On-the-Record Briefing: Release of the 2002 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom

I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to present the Fourth Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. This report reflects, in tangible form, our compassion as a nation for religious believers abroad who suffer for their faith and our determination as a people to confront and alleviate that suffering.

Why do we concern ourselves with the problem of religious persecution in other nations? In the words of President Bush, religious freedom, "… 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."

Religious freedom is at the very heart of our identity as Americans and many of our forebears came here to find a haven from religious persecution. But religious freedom is also a universally acknowledged right enshrined in numerous international covenants and declarations. When we advance religious freedom, we are simply urging other nations to join with us in upholding a high but universal standard. In promoting religious freedom, we also further other fundamental liberties, such as the freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, and the freedom to raise one's children the faith of one's choice. Where these freedoms flourish, both government and citizenry learn to value and nurture human dignity.

Finally, advancing religious freedom promotes democracy. As the founders of our nation understood, religious liberty is a cornerstone of democracy; and where there is democracy, there is peace.

The Annual Report on International Religious Freedom was mandated by the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act. The report promotes religious freedom by establishing a factual baseline on this issue in more than 190 countries, thus exposing and giving hope to victims of abuses.

The report serves U.S. policymakers, foreign government leaders, NGOs and the press, and is generally acknowledged as the most comprehensive reference available on this subject. As we release this report today, I want to take the opportunity to recognize hundreds of foreign service officers and others, here and abroad, who contributed to this finished product. In particular, I want to thank the dedicated men and women of the Country Reports and Asylum Affairs Office who compiled and edited this report. A special thanks, as well, to my own staff in the Office of International Religious Freedom for whom this work is truly a labor of love.

I'm glad to say that this year's report reflects good news in many countries where governments protect religious freedom and their citizens value it as a social and political good. Such countries tend to be democracies in which all fundamental human rights are respected. Unfortunately, that still leaves millions of religious believers in other countries who suffer restrictions and outright persecution at the hands of their governments.

There are a number of reasons for this grim reality. Let me touch briefly on six general categories of religious freedom abuses:

First, totalitarian and authoritarian regimes often perceive religious expression as a threat to their control. North Korea, Burma, China, Vietnam fall into this category.

Secondly, governments that build their legitimacy on a dominant religion often suppress minority religions. Here we find Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran.

Third, where there is a strong association between a national identity and a dominant religion, governments may engage in or tolerate repression of other religions. In India, this dynamic led to the deaths of upwards of a thousand Muslims who were killed in reprisal for the earlier massacre of some 60 Hindu pilgrims. In Pakistan, blasphemy laws have led to persecution of Christians and Ahmadis. And just days ago, the parliament of Belarus passed what is now one of the most repressive religion laws in Eurasia.

Fourth, some governments target members of certain religious groups because they are perceived to represent opposition to governmental authority or a threat to stability. Such are Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. In Iraq, the Shi'a are often brutally persecuted because some do not support Saddam Hussein.

Fifth, a newer form of religious discrimination has arisen across Europe where a concern over violent cults has led to laws and government commissions affecting a wide spectrum of believers. Such actions are particularly troubling because they become models for nations lacking Europe's rule of law.

Finally, religious-based terrorism by nongovernmental actors, often with the support from rogue regimes, is emerging as a new cause of religious persecution. Terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida, which define themselves and their goals in religious terms, are growing in number. They destroy not only adherents of other religions, but also co-religionists who reject their methods or goals.

As you can see, religious freedom is under siege in many parts of the world. This report, by exposing the problem, is a first step in countering that assault. If we succeed in advancing religious freedom, we will not only bring relief to untold numbers of victims, but we will also help establish democracy and promote other fundamental human rights.

I have quoted from our current President. Now let me close with some words from our first President. George Washington said, "I beg you will be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny and every species of religious persecution."

These are inspiring words that set a standard we seek to emulate in our efforts to promote religious freedom wherever in the world it is threatened.

Thank you, and I would be pleased now to take any questions you might have. Yes, sir.

Question: The report mentions China as one of your countries of concern. Could you give us a fill on the status of the human rights dialogue with China and whether this has produced any progress with respect to the religious issue in China?

Ambassador Hanford: Well, the human rights dialogue has been, of course, ongoing. There have been ten of them, the tenth of which was held in October of 2001. There are negotiations right now on when the next one will occur.

I know that when Secretary Powell was -- I guess it was in *Bahrain, an announcement was made by Foreign Minister Tang of China that these negotiations would begin again soon. However, a date has not been set and there are some disagreements right now over what should lead up to that.

Religious freedom has consistently been a meaningful, very important part of those negotiations.

Yes, sir.

Question: What have you learned in the previous three reports that have caused you to change how this fourth report is organized? Are there any features that are new or features that were dropped over the four years of different reports?

*Announced in Brunei

Ambassador Hanford: There are no major features. I think one of the benefits of this process as it goes on is that our embassy personnel become better and better at ferreting out the problems. One of the, I guess, intended consequences of the International Religious Freedom Act was fostering the constant interaction between our embassy personnel, religious groups in various countries, NGOs, human rights groups there. This has just increased year by year by year as better and better contacts are made. So in that sense, our expectation, our belief, is that the quality improves year by year.

Yes, sir.

Question: Mr. Ambassador, the Israeli Government for a year now has not recognized the newly elected Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem Irineos without any formal explanation so far, despite the fact that the Patriarchate has functioned there more than a thousand years. What is the US position from the religious freedom point of view?

Ambassador Hanford: Well, you're right. Relations between the Israeli Government and the Greek Orthodox Patriarch have been strained by the Israeli Government's refusal to recognize the duly elected Greek Orthodox Patriarch. This is something that we are discussing with them. I don't have any detailed answer right now to where those discussions are, but I can assure you that this is something we are fully aware of.

Yes, sir.

Question: One more question. Anything to report on your well known efforts to open the Theological School of Halki of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Turkey?

Ambassador Hanford: No, I don't have any recent information on that. That also is very much on our radar screen.

Yes, ma'am.

Question: I can't remember about the first two, but I know that last year and this year you say that religious freedom in Saudi Arabia does not exist.

Ambassador Hanford: That's right.

Question: So, I guess my question would be you, do say even some of the countries that you mentioned of particular concern, you even said there have been slight improvements. So why is Saudi Arabia not a country of particular concern? I know that the Commission on Religious Freedom and other human rights groups have repeatedly called for Saudi Arabia to be designated that way.

Ambassador Hanford: Right. Well, that's a very good question and that is a tough call. It's true that in Saudi Arabia religious freedom, as we understand it and view it, does not exist. There is discrimination against Shi'a, Ismaili Muslims and other Muslims who don't subscribe to the official brand of Islam that is adhered to by the government. *And of course there's a larger expatriate population in Saudi Arabia than there are Saudi Arabians, and so you have enormous numbers of people of non-Islamic faith who have problems.

The government has suggested that it is possible now for people to meet privately in their homes in order to practice their faith in small groups. The problem is that we don't have any clear decrees on this and there still is a great deal of inconsistency; as some groups are broken up, people wind up in jail. I have worked on these cases and they take a great deal of time to try to get people out of jail.

This is something that we're going to have to consider very seriously. The process of looking at countries of particular concern typically happens shortly after the issuance of this report each year. This report serves as sort of the factual basis that we look to to make those determinations.

I think it is true that the level of brutality in certain other countries that are listed as countries of particular concern is greater. Now, there had been cases of severe penalties given out by the Government of Saudi Arabia, but you don't find the numbers of religious prisoners and you don't find the brutality on a regular basis that you do in some of the other countries that are listed as CPCs.

Question: If I can just clarify something, the countries that it says in the executive summary are countries of particular concern; this was for the previous report?

Ambassador Hanford: That's correct.

Question: You haven't designated your countries of particular concern yet? Is that --

Ambassador Hanford: No, that's right. That happens over the next few weeks. And for the rest of you, those countries are China, Burma, Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Sudan.

Yes, sir.

Question: Can you -- is it disconcerting to you at all that only one country, Afghanistan, was listed as having made significant improvements? And how much, if at all, does politics play in determining who is on the list and who isn't?

*Correct population figures: 22.7 million residents of Saudi Arabia; 16.3 million of which are Saudi nationals, and 6.4 million of which are non-Saudi nationals

Ambassador Hanford: It's very disconcerting. I mean, this is our raison d'être and we'd love to -- I'd love to come back next year and say that we've cleared up religious freedom around the world. But it's very much tough sledding. I've worked in this issue for a number of years and you have to often take satisfaction in small victories -- getting people out of prison, pushing a country back from a pattern of oppression. And sometimes you see that pushing them back has a residual effect, maybe for a year or two or three, and you can change policy for a while.

Our greatest goal is to change policy. It's to weigh in when laws are being considered and to try to stop a bad trend. And right now, those trends unfortunately are cropping up all over the place. In the case of Afghanistan, I should have mentioned that they were on the list of countries of particular concern. They were designated outside of the Act because the Act requires the Department to designate nations. We did not recognize the Taliban regime as a nation but felt that the problems were egregious enough that we should still designate them.

I think under such improved conditions in Afghanistan, that will be one country that will come off of the list this year.

Question: And the other part of my question? How much does US relationships with these countries play a role in whether you put them on a certain list or not, or is that completely divorced from your findings?

Ambassador Hanford: Well, we weigh in and complain and negotiate with our friends as well as our foes. We're sort of an equal opportunity offender in this work. And sometimes close allies are countries that we have real problems with, especially when they, perhaps, don't intend their laws to be imposed in so negative a way. I'm finding in my travels and my work, for example, that a law in France is being picked up as a model in other countries. If I'm in Vietnam or I'm in China, this law gets quoted and I find that French officials have traveled there and have -- or Vietnamese officials have traveled to France.

And so we press strongly our friends and our allies on this issue. There are not -- there, perhaps, are an ally or two that we could view as candidates for countries of particular concern status and we're going to take these very seriously.

Question: Who?

Ambassador Hanford: I can't say that now because I don't want to prejudice the process. We just now began that process. Of course, we have in the back of our minds the ones that are on the cusp. But we -- our goal is to be consistent with the standards of the law.

Question: On the other side of that, how much does whether these countries are on the list play a role in U.S. policy? And can you really hope to change these countries just with a report. I mean, sanctions, something like that? Some kind of embargoes? I mean, how much teeth does it really have?

Ambassador Hanford: Right. The International Religious Freedom Act included a menu of options of actions that were offered to the government to impose in any case and we are required under that Act to take action wherever there are violations of religious freedom. However, in the case of countries of particular concern, we are required to take action from a narrower menu and so those countries that I mentioned earlier have had certain penalties imposed.

Now, in each case, what the Department has chosen to do in the past is something which is allowed under the law. Where we already have human rights sanctions in place with these countries, the Department is allowed to double designate, in other words, not to try to come up with another human rights sanction, but to make it clear now that part of the intention of that sanction is to address the religious freedom problem. And if torture is the other reason and the torture problem clears up but the religious freedom problem does not, that sanction will remain in place.

Yes, sir.

Question: When you were saying before that it's certain allies on the cusp, you weren't -- you said that right after you were talking about Western Europe, and France in particular. You're not suggesting that Western European NATO allies are on the -- are being considered for countries of particular concern, are you?

Ambassador Hanford: No, they are not on the cusp of sort of the brutality and the severity.

Question: Okay. The second this is: Doesn't it appear from this report as though the only way a country can make significant improvement is if the U.S. invades it and overthrows the government? (Laughter.)

Ambassador Hanford: That's an interesting observation. Hopefully not.

Question: Well, doesn't it? I mean, the only country that has made any significant improvement is one that was, you know, the one --

Ambassador Hanford: You know, the report is required to come out every year. That's a very narrow window. Over my years of working on this issue, I have seen countries turn the corner and improve.

Question: On their own?

Ambassador Hanford: Well, with encouragement. Who knows how much that played into it?

Question: But less encouragement than full-scale invasion?

Ambassador Hanford: That's right. (Laughter). But we'll take that observation under advisement.

Thank you.