"The Release of the 2003 Annual Report to Congress on International Religious Freedom"
John Hanford, Ambassador-At-Large for International Religious Freedom, U.S. Department of State
Washington, DC
December 18, 2003Foreign Press Center Briefing 
2:00 P.M. EST
Real Audio of Briefing
MR. BOOKBINDER: Good afternoon, and welcome to the Foreign Press Center. Thank you all for coming out this afternoon. We are honored to have Ambassador John V. Hanford, III, The Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Freedom. This afternoon he will be presenting the Fifth Annual Report on International Religious Freedom.
The Ambassador will begin by making a statement, and then he will be happy to answer your questions. Let me just remind you, if you have any cell phones, now is the time to turn them off. And without further ado, let me introduce Ambassador Hanford.
Please.
AMBASSADOR HANFORD: Thank you. Thank you very much and thank you all for coming out. Let me just begin by sharing a few remarks.
As you know, Americans have long cherished their own religious freedom. It's a part of our heritage. And they also place a high value on the priorities that our government gives to strong advocacy on behalf of the millions of people around the world who suffer persecution for their religious beliefs.
This year marks the 100th anniversary of a watershed moment for this sort of endeavor. In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt led an interfaith coalition of American Jews and Christians in sending a strong protest to Tsarist Russia condemning the Kishinev Pogrom against Russian Jews. His advisors counseled Roosevelt to keep the U.S. out of such matters. But when he learned that members of the Tsarist government had incited the murders of dozens of Jews, attacks on hundreds more, and the destructions of the homes of thousands, the President was unwilling that America stand in silence. In fact, in addition to sending the Tsar a strong message of protest, he pulled out his wallet and contributed money to the relief effort.
For a government to speak out in this way was almost unprecedented in that day, yet it heralded what, over time, has come to be a core American commitment to addressing the age-old problem of religious persecution.
Five years ago, this commitment became manifest in the unanimous passage by Congress of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. This legislation created my office, my position, and also the report, which I'm proud to be releasing to you today.
This commitment continues to be articulated forcefully by our President, Secretary of State, and others in this Administration. The President's National Security Strategy states very plainly that we will take special efforts to promote freedom of religion and conscience and defend it from encroachment by repressive governments.
In explaining why religious freedom holds such an integral place in American foreign policy, President Bush has said, "It is not an accident that freedom of religion is one of the central freedoms in our Bill of Rights. It is the first freedom of the human soul, the right to speak the words that God places in our mouths. We must stand for that freedom in our country; we must speak for that freedom in the world."
And indeed, in many respects, religious freedom stands as the first freedom. It's true -- I think it's fair to say that this freedom also embraces the right to peaceful assembly and association, freedom of opinion and expression, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, and freedom of movement.
Together, these rights constitute the seedbed of democratic development. They encourage not only the institutions and procedures of democracy, 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 seeking to promote the spread of democracy.
Protecting religious freedom is also of special importance in the ongoing war against terrorism. All too often, countries that violate religious freedom also contribute to terrorism, whether intentionally or unintentionally. In some cases, those governments that are hostile to religious liberty have been hospitable to terrorism.
In other cases, nations have targeted religious believers, even under the guise of antiterrorism campaigns, and driven some unnecessarily toward radicalism and violence. Conversely, where governments protect religious freedom and citizens value it as a social good, religious persecution and religious-based violence find no warrant and little appeal.
Though international law supports it and though millions of religious believers around the world desire it, religious freedom all too often remains fragile, neglected and violated. Many religious believers find themselves forced to worship secretly instead of confidently, or to hold their sacred beliefs in fear and under threat rather than peace and security. Many others suffer severe hardship for their faith, which can include beatings, torture, detention, imprisonment or death.
While the report we're releasing today is rather comprehensive in that it reports on conditions of religious freedom in countries around the world, it represents only the beginning of our efforts on behalf of religious freedom. Our government is determined to combat persecution wherever people are forced to suffer for their faith. This is part of our nation's work in the world, of which we can be proud. It's also an endeavor which, I believe, earns Americans good will across the globe.
During my travels overseas, I am regularly thanked by religious believers of various faiths for the special attention our government devotes to their plight. Many have described their wonder and their gratitude for the focus the United States gives to religious freedom. This inspires them and it encourages us to persevere in our efforts on behalf of those who suffer for their faith.
As I continue my term as second U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, I want to thank all of the employees at the Department of State, here and abroad, who made this report possible, especially the Human Rights Officers in our various embassies, the Office of Country Reports at the State Department, and my own office, as well, who worked very hard to make this report possible.
This, the fifth annual edition of the International Religious Freedom Report, attempts to establish a baseline of fact about the status of religious freedom worldwide, both to illuminate those problems and to guide our own policy. It also seeks to describe positive trends and to highlight improvements. And this report reflects good news in many countries, where governments respect religious freedom, and their citizens value it as a fundamental right. Sadly, however, too many religious believers around the world do not enjoy such freedoms. There are a number of factors driving this grim reality. Let me identify briefly five categories of religious freedom abuses:
First, attempts by totalitarian or authoritarian regimes to control religious belief or practice are manifested in countries such as North Korea, China, Burma and Vietnam.
Second, I would point to states that favor a dominant religion and are hostile toward minority or non-approved religions, and examples here would include Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan and Turkmenistan. In the case of Turkmenistan, a new, draconian legislation has effectively criminalized the religious activities of many Muslims, Christians and other faiths.
Third, there is the problem of state neglect, discrimination or persecution toward minority or non-approved religions, and we find this in nations such as Egypt, Georgia, Indonesia and Nigeria.
Fourth, there are states that have discriminatory legislation or policies disadvantaging certain religions, and this category includes Belarus, Russia and Eritrea. In the case of Eritrea, for example, over 300 Protestants currently suffer imprisonment only because their churches are not sanctioned by the state.
Fifth, certain states stigmatize particular religions by wrongfully associating them with dangerous cults or sects. So as you can see, the problems that one century ago stirred President Roosevelt to action, continue today to afflict too many countries and too many religious believers.
The United States Government remains steadfast in its resolve to stand with the persecuted and to speak out on behalf of those whose governments would silence them. Their plight inspires our determination and our vigilance. We do this for them.
And in seeking to stop persecution, the first, and often the most vital step, is to ensure that the stories are told and the abuses revealed. We've worked very hard to make sure that this report does just that.
Thank you all for being here. I'm happy to answer your questions, and I hope that you've gotten a copy. We've got continue discussions. Just to show how high-tech our State Department is, we even have this small size of CD for the second year in a row that we're making available.
MR. BOOKBINDER: Okay, let me thank you, Ambassador Hanford. And while we go to questions, please wait for a microphone and then identify yourself and your news organization. And let's begin with India.
QUESTION: Parasuram of the Press Trust of India. One thing that is striking in your report is that religious freedom persecution; religious persecution is not only in authoritarian states or totalitarian states. It's also in democratic states. Is that a weakness of democracy, and how will you deal with that?
And secondly --
AMBASSADOR HANFORD: I'm sorry, what was that? Is that a what of democracy?
QUESTION: Not only authoritarian states, but also democratic states you have persecution of religious freedom. How would you deal with that, and what are the remedies?
Secondly, you mentioned five categories of religious persecution. Where do you put India?
AMBASSADOR HANFORD: Right. The five categories, I might mention, aren't necessarily a grading. So even though the first category tends to be among the worst, it's not like we have first tier, second tier, third tier. And also, it gets complicated because some countries we put under various categories.
In terms of how to deal with the question of the fact that there are democracies and other countries that aren't totalitarian states that persecute religion, we seek to be evenhanded in this and we find ourselves having to speak very frankly with some of our allies when religious persecution or even less serious problems of discrimination take place.
This is something which has us covering much of the globe. And if you look over our report you'll be surprised in the number of countries that are close allies of the U.S. that this is the case. There are even allies of the U.S. that sometimes arrest and torture people for their faith, and we have to be very blunt about that.
There are other cases, and India might fall into this category, where there is inter-communal violence which occurs, such as that which occurred in the Gujarat state, where our concern is that local police have not been quick enough to respond, or where the court system, though a system that we respect and is a system under democracy, can be very, very slow in addressing problems. And so I think this is where India would fall.
QUESTION: Can I follow it up?
AMBASSADOR HANFORD: Yes.
QUESTION: If you're asked, on a scale of one to ten, one being the worst -- or rather, one being the best and ten the worst, where would you place India and Pakistan?
AMBASSADOR HANFORD: I don't think -- having not thought in that rubric, I'd have to have a pretty strong sense in my mind of where I'd place a lot of countries before I would start placing India and Pakistan. There are different problems, quite different problems, in those two countries that we deal with.
In Pakistan, often the problem is the anti-blasphemy laws that we run into. In India, as you know, there is a rise in Hindu extremism that seems to be encouraging many to take up arms or to show hostility towards minority faiths. Sometimes we realize this is provoked by members of those faiths taking violent action on their own, and so we're concerned especially when we see the leadership in India fomenting this and using it for political purposes.
We also see various states in India passing anti-conversion laws and taking very strict measures that can wind up restricting very basic religious freedoms, simply the freedom to determine one's own faith.
And by the way, I just had a very nice chat with Ambassador Mansingh and his wife. Just two nights ago at the White House, we were both at an event. It was very interesting to learn -- I had met with, had lunch with Ambassador Mansingh in the past to talk over various issues and I had forgotten that he's Buddhist and his wife is Hindu. And so I had a very interesting discussion trying to figure out how they handle this in their home, with their children and all of that, and of course, many of us around the world face these issues and it's always interesting to see how different people handle those different issues.
But he had also had me over to the embassy recently when he had hosted the Dalai Lama. India has graciously provided a haven, and that was a very useful time to hear personally from the Dalai Lama about some of the problems that Tibetan Buddhists face.
MR. BOOKBINDER: Okay. Let's go to Sudan and then --
QUESTION: Yeah. El-Bashir, Sudan U.S. News Service. I read the section on Sudan in the executive summary. I thought that the recent visit to Khartoum by Reverend Franklin Graham was an indication that things were beginning to change. He was welcomed and his language was definitely more conciliatory than the report. And aren't you here sending different -- I mean, the report, the summary that I read is just rehashing the same old generalized accusations. So aren't you sending conflicting signals here?
AMBASSADOR HANFORD: I've not seen Franklin Graham's comments and have never discussed with him the situation in Sudan, so I'm not in a position to be able to comment on that. But in terms of our current attitude, of course we're placing great hopes on the peace talks and what seems to be the promise of that, and our hopes that that will wind up resolving a number of the remaining issues.
MR. BOOKBINDER: Shall be go to Japan?
QUESTION: My name is Sawaki. I'm with Tokyo Shimbun. Ambassador, you talked at great length about what this report is meant to be, but I'm still a little bit confused, so I hope you could clarify this. I'm going to touch one of the closest allies of the United States -- that is Japan.
In its country report on Japan, it says that, if I may summarize, the freedom of religion is overall enjoyed but there are a few restrictions. And this report lists a few examples on such restrictions. One example is the Aum Shinrikyo group -- that's the group, which attacked -- staged a sarin gas attack in Tokyo -- remains under government surveillance.
Another example is the Unification Church lost a legal battle in which they argued that some of the church members were kidnapped by the family members and held for forced deprogramming.
So are you saying that these things should not have happened, or these restrictions should be removed? Or is this report just a simple observation of the facts?
AMBASSADOR HANFORD: I'm personally aware of the great degree of religious freedom in Japan, which I think deserves high commendation. I have a sister-in-law who grew up in Japan and who speaks glowingly of that situation. The details that you mention, I'm not as intimate with.
We do try to be very comprehensive in these reports, and so sometimes they can get very picky in terms of trying to come up with particular examples of issues where, perhaps, our government hasn't staked out a position, but is an issue which has been worthy of note or discussed in the Japanese press.
I'm not in a position to comment on these particular ones because since Japan hasn't had serious problems, I've not worked on religious freedom problems in Japan.
MR. BOOKBINDER: Shall we go to Russia, up to the front?
QUESTION: Pavel Vanichkin, TASS News Agency of Russia. Sir, I've got a couple of questions. First of all, according to the report, many -- most citizens in Russia firmly believe that at least nominal adherence to the Russian Orthodox Church is at the heart of what it means to be Russian. Do you regard this firm belief of many Russians as a negative issue? And if you do, please explain me why.
And my second question is, I don't want to quote you, but I think I'd rephrase you quite correctly. You said that governments that violate religious freedoms often contribute to terrorism. Would it be fair to say that governments that violate religious freedom in a different way very often contribute to the struggle against terrorism? For example, Turkey, Russia, Germany, France, Uzbekistan -- they do violate religious freedom, according to this report. Thank you.
AMBASSADOR HANFORD: Right. No, I think the observation that many Russians equate in their hearts their national identity along with their Russian Orthodox identity is a natural phenomenon that one would expect given the history of Russia. I don't think there's a desire to make a qualitative judgment on this whatsoever.
There have been times where this has resulted in a more aggressive effort to restrict other groups within the country that has worried us. And there has even been strong rhetoric in the Duma and elsewhere along these lines. And so I think that is where the concern comes from.
Could you rephrase your second question? I think I followed you, but I just wanted to hear it again.
QUESTION: Would it be fair to say that many governments who violate religious freedoms very often contribute to the struggle against terrorism? You said that governments who violate religious freedoms often contribute to terrorism.
AMBASSADOR HANFORD: Right.
QUESTION: You mentioned Russia, Germany, France, Turkey, Uzbekistan --
AMBASSADOR HANFORD: Right.
QUESTION: -- as countries who violate it in different way religious freedoms. But they all contribute to the struggle against terrorism.
AMBASSADOR HANFORD: Right, right.
QUESTION: So is it a fair argument to say vice versa?
AMBASSADOR HANFORD: Yes, it's complicated. There are countries that restrict religious freedom that have a very monolithic approach to religion, and where the brand of religion that is practiced there can be extreme and winds up motivating terrorism against practitioners of other religions within that country or elsewhere, or sometimes against people of their own faith that don't practice the very particular strictures of that faith.
You know, there are some countries in our report that not only restrict their citizenry to a particular religion, but a particular school of a particular religion. And so you have people of the same religion who wind up being among the worst persecuted. In Saudi Arabia, it is the Salafi school of Sunni Islam that is favored, and so Shia find themselves being targeted at times.
Some of the countries that you mentioned that do commendable work in fighting the problem of terrorism -- I'm not seeking to argue there that they are fomenting terrorism, although there are cases, you mentioned Uzbekistan for example, where we appreciate their conscientious efforts to fight terrorism -- but our concern is that there could well be cases -- I think there are cases -- where Muslims may be rounded up who are members of groups where there might be some people who have more aggressive intentions, who wind up being imprisoned, beaten, physically mistreated.
There are -- sometimes, in the case of Uzbekistan, the term "Wahabi" is used very generally and people that are arrested and accused of being Wahabis can wind up being very badly treated, even though many of them may have sincere, peaceful desires to practice their faith.
And this, I hope, illustrates the evenhanded way in which we seek to do our work in the government in promoting religious freedom. We are concerned about some Wahabi practitioners out of Saudi Arabia who, indeed, have terrorist intentions. And yet, when it comes to other governments, ironically, we find ourselves defending people that have the Wahabi convictions. It's more the question of how they live out their faith and whether their interpretation is to harm other people and is to commit terrorism.
And so there are cases, like Uzbekistan, with the Hisb-ut-Tahir is another example where some practitioners have violent intentions but many do not, and where the government can get carried away; or China, where Uighur Muslims can wind up being treated in a more broad way than is deserved, and where peaceful practicing Uighurs are lined up in prison. This is where we would have concerns that our allies, in fighting terrorism, can get carried away.
I was just returning from Vietnam, and there can be a similar problem there as well, where the government has a concern about certain communities where a small percentage of the people are very against the government, and yet their solution is to go in and try to close down almost everything associated with those particular communities.
What we do is, we try to encourage governments such as this to distinguish between criminal behavior and behavior that is peaceful, well-intentioned religious practice, and not to criminalize religious practice in general for these particular communities of faith.
MR. BOOKBINDER: Okay, let's go to Korea. Right here.
QUESTION: Ki yon Kuk with Segye Times, Korea. According to this report, the Secretary of State designated six countries, like North Korea, as countries of particular concern. What kind of measures are you thinking to improve the situation in North Korea?
AMBASSADOR HANFORD: Well, you raise what is, arguably, the toughest challenge for us in seeking to improve religious freedom, and also one of the most heart-wrenching situations.
The challenge for us -- and I've worked on religious freedom issues for many years -- even prior to my work at the State Department -- the challenge has always been to gain accurate information on what is going on in North Korea.
Our impression is that genuine religious freedom doesn't exist there, and the report comes right out and says that. And the reason is that the North Korean regime is so ruthlessly effective in barring outside observers that it's just very difficult for us to get the sort of information that we're used to in other countries. However, given the weight of evidence, and those persons who are credible that we are able to talk to, we feel that we must speak very clearly and bluntly about this.
There are very harsh punishments that we have accurate reports to indicate are meted to people of faith. In the prison camps the stories are told that often it is people of faith who receive the most harsh treatment -- beatings and torture and the like. We don't have a reliable number of religious detainees or prisoners, but we think the number is rather large.
And of course, sometimes this information is made available in China through people who were able to cross the border. There is a natural and often unfair suspicion on the part of the North Koreans that people coming back from China have had ill-intentioned contacts with religious groups. And so often people receive especially harsh treatment if they are discovered to have had contact with religious groups in China.
MR. BOOKBINDER: Okay, shall we go to Japan?
QUESTION: My name is Wada. I am from Japan's Mainichi newspaper. Thank you for sharing time with us.
I want to sort of follow up on the question posed by my South Korean colleague. Do you plan to make any particular -- take any particular actions against North Korea to improve the religious freedom situation in the country?
AMBASSADOR HANFORD: Under the legislation that set up the annual report and my office, there is an annual process whereby the Secretary of State designates the severe violators of religious freedom in the world, and currently there are six countries that have been designated in the past and are on this list. This happens, generally, once a year, although the Secretary of State is free to do this any time that he wishes.
The six countries currently on the list are: North Korea, China, Burma, Iran, Sudan and Iraq. And in the next weeks or months, this list will be renewed for this year. The list is to be based upon the information included in this report. This report is done annually. It covers a period from June to June, and the Secretary and the rest of us review this information and make a determination as to whether a country's behavior has risen to that high threshold where severe violations of religious freedom have occurred.
And so North Korea is already receiving that designation as one of the worst of the worst. Now, in terms of efforts to improve religious freedom there, our government, of course, on that and on a number of other human rights concerns, is pressing for freedom for people to be able to practice their faith and not to be physically mistreated simply for having religious belief.
North Korea is a very sad case. Having lived in South Korea for a little while, you see how religious freedom has flourished and how the population has benefited from this, how the country has benefited from it. You look to North Korea and realize at one time this nation had as strong a religious community, if not even stronger than existed at that time in South Korea, and today it has just been quashed. And I think the whole nation will benefit in many ways when this freedom is restored.
MR. BOOKBINDER: Excellent. Okay. I'd like to thank everyone. Thank you for your concise questions. Thank you for your excellent answers. And as I said, thank everyone for coming. This will end our presentation.
|
