[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
THE 2011 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM REPORT
=======================================================================
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
__________
NOVEMBER 17, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-107
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-266PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
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
ROBERT TURNER, New YorkAs
of October 5, 2011 deg.
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
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
ROBERT TURNER, New York
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Leonard Leo, chairman, U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom.............................................. 6
Fr. Ricardo Ramirez, Bishop, Diocese of Las Cruces, former
commissioner, U.S. Commission on International Religious
Freedom........................................................ 31
Mr. Benedict Rogers, East Asia team leader, Christian Solidarity
Worldwide...................................................... 42
Rev. Majed El Shafie, president and founder, One Free World
International.................................................. 71
R. Drew Smith, Ph.D., scholar-in-residence, Leadership Center,
Morehouse College.............................................. 105
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Mr. Leonard Leo: Prepared statement.............................. 9
Fr. Ricardo Ramirez: Prepared statement.......................... 33
Mr. Benedict Rogers: Prepared statement.......................... 45
Rev. Majed El Shafie: Prepared statement......................... 74
R. Drew Smith, Ph.D.: Prepared statement......................... 109
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 128
Hearing minutes.................................................. 129
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on
Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights: Material submitted for
the record..................................................... 130
THE 2011 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 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 3:06 p.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. The subcommittee will come to
order, and good afternoon everyone, and thank you for attending
this important oversight hearing on the congressionally
mandated International Religious Freedom Report and
designations of Countries of Particular Concern for 2011.
This is the first oversight hearing on the IRF Feport since
I chaired a hearing on the 2006 report in December of that
year. It is one of the series being held by this subcommittee
that is examining the critically important issue of religious
freedom. In June of this year, we held a hearing on
prioritizing international religious freedom in U.S. foreign
policy in the context of amending the International Religious
Freedom Act of 1998, also known as IRFA. We also examined
freedom of conscience and religion in the context of China's
and North Korea's overall abysmal human rights records.
A study by Dr. Brian Grim of the Pew Forum on Religion and
Public Life, who testified before our subcommittee in June,
found that almost 70 percent of the world's population lives in
countries with high or very high restrictions on religion.
Although this study was conducted between 2006 and 2009, it was
apparent back in the late 1990s that the fundamental human
right of religious freedom was under severe attack around the
world.
Congress gave expression to our commitment to international
religious freedom with the passage in 1998 of IRFA, which
concretely established the promotion and protection of
religious liberties as a serious foreign policy goal. I was
shocked at the time when IRFA was strongly opposed on the
record by the Clinton administration. John Shattuck, then the
Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor,
claimed right here in this room at that witness table that it
would establish a hierarchy of human rights under U.S. law and,
therefore, they opposed it.
I chaired the hearings on the legislation and I, as well as
others, pointed out that, for example, when we fought against
apartheid and enacted laws to mitigate the abomination of
racism in South Africa, we certainly did not detract from other
human rights policies. Instead, it was always value added.
Similarly, we took up the cause of Soviet Jewry, and the
Jackson-Vanik amendment was employed with such effectiveness to
help release Refuseniks, and we even risked superpower
confrontation in order to release Soviet Jews who were being
harassed and persecuted in the former Soviet Union. It did not
detract from any of our other human rights laws. It was not a
hierarchy of human rights. It was all value added.
In like manner, the International Religious Freedom Act was
an important--and I would say historic addition--to the overall
efforts to defend and promote human rights by focusing the
spotlight on one of the most fundamental of all human rights.
We persisted and eventually the bill, authored by my good
friend and colleague, Frank Wolf of Virginia, was signed into
law.
A critical component of the law is the requirement that the
State Department review foreign countries each year and submit
a report on the status of religious freedom to Congress. Those
countries found to be engaged in or tolerating particularly
severe violations of religious freedom during the preceding 12
months, are to be designated as Countries of Particular
Concern, or CPC countries.
In September, the Department of State issued its report for
the last 6 months of 2010. The reason for the abbreviated
report is to introduce a new reporting cycle that will be based
on the calendar year instead of the previous July to June
reporting period.
The State Department also notified Congress in September
that eight countries have been redesignated as CPCs: Burma,
China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and
Uzbekistan. These are the same eight countries that previously
had been designated by the Bush administration on January 16 of
2009.
Pursuant to the IRF Act, the Secretary must impose new
Presidential actions, issue waivers or authorize an additional
90-day extension for such actions against these eight countries
by December 12. I and other Members of Congress are strongly
urging the administration not to double-hat sanctions against
these countries as has been done previously, but to impose
measures that have some teeth and that are likely to produce
the desired results. Any thoughts from our witnesses about what
actions should be taken would be both timely and most
appreciated.
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
recommended several additional countries be added to that list.
They include Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and
Vietnam. I would also be interested in hearing from our
witnesses as to whether they agree with the Commission that any
or all of these countries should be CPC countries.
Just 2 days ago, I chaired a hearing of the Helsinki
Commission on the horrific plight of Coptic Christians in
Egypt. In July, the Foreign Affairs Committee accepted two
religious freedom amendments that I proposed to the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act, or H.R. 2583. One calls on the
administration to include the protection of Coptic Christian
communities as a priority in our diplomatic engagements with
the Government of Egypt, and the other prohibits increased
nonhumanitarian assistance to Vietnam until its government
makes substantial progress toward respecting the right to
freedom of religion, among other requirements, rather than what
they doing now, which is serious regression.
I was also deeply disturbed by the assassination of
Pakistan's Federal Minister of Minorities, as we all were, and
joined by several people on this subcommittee and throughout
the House, including Frank Wolf and so many other Members, when
Shahbaz Bhatti on March 12 of this year died by assassination.
I had met personally, on a number of occasions, with
Minister Bhatti when he visited Washington, DC, and was
extremely inspired, encouraged and nearly awed by his courage
and by his commitment to promote the rights of religious
minorities and harmony among all faiths in his country. His
killing was a tragic loss for all Pakistanis, and the ongoing
failure of the Pakistani Government to identify his assassins
and bring them to justice is an ongoing violation of respect
for the religious freedom.
In closing, I would like to note that the State
Department's Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious
Freedom, Dr. Suzan Johnson Cook, was invited to testify at this
hearing and present the report written by her office.
Unfortunately, the State Department refused to allow her to
appear without another State Department official on her panel.
Given the important responsibilities assigned to the
Ambassador-at-Large pursuant to the IRF Act, including
advancing the right to religious freedom abroad through
diplomatic representations on behalf of the United States, our
subcommittee looks forward to the opportunity to hear from
Ambassador Johnson Cook when she is allowed to testify on her
own.
And I would point out parenthetically that time and again
in this room we have had the Ambassador-at-Large sit right
there and give a world view, country specific view, as to what
the Bush administration, or what they were doing in the last
year of the Clinton administration, to advance fundamental
human rights relative to religious freedom. We hope that
Ambassador Johnson Cook will be here at some point.
I now yield to my friend, Donald Payne, the ranking member.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much and let me begin by thanking
Chairman Smith for calling this hearing on the State
Department's 2011 International Religious Freedom Report. This
hearing follows a June hearing on the U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) 2011 report.
I would like to thank our distinguished witnesses for being
here today to shine light on religious freedom and justices
throughout the world. Mr. Leo, you testified at the hearing as
well at that time, and I thank you for agreeing to return
again.
According to the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion
and Public Life, the majority of the world's populations, some
70 percent, live under high or very high restrictions on
religious practice. Some 2.2 billion people live in nations
where government restrictions or social hostilities are
increasing. A combination of religious discrimination,
political exclusion and social unrest is dangerous for conflict
and extremist groups, which often thrive under such
circumstances by exploiting the grievances of disenfranchised
religious minorities. Many times they do not really have the
true concerns about the problem. However, they move in to
exploit the situation, and that creates a difficult situation.
Take Nigeria, where the nebulous Islamic extremist group
Boko Haram has become increasingly active. This August, for the
first time, the group attacked a Western target, the U.N.
building in Abuja. This week Nigeria's President, Goodluck
Jonathan, announced a special security fund to help the
military tackle Boko Haram. However, to successfully limit the
group's recruitment base, social development and interface
dialogue must be a priority.
We note that Nigeria's interreligious tensions stem from a
myriad of nonreligious civilian grievances against the
government, including the lack of basic social services and
adequate distribution of wealth, corruption, and laws that
allow discrimination in various areas, including employment and
political participation, based on whether an individual was
considered to be a native or a settler in a given geographic
area. The addendum to the 2011 State Department report cites an
example of a property dispute which ignited clashes between
Muslims and Christians leaving 96 dead.
So we see people move in to exploit some of the problems
that the government has left unanswered, interfaith conflict
resolutions and traditional community-based mediation
mechanisms are key to addressing these tensions. But the
Nigerian Government will need to do more through development
and improved governance to tackle the root causes of grievances
in the same way that they instituted initiatives in their
government to successfully target human trafficking, making
Nigeria, on the one hand the only African nation ranked as a
Tier I country in the 2011 Trafficking in Persons report. The
Nigerian Government can also use innovative approaches to
address this challenge, on the one hand extremely successful,
really have made tremendous strides. We heard that in a recent
hearing that we had. Tier I, which is unusual for many of the
developing countries in Africa, but in religious persecution we
find just the opposite. So somehow we have got to be able to
translate the same interests that we have and that area into
this.
As Dr. Smith points out in his testimony, many of the most
atrocious violators of religious freedom are also the most
authoritarian and oppressive dictators. In Sudan, Bashir's
attempt to severely restrict religious freedom were among the
factors that fueled the country's decade long civil war between
the North and the South, 4 million people displaced, 2 million
people died since 1989 when the conflict began.
I was in Juba at the joyful celebration of South Sudan's
independence this summer. However, since then there have been
numerous clashes on the border area. Adding to his laundry list
of gross human rights violations against his own people, Bashir
continues to impose Sharia law on Sudan's citizens and
continues to discriminate against non-Muslims.
I look forward to hearing from our panelists about how the
United States and the international community can work to
improve interfaith conflict resolutions in countries like Sudan
by supporting U.S. and indigenous peace-building solutions.
The United States Institute of Peace is making great
strides in this area. Yet not everyone in Congress believes
that investing in peace building is better than taking a
military approach, and the organization's funding is currently
in jeopardy.
For example, USIP's religious and peacemaking center is
promoting interfaith dialogue and mediation in combat zones.
The center announced a 2006 study, authored a 2006 study which
demonstrated that military chaplains as clergy and officers are
well suited to serve as intermediaries between military and
religious leaders in the area of conflict and post-conflict
stabilization.
A recent article in the Atlantic Magazine highlighted the
story of a naval chaplain, Lieutenant Commander Nathan Solomon,
an Afghan army captain and mullah, Abdul Khabir. The two sought
to refute Taliban propaganda about Afghan soldiers and improve
relations with the locals through both dialogue and service.
The two managed to bring together local citizens and religious
leaders from various tribes to discuss the negative forces that
the Taliban is having on both Islam and Afghanistan.
The article closes with Solomon, the noncombatant, who had
perhaps shaped the battlefield as powerfully as any bullet fire
or bomb dropped across Afghanistan that particular day.
These innovative approaches are important in fighting
religious persecution and resolving religious conflict
globally. And we cannot focus on defending the right of only
one or two religions when promoting religious tolerance. People
of all faiths, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus,
Sikhs and all the rest deserve equal rights to practice their
faith without persecution.
I look forward to our discussion on how USCIRF is working
to protect the rights of all faiths as well as hearing from our
second panel of experts about how to improve U.S. programs
aimed at eliminating religious persecution and promoting
interfaith conflict resolution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Mr. Payne.
Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have no comment.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Okay. Mr. Carnahan.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
Payne for holding this hearing about the State Department's
International Religious Freedom Report. This really is part of
the human rights jurisdiction of this subcommittee, so I
appreciate the focus that is being given to this topic, and I
really hope we can shed light on the serious human rights
infringements that far too many around the world encounter.
We have heard the daunting statistics: An estimated 6.8
billion people, 70 percent of the world's population, live
under high restrictions on religious activity. In countries
around the world minority religious groups are targets of state
sanctioned repression, while others go so far as providing safe
havens for violent extremism, or suppressing religious
expression virtually writ large.
Evidence shows the U.S. has a strong interest in promoting
religious freedom globally. As with other indicators of
democracy and human rights, nations that respect religious
tolerance generally enjoy greater economic prosperity and
social stability.
I look forward to hearing from the panelists on these
trends along with the recommendations of the most strategic and
effective means for the U.S. and the international community to
influence governing systems to respect all human rights,
including religious freedom, and foster attitudes of greater
tolerance around the world.
I am especially interested in how we might strengthen our
efforts to support interfaith dialogue and public diplomacy
tools that promote religious freedom.
In closing, I would like to thank the panelists for their
testimony and their time and expertise that you bring to bear
today.
I yield back.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Mr. Carnahan.
I would now like to welcome to the witness table Mr. Leonard A.
Leo, who serves as executive vice president of the Federalist
Society, but he is here today as the chairman of the U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom, and has served
as commissioner for USCIRF since 2007.
The Commission was created 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
Congress with respect to international religious freedom
matters.
Mr. Leo is a prolific author, has published several
articles on religious liberty under the U.S. Constitution.
Among his many activities, he has served as U.S. Delegate to
the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and is involved with the
U.S. National Commission to the U.N. Educational, Scientific,
Cultural Organization.
Mr. Leo received his undergraduate degree with high honors
from Cornell University in 1987 and his law degree from Cornell
Law School with honors in 1989. Mr. Leo, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF MR. LEONARD LEO, CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMISSION ON
INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Mr. Leo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
privilege to be here. We are very grateful, Mr. Chairman, for
your leadership on these issues involving the preservation of
freedom of religion around the world. Mr. Payne, it is nice to
see you again. We had a wonderful conversation about a number
of African countries during the last hearing and we are very
grateful for your leadership in Sudan and Nigeria, as you
mentioned, and a number of other countries, and we are, as a
commission, always interested in talking with you about your
experiences in that part of the world where we have been
spending a lot of our time and attention.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to have
the full content of my testimony entered into the record, not
the redacted version.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Without objection.
Mr. Leo. Well, again, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Payne
and members of the committee, on behalf of the U.S. Commission
on International Religious Freedom, or USCIRF, I am grateful
for today's opportunity to testify about the State Department's
2011 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, or the
IRF Report, as it is known, and the critical role of the
legislative and executive branches and USCIRF in promoting
religious freedom abroad.
Religious freedom, of course, is a fundamental human right
and a key issue in countries that top our foreign policy
agenda. From Egypt to China, Iraq to Sudan, Nigeria to Vietnam,
Russia to Turkey, promoting and protecting this right has never
been more violent or challenging.
By any measure, religious freedom matters, and yet as you
have noted, across the globe it is routinely violated. I know a
number of you mentioned the Pew study, which was quite alarming
and disconcerting. Members of the every religious community are
being persecuted somewhere in the world, Hindus, Sikhs,
Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, evangelicals, Jews, Baha'is,
Ahmadis, Sunnis, Sufis, Uyghur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, the
Falun Gong, Jehovah's Witnesses. It is truly chilling to see
the number of religious minorities that are persecuted, and in
some countries it is majority Muslim communities that are even
persecuted by their own governments. And now this raises an
obvious question, why should we as the United States care about
this?
Well, first of all, of course, we should care because first
it is wrong to hunt down, imprison, torture, and kill people
simply because they want to follow the dictates of their
conscience. We also should care because every available study
finds that religious freedom is correlated with stability and
security in this world. Nations that fail to protect religious
freedom and other rights are breeding grounds for poverty, war
and violent extremist movements which give rise to terrorism,
of course, Mr. Payne, Nigeria being a very perfect example of
this right now.
In the struggle for religious freedom overseas, USCIRF
remains the world's only independent government body fully
dedicated to this cause, and through our work we spotlighted
the world's worst religious freedom violators. We have helped
to get religious prisoners released in places like Saudi Arabia
and Turkmenistan. We helped lay the groundwork this year for
the defeat this year at the U.N. Defamation of Religions
Resolution, essentially a global blasphemy measure by
partnering with Members of Congress, the State Department and
specific U.N. member states.
We raised the need to identify Iranian officials and
entities responsible for severe religious freedom violations
and imposed travel bans and asset freezes on such offenders.
These sanctions are included in the Comprehensive Iran
Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, which requires
the President to impose tough sanctions against Iranian human
rights and religious freedom violators.
As part of its continued concern about religious freedom in
Sudan, USCIRF was the first entity to call for the U.S.
Secretary of State's direct engagement in the implementation of
the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and was one of the first U.S.
Government entities to meet with U.S.-Sudanese refugees who had
fled aerial bombardments in the Nuba Mountains and were now at
the Aida refugee camp in South Sudan. Our staff just came back
from that area a couple of weeks ago and the situation is
really concerning and chilling in the border region, as you
noted, Mr. Payne.
USCIRF recently released a landmark study, which I have
here, detailing how Pakistan's educational system, both its
public schools and madrasas, serve as an incubator of
intolerance and religious extremism, while also revealing some
unexpected opportunities to pursue positive reforms.
By any reasonable calculation, USCIRF is an effective and
pivotal advocate for freedom of religion or belief, yet our
commission, of course, cannot go it alone. Simply stated, we
need both our legislative and executive branch partners to help
us fulfill our mission.
In September of this year, the full House voted
overwhelmingly to reauthorize our commission. The Senate has
yet to pass a measure reauthorizing USCIRF and USCIRF is on the
verge of expiring. This must not happen. It would signal to the
world that the United States is retreating from the cause of
religious freedom. So our hope is that the Senate will act and
hopefully can act this week.
Clearly, we need Congress, and we also need the executive
branch as full partners in the religious freedom battle. That
includes the State Department--and let me commend the great
work by Ambassador Johnson Cook and her team at the Office of
International Religious Freedom in compiling the September 2011
IRF Report. We applaud the concurrent release of the IRF Report
and the State Department's designating the CPC status for the
world's worst religious freedom violators.
While we are disappointed that our recommendations for CPC
status for countries like Vietnam and Pakistan were not acted
on, we welcome the Barack Obama administration keeping prior
CPC mentions on the list.
Make no mistake, religious freedom matters. As Elie Wiesel
once said, and I quote, ``I swore never to be silent whenever
and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We
must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor. . . . Silence
encourages the tormentor. . . .'' What all victims need is to
know that they are not alone, that when their voices are
stifled we shall lend them ours, that while their freedom
depends on ours, the quality of our freedom depends on theirs.
Let us have a fully engaged U.S. Government dedicated to that
proposition.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Leo follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Mr. Leo, thank you very much for
your testimony. This report that your commission put out this
year, if not the best is certainly among the best, but I would
argue the best year's to date. So thank you for a very
comprehensive analysis of the problem. We have very concrete
examples that hopefully Congress and the executive branch and
all interested parties will take seriously and look to
implement. But when it comes to legislation, obviously, that is
here and at the White House that we need to be taking special
note.
You were too kind, I think, in suggesting that the existing
CPC countries were retained. Of course there is always concerns
that political issues will intervene and some of those
countries might drop off. I think the shock value for China,
for example, having been on it now virtually every year, they
have realized that there is next to no sanction that follows.
Therefore, my hope would be that the administration is serious,
because just this morning I held my 33rd hearing on human
rights abuses in China. As chairman of the Congressional-
Executive Commission on China. I see that things are getting
far worse in China toward everyone who cares about human
rights, workers rights, but especially toward those who
manifest a belief in God, or, in the case of the Falun Gong, a
spiritual exercise. The crackdown is pervasive and severe. It
is not just ongoing, it is getting worse. And I would hope, as
you have said and had said before, that we don't just talk
about double hatting sanctions that are preexisting, that there
be some breakout and that these countries like China and Sudan
and certainly Saudi Arabia, which has gotten away virtually
scot free as well, when it comes to penalty are held to
account.
But the countries you did mention, Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Vietnam, it is baffling as to why--
when we did this legislation and all of the hearings were held
in this room by yours truly on Frank Wolf's bill and he
testified, and he was obviously the author of the legislation,
but we never meant that the designation should in any way be
nothing but speaking truth to power, and yet these countries,
which you so bravely, I think, put forward that should be on
the list have been elusive in terms of the State Department
putting those countries on the list. It is baffling, and I do
hope we can get some answers from the administration as to why,
because what they do in terms of penalty and the next step, you
know, may go through an additional process of what is the most
efficacious way of advancing the ball, but just tell the truth.
If they are a Country of Particular Concern, put them on.
Maybe you might want to speak to some of those countries.
Egypt, we just had a hearing, as you know, on the forced
abduction of Coptic Christian girls. Michele Clark testified, a
great leader at the OSCE for years on human trafficking, and
she has done great reporting, working with Christian Solidarity
International on these young teenagers who are first abducted,
and then forced into Islamic marriages when they turn 18,
abused along the way, and yet our administration says these are
just allegations. It is time, she said, we are beyond the
allegation stage, it is real and it is pervasive.
Egypt--you might want to speak to some of the issues that
you believe ought to have been placed on CPC status.
Mr. Leo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, first as an
institutional matter, there is a real problem with passing over
certain countries for CPC status, just as there is a real
problem with not imposing sanctions or always double hatting
sanctions. Eritrea is, I think, the only country that has
direct sanctions under the IRFA on it.
The problem with not designated countries--there clearly
should be--and the problem with not having a sanctions regime
that really works--is it sends a terrible message to (1) some
of the countries that are on the list because they believe
being placed on the list really doesn't have any impact. And
(2) it sends a very strong message to other countries that we
are not serious about bolstering preservation of freedom of
religion around the world, so why should they do anything to
improve conditions there back at home.
And so it is very, very important and I think that the
creators of the IRF Act understood this. The CPC designation
process itself be very rigorous, and that similar countries be
treated alike, and that they be placed on the list and that
when you are placed on the list, there is some, there is some
force that comes to bear on that country to ensure compliance
with international human rights standards.
And with regard to the particular countries you mentioned,
Mr. Chairman, that are not on the list, for example, Pakistan
and Egypt, conditions in Pakistan, as you well know, are
horrific. In addition to various forms of state-sponsored
repression, one of the most serious problems of Pakistan is
impunity, private, sectarian violence that is unchecked by the
government, and that is caused by a number of factors. For one
thing it is caused by a blasphemy law which incentivizes people
to take matters into their own hands and to seek to punish
individuals who they believe are not treating religion
properly.
Secondly, as we noted in the report we just issued on
Pakistan's educational system, the madrasas and public schools
in Pakistan are teaching a level of intolerance that is just
unacceptable, and that level of intolerance affects not only
minority Muslim communities and Christians but also Hindus in
Pakistan, and that is a very, very serious problem.
Egypt, you know, Egypt you see a lot of the same problems,
Mr. Chairman. You see, again, impunity, a situation where
violence perpetrated against the Coptic Christian communities
remains unchecked. This was a problem during the Mubarak
administration, but it is a problem now just as well and there
doesn't seem to be any end of it in sight.
We have also seen very significant repression by the state
of various religious minorities, including the Baha'i
community.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Without objection, I would like to
add the summary, multi-page summary of ``Connecting the Dots:
Education and Religious Discrimination in Pakistan,'' the
excellent study. I know it is much longer, but this is the
shorter version in which your office has looked so carefully
into the educational system. If you want to just further
elaborate on that briefly, because this is a very, very
troubling report.
Mr. Leo. Sure, be happy to. We commissioned a study to look
at a number of public schools, as well as madrasas around
Pakistan. And the idea behind the study was (1) to see what
kinds of things are being taught to these children regarding
various faiths in Pakistan, and then (2) to see what links
existed between the education they received and the kinds of
intolerance and extremism we see in Pakistani society right
now.
And much to our dismay, what we found was that there are
elements of nationalism and prejudice that cause teachers to
teach students in these schools that those who are religious
minorities are not full citizens in Pakistan. All of the normal
prejudices about Jews and Christians and Hindus are perpetrated
through the curriculum, and what we found, through the focus
groups and other studies that took place here over the course
of the year, is that this discrimination and these pejorative
references end up creating a young citizenry in Pakistan which
is very intolerant of religious minorities, doesn't understand
what they believe in, view them as a threat to Pakistan's
culture, and that is a very, very serious, a very serious
problem and, we believe, and I think the study bears this out,
that that kind of extremist intolerant education creates great
instability in the country.
It fuels extremism, it causes Pakistan to be a breeding
ground for violent extremist ideology that is exported
throughout North and sub-Saharan Africa. Mr. Payne, if you go
to northern Nigeria you will find pamphlets and leaflets that
were sent over from Pakistan that are quite extremist in their
orientation. So we think the educational system in Pakistan
needs great improvement.
Fortunately, the madrasas in Pakistan, the private schools,
many of them actually want to reform the curriculum. But the
stumbling block is that that would require a change in the
rules or laws by the Interior Ministry of Pakistan and until
the Interior Ministry responds and starts to change the rules
of the game, those private madrasas can't change their
curriculum. And so one of our objectives is to try to have the
United States put as much pressure as possible on the Pakistani
Government to change those rules so that those madrasas can
reform their curricula which we believe in turn would put
competitive pressure on the public schools to do the same.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Very briefly on Vietnam because
then I will yield to my colleagues for any questions, and I am
going to submit several questions because time does not permit
asking all of them.
But would you briefly touch on what was clearly an about
face, what looked like some progress was being made in the
lead-up to the trade agreement between the U.S. and Vietnam and
most-favored nation status being granted. Almost to the day
there was a U-turn and people espousing human rights in
general, and religious freedom in particular, have been rounded
up and have been harassed, clearly indicating that CPC status
ought to be imposed upon Vietnam.
And secondly, in Sudan, with Bashir and Khartoum
contemplating a new Constitution that would be very
exclusionary toward people of other faiths and even some
Muslims, many people are leaving, some going to South Sudan.
Could you just touch on that very briefly?
Mr. Leo. Well, as you point out, Mr. Chairman, the
situation in Vietnam took an about face after WTO accession.
The Vietnamese wanted WTO accession. Once they got it they
walked away from the table on religious freedom. It is just
that simple. There was a carrot and a stick around prior to WTO
accession. When that went away there wasn't much left.
And this is one of those instances where we believe that
CPC status would really be a game changer, because we know that
that kind of pressure has worked with the Vietnamese in the
past and we are at a stage in our relations with Vietnam where
there are bilateral negotiations on a lot of fronts involving
trade and the economy and culture. And to have, you know, that
leverage again would be extraordinarily valuable.
You are quite right. The situation in Vietnam is getting
worse, not better. You have public order, regulations and rules
that are being used in a very arbitrary and abusive way to put
away and detain people of faith, oftentimes Catholic priests.
You have communities in Vietnam that have had their cemeteries
and religious grounds bulldozed so that the state can erect
resorts. This is a very, very serious problem.
With regard to Sudan, where to begin. You know, all of us
saw July 9 come and go, and there was a lot of fanfare in the
press about Sudan's independence.
Where is the press now? Mass graves of more than 5,000
Christians and other Southern Sudanese, aerial bombardments at
night of refugee camps, every single church and clergyman in
Southern Kordofan is gone, they have left. There is not a
single church in the entire state. When you combine all of that
which is happening on the border region with the so-called
constitutional reform, which is going to be taking place in
North Sudan, where President Bashir has said he wants to create
an Islamist state, you have an extremely unstable set of
regimes and you have a set of regimes where human rights abuses
will continue to be perpetrated in a way that it should be of
enormous concern and alarm to the United States, but it is not
making the pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post. It
is not capturing the attention of most world leaders. It is a
very, very serious situation.
We met just a couple of weeks ago with the Deputy National
Security Adviser to the German Chancellor and he wasn't aware
of the mass graves in the border region of South Sudan. He
wasn't aware of the area of bombardments, the refugee camps. It
is terrible, absolutely terrible, and we must stand up and do
something, and I think the first step that we should take right
now is tell the North Sudanese that if they want debt relief,
which is something they are trotting the globe trying to get
right now, it should be conditioned on them creating a pathway
for humanitarian assistance to the refugees in the border
region and the cessation of aerial bombardments.
And if they are not willing to undertake those two
humanitarian gestures, which will not only protect people of
faith but all peoples, then we should not bargain with
Khartoum.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you. Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Once again, thank you very much, Mr. Leo, for
your continued strong positions on this issue. I too am very
disturbed at what is occurring in Sudan. We, as you indicated,
thought July 9 would be a new time, a new day. The Government
of Sudan has actually even had some of bombings across the
border into South Sudan recently it has been reported. And the
situation in Southern Kordofan is just untenable. As you know,
there was supposed to be an agreement since Southern Kordofan
was incorporated into Sudan although Southern Kordofan, as you
know, fought with the South Sudanese and were part of the SPLM
and SPLA. And so the fact that they have been incorporated in
another country really makes them captives in Sudan where they
really should be a part of South Sudan.
And so I too agree there has been in the past several
months, it seems, you know, a feeling on the part of some in
the administration that because Bashir went along with July 9
that there should be some carrots that should be given.
But I agree certainly, I certainly concur with you that I
think that there are too many unresolved issues, there is no
question about Darfur. Darfur is even not discussed very much.
People living out in desert conditions in Chad and refugee
camps are going to be going on 8 years with no plans for Sudan
to talk about a right to return for people in Darfur. They are
just there.
As a matter of fact, as you may recall, they even had the
humanitarian food delivery interrupted about a year or so ago
where they were excluding human rights organizations
attempting--and decided which NGOs would have the right to give
relief to the Darfurians. And so we have a very serious
situation there.
In your opinion, since the separation, and I know it has
only been a short time, do you think that in the North things
have in general have worsened or is there more unity in Sudan,
Khartoum Government?
Mr. Leo. Thank you, Mr. Payne and, again, thank you very
much for your leadership on these issues as part of the caucus.
Unfortunately, things have deteriorated in the northern
part, in North Sudan on a couple of fronts. First of all,
President Bashir has tried to snuff out all political
opposition. And in the absence of that sort of diverse
political opposition, there is not going to be a full throttle
debate about what kind of constitutional government Sudan
should have and whether freedom of religion will be an integral
part of it. Because as you know, some of that political
opposition is grounded in other nonconforming views of Islam.
And so in the absence of that, you won't have the kind of
diversity of opinion that would lead to a Constitution that had
greater protections for religious minorities.
Secondly, you know, there still have, in addition to
certain nonconforming Muslims, there are still some Christians
who live in the North and they are very, very concerned for
their well-being because the kind of Islamist state that
President Bashir has promised to create would be wholly
consistent with their long-term well-being and survival in
North Sudan, part of the reason why so many of them have fled
to South Sudan. The problem, of course, is that things are not
a whole lot better there for them because South Sudan doesn't
have the capacity to care for these people. So they are in a
no-win, they are in a no-win situation.
And, then, finally, because the North never really created
a media law that allows for a vibrant press, there is very
little sunlight cast on what is going on there, and so much of
the world, the EU and other parts of the world, really don't
fully comprehend the extent of the repression.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. Getting to the State
Department, I understand that the State Department has labeled
eight Countries of Particular Concern. In the report produced
by USCIRF you identified an additional six. Is there any way
you could determine what factors factor into the way that CPC
looks at it as opposed to the State Department?
Mr. Leo. Well, some of it, Mr. Payne, is institutional. I
mean USCIRF's mandate is to look solely at religious freedom
violations. So when we look at a country, you know, that is our
single-minded focus by the terms of our statute. Obviously the
State Department has to look, does look at a broad range of
factors when it decides how to deal with a country.
So even though, you know, oftentimes our findings and the
State Department's on a country might be very similar in terms
of religious freedom violations. They may make the
determination that naming them a Country of Particular Concern
or imposing certain sanctions is not going to have the intended
effect on improving conditions. Now, we often disagree with
that.
So in the case of Pakistan, I suspect what the State
Department would tell you is naming Pakistan a CPC will hurt
rather than help. That will be their argument. We respectfully
disagree. We believe that there is not going to ever be a
perfect time to name Pakistan as a CPC, but that in fact we are
at a point in Pakistan's cultural life where there are a
sufficient number of imams and madrasas who believe in reform
that naming Pakistan as a CPC and then being very strategic in
terms of the way we dialogue about various kinds of reforms, we
could actually help to embolden communities in Pakistan who
could sort of start to move the ball in a positive direction.
Similarly, what you have been told about a country like
Vietnam is that there has been some progress made and we are
having human rights dialogues with them. Again, we understand
that argument, but we respectfully disagree. Our view of the
history is that Vietnam has only responded and responded
favorably when they have had a lot of pressure come to bear on
them as a country.
So to some extent it is institutional. You know, we look at
one issue, they look at a basket. To some extent it is
situational. You know, we sometimes gauge the cultural factors
differently than the State Department does.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. Since we are going to have
votes, I agree that they tend to, even in dealing with Bashir,
when I would be pushing for very hard sanctions they would say,
well, you know, there are some other leaders in Sudan that
could be worse, and so we have to be careful so it doesn't get
worse. I agree, you know, I have never heard anyone being able
to predict, or predict the unknown. I mean, you can't validate
the unknown, you don't know what the next leader would be.
So I have the same kind of problems with some of their
findings that you probably have in your capacity. Thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Mr. Payne.
Mr. Carnahan.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I had a couple
of issues I wanted to cover with you, Mr. Leo. Again, thank you
for being here.
I wanted to really talk about the importance of interfaith
dialogue. In Nigeria, there is a model program there, the
mediation center, we have heard good reports about. I wanted to
ask how important this interfaith dialogue is in promoting
religious freedom. Number one, what is USCIRF doing to promote
this and is there anything more that can be done?
Mr. Leo. Thank you, Mr. Carnahan. Interfaith dialogue is
obviously very important, and you mentioned Nigeria, where
there has been an infrastructure for interfaith dialogue
between the Muslim communities and the Christian communities
there, oftentimes led by the Sultan of Sokoto and Archbishop of
Uwe Akan of the Catholic Church and the Sultan of Northern
Nigeria, a leading member of the Muslim community there.
But, you know, in recent months and in the past year, we
noticed in our trips to Nigeria, we have been there about four
times in the past 2 years, that things are really starting to
break down and the interfaith dialogue isn't working as well as
it used to.
And I think the reason that is the case is because you need
to buttress interfaith dialogue with a strong set of
enforcement mechanisms when extremists break the law. So in
Nigeria the problem and, Mr. Payne, you mentioned Boko Haram,
the problem in Nigeria right now is there that there are a
bunch of extremist, Boko Haram among them, that are
perpetrating an enormous amount of violence in the middle belt
region of Nigeria. And the Nigerian Government is doing very
little, if anything, to investigate, prosecute and bring to
justice the people who perpetrate that violence.
Well, what does that do? What it does is it breaks up that
discussion at that interfaith table. Because suddenly, the
people who have friends and relatives who have been killed and
that no justice has been done to sort of, you know, punish the
perpetrators of that violence, they don't want to talk anymore.
They don't want to find common ground. They want vindication
that what was done to their community is wrong.
And so what I think in terms of what more can be done to
bolster interfaith dialogue, first of all you have to find the
kinds of talented leaders that Nigeria has, like the Sultan and
the Archbishop, but then also the government has to be
committed to enforcing the law when violence takes place or no
one will sit down and dialogue. And we have seen that in
country after country after country, although Nigeria in recent
years has been the most, the most recent example.
The U.S. has dedicated, I think, a significant amount of
aid in various countries toward this dialogue. I think that is
a good thing, Nigeria being one of them. But I think we need to
probably combine that kind of aid with aid to train prosecutors
and law enforcement officials about how to deal with the
perpetration of religiously related violence in a way that is
consistent with human rights.
Mr. Carnahan. If we have time, Mr. Chairman, I will try to
get one more in before we have to go vote. I wanted to ask
about the role that the Internet and social media are playing
either in a harmful way or a positive way within the context of
religious freedom. Certainly we have seen it have a dramatic
impact across the Middle East and North Africa during this Arab
Spring, but in particular how are those tools being used in
positive or negative ways to promote international religious
freedom?
Mr. Leo. There is no question that the Internet and social
media has been very empowering for human rights defenders and
religious minorities around the world. You have seen some of it
in the Middle East, you see some of it in China and Vietnam and
that is very, very important. So Internet freedom is a very
important policy issue for the United States in this regard
because it really does empower and bolster those human rights
defenders and those people who want to defend religious
minorities.
But at the same time, Mr. Carnahan, the Internet and social
media can be a tool used for violence and for evil. And so what
we have seen in northern and sub-Saharan Africa, for example,
is that the Internet has been a tool for the Taliban and other
extremist groups to shift their ideology to groups and
individuals in north and sub-Saharan Africa for example. Boko
Haram, for example, gets a lot of its material off the
Internet.
When we met in Nigeria with the head of security services,
they said that the Internet is probably the number one thing
that sort of perpetuates the sort of violent extremism amongst
members of Boko Haram. And that is the case in other countries,
too. We see that in Indonesia where there are extremist
elements that get a lot of extremist ideology through the
Internet from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. So it is a wonderful
tool and resource for human rights defenders, but it can also
be used for evil purposes. And so we need to probably
complement our Internet freedom efforts with a campaign against
the exportation of extremist ideology around the world.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Carnahan. Let me
ask three final questions, and I will keep the record open even
if we all have to leave here, and I would hope, Mr. Leo, you
would answer the questions in full.
With regard to India, Bishop Ramirez has made a very
interesting point in his testimony that the State Department
doesn't designate India as a CPC country, has no watch list.
India is one of the few countries where USCIRF has not been
able to arrange even a delegation visit despite several
attempts to obtain visas. The failure seems to be particularly
unusual in light of the fact that the U.S. entered into a
strategic dialogue with India in 2009, and there have been
several high-level visits exchanged. Religious freedom does not
appear to have been a topic of discussion in this strategic
dialogue.
Secondly on Iraq, as the Bishop points out again, Bishop
Ramirez, these are my words, we kind of own Iraq in a sense
that we, by being involved in the war, which was opposed by the
Church, there is a responsibility now, a heightened
responsibility in the U.S. to ensure that the minority
religions that are a millennium old go back to the founding of
the Church, are facing extreme pressures, discrimination and
murder. If you want to speak on Iraq, I would appreciate that.
And finally, the Bishop makes another very important
comment, many important comments, that there is little, too
little public evidence, he writes, that protection of religious
freedom is factored into major bilateral foreign policy
decisions on a day-to-day basis.
The strategic dialogues with several key countries seldom
mentions religious freedom in public records of discussions.
The issue may have been raised in private, but there needs to
be a more overt recognition of the importance that the U.S.
places on protection of religious freedom. Otherwise, it may
appear that our Nation is going through the motions of
satisfying a congressional mandate of not following up by
making religious freedom an integral part of the foreign policy
decision-making process.
As you know, that is why we passed this law in the first
place, because religious freedom was always relegated to the
back of the talking points, if that. And if you could speak to
that issue, if you would, because, you know, how many years
after, since 1998, since enactment of this law, and we are
still having this discussion where this has not been mainstream
and made an integral part of our foreign policy.
Mr. Leo. Well, His Excellency Bishop Ramirez is, as he
always was as a commissioner of USCIRF, you know, spot on.
These religious freedom issues are not adequately factored into
our bilateral discussions and we are constantly pressing for
those issues to sort of come to the surface and be higher
priorities. That has especially been the case recently with a
number of Southeast Asian countries where in the case of China
and Vietnam, for example, we are just not seeing freedom of
religion reach that level.
My hope is that over time the IRF office and the IRF
Ambassador can inflict more pressure within the State
Department system to sort of try to make those issues a higher
priority. We have hopes that Vice President Biden, in his
upcoming visit to Turkey--I think he is leaving very soon--will
engage the Turks on the issue of freedom of religion and
particularly the reopening of the Halki Seminary.
So I think having the Vice President engaged in that way
would send a very, very strong signal to the bureaus in the
State Department that religious freedom needs to be critical on
a bilateral basis.
You mentioned India and Iraq, very different countries in a
lot of ways, you know, but the one common element there is
impunity. And what you see in India and in Iraq is just a
situation where, you know, there needs to be as much as
possible an effort to prosecute religiously related violence.
Obviously the situation is very different in India, where there
have been investigations and prosecutions. The question is the
extent and speed, and that is something we are looking into and
trying to engage with the Indian Government on.
The situation in Iraq is much worse. I mean there, there is
almost a total breakdown in prosecution of religiously related
violence and it is causing the extinction of the Christian
community in that country.
Mr. Turner [presiding]. If I may, another question on--if
we can get back to Pakistan for a moment. I might catch my
breath. The madrassases. I understand there is funding from
Saudi Arabia. Do you feel that has an impact? And does our own
foreign aid, which is probably not used as leverage, kind of
counter it; are we doing what we can and should?
Mr. Leo. First of all, there is no question that the Saudis
are responsible for the exportation of an enormous amount of
extremist ideology. Their textbooks and educational materials
have not been reformed as they should be. They speak of
spilling the blood of the infidel. That is Christians and Jews.
There are a lot of other very concerning passages throughout
their materials.
When we visited Saudi Arabia recently and met with the
Minister of Religious Affairs, we were not satisfied with the
responses he or the Administrator of Education gave in terms of
the extent to which they are trying to clean up their
educational and other materials. But the bottom line is because
Saudi Arabia is, if you will, the Vatican of Islam. Their
educational materials serve as the basis for a lot of education
elsewhere in the world. So they are exporting a brand of
extremism often which is very toxic.
And we have seen that in Pakistan, Mr. Turner, with a
number of the madrassases where there are a lot of pejorative
commentaries about Hindus and about Christians and about Jews.
And that is helping to perpetuate some very negative
stereotypes amongst the young people in Pakistan, which breeds
violence. I mean, Pakistan is a little bit more complicated
than that, though, in the sense that there are some madrassases
in Pakistan--we were talking about this earlier--that do want
to reform their curriculum. This is, I think, due in part to
the fabulous work that was done by the late Shahbaz Bhatti, the
Minister of Minority Affairs who was violently assassinated on
his way to his first cabinet meeting. He brought together quite
a number of imams in and around Islamabad and Pakistan who
wanted to see reform. They control some of those madrassases
and others. And some of those madrassases do want to reform
their curricula, but that is going to require new rules and
laws that could be handed down by the Interior Ministry in
Pakistan. And they haven't done that. Until they do that, those
who do want to reform their curricula within the madrassases
won't be able to.
Now, our hope is that if we can get the Pakistani
Government to change those rules, that some of these
madrassases can actually change their curricula, that will
begin to put valuable competitive pressure on other madrassases
and, by extension, public schools in Pakistan so that some of
them will begin to think about whether they should be changing
their curricula as well. There are signs of hope here.
There are some young people and there are some teachers who
want to reform education in Pakistan, who are more broad-minded
about the role that minorities play in their country. But a lot
of work has to be done and that is going to require both the
Pakistani Government to change some of its rules and, frankly,
on a global scale, the Saudis to begin to take more seriously
their obligation to clean up their own educational materials
which do get pushed around all over the world, including here
in the United States at the Islamic Saudi Academy just across
the river in Fairfax.
Mr. Turner. As far as United States leverage is concerned,
are we exercising that properly? Are we exercising it at all
with both the Saudis and with Pakistan?
Mr. Leo. The Commission's position is that we are not
exercising our leverage sufficiently. In the case of Saudi
Arabia, though, we have named Saudi Arabia as a Country of
Particular Concern for years. Years. We have had an indefinite
Presidential waiver on any sanctions. The Commission's position
is that basically there should be a time period within which
that Presidential waiver remains, but that if certain reforms
are not achieved within that time period, the waiver ceases to
exist and sanctions begin to come down hard on the Saudi
Government.
Where they really need reforms are in terms of their
educational material, in terms of their religious beliefs and a
couple of other things under Saudi law.
With regard to Pakistan, I would say the same thing. You
know, there is never going to be, as we said before, never
going to be a good time to name Pakistan or any other country
as a CPC. But the bottom line is that in our view, now is the
time to name them as a CPC. Conditions are worsening. The
blasphemy law is being applied in terrible ways. There are over
100 individuals, and we can supply you with a chart, there are
over 100 individuals, Christians, nonconforming Muslims,
Hindus, who are imprisoned under their blasphemy law. And that,
by the way, breeds enormous violence and hostility in the
country, and the United States is doing nothing to really sort
of try to put pressure on the Pakistanis to try to change that.
Mr. Turner. The final question. You noted in your testimony
that a political issue in the Senate, unrelated to the
Commission, is holding up the Commission's reauthorization,
which technically expired in September, although the continuing
resolution is providing temporary funding for the Commission
and we hope another CR is passed tomorrow, and that will take
the Commission at least through December. The failure of the
Senate to pass USCIRF's reauthorization is extremely
problematic. Could you tell us how it is affecting your
operation?
Mr. Leo. Well, it is very hard for the Commission to do any
long-range planning when we are not sure of our continued
existence. And when we live from CR to CR--in a way it is
different from most other Federal agencies, because we are not
an executive branch agency that has the benefit of longevity.
So basically we have had a very hard time mapping out a longer-
range agenda. There have been a number of missed opportunities
in terms of putting pressure on various countries. But, you
know, our hope is that the Senate will act on a piece of free-
standing legislation that is at the Senate desk right now. We
are hoping it gets done this week and that that legislation
gets sent here to the House and we can resolve this issue, you
know, before long. It should have happened over a month ago,
but it didn't.
Mr. Turner. Indeed. Thank you. Thank you for your
testimony, Mr. Leo.
And at this point, we would like to seat--call the second
panel. And again we thank you.
We have Bishop Ricardo Ramirez. Bishop Ricardo Ramirez is a
Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Las Cruces, New Mexico. He
served as a commissioner in the U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom from 2003 to 2006. Bishop
Ramirez was ordained to the episcopacy in 1981 and has lived in
Canada, Mexico and the Philippines. He is a member of the
International Justice and Peace Commission within the United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Mr. Benedict Rogers of the Christian Solidarity Worldwide.
Mr. Rogers is the East Asia team leader for Christian
Solidarity Worldwide. Mr. Rogers specializes in human rights in
Burma, Indonesia, and North Korea and oversees CSW's work in
China, Vietnam, and Laos. He has traveled extensively in the
region and regularly publishes articles and books about human
rights in these countries. Mr. Rogers serves as the deputy
chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission in
the UK. And in 2005, he served as special advisor to the
Special Representative of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Freedom of Religion panel.
We have Reverend Majed El Shafie. How is that, bad?
Rev. El Shafie. Very bad. But that is okay.
Mr. Turner. Very bad. Okay. Would you please say it for me?
Majed El Shafie.
Rev. El Shafie. Majed El Shafie. You did a good job. Thank
you.
Mr. Turner. A little better. All right. Well, thank you.
From One World International, Reverend El Shafie is the
President and founder of the One Free World International, a
human rights NGO dedicated to securing the rights of religious
minorities around the world. The reverend is both an ordained
minister and an Egyptian lawyer by training. After converting
from Islam to Christianity, Reverend El Shafie was arrested by
the Mubarak regime in 1998, tortured and sentenced to death. He
escaped, fled to Israel and finally settled in Canada in 2002.
He has been interviewed by numerous media outlets and has
advised the Canadian Government on religious freedom issues.
Thank you.
And finally we have Mr. R. Drew Smith, Center for Church
and Black Experience of the Garrett Evangelical Theological
Seminary. Dr. Smith is the director of the Center for the
Church and the Black Experience at Garrett Evangelical
Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois. He is also scholar
in residence at the Leadership Center at Morehouse College in
Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Smith has taught at several major
institutions of higher education and has traveled widely in
Latin America and Africa. He served as a Fulbright professor in
South Africa in 2005 and as a Fulbright senior specialist in
Cameroon, and has lectured in Brazil, Ghana, Lesotho and
Israel. He has published widely on religious and public life,
including numerous articles and book chapters. Thank you very
much.
Bishop Ramirez, would you please open and proceed?
STATEMENT OF FR. RICARDO RAMIREZ, BISHOP, DIOCESE OF LAS
CRUCES, FORMER COMMISSIONER, U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Bishop Ramirez. Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for advising the U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops to offer testimony under the protection of
religious freedom.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your leadership on this issue.
I am, as you said, Ricardo Ramirez, the Bishop of Las Cruces. I
currently serve on the Committee of International Justice and
Peace of our Bishops Conference. I also had the honor and pride
of serving on the U.S. Commission on International Religious
Freedom from 2003 to 2007. I will summarize our testimony and
ask that the full written testimony be entered into the record.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey [presiding]. Without objection,
yours and those of all who would like to submit their
testimonies will be made a part of the record, as well as any
extraneous materials you would like to add.
Bishop Ramirez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. According to the
Catholic teaching, religious freedom rooted in the dignity of
the human person is a cornerstone of the structure of human
rights and is closely tied to freedoms of speech, association
and assembly. Religious freedom is not solely freedom from
coercion in matters of personal faith, it is also freedom to
practice the faith individually and communally in private and
public.
Freedom of religion extends beyond freedom of worship. It
includes the freedom of the Church and religious organizations
to provide education, health, and other social services, as
well as to allow religiously motivated individuals and
communities to participate in public policy debates and thus
contribute to the common good.
Unfortunately, as has been mentioned before today,
religious freedom is under attack in many countries around the
world. In China, the police crack down on the faithful who
simply want a place to worship. In Egypt, extremists burn
churches, and Christians are persecuted in Eritrea, Baha'is in
Iran, Ahmadiyyas in Indonesia, and Christians and Muslims in
Uzbekistan. The New Year's Day bombing of a Coptic church in
Egypt, the Christmas Eve bombings of churches in Nigeria, and
the October 2010 attack on the Syrian Catholic Church in
Baghdad are grim reminders of what is at stake.
While the annual State Department's International Religious
Freedom Report for 2010 is commendable and fairly thorough, let
me offer brief comments on a few countries. Our staff met on
several occasions with Shahbaz Bhatti, the Pakistani Minister
for Minority Affairs who was assassinated in March 2011. This
followed the January 2011 assassination of Punjab Governor
Salman Tasser, a Muslim. Both were targeted because of their
support for changes in blasphemy laws that are often used to
justify acts against religious minorities. Our Bishops
Conference asked the Department of State to consider whether
these assassinations and other issues warrant designating
Pakistan as a Country of Particular Concern next year. The
State Department report documents a number of abuses of
religious freedom in India; however, there are undoubtedly
other instances not documented.
Our staff visited India in March 2010 to look into the 2008
attacks of Christians in the State of Orissa. While the report
does refer to the incident, there is no mention, as you said,
Mr. Chairman, of the ongoing suffering experienced by Christian
villagers whose homes and livelihoods were destroyed. Many
remain displaced, fearful of returning to their homes. The
State Department report on forced conversions makes scant
mention of Christians being forced to convert to Hinduism in
order to return to their villages. The U.S. entered into a
strategic dialogue with India in 2009, but religious freedom
does not appear to have been a topic for discussion.
This October, two of our bishops made a pastoral visit to
Baghdad. The ancient Christian communities in Iraq have been
decimated. The State Department report does not highlight the
fact that high levels of violence have led to a
disproportionate number of Christians, many professionals,
fleeing abroad as refugees are being displaced internally.
As the U.S. withdraws, we must work with Iraqis to improve
the rule of law, security and economic opportunity. We must
also help refugees and internally displaced persons. This will
require continued U.S. international assistance.
We have several recommendations. First, the Congress and
the administration need to place a higher priority on religious
freedom. There is too little public evidence that protection of
religious freedom is factored into major bilateral foreign
policy decisions.
Second, the State Department needs to give greater
consideration to designating countries of particular concern.
The Commission on International Religious Freedom's list is
longer, adding other countries such as Iraq, Pakistan, Nigeria,
and Turkmenistan. USCIRF also maintains a watch list of
countries where trends indicate the predisposition toward
severe violations of religious freedom. Countries on USCIRF's
Watch List change from year to year. We are concerned that the
State Department list may not adequately reflect changing
conditions.
Third, the President and the Secretary of State should
consider more closely actions that might be applied to those
states where particularly these severe violations of religious
freedom occur.
Fourth and finally, the Senate should move to reauthorize
the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom whose
mandate expires tomorrow. It would be tragic if this vital
institution were to cease its promotion of religious freedom
around the world.
Let me close by commending the distinguished members of the
subcommittee for holding this hearing and for raising the
profile of religious freedom in our Nation's conscience and in
its foreign policy. Thank you.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you very, very much, Bishop
Ramirez, for your testimony and for your leadership and that of
the Catholic Bishops Conference.
[The prepared statement of Bishop Ramirez follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. And I would like to now ask, Mr.
Rogers, if you could present your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MR. BENEDICT ROGERS, EAST ASIA TEAM LEADER,
CHRISTIAN SOLIDARITY WORLDWIDE
Mr. Rogers. Chairman Smith, distinguished members of the
committee, first of all may I thank you very much indeed for
this opportunity to submit evidence to this very important and
timely hearing. And thank you also for your leadership and many
years of dedicated hard work on behalf of those who are
persecuted for their faith.
With permission, I will focus on the countries for which I
am responsible; namely, Burma, China, Indonesia, North Korea,
and Vietnam. And I will attempt to do so in just as many
minutes.
Let me start first with Burma. Many Buddhist monks,
including U Gambira, a very prominent monk, remain in prison.
The plight of the Muslim Rohingya people remains unchanged. In
the predominately Christian Kachin state, which I have visited
several times, the regime has launched a new military
offensive, resulting in very grave human rights violations,
including attacks on churches and new restrictions on religious
freedom. There is some talk of change in Burma. However, as
long as the regime holds Buddhist monks and other prisoners of
conscience in jail, attacks civilians in the ethnic states, and
violates religious freedom, the United States should maintain
pressure on the regime and redesignate Burma a CPC.
Briefly, Indonesia. In July, the European Parliament passed
a resolution expressing grave concern at the incidence of
violence against religious minorities. A similar resolution
from this Congress would be very welcome. In May, four
Ahmadiyya Muslims traumatized, terrorized and stigmatized, sat
in a Jakarta apartment and described to me how they were almost
killed by an extremist mob. One man had been stripped naked,
beaten to a pulp and a machete held at his throat. Another fled
into a fast-flowing river pursued by attackers throwing rocks
and shouting kill, kill, kill. Churches are also coming under
increasing pressure in Indonesia. This year alone so far, at
least 30 churches have been attacked. There are serious
concerns over the rule of law in Indonesia, and I have detailed
these concerns in my written submission.
But I would like to draw your particular attention to the
case of the GKI Yasmin church in Bogor, which I visited just a
few weeks ago. Increasing intolerance toward religious
minorities poses significant challenges to Indonesia's
tradition of religious freedom. The failure of the government
to protect minorities and uphold the rule of law has encouraged
extremists. I hope that when President Obama visits Indonesia
in the next few days, he will appeal to the President of
Indonesia to uphold religious freedom and the rule of law.
I turn now to North Korea. I visited North Korea in October
last year with two British Parliamentarians, Lord Alton and
Baroness Cox. North Korea is clearly one of the worst violators
of human rights, including religious freedom, in the world. An
estimated 200,000 people, some of them Christians, are trapped
in a brutal system of political prison camps. Just a few days
ago, I received from a trusted source a story of a young female
North Korean teenager who had engaged in evangelism which was
eventually discovered by the regime. She was executed. Where
else in the world are teenagers, minors who share their faith,
executed for doing so? Alarmingly, the reach of the North
Korean regime's brutality extends even beyond its borders,
involving assassinations or attempted assassinations of South
Korean Christian missionaries working with North Korean
refugees.
Earlier this year, CSW, along with 40 other organizations,
launched an international coalition to stop crimes against
humanity in North Korea. And we believe that these violations,
including violations of religious freedom, do amount to crimes
against humanity, that it is time that impunity in North Korea
be ended, crimes investigated, and Kim Jong Il's regime brought
to account.
As you said, Mr. Chairman, religious freedom in China has
severely deteriorated. A widely publicized case is that of the
Shouwang church in Beijing, which has faced continual pressure
to stop meeting. They have been denied access to their building
and have been meeting outdoors, facing arrest and detention.
Pastor Shi Enhao was arrested in May of this year and sentenced
to 2 years reeducation through labor. Alimujiang Yimiti, a
Christian Uyghur from Xinjiang, was sentenced in 2009 to 15
years in prison, the harshest sentence in a decade for a
Christian. Finding a lawyer to represent such cases is
increasingly difficult. Lawyers increasingly face intense
pressure from the authorities.
One lawyer, Dr. Fan Yafeng, has been under house arrest
since December 2010. Another lawyer, Gao Zhisheng, disappeared
and has not been heard of since April of last year. China is
now considering amending the criminal procedure law to
effectively legalize forced disappearance. Currently there is
no basis for house arrest under Chinese law, but these
amendments would legalize this and allow police to hold
individuals in secret locations without informing their
families. China should certainly remain a CPC.
Following the removal of Vietnam from the CPC list in 2006,
the religious freedom situation has indeed deteriorated, as
other speakers have said. Several Christians remain in jail.
These include the Catholic priest, Father Ly, and two
Protestant lawyers. Father Ly remains in extremely poor health
and has been returned to prison after medical parole. A U.S.
diplomat who tried to visit him earlier this year was
physically harassed.
Some of the most severe violations affects ethnic
minorities. In September this year, 11 protestant families in
the Dien Bien province were forced to renounce their faith. A
major impediment to religious freedom in Vietnam is the
registration system. Vietnam should be urged to redraft
legislation to update Decree 22 to ensure the recognition of
denominations and congregations continues.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, of these five countries, three
are listed as Countries of Particular Concern. One is a former
Country of Particular Concern that, as others have said, ought
not to have been removed from that list and ought to be
returned. And one is the world's largest Muslim majority
country, the third largest democracy with, until recently, a
great tradition of pluralism and a successful transition to
democracy, which nevertheless shows worrying signs of failing
to face challenges to religious freedom and the rule of law.
There is therefore much work for all of us who are concerned
about freedom of religion or belief in the East Asia region
still to do.
I want to express my appreciation to the U.S. Commission
for its work, and I hope very much it is able to continue its
work. And I welcome and appreciate this committee's efforts as
well. Thank you.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Mr. Rogers, thank you so very
much.
As a matter of fact, on your last point, a mere matter of
lifting a hold that Senator Durbin and apparently one other
Senator has on the reauthorization of the Commission would
bring it to the floor and it would pass, I believe, unanimously
in the Senate. So there is only one obstruction and the hope is
that that obstruction which is totally unrelated, we are told,
to religious freedom be lifted.
You know, the Senate, as you know, has arcane rules that
allows one Member to throw a monkey wrench into the process
which is archaic, and most outsiders can't believe the U.S.
Senate operates under those rules. But Senator Durbin has a
hold on that bill. We hope that he lifts it. It would be
totally unjust if he allows this Commission to expire.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. I would like to now have Reverend
El Shafie, if you could proceed.
STATEMENT OF REV. MAJED EL SHAFIE, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER, ONE
FREE WORLD INTERNATIONAL
Rev. El Shafie. Thank you, Chairman Smith. And I would like
to thank as well Ranking Member Donald Payne, and I would like
to thank Mr. Turner and the rest of the members and the
staffers, thank you so much for your hard work. Mr. Chair, I
will ask my full written statement to be included in the
record, please, if possible.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Without objection, so ordered.
Rev. El Shafie. Thank you.
One Free World International is a human rights organization
based in Toronto, Canada. We have 28 branches around the world.
Most of our branches operate as intelligence branches, which
means that we collect information about the persecution that is
happening to the minorities. We deal with many minorities, we
help many minorities--Christians, Falun Gongs, Uyghurs,
Baha'is, Ahmadiyya and many more--and as well we stood against
the rising of anti-Semitism in many countries.
After fact-finding missions that I took personally, we
confronted many governments. And usually in our delegation to
meet with many governments such as the Government of Iraq and
Pakistan and Afghanistan, we were accompanied by a Canadian
Member of Parliament and Canadian Senators.
Today I will be speaking specifically about two countries,
which are Egypt and Iraq. And I will be just briefly will be
talking about the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
After the so-called Arab Spring--and I have no idea who
called it Arab Spring--today the world is waking up to find it
is not Arab Spring, it is a cold, deadly winter on the
minorities in the Middle East.
If we talk about Egypt, since the starting of the
revolution in January 25 until now, there are 12 attacks on the
Christian Coptic minorities in Egypt. These 12 attacks are the
major attacks. According to our sources on the ground, there
are more than 36 attacks. But the ones that we are aware of are
the major attacks.
Now, if I spoke specifically about one specific attack that
was on October 9th, the massacre of Maspero. Now, if we track a
little bit before October 9, in September 30, there is over
3,000 Muslim extremist mobs that they attack a church in Aswan;
after these attacks in October 9, the Christian Egyptian
community went into demonstration, a peaceful demonstration--I
repeat, a peaceful demonstration--in Maspero and Cairo. The
Egyptian military responded back by firing live ammunition on
the demonstrators, armed cars and the tanks run over the
people. Basically over 26 people were killed, 300 were wounded.
Not only that, but basically the Muslim hospitals in Cairo
refused to receive the 300 wounded. Only one hospital accepted
to receive the Muslim. It was the Coptic hospital in Cairo.
After that, the Egyptian police arrested some of the wounded
from this hospital and until now they are prisoners in the
Egyptian prison.
All that we are seeing right now, according to our
sources--this is just some of the pictures that we basically--
from the demonstration. Mr. Chair, after that on October 16th,
5 days, a young man by the name of Ayman Labib, 17 years old,
was asked to remove--he is a student in the school. He was
asked to remove his cross. When he refused, his teacher and a
student beat him to death.
Just yesterday, on the remember day of October 9th, 40 days
of the memory yesterday, over 30 people were hurt trying again
to demonstrate in Maspero. This happened just yesterday.
We talk about Iraq. I visited Iraq 2 months ago. In my
visit to Iraq, I was accompanied by one Member of the Canadian
Parliament, Mr. John Weston, and one Member of the Canadian
Senate, Don Murdoch, as observants in my mission. And they were
part of my delegation. I was able to visit with the Vice Prime
Minister of Iraq, the Vice President, the Deputy Prime
Minister, the Minister of Human Rights in Iraq.
By the way, in any country, if you found a Minister for
Human Rights, that means that they have no human rights at all.
It is a ruse, more or less.
So the difficult part that I found in Iraq is the massacre
that is facing the minorities. Not just the Christians, but the
minorities in general. Right now the Christians in Iraq--half
of the Christians in Iraq was forced to leave or was killed.
This is a massacre. This is a genocide. This is not just ethnic
cleansing. This is a genocide when you are forcing half the
community to be killed or to leave your land.
And I visited a church by the name of Our Lady of
Salvation. It is a Catholic church that on October of last year
was attacked by five terrorists. They entered the church and
over 54 people were killed. Four hours that Iraqi police did
not interfere to save these people's lives, 4 hours. I met with
some of the victims.
Mr. Chair, what I am holding here is the bullets from the
bombs and the shooting that took place in Our Lady of
Salvation. Some of them still have blood from the victims. When
the police entered after 4 hours into Our Lady of Salvation,
the police did not--I repeat, the Iraqi police did not help the
wounded. The opposite. They started to take the gold and the
money from the pockets of the victims. And I have an eyewitness
and I spoke with a priest of Our Lady of Salvation.
And not only the Christians are facing persecution. I will
mention as well the Sabean Mandaeans and the Yezidis. The
Sabean Mandaeans, there were 50- to 60,000 in the country. Now
there are 3,500 to 7,000 of them. The solution--and I know that
I have 5 minutes. The solution--thank you, Mr. Chair. If you
read my written statement, there are many solutions that we
propose. But because of time, I will just focus on one of them,
connecting the American aid and the international trade with
improvement of the human rights situation record in these
countries. I don't know until when we will keep giving them
blank checks. I don't know until when we will keep giving the
American people money to the people that goes over these
crimes. This is not the government money. This is the American
people money.
Right now, in October 10, the Secretary of State, Hillary
Clinton, she indicated that they will continue supporting the
Egyptian military. Now, the United States, they give $1.9
billion to $2 billion to Egypt; 1.3 of that is military aid.
And she said--and this was written in the Web site of the State
Department--that they will continue supporting the military.
This is the military that killed innocents, who killed the
minority.
The Iraqi Government is asking for $2 billion for security
sanctions and the United States is--according to the media,
that they are willing to give them this money. The State
Department in October of 11th, the day after--after the
massacre, she had the phone call with Mohamed Kamel, the
Foreign Affairs Minister of Egypt, and she supported him or she
encouraged an investigation that is made by the army. Now, can
you explain to me how come the army can investigate themselves
if they are the criminals?
And here, the White House press secretary, Jay Carney, he
issued a statement that the President is deeply concerned about
the violence in Egypt that led to the tragic loss of life among
the demonstrators and the security forces. The American
President is concerned? It was a massacre. Concerning is not
really--did anything to the people on the ground. And at the
same time, they said that he feels the tragic loss--he feels
sorry for the tragic loss of life among demonstrators and
security forces. You make them equal. When you put the
demonstrators and the security forces that were firing on them,
you make them equal. You make both of them victims. No. One is
the persecuted and one is the persecutors. Do not give them the
same moral equality in your press release.
Mr. Chair, forgive me for taking very long time from you.
In closing, Mr. Chair, the reason that I am very passionate, I
am not just the head of my organization or NGO, I used to be a
prisoner. Until now, if I took off my jacket, you would find
scars on my body. Until now I have nightmares in the night from
the torture that I suffered. But, Mr. Chair, there is only one
thing that I know in the middle of all of this. I know that the
persecuted people that believe in faith are dying, but they
still are smiling. It is a very deep dark night, but they still
have the candle of hope. I know by fact that our enemy, the
enemy of democracy and freedom, have very strong army, have
very strong weapon, but we have the Lord Almighty. I know for a
fact that they can always kill the dreamer, but no one can kill
the dream. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Mr. El Shafie, thank you,
Reverend, for that very powerful testimony.
[The prepared statement of Reverend Majed El Shafie
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. I would like to now yield to Dr.
Smith.
STATEMENT OF R. DREW SMITH, PH.D., SCHOLAR-IN-RESIDENCE,
LEADERSHIP CENTER, MOREHOUSE COLLEGE
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Payne, distinguished members of the committee. I am honored to
be asked to bring perspective on the important matter of
religious freedom, especially as it relates to the sub-Saharan
Africa context. I appreciate the very important and vital work
that has been done by this committee and by the State
Department and the Commission on this very important topic. I
would like to summarize and ask that the written testimony be
included in the record.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Smith. The first thing I would like to say, Mr.
Chairman, is that I would like to draw attention to a broader
range of government intimidation and coercion of the religious
sector, which is really on a less severe scale than many of the
countries that are designated as CPC countries. But religious
repression exists in multiple African countries where civil and
political freedoms have been significantly constricted in
general. And I would like to suggest that some of these cases
may help to ground the U.S. discussion on religious freedom in
slightly broader perspective, not to take anything away from
the urgency of the cases that have been legitimately at the
center of the discussion. But I believe that the issue of
religious freedom transcends some of the ways that it typically
is discussed in official circles.
One example from the African context is Zimbabwe, ruled by
Robert Mugabe for 31 years. Mr. Mugabe's repressive response to
challenges to his continued rule have been well documented. But
less well known has been his targeting of the religious
community. Especially during the past several years, the Mugabe
regime has unleashed violence on church persons or intimidated
them by other means for being insufficiently supportive of his
leadership and his ZANU-PF political party, or because they
supported the leadership of his political rival, Morgan
Tsvangirai who has been in a power-sharing arrangement with
Mugabe since 2009. For example, persons affiliated with the
Johane Masowe Apostolic Church, one of Zimbabwe's largest
denominations at roughly 1 million members, have been murdered,
tortured, assaulted or arrested primarily because of their
political inclinations and disinclinations.
One church leader, a prophet, Patric of Machaya, was
purportedly killed for not allowing access to his church for
campaign meetings by ZANU-PF. Two other church members were
beaten to death in 2008, including the son of a church leader.
The homestead of a church leader, Prophet Obey Mapuranga, was
burned down for supporting Tsvangirai's MDC political party.
Another church leader, Prophet Wainege, was beaten, tortured,
and his home burned down for supporting the MDC party. Yet
another church leader, Apostle Harrison Chimutsimhu was beaten
and tortured for attending church on Friday rather than ZANU-PF
campaign meetings.
There are also quite a few additional incidents reported of
church members who were beaten, tortured, or detained for
presumed disloyalty to ZANU-PF.
Mugabe's demands for allegiance have been forcefully
imposed on other churches and church leaders as well. A
Catholic priest was arrested in April 2011 for holding a
memorial service in remembrance of 20,000 Zimbabweans from the
Ndebele ethnic group, massacred by Mugabe's troops shortly
after he came to power in 1980. The priest was charged with
``communicating false statements against the state'' by
referring to the killings and stirring ``offense to a
particular tribe.''
In another 2011 incident, police in Harare used tear gas to
disperse groups of churchpersons gathered for a peace vigil.
Thirteen of the worshipers were arrested, including four
clergymen, on charges related to fomenting public violence.
But there has been a particularly systematic effort to
politically reorient if not expel the majority of the Anglican
Church in Zimbabwe, a church that has been a consistent
promoter of political reform. When the former head of the
Anglican Church in Zimbabwe, a pro-Mugabe bishop named Nolbert
Kunonga was excommunicated by the church in 2007 for inciting
violence through his sermons, he and his followers took over
the main cathedral, the church's bank accounts and dozens of
Anglican schools and properties with the help of Mugabe's
police force.
Meanwhile, it is reported that the Anglican majority in
Zimbabwe are being prevented by Bishop Kunonga and his
followers, with the assistance from the police, from accessing
many of their church buildings in various parts of the country.
Where access to church buildings may still exist, priests and
church leaders have been arrested with some regularity and held
in jail over weekends so as to prevent them from holding
worship services. Anglican bishops have received death threats.
An elderly Anglican member was found murdered after repeatedly
refusing demands to join Bishop Kunonga's church.
The result of these repressive measures is that many
Anglican churches lie empty on Sundays. These and other
intimidation attacks were reported in the media and itemized,
and a report delivered to Mr. Mugabe in October 2011 by the
Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who traveled to
Zimbabwe for an urgent meeting with Mr. Mugabe.
Another country where the government has curtailed
religious freedom through intimidation and coercion is
Cameroon, a country ruled by the same President, Paul Biya, for
29 years. The country engages in periodic multiparty elections
and has a Constitution that enshrines civil liberties and
religious freedom; nevertheless, the power of Biya's regime is
essentially without challenge and the regime's capacity for
manipulating or cowing opposition is extensive.
The religious sector has not been especially politicized
within post-colonial Cameroon, but in recent decades there has
been a cadre of religious leaders that have openly criticized
the Biya regime for policies and practices that continue to
mire the country in poverty, especially the Anglophone
population, as well as in a culture of corruption. One of the
most consistent critics has been Christian Tumi, a Roman
Catholic cardinal whose outspokenness has sometimes encouraged
other Catholic leaders to speak out though apparently not
without consequences. Cardinal Tumi has endured death threats,
government surveillance and the Catholic radio station--
Catholic Radio Veritas was banned. Also in the last 25 years, a
number of Catholic religious leaders have been killed in
Cameroon under suspicious circumstances. I itemized the names
and the locations of these Catholic leaders that includes seven
priests, two nuns and one Archbishop. Pope John Paul II in 1995
asked the Cameroonian Government to investigate these unsolved
deaths of Catholic clergy and religious leaders, but his
request did not produce results. Nevertheless, according to a
2009 report on challenges faced by churches in Cameroon,
``Catholics are broadly convinced these killings were an effort
to intimidate the Church to keep it out of politics.'' As
startling as the killings are, the numbers still pale in
comparison to the scale of religious violence in countries such
as Sudan, Eritrea and Nigeria which partly explains why
Cameroon and countries like it have not received as much
attention in discussion on religious freedom. What also
explains Cameroon's omission is the difficulty of seeing past
constitutional and governmental declarations of religious
freedom to the actual constrictions and constraints endured by
religious communities on the ground. Let me skip, Mr. Chairman,
to a second point that I really want to make in the remarks,
which we can--and we can return to the other point in a
question and answer session. I would like to suggest that there
are a number of factors, including social inequality,
interethnic grievances and governmental manipulation that
contribute to religious conflicts and demand attention in
efforts to resolve these conflicts. Religion features
prominently and religiously explicit forms of mediation I think
are very much required in trying to mediate these. So the
second point I would like to make is to emphasize the important
role interdenominational and interfaith organizations should
increasingly play in mediating these conflicts. The All-Africa
Conference of Churches is an ecclesiastical network extending
across sub-Saharan Africa that is developing ever stronger
partnerships with national and regional council of churches and
with the African Union on social development matters, but also
on peacemaking, which is its primary objective, especially in
Sudan, the Great Lakes and the Horn of Africa. Also, each
region in Africa has a regional fellowship of Christian
councils and churches. And there are at least two regional
interfaith networks in Africa. Both of those are located in
East Africa. Moreover, national church councils and interfaith
councils exist in many African countries, including Sudan,
Nigeria and Eritrea. Although the impact of these various types
of councils on conflict resolution has been debated and the
impartiality and diplomatic skill sets of religious leaders
questioned at times, some of these councils have been very
strategic to mediation and peacemaking. These religious
councils have demonstrated a number of significant strengths
that uniquely position them for effective mediation and
peacemaking, including extensive deep rooted relationships with
localized constituencies in situations where there oftentimes
is a scarcity of local civil society infrastructure,
capabilities to reach beyond culturally confined localisms and
politically constricted local context so as to facilitate
broader collaborative platforms for expression and action. And
thirdly, an ability to speak to religious struggles with the
religious authority that comes from theologically and
ecclesiastically positioning responses to social problems. In
building consensus around the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in
Sudan, the Sudan Council of Churches, the Sudan Catholic
Bishop's Conference and Sudan Interreligious Council works
systematically to increase support for CPA among their local
constituencies and to leverage local pressure on governmental
parties while deriving support from regional and international
religious councils in the form of materials, resources,
insertions of skilled personnel and leveraging of pressure from
other governments and multilateral organizations in support of
CPA. But without the credibility local councils had with their
Sudanese constituencies across denominational and religious
lines, the external support for CPA may not have been
sufficient to keep the process from collapsing. These local,
regional and international faith-based collaborations are
continuing to evolve in East Africa in response to ongoing
problems in Sudan, Eritrea, Somalia and elsewhere. The
Religious Leaders Peace Initiative, for example, a multilateral
interfaith initiative involving faith leaders from various
denominational and conciliar bodies as well as staff from the
Intergovernmental Authority on Development are facilitating
broad-based dialogue and research and training in response to
conflicts in the region. With increased capacity, the
contributions by these religious councils to mediation and
peacemaking can be expanded. Unfortunately, expanding mediation
and peacemaking activities of religious organizations seemingly
has not been a U.S. foreign policy priority. There has been a
policy interest in faith-based organizations within the context
of the AIDS relief prioritizations within U.S.-Africa policy,
but very little attention to the strategic positioning of
faith-based organizations for crucial mediation and peacemaking
work. So my recommendation is that more attention be given
within the overall government strategy to utilizing and helping
to expand the mediation and peacemaking capacities of religious
councils. To cite one other piece of information related to
this, Mr. Chairman, the PEPFAR program, as you know, is the
most extensive operation that the U.S. Government has affecting
African countries, with $15 billion allocated in 2003 for
disbursal over 5 years and another $48 billion allocated in
reauthorization in 2008. Ten percent of those monies went to
FBOs, faith-based organizations, but only $220 million has been
allocated in the USAID's 2008 budget for democratic reform. So
the very real gap between the monies allocated toward PEPFAR
versus the monies allocated for democratic reform in which many
of these interfaith and interdenominational groups could play a
role in mediation and reconciliation work is underfunded and
certainly needs to have more attention. Thank you, Mr. Chairman
and committee members, for allowing me to share a few
perspectives on these issues.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Dr. Smith, thank you so very much
for your testimony and for bringing very close scrutiny on the
issue in Cameroon, which this committee is deeply concerned
about. But you have highlighted that, particularly with your
listing of priests and nuns and bishops who have been killed
there. We have not spent, frankly, enough time on this
committee focusing on that in Cameroon. So I thank you for that
and for the other very fine points that you made.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Mr. Payne does have to leave. So I
would like to yield to him first if he could----
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. Of course several members
have been waiting for me for about half an hour, so I really
have to leave. But let me just thank all of you for your
testimony.
The situation must improve. I just might ask you, Dr.
Smith, it seems like it is a new phenomena so far as I know
that the extremists--that there has always been this conflict
in Africa. However, it seems to me to be only in the last
decade, or less even, that we have seen this question of
phenomena of suicide bombings. This was not African. I mean,
they might have been at war, but as we have seen in Somalia now
and everyone in Nigeria, we have seen this phenomena of suicide
bombing. And I wonder--and they are doing it under these people
who are taking advantage of Islam. Have you--do you know when
this change occurred? And have you noticed the fact that there
is an increase in that, when in the past it seemed to have been
absent?
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Payne. I cannot date the exact
time in which that form of activity gained the kind of
prominence that it has. I would say in response to your
question that one of the things that is important to note in
the discussion of religious freedom and the denials and the
declines of religious freedom in many contexts is the extent to
which governments and opportunistic groups can manipulate
perspectives and ongoing grievances within context and move
them in directions that had not necessarily been the role
religion played within those particular contexts.
So in these countries and where these types of activities--
the suicide bombing activities are taking place, that would
certainly be an instance where these situations of religion are
being manipulated by nonreligious groups who really have issues
in mind and concerns in mind that are not specific to the
religious community, manipulating religion for purposes that
are political in nature.
So I don't think that you would necessarily find that kind
of activity taking place in countries that are not border
countries to the Islamic world, where some of these things have
occurred with more frequency, the ability of governments and
other groups to manipulate that particular fact. It would
probably be far less in countries where it has not been an
inherent part of the culture or at least a growing part of the
cultural milieu within those contexts.
Mr. Payne. And you raise a point about comparing the amount
of funds that we have for PEPFAR and the very small amount for
democracy and public diplomacy. So in your view, you know, what
is the role of public diplomacy in promoting religious freedom?
And I think it is clear from your previous comments, but is the
U.S. doing enough to work with indigenous community-based
interreligious mediation organizations, such as the
internationally acclaimed Interfaith Mediation Center headed by
Imam Mohammed Ashafa and the Pastor James Wuye in Nigeria?
Mr. Smith. Yes, thank you, Mr. Payne. The short answer to
the question is that I don't believe enough is being done to
engage the very vital resources both in terms of moral
resources, relational resources, and infrastructural resources
that are embodied by interfaith groups and interdenominational
councils across the African continent, and other places
undoubtedly. But certainly in sub-Saharan Africa there is a
very rich network, a very rich infrastructure of these
organizations. As I mentioned, there are not only local
councils, both interfaith and interdenominational, within many
counties, but there are regional councils in every region of
Africa, east, west, southern and the Horn and the Great Lakes
region.
There is also the All-African Conference of Churches which
is continent-wide in its impact and its involvement on various
issues, particularly peacemaking issues.
So there are significant resources and possibilities for
involvement by these structures and by these religious leaders
to engage in the very important work of mediation and
reconciliation and peacemaking within these contexts.
Not all of these situations of religious conflict are
necessarily susceptible to government mediation or
demonstrations of hard power. Some of these situations can be
perhaps prevented or mediated in some way by more soft-power
diplomacy skills. And I think that is precisely what these
faith leaders and faith organizations can bring to the table.
They have credibility with local populations that has been
demonstrated in a number of instances.
The All-African Conference of Churches has worked very
closely with the African Religious Leaders Council in East
Africa on Interfaith Dialogue related to Sudan, Eritrea,
Somalia, the ACC, and the Africa Religious Peace Council has
also worked closely with the Africa Union who understands the
importance of those infrastructures and those leaders to the
mediation process, to the peacemaking process. The African
Union combined efforts with the Africa Religious Peace Council
in the Abuja initiative, a dialogue that took place not too
long ago, to bring faith leaders around the table to discuss
the issues of religious violence in Nigeria.
So I think the African Union is demonstrating, as well as
IGAD, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, the
importance that they place on the religious community for
mediation and peacemaking. I think the U.S. Government through
the State Department and other mechanisms can make much better
use of those resources.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. I just want to let--I
appreciate your comments. And since time is short, I won't ask
any other questions.
But I do want to say to Reverend Shafie, I will be visiting
Egypt in the next week or so. And I will look at your testimony
and raise some issues with the authorities there, although it
is not on the agenda. We are there to observe the elections
coming up. But I think that these issues are important and if
we get an opportunity to--and I know there will be an
opportunity to be before some of the government authorities--I
will certainly raise those issues.
And secondly, if you have any other issues you would like
to highlight, I will be leaving tomorrow, the last day, but you
certainly can feel free to get anything to my office. But I do
have your testimony in full that I will review and will take
points from that. So thank you very much.
Let me thank all of you. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Let me just ask some questions.
Thank you, all four of you, for your very, very decisive
testimonies.
Bishop Ramirez, in your testimony, you, I think, provided a
very robust and rich and deep definition of religious freedom.
When the Church speaks, you write, about religious freedom, it
is not arguing solely for freedom in matters of coercion of
personal faith and conscience, it is also advocating for
freedom to practice faith individually and communally in both
private and public. Freedom of religion extends beyond freedom
of worship to include the institutional freedom of the Church
and religious organizations to provide education, health, and
other social services, and it then goes on from there.
You also point out some very disturbing Pew studies that
shows that 70 percent of the world's population have high or
very high governmental or societal restrictions on religion.
And you point out, most ominously, that as recently as August
2011, a Pew study found that between 2006 and 2009, in some of
the most populous countries affecting about a third of the
world's population that China, Egypt, France, Nigeria, Russia,
Thailand, Vietnam and the United Kingdom as eight countries
where government or societal restrictions increased
substantially while religious restrictions in countries such as
India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia,
Malaysia and Burma remain very high, I mean, a very serious
erosion of religious freedom that you have highlighted which I
think has been underscored by each of our witnesses, and I
thank you for giving that broad sweep of the world.
I don't think we are doing enough, I don't think Congress
is doing enough. The fact that the Commission has been stymied
over on the Senate side thus far underscores a lack of
prioritization, and I think your point and others' points about
the administration more fully integrating the irreligious
freedom message in all of its rich manifestations has not
happened so far. Hope springs eternal, hopefully they will, but
it has not happened in my view.
If I could specifically in Iraq, because I know the Church,
all the churches have been extremely concerned about what
happens when U.S. and coalition forces leave, it has been a
dismal record while we were there, what happens when we leave?
Do you have any recommendations, any of you, perhaps Bishop
Ramirez, starting with you, on what we should be doing to
ensure that as the baton is passed, the situation does not
deteriorate further?
Bishop Ramirez. I mentioned in my testimony, my oral
testimony, that we had two bishops visit Iraq very recently,
just 2 weeks ago they were there, and they were pressed by the
Christians whom they visited that they are concerned about what
would happen, what will happen when the U.S. troops leave, will
there be any kind of protection. So we would hope that the U.S.
would continue to monitor the situation and provide as much
assistance as it can.
On the issue of what can, what actions the President and
the State Department could take against some of these countries
that are egregious violators of religious freedom, some of
these we might suggest are something like travel restrictions
for some of the government leaders, arms sales, a restriction
of arms sales to those countries, the sales of materiel that
might eventually be used for torture.
When I was in the Commission, we made an issue of that in
certain countries that we not export certain materiel that
could eventually be used as torture. Also, perhaps, economic
sanctions aimed not at everybody in that country but especially
at the elite so that we wouldn't hurt the vulnerable people in
their particular country.
So we do have those recommendations to make, and we would
reinforce the recommendations of the Commission on taking these
various actions on behalf of the President and the State
Department.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you very much. Yes, did you
want to touch on that?
Rev. El Shafie. Now, when I visited Iraq, Mr. Chair, the
major thing that took my attention is the Iraqi Government
completely trying to blame Syria, the old regime, but they
wouldn't touch on the persecution that is happening to the
Christians there. They wouldn't touch on Iran.
The major thing that took my attention is the increase of
influence of the Iranian regime in Iraq.
Let me put it in a very simple way. I spoke with one of the
Iraqi officials in Iraq who indicated to me in private, I will
not mention his name to protect him, but with me was one MP and
one Senator that was witness to the conversation, John Weston
and Bill Meredith, that when the Iraqi Government choose an
administrator in Iraq the Iranian regime has to approve first.
That is what was said to me in front of a Canadian Member of
Parliament and a Canadian Senator, some very high official
Iraqi.
Now, here is the problem with that. If United States did
not prevent Iran from taking over Iraq or to have an absolute
increase of influence in Iran, as we can see, even Jaish-al-
Mahdi, the Mahdi Army, which is very responsible directly on
the persecution of a lot of Christians in Iraq, such as Utra
Conyerkos, who was kidnapped and tortured by them. And now he
is 20 years old and he cannot even walk because they broke his
back.
Jaish-al-Mahdi start to integrate them in the Iraqi
Government, the influence of Iran is increasing. And here is
the problem, Mr. Chair. The United States, more than any other
country in the world, paid very heavy price to free Iraq from
dictatorship. To be exact around 5,000 American soldiers,
around 52--American soldiers were wounded--5,000, almost 5,000
American soldiers were killed. I will not even talk to you
about the finance that the United States put in Iraq, I will
talk to you about the blood. Because the blood you can't
replace it, money you can. Blood you can't.
Mr. Chairman, if we did not protect the Christians in Iraq,
if we did not prevent Iran from increasing their influence in
Iraq, our American soldiers, our American children, their
blood, will go in vain.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Mr. Rogers, have I asked you, I
know you recently visited Pyongyang with Lord Alton and
Baroness Cox. As a matter of fact I was in email contact with
Lord Alton prior to his traveling there most recently.
Could you give us--you mentioned 200,000 people in camps.
There is one show church, I understand, in Pyongyang, and if
that is still up and running, what is the state of religious
persecution in the Hermit Kingdom?
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Just before I answer
that question could I correct one omission from my oral
testimony where I neglected formally to request that my written
testimony be included.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Without objection, all of the
testimonies will be put in the record.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much. In answer to your
question, I think one can say about North Korea, and it is not
something one can say about too many countries, that there is
no religious freedom in North Korea. There are actually three
show churches in Pyongyang, one Protestant, one Russian
Orthodox and one Roman Catholic.
And we did visit all three of them, but I think it is fair
to say that all three of them are show churches. The Catholic
Church in particular is--the other churches have a veneer which
can be deceptive. The Catholic Church has clearly no veneer
because it does not have a priest. And we have raised this
consistently with the North Korean authorities that there is no
Catholic priest in the Catholic Church in Pyongyang.
Instead there is actually a party cadre who looks almost
like a stereotypical party cadre in a mouse suit with not even
much of a smile. So the situation there was, really there were
Potemkin style churches. Outside Pyongyang, to my knowledge,
there are no churches permitted by the authorities. We believe
that there are gatherings of Christians who meet at significant
risk if they are caught.
It's my understanding that anyone engaged in religious
activity ends up in one of the prison camps and in some cases,
not all, but in some cases they face execution for their
religious faith and activities and particularly anybody who has
been repatriated by China, people who have gone across the
border to China, perhaps converted in China or had contact with
South Korean Christian missionaries in China, if that is
discovered or if they are discovered bringing Bibles back into
North Korea, they face death or certainly extremely severe
penalties.
And just one final point, in relation to China's policy of
repatriation, I think that is a really serious situation that
so far the international community, including the United
States, has failed to properly address for China. And I would
want pressure to be put on China to stop repatriating North
Koreans, some of whom are Christians and some of whom face
severe penalties and violations of religious freedom.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you very much. I know,
Bishop Ramirez, you have to leave for a flight, so I thank you
on behalf of the committee for your testimony and very wise
counsel and insights.
Bishop Ramirez. Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Just a few final questions, I know
it is getting late, and we will submit some additional
questions if you would as quickly as you can turn those answers
around.
Reverend El Shafie, if I could just add and reiterate
something you mentioned earlier that I found outrageous as well
when on October 10 the President of the United States said that
he is deeply concerned--or the White House said, the President
is deeply concerned about the violence in Egypt that has led to
a tragic loss of life. Now that is fine of course.
Now is the time for restraint on all sides so that
Egyptians can move forward and forge a strong, united Egypt,
clearly conveying a quality of culpability on both sides as if
they weren't a victim and aggressor. Your point was, I think,
very well taken and it is something that I raise as well.
There is an aggressor. And as a matter of fact the Supreme
Council of the Armed Forces, their staff, routinely come here
and into the Pentagon. And to the best of my knowledge, we are
saying investigate, but investigate yourself. It does raise
very serious questions about credibility.
And I do think it is time to look at that $1.3 billion and
all money flowing to the country of Egypt because of this
heightened crackdown on the Coptic Christians, as well as other
religious minorities, but no one seems to be suffering more
than the Coptics. So your points, I think were very, very, well
taken.
Rev. El Shafie. Could I just add one point before we move?
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Sure.
Rev. El Shafie. Sorry, forgive me for interrupting you.
I found that very disconcerting that this administration is
missing the care and missing that action when it comes to
freedom of religion. I am not just talking about that it was
Egypt or the Arab Spring where you cannot expect that there is
a democracy between them. When they are basically without
education, democracy dies. Thirty to forty percent of the
Egyptian population is illiterate. This means they cannot read
or write their own name. So no matter how much you reform the
Constitution, they still will not understand what is in it. So
you have to start by education before you start by democracy.
The support of some of the people in this administration,
that they believe that Muslim Brotherhood is a peaceful
organization, that is shocking to me. Muslim Brotherhood is the
foundation of al-Qaeda, of Hamas, of Hezbollah, and they--and
some of them, talking with them the--our Secretary of State
went to meet with them in Cairo. After the meeting they came
out of the meeting and they completely dismissed her. They
actually spoke about her with disrespect.
And not only Egypt or Iraq, Mr. Chair, but even in Iran,
when President Obama gave his speech in Cairo in June 2009, a
week later the Green Revolution has started in Tehran and
nobody did anything from the American administration. And this
is a fact, the fact that we cannot even stand against China.
We know that China is killing the Uyghurs and the Falun
Gong and the Christians and the Tibetans, and we cannot do
anything because our financial and our economy depends on them.
The truth and the reality that even the Ambassador-at-Large,
Dr. Suzan Johnson Cook, is not here, that tells you something.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Just a few, couple final
questions.
Dr. Smith, the Department of State seems to view the North-
South conflict in Nigeria as primarily political in nature and
not religious. Do you agree with that and why or why not?
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that clearly
there are more than religious dimensions to the conflict, but
religion is also a verifiable part of the conflict. One of the
things that I think is important to do in order to--because
there are clearly tensions within official circles about where
the conversation on religious freedom fits with overall
government U.S. policy in various parts of the world, and I
think it is important that as we pursue the conversation on
religious freedom that we are careful to emphasize not only the
religious freedom dimensions but to emphasize those within a
larger conversation about denial of civil liberties and
political freedoms in general.
I think to tie the religious freedom discussion to a very,
very clear and detailed concern about impediments to religious
or to freedom of expression, impediments to freedom of
assembly, gives the religious freedom discussion a kind of
breadth.
And in the Nigerian context I think it is quite important
to place that in context and Nigeria would not be the only
African context where there are some concerns about the real
agenda behind the discussion of religious freedom. I think in a
number of African contexts there are concerns that the way
religious freedom is being discussed, it is being discussed as
sort of an extension of the global war on terror or perhaps
even as an extension of the ecclesiastical expansion concerns
of American churches and proselytizing concerns of American
churches.
I think to tie the religious freedom discussion more
closely to these very real and legitimate political and civil
liberties issues helps to ground the discussion so that we
don't have the kind of pushback on our religious freedom
issues. Clearly Nigeria is about more than just the religious
freedom issue, but it is very much a part of the conversation
as well.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. If you could on Eritrea, we know
that some Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses have been locked
into containers and died when put out into the desert.
How widespread is that? We know others have been killed,
obviously in jail and tortured to death. And who has leverage
with the Eritreans, with their leadership?
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think, unfortunately,
with the Eritrean situation, what we have is the context of
virtually a failed state, a failed state and the virtual
absence of a civil society sector. And so in the absence of any
kind of civil society groups that can really challenge the
government on these issues, I think the situation is bound to
continue and to grow worse.
The pressure, I think, will have to come from outside of
Eritrea to a great extent, not necessarily outside the
continent or the region.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Like the AU.
Mr. Smith. Like the AU and like some of these regional and
continent-wide interfaith and interdenominational groups as
well as U.S. Government, the European Government, the pressures
on the Eritrean situation. There is virtually little that is
going on inside of Eritrea that is going to provide the
pushback that is needed.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Bishop Ramirez said, and I meant
to ask him before he left, that the greatest number of
religious persecutions and discriminatory activities is
directed at Christians. Would you all agree with that in terms
of numbers?
Rev. El Shafie. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. Yes, I would.
Mr. Smith. I think the numbers probably stack up that way.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. And it is in his written
testimony, so it is part of the record.
Let me just ask a couple of final questions before we
conclude.
Mr. Rogers, can you explain why you think concerns exist
over the rule of law in Indonesia and exactly what you saw when
you visited GYI, Yasmin Church in Bogor, and secondly, you
mentioned new restriction of religious freedom in the Kachin
State in Burma, and maybe perhaps you could elaborate on that
for the committee.
And Reverend El Shafie, if I could ask you, we focused on
this committee in the past on the UNRWA textbooks that the
Palestinian Authority uses that are rife with anti-Semitic
statements as well as anti-American with the rise in Hamas,
which was very much responsible for that anti-Semitic hatred,
as well as anti-Christian and anti-Americans and anti-Israel.
Have you seen any abatement with any of that, have you followed
that closely at all? Because it seems to me, as has been said,
and it is in the report that the Commission put out about the
absolute essential character of teaching. If you teach young
people to hate, they will hate, and it is very hard to change
that behavior when it has been so indoctrinated into a young
man or a young woman.
I remember in one of my previous hearings, we had a man
from Saudi Arabia whose brother had been imprisoned who brought
the textbooks and read from them and said this is what a little
8-, 9-, 10-year-old is subjected to in terms of hate formation,
and I am just wondering if you might want to speak to that as
well. But then if you could start and then we will go to----
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In relation to serious
concerns of the rule of law in Indonesia, I think there are two
clear examples that illustrate this. One is the DKIS in the
case of Charles Kamanti because you specifically referenced
that.
But the other is the trial earlier this year following a
very brutal attack that I described very briefly in my opening
statement, attack on the Ahmadiyya community, in a town called
Cikeusik, a mob of about, of more than 1,000 people attacked a
community of 21. Of the perpetrators who carried out that
attack, only three individuals were arrested and put on trial.
During the trial, one of the Ahmadi survivors was subjected
to the most extraordinary verbal harassment by the judge, and
that is actually available on YouTube, it was captured on
video. And the three perpetrators were sentenced--and these
were people who carried out murder and other really, really
seriously violent acts--were sentenced to between 3 and 6
months in jail. And one Ahmadi man, who had simply been there
to try to protect his community--he hadn't actually engaged in
any violence--but he was sentenced to 6 months for disobeying
police orders to leave his home. To me that says something is
wrong with the rule of law when people who carry out these
kinds of acts receive those kinds of light sentences.
The case of GKI Yasmin Church also illustrates a breakdown
in the rule of law because this is a church that some years ago
secured all the necessary permissions and licenses to set up as
a church. The local mayor actually approved the construction of
the church. The local mayor then came under pressure from
extremist groups and reversed his decision.
The church challenged this decision in the courts at every
level, a local court, district court and all the way to the
Supreme Court. And then we staged the court rules in the
church's favor all the way out to the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court has ruled that the church should be allowed to
open, is legal, and the mayor is still refusing to allow it to
open.
When I visited the church for its Sunday service just a few
weeks ago, they are worshipping in the street outside the
church building because the church building is locked and
sealed. They are surrounded by rows of police for their own
protection, because there is a mob of extremists on the other
side of the police, and it is the first time I have ever
worshipped on a Sunday morning in the streets surrounded by
police, who in this particular case were there to protect the
congregation. But nevertheless the church should be allowed to
open, and it is now a rule of law issue because the mayor is in
defiance of the Supreme Court ruling.
In answer to the situation in Kachin, just in recent
weeks--the Kachin are a predominantly Christian people along
the border with China. And in recent weeks Burma army soldiers
have attacked several churches. They shot at worshippers in an
Assembly of God church, injuring several people, including the
pastor and the deacon. And they also seized control of a
Catholic Church where they shot at the congregation during a
Sunday service and beat the priest assistants with a rifle
butt.
They have introduced legislation in one particular
township. We don't know yet whether this is being applied in
other parts of the country, but in one particular township in
Kachin State on the 14th of October, an order was sent
requiring Christians to seek permission from the local
authorities at least 15 days in advance and with several
letters of recommendation from government departments, require
15 days in advance if they want to pray, read the Bible, carry
out Bible studies, carry out Sunday school or fast. And I have
never seen that in Burma before that one should apply 15 days
in advance simply to pray or read the Bible. But that is a new
order in one locality at least.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Reverend.
Rev. El Shafie. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, what we
are seeing right now in the Palestinian territory is not only
happening in Gaza, it is happening in the Palestinian Authority
areas, which are supposed to be the ones that are less
extremist in education.
But what we are seeing right now in the Middle East when it
comes to schoolbooks with regard to anti-Semitism is what we
call this in the free world, it is in essence the new kind of
anti-Semitism. Now the old kind of anti-Semitism is basically
that you attack the Jewish people. Here is a Jewish person. So
kill the Jewish, or no Jewish allowed and all of the stuff.
Now the new anti-Semitism is not necessarily pointed at the
Jewish people, but pointed at Israel, that they exist in Israel
as a nation and the people who live in it. Now, I am not saying
that we were not allowed to criticize Israel. Israel is a
country like any country, has its good, has its bad, of course,
but I am seeing once you cross this line of just useful
criticizing to denying their existence or denying the right to
defend itself, this becomes anti-Semitism. This becomes a new
kind of anti-Semitism. That is in my opinion.
And right now we are seeing these books not only in the
Palestinian areas, not only the Palestinian territory, even in
Egypt, for example, a country that has a peace agreement with
Israel for 62 years.
So basically what we are seeing right now is that what I
can say is preparing a new generation for hatred and war and
the only solution that we can do right now with this regard is
basically that our aid, to aim more on the programs in these
countries that basically would promote harmony and interfaith
and will put some pressure on the governments to change these
textbooks.
And you are right, once the child learned this in his young
age--sir, I mean to tell you, when I was in Egypt, 9 years old,
I was in a school in Egypt. One day I went to my history
teacher and I ask him why do we hate Israel in the schoolbooks,
in the history books while we have peace agreement with them? I
was 9 years old and I received 10 beatings from a stick on my
hand.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Just for asking.
Rev. El Shafie. Just for asking this question, and the
stick--it took very long time for the teacher to understand the
truth, but it is never too late. That is what I know, it is
never too late to act now.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. You know Natan Sharansky made a
very famous speech where he talked about how you recognize when
it is not just disagreeing with an Israeli policy, and he calls
it the three Ds definition. The first is demonization of
Israel, second delegitimization, and the third denial of
Israel's right to exist. So it certainly comports with exactly
what you just said.
Rev. El Shafie. What we are seeing right now in the Islamic
faith, if I may, the biggest dilemma that Islam as a faith is
facing is not rising of the extremists but is the silence of
the moderate Muslims. What I am really saying here is, sir, can
I be just not politically correct just for half a minute and
after this I will be politically correct again if you want to.
What we are facing right now is when you sit down with a
Muslim community that is supposed to be--really the key thing
teaching the children and supposed to improve their ideas about
Jewish people and Christians, they will ask from us not to
judge them on the actions of the extremists and they will tell
me that the extremists did hijack the religion. Well, why did
you let them hijack it? Is this not a Christian question? Why
did you let them hijack it? It is not--the dilemma of the
Islamic faith is not the rising of the extremists, of the
moderate Muslims who remain silent on the crimes that happened
to the Jews and the Christians.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Dr. Smith, I have one final
question and then any final comments any of the three of you
would like to make.
In your discussion about Cameroon you point out that in the
last 25 years a number of Catholic leaders have been killed in
Cameroon under suspicious circumstances, and you list a number
of those who have died. From reading it correctly, the last was
in 2006. And in your statement you say according to a 2009
report on challenges faced by churches in Cameroon, ``Catholics
are broadly convinced these killings were an effort to
intimidate the Church to keep it out of politics.''
When you say war, do you mean is it truly past tense or is
it past tense and present tense as well?
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, I definitely am
alluding to a fact that it is an ongoing problem. In 2009 that
was a report and that was reported during that time. But when I
was actually in Cameroon in 2010, I believe it was as a
Fulbright professor, the kinds of concerns that are itemized in
the report came out very clearly from many of the students,
religious leaders around the country about the ongoing
intimidation, coercion, repression of Christian churches,
particularly in--and also Muslim groups--and particularly in
the Anglophone section of Cameroon, which is the least
developed part of the country, sort of the minority population
within the larger Francophone context, and the extent to which
the national government has manipulated leaders even of
religious communities within the Anglophone section as a means
of suppressing the voices of resistance. That was quite
extensive and to the point that I think many of the religious
leadership that I spoke with felt that they had very little
ability to truly express their point of view, their interests,
their concerns and in some respects, even, to truly express
matters that they felt were at the heart of their faith
experience.
Their religious experience was not just an individualistic
concern, their religious experience was about community and the
ability of community to be able to form freely and to represent
an embodied interest of constituencies that they represent.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Any final comments from any of our
witnesses? Yes.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to firstly
thank you again very much and other members for your leadership
on this issue.
I would like to just make a couple of final points. On the
positive side, coming from the United Kingdom, not being a U.S.
citizen and not being embroiled in domestic politics in the
United States, we really appreciate the United States'
leadership on the issue of international religious freedom, the
leadership that you have given them, other Members of Congress,
but also the leadership that the State Department and the U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom have given over
the years.
I think the United Kingdom is perhaps trying to catch up,
and I was in Europe also. There was a recent conference in the
United Kingdom on international religious freedom and the new
government, I think, is prioritizing it much more than they
used to. But over the years the United States has given this
issue real leadership, which those of us who work on
international religious freedom in other parts of the world
deeply appreciate.
However, in recent months I think we have been very
concerned by some of the trends in the United States, the
serious delay in the nomination and appointments of the
Ambassador-at-Large. It is concerning that the Ambassador-at-
Large was not here today and also the issues regarding the
reauthorization of the Commission, and I hope very much that
all those concerns that have arisen in recent months will be
addressed and that the United States will really continue and
increase its important leadership on this very important issue.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One brief comment.
First of all, again, thank you for the opportunity to be here
and share perspective on this important issue today, and I
think it is a very important issue. I think that the ongoing
work around religious freedom is vital and the work of this
committee, the work of the Commission, the work that other
sectors of the U.S. Government is doing on this important
topic, and I would hope that there would be ways to really have
bipartisan cooperation around these issues so that the
important issue of religious freedom does not somehow get lost
in the politics.
And I think what I tried to do here today is to suggest
that there are some mechanisms for bridging that may draw a
wider level of support for the issue of religious freedom, not
only within U.S. Government conversations, but also with our
partners around the world on these issues. And I think that one
of those ways is to demonstrate that religious freedom is an
issue that transcends some of the kind of divisions that we
have in our conversations about that by situating that more in
a larger conversation of civil liberties and political
freedoms.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. And on those fine comments, the
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:45 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]
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H.
Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, and
chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
