That doesn't mean that on May 3 in the Senate it will come
out exactly as we want, but I think we've already started to
see an effect, and I'm extremely grateful to you for it.
We have concerns regarding more targeted discrimination in
Germany toward the Church of Scientology, the use of sect
filters. I will say the German courts have made recent rulings
critical of this practice. That is important, and it also
underlines the importance of us taking the right approach in
order to get the right result. My bureau has a motto, what's
the effect on the ground? That's what matters to us the most,
because those are the people who are suffering religious
persecution.
Let me say in summary we believe that a government that
fails to honor religious freedom--and this echos your words,
Senator--and freedom of conscience is a government in danger of
not fully recognizing the priority of the individual over the
state but rather that the state exists to serve society and not
vice versa. Let me close as I began.
The United States and the countries of Western Europe share
a strong commitment to universal human rights, including
religious liberty. We work together very closely in a number of
spheres, including in the human rights sphere, and I'd like to
draw on that tradition of working together.
We have a relationship of cooperation in many areas,
including defense and trade. When we have disagreements we have
developed over recent decades a habit of cooperation which has
stood us in good stead and enabled us to overcome our
differences.
Last week I participated in a symposium that Tom Farr
organized as well as others, very outspoken and courageous
people in the private sector, sponsored in part by the
Institute of Religion and Public Policy. The purpose of the
symposium was to place on the table our differences with
respect to religious freedom and to begin a transatlantic
dialog that can lead to better understanding and in due course
create the same habit of cooperation that we have in other
fields.
I hope that my testimony today will serve the same purpose.
At the end of the day it's not our differences with the Europe
democracies but our deep respect for them and their traditions
that leads us to express our concerns.
In closing, thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your active
involvement on this issue. We couldn't do it without you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Parmly follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL E. PARMLY
the treatment of religious minorities in western europe
Chairman Smith and Members of the European Affairs Subcommittee, it
is my privilege to appear before you today to testify on the status of
religious freedom and the treatment of religious minorities in Western
Europe. Let me first express our deep appreciation for your strong
interest and contributions to our goal of promoting religious freedom.
It is important to note that it is not our differences with
European democracies regarding religious freedom that we wish to
highlight in this report but what we share: a demonstrated commitment
to protecting the dignity of all human beings. However, it is true that
our respective historical and cultural backgrounds have produced
different pathways to the goal of freedom of conscience and religion.
We must keep these differences in mind as we review the status of
religious freedom in Western Europe.
Let me be clear: it must be said that religious minorities are
treated better in Western Europe than in most other regions of the
world. In relative terms, the citizens of Western Europe enjoy a
measure of freedom that is the envy of aspiring democracies around the
globe. Persecution on the basis of religion, in the form of brutal
activities by governments--such as prolonged detentions without charge,
torture, and slavery--simply do not exist there as they tragically do
elsewhere in the world.
Rather, our differences can be seen at both the institutional and
societal levels. Pluralism within our culture and diversity within
religions has marked American society since its origin. The search for
religious liberty compelled the very first migrant groups to America
from a Europe whose religious history was often dominated by the
monopoly of one faith in each national context.
The United States is now a land of old and new religions, each
providing a means of seeking ultimate truth about human purpose and
destiny, developing systems of worship and codes of morality. As such
American religions have become widely accepted vehicles for
establishing personal identity and for mobilizing people through
associations. The United States is arguably the most religiously
practicing country of the Western World: 90% of the population pray
daily or weekly, 70% are members of a congregation, 40% attend a
services on a weekly basis. Religious expression is part of the
landscape of American liberty, enriching the discourse over public
policy.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Warner (R. Stephen), ``Work in Progress Toward a New Paradigm
for the Sociological Study of Religion in the United States,'' American
Journal of Sociology Volume 98, Issue 5, March 1993, pp 1044-1093, p
1076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less mobile societies, with far more homogeneous traditions and
cultures, have influenced the evolution of the attitudes of European
countries toward religion. There are distinctly different attitudes
among European countries to religion: some almost non-practicing,
others deeply religious, while others are deeply divided. In most
European countries of modern times, neither religious expression nor
minority religions have played the same positive role in civil society
as they have in the United States. The relatively recent increase of
minority religions in Europe and their emergence into the public arena
has been viewed as a source of disruption and a cause for alarm. All
too often, the initial reaction of public officials, which is generally
supported by most European populations, is that minority religions need
to be regulated and controlled rather than welcomed and encouraged.
The recognition of religious communities by the state as
demonstrated in, for example, Belgium, Germany, Spain and Italy means
that the State determines what is officially a religion. If the
criteria set by the State are met, legal recognition of the new
religion is granted and its relationship with society at large is
regulated. This regulation may evidence itself in such areas as prayer
permits, tax benefits, right to perform marriages, and Chaplains in the
military.
As I will argue shortly, we are concerned that in some European
countries the regulatory tradition is being expanded, and is
increasingly subject to abuse. Whether the Western European countries
have ``state religions'' as in Denmark and the United Kingdom or
alternatively have a strict separation of church and state as in France
and the Netherlands, this same basic approach is taken. It appears to
reflect a belief that religious expression should either be compatible
with commonly accepted social traditions or remain in the private
sphere of the believer. As Europe's population becomes more culturally
and religiously diverse, this ``privatization'' of belief is coming
under challenge--not only from the new religions, but from traditional
religions as well.
With this background in mind, I want to call your attention to
pending legislation in France that we believe has the potential to
adversely affect religious freedom. The About-Picard bill provides for
the dissolution of associations (including religious associations)
whose leaders have two or more convictions on any of a variety of
offenses. Some applicable offences are already elaborated under current
French law, including fraudulent abuse as a result of a state of
ignorance or of a situation of weakness--for example abuse of a minor.
Although the proposed bill does not apply exclusively to religious
groups, it is clearly intended to target the new and less familiar
religions in France. We are concerned that the language in this context
is dangerously ambiguous and could be used against legitimate religious
endeavors, such as religious schools, seminaries, monasteries or
retreats.
It is important to note here that many in France have spoken out
against the About-Picard bill, including leaders of the recognized
religions, as well as a number of senior French political leaders. We
understand that the bill will be considered on May 3, by the French
Senate, and that there is still an opportunity for substantial
alterations. We will be watching closely. We understand that the
Council of Europe issued a declaration on April 26 calling on the
French Senate to delay its May 3 vote and citing its concern that the
legislation could be discriminatory and violate human rights standards.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, this French legislation is not an
isolated phenomenon. We are equally concerned about policies regarding
religious ``sects'' in Austria and Belgium as well as France. Poland,
the Czech Republic, Romania and Hungary are considering similar
legislation. In some cases, French officials are actively promoting the
``French model'' of regulating religious activity.
Typically, these policies involve the creation of a government
agency to protect citizens against dangerous cults. Definitions of
``dangerous'' extend to ambiguous categories such as mental subjection
under the proposed French legislation. Few, if any, religions could
withstand prosecution under such a charge. The French Interministerial
Commission to Battle Sects investigates suspected cults after receiving
public complaints. While a few dangerous organizations (such as the
Solar Temple) have been identified, other main stream religious groups
such as the Jehovah's Witnesses have learned that they, too, are
included on the list.
At the direction of the Belgian Parliament, the Belgian government
established a ``Center for Information and Advice on Harmful Sectarian
Organizations'' in October 2000. The Center collects and disseminates
information on so-called ``harmful'' sectarian groups, including some
mainstream religious groups and lay organizations. It also devises
evaluative criteria for the groups in order to assess the risk for
activities such as brainwashing, financial exploitation, and isolation
from family. A separate ``Coordination Cell,'' in which various law
enforcement agencies are represented, has been established.
We understand that a representative of the Information Center will
normally attend Coordination Cell meetings, but will not necessarily
share information with law enforcement officials if that would violate
the Center's independence or the privacy of its informants. The Center
uses as its starting point a list of 189 ``sects'' that came out of a
1997 Parliamentary inquiry into the harmful effects of organizations
such as the ``Solar Temple.'' Solar Temple has been involved in the
deaths of 74 people (including one leader who was Belgian and a number
of other Belgian citizens) in Europe and Canada since 1994. The list
also includes the Southern Baptists, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists,
the Catholic prelature of Opus Dei, and the Young Women's Christian
Association (YWCA).
The very existence of a government-mandated agency to provide
information on ``harmful'' organizations strongly suggests an official
judgment that the groups on which it maintains data are in fact
``harmful.'' The Center will also maintain background information on
the six officially recognized religions. The operation of such agencies
in France and Austria has produced reports of societal discrimination
against members of groups on the list.
We are concerned that such policies are becoming institutionalized
in some parts of Europe and may have the effect of appearing to justify
restrictive laws elsewhere, such as Russia, Central Asia and even
China. You are doubtless aware that in late September the House passed
unanimously Resolution 588 which expresses ``grave concern'' about
these developments and called upon the President and the Ambassador-at-
Large for International Religious Freedom to press the issue with
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) countries.
In response, the head of the U.S. delegation to the OSCE Human
Dimension Implementation Review Meeting in Warsaw, in October 2000,
detailed U.S. concerns regarding religious freedom in Austria, France,
Belgium and called upon those governments to close their ``Sect
Offices.'' In addition, the Director of the State Department's Office
of International Religious Freedom has traveled to Europe to express
U.S. concerns directly to the Governments concerned. Senators Smith and
Hatch also conducted a fact-finding trip to France in January, and
raised their concerns about religious minorities with the French
government.
We have additional concerns regarding a more targeted
discrimination in Germany toward the Church of Scientology. In Germany
``sect filters'' are still widely used in employment applications,
although German courts have made recent rulings critical of this
practice. Many German citizens who are Scientologists have been denied
employment and lost their positions when their association with the
Church of Scientology was made public. This discrimination against
Scientologists by the German government is not limited to its citizens
but has spread to the international community.
This was graphically evidenced by Germany's investigation of
Microsoft Windows 2000 solely on the basis that one component of the
software was developed by Mr. Craig Jensen, who is a member of the
Church of Scientology in Glendale, California. Fortunately, the more
egregious aspects of the German government's sect filter for government
procurement have been removed because of our persistent efforts to
underscore the potential conflict of this sect filter with
international trade agreements.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that a government that fails to honor
religious freedom and freedom of conscience is a government in danger
of not fully recognizing the priority of the individual over the state,
and that the state exists to serve society not vice versa. However let
me close as I began. The United States and the countries of Western
Europe share a strong commitment to universal human rights, including
religious liberty. We have a relationship of cooperation in many areas,
including defense and trade. While we have disagreements, we have
developed over recent decades a habit of cooperation, which has stood
us in good stead, and has enabled us to overcome our differences.
Last week I participated in a symposium of European and American
experts on religion sponsored by the Institute on Religion and Public
Policy, and supported by the Department of State's Office of
International Religious Freedom. The purpose of that symposium was to
``place on the table'' our differences with respect to religious
freedom, and to begin a Transatlantic dialogue that can lead to better
understanding and, in due course, the same ``habit of cooperation''
that has characterized our association in other areas. I hope that my
testimony today will serve the same purpose. At the end of the day it
is not differences with European democracies, but our deep respect for
them and their traditions, that leads us to express our concerns.
In closing, thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your commitment to
the cause of religious freedom. I would be happy to take your
questions.
Senator Smith. Well, thank you, Michael. It's my pleasure
and my duty I think as a U.S. Senator, to ensure as we pursue
our national interests, that we not forget our national values.
I am reminded in history that part of what was so objectionable
to the European monarchies in 1776 was--or actually when we
established the constitution a few years later was the
separation of church and state, and that there was no state
religion. I think all of Europe took note of that and was
alarmed by that revolutionary sentiment.
But the larger issue for me, if I can call you Michael, is
Europe and America I think will always be bound in one way or
another, but we seem to be pulling out the stitching on so many
issues on so many fronts, on trade. We're just loaded with
conflicts right now. On military matters these two continents
seem to be drifting apart, and Europe wants to go a different
way with its own army.
And then if we get to the issue of what values to underpin
organizations like the NATO Alliance, if we no longer share,
those values then we start really undoing the fabric of what
creates this transatlantic alliance which has done so much good
to foster peace and human rights and democracy in the world.
When Senator Hatch and I traveled to France we had been
told they would not discuss this issue with us. We found the
opposite when we got there. They were very forthcoming and
frankly in private--and his name will not be on the record, but
one told me that he believed that the law on the books was in
fact a violation--could be a violation of the Helsinki
Agreement on Human Rights, and that ultimately should it pass
the French process it would be ruled out of bounds.
Do you think that's possible? Do you see it as inconsistent
with the Helsinki Accord on Human Rights?
Mr. Parmly. The law when it goes on the books, if it goes
on the books as it currently stands, gets awfully close to what
I see as violation certainly of the spirit of the Helsinki
Final Act if not the letter of the Helsinki Final Act, and I
think here we do draw upon civil society in France. I think the
reaction in a number of these European countries has been
sharing that concern. It's the government getting into really
the private beliefs of people.
And that may be a reaction to a mass suicide on the side of
a mountain, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water,
and there is that sentiment which has started to come to the
fore.
I don't know how the vote in the Senate is going to turn
out. It didn't look good when I was there. I've been back for a
year, but it didn't look good when I was there. I've been
intrigued to see that it has lasted as long as it has, and I
think that is a reflection of the disquiet within France,
within French society. I'd like to believe it's the result of
that, but it could still go through.
Would that be in violation of the Helsinki Final Act? I'm
not sure. It certainly in our view would be in violation of the
spirit of the Helsinki Final Act.
Senator Smith. Different French officials also expressed a
concern and observation that France was becoming so secular, so
atheistic that it was increasingly becoming hostile to
religion. When you were there did you find that was the case,
and is this borne out of--this law, is it borne out of that
kind of hostility?
Mr. Parmly. No. I think if I could opine, Senator, I think
the origin of the law was horror over scenes of mass suicides
on the sides of mountains in Switzerland, in Belgium. I think
that's the origin.
There are the different traditions in France just like
there are different traditions in the United States. There is
very much a lay tradition which says government should have
absolutely nothing to do with religion whatsoever. That's one
of the strings that is actually trying to pull back a bit on
some of this legislation.
I think some of the reaction of people may be a reaction to
personal experiences that they had, either a child or a
relative who got into one of these groups that they find
dangerous, and so they go broad brush. And the tradition of
response to a problem in Europe is to regulate it.
Senator Smith. Isn't it possible that these legitimate
concerns that these countries have for what our--and I think
you and all here would agree are not religious things but
actually criminal things.
Mr. Parmly. Right.
Senator Smith. Aren't there criminal laws to deal with
suicide cults that don't impinge upon the right of conscience
to believe as one will?
Mr. Parmly. One of the points that I made when I was in
France--and I would raise this repeatedly with interlocutors
within the government, Prime Minister's office, the Foreign
Ministry, in Parliament, with the organized religions--is that
you've got all the laws you need if that's your concern, the
mass suicide. Why do you need additional laws? That was a point
that I made, and it's a point that our embassy continues to
make to the French authorities. Why do you need an additional
law?
Senator Smith. In Germany, if you can talk to me about
Scientology for example, in what way could Germany's
surveillance of Scientologists have a broader impact on
religious liberty in Germany? Is there sensitivity to that, how
this could spread?
Mr. Parmly. Spread to other groups within Germany, in other
words, that it----
Senator Smith. For example--well, what does it say about
religious liberty in Germany if they're putting this church or
tradition under surveillance like that?
Mr. Parmly. Thereto, it's hard to say what's behind people
who introduce legislation or measures--administrative measures
in Germany. I think a lot of it is a fear of--there's a lot of
finger pointing. They're accusing us of being Nazis so we're
accusing them of being Nazis, and terms like this get thrown
around perhaps more freely than they should be.
Senator, to answer your question I'd like to think that
there is not a danger that it could spread, but I'd rather not
take that chance, which is why if the administrative measures
that one sees in Germany stay in place and are not rolled back
as we are seeing them being rolled back by German courts and
the Laender, that could then take hold the next time there is a
religious group that people feel uncomfortable about. It's
precisely because of that demonstration effect.
And then beyond that--and this is a deep concern, because
I've spent a good part of my career in Eastern Europe in some
of the countries that are applying to join, that's a
demonstration value that--they want to get into Europe, and
well, we'll just model our laws entirely on the laws in
European countries and then we'll show our bona fides. And
that's why the Europeans--Western Europeans, the EU members,
have a special responsibility toward those countries that are
applying.
Senator Smith. And frankly why it's so dangerous for
countries of the stature of France who are symbolically and
actually the standards of fraternity and liberty and----
Mr. Parmly. Equality.
Senator Smith [continuing]. Equality. That's why frankly
that's so alarming.
But let's talk about remedies, what we can do about it.
Obviously we're talking to each other now and trying to put a
spotlight on an area of concern. Not alarm, but concern.
In trade we have institutions to work out these
differences. In military matters we work them out in the Pact
of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and we come to
resolution with our European friends.
What do we do in--if you have American citizens with
missionary or religious responsibilities assignment to a
European country where they're prohibited from entering even to
pursue their free exercise of religion? What recourse should
the United States take toward those countries who would deny
our citizens the right of free exercise of religion in their
countries? What do we do about it?
Mr. Parmly. At the risk of sounding like a career State
Department officer, sir, we start by keeping doing what we're
doing. I think--I'm not being sycophantic--I really think
you've had an impact. I think we have had an impact. I think we
have raised the level of consciousness in European governments
to the dangers.
Now then, we need to follow through, maintain that course,
maintain the level--the decibel level. I would argue strongly
from experience that to raise the decibel level too high
produces the opposite effect of that which we desire. Show that
we are concerned because we are allies. Show that we are
concerned because we are friends. Yes, we're always going to
have trade disputes, and that's almost a sign of health.
Hopefully we won't get into splits on military issues. I
spent a number of years working on that as well at our mission
to the European Union. Highlight for them the dangers at all
levels through NGO's, through our legislative branch. I'd like
to see this happen--it's one of the things that we tried to set
up when we were there. It's hard to do it--more dialog between
and among legislators because ultimately they're the ones who
pass the laws.
We do raise it. I know Secretary Albright raised it when
she went to Paris, and I was present in those conversations. I
know that Secretary Powell has raised it since he has been in
office, and that's important. Stay on the current course.
If the legislation goes through, if they actually start--am
I interrupting something?
Senator Smith. Between this panel and the next I'm going to
have to go vote----
Mr. Parmly. OK.
Senator Smith [continuing]. So we'll finish up and then
we'll impanel the next group and I'll be right back.
Mr. Parmly. If they go through with actual implementation
of some of this legislation--there were things on the books in
some of the countries where we've seen hesitation in actually
applying them. I think if we should keep up the decibel level--
don't raise it, don't lower it--we continue to address our
concern. When Congressman Gilman--when he was chairman of the
House International Relations Committee and he came to Paris he
raised these issues and you kept up the contact.
Senator Smith. Yes.
Mr. Parmly. And that's what you have to keep doing. And if
they pass bad legislation you tell them, we think it's bad
legislation--and we have and we will--but then you stay
engaged.
All too often there's the reaction on the other side of,
well, we're just going to break off and we're not going to talk
to you about this. No. We're Americans. We care about these
issues.
We especially care about these issues with friends. We're
talking to you as a friend and hope that in the implementation
that will have an effect.
Senator Smith. I will admit to having intentionally been
the provocateur at Secretary Powell's confirmation testimony
when I raised this whole issue with him and posed a
hypothetical of reciprocity. If visas are denied to American
citizens to European countries, the practice of a first
amendment right, then we would deny visas to their citizens who
wish to come here to exercise any first amendment right of
press or association or the like.
I'm not seriously proposing that. I want to make that
clear, that if more of my colleagues even knew about these
lists of dangerous churches, most of which are American faiths
of long standing, there would be a lot of outrage. Most of them
aren't--it's not on their radar screen. There would be pressure
for some sort of sanction, and so I think your counsel to stay
at the table and talking in a friendly tone is wise and frankly
fruitful in my experience.
But I don't want to suggest that this could not be a
regrettable lever to create differences between Europe and the
United States, and it shouldn't be, but it could be.
Mr. Parmly. There's some very good European investors here
in Washington, and that would be a place to start. You wouldn't
have to get on an airplane and you wouldn't have to rely on a
good phone line. Delivering that message to senior diplomatic
representatives here is one way to convey.
Senator Smith. Michael, you've been very helpful and your
testimony has been very appreciated. We'll admit all of it into
the record and be thankful you brought it to us.
I will go and vote and come right back. I should not be
more than 10 minutes, but we will stand in recess until then.
[Whereupon, a short recess was taken.]
Senator Smith. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll reconvene this
hearing and we will invite our next panel, Ms. Clark and Rabbi
Baker, to come forward.
Elizabeth A. Clark, as mentioned before, is the associate
director of the BYU International Center for Law and Religion
Studies. She will be followed by Rabbi Andrew Baker, director
of International Jewish Affairs of the American Jewish
Committee.
Elizabeth, we'll start with you, and thank you for coming
this many miles to share this testimony with us.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH A. CLARK, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, BYU
INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND RELIGION STUDIES, BRIGHAM
YOUNG UNIVERSITY, PROVO, UT
Ms. Clark. Well, thank you. It's a pleasure to be here.
Senator Smith. You can pull that mike closer to you.
Ms. Clark. Does that help?
Senator Smith. Perfect.
Ms. Clark. Great.
Chairman Smith, distinguished guests, it's an honor to be
here today, and I wanted to pass on the regrets of Professor
Durham, who is not able to be here because of the change in
scheduling of the hearing.
We would like to express our appreciation to address this
extremely important topic and our gratitude for the work that
you've done and the work that the State Department does in
promoting religious liberty particularly in Western Europe. And
at the outset we'd also like to emphasize, as Mr. Parmly did,
that our testimony is being submitted in the spirit of
contributing to constructive dialog with our European allies
about how our shared Euro-American ideals of religious freedom
could be better implemented on both sides of the Atlantic.
I will only touch on some of the issues in the written
testimony which I would like to submit for the record.
Senator Smith. We'll receive that without objection.
Ms. Clark. Thank you.
We believe it's vital to speak candidly concerning certain
recurring problems in Europe. These problems are important to
address not because they're the most serious problems in the
world but because in light of the strong traditions of
religious freedom in the region the European problems are the
ones that are most likely to be resolved.
And this is important not only to alleviate the suffering
of the--real suffering of the members of smaller religious
groups in Western Europe, but because what happens in Western
Europe will have ripple effects elsewhere.
There's growing evidence that anti-cult attitudes in
Western Europe are being actively spread to China and other
countries of the former socialist bloc. Lawmakers and
administrators there use Western Europe anti-cult initiatives
as a justification for even harsher measures that have adverse
effects on a wide range of small and legitimate religious
groups. For example, there's been recent press reports in the
past weeks that the Chinese are watching very carefully what's
happening in France with this legislation and discussion, and
have possible intentions of following suit with similar
legislation.
These hearings are significant not only for the possible
impact they can have on Western Europe, but for the wider
impact they can have in other countries that look to the West
for models of how to implement religious freedom norms.
So with those considerations in mind we'd like to focus
particular attention on two matters of great concern that
you've already touched on today. These have been a matter of
great concern to believers affected, human rights groups,
religious organizations of all sizes and statures, both in
Europe and the United States.
The first one, as you, Mr. Parmly mentioned, is the pending
legislation in the French Senate. There are two primary
elements of this legislation. They're both extremely
problematic. First is the crime of so-called mental
manipulation; mind control.
The proposal of this crime in the National Assembly last
summer evoked substantial negative reaction resulting in delay
of the passage of the legislation, but the changes that have
been made are purely cosmetic. The title's been changed, but
the problematic vague language has been retained virtually
verbatim. The crime carries substantial fines and penalties and
is vague enough to be applied to as you mentioned, Sunday
School teachers, people posing any belief of religious doctrine
that might be found by a third party to be harmfully.
One violation of this is punishable with up to 3 years
imprisonment, a fine of nearly $400,000, and repeat offenses
can lead to even stiffer sanctions.
The other primary element of this French law is that it
allows dissolution of religious organizations that have the
goal of creating or maintaining a state of physical or
psychological subjugation. That's the language of the draft
law, which as Mr. Parmly mentioned, no one knows quite
precisely how to define. Because it's so vague and because the
predicate offenses can be so minor this provision gives
authorities vast discretion to persecute unpopular religious
groups and to violate the religious freedom rights of
organizational members not guilty of any wrongdoing whatsoever.
A second matter of concern in Europe is the disturbing
trend to draw up official government lists of so-called cults
and to establish governmental bias with the exclusive purpose
of investigating newer and smaller religious organizations
called sect observation centers commoly. Unreviewable sect
lists have been created. France listed 172 so-called sects.
Belgium has listed 189, including the Southern Baptists, Opus
Dei, Seventh Day Adventist, as you mentioned, many others, many
that have a long tradition both in Europe and in the United
States.
These lists have had the effect of legitimating and
encouraging discriminatory behavior both by the governments of
these countries and by private individuals. This has
substantial impact on individuals in those countries: loss of
child custody, loss of employment, forbid them to participate
in political parties, or in some cases even to be civil
servants because of their religious beliefs.
There's not time here to expand on the range of problems
these two major developments represent, but I'd like to
conclude my brief remarks by listing a set of concrete
recommendations concerning helpful steps that Congress might be
able to take. The list is also at the conclusion of our written
testimony in more detail. Let me just highlight a few of them.
First as has been mentioned by Mr. Parmly as well, the need
to promote dialog--Congress should encourage the administration
to facilitate dialog not only with governments but also to
promote cooperation among non-governmental organizations to
reach the public misconceptions that often underlie some of
this problematic legislation. Dialog can also be encouraged
through existing multilateral organizations. Congress can
provide financial and moral support such as Helsinki Commission
of Congress or the OSCE's Advisory Panel of Experts on Freedom
of Religion and Belief.
Congress could also work to appropriate funds and give
moral support for channels through the State Department, the
Ambassador-at-Large's office to promote dialog and bring
leaders and representatives of European countries here to
discuss these issues.
Second main point would be to use existing resources more
thoroughly, to request the State Department to gather
additional information, to watch these sect observatories
closely to see what effect they're having, as Mr. Parmly said,
on the ground.
Congress could also request the U.S. Commission for
International Religious Freedom to study events in Western
Europe. Clearly they're starting to focus on that and they do
have a mandate to consider and recommend options for Congress
with respect to each country, the government of which is
engaged in or tolerated violations of religious freedom.
Certainly that includes some of our Western allies, much as we
respect them.
And finally, I'd recommend that Congress make sure the
administration is aware of your concerns and of the concerns of
the American public. To highlight this, during the confirmation
hearings for the newly nominated Ambassador to France, Mr.
Howard Leach, during the hearings of the new Assistant
Secretary of State for European Affairs. This will be an
important way to express and underline the concern that we have
and to make sure that effective steps are being taken.
Finally we would just like to sum up and say that firm but
sensitive congressional action can contribute to the building
of better relations in this area and the ability to ameliorate
the very real plight of individual suffering from violations of
religious freedom in Western Europe. Such actions are most
likely to be effective if they open up opportunities for
constructive dialog on how shared European American ideas of
religious freedom can be better implemented on both sides of
the Atlantic.
We are confident that long-term engagement and serious
dialog on the implementation of religious freedom in Western
Europe will help alleviate the current concerns. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Professor Durham and Ms. Clark
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Prof. W. Cole Durham, Jr. and Elizabeth A. Clark
*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This statement is submitted by Professor Durham and Ms. Clark in
their personal capacities, and is not made on behalf of any
organizations or institutions with which they are affiliated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
The countries of Western Europe have long been our strongest allies
not only in matters of military security, but also in terms of a shared
commitment to the heritage of democracy and human rights. These are not
only countries with which we have much to share but from which we have
much to learn. The countries of Western Europe have all ratified the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which provides key
protections of freedom of religion and belief.\1\ They have also all
ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms \2\ and are all subject to the jurisdiction of the
European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which has developed an
extensive and growing body of case law that is committed to the highest
standards of freedom of religion.\3\ Particularly since the
restructuring and streamlining of the Strasbourg Court since Protocol
No. 11 went into effect on November 1, 1998,\4\ an increasing body of
case law can be expected that will continue to provide strong
protections in the field of freedom of religion or belief for the
800,000,000 people subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. West
European countries are all also members of the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe, and accordingly have accepted the
various detailed commitments to ensure freedom of religion and belief
in that multilateral context.\5\ Given the distinctive historical
traditions of the various West European countries, it is not surprising
that they have differing systems for dealing with the interactions of
religion and the state,\6\ and while no country has a perfect record,
all are committed to religious tolerance and respect for religious
freedom.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res.
2200A, U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess., Supp. No. 16, at 52, 55, U.N. Doc. A/6316
(1966), reprinted in 999 U.N.T.S. 171, 178 (1976) [hereinafter
``ICCPR'']. The main provision of the ICCPR dealing with freedom of
religion or belief is Article 18. But several other provisions also
extend relevant protections. Notable among these are Article 2
(obligating State Parties to protect the rights guaranteed by the ICCPR
``without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status); Article 3 (equal rights); Article 4
(providing that no derogation is permissible from the right to freedom
of religion or belief even in time of public emergency); Article 19
(freedom of expression); Article 21 (peaceable assembly); Article 22
(freedom of association); Article 24 (children's rights); Article 26
(equal protection); and Article 27 (protections for ethnic, religious
or linguistic minorities). The U.N. Human Rights Committee, the body
charged with interpreting the ICCPR under the terms thereof, has
promulgated its General Comment No. 22(48) concerning Article 18 (U.N.
Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev. 1/Add. 4, 27 September 1993, reprinted in U.N. Doc.
HRI/GEN/I/Rev.1 at 35 (1994)) [hereinafter ``General Comment No.
22(48)''], which provides an important and detailed interpretation of
the meaning of Article 18.
\2\ [European] Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 222 (entered into
force Sept. 3, 1953) [hereinafter ``ECHR'']. The key provision
addressing freedom of religion or belief is Article 9, but like the
ICCPR, the ECHR contains many additional provisions that buttress and
reinforce freedom of religion or belief.
\3\ See, e.g., Kokkinakis v. Greece, 17 E.H.R.R. 397 (1994) (ECtHR,
May 25, 1993) (proselyting); Hoffmann v. Austria, 17 E.H.R.R. (1994)
(ECtHR, June 23, 1993) (depriving Jehovah's Witness of custody of child
violated right to respect of family life); Manoussakis and Others v.
Greece, 23 E.H.R.R. 387 (1997) (ECtHR, Sept. 26, 1996); Valsamis v.
Greece, 24 E.H.R.R. 294 (1997) (ECtHR, Dec. 18, 1996) (coerced
participation in parade contrary to pacifist beliefs); Tsirlis and
Kouloumpas v. Greece, 25 E.H.R.R. 198 (1998) (ECtHR, May 29, 1997)
(detention pending application for ministerial deferment from military
held arbitrary); Canea Catholic Church v. Greece, 27 E.H.R.R. 521
(1999) (ECtHR, Dec. 16, 1997) (legal personality of Roman Catholic
church protected); Larissis and Others v. Greece, 27 E.H.R.R. 329
(1999) (ECtHR, Feb. 24, 1998) (proselyting); Buscarmni and Others v.
San Marino (ECtHR, Feb. 18, 1999) (non-believers not required to take
religious oath); Serif v. Greece (ECtHR, Dec. 14, 1999) (state
intervention in selection of Mufti violates religious freedom);
Thlimmenos v. Greece (ECtHR. April 6, 2000) (conviction for violation
of draft laws prompted by conscientious objection could not be used as
ground to deny professional license); Jewish Liturgical Ass'n Cha-are
Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France (ECtHR, June 27, 2000) (ultra Orthodo Jewish
group denied special authorization for certifying food preparation);
Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria (ECtHR, Oct. 26, 2000) (interference with
internal organization of Muslim community and managing its affairs
violates religious freedom).
\4\ Information Document Issued by the Registrar of the European
Court of Human Rights, Historical Background, Organisation and
Procedure, .
\5\ For a summary of the detailed commitments that have been made
through OSCE processes, see [[[ The Library of Congress in the United
States has recently completed a study of religious freedom in a number
of the major OSCE countries. Law Library, Library of Congress,
Religious Liberty: The Legal Framework in Selected OSCE Countries
(2000).
\6\ See e.g., Gerhard Robbers (ed.), State and Church in the
European Union (1996).
\7\ See generally Kevin Boyle & Juliet Sheen (eds.), Freedom of
Religion and Belief: A World Report 259-413 (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that the legal systems of Western Europe display a profound
commitment to freedom, including religious freedom, we want to
emphasize at the outset that our testimony today is being submitted in
the spirit of contributing to constructive dialogue concerning how
shared Euro-American ideals of religious freedom can be better
implemented on both sides of the Atlantic. In this hearing, our
testimony focuses on problematic issues in Western Europe, but we do
not want to be understood as suggesting that there are no problems in
the United States, or that the problems we identify are the most
serious in the world. Clearly, as the report of the International
Commission on Religious Freedom indicated in the report it promulgated
yesterday,\8\ there are much more severe problems elsewhere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Report of the United States Commission on International
Religious Freedom (May 1, 2001), , (last visited May 1, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, we believe it is vital to draw attention to certain
recurring problems in Europe. We hope that doing so will lead to
constructive dialogue that can lead to better understanding of the
problems and hopefully, we hope, to measures that will help resolve
them. The European problems are important to address not because they
are necessarily the most serious problems in the world, but because
European countries should be our natural allies for protecting freedom
of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of belief.
This is important not only to alleviate the very real suffering of
the members of smaller religious groups that are being seriously and
adversely affected in a small number of Western European countries.
Events and actions in these few Western European counties will have
ripple effects elsewhere. There is growing evidence that anti-cult
attitudes in France, for example, are being spread to countries of the
former socialist bloc as well as to China. Lawmakers and administrators
in such countries use anti-cult initiatives of the minority Western
European states that advocate so-called ``anti-sect'' actions as
justification for even harsher measures that have adverse impacts on a
wide range of smaller but legitimate religious groups. These hearings
are significant both for the possible impact they can have in Western
Europe, and for the wider impact they can have in other countries that
look to the West as models of how religious freedom norms should be
implemented.
With these considerations in mind, we want to draw particular
attention to two matters of great concern to affected believers, human
rights workers, and religious organizations, both in Europe and in the
United States, and then to alert the Congress to a number of other
problematic developments.
First, there is pending legislation in the French Senate that
targets minority religions and is widely expected to be adopted only
two days from now. Despite criticism from French religious leaders,\9\
European human rights groups and activists,\10\ and scholars,\11\ the
U.S. State Department,\12\ and then-Chairman of the House International
Relations Committee,\13\ it now appears likely that this problematic
legislation will pass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, e.g., Xavier Ternisien, A Separate Crime of ``Mental
Manipulation Disappears From the Draft AntiCult Law, But The Substance
of the Law Remains Unaltered,'' Le Monde, (Jan. 12, 2001) (citing the
president of the French Protestant Federation and representatives of
larger religious as criticizing the law as ``dangerous'' and capable of
generating ``uncontrolled excesses.'').
\10\ See, e.g., The reaction of the European-wide Helsinki
Federation, which has been very critical of French actions; the OSCE
News Release (June 8, 1999) (last visited April 28, 2001) (describing
criticism of French law by Dr. Willy Fautre of Human Rights Without
Frontiers; the experience of the Rev. Louis DeMeo of Grace Church,
Nimes, France; and speeches and other writings of Alain Garay, a French
human rights attorney).
\11\ See Discrimination on the Basis of Religion and Belief in
Western Europe: Testimony Before the House Comm. on Int'l Relations,
106th Cong., (visited April 28, 2001) (statement of Dr. T.
Jeremy Gunn) [hereinafter Gunn Testimony].
\12\ U.S. State Department, 2000 Annual Report on International
Religious Freedom: France, (available online at ) (Sept. 5, 2000)
(hereinafter ``2000 France Report''); Testimony of Letter of Secretary
of State Madeleine K. Albright to Joseph Griebowski (Jan. 2, 2001);
U.S. House International Relations Press Release (June 14, 2001)
(visited April 28, 2001) (noting criticisms in letter by
U.S. Ambassador to France Rohatyn).
\13\ See, e.g., Testimony of Congressman Benjamin A. Gilman before
the House International Relations Committee (June 14, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, two European parliaments (Belgium and France) have
prepared, on a unilateral basis and without any input of objective
scholars or the groups themselves, lists of so-called ``dangerous
sects.'' These parliamentary lists have, in turn, been used by
government officials (both local and national) to discriminate against
the groups.\14\ Government offices have since been established in
Austria, Belgium, and France with the exclusive purpose of
investigating newer and smaller religious organizations. This trend has
been encouraged by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,
which passed its Recommendation 1412 regarding ``illegal Activities of
Sects'' on June 22, 1999 \15\--although countries such as France have
failed to heed the cautions articulated in Recommendation 1412. This
Recommendation urged, among other things, that European governments
should ``set up or support independent national or regional information
centres on groups of a religious, esoteric or spiritual nature.'' \16\
The Recommendation as ultimately adopted, nevertheless stressed that
states should ``encourage an approach to religious groups that will
bring about understanding, tolerance, dialogue and resolution of
conflicts.'' \17\ If the information centers that are emerging operate
in this spirit, and function in a neutral and objective manner, they
can contribute in positive ways to a climate of tolerance and
understanding. The worry is that at least some may function more in the
spirit of a number of the parliamentary inquiry commissions of recent
years, which have often been far from neutral, objective and fair, and
whose unreviewable ``sect lists'' have had the effect in fact of
legitimating and encouraging discriminatory behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The Swedish Parliament, which also issued a report, criticized
the other reports for having shown a lack of objectivity in their
analysis.
\15\ Illegal Activities of Sects, Eur. Consult. Ass., 18th Sess.,
Recommendation No. 1412 (1999) (visited Mar. 16, 2000) [hereinafter Recommendation No.
1412].
\16\ Id. More specifically, Recommendation No. 1412 called on COE
member states to take the following actions:
(i) where necessary, to set up or support independent
national or regional information centres on groups of a
religious, esoteric or spiritual nature; (ii) to include
information on the history and philosophy of important
schools of thought and of religion in general school
curricula; (iii) to use the normal procedures of criminal
and civil law against illegal practices carried out in the
name of groups of a religious, esoteric or spiritual
nature; (iv) to ensure that legislation on the obligation
to enroll children at school is rigorously applied, and
that appropriate authorities intervene in the event of non-
compliance; (v) where necessary, to encourage the setting-
up of non-governmental organisations for the victims, or
the families of victims, of religious, esoteric or
spiritual groups, particularly in eastern and central
European countries; (vi) to encourage an approach to
religious groups which will bring about understanding,
tolerance, dialogue and resolution of conflicts; (vii) to
take firm steps against any action which is discriminatory
or which marginalises [sic] religious or spiritual minority
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
groups.
The Assembly then recommended that the Committee of Ministers:
(i) . . . provide for specific action to set up information
centres on groups of a religious, esoteric or spiritual
nature in the countries of central and eastern Europe in
its aid programmes for those countries; [and] (ii) set up a
European observatory on groups of a religious, esoteric or
spiritual nature to make it easier for national centres to
exchange information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. FRANCE
A. Pending Legislation
The most pressing concern to religious freedom in Western Europe is
legislation currently pending in the French Senate.\18\ Last June, the
National Assembly unanimously adopted a bill that would (1) criminalize
so-called ``mental manipulation'' by so-called ``sects'' or ``cults'';
(2) authorize dissolution of religious groups if one of their leaders
committed two or more serious crimes; and (3) penalize attempts to
reconstitute dissolved ``sects'' or ``cults'' under a different name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Senat, Proposed Law No. 131, Dec. 14, 1999, ``Proposition de
loi tendant a renforcer le dispositif penal a l'encontre des
associations ou groupements constituant, par leurs agissements
delictueux, un trouble a l'ordre public ou un peril majeur pour la
personne humaine'' [``A Law Proposal Aimed at Reinforcing the Criminal
System Against Associations or Groups that Constitute, by their
Criminal Schemes, a Threat to the Public Order or a Major Danger to
Human Dignity''] [hereinafter Senate Proposed Law] (visited April 28,
2001) . For an in-depth analysis
of the provisions of the law, see Hannah Clayson Smith, Comment,
Liberte, Egalite. et Fraternite at Risk for New Religious Movements in
France, 2001 BYU L.Rev. 1099.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was a considerable outcry from human rights groups and
religious organizations, which resulted in Senate action being put on
hold to give the matter further consideration. This legislation has
been revised slightly during the past few months and is scheduled for a
vote two days from today, on May 3. It is currently expected to be
adopted--though the opposition to it continues to grow. The revisions
in the proposed law are primarily cosmetic, such as changing the title
of the crime of ``mental manipulation'' to ``abuse of a person's state
of weakness'' \19\ and reclassifying the offense within the overall
structure of the French criminal code. The vague wording of the
substantive offense is essentially unchanged, and remains a serious
threat to religious liberty in France. As recently as last week, 50
members of the parliament of the Council of Europe wrote to the French
Senate, urging it to stop the vote on this draft law, because of its
potential to create religious discrimination in France.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Senate Proposed Law , ch. 5. See also, e.g., Xavier Ternisien,
A Separate Crime of ``Mental Manipulation'' Disappears From the Draft
Anti-Cult Law, But The Substance of the Law Remains Unaltered, Le
Monde, (Jan 12, 2001).
\20\ Council of Europe: France Accused of ``Religious
Discrimination,'' La Croix, April 27, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Provisions Permitting Civil Dissolution of Religious
Groups
A key element of the law is a vague provision that describes which
groups can be legally dissolved. All that is necessary is that an
organization meet two criteria:
(1) it pursues activities having the goal or result of
creating, maintaining, or exploiting a state of physical or
psychological subjugation, and any of various listed penal
sanctions have been imposed more than once against the entity
or its actual or de facto leaders.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Senate Proposed Law, ch. 1.
The fundamental problems with this provision are its inherent
vagueness, which ultimately give prosecutors wide latitude to pursue
disfavored groups, and that it imposes sanctions on the innocent.
Innocent members of a group will be denied the ability to worship
according to their own conscience, just because a leading member of the
group did something wrong. This is inconsistent with all our normal
axioms about ascribing blame for conduct to the individuals actually at
fault, a notion as deeply ingrained in French legal tradition as in our
own.
Further, the list of predicate acts casts an extremely broad net.
This would technically allow a religious group to be dissolved if a
leading figure were convicted of two or more of the following acts:
being at fault in a traffic accident that causes bodily
injury;
violating a data privacy law by having a file on a member
without adequate disclosure;
failing to provide immunizations or blood transfusions,
constituting child neglect;
soliciting funds on grounds of religiously based beliefs
that others might deem fraudulent;
malicious telephone calls or verbal assaults repeated with
the intent to disturb the tranquility of another; or
recommending vitamin therapy, if this were construed as
illegal practice of medicine.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Senate Proposed Law ch. 1 (listing predicate offenses).
While this could theoretically apply to any religious group, given
the fact that this was legislation explicitly aimed at ``sects'' or
``cults'' it is likely to be applied in a discriminatory manner to
newer and smaller religious groups.
The law not only allows civil dissolution, but also extends
criminal liability to corporations that meet the conditions for
dissolution.\23\ One possible penalty is the permanent prohibition of
specific minority religious activities. In addition, the draft law
would impose criminal sanctions on individuals who seek to recreate or
reorganize a dissolved religious group. Attempts at reorganizing are
punishable by up to a three-year jail sentence and a 300,000 FF
(approximately $40,000) fine for the first offense and a five-year jail
sentence and a 500,000 FF (approximately $70,000) fine for repeat
offenses.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Senate Proposed Law ch. 2.
\24\ Senate Proposed Law ch. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The draft law's vague and harsh provisions for civil dissolution
violate a variety of international standards. Freedom to manifest one's
religion or belief in community with others,\25\ which is guaranteed by
all the major international instruments, is substantially diminished if
reasonable access to a legal entity is impossible.\26\ The violation is
particularly egregious in this case, as government elimination of a
religious entity would be unrelated to the actions of the group itself.
The law penalizes the group for its beliefs, taken together with the
actions of one individual leader. The law is also inconsistent with
recent European Court decisions on freedom of association, which
recognize that the right to have a legal entity as an integral part of
the right to freedom of association.\27\ The fact that a leader may
have done something illegal--regardless of the religion--does not
deprive the rest of the group of the right to associate. The successful
prosecution of a Catholic priest or a Protestant pastor for an offense
should not lead to the dissolution of their churches. Nor should it for
groups that the government disparagingly (and often ignorantly) calls
``sects'' or ``cults.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See, e.g., 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, arts. 6
(a) and (b); ICCPR, art. 18; European Convention on Human Rights art.
9.
\26\ See Cole Durham, OSCE/ODIHR Background Paper 1999/4, Freedom
of Religion or Belief.: Laws Affecting the Structuring of Religious
Communities, (Sept. 1999) (available on-line at http://www.osce.org/
odihr/docs/i4 index.htm) (last visited April 28, 2001).
\27\ United Communist Party of Turkey v. Turkey (European Court of
Human Rights, Decision of 30 January 1998); Sidiropoulos & Others v.
Greece (European Court of Human Rights, Decision of 10 July 1998. In
Sidiropoulos the Court stated categorically that ``the right to form an
association is an inherent part'' of the right to freedom of
association and that
citizens should be able to form a legal entity in order to
act collectively in a field of mutual interest is one of
the most important aspects of the right to freedom of
association, without which the right would be deprived of
any meaning. The way in which national legislation
enshrines this freedom and its practical application by the
authorities reveal the state of democracy in the country
concerned. Certainly States have a right to satisfy
themselves that an association's aim and activities are in
conformity with the rules laid down in legislation, but
they must do so in a manner compatible with their
obligations under the Convention and subject to review by
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Convention institutions.
Religious organizations constitute a special form of association,
entitled if anything to heightened associational protections. The mere
fact that an individual--even a prominent member of a group--has been
guilty of criminal offenses does not constitute adequate grounds to
deprive the rest of the members of the group of the right to associate.
There is no question that the individual in question may be subject to
criminal sanctions, but visiting sanctions on the group as a whole is
not proportionate.
By establishing and penalizing a separate class of religions, based
on the activities of one of their members and the group's belief, the
draft law also violates the nondiscrimination principles of the 1981
U.N. Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of
Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief,\28\ the ICCPR,\29\ the
ECHR,\30\ and the Vienna Concluding Document.\31\ These guarantees are
designed to ensure an ``effective equality'' \32\ and prohibit
discriminatory purpose or effect based on religious preference. This
law does precisely what Article 18 of the ICCPR was designed to
prevent--government establishment of a separate category of religious
organizations based on their beliefs.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, art. 2.
\29\ ICCPR art. 18.
\30\ ECHR, art. 9.
\31\ Vienna Concluding Document art. 16(a).
\32\ Vienna Concluding Document.
\33\ ICCPR Art. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional violations of international norms and legal principles
could be noted.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Smith, supra note, at 1130-1136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. ``Mental Manipulation'' Provisions
Many, even among traditional faiths, are deeply concerned about the
pending legislation's attempt to criminalize ``mental manipulation''
because of its inherent vagueness. Although the description ``mental
manipulation'' has been changed to the seemingly more neutral ``abuse
of a person's state of weakness,'' the text of the crime is
unchanged.\35\ The law essentially allows the government to prosecute
any group who creates a state of physical or psychological dependency
such that the follower engages in an act or abstains from an act--
against his will or not--that results in significant detriment to the
follower. The Catholics have even expressed concern that the Catholic
Church will be prosecuted for the strict conditions under which
Carmelite nuns live. Clearly leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses, who
encourage their members to reject blood transfusions, and Christian
Scientists, who teach a reliance on faith healing, could easily fall
under the ambit of the law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Senate Proposed Law ch. 5; see also e.g., Xavier Ternisien, A
Separate Crime of ``Mental Manipulation'' Disappears From the Draft
Anti-Cult Law, But The Substance of the Law Remains Unaltered, Le
Monde, (Jan. 12, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the crime of ``abuse of a person's state of
weakness,'' is vague enough to potentially cover any religious activity
such as proselyting or religious education. After all, most education
and persuasion, whether secular or religious, could be described as
``techniques designed to alter someone's judgment.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Senate Proposed Law ch. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The penalties associated with this crime are stiff. One violation
is punishable with up to three years imprisonment and a fine of up to
2,500,000 FF (nearly $400,000). The law explicitly states that
religious associations themselves can be penalized under this
provision.\37\ Heightened punishment is provided for leaders of
religious groups, who can incur fines of up to 5,000,000 FF (nearly
$800,000) and serve up to 5 years in prison.\38\ Any natural person
convicted of this crime can, in addition, be subject to supplemental
penalties, including (1) the denial of civic, civil, and family rights,
(2) denial of the right to exercise a public function or engage in
professional or social activity that led to the infraction for up to 5
years; (3) the closure for a period of 5 years or more of the entity's
establishments used in committing the offense; and (4) the confiscation
of property used to commit the offense.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Senate Proposed Law ch. 5.
\38\ Id.
\39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the combination of available penalties, this vaguely worded
offense could easily be used to bankrupt religious organizations and
individuals, imprison believers and their leaders, and deny individuals
rights such as child custody merely for persuading other believers to
follow practices that a state judge determines to be harmful to that
individual--even if the practices were freely accepted.
Criminalizing religious persuasion as ``mental manipulation,'' or
``abuse of a person's state of weakness'' directly attacks the
religious rights protected under international norms. Most directly,
this would endanger rights of teaching and dissemination of religious
information, protected in the 1981 Declaration.\40\ Using criminal
norms to harsh punish controversial religious practices also violates
Article 18.2 of the ICCPR, which prohibits government coercion in the
religious marketplace. The theory behind the crime, that religious
leaders can engage in mental control, or ``brainwashing,'' has been
discredited by the American Psychological Association and international
scholars.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 1981 U.N. Declaration, arts. 6 (d) and (e).
\41\ See Religious Liberty in Western Europe: Deterioration of
Religious Liberty in Europe Briefing Before the Comm'n on Sec. and
Cooperation in Europe of the United States Congress, 105th Cong. (1998)
(statement of Dr. Massimo Introvigne, Managing Director, Center for
Studies of New Religions (``CESNUR'')); James T. Richardson,
``Brainwashing'' Claims and Minority Religions Outside the United
States: Cultural Diffusion of a Questionable Concept in the Legal
Arena, 1996 BYU L. Rev. 873.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governments clearly have a legitimate interest in protecting
against fraud or abuse. It is important to remember, however, that
those interests are already embodied in existing criminal codes. As the
Council of Europe determined, existing criminal law should be
sufficient to deal with any harmful activities associated with new
religious movements.\42\ Creating additional, vaguely worded crimes
geared specifically towards unpopular religious movements is nothing
more than religious discrimination. Not only is it discrimination, but
it is the sort of discrimination explicitly forbidden by Article 18 of
the ICCPR. As the United Nations Human Rights Committee explained in
its authoritative interpretation of Article 18, discrimination is
particularly suspect when its targets ``are newly established, or
represent religious minorities that may be the subject of hostility by
a predominant religious community.'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See supra note.
\43\ U.N. Hum. Rts. Comm. General Comment No. 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another troubling sign, however, is that French lawmakers are
seeking to export their peculiar and discriminatory anti-sect stance,
particularly to Eastern Europe and China.\44\ \45\ In fact, there are
already reports that Hong Kong's Chief Executive is looking to the
French legislation as a model for a law to ban the Falun Gong
movement.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Gunn Testimony (reporting that the Interministerial Mission
Against Cults is spending one-third of its time promoting the anti-sect
message outside of France); Fautre et al, supra note____. See Innocents
Abroad: French Anti-Cultists, Mission Support China's Anti-Cult
Campaign, (visited April 30, 2001) .
\45\ 1998 McCabe Statement.
\46\ Carmen Cheung, French law basis for likely move to outlaw
sect, Hong Kong Imail (Apr. 27, 2001); Cliff Biddle, SAR eyes outcome
of French bill, South China Morning Post (Apr. 6, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Recent French Government Initiatives
The current draft law is the result of a long-running self-
proclaimed ``fight against cults'' led by some members of the French
parliament. In recent years, the French parliament and government have
issued a number of reports \47\ that scholars of religion have
criticized as failing to meet even minimum standards of objectivity or
scholarship.\48\ In the 1980s, two reports on sects were issued, which
essentially concluded that normal criminal laws were sufficient to
address problems posed by sects.\49\ Most experts see this as the
appropriate result; laws that specifically target religious groups are
inherently discriminatory, dangerous, and tend to violate both
international human rights standards and fundamental canons of criminal
justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Assemblee Nationale, Report No. 1687, June 10, 1999, ``Rapport
fait au nom de la commission d'enquete sur la situation financiere,
patrimoniale et fiscale des sectes, ainsi que sur leurs activites
economiques et leurs relations avec les milieux economiques et
financiers'' [``Report by the Inquiry Commission on the Financial
Situation of Sects, as well as their Economic Activities and their
Relations with the Economic and Financial Realms''] [hereinafter
Finances of Sects Report] (visited Sept. 20, 2000) ; Assemblee Nationale,
Report No. 2468, Dec. 22, 1995, ``Rapport fait au nom de la commission
d'enquete sur les sectes'' [``Report by the Inquiry Commission on
Sects''] [hereinafter Sects in France Report] (visited Sept. 20, 2000)
.
\48\ See Willy Fautre et al., The Sect Issue in the European
Francophone Sphere, in Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief: A
Deskbook (Kiuwer Publishing, forthcoming 2001); Jean Bauberot, Le
rapport de la commission parlementaire sur les sectes, in Pour en finir
avec les sectes. Le Debat sur le rapport de commissions parlementaires
(Massimo Introvigne & J. Gordon Melton, eds., Paris and Milan: Cesnur-
DiGiovanni 1996).
\49\ For a description of these reports and a more thorough general
background, see 2000 France Report, supra note__; Smith, supra
note____, at 1112, 1099-1117; Fautre, supra note____.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1990's, following the Solar Temple suicides in Switzerland
and France, a new wave of anti-cult reaction occurred. In 1995, a
Parliamentary Inquiry Commission published a report that listed 172
groups as cults, without explaining the criteria for inclusion or
giving the groups an opportunity to respond.\50\ Members of these
groups and other groups that are perceived as sects, regardless of
whether they are actually on the list, have reported an increase in
official and unofficial discrimination, including police surveillance,
loss of child custody or visitation rights, employment discrimination,
and unwillingness of government officials and private landlords to rent
property or provide zoning permits for new church buildings.\51\
According to the International Helsinki Federation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See Sects in France Report, supra note____.
\51\ Extensive examples are given in Fautre, supra note____, nn.
53-64; Jehovah's Witnesses in France: Deterioration of Religious
Liberty in Europe Briefing Before the Comm'n on Sec. and Cooperation in
Europe of the United States Congress, 105th Cong. (1998) (statement of
James M. McCabe, Associate General Counsel, Watch Tower Bible & Tract
Society of Pennsylvania) [hereinafter 1998 McCabe Statement]; Religious
Freedom in Western Europe: Religious Minorities and Growing Government
Intolerance Hearing Before the Comm'n on Sec. and Cooperation in Europe
of the United States Congress, 106th Cong. (1999) (statement of Willy
Fautre, Chairman, Human Rights Without Frontiers).
Minority religions have been publicly marginalised and
stigmatised, and there have been attempts to hinder their
activities--for example, through denying them access to public
halls for their meetings or requiring them to pay higher rent.
Authorities have scrutinised their management, and children of
minority religious groups have been stigmatised as ``cult
members'' in their schools and neighbourhoods.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ The International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, 1999
Annual Report, France. .
Specific examples are legion. For example, the International
Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) runs a charitable food
distribution program called Food for Life. When French ISKCON members
applied to receive vegetables from Banque Alimentaire, a food bank
organization that collects vegetables from the market and distributes
them to approximately 100 other charities, they were denied based
solely on the fact that ISKON was on the list of sects.\53\ The
director of a prison in Bapaume denied his prisoners access to
magazines published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, giving as a reason
``the sectarian character of the congregation, recognized by the
parliamentary commission.'' \54\ Jehovah's Witnesses, along with the
Church of Scientology and the Institut Theologique de Nimes, a
Protestant Bible college, have all been subjected to extensive and
harassing audits, which have forced several churches of the Church of
Scientology into bankruptcy.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Letter from ISKCON to authors, (May 27, 2001).
\54\ Fautre et al., supra note____; see Alain Garay, Discrimination
and Violations of Freedom of Conscience of Prisoners in France, 2
Religion-Staat-Gesellschaft (2000).
\55\ Testimony of Robert A. Seiple before the House International
Relations Committee, U.S. House of Represenatatives (June 14. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being a member of a listed sect has had significant direct
repercussions for individual members as well. A Scientologist engineer
working in a French nuclear power plant, owned by the French national
electric company, was refused a key position and transferred to a non-
nuclear department on the basis of an anonymous letter campaign. He was
accused of being a tool of an alleged attempt by the Church of
Scientology to infiltrate the nuclear plant.\56\ Similarly, when it
became public that a principal of a school in Chomerac was a member of
a listed sect, a number of parents withdrew their children from the
school and requested an inquiry by the Ministry of Education. An
official inquiry took place, but found no evidence of negligence or
even of proselytism.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Gravelines: Malaise a la centrale nucleaire. Un scientologue
devait piloter deux reacteurs. Ii sera mute, Le Parisien, Dec. 14,
1998.
\57\ Fautre et al., supra note
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once an organization is listed, it becomes virtually impossible for
it to regain its reputation. For example, psychotherapist Bernard
Lempert was the founder a small group, L'arbre du milieu, which worked
with physically and sexually abused children. After the group was
listed by the French parliamentary committee, Bernard Lempert lost his
patients, reputation, and funding. After two years, Mr. Lempert managed
to prove in court that the source of the accusation leading to the
listing of the group was an influential former patient who was merely
trying to settle a personal score. Eventually, even the author of the
parliamentary report recognized that Mr. Lempert's group was not a
``dangerous sect,'' but no mechanism exists to remove sects from the
list.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See Fautre et al., citing L'honneur perdu du psy de
Landerneau, Liberation, April 1, 1996, and Deux ans pour eteindre le
bucher. La justice a blanchi Bernard Lempert, accuse d'etre un gourou,
Liberation, Oct. 25, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1996, the French Prime Minister established an interministerial
working group called the ``Observatory on Cults,'' which recommended
anti-cult legislation. The Observatory was replaced by the
Interministerial Commission to Fight Against Cults (``MILS'') in 1998,
which has been issuing reports and coordinating a number of
intergovernmental activities specifically targeting sects. A report on
Finances of Cults was published by a Parliamentary Inquiry Commission
in 1999.
Sponsors of the bill that is currently under consideration in the
French Senate also have been involved in active efforts to promote
similar ``anti-cult'' legislation in Eastern Europe and China. Human
rights advocates are especially concerned that the spread of this type
of legislation to Eastern European countries, which lack France's
traditions and protections of a trained judiciary, would be especially
problematic and limiting of religious freedom.
The U.S. State Department has repeatedly expressed concern over
France's stigmatization of legitimate expressions of religious faith as
``sects'' or ``cults,'' and has criticized the pending legislation as
violating international and European norms of religious freedom.
A recent positive sign that some French institutional protections
may assist minority religions was the June 2000 decision of the French
Conseil d'Etat, France's highest administrative court, determining that
two congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses could be recognized as
religious organizations and thus exempt from taxation as a
business.\59\ But, on the other hand, other French tax authorities had
retroactively imposed a tax of 60% on all donations received during the
period from January 1, 1993 to August 31, 1996, even though they
determined that the Jehovah's Witnesses had engaged in no commercial
activity.\60\ Including penalties and interest, the Jehovah's Witnesses
were accused of owing over 300 million French francs (approximately $50
million).\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ 1998 McCabe Statement.
\60\ Jehovah's Witnesses in France Hit with 50 Million Dollar Tax
Bill, Agence France Presse, June 29, 1998 (reporting that this was the
first time that the fiscal reform of 1992 had been applied to a
religious organization.
\61\ 1998 McCabe Statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. BELGIUM
Much like France, Belgium has experienced a wave of anti-cult
sentiment after the Solar Temple suicides. In 1997, a parliamentary
commission issued a report listing 189 ``sects,'' including Southern
Baptists, Opus Dei, Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers, the YWCA, (but
interestingly enough, not the YMCA), a Hasidic Jewish community, and
Seventh-Day Adventists.\62\ The Belgian parliament adopted the
commission's recommendations and published the report, although they
did not formally adopt the list. The methodology and results of the
parliamentary commission have been criticized by leading academics.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Enquete parlementaire visant a elaborer une politique en vue
de lutter contre les pratiques illegales des sectes et le danger
qu'elles representent pour Ia societe et pour les personnes,
particulierement les mineurs d'age. Rapport fait au nom de Ia
commission d'enquete par mm. Duquesne et Willems, Documents
parlementaires Chambre 1996-97, nos 313/7 (partie I) et 313/8 (partie
II).
\63\ See, e.g., Rik Torfs, Church Autonomy in Belgium, in Church
Autonomy (Gerhard Robbers, ed., forthcoming 2001); Fautre et al., supra
note____; CSCE News Release (June 8, 1999) (last visited April 28, 2001) (describing
criticism of Belgian commission); Massimo Introvigne. Le retour de
jacobins, (visited April 28, 2001) .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1998, following up on the parliamentary commission's
recommendations, parliament passed legislation creating a ``Center for
Information and Advice on Harmful Sectarian Organizations.'' \64\ The
Center, which became operational in the fall of 2000, was authorized to
propose policy or legislation regarding sects and coordinate with the
administrative agency that was also created to deal with sects in 1998.
The Center is responsible to provide information to the public upon
request, and is required by law to avoid presenting information in the
form of lists or systematic statements about harmful sectarian
organizations. The Center remains fairly new. It is hoped that it will
carry out its informational activities in a neutral and objective way
that among other things will allow criticized groups to have a right of
hearing and reply. There are some very positive signs that the work of
the commission will be carried out with some objectivity, but its
existence continues to raise concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Loi 2 juin 1998 portant creation d'un Centre d'information et
d'avis sur les organisations sectaires nuisibles et d'une Cellule
administrative de coordination de la lutte contre les organisations
sectaires nuisibles, Moniteur beige 25 November 1998; Arrete royal 8
novembre 1998 fixant la composition, le fonctionnement et
l'organisation de la Cellule administrative de coordination de Ia lutte
contre les organisations sectaires nuisibles, Moniteur beige 9 December
1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementing another recommendation of the parliamentary report,
some local communities have sponsored information campaigns to
``educate'' the public about harmful sects. Although the publications
refer to ``harmful sects,'' they in fact identify many groups about
which there is no evidence that they have engaged in any harmful
activities whatsoever. In March 1999, one division of the government
launched a campaign, ``Gurus Beware!'' and targeted 20 of the groups
listed in the 1997 commission report.\65\ In April 1999, the
distribution of literature was enjoined by a court, based on one
group's arguments that the brochure was defamatory.\66\ On appeal,
however, the government was allowed to resume distribution of the
brochure.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Fautre et al., supra note____; 2000 Annual State Department
Report on Religious Freedom: Belgium (visited April 28, 2001) .
\66\ Summary Judgement Tribunal of Brussels 23 April 1999, Algemeen
Juridisch Tijdschrift 1999-2000, 94. This judgement was reformed by the
Court of Appeal: Brussels No. 1999/KR/175 R.No. 2000/290, 20 January
2000, not published.
\67\ Fautre et al., supra note
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original list created by the parliamentary commission and
published by parliament has also led to numerous reports of religious
discrimination. Members of listed groups have experienced
discrimination in employment and schools, police surveillance,
inability to rent facilities for meetings, and loss of child custody
and visitation rights.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See, e.g., Fautre et al., supra note____. Even individuals who
are not members of listed groups have suffered discrimination as a
result of unfounded accusations that they do belong to listed groups.
See, e.g., Frederik Delepierre, Je ne suis pas membre de l'Opus Dei, Le
Soir, October 31, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discrimination is official and often blatant. According to a member
of the Belgian sect observatory, certain Belgian municipalities have
required all civil servants to attest that they do not belong to a
listed sect.\69\ The Belgian tax department has denied a house of
worship of the group Sukhyo Mahikari an exemption from property taxes
based solely on the fact that they are on the sect list.\70\ Without
any warning, Belgian state security shut down and barricaded a public
meeting and dance display put on at the Sahaja Yoga movement, and
barred future meetings of any kind, claiming that the group was
attempting to infiltrate the town's dance center and that their covert
purpose was to talk about their ``guru.'' \71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Fature et al., supra note____, citing Louis-Leon Christians,
Liberte d'opinion en droit euopeen: obervations belges (II)--Les
limitations, 58 Conscience et Liberte 10 n.1 (1999).
\70\ Fautre et al., supra note____(noting that the group is
officially registered as a religious organization in Spain).
\71\ Fautre et al., supra note____.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The practical effects of such discrimination can be devastating to
individuals. Some courts have denied sect members custody and
visitation rights; \72\ others have stipulated in custody agreements
that noncustodial Jehovah's Witness parents cannot expose their
children to their religious teachings or lifestyle.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Fautre et al., supra note____(citing Ik wil en mijn kind en
mijn geloofbehouden, De Standaard Aug. 14, 15, 16, 1998, at 31).
\73\ U.S. State Department, 2000 Annual Report on International
Religious Freedom: Belgium, (available online at ) (Sept. 5, 2000)
(hereinafter ``2000 Belgium Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 1998, the Belgian parliament formally required Belgian
State Security to monitor ``harmful sectarian organizations,'' defined
as ``any religious or philosophical group that, through its
organization or practices, engages in activities that are illegal,
injurious, or harmful to individuals or society,'' as potential threats
to the internal security of the country. While no government wants to
have harmful groups operating in its midst, such vaguely worded
provisions give a great deal of latitude to prosecutors and other
officials to attack unpopular religions and groups.
III. AUSTRIA
The Austrian government has also engaged in an information campaign
against ``sects,'' and has established an independent Federal Office on
the Sect Question.
In September 1999, the Ministry for Social Security and Generations
issued a brochure with hostile descriptions of non-recognized religions
and the Jehovah's Witnesses, even though they have been recognized with
the official status of a ``confessional community.'' This activity was
condemned last year by the House International Relations Committee. The
Ministry for Social Security and Generations has also announced plans
to train ``specialists'' among teachers and youth leaders on the
dangers of sects, and to create an interministerial working group to
develop additional measure to protect citizens from ``the damaging
influence of sects, cults, and esoteric movements.''
Government and individual discrimination against minority and
nonrecognized religious groups has been reported. For example, in 1999,
the Austrian People's party, which became a member of the coalition
government in 2000, announced that party membership is incompatible
with being a member of a ``sect.''
Austrian law also de facto discriminates against new religious
movements. Although religious groups can receive legal entity status as
a ``confessional community'' with a 6-month waiting period, a group
must undergo a 10 years observation period in order to become an
officially recognized religious society. Only officially recognized
religious societies have the right to function in schools, prisons, the
military and other public sectors, to register births and marriages,
and to participate in the government state-collected taxation program.
This model has recently been followed by the Czech Republic in its
draft legislation on religious associations.
More generally, legislation and the creation of information centers
in Western Europe are significant in that they are used to legitimate
parallel developments in Eastern Europe. In that context, they may have
consequences that are substantially more harsh for smaller religious
groups.
IV. GERMANY
Germany, the remaining EU member state that has officially reacted
against new religious movements, set up a parliamentary commission in
1996 to investigate ``so-called sects and psychogroups.'' It published
a report in 1998, but no lists were published and no permanent sect
observatory was created. The report raised doubts on the validity of
definitions of ``cults'' or ``sects,'' as well as the concept of
``brainwashing,'' but did support continued surveillance of the Church
of Scientology.
Several German states have engaged in information campaigns against
new religious movements. While some of these are factual and relatively
unbiased, others make generalized and unsupported allegatiops against
new religious movements as dangerous sects. In particular, these
pamphlets have targeted Scientology, alleging dangers to the political
and economic system and the health and well-being of individuals.
The Church of Scientology has also been under governmental
observation and it members have been subject to official governmental
discrimination. Some local, state, and federal government agencies and
business require job applicants and bidders on contracts to sign a
declaration that they are not affiliated with the teachings of L. Ron
Hubbard. Most major political parties also prohibit membership by
Scientologists.
Although the situation regarding the Federal Government in Germany
has improved during the past two years, ongoing problems remain and it
is appropriate for human rights groups and the U.S. government to
continue to be sensitive to such problems if and when they are
documented.
V. SPAIN/ITALY/AGREEMENT SYSTEMS
Spain, Italy and several other European countries have what might
be described as an ``agreement'' system for structuring relations with
many of the religious groups in their respective countries. The idea,
as implemented in Spain, Italy, and a number of other countries with
substantial Roman Catholic populations, was to extend the notion of a
concordat, which in an earlier day signaled privileged relations with
the Roman Catholic Church, to other denominations. The notion was that
in the process of moving from a ``confessional'' to a ``neutral'' model
of the state, this approach was preferable because it allowed other
denominations to be ``raised'' to the level of the Roman Catholic
Church, rather than bringing the Catholic Church ``down'' to the level
of other denominations. On the positive side, this approach thus has
initial attractiveness as a mechanism for promoting equal treatment. It
also has advantages in that it allows the state to be sensitive to
significant distinctions between religious groups. Moreover, it is
important to note that there have been significant efforts in both
Spain and Italy to encourage inclusiveness in this model.
As time goes on, however, an inevitable consequence of a well-
intended system that nevertheless differentiates religious groups is
beginning to emerge. The difficulty is that once an agreement has been
achieved with many of the dominant groups, the political will to enter
agreements with smaller groups at some point runs out. Once agreements
cover relations with religious communities constituting 90-95% of the
population, there is little incentive to provide additional agreements
with others. The result is that groups not brought within the umbrella
often suffer discrimination in gaining access to tax exempt status and
a variety of other benefits often linked to the status of being a group
with an agreement. This approach is spreading to other countries such
as Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Albania. Countries adopting agreement
systems should be encouraged to include all religious and belief groups
on the same terms, preferably by providing legislation that smaller
groups can avail themselves of without difficulty. Perhaps a result can
be encouraged such as that which prevails in Germany, according to
which if a certain type of benefit is provided in an agreement with one
denomination, similar benefits should be made available in agreements
with others. It is vital to sound principles of religious freedom and
non-discrimination that all religious groups should be treated on equal
terms.
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
The United States government is limited in what it can do to help
ameliorate the situation in Western Europe, whether in unilateral or
multilateral action. Clearly, much remains to be done through education
and non-political channels, but there are a number of steps that
Congress can take that could have significant impact. We urge Congress
to consider taking some of the following steps:
Congress should encourage the Administration to facilitate
dialogue not only with Western European governments, but should
actively promote cooperation with non-governmental
organizations that have opportunities to reach a wider public.
We believe that many of the problems described above reflect
government offices that have simply pressed their putative
mandates too far, and that an informed public will ultimately
help solve the problems.
Congress should encourage the Administration to provide
financial and moral support of existing multilateral
organizations that focus on religious freedom issues, such as
the OSCE's Advisory Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or
Belief.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ For example, visits to France from members of the Advisory
Panel together with members of Congress's Helsinki Commission in 1999
helped focus attention on France's draft law and gained some
concessions by the French government. Gunn Testimony.
Congress could appropriate funds, possibly to be channeled
through the congressional Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe, or through the Office of the Ambassador
at Large for International Religious Freedom in the State
Department, to bring representatives and experts from Western
European countries and their counterparts in the United States
and Canada together to develop concrete recommendations about
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
how to better implement freedom of religion norms.
Request the State Department to designate additional embassy
personnel in selected countries to more conscientiously gather
information regarding sect commissions, any Western European
governmental response or discrimination resulting from the
actions of sect commissions, and the practical effect the
commissions are having on religious minorities. The embassy
contact officers, could report monthly to the Office of the
Ambassador at Large for Religious Freedom, who could in turn
brief the European Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee on a quarterly basis.
Request the U.S. Commission for International Religious
Freedom to study events in Western Europe and report back to
European Subcommittees in 6-8 months with specific policy
recommendations. The Commission should be urged to fulfill its
legal mandate to ``consider and recommend options for policies
of the United States Government with respect to each foreign
country the government of which has engaged in or tolerated
violations of religious freedom.
. . .'' \75\ We welcome the broader coverage of this year's
report, but believe that even more can be done. The work of the
Commission can make significant contributions not only to
amelioration of the most serious religious freedom infractions
around the world, but may be able to spur significant progress
in improving the lesser (and less intractable) problems
elsewhere.
During confirmation hearings for the newly nominated
ambassador to France, Mr. Howard Leach, and for other West
European Ambassadors, stress the importance of religious
freedom issues, and assess their willingness to develop and
implement more effective measures to help address religious
freedom concerns in Europe.
During confirmation hearings for the new Assistant Secretary
of State for European Affairs, highlight the importance of
religious freedom issues, and thereafter periodically hold
hearings in which he or she is required to make an accounting
on Administration action in this arena.
We believe that firm but sensitive Congressional action can
contribute to the building of better relations in this area and to the
ability to help ameliorate the plight of individuals suffering from
violations of religious freedom in Western Europe. Such actions are
likely to be most effective if they open up opportunities for
constructive dialogue concerning how shared Euro-American ideals of
religious freedom can be better implemented on both sides of the
Atlantic. We believe that long-term engagement in serious dialogue over
the implementation of religious freedom in Europe will help alleviate
current concerns.
--------------
\75\ International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, 22 U.S.C. 6432
(note), sect. 202(b) (emphasis added).
Senator Smith. Elizabeth, I wonder, before we hear from
Rabbi Baker, if we could address just a number of thoughts
about your testimony that occur to me. Do you think the French
understand how many other countries are looking at this piece
of legislation and may implement it albeit perhaps differently
than the French may. Given the ambiguity of this legislation
that you and many of us have tried to point out, does it not
open up some really dangerous avenues for a government, less
principled in the rule of law than France, to truly persecute
people.
Do you think the French have that sense?
Ms. Clark. I think it's an excellent point. I think that a
few French legislators who've been actively promoting this bill
do. There's some evidence that they've been traveling to
Eastern Europe, to China, to try and promote that. But I think
on the whole there isn't a complete understanding of the
effects this really could have in Eastern Europe and China
where there is--there aren't the long-established protections
that France does have, trained judiciary.
Senator Smith. You did not list a possible action that I've
contemplated that we could take in the Senate, maybe in
Congress generally. How would a sense of the Senate resolution
condemning the legislation might be perceived in France?
Ms. Clark. I think it would be helpful. It would be a
strong step. I think it needs to be done with open
communication with French leaders because there's a tendency to
ascribe this to anti-French feeling to only increase the
hostility that they feel sometimes, the anti-Americanism. But I
think that it is important that they know how strongly we feel
on this and that we can't back off just because it might offend
some people.
Senator Smith. Since you were in Paris last with Professor
Durham have you kept in contact with the French officials with
whom we met and others. Do you sense any difference in the
legislation? Is it being refined, narrowed, clarified in ways
that we didn't perceive at the time?
Ms. Clark. We have stayed in contact. Unfortunately there
haven't been any changes in the legislation itself since that
time.
There is increasing awareness though of pressure from the
outside and realization of how other members of the world
community see this. There's been a letter that was just written
last week I believe from members of the Council of Europe
asking France to stop, and I think that combined with your
involvement and the involvement of the Congress will make a
difference.
Senator Smith. The most chilling thing I've heard today is
your inclusion of China as a country looking at this
legislation as a model. Ever since I've been a U.S. Senator the
relations with China have been tenuous but important. Part of
the argument against more integration with China, more
engagement with China has been the revulsion at China's
treatment of religious minorities.
I just find the possibility that a French law could become
a model for a Communist dictatorship and an instrument of
persecution under the banner of law--I find that development so
chilling that I would plead with the French Government to step
back from this abyss and find the way to implement criminal law
without confusing the freedom of conscience.
Ms. Clark. I think that's--you've hit the nail on the head.
This is one of the most disturbing facts about this law is how
it's going to be exported. That needs to be heightened. I think
these hearings have an important role in bringing that to the
forefront of attention.
Senator Smith. Thank you so much, Elizabeth, for being here
and for your testimony.
Rabbi Baker, the mike is yours.
STATEMENT OF RABBI ANDREW BAKER, DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL
JEWISH AFFAIRS, THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE, WASHINGTON, DC
Rabbi Baker. Thank you, Senator. I thank you. I thank
Senator Biden for the opportunity to be here and for the
leadership role that you have taken on the issue of religious
freedom and anti-Semitism. They're not unrelated topics.
Our American Jewish Committee leadership is coming to
Washington beginning this evening for its 95th annual meeting.
Part of that gathering will also include some 150 Jewish
leaders from around the world, including the leadership of the
communities in France and Austria, Germany, and elsewhere in
Europe, and they've appreciated the opportunities in the past
to meet with you and I know a number of them look forward to
seeing you again this year.
Surely a hallmark of American society and a reason for the
vitality and well being of the American Jewish community in
American religious life in general have been the constitutional
guarantees of the free exercise of religion and protection from
state interference. Additionally, the social and cultural
environment that has developed over the years here in the
United States is one that is respectful, appreciative of the
diverse and pluralist nature of the country's many religious
groups.
I had the opportunity in a somewhat different role 14 years
ago to serve as president of the Interfaith Conference of
Metropolitan Washington, an umbrella group of Protestant,
Catholic, Mormon, Jewish, and Muslim religious leaders, so one
could see very much on the ground the expression of these
positions. Really as a result of the unique conditions here
Americans of very different faiths have found no contradiction
in the individual expression of their religious beliefs, and
yet the collective place they all have in our society.
We certainly believe that the special legal and social
framework that has worked so well to foster religious freedom
in America is a model worth emulating, but we also realize that
it may not be the only means to ensure such conditions
elsewhere. Many countries do mandate direct government
involvement in religious affairs. This may include endorsements
of official state religion, collection and distribution of tax
funds to maintain institutions to pay the salary of clergy, and
laws governing their activities.
I served until the end of last year as the European
director for the American Jewish Committee so I could see
firsthand much of how this was implemented in those European
countries, and I know that this involvement on the face looks
troublesome to those accustomed to the American tradition, but
it does not automatically in any case mean that religious life
is unduly inhibited or religious freedom restricted.
Nevertheless, there is surely a point where regulation
leads to unfair restrictions, and where efforts to protect the
population from the cult-like activities of a few, the criminal
activities of a few, will genuinely inhibit the religious
practice of many more, and certainly you have identified this
here this morning.
We need to be on guard to the problems that can be created
in such situations, and our American roots naturally commend us
to err on the side of granting more open religious liberties.
It is sometimes the case that government efforts to regulate
religious affairs will distinguish between traditional or
established religions on the one hand and newer, and perhaps
more missionary-oriented groups on the other.
Now, as a rule, Judaism is usually afforded a place among
those traditional or established religions, but that by no
means assures even Jewish groups that they are automatically
immune from some of these problems. Depending on the country,
depending on the legislation, we have heard voiced
uncertainties, and concerns on the part of both liberal and
progressive Jewish groups on one end of the spectrum and
Orthodox Hasidic sects on the other end. Both of them have at
times worried that their credentials, too, could be challenged.
While others at this hearing, as Dr. Clark has done, may
have voiced more specific attention to the matter in their
presentation and in their research, we want to be clear that we
share those concerns as well. At the same time the degree of
religious freedom and openness that Jewish communities in
Europe enjoy in their religious life and practice is also a
function of the larger social environment and the general
political conditions.
In the 1970's and 1980's international terrorist groups
pursuing an anti-Israel agenda frequently targeted synagogues
and other Jewish institutions throughout Western Europe, and
many were the scenes of bloody physical attacks. The question
of religious freedom was as basic as the worshipers's physical
safety to congregate. Today if you walk along the Avenue de la
Paix in Strasbourg, the Seitensettengasse in Vienna, or
Oranianbergerstrasse in Berlin, you will find one thing in
common: the presence of heavily armed police standing guard in
front of synagogues.
With the signing of the Oslo Accords, the development of an
active Middle East peace process, and the general reduction of
political tensions, there was a gradual easing of anxiety, a
feeling that such strict security measures, though perhaps
still a wise precaution, could be relaxed. But this view has
proven premature as of last autumn, with Yasir Arafat's turn
toward violence and the advent of a new Palestinian Intifadah.
Now the sounds of the Middle East conflict are again echoing in
Europe.
We've not yet seen a renewal of organized terrorist
attacks, though no one is ruling it out, but there has already
been sufficient cause for alarm. In France alone, home to about
750,000 Jews, the largest Jewish community in Europe, there's
been a marked increase in the number of individual attacks. In
the first month after the new Palestinian Intifadah in October
there were 15 Molotov cocktails thrown at synagogues, three of
which were burnt to the ground. There were reports of over 90
cases of vandalism, of arson, of verbal aggression.
Now, the vast majority of the perpetrators were immigrants
from Arab countries who were really intent on venting their
anger, their emotional frustration at the conflict in the
Middle East, by doing so on nearby targets. A massive increase
in police protection has helped to stem the tide of these
attacks, and they were condemned by political and religious
leaders in the country as well, but there's a continued
uneasiness in light of the fact that the country is home to
several million immigrants from--or descendants of immigrants
from--Arab countries among whom anti-Israel sentiment runs
high.
And that uneasiness is present in other Western European
countries too, which have also seen similar attacks, and where
the Middle East conflict has clearly heightened the general
tension.
Central and Eastern European countries, some of them new
allies of America under the NATO umbrella, present a somewhat
different picture. Decimated by the Holocaust, most of the
Jewish survivors from these countries found refuge after the
war here in America or in Israel. Those who remained were few
in number and they quickly fell under the numbing tyranny of
Communist repression, victims of both state sponsored anti-
Semitism and the official hostility toward all religious
expression that was a hallmark of communism.
When communism fell, many observers still doubted the
possibility of any real restoration of Jewish life considering
the damages that had been inflicted. Much to everyone's
surprise, these past 10 years have seen the rebuilding of
Jewish schools, synagogues, and other essential elements of
Jewish communal life, but this does not mean that there is an
absence of problems or that the revival of Jewish religious
life is assured.
Some of the most vicious crimes of the Holocaust were
committed by local collaborators in these countries, sometimes
acting individually in organized local battalions or as
enlistees in the Waffen-SS. They willingly participated in the
persecution, in the murder of their Jewish neighbors. In the
immediate aftermath of the war Soviet authorities exacted a
measure of justice on some of these criminals, even as they
imposed their own harsh punishment on many, many innocent
victims.
For decades there has been no open, no objective
examination of these events akin to what is taking place in the
West. Only in the last 10 years has this even been
theoretically possible, but the attention that has been given
to the belated tracing of looted Holocaust assets, in large
measure because of the support of the U.S. Congress of the
American Government, has also forced the beginning of an
objective evaluation of the history of this period. It has not
been easy and there's much to overcome.
In many cases people who were themselves victims of Soviet
oppression could not accept the fact that their brethren also
played the role of persecutors. Their selective view of
history, clouded by the passing decades, aided by the Communist
policy of removing all references to the particular Jewish
tragedy under the Nazi crime has even allowed some to seek
patriotic models in the autocratic leaders of the Nazi era.
Nationalist parties in Slovakia have tried to rehabilitate the
war time Nazi puppet leader, Joseph Tiso. Right-wing parties in
Romania, some of them allied with the government today,
continue to erect statues of the fascist Ion Antonescu. Efforts
have begun in Hungary to restore the reputation of pro-Nazi
World War II Prime Minister Laszlo Bardossy, someone who was
responsible on his own for the enactment of anti-Jewish laws in
Hungary.
In the Baltic states, where incorporation into the Soviet
Union in 1944 led to mass deportations and the forced transfer
of peoples, there were those who viewed the period of Nazi
control as a benign experience.
It may be no surprise that in 1941 there were many citizens
who welcomed German soldiers as liberators following the first
Soviet occupation, but it should be cause for alarm when more
than 50 years later significant numbers still hold to such
views.
Not long ago Latvian Legionnaires and Waffen-SS veterans
found sympathetic government officials willing to join their
parades. Only last year a plurality of the Lithuanian
Parliament passed initial legislation, quickly rescinded after
an international outcry, that declared the date of the Nazi
invasion as the country's official day of independence. Many of
the same elements, when confronted with the facts that local
collaborators were involved in the murders of 75,000 Jews in
Latvia, and 225,000 Jews in Lithuania, respond with the
argument that they were in some way seeking ``revenge'' against
the Communists, whose leadership they claimed was dominated by
Jews. It is telling that one of the first papers written for
the National Historical Commission in Lithuania is intended to
dispel the myth of Jewish prominence in the NKVD and the
Communist Party as though Communists of Jewish background were
somehow pursuing a Jewish agenda in the first place.
During these last several weeks we've also witnessed a wide
public discussion in Poland engendered by the publication of a
slim book detailing the account of a pogrom in the town of
Jedwabne in 1941. This book, ``Neighbors,'' describes how the
Polish citizens of one town turned on their fellow Jewish
residents in a killing rampage that ended with a mass burning
of perhaps as many as 1,000 to 1,600 people, innocent men,
women, and children.
Senior political leaders in Poland have responded in a
fitting and appropriate manner with an acknowledgment of shame
and apology, a commitment to seek out the truth factually and
accurately. The memorial plaque in Jedwabne, which had
attributed this crime--solely to German troops has been removed
and a new one will be dedicated this summer with the
participation of President Kwasniewski.
Poland, which suffered greatly under the Nazis, has always
viewed itself as a wholly innocent victim of the war. This one
account, a commonplace occurrence perhaps elsewhere in Eastern
Europe, has now challenged the self image of those in Poland.
With the process of self reflection it has released really a
largely positive response, but not entirely so.
There are those in Poland, some political leaders, and some
leaders of the Catholic clergy who see a dark side to this, a
Jewish conspiracy behind the book's publication. They speak of
an international campaign designed to embarrass Poland to
demand new Jewish property claims.
The architectural design of the new memorial plaque at
Jedwabne has already been presented, but the written text
itself has not yet been determined. There are fears that if the
wording is too critical of Poles it will likely be defaced.
Now, there are today by the most liberal estimates no more
than 30,000 Jews in Poland. The number of Jews in the Baltic
states combined perhaps does not even equal that. Throughout
the entire region the numbers of Jews in these countries is
rather small, yet in each of them there are active, organized
Jewish communities which continue to develop in an almost
pioneering spirit.
But their future cannot be separated from that larger
environment. Their religious freedom is directly dependent on
the freedom and willingness of their non-Jewish neighbors to
confront, to examine, to come to terms with their shared and at
times tragic history. Only then--and much of this is being
accomplished with the act of support and encouragement of this
Government and of this body--only then do we really stand a
chance that they and we will share a common and I hope a bright
future.
Thank you for this opportunity, Senator.
[The prepared statement of Rabbi Baker follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RABBI ANDREW BAKER
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify before this
Committee on the subject of religious freedom in Europe with particular
reference to the state of the Jewish communities there. Surely, a
hallmark of American society and a reason for the vitality and well
being of the American Jewish community and American religious life in
general have been the constitutional guarantees of the free exercise of
religion and protection from state interference. Additionally, the
social and cultural environment that has developed over the years here
in the United States is one that is respectful of the diverse and
pluralist nature of the country's many religious groups. As a result of
these unique conditions, Americans of different faiths have found no
contradiction in the individual expressions of their religious beliefs
and their collective place in this society.
We certainly believe that the special legal and social framework
that has worked so well to foster religious freedom and life in America
is a model worth emulating. But, we also realize that it may not be the
only means to insure such conditions elsewhere. Many countries do
mandate direct government involvement in religious affairs, which may
include endorsements of an official state religion, the collection and
distribution of tax funds to maintain religious institutions and
provide salaries for clergy, and laws governing their activities. Such
involvement may look troublesome to those accustomed to the American
tradition, but it does not necessarily mean that religious life is
inhibited or religious freedom is restricted.
Nevertheless, there is also a point where regulation will lead to
unfair restriction, and where efforts to protect a population from the
cult-like activities of a few will genuinely inhibit the religious
practice of many more. We should be on guard for the problems that can
be created in such situations, and our American roots naturally commend
us to err on the side of granting more religious liberties. It is
sometimes the case that government efforts to regulate religious
affairs will distinguish between traditional or established religions,
on the one hand, and newer and perhaps more missionary-oriented groups,
on the other. As a rule, Judaism is usually accorded a place among
those established religions. But that does not mean Jewish groups are
automatically immune from these problems, too. Depending on the
country, uncertainties and ambiguities in the language have caused both
liberal Jewish congregations and certain Orthodox Hasidic sects to
worry at times that their credentials could also be challenged. While
others at this hearing may devote more attention to this problem, we do
share in their concern and want to be clear in saying so.
At the same time, the degree of freedom and openness that Jewish
communities in Europe enjoy in their religious life and practice is
also a function of the larger, social environment and general political
conditions. In the 1970s and 1980s, international terrorist groups
pursuing an anti-Israel agenda frequently targeted synagogues and other
Jewish institutions throughout Western Europe, and many were the scenes
of bloody attacks. The question of religious freedom was as basic as
the worshippers' physical safety to congregate. Today, if you walk
along Avenue de la Paix in Strasbourg, Seitensettengasse in Vienna, or
Oranianbergerstrasse in Berlin, you will find one thing in common--the
presence of heavily armed police standing guard in front of synagogues.
With the signing of the Oslo Accords, the development of an active
Middle East peace process and the general reduction of political
tensions, there was a gradual easing of anxiety, a feeling that such
strict security measures, while still a wise precaution, could be
relaxed. But, this view has proven premature as of last autumn, with
Arafat's turn toward violence and the advent of a new Palestinian
Intifadah. The sounds of the Middle East conflict are echoing again in
Europe. We have not yet seen a renewal of organized terrorist attacks
on Jewish targets--though no one is ruling it out--but there has
already been sufficient cause for alarm.
In France alone, home to about 750,000 Jews and the largest
community in Europe, there has been a marked increase in the number of
individual attacks. In the month of October there were fifteen Molotov
cocktails thrown at synagogues, three of which burnt down, and reports
of over 90 cases of vandalism, arson and verbal aggression. The vast
majority of perpetrators were immigrants from Arab countries, who were
intent on venting their anger over the Middle East conflict on
convenient targets nearby. A massive increase in police protection
helped to stem the tide of these attacks, which were condemned by
political and religious leaders alike. But there is a continued
uneasiness, in light of the fact that the country is home to several
million immigrants, and descendants of immigrants, from Arab countries,
among whom anti-Israel sentiment runs high. That uneasiness is present
in other Western European countries, too, which have also seen similar
attacks and where the Middle East conflict has heightened tensions.
Central and Eastern European countries present a somewhat different
picture. Decimated by the Holocaust, many Jewish survivors found refuge
after the war in Israel or America. Those who remained were few in
number and quickly fell under the numbing tyranny of Communist
repression, victims of both state-sponsored anti-Semitism and an
official hostility toward all religious expression. When Communism
fell, many observers still doubted the possibility of any real
restoration of Jewish life, considering the damages that had been
inflicted. Much to everyone's surprise, these past ten years have seen
the rebuilding of Jewish schools and synagogues and the other essential
elements of Jewish communal life. But, this does not mean that there is
an absence of problems or that the revival of Jewish religious life is
assured.
Some of the most vicious crimes of the Holocaust were committed by
local collaborators in these countries. Sometimes acting individually,
in organized local battalions, or as enlistees in the Waffen-SS, they
willingly participated in the persecution and murder of their Jewish
neighbors. In the immediate aftermath of the war, Soviet authorities
exacted a measure of justice on some of these criminals even as they
imposed their own harsh punishment on many other innocent victims. For
decades there has been no open, objective examination of these events
akin to what has taken place in the West. Only in the last ten years
has this been even theoretically possible. But, the attention that has
been given to the belated tracing of looted, Holocaust assets--in large
measure because of the support of the United States Congress and the
American Government--has also forced the beginnings of an objective
evaluation of the history of this period. It has not been easy, and
there is much to overcome.
In many cases, people who were themselves victims of Soviet
oppression could not accept that their brethren, too, played the role
of persecutors. Their selective view of history, clouded by the passing
decades and aided by Communist policy of removing all references to the
particular Jewish tragedy from the Nazi crime, has even allowed some to
seek patriotic models in the autocratic leaders of the Nazi era.
Nationalist parties in Slovakia have tried to rehabilitate the wartime
puppet leader, Josef Tiso; right wing parties in Romania--some even in
government coalition--continue to erect statues of the fascist, Ion
Antonescu; and efforts have begun in Hungary to restore the reputation
of the pro-Nazi, World War II Prime Minister Laszlo Bardossy, who was
responsible for enacting the country's own anti-Jewish measures.
In the Baltic States, where incorporation into the Soviet Union in
1944 led to mass deportations and the forced transfer of peoples, there
were those who viewed the period of Nazi control as a benign
experience. It may be no surprise that in 1941 there were many citizens
who welcomed German soldiers as liberators following the first Soviet
occupation. But, it should be cause for alarm when, more than fifty
years later, significant numbers still hold to such views. Not long ago
Latvian Legionnaires and Waffen-SS veterans found sympathetic
government officials willing to join their parades in Riga. And only
last year a plurality of the Lithuanian Parliament passed initial
legislation--quickly rescinded after an international outcry--declaring
the date of the Nazi invasion as the country's official ``day of
independence.'' Many of the same elements, when confronted with the
facts of local collaboration in the murder of 75,00 Latvian and 225,000
Lithuanian Jews, respond with the argument that people were only
seeking ``revenge'' against the Communists whose leadership, they
claim, was dominated by Jews. It is telling that one of the first
papers written for the National Historical Commission in Lithuania is
intended to dispel the myth of Jewish prominence in the NKVD and the
Communist Party, as though Communists of Jewish background were
pursuing a Jewish agenda in the first place.
During these last several weeks we have also witnessed a wide
public discussion in Poland engendered by the publication of a slim
book, detailing the account of a pogrom in the town of Jedwabne in
1941. Neighbors describes how the Polish citizens of this one town
turned on their fellow Jewish residents in a killing rampage that ended
with the mass burning of perhaps as many as 1,600 men, women and
children. Senior political leaders responded in a fitting and
appropriate manner, with an acknowledgement of shame and apology and a
commitment to seek out the truth factually and accurately. The memorial
plaque in Jedwabne, which had attributed the atrocities to German
troops, has been removed, and a new one will be dedicated this summer
with the participation of the President. Poland, which suffered greatly
under the Nazis, had always viewed itself as a wholly innocent victim
of the war. This one account--a commonplace occurrence in other Eastern
European countries--has now challenged the country's self-image. While
the process of self-reflection it has released is largely positive, it
is not entirely so. There are also those in Poland--some political
figures and some Catholic clergy--who see a Jewish conspiracy behind
the book's publication. They speak darkly of an international campaign
designed to embarrass Poland and demand new Jewish property claims. The
architectural design of the new memorial plaque at Jedwabne has already
been presented, but the written text itself has not yet been
determined. There are fears that, if the wording is ``too critical'' of
Poles, it will likely be defaced.
There are today, by even the most liberal estimates, no more than
30,000 Jews in Poland. And that number is probably greater than the
total number of Jews living in the three Baltic States. Throughout the
entire region the numbers are small. Yet, in each of these countries
there are active and organized Jewish communities, which continue to
develop in an almost pioneering spirit. But, their future cannot be
separated from their environment. Their religious freedom is directly
dependent on the freedom and willingness of their non-Jewish neighbors
to confront and examine and come to terms with their shared and, at
times, tragic history. Only then do we stand a chance that they and we
will share a common and, I hope, a bright future.
In closing, I would like to thank the esteemed members of this
Committee for allowing me the opportunity to share these remarks. In
doing so I also want to call attention to the testimony presented to
the Committee on Foreign Relations last year by the American Jewish
Committee's Executive Director, David Harris, which addressed the broad
subject of anti-Semitism in Europe and which continues to serve as
invaluable background material to the issues discussed today.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Rabbi, for a very profound
testimony.
I remember many things that you said, but the obvious
conclusion I draw is that a dictatorship of the right or the
left tends to beat up on the children of Israel. That's why
it's so important that democracy does not give way to these
basest of human malignancies of religious discrimination and
hatreds.
I recently accompanied Prime Minster Kostov of Bulgaria to
the Holocaust Museum, and it was a privilege to be asked to go
with him and to witness a display where--Bulgaria's record in
the Holocaust certainly was not perfect. At least there was a
point at which the Bulgarians refused to export the Bulgarian
Jews to the extermination camps, and it was a proud moment for
that Prime Minister and certainly the kind of spirit we hope
flourishes.
I would note, Rabbi, that when Russia recently passed a law
supposedly on religious freedom--it was grossly misnamed. It
was designed to restrict freedom--the Jewish faith was
specifically included and exempted from the regulation. To the
credit of the Jewish leaders it didn't buy off on the law and
saw the discrimination aimed at other religious minorities and
spoke out about it critically, and I salute them for that.
I wonder if you could tell me where in the last decade the
Jewish faith has flourished in Central and Eastern Europe?
Where--have they done--who's reaching out? Who's helping? Who's
trying to stop some of this stuff that seems to be spreading
again?
Rabbi Baker. We sometimes ascribe the situation facing
these Jewish communities as having exchanged old problems for
new problems. In the Soviet days anti-Semitism was often a
state sponsored vehicle. Jewish involvement was limited,
restricted, under police surveillance. If we were successful in
easing the rights for Jews to emigrate or to liberalize in some
measure their local conditions it really had to do with just
dealing with the government leadership itself.
Today there's an openness in this part of the world as
we've seen. It's allowed for the possibility of these Jewish
communities really to revive. As I said, their numbers are
small in Central and Eastern Europe ranging from perhaps no
more than a thousand or several hundred Jews in Estonia to the
largest community in Hungary, maybe 120,000 or more, in no case
anything but a small shadow of what existed there before the
war.
But I say there are new problems. The problems now are
really not ones of government sponsored anti-Semitism, but
rather a kind of open environment in which all manner of anti-
Semitic literature can now be published and extremist parties
can now advocate even openly anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic
themes. I would have to say that if there's a concern it's to
try and see what one can draw from our experience here in
positive ways and apply it there.
One of the arguments we have made to government and
political leaders throughout the region is to say that the
issue is not necessarily one of the number of anti-Semites, of
the number of racists or extremists in a community, in a
society. The question really is how many anti anti-Semites are
there? How many people are there that are willing, starting
with senior government leaders, to speak out at the
manifestations of these things? That's what we really need to
work on.
Senator Smith. Absolutely, and I think your testimony
underscores in my mind the value of and importance of this
hearing. While it's not focused on anti-Semitism, the Jewish
people are really the barometer of how we're doing as the human
species. They usually take the first punch, and we have to be
extremely vigilant, and it is disappointing. We're talking
about Western European countries for the most part here today,
and the potential exists that laws could be enacted innocent in
their motive but ultimately malignant in their application, and
you can't be too careful.
Rabbi Baker. I think the point that you had made and that
Dr. Clark has made that many of the newer democracies in
Central and Eastern Europe and the countries of the former
Soviet Union, who have looked to European Union countries, to
Western Europe, for guidance from everything from voting at the
United Nations to economic and trade concerns will also see in
this a model that is perhaps too unfairly thought of as benign
and apply it in their societies as well.
It may be that the Jewish communities in Western Europe,
well established, and insular in any case, do not directly feel
the impact of such laws, though as I said that's not
necessarily always the case. But, surely the issues of how
religion is regulated and controlled will have an impact,
particularly in parts of the former Soviet Union where you
still have large numbers of Jews only beginning the process of
formal reorganization of communal life.
Senator Smith. Rabbi, you are probably aware that some of
the stereotypical depictions of Jewish people found in Nazi
literature are now being published openly in newspapers in the
Middle East, specifically in Egypt. Are you aware of that?
Rabbi Baker. Yes, we are.
Senator Smith. Has there been any response by the European
community, the European Union, to such things? Is there any
outcry at all?
Rabbi Baker. It's an issue that was raised. One of our
activities had been some months back, before the breakdown of
the peace process, to evaluate textbooks that are being used in
the Palestinian schools, textbooks that really have been
produced with funding from the European Union, and there's
clearly a double standard.
In other words, where there have been issues about
textbooks published in central Eastern European countries that
have tended to gloss over important aspects of World War II
history--Slovakia was one example--the European Union countries
were very forceful in their criticism, but with regard to what
is going on in the Middle East we have not seen that sort of
response. Instead we typically would hear expressions that
said, well, the peace process is moving along. These things
will somehow resolve themselves or take care of themselves once
that process is in place.
Ironically now we've seen that the process has broken down
probably in some measure due to the fact that people in the
society at large have viewed these very anti-Semitic cartoons
and these textbook messages that have virtually denied the
existence of Israel. The fact is that we've seen how these
things really have not been able to bring to the population at
large a sense of cooperation and co-existence with the Jewish
state.
So I hope that perhaps now these issues will receive more
attention in Europe, even though it in many ways is already a
lost opportunity.
Senator Smith. I can tell you there won't be peace in the
Middle East if we're fostering this old fashioned, ancient
anti-Semitism with Western money, and if children of the Middle
East are taught to hate the Jewish people they'll hate the
Jewish people as adults. We should not be financing that. We
ought to be figuring out how to get beyond that, and that's the
purpose of this hearing.
So thank you, Rabbi. Thank you Dr. Clark, and the State
Department, Mr. Parmly, for participating in this hearing. I
think it's been fruitful.
I hope some observe it in the national assembly and that
vote is the right of that country to take, and--but its
influence because of the stature of France and Belgium, other
countries who contemplate such things, Germany, Austria, the
Czech Republic. The influence of Western countries extends
beyond borders, and I think we ought to appeal to the best
instincts of European history, not its worst, and such laws
potentially foster a future that repeats our worst history.
With that, I thank you, and we're adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met at 10:12 a.m., in room SD-419, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Sam Brownback, presiding.
Present: Senators Brownback, Sarbanes, Wellstone, and Bill
Nelson.
Senator Brownback. The hearing will come to order. Thank
you all for joining us today. I thank Senator Wellstone for
being here as well.
This is the last hearing that I will be chairing for a
little while, hopefully not for too long, although I suppose
there would be a dispute on that. Senator Wellstone and I have
worked well together, but this is the day, at the end of
business today, that the Senate switches over.
There has been some discussion about just continuing this
day on, Paul--that we not adjourn this day and see if there is
some legal fiction that we could create to extend. But I do not
know if that will work.
I am very touched. This is going to be my last hearing
addressing the issue of international religious liberty, which
has been a subject of great personal commitment and interest on
my part during my time in the Senate.
I would also like to express my deep gratitude to Senator
Helms for his continuous and unfailing generosity in having
allowed us to hold hearings like this over the past several
years. I hope that these hearings have shed some light on the
darkness of religious oppression and, hopefully and in some
small way, have helped serve this great cause of expanded
religious freedom throughout the world.
I can say in my personal experience, that has indeed taken
place. I just returned from Central Asia and the issues of
religious freedom and religious oppression are very much on the
leaders minds. I think it has to do, frankly, with a fair
amount of the work that this Commission has done that has
elevated and continued the focus on this very important topic.
I would like to make this statement on the record today. I
will certainly not be forsaking the topic of religious liberty.
Also you, the Commission, can count on my continued support,
and I believe as well all the members of this committee,
certainly Senator Wellstone and others, for your noble efforts
in promoting this most fundamental right of rights.
Therefore, it is my pleasure to chair this hearing to
examine the most recent religious liberty report \1\ issued by
the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom on May
1. This is the second annual report of the Commission and it
covers extensive territory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The report can be accessed on the Commission's Website at
www.uscirf.gov
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, it broadly examines over two dozen countries, while
specifically focusing on approximately half of those countries,
which will be addressed today by the first three witnesses. The
report also discusses issues important to religious liberty
advocacy generally, including the extent to which capital
market sanctions should be used as a diplomatic tool to promote
religious freedom abroad. This topic, among other broad
concerns, will be addressed by our last witness, Michael Young.
Since the passage of the International Religious Freedom
Act 3 years ago, increased focus has been given to religious
persecution as never before, from the grassroots across America
to the halls of Congress. This, in turn, has helped to insert
the issue of religious liberty into the foreign policy debate,
which before this legislation was a forgotten part of foreign
policy debate.
Ultimately, this has helped expand freedoms for embattled
believers worldwide, as well as sparking individual campaigns
of awareness in places such as the Sudan.
Last and most importantly, I want to acknowledge the people
who inspired these hearings and reports in the first place.
They are the peaceful people of faith who stand against
daunting odds in hostile countries. Many are forced to wage
individual battles for this precious personal freedom, and
individually stand alone with great courage against entire
nation-states. I know this is true as I have met with many of
them personally through my visits worldwide and sometimes when
some have had the opportunity to travel here. It has been some
of the most heartening and enjoyable meetings that I have had
to witness and to see and to talk with such people of courage
and character.
This hearing is one more stone in the path to establishing
religious freedom as a universal right for all peaceful but
embattled believers wherever they may be. As a Nation blessed
with incredible freedom, I consider this to be our reasonable
duty. So, do not stop, dear friends. We just might win one of
these days and have this well established as a human right of
first order and magnitude in every country around the world.
Senator Wellstone.
Senator Wellstone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have been
able to do some really good work together and we will continue
to do some really good work together. I am not sure there will
be much difference. The party control will switch, but in terms
of our subcommittee, I do not think there will be any
difference. I think it will just be a partnership, Sam.
For me, human rights work is first priority. I care about
this work as much as any work that I do as a Senator, and the
work that you all did in passing the International Religious
Freedom Act was so important.
I do not want to take a lot of time because I just heard
that there was an education meeting I have to go to in a while.
I want to hear from the panelists. I would like to thank each
of you for being here. This is a very important hearing, and so
I will not go forward with any lengthy statement right now.
Senator Brownback. Thank you.
Now I would like to introduce our distinguished panel of
speakers, all of whom have served as commissioners on the U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom. Our first of
four witnesses is Dr. Firuz Kazemzadeh, also the senior advisor
to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the U.S.
Our second speaker is Ms. Nina Shea, who is director of the
Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House. I also note that
I consider Nina to be a great comrade, and I am glad she is on
my side, if you know what I mean by that. Our third speaker is
Rabbi David Saperstein, who is the director of the Religious
Action Center of Reform Judaism. All three of these witnesses
will talk about individual countries, including China,
Indonesia, Iran, Sudan, North Korea, among others. Our fourth
and last speaker is Mr. Michael K. Young who serves as the dean
of the George Washington Law School. He will talk about broader
topics related to religious liberty advocacy generally.
Witnesses, I want to thank all of you for joining us today.
Dr. Kazemzadeh, please enlighten us. We look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF DR. FIRUZ KAZEMZADEH, FORMER VICE CHAIRMAN, U.S.
COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, AND SENIOR
ADVISOR, NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHA'IS, ALTA LOMA,
CA; NINA SHEA, COMMISSIONER, U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, AND DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM,
FREEDOM HOUSE, WASHINGTON, DC; RABBI DAVID SAPERSTEIN, FORMER
COMMISSIONER, U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM, AND DIRECTOR, RELIGIOUS ACTION CENTER FOR REFORM
JUDAISM, WASHINGTON, DC; AND MICHAEL K. YOUNG, COMMISSIONER,
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, AND DEAN,
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. Kazemzadeh. Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman
and Senator Wellstone. My name is Firuz Kazemzadeh, and it has
been my honor to serve as the vice chairman of the U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom over the last
year.
I would take the liberty of apologizing for my voice, which
is a result of a cold I picked up last week in St. Petersburg.
With me are past and current Commission members, Ms. Nina
Shea and Dean Michael Young, as well as the former member and
first chairman of the Commission, Rabbi David Saperstein. We
shall jointly present the Commission's report.
I wish to thank the committee for holding today's hearing
on the Commission's second annual report that was issued on May
1. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that the Commission's
complete written statement and the executive summary of the
Commission's report be entered into the record.
Senator Brownback. Without objection, it will gladly be
placed in the record.
Dr. Kazemzadeh. The Commission's second annual report
fulfills an important part of the Commission's statutory
mandate to provide independent policy advice to the President,
the Secretary of State, and Congress on ways to promote
international religious freedom. Our job is to study the State
Department's human rights and religious freedom reports and
gather additional information through public hearings, meetings
with nongovernmental and religious organizations, our own
travel, and briefings by experts, and to make policy
recommendations that the U.S. Government can implement to
promote religious freedom abroad.
Last year, we focused on three countries: China, Russia,
and Sudan. This year, with a full year of work and the
experience of our first report behind us, we were greatly able
to expand our activities to cover more countries and some
additional issues. This year's annual report touches on
religious freedom issues in almost two dozen countries. Besides
updating China, Russia, and Sudan, we have made specific
recommendations on Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, North Korea,
Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam. We have
additionally explored the right to persuade another to change
his or her religion and have made recommendations regarding
U.S. capital markets and foreign assistance. Some of these
reports and recommendations were issued during the past year
and we have updated them for the inclusion in the annual
report.
I should note here that the countries included in the
report are not the entire list of serious violators of
religious freedom, nor are all of them equally bad. Russia,
despite its problems, enjoys a much larger degree of religious
freedom than many of the others. In Indonesia and Nigeria, the
problem is not a central government that violates religious
freedom, but a government that is not doing enough to prevent
or punish violations by local or state officials and private
citizens.
There is no way I can adequately summarize an almost 200-
page report in these few remarks, so let me just hit a few of
the highlights. These observations and recommendations
represent the commissioners' consensus.
The situation in China has grown worse over the past year
as the government has intensified its crackdown on the Falun
Gong spiritual movement, on unregistered Protestant and
Catholic Christians, on Tibetan Buddhists, and on Uighur
Muslims. The Commission believes that the U.S. Government must
make religious freedom a high priority in bilateral relations.
We reiterate last year's recommendations, including that the
U.S. Government do all it can to ensure that Beijing is not
selected as a site for the Olympic Games and we commend
congressional efforts to that end.
In India, a disturbing increase in violence against
minority Christians and Muslims, committed mostly by Hindu
nationalists, has coincided with the accession to power of the
ruling BJP government, which relies on these nationalists for
its core support. The U.S. Government must step up the human
rights dialog with the Indian Government and bolster New
Delhi's defense of religious minorities. U.S. foreign
assistance funds should be used to support civic groups that
teach and foster religious tolerance.
As Indonesia struggles with centrifugal forces trying to
tear the country asunder, the most serious religious violence
has occurred in the Moluccan Islands where up to 8,000
Christians and Muslims have died in sectarian violence. The
violence reached new and more deadly levels when a self-
appointed militia of Muslim Laskar Jihad fighters arrived from
outside the islands and stepped up attacks on Christians. The
U.S. Government must press Indonesia to disarm and remove all
outside forces from the Moluccas and step up efforts to promote
reconciliation and secure justice.
Like China, Iran has been named by the Secretary of State
as a country of particular concern, one of the worst religious
freedom violators. Baha'is, whom the government refuses to
recognize as a religious minority, get the worst of it, but the
situation is grim for Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and
dissident Muslims as well. In its discussions with Iran, the
United States must re-emphasize that improvements in religious
freedom and other human rights are a prerequisite for
normalization of the Iranian-American relations.
The State Department notes that in North Korea genuine
religious freedom does not exist. The government imprisons,
tortures, and sometimes executes religious believers and
suppresses all religious activity except that which serves
state interests. The U.S. Government must insist on
improvements in religious freedom and improved access for
outside observers to monitor religious freedom conditions as a
key part of any improvement in relations with Pyongyang.
Ms. Shea. Thank you.
Nigeria is, like Indonesia, a country returning to
democracy, struggling to survive against forces that would
strangle it in the cradle. The movement in several northern
Nigerian states to expand the legal application of Shariah has
sparked communal violence in which thousands have died and is a
source of continuing volatility and tension between Muslims and
Christians. The U.S. Government must bolster Nigeria's resolve
to prevent communal violence and bring perpetrators to justice.
U.S. foreign assistance should also be directed at building
tolerance, and Washington should press the Nigerian Government
to ensure equal treatment of all religious groups in the
building and repairing of places of worship, in education, and
in access to broadcast media.
The Government of Pakistan is clearly not doing enough to
protect religious freedom. Ahmadis are prevented by law from
fully practicing their faith. Christians and other religious
minorities are jailed or worse under the country's blasphemy
law, and a system of separate electorates for religious
minorities politically marginalizes them. In addition, a
campaign of violence by Sunni radicals targets Shiite Muslims
who then engage in reprisal attacks. The United States should
press Pakistan to scrap the separate electorate system,
eliminate abuses of the blasphemy law, and repeal laws that
prevent discrimination targeting the Ahmadis.
Freedom of religion in Russia remains threatened, with some
1,500 religious groups facing liquidation for failing to meet a
December 31, 2000 registration deadline. While the Putin
government appears to be committed to the principle of
religious freedom, it remains to be seen how vigorous it will
be in addressing the nation's many religious freedom problems,
which occur mainly at the local and regional levels. The
Commission reaffirms the recommendations it made in last year's
annual report regarding Russia, and recommends that the U.S.
Government continue to monitor closely the conditions of
religious freedom in Russia, including those mechanisms such as
the Smith amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations
bill, at this critical time.
The Commission has found that the Government of Sudan is
the world's most violent abuser of the right to freedom of
religion and belief and that it is committing genocidal
atrocities against the civilian population in the south and the
Nuba Mountains. Tragically, the situation in Sudan has grown
worse in the 12 months since release of last year's annual
report. The Government of Sudan continues to commit egregious
human rights abuses, including widespread bombing of civilian
and humanitarian targets, abduction and enslavement of women
and children by government-sponsored militias, manipulation of
humanitarian assistance as a weapon of war, and severe
restrictions on religious freedom. The relationship between oil
and the government's actions has become clear.
The U.S. Government should now step up humanitarian aid to
southern Sudan and the National Democratic Alliance, the
Sudanese opposition. Commissioner Al-Marayati has issued a
concurring opinion in this regard. The President should appoint
a prominent, high-level envoy to work for a just and peaceful
settlement of the war, pursuant to the agreed Declaration of
Principles, and to press for an end to the Sudanese
Government's atrocities against civilians. But the United
States should not appoint an ambassador to Khartoum at this
time. That would only reward the regime for increased bad
behavior.
Foreign companies doing business in Sudan that want to
offer securities in U.S. markets should be required to disclose
the full extent of their dealings in that country. Mr.
Chairman, Senator Wellstone, the Commission was pleased and
heartened by the May 8 letter of Laura Unger of the SEC to
Congressman Wolf that required such disclosures, and we urge
that there be no attempt to dilute these requirements by the
Director-designate Harvey Pitt. Because of the close
relationship between oil and the Sudanese Government's human
rights abuses, foreign companies involved in developing Sudan's
oil and gas fields should be barred from issuing or listing
securities in U.S. capital markets. And the United States
should stop importing gum arabic from Sudan.
The Commission commends the strong statements made in
recent days by the President and the Secretary of State on the
situation in Sudan and welcomes the President's appointment of
a Special Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan, which the
President called a ``first step'' in addressing that situation,
with ``more to follow.''
Rabbi Saperstein. In Vietnam, Mr. Chairman, the government
prohibits religious activity by those not affiliated with one
of the six officially recognized religious organizations.
Individuals have been detained, fined, imprisoned, and kept
under surveillance for engaging in illegal--in other words,
unauthorized--religious activities. In addition, the government
uses the recognition process to monitor and control officially
sanctioned religious groups. The U.S. Congress should ratify
the pending Bilateral Trade Agreement with Vietnam only after
it passes a sense of the Congress resolution calling for the
Vietnamese Government to make substantial improvements in the
protection of religious freedom or after the Vietnamese
Government undertakes obligations to the United States to make
such improvements. We have suggested a set of criteria for
measuring religious freedom conditions. Until Hanoi makes
progress in this regard, the U.S. Government should also
withhold support for IMF and World Bank loans to Vietnam,
except those for basic human needs. We note that the United
States abstained from the recent IMF vote to approve loans to
the Vietnamese Government.
Due to the deadlines for printing of our annual report that
we have submitted to you, we were not able to include our
findings and recommendations with respect to countries that
commissioners visited in late March: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and
Israel. On May 14, the Commission released an addendum to the
second annual report.
Freedom of religion does not exist in Saudi Arabia as, with
few exceptions, the Saudi Government strictly prohibits the
public practice of religion other than its interpretation and
presentation of the Hanbali school of Sunni Islam. Although the
government has taken a position that private worship is
allowed, persons worshiping privately have at times been
arrested, imprisoned, deported, harassed by the authorities and
forced to go to great lengths to conceal private religious
activity. The Commission reiterates the recommendation it made
last July to former Secretary of State Albright, that Saudi
Arabia be named a country of particular concern under the
International Religious Freedom Act. The United States should
also urge the Saudi Government to expand and safeguard the
freedom to worship, to act to control abuses of the religious
police, to allow human rights monitors access to the country,
and to promote tolerance and inter-religious dialog.
Although there have been some positive developments in the
promotion of religious freedom in recent years in Egypt, the
Commission finds that serious problems of discrimination
against a number of religious groups still remain widespread.
With respect to the Christian community, restrictions on church
building and repair continue to exist and religiously based
discrimination, particularly in government employment, the
military and security services, remains a pervasive problem.
Justice has still not been realized in the Al-Kosheh incident,
and the underlying problems that contribute to the violence
there have not been adequately resolved and addressed. Recently
19 Baha'is were arrested on account of their religion and 8 are
currently in prison. The Egyptian Government appears to cast
too wide a net in its repression of those Muslims it deems to
be a threat because they are fundamentalist, and religious
activities such as wearing head scarves, growing beards, and
attending religious study groups are at times considered by the
government to be indicators of both the potential for violence
and, more generally, a political threat to the existing order.
The press continues to engage in virulent hate speech against
certain groups such as Jews and Baha'is. In light of these
problems, the U.S. Government should raise religious freedom
issues at the highest levels with the Egyptian Government and
urge them to accelerate progress in addressing those issues.
The Commission sees its study of the situation in Israel
and the Occupied Territories as a complex matter requiring
additional work. The commissioners did not feel they were ready
to make a formal report or recommendations. Commissioner Laila
Al-Marayati issued a dissenting view.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, Senator Wellstone, in the course
of examining the conditions of religious freedom and U.S.
policy in several countries, the Commission has made
recommendations regarding the specific areas in which religious
freedom could be promoted through U.S. foreign assistance.
These recommendations are in line with the provisions of the
International Religious Freedom Act that explicitly endorse the
use of foreign assistance funds to promote religious freedom.
This can be done directly, through supporting legal advocacy,
technical assistance, or human rights education, and indirectly
through supporting programs such as democracy, civil society,
rule of law, professional law enforcement, and judicial
independence. At the same time, the Commission is concerned
that U.S. assistance should not serve to undermine the
protection of religious freedom or contribute to religious
intolerance and recommends that U.S. foreign assistance is not
used to support organizations that engage in violence that
targets individuals on the basis of religion or that act as an
instrument of official government policies of religious
discrimination or to fund programs that discriminate against
recipients or beneficiaries on the basis of religion.
Further, on the question of access to U.S. capital markets,
the Commission proposes that any American or foreign issuer of
securities be required to disclose its business activities in
any country designated by the Secretary of State under the
International Religious Freedom Act as a country of particular
concern. Such disclosure would inform institutional and private
American investors of all the economic risks involved in
purchasing shares of those companies. And the U.S. Government,
including Congress, needs to study how foreign companies
structure their securities offerings and manipulate corporate
relationships to get around U.S. economic sanctions.
But, in conclusion, before we take any questions you might
have, I would like to make two final observations. First, the
Commission was gravely disappointed to learn that the United
States was not reelected as a voting member of the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights this year. The mere fact
that a country like Sudan, with its atrocious human rights
record, can be and is a voting member of the commission while
the United States is not is a symptom of a deeper problem
growing within this international body. The United States has
consistently spearheaded efforts to introduce resolutions that
shine a spotlight on countries that violate human rights,
particularly religious freedom. These resolutions often fail to
gain needed support. Considering the human rights practices of
some members of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, this is not
surprising. However, what is even more disappointing is the
conduct of traditional U.S. allies, such as members of the
European Union, specifically their failure both to support such
resolutions and earlier this month to support the membership of
the United States on this important commission in which it has
served since its creation in 1947. If the world cannot rely on
an international body such as the U.N. Commission on Human
Rights to condemn human rights violations when they occur,
individual countries must take a stand. I think it is safe to
predict that without the United States serving as a member of
this commission, violations of religious freedom will be given
far less attention and all too often ignored.
Second, the terms of the present commissioners expired on
May 14. These commissioners were a most politically,
religiously, and professionally diverse group of people. Yet
for 2 years, we worked harmoniously together to present to,
first, the Clinton administration and now the Bush
administration recommendations for promoting international
religious freedom. I think that is testimony to my fellow
commissioners' devotion to the cause of religious freedom, and
I would like to thank them all personally for their commitment
and their hard work and the privilege of serving with them.
We would also like to thank Speaker Hastert and Senator
Lott for having made timely reappointments to the Commission
and urge that both the administration and the remaining
senatorial and House appointments be made as soon as possible.
Thank you, and my colleagues and I would now be happy to
take any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of the Commission and the executive
summary of the Commission's report follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF FIRUZ KAZEMZADEH, RABBI DAVID SAPERSTEIN, NINA
SHEA, AND DEAN MICHAEL YOUNG
Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. My name is Firuz Kazemzadeh and it has been my honor to
serve as the Vice-Chairman of the U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom over the last year. I wish to thank the Committee for
holding today's hearing on the Commission's second Annual Report that
was issued on April 30. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that the
Commission's complete written statement and the executive summary of
the Commission's report be entered into the record.
The Commission's second Annual Report fulfills an important part of
the Commission's statutory mandate to provide independent policy advice
to the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress on ways to
promote international religious freedom. Our job is to study the State
Department's human rights and religious freedom reports and gather
additional information--through public hearings, meetings with non-
governmental and religious organizations, our own travel, and briefings
by experts--and to make policy recommendations that the U.S. Government
can implement to promote religious freedom abroad.
Last year, we focused on three countries--China, Russia, and Sudan.
This year, with a full year of work and the experience of our first
report behind us, we were able to greatly expand our activities to
cover more countries and some additional issues. This year's Annual
Report touches on religious-freedom issues in almost two dozen
countries. Besides updating China, Russia, and Sudan, we have made
specific recommendations on Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, North Korea,
Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam. We have additionally
explored the right to persuade another to change his or her religion
and have made recommendations regarding U.S. capital markets and
foreign assistance. Some of these reports and recommendations were
issued during the past year, and we have updated them for inclusion in
the Annual Report.
I should note here that the countries included in the report are
not the entire list of serious violators of religious freedom, nor are
all of them equally bad. Russia, despite its problems, enjoys a much
larger degree of religious freedom than many of the others. In
Indonesia and Nigeria, the problem is not a central government that
violates religious freedom, but a government that is not doing enough
to prevent or punish violations by local or state officials and private
citizens.
There is no way I can adequately summarize an almost 200-page
report in these few remarks this morning. So let me just hit a few of
the highlights. These observations and recommendations represent the
Commissioners' consensus.
The situation in China has grown worse over the past year as the
government has intensified its crackdown on the Falun Gong spiritual
movement, on unregistered Protestant and Catholic Christians, on
Tibetan Buddhists, and on Uighur Muslims. The Commission believes the
U.S. Government must make religious freedom a higher priority in
bilateral relations. We reiterate last year's recommendations,
including that the U.S. Government do all it can to ensure that Beijing
is not selected as a site for the Olympic Games, and we commend
Congressional efforts to that end.
In India, a disturbing increase in violence against minority
Christians and Muslims, committed mostly by Hindu nationalists, has
coincided with the accession to power of the ruling BJP government,
which relies on these nationalists for its core support. The U.S.
Government must step up the human-rights dialogue with the Indian
government and bolster New Delhi's defense of religious minorities.
U.S. foreign-assistance funds should be used to support civic groups
that teach and foster religious tolerance.
As Indonesia struggles with centrifugal forces trying to tear the
country asunder, the most serious religious violence has occurred in
the Moluccan Islands, where up to 8,000 Christians and Muslims have
died in sectarian violence. The violence reached new and more-deadly
levels when a self-appointed militia of Muslim Laskar Jihad fighters
arrived from outside the islands and stepped up attacks on Christians.
The U.S. Government must press Indonesia to disarm and remove all
outside forces from the Moluccas and step up efforts to promote
reconciliation and secure justice.
Like China, Iran has been named by the Secretary of State as a
``country of particular concern,'' one of the worst religious-freedom
violators. Baha'is, whom the government refuses to recognize as a
religious minority, get the worst of it, but the situation is grim for
Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and dissident Muslims as well. In its
discussions with Iran, the U.S. must re-emphasize that improvements in
religious freedom and other human rights are a prerequisite for
normalization of Iranian-American relations.
The State Department notes that in North Korea, ``genuine religious
freedom does not exist.'' The government imprisons, tortures, and
sometimes executes religious believers and suppresses all religious
activity except that which serves state interests. The U.S. Government
must insist on improvements in religious freedom and improved access
for outside observers to monitor religious-freedom conditions as a key
part of any improvement in relations with Pyongyang.
Nigeria is, like Indonesia, a country returning to democracy,
struggling to survive against forces that would strangle it in the
cradle. The movement in several northern Nigerian states to expand the
legal application of Shariab has sparked communal violence in which
thousands have died and is a source of continuing volatility and
tension between Muslims and Christians. The U.S. Government must
bolster Nigeria's resolve to prevent communal violence and bring
perpetrators to justice. U.S. foreign assistance should also be
directed at building tolerance, and Washington should press the
Nigerian government to ensure equal treatment of all religious groups
in the building and repairing of places of worship, in education, and
in access to broadcast media.
The government of Pakistan is clearly not doing enough to protect
religious freedom. Ahmadis are prevented by law from fully practicing
their faith; Christians and other religious minorities are jailed or
worse under the country's blasphemy law; and a system of separate
electorates for religious minorities politically marginalizes them. In
addition, a campaign of violence by Sunni radicals targets Shiite
Muslims, who then engage in reprisal attacks. The U.S. should press
Pakistan to scrap the separate-electorate system, eliminate abuses of
the blasphemy law, and repeal laws and prevent discrimination targeting
the Ahmadis.
Freedom of religion in Russia remains threatened, with some 1,500
religious groups facing ``liquidation'' for failing to meet a December
31, 2000, registration deadline. While the Putin government appears to
be committed to the principle of religious freedom, it remains to be
seen how vigorous it will be in addressing the nation's many religious-
freedom problems, which occur mainly at the local and regional levels.
The Commission reaffirms the recommendations it made in last year's
annual report regarding Russia, and recommends that the U.S. government
continue to monitor closely the conditions of religious freedom in
Russia, including through mechanisms such as the Smith Amendment to the
Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, at this critical time.
The Commission has found that the government of Sudan is the
world's most violent abuser of the right to freedom of religion and
belief and that it is committing genocidal atrocities against the
civilian population in the south and the Nuba Mountains. Tragically,
the situation in Sudan has grown worse in the 12 months since release
of last year's Annual Report. The government of Sudan continues to
commit egregious human rights abuses--including widespread bombing of
civilian and humanitarian targets, abduction and enslavement of women
and children by government-sponsored militias, manipulation of
humanitarian assistance as a weapon of war, and severe restrictions on
religious freedom. The relationship between oil and the government's
actions has become clearer. The U.S. Government should now step up
humanitarian aid to southern Sudan and the National Democratic
Alliance, the Sudanese opposition. Commissioner Al-Marayati has issued
a concurring opinion in this regard. The President should appoint a
prominent, high-level envoy to work for a just and peaceful settlement
of the war--pursuant to the agreed Declaration of Principles--and to
press for an end to the Sudanese government's atrocities against
civilians. But the United States should not appoint an ambassador to
Khartoum at this time; that would only reward the regime for increased
bad behavior.
Foreign companies doing business in Sudan that want to offer
securities in U.S. markets should be required to disclose the full
extent of their dealings in that country. Because of the close
relationship between oil and the Sudanese government's human rights
abuses, foreign companies involved in developing Sudan's oil and gas
fields should be barred from issuing or listing securities in U.S.
capital markets. And the U.S. should stop importing gum arabic from
Sudan.
The Commission commends the strong statements made in recent days
by the President and the Secretary of State on the situation in Sudan,
and welcomes the President's appointment of a special humanitarian
coordinator for Sudan, which the President called ``a first step'' in
addressing that situation, with ``more to follow.''
In Vietnam, the government prohibits religious activity by those
not affiliated with one of the six officially recognized religious
organizations. Individuals have been detained, fined, imprisoned, and
kept under surveillance for engaging in ``illegal'' (in other words,
unauthorized) religious activities. In addition, the government uses
the recognition process to monitor and control officially sanctioned
religious groups. The U.S. Congress should ratify the pending Bilateral
Trade Agreement with Vietnam only after it passes a sense of the
Congress resolution calling for the Vietnamese government to make
substantial improvements in the protection of religious freedom, or
after the Vietnamese government undertakes obligations to the United
States to make such improvements. We've suggested a set of criteria for
measuring religious-freedom conditions. Until Hanoi makes progress in
this regard, the U.S. government should also withhold support for
International Monetary Fund and World Bank loans to Vietnam, except
those for basic human needs. We note that the U.S. abstained from the
recent IMF vote to approve loans to the Vietnamese government.
Due to the deadline for printing of the Annual Report, we were not
able to include our findings and recommendations with respect to
countries that commissioners visited in late March: Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, and Israel. On May 14, the Commission released an addendum to
the second Annual Report.
Freedom of religion does not exist in Saudi Arabia, as, with few
exceptions, the Saudi government strictly prohibits the public practice
of religion other than its interpretation and presentation of the
Hanbali school of Sunni Islam. Although the government has taken the
position that private worship is allowed, persons worshipping privately
have been arrested, imprisoned, deported, harassed by the authorities,
and forced to go to great lengths to conceal private religious
activity. The Commission reiterates the recommendation it made last
July to former Secretary of State Albright that Saudi Arabia be named a
country of particular concern under IRFA. The U.S. should also urge the
Saudi government to expand and safeguard the freedom to worship; to act
to control abuses of the religious police; to allow human rights
monitors access to the country; and to promote tolerance and inter-
religious dialogue.
Although there have been some positive developments in the
promotion of religious freedom in recent years, the Commission finds
serious problems of discrimination against a number of religious groups
remain widespread in Egypt. With respect to the Christian community,
restrictions on church building and repair continue to exist and
religiously-based discrimination, particularly in government
employment, the military and security services, remains a pervasive
problem. Justice has still not been realized in the Al-Kosheh incident,
and the underlying problems that contributed to the violence there have
not been adequately addressed. Recently, 19 Baha'is were arrested on
account of their religion and eight are currently in prison. The
Egyptian government appears to cast too wide a net in its repression of
those Muslims it deems to be a threat because they are
``fundamentalist,'' and religious activities (such as wearing
headscarves, growing beards, and attending religious study groups) are
at times considered by the government to be indicators of both the
potential for violence and, more generally, a political threat to the
existing order. The press continues to engage in virulent hate speech
against certain groups such as Jews and Baha'is. In light of these
problems, the U.S. Government should raise religious freedom issues at
the highest levels with the Egyptian government and urge them to
accelerate progress in addressing those issues.
The Commission sees its study of the situation in Israel and the
Occupied Territories as a complex matter requiring additional work.
Commissioners did not feel they were ready to make a formal report or
recommendations. Commissioner Laila Al-Marayati issued a dissenting
view.
In the course of examining the conditions of religious freedom and
U.S. policy in several countries the Commission has made
recommendations regarding the specific areas in which religious freedom
could be promoted through U.S. foreign assistance. These
recommendations are in line with the provisions of IRFA that explicitly
endorse the use of foreign assistance funds to promote religious
freedom. This can be done directly, through supporting programs such as
legal advocacy, technical assistance, or human rights education; and
indirectly, by supporting democracy, civil society, rule of law,
professional law enforcement, and judicial independence. At the same
time, the Commission is concerned that U.S. assistance should not serve
to undermine the protection of religious freedom or contribute to
religious intolerance, and recommends that U.S. foreign assistance is
not used to support organizations that engage in violence that targets
individuals on the basis of religion or that act as an instrument of
official government policies of religious discrimination, or to fund
programs that discriminate against recipients or beneficiaries on the
basis of religion.
Further on the question of access to U.S. capital markets, the
Commission proposes that any American or foreign issuer of securities
be required to disclose its business activities in any country
designated by the Secretary of State under IRFA as a country of
particular concern. Such disclosure would inform institutional and
private American investors of all the economic risks involved in
purchasing those countries' securities. And the U.S. Government,
including Congress, needs to study how foreign companies structure
their securities offerings and manipulate corporate relationships to
get around U.S. economic sanctions.
Before we take any questions you might have, I'd like to make two
observations. First, the Commission was gravely disappointed to learn
that the United States was not reelected as a voting member of the
United Nations Commission On Human Rights (UNCHR) this year. The mere
fact that a country like Sudan, with its atrocious human rights record,
can be and is a voting member on the UNCHR while the United States is
not is a symptom of a deeper problem growing within this international
body. The United States has consistently spearheaded efforts to
introduce resolutions that shine a spotlight on countries that violate
human rights, particularly religious freedom. These resolutions often
fail to gain needed support. Considering the human rights practices of
some of the members of the UNCHR, this is not surprising. However, what
is even more disappointing is the conduct of traditional U.S. allies,
such as members of the European Union--specifically, their failure both
to support such resolutions and earlier this month to support the
membership of the United States on this important commission in which
it has served since its creation in 1947. If the world cannot rely on
an international body such as the UNCHR to condemn human rights
violations when they occur, individual countries must take a stand. I
think it is safe to predict that without the United States serving as a
member of the UNCHR, violations of religious freedom will be given far
less attention and all too often ignored.
Second, the terms of the present commissioners expired on May 14.
These commissioners were a most politically, religiously, and
professionally diverse group of people. Yet for two years, we worked
harmoniously together to present to first the Clinton administration,
and now the Bush administration, recommendations for promoting
international religious freedom. I think that's testimony to my fellow
commissioners' devotion to the cause of religious freedom. I'd like to
personally thank them all for their commitment and hard work.
______
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. COMMISSION ACTIVITIES
The Commission considerably broadened its activities in its second
full year, monitoring religious-freedom violations worldwide and
increasing the number of countries it would study in depth. In July,
the Commission wrote to the Secretary of State to recommend that Laos,
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Turkmenistan
be added to the list of ``countries of particular concern'' [CPC] as
provided for in the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA).
It also recommended that Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, the Milosevic
regime in Serbia and the Taliban in Afghanistan remain on the list. In
addition, it wrote that India, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam are
serious violators of religious freedom deserving careful State
Department monitoring; it also expressed concerns about sectarian
violence in Indonesia and Nigeria.
Commissioners testified several times before congressional
committees; met with high-ranking State Department officials; held
hearings on India, Pakistan, Vietnam, and Indonesia; traveled to
several countries; met with foreign diplomats and officials (with State
Department concurrence); interviewed numerous representatives of
victims of religious-liberty violations; and received background
briefings from U.S. diplomats, intelligence officials, and academic
experts on the countries it studied for this report. Commissioners
wrote several letters during the report period to Presidents Clinton
and Bush; the Departments of State and the Treasury; the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission; the Agency for International
Development; the National Endowment for Democracy; and others making
policy recommendations or requesting information on issues related to
religious freedom discussed in this report.
The Commission studied the freedoms to change religion and to
engage in public religious expression and persuasion and found them
often under restrictions that in some cases are egregious. In several
countries the law prohibits a change in one's religion, and the
violator is subject to criminal penalties, including death. The
Commission explored several examples and degrees of restrictions on
these freedoms and the difficult challenges they pose for U.S.
policymakers. The Commission believes that these restrictions merit
further investigation and careful consideration and will recommend to
their successors that they continue substantial efforts to study and
recommend policies to protect this important aspect of religious
freedom.
The Commission reported last year that it had not gained full
access to cables to and from embassies because of the State
Department's assertion of a legal position with which the Commission
does not agree. The Department has since constructed a cumbersome and
lengthy process whereby Commission staff are able to review cables
after they have been redacted. The Commission has tried this system in
good faith and concludes that it does not meet the Commission's needs.
It can no longer acquiesce to this situation and will propose a more
expeditious process to the State Department.
The Commissioners' terms expire on May 14, 2001. They thank those
who appointed them for the privilege of serving on this first
Commission on International Religious Freedom and look forward to close
cooperation with their successors.
II. PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
In the last year, the government of the People's Republic of China
(PRC or China) has expanded its crackdown on unregistered religious
communities and tightened its control on official religious
organizations. The government has intensified its campaign against the
Falun Gong movement and its followers. It apparently has also been
involved in the confiscation and destruction of up to 3,000
unregistered religious buildings and sites in southeastern China.
Government control over the official Protestant and Catholic churches
has increased. It continues to interfere in the training and selection
of religious leaders and clergy. At the same time, the government
continues to maintain tight control over Uighur Muslims and Tibetan
Buddhists. Finally, cases of torture by government officials reportedly
are on the rise.
Recommendations
1. In its bilateral relations with China, the U.S. government
should persistently urge the Chinese government to take the
following steps to protect religious freedom:
1.1. Establish the freedom to engage in religious
activities (including the freedom for religious groups
to govern themselves and select their leaders without
interference, worship publicly, express and advocate
religious beliefs, and distribute religious literature)
outside state-controlled religious organizations and
eliminate controls on the activities of officially
registered organizations.
1.2. Permit unhindered access to religious persons
(including those imprisoned, detained, or under house
arrest and surveillance) by U.S. diplomatic personnel
and government officials, the U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom, and respected
international human rights organizations. Release
persons from imprisonment, detention, house arrest, or
intimidating surveillance who are so restricted on
account of their religious identities or activities.
1.3. Permit domestic Chinese religious organizations
and individuals to interact with foreign organizations
and individuals.
1.4. Cease discrimination against religious followers
in access to government benefits, including education,
employment, and health care.
1.5. Ratify the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.
2. The U.S. government should continue to work vigorously for
the resumption of a high-level unconditional human rights
dialogue with the PRC government when the Chinese government
demonstrates its commitment to protecting religious freedom,
for example, by addressing the items listed as 1.1 to 1.5
above.
3. Until religious freedom significantly improves in China,
the U.S. government, led by the personal efforts of the
President of the United States, should initiate a resolution to
censure China at the annual meeting of the UN Commission on
Human Rights (UNCHR) and should support a sustained campaign to
convince other governments at the highest levels to support it.
4. Companies that are doing business in China should be
required to disclose the nature and extent of that business in
connection with their access to U.S. capital markets.
5. The U.S. government should raise the profile of conditions
of Uighur Muslims by addressing religious freedom and human
rights concerns in bilateral talks, by increasing the number of
educational opportunities available to Uighurs, and by
increasing radio broadcasts in the Uighur language.
6. The U.S. government should use its diplomatic influence
with other governments to ensure that China is not selected as
a site for the International Olympic Games until it has made
significant and sustained improvements in religious freedom and
human rights.
7. The State Department should identify specific individuals
and entities involved in violations of religious freedom in
China.
III. INDIA
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has directed
its attention to India in light of the disturbing increase in the past
several years in severe violence against religious minorities in that
country. The violence is especially troubling because it has coincided
with the increase in political influence at the national and, in some
places, the state level of the Sangh Parivar, a collection of
exclusivist Hindu nationalist groups of which the current ruling party,
the Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP, is a part.
India is religiously a very diverse country that generally respects
religious freedom. India has a democratically elected government and is
governed by the rule of law. However, although the BJP-led government
may not be directly responsible for instigating the violence against
religious minorities, there is concern that the government is not doing
all that it could to pursue the perpetrators of the attacks and to
counteract the prevailing climate of hostility, in some quarters in
India, against these minority groups. Moreover, the increase of
violence against persons and institutions based entirely on religious
affiliation is an alarming development in India.
Recommendations
1. The U.S. government should persistently press India to
pursue perpetrators of violent acts that target members of
religious groups.
2. The U.S. government should make clear its concern to the
BJP-led government that virulent nationalist rhetoric is
fueling an atmosphere in which perpetrators believe they can
attack religious minorities with impunity. While fully
protecting freedom of expression, firm words and actions from
the government of India are required to counteract this belief.
3. The U.S. government should support the stated policy of
the BJP to oppose any move toward the nationalization of any
religious institutions in India. The U.S. government should
also press the government of India to oppose any attempts to
interfere with or prohibit ties between religious communities
inside India and their co-religionists outside the country, and
any government efforts to regulate religious choice or
conversion.
4. As the U.S. government pursues greater engagement with
India on a full range of issues, it should take advantage of
new opportunities for government-to-government cooperation and
communication on human rights, including religious freedom.
5. The U.S. should press India to allow official visits from
government agencies concerned with human rights, including
religious freedom.
6. The U.S. government should encourage and facilitate
private-sector communication and exchanges between Indian and
American religious groups and other non-governmental
organizations interested in religious freedom. The U.S.
government should also press India to allow visits from non-
governmental human rights organizations and other groups
concerned with religious freedom.
7. The U.S. government should allocate funds from its foreign
assistance programs for the promotion of education on religious
toleration and inclusiveness in India.
8. In the course of working toward improvements in U.S.-
Indian economic and trade relations, the U.S. government should
take into account the efforts of the Indian government to
protect religious freedom, prevent and punish violence against
religious minorities, and promote the rule of law. If progress
is made, the U.S. should seek ways in which it can respond
positively through enhanced economic ties.
IV. INDONESIA
In recent years in Indonesia, numerous serious and tragic conflicts
have emerged, including disputes in which religion or religious freedom
is a factor. But only in the Moluccas did religion quickly become the
defining factor behind the fighting that broke out in January 1999
between the Muslim and Christian communities there. Since the fighting
in the Moluccas began, from 5,000 to 8,000 people, Christians and
Muslims, have been killed. Houses of worship of both communities have
been destroyed. More than 500,000 people, both Christians and Muslims,
have been forced to flee in fear of their lives. As this has
transpired, there are numerous reports that elements from the
Indonesian military and local police forces have done little to stop
the fighting. Rather, it is alleged that they have contributed to and
perhaps even initiated it. In addition, in the spring of 2000,
thousands of fighters from an Indonesian Muslim group, called Laskar
Jihad, arrived on the islands, raising the fighting there to new and
more-deadly levels. The Indonesian government has also made little
effort to halt the conflict; indeed, many observers contend it has not
even given it serious attention.
Recommendations
1. The U.S. government should put sustained pressure on the
Indonesian government and the Indonesian military to pay
serious attention to the brutal conflict in the Moluccas and to
make concerted efforts to pursue a reconciliation program that
ensures security for both sides and that perpetrators most
responsible for the killings are brought to justice.
2. The U.S. government should press the government of
Indonesia to attend to the immediate removal of all outside
militia forces on the Moluccas, Muslim or Christian. The U.S.
government should also press Indonesia to see that these and
other groups are disarmed. Moreover, rogue elements in the
Indonesian security forces must be brought under control.
3. The U.S. government should support the reconciliation
efforts of indigenous or international non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) in the Moluccas, including by increasing
its funding for such efforts through support for USAID's
democracy and good-governance programs, interreligious programs
in educational institutions, and other programs in Indonesia.
This should include working with respected Indonesian human
rights lawyers and academics to devise an emergency program for
restoring the rule of law in Indonesia, including in the
Moluccas. Within its assistance program to Indonesia, the U.S.
government should also increase assistance geared specifically
to both Christian and Muslim victims and refugees of the
conflict. The U.S. government should also press the government
of Indonesia to allow more access to the Moluccas for
humanitarian relief organizations, as well as for official
representatives or human rights monitors from such groups as
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
4. The U.S. government should ensure that, if resumed, U.S.-
Indonesian military ties be directed toward reform of the
Indonesian military.
5. The U.S. government should earmark funds for the training
of Indonesian police and prosecutors in human rights, rule of
law, and crime investigation.
6. The U.S. government should help support the safeguarding
of a free press in Ambon and other major areas in the Moluccas.
V. IRAN
The conditions of religious freedom are very poor in Iran,
particularly with respect to minority religious groups that are not
officially recognized by the state and those perceived to be attempting
to convert Muslims. The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran
provides that the official religion of Iran is Islam of the doctrine of
the Twelver Jaafari School and stipulates that all laws and
regulations, including the Constitution itself, must be based on
Islamic criteria. Members of the Baha'i community suffer the worst
forms of religious persecution at the hands of the state. The Iranian
government does not recognize Baha'is as a religious minority; rather
in its view, Baha'is constitute a political organization that was
associated with the Shah's regime, is opposed to the Iranian
Revolution, and engages in espionage activities on behalf of foreign
countries, including Israel. Members of the officially-recognized non-
Muslim minorities Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians are subject to
legal and other forms of official discrimination. Iranian Sunni leaders
have alleged widespread abuses and restrictions on their religious
practice. A number of senior Shiite religious leaders who have opposed
various religious and/or political tenets and practices of the Iranian
government have also reportedly been targets of state repression.
Recommendations
1. The President or Secretary of State should reaffirm to the
government of Iran that improvement in religious freedom and
other human rights in that country is a prerequisite for the
complete relaxation of sanctions by and the normalization of
relations with the United States.
2. The U.S. government should consistently, continuously and
vigorously press the government of Iran to improve conditions
of religious freedom, and should urge its European and other
allies to support advocacy for religious freedom in Iran. Voice
of America Farsi-language broadcasting into Iran should include
regular reporting on religious freedom in Iran and religious-
freedom issues in general.
3. The U.S. administration should continue to sponsor annual
resolutions of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
condemning Iran's egregious and systematic violations of
religious freedom and should recruit the support of other
Commission member countries, until such violations cease.
4. The United States should facilitate (through issuance of
visas) and remove barriers (such as the U.S. Department of
Justice policy of fingerprinting Iranians at ports of entry) to
unofficial cultural exchange e.g., academic, religious,
athletic, and scientific between the United States and Iran.
VI. DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA
In the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea or the
DPRK), despite the difficulty of obtaining reliable information on
conditions in the country, it is apparent that religious freedom is
non-existent. As the State Department Annual Report on International
Religious Freedom--2000 states: ``Genuine religious freedom does not
exist.'' The government has imprisoned religious believers and
apparently suppresses all organized religious activity except that
which serves the interests of the state. Since July 1999, there have
been reports of torture and execution of religious believers, including
between 12 and 23 Christians on account of their religion.
Recommendations
1. In the course of further discussions with the North Korean
government, the U.S. government should strongly urge the DPRK
to reaffirm publicly its commitments under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
2. The U.S. government should press the DPRK to immediately
establish conditions whereby the status of religious freedom
can be assessed and progress be monitored.
3. The U.S. government should ensure that any permanent peace
treaty between the parties to the Korean War include provisions
on religious freedom and nondiscrimination in the treatment of
religious minorities.
4. The U.S. government should communicate to government of
the DPRK that substantial improvements in religious freedom and
other human rights in North Korea is a prerequisite for the
normalization of relations with and the complete relaxation of
sanctions by the United States.
5. The U.S. government should communicate to the DPRK
government that when any U.S. diplomatic presence is opened in
North Korea, diplomatic personnel should have reasonable access
within the country to assess the state of religious freedom and
to monitor developments, and that a religious-freedom dialogue
should begin and take place at the highest policymaking levels.
6. U.S. government officials should raise the issue of
religious freedom and the point that improvement of religious
freedom is a central component of the improvement of U.S.-DPRK
relations in all high-level diplomatic exchanges with the DPRK.
7. The U.S. government should urge the Republic of Korea and
Japan, as part of trilateral coordination among the United
States and those two countries, to press human rights and
religious freedom in their talks with the DPRK as well.
VII. NIGERIA
Religious life in Nigeria is public, vigorous, and diverse.
Nevertheless, Nigeria continues to suffer outbursts of violent communal
conflict along religious and ethnic lines, pervasive mistrust among
religious and ethnic communities, and reportedly serious lapses in the
protection of human rights generally. The threats to religious freedom,
including reports of religious discrimination, are serious and ongoing.
Moreover, recent events portend a possible deterioration in the
conditions of religious freedom. Serious outbreaks of Muslim-Christian
violence exacerbated by social, economic, and political conditions that
foster religious and ethnic tensions threaten to divide further the
populace along religious lines and undermine the foundations of
religious freedom in Nigeria.
The movement in several northern Nigerian states to expand the
legal application of Shariah has sparked communal violence and is a
source of continuing volatility and tension between Muslims and
Christians at both the national and local levels. The manipulation of
religious doctrines and religious sentiments for political ends by any
party poses real dangers to religious freedom, as ethnic, tribal, or
communal violence take on more explicitly religious overtones, and
religious belief, identity, and practice become more of the target.
Recommendations
1. The U.S. government should make the promotion of religious
freedom a high priority in its diplomatic discussions with the
Nigerian government and urge President Olusegun Obasanjo to
condemn publicly, forcefully, and consistently religious
intolerance and discrimination, and to promote religious
freedom and mutual understanding between Muslims and
Christians.
2. The U.S. government should urge the Nigerian government to
counter religiously-based discrimination by doing the
following:
2.1. Investigate alleged discriminatory obstacles to
establishing and repairing places of worship and work
with state and local governments to remove such
obstacles where they exist;
2.2. Where offered in public schools, provide
religious instruction on a non-discriminatory basis and
without compelling any student with a religious
objection to attend; and
2.3. Ensure equal access to state-run radio and other
government media resources to all religious groups
without discrimination.
3. The U.S. government should urge the Nigerian government to
monitor closely the implementation of Shariah-based criminal
law in northern states: (a) to ensure that it does not apply to
non-Muslims and respects the religious freedom rights of all
citizens, and (b) to prevent law enforcement activities in
northern states by any quasi-official or private corps of
Shariah enforcers.
4. The U.S. government should urge the Nigerian government to
take effective steps to prevent and contain acts of communal
violence, prevent reprisal attacks, and bring those responsible
for such violence to justice.
5. The U.S. government should, through its foreign assistance
programs:
5.1. Support programs aimed at preventing communal
conflict, defusing inter-religious tensions, and
promoting religious tolerance and respect for religious
freedom and the rule of law; and
5.2. Support programs that foster objective, non-
inflammatory, and non-biased reporting by the Nigerian
media in a manner consistent with the right to free
expression.
6. The U.S. government should make the promotion of religious
freedom a high priority and should strengthen its information-
gathering efforts throughout Nigeria, particularly in northern
states and areas plagued by communal violence.
VIII. PAKISTAN
Although the government of Pakistan does not appear to be engaged
in a systematic effort to persecute religious minorities, it is clearly
not doing enough to adequately protect the religious freedom of all of
its citizens. Members of the Ahmadi religious community are prevented
by law from engaging in the full practice of their faith. Religious
minority groups (including Christians, Ahmadis, and Hindus) complain
that they are politically marginalized by a system of separate
electorates, and that this system exacerbates other religious-freedom
problems. The criminal laws against blasphemy are abused, resulting in
detention of and sometimes violence against religious minorities as
well as the targeting of numerous Muslims on account of their religious
beliefs. Finally, there is a substantial amount of sectarian violence,
largely targeting Shia Muslims, committed by organized groups of
religious extremists.
Recommendations
1. The U.S. government should urge the Pakistani government
to sign and ratify the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.
2. The U.S. government in its bilateral relations with the
Pakistani government should take the position that the separate
electorate system for religious minorities is inconsistent with
democratic principles, the right to equal citizenship, and the
protection of political rights without discrimination on the
basis of religion as provided in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.
3. The U.S. government in its bilateral relations with the
Pakistani government should take the position that the
existence and enforcement of laws targeting Ahmadis that
effectively criminalize the public practice of their faith
violates the right to freedom of religion guaranteed in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The State Department
should closely monitor the application and enforcement of laws
targeting Ahmadis. The U.S. government should also urge the
Pakistani government to effectively prevent discrimination
against Ahmadis in government and military employment, and
education.
4. The U.S. government should urge the Pakistani government
to implement procedural changes to the blasphemy laws that will
reduce and aim at ultimately eliminating their abuse. The State
Department should monitor the application and enforcement of
the blasphemy laws.
5. The U.S. government should urge the Pakistani government
to take effective steps to prevent sectarian violence and
punish its perpetrators, including disarming militant groups
and any religious schools that provide weapons training. The
U.S. government should also urge the Pakistani government to
establish and support mechanisms of interfaith dialogue that
encompass all religious communities in Pakistan, and facilitate
widespread dissemination of the work and findings of this
dialogue.
6. The U.S. government should urge the Pakistani government
to complete the denationalization of Christian schools and
colleges in Punjab province.
7. The U.S. government should, through its own foreign
assistance and in conjunction with other donors, support the
following in Pakistan:
7.1. teacher training and other educational programs
in religious tolerance;
7.2. non-governmental organizations engaged in legal
advocacy to protect the right to freedom of religion,
in particular defense of persons charged under the
blasphemy and anti-Ahmadi laws;
7.3. judicial reform and law-enforcement training;
7.4. improvements in the public education system in
order to promote the availability and quality of
education for all Pakistanis.
IX. RUSSIA
The future of religious freedom in Russia remains uncertain at a
critical moment in that nation's history. The Russian federal
government has yet to articulate a policy regarding the situation
created by its decision not to extend once again the deadline for
registration under a 1997 law that required religious organizations to
register in order to operate as legal entities. Thus, some 1,500
unregistered religious organizations are subject to ``liquidation'' by
the state. In addition, the government of President Vladimir I. Putin
has yet to establish an effective way to ensure that local and regional
laws, policies, and practices do not abridge religious freedom.
The Putin government appears to be committed to the principle of
religious freedom, and, like the government of Boris Yeltsin before it,
has taken several steps to mitigate religious freedom violations.
Moreover, the Russian courts, led by the Russian Constitutional Court,
have in some cases protected the right to religious freedom and
provided remedies for the violation of that right, at times overturning
local decisions and ameliorating some of the worst features of the 1997
law. Nevertheless, it is uncertain how vigorous the Putin government
will be in dealing with Russia's many religious-freedom problems.
Recommendations
1. The U.S. government should continue to closely and
carefully monitor religious-freedom issues and raise them
forcefully with the Russian government at the highest levels.
The U.S. government should pay particular attention to the
Russian government's handling of:
1.1. unregistered religious organizations;
1.2. discriminatory laws, policies, and practices at
the local and provincial level;
1.3. anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, and other extremist
activities targeting religious minorities;
1.4. visa, residence, and citizenship decisions
regarding foreign missionaries and other religious
workers;
1.5. internal disputes of religious communities; and
1.6. demands for a closer cooperation between any arm
of the state and the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) that
would result in preferential treatment for the ROC or
official discrimination against other religious
communities.
2. In light of the current conditions in Russia, the
Commission believes that all of its recommendations from May
2000 would still contribute to the promotion of religious
freedom there, and therefore reaffirms them. They include
supporting programs by Russians aimed at preventing religious
intolerance and discrimination and promoting exchanges between
U.S. and Russian religious leaders, as well as judges, lawyers,
and legal rights organizations. Moreover, the U.S. government
should make the humanitarian and human rights crisis in
Chechnya a high priority issue in its bilateral relations with
Russia.
3. The Smith Amendment is an effective tool for promoting
religious freedom in Russia. The Commission recommends that in
weighing whether to make the certification required under that
law, the President should use the factors listed in
Recommendation 1, above.
X. SUDAN
The situation in Sudan has grown worse since the release of the
Commission's May 2000 report. The government of Sudan continues to
commit egregious human rights abuses including widespread bombing of
civilian and humanitarian targets, abduction and enslavement by
government-sponsored militias, manipulation of humanitarian assistance
as a weapon of war, and severe restrictions on religious freedom. The
relationship between oil and the government's actions has become
clearer. The Clinton administration did take some steps to address the
situation, including successfully working to prevent Sudan from taking
a seat at the UN Security Council and earmarking aid to communities in
southern Sudan and to the political opposition (the National Democratic
Alliance, or NDA). But the issue of Sudan for the most part remained on
the back burner of U.S. policy, as the government's own interagency
report acknowledged last year. Its actions fell well short of the
comprehensive, sustained campaign that the Commission believes is
commensurate with the Sudanese government's abuses. The Commission
urges the Bush administration to mount such a campaign.
Recommendations
1. The U.S. government should appoint a nationally prominent
individual who enjoys the trust and confidence of President
Bush and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, and who has
appropriate authority and access whose sole responsibility is
directed to bringing about a peaceful and just settlement of
the war in Sudan and an end to the religious-freedom abuses and
humanitarian atrocities committed by the Sudanese government.
The United States should not appoint an ambassador to Sudan at
this time.
2. The U.S. government should continue to increase the amount
of its humanitarian assistance that passes outside of Operation
Lifeline Sudan (OLS) and should press OLS to deliver aid
wherever it is needed, especially the Nuba Mountains, with or
without the approval of the Sudanese government.
3. The U.S. government should increase its assistance to
southern Sudan and the NDA.
4. The U.S. government should launch a major diplomatic
initiative aimed at enlisting international pressure to stop
the Sudanese government's bombing of civilian and humanitarian
targets; ground attacks on civilian villages, feeding centers,
and hospitals; slave raids; and instigation of tribal warfare.
5. The U.S. government should strengthen economic sanctions
against Sudan and should urge other countries to adopt similar
policies. The U.S. should prohibit any foreign company from
raising capital or listing its securities in U.S. markets as
long as it is engaged in the development of oil and gas fields
in Sudan. The U.S. government should not issue licenses
permitting the import of gum arabic from Sudan to the United
States.
6. Companies that are doing business in Sudan should be
required to disclose the nature and extent of that business in
connection with their access to U.S. capital markets.
7. The U.S. government should intensify its support for peace
negotiations and for the Declaration of Principles, and make a
just and lasting peace a top priority of this administration's
global agenda.
8. The U.S. government should work to increase human rights
and media reporting on abuses in Sudan, including supporting,
diplomatically and financially, the placement of human rights
monitors in southern Sudan and in surrounding countries where
refugee populations are present.
XI. VIETNAM
Despite a marked increase in religious practice among the
Vietnamese people in the last 10 years, the Vietnamese government
continues to suppress organized religious activities forcefully and to
monitor and control religious communities. The government prohibits
religious activity by those not affiliated with one of the six
officially recognized religious organizations. Individuals have been
detained, fined, imprisoned, and kept under close surveillance by
security forces for engaging in ``illegal'' religious activities. In
addition, the government uses the recognition process to monitor and
control officially sanctioned religious groups: restricting the
procurement and distribution of religious literature, controlling
religious training, and interfering with the selection of religious
leaders.
Recommendations
1. The U.S. Congress should ratify the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral
Trade Agreement (BTA) only after it passes a sense of the
Congress resolution calling for the Vietnamese government to
make substantial improvements in the protection of religious
freedom or after the Vietnamese government undertakes
obligations to the United States to make such improvements.
Substantial improvements should be measured by the following
standards:
1.1. Release from imprisonment, detention, house
arrest, or intimidating surveillance persons who are so
restricted due to their religious identities or
activities.
1.2. Permit unhindered access to religious leaders by
U.S. diplomatic personnel and government officials, the
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and
respected international human rights organizations,
including, if requested, a return visit by the UN
Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance.
1.3. Establish the freedom to engage in religious
activities (including the freedom for religious groups
to govern themselves and select their leaders, worship
publicly, express and advocate religious beliefs, and
distribute religious literature) outside state-
controlled religious organizations and eliminate
controls on the activities of officially registered
organizations. Allow indigenous religious communities
to conduct educational, charitable, and humanitarian
activities.
1.4. Permit religious groups to gather for annual
observances of primary religious holidays.
1.5. Return confiscated religious properties.
1.6. Permit domestic Vietnamese religious
organizations and individuals to interact with foreign
organizations and individuals.
2. If Congress ratifies the BTA and approves conditional
Normal Trade Relations status for Vietnam, it should review
Vietnam's progress on the protection of religious freedom as
part of an annual review of that status.
3. The United States should withhold its support for
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank loans to
Vietnam (except those providing for basic human needs) until
the government of Vietnam agrees to make substantial
improvements in the protection of religious freedom, as
measured by the standards itemized in 1.1 through 1.6 above.
4. The U.S. government should make the protection of
religious freedom a high-priority issue in its bilateral
relations with Vietnam, including in the annual human rights
dialogue with the Vietnamese government and in future trade
negotiations, advocating substantial improvement in the
protection of religious freedom as measured by the standards
itemized as 1.1 through 1.6 above. The U.S. Department of State
should advise the office of the U.S. Trade Representative
(USTR) on the state of religious freedom and other human rights
in Vietnam, and should request that the USTR advance the U.S.
government's interests in human rights in and through the
negotiations and the provisions of any further trade agreement
or companion agreement between the two countries.
5. The U.S. government should insist that the Vietnamese
government permit domestic Vietnamese religious and other non-
governmental organizations to distribute their own and donated
aid.
6. The U.S. government should, through its foreign assistance
and exchange programs, support individuals (and organizations,
if they exist) in Vietnam that are advocating human rights
(including religious freedom), the rule of law, and legal
reform. It should also support exchanges between Vietnamese
religious communities and U.S. religious and other non-
governmental organizations concerned with religious freedom in
Vietnam.
7. Until religious freedom significantly improves in Vietnam
(as measured by the standards itemized as 1.1 through 1.6,
above), the U.S. government should initiate or support a
resolution to censure Vietnam at the annual meeting of the UN
Commission on Human Rights and should engage in a sustained
campaign to persuade other governments to support it.
8. The U.S. government should continue to support the
Association for Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Human Rights
Working Group, and should encourage the Vietnamese government
to join the working group.
9. The United States should continue to support Radio Free
Asia broadcasts into Vietnam as a vehicle for promoting
religious freedom and human rights in that
XII. U.S. CAPITAL MARKETS
The Commission is concerned that significant and material
information about companies doing business in Countries of Particular
Concern (CPCs) is being withheld from the U.S. investing public.
Foreign companies appear to be able to raise capital in U.S. markets
without disclosing their business interests in CPCs, the risks
associated therewith, and whether or not the proceeds from the sale of
securities will be used to support its business in the CPC (and perhaps
to support a foreign government that has been found to engage in or
tolerate egregious religious-freedom violations). The problem is
especially acute in the case of foreign companies because, unlike U.S.
companies, foreign companies are generally permitted under U.S. law to
do business in CPCs that are subject to comprehensive U.S. economic
sanctions. Moreover, these companies can, in a wide range of
circumstances, raise capital in U.S. markets without violating those
sanctions. Thus, the issue of adequate disclosure is particularly
important. Most important, however, is that reasonably prudent
investors in U.S. financial markets may and should deem the information
described above as material to their investment decisions.
Recommendations
1. The United States should require any U.S. or foreign
issuer of securities that is doing business in a country that
has been designated as a CPC under the International Religious
Freedom Act of 1998 to disclose in any registration statement
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for any new
offering of securities the following information as to each
such country:
1.1. The nature and extent of the business that it
and its affiliates are conducting in the particular
CPC, (i) including any plans for expansion or
diversification and any business relationships with
agencies or instrumentalities of the government of the
CPC and (ii) specifying the identity of such agencies
or instrumentalities;
1.2. Whether it plans to use the proceeds of the sale
of the securities in connection with its business in
the CPC and, if so, how; and
1.3. All significant risk factors associated with
doing business in the CPC, including, but not limited
to: (i) the political, economic, and social conditions
inside the CPC, including the policies and practices of
the government of the CPC with respect to religious
freedom; (ii) the extent to which the business of the
issuer and its affiliates directly or indirectly
supports or facilitates those policies and practices;
and (iii) the potential for and likely impact of a
campaign by U.S. persons based on human rights concerns
to prevent the purchase or retention of securities of
the issuer, including a divestment campaign or
shareholder lawsuit.
2. The United States should require any issuer that is doing
business in a CPC to disclose the information specified in
items 1.1 and 1.3 above in its filings with the SEC, including
its annual proxy statement or annual report, in the case of a
U.S. issuer, or its U.S. markets annual report, in the case of
a foreign issuer.
3. The U.S. government, including Congress, should examine
how the structuring of securities transactions or the
manipulation of corporate relationships by non-U.S. issuers can
be used to circumvent U.S. economic sanctions.
XIII. U.S. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE
In its first two years, the Commission has found significant
religious-freedom violations in some countries that receive U.S.
foreign assistance. Foreign aid can be an important tool to promote
religious freedom either directly or indirectly. Foreign assistance can
support programs directly concerned with promoting religious freedom,
such as legal advocacy, technical assistance, or human rights
education. It can also support religious freedom indirectly by
supporting programs that promote, for example, democracy, civil
society, rule of law, professional law enforcement, and judicial
independence.
Recommendations
1. No U.S. foreign assistance should be provided to any U.S.
or foreign person (governmental or non-governmental) who, in a
foreign country and at any time during the preceding 24-month
period, has (a) committed acts of violence targeting
individuals on account of their religious belief or practice,
or (b) served as an instrumentality of official government
policies of invidious religious discrimination. Furthermore, no
U.S. foreign assistance should be provided to any program that
discriminates against recipients or beneficiaries on the basis
of religion.
2. The State Department, in its annual International
Religious Freedom Report (or in the classified addendum) should
identify (a) agencies or instrumentalities of foreign
governments engaged in violations of religious freedom, and (b)
nongovernmental entities engaged in violations of religious
freedom and describe the nature and extent of those violations.
xiv. the international religious freedom act and the state department's
``annual report on international religious freedom--2000''
Most of the mechanisms established by IRFA are now in their second
year of existence, and in September 2000, four significant events
occurred with respect to IRFA and U.S. foreign policy related to
international religious freedom. First, the State Department issued its
``Annual Report on International Religious Freedom--2000'' (2000 Annual
Report), finding that: ``Much of the world's population lives in
countries in which the right to religious freedom is restricted or
prohibited.'' Second, then-Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
announced those countries designated as ``countries of particular
concern'' (CPC) the most egregious violators of religious freedom.
Disappointingly, only those countries named as CPCs in 1999 were so
designated in 2000, despite ample evidence that others had met the
statutory threshold. Third, Secretary Albright announced the actions
that she would take pursuant to IRFA to promote religious freedom in
those countries designated as CPCs. Again disappointingly, no
additional action was taken against any CPC. And fourth, Robert A.
Seiple, the first Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious
Freedom, stepped down from his office leaving his post vacant through
the date this report went to print.
The State Department has done a highly commendable job in its
second annual report of telling the tragic story of religious
persecution around the globe. This years report generally shows a more
complete understanding of religious-freedom issues and extensive fact-
finding and verification. It reflects hard work on the ground.
In other respects as well, this year's report is an improvement
over last year, and the Commission is pleased that some of the
recommendations made in its first annual report appear to have been
adopted by the Department. The Commission's review of the Department's
instruction cable sent to the embassies earlier this year also shows
that the Department incorporated many of the Commission's suggestions
in what information it solicited from embassy officials.
However, problems remain. In some of the reports, the main thrust
of what is happening and why is lost in detail and through omissions of
important context. Another notable problem is that this year's report
includes a section in the executive summary entitled ``Improvements in
International Religious Freedom,'' the contents of which is also
reported in the individual country chapters. The Commission believes
that the reporting of such ``improvements'' must be carefully handled
in order to avoid misrepresentation of the conditions of religious
freedom.
This report is the yardstick with which to measure the U.S.
government's progress in meeting the goals of the statute. The
Commission urges all those interested in promoting religious freedom to
review carefully what the 2000 Annual Report says U.S. policy is toward
violators of religious freedom and what the United States is doing to
promote religious freedom. Unfortunately, the report shows that in
several key countries--those in which significant religious-freedom
violations occur--U.S. policies and actions do not reflect the gravity
of the situation.
The Commission is very disappointed that the Secretary did not name
Laos, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, and
Turkmenistan as CPCs. On July 28, 2000, the Commission wrote to the
Secretary concluding that the governments of each of these four
countries have engaged in particularly severe violations of religious
freedom and thus meet the statutory threshold for designation as CPCs.
The Commission's conclusion was based on the information that was
available to it at that time. The information contained in the 2000
Annual Report only confirms that these countries should be designated
as CPCs.
The Commission regrets the departure in September of Ambassador-at-
Large for International Religious Freedom Robert A. Seiple. The
Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom is a very
important part of U.S. policy initiatives to promote religious freedom
abroad--the 2000 Annual Report calls his office ``the fulcrum of the
effort to promote religious freedom.'' A prolonged vacancy in this
crucial position threatens U.S. progress in promoting religious
freedom. The Commission has urged President Bush to move quickly to
fill this vacancy.
The Commission reported last year that it had not gained full
access to cables to and from embassies because of the Department's
assertion of a legal position (executive privilege as to deliberative
process within the administration) with which the Commission does not
agree. The Department has since constructed a time-consuming,
cumbersome, and lengthy process whereby Commission staff are able to
review some cables after they have been redacted. This process means
the Commission cannot see cables until months after they are sent,
making it difficult for the Commission to formulate timely policy
recommendations in fast-moving situations overseas. The Commission has
tried this system in good faith and concludes that it does not meet the
Commission's needs. It can no longer acquiesce to this situation and
will propose a more-expeditious process to the State Department.
International religious freedom has become an important foreign-
policy issue. The growing interest in the United States in the
conditions of religious freedom around the globe and in the promotion
of religious freedom through U.S. foreign policy is exemplified not
only by the passage of IRFA but also by increasing public awareness of
religious-freedom violations in countries such as China and Sudan.
Secretary of State Powell has publicly stated that, in his view, the
State Department has not been given adequate resources to perform its
functions. The Commission believes that this is particularly true in
the religious-freedom area. We further believe that in order to meet
its obligations under IRFA and to ensure that the promotion of
religious freedom remains a foreign-policy priority, adequate staff
must be devoted to these tasks. The Commission urges the State
Department to review its staffing of religious-freedom issues in U.S.
embassies and in its regional and functional bureaus, particularly in
the Office of International Religious Freedom, and provide an increase
in staffing adequate to perform the important task of promoting
international religious freedom.
Senator Brownback. Thank you all very much.
The report is an excellent report, very specific and with
specific recommendations, which I think is all to its strength
as well so that we can have those items in it. I really want to
applaud you just in a general note at the outset of this.
Having been working on this from the outset, what you folks
have been able to do in a short period of time I think has been
quite extraordinary, raising the visibility, raising the
awareness, raising the issue repeatedly around the world and in
a quality fashion. I think you have done an outstanding job and
another report that is very, very good.
Mr. Young, I want to start with you, if I could, on this
disclosure of business activities that is taking place, which I
think is a very positive step for people to have. What do you
see continuing to take place? There have been initial steps
that have been made to require disclosure. What additional
steps do you feel need to take place on disclosure of business
activity in countries of particular concern?
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, as we read the SEC letter of May
8, it requires disclosure on public offering documents, not
necessarily all documents filed with the SEC, but public
offering documents for business activities in countries that
are under OFAC sanctions. We would expand that to include all
public filings with the SEC, including annual reports, and
would also expand it to also include, beyond just countries
under OFAC sanctions, all countries that are designated as
countries of particular concern under the International
Religious Freedom Act. Now, there is some overlap between those
two groups, obviously, but there are some countries that have
been named countries of particular concern that are not
necessarily under OFAC sanction right now.
Senator Brownback. So, how many countries then would be
designated under this current report that would have to be
reporting on the activities?
Mr. Young. Well, as we read the letter--I think the precise
implementation remains to be seen--it would include countries
for which there are OFAC sanctions like Burma and Sudan. It
would also include, I believe, some countries that are under
OFAC sanction for terrorism, not necessarily under sanction for
international religious freedom. So, there would be some
countries beyond those that would be named countries of
particular concern and there would be some that would not be
subject to it that would be named under the International
Religious Freedom Act as countries of particular concern but
are not under OFAC sanction right now.
Senator Brownback. I think this is an important step
forward so that investors will know this is what is happening
in those countries where people are investing. They can have a
feel and a sense for that, and that may be something that
people will want to take into consideration in their investment
decisions and they should have ready access to that
information.
Mr. Young. Well, we very much agree, Mr. Chairman. It also,
we believe, would give the shareholders an opportunity to make
their voice felt in terms of how they might prefer to see the
business activities of that corporation conducted. It would
also give the U.S. Government a chance to better monitor
exactly what kind of business activities were engaged in in
these countries, China, I think, being perhaps the principal
example of one that would not be covered by the current SEC
letter, as we understand it, but we think should be.
Senator Brownback. Rabbi Saperstein, thank you for
mentioning in this report Saudi Arabia. That has been a country
that for some period of time we have more or less tried to say,
well, we do not want to address this with the Saudis for
whatever reasons, and there are a couple that come quickly to
mind. But I think it is important for this report to be fair
and be seen as objective, that it includes all the countries of
concern. I appreciate that you have stepped up to address Saudi
Arabia on that where we have not previously.
Was that a particularly difficult decision by the
Commission to address Saudi Arabia?
Rabbi Saperstein. No. The Commission had been looking at
the issue of Saudi Arabia for a while, and it actually, as long
ago as last July in its letter to Secretary Albright, had made
the recommendation that Saudi Arabia should be added as a
country of particular concern. So, we were glad to have the
opportunity to travel there, to meet with people firsthand,
both from the government and the religious community. It helped
fill in some of the blanks for us.
After our studies on this issue over this past year and our
visit to Saudi Arabia, we felt comfortable putting out the
report that we did, which laid out the issues exactly. The
Commission made, as we do with each of our reports,
recommendations to the U.S. Government about how it can engage
with the Saudi Government to begin to more effectively address
both the deep-rooted issues of fundamental religious freedom
and the pervasive limitations on it, and also recommendations
of things that could be done around the edges that would make
life a bit more palatable even within the restrictions that the
Saudis have set. These include allowing clergy from outside the
country to visit and to minister, even on private grounds, to
the members of minority religious groups, as well as trying to
encourage the government to check some of the abuses of the
religious police who very often clearly step over the legal
limits of what they are supposed to do by interfering with
private worship and harassing people who are engaged in private
worship in accordance with the government's rules. These are
the kinds of interactions that we can do in the short run even
while we are addressing some of the systematic long-term
issues.
Senator Brownback. Have you had any initial readout from
the Saudi Government regarding these recommendations?
Rabbi Saperstein. Not regarding the recommendations yet. We
have not heard back from them. But in the concurrences that
Cardinal McCarrick and I wrote--we each wrote concurrences to
that part of the report--we pointed out that in our meetings in
Saudi Arabia, there seemed to be some significant interest to
engage in dialog with religious leaders from outside of Saudi
Arabia about some of these issues and problems and, perhaps to
address some of these issues we are talking about, in
particular the issue of clergy being able to travel there. So,
this kind of dialog--if what we heard is followed through--
would be a very positive sign. That is some indication that
this whole process is having the kind of desired effect that we
would want. Still, even if all of that is done, we have a long
way to go until the criteria of the international treaties
define as religious freedom--i.e., the criteria used under our
International Religious Freedom Act--would be implemented in
real life for the people of Saudi Arabia. This includes both
the citizens and the foreign visitors and foreign workers who
live there who are particularly restricted in their ability to
practice their religion.
Senator Brownback. I am glad you have started it because by
us not addressing or ignoring it is just a glaring mistake on
our part not to.
Ms. Shea, the Sudan has been a focus that I have had and I
know you have had for several years as well. It is just so
lamentable that it continues to get worse. I had a staff
member, Sharon Payt, who is here today, was there in December
with a group that helped in the purchase back of 4,100 slaves.
The stories that she brought back of individuals--these were, I
think, all women and children who were redeemed slaves--were
ghastly stories, women that had been enslaved for 5 to 7 years
that had gone through mutilation, cuts on their neck, on their
chest, gang rapes when they were taken, just the most
horrifying circumstances and conditions that they had been
through over a period of time. And it does not seem like any of
this is abating any. There hopefully can be an increased global
focus, and an increased U.S. focus maybe will bring more of
that.
I appreciate the specific recommendations that you are
putting in here, and I am hopeful that we can continue to press
these to where we could get some resolution.
You talk about direct support to the south or to opposition
groups. I would like for you to talk a little more in specifics
about what the Commission would like to see us do on providing
direct support to the opposition.
Ms. Shea. Yes. We this year recommended that the United
States should increase its assistance to southern Sudan and to
the NDA in particular. We are urging this so that they can be
prepared when peace talks do occur. We urge the United States
to take the lead, to take a greater role now in developing a
context for implementing the IGAD Declaration of Principles. We
call for the appointment of a high-level special envoy who will
lead this enterprise of trying to establish a just peace, a
peace where religious freedom for the south, as well as the
north, will be recognized.
So, this is not lethal aid that we are recommending. We are
also recommending that there be larger amounts of humanitarian
aid going to the south in places that have not received aid
under Operation Lifeline Sudan, and that there be greater aid
channeled outside of Operation Lifeline Sudan. But, we are
urging that there be aid for greater peace development.
Senator Brownback. It seems to me in the reports I am
receiving that there is getting to be an increased focus on the
Sudan and there is a strong coalition coming together from all
political spectrums. You have been around religious freedom
work for a much longer period of time than I have. Does it seem
we are finally getting to the critical mass of truly having
this issue of religious freedom in the Sudan addressed?
Ms. Shea. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question.
Yes, I think it does. I think we are getting to that point. We
have had, as you say, a broad coalition that includes a number
of human rights groups like Freedom House, my own group, the
American Anti-slavery Association, Christian Solidarity
International, and also religious groups from the Religious
Action Center of Reform Judaism, which Rabbi Saperstein
directs, to the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference, to the
Samaritan's Purse, and the Southern Baptist Convention, and the
Episcopal Church's Justice and Peace Office.
So, there are many, many groups involved in this
enterprise, and we are all united in our belief that there
should be a special envoy appointed, that peace should be a
very high priority. This coalition is echoing what the
Commission's recommendations are now and what they were last
year as well, that there should be a tightening of sanctions on
Sudan. Oil is a deep concern. It is directly related to the
war. It has enabled the Sudanese Government to double its
capacity to prosecute the war and its barbarism.
This Commission determined that Sudan was the world's worst
violator, the most violent persecutor of religious persecution,
that its repression was at genocidal levels. And it has gotten
even worse this year. So, the time for a grace period to see if
the Government of Sudan is going to improve or get better is
over. There needs to be a tightening of this oil loophole at
this time to prevent it from carrying out these genocidal
policies.
We do not take lightly our recommendation for delisting
from capital markets these foreign oil companies that are
involved like PetroChina's parent company and, Talisman Energy
from Canada. We do not make the suggestion lightly. We know
that that is a major step, but this is an exceptional situation
where there are genocidal policies involved and the oil is so
directly linked to the persecution.
Senator Brownback. Because they are clearing out areas
where people are that are of different faiths or backgrounds,
but that is also where the oil is.
Ms. Shea. That is right. We see, in particular, the
suffering of the Nuba people where there is a real, real
concern and supporting facts that they are becoming extinct, if
you will. These people are just being annihilated because the
oil pipeline runs through their territory.
Senator Brownback. I think this is going to be a
particularly challenging country to the Bush administration,
and they seem to be stepping up much more to it. I hope we can
continue to offer specific items of what it is going to take
for us to continue to press this issue on forward.
Ms. Shea. Yes. If I may, again, underscore the importance
of the statement by the Acting Director of SEC, Laura Unger, in
her May 8 letter, in which she calls for further disclosure of
the extent and relationship in Sudan of the oil companies'
involvement in human rights atrocities. This same letter makes
religious persecution a risk factor explicitly. So, that is
very important. It is being treated very seriously by Wall
Street, I have heard from good sources, it is seen as a major
step.
There is some concern now that the new Director of the SEC,
Harvey Pitt, will be walking it back. I see Senator Sarbanes
has joined us. Welcome, Senator. If you are to be the new
chairman of the Banking Committee, I urge you to urge Harvey
Pitt during his confirmation hearing as the new Chairman of the
SEC not to walk back, not to dilute the brand new disclosure
requirements for companies doing business in these sanctioned
regimes.
Thank you.
Senator Brownback. Very good. Thank you.
Dr. Kazemzadeh, what about Afghanistan? Did you look at
Afghanistan and the lack of religious freedom there?
Dr. Kazemzadeh. Yes, we did. Of course, in Afghanistan the
situation is seemingly hopeless. The government is not fully in
control of its own territory, and the government is the
perpetrator too. There is oppression of all religious groups
including Muslims. The Shiite Muslims suffer just as much as
others. The latest news, of course, is that Hindus are supposed
to wear distinctive clothing, which only a few weeks ago the
Taliban Government denied.
The Commission's recommendations on Afghanistan are
essentially that it be proclaimed a country of particular
concern, and we have written to Secretary Albright about this
because Afghanistan is, perhaps next to Sudan, the greatest
violator of religious freedom. I say next to Sudan not because
of the intensity of the persecution of other groups but because
in Afghanistan there are no such large minorities whom you
could possibly exterminate. So, it is only a matter of degree
and capacity.
Senator Brownback. I wanted to ask you about an issue I
raised last year when you issued your report. Are you having
any problems regarding the disclosure of cable traffic by the
State Department or others to the Commission? Are you having
any difficulty getting the information you need?
Rabbi Saperstein Mr. Chairman, I am glad that you asked
that question. In general, we have had good cooperation between
the State Department, both of the last administration and this
administration, with our work.
One of the nagging, bewildering, and counterproductive
problems, of the few problems that we have had, has been on
this issue of access to cables. Even those cables to which
either the commissioners and/or the staff have full security
clearance, the State Department's procedure has been to have
them redacted. They are being redacted by people with the same
security levels, and perhaps sometimes even lesser security
levels, before we can see them. And that process takes a lot of
time. It means the information we get is outdated and often not
effective. We are seeing only what the particular staff person
that did the redaction thought appropriate.
We believe this is totally out of keeping with what the
intent of Congress was in creating the Commission and in asking
the government agencies to cooperate with the Commission in
providing information to them. We have urged the State
Department to change this procedure and we would be deeply
appreciative of anything that you or this committee could do to
be helpful in facilitating this frustrating and bewildering
problem that we continue to face.
Senator Brownback. Well, you should have access to that
information, and we will attempt to provide additional support
for you to be able to get that information as you need it.
Rabbi Saperstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Brownback. Senator Sarbanes.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to commend you for holding this hearing. I
know this is a subject in which you have had a longstanding
interest and have done considerable work. I am glad we had this
chance to survey the situation under Senator Brownback's
chairmanship here. I do not expect the committee's interest to
lessen in any way with the changeover. Conceivably it might
even intensify, although we have tried to follow this issue
quite closely.
I regard the International Religious Freedom Act, the one
we passed in 1998, signed into law in October, as an extremely
significant act, as I think the panel members know from at
least the previous appearance of some of them before the
committee. We assume that the new administration is working on
getting an ambassador-at-large at the State Department in order
to fill that position. Does the Commission know where they
stand on that? Do you have any indications at all?
Rabbi Saperstein. Not yet, Mr. Sarbanes.
Senator Sarbanes. I am interested in exactly the status of
the Commission. Did you touch upon that in your statements? I
apologize. I was not able to be here right at the beginning.
Was that touched upon?
Rabbi Saperstein. We did not really address that issue and
we would be delighted to discuss that.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, am I correct? There are 10 members
of the Commission: the ambassador, in a sense, ex officio,
without a vote, and then nine other members. Is that correct?
Rabbi Saperstein. That is correct.
Senator Sarbanes. Are Ms. Shea and Dean Young the only two
Commission members at the moment?
Rabbi Saperstein. That is true.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, that is not a very good state of
affairs. Do you want to do that, Rabbi Saperstein? Who wants to
outline that? You law school deans always want to talk about
the legalities.
Rabbi Saperstein. And law school professors like me give
way to the deans.
Mr. Young. Ms. Shea and I would be happy to run the
Commission by ourselves.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, with the legislation, we
require a quorum of at least six members to take any action at
all. So, we really are disabled from doing anything until the
remaining appointments are made.
The appointments that remain to be made are the three
appointments from the White House and the two Democratic
senatorial appointments and the two House Democratic
appointments. So, we really do have seven left to be appointed.
We hope that that will happen very, very soon because we really
are basically unable to make any recommendations or take any
official action on the part of the Commission until at least
four more appointments are made.
Senator Sarbanes. When did all these terms end?
Mr. Young. They all expired on May 14.
Senator Sarbanes. Now, I take it that you are recommending
in a reauthorization we do staggered terms. Is that correct?
Rabbi Saperstein. Staggered terms would obviously obviate
this problem. So, that would be a helpful thing for the
Congress to do here. It is a real problem. The Democratic
appointments from the House and the Senate have not been made
and the three White House appointments have not been made. And
that, on top of the absence of the ambassador-at-large, is
deeply frustrating. It is really grinding this important work
to a halt. So, getting the ambassador appointed as soon as
possible and these appointments made is vitally important. And
to obviate the problem and mitigate it in the future, staggered
terms would help significantly. That is part of several pieces
of technical corrections that we have requested be made.
Senator Sarbanes. Now, you have an authorization until
when?
Rabbi Saperstein. Through this fiscal year.
Senator Sarbanes. Only this fiscal year?
Rabbi Saperstein. Yes. The multi-year authorization that
was in the original legislation was changed when another set of
technical amendments were made. That was not our recommendation
that that be changed. Keeping it would have made things a
little bit easier.
The other question is where the appropriations will be done
out of. We have made some progress with the leadership of the
House indicating that they will be recommending we be brought
under the Commerce, Justice and State appropriations. We would
hope that that would be something the Senate would do as well.
Anything, again, this committee could do to see that that is
taken care of would be of enormous help to us. Because of the
idiosyncracy of the circumstances of how we got funded by
supplemental legislation originally, we were not in anyone's
home, and we need to have that done. So, that is another place
that you can be of significant assistance to the work of the
Commission.
Senator Sarbanes. Now, what kind of authorization are you
seeking?
Rabbi Saperstein. This will be our third year. The budgets
have been at the $3 million range.
Senator Sarbanes. No. I want to do the authorization first.
You are going to lose your authorization at the end of this
fiscal year.
Rabbi Saperstein. Correct.
Senator Sarbanes. So, you want to be reauthorized for how
long? What is your recommendation on reauthorization? Forever.
Rabbi Saperstein. Obviously, ideally a kind of multi-year
authorization--I believe in the original legislation it was a
4-year authorization until the sunset of the Commission was
supposed to kick in. We hope that that sunset provision will be
lifted because we think that the value of this Commission has
been clearly affirmed by its work. So, we hope, first, the
sunset provision will be lifted, and again, some kind of multi-
year authorization that you regard as appropriate to the nature
of this work would be enacted for the future.
The level is still a $3 million authorization and
appropriation for which we are looking for.
Senator Sarbanes. Now, your appropriated for $3 million
this year?
Rabbi Saperstein. Permit me just 1 second on this. Because
we began late the first year of operation, we ended up with $1
million that had not been spent. We were given a $2 million
appropriation last year to give us the $3 million that we are
spending this year. We are asking for $2.9 million for this
coming year. That consistently follows where we have been
spending the resources allocated to us to do our work.
Senator Sarbanes. You are asking for $2.9 million for the
fiscal year beginning next October 1?
Rabbi Saperstein. That is correct, for fiscal year 2002:
$2,949,000.
Senator Sarbanes. What do you have for this year?
Rabbi Saperstein. For this year, it was a $2 million
appropriation added to the $1 million appropriated the first
year that we still had available. So, the effect was a $3
million appropriation.
Senator Sarbanes. Now, am I correct that the administration
in its budget has provided $3 million?
Rabbi Saperstein. That is correct.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, I hope this is a matter we can pay
attention to in short order, the authorizations and the
appropriations.
On the appropriation, at the moment you are just kind of
floating around, getting your appropriation. You are not part
of a particular----
Rabbi Saperstein. That is correct. That is why if we can be
part of the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations, that
is the natural home for us. As I said, some of the leadership
over on the House side has indicated that would be their hope
and will be their recommendation, and we hope this committee
can be helpful to us formally or informally in achieving the
same result here.
Senator Sarbanes. Now, on the staggered terms, what is it
you are providing for? Three-year terms and three of them each
year or what? What is your recommendation on that score?
Rabbi Saperstein. With your permission, I want to turn to
the staff to see exactly. We talked about the concept and I am
not sure exactly where the formulation is now. So, let me ask.
The request is for this to be implemented in two stages.
The first is a 2-year term with a 1-year possible
reappointment, and then from that point on, the group will be
split half and half. We are all off now. In other words,
everyone would be reappointed to a 2-year term, with a
possibility of a 1-year reappointment, but at that time then
split the group into 2-year appointments for five and then
stagger them. That is why the 1 year would apply, let us say,
four of them, 2 years to five, and from that point on, it will
be 2 years every other year for either four or five.
Senator Sarbanes. What have you been getting?
Rabbi Saperstein. It was all of us appointed for 2 years,
the term ending on May 14. On May 14, we all went out of
office, and for a period of time, there was no one who was a
commissioner. Since that time, Mr. Hastert and Senator Lott
have made appointments of Dean Young and Nina Shea to be their
appointments. Those are single appointments.
Senator Sarbanes. I often criticize their judgment, but
certainly not in this case.
Rabbi Saperstein. And appropriately so. These are wonderful
appointments that carry forth the work.
But the way it is set up, the White House has three
appointments, and whichever party does not control the White
House has two appointments in the House and the Senate. None of
those seven has been made yet.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, we will work on that.
Rabbi Saperstein. Thank you, sir.
Senator Sarbanes. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues would
indulge me, I have two other questions I would like to ask.
Senator Brownback. Yes, please.
Senator Sarbanes. Ms. Shea, I caught you at the tail end.
Why do you not lay out for me what you want me to ask Harvey
Pitt?
Ms. Shea. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes.
Senator Sarbanes. I think I know, but why do you not give
it to me.
Ms. Shea. Well, as you know, Sudan has been a major focus
of this Commission, and we are very concerned about the fact
that a terrible, drastic situation has gotten worse in terms of
religious persecution over the last year in Sudan. The main
reason for this deterioration has been the increased revenues
available to the Government of Sudan because of the oil
extraction there by foreign companies. American companies are
already under sanctions and are not allowed to engage in the
oil ventures with Khartoum. However, foreign companies can do
that, have done it, and come to U.S. markets to raise capital
for those ventures.
One of our recommendations was full disclosure by these
foreign companies coming to U.S. capital markets about the
extent and nature of their business in Sudan, their investments
in Sudan, the facts regarding human rights and religious
freedom. This recommendation in part, and especially as it
applies to Sudan, was picked up by the acting Director of the
SEC, Laura Unger, and she has written a letter of May 8 to
Congressman Frank Wolf, in response to a letter he wrote, that
the SEC would henceforth require this kind of disclosure for
countries under OFAC sanctions. Sudan happens to fall under
that. We saw this as a huge step forward, as meeting, at least
in major part, one of our recommendations.
There is a concern now and some indications that the
incoming Director, Harvey Pitt, may either dilute or walk back
this disclosure requirement. I was asking, when you walked in,
if you would raise your concern that that not happen at his
confirmation hearing.
Senator Sarbanes. You have, of course, expanded your list
this year, and I gather last year there was some criticism that
it was too narrowly focused. But are there any success stories?
Can you point to any countries that were really real problems
where the situation has gotten better?
Rabbi Saperstein. Senator Sarbanes, if I may respond to
that. There are different ways of measuring that. In the most
egregious countries, the ones that are the countries of
particular concern, with one exception--and that is in Serbia--
there have really been no significant improvements. In other
countries in which there are egregious problems and we made
recommendations that they be on the CPC list, there has been
very little real progress made.
Where progress happens in those kinds of countries, it
happens on a case-by-case basis and part of the work of the
ambassador-at-large has been to travel to some of those
countries and work in terms of the plight of particular
individuals who are in trouble, particularly leaders, often
symbolic leaders who symbolize the struggle for freedom more
broadly. This happens in a broad range of countries, but where
there is progress in the toughest countries or in many of the
others, it happens in that way.
So, for example, right now Ms. Shea, who follows this so
well--and we all rely on her--pointed out to me that in Vietnam
recently Father Ly, who is the Catholic priest who submitted
testimony to us at our hearing and who has been an exemplary
leader on these issues, was recently arrested. And the
venerable Thich Quang Do was put into administrative detention
simply for trying to get medical help to the patriarch of the
independent Buddhist church. These are the kinds of issues
where the State Department often will intervene and act and
sometimes has made progress.
There is another answer I think to your important question
that is much broader than that. Something truly remarkable is
happening for this cause as a result of the legislation that
you have created. By mandating an annual report, it means that
in every U.S. Embassy across the globe today there are Foreign
Service officers who really know this issue. As we have
traveled to other countries and met with the embassy staff
there, we have been enormously encouraged that there are people
who know the issue, who know now all the religious leaders, all
of the groups that are in trouble, where before it was total
idiosyncratic whether or not that would have occurred. They
know the government officials and are working with them. They
help avoid bad laws when bad laws are being proposed, and we
can cite several instances where intervention by the U.S.
Embassy, for example, in Romania and other places, helped raise
their awareness that legislation that had been proposed would
have been extraordinarily problematic.
Wherever we go across the globe, we hear a consistent
message from the members and leaders of the persecuted groups.
What a difference it is that we have someone we can go to now,
someone who knows us and knows this issue, and who is mandated
to care about this issue. They feel the impact of that. That
helps avoid many problems that we then do not have to resolve.
The final thing I would point out is, as I have traveled
during my year as chair to a number of the countries, I met
with representatives of several countries in the democratic
world who said we cannot afford to do this, but you ought to
know we really make use of your annual report from the
Commission and the annual report of the State Department on
this issue. We send it out to all of our people in the field.
We ask them to read it. We ask them to work with the American
Embassy and to get involved. That also is a major impact and
benefit that this process has had.
So, while there are still millions of people who remain
persecuted, imprisoned, tortured, harassed simply because they
want to live out their religious lives in accordance with their
conscience, there are also millions of people who have been
helped by this legislation whose plight has been lessened and
whose lives are better because of what you created here. And I
hope you feel the same measure of pride that we feel in terms
of having contributed to that.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, thank you all very much.
Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not thank the
members of the Commission that are before us and their other
colleagues for the contribution they are making. It is very,
very important work and we are very anxious that the Commission
be able to carry on in this very committed and independent
manner in which it has been conducting its activities. We will
try to work on these structural and organizational problems
that we were talking about.
Thank you very much.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. When do you think the Commission will get
around to looking at religious freedom in Cuba?
Ms. Shea. Well, speaking as someone who is going to be
going forward in this Commission in the next 2 years, I think
that that is certainly a country that we will continue to
monitor and will put on our radar screen. There have been
recent statements of disappointment I know from the Vatican
that they did not see the progress that they had hoped after
the Pope's visit. Some evangelical churches have been
dismantled and so forth. So, I think that that is a very good
suggestion.
Senator Nelson. Do you think that religious freedom should
play a part in United States foreign policy, particularly with
regard to appropriations, military aid, and foreign assistance?
Mr. Young. Mr. Senator, we do. In fact, we have made some
very specific recommendations regarding foreign aid, both
positive and negative, in the sense that we believe our foreign
aid, as provided in the International Religious Freedom Act,
ought to be targeted to activities that would promote human
rights generally and freedom of religion in particular. We have
also suggested that the government monitor very carefully and
not give aid to organizations that may facilitate policies of
either religious discrimination or actual persecution or
government instrumentalities that might do that. So, I think
you are absolutely right about that. The Commission has looked
at that and made some recommendations.
We have looked a little less at military aid because at
least the countries we have initially identified as among the
most abusive do not have deep military ties with the United
States, but that is also something we have referenced in our
report as well, particularly as you begin to look at countries
with which the United States has that kind of a relationship.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
I want to thank the Commission again. I just think this is
outstanding work, and during my travels abroad, what I find in
our embassies and amongst religious leaders as well, is an
increased awareness and focus. It is really what you had
stated, Rabbi Saperstein, that they know the issue now. They
are aware of it. They advocate for it. And there has been a
remarkable sea change in a very short period of time that that
has taken place and it really has contributed to a substantial
growth in human rights of the most fundamental nature, that
being how you seek to worship in your own privacy and the way
that you want to. So, I commend you. This is some of the best
work I think that we do for other people around the world.
Godspeed in continuing it.
We will leave the record open the requisite period of time
for additional questions that may be submitted. Thank you all
for coming. The hearing is adjourned.
Dr. Kazemzadeh. Mr. Chairman, if I may thank you personally
and on behalf of the Commission for all of the support that you
and your colleagues have given to this Commission.
Senator Brownback. Well, thank you. And we will leave the
record open for that statement.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]