Displaying results 21 - 30 of 52

Remarks by USCIRF Chair Katrina Lantos Swett, 2013 Annual Report, National Endowment for Democracy
May 07, 2013
USCIRF Chair Katrina Lantos Swett gave the following remarks at a conference, cosponsored by USCIRF and the National Endowment for Democracy on May 7, 2013Introduction Thank you for that kind introduction. It truly is a pleasure to join you today at the National Endowment for Democracy as we discuss USCIRF's findings and recommendations in our 2013 Annual Report, which we released just last week. For most of us who currently serve as USCIRF commissioners, the reporting year actually was our first year on the Commission.   It also coincided with my time as USCIR Chair, which is about to end since it is a one-year position.   While I no longer will be USCIRF's Chair, I look forward to continuing as a USCIRF Commissioner.    The past year has been both a joy and a challenge, as my esteemed colleagues and I have labored together with our able staff in confronting the realities of a changing global landscape and its implications for freedom.  In recent years, our staff has had the pleasure of working with NED's World Movement of Democracy to help build vibrant, open, and law- abiding societies.   Today's event is further evidence of the blossoming relationship between our two organizations. And let me commend your organization for doing a splendid job supporting freedom for the past three decades.  During this time, we have all seen wondrous changes that have touched the lives of hundreds of millions of people.  When the Berlin Wall came down, when the Iron Curtain was rent, when the Soviet Union dissolved, we witnessed a historic triumph of freedom. But since that amazing time, the fight for liberty has become a bit more challenging.  This is especially the case regarding freedom of religion or belief. Indeed, most of the world's people live in countries where religious freedom is protected poorly -- if at all.  And as we see in our annual report, the state of religious freedom abroad has not improved over the past year, but remains problematic. Today, I'm going to talk about the findings in our report. I will also talk about the role of violent religious extremism in perpetrating and triggering much of the religious freedom abuses we see today. And I will discuss solutions - concrete recommendations on how our country can help others to counter extremism by expanding freedom.   Tier 1 and Tier 2 Countries As part of our report, we recommend that the State Department re-designate the following eight nations as "countries of particular concern” or CPCs, marking them as among the worst religious freedom violators:
  1. Burma
  2. China
  3. Eritrea
  4. Iran
  5. North Korea
  6. Saudi Arabia
  7. Sudan
  8. Uzbekistan 
We find that seven other states also meet the CPC threshold and should be designated:  
  1. Egypt
  2. Iraq
  3. Nigeria
  4. Pakistan
  5. Tajikistan
  6. Turkmenistan
  7. Vietnam
This year, we've placed eight countries on our Tier 2 List, which replaces our Watch List designation:
  1. Afghanistan
  2. Azerbaijan
  3. Cuba
  4. India
  5. Indonesia
  6. Kazakhstan
  7. Laos
  8. Russia 
We found that the abuses are serious enough to meet at least one of three criteria, but not all, of the "systematic, ongoing, and egregious” CPC benchmark language as specified by the IRFA Act of 1998.  These abuses are affecting billions of our fellow human beings. From Rohingya Muslims in Burma to Coptic Christians in Egypt; from Buddhists, Uighur Muslims, Protestant house church members and Falun Gong in China to Baha'is in Iran; from Ahmadis and Christians in Pakistan to Muslims in Muslim-majority nations like Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan and in non-Muslim nations like Russia, when the right of religious freedom is violated, real people suffer. And this suffering is occurring in far too many countries. In Burma, despite political reforms, sectarian violence and severe abuses against ethnic minority Christians and Muslims continue with impunity. In Egypt, despite some progress after Mubarak, the government has repeatedly failed to protect religious minorities, including Coptic Christians, from violence, while prosecuting and jailing people for "defamation” of religion.   In addition, Egypt's new constitution includes problematic provisions relating to religious freedom. In China, conditions continue to deteriorate, particularly for Tibetan Buddhists and Uighur Muslims.  To stem the growth of independent Catholic and Protestant groups, the government arrested leaders and shut churches down.  Members of Falun Gong, as well as those of other groups deemed "evil cults,” face long jail terms, forced renunciations of faith, and torture in detention.     In Nigeria, protection of religious freedom continued to falter, as the terrorist group Boko Haram attacked Christians, as well as fellow Muslims opposing them, and inflamed tensions between Christians and Muslims.  Nigeria's government has repeatedly failed to prosecute perpetrators of religiously-related violence that has killed more than 14,000 Nigerians, both Christian and Muslim, fostering a climate of impunity. In Pakistan, as historic elections approach, religious freedom abuses have risen dramatically due to chronic sectarian violence targeting Shi'i Muslims.  The government's continued failure to protect Christians, Ahmadis, and Hindus, along with its repressive blasphemy law and anti-Ahmadi laws, have fueled religious freedom abuses and vigilante violence. In Russia, conditions continue to worsen, as the government uses extremism laws against certain Muslim groups and so-called "non-traditional” religious communities, particularly Jehovah's Witnesses, through raids, detentions, and imprisonment. In addition, massive violations continue in Chechnya.  Outside of Russia, similar repression occurs across Central Asia as well. In Indonesia, extremist violence coupled by government arrests of individuals considered religiously deviant threatens its tradition of tolerance and pluralism. Spotlighting Other Countries and Themes Besides documenting abuses and formulating recommendations for Tier 1 and Tier 2 countries, our Annual Report also spotlights countries and regions in which current trends are worth monitoring - Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Ethiopia, Turkey, Venezuela and Western Europe. And this year's report also addresses several themes relating to religious freedom.   These themes range from legal retreat from religious freedom in post-communist countries to severe religious freedom violations by non-state actors. And let me add that recently, USCIRF released a separate report on religious freedom conditions in Syria, including how our government can help Christian and Alawite minorities, as well as members of the Sunni majority. Violent Religious Extremism and Governmental Failur Among the themes I've just cited, the role of non-state actors leads us to the phenomenon known as violent religious extremism, in which religion is hijacked to advance radical agendas by force. This extremism not only violates the rights of others, but contributes to the destabilizing of countries.   Since our USCIRF mandate includes encouraging Washington to hold other governments accountable for religious freedom abuses, the Commission looks at religious extremism from the lens of government actions or inactions. When it comes to such extremism, we focus on how governments either perpetrate or tolerate religious freedom abuses. Governments perpetrate these abuses in at least three ways.  First, some governments actually embody the extremism itself.   Both the Iranian and Sudanese governments, for example, are run by religious extremists who violently impose their worldview on others.  As for Iran, it remains a world-class religious-freedom violator.  As for Sudan, USCIRF deemed it the world's most violent religious-freedom abuser due to its conduct during the North-South civil war of 1983-2005 when it called for jihad against the south.  Since South Sudan became independent, conditions in Sudan have deteriorated, as its leaders continue to repress their people.  While Iran and Sudan repress freedom on behalf of extremism, other governments engage in repression in the name of opposing it.  Both China and Russia, for example, repress Muslims in the name of fighting extremism in Muslim communities. And finally, by their actions, other governments embolden extremists to commit abuses.   One example is Pakistan with its anti-Ahmadi and blasphemy laws which encourage extremists to commit violence against those they perceive as transgressing them.   These are examples of how governments can harm religious freedom in connection with their stance on extremism.   But it is also true that governments are responsible for extremist-driven violations through their toleration of them -- that is, by their failure to prevent violence or bring justice to the responsible parties.   Such failures create and perpetuate a climate of impunity.  Egypt's failure to protect Coptic Christians and Nigeria's failure to protect both Christians and Muslims from sectarian violence are two examples of this problem. Religious Freedom = Antidote to Religious Extremism Thus, through sins of commission and omission, governments are responsible for religious freedom abuses within their borders, including those driven by violent religious extremism.    Such abuses are harmful not only to human rights, but also to the stability of their societies and other countries.  Indeed, studies show how countries that honor religious freedom enjoy greater stability, harmony, and prosperity, while those whose governments perpetrate or tolerate violations create the conditions for failed societies. There are at least three reasons for this correlation.  First, governments that persecute or fail to protect people against religious persecution can drive them into extremist hands.  When our Commission visited Ethiopia last year, we saw disturbing signs of this danger.  Ethiopia's recent efforts to combat extremism by forcing its Muslim community to embrace a foreign form of Islam run the risk of producing exactly what it fears - the radicalization of individuals within that community. Second, as I noted with Pakistan, governments that enforce laws which violate religious freedom unwittingly encourage people to monitor others for signs of trespass and take violent actions against perceived transgressors.   And third, governments that restrict religious freedom in the name of fighting religious extremist groups end up strengthening these groups by weakening their more moderate but less resilient competition.   In Egypt, for example, President Mubarak's restrictions weakened the hand of pro-freedom movements, making it easier for the Salafists to emerge in the post-Mubarak era on a much stronger footing than their more democratic competition. Clearly, during times of severe governmental repression, extremists are driven by their fanaticism to cut corners and break rules in order to survive.   Unlike their more democratic opponents, their fanaticism drives them to believe that all things are permissible in service to their cause. U.S. Leadership Needed So when it comes to violent religious extremism, it is clear that religious freedom abuses not only offend human rights, but pose a grave threat to the security and stability of countries.   And unfortunately, this instability and violence often spills beyond national borders into neighboring countries, threatening entire regions.  As Americans living in a post-9/11 world, we of all people know what happens when violent religious extremism is exported globally as terrorism. This is why the U.S. government must prioritize religious freedom not just as a core human right, but a global security imperative, and a vital part of any counter-extremism strategy.  Our government must recognize the pivotal role of religion in countries that top our foreign policy agenda and how limitations on religious liberty can harm entire societies. Religious freedom has national security relevance.  Conditions favoring it can help counter extremism by undercutting the message of extremists and fostering religious diversity and minority rights.  As a fundamental right, religious freedom is a core component of a healthy society, as it encompasses other freedoms - including those of expression, association, and assembly.  To further the religious freedom agenda, our Commission recommends the following:
  • The Obama administration should issue a National Security Strategy on supporting religious freedom abroad, combining all U.S. government activities in a "whole-of- government” effort to confront this challenge. 
  • Congress should hold hearings and embrace legislation that prioritizes religious freedom and reflects its critical importance to national security and global stability.  
  • The State Department should prioritize this pivotal freedom by pressing countries to implement reforms that will confront extremism and protect liberty. 
  • And the State Department should also make CPC designations soon, before previously designated actions expire later this year. 
Naming countries as CPCs isn't the end of engagement, but rather the beginning of a high-level process to encourage governments to improve. When combined with the prospect of sanctions, the CPC designation can create political will where none existed, moving repressive governments to undertake needed changes.  Conclusion And so, as I conclude, let me stress to all of you that despite the bleak picture we see of religious freedom abroad, progress remains possible. If we as a country reaffirm our commitment to religious freedom by making it a permanent and integral part of our foreign policy, it can be a game-changer - both for us and for the world.   Change will not happen overnight, but if Washington supports a truly free and vibrant marketplace of ideas, including religious ideas, I believe that in spite of many obstacles, the desire for a better life on the part of hundreds of millions of our fellow human beings is going to prevail. I believe that if truly given the chance, a critical mass of humanity will say "no” to more repression, "no” to more extremism, and "yes” to more freedom. In accordance with our mandate, we who serve on the Commission will do our part.   It is our deepest hope that in the coming months and years, Washington will fully do its part on behalf of religious freedom. Thank you.
America Magazine -- Report From Vietnam
February 19, 2016
Feb 19, 2016 FOR YOUR INFORMATION February 19, 2016 | Thomas J. Reese and Mary Ann Glendon The following op-ed appeared in the America Magazine on February 19, 2016   Religion in Vietnam today looks markedly different than it did 40 years ago. This is the message we repeatedly heard during a recent trip to Vietnam. Vietnamese faithful conveyed, on the one hand, how religious freedom has expanded in the last four decades. On the other, they believe many government officials still misunderstand religion and the positive role it can play in society, instead subscribing to outdated fears and prejudices about the right to freely practice one’s faith. After the war ended in 1975, Vietnam’s Communist leaders severely constrained religious freedom in a number of ways, including outright bans on religious organizations and their activities. Most religious leaders had opposed the Communist revolution, fearing what would happen if atheistic Marxists took over. After the war, the predicted bloodbath did not occur, but the new government confiscated religious property, imprisoned many religious leaders and persecuted many of their followers. Christians in particular were seen as tools of foreign oppression, while members of some of the local religions, like the Cao Dai, were targeted for having fielded troops to fight the Communists. While markedly better today, Vietnam still has a long way to go before it meets the international standards to which it has officially agreed, like Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In time, the regime moved from full-bore state persecution to state control, creating a government-sponsored Buddhist organization and a government-sponsored Cao Dai. Those who continued to practice with unsanctioned religious organizations were frozen out and sometimes even “excommunicated” by the established religious authorities. This made them “dissidents” to both their faith and the state. Catholics avoided being co-opted under a government-sponsored entity like the Patriotic Association in China, but the government kept the clergy on a short leash and continues to play a direct role in approving candidates for bishops selected by the Vatican. A Complex Situation In order to better understand the current situation, we visited Vietnam at the end of August as part of a delegation from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which was created by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to monitor the status of freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief abroad, and to give independent policy recommendations to the president, secretary of state and Congress. What the delegation learned will become part of the commission’s official findings—for example, in its annual report on religious freedom. The situation on religion in Vietnam is complex and at times confusing. On the one hand, Catholic churches are packed and vocations plentiful; the government recently granted Catholics permission to found a university-level institute of theology in the South. Catholics can even hold government jobs, and it is not uncommon for party members to send their children to Catholic preschool programs or to Catholic universities in the United States. On the other hand, we heard credible reports corroborating the commission’s past findings that police often harass and assault religious followers from independent, unregistered religious organizations, including many Protestant churches. In general, the Catholic Church has fewer problems with the government than Protestant churches; state-sponsored religious groups do better than independent groups, and registered bodies do better than those that are not. To achieve legal status, religious organizations must register with the government, without which they are considered illegal and cannot rent or own property. Registration requires religious organizations to report their membership, leadership, beliefs and activities. Even for registered organizations, many activities require the permission of the local, provincial and/or national government. If a group wants to open a new church, for example, or to move a minister from one church to another, it needs government approval. But even government approval does not solve all problems. For example, one group received permission to open another house church but had difficulty getting a rental because landlords did not want the extra police scrutiny that would come with the presence of a church on their property. The Vietnamese government is currently drafting a new law to govern religion. Before visiting Vietnam, we studied the fourth draft, which largely put into law what in the past had been done by ordinance and decree. The draft stipulated a number of religious activities in addition to registration that required government approval, including several clauses governing the approvals required when groups select or move religious personnel. This example became more poignant after learning from one group during our visit that half the candidates they proposed to become pastors had been rejected by the government. While in Vietnam, we learned the government is currently working on a fifth draft that appears, in some instances, to have downgraded “approvals” to “notifications.” Although requiring groups to notify the government of their activities is still problematic, each language modification from “approve” to “notify” is a significant step forward for Vietnam. Some religious groups reject registration on principle, choosing instead to maintain their independence from state control. These groups routinely suffer harassment from the police, as do those which publicly complain about the ill-treatment they experience and those alleged to have contacts with foreign and/or human rights organizations. Factors Affecting the Faithful After listening to numerous religious leaders, we concluded that the scope and degree of government intervention, including sometimes violent intervention, often depended on a number of conditions over which religious organizations have little control. First, religious organizations and individuals are at greater risk if authorities believe they are a threat to the government or the Communist Party. Óscar Romero, the murdered Roman Catholic archbishop known for preaching on social justice and human rights, would not be tolerated in Vietnam any more than he was in El Salvador. Religious organizations, therefore, are forced to suppress their prophetic role if they want to survive in Vietnam. This means abandoning support for anything that may be perceived as contrary to party policy, like democracy and human rights. Activists openly supporting these basic freedoms, including Catholics and Protestants, have been imprisoned. In 1980, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Vietnam issued a pastoral letter saying that good Catholics must be good citizens, which pleased government officials and opened the way for fewer restrictions. Likewise, Muslim leaders stress that their religion requires their followers to observe their country’s laws as long as this does not violate their belief in one God or interfere with their duty to pray. On the other hand, government officials become nervous when a local pastor has more credibility and authority in his village than the local party and government officials. For example, when the local officials tell demonstrating villagers to go home, they ignore him, but if the pastors say, “Go home,” they obey. Likewise, the Redemptorists, a Catholic religious order, suffered harassment because it allowed dissidents to meet on its property. The Redemptorists are also in a dispute over land being confiscated for development by the government, which is not inclined to be nice to “troublemakers.” Last year, the order received a new provincial superior who is taking a less assertive stance, which may cause the government to ease up on them. Second, the state’s single-minded commitment to maintaining public order takes primacy over religious freedom and indeed many other freedoms. This puts severe restraints on evangelization. Knocking on doors or handing out pamphlets on the streets or in a public park can prompt police intervention. Independent Buddhists and Cao Dai believers who refuse to join the state-sponsored organization are also at great risk. Those who actively evangelize among ethnic minorities in the highlands have especially run into trouble, although they say that conflicts with the government often calm down after evangelizing in a village has successfully converted most villagers. But such transitions can take decades. Others, like the Mormons and Muslims, navigate restrictions by limiting their converts to those who approach them for instruction at their places of worship rather than risk problems with the government by actively proselytizing. Third, the wide latitude given local officials to interpret and enforce religious policy according to their own caprices contributes to an inconsistent, unpredictable environment. Some religious organizations have the good fortune to operate in provinces where officials bear no particular antagonism toward religion or ethnic minorities. Almost every group we met said they experienced more problems in some provinces than others. Many pointed to the Central Highlands as a problem area, where any activity among the ethnic minorities makes government officials nervous, often resulting in harsh repression. These ethnic groups prize their independence, and some were allies with Americans against the Communists. In these provinces, it is difficult to get government approval for new houses of worship or religious activities. Some local officials fear religious leaders who have more authority among the populace than they do. Some are simply old guard who still believe that a heavy hand is needed to control things. This mentality at times leads to acts of police brutality, which instead of solving conflicts makes matters worse. One national official frankly complained of the incompetence of some of these local officials. Whatever the case, the central government rarely steps in to protect religious groups from provincial abuse. Local officials are rarely held to account for their actions. Fourth, since trust can be a critical factor in reducing problems with local officials, some religious leaders take pains to establish personal relationships with government officials. One church leader told us how he got a policeman friend to introduce him to the police official in charge of religion in his area. He then invited the official to his church services. His goal was to establish trust through transparency and dialogue. Hierarchical organizations like the Catholic Church are better equipped for this because there is a church official who can speak with authority for his flock. Trust and understanding, once established on both sides, can help alleviate suspicions and ultimately result in local officials backing off; unfortunately, this process often takes a long time. When trust is lacking and suspicions high, the government maintains an intimidating presence in religious affairs. In fact, a number of the people we met told us that they had been visited by government officials prior to our visit. It was clear that the government wanted them “on message” and was suspicious about what they might say to a U.S. government delegation. One group stayed away from their homes the night before meeting us so that the police could not keep them from leaving their houses. Vietnamese religious leaders attempt to navigate these four conditions in order to survive, with varying degrees of success, but the situation obviously is far from the ideal of religious freedom as articulated in international law. Vietnam has made some progress in religious freedom since the dark days following the Communist takeover in 1975, and this offers hope that genuine and enduring improvements that meet international standards are possible. It is also clear that Vietnamese officials want to have good relations with the United States, and they know that religious freedom is an issue close to our hearts. Many officials realize that beating up believers is not worth while if it sours their country’s relationship with the United States, but too many officials still believe heavy-handed tactics are the way to go. How Vietnam respects and protects religious freedom also has implications beyond its own borders. Violations of religious freedom are all too common throughout Southeast Asia. Vietnam’s neighbors—particularly Laos, which similarly has a Communist government and intently mimics Vietnam with respect to rights and freedoms—pay close attention to Vietnam’s actions and their impact on relations with the international community, including the United States. Clearly, Vietnam has a lot at stake. Will religious freedom in Vietnam ever meet international standards, or have improvements plateaued? A law on religion that simply endorses the status quo will be bad news. However, if it reduces requirements for government approval and reporting, this will be a sign that things are heading in the right direction. But unless the government pulls back from its intrusive and thuggish treatment of independent, registered and unregistered religious organizations, no one can say that Vietnam has reached the level of religious freedom required of a state under international law. Thomas J. Reese, S.J., and Mary Ann Glendon are members of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Father Reese was editor of America (1998-2005) and is now senior analyst for The National Catholic Reporter. Professor Glendon is the Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard University and a former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See.  
CNN World/GPS -- Time to tear down the internet 'walls'
June 26, 2013
Jun 26, 2013 FOR YOUR INFORMATIONJune 26, 2013 |By Katrina Lantos Swett Editor"s note: Katrina Lantos Swett is the chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The views expressed are the writer"s own. The following op-ed appeared on CNN World/GPS on June 26, 2013. Fifty years ago today, on June 26, 1963, President John F. Kennedy stood in West Berlin and condemned the newly erected Berlin Wall. Twenty-four years later, President Ronald Reagan traveled to West Berlin and challenged Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall.” In the decades between these speeches, human rights and religious freedom advocates behind the Iron Curtain defied the walls of tyranny by relying on the samizdat, a clandestine system to printand distribute government-suppressed material. Today, many use the internet in much the same way, raising both challenges and opportunities as the forces of repression and freedom clash in the virtual and physical worlds. To read the entire op-ed please visit CNN World/ GPS.
The Hill: The List No One Wants to Be On
November 16, 2017
Nov 16, 2017 The following originally op-ed appeared in The Hill on November 16, 2017   By former USCIRF Commissioners Daniel Mark and Sandra Jolley   People love lists. And when those lists are in the news, people generally want to be on them: The Top Ten. Who’s Who. Best Dressed. But no one wants to be on our lists.  That is because our job, as members of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), is to list the countries responsible for perpetrating or tolerating the world’s worst violations of religious freedom.  These lists, mandated by Congress, are the centerpiece of our annual recommendations for promoting religious freedom abroad through U.S. foreign policy. From there, our lists go to the State Department, which must determine whether to adopt our recommendations for designating the world’s worst violators as “countries of particular concern” (CPCs). Thanks to new legislation, the designation of CPCs by the State Department — which did not occur every year and which has not happened since October 2016 — is expected in November. And we, as chairman and vice chairwoman of USCIRF, very much hope that the Trump administration’s list of CPCs will look a lot like ours. Unfortunately, the State Department designations, which were required by law no later than Nov. 13, still have not been made. Failing to designate CPCs tells the violators of religious freedom around the world that the United States is looking away. The State Department should make such designations without delay. In our annual report, released in April, USCIRF recommended that 16 countries be designated CPCs: Burma, Central African Republic, China, Eritrea, Iran, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. Unfortunately, since that time, there has been plenty more bad news to confirm the judgments on our list: Russia’s Supreme Court outlawed the Jehovah’s Witnesses, wiping out the legal existence of an entire religion; Rohingya Muslims are fleeing Burma in the hundreds of thousands as that country’s military leaders conduct what United Nations officials have described as ethnic cleansing; and Pakistan continues its persecution of the Ahmadiyya community, particularly through the use and abuse of blasphemy laws (including death sentences) that have no place in the 21st century. Meanwhile, USCIRF commends the Trump administration’s nomination of Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback as ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom. If confirmed before the CPC designations are made, Gov. Brownback’s first priority should be to see all 16 countries designated as CPCs by the State Department. For now, let us look at just three.  Russia: This year is the first time USCIRF ever recommended that Russia be designated as a CPC — one of the worst of the worst when it comes to religious freedom violations. We did not come to this conclusion lightly, and Russian actions since have only reinforced our position.  In outlawing the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Russia absurdly claimed that this pacifist, non-political group was a threat under Russia’s anti-extremism laws. The Witnesses can no longer proselytize, their organization’s property is subject to seizure, they face sanction for gathering to worship, and they now occupy a category of “extremists” with neo-Nazis and jihadists. Another target of Russia’s attacks is Scientologists. After the Supreme Court ruling against the Witnesses, Russia’s Federal Security Bureau arrested, detained and interrogated five Scientologist leaders in St. Petersburg: Anastasiya Terentyeva, Sakhib Aliev, Ivan Matsytski, Galina Shurinova, and Konstantia Esaulkova. Alleging crimes related to “commercial activity,” these arrests make it clear the Supreme Court ruling against the Witnesses simply cleared the way for more harassment of minority groups. Moreover, Russia has the dubious distinction of being a country that not only oppresses its religious minorities — it also exports such oppression, as is evidenced by the treatment of religious minorities in Russian-occupied Ukraine and Crimea.  Burma: Burma’s Rohingya Muslim population has been called the most persecuted religious minority in the world. Now that truth is being underlined — in ink throughout the world’s headlines and in blood on the earth, as more than half a million have fled for their lives. They flee burned villages and slaughtered families. They flee barefoot over barbed wire and landmines. Now is surely not the time for the U.S. to reverse its longstanding designation of Burma as a CPC. Pakistan: A U.S. ally in counterterrorism yet also a supporter of extremism in many forms, Pakistan is a conundrum for U.S. policymakers. On religious freedom grounds, however, the issue is clear: Pakistan is among the world’s worst violators. Its blasphemy and anti-Ahmadiyya laws are indefensible, and, through acts of commission and omission, the government deserves blame for the virulence and violence against the Ahmadiyya community throughout Pakistani society.  And the Ahmadis are but one notable example of religious persecution in Pakistan. For years, the State Department has declined to take up our recommendation, but we believe that the new Trump administration will take a principled stand and finally designate Pakistan a CPC. Also thanks, to new legislation, USCIRF recommended this year for the first time three non-state actors for designation as “entities of particular concern” (EPCs): the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria; the Taliban in Afghanistan; and al-Shabaab in Somalia. The administration does not need to make its designations of EPCs in November, but there is no time to waste. We look forward to working with the White House and the State Department on identifying EPCs and the tools to use against them. For now, the administration can make a strong start in advancing international religious freedom by naming those 16 countries as countries of particular concern.  Daniel Mark and Sandra Jolley are, respectively, the chairman and vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.
Washington Post -- The U.S.'s Lagging Commitment to Religious Freedom
August 22, 2013
Aug 22, 2013 FOR YOUR INFORMATIONAugust 21, 2013 | By Robert P. George and Katrina Lantos Swett The following op-ed appeared in The Washington Post on August 21, 2013. Although religious freedom is a pivotal human right, critical to national security and global stability, key provisions of the landmark International Religious Freedom Act are being neglected years after its passage. A number of studies demonstrates the link between freedom of religion and societal well-being, while its absence correlates closely with instability and violent religious extremism, including terrorism. Many governments, including those topping the U.S. foreign policy and security agendas, perpetrate or tolerate acts of religious repression, such as arbitrary detention, torture and murder. The International Religious Freedom Act provides vital tools, including identifying and sanctioning the world's worst violators. But over many years and different administrations, the executive branch has not employed them fully or in a timely manner. With a key deadline for action arriving this month, it is time to confront this unwise failure to act. When the act was passed in 1998, it made the promotion of religious freedom an official U.S. foreign policy priority and established at the State Department an ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom. The legislation also created a bipartisan and independent U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom , on which we serve, to monitor this right worldwide and make policy recommendations to Congress, the secretary of state and the president. Congress gave the legislation real teeth through a groundbreaking enforcement mechanism: requiring annual administration review and designation of "countries of particular concern,” defined as those governments engaging in or allowing "systematic, ongoing, egregious” violations. While the law provides the administration with flexibility in how it will pressure those countries, the review and designation process is not discretionary. The law requires it. Whatever one's view of appropriate sanctions for violators, there can be little disagreement on the imperative of bearing witness to abuses. Unfortunately, neither Republican nor Democratic administrations have consistently designated countries that clearly meet the standard for offenders. The Bush administration issued several designations in its first term but let the process fall off track in its second. The Obama administration issued designations only once during its first term, in August 2011. The result? Violators such as Egypt, Pakistan and Vietnam are escaping the accountability that the International Religious Freedom Act is meant to provide. Even those nations currently designated as "countries of particular concern” could escape accountability if there are no designations this month; under the law, countries remain designated until removed, but any corresponding penalties expire after two years. Without new designations, sanctions attached in 2011 to Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea and Sudan will expire this month. And while those countries are subject to sanctions under other U.S. laws, allowing the International Religious Freedom Act's sanctions authority to expire would send the disturbing message that the United States won"t implement its own law on religious freedom. To be sure, the Obama administration has taken some positive steps. It created a State Department working group on religion and foreign policy and this month established a new faith-based office , both tasked with religious engagement. Also this month, Secretary of State John Kerry announced a U.S. Strategy on Religious Leader and Faith Community Engagement . As our commission has recommended, promoting religious freedom is among the three key objectives of this engagement. Engagement should be part of any strategy for the promotion of religious freedom. But what will move gross offenders to stop persecuting individuals if not the credible threat of consequences? By letting the process of designating offenders atrophy, the United States surrenders its leverage while creating a chilling precedent for other rights. If this process is allowed to wither, what will happen to similarly designed programs such as the tiered system of the Trafficking in Persons Report, which was modeled on this approach? The process of designating countries of particular concern works when deployed as intended - that is, not as a single bludgeon but as a targeted tool. When diplomacy is combined with the prospect or reality of such designations and attendant sanctions or other specific diplomatic and related actions, repressive governments - including Vietnam and Turkmenistan - have made meaningful changes. Moreover, countries often consider such a designation a stigma and blow to their world standing. Because a designation of concern is rightly perceived as an important factor in a country's relationships with the United States, it can create political will for reform where none otherwise would exist. For the sake of freedom and security, it is time to apply the International Religious Freedom Act fully and the country designation process decisively. Congress has the right and the duty to press the executive branch to do so. Robert P. George is chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Katrina Lantos Swett is a vice chairwoman of the commission. To interview a USCIRF Commissioner, please contact Kalinda Stephenson at 202-786-0613 or kstephenson@uscirf.gov.
The Hill: The Rising Cost of Religious Freedom in Vietnam
April 24, 2020
Apr 24, 2020 This op-ed originally appeared in The Hill on Friday, April 24, 2020. This op-ed was also published in Vietnamese by the Nguoi Viet Daily News on Thursday, April 30, 2020.  By USCIRF Commissioner Anurima Bhargava and Congressman Harley Rouda In March 2019, Ms. Bui Thi Kim Phuong, a Hoa Hao Buddhist from Vietnam, prepared to board a flight to the United States for a series of meetings on the deteriorating human rights and religious freedom conditions in Vietnam. Ms. Phuong was stopped by Vietnamese security authorities at Tan Son Nhat airport and forced to return home. Her offense: she is married to Nguyen Bac Truyen, a prominent prisoner of conscience and religious freedom advocate. Nguyen Bac Truyen founded the Vietnamese Political & Religious Prisoners Friendship Association, an organization dedicated to assisting prisoners of conscience and their families. For many years, he served as a lawyer and advocate, primarily for his fellow Hoa Hao Buddhists.  But in July 2017, he was kidnapped by Vietnamese authorities. Nine months later, he was tried for “activities attempting to overthrow the State.” The trial took less than a day. Truyen was sentenced to 11 years in prison. Through the Defending Freedoms Project of the congressional Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission and the Religious Prisoners of Conscience Project of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), we are advocating for Truyen’s release.  Truyen’s sentence marks a troubling time for religious freedom in Vietnam. The number of prisoners of conscience in Vietnam has surged in recent years.  Authorities are reportedly retaliating against Hmong and Montagnard Christians who refuse to renounce their religion. Independent Hoa Hao Buddhists, Cao Dai adherents, and Khmer Krom Buddhists have been intimidated, harassed, and physically assaulted for attending religious ceremonies. The 2016 Law on Belief and Religion has imposed significant bureaucratic obstacles to establishing new houses of worship and requires, among other things, all religious groups to register with the government; many refuse to do so out of concern for their independence. We acknowledge that the Vietnamese government has made some progress over the past year. Registered religious organizations have been allowed to hold large festivals in public.  Attacks by government-affiliated groups against Catholic communities seem to have decreased from previous years. The national government has investigated abuses by local officials against religious communities. Yet, Mr. Truyen’s continued detention – with his health deteriorating and with severe, draconian restrictions on visits and on receiving food and medical supplies – stands counter to the fundamental human right of all persons to worship as they choose. His immediate and unconditional release is necessary to demonstrate the Vietnamese government’s stated commitment to religious freedom. If the Vietnamese government does not release Mr. Truyen and take action to stop ongoing religious freedom violations, we strongly recommend that the U.S. State Department designate Vietnam a Country of Particular Concern under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.  In addition, the State Department and USAID should provide funding for programs in Vietnam that educate local officials about the importance of religious freedom. Finally, we urge all U.S. government officials, including members of Congress, to consistently raise religious freedom concerns during meetings with Vietnamese officials. The ties between the United States and Vietnam have deepened over the past 25 years since diplomatic ties between our countries have been restored.  The ongoing violations of religious freedom and detention of Nguyen Bac Truyen prevent an even closer bond. Mr. Truyen’s release is an important goalpost for a different path forward.   
The Hill -- Congress can defend freedoms abroad
January 28, 2014
Jan 28, 2014 FOR YOUR INFORMATION January 27, 2014 | By  Robert P. George    The following op-ed appeared in  The Hill  on January 27, 2014. I testified before the Congressional Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission (TLHRC)’s hearing on the Defending Freedoms Project on January 16.  The TLHRC, co-chaired by Reps. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.) and Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), launched this initiative to spotlight the dire plight of prisoners of conscience abroad.  The Hill highlighted the project in a January 18 article,  Lawmakers ‘adopt’ prisoners in human rights push . Through the project, members of Congress select individual prisoners to draw attention to their cases and the repressive laws and policies of the governments holding them in order to call these governments to account and ultimately help set these prisoners free. While quiet diplomacy has a key role to play, public inattention can lead to more persecution, not more freedom and, at its worst, private diplomacy can be viewed as a license to oppress. These prisoners of conscience have been unjustly barred from enjoying the most basic human rights enshrined in the landmark Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and other international instruments and standards. Among these precious rights is freedom of religion or belief.  As it often is the first right taken away, religious freedom serves as the proverbial canary in the coal mine, warning us that denial of other liberties almost surely will follow. The United States signaled its intent to strengthen its championing of religious freedom overseas by enacting the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA), which created USCIRF as well as an Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom within the Department of State, and the “country-of-particular-concern” status for the world’s worst abusers of this fundamental liberty. IRFA also mandated that the State Department compile a list of prisoners.  While the Department has advocated for individual prisoners, we are unaware that it ever created a comprehensive prisoner list.  We urge the Department to do so now. The hearing highlighted several prisoners included on an ever-changing list the project has compiled: Nabeel Rajab, whom McGovern has adopted, remains jailed along with fellow prisoners of conscience by the Bahraini government, which responded in 2011 to citizen protests against abuses, including those against the Shi’a Muslim community, with a crackdown leading to a human rights crisis. Gao Zhisheng, whom Wolf has adopted, is a lawyer whom the government of China has disbarred, tortured, and imprisoned for his defense of activists and religious minorities.   China commits widespread human rights violations, detaining hundreds of thousands without charges or trials.  Religious freedom conditions for Tibetan Buddhists and Uighur Muslims remain especially poor. Pastor Saeed Abedini, whom Reps. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), and Raul Labrador (R-Ida.) have adopted, is a U.S. citizen who has been serving an eight-year prison sentence since January 2012 for participating in Iran’s house church movement.  Iran arbitrarily and unlawfully arrests, imprisons, tortures and kills those who it deems a threat to its reigning theology. Aasia Bibi, whom Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) has adopted, is one of 40 individuals the Pakistani government has jailed for blasphemy.  Along with perpetrating and tolerating severe violations of freedom of religion or belief, the government enforces notorious blasphemy laws and other religiously discriminatory legislation, such as anti-Ahmadi laws, which have created an atmosphere of violent extremism and vigilantism, including extrajudicial and targeted killings and forced disappearances. Sultan Hamid Marzooq al-Enezi and Saud Falih Awad al-Enezi have been imprisoned since May 2012 by the government of Saudi Arabia for the capital crime of apostasy for joining the Ahmadiyya Muslim community.  The Kingdom continues to ban nearly all public religious expression other than that of the government’s own interpretation of Sunni Islam, bans all non-Muslim places of public worship, sporadically detains Shi’a Muslims, and prosecutes, convicts, and imprisons individuals charged with apostasy, blasphemy, and sorcery. Do Thi Minh Hanh, whom Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) has adopted, is an imprisoned Vietnamese labor activist who is serving a seven-year sentence for organizing workers at a shoe factory.  Father Ly, whom Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) has adopted, has spent more than 15 years in prison in Vietnam for advocating democracy and human rights including religious freedom.  The government of Vietnam commits significant human rights violations including severely limiting the freedoms of speech, press, and association, arbitrarily arresting and detaining people and mistreating them during arrest and detention, and denying them the right to a fair and expeditious trial. There are countless other prisoners of conscience, named and unnamed, languishing in jail cells in these and other nations.  Given the upcoming Sochi Olympic Games, we would be remiss by not mentioning Russia.  While Moscow recently released some prisoners of conscience, it did so only because President Putin, not an independent judiciary, so decreed, thereby signaling not a change in Russia’s human rights policies, which have deteriorated dramatically under Putin, but a quest for positive publicity prior to the games. Unfortunately, the world has no shortage of prisoners of conscience.  We at USCIRF commend those members of Congress who have adopted prisoners, and urge others to join this campaign. George is chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). To interview a USCIRF Commissioner, please contact USCIRF at 202-786-0613 or media@uscirf.gov .  
Remarks by USCIRF Chair Katrina Lantos Swett, 2013 Annual Report, National Endowment for Democracy
August 24, 2020
May 7, 2013 USCIRF Chair Katrina Lantos Swett gave the following remarks at a conference, cosponsored by USCIRF and the National Endowment for Democracy on May 7, 2013 Introduction Thank you for that kind introduction. It truly is a pleasure to join you today at the National Endowment for Democracy as we discuss USCIRF's findings and recommendations in our 2013 Annual Report, which we released just last week. For most of us who currently serve as USCIRF commissioners, the reporting year actually was our first year on the Commission.   It also coincided with my time as USCIR Chair, which is about to end since it is a one-year position.   While I no longer will be USCIRF's Chair, I look forward to continuing as a USCIRF Commissioner.    The past year has been both a joy and a challenge, as my esteemed colleagues and I have labored together with our able staff in confronting the realities of a changing global landscape and its implications for freedom.  In recent years, our staff has had the pleasure of working with NED's World Movement of Democracy to help build vibrant, open, and law- abiding societies.   Today's event is further evidence of the blossoming relationship between our two organizations. And let me commend your organization for doing a splendid job supporting freedom for the past three decades.  During this time, we have all seen wondrous changes that have touched the lives of hundreds of millions of people.  When the Berlin Wall came down, when the Iron Curtain was rent, when the Soviet Union dissolved, we witnessed a historic triumph of freedom. But since that amazing time, the fight for liberty has become a bit more challenging.  This is especially the case regarding freedom of religion or belief. Indeed, most of the world's people live in countries where religious freedom is protected poorly -- if at all.  And as we see in our annual report, the state of religious freedom abroad has not improved over the past year, but remains problematic. Today, I'm going to talk about the findings in our report. I will also talk about the role of violent religious extremism in perpetrating and triggering much of the religious freedom abuses we see today. And I will discuss solutions - concrete recommendations on how our country can help others to counter extremism by expanding freedom.   Tier 1 and Tier 2 Countries As part of our report, we recommend that the State Department re-designate the following eight nations as "countries of particular concern” or CPCs, marking them as among the worst religious freedom violators:
  1. Burma
  2. China
  3. Eritrea
  4. Iran
  5. North Korea
  6. Saudi Arabia
  7. Sudan
  8. Uzbekistan 
We find that seven other states also meet the CPC threshold and should be designated:  
  1. Egypt
  2. Iraq
  3. Nigeria
  4. Pakistan
  5. Tajikistan
  6. Turkmenistan
  7. Vietnam
This year, we've placed eight countries on our Tier 2 List, which replaces our Watch List designation:
  1. Afghanistan
  2. Azerbaijan
  3. Cuba
  4. India
  5. Indonesia
  6. Kazakhstan
  7. Laos
  8. Russia 
We found that the abuses are serious enough to meet at least one of three criteria, but not all, of the "systematic, ongoing, and egregious” CPC benchmark language as specified by the IRFA Act of 1998.  These abuses are affecting billions of our fellow human beings. From Rohingya Muslims in Burma to Coptic Christians in Egypt; from Buddhists, Uighur Muslims, Protestant house church members and Falun Gong in China to Baha'is in Iran; from Ahmadis and Christians in Pakistan to Muslims in Muslim-majority nations like Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan and in non-Muslim nations like Russia, when the right of religious freedom is violated, real people suffer. And this suffering is occurring in far too many countries. In Burma, despite political reforms, sectarian violence and severe abuses against ethnic minority Christians and Muslims continue with impunity. In Egypt, despite some progress after Mubarak, the government has repeatedly failed to protect religious minorities, including Coptic Christians, from violence, while prosecuting and jailing people for "defamation” of religion.   In addition, Egypt's new constitution includes problematic provisions relating to religious freedom. In China, conditions continue to deteriorate, particularly for Tibetan Buddhists and Uighur Muslims.  To stem the growth of independent Catholic and Protestant groups, the government arrested leaders and shut churches down.  Members of Falun Gong, as well as those of other groups deemed "evil cults,” face long jail terms, forced renunciations of faith, and torture in detention.     In Nigeria, protection of religious freedom continued to falter, as the terrorist group Boko Haram attacked Christians, as well as fellow Muslims opposing them, and inflamed tensions between Christians and Muslims.  Nigeria's government has repeatedly failed to prosecute perpetrators of religiously-related violence that has killed more than 14,000 Nigerians, both Christian and Muslim, fostering a climate of impunity. In Pakistan, as historic elections approach, religious freedom abuses have risen dramatically due to chronic sectarian violence targeting Shi'i Muslims.  The government's continued failure to protect Christians, Ahmadis, and Hindus, along with its repressive blasphemy law and anti-Ahmadi laws, have fueled religious freedom abuses and vigilante violence. In Russia, conditions continue to worsen, as the government uses extremism laws against certain Muslim groups and so-called "non-traditional” religious communities, particularly Jehovah's Witnesses, through raids, detentions, and imprisonment. In addition, massive violations continue in Chechnya.  Outside of Russia, similar repression occurs across Central Asia as well. In Indonesia, extremist violence coupled by government arrests of individuals considered religiously deviant threatens its tradition of tolerance and pluralism. Spotlighting Other Countries and Themes Besides documenting abuses and formulating recommendations for Tier 1 and Tier 2 countries, our Annual Report also spotlights countries and regions in which current trends are worth monitoring - Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Ethiopia, Turkey, Venezuela and Western Europe. And this year's report also addresses several themes relating to religious freedom.   These themes range from legal retreat from religious freedom in post-communist countries to severe religious freedom violations by non-state actors. And let me add that recently, USCIRF released a separate report on religious freedom conditions in Syria, including how our government can help Christian and Alawite minorities, as well as members of the Sunni majority. Violent Religious Extremism and Governmental Failur Among the themes I've just cited, the role of non-state actors leads us to the phenomenon known as violent religious extremism, in which religion is hijacked to advance radical agendas by force. This extremism not only violates the rights of others, but contributes to the destabilizing of countries.   Since our USCIRF mandate includes encouraging Washington to hold other governments accountable for religious freedom abuses, the Commission looks at religious extremism from the lens of government actions or inactions. When it comes to such extremism, we focus on how governments either perpetrate or tolerate religious freedom abuses. Governments perpetrate these abuses in at least three ways.  First, some governments actually embody the extremism itself.   Both the Iranian and Sudanese governments, for example, are run by religious extremists who violently impose their worldview on others.  As for Iran, it remains a world-class religious-freedom violator.  As for Sudan, USCIRF deemed it the world's most violent religious-freedom abuser due to its conduct during the North-South civil war of 1983-2005 when it called for jihad against the south.  Since South Sudan became independent, conditions in Sudan have deteriorated, as its leaders continue to repress their people.  While Iran and Sudan repress freedom on behalf of extremism, other governments engage in repression in the name of opposing it.  Both China and Russia, for example, repress Muslims in the name of fighting extremism in Muslim communities. And finally, by their actions, other governments embolden extremists to commit abuses.   One example is Pakistan with its anti-Ahmadi and blasphemy laws which encourage extremists to commit violence against those they perceive as transgressing them.   These are examples of how governments can harm religious freedom in connection with their stance on extremism.   But it is also true that governments are responsible for extremist-driven violations through their toleration of them -- that is, by their failure to prevent violence or bring justice to the responsible parties.   Such failures create and perpetuate a climate of impunity.  Egypt's failure to protect Coptic Christians and Nigeria's failure to protect both Christians and Muslims from sectarian violence are two examples of this problem. Religious Freedom = Antidote to Religious Extremism Thus, through sins of commission and omission, governments are responsible for religious freedom abuses within their borders, including those driven by violent religious extremism.    Such abuses are harmful not only to human rights, but also to the stability of their societies and other countries.  Indeed, studies show how countries that honor religious freedom enjoy greater stability, harmony, and prosperity, while those whose governments perpetrate or tolerate violations create the conditions for failed societies. There are at least three reasons for this correlation.  First, governments that persecute or fail to protect people against religious persecution can drive them into extremist hands.  When our Commission visited Ethiopia last year, we saw disturbing signs of this danger.  Ethiopia's recent efforts to combat extremism by forcing its Muslim community to embrace a foreign form of Islam run the risk of producing exactly what it fears - the radicalization of individuals within that community. Second, as I noted with Pakistan, governments that enforce laws which violate religious freedom unwittingly encourage people to monitor others for signs of trespass and take violent actions against perceived transgressors.   And third, governments that restrict religious freedom in the name of fighting religious extremist groups end up strengthening these groups by weakening their more moderate but less resilient competition.   In Egypt, for example, President Mubarak's restrictions weakened the hand of pro-freedom movements, making it easier for the Salafists to emerge in the post-Mubarak era on a much stronger footing than their more democratic competition. Clearly, during times of severe governmental repression, extremists are driven by their fanaticism to cut corners and break rules in order to survive.   Unlike their more democratic opponents, their fanaticism drives them to believe that all things are permissible in service to their cause. U.S. Leadership Needed So when it comes to violent religious extremism, it is clear that religious freedom abuses not only offend human rights, but pose a grave threat to the security and stability of countries.   And unfortunately, this instability and violence often spills beyond national borders into neighboring countries, threatening entire regions.  As Americans living in a post-9/11 world, we of all people know what happens when violent religious extremism is exported globally as terrorism. This is why the U.S. government must prioritize religious freedom not just as a core human right, but a global security imperative, and a vital part of any counter-extremism strategy.  Our government must recognize the pivotal role of religion in countries that top our foreign policy agenda and how limitations on religious liberty can harm entire societies. Religious freedom has national security relevance.  Conditions favoring it can help counter extremism by undercutting the message of extremists and fostering religious diversity and minority rights.  As a fundamental right, religious freedom is a core component of a healthy society, as it encompasses other freedoms - including those of expression, association, and assembly.  To further the religious freedom agenda, our Commission recommends the following:
  • The Obama administration should issue a National Security Strategy on supporting religious freedom abroad, combining all U.S. government activities in a "whole-of- government” effort to confront this challenge. 
  • Congress should hold hearings and embrace legislation that prioritizes religious freedom and reflects its critical importance to national security and global stability.  
  • The State Department should prioritize this pivotal freedom by pressing countries to implement reforms that will confront extremism and protect liberty. 
  • And the State Department should also make CPC designations soon, before previously designated actions expire later this year. 
Naming countries as CPCs isn't the end of engagement, but rather the beginning of a high-level process to encourage governments to improve. When combined with the prospect of sanctions, the CPC designation can create political will where none existed, moving repressive governments to undertake needed changes.  Conclusion And so, as I conclude, let me stress to all of you that despite the bleak picture we see of religious freedom abroad, progress remains possible. If we as a country reaffirm our commitment to religious freedom by making it a permanent and integral part of our foreign policy, it can be a game-changer - both for us and for the world.   Change will not happen overnight, but if Washington supports a truly free and vibrant marketplace of ideas, including religious ideas, I believe that in spite of many obstacles, the desire for a better life on the part of hundreds of millions of our fellow human beings is going to prevail. I believe that if truly given the chance, a critical mass of humanity will say "no” to more repression, "no” to more extremism, and "yes” to more freedom. In accordance with our mandate, we who serve on the Commission will do our part.   It is our deepest hope that in the coming months and years, Washington will fully do its part on behalf of religious freedom. Thank you.
USCIRF Releases New Report about Religious Prisoners of Conscience in Vietnam
June 09, 2020
Jun 9, 2020 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   USCIRF Releases New Report about Religious Prisoners of Conscience in Vietnam Washington, DC – The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) today released the following new report about Vietnam: Vietnam Country Update - This report provides a country update on religious prisoners of conscience in Vietnam. The Vietnamese government has detained dozens of individuals because of their religious affiliation or their advocacy on behalf of religious freedom. This report provides updates on several religious prisoners of conscience, including Nguyen Bac Truyen and Pastor A Dao. In addition, it discusses the ways in which prison conditions in Vietnam violate international standards, including the denial of access to religious services as a form of retaliation. In its 2020 Annual Report, USCIRF called on the U.S. government to designate Vietnam as a “country of particular concern” under the International Religious Freedom Act. ### The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) is an independent, bipartisan federal government entity established by the U.S. Congress to monitor, analyze, and report on threats to religious freedom abroad. USCIRF makes foreign policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress intended to deter religious persecution and promote freedom of religion and belief. To interview a Commissioner, please contact USCIRF at media@uscirf.gov or Danielle Ashbahian at dashbahian@uscirf.gov.
Country Update: Vietnam
August 28, 2020
Read the full report here.  This report provides a country update on religious prisoners of conscience in Vietnam. The Vietnamese government has detained dozens of individuals because of their religious affiliation or their advocacy on behalf of religious freedom. This report provides updates on several religious prisoners of conscience, including Nguyen Bac Truyen and Pastor A Dao. In addition, it discusses the ways in which prison conditions in Vietnam violate international standards, including the denial of access to religious services as a form of retaliation.