FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 5, 2003

Contact:
Anne Johnson, Director of Communications, (202) 523-3240, ext. 27

WASHINGTON - U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom Vice Chair Nina Shea will join Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) and Chris Smith (R-NJ) at a press conference today on Capitol Hill to call on Vietnam to cease its latest assault on human rights and religious freedom. Reps. Lofgren, Sanchez and Smith will unveil H.Res. 427, a resolution introduced by the Congressional Caucus on Vietnam (CCV), which acknowledges the leadership of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and the urgent need for religious freedom and related human rights in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

H. Res. 427 cites the Commission's latest report on Vietnam which urges that Vietnam be designated a County of Particular Concern (CPC) for "egregious, systematic and ongoing abuses of religious freedom." The Resolution also specifically advocates that the "Congress and the executive branch implement the recommendations of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom."

"The passage of H. Res. 427 will send another clear message to the Vietnamese government that better relations between our two countries will only be achieved when there are notable improvements in human rights," said Shea.

WHAT:Press Conference on the Vietnamese Government's Recent Crackdown on Religious Freedom

WHEN:Wednesday, November 5, 2003, 2:00 p.m.

WHERE:121 Cannon House Office Building

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom was created by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to monitor the status of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief abroad, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related international instruments, and to give independent policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State and the Congress.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 4, 2003

Contact:
Anne Johnson, Director of Communications, (202) 523-3240, ext. 27

Foundation for Free and Stable Country Imperiled, says Commission Chair Young

WASHINGTON - Contrary to reports in the international media, the new Afghan draft constitution fails to protect the fundamental human rights of individual Afghans, including freedom of thought, conscience and religion, in accordance with international standards. "There is no guarantee of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion in the draft constitution's Bill of Rights. The draft threatens to institutionalize a "Taliban-lite" state where appointed judges are given the unchecked authority to ensure that all laws conform to their interpretation of the religion of Islam. Provisions protecting these freedoms are found in the constitutions of other Islamic countries. The people of Afghanistan deserve no less," said U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) Chair Michael K. Young.

USCIRF Commissioners expressed concern that the draft constitution:

• subordinates to ordinary legislation most basic individual rights, including rights to life and the freedoms of expression and association. The rights provisions are thus non-binding aspirations that may be displaced by ordinary enactments of legislative bodies.

• mandates that all legislation must conform to the religion of Islam, enshrining the supremacy of Islamic law even over the individual rights provisions in the constitution.

• fails to include a specific guarantee for individual rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to both of which Afghanistan is party.

• threatens to create a judicial theocracy where judges who are unrestrained by checks and balances of other branches of government, have the ultimate authority to determine the conformity of enacted laws with Islam and must apply specific schools of Islamic jurisprudence when no provision of law addresses an issue before them. This would allow for a religious orthodoxy to be officially imposed, stifling dissent within the Islamic tradition.

Several provisions of the draft constitution enshrine the supremacy of Islamic law, threatening the rights of all Afghans. According to the draft constitution, judges should adjudicate cases based on specified schools of Islamic jurisprudence where there is no relevant constitutional provision or law. According to articles one through three, Afghanistan is to be "an Islamic Republic." Islam is proclaimed "the religion of Afghanistan" and "no law can be contrary to the sacred religion of Islam" and to the values of the constitution. The final authority to determine the conformity of legislation to Islam is granted to the Supreme Court. Afghanistan's Supreme Court Chief Justice Fazl Hadi Shinwari has shown little regard for those who disagree with his hard-line interpretation of Islam. He told the USCIRF that he rejects three crucial freedoms - expression, religion and equality of sexes - all of which are international standards protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Activist judges could pursue an Islamist political agenda, silencing political moderates and reformers with charges of apostasy, blasphemy, or "offending Islam," a concept that is already part of the legal system. Charges have already been made on several occasions. Recently, the Washington Post reported that a group of women producing a radio program concerning women's rights in the new Afghanistan were forced to pull the program from the air when several religious leaders complained that the show was encouraging women to leave their husbands. The women complied in fear of being labeled "infidels."

Under the draft constitution, the state has affirmative obligations to devise and implement educational curricula "based on the provisions of the sacred religion of Islam," to support Islamic religious institutions, and to ensure "the elimination of [family and child-rearing] traditions contrary to the principals of the sacred religion of Islam." The draft thus envisions, provides for, and firmly guarantees the privileged place of Sharia law.

The draft recognizes a limited right to perform religious "ceremonies" that is restricted to non-Muslims. Even the exercise of this right can be limited by ordinary law.

The draft does include an explicit statement that the Afghan state "shall abide by the United Nations Charter, international treaties, international conventions that Afghanistan has signed, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." However, the rights provisions in the draft constitution do not track international standards, making those standards vulnerable to being ignored in practice.

The United States should strongly urge Afghans:

• to include in their Bill of Rights a specific guarantee that, "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion" as affirmed in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

• to provide in the constitution that ordinary laws cannot limit the exercise of rights, except under the limited circumstances, such as the protection of public safety and order, permitted in international human rights law; and

• to state clearly in the constitution that any law that abridges constitutionally-protected rights is void.

"Provisions such as these are found in the constitutions of other Islamic countries," said Young. "Without these protections, not only will the current transitional Afghan administration have failed its people, but the United States will have failed in its efforts to lay the foundation for a free and stable Afghanistan."

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom was created by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to monitor the status of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief abroad, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related international instruments, and to give independent policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State and the Congress."

New York Times
October 1, 2003

By Preeta D. Bansal and Felice D. Gaer

American efforts to build a democratic, tolerant Afghanistan are facing a serious challenge: the draft of the Afghan constitution, which may be made public as early as this week, does not yet provide for crucial human rights protections, including freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The United States and the international community should insist that the draft presented by the constitutional commission explicitly protect these core human rights for all Afghans.

Despite reports to the contrary, the current draft versions of the constitution enshrine particular schools of Islamic law, or Shariah, that criminalize dissent and criticism of Islam through blasphemy laws.

If this draft is ratified in December by the loya jirga, or grand council, the freedoms of Afghan citizens would continue to be in the hands of judges educated in Islamic law, rather than in civil law. Official charges of blasphemy, apostasy or other religious crimes could still be used to suppress debate, just as they were under the Taliban.

Making changes in the draft is all the more important because, as Afghanistan's Human Rights Commission and the United Nations' Assistance Mission in Afghanistan have reported, Afghan reformers seeking to express their views on their new constitution have been hindered by threats, harassment and even imprisonment. In one case, an editor and a reporter have been charged with blasphemy for publishing an article questioning the role of Islam in the state.

On our recent trip to Kabul as members of the bipartisan United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, we met many Muslims who recognize the compatibility of Islam with human rights. Yet these Muslims are being intimidated into silence by vocal and well-armed extremists.

Freedom-loving Afghans won't be able to rely on conscientious judges to protect religious freedom without an explicit reference to it in the constitution. Afghanistan's chief justice, Fazl Hadi Shinwari, for example, has shown little regard for those who disagree with his hard-line interpretation of Islam. He told us that he accepted the international standards protected by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - with three exceptions: freedom of expression, freedom of religion and equality of the sexes. "This is the only law," the chief justice told us, pointing to the Koran on his desk.

Even in a self-proclaimed Islamic republic, however, all citizens, Muslims as well as non-Muslims, must be free to debate the role of religion and to question prevailing orthodoxies without fear of being subjected to trials, prison or death. At a minimum, Afghan leaders should amend the draft constitution to specifically ensure the human rights guarantees that Afghanistan has already accepted and ratified in six international treaties. Afterward, the United States must ensure the safety of reformers who want tospeak out at the loya jirga to ensure that the constitution of Afghanistan makes possible a free and just society based on the rule of law.

While respecting that Afghans should determine their own future, United States officials must not let a "hands off" policy lead to political conditions that will embolden repression and enable a few to hijack the future from the many Afghans who hope to embrace freedom.

After all, it is not just Afghanistan's future that is at stake. Iraqis are watching to see what minimum standards of individual rights will be acceptable to the United States. Unfortunately, the message that the Afghan draft constitution is giving Iraq is the wrong one. We should instead send our own message to President Hamid Karzai, to Afghan officials and to the Afghan people: Americans will only support a state with a constitution that clearly and unequivocally enshrines human rights and religious freedom.

Preeta D. Bansal, former solicitor general of New York State, and Felice D.
Gaer, director of the Jacob Blaustein Institute for Human Rights, are members of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times