<DOC>
[DOCID: f:66723.wais]


106th Congress 
 2d Session              JOINT COMMITTEE PRINT                  S. Prt.
                                                                 106-61
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

 
                            ANNUAL REPORT ON
                    INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
                                  2000

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                            SUBMITTED TO THE

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

                              U.S. SENATE

                                AND THE

                  COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                 BY THE

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                 IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 102 OF THE
              INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT OF 1998

                                     
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

                              NOVEMBER 2000

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


                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

                 JESSE HELMS, North Carolina, Chairman

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana            JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska                PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon              CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
ROD GRAMS, Minnesota                 JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas                RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming                PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri              BARBARA BOXER, California
BILL FRIST, Tennessee                ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island

                   Stephen E. Biegun, Staff Director

                 Edwin K. Hall, Minority Staff Director

                                 ______

                  COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

                 BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman

WILLIAM GOODLING, Pennsylvania       SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa                 TOM LANTOS, California
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois              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
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois         ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California          PAT DANNER, Missouri
PETER T. KING, New York              EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   BRAD SHERMAN, California
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South     ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
Carolina                             STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
MATT SALMON, Arizona                 JIM DAVIS, Florida
AMO HOUGHTON, New York               EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
TOM CAMPBELL, California             WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
KEVIN BRADY, Texas                   BARBARA LEE, California
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina         JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio                JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California     [VACANCY]
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

                    Richard J. Garon, Chief of Staff

          Kathleen Bertelsen Moazed, Democratic Chief of Staff

                                  (ii)

  


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Foreword.........................................................   vii

Letter of Transmittal............................................    ix

Preface..........................................................    xi

Introduction.....................................................  xiii

Executive Summary................................................   xix

               REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
                             COUNTRY INDEX

Africa:
    Angola.......................................................     1
    Benin........................................................     2
    Botswana.....................................................     3
    Burkina Faso.................................................     4
    Burundi......................................................     6
    Cameroon.....................................................     7
    Cape Verde...................................................     9
    Central African Republic.....................................    10
    Chad.........................................................    12
    Comoros......................................................    14
    Congo, Democratic Republic of................................    15
    Congo, Republic of...........................................    17
    Cote d'Ivoire................................................    18
    Djibouti.....................................................    23
    Equatorial Guinea............................................    24
    Eritrea......................................................    26
    Ethiopia.....................................................    29
    Gabon........................................................    32
    Gambia, The..................................................    33
    Ghana........................................................    34
    Guinea.......................................................    37
    Guinea-Bissau................................................    39
    Kenya........................................................    40
    Lesotho......................................................    44
    Liberia......................................................    46
    Madagascar...................................................    48
    Malawi.......................................................    48
    Mali.........................................................    50
    Mauritania...................................................    51
    Mauritius....................................................    52
    Mozambique...................................................    54
    Namibia......................................................    56
    Niger........................................................    57
    Nigeria......................................................    59
    Rwanda.......................................................    63
    Sao Tome and Principe........................................    65
    Senegal......................................................    65
    Seychelles...................................................    67
    Sierra Leone.................................................    68
    Somalia......................................................    69
    South Africa.................................................    71
    Sudan........................................................    73
    Swaziland....................................................    79
    Tanzania.....................................................    81
    Togo.........................................................    83
    Uganda.......................................................    85
    Zambia.......................................................    87
    Zimbabwe.....................................................    88

Latin America and the Caribbean:
    Antigua and Barbuda..........................................    95
    Argentina....................................................    96
    Bahamas......................................................    99
    Barbados.....................................................   100
    Belize.......................................................   101
    Bolivia......................................................   103
    Brazil.......................................................   104
    Chile........................................................   106
    Colombia.....................................................   109
    Costa Rica...................................................   112
    Cuba.........................................................   113
    Dominica.....................................................   117
    Dominican Republic...........................................   118
    Ecuador......................................................   120
    El Salvador..................................................   121
    Grenada......................................................   123
    Guatemala....................................................   124
    Guyana.......................................................   126
    Haiti........................................................   127
    Honduras.....................................................   129
    Jamaica......................................................   130
    Mexico.......................................................   131
    Nicaragua....................................................   135
    Panama.......................................................   137
    Paraguay.....................................................   139
    Peru.........................................................   140
    St. Kitts and Nevis..........................................   142
    Saint Lucia..................................................   142
    Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.............................   143
    Suriname.....................................................   144
    Trinidad and Tobago..........................................   145
    Uruguay......................................................   147
    Venezuela....................................................   148

East Asia and the Pacific:
    Australia....................................................   151
    Brunei.......................................................   152
    Burma........................................................   154
    Cambodia.....................................................   161
    China (includes Hong Kong and Macau).........................   163
    China (Taiwan only)..........................................   181
    Fiji.........................................................   183
    Indonesia....................................................   184
    Japan........................................................   192
    Kiribati.....................................................   194
    Korea, Democratic People's Republic of.......................   195
    Korea, Republic of...........................................   197
    Laos.........................................................   199
    Malaysia.....................................................   203
    Marshall Islands.............................................   205
    Micronesia, Federated States of..............................   206
    Mongolia.....................................................   207
    Nauru........................................................   209
    New Zealand..................................................   209
    Palau........................................................   211
    Papua New Guinea.............................................   212
    Philippines..................................................   214
    Samoa........................................................   218
    Singapore....................................................   219
    Solomon Islands..............................................   221
    Thailand.....................................................   222
    Tonga........................................................   226
    Tuvalu.......................................................   227
    Vanuatu......................................................   228
    Vietnam......................................................   229

Europe and Canada:
    Albania......................................................   241
    Andorra......................................................   243
    Armenia......................................................   244
    Austria......................................................   248
    Azerbaijan...................................................   253
    Belarus......................................................   257
    Belgium......................................................   263
    Bosnia and Herzegovina.......................................   266
    Bulgaria.....................................................   270
    Canada.......................................................   274
    Croatia......................................................   275
    Cyprus.......................................................   278
    Czech Republic...............................................   281
    Denmark......................................................   285
    Estonia......................................................   286
    Finland......................................................   288
    France.......................................................   290
    Georgia......................................................   296
    Germany......................................................   300
    Greece.......................................................   306
    Hungary......................................................   311
    Iceland......................................................   315
    Ireland......................................................   317
    Italy........................................................   318
    Kazakhstan...................................................   320
    Kyrgyz Republic..............................................   323
    Latvia.......................................................   325
    Liechtenstein................................................   328
    Lithuania....................................................   329
    Luxembourg...................................................   331
    Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia........................   333
    Malta........................................................   335
    Moldova......................................................   336
    Monaco.......................................................   338
    Netherlands, The.............................................   339
    Norway.......................................................   342
    Poland.......................................................   344
    Portugal.....................................................   349
    Romania......................................................   351
    Russia.......................................................   357
    San Marino...................................................   374
    Serbia-Montenegro............................................   375
    Slovak Republic..............................................   378
    Slovenia.....................................................   382
    Spain........................................................   383
    Sweden.......................................................   386
    Switzerland..................................................   388
    Tajikistan...................................................   391
    Turkey.......................................................   394
    Turkmenistan.................................................   399
    Ukraine......................................................   403
    United Kingdom...............................................   411
    Uzbekistan...................................................   415

Near East and North Africa:
    Algeria......................................................   425
    Bahrain......................................................   427
    Egypt........................................................   429
    Iran.........................................................   436
    Iraq.........................................................   442
    Israel and the occupied territories..........................   448
    Jordan.......................................................   456
    Kuwait.......................................................   460
    Lebanon......................................................   463
    Libya........................................................   466
    Morocco......................................................   467
    The Western Sahara...........................................   470
    Oman.........................................................   471
    Qatar........................................................   472
    Saudi Arabia.................................................   474
    Syria........................................................   479
    Tunisia......................................................   481
    United Arab Emirates.........................................   484
    Yemen........................................................   486

South Asia:
    Afghanistan..................................................   491
    Bangladesh...................................................   497
    Bhutan.......................................................   499
    India........................................................   501
    Maldives.....................................................   511
    Nepal........................................................   512
    Pakistan.....................................................   514
    Sri Lanka....................................................   527

Appendixes:
    A.  United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.....   533
    B.  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.....   537
    C.  Training at the Foreign Service Institute................   551
    D.  INS and the International Religious Freedom Act..........   555
    E.  Overview of U.S. Refugee Policy..........................   563
  


                                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.
                                       Jesse Helms,
                          Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations.

                                Benjamin A. Gilman,
                    Chairman, Committee on International Relations.

                                 (vii)

                                     


                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                                       Department of State,
                                 Washington, DC, September 5, 2000.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate.
    Dear Mr. Chairman:
    On behalf of the Secretary of State, I am transmitting to 
you the Report on Religious Freedom, prepared in compliance 
with Section 102 of the International Religious Freedom Act of 
1998.
    We hope this report is helpful. Please let us know if we 
can provide any further information.
            Sincerely,
                                    Barbara Larkin,
                          Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.
    Enclosure.

                                  (ix)

                                     
                                PREFACE

                              ----------                              


             2000 REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

                      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 shall transmit to Congress by September 1 of each year, or the 
first day thereafter on which the appropriate House of Congress is in 
session, ``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 194 
reports on countries worldwide.

                      How The Reports Are Prepared

    In August 1993, the Secretary of State moved to further 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 1999, Robert A. Seiple was sworn in as the first 
Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom.
    The 2000 Report covers the period from July 1, 1999 to June 30, 
2000, 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 Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, 
and Labor and its Offices of International Religious Freedom, Country 
Reports and Asylum Affairs, and Bilateral Affairs, in cooperation with 
other State Department offices. 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 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 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.
                              INTRODUCTION

                              ----------                              


   Part I: The American Experiment in International Religious Freedom

    Religious freedom has always been at the core of American life and 
public policy. It is the first of the freedoms enumerated in the Bill 
of Rights--a reflection of the founders' belief that freedom of 
religion and conscience is the cornerstone of liberty. They understood 
that no government was likely to protect the other core rights (e.g., 
freedom of speech or freedom from arbitrary arrest) if it did not honor 
the ``sanctum sanctorum'' of human conscience--the inherent and 
inviolable right of every human being to pursue ultimate truth and to 
believe and worship, or not, as part of that pursuit.
    This core precept of American democracy survived 2 centuries of 
vigorous challenge. Like other aspects of the American ideal, religious 
liberty has been imperfectly applied; some religious traditions 
(Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, and 
indigenous American religions, to name a few) have been resisted, and 
their adherents subject to discrimination and even persecution. But 
today, at the dawn of the third millenium, religions are flourishing in 
the United States, their respective traditions enriching not only their 
own adherents, but American public policy as well.

                          Grassroots Democracy

    During the 1980's and 1990's, more and more American religious 
organizations became involved in the development and articulation of 
U.S. human rights policies abroad. Much of this activism stemmed from a 
shared belief in the universal dignity of the human person--the 
conviction that every human being is endowed with an intrinsic and 
inviolable worth, from which flows inalienable rights (a conviction 
reflected both in the American Declaration of Independence and the 1948 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights). As American religious 
communities became more aware of human rights abuses abroad, they began 
to focus on the plight of coreligionists who were struggling to 
establish their own right to believe and to worship and who were 
encountering fierce resistance from those wielding political power.
    During the 1990's some individuals and religious organizations--in 
particular those from Christian, Buddhist, and Jewish traditions--began 
to lobby the Administration and Congress. Their goal was to sharpen the 
focus of American foreign policy on religious persecution abroad. The 
result was a textbook case of democratic activism. Partly in response 
to this impulse, the Department of State by the mid 1990's began to 
intensify its attention to religious freedom. In 1996 Secretary of 
State Warren Christopher announced the establishment of an Advisory 
Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad, composed of 20 American 
religious leaders and scholars. In an interim report issued in 1998 and 
a final report issued in 1999 the Committee recommended structural 
changes and foreign policy initiatives that would institutionalize the 
promotion of religious freedom as part of U.S. foreign policy. 
Throughout its tenure, the Committee was chaired and supported by the 
Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
    During the same period, the Department of State responded to 
increased public and Congressional interest by preparing a report 
entitled ``U.S. Policies in Support of Religious Freedom: Focus on 
Christians'' (July 1997). The new Secretary of State, Madeline 
Albright, made it clear that promoting religious freedom was to be a 
priority during her tenure at the Department. In 1997 she issued 
instructions to all American Embassies and Consulates to increase U.S. 
advocacy, monitoring, and reporting on the issue. In multilateral 
venues such as the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva, 
U.S. delegations made religious freedom a high priority. In 1998, 
responding to a recommendation by the Advisory Committee, Secretary 
Albright announced that she would appoint a senior level coordinator 
for religious freedom.
    Meanwhile, Congress was engaging in an extended debate over a 
legislative approach to promoting religious liberty abroad. In May 
1997, Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia and Senator Arlen Specter of 
Pennsylvania introduced the first version of what was to become--some 
18 months later--the International Religious Freedom Act. Their bill 
triggered a vigorous debate within the faith-based, nongovernmental 
organization (NGO), and human rights communities over the most 
appropriate and effective ways for the United States to confront 
religious persecution and discrimination abroad.
    During the next year and a half a national dialogue evolved--joined 
not only by those who had lobbied from the beginning, but by faith-
based, human rights, and foreign policy organizations from across the 
political and religious spectrums. Foreign governments, watching the 
debate with rising interest, expressed their concerns in capitals 
abroad and in Washington. The Department of State, led by Assistant 
Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor John Shattuck, made 
its views known through testimony before the House International 
Relations Committee and in other venues.
    The issues were important--and controversial: How can the United 
States influence governments (including U.S. allies) that persecute or 
discriminate against their citizens on the basis of religion? What 
religions should be covered? What regions? Should economic sanctions be 
included, and, if so, should they be automatic? Should there be a 
special category of religious refugees? Should the senior U.S. 
religious freedom official be located in the White House or the State 
Department? Should a new governmental body, such as an independent 
commission, be created to provide the President, the Secretary of 
State, and Congress a separate source of policy recommendations? Is it 
legitimate for the United States to identify one form of persecution 
for special treatment, or would doing so create a troubling ``hierarchy 
of rights'' that could marginalize other victims of persecution? Could 
victims of religious persecution actually be harmed by a new U.S. focus 
on their plight?
    These and other issues were debated intensely throughout 1997 and 
1998. In March 1998, Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma introduced in the 
Senate an alternative bill which attempted to build on the commentary 
that Wolf-Specter had generated. In May 1998, the House passed a 
revised version of the latter bill. During the next 6 months, a few 
dedicated and passionate Congressional staff members, joined at times 
by State Department representatives and other key actors, met to hammer 
out a bill that would have broad bipartisan support. In October 1998, 
the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) was passed unanimously 
by both Houses of Congress and was signed immediately by the President.

                  A Legislative Mandate Comes to Life

    The various streams that led to the Act had their source in the 
American passion for religious liberty and the conviction that it was 
the birthright of every human being. Herein lay the greatest potential 
for an effective U.S. religious freedom policy abroad: While the Act 
paid homage to American history and the first Amendment, it drew 
heavily on international standards grounded in universal truths. It 
cited the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which notes that 
``all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They 
are endowed with reason and conscience.''
    In short, the IRFA made no attempt to impose ``the American way'' 
on foreign governments. Rather, it put the weight of American foreign 
policy behind the proposition that all nations must adhere to the 
standards of international behavior that they themselves have accepted, 
including the mandate to protect the universal right of religious 
freedom and freedom of conscience. The Act was universal in scope: it 
targeted no region and covered all religions. It provided sanctions for 
the worst violators of religious freedom, but sanctions were not 
automatic. Instead, the President was given wide latitude to choose the 
most effective response to severe violations.
    In order to carry out this policy, the Act created three core 
mechanisms: an Office of International Religious Freedom under an 
Ambassador at Large, located in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, 
and Labor; an Annual Report that covers every foreign country, coupled 
with an annual identification of severe violators; and a separate, 
bipartisan U.S. Commission to make independent recommendations.
    The Office of International Religious Freedom. In August 1998, 
Robert A. Seiple assumed the office of Special IRF Adviser to the 
President and Secretary of State. In May 1999, he was sworn in as the 
first Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom. During 
his 2-year tenure, Seiple built his office into a staff of 10, 
including foreign service, military, and civil service officers. Its 
mandate is to promote religious freedom as a core tenet of U.S. human 
rights policy by monitoring religious persecution and discrimination 
worldwide; meeting with foreign governments, faith-based groups, and 
NGO's; integrating the issue into the mainstream of U.S. foreign 
policy; and overseeing the production of the Annual Report on 
International Religious Freedom. The Office is also charged with 
advising the Secretary of State on the designation of ``countries of 
particular concern'' under the IRF Act.
    Seiple's methodology has been to ``promote, not punish.'' He and 
his staff have visited 26 countries-many of them among the world's 
worst abusers of religious freedom--in order to explain his emphasis, 
and that of the IRF Act, on international standards as the basis for 
U.S. actions. They have met with hundreds of foreign officials, 
religious leaders, NGO's, and human rights groups at home and abroad. 
They have heard the stories of people who fear for their well-being and 
safety because of their religious beliefs. They have told allies and 
adversaries alike that freedom of religion and conscience is not a 
western invention but flows from the traditions of universal and 
inviolable human dignity present in every world religion.
    The Office of International Religious Freedom also has articulated 
and advocated U.S. policy in academic and policy conferences and media 
events throughout the country and abroad. It has initiated a series of 
conferences, co-sponsored by the Department's Bureau of Intelligence 
and Research, on religious freedom and foreign policy. It has 
implemented a highly successful program of outreach to U.S. Muslim 
leaders and plans to expand this program to include other American 
religious traditions. It has provided funding--through the Department's 
Human Rights and Democracy Fund--for several NGO-led reconciliation 
programs in religion-based conflicts. Ambassador Seiple has testified 
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the House International 
Relations Committee and its Subcommittee on International Operations 
and Human Rights, the Helsinki Commission, and the Congressional Human 
Rights Caucus.
    In all its endeavors, the Office of International Religious Freedom 
has sought (in the words of the Act) to ``stand with the persecuted,'' 
to provide hope to the millions throughout the world who suffer because 
they dare to believe in, and to worship, an authority beyond the state.
    The Annual Report. The first Annual Report on International 
Religious Freedom was issued by the Department of State in September 
1999. It contained chapters on the status of religious freedom in 194 
countries worldwide. Each chapter was initially drafted in an American 
Embassy or Consulate abroad and then compiled and edited by the Office 
of Country Reports and Asylum Affairs in the Bureau of Democracy, Human 
Rights, and Labor. Its introduction focused on the connection between 
concepts of universal human dignity and freedom of religion and 
explained some of the report's analytical methods. Its Executive 
Summary highlighted various categories of restrictions on religious 
liberty worldwide, while detailing U.S. efforts to address those 
restrictions.
    Religious organizations, NGO's, and human rights groups generally 
hailed the first report as an important first step in the battle 
against religious persecution. Foreign governments' responses varied 
widely, from outright hostility to private gratitude. Some insisted 
that the United States had no right to invoke international standards 
unilaterally and that such issues could only be addressed in 
international forums. Others (including some democratic allies) 
asserted a right of state-supported scrutiny of, and hostility toward, 
certain minority religions.
    Indeed, as elaborated elsewhere in this Report, the United States 
agrees that issues of religious freedom ought to be addressed in 
international forums. It does so regularly and vigorously. But the 
United States also believes that all nations have the right, and the 
obligation, to address on a bilateral basis with other nations those 
international standards that they themselves have accepted. Further, 
the international provison for freedom of religion and conscience is 
grounded in state acceptance of minority religions rather than in 
state-supported skepticism or hostility. Religious freedom is a good, 
not a danger from which citizens must be protected--a fact that even 
some mature democracies have not yet accepted.
    The U.S. Commission on IRF. The IRF Act also mandated the creation 
of an independent, bipartisan U.S. Commission on International 
Religious Freedom, consisting of nine eminent American leaders from a 
variety of faiths. Five were appointed by the President and Democratic 
Congressional leaders; four by Republican Congressional leaders. The 
Ambassador at Large also sits on the Commission as an ex officio, 
nonvoting member.
    The Commission was established for 4 years beginning in May 1999, 
and each Commissioner was given a 2-year term. The first Chairman was 
Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action Center of 
Reform Judaism and a Democratic appointee. The deputy chairman was 
Michael K. Young, Dean of the George Washington University Law Center 
and a Republican appointee. To emphasize its bipartisan nature, the 
Commission agreed that its chair and deputy would rotate annually 
between appointees of the two parties. Accordingly, in May 2000, the 
chair passed to Elliot Abrams, President of the Ethics and Public 
Policy Center (Republican appointee), and the deputy chair to Firuz 
Kazemzadeh, Secretary of External Affairs of the National Assembly of 
the Baha'is of the United States (Democratic appointee).
    Other Democratic appointees are Archbishop Theodore McCarrick of 
the Archdiocese of Newark; Dr. Laila al-Mariati, Past President of the 
Muslim Women's League; and Justice Charles Z. Smith of the Washington 
State Supreme Court. Other Republican appointees are Nina Shea, 
Director of the Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom House, and John 
Bolton of the American Enterprise Institute. The Commission's staff is 
headed by its Executive Director, Steven McFarland.
    As part of its mandate to recommend policies on religious freedom, 
the Commission prepares its own annual report, the first of which was 
issued in May 2000. This report focused on three countries of concern--
China, Sudan and Russia--and provided extensive recommendations for 
U.S. policymakers. It also contained a thorough review of the State 
Department's first Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, 
including a series of recommendations on how it might be improved.
    The Commission has begun to play an important role in the 
articulation and implementation of U.S. policy. Its members and staff 
have met with key Department of State officials, including the 
Secretary of State and the Under Secretary for Political Affairs. 
Commission members have traveled abroad to gather information and to 
advocate religious freedom. They have held public hearings and 
testified before the U.S. Congress on many occasions. Commission 
recommendations--communicated publicly or privately to the 
Administration--have already had an impact on key policy decisions, 
including the Secretary of State's designation of ``countries of 
particular concern'' under the IRF Act.
    The Scorecard. On balance the new U.S. strategy for promoting 
religious freedom has had a promising beginning. From its origins in 
the minds of a few committed individuals, to its implementation in the 
actions of Secretary Albright, President Clinton and the U.S. Congress, 
U.S. religious freedom policy has provided a case study--both of the 
American democratic process and of the universal applicability of 
America's founding precepts.
    Energized and formed by an American approach to freedom of 
religion, the policy has nevertheless been articulated as part of an 
international covenant, in which nations commit themselves to mutual 
accountability. There are risks in this approach--not least the 
exposure of the United States to criticism from others. But if it is 
sound, U.S. policy will withstand--and profit from--the scrutiny of 
other nations, human rights organizations, and religious groups.
    In his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 
May 16, 2000, Ambassador Robert Seiple articulated his sense of how far 
U.S. policy has come, and the enormous task that remains. ``Those of us 
who are charged with implementing the International Religious Freedom 
Act,'' he said, ``have had some modest but invigorating victories--some 
religious prisoners freed, some religious refugees assisted, a few bad 
laws repealed or altered. But we must take the long view: None of us 
can claim, nor should we expect, that the millions who suffer for their 
religious beliefs will have been loosed from their torments 18 months 
after the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act or because 
of the actions of my office or those of the independent U.S. 
Commission. But, I believe that we have made a start. Together, we have 
planted seeds--seeds of hope and of future action. With God's help, 
those seeds are taking root and will one day bear fruit.''

    Part II: Freedom of Religion and Conscience as a Cornerstone of 
                               Democracy

    One of the most encouraging developments of the past decade has 
been the dramatic increase in the number of nations aspiring to 
democratic governance. In Europe, central Asia, Africa, and Latin 
America, countries are struggling to develop and implement the norms of 
representative government. As noted in the 1999 Annual Report on 
International Religious Freedom, the number of democracies in the world 
almost doubled during the decade of the 1990's.
    That report also noted that freedom alone is no guarantee of human 
dignity. Adopting the forms of democracy does not always signify an 
acceptance of universal human rights, including the right of religious 
freedom. This is sometimes true because democratic majorities are tied 
to a particular religious tradition, or to a tradition of religious 
skepticism, and are resistant to new and unfamiliar religions. In some 
aspiring democracies, minority religions are associated with unpopular 
ethnic groups or with unwanted foreign influence. For these and other 
reasons, democracy alone is no guarantee of religious freedom.
    And yet it is empirically indisputable that representative 
governments protect fundamental human rights, including freedom of 
religion and conscience, far more effectively than other political 
systems. Several characteristics of democracy tend to bolster religious 
freedom, including the principles of equality before the law, 
protections for minorities, and a commitment to notions of universal 
human dignity and the protection of fundamental human rights. 
Democratic governments were the driving force in the promulgation of 
the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    In addition, most democratic traditions recognize that fundamental 
rights are not ``grants'' from the state or society but exist prior to 
both. If they do not--if human rights are in fact created by 
governments--then they cannot be said to be ``universal'' as the world 
acknowledged them to be in the 1948 Universal Declaration. ``All human 
beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,'' notes the 
Declaration, and are ``endowed with reason and conscience.'' If 
governments were the source of rights, governments could abolish them.
    Moreover, the incompatibility of authoritarianism and religious 
liberty is grounded in an empirical political reality: the state that 
honors and nourishes freedom of religion and conscience is one that 
acknowledges its own limits. It is a state that posits the priority of 
the individual and of society. It is, in short, a state that embraces 
the axiom of democracy--government exists to serve society and the 
individual, not the other way around.
    Thus, while democratic states are the most likely guarantors of 
religious freedom, so too is religious freedom an essential component 
of democracy. The right of religious liberty is an obstacle to 
``majoritarian tyranny''--the practices of democratic majorities who 
would coerce minorities in matters of fundamental conscientious 
conviction. Nations that are struggling to implement democracy, and in 
which one religion is historically dominant, will profit from this 
understanding of human freedom. Healthy and vigorous democracies do not 
attempt to control or manage the human quest for ultimate meaning and 
truth. They understand that this endeavor is essential to human freedom 
and dignity--and must be protected.
    Freedom of religion and conscience also contributes to democracy in 
that the free expression of religious conviction--guaranteed in 
international covenants--plays a key role in debates over public 
policy. Each religious tradition has a moral code, a way of 
understanding who we are and how we ought to order our lives together. 
The articulation of these understandings in the public square is not 
something to be feared by democracies. Rather it makes a vital 
contribution to the development of public policy.
    This is true because democracy is more than mere democratic 
procedure. Its vitality, and even its survival, can never be assumed. 
Democracy is an ever-continuing experiment, testing the capacity of 
human beings--often from diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds--to 
govern themselves. The success of the experiment relies in part on the 
successful adoption of democratic procedures such as the universal 
franchise, separation of powers, or the secret ballot. But history 
teaches that the habit of democracy is grounded in and transmitted by 
the prior institutions of society, especially the family and religious 
institutions.
    Mature and aspiring democracies alike must revere the right to 
freedom of religion and conscience, even as they develop the forms of 
democratic governance. Governments that purport to represent all their 
citizens must guarantee and nurture this right, which lies at the core 
of every human life, as well as encourage mutual respect among their 
citizens. These governments must acknowledge a core reality, 
demonstrated by history: New and unfamiliar religions do not threaten 
democracy; they enrich it. It is a lesson that must be learned and 
relearned for the on-going, global democratic experiment to succeed.

            Part III. What Has Changed in the Annual Report

    As noted above, the response to the first Annual Report on 
International Religious Freedom from NGO's, human rights groups, and 
religious groups was overwhelmingly positive. Many provided 
constructive suggestions of fact, tone, and organization. We have made 
every effort to ensure that each report is factually accurate, 
balanced, and fair. Our intent is to articulate the status of religious 
freedom in each country chapter, permitting the reader to draw 
conclusions concerning the implications of the restrictions or abuses 
cited. In the Executive Summary, we categorize some of the restrictions 
and abuses, and discuss U.S. actions to alter them. In order to show 
that all the news is not bad, we also discuss some of the improvements 
in religious freedom worldwide.
    The country chapters have been reorganized to make them more 
``reader friendly.'' Each chapter will contain an Introduction, 
designed to provide the reader with a broad overview of the status of 
religious freedom during the 12 months covered by the report (July 1, 
1999 to June 30, 2000). Three major sections will follow: The first 
will cover ``Government Policies on Freedom of Religion'' and will 
contain a variety of subheadings to guide the reader, including 
subsections on the ``Legal/Policy Framework'' and ``Religious 
Demography.'' Subsections entitled ``Governmental Restrictions on 
Religious Freedom,'' and ``Governmental Abuses of Religious Freedom'' 
will not only discuss restrictions and abuses but give the context in 
which those problems occurred.
    The second major section will discuss ``Societal Attitudes''; the 
third, ``U.S. Government Policy.''
    A Final Word on Respect. If there is a core assumption underlying 
this report, it is that religions, like human beings, are worthy of 
respect. Were that not the case, there would be no need for a U.S. 
policy on international religious freedom and no need for this report. 
It exists not as an indictment of religions but as a testimony to the 
value of religion and to respect for freedom of conscience. We have 
tried to demonstrate our respect for all religious traditions in this 
report, a respect that is genuine.
    Once again, we invite our readers to provide comments on the 
report. They can do so by writing the Office of International Religious 
Freedom (DRL/IRF), Room 4829, Department of State, Washington, D.C. 
20520.
                           EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

                              ----------                              

    There are no good reasons for any government to violate religious 
freedom or to tolerate those within its warrant who do. However, there 
are many good reasons to promote religious freedom. To that end, this 
Executive Summary identifies some of the barriers to religious freedom 
that exist and provides examples of countries where those barriers are 
in place. It also catalogs some of the improvements in religious 
freedom that occurred during the period of this report. Finally, it 
describes actions that the United States has taken, is taking, and will 
continue to take as a means of fulfilling its responsibilities under 
its own law and to the human family of which it is a part.
    This Executive Summary is divided into three sections:

  <bullet> I.  Barriers to International Religious Freedom

  <bullet> II.  Improvements in International Religious Freedom

  <bullet> III.  U.S. Actions to Promote International Religious 
        Freedom

          Part I: Barriers to International Religious Freedom

    The vast majority of the world's governments have committed 
themselves to respect religious freedom. Indeed, most have accepted one 
or more of the international instruments that explicitly protect that 
right. For example, 144 countries are parties to the International 
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which acknowledges the right of 
every human being ``to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his 
choice'' and ``either individually or in community with others and in 
public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, 
observance, practice and teaching.'' All have pledged ``not to 
discriminate on the basis of religion.''
    Notwithstanding the existence of this and other broadly accepted 
international instruments protecting religious freedom, there remains 
in some countries a substantial difference between promise and 
practice. Much of the world's population lives in countries in which 
the right to religious freedom is restricted or prohibited. This gap 
between word and deed has several causes and can be analyzed in various 
ways. While no analysis is perfect, a system of categorization follows 
that we believe is useful for understanding religious persecution and 
discrimination.
    Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes are characterized by a 
determination to control religious belief and practice. The result--
inevitably--is persecution. Other regimes are hostile to minority or 
unapproved religions. Some 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 diminish necessarily 
the significance of religion.
    Still other governments--often either democratic or aspirants to 
democracy--have adopted discriminatory legislation or policies that 
give preferences to favored religions while disadvantaging others, in 
contravention of international instruments. Some democratic states have 
undertaken policies resulting in the stigmatization of minority 
religions--the result of identifying them indiscriminately and 
inaccurately with dangerous ``sects'' or ``cults.''
    Occasionally a nation's policy on religious freedom can be 
understood better in the context of its history, culture, and 
tradition--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 
legislation or policies that restrict genuine religious belief or its 
legitimate manifestations. Legal restrictions on religious practice--
permitted under international covenants for the protection of public 
safety, order, health, morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms 
of others--should be applied scrupulously and fairly, in as limited a 
way as possible, without discriminating among religions. 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 of a 
small number of groups be employed so indiscriminately that new or 
minority religions--perhaps poorly understood or controversial but 
nevertheless posing no danger to public safety, health, or morals, or 
the fundamental rights and freedoms of others--are wrongfully 
stigmatized.
    In the end, every nation should meet the standards on religious 
freedom established by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and 
other international instruments and covenants that they have accepted. 
Each nation is accountable to the international community for its 
failure to meet these standards. The United States acknowledges and 
accepts its responsibility to meet these standards in the safeguarding 
and protection of religious liberty.

           Totalitarian or Authoritarian Attempts to Control
                      Religious Belief or Practice

    Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes are defined by the degree to 
which they seek to control thought and expression, especially dissent. 
It is not uncommon for such regimes to regard minority religious groups 
as enemies of the state because of the content of the religion, the 
fact that the very practice of religion threatens the dominant ideology 
(often by diverting loyalties of adherents toward something beyond the 
state), the ethnic character of the religious group, or a mixture of 
all three. When this association occurs, the result is often religious 
persecution directed by the regime.
    Afghanistan. Afghanistan still does not have a recognized 
government, and most of the country remains under the control of the 
Taliban, which has engaged in persecution and killing. The Afghan Shi'a 
minority has been the victim of Taliban abuses, in significant part 
because of their religious beliefs. As in previous years, the Taliban 
enforced its strict interpretation of Islamic Shari'a law and, 
according to reports, public executions, floggings, and amputations 
took place weekly against those who violated the law. In September 
1999, the Taliban issued decrees aimed at the small non-Muslim minority 
population, forbidding them from building places of worship, banning 
them from criticizing Muslims, ordering them to identify their houses, 
precluding them from living in the same residence as Muslims, and 
requiring non-Muslim women to wear special identifying clothing.
    Burma. The Government of Burma continued to repress systematically 
members of both minority faiths and the majority Buddhist population. 
Buddhist monks who promoted human and political rights were arrested, 
and some Buddhist monasteries were destroyed. Government security 
forces frequently employed coercion to induce Christian members of the 
Chin ethnic minority to convert to Buddhism. Chin Christians were 
conscripted for forced labor, required to desecrate their own churches 
and graveyards, and were subjected to government discrimination. 
Members of various faiths reported harassment of religious leaders by 
government authorities.
    China. Government respect for religious freedom in China 
deteriorated over the reporting period as the persecution of several 
religious minorities increased. While membership in many faiths grew 
rapidly and government supervision of religious activity was minimal in 
some regions, government officials in other regions imposed tight 
regulations, closed houses of worship, and actively persecuted members 
of some unregistered religious groups. Members of such groups were 
subject to harassment, extortion, prolonged detention, physical abuse, 
and incarceration in prison or in ``reeducation through labor'' camps. 
There were credible reports of religious detainees being beaten and 
tortured. The Government increased restrictions on members of many 
minority groups, including Tibetan Buddhists, Muslim Uyghurs, members 
of Falun Gong and other ``heretical cults,'' and Protestants and Roman 
Catholics not belonging to the official churches.
    Cuba. While some observers have noted a greater acceptance of 
religion in Cuba in recent years, the Government continued to engage in 
active efforts to monitor and control religious institutions, including 
the surveillance, infiltration, and harassment of clergy and church 
members. The Government has refused to register new denominations, 
thereby making them vulnerable to charges of illegal association.
    Laos. The Government attempted to supervise and limit religious 
freedom among the majority Buddhist population, imposing mandatory 
Marxist-Leninist training for monks. In some instances, local and 
provincial authorities used harsh, extraconstitutional measures against 
minority religious groups, including detentions without charge and, in 
the case of hundreds of Christians, forced renunciations of faith.
    North Korea. Religious adherents in North Korea deemed unacceptable 
to the regime are treated harshly; many were imprisoned and some 
reportedly executed. (However, these reports cannot be confirmed or 
disproved, given the tight control the regime exercises over 
information. Also, these reported executions appear to have involved 
Christians with links to missionary groups active along the Chinese 
border. The Government suspects such groups of attempting to overthrow 
the regime.) Unauthorized religious activity, especially when occurring 
near sensitive border areas, sometimes was subject to severe repression 
by North Korean officials. Credible reports indicate that some 
prisoners were beaten and treated as if they were insane because of 
their beliefs.
    Vietnam. The Government uses a registration process to control and 
monitor religious activity, severely restricting any practice by groups 
other than officially sanctioned organizations. The Government allows 
only one organization per religious denomination, and members of 
nonregistered organizations may face arbitrary harassment and arrest. 
Clergy from many religious groups, including Cao Dai, Buddhist, Hoa 
Hao, Protestant, and Roman Catholic organizations were detained 
arbitrarily without charge. According to credible reports, at least 20 
persons remain detained or imprisoned because of their religious 
beliefs.

        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 religions or to elements of religious groups identified as 
``security threats.'' These governments implement policies designed to 
intimidate certain religious groups, cause their adherents to convert 
to another religion, or cause their members to flee.
    Iran. The Government continued to abuse the religious freedom of 
minority groups. The country's religious minorities, including Baha'is, 
Jews, Christians, and Sunni Muslims, reported intimidation, harassment, 
and imprisonment on account of their beliefs. Persecution remains a 
problem. Baha'is are singled out by the Government, and at least 11 
Baha'is were imprisoned. On July 1, 2000, 10 Jewish and 2 Muslim 
defendants were convicted and sentenced to prison terms ranging from 4 
to 13 years on charges of spying. The Revolutionary Court deprived the 
accused of almost all legitimate means of defense, and its conduct 
worsened societal attitudes toward the Jewish community.
    Iraq. The Government for decades has conducted a brutal campaign of 
murder, summary execution, and protracted arbitrary detention against 
the religious leaders and adherents of the majority Shi'a Muslim 
population. Security forces murdered senior Shi'a clerics, desecrated 
mosques and holy sites, arrested tens of thousands of Shi'a, and 
forcibly prevented Shi'a from practicing their religion. The Government 
also targeted the country's Christian Assyrians and Chaldeans by 
denying members their political rights and forcibly removing them from 
certain areas of the country.
    Pakistan. In spite of promised improvements following the October 
12, 1999, military coup, the Government continued to enforce 
discriminatory legislation. Some of the legislation directly targeted 
Ahmadis, who also face severe societal discrimination. Christians, 
Hindus, Zikris, and other religious minorities also are subject to 
widespread discrimination and harassment. The so-called blasphemy laws 
have been used by authorities and private citizens to threaten and 
intimidate both members of religious minorities and members of the 
Muslim majority. Sectarian violence, mostly between rival Sunni and 
Shi'a Muslim groups, frequently occurred. The Government did not 
encourage violence; however, there were instances in which the 
Government failed to intervene in cases of sectarian violence.
    Saudi Arabia. The Government supports the Sunni majority, and 
members of the Shi'a minority are subject to officially sanctioned 
political and economic discrimination. In some cases, they have 
experienced arbitrary detention and other more severe forms of 
discrimination. Religious freedom does not exist in the country, and 
non-Muslims may not worship publicly. However, they may engage in 
nonpublic worship if they do so discretely. Any attempt to convert 
Muslims to a non-Muslim religion is a criminal offense. In particular, 
Catholics and Protestants from Asia have been subject to discrimination 
and deportation for violating the Government's strict religious 
regulations.
    Serbia. Slobodan Milosevic continued to exploit ethnic, religious, 
and political divisions to maintain his rule. While religion and 
ethnicity in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia are intertwined closely, 
the Government continued to suppress religious minorities and provide 
preferential treatment to the Serbian Orthodox Church. In Serbia's 
sister republic, Montenegro, tensions between the ecclesiastically 
unofficial Montenegrin Orthodox Church and the officially recognized 
Serbian Orthodox Church worsened and were politicized by the opposing 
political factions.
    Sudan. Against the backdrop of an ongoing civil war, the Muslim-
dominated regime continued to persecute members of religious 
minorities. Christians, practitioners of traditional indigenous 
religious, and Muslims who deviate from the Government's interpretation 
of Islam were subject to arbitrary arrest and detention, threats, 
violence, and forced conversion to Islam. The Government's support of 
slavery and its continued military action in villages in the Nuba 
mountains, which resulted in numerous deaths, are due in part to the 
victims' religious beliefs.
    Turkmenistan. The Government places significant limits on freedom 
of religion and religious organizations by requiring that religious 
groups have 500 members before they may be registered with the 
Government. Only Sunni Muslims and Russian Orthodox Christians have 
enough members to be registered officially, and all other religious 
groups, including Baha'is, Baptists, Hare Krishnas, Seventh Day 
Adventists, some Muslims, and Pentecostals, face official harassment. 
Government interference in unregistered religious activity increased, 
as officials harassed group members, deported foreigners, denied visa 
renewals, confiscated religious materials, demolished a Hare Krisha 
temple and a Seventh Day Adventist church, and allegedly tortured some 
religious detainees.
    Uzbekistan. The Government continued a harsh campaign against 
unauthorized Islamic groups, often failing to distinguish between 
Islamacist terrorist groups that seek to overthrow the Government by 
force and other devout Islamic groups, often part of the political 
opposition. Labeling them a threat to national security, the Government 
indiscriminately arrested hundreds of members of such groups and 
sentenced them to lengthy jail terms. Officials frequently used 
registration requirements to restrict the activity of various religious 
groups, including some Christians and some Muslim groups. Law 
enforcement officials harassed and tortured prisoners, including 
members of unapproved religious organizations, and manufactured false 
evidence against them.

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.
    Egypt. In Egypt members of the non-Muslim minority generally 
worship without interference, but there is some societal and 
governmental discrimination. Almost 100 persons, including members of 
the Faramawy religious group, were arrested and charged with heresy 
against Islam. Some were convicted and sentenced. Violent exchanges 
between Christians and Muslims in Al-Kush, culminating in early January 
2000, resulted in the death of 21 Christians and 1 Muslim; many more 
were wounded. The Government indicted 135 people for the violence and 
took steps to compensate the victims. Some members of the Christian 
community acknowledge that the Government has become somewhat more 
responsive but still argue that, despite improvements, the approval 
process for church construction remains slow and cumbersome.
    India. Attacks on religious minorities were less intense during the 
reporting period but more widespread. They included assaults on 
Christian clerics and pilgrims and bomb and arson attacks on churches. 
Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh villagers and Hindu pilgrims and laborers were 
killed in conjunction with the ongoing conflict in Kashmir. The central 
Government condemned the attacks and called for tolerance, but the 
response of local law enforcement officials often was inadequate.
    Indonesia. Religious intolerance contributed to intercommunal 
violence in several regions, particularly in the Maluku provinces (also 
known as the Moluccas) and Central Sulawesi. Official statistics record 
that over 2,470 persons were killed in the Moluccus strife since 
violence erupted in January 1999. The victims were divided about 
equally between Christians and Muslims. The Government responded slowly 
and ineffectively, and many accuse the military and police forces of 
bias (against both Christians and Muslims, respectively) and complicit 
in the violence in Maluku.
    Churches and other Christian facilities continued to be attacked in 
Java, where Muslims are a majority, although not to the extent 
experienced in 1996-97.
    Nigeria. The new civilian government's ability to enforce respect 
for religious freedom and to prevent violence between Muslims and non-
Muslims was tested in January 2000 when some northern states began 
formally adopting Islamic law, or Shari'a, as their legal system. The 
adoption of Shari'a triggered interreligious violence in February and 
March, during which hundreds of Christians and Muslims were killed. The 
central Government continued to work with the northern states and with 
the various factions to foster religious freedom, but the potential for 
further violence remains great.

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 is the result of the historical predominance of one 
religion in a country and may reflect broad social skepticism about new 
or minority religions. Sometimes 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. This circumstance led in some cases to a 
curtailment of religious freedom.
    Armenia. The national church in Armenia--the Armenia Apostolic 
Church--is not subject to some of the restrictions on religious freedom 
that are imposed on other religious organizations that must register 
with the Government. Jehovah's Witnesses continue to have their 
application for legal recognition rejected because of their ``illegal 
proselytism.'' Members report individual acts of discrimination, 
although there is no discernable pattern of persecution.
    Belarus. The Government openly favors the Belarusian Orthodox 
Church (which was designated as an Exarchate of the Russian Orthodox 
Church in 1989) and has stepped up its harassment of all other 
religious groups. Some of these ``nontraditional'' religions, including 
many Protestant denominations, some Eastern religions, and the 
Belarusian Orthodox Autocephalous Church, repeatedly have been denied 
registration by the Government, effectively denying them the ability to 
obtain property on which to conduct religious services. The Government 
promulgates false accusations against some minority faiths through 
state-owned newspapers and places restrictions on and regularly 
intimidates domestic and foreign religious leaders.
    Bulgaria. The attitude of the Government generally has been 
positive in encouraging greater religious tolerance since early 1998. 
Although religious freedom improved for some nontraditional groups, 
others faced official disfavor and persistent government refusal to 
grant registration. Some groups also continue to face discrimination 
and antipathy from some local governments. The national government has 
not taken any action to dissuade local governments from such 
infringements of religious freedom. There also was concern about a new 
law on religion introduced into the National Assembly, which was in 
committee in the summer of 2000. Some religious groups and the U.S. 
Government have urged the Bulgarian government to revise those 
provisions that have the potential to give the Government excessive 
control over religious affairs.
    Eritrea. The Government singled out members of Jehovah's Witnesses 
for harsh treatment because of their refusal to participate in national 
service and other civic duties. Jehovah's Witnesses and others, 
including some Muslims, were subject to imprisonment for refusing to 
perform national service; however, only members of Jehovah's Witnesses 
are subject to dismissal from the civil service and often are denied 
identification cards, exit visas, trading licenses, and government 
housing.
    Israel. Most non-Jewish citizens are Arab Muslims, and they are 
subject to various forms of discrimination. The Government does not 
provide Israeli Arabs with the same quality of education, housing, 
employment opportunities, and social services as Jews. Government 
spending and financial support are proportionally far lower in 
predominatly non-Jewish areas than in Jewish areas. Evangelical 
Christians and other religious groups have complained in the past that 
the police have been slow to investigate incidents of harassment, 
threats, and vandalism directed against their meetings, churches, and 
other facilities by two ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups.
    Jordan. Government officials in Jordan still have not registered 
the Jordan Evangelical (Christian) Theological Seminary. Pending such 
registration, authorities suspended the renewal of the residence 
permits of all of the seminary's 36 foreign students (who come from 10 
foreign countries), and 2 members of the faculty.
    Malaysia. The Government significantly restricts the Shi'a minority 
from practicing its faith and places some restrictions on the 
activities of political opponents in mosques. It is very difficult for 
Muslims legally to change their religion. In April the state of Perlis 
passed a Shari'a law subjecting Islamic ``deviants'' and apostates to 1 
year of ``rehabilitation.''
    Romania. The Government generally does not impede the observance of 
religious beliefs. However, several religious groups allege that the 
Government delayed or impeded their attempts to acquire property, 
building permits, and other documents and to register as a religious 
group. According to Jehovah's Witnesses' organization, some local 
officials in Romania provided tacit support to Orthodox Christian 
clergy intent on barring Jehovah's Witnesses from practicing their 
faith.
    Russia. National and local officials are working to enforce a 
restrictive 1997 law on religion that replaced a more liberal 1990 law; 
however, there is some confusion regarding the new law, and its 
provisions have been applied inconsistently. The 1997 legislation 
distinguishes between religious organizations and groups, affording 
each a separate legal status that in effect created a hierarchy of 
religions and restricted the rights and privileges of newer and small 
religious communities. The required registration of religious groups 
and organizations at the local level is progressing slowly in some 
regions. Moreover, those that have not registered by December 31, 2000, 
are subject to organizational liquidation by the Government. Uneven 
implementation of the law and contradictory interpretations of the law 
and of other federal and local regulations permitted discriminatory 
practices by some regional and local governments. Many religious groups 
and organizations, both registered and unregistered, face 
discrimination and harassment by some government authorities. Federal 
officials, for the most part, have not taken sufficient action to 
address these concerns. For example, measures were taken to restrict 
the activities of a number of foreign missionaries and congregations 
associated with them. Four U.S. missionaries were refused visas to 
return to the country. Dan Pollard (formerly of the Vanino Baptist 
Church in the Khabarovsk region) was banned from receiving a visa on 
allegations that he violated customs regulations and evaded property 
taxes, a questionable charge given the role of local authorities in 
preventing him from complying with the law.
    Turkey. The Government continued to impose some restrictions on 
religious minorities and on religious expression in government offices 
and state-run institutions, including universities. A 50-year-old ban 
on the wearing of religious head garments in government offices and 
other state-run facilities continued to be enforced. Police detained or 
stopped Christians holding services in private apartments and those 
considered to be proselytizing. The Greek Orthodox Halki Seminary has 
remained closed since 1971, when the state nationalized all private 
institutions of higher learning.

Stigmatization of Certain Religions by Wrongfully Associating Them with 
                    Dangerous ``Cults'' or ``Sects''

    Austria. The Government of Austria intensified its ongoing 
information campaign against religious groups that it considers to be 
harmful to the interests of individuals and society. A brochure issued 
by the Government in September 1999 described several nonrecognized 
groups, as well as Jehovah's Witnesses, in decidedly negative terms 
that many found offensive.
    Belgium. In 1998 the Parliament adopted several recommendations 
from a Commission report on government policy toward ``sects,'' 
including the creation of a center that would report on ``Harmful 
Sectarian Organizations.'' Even though the word ``sect'' has assumed 
pejorative connotations in modern usage, the report noted that it 
employed the term in the traditional sense--a group of organized 
persons espousing the same doctrine within a religion.
    Czech Republic. In August 2000, the Government approved a proposal 
for a new bill on the registration and status of religious 
organizations that copies the restrictive Austrian model.
    France. A 1996 National Assembly report, as well as a followup 1999 
parliamentary report, labeled 173 groups as ``sects'' (a more precise 
English translation of the French in this instance would be ``cults''), 
actions which contributed to an atmosphere of intolerance toward 
minority religions. A few of the groups on the list are clearly 
dangerous, but most are merely unfamiliar or unpopular. Members of some 
groups that appear on the list continue to allege government and 
societal discrimination. Private legislation to update and toughen 
existing laws invoked to deal with cults, including a controversial 
provision defining the crime of ``mental manipulation,'' was introduced 
in the Senate in December 1999 and passed in amended form on a first 
reading by the National Assembly in June 2000. The competing versions 
of the bill have to be reconciled before final passage, although this 
action may not occur before mid-2001, given the current legislative 
calendar. The Minister of Justice further requested that the Senate, 
when it takes up the bill in the fall of 2000, consider a parallel 
reflection on how this legislation affects the constitutionally 
protected freedom of belief and the country's obligations under 
European and other international human rights conventions.
    Germany. Many officials in the Government believe that the Church 
of Scientology is a money-making scheme rather than a religion, and 
they have continued to investigate the Church and to warn of its 
``totalitarian tendencies.'' The continued official ``observation'' of 
the Church by the Government, without any resulting legal action, 
created an environment that encourages discrimination. Some employers 
refuse to hire Scientologists, and government procurement procedures 
sometimes include so-called sect filters designed to screen out members 
of the Church.

        Part II: Improvements in International Religious Freedom

    The International Religious Freedom Act prescribes a section of the 
Executive Summary that identifies foreign 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. 
This report identifies two countries in which improvements during the 
reporting period have been significant and several others in which 
improvements have been noteworthy.
    It also should be noted that, as elaborated elsewhere in the 
Executive Summary and in the country report chapters, there remain 
significant problems of religious discrimination or abuse in some of 
the countries in which improvements have occurred. It is our hope that 
such countries will intensify the kinds of improvements cited in this 
section.
    Further information on actions by the U.S. Government in these 
countries also may be found in the respective country chapters.

       Significant Improvements in Respect for Religious Freedom

    Two countries have shown ``significant'' improvements in religious 
freedom. In neither of these countries do the improvements represent a 
fundamental alteration in what otherwise remains a poor human rights 
record. However, in both the improvement has been striking enough to 
raise the hope that it represents the first step in a more systematic 
change. The improvements for these two countries are highlighted in 
order to encourage additional positive steps.
    One country where religious freedom made significant improvement is 
Azerbaijan.
    Azerbaijan. Since the end of the Cold War, many countries of the 
former Soviet Union sought international integration, while 
simultaneously addressing problems of internal and external security. 
These countries understand that their goals of democratic and economic 
development necessitate not only ``membership-in-good-standing'' in 
such institutions as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in 
Europe (OSCE), the European Union, and the Council of Europe, but also 
adherence to international norms of human rights. These goals are 
threatened by government-sanctioned or tolerated abuses of human 
rights, including religious freedom. Moreover, in an age of global 
communications, where news of arrests, imprisonment, beatings, and 
torture are instantaneously communicated around the world, governments 
no longer control information. The misdeeds of officials are phoned, 
faxed, e-mailed, and sometimes broadcast to an interested foreign and 
domestic public.
    Unfortunately, such communications continue to be necessary. Some 
countries of the former Soviet Union have failed to cut their ties to 
antidemocratic institutions and practices inherited from the Soviet 
system. In these nations, many local and regional officials tend to be 
unimpressed with the value of membership in the international 
community. Sometimes real security problems have led to excesses 
against religious minorities. However, in some countries the national 
leadership increasingly sees the advantages of improvements in 
religious freedom. At least some of the elite realizes not only that 
religious persecution is incompatible with international norms, but 
that foreign companies will not invest where employees and families are 
at risk of abuse because of their religious practices. This realization 
has apparently led to improvements in some countries, although it has 
not necessarily been reflected in improvements in other areas of 
respect for human rights.
    Until the late fall of 1999, the Government of Azerbaijan and local 
law enforcement officials frequently used the Law on Religious Freedom 
and other laws to restrict religious activity by foreigners and 
nontraditional religious groups. For example, in the early fall of 
1999, police and security officials detained, imprisoned, and beat 
clergy, threatened to deport foreign religious workers, and used the 
forum of an assembly at a state factory publicly to humiliate and fire 
workers of a nontraditional religion.
    The Ambassador and other officials of the U.S. Government and the 
international community called this situation to the attention of 
President Aliyev and other high-level officials. Aliyev consulted his 
ministers and then publicly pledged to improve the status of religious 
minorities and to adhere to the country's own constitutional standards 
and international commitments. Since the President's announcement in 
November 1999, deportation orders and other charges against clergy and 
groups of religious minorities have been overturned, many religious 
groups have been allowed to register for the first time, the factory 
workers were reinstated in their jobs, and respect for religious 
freedom has improved. Further, a local law enforcement official was 
punished for his role in abuses against a religious minority. Although 
problems remain, Azerbaijan's willingness to adhere to its 
constitutional and international commitments to respect religious 
freedom represents a significant improvement in the status quo.
    Laos. After the end of the Vietnam War, the Communist authorities 
imposed a repressive regime that severely limited basic human rights. 
Because believers of a number of minority faiths historically had 
opposed the Communist takeover and sometimes continued to oppose the 
Government, such faiths were viewed with suspicion as security threats. 
This attitude was true particularly in the case of a number of minority 
ethnic groups living in strategically sensitive border areas. Members 
of these ethnic groups often belonged predominantly or significantly to 
minority religions. Furthermore, Christianity was viewed as a remnant 
of the former colonial power and Christians were considered to be 
agents of suspect ``Western'' influences. These attitudes, coupled with 
standard Communist ideological opposition to religion, contributed to 
widespread oppression of the religious faithful. Independent religious 
structures were suppressed as possible sources of organized opposition 
to the Government.
    More recently, economic stagnation and the fall of Communism in the 
Soviet Union encouraged economic liberalization. Longstanding hostility 
to the United States began to ebb, and there was increased interest in 
attracting economic assistance and private investment from the West in 
general and from the United States in particular. Economic 
liberalization led to better communications with the outside world, 
including via the Internet. Human rights abuses were more apt to be 
publicized abroad. Many abuses were committed by local and regional 
authorities with varying degrees of independence from the central 
Government. Increasingly, the central government was willing to engage 
in human rights dialogue with other countries on the basis of 
international standards and agreements. All of these forces--economic 
liberalization, better communications, human rights dialogue--fostered 
improvements in human rights and religious freedom.
    The Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom met 
during 1999 with high-ranking officials of the Government in Vientianne 
and with the Laotian Ambassador in Washington to express concern at the 
plight of Christians who were imprisoned because of their faith. 
Embassy officers in Laos also held discussions on the matter with their 
counterparts. In mid-2000 many of the prisoners were released. While 
serious impediments to religious freedom remain in Laos, their release 
constitutes a significant improvement and demonstrates a willingness on 
the part of the central Government to intervene with local and 
provincial authorities when the latter abridge the religious liberties 
of minorities.

        Noteworthy Improvements in Respect for Religious Freedom

    There have been other improvements in religious freedom worldwide 
which merit attention. They are as follows:
    Bulgaria. The Government officially approved registration of the 
Nazarene Church, which had been attempting to register for over 5 
years.
    Chile. On July 6, 1999, the Senate approved a new religious law 
(``ley de culto''). Among other provisions, it bestows the same legal 
status (``derecho publico'') on all other faiths that the Catholic 
Church previously enjoyed. The legislation entered into effect in March 
2000. The revision removed the legal possibility of other faiths having 
their status challenged administratively.
    Croatia. The Government enacted constitutional amendments in May 
that added Bosnian Muslims and Albanians to the list of officially 
recognized minorities. Muslims were removed from the list by the 
previous government in 1998. The newly elected Government has shown an 
interest in improving religious freedom, and, to date, religious 
leaders are cautiously optimistic.
    Czech Republic. A new draft bill on religion was pending in the 
legislature of the Czech Republic in mid-2000. The bill, which was 
drafted with the input of various church representatives, would 
facilitate the ability of religious groups to be recognized legally. It 
would lower the number of signatures required to grant a religious 
organization legal status from 10,000 to 300.
    Dominican Republic. Church leaders report that they have noticed 
increased political freedom for religious minorities. In particular the 
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses 
report improved relations with the Government.
    Egypt. Egyptian Copts were appointed to senior political party 
positions during the reporting period, and some observers noted an 
increased representation of Christians in public and political life. A 
December 1999 decree by President Hosni Mubarak provided that all 
places of worship be subject to the same civil construction code. The 
decree has had the effect of facilitating church repairs. The 
Government's response to sectarian violence against Christians also 
improved. After an outbreak of sectarian violence in the village of Al-
Kush over the New Year, the Government responded quickly to restore 
order. A criminal court in Sohag city indicted 135 people for the 
violence, and the trials are ongoing.
    France. The highest administrative court in France, the Council of 
State, ruled in June 2000 that Jehovah's Witnesses qualify as a 
religion. The ruling exempted Jehovah's Witnesses from property taxes 
levied against their houses of worship. The Government also 
acknowledged Islam as a state-recognized religion, a status which is 
expected, among other things, to lead to the release of state funds for 
building mosques.
    The Gambia. In contrast to previous years, there were no reports of 
persecution against members of the Ahmadis or against any other 
religious group.
    Germany. The Government enacted a series of positive legal reforms. 
The Federal Administrative Court ruled that the public law corporation 
status of a religious community may not be used to deny it the right to 
provide religious instruction in public schools, nor religious 
chaplaincies in the military, in hospitals, or in prisons.
    Ghana. The Government was more active in addressing religious 
conflicts than in past years. In addition to outlawing religious 
slavery, the Government sponsored an interfaith forum to address 
religious conflicts and has taken a more active role in mediating 
interreligious disputes.
    Greece. In June 2000, the Parliament approved a bill allowing the 
construction of the first Islamic cultural center and mosque in modern 
times in the Athens area. In July 2000 the Government completed plans 
to eliminate references to religious affiliation on official 
identification cards, which may help to protect individuals from 
discrimination.
    Indonesia. In January 2000, President Wahid issued a decree lifting 
restrictions in effect since 1967 on the practice of Confucianism. For 
the first time in over 30 years, Confucianists--mainly Indonesians 
associated with the Chinese minority--were permitted to celebrate the 
Chinese New Year publicly and to practice openly their religious 
customs.
    Iran. The Government announced that couples may register their 
marriage without declaring their religious affiliation. This is the 
first major step made by the Government toward religious freedom since 
the 1979 revolution. Members of the Baha'i community are likely to 
benefit most from the change.
    Israel. The successful March 2000 visit of the Pope contributed to 
increased religious tolerance in Israel. In March the High Court of 
Justice ruled that the Government's use of the Jewish National Fund to 
develop public land was discriminatory; that organization's bylaws 
prohibit the sale or lease of land to non-Jews. In June 2000, the 
Government proposed a plan to redress spending for non-Jewish areas, 
which was substantially below that in predominantly Jewish areas. 
Finally, harassment of Jehovah's Witnesses declined in 2000.
    Kuwait. The Government agreed to allow the Vatican to establish a 
permanent mission in the country. The Catholic Church views the 
approval as a significant development and indicative of increased 
tolerance of Christianity by the government of Kuwait.
    Latvia. The government effectively has eased visa restrictions on 
foreign missionaries. New visa regulations came into effect in July 
1999, and the Government has cooperated to resolve several difficult 
visa cases in favor of missionary workers.
    Malaysia. Charges were dropped against Muslim women who were 
arrested for being on premises where liquor is served. While it is an 
offense for a Muslim to drink liquor, it is not an offense to be in a 
place that serves liquor. The central Government strongly criticized 
the arrests.
    Netherlands. The Equal Opportunities Committee took several steps 
to reduce employment discrimination on the basis of religion. The 
Committee ruled in July 1999 that wearing headscarves for religious 
reasons may be banned only on serious grounds, such as security 
considerations. The Committee also ruled that employers must take 
account of reasonable religious demands from their employees, such as 
requests by Muslims for leave on Fridays or by Christians for leave on 
Sundays.
    Philippines. There was enhanced cooperation between Christian and 
Muslim leaders in Mindanao. This cooperation gained more publicity 
because of the upswing in violent clashes between militant Muslim 
insurgent groups and government security forces. Religious leaders hope 
to contribute to a climate of peaceful resolution of the underlying 
economic and ethnic problems in Mindanao.
    Qatar. The construction of the first Christian church in Qatar was 
approved. Previously, the Qatar authorities prohibited the public 
practice of any religion except the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam.
    Romania. Foreign religious representatives experienced less 
discrimination in the processing of visa extensions. The State 
Secretary for Religious Denominations made it much easier for religious 
associations and foundations to receive building permits. A government 
decree effective May 2000 promises to reduce substantially bureaucratic 
hindrances to the registration of religious organizations by removing 
minimum requirements for numbers of members necessary to establish 
religious associations and foundations. A law was adopted entitling 
religious denominations to reclaim by legal means property seized 
during the Communist era. Three court rulings upheld the rights of 
Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists to build places of 
worship and practice their faith. The Government sent a new, 
restrictive Draft Law on Religions to Parliament in September 1999. 
Responding to concerns by the Department of State and the international 
community, the Government formally withdrew the legislation in January 
2000. The Government currently is engaged in discussions with a wide 
range of religious representatives to formulate a new law based on 
democratic principles.
    Russia. Responding to concerns by the Department of State, one of 
Russia's regional governments decided in November 1999 to allow the 
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to take part in the 
official registration process. This action followed repeated denials of 
the church's petition for registration by the regional government. 
Several weeks later the Government announced that it would register all 
religious groups under their present charters, including the local 
Roman Catholic parish.
    Saudi Arabia. Government officials reaffirmed publicly, in domestic 
and international forums, e.g., at the 56th session of the U.N. 
Committee on Human Rights in April 2000, the right of non-Muslims to 
worship privately. These statements, published in the local press, 
created a greater societal awareness of the Government's decision to 
allow non-Islamic private worship. Observers note that, in spite of 
several recent actions by the Government against Christians engaged in 
private worship, non-Islamic freedom to worship privately received more 
attention and greater respect than in the past.
    Slovakia. The Government took modest steps to improve religious 
freedom through changes in primary and secondary educational 
curriculums designed to combat anti-Semitism and through a national 
conference on racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and intolerance.
    Sudan. Some religious prisoners and detainees were released, 
including Faki Koko, who allegedly was held for apostasy, Father 
Hillary Boma, and Father Lino Sebit. The Public Order Courts were 
abolished, the enforcement of public order law was relaxed, and women 
imprisoned under that law were released. Restrictions on religious 
visitors and gatherings were eased. The Government's Committee for the 
Eradication of the Abduction of Women and Children identified hundreds 
of abductees (mostly Christians or practitioners of traditional 
indigenous religions) and returned many of them to their families.
    Taiwan. The Government no longer places restrictions on registering 
new religions if they meet the legal requirements for civic 
organizations. Under the new rules, three religions were registered in 
1999. A new law allows a civilian alternative to military service for 
those who are conscientious objectors. In the past, Jehovah's Witnesses 
and other minority religious adherents were imprisoned for failing to 
follow orders while in military service.
    Tajikistan. A national referendum amended the Constitution to allow 
for religiously oriented political parties. Two representatives of one 
such party were elected to the new parliament.
    Turkey. In June 2000, Ankara's Supreme Court approved the 
establishment of a Christian foundation for a Turkish Protestant 
church.
    Ukraine. The Government revised its visa policy in May 2000, 
announcing that invitations are no longer required for visa issuance to 
citizens of the United States, Canada, the European Union (EU), and 
Japan. While the change greatly simplifies religious tourist travel to 
Ukraine, religious workers still must obtain special visas that are 
issued only by invitation. The Government continued its plan to return 
properties that had been seized during the Communist era to religious 
groups. In addition some nontraditional religious organizations 
reported an increase in government cooperation, especially in regards 
to registration. President Kuchma made a number of symbolic gestures 
promoting religious freedom. He spoke frequently and publicly about the 
need for ethnic and religious tolerance, spoke out against anti-
Semitism, and attended several high-profile religious services.
    Uzbekistan. Until August of 1999, six Christians--in cases 
receiving a high profile in the international religious press--were 
imprisoned on fabricated narcotics charges because of their religious 
activities. Also, some 20 congregations of religious believers were 
unable to register because of obstruction by local officials. Moreover, 
throughout the reporting period, the Government arrested hundreds of 
alleged members of unauthorized Islamic groups. Beginning in August 
1999, the Government responded to international diplomatic engagement 
and began to make a concerted effort to improve respect for the 
religious freedom of Christians and members of other minority religious 
groups. However, respect for unauthorized Muslim groups worsened, as 
the Government intensified its harsh campaign against such groups, 
which it perceived as a continuing security threat. There is little 
question that some devout Muslims, identified as dangerous solely 
because of their religion, were adversely affected.
    In contrast to the government's treatment of unauthorized Muslim 
groups, members of most Christian communities reported a significant 
increase in government cooperation and tolerance, although there were 
still reports of harassment by local officials against some Christian 
communities. The President pardoned the six imprisoned Christians. The 
Government also registered over 25 non-Muslim religious groups whose 
applications were blocked by local officials, including several that 
were technically below the required membership level to qualify under 
the restrictive religious freedom law. In the latter case, the groups 
were sought out and ``invited'' to register, an unprecedented show of 
goodwill.
    Finally, the Government held an international conference of experts 
to examine the shortcomings of the law on religion, indicating its 
intention to use this as a basis for corrective legislation based on 
the recommendations of the conference. On May 25, the day after the 
Ambassador at Large met with Uzbek officials, President Karimov 
suggested that the Parliament consider improvement of the religion law.
    Vietnam. Most of the serious restrictions of religious freedom in 
Vietnam remained in place. However, there was a decrease in official 
interference with religious practice, especially for officially 
recognized groups, such as Catholics and Buddhists. Most of the 
imprisoned 25 Christian Hmong church leaders were released, as were 3 
Catholic priests. Officials of the central Government demonstrated some 
willingness to investigate reports of abuses by local and provincial 
authorities and to take action against those authorities.

   Part III: U.S. Actions to Promote International Religious Freedom

    As noted in the 1998-99 report, the promotion of religious freedom 
involves far more than public airing of violations. The most productive 
work often is done behind the scenes, for a very simple reason: no 
government or nation is likely to respond positively when publicly 
rebuked.
    However, it is sometimes necessary for the United States, and the 
international community, to denounce particularly abhorrent behavior by 
another nation openly. The 1998 International Religious Freedom Act 
mandates certain actions in cases of particularly severe violations of 
religious freedom. In October 1999, the Secretary of State (acting 
under the authority of the President) designated five countries as 
``countries of particular concern'' under the Act for having engaged in 
or tolerated particularly severe violations. They are Burma, China, 
Iran, Iraq, and Sudan. In addition the Secretary identified Serbia and 
the Taliban regime of Afghanistan (not ``countries under the Act) as 
having committed particularly severe violations.
    Religious freedom is one of the fundamental human rights provided 
for in international covenants. 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. This approach 
continues to be integrated into public U.S. foreign policy channels, 
through international exchanges, Worldnet and Voice of America 
broadcasts, a religious freedom web site in the home page of the 
Department of State, conferences, public opinion polling, Congressional 
hearings, and speeches and press conferences by senior U.S. foreign 
policy officials. While U.S. public diplomacy efforts will continue to 
develop, the following pages indicate some of the progress that has 
been made.
    Central to the integration of religious freedom into the fabric of 
U.S. policy is the training of U.S. officials most likely to encounter 
those persecuted because of their religious beliefs: The consular 
officer in a U.S. Embassy who interviews a refugee applicant; the U.S. 
political officer seeking information on a prisoner; the asylum 
official at a U.S. airport hearing the plea of a woman fleeing 
religious persecution, and the interpreter who must render her foreign 
tongue into English with precision and sympathy; and the U.S. 
immigration judge who must hear the case of the alien in danger of 
being returned to his country, and into harm's way, because of his 
religious beliefs.
    It is, in part, with these U.S. officials that the success or 
failure of our religious freedom policy lies. Some of their efforts are 
highlighted in the following pages; others can be found in the 
Appendices to this report, which detail efforts of the Departments of 
State and Justice to institutionalize training for their personnel in 
areas critical to promoting religious freedom abroad.
    Finally, it bears repeating that the United States seeks to promote 
religious freedom abroad, not simply to criticize, or to make 
headlines. There are many paths to this end, some of them involving the 
difficult work of scrutinizing legal documents and draft legislation, 
mastering the history and culture of diverse societies, and 
understanding religious beliefs and practices alien to our own. Some 
paths involve risk, particularly when the objective is to liberate the 
prisoner, to stop the torture, or to stay the execution. Such vital 
work usually is done out of the limelight, often without 
acknowledgement, and occasionally without knowing its result.
    But the work must, and does, take place. It happens when a Foreign 
Service Officer, sometimes at the risk of safety, presses authorities 
to know where the priest has been taken and why. It happens when an 
ambassador, while discussing with a senior official his country's 
important strategic relationship with the United States, seeks access 
to the imprisoned mufti or information on the missionary who has 
disappeared. It happens when senior U.S. officials, responsible for 
balancing and pursuing all of America's vital national interests, make 
it clear that a single persecuted human being, perhaps obscure and 
insignificant in the grand affairs of state, matters to the world's 
most powerful nation.

                           The Year in Review

    During the period covered by this report--July 1999 through June 
2000--the United States has engaged in a variety of efforts to promote 
the right of religious freedom and to oppose violations of that right. 
Its front line in pursuing these goals has been our overseas Missions--
the embassies, consulates general, and consulates of the United States. 
Frequently the Chief of Mission has led the way, as have other members 
of the country team.
    U.S. Mission efforts inevitably are centered on human rights 
officers, as well as consular officers, who serve as the eyes and ears 
of the mission in its search for information and its voice in the 
advocacy of religious freedom. Their work is facilitated by the wisdom 
and practical knowledge of local national embassy staff colleagues, 
whose contributions to international religious freedom frequently 
advance the interests of the United States. Public affairs officers 
coordinate the vital work of public diplomacy in order to present U.S. 
policy with accuracy and thoroughness. This work requires clear 
explanations both of the ``American approach'' (when asked or when 
useful) to religious freedom in the United States and of the U.S. 
practice of applying only international standards in its assessment of 
foreign governments.
    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 President, the Secretary of State, and many of her senior staff 
have addressed the issue in venues throughout the world. Within the 
United States, the Department of Justice and the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service play a critical role as the agencies responsible 
for dealing with refugees and asylum seekers who are fleeing religious 
persecution. The Department of State is responsible for training some 
officials who interview refugee applicants; the Department of Justice 
is responsible for training officials who interview both refugee and 
asylum applicants and those who adjudicate their cases (see 
Appendices).
    The fulcrum of the effort to promote religious freedom lies in a 
State Department office established in the summer of 1998 and further 
mandated by the International Religious Freedom Act--the Office of 
International Religious Freedom in the Bureau of Democracy, Human 
Rights, and Labor. The office is headed by an Ambassador at Large, 
Robert Seiple, who serves as the principal advisor to the President and 
the Secretary of State on religious freedom. As such the Ambassador at 
Large recommends U.S. policies on religious freedom abroad and oversees 
the implementation of those policies. The Ambassador has begun the task 
of integrating U.S. policy on religious freedom into the mainstream of 
U.S. foreign policy, and--at the same time--into the structure of the 
Foreign Service and the Department of State.
    The Secretary of State, through the Offices of International 
Religious Freedom and Country Reports and Asylum Affairs (both in the 
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor), is responsible for 
preparing the annual report to Congress on the status of religious 
freedom worldwide. In carrying out this task, the Bureau draws on U.S. 
mission reporting, visits by the Ambassador at Large and his staff to 
individual countries, participation in multilateral meetings and 
conferences, and on evidence provided by religious and human rights 
nongovernmental organizations (NGO's), religious organizations and 
individuals. Monitoring and reporting are also guided by the 
recommendations and annual report of the U.S. Commission on 
International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) established in the 1998 Act.
    The following section summarizes some of the many efforts 
undertaken by various elements of the U.S. Government's foreign policy 
community to promote religious freedom. It is by no means exhaustive, 
but it endeavors to provide by way of example a realistic portrait of 
U.S. actions. Further details may be found in the individual country 
reports.
    The following acronyms are used in the text: IRF, International 
Religious Freedom, and USCIRF, U.S. Commission on International 
Religious Freedom.
    Armenia. In September 1999, embassy officials met with the Military 
Prosecutor to discuss, among other topics, hazing of minority 
conscripts and the status of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Embassy also 
maintains regular contact with traveling regional representatives of 
foreign-based religious groups like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses 
and raises their concerns with Armenian officials.
    Austria. The Ambassador and other members of the Embassy met 
regularly with religious and political leaders to reinforce the U.S. 
Government's commitment to religious freedom and tolerance. They have 
met repeatedly with the leader of the Jewish community in Austria and 
the head of the Lutheran church in Burgenland regarding the threats 
against them and their concerns about the new Government. Following 
these threats, the Ambassador met with Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel to 
convey the concerns of the U.S. Government. The Ambassador also raised 
concerns about a government Minister's intentions to enhance the role 
of the office on sects. In May 2000, the Ambassador participated in the 
annual commemoration of the victims of the Holocaust at Matthausen 
concentration camp. She followed this with a speech on diversity and 
tolerance at a program for second-generation immigrants. In April the 
Ambassador hosted an event at the residence featuring Congressman Tom 
Lantos, a Holocaust survivor. This included members of the government, 
religious leaders, and other opinion makers. It focused on religious 
and racial tolerance, including a screening of a documentary on 
holocaust survivors. In February the Ambassador hosted a benefit 
conference to raise money for the renovation of St. Stephen's 
cathedral, at which she focused on ecumenical partnerships to combat 
intolerance. Following a December 1999 unveiling of a statue 
symbolizing tolerance, the Ambassador hosted a reception for government 
officials and representatives from NGO's concerned with minorities, 
tolerance, and issues of genocide prevention.
    In addition, in June 2000, Ambassador Seiple testified before House 
International Relations Committee about religious freedom issues in 
Austria, including concerns about the Government's information campaign 
against religious groups that it considers harmful to the interests of 
individuals and society.
    Afghanistan. In October 1999, the Secretary of State designated the 
Taliban regime, which controls most of Afghanistan as a ``country of 
particular concern'' under the International Religious Freedom Act for 
particularly severe violations of religious freedom.
    Azerbaijan. U.S. engagement was significant in the fall of 1999 in 
response to a crackdown on religious activity by government officials. 
After police broke up a Baptist service in Baku and detained 60 
congregants, on September 5, embassy officials were called by local 
worshipers to meet with detainees, police, and security officials at 
the police station. Throughout the ensuing week, embassy officers 
attended court hearings for two Azerbaijani pastors and eight 
foreigners arrested as a result of the police action. Other religious 
groups quickly reported similar incidents of harassment, and the 
Embassy carefully pursued each report with those groups and with the 
central Government. Throughout the fall, the Embassy maintained regular 
contact with government officials and local religious groups to monitor 
the situation and promote a resolution consistent with the country's 
constitutional standards of religious freedom. In addition, in October 
1999, an IRF office staff member visited the country to express U.S. 
concern to the Government and to the local groups affected by the 
arrests and harassment.
    The U.S. Ambassador met with the Ministers of Interior, Justice, 
and National Security, as well as the Prosecutor General, to express 
U.S. Government concerns over this pattern of incidents, characterizing 
them as violations of standards of religious freedom of the 
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) as well as 
of the Azerbaijani constitution. On November 3, Ambassador Escudero 
personally delivered a letter from several Congressmen to President 
Aliyev expressing concern over the incidents. On November 8, President 
Aliyev publicly reiterated his country's full commitment to 
constitutional and OSCE standards of religious freedom and ordered his 
government to resolve immediately all reported problems.
    Belarus. On April 13, the Ambassador sent a letter to the governor 
of the Brest Oblast and the Ministry of Foreign affairs urging a 
resolution of the conflict concerning Catholic priest Zbeigniew 
Karoljak, following a meeting in Brest with Karoljak's parishioners.
    Belgium. Embassy officers met with high-level government officials 
and conducted active measures to assist in resolving outstanding 
complaints of religious discrimination. In June 2000, Ambassador Seiple 
testified before the House International Relations Committee about 
religious freedom issues, including the Belgian Government's policy 
towards ``sects'' and the creation of a ``Center for Information and 
Advice on Harmful Sectarian Organizations.''
    Bosnia and Herzegovina. In March 2000, Ambassador Seiple visited 
Bosnia and Herzegovina and met with Government officials, NGO's, and 
religious leaders to discuss religious freedom issues.
    Bulgaria. The Ambassador, embassy officers, and visiting State 
Department officials met with a diverse cross-section of relevant 
government officials and Members of Parliament to advocate a liberal 
approach to religious freedom under a new law on religion. In March an 
IRF officer visited Sofia to meet with NGO's and with embassy officers 
regarding the draft law. Embassy officers have kept in close touch with 
human rights and religious groups to remain attuned to their concerns 
about the proposed law. The U.S. Ambassador to the OSCE raised this 
point with Bulgaria's OSCE ambassador, and the State Department also 
raised this issue in the context of the Stability Pact. Embassy 
officers have met with Orthodox clergy from both sides of the schism, 
with the chief mufti of the Muslim community, with religious and lay 
leaders of the Jewish community, as well as with the leaders of 
numerous Protestant denominations.
    Burma. In October 1999, the Secretary of State designated Burma a 
country of particular concern under the International Religious Freedom 
Act for particularly severe violations of religious freedom.
    Since 1988 a primary objective of U.S. Government policy has been 
to promote increased respect for human rights, including the right to 
freedom of religion. The United States discontinued bilateral aid to 
the Government, suspended the issuance of licenses to export arms to 
Burma, suspended the Generalized System of Preferences for Burma, 
suspended tariff preference for imports of Burmese origin, and 
suspended Export-Import Bank financial services in support of U.S. 
exports to Burma. The U.S. Government also has not provided any 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation financial services in support 
of U.S. investment in Burma, suspended active promotion of trade with 
Burma, suspended issuance of visas to high government officials and 
their immediate family members, banned new investment 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 U.S. Government actively supported the decision of the 
International Labor Organization (ILO), in June 1999, to suspend the 
Government of Burma from participation in ILO programs, based in part 
on an August 1998 ILO Commission of Inquiry report that the Government 
systematically used forced labor for a wide range of civilian and 
military purposes.
    The U.S. Embassy has promoted religious freedom in the overall 
context of its promotion of human rights generally in numerous contacts 
with government officials (both informally and through repeated formal 
demarches), as well as to the public, to representatives of the 
governments of other countries and of international organizations, to 
international media representatives, to scholars, and to 
representatives of U.S. and international businesses. Embassy staff 
members met repeatedly with leaders of Buddhist, Christian, and Islamic 
religious groups, members of the faculties of schools of theology, and 
other religious-affiliated organizations and NGO's as part of their 
reporting and public diplomacy activities.
    China. In October 1999, the Secretary of State designated China as 
a country of particular concern under the International Religious 
Freedom Act for particularly severe violations of religious freedom.
    The U.S. Embassy and consulates collected information about abuses 
and maintained contacts in China's religious communities with a wide 
spectrum of religious leaders including bishops, priests, ministers of 
the official Christian churches, and Taoist and Buddhist leaders. 
Embassy officials continued, for example, to seek clarification about 
the status of Roman Catholic Bishop Su Zhimin. On numerous occasions, 
senior U.S. Government officials in Washington and in China protested 
government actions taken against Falun Gong followers, including the 
temporary detention of thousands of adherents in July 1999 and the 
sentencing of four group leaders later in that year. In May 2000, 
senior embassy officers urged the Chinese to release Pastor Xu Yongze, 
whose ``reeducation through labor'' sentence expired in March 2000. 
Consulate Guangzhou officers also protested to local officials the 
detention and harassment of Pastor Li Dexian. State Department 
officials met with senior Chinese Embassy officers in Washington to 
protest the January detention of Roman Catholic Bishop Yang Shudao. 
Diplomatic personnel also traveled to Tibet to monitor conditions, 
including the status of religious freedom. Cases raised by the Embassy 
include those of Gendun Choekyi Nyima, the boy recognized by the Dalai 
Lama as the 11th Panchen Lama; Abbot Chadrel Rinpoche; Ngawang 
Sangdrol; and other Tibetan monks and nuns. Other embassy officers 
raised specific cases in meetings with officials from the Religious 
Affairs Bureau and the United Front Work Department.
    The Department of State sent Chinese religious leaders and scholars 
to the United States on international visitor programs to see first 
hand the role that religion plays in the United States.
    The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom took a 
number of actions during the reporting period to express its concerns 
about religious freedom in China. These included: A press release 
noting increasing religious persecution in China--including cases of 
persecution of Muslim Uighurs; public calls on the Chinese Government 
to end persecution of Falun Gong adherents; urging Chinese cooperation 
with the Vatican in naming Catholic bishops; and testimony before the 
Congressional Human Rights Caucus, the House Ways and Means Committee, 
the House International Relations Committee, and the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee.
    In October 1999, Ambassador Seiple testified before the House 
International Relations Committee and in May 2000 before the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee concerning the religious freedom of Tibetan 
Buddhists and the Christian and Muslim communities in China. In March 
2000, Ambassador Seiple, accompanied by Rabbi David Saperstein, 
Chairman of the Commission on International Religious Freedom, held 
bilateral meetings at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, 
seeking support for the U.S.-proposed resolution criticizing China's 
human rights record, including its religious freedom practices.
    Cuba. The U.S. Interests Section supported various religious 
leaders and communities in the country and supported NGO initiatives 
that aid religious groups. The U.S. Government regularly sought to 
facilitate the issuance of licenses for travel by religious persons and 
for donated goods and materials. The U.S. Interests Section raised 
issues of human rights, including religious discrimination and 
harassment, with government officials. However, the government 
dismissed these concerns. The Interests Section reported on cases of 
religious discrimination and harassment, and the U.S. government 
continuously urged international pressure on the Cuban government to 
cease its repressive practices.
    Czech Republic. The Embassy, the Department of State, and the U.S. 
Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad devoted 
considerable efforts beginning in December 1999 to facilitate a 
mutually acceptable settlement of the longstanding dispute over a 
medieval Jewish cemetery (believed to be the oldest in the Czech 
Republic) in downtown Prague.
    Egypt. The U.S. Embassy maintained an active dialog with the 
leaders of the Christian and Muslim religious communities, human rights 
groups, and other activists and has investigated every complaint of 
religious discrimination brought to its attention. The Embassy 
discussed religious freedom issues with other groups, including 
academics, businessmen, and lower-income citizens. The Embassy worked 
to strengthen civil society, including training for nongovernmental 
groups that promote religious tolerance and provided training to 
Egyptian police in human rights practices and community policing 
techniques.
    In March 2000, an NGO service center funded by the U.S. Agency for 
International Development (USAID) began operating to provide training 
and technical assistance to local NGO's. The Embassy nominated 
participants interested in advocacy for the International Visitor 
Program and invited U.S. specialists in this subject as part of the 
State Department's speakers program. Other embassy initiatives included 
activities designed to strengthen the rule of law and promote civic 
education. The public affairs section of the Embassy supported the 
development of materials that encourage tolerance, diversity, and 
understanding of others, in both Arabic-language and English-language 
curriculums.
    USAID, in collaboration with the Children's Television Workshop, 
developed an Egyptian version of the television program Sesame Street, 
which is designed to reach isolated households and to promote 
tolerance. The show was scheduled for airing beginning in the summer of 
2000. USAID also supported private voluntary organizations that are 
implementing innovative curriculums in private schools. The public 
affairs section of the Embassy spearheaded an effort to increase the 
professionalism of the press, with an emphasis on balanced and 
responsible coverage. Finally, USAID worked with the Supreme Council of 
Antiquities to promote the conservation of cultural antiquities, 
including Islamic, Christian, and Jewish historical sites.
    Eritrea. The Ambassador and other embassy officers raised the 
special case of Jehovah's Witnesses with government officials in the 
President's office, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the High Court, 
the Ministry of Justice, in media interviews, and in the State 
Department's human rights report. The Assistant Secretary of State for 
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor also raised the issue with the 
Eritrean Ambassador.
    France. In October 1999, Ambassador Seiple and an IRF officer 
visited France and met with government officials, NGO's, and religious 
leaders to discuss religious freedom issues. In addition, in June 2000, 
Ambassador Seiple testified before the House International Relations 
Committee regarding religious freedom issues in France, including 
concerns about the creation of the ``sect lists.''
    Germany. The U.S. Government has expressed its concerns over 
allegations of infringement of individual rights because of religious 
affiliation and over the potential for discrimination in international 
trade posed by the screening of foreign firms for possible Scientology 
affiliation. U.S. government officials discussed with state and federal 
German authorities U.S. concerns about the violation of individual 
rights posed by the use of declarations of Scientology affiliation. 
U.S. officials frequently made the point that the use of such 
``filters'' to prevent persons from practicing their professions, 
solely based on their beliefs, is an abuse of their rights, as well as 
a discriminatory business practice. In June 2000, Ambassador Seiple 
testified before the House International Relations Committee about the 
treatment of German Scientologists and the use of ``filters.''
    India. The U.S. Embassy continued to promote religious freedom 
through contact with the country's senior leadership, as well as with 
state and local officials. The Embassy and consulates regularly report 
on events and trends that affect religious freedom.
    During his state visit, President Clinton spoke about the massacre 
of Sikhs in Kashmir on March 20, 2000, and called for an end to the 
violence. In August and September 1999, the U.S. Consul in Chennai 
expressed concern to Kerala state government officials about the status 
of Father Anthony Raymond Ceresko's visa application to the chief 
secretary of Karnataka and about the the cancellation of the conference 
of the Anglican Church (see Section I). In January 2000, Senator Tom 
Daschle and his delegation raised the issue of religious minorities 
with Home Minister L.K. Advani during a visit to New Delhi. In February 
a representative of the State Department discussed minority issues with 
the National Human Rights Commission in New Delhi. On June 23, 2000, 
the U.S. Ambassador noted to the press that attacks against Christians 
are a serious concern.
    E