hearing transcript (pdf - 690 kb) - House Foreign Affairs Committee ...

16
on by the very individuals who suffered under the old regimes. As I look over the
world in 2002, in some countries repression has waned, but in others it has only
waxed stronger. I am sad to observe that some of the faces may have changed, but
the scourge of religious persecution has persisted.
Let me touch briefly on the major causes as we see them today. These causes are
loosely grouped, and may overlap in many nations, but they are useful categories
in understanding the problem. In essence, the contexts are many, but religious persecution
usually finds its genesis where the quest for power sweeps aside as irrelevant
the precious worth and dignity of each individual human being.
First, we find religious oppression in nations dominated by totalitarian or authoritarian
governments such as North Korea and Burma. Why do such nations perceive
religion as a threat to their authority? In part because religious believers swear allegiance
to a higher authority, and because these courageous men and women know
that the right of religious freedom cannot be given or abrogated by human government.
Rather than reaping the benefits to their societies of peaceful religious practice
by their citizens, repressive governments choose to treat religion as a threat to
their control, and persecution is the inevitable result.
We find in this category the rulers of Communist regimes, including China, Vietnam,
Cuba and Laos, who all persist in their efforts to control and manipulate religious
groups. Vietnam, for example, keeps many religious figures under detention
or house arrest, or in prison. China continues to imprison many Tibetan Buddhist
monks and nuns, underground Catholic bishops and priests, and Protestant ‘‘house
church’’ pastors.
Secondly, when a particular religion is strongly associated with the identity of a
national group, minority religions can be perceived as threats. This phenomenon has
led to tragic sectarian violence in India, where in March the death of some sixty
Hindu pilgrims in a train fire while the train was under attack from Muslims
sparked massive Hindu rioting that left upwards of 1,000 Muslims dead. In other
countries, the association of nationhood and religion has led to severe legal codes
like the blasphemy laws in Pakistan, which in turn have led to mob attacks against
minorities such as the Ahmadis. There have also been a series of horrific and cowardly
attacks on Christians. Just a few weeks ago, I was working with some of you
to ensure the relocation, freedom and safety of a young man, Ayub Masih, who endured
6 years of prison and repeated threats against his life because of false accusations
based on this law.
In Russia, perceived threats to the religious identity of the nation have placed significant
obstacles in the path of that country’s attempts to achieve religious freedom.
We find the same unfortunate phenomenon in many of the surrounding nations
and former Soviet Republics.
Third, some governments use religion more directly to establish and maintain
their legitimacy, which can mean that minority religions are treated as threats. This
is true of some Muslim governments such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan. In
these nations, freedom of religion usually means freedom only to practice or turn
to the majority religion. The conversion to a minority religion has in some instances
been met even by death.
Fourth, governments may use genuine security threats to justify tarring an entire
religious group with the brush of subversion. Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, for instance,
have dealt with security threats indiscriminately, detaining and abusing
many innocent people who happen to engage in religious observances or associations
similar to those of suspected terrorists.
Fifth, a similar dynamic has emerged which must be described as discrimination
rather than persecution, but which is rooted in the same impulse of disproportionate
response to a just concern. In the last several years, we have traced a trend across
Europe, where a legitimate public concern with violent cults has led to ‘‘anti-cult’’
measures that are problematic and discriminatory in themselves but far more troublesome
when used as a model by other, less democratic countries.
In France, sweeping ‘‘anti-cult’’ legislation passed last year. To the credit of the
French legal system, thus far those who have sought to use that law against religious
practitioners have met with failure. I have also been heartened both by the
willing dialogue on this issue that I have personally encountered, and by recent
statements of the French delegation to the OSCE concerning the mandate of a government
commission and the list of so-called cults it promulgated. Yet the law itself
remains problematic not only because of the threat the language carries in France,
but because it is even now being considered for emulation by countries that lack
France’s commitment to rule of law and human rights. Such a model serves only
too well as cover for those nations who persecute under the guise of law enforcement.
VerDate May 01 2002 14:37 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 082261 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\IOHR\100902\82261 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL