[JPRT 107-77]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
107th Congress
2d Session JOINT COMMITTEE PRINT S. Prt.
107-77
_______________________________________________________________________
ANNUAL REPORT ON
INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM 2002
__________
R E P O R T
SUBMITTED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
OF THE
U.S. SENATE
AND THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
OF THE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 102 OF THE INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
ACT OF 1998
NOVEMBER 2002
Printed for the use of the Committees on Foreign Relations of the U.S. Senate and International Relations of the U.S. House of Representatives, respectively.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-501 WASHINGTON : 2002
_____________________________________________________________________________
For the sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800 fax: (202) 512-2250. Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware, Chairman
PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland JESSE HELMS, North Carolina
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota BILL FRIST, Tennessee
BARBARA BOXER, California LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
BILL NELSON, Florida SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
Virginia
Antony J. Blinken, Staff Director
Patricia A. McNerney, Republican Staff Director
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York TOM LANTOS, California
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DAN BURTON, Indiana Samoa
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
DANA ROHRABACHER, California CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
PETER T. KING, New York BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
AMO HOUGHTON, New York JIM DAVIS, Florida
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
RON PAUL, Texas BARBARA LEE, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
DARRELL E. ISSA, California EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona GRACE NAPOLITANO, California
BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia DIANE E. WATSON, California
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
Thomas E. Mooney, Sr., Staff Director/General Counsel
Robert R. King, Democratic Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Foreword......................................................... vii
Letter of Transmittal............................................ ix
Preface.......................................................... xi
Introduction..................................................... xiii
Executive Summary................................................ xvii
REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 2002
COUNTRY INDEX
Africa:
Angola....................................................... 1
Benin........................................................ 2
Botswana..................................................... 4
Burkina Faso................................................. 5
Burundi...................................................... 7
Cameroon..................................................... 9
Cape Verde................................................... 11
Central African Republic..................................... 13
Chad......................................................... 15
Comoros...................................................... 17
Congo, Democratic Republic of The............................ 19
Congo, Republic of The....................................... 22
Cote d'Ivoire................................................ 23
Djibouti..................................................... 29
Equatorial Guinea............................................ 30
Eritrea...................................................... 32
Ethiopia..................................................... 35
Gabon........................................................ 39
Gambia, The.................................................. 41
Ghana........................................................ 42
Guinea....................................................... 47
Guinea-Bissau................................................ 49
Kenya........................................................ 50
Lesotho...................................................... 55
Liberia...................................................... 56
Madagascar................................................... 58
Malawi....................................................... 60
Mali......................................................... 62
Mauritania................................................... 64
Mauritius.................................................... 66
Mozambique................................................... 67
Namibia...................................................... 70
Niger........................................................ 71
Nigeria...................................................... 73
Rwanda....................................................... 81
Sao Tome and Principe........................................ 84
Senegal...................................................... 85
Seychelles................................................... 88
Sierra Leone................................................. 89
Somalia...................................................... 90
South Africa................................................. 92
Sudan........................................................ 94
Swaziland.................................................... 99
Tanzania..................................................... 101
Togo......................................................... 105
Uganda....................................................... 106
Zambia....................................................... 109
Zimbabwe..................................................... 111
Latin America and the Caribbean:
Antigua and Barbuda.......................................... 117
Argentina.................................................... 118
Bahamas...................................................... 122
Barbados..................................................... 123
Belize....................................................... 124
Bolivia...................................................... 126
Brazil....................................................... 128
Chile........................................................ 129
Colombia..................................................... 132
Costa Rica................................................... 136
Cuba......................................................... 138
Dominica..................................................... 142
Dominican Republic........................................... 143
Ecuador...................................................... 144
El Salvador.................................................. 146
Grenada...................................................... 147
Guatemala.................................................... 148
Guyana....................................................... 151
Haiti........................................................ 153
Honduras..................................................... 155
Jamaica...................................................... 156
Mexico....................................................... 158
Nicaragua.................................................... 165
Panama....................................................... 167
Paraguay..................................................... 169
Peru......................................................... 170
St. Kitts and Nevis.......................................... 172
Saint Lucia.................................................. 173
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines............................. 174
Suriname..................................................... 175
Trinidad and Tobago.......................................... 177
Uruguay...................................................... 178
Venezuela.................................................... 180
East Asia and the Pacific:
Australia.................................................... 183
Brunei....................................................... 185
Burma........................................................ 187
Cambodia..................................................... 196
China (includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet)................. 197
China (Taiwan only).......................................... 219
Fiji......................................................... 221
Indonesia.................................................... 222
Japan........................................................ 239
Kiribati..................................................... 241
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of....................... 242
Korea, Republic of........................................... 246
Laos......................................................... 247
Malaysia..................................................... 255
Marshall Islands............................................. 258
Micronesia, Federated States of.............................. 259
Mongolia..................................................... 260
Nauru........................................................ 261
New Zealand.................................................. 263
Palau........................................................ 265
Papua New Guinea............................................. 267
Philippines.................................................. 269
Samoa........................................................ 274
Singapore.................................................... 276
Solomon Islands.............................................. 279
Thailand..................................................... 280
Tonga........................................................ 284
Tuvalu....................................................... 285
Vanuatu...................................................... 286
Vietnam...................................................... 288
Europe and Canada:
Albania...................................................... 305
Andorra...................................................... 307
Armenia...................................................... 309
Austria...................................................... 313
Azerbaijan................................................... 317
Belarus...................................................... 322
Belgium...................................................... 331
Bosnia and Herzegovina....................................... 335
Bulgaria..................................................... 341
Canada....................................................... 347
Croatia...................................................... 349
Cyprus....................................................... 352
Czech Republic............................................... 356
Denmark...................................................... 359
Estonia...................................................... 361
Finland...................................................... 363
France....................................................... 365
Georgia...................................................... 369
Germany...................................................... 376
Greece....................................................... 382
Hungary...................................................... 388
Iceland...................................................... 391
Ireland...................................................... 394
Italy........................................................ 395
Kazakhstan................................................... 398
Kyrgyz Republic.............................................. 404
Latvia....................................................... 408
Liechtenstein................................................ 410
Lithuania.................................................... 411
Luxembourg................................................... 416
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia........................ 417
Malta........................................................ 420
Moldova...................................................... 422
Monaco....................................................... 426
Netherlands, The............................................. 427
Norway....................................................... 430
Poland....................................................... 432
Portugal..................................................... 436
Romania...................................................... 438
Russia....................................................... 449
San Marino................................................... 464
Slovak Republic.............................................. 465
Slovenia..................................................... 469
Spain........................................................ 471
Sweden....................................................... 474
Switzerland.................................................. 476
Tajikistan................................................... 480
Turkey....................................................... 483
Turkmenistan................................................. 489
Ukraine...................................................... 494
United Kingdom............................................... 502
Uzbekistan................................................... 506
Near East and North Africa:
Algeria...................................................... 517
Bahrain...................................................... 519
Egypt........................................................ 523
Iran......................................................... 531
Iraq......................................................... 539
Israel and the Occupied Territories.......................... 546
Jordan....................................................... 557
Kuwait....................................................... 562
Lebanon...................................................... 566
Libya........................................................ 569
Morocco...................................................... 571
Oman......................................................... 575
Qatar........................................................ 577
Saudi Arabia................................................. 579
Syria........................................................ 585
Tunisia...................................................... 588
United Arab Emirates......................................... 592
Western Sahara............................................... 596
Yemen........................................................ 596
South Asia:
Afghanistan.................................................. 601
Bangladesh................................................... 607
Bhutan....................................................... 612
India........................................................ 614
Maldives..................................................... 626
Nepal........................................................ 628
Pakistan..................................................... 630
Sri Lanka.................................................... 643
Appendixes:
A. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights................. 649
B. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
and The Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. 653
C. Training at the Foreign Service Institute Related to the
International Religious Freedom Act........................ 667
D. INS and The International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA).... 671
E. Overview of U.S. Refugee Policy........................... 673
FOREWORD
----------
The report on international religious freedom contained
herein was prepared by the Department of State in accordance
with Section 102 of the International Religious Freedom Act of
1998.
The report is printed to assist Members of Congress in the
consideration of legislation, particularly foreign assistance
legislation.
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations.
Henry Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on International Relations.
(vii)
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC, October 7, 2002.
Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On behalf of Secretary of State Colin Powell, I am very
pleased to transmit to Congress the Annual Report on Religious
Freedom 2002. This report is prepared in compliance with
Section 102 of the International Religious Freedom Act. It
covers events from July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002.
We sincerely hope that this report is helpful. Please let
us know if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Paul V. Kelly,
Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.
Enclosure.
(ix)
PREFACE
----------
ANNUAL REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 2002
Why The Reports Are Prepared
This report is submitted to the Congress by the Department of State
in compliance with Section 102(b) of the International Religious
Freedom Act (IRFA) of 1998. The law provides that the Secretary of
State, with the assistance of the Ambassador at Large for International
Religious Freedom, shall transmit to Congress ``an Annual Report on
International Religious Freedom supplementing the most recent Human
Rights Reports by providing additional detailed information with
respect to matters involving international religious freedom.'' This
Annual Report includes 195 reports on countries worldwide.
How The Reports Are Prepared
In August 1993, the Secretary of State moved to strengthen the
human rights efforts of our embassies. All sections in each embassy
were asked to contribute information and to corroborate reports of
human rights violations, and new efforts were made to link mission
programming to the advancement of human rights and democracy. In 1994
the Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs was reorganized and
renamed as the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, reflecting
both a broader sweep and a more focused approach to the interlocking
issues of human rights, worker rights, and democracy. In 1998 the
Secretary of State established the Office of International Religious
Freedom. In May 2002, John V. Hanford, III was sworn in as the second
Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom.
The 2002 Report covers the period from July 1, 2001, to June 30,
2002, and reflects a year of dedicated effort by hundreds of State
Department, Foreign Service, and other U.S. Government employees. Our
embassies, which prepared the initial drafts of the reports, gathered
information throughout this period from a variety of sources, including
government and religious officials, nongovernmental organizations,
journalists, human rights monitors, religious groups, and academics.
This information-gathering can be hazardous, and U.S. Foreign Service
Officers regularly go to great lengths, under trying and sometimes
dangerous conditions, to investigate reports of human rights abuse,
monitor elections, and come to the aid of individuals at risk because
of their religious beliefs.
After the embassies completed their drafts, the texts were sent to
Washington for careful review by the Office of Country Reports and
Asylum Affairs in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor,
working closely with other State Department Offices and the Office of
the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, who has
ultimate responsibility for the Report on behalf of the Secretary of
State. As they worked to corroborate, analyze, and edit the reports,
the Department officers drew on their own sources of information. These
included reports provided by U.S. and other human rights groups,
foreign government officials, representatives from the United Nations
and other international and regional organizations and institutions,
and experts from academia and the media. Officers also consulted with
experts on issues of religious discrimination and persecution,
religious leaders from all faiths, and experts on legal matters. The
guiding principle was to ensure that all relevant information was
assessed as objectively, thoroughly, and fairly as possible.
The Report will be used as a resource for shaping policy,
conducting diplomacy, and making assistance, training, and other
resource allocations. As mandated by the IRFA, it also will be used as
a basis for decisions on determining countries that have engaged in or
tolerated ``particularly severe violations'' of religious freedom.
Countries involved in these and other violations according to the IRFA
are not identified as such in this report, but have been and will be
engaged independently by the U.S. Government. The Report also will
serve as a basis for the U.S. Government's cooperation with private
groups to promote the observance of the internationally recognized
right to religious freedom.
A Word On Usage
In many cases, the International Religious Freedom Report states
that a country ``generally respects'' the right of religious freedom.
The phrase ``generally respects'' is used because the protection and
promotion of human rights is a dynamic endeavor; it cannot accurately
be stated that any Government fully respects these rights, without
qualification, in even the best of circumstances. Accordingly,
``generally respects'' is the standard phrase used to describe all
countries that attempt to protect religious freedom in the fullest
sense. ``Generally respects'' is thus the highest level of respect for
religious freedom assigned by this report.
INTRODUCTION
----------
Religious freedom, one of the most fundamental of human rights, is
a liberty long championed by the United States and cherished by the
American people. It is the policy of the United States Government to
promote religious freedom worldwide, for every human being, regardless
of religion, race, culture or nationality. Our policy is designed to
encourage other nations to adhere to international standards of human
rights and to promote fundamental U.S. concerns and values. While
historically part of our overall human rights policy, the promotion of
religious liberty as a foreign policy goal was given increased emphasis
with the passage of the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act, which
mandated this Annual Report.
The U.S. Commitment to Religious Freedom
There are several reasons why the United States promotes religious
freedom. First, the quest for religious liberty has played an integral
part in American history. Early in our nation's founding, the view that
every human being has a fundamental right to believe, worship and
practice according to his or her own conscience became a core
conviction of the American people. Religious liberty is the first of
the enumerated rights in our Constitution, and is known as ``the first
freedom,'' because the founders believed it to be a lynchpin of
democracy and the other fundamental human rights.
Its realization was not easily achieved. Today Americans enjoy
religious freedom, but it was not always so. Our history is not
perfect, and yet that very history makes us all the more determined to
protect what has been won. It makes us doubly determined to help those
millions of people beyond our borders who suffer because of their
faith. Indeed, as in past centuries, many of those who champion this
liberty most passionately are new Americans who arrived as refugees
fleeing religious persecution in their native lands.
Second, religious freedom is universal in its importance and
applicability. It is one of those ``unalienable rights'' acknowledged
in our own Declaration of Independence--a right not granted by
governments, but rather the birthright of every human being, in every
nation and every culture. This truth is acknowledged in the most
important of all the international human rights instruments, the 1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which notes that ``all human
beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.'' Accordingly,
all are endowed with the right to ``freedom of thought, conscience and
religion.''
Implicit in this language is a concept vital to the acceptance of
human rights, including religious liberty. It is the belief in a common
human nature that transcends cultural, racial, religious and other
distinctions. The United Nations representatives of 1948 had witnessed
in Nazism, and to a lesser extent in colonial regimes, a malevolent
focus on racial and cultural differences. They were determined to
articulate the existence of a human family comprised of persons equally
endowed with dignity and worth irrespective of race, culture, religion,
income or any other distinction.
Third, the promotion of religious freedom is intimately connected
to the promotion of other fundamental human and civil rights, as well
as to the growth of democracy. A government that acknowledges and
protects freedom of religion and conscience is one that understands the
inherent and inviolable dignity of the human person. Such a government
is far more likely to protect, through rule of law, the other rights
fundamental to human dignity, such as freedom from arbitrary arrest or
seizure, or freedom from torture and murder.
Such a government is also more likely to protect the rights most
closely associated with religious freedom, such as freedom of
expression, freedom of association and assembly, and the rights of
parents to raise their children in their faith. Together, these rights
constitute the seedbed of democratic development. They encourage not
only the institutions and procedures of democracy, such as
representative government and free elections, but also the virtues of
democracy, including a government and citizenry that value and nurture
human dignity. When the United States promotes religious freedom, it is
promoting the spread of democracy. More democracy means greater
stability and economic prosperity.
Finally, U.S. religious freedom policy is a means of fighting the
war on terrorism. The events of September 11, 2001 have had significant
implications for that policy. The attacks by Al Qaeda highlighted the
reality that people can and do exploit religion for terrible purposes,
in some cases manipulating and destroying other human beings as mere
instruments in the process. This is, unfortunately, not a new
phenomenon in human affairs. In the post Cold War world, some scholars
are predicting that religious differences are likely to be a cause of
major conflicts between civilizations.
Whether such theories are borne out or not, 9/11 has raised the
stakes for U.S. religious freedom policy. To the extent that policy
succeeds, it will provide one of the most effective and sustainable
antidotes, not only to religious persecution and discrimination, but
also to religion-based violence and a potential ``clash of
civilizations.''
The reason is straightforward: where governments protect religious
freedom, and citizens value it as a social good, religious persecution
and religion-based violence find no warrant. Such societies not only
tolerate religious differences, but many of its members see the
exercise of religious devotion as constitutive of human freedom and
dignity. They understand, as President Bush has stressed both here and
abroad, that religious faith at its best yields productive, charitable
citizens and stable societies. They also understand that to deprive
persons of the right to religious liberty is to deny them their
humanity in the most profound sense. At the heart of liberty is the
right to ask the fundamental questions about the origins, nature, value
and destiny of human life, and to worship and live in accord with the
obligations that ensue.
The Office of International Religious Freedom
The Office of the Ambassador at Large for International Religious
Freedom has now completed its fourth year. Formed in the summer of
1998, the Office has the mission of promoting religious freedom
worldwide. The Ambassador is charged with the responsibility of serving
as the Principal Advisor to the President and the Secretary of State on
matters of international religious freedom.
The Ambassador and his staff monitor the worldwide status of
religious persecution and discrimination and devise strategies to
reduce the abuses. Just as importantly, they develop strategies to
promote religious freedom, both to attack the root causes of
persecution and as a means of promoting other fundamental U.S.
interests, such as protecting other core human rights, encouraging the
development of mature democracies, and fighting the war against
terrorism.
These strategies are carried out in a variety of ways, using the
range of diplomatic tools available, including both formal and informal
bilateral negotiations with foreign government authorities;
participation in multilateral fora such as the United Nations and the
Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe; cooperation with
human rights and faith-based NGO's; and meetings with victims of
persecution. Often the Ambassador and staff, along with other U.S.
officials, engage in direct intervention in a particular crisis to
remove people of faith from harm's way or to forestall further
persecution.
In all cases, the Office, which is staffed with experienced Foreign
Service and Civil Service officers, works closely with its counterparts
elsewhere in the State Department, the U.S. Government, and in U.S.
missions overseas. U.S. Foreign Service officers abroad form the front
line of our religious freedom policy. Many of their activities, and
those of the Office of International Religious Freedom, are discussed
in Part III of the Executive Summary. Some of their actions, however,
must necessarily remain out of the spotlight in order to protect those
involved.
The Annual Report
The mission of the Ambassador at Large was framed by the
International Religious Freedom (IRF) Act of 1998, which also
prescribed the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, of
which this is the fourth edition. The purpose of the Annual Report is
to establish a baseline of fact about the status of religious freedom
worldwide, both to illuminate the problems that exist and to provide a
primary source for U.S. religious freedom policy. The first three
editions have generally been criticized by violator governments, but
hailed by human rights NGO's as the standard worldwide reference on
religious persecution.
As I begin my term as the second U.S. Ambassador at Large for
International Religious Freedom, I wish to thank all the employees of
the Department of State here and abroad who have made this report
possible. In particular, I want to acknowledge the dedicated work of
our human rights officers throughout the world, as well as the members
of the Office of Country Reports and Asylum Affairs at the State
Department, who have worked long and hard to craft this report. I also
want to express appreciation for the bipartisan and deep support that
Congress has demonstrated on this issue. Finally, I wish to thank my
own staff in the Office of International Religious Freedom, whose
commitment to religious freedom for all people is exemplary.
This fourth Annual Report on International Religious Freedom is
submitted in furtherance of our goal of promoting and protecting
religious freedom for all.
John V. Hanford III,
Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
----------
In 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which declared ``the
inherent dignity and--the equal and inalienable rights of all members
of the human family.'' The Declaration noted that ``disregard and
contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have
outraged the conscience of mankind.'' It proclaimed as one of mankind's
highest aspirations the advent of a world in which people enjoyed
freedom of belief. In Article 18, the UDHR declared that ``everyone has
the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right
includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either
alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest
his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.''
(See Appendix A.)
Today there are several international agreements obligating nations
to respect religious freedom. (See Appendix B.) The vast majority of
the world's governments have committed themselves through these
agreements to protect the right of religious freedom for everyone who
lives within their respective borders.
And yet, despite these widely accepted international instruments
protecting religious freedom, there remains in some countries a
substantial difference between commitment and practice. Much of the
world's population lives in countries in which the right to religious
freedom is restricted or prohibited. This unacceptable gap between word
and deed is explainable at several levels.
The most troubling explanation is the continued existence of
totalitarian or authoritarian regimes that are determined to control
religious belief and practice. The result is persecution. Some regimes
are hostile to minority or ``unapproved'' religions, while others
tolerate, and thereby encourage, persecution or discrimination.
Although acts of violence against religious minorities may have several
causes--for example, ethnicity or a perceived security threat--
multicausality does not necessarily diminish the significance of
religion. Some governments--often either democratic or aspiring to
democracy--have adopted discriminatory legislation or policies that
give preference to favored religions while disadvantaging others.
Some democratic states in Western Europe have undertaken policies
resulting in the stigmatization of minority religions, the result of
identifying them indiscriminately and often inaccurately with dangerous
``sects'' or ``cults.'' These practices are particularly troubling in
that other nations struggling toward democracy, as well as certain non-
democratic states, are adopting ``anti-cult'' laws and policies that
are based in part on those of Western Europe. In non-democratic
nations, lacking a tradition of commitment to human rights and rule of
law, ``anti-cult'' laws could easily be implemented in ways that result
in the persecution of people of faith.
The practice of requiring religious groups to register before they
can engage in activities such as worship is, by its nature, subject to
abuse by local jurisdictions, even in cases where it is designed by
central authorities to be applied in a nondiscriminatory fashion. Nor
should a legitimate concern over the destructive and unlawful behavior
by a small number of groups be employed so indiscriminately that
religions are wrongfully stigmatized.
This report does not neglect the effect of history, culture, and
tradition on religious freedom policies. A particular religion may have
dominated the life of a nation for centuries, making more difficult the
acceptance of new faiths that offer challenges in both cultural and
theological terms. However, tradition and culture should not be used as
a pretext for laws or policies that restrict genuine religious belief
or its legitimate manifestation. International covenants allow legal
restrictions on religious practice, but they must be applied
scrupulously and fairly, in as limited a way as possible, without
discriminating among religions.
Ultimately, each nation's policies and practices regarding
religious freedom must be measured against international norms. The
United States acknowledges its own responsibility with respect to these
norms in the safeguarding and protection of religious liberty.
The Executive Summary consists of three parts. Part I identifies
many of the countries where religious freedom is restricted and
classifies their actions and policies into five categories. Part II
provides examples of nations whose governments have taken steps to
promote or protect religious freedom, even though in most cases serious
problems remain in those countries. Part III illustrates actions the
U.S. Government has taken to encourage other nations to promote
religious freedom.
Readers should note that some countries are mentioned in more than
one part of the summary, according to the type of action or situation
being reported. Within Part I, several of the countries could be listed
in more than one of the five categories; however, in the interest of
brevity, a given country is listed only once, in the category that best
characterizes the fundamental barriers to religious freedom in that
country.
Part I: Barriers to International Religious Freedom
totalitarian or authoritarian attempts to
control religious belief or practice
Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes are defined by the high
degree to which they seek to control thought and expression, especially
dissent. Such regimes tend to regard some or all religious groups as
enemies of the state because of the religion's content, the fact that
the very practice of religion threatens the dominant ideology (often by
diverting the loyalties of adherents toward an authority beyond the
state), the ethnic character of the religious group or groups, or a
mixture of all three. When one or more of these elements is present,
the result often is the suppression of religion by the regime.
Burma. The Government continued to view religious freedom in the
context of threats to national unity. Through its pervasive internal
security apparatus, the Government generally infiltrated or monitored
the meetings and activities of virtually all organizations, including
religious organizations. The Government subjected all publications,
including religious publications, to control and censorship and
sometimes prohibited outdoor meetings. Government authorities continued
to show preference for Theravada Buddhism, the majority religion, while
at the same time controlling the organization and restricting the
activities and expression of its clergy. The Government systematically
restricted efforts by Buddhist clergy to promote human rights and
political freedom, discouraged and sometimes prohibited minority
religions from constructing new places of worship, and in some areas
coercively promoted Buddhism over other religions. There were credible
reports that the country's armed forces forcibly converted hundreds of
Christian tribal Nagas to Buddhism. Anti-Muslim violence continued, and
there were reports that restrictions on Muslim travel and worship
increased.
China. Unapproved religious and spiritual groups remained under
scrutiny and, in some cases, harsh repression. The Government continued
to restrict religious practice to government-sanctioned organizations
and registered places of worship, and to control the growth and scope
of the activity of religious groups to prevent the rise of possible
sources of authority outside of the control of the Government. The
Government continued, and in some places intensified, a national
campaign to enforce regulations that require all places of religious
activity to register with government religious affairs bureaus and come
under the supervision of official, ``patriotic'' religious
organizations. As in past years, the Government moved against houses of
worship outside its control that grew too large or espoused beliefs
that it considered threatening to state security. Police closed
``underground'' mosques, temples, and seminaries, as well as large
numbers of Catholic churches, and Protestant ``house churches,'' many
with significant memberships, properties, financial resources, and
networks, and banned groups that it considered to be ``cults.'' Leaders
of unauthorized groups, in particular, are often the targets of
harassment, interrogation, detention, and physical abuse, including
torture. Members of these groups also may be subject to such treatment.
The Government continued its harsh repression of Falun Gong and other
groups that it considered ``heretical cults.'' Various sources report
that thousands of Falun Gong adherents have been arrested, detained,
and imprisoned, and that several hundred Falun Gong adherents have died
in detention since 1999. In Tibet, the level of religious repression
remained high, and the Government's record of respect for religious
freedom remained poor. Religious practice faced ongoing restrictions,
but overall these restrictions were less harshly enforced than during
the previous year. Police continued their crackdown on Muslim religious
activity and places of worship accused of supporting separatism in the
Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. Some Uighurs and other Muslims
accused the Government of using the ongoing war against terrorism as an
excuse to intensify the repression of religious activity in Xinjiang.
Cuba. The Government continued its efforts to maintain a strong
degree of control over religion. Citizens worshiping in officially
sanctioned churches often were subject to surveillance by state
security forces. The Government refused to register most new
denominations, and unregistered religious groups continued to
experience varying degrees of official interference, harassment, and
repression. Although it is legal to construct new churches, the
Government rarely authorized such construction, forcing many churches
to seek permits to meet in private homes. The ability of churches to
run schools, train religious workers, and print religious material was
either prohibited or severely restricted.
Laos. In spite of some limited improvements, religious freedom
continued to be restricted. The Lao People's Revolutionary Party (LPRP)
and the Government maintained their narrow interpretation of the
constitutional provision for religious freedom, thus inhibiting
religious practice by all persons, especially those belonging to
minority religions, particularly Christianity, that fall outside of the
mainstream Buddhism. Although official pronouncements accept the
existence of different religions, they emphasize the potential to
divide, distract, or destabilize. All religious groups, including
Buddhists, practiced their faith in an atmosphere in which the
application of the law was arbitrary. Many officials appeared to
interpret the constitution to prohibit any religious activities
involving proselytizing or conversion, and to view Christianity in
particular, as creating societal divisions. Officials in some
localities continued to attempt to force believers to renounce their
faith. Government authorities closed several dozen churches, but a
small number of other churches that had been closed in recent years
were allowed to reopen. There were 19 known religious prisoners or
detainees, all Christians, at the end of the period covered by this
report. (Note: Nine of these prisoners were released in July, soon
after the end of the reporting period.)
North Korea. The Government continued to suppress organized
religious activity except that of officially recognized groups linked
to the Government. Faith-based and human rights groups outside the
country provided numerous reports that members of underground churches
have been beaten, arrested, or killed. Witnesses have testified that
prisoners held on the basis of their religious beliefs generally
received harsher treatment than that of other inmates. Those who
proselytize or who have ties to overseas evangelical groups operating
across the border with China appear to have been arrested and subjected
to harsh penalties, including death, according to several reports.
While difficult to confirm, the collective weight of anecdotal evidence
of harsh treatment of unauthorized religious activity lends credence to
such reports.
Vietnam. The Government continued to restrict activities of
religious groups that it declared to be at variance with state laws and
policies. Restrictions on the hierarchies and clergy of such groups
remained in place, and the Government maintained supervisory control of
the recognized religions. Groups faced difficulties in training and
ordaining clergy, and in conducting educational and humanitarian
activities. There were credible reports that in past years Hmong
Protestant Christians in several northwestern villages were forced by
local authorities to recant their faith. Hmong Protestants were also
charged with practicing religion illegally and jailed for up to 3 years
for ``abusing freedom of speech, press, or religion.'' There were
reports that officials fabricated evidence, and that some of the
provisions of the law used to convict religious prisoners contradicted
international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. According to credible reports, the police arbitrarily detained
persons based on their religious beliefs and practice, particularly in
the mountainous, ethnic minority areas.
state hostility toward minority or nonapproved religions
Some governments, while not necessarily determined to implement a
program of control over minority religions, nevertheless are hostile to
certain ones or to factions of religious groups identified as
``security threats.'' These governments implement policies designed to
intimidate certain groups, cause their adherents to convert to another
faith, or cause their members to flee.
Iran. Government actions continued to create a threatening
atmosphere for some religious minorities. All such groups suffered
varying degrees of officially sanctioned discrimination, particularly
in the areas of employment, education, and housing. The Government
fueled anti-Baha'i and anti-Jewish sentiment for political purposes.
Baha'is, Jews, Christians, Mandaeans, and Sufi Muslims reported
imprisonment, harassment, or intimidation based on their religious
beliefs. At least four Baha'is were among those still imprisoned for
reasons related to their faith, while eight Jews remained in prison
after being convicted for cooperating with a hostile government,
belonging to an illegal organization, and recruiting members in an
illegal organization. The property rights of Baha'is generally were
disregarded. Laws based on religion were used to stifle freedom of
expression. Independent newspapers and magazines were closed and
leading publishers and journalists imprisoned on vague charges of
``insulting Islam'' or ``calling into question the Islamic foundation
of the Republic.''
Iraq. The Government continued its systematic and vicious policies
against Shi'as. It severely restricted or banned many Shi'a religious
practices and conducted--as it has for decades--a brutal campaign of
murder, summary execution, arbitrary arrest, and protracted detention
against Shi'a religious leaders and adherents. The regime has
desecrated Shi'a mosques and holy sites, disrupted Shi'a religious
ceremonies, and interfered with Shi'a religious education. It has
banned the broadcast of Shi'a programs on government-controlled radio
or television and the publication of Shi'a books. There were also
reports that the Government engaged in various abuses against the
country's Assyrian and Chaldean Christians, especially in terms of
forced movements from northern areas and repression of political
rights.
Pakistan. The Government failed to protect the rights of religious
minorities, due both to public policy and to its unwillingness to take
action against societal forces hostile to those that practice a
different faith. Acts of sectarian and religious violence continued
during the period covered by this report. The worst religious violence
was directed against the country's Shi'a minority, who continued to be
disproportionately victimized in individual and mass killings. The
practice of the Ahmadi faith continued to be restricted severely by
law, and Ahmadi individuals and institutions were frequent victims of
religious violence, much of which was instigated by organized religious
extremists. A number of massacres in mosques and churches, including an
attack on a church in Islamabad that left five persons dead, two of
them foreign nationals, brought into question the Government's ability
to prevent sectarian and religious violence. The Government continued
the use of the ``Hudood'' Ordinances, which apply different standards
of evidence to Muslims and non-Muslims and to men and women for alleged
violations of Islamic law. The Government also kept blasphemy laws in
force, which personal rivals and the authorities used to threaten,
punish, or imprison Ahmadis, Christians, and orthodox Muslims.
Saudi Arabia. Freedom of religion does not exist in Saudi Arabia.
The Government requires all citizens to be Muslim and prohibits all
public manifestations of non-Muslim religions. Islamic practice
generally is limited to that of a school of the Sunni branch of Islam
as interpreted by Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, an 18th-century Arab
religious reformer, and practices contrary to this interpretation are
suppressed. Members of the Shi'a minority continued to face
institutionalized political and economic discrimination, including
restrictions on the practice of their faith, and many Shi'a sheikhs
remained in detention.
The Government has stated publicly that it recognizes the right of
non-Muslims to worship in private; however, the distinction between
public and private worship is not defined clearly, in effect forcing
most non-Muslims to worship in a manner such as to avoid discovery.
Several Christians were detained for non-Muslim worship and almost
always deported after sometimes lengthy periods of arrest, during which
some received lashings. The Government refused to permit clergy members
to enter the country to conduct non-Muslim religious services, placing
groups such as Catholics and Orthodox Christians who must have a priest
on a regular basis to practice their faith at a particular
disadvantage. Customs officials confiscated or censored materials
considered offensive, including Bibles and religious videotapes. In
certain areas, both the Mutawwa'in (religious police) and religious
vigilantes harassed, assaulted, and detained citizens and foreigners.
Sudan. The Government's conduct of the 19-year civil war was
largely responsible for abuses in violation of humanitarian norms: the
burning and looting of villages, the starving of thousands of
southerners, and the killings, rapes, and arbitrary arrests and
detentions of civilians, most of whom were Christians or practitioners
of traditional indigenous religions. The Government also continued the
intentional bombings of civilian targets. The forced abduction of women
and children and the taking of slaves by slave raiders supported by the
Government in war zones continued. The victims in the villages largely
were Christians or practitioners of traditional indigenous religions.
Some of these victims from Christian and other non-Muslim families were
converted forcibly to Islam. There were reports that Islamic NGO's in
war zones withheld other services, such as medical and food aid, from
the needy unless they converted to Islam. There also were reports that
Christian NGO's used their services to pressure persons to convert to
Christianity.
The Government's recognition of Islam as the state religion
contributed to an atmosphere in which non-Muslims were treated as
second-class citizens throughout the country. In government-controlled
areas of the south, there continued to be credible evidence of
favoritism towards Muslims and an unwritten policy of Islamization of
public institutions, despite an official policy of local autonomy and
federalism. Registration, obligatory for all religious groups,
reportedly was very difficult to obtain, particularly for evangelical
Christian groups. The Government continued to deny permission for the
construction of Roman Catholic churches.
Turkmenistan. The Government continues to place restrictions on
religious expression. A law on religious organizations requires that
religious groups must have at least 500 members in each locality in
which they wish to register in order to gain legal status with the
government. The only religions that have successfully registered under
the law are Sunni Islam and Russian Orthodox Christianity, which are
controlled by the Government. The Government severely limits the
activities of nonregistered religious congregations by prohibiting them
from gathering publicly, proselytizing, and disseminating religious
materials. The Government's interpretation of the law severely
restricts the freedom to meet and worship in private. Several members
of minority faiths were deported.
Some observers have speculated that official restrictions on
religious freedom, a holdover from the Soviet era, reflect the
Government's concern that liberal religious policies could lead to
political dissent, including in particular the introduction of Islamic
extremist movements into the country. The Government appears to view
participation in or sponsorship of nontraditional religions as a threat
to the stability and the neutrality of the State.
Uzbekistan. The Government permits the existence of mainstream
religions; however, it continued its harsh campaign against
unauthorized Islamic groups it suspected of anti-State sentiments or
activities. Christian churches generally are tolerated as long as they
do not attempt to win converts among ethnic Uzbeks. A number of
minority religious groups, including congregations of a variety of
Christian confessions, the Baha'i faith, and Hare Krishna, had
difficulty satisfying the strict registration requirements set out by
the law. The law, which is among the most restrictive in Central Asia,
prohibits or severely restricts activities such as proselytizing,
importing and disseminating religious literature, and offering
religious instruction. Other prohibited activities include organizing
an illegal religious group and persuading others to join such a group.
Any religious service conducted by an unregistered religious
organization is illegal. The law prohibits groups that do not have a
registered religious center from training religious personnel. In
practice, these restrictions override almost all freedoms recognized by
international norms. The criminal and civil codes contain stiff
penalties for violating the religion law and other statutes on
religious activities.
state neglect of the problem of discrimination against, or persecution
of, minority or nonapproved religions
In some countries, governments have laws or policies to discourage
religious discrimination and persecution but fail to act with
sufficient consistency and vigor against violations of religious
freedom by nongovernmental entities or local law enforcement officials.
Bangladesh. Despite the fact that the Constitution guarantees
citizens the right to practice the religion of their choice, police
often were slow to assist members of religious minorities who were
victims of crimes, thereby contributing to an atmosphere of impunity.
An increase in crime and violence after the October 2001 elections
exacerbated this situation and increased perceptions of the
vulnerability of religious minorities. The number of Hindus,
Christians, and Buddhists who perceived discrimination increased.
Belarus. Head of State Alexander Lukashenko continued to pursue a
policy of favoring the Russian Orthodox Church, the country's majority
religion, and authorities increased harassment of other denominations
and religions. The regime denied registration to some religious groups
on the grounds that they were ``nontraditional'' and also to all
religious groups considered to be ``sects.'' Protestant denominations
continued to come under attack in the government-run media. On June 27,
the lower house of Parliament gave its final approval to a new law on
religion that if implemented would impose further restrictions on
religious freedom. The bill awaits consideration by the upper house in
the fall. Restitution of religious property seized during the Soviet
and Nazi occupations remained limited.
Egypt. There was a trend toward improvement in the Government's
respect for and protection of religious freedom. However, the
Government continued to prosecute persons, including Muslims, for
unorthodox religious beliefs and practices under the charge of
``insulting heavenly religions.'' The approval process for church
construction continued to be time-consuming and insufficiently
responsive to the wishes of the Christian community. Christian
representatives maintained that security forces have blocked them from
utilizing permits that have been issued, and that local security
officials at times blocked or delayed permits for repairs to church
buildings. The 1960 decree that banned Baha'i institutions and
community activities and confiscated all Baha'i community properties
was still in force. Government discrimination against non-Muslims
exists in the public sector.
Georgia. The status of religious freedom deteriorated during the
period covered by this report. Local police and security officials at
times harassed nontraditional religious minority groups. Police failed
to respond to continued attacks by Orthodox extremists, largely
followers of Basil Mkalavishvili and members of the Jvari organization,
against Jehovah's Witnesses and other nontraditional religious
minorities. In most cases local law enforcement agents actually
participated in or facilitated the attacks, which increased in
frequency and violence, with impunity. On the few occasions in which
investigations into such attacks have been opened, they have proceeded
very slowly. No one has been convicted or sent to prison for
participating in these violent attacks.
Guatemala. The Government has made little progress towards
implementing the 1995 Agreement on the Identity and Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, which provides for the respect of spiritual rights
of indigenous people. The Agreement calls for Congress to pass
legislation to amend the Constitution in order to ``recognize, respect,
and protect the distinct forms of spirituality practiced by the Maya,
Garifuna, and Xinca'' groups. While there is no government policy of
discrimination, a lack of resources and political will to enforce
existing laws and to implement the Peace Accords continued to limit the
free expression of indigenous religious practice.
India. Muslims were the victims of sustained communal violence in
the state of Gujarat in March and April 2002. Ostensibly sparked by
communal violence directed against Hindus, the violence highlighted the
continuing difficulties faced by religious minorities. On February 27,
2002, Muslim mobs attacked a train in Godhra, Gujarat, carrying Hindu
activists returning from Ayodhya, the site of a 500-year-old mosque
demolished by a Hindu mob in 1992; 2 train cars were set on fire and 58
passengers were killed. In response, Hindu mobs in Gujarat and
Maharashtra destroyed Muslim businesses, raped Muslim women, and killed
at least 950 Muslims; the unofficial death toll was significantly
higher. According to credible observers, the Gujarat fighting was
aggravated by official inaction and, in some cases, involvement. The
hostility against Muslims in Gujarat reflected tensions within the
governing coalition, which is led by the Bharatiya Janata Party, a
Hindu nationalist party with links to Hindu chauvinist groups
implicated in the past to attacks against religious minorities. The
growing aggressiveness of Hindu extremists also seems to be the major
contributing factor to societal discrimination and occasional acts of
violence against Christians by Hindus in Gujarat and elsewhere in
India.
Indonesia. Religious violence and the lack of an effective
government response to punish perpetrators and prevent further attacks
continued to lead to allegations that officials were complicit in some
of the violence or, at a minimum, allowed it to occur with impunity.
The Government at times tolerated the abuse of freedom of religion,
claiming that it did not have the capacity or authority to deal with
the ``emotions'' of private individuals or groups who target others
because of their beliefs. In both Central Sulawesi and the Moluccas,
lax law enforcement and the limited nature of efforts to disarm Muslim
fighters allowed conflicts, caused in part by religious motives, to
continue despite peace agreements. Some members of military and police
units were accused of siding with their coreligionists, both Muslim and
Christian, and supporting combatants, either directly or indirectly.
Religiously motivated violence elsewhere, mainly on the island of Java,
also included threats and occasional attacks on entertainment
establishments such as restaurants, bars, and nightclubs by radical
Muslim groups that deemed such businesses to be immoral. The Government
took no action against the perpetrators of such attacks and some
observers linked the police to the radical groups.
Nigeria. The implementation of an expanded version of Shari'a
(Islamic law) in several northern states challenged constitutional
protections of religious freedom. In March 2002, Justice Minister Kanu
Agabi made public a letter to northern governors in which he stated
that sentences given under Shari'a law should not be harsher than those
imposed by general secular law; however, no action resulted from this
letter. Interreligious tension between Christians and Muslims remained
high, and there were several violent ethno-religious conflicts,
including in September 2001 in Plateau State, which resulted in the
deaths of more than 2,300 persons. Many northern states continued to
ban or limit public proselytizing, although it is permitted by the
Constitution. In addition, in many states government officials
sometimes discriminated against adherents of minority religions in
hiring practices, awarding of state contracts, and granting of permits
and licenses.
discriminatory legislation or policies disadvantaging certain religions
Some governments have implemented laws or regulations that favor
certain religions and place others at a disadvantage. Often this
circumstance results from the historical predominance of one religion
in a country and may reflect broad social skepticism about new or
minority religions. At times it stems from the emergence of a country
from a long period of Communist rule, in which all religion was
prohibited or, at best, out of favor. In such countries, skepticism or
even the fear of certain religions or all religions lingers within
segments of society. In some cases, this circumstance has led to a
curtailment of religious freedom.
Brunei. Despite constitutional provisions providing for the
exercise of religious freedom, the Government continued to restrict the
practice of non-Muslim religions. Non-Muslims were not allowed to
proselytize. The Government also occasionally denied entry to foreign
clergy or particular priests, bishops, or ministers, and refused
permission to expand, repair, or build new churches, temples, or
shrines. The Government banned the importation of religious teaching
materials or scriptures. In government schools, Muslim and non-Muslim
female students were required to wear Muslim attire, including a head
covering.
Eritrea. In May 2002, the Government notified all religious groups
that they must register or cease all religious activities. The notice
further advised that applications received for registration would be
reviewed by a Government committee and approved if the committee deemed
them to be compatible with Eritrean culture. At the end of June 2002, a
final determination on which groups would be approved had not been
made, but comments from senior government officials indicated that only
groups with significant historical ties to Eritrea would be licensed to
operate. The Government also continued its discrimination against
Jehovah's Witnesses.
Israel and the Occupied Territories. Most Israeli non-Jewish
citizens, chiefly Muslims, Druze, and Christians, continued to be
subject to various forms of discrimination, some of which has a strong
religious dimension. Government funding to various religious sectors
tended to favor Jewish citizens. Many Jewish citizens objected to the
fact that, as a result of Israeli law and policy, Orthodox Jewish
religious authorities have exclusive control over Jewish marriages,
divorces, and burials. Societal tensions between Jews and non-Jews
increased significantly, primarily as a result of the Arab-Israeli
conflict and ongoing violence and terrorism. In the occupied
territories, the violence and the Israeli Government's closure policy
prevented a number of Palestinians and Israelis, including Palestinian
religious leaders, from reaching their places of worship in Jerusalem
and the West Bank.
Jordan. The Government continued to deny the Druze and Baha'i
faiths recognition as official religions but did not prohibit the
practice of these faiths. Druze faced official discrimination but did
not complain of social discrimination. Baha'is faced both official and
social discrimination. Moreover, there reportedly were at least 39
cases of U.S. citizen children residing in Jordan against the will of
their U.S. citizen mothers. According to the law, these children are
considered Muslim if their fathers are Muslim, and the Muslim father of
the child may restrict the child's travel.
Malaysia. Islam is the official religion, and the practice of
Islamic beliefs other than Sunni Islam was restricted significantly.
The Government continued to monitor the activities of the Shi'a
minority and periodically detained members of what it considers Islamic
``deviant sects'' without trial or charge. The Government generally
respected non-Muslims' right of worship; however, state governments
carefully controlled the building of non-Muslim places of worship and
the allocation of land for non-Muslim cemeteries. After the November
1999 national elections, the Government significantly expanded efforts
to restrict the activities of the Islamic opposition party at mosques.
Several states announced measures including banning opposition-
affiliated imams from speaking at mosques, more vigorously enforcing
existing restrictions on the content of sermons, replacing mosque
leaders and governing committees thought to be sympathetic to the
opposition, and threatening to close down unauthorized mosques with
ties to the opposition. For Muslims, particularly ethnic Malays, the
right to leave the Islamic faith and adhere to another religion
remained a controversial question, and in practice it was very
difficult to change religions.
Moldova. The Government continued to uphold its earlier decisions
to deny certain groups registration. It cited Article 15 of the Law on
Religion, which prohibits registration of what it calls ``schismatic
movements'' of a particular religion, as the basis for its decision not
to recognize these groups. A number of minority religious groups in the
separatist region of Transnistria continued to be denied registration
and subjected to official harassment.
Russia. The Government continued to use several aspects of the 1997
Law on Freedom of Conscience to restrict religious freedom, in
particular the provision allowing the state to ban religious
organizations, the re-registration requirement, the liquidation
procedure, and the 15-year rule. Although the federal government
generally attempted to apply the 1997 law liberally, the Government
denied visas and visa renewals to a number of clergy and religious
workers, especially Roman Catholics and evangelical Christians. The
declaration of one of only four Roman Catholic Bishops in Russia as
persona non grata placed serious restrictions on the ability of Russian
Catholics to practice their religion. Many allegations of restrictive
practices and harassment were directed at local officials and the
Federal Security Service. Muslims, the largest religious minority,
continued to encounter societal discrimination and antagonism in some
areas. Anti-Semitic leaflets, graffiti, and articles continued to
appear in some regions, such as St. Petersburg, Ryazan, and Krasnodar.
Hostility toward ``nontraditional'' religious groups reportedly sparked
occasional harassment and even physical attacks.
Turkey. Despite constitutional guarantees of religious freedom, the
Government continued to impose some restrictions on religious groups,
particularly through other constitutional provisions regarding the
integrity and existence of the secular State. In addition, the
Government maintained some restrictions for the stated reason of
combating religious fundamentalism. An intense debate continued over
the government ban on wearing Muslim religious dress in state
facilities, including universities, schools, and workplaces. Some
Muslims, Christians, and Baha'is faced government harassment for
alleged proselytizing or unauthorized meetings.
stigmatization of certain religions by wrongfully associating them with
dangerous ``cults'' or ``sects''
There continues to be a trend in Western Europe regarding
discriminatory legislation or policies that stigmatize certain
expressions of religious faith by wrongfully associating them with
dangerous ``sects'' or ``cults.'' Other nations are adopting similar
laws and policies that are based in part on those of Western Europe. In
countries that lack a tradition of commitment to human rights and rule
of law, such ``anti-cult'' laws are prone to be implemented in ways
that result in the persecution of people of faith.
Belgium. Policies regarding religious ``sects'' in Belgium have
created government-mandated agencies providing information on
``harmful'' organizations. The existence of these agencies strongly
suggests an official judgment by the government that the groups on
which it maintains data are in fact ``harmful.''
France. The government continues to monitor ``sects'' through the
Interministerial Mission in the Fight against Sects/Cults (MILS).
Members of some of the 173 groups identified as cults in a 1996
parliamentary commission report have alleged instances of intolerance
due to the ensuing publicity. The June 2001 ``About-Picard'' law
tightens restrictions on organizations and lists criminal activities
for which a religious association could be subject to dissolution.
Leaders of the four major religions raised concerns about the
legislation. There is also concern that countries with weaker
protections for human rights, including some in eastern Europe and
Asia, may look to the French legislation as a model for dealing with
minority religions, a perception heightened by the interest shown in
the French approach during travel by MILS officials to these countries.
Germany. ``Sect Filters'' focused on Scientology are used by some
localities and private firms in hiring and/or contracting. These
practices give rise to a climate of discrimination and may cause
financial losses for individuals and companies.
Part II: Significant Improvement in the Area of Religious Freedom
The International Religious Freedom Act prescribes a section of the
Executive Summary that identifies countries in which there has been a
``significant improvement in the protection and promotion'' of
religious freedom and includes a description of the nature of the
improvement as well as an analysis of the factors contributing to it.
Afghanistan. The fall of the Taliban and the subsequent
establishment of the interim governments resulted in a major
improvement in religious freedom. The ultra-conservative, Islamic state
system created by the Taliban collapsed following the onset of
Operation Enduring Freedom in October 2001. In its place, an interim
governing body now administers a far more tolerant regime. Under the
Taliban, a repressive government system based on an extremist
interpretation of Islam unremittingly persecuted anyone of different
faiths and those who were not deemed to be sufficiently ``good
Muslims.'' The new interim government has publicly stated a policy of
religious tolerance. In the post-Taliban environment, religious
minorities such as Shi'a, Hindus and Sikhs have all reported tolerance
of their presence and practice. All were represented at the Loya Jirga.
The Shi'a are represented in the Government by a Vice President and
several Ministers. A constitutional commission will soon construct a
new constitution for Afghanistan, and guarantees for religious freedom
as well as the role of Islam in the state remain contentious questions
for the commission and for the people of Afghanistan.
Other countries have taken positive steps in the area of religious
freedom, but none have risen to the standard of ``significant
improvement'' as stipulated in the International Religious Freedom Act.
The reader may find a discussion of positive steps, where warranted, in
the respective country chapters.
Part III: U.S. Actions to Promote International Religious Freedom
In general the best public method of promoting religious freedom is
to advocate the universal principles--in particular the inviolable
dignity of the human person--that are nourished when religious freedom
is valued and protected. Throughout the world, our overseas diplomatic
missions are our front line in promoting the right of religious freedom
and opposing violations of that right. No less important is the tone
and context set by senior U.S. officials when they speak publicly on
the subject of religious freedom, or privately with foreign heads of
government and other policy makers.
the year in review
This section summarizes some of the many efforts undertaken by the
President and various other representatives of the U.S. Government to
promote religious freedom. Most of the actions included here are
indicative of the constant endeavor of the U.S. Government to engage
foreign governments and peoples on the issue of religious freedom.
Rarely is a single action sufficient to produce a significant change in
a particular government's repressive or discriminatory policy; yet
through its steadfast promotion of religious freedom, the U.S.
Government pursues the goal of universal respect for and observance of
the freedom of belief.
President Bush has made it clear that he views religious freedom as
a fundamental and inviolate human right, and in his discussions with
foreign leaders has repeatedly emphasized the importance the United
States places on protecting this fundamental freedom. In February 2002,
the President gave a speech in Beijing that was broadcast nationwide,
during which he declared, ``Freedom of religion is not something to be
feared, it's to be welcomed.''
The Secretary of State and many senior State Department officials
have addressed the issue in venues throughout the world. U.S.
Government representatives raised religious freedom issues at the
highest levels of government and in multilateral fora, such as the 58th
Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in April 2002,
where the U.S. supported resolutions on Iran and religious freedom,
including the mandate of the special rapporteur for religious freedom.
The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights
and Labor made a strong intervention at the OSCE Implementation Meeting
in September 2001, during which he urged OSCE states to respect
religious freedom. The Assistant Secretary of State for European and
Eurasian Affairs reinforced U.S. defense of religious freedom with the
President of Azerbaijan in January 2002.
Members of the Department of State's Office of International
Religious Freedom traveled to several countries during the period
covered by this report to discuss religious freedom issues--Azerbaijan,
Bangladesh, Bosnia, Bulgaria, China and Tibet, Croatia, Georgia, the
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, and
Vietnam. The Director of the Office of International Religious Freedom
co-headed the U.S. delegation to a United Nations conference on
religious freedom and secondary school education in Madrid in November
2001.
The 1998 International Religious Freedom Act mandates Presidential
action in cases of particularly egregious violations of religious
freedom. Thus in October 2001, the Secretary of State, acting under the
authority of the President, re-designated five countries--Burma, China,
Iran, Iraq, and Sudan--as ``countries of particular concern'' under the
Act for having engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations.
In addition, the Secretary designated North Korea a ``country of
particular concern'' and again identified the Taliban regime of
Afghanistan as having committed particularly severe violations of
religious freedom.
This section is by no means exhaustive; rather, it is intended to
provide by way of illustrative examples a portrait of U.S. actions.
Further details may be found in the individual country chapters.
Afghanistan. In October 2001, the U.S. Government and international
coalition forces combined with Northern Alliance forces to overthrow
the Taliban regime. The U.S. and the international community worked
together with Afghan opposition officials to create the Bonn Agreement
in December 2001. The U.S. has worked steadily with interim governments
in the months since to promote human rights and religious and ethnic
tolerance, from the inclusion of minority groups in the Government and
military, to assistance in the reconstruction of the country and its
legal and political processes.
The Secretary of State identified the Taliban regime, which
controlled most of Afghanistan until October 2001, as a ``particularly
severe violator'' of religious freedom in 2001, for the third
consecutive year.
Azerbaijan. The Ambassador repeatedly conveyed U.S. concerns about
the registration process with the Chairman of the State Committee for
Work with Religious Associations and expressed strong concerns about
Azerbaijan's commitment to religious freedom with others in the
Government and publicly in the press. Embassy officials also frequently
expressed objections to media campaigns against the Adventist
Development and Relief Agency and other U.S.-funded NGO's accused of
religious proselytizing. The Assistant Secretary of State for European
and Eurasian Affairs reinforced U.S. defense of religious freedom with
President Heydar Aliyev in January 2002. A representative from the
State Department's Office of International Religious Freedom traveled
to Azerbaijan in April 2002 to convey the Department's concerns about
the reregistration process and the media campaigns against minority
religions. She also met with members of Muslim, Jewish and Christian
faiths to hear their concerns.
Bangladesh. The Embassy encouraged the Government through the
Ministry for Religious Affairs to develop and expand its training
program for Islamic religious leaders, which provides course work for
religious leaders on human rights, HIV/AIDS, and gender equality
issues. A representative from the State Department's Office of
International Religious Freedom traveled to Bangladesh in May 2002 to
interview representatives of religious minorities regarding their
perception that violence against them had increased during the
reporting year.
Belarus. Embassy representatives had frequent contacts with leaders
and members of religious groups and worked with representatives of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to promote
religious freedom. Officials of the Department of State met on a number
of occasions with representatives of the Government of Belarus in
Washington, D.C. to advocate respect for religious freedom and to
address other human rights concerns.
Burma. The United States has discontinued bilateral aid to the
Government, suspended issuance of licenses to export arms to the
country, and suspended the generalized system of preferences and
Export-Import Bank financial services in support of U.S. exports to the
country. The U.S. Government also has suspended all Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC) financial services in support of U.S.
investment in the country, ended active promotion of trade with the
country, and halted issuance of visas to high government officials and
their immediate family members. It also has banned new investment in
the country by U.S. firms, opposed all assistance to the Government by
international financial institutions, and urged the governments of
other countries to take similar actions.
The Secretary of State identified Burma as a ``country of
particular concern'' in 2001, for the third consecutive year.
China. The U.S. Government made a concerted effort to encourage
greater religious freedom in the country, using both focused advocacy
against abuses and support for positive trends within the country. In
February 2002, President Bush gave a speech at Tsinghua University in
Beijing that was broadcast nationwide, during which he called upon the
Government to show more religious tolerance. Embassy and Consulate
officials collected information about abuses and maintained contacts
with a wide spectrum of religious leaders within in the country's
religious communities, including with bishops, priests, ministers of
the official Christian churches, and Taoist, Muslim, and Buddhist
leaders. U.S. Government officials also met with leaders and members of
the unofficial Christian churches. The U.S. Government brought a number
of Chinese religious leaders and scholars to the United States on
international visitor programs to see firsthand the role that religion
plays in U. S. society, and sent experts on religion from the United
States to speak about the role of religion in American life and public
policy.
The Secretary of State identified China as a ``country of
particular concern'' in 2001, for the third consecutive year.
Georgia. Senior U.S. Government officials, including the
Ambassador, met with President Shevardnadze and other senior government
officials, such as the Parliament Speaker and the Ministers of Internal
Affairs and Justice, to raise U.S. Government concerns regarding
harassment of and attacks against nontraditional religious minorities.
In April 2002, Senator Gordon Smith, a member of the U.S. Commission on
Security and Cooperation in Europe, harshly criticized unpunished
religious persecution in Georgia and called upon the Government to
vigorously prosecute extremists who attacked nontraditional religious
minorities. The Commission followed up with a letter signed by 15
Senators calling on Shevardnadze to end violence against groups of
religious minorities in Georgia. A visiting representative from the
State Department's Office of International Religious Freedom met in
April 2002 with members of the Government, various religious
confessions, and NGO's to underscore the need for the Government of
Georgia to put an end to religious violence.
India. Reacting to the communal violence in Gujarat, the Ambassador
and other senior Administration officials publicly expressed regret,
extended condolences to the victims, and urged all parties to resolve
their differences peacefully. In addition, the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) mission in New Delhi provided funding
to assist internally displaced persons in Gujarat. Mumbai's Consul
General traveled regularly to Ahmedabad, Gujarat's largest city, to
meet with officials and private citizens about the causes and effects
of the violence. As rioting continued, other officers from the
Consulate General in Mumbai traveled to the state to assess the
situation and to look into accusations of human rights abuses.
Consulate officers also met in Mumbai with a range of NGO, business,
media and other contacts, including Muslim leaders, to monitor the
aftermath of the violence in Gujarat.
Indonesia. U.S. Embassy and Consulate General officials identified
and assisted several Indonesians to testify on religious freedom before
the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) and
advised the USCIRF of potential issues. The U.S. Embassy and the U.S.-
Indonesian Fulbright Foundation have been helping to establish the
country's first graduate-level program on comparative religion to
foster competence in religious studies among educators and to increase
inter-religious understanding on college and university campuses. USAID
also continued its support to dozens of religiously affiliated NGO's in
an effort to assist the democracy movement within the Muslim community.
Iran. From 1982 to 2001, the U.S. Government cosponsored a
resolution each year regarding the human rights situation in Iran
offered by the European Union at the annual meeting of the UN
Commission on Human Rights. The United States has supported a similar
resolution offered each of those years during the UN General Assembly.
The U.S. Government has supported the work of the UN Special
Representative on Human Rights for Iran and called on the Iranian
Government to grant him admission and allow him to conduct his
research.
The Secretary of State identified Iran as a ``country of particular
concern'' in 2001, for the third consecutive year.
Iraq. It is the policy of the United States to encourage a change
of regime in Iraq. The U.S. Government has made its position clear in
public statements and in diplomatic contacts with other states. The
President discussed the problems experienced by Shi'a, Christian, and
other religious groups in his periodic reports to Congress on Iraq. The
Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, in testimony
before Congress on Iraq, highlighted the situation of persons in the
south.
The Secretary of State identified Iraq as a ``country of particular
concern'' in 2001, for the third consecutive year.
Kenya. U.S. Government officials made a concerted effort to bridge
the gaps that exist between Muslims and Christians. The Ambassador
hosted regular meetings with religious leaders to discuss issues
affecting their communities. In April 2002, the Ambassador and senior
Embassy officers traveled to Mombasa to meet with civil society,
religious, and government leaders of the predominantly Muslim coast to
promote a better understanding of U.S. policy and to reassure those
with whom he met that the global fight against terrorism was not
directed against Islam.
Laos. The Ambassador spoke directly with the President and other
high officials about the state of religious freedom in Laos. Other
Embassy officers raised the issue of religious freedom with a range of
central and provincial officials. The Embassy supported and encouraged
the January 2002 visit of the President of the Institute for Global
Engagement (IGE) to survey the status of religious freedom. During this
visit, the IGE President traveled to the Lao Evangelical Church
communities in northern Vientiane province. The visit led to the
reopening of several churches in the area that had been closed by local
authorities. In June 2002, at the invitation of the IGE, a delegation
from the Lao Front for National Construction, the LPRP organization
responsible for oversight of religious practice, traveled to the U.S.
to discuss religious freedom in Laos with U.S. government officials,
members of Congress, and others interested in the issue.
Mexico. U.S. Government officials encouraged the Government to
continue its policy of promoting religious freedom. Embassy staff
participated in the Secretariat of Government's celebration of the
International Day of Tolerance in November 2001, and met with officials
in the Subsecretariat for Religious Affairs within the Secretariat of
Government to discuss religious freedom. In April 2002, a
representative from the Office of International Religious Freedom,
accompanied by Embassy officials, met with several religious leaders
and government officials in Mexico City and the state of Chiapas,
including the current and past Bishops of San Cristobal de las Casas
and Chiapas state authorities.
Nigeria. The U.S. Government, through the U.S. Embassy and in
statements by officials in Washington, continued to encourage a
peaceful resolution to the Shari'a issue and urged that human rights
and religious freedom be respected in any resolution. The Office of
Transition Initiatives and the USAID also created programs for conflict
resolution training. The Embassy sponsored the visit of the Executive
Director of the American Muslim Council to discuss religious freedom in
the United States with Muslim and Christian audiences in Abuja, Lagos,
and several northern cities.
North Korea. U.S. Government policy is to encourage improvements in
religious freedom. However, the United States does not have diplomatic
relations with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and has no
official presence there. U.S. policy allows U.S. citizens to travel to
the country, and a number of churches and religious groups have
organized efforts to alleviate suffering caused by shortages of food
and medicine.
The Secretary of State designated North Korea a ``country of
particular concern'' in 2001, the first year for the country to be
placed in this category.
Russia. In May 2002, President Bush, First Lady Laura Bush, and
Secretary of State Colin Powell met with religious leaders from
numerous faiths in both Moscow and St. Petersburg. The Ambassador
addressed the theme of religious freedom in talks with the Jewish
community on a number of occasions, including Rosh Hashanah, as well as
in remarks to members of the Muslim community at the end of Ramadan, at
an event sponsored by the Council of Muftis. In addition, the
Ambassador spoke of the importance of religious freedom at a Sakharov
Center conference in April 2002. The 1997 Law on Freedom of Conscience
has been the subject of numerous high-level communications between
members of the executive branch of the U.S. Government and the Russian
Government, involving various senior U.S. officials. In April 2002, an
official of the Office of International Religious Freedom visited
numerous government officials and representatives of major faiths, to
whom she stressed the importance of respecting the rights of minority
religions.
Sudan. The U.S. Government has made it clear to the Government that
the problem of religious freedom is one of the key impediments to
developing a more positive relationship between the country and the
United States. The Embassy and the Department of State forcefully
raised religious freedom issues publicly in press statements and at
international forums, including the UN Human Rights Commission. The
Special Envoy for Peace in Sudan, John Danforth, pressed for religious
freedom and met with religious leaders in his visits to Sudan. The U.S.
Government supported the peace talks held under the auspices of the
Inter-Governmental Authority on Development. (In July 2002, shortly
after the end of the period covered by this report, the peace talks
resulted in the Machakos protocol, in which the parties agreed that
legislation passed by the national government that applies to the south
would not have Shari'a as a source.) The U.S. Government also led an
International Eminent Persons Group to investigate slavery, abductions,
and forced servitude in the country.
The Secretary of State identified Sudan as a ``country of
particular concern'' in 2001, for the third consecutive year.
Tajikistan. Through public diplomacy, the U.S. Embassy has
supported programs designed to create a better understanding of how
democracies address the issue of secularism and religious freedom.
Several participants in these programs reported that they came away
with a better understanding of the role that religion could play in an
open society. In Washington, the Office of International Religious
Freedom and U.S. Government officials met to discuss religious freedom
with groups of participants in U.S. Government-sponsored visitors
programs, including journalists, religious figures and scholars, and
government officials.
Turkey. In December 2001, the Secretary of State met with high-
ranking government officials to discuss several issues, including
freedom of religion. In April and May 2002, visiting representatives
from the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
met with members of various religious groups to hear their concerns.
The Ambassador and other Embassy officers remain in close contact with
local non-governmental organizations that monitor freedom of religion.
The U.S. Embassy continues to urge the Government to re-open the Halki
seminary on Heybeli Island.
Vietnam. The U.S. Ambassador and other Embassy officers frequently
raised religious freedom issues with Government officials, including
the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and other senior Government
and Communist Party officials, explaining that progress on religious
problems and human rights has an impact on the degree of full
normalization of bilateral relations. U.S. Mission officials called on
the Government to release Thich Quang Do from administrative probation
and to allow Thich Huyen Quang to relocate to Ho Chi Minh City on
humanitarian grounds. They also expressed concern for Father Nguyen Van
Ly during his detention, noted the harshness of his sentence, and
called for his early release. A delegation led by the Assistant
Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor held a Human
Rights Dialog in August 2001 with the Government in which the status of
Thich Quang Do, Thich Huyen Quang, the United Buddhist Church, Hmong
Protestants, Protestants in the Central Highlands, Le Quang Liem, and
the Catholic Church were discussed. Some religious sources have cited
diplomatic intervention, primarily from the U.S., as a reason why the
Government is seeking to legalize more religious groups and allow
already legalized groups more freedom.