[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
PRIORITIZING INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
AND HUMAN RIGHTS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 3, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-64
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-782 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
RON PAUL, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
CONNIE MACK, Florida GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas DENNIS CARDOZA, California
TED POE, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DAVID RIVERA, Florida FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
VACANT
Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Leonard Leo, chairman, U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom.............................................. 7
Mr. Thomas Farr, director, Religious Freedom Project, Berkley
Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, Georgetown
University..................................................... 41
Mr. Joseph Grieboski, founder and chairman of the board,
Institute on Religion and Public Policy........................ 50
Mr. Brian Grim, senior researcher and director of Cross-National
Data, Forum on Religion & Public Life, Pew Research Center..... 64
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Mr. Leonard Leo: Prepared statement.............................. 9
The Honorable Frank R. Wolf, a Representative in Congress from
the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement............... 36
Mr. Thomas Farr: Prepared statement.............................. 44
Mr. Joseph Grieboski: Prepared statement......................... 53
Mr. Brian Grim: Prepared statement............................... 67
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 86
Hearing minutes.................................................. 87
The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California: Prepared statement.................... 88
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith: Letter in support of H.R.
1856........................................................... 89
Written responses from Mr. Leonard Leo to questions submitted for
the record by the Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Missouri............................ 92
Written responses from Mr. Brian Grim to questions submitted for
the record by the Honorable Russ Carnahan...................... 94
PRIORITIZING INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
----------
FRIDAY, JUNE 3, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
and Human Rights
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in
room 334 Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Smith. The subcommittee will come to order.
And I want to welcome our distinguished witnesses and our
guests to this morning's hearing.
The subcommittee will be examining the role of
international religious freedom in the U.S. foreign policy,
particularly in light of the International Religious Freedom
Act and the amendments being proposed to that act, H.R. 1856,
the International Religious Freedom Act Amendments of 2011.
I had the privilege of chairing the committee hearings in
the 1990s that prepared the passage of the 1998 International
Religious Freedom Act. The act provided our administration with
the tools necessary to make international religious freedom an
integral component of the highest priority in U.S. foreign
policy. Contrary to assertions that singling out religious
freedom would somehow make it seem more important or separated
from other fundamental human rights--and I would note
parenthetically, the Clinton administration asserted that its
strong opposition to the act at the time was based on its
belief that the act would result in a ``hierarchy of human
rights.'' I remember Assistant Secretary of State for
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor John Shattuck appearing at
our hearings saying that it would establish a hierarchy of
human rights, to which I responded repeatedly and to all those
who made that argument, when we fought to ensure that Soviet
Jewry and Soviet Jews immigrated, the Jackson-Vanik Amendment
was value-added. It was not in lieu of any other legislation.
And in like manner the effort to combat apartheid. And I was
one of those on the Foreign Affairs Committee who supported
vigorous sanctions to combat apartheid against that infamous,
racist regime in South Africa. That too was in addition to not
in lieu of any other rights policy.
So those of us who championed the bill argued that it was
necessary to ensure that religious freedom was given its
rightful place. It had been largely displaced in successive
administrations and it was time to make religious freedom a
core component of U.S. foreign policy.
Unfortunately, the urgent call within IRFA to vigorously
monitor and defend religious freedom as part of U.S. foreign
policy has not been fully heeded. Religious freedom is
threatened around the world, and the situation is getting
demonstrably worse. Two years ago, the U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom recommended that eight
countries be designated as Countries of Particular Concern, or
CPC status. In the 2011 USCIRF annual report released in April
said that we are looking at 14 countries: Burma, the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea or North Korea, Egypt, Eritrea,
Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, the People's Republic of China,
Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.
The basic human rights of hundreds of millions of people
are being violated each and every day. Their own governments
are either direct perpetrators of religious freedom violations
or fail to prosecute violations by other citizens, creating a
climate of impunity.
Dr. Brian Grim, one of our witnesses this morning, has done
significant research in this area. In a study he conducted in
2009, he found that nearly 70 percent of the world's 6.8
billion people live in countries with high or very high
restrictions on religion. His study specifically cited Iran,
Pakistan, China and Egypt as among the most repressive of
religious expression. This is significant, not only because it
highlights the number of people denied the most fundamental of
human rights, but also because religious freedom is comprised
of a ``bundle of rights.'' Religious freedom implies freedom of
conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of association and
assembly, and even freedom of the press. Absent freedom of
religion, all these other rights are in jeopardy.
In fact, Dr. Grim's research shows that countries that
respect these rights reap a host of socio-economic benefits,
including better education, better health care, greater equity
of pay between men and women, and higher GDP, and these
benefits arguably lead to greater social stability. On the
other hand, countries without respect for religious freedom do
worse on these socio-economic indicators, have greater societal
tension, and are more prone to instability. The importance of
promoting all components of religious freedom, therefore,
cannot be overstated. Not only is it a moral imperative, but
religious freedom keeps extremism and tyranny at bay.
For these reasons, U.S. leadership on religious freedom is
desperately needed in many countries around the world, together
with a more vigorous, robust utilization of the means provided
in the IRF Act for promoting religious freedom and human
rights. For example, the administration urgently needs to
reassess its list of Countries of Particular Concern,
particularly Egypt. As a result of severe and systematic
religious freedom abuses against religious minorities,
particularly Coptic Christians before and after the removal of
President Mubarak, USCIRF is now recommending that Egypt be
designated as a Country of Particular Concern.
The Obama administration has yet to make any CPC
designations since coming to office. I strongly encourage the
administration to review carefully the recommendations made by
the Commission, call out those countries that are engaging in
``particularly severe violations of religious freedom,'' to
quote from the act and apply meaningful sanctions as authorized
under the International Religious Freedom Act.
The CPC designation is just one of many mechanisms in IRFA
that need to be pulled out of the closet and reinvigorated. We
will also look at how to strengthen the State Department's IRF
office, the Commission, the engagement of our diplomatic corps,
and the IRF Act itself.
I would just add--and I just would ask a member of my
staff, if you could just hold up a couple of posters--it seems
to me that when the administration does finally get around to
designating CPC--and again I listed the countries that we
believe, or I believe, should be added, they should look at
what has happened in Vietnam--Vietnam has deteriorated so
quickly after the Bilateral Trade Agreement, after the
situation of ascension into the World Trade Organization and
MFN, obviously, by the United States--Father Ly and so many of
those brave men and women in Vietnam who have spoken out for
religious freedom have either been rearrested, tortured or
under house arrest once again.
Charter 8, Bloc 8406, which was the equivalent of many of
those charters that we saw in Eastern Europe, including Charter
77 led by Vaclav Havel, has become a list of individuals that
now the Government of Vietnam is hunting down and putting into
prison and meting out very severe tortures to those
individuals.
That is a picture over there of Vietnam today--of Father Ly
at his sentencing. And he, just like so many others, the
venerable Thich Quang Do and many others, have suffered and we
have been silent.
If you look at this picture here, that was in the early
1990s on a trip that I took, one of many, to the People's
Republic of China. Bishop Su, a Roman Catholic Bishop of
Baoding Province, had spent years in prison prior to being re-
arrested in 1997 and now has not been heard from since. When
you ask the Chinese Government, ``Where is Bishop Su?'' they
say, ``We do not know.'' What an unmitigated lie and nonsense.
He may have been killed. He has been recognized at least on one
occasion in a hospital with his face all puffed out, presumably
having been beaten once again. Here is a man that when I met
with him in our small delegation he had no malice whatsoever
for the Chinese Government and told me and the others in that
picture that he prayed for those who tortured him and hoped for
a day when China would be free.
And finally, Gao. Gao is a man who is a human rights
defender, a lawyer who has spoken up on behalf of the
persecuted church and especially on behalf of the Falun Gong in
the People's Republic of China. He's been missing almost 900
days. Again, he had been tortured without mercy, cattle prods
put on his genitals, inside his mouth, under his arms and
throughout his body. Here is a human rights defender that we
need to speak out for. He has made religious freedom one of his
most important issues. He now languishes in prison, probably
being tortured as we meet here today.
He is one of three individuals that I and others asked be
named as Nobel Peace Prize recipients. Liu Xiaobo was one of
those three. He was recognized. Of course, people like Vaclav
Havel also had nominated him. But Gao remains unknown. We
believe he is incarcerated and being subjected to hideous
tortures as we meet here at this hearing.
I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague Mr.
Payne, ranking member of our subcommittee.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. And I thank the chairman
for calling this very important hearing and our panelists of
esteemed witnesses for joining us here today.
As we know, religious freedom is a serious concern
globally. According to a study by the Pew Research Center
nearly 70 percent of the world's population live in countries
with high or very high restrictions on religious practice. This
is particularly troubling, as many experts assert that the
absence of religious freedom is highly correlated with
unsustainable democracies, low economic growth, low female
literacy rates and religious extremism.
I look forward to hearing from our esteemed witnesses today
about the global trends in religious freedom, as well as
successful policy interventions and recommendations for further
action. Unfortunately, restrictions on religious practice are
pervasive. Some are driven by authoritarian regimes such as
China whose progression opposition to Falun Gong, just to name
one of the many oppressed groups, is well documented. For 12
years now thousands of practitioners of peaceful spiritual
movements have been harshly persecuted by their governments
with tens of thousands more were sentenced to forced labor
camps. The Chinese Uyghur minority also suffered harsh
repression of the religious practice.
The Chinese Government restricts public access to mosques,
the training and role of imams, the celebration of Ramadan and
participation in hajj, the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca.
Religious oppression also reared its ugly head in the recent
Arab Spring Movement. In Bahrain, one of the Sunni Muslim
regime's responses to peaceful protestors who were mostly
Shiites seeking more political rights was to bulldoze nearly 30
ancient mosques, a breathtaking assault on a protestor's right
to free practice and freely practice their religion. Such
religious oppression is perilous as it only escalates and
promotes dangerous social discord.
Unfortunately, a Pew study reported that worldwide the
Middle East and North Africa region has the most severe and
highest rate of government and social restrictions on religion.
We should remain vigilant about combating religious
discrimination in the West. Efforts in some European countries,
mainly France, to effectively ban Muslim women from wearing
head scarfs or veils as well as the Swiss ban on the
constructions of minarets and on mosques remind us that these
restrictions on religious freedom can be imposed by our
democratic allies in Western Europe. We do not have to look far
into the recent history to see the dangerous consequences of
such lack of pluralistic tolerance with today's appearance of
Ratko Mladic in front of the International Criminal Tribunal
Yugoslavia for the genocide against Bosnian Muslims in
Srebrenica among other crimes against humanity reminds the
world that once again of the tragic consequences of sectarian
and national violence.
In Sudan, Khartoum's attempts to severely restrict
religious freedom and helped fuel the country's decade long
civil war between the North and South. To date, Sudan still
remains a Country of Particular Concern for severe violations
of religious freedom and religion, continues to undergird
political alliances.
Elsewhere in Africa, Eritrea also remains a Country of
Particular Concern because of the government's poor record on
subjecting religious prisoners to harsh conditions, exercising
control over officially registered groups and harassing members
of unregistered groups.
In other countries the lack of religious freedom is driven
by social hostilities rather than official government policies.
Yet as governments tolerate such social intolerances, they in
effect condone it. In Nigeria, for example, as many as 13,000
Nigerians died due to sectarian violence in the last 12 years.
The government's failure to forcefully react to such ongoing
egregious violations of religious freedom and their failure to
work to prevent and contain religious motivated violence is
extremely concerning.
In Egypt we see social hostility increasing against the
local Coptic Christians. Such disturbing trends require
vigilance and swift response.
Mr. Grim, I look forward to your testimony on religious
freedom trends globally, especially in Africa.
The United States is unique in that it defines religious
freedom as not only an American value, but a core objective of
American foreign policy. Our exceptional global leadership is
enshrined in the International Religious Freedom Act which is
designed to promote religious freedom and fight persecution.
With the act, the Congress created the International Religious
Freedom office at the State Department charged with
highlighting the status of freedom of religion globally as well
as a related ambassador-at-large position to recommend
appropriate diplomatic actions.
Ambassador Suzan Johnson Cook was sworn in by the Secretary
just yesterday. Her priority countries she intends to visit in
2011 include includes Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, China,
Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and others. The Department is
implementing tool kits that identify appropriate and achievable
strategies for Countries of Particular Concern and other key
countries to raise religious freedom issues with their
diplomatic counterparts and other influences. Such individuals'
high profile efforts are unique and effective. Thus, at the
first U.S.-China Human Rights dialogue under the Obama
administration religious freedom was one of the three main
agenda items resulting in the Chinese agreeing to participate
in a working group on religion.
The IRF office has also significantly expanded its
engagement with inter-religious networks to advance religious
freedom, foster respect, and decrease sectarian violence. The
office played a significant role in participation in the U.S.
sponsored Interfaith Collaboration Conference in Indonesia in
Bangladesh, the Vatican and Geneva. The conference in Indonesia
led to the establishment of that nation's first inter-religious
council, a body that is actively promoting harmony between
faith communities.
In addition, the IRF Office and the State Department,
Congress created the independent U.S. Commission for
International Religious Freedom. Thanks to this institution or
infrastructure we were able to intervene in countries that
grievously violated religious freedoms.
In Eritrea, for example, where we observed systematic
ongoing and egregious violations of religious freedom, the Bush
administration reacted by imposing sanctions on all defense
articles and service with few exceptions for the purpose of
national security which the current administration continues to
uphold.
In Nigeria, USAID established the 5-year $4.5 million
program to provide conflict mitigation assistance in northern
and middle belt states that has the recognition of sectarian
tension.
In Afghanistan the State Department's use of quiet
diplomacy contributed to the release of two Afghan converts
from Islam who had been charged with apostasy.
These are just a few examples of our efforts to advance
religious pluralism and tolerance. More needs to be done and
more tools to promote inclusive societies need to be explored.
For example, we should explore ways to facilitate education
exchange between people of different backgrounds and religions
as an instrument for combating religious repression.
Mr. Leo, Mr. Farr, Mr. Grieboski thank you again for your
being here today, and I look forward to your testimonies about
the countries and regions that require continued vigilance, as
well as best practices and policy recommendations that we can
get for you. And actually, Chairman Berman intended to be here,
was unable to come, and Mr. Chairman, he has an opening
statement that he would like admitted to the record.
Mr. Smith. Without objection so ordered. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Payne.
I would like to now welcome to the witness table our first
witness, Mr. Leonard Leo, who is the chair of the U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom and has served on
the Commission since 2007.
The Commission was created, as we all know, by the
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 and has the
legislative mandate to review the facts and circumstances of
religious freedom violations presented in the administration's
Human Rights and International Religious Freedom reports and to
make policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of
State, and the Congress with respect to international religious
freedom matters.
Mr. Leo has served as Executive Vice President of the
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies and
participated actively in a number of international forums, and
played a major role at the United Nations, most recently on the
defamations resolution, which actually had a very positive
outcome. He worked very closely with Congress and especially
with the administration to ensure that the defamation
resolution did not move forward. And at the end of the day, it
was Pakistan that tabled a resolution that comported much more
closely with the U.S. and what has been the universal
recognition of religious freedom as an individual right of
conscience to practice as one sees fit.
So, I want to thank Mr. Leo for his leadership on that, and
so many other issues related to religious freedom.
STATEMENT OF MR. LEONARD LEO, CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMISSION ON
INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Mr. Leo. Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Payne, I am
grateful for the opportunity to testify today about the role of
the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom or
USCIRF, the world's first and only Commission of its kind in
strengthening the promotion of freedom of religion or belief in
U.S. foreign policy.
And I am joined here today by one of my fellow
Commissioners Mr. Ted Van Der Meid.
I would request that my full written statement be placed in
the record.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Leo. Let me stress the importance of Congress acting
promptly on H.R. 1856, the International Religious Act
Amendments of 2011 introduced by Representative Frank Wolf as a
means of strengthening U.S. religious freedom promotion by
reauthorizing USCIRF. Through reauthorization our Commission
will remain an independent bipartisan Federal agency that
monitors international religious freedom conditions and
provides recommendations to the President, the Secretary of
State, and Members of Congress.
The importance of this work cannot be overstated. Religious
freedom is humanity's first freedom, but religious freedom is
also critical to our foreign policy and national security,
especially in a post-9/11 world. Countries that protect
religious freedom are more peaceful, prosperous, democratic and
stable. Nations that do not protect this freedom provide
fertile ground for poverty and insecurity, war and terror and
violate radical movements and activities.
Unfortunately around the world, attacks on religious
freedom occur with alarming frequency. This is why Congress
passed the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 or IRFA
which mandated the creation of USCIRF. USCIRF gathers key
information at home and overseas. We issue annual reports to
Congress. We advise and work closely with Members of Congress
and with White House and State Department officials. We
participate in multilateral meetings. We get out our message
through the media and consult with civil society and religious
groups. We leverage the strengths and the access we have at
minimal cost to the taxpayer.
Each year USCIRF recommends that the Secretary of State
designate as Countries of Particular Concern or CPCs those
nations that commit severe religious freedom violations. For
2011 USCIRF has recommended 14 countries to be so designated:
Burma, China, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, North Korea,
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and
Vietnam. This administration's State Department has yet to make
any designations, although we are told that they are imminent.
USCIRF also recommends that certain countries be closely
monitored. For 2011 we included in our Watch List: Afghanistan,
Belarus, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Laos, Russia, Somalia,
Tajikastan, Turkey, and Venezuela.
USCIRF has had important successes in focusing U. S.
Government attention on religious freedom issues. For example,
in Sudan in order to avert another religiously related war,
USCIRF called for direct U.S. engagement toward implementing
the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and was instrumental in
strengthening ties between South Sudan's government and
religious groups essential for facilitating voter education and
turnout for the independence referendum.
In Saudi Arabia, we have raised concerns about the
production of extremist literature and its exportation. Due to
our raising concerns before and during our winter visit, six
young Shi'a Muslims were released in February.
In Nigeria, after USCIRF visited the country following
escalating violence between Christians and Muslims and raised
the issue of impunity with high level government levels, the
government brought prosecutions for the first time in a decade
against violent perpetrators.
In Iran, in response to severe religious freedom
violations, USCIRF worked with Congress to produce the first
ever sanctions against Iran for human rights violations.
President Obama sanctioned, among others, seven Iranian
officials that USCIRF had recommended.
And at the U.N., USCIRF was a catalyst with the current
administration and Congress leading to a historic breakthrough
in March when the defamation of religions resolution favoring a
global blasphemy standard was not introduced in the Human
Rights Council of the U.N.
These are important religious freedom achievements, but
there is so much more to do. Our Government should pressure
countries to abolish laws that oppress religious minorities.
Our Government needs to expect that countries will stop the
exportation of extremist ideology and we need to partner with
them in finding solutions. And our Government needs to demand
that countries bring to justice the perpetrators of religiously
related violence and where capacity is lacking, we need to find
ways to help.
These are objectives that advance the worth and dignity of
all people, and importantly bolster our own nation's stability
and security in today's interconnected world.
It is our Commission's hope and goal that religious freedom
will become more fully integrated into U.S. foreign policy for
both humanitarian and national security reasons. By ensuring
that we are reauthorized before our sunset date on September
30th, USCIRF will be able to continue to facilitate achievement
of the same and will be able to build on our valuable
relationships with you who serve in Congress toward that end.
And, Mr. Chairman, if I might make one other comment. I
gather last night the Lautenberg Amendment had expired. The
Commission has over the years been very supportive of this
amendment because it has, as you know, provided a valve for
religious minorities and others who are persecuted in Iran to
be able to leave that country. And so as you work through a
number of these different issues related to religious freedom,
we would hope that the Lautenberg Amendment will be reenacted.
And thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Leo follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much for your testimony, and
having read your full statement, it is very comprehensive and
provides us with very, very useful insights as to how to
proceed.
Let me ask you first if the International Religious Freedom
Act is not reauthorized--because we all know that a lot of good
bills in the House or Senate, often in the Senate, you know
through inaction or through when they hotline it something
happens along the way, somebody just refuses to allow it floor
time--what would be the consequences if the act were not
reauthorized?
Mr. Leo. Well, I think there are both domestic and
international consequences.
Domestically, USCIRF has been a very important resource for
Congress and for administrations in terms of making
recommendations about how to bolster our U.S. foreign policy
and our national security agenda in ways that promote freedom
of religion abroad. And so I think we would lose an important
resource there.
I also think that Congress' failure to reauthorize USCIRF
sends a signal to both the executive branch and to,
unfortunately, the civil society world that religious freedom
is not as important to our Government as it used to be. And
that, of course, then in turn sends an even more unfortunate
signal to the rest of the international community.
You know, right now we have a commission and an
infrastructure that is unique in the world, one that has I
think in a number of instances been able to have a lot of
leverage over foreign governments, that is both USCIRF and our
Ambassador-at-Large. And in the absence of that infrastructure
certainly if it were just allowed to die on the vine, I think
many countries would view that as a signal that we were no
longer focused on this issue and that they are allowed to
engaged in the kinds of abuses we have seen with impunity.
Mr. Smith. I referenced in my opening comments the extreme
hostility, and it was hostility, toward the legislation by a
previous administration, by the Clinton administration,
although Bill Clinton did sign it. And, you know, we were
always very grateful for that fact. But sometimes you can sign
a bill and then refuse to implement it in a robust way.
And Tom Farr who ran the office for 4 years points out that
no administration can claim we will have advanced religious
freedom in a substantial way. Religious freedom has always been
orphaned within the State Department.
Mr. Wolf and I have traveled all over the world on
religious freedom issues, and time and again we find it is an
asterisk to human rights in general or page 4 down at the
bottom on talking points and religious freedom demoted even
further. And usually the Foreign Service officer tasked with
religious freedom issues is someone very, very low on the totem
poll and the Ambassador, the DCM and others see it as an
irritant. And that has been 31 years of my experience
traveling. Even during the worst days of Soviet repression of
Jews, my first trip to the Soviet Union was with the National
Conference of Soviet Jewry in January 1982. And at the same
time, the Siberian 7 Pentecostals had made their way into our
Embassy seeking protection from the cruelty that was meted out
against them. And many people in that Embassy were profoundly
unhappy to have them at the Embassy because it complicated our
diplomatic relations with Moscow.
And I was sickened by it, frankly. And we have seen it time
again, Mr. Wolf and I, who has now joined us, the author of the
International Religious Freedom Act. There are some FSOs,
Foreign Service officers who care deeply, but there are many
who see this, including ambassadors, as an irritant.
And you might want to comment on the culture. One of the
provisions of IRFA was to train Foreign Service officers so
that they would be not just sensitive to, but would embrace,
the cause of religious freedom. Has that happened?
Mr. Leo. Well as you rightly point out, Mr. Chairman,
religious freedom has always been a very difficult issue to get
to the forefront of our foreign policy and national security
agenda. This has been the case in every Presidential
administration. The challenge always in public diplomacy is to
take that whole basket of issues; trade, security, human
rights, religious freedom in particular, and to find a way to
engage countries on all of them. What I think we have to do is
we have to educate diplomats and Foreign Service officers that
freedom of religion or belief is an essential part of ensuring
that countries in our world more generally are stable,
prosperous and secure.
We know from events in recent history that there is a
tremendous interrelationship between the extent to which
freedom of religion is protected and prosperity and stability.
You are quite right that education to some extent is not
where it needs to be right now. There is a course that will be
instituted soon, in fact I think it may have even started this
week, for Foreign Service officers, but it is not yet part of
the core curriculum, and that needs to happen.
Also I think that within the State Department it is very
important for the Ambassador-at-Large to have the kind of
direct access that she needs to the President and to the
Secretary of State. And I had the privilege of seeing our new
Ambassador-at-Large Suzan Johnson Cook yesterday. She is a
captivating, intensely committed woman who understands the
importance of human rights. And it is my hope that she will be
given the kind of resources and access that she needs to help
to put this issue in front of the bureaus in the State
Department, the National Security Council, at the White House
and others.
Mr. Smith. Let me ask if you could comment on the rising
tide of persecution against Christians, particularly in places
like China. You know it was not lost on Beijing that it was
people of faith, largely, whether it be in Romania, whether it
be what empowered Lech Walesa to lead his fight and
Solidarity's fight in Poland, and my experience backs that up
that it was often people of faith in each of the countries that
led to the demise of the Soviet Empire. The lesson learned by
Beijing is that you need to crush faith-based people. And
Christians, which after the United States, it is estimated that
China has more Christians then any other country in the world,
most of them living underground and attending underground
churches.
Pope Benedict XVI made the point in a statement that AP
carried on December 16th that at present Christians are the
religious group that suffers most from persecution on account
of faith. The Pontiff asserted this and cited Christian
communities suffering from violence and intolerance,
particularly in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and the Holy
Land. And, of course, Asia, China and North Korea being among
the worst violators on the face of the earth. And your thoughts
on that and on the Pope's statement?
Mr. Leo. We have seen three disturbing trends regarding the
plight of Christians around the world. One would be outright
persecution. So for example, the application of laws like
blasphemy or apostasy laws that can result in torture,
execution, imprisonment or laws that are invoked to confiscate
property, to desecrate property of religious communities around
the world.
Secondly, we have seen a significant uptick in impunity.
Basically the kind of violence, Mr. Payne, that you mentioned
that occurs in various parts of Africa where essentially there
are individuals who strike out against Christian communities
and they are never brought to justice by the governments. We
have seen an uptick of this, and that is part of the reason why
the Holy Father, as well as actually President Obama at the
very end of last year, talked about this issue in connection
with the Coptic Christians in Egypt and also mentioned Nigeria.
And then the third kind of trend we have seen is an
increase in controls on the hierarchies or institutional
infrastructure of Christian churches. So, you will see for
example countries like China trying to control the priests who
may be ordained or the ministers who may take over a particular
church. You may see controls on the institution of seminaries,
or outright bans on seminaries in some cases to dwindle down
the number of religious who are able to minister to their
communities.
So, those are the three areas where we have seen an uptick
in various kinds of prohibitions, suppression, and persecution
against Christians.
And by the way, for what it is worth, many of these
oppressive governments are equal opportunity persecutors. So
you will see in a lot of these countries persecution against
lots of other religious minorities. As you know, in Asia for
example the Buddhists and others are equally persecuted. There
are many Muslim communities around the world that are facing
the brunt of discrimination and oppression by governments, too.
So there has been an uptick, certainly for Christians and there
has been a lot of focus on that because of what has been going
on. And then also quite a number of other religious minorities
around the world.
Mr. Smith. At the appropriate time we will have the
administration here, and there will be a second hearing, we
will ask the administration why they have not, since the Obama
administration has been in office, designated countries either
on the CPC list or not. I mean, we are well into this
administration. It seems to be a glaring omission that has been
made by them. What is your thought?
Mr. Leo. Well, we have called for CPC designations by this
administration as well as the previous administration when it
was not moving fast enough. And we very much hope that those
designations are imminent.
You know, there are a couple of problems here. It is not
simply the fact that there are not designations. It is what
happens after a country is designated, what do we do about it?
You know, there are sanctions that are available. There are
various kinds of things that our country could be doing once a
country is designated, engage them. But what historically has
happened is that sanctions are generally not applied. Only one
country, and I think, Mr. Payne, you mentioned it, Eritera.
Eritera is the only country that has sanctions specifically
directed against it under IRFA. All the other countries that
have sanctions, they have double hatted them under other
statutes. And in addition to that, you know quite often these
countries may receive waivers. So, for example, Saudia Arabia
has an indefinite waiver.
So it is not just the designations but it is also what
happens after: What can we do to get officials within our
executive branch to think seriously about how to leverage that
designation through sanctions or bilateral negotiations, or
other forms of pressure?
Mr. Smith. I would agree with you on sanctions. If it goes
unused, it becomes impotent. And there was actually a delay, as
you know, in the bill--with the 18 sanctions prescribed in the
bill--so that there could be an opportunity for the country to
make whole and take some remedial action. But if you do not
drop the sanction after you designate the country a CPC, it
becomes, not a useless, but a very much diminished threat. So,
I think your point is well taken.
Let me just finally ask you about what you say is arguably
the most glaring omission to the State Department CPC list--
Pakistan. And all of us, obviously, mourned the assassination
of Minister Bhatti when he was brutally slain, a man who had
called for an end, certainly a mitigation, of the blasphemy
laws in Pakistan. Do you think that is likely to happen within
the State Department?
And secondly, if I could, he was sitting where you are
sitting, on two occasions, I chaired hearings on anti-Semitism
when we had Natan Sharansky testify. And he made a very
compelling argument that the rising tide of anti-Semitism is
being spread through mass media, through soap operas. He
actually brought a soap opera that he showed us here of blood
libel. He said this is what many in the Arab community,
especially the young, feed on and think is true.
In it he showed this young boy, Christopher, which is shown
on Arab TV broadcasts on satellite television throughout Europe
and the United States, being killed, his throat slit in order
to put his blood into matzah. And he said we think it is a
horror movie, they think it is real. And if you inculcate that
into the youth, it only leads to more anti-Semitism.
He also, as he did at the OSCE Conference on anti-Semitism
in Berlin, talked about the three ``D's'' that are very veiled
excuses for anti-Semitism: Demonization, delegitimization, and
denial of Israel's right to exist. That when anyone of those
three are present you can be very sure it is really at its core
anti-Semitism.
I know we have a separate office, because I actually
authored the legislation to create it, but do you believe that
IRFA has been effective in combating anti-Semitism? And I would
just add to that, there was a hearing on the Senate side about
Muslim and acts against Muslims here in the United States. The
FBI chronicles hate crimes. Christians? It is under 9 percent
in the United States. Muslims? It is under 9 percent within the
United States in terms of hate crimes based on religion. For
Jews, it is 75 percent, even though the Jewish population makes
up less then 2 percent of the U.S. population, about 5-6
million people. Totally disproportionate, and yet there are
some people somehow in the United States that think that there
is an equivalency.
The Jews, there is a rising tide of anti-Semitism even
here. I know it is State Department, but obviously it has
cross-over effects into what we do abroad and what we should
also be teaching and promoting here. What are your thoughts on
that, as well as Minister Bhatti?
Mr. Leo. Well, first on Pakistan. We, the Commission, had a
very close relationship with Minister Bhatti and we were
shattered when we heard of his assassination. He was probably
the brightest light for human rights and religious freedom that
Pakistan had at that time. And his assassination was a
tremendous blow to progress in that country. So that is a very
serious matter and one that we really are grieving over.
We do want to see Pakistan as a Country of Particular
Concern. We do not believe that keeping them off the CPC list
is a way to see progress in that country. It has not worked and
it will not work in the future.
This is a country that has one of the most oppressive and
misused blasphemy laws in the world. It has been a major
proponent of the worldwide blasphemy standard. And it is a
country that has been known for exporting extremist ideology
throughout North and sub-Saharan Africa.
When you visit Nigeria and you talk to security officials
in Nigeria. When you visit Kano and Kaduna in the North, you
will find materials--you will find materials that have been
exported from madrassahs in Pakistan that are hateful and
inciteful in the way they treat religious minorities or
Christians in that country.
And so the situation in Pakistan is very serious. Impunity
is rampant. They are exporting extremism in ways that is very
troubling for our national security and human rights regime
internationally. And they should be deemed a CPC and we should
begin to pressure them in whatever way possible to begin to
rollback some of the oppressive laws they have, which in turn I
think would gradually change that culture.
With regard to anti-Semitism, of course this is a multi-
jurisdictional issue, but you know there has been some
attention to anti-Semitism under IRFA. You know, two countries
come to mind: Russia and Venezuela.
We have noticed an increasing trend in Russia over the
years, less attention to dealing with hate crimes related to
anti-Semitism. And one of the reasons that we continue to keep
Venezuela on our watch list is because they have not brought to
justice individuals in their country who have vandalized
synagogues and other important places that are gathering points
for the Jewish community in Venezuela.
So we have tried to put a spotlight on those issues. I
think IRFA can be an effective mechanism for doing that. What
does have to happen, though, is that our Commission and the IRF
Office needs to work with the special ambassador that is
appointed for those issues so that there can be some
coordination and collaboration. And we did meet with her
earlier, I guess late last year, and we hope to continue to
work with that office and find points of leverage that we can
begin to use to combat anti-Semitism.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much for your testimony and for
the outstanding work that you do.
Just sort of a general question and then your opinion. Do
you think that religious tolerance worldwide is improving or do
you think that there is sort of a continued erosion? Just, I
mean the world is big so I know it is not a simple answer, but
just generally speaking.
Mr. Leo. My own view is that it is eroding. And I think the
fact that our Commission has, as I think the chairman pointed
out, gone from eight CPC recommended countries 2 years ago to
14 today is somewhat testament to that.
We have seen an awful lot of instability and erosion in
North and sub-Saharan Africa. We are very concerned as a
Commission about the situation in Nigeria and in Eritera. We
are deeply concerned about what may happen in Sudan. We are
very troubled by the violence taking place in Abyei. As you
well know, the inability to complete the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement and really have a peaceful transition to independence
could well result in another very bloody religiously-related
war in that part of the world.
We have seen an uptick in religious oppression and violence
through the Middle East.
China ebbs and flows, but things seem to be on an uptick
there as well as in Vietnam.
The Muslim communities in Central Asia, particularly
Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and to some extent Turkmenistan seem to
be under continued siege.
The Indonesians, they are on our watch list. They have a
mixed record but the fact of the matter is that they continue
to refuse to recognize that their blasphemy laws and other
forms of discrimination against the Ahmadiyah and other
religious minorities are causing acts of impunity to take place
there.
So there is a real uptick in religious tensions and
violence. And, Mr. Payne, it is happening in countries where it
historically has not happened before.
On the way back from Sudan last time we stopped in Ethiopia
because, as you may remember, there were around 37 or so
Protestant house churches that were torched. And when we were
there we talked to some of the human rights officers and we
were struck by the fact that this was new to them. This had not
happened in recent history or memory in Ethiopia.
We are seeing those incidents elsewhere around the world.
Syria, which has been a very important safe harbor for
Christians throughout the Middle East is now, of course,
because of its instability a place where we have to be watching
very closely.
Uzbekistan, there are something like 4,000 or 5,000
prisoners, many of them Muslims who are detained there simply
for practicing their faith peaceably. And there seems to be no
sign of reducing the size of that prison population through
releases.
So the situation is not good. And, of course, the economic
crises that the world's facing makes it even harder, right?
Because everyone is focused on trade and commerce and the
economy and not focused as much as they ought to be on human
rights, even though as you have all said those two issues are
inexpiably intertwined and you are not going to solve the one
without dealing with the other.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
I also agree that in my opinion, too, there is an uptick
particularly in Africa. There is up until the recent maybe past
decade or so religion was really not a dividing force. And a
family would have Christians, Muslims and it was just the way
that the countries were. But as you have noted in Nigeria, for
example, there is heightened tension, killings that go on.
And in Eritrea, I visited there and you know with the
President specifically on this whole question several years ago
and said that they do not have religious persecution. It was
interesting that I met with a number of religious groups and
they, of course, were saying that they did not feel any
religious persecution. Of course, I am not so sure that they
were speaking the whole truth. However, it was interesting that
there were a number of long term existing religions that they
would sort of leave alone to some degree, even a Jewish temple
actually in Eritrea.
I met with maybe six or seven different religious groups,
each just with that group. Because I really wanted to try to
get to the bottom of what was going on. We did find that they
totally excluded any new groups coming in. That was the
argument that we do not want new groups that disrupt the
family, that puts children against elders. And the ones that
were there were okay, said the President. They were restricting
those that wanted to come into the country.
And so it was interesting to be able to go to these houses
of worship and these people were talking freely about their
religious freedom. Of course, I know that when maybe someone
from the government happens to be in the group, they are not
going to necessarily tell the full truth. But I just, to once
again say, that I think that the situation that in the past was
really not a big issue in Africa in general now is certainly
raising its ugly head and is really becoming a very divisive
issue.
Mr. Leo. Mr. Payne, we would be very interested in working
with you and others further on Eritrea. As you rightly point
out, there are the older established religions there, orthodox
Christians, Jews, some Catholics who do get treated better than
some of the other minority faiths. And a lot of what happens in
Eritrea around repression of people of faith often has
political overtones to it: Concerns about political authority
and security in the country and so forth. So it is one of the
more complicated places where religion ends up bleeding into
other issues that shape the political dynamic.
We are very interested in trying to find some solutions in
Eritrea and we have been grasping about trying to identify
those. There may be opportunities there because I think that
this new administration, in handling the sort of relations
between Ethiopia and Eritrea, we may find a way of also opening
doors in Eritrea and having more fruitful human rights
discussions.
So, if you or your colleagues have ideas for how we can
perhaps create some points of leverage there, we would be very
interested.
Mr. Payne. That is great. I believe, too, there is an
opportunity at this time. The question of Badme has sort of
been downplayed. I visited there, actually, from the Ethiopian
side and then went to Eritrea and was chastised by the
President of why did you go through Ethiopia. Since it was
easier to get there, that is all. But we have had some ability
to have dialogue with the President there. Of course, it is
very difficult as you know to deal with the other countries
around, Djibouti and problems with of course Ethiopia. But I do
think that that we may give it one last shot, and I would be
very happy to work directly specifically on this issue with you
on the religious situation.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Payne.
Regrettably, there is a vote on the floor. If Mr.
Fortenberry returns, because he went over to vote first, he
will reconvene the hearing and ask his questions of Mr. Leo.
And then Mr. Wolf will be next after that.
We stand in temporary recess.
(Whereupon, at 10:29 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to
reconvene at 10:36 a.m., the same day.)
Mr. Fortenberry. The hearing will now reconvene.
Thank you, Mr. Leo, for your presence here, and I am sorry
for the disruption. I know you have been up here before, but it
is a way of life. It is particularly a difficult day in that
the House is seeking to adjourn while also considering several
resolutions relating to the ongoing conflict Libya. So you may
have members in and out. But we really thank you for your
presence.
And in his absence, I would like to thank Chairman Smith as
well for elevating this important issue of religious freedom as
a foreign policy priority for the United States. I was honored
to join him and Congressman Wolf as a co-sponsor of the
International Religious Freedom Act of 2011. And I want to
commend both of those gentlemen for their leadership to ensure
that this first freedom, the freedom of religious discretion,
will continue to have a prominent seat at the table in U.S.
diplomatic engagement.
Again, thank you for your leadership on the Commission as
well, Mr. Leo. I believe you have done extraordinary work since
the establishment in 1998. It is a small but flexible
organization that I think has played an indispensable role in
informing our oversight efforts with critical firsthand
knowledge of human rights abuses throughout the world and
recommendations for U.S. policymakers.
After I finish some of these opening comments, that is what
I will ask you, further recommendations for policymakers.
This year we have witnessed a staggering movement for self-
determination throughout the world, particularly in the Middle
East with serious implications for the future of that region.
Religious freedom is a most fundamental element of self-
determination. The acid test of this movement's success I think
will be to the extent to which emerging or evolving
institutions of government respect the human dignity and
inherent rights of all persons subject to their jurisdiction
and foster the rule of law in an impartial and just manner.
Tragically, we have also witnessed the worst manifestations
of ruthlessness and violent attacks, for instance on indigenous
Egyptian faith communities. And as you were mentioning earlier,
the callous murders of Minister Bhatti and Governor Taseer in
Pakistan who courageously upheld that nation's founding vision
in seeking to protect vulnerable individuals in persecuted
faith communities.
As a side note, I had requested a private meeting just last
spring with Minister Bhatti and had an extensive conversation
about the blasphemy laws and his attempt not only to protect
Christian minority communities, but other faith minority
communities in that country.
These and other pervasive incidents of religiously
motivated violence and persecution, wherever they occur, and
the environment of impunity that so often accompanies them call
for a sustained and consistent response from the United States
through numerous venues, and I would also consider trade
negotiations one of those venues, in which we engage the
broader world.
While there is much work to do we have set a higher bar,
thanks to your efforts, the Commission's efforts and I think
made some significant steps forward.
Again, I look forward to learning more about your work, but
let us move quickly to that question about potential
recommendations that the Commission may have to strengthen this
element of fundamental justice for all people.
Mr. Leo. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Fortenberry, both
for your attention on these issues and also your leadership. It
is so very much needed in today's world and we are very
grateful for it. And we have enjoyed working with you and your
staff, and we look forward to that in the future.
With regard to your question about further recommendations
for how we can improve conditions for religious freedom, first
I think we have to bolster attention to the issue here at home.
There are lots of different ways to do that, but I will mention
three.
First, as I mentioned before, the Ambassador-at-Large needs
to have very direct access to the Secretary of State and to the
Executive Office of the President, the President in particular,
to put these issues into play as the State Department apparatus
and the White House apparatus engages in its various bilateral
and multilateral negotiations.
Secondly, while there is some training in religious freedom
for Foreign Service officers there needs to be more, and it
needs to be part of the core curriculum. There was a course
that I think has begun this week, but again more courses are
needed and it does need to be part of the core curriculum.
And then finally, it would be very useful I think for
raising the profile of these issues to have a more systematic
monitoring mechanism within our Government for monitoring
religious prisoners and having those kinds of lists. Because
that brings the issue home for a lot of folks and it is a way
of really raising the profile.
In terms of other things we could do, we do have to
pressure countries abroad as vigorously as we can, and I think
more vigorously then we are now. Certainly naming countries as
Countries of Particular Concern is helpful. But as I said
before, you have got to back that up with real pressure and
sanctions at times. Certainly you have to put the issue of
religious freedom higher up on the totem pole in bilateral
negotiations with countries.
And then the are some specific things you can sometimes do.
For example, you could bar severe religious freedom violators
from coming into the United States, and those kinds of travel
bans sometimes could be helpful particularly when you are
dealing with these kinds of abuses in North Africa, sub-Saharan
Africa and the Middle East.
But, you know it is important not simply to curse the
darkness, right? So you have to find ways of helping countries
to get to where they need to be. So, for example, in the case
of Nigeria you know the Commission simply has not criticized
Nigeria for its lack of capacity or lack of will to investigate
and prosecute the perpetrators of religiously-related violence.
We have worked with them in trying to find ways where U.S.
resources can be brought to bear to help them think through the
issues of investigation and prosecution. So we need to find
ways of providing these countries with the capacity building or
technical assistance that they need in order to deal with the
issue of impunity or to deal effectively with inner-religious
dialogue. And I think that those are things that we can do, and
we need to do more of.
So, in a nutshell those are some of the ways that I think
we can bring our resources to bear and also put pressure on
countries abroad and focus the issue more intensely here at
home.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
In the Middle East, let us turn there for a moment, there
is in effect a Christian diaspora occurring at the moment. The
Christian communities and other minority faiths in that region
have an ancient claim to that homeland, as do other peoples. It
is my concern in addition to being an injustice if you lose
these faith communities, which in some ways have provided a
leavening influence, in some ways an insulating influence
between other persons who have had traditional conflicts, you
exacerbate the geo-political concerns in the arena and you
complete efforts such as peace between Jewish persons and
Palestinian persons who are Muslims.
So I think that elevating the idea, and to the President's
credit he mentioned this in his speech to the Arab world
recently, and it was somewhat overlooked that religious freedom
is a hallmark of democratic values. And I thought that that was
important. When Prime Minister Netanyahu came here shortly
after the President's speech he alluded to the same things in
regards to having an environment which respects multiple
confessions, all of which have claim to an ancient homeland
there.
In this regard, I think it is important to continue to talk
about this hidden, in many ways, diaspora that is going on in
many countries: Iraq, Syria, to some degree the pressures in
Egypt might be significant enough to spark that kind of
movement there, as well as in other lands in the region.
I think this is very, very important to continue to elevate
that particular concern because it is so related to geo-
political movements of the moment. If we lose an emphasis on
that, I think talking democratic values and the new civil
structures that can lead to more democratic processes is good,
but it has to be undergirded by some philosophical principles
that are inculturated and institutionalized, namely respect for
human rights and dignity and religious expression is one of
those.
So as the manifestation of Christians basically being
forced to leave and other minority faith communities. My own
district for instance, I have a significant number of people
who practice an ancient religion called the Yazidi faith which
is a section Iraq in the north who are begging for more
security and the ability to simply be left alone, but in a safe
environment, where they could practice their ancient faith.
So, I think this is important if we could focus attention
there as well, particularly given the dynamics of the moment I
think it undergirds what we all hope as further democratic
movement in the area.
Mr. Leo. Well, Iraq needs to be a lesson for us. Because as
you point out, the Christian communities in Iraq are nearly
extinct: The Yazidis, the Mandeans, the Chaldo-Assyrians, of
course the Jews as well. These communities are dwindling fast
and they have little hope those who have left of returning. And
that is a sad situation because the long term prosperity;
health, security and instability of Iraq is going to depend, in
part, upon democratic pluralism. And those communities were
very, very important catalysts for peace and stability and
prosperity. So we should learn from our experience in Iraq and
when we see sectarian tensions, we should not run from them or
deny that they exist. We need to find ways to take them on
straight away. And when we are in the midst of a conflict where
sectarian tensions are high, we need to find ways of building
up security for those communities. And that is something that
our Commission has been working on and speaking with the State
Department about. In fact, we have several meetings on this
next week.
And, of course, that provides a window into Egypt because
now the Coptic Christians in Egypt are worried for their own
survival long term, and it is unclear what is going to happen
there.
But the decisions we make early on in these countries, the
institutional and infrastructure-related decisions we make have
tremendous bearing on what happens later. And with one quick
example, which is Afghanistan.
A number of years ago the United States turned a blind eye
to the fact that the proposed Afghan constitution contained a
repugnancy clause that basically said anything inconsistent
with Sharia principles would not be tolerated or enforced under
their constitutional regime. One has to wonder whether you will
ever have religious tolerance, religious harmony and religious
freedom in Afghanistan with a constitutional provision like
that.
Now when you are starting from that point it is very, very
hard to make progress. So we have to be very mindful as we talk
about democratic reform in these countries and we give all
sorts of institutions and groups space to grow, that there
ought to be certain kinds of reforms that are simply off limits
because of the way in which they degrade human rights, and
religious freedom particularly.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well said. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
And I would now like to yield to the chairman of the
Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee of the
Appropriations Committee, the author of the International
Religious Freedom Act, Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have a meeting in my office. They have been
there since 10:30, so I will not have any questions. I would
want to ask permission to submit a statement for the record, if
I may.
Mr. Smith. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wolf follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Wolf. Secondly, thinking as I wrote some notes out as I
was listening, one I want to thank Chairman Leo and your entire
membership of the Commission and the staff. You have really
done a great job. And I really appreciate your faithfulness for
willingness to speak out. Perhaps this has been as good of an
operation as I have seen. So I want to publicly thank you.
I want to thank Mr. Smith and Mr. Payne for having this
hearing and for being advocates for these issues.
Thirdly, as I was listening, at the outset I want to say
this and I want to say it on the record so it is public, it
will be there forever and ever: I would hate to serve in a
Congress where there was not a Congressman Chris Smith. I think
Chairman Smith has done more on these issues: Human rights,
religious freedom, anti-Semitism, children left behind, all of
these issues than any other member in the 31 years that I have
served. He is an advocate. He has followed very careful, very
successful in the footsteps of two giants, Chairman Hyde and
Chairman Lantos. And, frankly, I just want to publicly say as I
watch these things; every time there is something on the floor,
every time there is something in the record, every time there
is one name now that always pops up. And I think the people in
this town and in our country who have a commitment to human
rights and religious freedom have to understand, Congressman
Smith. Just listening, as you say, ``I went here, I went there,
I did this.''
So, I appreciate the chairman's effort. And as I said, I
would not want to see a United States Congress where there was
not a Chris Smith or somebody like Chris Smith.
And with that, I will just yield and go on to my meeting.
Mr. Smith. Thank you Chairman Wolf.
And thank you, again, for your leadership, and we look
forward to an early markup of your legislation to reauthorize
the International Religious Freedom Act.
Before going to our next panel, Mr. Leo, is there anything
else you would like to add?
I just would note for the record in remembrance of the
terrible massacre at Tiananmen Square, I picked today to
introduce legislation. I mean, we are always trying to find
ways to hold the government and the perpetrators to account for
heinous crimes against humanity and genocide and religious
persecution. Today I will be introducing the China Democracy
Promotion Act of 2011. And that legislation is designed to
empower the President with the ability to deny a visa to high
government officials who are involved with human rights abuse
in the People's Republic of China, including religious
persecution.
In 2004 I authored the Belarus Democracy Act which targeted
President Lukashenka, the last dictator in Europe, for his
heinous crimes against his own people. And that legislation,
which includes denial of visas and encourages lists of people
who should not be allowed to make their way to the United
States, and also provides sanctions of other kinds, has had an
impact. As a matter of fact, at a meeting in Minsk not so long
ago, 1\1/2\ years ago, 11 of us were meeting with him and he
was very perturbed about that legislation because it inhibits
his ability and especially people within his administration,
the ability to travel to the United States.
And if we were to say to the Chinese, ``We are not
kidding.'' And Mr. Payne mentioned a moment ago that Mladic was
picked up, finally, because of his crimes in Srebrencia and in
Sarajevo and elsewhere, but particularly that is what the
prosecutor will prosecute him on: Genocide in Srebrenica and
crimes against humanity in Sarajevo. There is no statute of
limitation on crimes against humanity. And, you know we learned
that from Nuremberg, we learned it from the Tokyo War Crimes
Tribunal, but especially Nuremberg that we will hunt down
people who commit these crimes, but minimally they should not
be allowed a visa to come to the United States. That is about
the least we could do. So that legislation will be introduced
today.
Any further comments?
Mr. Leo. All I would say, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Payne, is
that our commissioners and the civil society community draw a
lot of strength and inspiration from the commitment and
leadership that is shown up here. So we thank you for what you
are doing.
We stand ready in any way we can to continue to put points
on the board for religious freedom. The game is not over yet
and we want to keep on putting as much pressure on other
countries as we can so that we can have the kind of human
rights protection and freedom of religion that all peoples
deserve.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Leo. And thank you for your
extraordinary leadership. And Ted Van Der Meid, thank you for
being here, and your leadership as well.
I would like to now welcome our next panel beginning with
Mr. Tom Farr, who is visiting associate professor of religion
and international affairs at Georgetown University's School of
Foreign Service. He is a senior fellow at Geogetown's Berkley
Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs where he directs
the Religious Freedom Project and the Program on Religion and
U.S. Foreign Policy. A former U.S. diplomat of 21 years, Mr.
Farr was the State Department's first Director of the Office of
International Religious Freedom.
He has published numerous articles on religion and U.S.
national interests and appeared on many media outlets.
His book, ``World of Faith and Freedom: Why International
Religious Liberty is Vital to American National Security,'' was
published by Oxford University Press.
Mr. Farr, welcome.
We will then hear from Mr. Joseph Grieboski, who is the
founder and chairman of the board of directors of the Institute
on Religion and Public Policy. He currently serves as the
founder and secretary general of the Interparliamentary
Conference on Human Rights and Religious Freedom; founder and
chairman of the International Consortium on Religion, Culture
and Dialogue; a member of the board of directors of the
Leadership Council for Human Rights. And a member of the board
of advisors of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. Mr.
Grieboski is a regular columnist for the Huffington Post. He
has worked with the Executive Office on Immigration Review to
train U.S. immigration judges and immigration attorneys on
issues related to religious liberty and asylum.
Third, we will hear from Mr. Brian Grimm. He is director of
Cross-National Data and senior researcher in religion and world
affairs at the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religious and
Public Life in Washington, DC.
Mr. Grim is co-author of ``The Price of Freedom Denied:
Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First
Century,'' and he co-edits the World Religion Database at
Boston University.
Dr. Grim has extensive overseas experience from '82 to
2002. He lived and worked as an educator, researcher, and
development coordinator in China, the former USSR, Central
Asia, Europe, Malta, and the Middle East, including being an
academic director at the UAE Military Academy.
His findings on international religious demography and
religious freedom have been covered by all the major news
outlets and contributed mightily to our understanding as to
what is going on.
Mr. Farr?
STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS FARR, DIRECTOR, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
PROJECT, BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE, AND WORLD AFFAIRS,
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Chairman Smith.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Payne thank you for holding
these important hearings and for your leadership on the issue
of religious freedom. And speaking personally for a moment, let
me associate myself with Mr. Wolf's fine comments about you,
Mr. Chairman, for your decades of dedication to this important
issue.
I am here to testify on behalf of H.R. 1856. I ask that the
full text of my testimony be entered into the record.
Mr. Smith. Without objection.
Mr. Farr. I also have here a letter in support of the bill
signed thus far by 35 organizations and leaders from across the
political, academic and religious spectrum. And I ask that it,
too, be entered into the record.
Mr. Smith. That, too, will be.
Mr. Farr. There are two broad reasons that the United
States promotes international religious freedom. First,
protecting this fundamental right goes to the core of who we
are as a people. Second, the advancement of religious liberty
brings American values into line with American interests,
including its national security. It is in our fundamental
interests for Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and others to
succeed in establishing stable lasting democracies. But history
and contemporary empirical studies make it clear that such
highly religious societies cannot succeed at democracy and
reduce religious-related terrorism without religious freedom in
full. And very few of these countries have anything approaching
religious freedom in full.
Unfortunately, no administration, including the current
one, has successfully employed the International Religious
Freedom Act, IRFA, to advance our values or national security.
Over the dozen years since IRFA's passage our policy cannot be
said in any substantial way to have reduced religious
persecution, advanced religious freedom or increase American
national security.
I believe that H.R. 1856 can help remedy this failure of
American diplomacy.
Now there are many good features of this bill which I would
like to have an opportunity to speak about later, but now I
want to focus on three, all of them having to do with the
Department of State which is what I know most about. Even
though trained as an American diplomat, Mr. Chairman, I can
speak at some length on things I do not know much about.
[Laughter]
First, the bill requires the IRF Ambassador-at-Large to
integrate religious freedom into U.S. democracy and civil
society programs, and into the counterterrorism policies of the
United States. This is critically important.
The reality is that stable democracies will not emerge in
the greater Middle East, or anywhere else, and religious
terrorism will continue to be incubated and exported including
to the American homeland unless those societies adopt religious
freedom.
I am pleased to see that H.R. 1856 allocates a percentage
of the Human Rights and Democracy Fund to the Ambassador-at-
Large for Religious Freedom for such programs. But I believe,
Mr. Chairman, that the percentage that is currently in the
bill, 5 percent, is too low. I would recommend that that be
increased to something like one-third of the money allocated to
the Human Rights and Democracy Fund.
Second, H.R. 1856 requires the State Department to place
the Office of International Religious Freedom and the
Ambassador-at-Large under the Secretary of State and stipulates
that the Ambassador-at-Large will report directly to the
Secretary. This placement represents the status that most other
Ambassadors at Large have historically enjoyed at the
Department of State, including the current Ambassador, for
example, for Global Women's Issues. If the advancement of
women's rights is important enough for such placement, which I
believe it is, why not religious freedom? Placement in the
Secretary's Office will empower the Ambassador and the
religious freedom staff to carry out the duties prescribed by
IRFA including as amended, especially those of integrating U.S.
policy into our democracy and civil society, and
counterterrorism programs.
Its current placement within the Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights and Labor not only subordinates the Ambassador to a
lower ranking official, but communicates to foreign
governments, religious communities and U.S. diplomats that
religious freedom is not a priority for the American
Government.
Third, H.R. 1856 requires the Department to train its
diplomats in the scope and value of religious freedom. Now
Congress thought it was levying such a requirement in the 1998
IRFA, which in fact mandates training. But it left the details
to the Department and the results have been disappointing. For
the past 12 years training has been ad hoc, inconsistent and
ineffective. To their credit, the Foreign Service Institute has
initiated a 3-day course on religion and foreign policy. I
spoke at that course 2 days ago and it is an important
beginning for which FSI and the Secretary should be applauded,
but it is only a beginning. These courses will not work if they
are occasional and voluntary. They must be systematically
integrated into diplomatic training. H.R. 1856 accomplishes
that objective by requiring mandatory training for all
diplomats when they enter the Foreign Service and when they
receiving area studies training in route to their next foreign
assignment.
Critically, training on religious freedom will also be
required for all ambassadors and deputy chiefs of mission
before they take their duties in a foreign post.
Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to overestimate, in my view,
the importance of this part of the amendment to the IRFA. The
Department may resist this and other aspects of H.R. 1856,
perhaps citing in this case the training which has just taken
place. But again, that training was voluntary. Moreover, it did
not focus on U.S. international religious freedom policy so
much as it did the idea of religious engagement. The two are
related, but they are not the same thing.
If our policy is to succeed, all of our diplomats need to
be trained.
So, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1856 is a much needed
corrective to the way that the 1998 International Religious
Freedom Act has been implemented. And I urge that it be passed.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Farr follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Mr. Farr, thank you very much.
Mr. Grieboski?
STATEMENT OF MR. JOSEPH GRIEBOSKI, FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN OF THE
BOARD, INSTITUTE ON RELIGION AND PUBLIC POLICY
Mr. Grieboski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member Payne, for the opportunity to be here today and
to talk to the committee about such a fundamental and urgent
issue.
I am grateful that you have taken the leadership and
initiative to hold this hearing on a topic that is often either
ignored or sidelined as what many policymakers call a ``soft
issue'' and not given appropriate attention by policymakers
despite the importance it plays in so many areas.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have quite a bit to say about
this topic, so I request that the full statement be introduced
into the record.
Mr. Smith. Without objection so ordered.
Mr. Grieboski. Thank you, sir.
While this hearing focuses on ways to prioritize religious
liberty and U.S. foreign policy, the issue of religious liberty
is not a new one. The first act of violence recorded in Judaeo-
Christian history is one of religious persecution. Cain's
killing of Abel demonstrates that even at the very beginning of
human history, Man found ways in which to demonize, and
ultimately persecute and kill, one another based on religious
practice.
Since the days of Cain and Abel, however, conditions have
not improved. In the 20th century alone, more people died for
their faith than in all previous 19 centuries combined. Nearly
1 billion people face significant discrimination and
persecution because of their religious beliefs and identity on
a daily basis. In related terms, on any given day, more than
three times the population of the United States is potentially
threatened or even killed because of the way they choose to
pray, or not to pray. According to the already referenced Pew
Forum study, ``nearly 70 percent of the world's 6.8 billion
people live in countries with high restrictions on religion,
the brunt of which often falls on religious minorities.''
While the International Religious Freedom Act was meant to
help alleviate the potential and actual suffering of millions
of people around the globe based on their religious and belief
choices, the situation of religious freedom has, in fact,
deteriorated since Congress' unanimous passage of the bill in
1998.
Sadly, the great Spirit of IRFA never became incorporated
into the letter of policy. While each President since the
passage of IRFA has acknowledged the importance of religious
freedom, none has been a champion of the cause. Despite the
importance of religious liberty issues to American security,
particularly in a post-9/11 world, to economics and finance, to
our general human rights policies and other vital interests,
Presidents have instead fulfilled only the most basic
requirements of IRFA.
Thankfully, the lack of Presidential leadership on this
issue was matched equally with ardent and dedicated and
unwavering passion for the issue from Members of Congress. You,
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Franks, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr.
Cleaver, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Payne, and a few others, have taken
immeasurable responsibility in guaranteeing this most basic and
fundamental right is protected globally. However, if religious
liberty is ever to be a significant priority in U.S. foreign
policy, it is imperative that both the executive and
legislative branches uphold both the spirit and the letter of
the International Religious Freedom Act.
Unfortunately, the executive branch has never grasped the
significance of the issue and especially the role it can play
in the world following 9/11.
Instead of being fully incorporated into overall U.S.
policy, religious freedom was seen as yet another issue item
heaved upon the State Department by Congress. Thankfully, the
Clinton administration had the foresight of naming Bob Seiple
as the first Ambassador-at-Large, and the State Department, of
appointing my colleague at this table, Tom Farr, as the first
Office Director. Their early leadership of the office is, in
large part, why the office survives and could potentially
thrive, despite overwhelming odds.
Unfortunately, during the early days of implementation, the
spirit of the law was lost to the letter of politics and
bureaucracy. Religious liberty became the responsibility of the
State Department alone rather than being fully integrated into
overall U.S. foreign policy, and the U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom simply became the watchdog of
the State Department.
Other departments and agencies with direct and indirect
foreign policy capacity were never fully engaged on the issue.
Commerce, Justice, USAID, the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative, Defense, Homeland Security, Central
Intelligence Agency, and the other agencies and departments
involved in the overall making of U.S. foreign policy were not
a part of the discussion. Similar to the faith-based
initiatives appointment of liaison offices in appropriate
agencies and departments, personnel could have been named to be
religious liberty liaisons to assist in that integration.
Again, the lack of presidential leadership on the issue
perpetuated the perception that religious liberty was not
significantly important. Title III Section 301 of the
International Religious Freedom Act offers a sense of Congress
that a National Security Council staff person be appointed at
the level of the Director within the Executive Office of the
President as a special advisor to the President on
international religious freedom. Neither the Clinton
administration, the Bush administration, nor the Obama
administration fully implemented the suggestion of Congress
that a special advisor be appointed. Instead, they are almost
always double-hatted with other NSC staff handling other
issues. Such a point person on the NSC staff responsible for
global review and interaction on religious liberty would serve
not only to advance both the issue of religious liberty itself,
but also provide the necessary support when such matters impact
other security concerns and vital interests.
As the principal advisor to the President and the Secretary
of State, and as the coordinator for overall U.S. international
religious freedom policy, the Ambassador-at-Large for
International Religious Freedom was never permitted access to
even one Cabinet meeting in order to brief Cabinet officials on
the efforts of the office and ways in which each appropriate
Cabinet department can work with the Ambassador's office to
enhance the issue. As a matter of fact, it is my understanding
that religious liberty has never been on the agenda of a
Cabinet meeting since the passage of IRFA. It seems to me that
such a discussion on such a topic would be vital to entrench
religious liberty into overall policy, as envisioned by the
authors of IRFA.
Mr. Chairman, religious liberty is far too significant and
impactful an issue to be handled halfheartedly.
As I mentioned in my introduction, prioritizing religious
liberty requires a commitment of both the executive and
legislative branches to fulfill the spirit and letter of the
law.
Mr. Wolf's recently introduced H.R. 1856 provides us with a
historic opportunity to review the successes and, more
importantly, the failures the past 13 years and to improve how
religious liberty is prioritized and exercised in overall U.S.
policy.
Mr. Chairman, I have a number of recommendations that are
included in my testimony, but I would just like to point out a
few with the time that is remaining.
First, the U.S. policy in dealing with human rights in
general, and religious liberty in particular, is one of a stick
approach, not a carrot and stick approach. Currently there is
no incentive for non-CPC states with difficult religious
liberty situations, or religious discrimination, to improve
their conditions. In order to advance religious liberty in
states whose conditions do not meet the CPC level but,
nonetheless, are problematic, the IRF report can serve as the
functional mechanism.
Taking a lesson from the Trafficking in Persons report, the
IRF report can establish categories based on ones already
outlined in the Executive Summary to categorize all countries
in the world. Because even if persecution does not exist and
discrimination does, discrimination cannot go unreported as
incidents of discrimination can directly lead to incidents of
persecution.
Mr. Wolf's new bill establishes a significant amount of new
responsibilities for the IRF office, all of which are necessary
for the advancement of the issue. Unfortunately, the bill does
not provide for the corresponding resources to follow through
on those responsibilities. While the bill does provide for 15
full-time employees, in bureaucratic structures like the State
Department a floor of 15 becomes a ceiling of 15 staff. As a
result, I recommend that the bill establish a line item in the
budget for the Office of International Religious Freedom which
would allow the office to manage its own personnel and program
funds, allowing it to appropriately and functionally to promote
religious liberty globally, without the hassle of internal
budget concerns and without the necessary approval of the front
office of DRL.
Attached to that, and my last recommendation for my
remarks, is to follow on the comments of my colleague, Tom
Farr. The original spirit and letter of the International
Religious Freedom Act was quite clear that the Office of
International Religious Freedom is an S office. As the
principal advisor to the President and the Secretary, the
Ambassador-at-Large should not have to seek the permission of
the Assistant Secretary for Human Rights. It is a priority of
U.S. foreign policy that it was not a regional ambassador, it
was not a country ambassador, but an ambassador-at-large that
was given the responsibility of promoting this issue. As a
result, the Ambassador-at-Large and her office should be given
both the access and the resources to be able to fulfill that
duty and that mission on a daily basis.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grieboski follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
00 ----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much for your testimony, your
leadership and your very concrete recommendations.
Mr. Grim?
STATEMENT OF MR. BRIAN GRIM, SENIOR RESEARCHER AND DIRECTOR OF
CROSS-NATIONAL DATA, FORUM ON RELIGION & PUBLIC LIFE, PEW
RESEARCH CENTER
Mr. Grim. Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Payne, thank
you very much for the opportunity to speak this morning.
I have been asked to specifically address the situation in
Africa from a global perspective. And I will summarize findings
from our ongoing study at the Pew Research Center's Forum on
Religion and Public Life on global restrictions on religion,
which is generously funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the
John Templeton Foundation.
And I do request that my comments be made a part of the
public record.
Mr. Smith. Without objection so ordered.
Mr. Grim. Thank you.
The study itself covers 198 countries and territories,
representing more than 99 percent of the world's population,
for the 3 year period of July 2006 to June 2009. And the study
continues to find that approximately 70 percent of the world's
population lives in countries with high or very high
restrictions on religion.
Across the continent of Africa, however, the situation
varies. Restrictions are high or very high in all seven
countries in North Africa where a series of popular uprising
are still playing out. In contrast, only 9 of the 47 countries
in sub-Saharan Africa, or 19 percent, have high or very high
restrictions. However, I should note that because many of these
countries with high restrictions in sub-Saharan Africa are very
populous, nearly half of sub-Saharan Africa's population, about
48 percent, lives in countries with high or very high
restrictions. An additional 22 percent of the population in
sub-Saharan Africa, 12 countries, live with moderate
restrictions and some 30 percent live in 26 countries with low
restrictions. Some of these restrictions come from the actions
and policies of governments while others come from hostile
actions of people or groups in society.
The 10 countries on the Africa continent with the highest
levels of government restrictions include, as I have mentioned,
all seven North African countries; Egypt, Algeria, Libya,
Sudan--in our reckoning of North Africa--Tunisia, Morocco and
Western Sahara, plus Eritrea, Mauritania and Somalia in sub-
Saharan Africa.
Government restrictions come in various forms, including
detentions or imprisonments for religious reason which occurred
in approximately two in five countries globally between mid-
2006 and mid-2009. Such detentions, however, were routine in
the East African country of Eritrea, where for instance
Jehovah's Witnesses are frequently imprisoned or detained for
refusing to do compulsory military service, which is against
their religious convictions. Eritrea has the highest government
restrictions on the African continent aside from Egypt. In
fact, prior to the recent uprising in Egypt, government
restrictions were already high. By mid-2009 Egypt joined the 5
percent of countries with the most intense social hostilities
involving religion. Again, these were all developments before
the current uprisings.
Indeed, restrictions on religion also arise from the
hostile actions of people and nongovernmental groups in
society. In Nigeria, for instance, hostilities between Muslims
and Christians were the rise well before the April 2011
Presidential election that saw Goodluck Jonathan, a Christian
from the South, defeat Muhammadu Buhari, a Muslim from the
North. A series of fatal clashes left hundreds dead and many
thousands displaced from their homes. While conflicts in
Nigeria are often triggered by socio-economic or political
tensions, in many situations the enemy is identified by his or
her religion. Indeed, Nigeria is among the 10 countries in the
world the highest levels of social hostilities involving
religion. And being the most populous country in Africa, this
is a concerning situation.
On the continent of Africa, social hostilities in Nigeria
are second only to those in Somalia. In addition to these two
countries, social hostilities are also high in Egypt, Sudan,
Algeria, Comoros, Kenya, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of
the Congo and Ghana. Part of the social hostilities include a
slight uptick in recent years of religion-related terrorism
throughout Africa with violence occurring in 11 countries and
recruiting activities in an additional nine countries, meaning
that about one in three countries in Africa has some problem
with religion-related terrorism.
In many cases, religious minorities in a country bear the
brunt of these abuses associated with government restrictions
or social hostilities involving religion. But adherents of the
world's two largest religious groups, Christians and Muslims,
who together comprise more than half of the global population,
were harassed in the largest number of countries around the
world. It is important to note, however, that these data that I
am referring to do not measure the severity of harassment or
persecution, so it is not possible to say whether one religious
group is harassed or persecuted to a greater or lesser extent
than other religious groups or ethnic minorities. Nevertheless,
the data are revealing. Over the 3-year period study, incidents
of either government or social harassment were reported against
Christians in a total of 130 countries or 66 percent of
countries in the world, and against Muslims in a 117 countries,
59 percent of the world's countries. Buddhists and Hindus, who
together account for roughly one-fifth of the world's
population, faced hostility in fewer places; harassment was
reported against Buddhists in 16 countries and Hindus in 27
countries.
In proportion to their numbers, some smaller religious
groups faced especially widespread hostility. Although Jews,
which you have mentioned earlier in the hearing, comprise less
than 1 percent of the world's population, government or social
harassment of Jews was reported in 75 countries, or 38 percent
of countries of the world. Members of other world religions,
including ancient faiths such as Zoroastrianism, new faith
groups such as Baha'is and Rastafarians, and localized groups
that practice tribal or folk religions faced harassment in
approximately 84 countries, or 42 percent of the countries of
the world, far higher than their share of the global
population, which is estimated to be less than 15 percent.
Between mid-2006 and mid-2009 on the continent of Africa
one religion or another faced harassment in a majority of
countries, 47 of the 54, or 87 percent. Government harassment
occurred in 41 countries, slightly more than social harassment,
which occurred in 37 countries. As with the global situation,
Christians and Muslims in Africa were harassed in more
countries than other religious groups, harassed in 39 and 34
countries respectively across the 54 countries in all of the
continent of Africa. The next most commonly harassed group
included members of localized groups that practice tribal or
folk religions, such as African traditional religions. Also,
throughout sub-Saharan Africa there were numerous reports of
people being abused by members of society when often wrong
accused of practicing black magic or witchcraft. By comparison,
in Africa particularly, Jews were harassed in eight countries,
Hindus in two and Buddhists in one.
While my testimony has focused on countries and situations
in Africa where restrictions on religion and abuses of
religious groups are high, I would like to wrap up on a more
hopeful note. In the statistics I stated before, more than half
of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa have low overall
restrictions on religion. In Europe, by comparison, 42 percent
of countries have low restrictions. And in the Asian Pacific
region, just a third of countries fall under this category.
Only the Americas have a larger proportion of countries with
low overall restrictions on religion.
And finally, though I have not addressed the issue that the
others on this panel have addressed directly, the careful
documentation of human rights abuses in the State Department's
annual International Religious Freedom report and the reports
by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom are
two of the 16 international sources used by the Pew Forum
researchers, six of whom are here with me today, to carry out
our ongoing study of a changing world. Our next global report
on changes and restrictions will come out this summer, so stay
tuned.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grim follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Just let me ask a few questions, beginning with you, Mr.
Farr, and anyone else who would like to speak to this. I am
encouraged that training of our Foreign Service officers seems
to be, at least, a beginning as you put it. I am wondering if
you have any recommendations as to ambassadors. If the Foreign
Service officers' career goals is to become ambassadors,
hopefully, they will have gotten that training and will be
sensitive to religious freedom issues. But we all know a very
significant portion of our ambassadorial ranks are filled by
donors to whoever the President might be in that particular
year, and who may have no interest whatsoever in these issues.
And I would note parenthetically, right before the
Olympics, Mr. Wolf and I traveled to Beijing. We had a list of
731 political prisoners, many of whom were religious prisoners.
We met with house church pastors, all of whom were detained and
were precluded from meeting with us, except for one. He was
harassed after the fact. They wanted to meet with us; so we
knew it would put them at risk, but they actually insisted.
They thought that it was part of what will lead to change. I
mean they are very heroic men and women. But our Ambassador,
when we met with them, was more interested in what event he
might attend, be it the basketball or track and field, and it
was very disconcerting. It was, like, well, we know that there
is an enhanced persecution occurring. Dissidents cannot meet
with the press. I mean, you know the Olympic Games did not open
up China. It led to a further restriction or constriction of
rights there, including on the Internet.
And I am wondering what your feeling is with regard to
ambassadors. How do we reach them so that they, too, are on the
same page as, hopefully, a very earnest human rights officer in
that Embassy?
Mr. Farr. Well, thank you for that question, Mr. Smith. My
mind goes back, as I listen to you talk, to a political
appointee who was going out to Beijing who was asked in the
late 1990s about what he was going to do about house churches.
And he looked blankly at the questioner and said, ``Can you
tell me what a house church is?'' So this is not an unusual
problem.
Unfortunately, the importance of religious freedom does not
appear to be intuitively obvious to everyone, which is why we
need training.
When I was in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research in
the State Department we would conduct the training for new
ambassadors and political appointees, area studies for them to
bring them to date. In many cases they did not know very much
about the countries where they were going to be ambassadors. So
this would not be difficult, but it needs to be systematic, not
ad hoc. It is not a matter of the day before the ambassador-
designate comes that you find somebody hurriedly to come in and
speak on religious freedom. It needs to be integrated into the
wallpaper, if you will, of our curricula at the Foreign Service
Institute, and among others who brief our ambassadors.
There is one other point I would make. Every ambassador
that goes to post carries with him or her a set of instructions
from the President of the United States. They tend to be very
general, but very important, i.e., ``This is what you are going
to do while you are there.'' This issue should be in those
instructions. To my knowledge, it has never been for any
ambassador. I could be wrong about that. But I think it needs
to be there in every set of instructions except for that
country in the world where there are no religious groups or no
religious persecution, which is to say almost no country in the
world. We need this to be part of our training for all
diplomats, but especially for ambassadors. So thank you for
that question.
Mr. Smith. Let me ask you--again, remembering that today we
remember, these couple of days, the Tiananmen Square massacre--
yesterday at one of our hearings at the full committee I
reminded my colleagues that Hu Jintao began his meteoric rise
to where he is today as head of China, as the Chinese
representative in Tibet. And before Tiananmen Square, 4 months
or so before it, he was brutally crushing the Tibetan
Buddhists, beating nuns and monks, deploying, closing out the
press and then the tortures that followed, and continue until
this day, that are hideous and mind-numbing. And yet when
President Obama had Hu Jintao at the White House they had a
press conference. The Associated Press asked a very good
question about human rights, and President Obama said they have
a different culture and a different political system. And he
went on to say, as The Washington Post said in a scathing
editorial entitled, ``President Obama Defends Hu,'' H-U, of
course ``Hu Jintao on rights'' that they have a different
culture and pointed that out--and emphasized--it is a different
culture, yes, but a culture that has people all over the
country in the laogai and the gulag systems because they want
freedom. I mean, there is no ethnicity or ethnic group that has
a monopoly on freedom and democracy. The Chinese want it just
as much as the Americans and everyone else.
So I thought that was a very, very damaging statement made
by the President. And ``different political system.'' It is a
dictatorship; the people with the guns and secret police have
the final say. I think huge damage was done to religious
freedom or human rights, but religious freedom in particular.
Wei Jingsheng once told me--and I met him in 1994 before he
went back into prison in Beijing--and he said, ``You Americans
do not understand when you coddle dictatorships and you say
words that Clinton had used and then abandoned once he became
President, when you kowtow to the Beijing regime, they beat us
more, they mistreat us more, they torture us more. And when you
are tough, transparent, predictable they beat us less and human
rights violations, at least to some extent, are ameliorated.''
And we continue to play, unfortunately, this other card of
accommodation and it gets us nowhere and it hurts the Chinese
people and particularly the religious believers.
So my question is, I mean do not know of any other country
in the world in scope and magnitude that persecutes believers--
Falun Gong, Uyghurs, Tibetan Buddhists, underground
Christians--as egregiously and as systematically as China. What
would be, perhaps from all of you, your recommendations to the
President and to the White House in terms of reclaiming what
should be an American core position of saying, ``This matters a
great deal to us and we are not going to look askance?''
Mr. Farr. Well, Mr. Chairman, I agree that it is terribly
shortsighted of the President--and frankly the Secretary of
State who said something similar the first time she went to
Beijing, i.e., that we have to deal with the Chinese concerning
the important things. Maybe we will talk to them about human
rights and religious freedom privately. That communicates
something to the Chinese leaders.
China is a peculiar country. You know, every country has to
be addressed differently, including in the Islamic world.
China's huge plurality of religious groups are exploding in
number throughout China. And I think our strategy there has to
be far more broad based and comprehensive than it has been. But
it has to begin with what the President and the Secretary of
State say publicly as well as privately. And this has been a
problem for as long as there has been an IRFA, at least as long
as I have been involved in this.
In 1999 inside the State Department when we argued about
the first CPC list, and China was the real outlier at the time,
Bob Seiple was the Ambassador-at-Large. I have written about
this, so this is not something that is not in the public
record. There was a huge fight over China. And the argument by
the China Desk was that, ``sure in Tibet,'' for example which
you mentioned, ``there is persecution but it is not religious
persecution. It is political persecution because they are
separatists. They want to separate from China.''
This is the kind of thinking that wants to set religion
aside. Of course, there is a little bit of truth in the
political aspects of this, but to suggest that these people are
not being persecuted because of their religious beliefs, their
belief in reincarnation, their reverence for the Dalai Lama is
absurd. It is absurd on its face.
So I believe the answer to your question is first at the
top, our leaders have got to speak out against this and show
that even though we owe China a great deal of money, that we
are not going to pull our punches about this issue which has
been part of the American psyche since the founding.
But secondly I would just add something--I believe, I spoke
briefly about programs that I want and I hope the Ambassador-
at-Large will begin to implement. The Chinese are interested in
this issue of religion. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
has more people studying religion than, I am convinced, all of
the American universities on the East Coast of the United
States. They are genuinely interested in a problem that their
country has, and so they are studying it. That, along with the
rule of law, along with the growth of the economy provides
several areas where we can use programs to convince the Chinese
that it is in their interests to stop persecuting the Tibetan
Buddhists, the Evangelical Protestants, the Catholics, the
Muslims. We do not approach this systematically. And that is
why in my view we need an Ambassador-at-Large with the status
and the resources for every country in the world where this is
important. And there is none more important than China to
develop a strategy for advancing religious freedom.
Mr. Smith. Yes, Mr. Grieboski.
Mr. Grieboski. Mr. Smith, I have to say when you bring up
China, I remember longingly the days when you used to chair
hearings under MFN to bring to the attention of not just your
colleagues, but the United States Government and the American
people the systematic abuse across the board on human rights
that exist in China.
This touches back on one of, I think, the fundamental
failures of the implementation of IRFA in the first place. It
is fundamentally important that we understand how the Chinese
Government sees religion. The Chinese Government sees itself as
the final arbitrator of all things in the lives of its
citizens. If a Chinese believer believes in something greater
then the government, they are automatically a political
security threat. But we are not having that kind of discussion
with the Chinese Government. We are not having discussions on
how freedom of religion in fact improves the lives of their
citizens and increases their happiness.
But what is also failing in how we have implemented IRFA is
that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has never been
engaged when we talk about our trade relations with China to
include this within the discussions. That there has not been
that dialogue. There has not been that participation.
Another failing has been as much on the civil society side
as it has been on the administration side is that there has not
been enough engagement with the business community. If American
corporations begin to understand both American law and
religious freedom issues, but also the responsibility and the
access and ability they have in China to advance human rights
issues and to advance religious liberty issues, we would begin
to see at least a small step forward. These are the areas we
need to be talking to the Chinese about it, and it does not
need to be within the larger context of human rights. It needs
to be in the very practical, very basic and substance ways of
what the Chinese want and what the Chinese understand.
And to build on something that Dr. Farr had said, it is
important for those programs--Georgetown University has a
relationship with the State Administration for Religious
Affairs. Our ability, through the State Department's program
funding, to work with Georgetown and with SARA to be able to
bring about understandings in communications is a very large
step forward, and we really need to be able to push that
forward. But that requires the resources for the International
Religious Freedom office to be able to do what needs to be done
on those most important countries.
Mr. Grim. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When I was working on the book that I have co-written with
Roger Finke at Penn State called ``The Price of Freedom Denied:
Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First
Century,'' we were able to have some meetings with Chinese,
both in the State Administration for Religious Affairs and
other public security officials. And when we discussed that
China has very high restrictions on religion, they said, ``Of
course. That it is logical. It is a dangerous thing. It can
cause problems and we should restrict it.'' And so they said,
``Well, we do not disagree with you, but you know we are
interested, what is the right level of restrictions on
religion?'' A very pragmatic question.
And so I think the Chinese, as they approach this question,
do not have a philosophical stance that you might find in some
other countries of the world that would bar them from loosening
restrictions. They should want to know if this good for us,
will it be dangerous.
And I think a second thing that the Chinese now are
thinking about that they did not when I first went to China in
1982, many years ago, is what is going on in the rest of the
world and how it might affect them. And as has been discussed
by several people today, countries where there is a lack of
religious restrictions have higher hostilities, more violence,
and are more unstable. The Chinese are now needing to depend on
the stability of other countries for their own resources and
their own interests.
So I think some of these pragmatic questions would be
interesting for the Chinese to discuss. Academic researchers
could look into these questions without having to take a stance
and say we are trying to defend religious freedom, we are just
trying to study it and see if it is in the interest of our
country to have more or less and other countries to have more
or less.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. With regards to the act itself, if I could,
obviously, this is the time to make the improvements, this is
the window of opportunity.
Mr. Grieboski, you talked about double-hatted both
personnel and penalties, and I think that your point was very
well taken and the fact that the National Security Council does
not have the kind of representation that it ought to have.
And I think you raised a point that really has not been
raised the way it should have been until you just did it, and
that is that the CPC status is an all or nothing proposition.
I actually, as you know, sponsored the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act. And one of the lessons we did learn was to have
tiers. And I am wondering if your thought is that we need to
have a tier system, which would mean more personnel, I would
think, or at least a greater emphasis within data calls and
everything else going out to our Embassies?
And, Mr. Farr, if you might want to speak to that as well.
Should we have like a Tier I, Tier II and Tier III and maybe
even a Watch List?
I do recall, and you might want to speak to this as well--I
will throw out a few questions--when John Hanford was our
Ambassador-at-Large, you know, he worked very hard on Vietnam
and Saudi Arabia. He often talked about deliverables,
particularly with regard to the textbooks and the like in Saudi
Arabia. And on Vietnam, much of his work coincided with the
bilateral agreement and WTO ascension for Hanoi. And
unfortunately, the day they got it the snap back to severe
persecution of religion was not unanticipated, but it was
brutal, and some people were taken by surprise by it; some were
not.
So, you know they are not a CPC country now, but they ought
to be. Vietnam, I am talking about. Your thought on that?
And whether or not, when we were working with other issues
like in this case the Bush administration wanted to get the
bilateral trade agreement agreed to between ourselves and
Vietnam, you know, religious freedom became something of an
incentive, but it turned, out in my opinion, to be a false one
that actually brought a lot of the house church leaders out
into the open, where now they have been rounded up and put into
prisons and harassed. And so it was even worse. They thought it
was a thawing, when it was just a ruse. So your thoughts on
that.
Mr. Grieboski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question.
As to the tiers, I think it is fundamentally important that
the report create a tier system. Not just because of levels of
persecution and distinctions in persecution but because, again
as I said in my testimony, there is no incentive for non-CPC
countries to improve. With the way in which the structure
currently exists, it is only those countries which are the most
egregious, which reach levels that could potentially lead to
sanctions. And even within that sanction regime there are
levels of sanctions depending on the CPC violations.
The tier system allows us to look at every country in the
world which comes back to, actually, the training issue which
means that if our Foreign Service officers who are doing human
rights work in France, in Russia, in Belgium, in Venezuela are
now going to be responsible for having to coordinate the
religious liberty activity and then report on it on levels, on
standards that have to be met, that distinguish one level from
another; it, one, increases the capacity for the State
Department to do religious liberty on a much more effective and
priority basis, but it also means that the countries that get
away with discrimination but know that there will be no
American response can no longer act that way. So when we see
anti-religion laws in places like France, when we see an anti-
minaret bill in Switzerland, now the French and the Swiss will
have to say, ``Will this impact our global positioning and how
we are seen?''
Your point on Vietnam is very well taken and very
important. Again, religious liberty is one of the unused tools
in these negotiations. We could very easily have included in
the negotiations with Vietnam as a part of the negotiations
certain levels of religious liberty that must be met in order
for the trade agreement to be in place. I am a firm believer
that there is nothing wrong with our tying our aid policy to
human rights standards. And I think the only way that we will
see real and significant improvement in human rights in general
and religious liberty in particular is if we have standards of
religious liberty and human rights tied to our foreign aid. But
that does not mean that we cannot have those conversations with
those countries with whom we are establishing free trade
agreements.
And as we learned from the transition from MFN to PNTR that
movement significantly harmed the capacity of this body, but
also the U.S. Government to be able to advance these
fundamental issues.
Mr. Farr. I would support the idea of tiers, Mr. Chairman,
substantially for the reasons that Joe Grieboski has
enumerated. And I would also associate myself with his view
that we need to bring in all the elements of the United States
Government, particularly those dealing with economics and
trade. Indeed, I have long argued that we need a subspecialty
within the Foreign Service that would include economics
officers who would have a subspecialty in religious freedom.
Such specialty is not offered for anybody, it is offered in
other areas such as arms control and so forth, but not on
religion and religious freedom.
I think, however, that there is a fundamental problem with
what I think of as a CPC-dominated quiver in our tool kit which
somebody mentioned today. I think the State Department is
developing a tool kit.
If the only tool you have is CPCs, which is essentially
negative, it seems to me what we have proven beyond a shadow of
a doubt in the last 12 years is you are not going to change
much structurally. I would quickly add that it is important
that we have used the act to free some people, and I do not
want to trivialize this. It is very important that some people
have been freed. Often, however, that is through the
intervention of people like yourself and others in individual
cases.
As a broad matter, we just have not had much impact with
this CPC dominated approach. I fully support the CPCs. I like
the idea of tiers. This is why I emphasize the programs. I
think it was Joe that said, ``carrots and sticks.'' You know,
that is not quite the way I would put it, but it makes the
point. We do not give other countries like Vietnam reasons why
it is in their interests to change what they are doing. That is
why they went back to what they were doing before after they
promised us they would stop requiring forced renunciations and
they would rebuild all the churches, et cetera, et cetera. As
soon as they got free of the incentive of the moment, they just
went back to the way they always do things. We need to provide
them reasons for changing, and that is what has been missing in
our policy in Vietnam, and frankly most other countries.
Mr. Smith. Let me just say, Mr. Grim, according to the
UNHCR there are some 43 million people of interest including 27
million IDPs and 15.6 million refugees. In your analysis, how
many of those, if it has been modified, would you attribute to
religious persecution? Is there a breakout?
Mr. Grim. That is an excellent question and one that we are
studying this summer. It is very difficult to study that
question and in short, no, there is not a good estimate of how
many of those have been displaced internally or across borders
due to religion-related reasons. But it is very difficult to
get at because the data exists on how many people in a country
have been displaced or are there from someplace else, but then
the explanation of their stories is almost never documented by
the U.N. So, we are looking into that, but I am not hopeful
that we will be able to get it in short order.
Mr. Smith. Is that something, Mr. Farr, that the office
working with our refugee folks ought to be looking at, the
further breakdown--the profile of the refugees and the IDPs?
Mr. Farr. There was language in the original IRFA for the
Commission to look a little bit into this problem, which they
did. They did a study, which was a very good study.
I think that the Office of Religious Freedom ought to be
certainly very, very aware of the work that Brian Grim is doing
and is about to produce this summer and on an ongoing basis.
But I would also add, Mr. Chairman, that a dearth of
information is not the main problem that we have. We know this
is a major, major problem. We know where the problem exists, we
just have not learned the lessons about how to address it and
get it in front of the problem rather then just reacting to it.
Mr. Smith. Dr. Grim, you pointed out in your statement that
the data does not measure the severity of the harassment or
persecution; is there a way to better delineate that? For
example, you know the Falun Gong in China, the number of
tortured well exceed several thousands--tortured to death. And
obviously the Buddhists and the Uyghurs and the Christians
suffer similar fates. Is there a way to get to severity?
Mr. Grim. Yes. Our measures do count severity of
persecution within a country, but we just do not itemize it by
which religious groups face the most problems. And it is a
little tricky to get that exactly, but I think our data at
least reflects what is going on in a country and then the
extent to which each religious group faces restrictions
globally.
Mr. Smith. Let me ask all of you. One of the other hats I
wear is working on the Helsinki Commission, and ODIHR, which is
the human rights apparatus for the OSCE, has three special
representatives; one on combating prejudice against Muslims,
Christians and anti-Semitism. If you have any thoughts as to
how the office interfaces with them, Mr. Farr, that would be
helpful.
But, you know we got the African Union, the Organization of
America States and then the U.N. itself, all three of which
have not done, in my opinion, what could be done on religious
freedom. I mean, our biggest fear in the last several months
has been a resolution that might have passed at the U.N. that
would have, as I said earlier, been catastrophic to individual
religious freedom; thankfully, lead by Pakistan, it was a
resolution tabled at the Human Rights Council that did not go
that route.
And I have spoken to a number of Muslim leaders including
the head of the OIC, their Ambassador to the U.N., and they
seem pleased with that outcome. So, you know, maybe we are
making some traction with our friends in the Muslim community.
But how can those regional bodies work more closely with the
IRFA Office? Have we empowered it enough through legislation,
and that would include the OSCE, which I think is trying at
least to address religious persecution?
Mr. Farr. I am not intimately familiar with the
relationship of the Office to the ODIHR contemporarily
speaking, Mr. Chairman. But I do know that the Office of
International Religious Freedom is staffed, as you know, by
some very committed, very intelligent, excellent Foreign
Service officers and civil servants. And I would be very
surprised if they did not have this problem on their screen.
For what it is worth, I think it is a mistake to balkanize
religious freedom. I think it is a mistake to have an office
for the Jews and the Muslims and the thises and the thats. It
is a human problem. It is a problem for all societies, which is
why I believe the religious freedom ambassador ought to be over
all of this for the United States.
I fear that in Europe some of this is just the way they do
things. They carve these things up. I think we should avoid
this.
But to answer your question, I have confidence in the
office. My successors there, I know these people, they are
doing a great job. And I bet you if you ask them that question,
they will give you a good answer.
Mr. Grieboski. Mr. Chairman, your question about the
special representatives, it is fundamentally important and I
support Tom's position on this. And what I wanted to mention
about this is my concern that when we have the division among
the three different special representatives, the first two
special representatives you mentioned of the Muslims and the
Jews is very clear. But then the third, which talks about
Christianaphobia is a title too long for even the special
representative to remember. Because the duties and
responsibilities for that person are not just Christianaphobia,
they are Christianaphobia plus. And so within the OSCE
structure, anyone within the ODIHR system, there is not the
appropriate structuralization of the issue of religious liberty
but instead are issue areas that are not well coordinated above
those special representatives.
At the same time, there has also been a movement within the
OSCE system which you yourself have spoken on, Mr. Chairman,
away from protecting rights and talking more about tolerance.
And so it is a much looser support for fundamental rights then
originally it was within the structure.
As for the question of the multilateralism, I mentioned in
my written testimony that we have done a very good job, I
think, in the State Department with what limited capacity they
had to do it to advance religious liberty on a bilateral basis.
But we have not seen that same overactive and impressive
engagement in a multi-lateral form. I understand that
Ambassador-at-Large Johnson Cook was just at the United Nations
last week, but 1 week a year is not enough to actually have
that engagement, which comes back to my encouragement that the
IRF office be granted the resources within a line item, but
also the access within an S/ system to be able to engage with
these multi-lateral fora.
Mr. Smith. Final question, and I will submit more for the
record because I have about another 20. But I would ask you,
Mr. Farr, how seriously does the State Department religious
freedom office regard the hearings--the recommendations
especially--for granting a country CPC that come from the
Commission? Is it seen as a rival? Is it seen as a very useful
mirror as to what is happening and, you know, hey, we missed
that?
I mean, one of the things that I have learned in this job,
and I learn it more everyday, is that I take seriously
criticism because I often learn that there is a germ of truth,
maybe a whole lot of truth to it, and you are missing
something. And the whole idea of establishing the Commission in
the first place was to be a parallel effort buoyed by what we
do in Congress. And I probably have held more than 300 human
rights hearings as chairman of Helsinki and the subcommittee
that I chair--and I am not kidding, well over 300--but that is
still not enough. And the Commission travels, it focuses, but
does the State Department take it seriously or do they see it
as a nuisance?
Mr. Farr. It is a great question, Mr. Chairman.
My view is that the Office of International Religious
Freedom does take it seriously, but the State Department is a
very different thing from the Office of International Religious
Freedom.
This is a tiny office in a huge bureaucracy. I think the
attitude of the Office of International Religious Freedom, at
least when I was there and what I know of them now, is that
there are many possibilities to work in coordination with the
Commission. For example good cop/bad cop; to be able to go to
countries and say, ``Look, the Commission is making all of this
trouble, you know, on the Hill and let us work together to
avoid this.'' I mean, that is just one small example of how
these two can work in tandem.
But I do think that more broadly the State Department views
the Commission as an irritant. That it does not pay more than
just lip service to many of its recommendations over the years,
many of which have been extraordinarily good.
I support the reauthorization of the Commission. I think it
is very important. I believe it is very important for the
Commission to aim more of its fire on the State Department.
Joe and I may disagree a bit on this. But I think that the
State Department needs scrutiny. More people need to reveal
what it is not doing. And the reality is, Mr. Chairman, and
this is not a criticism of the Commission, but it does not
matter who is on the Commission, how much money they get, what
their mandate is in the IRFA, if the State Department does not
do its job, this policy is going to fail. And so this is why I
say that the provisions of H.R. 1856 that focus on the State
Department are vital and I urge you and Mr. Wolf and others to
hold the line. Because I think there is going to be some
attempt to roll some of these things back.
Mr. Grieboski. Mr. Chairman, I think my opinion on the
Commission is quite well known. But I actually will back one
part of what Tom just said. I will stand on the rooftops and
support the reauthorization of the Commission from now until
the end of time if the Commission takes on a different
responsibility then being a watchdog. I think the watchdog role
is a part of the Commission's responsibility, but not its only
responsibility.
The Commission is the only agency, the only quasi-
governmental agency with the capacity and the authority to be
the mediator and integrator of religious liberty into all other
government agencies.
We talked about training and education of ambassadors and
Foreign Service officers earlier. I cannot overemphasize the
importance of also training our CIA station chiefs and our
intelligence officers. That our intelligence agencies need to
be studying this issue and dealing with this issue. The State
Department cannot do that. The CIA will not do not of its own
free will. The Commission is the one body that has the capacity
and the ability and the authority to do that.
And if you will indulge me with a comparison, part of my
concern about the oversight role and the watchdog role of
USCIRF is that I am not familiar with an oversight agency that
matches person-for-person on personnel or on resources. In that
sense, if I could make the comparison, that would be like a
principal hiring three teachers to educate 1,000 students on
every subject in the school and then hiring three consultants
on the side, but paying those teachers by the way minimum wage
and not giving them any resources to have teaching material.
But at the same time, hiring three outside consultants, paying
them $0.25 million a year, giving them unlimited resources to
write reports about the teachers and why they are not teaching
enough or why their capacity is not there.
I think the Commission can do a tremendous job in making
sure that the State Department has the capacity to do what it
does as long as the two are engaged, as long as the two are
cooperating and as long as there is not that competition, which
Tom so appropriately discussed. But I think the Commission with
both its resources and the tremendous capacity of its
Commissioners, that they can do more than simply tell the State
Department what it is not doing right.
Mr. Smith. One final question; let me ask all of you for
any recommendations you may have as we go to markup, in terms
of text. You have already made a number of outstanding
recommendations, which I hope we can incorporate into the bill.
But let me just ask you with regards to inter-religious
dialogue among religions themselves. I have gotten to know a
man named Mustafa Ceric, the Grand Mufti of Bosnia very, very
well. I was there when they re-interred 800 people who were
slaughtered during the genocide in Srebrenica. I spent a lot of
time with him. I hosted him here. I have been back to Sarajevo
to meet with him. Here is a man who really, genuinely, in his
heart of hearts, believes in peace, in respecting all
religions, and I do believe that is the model that we need to
lift up and say among all religions that is what we all need to
be following. He has been a part of the Vatican dialogue among
religious leaders globally. And it just seems to me there is
not enough of that. There needs to be a whole lot more among
the Orthodox Church and all the other churches.
Recently I met with an imam and a bishop who were literally
traveling throughout Nigeria talking about reconciliation and
tolerance for one another. And, of course, Minister Bhatti ate,
slept and breathed that. Sadly, it lead to his assassination.
I should have asked Mr. Leo this, but Mr. Farr, you might
want to speak to this or anyone else. Is the Office and is the
Commission, in your view, reaching out to religious bodies
robustly enough, like the Vatican? I mean, we have a man, His
Beatitude Jonah, who heads up the Orthodox Church here in the
United States, and who profoundly believes in religious
dialogue and wants to work across lines for human rights and
respect for those rights. Do we do it enough?
Mr. Farr. I believe both the Commission and the Office of
International Religious Freedom are doing a good deal of this,
Mr. Chairman. Whether or not they are doing enough, I think the
answer is probably no. But I would emphasize that dialogue for
the sake of dialogue is not a policy. What is needed is the
targeting of religious leaders and religious actors who are
influential. Shahbaz Bhatti was killed by people who have a
particular interpretation of Islam and the place of blasphemy
in Islam. We should think about ways to change the dialogue
within Pakistan on the issue of blasphemy.
So, it is not just talking. I mean, I am in an atmosphere
of where there are any lists religious dialogues that go on and
on a glacial pace toward oblivion. They need to have a purpose.
And this is why I come back again and again to the programs. I
fear talk is cheap, and we have had an awful lot of talk.
So the answer to your question is yes, it is valuable, it
needs to be targeted. And I think the office will do a good job
of this is given the resources, the mandate and the authority
to do it.
Mr. Grim. As a side comment I can make on social
hostilities involving in religion that the research that I have
done both outside of Pew and at Pew sees a close connection
between the level of social hostilities in a country and the
government restrictions on religion.
One observation I have of the State Department
International Religious Freedom reports is that over the past
several years the sections on social intolerance or societal
intolerance toward others have become shorter. They have been
doing a bit less reporting. I do not think necessarily because
there is less to report, but for some reasons, maybe editorial
reasons those sections are becoming shorter. So I think that is
an important topic to be covering. It is not exactly on
interfaith dialogue, but some of these sections have been
reporting on interfaith dialogue sort of on the positive side
but not covering all that is going on in the country with as
much depth as they did maybe 5 years ago. So, I just offer that
as an observation.
Mr. Smith. You know, I do have one final question, if I
could. And that is on the Human Rights Council. The Human
Rights Commission was flawed, very very misguided for years. I
would go to it in Geneva, not every year but almost every year,
and found that their only agenda was to bash Israel. Even
getting a Cuba resolution and a resolution on Sudan was very,
very difficult.
Now the Human Right Council was supposed to replace that.
So far we have seen it is ``deja vu all over again,'' to quote
Yogi Berra. It is the same old, same old.
We now have a seat on there. Are we using it wisely to
promote religious freedom at the Human Rights Council?
Mr. Farr. The Human Rights Council is a farce, but I am
going to revert to my diplomatic demeanor, for a moment, and
say that we have to be a player. We have to be there, even in a
farce, because this is the way the international community
wants to play the game and we have to be part of this. I have
not paid as much attention to this perhaps as I should, but
when I do I do see that we are sending some good people.
I know NGOs attend these things and work very hard to get
their voices heard, Mr. Chairman. So I would say that it is
important for us to keep working this issue. It has been out
there for a long time. You remember in the 1990s we lost every
year on China, again and again. I used to be involved in
meetings about how we are going change this. Well, we came up
with a bright idea and the Chinese beat us every time. It was
an attempt to condemn the Chinese for human rights abuses and
religious persecution and they went out and bought the votes
and did everything they needed to defeat us. And they won every
time. And so, this is a longstanding problem.
If I could just say one other thing in response to Joe
Grieboski's point about the Commission. As I said, I agree with
him about the need to integrate this into other aspects of the
government, particularly into trade and economic issues. I am
not sure the Commission is the body to do that. Joe believe it
has the authority to do it. I believe that it is that National
Security official, I forget the title of it. I believe I am
correct that in this bill, I may be wrong, that this is made
mandatory. Frankly, I have forgotten. Forgive me. But if it is
not mandatory that there ought to be an NSC official involved
in religious freedom, an advisor to the President, it should be
mandatory. And this is what this person ought to be doing;
looking at this issue of how to involve all of the activities
of the United States, all the executive agencies and
coordinating them. This is where this ought to be done, in my
view, rather than the Commission.
Mr. Smith. Any final words from any of our witnesses before
we conclude?
Again, I want to thank you so much for your passion and
commitment to religious freedom, for your testimony today, your
time, and above all for your recommendations, which will help
us, hopefully, craft a good reauthorization bill. So thank you
so much.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\\ts\
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\a
statt\
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\\tt
t\
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\aaa
s\\
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\aaa
s
\
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
