[Senate Hearing 105-591]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 105-591
S. 1868: THE INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT OF 1998
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 12 AND JUNE 17, 1998
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-618 CC WASHINGTON : 1998
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JESSE HELMS, North Carolina, Chairman
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
PAUL COVERDELL, Georgia PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming CHARLES S. ROBB, Virginia
ROD GRAMS, Minnesota RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
BILL FRIST, Tennessee PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
James W. Nance, Staff Director
Edwin K. Hall, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing of May 12, 1998
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 4
Nickles, Hon. Don, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma..... 2
Shattuck, Hon. John, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor......................................... 11
Hearing of June 17, 1998
Akers, John, Chairman of the Board, East Gate Ministries
International.................................................. 48
Gaer, Felice, Director, Jacob Blaustein Institute for the
Advancement of Human Rights, American Jewish Committee......... 44
Land, Dr. Richard, President, Ethics and Religious Liberty
Commission, Southern Baptist Convention........................ 40
Mano, The Right Reverend Munawar Kenneth Rumalshah, Anglican
Bishop of Peshawar, Pakistan................................... 34
O'Brien, Dr. John, Director, The Global Center, Samford
University..................................................... 51
Appendix
Hearing of May 12, 1998
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted by the
Committee to Assistant Secretary John Shattuck................. 69
Prepared Statements of Members and Witnesses
Prepared Statement of Chairman Helms......................... 81
Prepared Statement of Senator Nickles........................ 82
Prepared Statement of Senator Lieberman...................... 84
Prepared Statement of Senator Dodd........................... 86
Prepared Statement of Assistant Secretary Shattuck........... 87
Prepared Statement of Senator Thomas......................... 94
Prepared Statement of Senator Ashcroft....................... 95
Prepared Statement of Senator Feingold....................... 96
Hearing of June 17, 1998
Prepared Statements of Members and Witnesses
Prepared Statement of The Right Reverend Munawar Rurnalshah
(Bishop Mano).............................................. 97
Prepared Statement of Felice Gaer............................ 102
Prepared Statement of Dr. Akers.............................. 112
Prepared Statement of Dr. O'Brien............................ 113
Prepared Statement of Senator Grams.......................... 117
Additional Material Submitted to the Committee for the Hearing
Record
Letter to Hon. Trent Lott, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate...... 119
Material Submitted by The Anti-Defamation League............. 119
Material Submitted by The Office for Church in Society--
United Church of Christ.................................... 120
Material Submitted by The Southern Baptist Convention........ 131
Material Submitted by The Episcopal Church--Office of
Government Relations....................................... 132
Statement Submitted by Gerard F. Powers on Behalf of the U.S.
Catholic Bishops........................................... 132
S. 1868: THE INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT OF 1998
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in room
SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jesse Helms
[chairman of the committee], presiding.
Present: Senators Helms (presiding), Hagel, Thomas, Grams,
Ashcroft, Frist, Brownback, Biden, Dodd, Robb, Feingold,
Feinstein, and Wellstone.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
At the outset, let the Chair express his apologies for the
tardiness in starting the hearing. Both parties have their
respective policy luncheons on a Tuesday, scheduled to be over
at 2, but I walked out on mine and the fuss had just begun. I
do not know how it was on the other side, but everybody was
calling each other names, and proving it, about half of them.
No, seriously, the debate was orderly, but it was very lengthy.
Today's hearing is to assess the incredible and senseless
injustice of religious persecution abroad and to focus on
legislation designed to end this injustice. Specifically, of
course, we will be discussing S. 1868, the International
Religious Freedom Act of 1998, sponsored by Senators Nickles,
Lieberman, and others. The committee is honored to have already
here the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Senator
Lieberman, and Senator Nickles is involved in the meeting that
I just left. In just a moment we are going to ask Senator
Lieberman to testify on behalf of the proposal by him and
Senator Nickles.
I am a co-sponsor of that bill and of course I am hopeful
that it will receive broad bipartisan support from this
committee and from the Senate as a whole.
Now, the committee will also hear today the
administration's perspective on the state of religious freedom
abroad, as well as what steps have been taken to address this
persistent human rights problem. The committee has led several
historic steps taken by the Senate in recent days to advance
U.S. foreign policy interests, including passage of a far-
reaching State Department reorganization, a U.N. reform
package, and the NATO expansion treaty.
In the interest of time, I am going to ask unanimous
consent that the balance of my statement appear in the record
as if read.
[The prepared statement of Senator Helms appears in the
Appendix.]
The Chairman. I see that Senator Nickles has joined us, and
we will hear from the distinguished Assistant Majority Leader
of the Senate first and then Senator Lieberman. You may
proceed, gentlemen.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON NICKLES, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA
Senator Nickles. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I
apologize I was a few minutes late. You know how it is to get
out of our conference. We are swamped by press, and it is hard
to get out.
But thank you very much for allowing me to testify, and I
appreciate Senator Lieberman's appearance before your committee
as well, and I am happy to co-sponsor with Senator Lieberman
and other Senators the International Religious Freedom Act. I
would also like to compliment Senator Specter and Congressman
Wolf for the work that they have done. We have a little
different approach, but they have also been very, very active
in highlighting the problems of religious persecution.
Mr. Chairman, I have a statement I will ask for your
permission to enter as read. But just looking at the last two
days, in the New York Times there is an article, in yesterday's
paper: ``Pakistani Catholic Cleric Buried; Muslims Burn
Christian Homes.'' The Catholic bishop committed suicide to
protest religious discrimination, to protest religious
persecution. That happened in Pakistan. It happened just a few
days ago. There were riots and houses being burned,
demonstrations by thousands.
Religious persecution happens today, in 1998, and it is
costing lives. It is serious; it is real. It needs to be
addressed.
There was an article in the Washington Post two days ago:
``China Frees Elderly Catholic Bishop,'' to end his 3-year
sentence to re-education through labor. This bishop is 78 years
old. So when he was 75 years old he was sentenced to three
years of labor for re-education. Why? Because he is a Catholic
bishop, and he has allegiance to the Vatican instead of to the
communist organization. That is happening today in China.
I am pleased they released him. I compliment the Chinese
government for releasing him. But they still are detaining
other leading bishops, including--I cannot pronounce the names
very well--Bishop Zu Zemin and An Shuzin. They remain in
detention. Those are bishops. No telling how many other people
are held in detention, in prison, for re-education through
labor. Why? Because they are trying to express their right to
worship. Why? Because they have a home church or because they
meet with fellow believers.
Again, this was two days ago. This is happening in
countries like Pakistan and China. It is happening in Egypt. It
is happening in many, many countries all across the world.
Well, what do we do about it? two years ago the Senate
passed a resolution. I was pleased to sponsor it. Many others
co-sponsored it. It passed unanimously in the Senate. This
resolution said we should do something; Mr. President, do
something. Have an official in the State Department monitor
this, pay attention to it, call attention to the offending
countries, make sure that they are aware, when there is
religious persecution, that it is wrong and that this
government is not going to sit idly by and just do nothing.
Well, we passed that resolution unanimously. It was a sense
of the Senate resolution. It did not have the force and impact
of law. Frankly, this administration has not paid very much
attention to it.
Mr. Chairman, I think we need to do more, and that is why
Senator Lieberman and I have introduced this bill. This bill
has a little different approach. It says we have religious
persecution in any number of ways and avenues by different
countries in different degrees, and that those countries need a
different response; and so possibly we should give the
administration some flexibility on what the response should be,
but there should be a response. We should have a monitoring of
religious persecution and we should have a report. We should
know exactly what countries are persecuting and what they are
doing.
So they will have to report. We will have an individual
both in the State Department and also the National Security
Advisers, top level officials, to monitor and to report, and
also to come up with a menu of options, what can be done,
instead of saying: Well, wait a minute; if you are guilty of
persecution in one degree, well, we will have a total economic
embargo or we will have a total cutoff of military aid, as some
have proposed. I do not think that is necessarily the right
solution.
As a matter of fact, I do not like sanctions. Senator Grams
and I mentioned this before: I am not an advocate of sanctions
every time. But I think you need some leverage. So instead of
having one of the options be a 100 percent cutoff of any
economic aid, the administration would have the flexibility to
do partial restriction of economic assistance.
Take for example in Egypt. There is significant persecution
of the Coptics in Egypt. So is the solution an economic embargo
of Egypt and a cutoff of 100 percent of economic aid to Egypt?
Probably not. Most people would say that that is too stiff of a
penalty and it would have repercussions that go far beyond what
we would want to do, both that is in our interest and in
Egypt's interest and in the interest of the Middle East.
Well, should we not give the administration the flexibility
to come up with a partial reduction of foreign assistance in
lieu of leverage to try and make change? Our intention with
this bill is results, not to punish countries, not to come up
with a hammer over their head. But our intention with the bill
is to make improvements to lessen religious persecution. That
is our objective.
We want people everywhere, all across the world, to be able
to practice their faith without their governments prosecuting
them in the process. We want our government to be involved in
monitoring it, to work to lessen religious persecution and
prosecution all across the world. That is the essence of our
bill.
Again, I want to thank Senator Lieberman for co-sponsoring
it, and other colleagues who have joined us as well. We think
it is a big improvement over other legislative proposals that
have been bandied about. Although the objectives are probably
somewhat similar, I think this is a better approach.
So Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much your willingness to
have a hearing on this bill and I look forward to working with
you and other members of the committee to see if we cannot make
a real, not just a statement, but a real positive act to
improve religious freedom throughout the world.
[The prepared statement of Senator Nickles appears in the
Appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Senator Lieberman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Senator Lieberman. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
honored to be here. I appreciate very much the opportunity to
work with Senator Nickles and yourself and others on behalf of
this legislation.
I must say that I regard this occasion with mixed emotions.
It is in one sense solemn, because our presence here today is
prompted by an outrage, and I do not know any other word for
it, of the fact that around the world as we gather here in all
the freedom that we enjoy here in the United States of America,
millions of religious believers are living under the
unrelenting fear of imprisonment, torture, abuse, or even death
simply because they choose to express their faith in God.
Yet this occasion is also hopeful, because I believe that
the legislation before the committee today, S. 1868, the
International Religious Freedom Act, has the potential to
galvanize our government to take responsible and effective
action against such oppression of the faithful.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, there are those within our
country and certainly those outside who would say that we not
only do not have an obligation to be involved in this area, we
do not have a right to take a stand against religious
persecution in foreign countries, because they are foreign
countries and it is none of our business, that our foreign
policy ought to be based on strategic or economic interests.
I disagree, and I know that most of my colleagues here in
the Senate do. I begin, if I may, with the words of the Prophet
Isaiah: ``Seek justice. Encourage the oppressed. Learn to do
right.''
It seems to me that for Americans particularly, silence in
disinterest on matters of religious freedom are not acceptable
options. We in this great country bear a special obligation in
this regard historically because our Nation, after all, was
founded by men and women seeking refuge from oppression for
their religious faith.
Remember the opening words of the Declaration of
Independence, which are words of faith: ``That all people are
endowed with inalienable rights,'' not by any committee of
humans or by any committee of legislators, but by our creator.
Remember, the Bill of Rights enshrines religious freedom as the
first freedom.
That promise has been made real for succeeding generations
of Americans. I was thinking as I was walking over here, if you
will allow me, Mr. Chairman, a personal digression, of my
grandmother, who I have often said to people was--let me put it
this way: I have never met a person who loved America more.
Why? Because she spent a good part of her life in another
country where she was denied basic freedoms, and most dear to
her was the freedom to worship God as she chose to, without
fear of harassment or worse.
So when we embrace--whether we embrace this principle
enthusiastically or admit it reluctantly, the fact remains that
much of the rest of the world looks to our Nation for moral
leadership. Paul Wolfowitz said a while ago that the
fundamental goal of America's foreign policy in the twenty
first century is to make sure that that century is not a repeat
of the twentieth century. Two world wars, a cold war, and the
brutal slaughter and repression of millions of people by
totalitarian regimes have made this last 100 years probably the
bloodiest in the history of mankind.
An enormous number of those victims were perversely singled
out because of their faith. This cannot be allowed to continue.
But if we choose to ignore the oppression, who then will be
responsible for the results?
Mr. Chairman, as Senator Nickles has said, this problem is
real and urgent, and it is not limited to any particular faith
nor any particular religion. I cite just a few areas of
concern.
Russia. Last summer Russia passed one of the most
restrictive laws since the Soviet era, effectively shutting
down a number of independent Christian churches and religious
organizations and severely restricting the religious freedom of
its citizens.
Pakistan. Senator Nickles mentioned these blasphemy laws,
which make any derogatory remark about the Prophet Mohammed a
capital offense. They have been used to terrorize Pakistan's
minority faiths, particularly Christians. Just two weeks ago a
Pakistani Christian named Ayub Masih received a death sentence
under this law on suspicious and unproven charges leading to
the sudden and tragic death of Catholic Bishop John Joseph.
China, the Nation with the world's largest total
population, also has the unfortunate distinction of having, as
far as I know, the world's largest population of people
imprisoned for their religious faith. Catholics, Protestants,
Muslims in the north and Tibetan Buddhists all suffer under
China's controls on religion.
Vietnam. Unfortunately, the recent market reforms in this
communist nation have not been accompanied by sufficient
reforms in personal freedoms. Buddhist monks, Catholic priests,
Evangelical pastors, and lay believers of several faiths suffer
under the constant threat of arrests, beatings, and
imprisonment.
Finally I mention Egypt. Besides severely restrictive
policies against church construction and repair, Egypt has been
home in recent years to serious violence against Coptic
Christians.
Mr. Chairman, the International Religious Freedom Act
offers real solutions to these real problems of discrimination
and persecution based on religion. It is balanced and
comprehensive. It guarantees that our government will take the
most effective action against religious oppression and stand up
for the rights of the faithful and therefore be true to our
unique founding ideals by putting the pursuit and protection of
religious freedom at the heart of our foreign policy, where it
belongs.
The act begins with a clear and comprehensive definition of
religious persecution, encompassing any violations of the
internationally recognized norms of religious freedom. That
includes both acts of overt violence as well as onerous policy
restrictions on the faithful. It might be called discrimination
instead of persecution. In other words, we are talking about
basic human rights standards.
Paul Marshall's seminal work, ``Their Blood Cries Out,''
which has served as a manifesto for the recent movement against
religious persecution, defines religious persecution as ``in
general, the denial of any of the rights of religious
freedom.''
Mr. Chairman, here I want to note that this broad
definition of religious persecution is premised on the hard
lessons of history. Violent reigns of terror have usually begun
with less violent, but nonetheless insidious, acts of
oppression. The fact is that the seeds of Hitler's genocidal
death camps in the late 1930's and 40's were planted in the
early 30's, when Nazi policies restricted and stigmatized
Jewish people and other people.
We must not wait until it is too late. We must attempt to
excise the roots of religious persecution before they have a
chance to spread.
Mr. Chairman, the first and in many ways the most difficult
task in combating this problem is to report the facts. Here is
where this legislation I think will do very well. The light of
truth-telling must expose these dark deeds. Only when we know
can we then act.
Over and over again, as many voices have been raised to
draw attention to religious persecution, the response we have
heard from an awakened public has not been ``I do not care,''
but rather ``I did not know.'' When the facts of religious
persecution are told, they speak for themselves and action will
follow.
Mr. Chairman, in this regard I want to join Senator Nickles
in paying tribute to the band of believers and battlers who
have in recent years brought this problem to the forefront of
our attention--Michael Horowitz, Nina Shea, the host of leaders
in the religious communities, and our colleagues here in
Congress, Senator Specter and Congressman Wolf, many others who
have worked tirelessly, first to inform the rest of us and then
to lead the fight against the scourge of religious persecution.
The Wolf-Specter legislation is a pioneer in this historic
awakening of a common cause that we share. Senator Nickles and
I have offered slightly different legislation, which in balance
I think is more comprehensive and ultimately will be more
effective.
I hope in the end, if the House goes ahead this week, as it
appears they will, and adopts a form of the Wolf-Specter
proposal, that we in the Senate under this committee's
leadership will adopt a form of the legislation before you
today, and that in conference we can blend these two proposals
to produce legislation which the President can and will sign.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the International Religious
Freedom Act provides tools to every arm of U.S. foreign policy
apparatus to ensure that combating religious persecution is a
top priority. In a larger sense, I believe that this bill and
the movement that sparked it may herald a renewed vision and
purpose for our foreign policy. So much has been said about the
lack of focus in our foreign policy following the end of the
cold war. That debate will not be ended by this legislation,
but it is my strong conviction that our international interests
must include this great moral purpose. None is greater or more
American than protecting the freedom of religious believers.
In standing for the rights of the faithful around the
world, we will still for the right, and when America stands for
the right we are at our strongest.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lieberman appears in the
Appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much to both of you for two
excellent statements.
I know both of you have other appointments you have got to
keep, but before you depart let me raise a question or two. It
occurs to me that since the key State Department and White
House officials are present to testify and/or respond to
questions. It might be useful for you to describe what you are
hearing about this issue in churches and synagogues in Oklahoma
and Connecticut and elsewhere in the country. Would you do that
for me, Don?
Senator Nickles. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to. I tell
you, my first response was thinking of a trip that I had in
China and speaking to ministers of the home churches that were
being persecuted. There was kind of a cyclical persecution. At
times the government might be a little more flexible and let
them out. Evidently they let this one bishop out prior to the
President's visit, and I compliment them for doing that, but
they are still detaining many, many others. It would be nice to
have a report saying how bad it is, how many people are being
detained.
So that is one of the purposes of our legislation, to
really have a good accurate account. Our legislation says this
information will be put on the Internet. We will find out. We
can let the world know.
Senator Lieberman made a good example. That is one of the
first cures of this problem, is to expose it when it happens.
So I think that will be helpful.
But I have had from those contacts maybe a real interest.
When I have met with some of the leaders of home churches
there, I also met with government officials, and basically they
denied most any impact and certainly in ``persecuting'' the
Catholics who had an affiliation with the Vatican. But
obviously, by releasing this one person, they have been
persecuting some people from the Catholic church that had some
connection with the Vatican.
So I think this is all positive in maybe eliminating the
problem in trying to find a resolution to it. How many people
from Oklahoma? Yes, I have had constituents in Oklahoma,
members of church groups, who have been active. We had one,
actually an Oklahoman who has been very active with me, who is
imprisoned in Nepal, and is from Stillwater, Oklahoma. Our
office intervened. We were successful after some period in
time, meeting with the Ambassador and so on, in getting this
individual out of jail.
But it is a problem that unfortunately is worldwide and
affects all of us. I think if we are aware of the magnitude of
the problem I do not think we can sit back and do nothing. I
think we have to try and figure out how can we do something
that will not do more harm than good.
Everybody who has voiced themselves on this issue I think
has very good intentions. It is a question of can we come up
with the right combination of diplomacy, sanctions, et al., to
make sure we maximize the improvement, and the improvement
being in the free exercise of religion worldwide.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Mr. Chairman, it is a very important
question. I must say as I talk to people in all religions at
home in Connecticut this problem has gained greater visibility
I find that people are surprised. This has been an untold story
in world events, and people are not only surprised, they are
agitated and they want us to do something about it because of
the value that all Americans give to religious freedom.
The other point to make is that this problem is not a
problem that is focused on any one religion around the world.
The truth is that you can find places where people of almost
any religion in the world are being persecuted today. It
happens--and this is probably why it took a while for this
particular problem to receive the attention it deserved in our
country, where the majority of the population is Christian. It
happens that most of the victims of religious persecution
around the world today are Christian. Perhaps because of the
tremendous freedom that we all enjoy here, it was hard for
people to understand that or appreciate it, until of course
they were informed of it.
I find in the end that--and you will see this I think in
the broad array of religious groups that are supporting some
legislative response to this problem--that ultimately the
response has been very unifying, because I think we do
understand the words of Pastor Niemuhler during the Nazi time,
that when one person's religious freedom is compromised
ultimately we are all going to be victims of it.
So I think there is a rising chorus of appeal and support
for this kind of legislation.
The Chairman. One other question, then I will let you go. I
would like you to stay around, but I know you are otherwise
occupied.
We are going to hear from a representative of the
administration in a few minutes. I am interested in your view
of the administration's position on this bill, S. 1868. What do
you think? Do you have any opinion about that?
Senator Lieberman. Well, I should leave that to Mr.
Shattuck. I gather that the administration is not supportive of
this legislation, in general, but would like to work with the
committee on this particular legislation. I do not honestly
know the details of the position, but I do want to stress,
Senator Nickles talked about the details of this bill. It is
fact-based. It creates quite an ascending array of options of
responses for our government.
It does not just say, here is a two by four, any time you
see any problem here, hit somebody over the head with it. It
begins with notification, disclosure. It can involve a
diplomatic demarche and then leads on ultimately to the
possible suspension of aid and the rest.
So I hope that--this administration has heard the rising
chorus of concern about this problem and has spoken to it and
put out a very impressive report on this problem, which will be
formalized if this legislation before you is adopted. But we
think that it demands--that the problem is serious enough to
demand the kind of, well, legal institutionalization,
permanentization, if there is such a word, of the approach
embodied in the values and the programmatic response endorsed
by this legislation.
Senator Nickles. I am hopeful, Mr. Chairman, that the
administration will support this. If they have any particular
problems with it, we have never said it was perfect. We would
be happy to consider anything that they have.
I do think that we are trying to emphasize this more than a
sense of the Senate resolution. We have done that, we have been
there, and yet we still see things happening like in China, in
Russia, in Egypt and Pakistan. We do not think that a total
cutoff of aid and total economic sanctions are the right
solution. So we have given them a whole menu of options, trying
to give the administration and succeeding administrations more
tools in their arsenal, I guess, in negotiating with other
countries so we can make real improvements.
Again, I do not like sanctions. I think usually they hurt
ourselves more than they hurt other countries. So maybe this
will lessen the likelihood of real economic sanctions by giving
a menu of options that will bring about some results that will
be able to stop problems before they become too big, help
create a climate for religious freedom. That is our real
objective.
So I am hopeful that the administration will be supportive.
I have heard their objections to the other bill that is working
its way through the House. I happen to think, in studying this
issue, I think this is the preferred alternative. Maybe I am
prejudiced to it, but I am certainly open for suggestions.
If our goal is to increase religious freedom and to
eliminate religious persecution and prosecution around the
world, if somebody has a better idea I am happy to listen to
them and see what we can come out.
I would agree with Senator Lieberman, I want to compliment
Senator Specter and Congressman Wolf for their initiative, for
their bringing this issue to the forefront, for increasing the
observances of religious persecution. I think that is
important. I think this is a better legislative alternative,
but I will be happy to work with them as well and to try and
come up with a package that hopefully the administration will
agree is in the best interests of our country as well.
The Chairman. I think we ought to give somebody on this
side a chance.
Senator Dodd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to commend my colleagues and, Senator Nickles will
appreciate, a special commendation to my colleague from
Connecticut, who has worked a lot of these issues very, very
well and brings this once again I think very important set of
issues.
One of the things I--and I will ask unanimous consent to
have a statement that I have prepared to be included in the
record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Senator Dodd. I think we take it so much for granted in our
own country. We have such a wonderful diversity in this Nation.
I think there are more mosques, synagogues in this country per
capita than any other nation in the world. It is a great
tribute to our Nation that we welcome people from all over the
globe, many of whom have come to our shores because of
religious persecution historically; that we raise this issue
and make it very much a part of the fabric of our foreign
policy.
I must say, I think what Senator Nickles and Senator
Lieberman have offered us here--and I say this, as they have,
with all due respect to the alternatives that have been
raised--what they are proposing here allows for the kind of
flexibility that I think all of us would like to see in this
area. Certainly freedom of expression, freedom from the kind of
abuse that we are seeing in certain parts of the world today,
are all very important rights as well that we want to enshrine
and protect along with the right of the freedom of expression,
religious expression.
This bill they are proposing gives us in my view that level
of flexibility which our President and Secretary of State are
the ones ultimately going to be charged with the responsibility
of carrying out what we are including here, what they are
suggesting here. It is not something we can legislate in every
detail. We have really got to rely on the executive branch to
become the administrators and the ones who prosecute, if you
will, the goals contained in the legislation.
So I think this is a very, very sound initiative. I am
anxious to hear what Mr. Shattuck has to say. Others may have
some suggestions here, but I commend our colleagues for
bringing this to our attention.
As my colleague has said, this is an issue we hear more and
more and more about. I recall years ago, Mr. Chairman, just
anecdotally, being in China and wanting to go to mass on
Sunday, and there was a mass. I was told there was a mass. I
went to this mass and in fact went to communion at this mass,
and only then found out afterwards that in fact it was sort of
a--it was not the recognized Catholic Church. It was one that
was sort of put up, a kind of a phoney mass in a sense, where
you are not allowed to--Catholics were not allowed to practice
their religion.
Today I know things are changing in China, but there are
still serious problems of persecution. But that goes on all
over the world.
So I thank our colleagues. This is very, very helpful.
[The prepared statement of Senator Dodd appears in the
Appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Well, thank you, gentlemen----
Senator Nickles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman [continuing]. for being with us. Some Senators
may have questions to file with you in writing and I know you
will respond to them. But thank you very much.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The second panel consists of the gentleman
who has been referred to several times already today, John
Shattuck, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor. If you will come forward, sir.
You may proceed. We welcome you here and appreciate your
coming to discuss it with us and perhaps answer some questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHATTUCK, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR
Mr. Shattuck. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I do have a lengthy statement which I will submit for the
record and summarize orally in a shorter period of time. I also
have two other documents I would like to submit for the record.
The first is a report that was done in July of last year,
``U.S. Policies in Support of Religious Freedom: Focus on
Christians.'' The second is an interim report of the
Secretary's Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad, if
you would allow me to submit those.
The Chairman. Without objection, both will be included and
printed in the record. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The reports submitted by Mr. Shattuck, ``U.S. Policies in
Support of Religious Freedom: Focus on Christians,'' and ``Advisory
Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad, Interim Report to the Secretary
of State,'' have been retained in committee files and may be viewed
upon request. Both reports are also available on the Internet at the
following Web Sites:
http:www.state.gov/www/global/human__rights/
970722__relig__rpt__christian.html
http:www.state.gov/www/global/human__rights/
980123__acrfa__interim.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may proceed.
Mr. Shattuck. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I really would like to thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you on what is clearly a momentous
matter. As both Senator Lieberman and Senator Nickles have
indicated in their testimony, this is a subject of profound
importance to our country, to our administration, and I know to
the Congress.
The administration has been privileged to work closely with
the members of this committee to address a wide variety of
human rights issues, and we applaud your efforts on human
rights and religious freedom. We look forward to working with
you on this particular matter of crafting appropriate responses
to the crisis of religious freedom abroad.
Mr. Chairman, the President and the Secretary of State have
demonstrated to our friends and foes alike that advancing
religious freedom is a matter of the highest concern in our
foreign policy. Religious freedom is a basic right, a concept
basic to every one of the world's major belief systems. It is
an internationally recognized human right. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights recognize that all citizens have the
right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This
right is inherent in the dignity of every human being. No
government can legitimately deny it, no matter what the
justification, for it is universal, inalienable, and endowed by
virtue of a person's birth.
Unfortunately, there are some in the world today who refuse
to recognize the right to religious freedom. Whether Christian,
Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Hindu, Baha'i, or of another creed,
believers around the world continue to suffer for their faith.
Take, for example, the case of Ayub Masih, a Christian from
the village of Arifwala, Pakistan, who has been sentenced to
death for blasphemy. His crime? A Muslim neighbor had accused
him of making derogatory statements against Islam. In spite of
his denials of the charge, Masih is now sentenced to die.
Last Friday Karl Inderfurth, the Assistant Secretary for
South Asian Affairs, and I met with Pakistan's Ambassador to
deplore and condemn the imposition of a death sentence on any
individual for the peaceful expression of his beliefs and to
call upon the government of Pakistan to repeal their blasphemy
law.
We also expressed our sorrow at the tragic death of Bishop
John Joseph, who dedicated his life to defending the rights of
all religious minorities to worship freely, and we expressed
deep concern over reports that Pakistani troops had fired tear
gas at mourners during the bishop's funeral procession.
Mr. Chairman, suppression of the right to religious freedom
not only is an intolerable invasion of an individual's basic
human rights, it also can lead to grave consequences for
political and economic stability. If people lack the freedom to
practice their faith, it is likely that other human rights will
be restricted, that intolerance and violence will be more
prevalent, and that liberty and justice will be impeded.
In Sudan, a bloody civil war fueled by an extremist
regime's intolerance of Animists, Christians, and some Muslims
has continued unabated. Iran's religious minorities continue to
experience discrimination and persecution, particularly
Evangelical Christians and Bahai's. In the aftermath of the
Pope's visit to Cuba, Mr. Chairman, the government still
maintains extensive restrictions on religious activities. The
church has little or no access to the media and cannot publish
religious material, sponsor social events, or establish
schools.
In Russia, a new restrictive and potentially discriminatory
religion law could affect minority religions, including some
offshoot Orthodox groups. The President has repeatedly raised
our concerns about this new law with President Yeltsin and will
submit a report to Congress on this issue later this month.
In China, unofficial religious groups, including
Protestants and Catholics, have experienced varying degrees of
oppression. In some areas house and unofficial churches worship
without interference, while in other areas religious believers
have been subjected to tight restrictions and harassment. In
Xinjiang and Tibet, tight controls on religion have continued
and in some cases intensified.
Mr. Chairman, these are just a few examples of the
violations of religious freedom that we see in many parts of
the world today. This administration is committed to
confronting these violations, has done a great deal to address
them no matter where they occur. I would like to outline some
of the steps we have taken to implement the commitment that has
been made by both the President and the Secretary of State.
First, we have significantly increased our diplomatic work,
starting when Secretary Albright took office and immediately
directed all U.S. Ambassadors to make religious freedom a top
priority. Let me give you a few examples.
During our trip 10 days ago to China, Secretary Albright
and I raised the issue of religious freedom at the highest
levels, including with President Jiang Zemin. Last Saturday we
received word that two of the individuals whose cases we
raised, Bishop Zeng Jingmu and Father Lu Gengyu, have been
released from prison. This is a positive development, but we
are concerned by reports that Bishop Zeng has been placed under
house arrest. Furthermore, these cases are only two among many.
We have called upon the government of China to respect the
rights of its citizens to express their faith freely and to
release all those held for peaceful expression of their
religious or political beliefs.
In Turkey last year, the Governor of the province of Mardin
suspended permission for the Syriac Orthodox Church to provide
religion and language classes to the local population. This
decision came after a dispute over the renovation of the
church's fourth century monastery, leading to a police order to
halt work. In February, on my most recent trip to Turkey, I met
first with the Governor and then with Metropolitan Aktas and
brought them together. I secured from the Governor a promise to
extend written authorization for religion and language classes
to resume and to permit church officials to move forward with
their renovation of badly deteriorating religious buildings.
In Saudi Arabia, freedom of religion does not exist, as the
government prohibits the public practice of religions other
than Islam. Secretary Albright and Ambassador Wyche Fowler have
encouraged the Saudi government to make progress on religious
freedom. We note as a positive development that Defense
Minister Sultan stated publicly last fall that the Saudi
government now does not prohibit non-Muslim worship in the
home.
In Vietnam, Ambassador Pete Peterson has been forceful in
challenging the government's restriction of religious practices
and control of organized religious activity. The Ambassador
instructed his staff to establish broad contacts with Catholic,
Protestant, and Buddhist groups and to visit churches and
temples in Hanoi and the countryside. In addition, Ambassador
Peterson has intervened on behalf of American citizens
penalized for importing religious materials and Vietnamese
citizens under arrest for the peaceful expression of religious
beliefs.
There are many other examples. Let me just give you a few
more. In Austria, the embassy, the U.S. embassy, engaged the
foreign ministry on behalf of non-recognized religious groups
that had problems obtaining resident permits for foreign
religious workers. In response, the Austrian government adopted
administrative procedures that helped alleviate the problem.
In Greece, the embassy staff traveled to Crete to
investigate problems of a charismatic Christian group that the
government had not allowed to proselytize. The visit resulted
in the government entering into a dialog with the group.
In Laos, Ambassador Chamberlin intervened to secure the
release of a number of American and Lao Christians detained for
the peaceful expression of their religious beliefs. She
emphasized the importance to the United States of upholding
international standards on human rights, including religious
freedom.
Along with this type of intensive diplomatic activity,
which I should say, Mr. Chairman, is now an order from the
Secretary to occur virtually worldwide, the State Department
has significantly expanded its public reporting on limitations
to religious freedom in our annual country reports on human
rights practices which provide information on 194 countries and
territories with new and expanded consideration and treatment
of religious freedom.
The United States also employs targeted restrictions on
countries, including economic sanctions, trade limitations, and
visa restrictions. After Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
Gare Smith traveled to Sudan last summer to gather information
on religious persecution, slavery, and prospects for a peaceful
end to the civil war, President Clinton imposed sweeping new
economic sanctions against the government of Sudan based on
those findings.
The Secretary has also taken action to institutionalize the
U.S. Government's commitment to religious freedom abroad. One
demonstration of this approach is her interaction with her
Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom and her move to
implement its recommendations, which I have submitted for the
record.
The advisory committee's 20 members are U.S. religious
leaders who represent millions of Americans of all major faiths
and denominations. The committee's interim report of January
1998 provides many practical recommendations on how U.S. policy
can more comprehensively integrate protection and promotion of
religious freedom abroad.
The Secretary accepted the advisory committee
recommendation to establish a senior level position and office
in the Department of State to coordinate, integrate, and
implement policies that institutionalize the promotion of
religious freedom in our foreign policy. This will be a major
position at the level of deputy assistant secretary. We
anticipate being able to announce the Secretary's selection for
this position in the very near future and will consult with
you, Mr. Chairman, and other Members of Congress on this
important decision.
The administration has also been a leader in religious
reconciliation and interfaith cooperation in countries torn by
religious and ethnic conflict. Consistent U.S. leadership has
been critical to the peace processes in the former Yugoslavia,
in Northern Ireland, and in the Middle East, where the work is
so difficult.
Our work to promote human rights, justice, and the rule of
law also facilitates religious reconciliation. For example, the
United States was the leader in creating the International
Commission on Missing Persons in Bosnia. The commission is
chaired by former Senator Bob Dole, who is doing an outstanding
job of applying pressure to the regional parties throughout
former Yugoslavia to expedite resolution of missing persons
cases, providing assistance to the families of the missing, and
supporting the exhumation process and identification of remains
where possible.
At the heart of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia was,
of course, the terrible attacks on people based upon their
religion, and the Dole commission is at the heart of our
efforts to promote religious and ethnic reconciliation of the
region.
We are also working to strengthen our commitment to
religious liberty through our role in the asylum process. We
have stepped up our support for INS asylum officers and
immigration judges by providing them with expert advice on
religious freedom conditions and recent political developments
overseas. We have in the past year been reporting additional
information to the INS on conditions of religious freedom in
countries around the world, so that they can take much more
active involvement in providing access to asylum.
Mr. Chairman, I think this summarizes briefly the
administration's actions and efforts and views on the
importance of promoting religious freedom in our foreign policy
and the problems and crises of religious freedom around the
world.
With that important background, let me now turn to the work
before this committee, S. 1868, the International Religious
Freedom Act. We commend the bill's sponsors and certainly
support the objectives of eliminating religious persecution and
promoting religious freedom. We appreciate the efforts of
Senator Nickles and you, Mr. Chairman, and other sponsors,
including Senator Lieberman and other Senators on the
committee, to craft a bill that reflects our shared focus on
these issues. We recognize that this Congress, like this
administration, has focused far greater attention on this issue
than any of our predecessors.
With this in mind, we remain committed to engaging with you
on this matter. We seek to work with you to advance religious
freedom through a variety of means. Such efforts will send a
strong message that both the administration and the Congress
stand united in support of religious freedom around the world.
As I have outlined, Mr. Chairman, we are actively engaged
in this struggle. Considering further initiatives, we believe
that legislation best serves our mutual goal of promoting and
upholding religious freedom when it consolidates and
strengthens existing mechanisms, rather than creating new ones
in their stead.
With that in mind, let me summarize our position on the
legislation. I am pleased that your staff is working with us to
discuss these issues in greater detail so that we might best
address concerns that we have in the bill. We want to work with
you so that, as Senator Nickles said, we can strengthen our
efforts to respond to religious persecution in a way that does
not do more harm than good.
We have specific concerns about the bill's sanctions and
reporting mechanisms, its definition of religious persecution,
its waiver provisions, its mandating of new reports without
providing additional resources, its creation of overlapping new
institutions, and its establishment of a hierarchy of human
rights which appear to treat religious persecution as more
serious than other types of human rights abuses.
Our first major concern is the bill's requirement that the
President impose one or more of 16 executive actions and
economic sanctions on any country publicly identified in a
report as engaging in or tolerating religious persecution. We
are concerned that the bill's annual public designation of
sanctionable countries does not leave room for incentives and
dialog in promoting religious freedom of the kind that I have
been talking about encouraging further improvements in some
countries.
As I have discussed, positive results can be achieved by
stepped up and carefully planned diplomacy. We also believe the
sanctions provisions could be counterproductive. In particular,
while imposition of sanctions is likely to have little direct
impact on many governments except to cutoff our diplomatic
channels, it could at the same time run the risk of
strengthening the hands of those governments and extremists who
seek to incite religious intolerance.
We fear that sanctions could result in greater pressures in
some countries and even reprisals against minority religious
communities. We also believe that sanctions could have adverse
impact on our diplomacy in places like the Middle East and
South Asia, undercutting administration efforts to promote the
very regional peace and reconciliation that can foster
religious tolerance and understanding.
Our second major concern is the bill's definition of
religious persecution: ``Any limitation on the right to
religious freedom,'' without specifying a threshold of severity
to make a country sanctionable. We agree that all violations of
the right to religious freedom are important and must be
addressed. They should not, however, all be categorized as
religious persecution, which has a particular meaning in
domestic and international law.
With so broad a definition, the term ``religious
persecution'' would lose its meaning and power, thus making it
difficult for the United States to address serious or
widespread violations and secure positive change. In fact, a
majority of the countries in the world, many with overall good
practices on religious freedom, could under the definition in
the bill be categorized as engaging in some form of religious
persecution.
In Austria, for example, religious groups that qualify for
registration and recognition are granted certain benefits and
subsidies, but that is not available to other groups, and
registration at the same time is not in fact required nor is
freedom to worship restricted. The bill thus could designate an
entire country as a persecutor without necessarily looking at
the distinctions about what is being done.
Our third major concern is the nature of the bill's waiver
mechanism. Under the bill the President could waive sanctions
for reasons unrelated to religious freedom if he determines
that such a waiver would be in the national security interest
of the United States. We believe, Mr. Chairman, that national
security is too high a standard and could unduly limit the
President's ability to protect a wide range of important,
potentially vital national interests unrelated specifically to
security.
A change in the waiver standard from national security to
national interest would ensure that all the interests of the
American people are protected by the bill.
Our fourth concern is that the bill would create
significant new reporting, training, and other requirements
without providing for additional resources. As our recent
practice so clearly indicates, we understand and appreciate the
desire of Members of Congress for expanded monitoring and
reporting on religious freedom issues, and we are prepared to
work with you to explore efforts to broaden our already very
significant reporting activities. But we fear the current
provisions of the bill are not workable.
According to the bill's provisions, five separate reports
would have to be prepared each year. First, the annual country
reports on human rights practices, which would be released on
January 31st; second, the annual report on religious
persecution, which would be due on May 1st; third, the
Presidential determination and intended action, to be concluded
by June 1st, 30 days after the submission of the annual report;
fourth, the report of the new Commission on International
Religious Persecution would be due on August 1st; and finally,
the President's report to Congress on his determination and
intended action would then follow a month later on September
1st.
These reports, certainly all important, are very time and
staff-intensive. The preparation of the country reports alone
involves embassy personnel, officers from all over the world,
and approximately half of the staff in my bureau, who work on
the reports throughout the year, but particularly intensively
for three months.
We estimate that the additional reporting requirements of
the bill could more than triple the workload and decrease the
ability of staff to respond to other urgent human rights
concerns, including on violations of religious freedom. The new
reporting requirements also could obligate the Secretary to
identify other human rights programs to be cut or eliminated in
order to implement these unfunded mandates.
Our fifth and final concern, Mr. Chairman, is the bill's
creation of new institutions that overlap existing ones. The
bill would establish an ambassador at large and an office on
religious persecution in the Department of State, with the
advice and consent of the Senate. The Ambassador would chair a
new commission on international religious persecution.
We believe that any legislation should consolidate and
strengthen existing mechanisms rather than create new ones. The
Ambassador at large position frankly largely duplicates that of
the soon to be designated senior coordinator for religious
freedom, and the commission in large part replicates the work
of the Secretary's advisory committee. We are sure that these
issues could be resolved.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we look forward very much to
working with the committee, as I have said throughout my
testimony, to strengthen our mutual commitment to promote
religious freedom, including in this legislative area. The
President and the Secretary of State have by word and deed
demonstrated that the promotion and protection of religious
freedom is a top priority. This committee under your leadership
has also played a leading role. In our efforts, we are joined
by many courageous men and women around the world, for whom
this is not merely a matter of principle, but a matter of great
courage and faith, and we must not let them down.
Acting alone, neither the administration nor the Congress
can hope to accomplish this important task.
I commend the authors and sponsors of the bill for their
efforts and for their contributions to the debate about
religious intolerance and discrimination and U.S. policies to
address this important concern. We welcome the initiatives and
look forward to working with you to develop means to meet our
shared goals. Only then will we be able to stop those what
would oppress religious freedom and to help those who would
promote it.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bearing with me through what
I am sure was a lengthy statement for this committee. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shattuck appears in the
Appendix.]
The Chairman. To the contrary, it is a very excellent
statement of your views, and there does not seem to be an
obstacle to getting this job done. If we work together, and you
have indicated you are willing to work with us, and I hope that
has been a mutual feeling, then we can get this thing done.
Incidentally, we are going to take five minutes per
Senator.
On Monday, April 27th, I believe it was, the President
dropped in on a meeting involving Sandy Berger and a group of
church leaders from the National Association of Evangelicals.
It so happens I met with the same group the next day. The
President said, and I quote from the April 28 New York Times,
this is the President speaking: ``What always happens if you
have automatic sanctions legislation is it puts enormous
pressure on whoever is in the executive branch to fudge an
evaluation of the facts of what is going on, and that is not
what you want. What you want,'' the President said, continuing,
``is to leave the President some flexibility, including the
ability to impose sanctions, some flexibility with a range of
appropriate reactions.''
Now, when I read that I thought to myself: Good Lord, how
often does this sort of thing happen? Ironically--track with me
if you will, sir--does not S. 1868 provide the President with
precisely what he is asking for, as he puts it, ``some
flexibility, including the ability to impose sanctions, some
flexibility with a range of appropriate reactions''?
Even the bill that we have to work on together at least
does that. Yet that is the only criticism the President stated,
and I think confusingly so.
What is your reaction to what he said in connection with
this bill?
Mr. Shattuck. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the President
rightly was indicating the difficulty of making precise
decisions on when sanctions or other measures might be imposed.
And those are difficult decisions. That said, I stand very
strongly behind the accuracy of our Country Report. The
President himself has made this point again and again regarding
the accuracy of the human rights reporting that has been done
by this administration. The Country Reports that you receive
every year are carefully compiled from sources all over the
world. We basically spare no pains to state facts, no matter
how painful they may be to close allies as well as to countries
with whom we have significant and even deep differences. Human
rights and nongovernmental organizations have repeatedly
praised the quality of the reporting on these human rights
issues as they have come in, including the religious freedom
questions.
So I think the accuracy of the reporting is very, very
clear, as is the large amount of information that we have
compiled. There is no one size fits all approach toward any
country in terms of what a response could be. Every country has
to be addressed in a different way, and I think that indeed is
the point that the President was making underneath his
statement.
The Chairman. Well, I just do not want to enter into an
arrangement by which there is fault-finding in the beginning to
forbid or prevent any progress on this thing. Now, if the
President is not interested in doing this I wish he would tell
me right now, instead of letting me hang fire and this
committee hang fire.
Let me go to another question. This past weekend their was
reported that the Catholic bishop of Shanghai was released from
prison and our former colleague Jim Sasser stated at the time
that ``his release serves as further evidence that the
President's policy of constructive engagement is bearing
fruit.''
In today's papers, however, it is reported that Bishop Zeng
is not really free. In fact, he is under house arrest, and you
confirmed that in your written statement. The bishop was jailed
in 1995 for holding unauthorized services in a private home. He
has spent the last 23 years of his life in jail because of his
allegiance to God and the Vatican instead of the official
state-controlled Chinese church.
Now, what does this tell you about the President's policy?
Is it not a failure at the outset? And that is precisely the
reason I think, is it not, why S. 1868 is necessary?
Mr. Shattuck. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me just make clear
for the record what we know and what we do not know about the
circumstances surrounding Bishop Zeng following his release. It
has been, as I said in my statement, reported that he is under
house arrest. We have not been able to verify that as of the
moment that this hearing got under way. We are asking the
embassy to find out whether that is in fact the case, but we do
not have any confirmation that that is the case.
The fact that he was released, of course, that is to say
that his sentence was commuted and that he was released from
prison, and he was not asked to leave the country is a positive
development. There was another Catholic prelate who was
released at the same time.
Let me be very clear--we are not inflating these issues
nor are we inflating this progress. There are plenty of others
who remain in prison, whose cases we are very actively
pursuing. When I was in China with Secretary Albright, at the
Secretary's direction I met with the director of the bureau of
religious affairs and raised many cases of religious figures
who are in prison, both in China and Tibet.
The Chairman. We could mess around with that a little bit,
but I just do not want to play against a stacked deck on this
thing. I want all of us, both him and us, to put up or shut up
on this business. We are willing to put up, and I do not want
any contrived reason for doing this or not doing this. Senator
Robb.
Senator Robb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary
Shattuck, for what I would certainly agree with the chairman
was a very thorough response to the legislation that has been
proposed.
First let me--and I will be very brief because I know
others would like to ask questions and we are supposed to have
a vote here on the floor in just a minute or two. You made
reference to the Wolf-Specter legislation and what have you. I
assume from your comments that you have less concern about this
legislation than that legislation. I do not like to generalize,
but I would assume that if we were to start or if the
administration were to assume a starting point for trying to
actually enact legislation, as the chairman suggests, that you
would prefer to work from this particular bill rather than that
bill as the starting point for full consideration and
suggestion of amendment. Is that correct?
Mr. Shattuck. Well, there is certainly a fundamental
difference between the two bills in the immediacy and
automaticity of the sanctions provisions in the Wolf-Specter
legislation, where the sanctions immediately follow from a
finding of persecution by an office which is not connected
directly to the Secretary of State or the President's National
security Adviser in a formal way. That automatic triggering of
sanctions is a very, very serious concern. It would do far more
harm than good, we believe, in promoting religious freedom.
This bill takes a different approach. It does provide for
somewhat more flexibility. But as I have outlined, we are
frankly concerned about the scope of the definition of
religious persecution. It is very, very broad. We are concerned
by the fact that many countries--many, many more probably than
Wolf-Specter--would very possibly fall into the scope of public
reporting and sanctionability. That is, a country would be
identified as sanctionable based on a finding of a single act
or occurrence of persecution, broadly defined as any denial of
religious freedom.
While that is a different approach, it nonetheless raises
still some very fundamental questions, because it involves
publicly branding a large number of countries at the outset on
an annual basis through this reporting process as sanctionable.
We would like to work with the committee to try to address
that issue. But it is certainly true that there is more
flexibility in terms of the range of responses that are
available to the President and the Secretary of State under
this legislation.
Senator Robb. Many of us have difficulty with any provision
in legislation that has an automatic trigger for sanctions or
sanctionable actions, whatever the case may be. But with
respect to this legislation, are there sanctions provisions
that you believe that could be worked out that would be
entirely acceptable to the administration? You mentioned the
definition of religious persecution and what have you is a
problem, and definitions are always a bit of a problem. But
with respect to sanctions, is it possible to come up with
language that the administration would support in this area?
Mr. Shattuck. Well, it is both the definition of religious
persecution, Senator Robb, and the annual requirement that
countries that are sanctionable in the terms of that definition
be publicly identified. Those are really at the heart of the
scheme of the bill, the structure of the bill that sets up the
response process.
We agree with the menu in the sense that every one of the
items listed in the menu of responses is an available and
appropriate response for the administration to make in some
circumstances where religious freedom is being denied. In
really egregious cases, after exhausting all other approaches,
sanctions may be appropriate, as in the case of Sudan, for
example, as I mentioned in my testimony.
But if there is an automatic requirement that a sanction be
chosen following this public identification of a country as
sanctionable, that undercuts our ability to be able to have the
kind of dialog that I was talking about that so many of our
Ambassadors are engaged in. And frankly, in the event that
action is taken by this kind of strong measure on the outside,
it could also deeply affect religious minorities in countries
such as Egypt, let us say, where repeated reporting has
indicated that there are real threats to particularly the
Coptic Christian minority.
So we are concerned about the automatic requirements. There
are some more flexible provisions in here, to be sure.
Senator Robb. My time has expired. I have an additional
question that I will put to you perhaps in writing, with
respect to the definitions and the differentiation between
political and religious beliefs and persecution.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I thank you, Mr. Shattuck.
Senator Grams.
Senator Grams. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I think it is great that the committee is holding this
hearing today to look at some of the problems that this bill is
aimed at, the International Religious Freedom Act. I think, as
other members on this committee are, we are all concerned about
human rights abuses of all kinds, including religious
persecution, and we all hope to find ways to speak out against
these injustices, to try to find some way to have some
influence.
Yet, as I have said many, many times, I do not believe that
a club-over-the-head approach is the best way to accomplish the
intended purpose. I know this bill provides some options and
waivers and Senator Nickles and Senator Lieberman did a great
job pointing out the serious problems of abuses around the
world in many different countries that this bill aims to
expose.
But my concerns are that we may be using the wrong weapons
in confronting these abuses documented in many of these
countries, and I humbly believe that they will not work. I
think it would probably only slow down any progress that we
have made.
I know that Senator Nickles said that if anybody has any
better ideas that he would like to hear them. Well, I do not
have a good idea right now to add to this, but I think that is
a good reason why we should maybe expand the hearings and at
least take a longer period of time to examine some of the
options that this committee has before we go ahead and rush
into something that would be counterproductive.
Having said that, I would like to know how you define
``gross violators'' under this act, and where do you draw the
line between the gross violators that are to be sanctioned and
subject to Congressional disapproval and the rest of the
countries, which can receive lesser sanctions against them? Who
will determine that?
Mr. Shattuck. Well, Senator Grams, current law actually
provides strong authority for our whole human rights work in
this field. Section 502(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act at the
moment gives us strong authority to make decisions to withhold
U.S. assistance from countries that are engaged in large-scale
human rights abuses.
We do not feel that it serves any useful purpose to have a
list that is put out on an annual basis. In fact, that,
frankly, I think would make us less likely to withhold
assistance in a broader number of cases where we should be
withholding assistance, because then you would only do it in
that relatively narrow group.
We think current law is perfectly adequate to assure that
the taxpayer dollars of the United States, in the form of
direct financial assistance other than for purely humanitarian
purposes, are not going to go to countries which are engaged in
widespread patterns of abuse.
The legislation, frankly, goes way beyond the existing law
in that it mandates an annual report, not only on countries
that engage in broadly defined religious persecution, but also
on a narrow category of countries that are engaged in gross
violations. Again, we think that would significantly set back
the process of advancing religious freedom in these countries.
It could target those religious minorities that are going to be
accused of fomenting U.S. actions against countries. It also
would limit our ability to engage in the kind of aggressive
diplomatic engagement that we have shown in so many countries
that I went over, including Vietnam, Laos, China, and other
countries which are particularly important subjects of our
concern about religious freedom.
Senator Grams. I know we have heard from missionary groups
around the world that have told us that a lot of these type of
sanctions are counterproductive and, as you have mentioned, it
has reversed progress that has been made.
But withholding foreign aid is one thing to penalize
somebody, but to put sanctions on trade opportunities is quite
another, because we know that this is a global market and if we
put sanctions on our companies' ability to trade it just opens
the door for other countries and then we lose our ability to
have influence. I think as we have influence and people are
exposed to our freedoms--and this is the quiet diplomacy that I
think works well--that people demand more from within their
countries than what we can throw stones or from outside.
But one other question just quickly before my time runs
out. What would you envision to be gross violations, or what
countries would be determined to be gross violators? And is
this going to put pressure not only on this administration, but
others, to fudge the decision a little bit, as I think the
chairman said, so some countries are not determined gross
violators. Does this help our efforts to combat religious
persecution?
Mr. Shattuck. Well, if you have a list it gets very
difficult, as you are suggesting by your question, to make that
yearly determination. Is a country on or is a country off? That
is not a question of fudging. It is a question honestly of the
difficulty of making that kind of very fine distinction.
So the approach that we take, and I think it is the right
approach, is to in fact be very broad in our view of what
constitutes a violation and find an appropriate tool to
respond, including in some instances sanctions, there is no
question about it. And we all know the countries that are under
sanctions right now. The Congress and the administration have
worked very closely together on that.
Senator Grams. They should be a last resort, though?
Mr. Shattuck. As a last resort, right.
Senator Grams. The sanctions.
Mr. Shattuck. Right.
Senator Grams. I did not mean to interrupt you, but I know
we do have some sanctions, so we are not ruling out sanctions
altogether. But they should not be one of the first tools out
of the box, to combat religious persecution.
Mr. Shattuck. Right. But I do think that the annual
requirement of identifying countries as sanctionable is itself
going to impede the ability to address the persecution that we
are talking about here. It will put all of our energy into
making that kind of a determination, and then will limit our
ability to engage with the countries to try to get the kinds of
changes that we want. And in some cases it will have a severe
negative impact on religious minorities inside the country.
Senator Grams. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
have additional questions in writing.
Thank you very much.
Senator Hagel. Without objection. Senator Wellstone.
Senator Wellstone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am not going to being able to come back, Secretary
Shattuck, so I thought, first of all, one quick comment and one
quick question before running to vote.
I think it was unfortunate the President mentioned, talked
about fudging, because I think the assumption some could make
would be, well, if these reports will be what triggers
sanctions, how much faith can we put in the reports? And I was
glad to hear your response on this question.
I have a somewhat different framework. Putting aside the
whole issue of trigger, and you've talked about why you are
opposed to that, what about the whole question of creating a
kind of a hierarchy of human rights? In other words, to focus
on religious persecution, but then there are other human rights
violations that are terribly important--the right of
association, freedom of the press.
Do you have some concern about ways in which this piece of
legislation creates that hierarchy? I mean, from my own, let me
just simply say, I do. I think persecution is persecution, and
we also have some universal declarations dealing with human
rights. I am interested in having a broader, more encompassing
approach.
Could you respond briefly?
Mr. Shattuck. I agree, Senator Wellstone, and I mentioned
in my opening statement that the issue of distinguishing
between one human rights and another in terms of the way in
which it is going to be treated and the way in which our
country is going to respond to its denial is a serious concern,
and it would be I think a tragic mistake for us to send a
signal around the world that we are going to take more
seriously one particular human rights than we are torture,
extra judicial executions, denials of free speech, genocide, or
anything else.
Senator Wellstone. Mr. Chairman, there are some 70
countries that today use torture, systematically torture their
citizens. It would seem to me that we ought to make sure that--
I mean, I am absolutely opposed to religious persecution. That
does not even need to be said. But I think we should also look
at these other human rights issues.
If anything, I would like for the administration to be much
stronger on these questions, much stronger.
Mr. Shattuck. We think it is best to address the range of
human rights abuses that occurs in so many countries in a
consistent way, so that they are all treated as equally
important to the extent that they are equally severe. By
contrast, we think the framework of the legislation, that is
establishing on an annual basis, a group of countries who are
sanctionable, would not be the right framework to pursue even
if the hierarchy were eliminated. That is to say, let us say,
all human rights were included within this approach.
Senator Wellstone. I understand. We may disagree on that.
Mr. Shattuck. Right.
Senator Wellstone. I just wondered.
We have to vote? You are not voting?
Senator Hagel. Yes, I am voting. But I have the prerogative
of the chair, Senator, so they will hold it open, I think.
Senator Wellstone. Thank you.
Senator Hagel. Thanks, Senator.
Mr. Secretary, it is just you and me. Thank you again for
coming up here.
Obviously, I am going to be interrupted during my
questions, but I would like to get at two specific things that
are in this bill, and then when I get back maybe we can close
it.
You I believe did not mention in your testimony or
reference the International Criminal Court that is in this
bill. That is a concern for a lot of reasons, I think, to many
of us. Would you care to reference that? Is that good, bad?
What are your thoughts?
Mr. Shattuck. Senator, you are catching me a little by
surprise. I could certainly talk a bit about the International
Criminal Court. Its inclusion specifically in this bill I am
afraid is something that I missed. I am being very candid with
you here.
I think the issue of an International Criminal Court is an
important one, one we want to work closely with the Congress
on. I do not believe we have any problem with the provision in
the bill relating to the International Criminal Court as such.
I do not think the administration is going to address any
concern about the bill's approach to this.
Senator Hagel. The other area is the cultural and
educational exchange cutoff, which you may or may not be
familiar with. I would be interested in your thoughts on that.
Mr. Shattuck. Well, you know, except in countries to which
we have applied severe sanctions and which we are trying to
isolate, cultural and educational exchanges are generally very
valuable in terms of developing means by which we can influence
the broader civil society. Such exchanges can be valuable even
in countries which may be engaged in some kinds of religious
persecution as defined by the bill.
So we feel those kinds of exchanges are extremely important
and need to be protected.
Senator Hagel. So does that mean that you would be for or
against the way this is written in this bill?
Mr. Shattuck. Well, I think to the extent that the bill
mandates or calls upon us to cutoff those kinds of exchanges,
except as a last resort where we have decided to isolate a
country, I think we would be against cutting off those kinds of
things.
Senator Hagel. It is my understanding in a recent briefing
by the State Department to some of the staff people here that
you had referenced that in fact this bill as it is written
could take in as many as 120 nations in the world where
religious discrimination takes place. Is that accurate? Is that
right?
Mr. Shattuck. I think it is, Senator. I looked at this very
closely last summer when we were doing our report on relating
persecution worldwide, and we used a fairly narrow definition,
narrower, frankly, than the bill before us uses. Even under
those circumstances, we found it important to cover 86
countries.
Now, when you have a definition that is as broad as the one
in this bill, which is basically any act in violation of
religious freedom, it could be read to include, I think,
discriminatory actions on behalf of one religion versus
another. I mentioned the example of Austria which actually does
provide some benefits to one religion and not to some others,
even though nobody is required to register and people are
allowed to continue to exercise their religion.
It could reach that kind of situation. I think quite a
number of countries which have very good human rights records
by and large would be sanctionable in the context of the
definition of the bill.
Senator Hagel. How would you handle Germany, for example,
regarding the Scientologists?
Mr. Shattuck. Well, I think Germany is another example of a
country which could be affected by this legislation. How to
handle it in the context of the Scientologists and handle it in
the context of its restrictive approach toward what it broadly
defines as religious sects--and sometimes that can include
religious minorities, many others other than Scientologists.
We are engaged very aggressively with Germany in a dialog
on this subject. We have some disagreements. That does not
prevent is from being allies, very important allies, to promote
religious freedom in other parts of the world where there are
more severe violations.
I think were we to identify Germany as a sanctionable
country, which we would have to do under the provisions of this
bill, it would be far more difficult to work with Germany, say
in Bosnia or in some other country. We would really end up with
a pretty irritating relationship as a result of that
sanctionable designation.
Senator Hagel. I have always been concerned with these kind
of bills, as well intentioned as they are, and obviously we all
agree with the objective here. But one of the concerns I have
is that this would, I think, tend to isolate the United States
even more when we look at sanctions and we look at a blueprint
for the rest of the world, our blueprint, at a time when there
is a rather significant rate of diffusion of geopolitical,
economic power in the world.
I get to a point where I ask myself about this bill, is
this even relevant to what we would hope to achieve. That,
after all, should be always the objective of these things, not
just a good headline for somebody or a feel-good resolution and
then we build more infrastructure and more bureaucracy at the
State Department and we have more paper and more reports, and
really in the end are we doing much?
Would you care to give me your thought on what I just said?
Mr. Shattuck. Well, Senator, I think you stated a lot of
truths in there. I do think that the most effective means of
combating what we all agree is a serious problem of religious
freedom in the world is to use different approaches for every
country depending on what kind of leverage there is, what other
countries are willing to work with us, what kind of dialog we
can establish with those countries, how much engagement we
have, what our economic interests are that allow us to in fact
engage even more aggressively.
I think there is a lot that we are doing. I think the
Congress has had a very significant role, the American people
had a very significant role, in engaging the executive branch
in this administration to make the issue of religious freedom a
very high priority.
But I think if we try to do it in more of a one size fits
all approach, there is a danger that we will be, A, isolated in
the world, B, cause more harm than good in terms of religious
minorities in countries that we are trying to help, and C, all
of the various bureaucratic growth factors that you have
mentioned in your statement.
Senator Hagel. Mr. Secretary, that was quite eloquent.
I am going to exercise the prerogative of the chair,
because I do not think they will keep that vote open for me
until 6 or 7 tonight. So I am, at the risk of suffering the
Chairman's wrath, I am going to gavel a short recess to the
committee hearing, and the Chairman I am sure will be back
soon. So if you can just relax, and we appreciate your allowing
democracy to go forward, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Shattuck. Thank you, Senator.
(Recess, from 3:43 p.m. To 3:50 p.m.)
The Chairman You are not going to believe this, but I got
caught in the elevator. Did you ever have a stopped elevator
with seven Senators in it? It gets pretty close.
Senator Frist is on his way here and he will have some
questions as I understand it.
Now, I believe that you and Senator Wellstone may have
touched on this in my absence. My question is--by the way,
Secretary Albright is going to be in what we call the aluminum
room about 5 o'clock testifying about the you know what in
India and Pakistan.
Some State Department officials are criticizing S. 1868
because they claim that it promotes one type of human rights,
the right to freedom of religious belief, at the expense of
some other basic human rights. Now, I just do not understand
that analysis of it. Therefore I cannot agree with it. But I
think Secretary Albright disagrees as well. I think she and I
agree on that, because she has made the U.N. Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women one of
her top priorities, as you know.
Now, the point is this, sir. Are not the people smart
enough to understand that concern about the abuse of one human
right does not mean the other fundamental rights are less
important? I think that is the question that is raised here. I
would like to hear you explore that with me.
Mr. Shattuck. Well, Mr. Chairman, the issue of whether this
legislation focuses on one human right at the expense of others
I know is a topic that has been debated. Senator Wellstone and
I did have an exchange about that.
To the extent that there is a special kind of sanctions
approach or a special kind of response for the violation of one
type of human right and not the same kind of response for
others, then there would be a problem. It is the position of
the administration that any violation of human rights in any
country, to the extent that it is equally egregious, should be
treated the same way. That is generally the approach that is
taken.
So if we were to be called upon to decide that a certain
kind of measure was going to be taken especially for religious
persecution as defined in the bill and not, say, for torture or
extra judicial executions or some other kind of human rights
violation in that country, then there would be a problem of
hierarchy. We think we could certainly work with you and the
committee to assure that there is a kind of common approach so
long as the structure of the bill does not require an annual
determination that countries are sanctionable and then
something actually has to happen because they have been
publicly identified as sanctionable. We think that is one of
the problems in the bill.
The Chairman. I think you are telling me, I hope, that
there is not really a problem except perhaps in the drafting of
one small part of this. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Shattuck. Well, I think so. The problem is more
elsewhere. As I said, our main concern with the legislation is
that on an annual basis, with a very broad definition of
religious persecution, which is any act denying some form of
religious freedom, annually all countries are going to have to
be reviewed to see whether they are sanctionable or not
sanctionable, and then they will be publicly identified as
sanctionable.
Once that public identification of sanction ability occurs,
then it is much harder to do some of the other things that we
would like to be able to do, that we think we have effectively
been able to do. That is our main concern.
The Chairman. I see. Well, I believe that I will look
askance at any drafting that does not take care of that.
With that, I am going to yield back the balance of my time
to Senator Biden.
Senator Biden. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I had intended to
be here for the whole hearing and I got tied up on another
matter.
John, it is good to see you.
Mr. Shattuck. Good to see you, Senator.
Senator Biden. I think this has been covered. Just tell me
if it has and I will confer with staff. Most of us say ``I will
read the record.'' I will not probably read the record, but I
will confer with staff to find out whether this is correct.
What you were just referring to, was that the low threshold
here that constitutes what is to engage in or tolerate? I mean,
is there a distinction made between a single act and a pattern
of violation? Is that any part of what you are talking about?
Mr. Shattuck. Well, there are two types of determinations
that the bill requires the administration to make. One is
annually. I think the date is the end of May. We would be
required annually to review all countries of the world to see
whether they have engaged in acts of religious persecution,
which is any denial of religious freedom. It is broader than
the current definition of religious persecution in the
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and other
forms.
So that is a problem. So annually you would have to look at
the very broad definition and, frankly, we think a very large
number of countries would have to be identified and publicly
branded at that point as sanctionable under U.S. law for
religious persecution.
Then there would be another finding to determine whether
they are engaged in gross violations, and then there would be a
narrower group of countries that would have to be identified as
gross violators, again on an annual basis. Every year you would
have to make that decision. Is a country in or is a country
out?
That basic structure, that main point of the bill, is
really at the heart of what our concern is.
Senator Biden. It seems to me you are mentioning two main
points: One, the annual requirement; and the other is the
breadth of the definition of what constitutes a violation of
the legislation. I am confused about the annual. Is the annual
requirement, assuming you have got the right language from your
perspective, more narrow in scope as to what constitutes
religious persecution, a higher threshold, if you will, or a
clearer threshold--would you still have a problem with the
annual aspect of it?
Mr. Shattuck. We would have problems of annually making a
list and publishing or letting it be known that a country is on
or off a list on an annual basis, particularly when events are
changing in countries so dramatically. Then we are going to get
locked into our annual calendar, and at that time you then have
to----
Senator Biden. What is the alternative? Because if I am not
mistaken, the only thing I have ever found you do not want to
do with the Chairman is confuse whether or not you are agreeing
with him when in fact you may not be agreeing with him. I mean
that sincerely. I think it is real important that--at least
maybe he understands what you said. I am not sure I understand.
It sounds to me like you are further apart than your
response would indicate, and that is not only--you can probably
fix the breadth of the definition so you do not have 100
countries or 10 countries or 30 countries or whatever, this
broad number, falling within the first sweep. That probably can
be done; is that correct?
Mr. Shattuck. That is correct. But then there is the
additional problem of publicly branding countries as
sanctionable. We have a problem with that.
Senator Biden. I assume that is a non-starter for the
Chairman and the supporters, but I do not know. I may be
mistaken.
Again, I am not in any way attempting to speak for you, Mr.
Chairman. I just do not want us to get in the position where--
because I have concerns about the breadth of the definition and
who it would grab in the net, really countries that we really
did not intend to grab in this net, because we in fact--they do
not fit what the average person in America would think to be
religious persecution.
And yet, I am agnostic on the issue at this point of
whether it is annual or what the alternative to annual is.
Mr. Shattuck. Frankly, even if it were biannual,
nonetheless, if it were a public list of countries, two types
of countries, ones that engage in religious persecution defined
generally and then others engaged in egregious violations, we
would oppose that kind of public branding. We frankly think
that is in danger of doing more harm than good out in the
countries where religious minorities are struggling, in some
cases under very severe conditions. If they end up getting
accused of fomenting U.S. actions against the countries in
which they are living--I mean, we have heard about cases in
Egypt.
Senator Biden. As a practical matter--my time is up and I
will not take any more time after this, Mr. Chairman. As a
practical matter, the way that the Foreign Assistance Act now
works is that section 116 says: ``No assistance may be provided
under this part to the government of any country which engages
in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally
recognized human rights, including torture or cruel, inhumane,
or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention,'' et
cetera.
Now, the way a country gets up on the radar screen on this
is somebody calls it to the State Department's attention.
Somebody says: Hey, by the way, country X is engaged--and then
you go take a look. Or you, the Ambassador or someone in the
State Department or the administration, raises it. But it is
not a requirement that you look at country X every year.
So is what you are suggesting is the way you would like to
see this legislation function relative to required review would
be to have the standard in the law, but it would only be
brought up based upon essentially it being called to one's
attention, recognizing whether it is called to the attention by
the Congress or by the administration or by a human rights
group or whatever? Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Shattuck. Well, the standard of course is in the law
under section 502(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act right now.
Senator Biden. Right.
Mr. Shattuck. And based on that standard, we make decisions
every year in a general sense broader than that standard, which
is gross violator, to make sure that countries are not
receiving taxpayer dollars if they are engaged in significant
human rights abuse. But we feel that it is counterproductive to
list countries on an annual basis either as gross violators or
as persecutors in a broader definition, as under section 401 of
the bill would do.
There are really two provisions of the bill, sections 401
and 402. 401 involves countries that engage in or tolerate
broadly defined religious persecution; and section 402 are
governments which engage in a consistent pattern of gross
violations.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, without wanting to curtail
what I hope is a very constructive discussion of this, that we
have staff consultations on this subject, because I think
working it through in a hearing context may not be the most
efficient way to do it. I think we have some significant, very
significant, concerns. I do not want to mislead you at all.
But I think they are best spelled out at the staff level
and let's see whether they can be worked out.
The Chairman. I want to sit in on that negotiation, because
I have some views on it myself. I know that if we enter into it
in good faith and you do the same, the probability is that we
can work out something. Of course, what I do not like is the
occasional stonewalling by one side or another that, hell, I
ain't going to have that, just because I do not like the way
you comb your hair or something like that. I think we can work
it out.
Senator Biden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shattuck. Thank you. The Chairman. Dr. Frist.
Senator Frist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
and our witnesses for coming today, especially for bringing
this issue and discussion of this legislation to a hearing.
Secretary Shattuck, I enjoyed your presentation, both
written and oral. This issue does have some personal importance
to me. In January of this year I had the opportunity to spend
two weeks in southern Sudan as part of a medical mission group
as a surgeon, not as a U.S. Senator at the time, but did take
the opportunity to use it as a factfinding mission as well.
While I was there part of the medical mission work was to
operate and work in a hospital, work in the clinics in southern
Sudan. There I spent time with patients who had suffered under
this brutal and sustained and clearly religiously motivated
persecution that is ongoing in Sudan.
As a physician, it was very easy to feel that I was playing
some small role as I operated on somebody who had stepped on a
land mine and took care of the acute problem, the immediate
problem. Then it also made me think that I can play a role as
an individual in supporting the ongoing international relief
efforts there.
Then I came back to Washington and here we are, and as a
Senator, unlike being a physician, and as a participant in
discussions like today, it leads me to ask what is at our
disposal. Can the International Religious Freedom Act or any
other proposed legislation enhance or in some way increase the
contribution of the United States toward the resolution of that
specific situation which you mentioned in your testimony and
which I interacted with on a very personal basis operating on
these patients?
I asked myself, could any of these proposals really
unnecessarily or unintentionally limit or in some way restrict
to options that are at our disposal today. I am struggling with
that. You touched upon it in your testimony. But even after
hearing the discussions, it is unclear to me.
It is clear that we cannot simply create a template to
address all issues of religious persecution worldwide. But the
question of either furthering our current efforts or more
clearly defining our goals in the international arena is one
that is extremely important to a public, as you pointed out in
your statement, that so values religious freedoms here at home.
I know you mentioned Egypt and Germany, but if such a bill
as we are talking about today does become law are there parts
of it that would affect or call into question our current
policy toward a specific country or our bilateral relationship
as defined today? I guess I am looking for specific examples in
that regard.
Mr. Shattuck. Well, Senator Frist, I think there are quite
a number of examples that I could give of the dangers in terms
of curtailment of our ability to influence a country and to see
that it continues to provide some progress, even if too slowly
for most people's point of view.
It is always, frankly, dangerous to get into too much
speculation because you do not want it to become a self-
fulfilling prophecy. But I would just say that in countries
where Americans in very good faith, in exercise of their faith,
have been proceeding overseas either in a missionary capacity
or to establish churches or work within churches, whether it be
in Russia or in China or other parts of the world, it would be
very difficult for that kind of activity to continue were we to
identify those countries as sanctionable and, even worse, if we
were to proceed to actually sanction those countries.
I am sure you know the case of the Reverend Pollard in
Russia. Many of us worked very hard to assure that he could
return to his ministry in a remote part of Russia, and we
worked very closely with the Russian foreign ministry and
others to make that come about. Were we to identify Russia
under this legislation as sanctionable and then indeed to
propose sanctions, I think it would be very hard for Americans
like Reverend Pollard to work in Russia. I think you could use
many other countries in a similar vein.
Senator Frist. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. That seems to be it. The hearing record will
be kept open, sir, for the Senators who were here and did not
get to ask all the questions they desire and the Senators who
had other committee responsibilities. But in any case, I
appreciate your coming and your patience with the votes, the
roll call votes going on. I expect you are going to receive a
number of questions, and if you would reply to those as quickly
as may be possible I would appreciate it.
[The prepared statements of Senators Thomas, Ashcroft, and
Feingold appear in the Appendix.]
The Chairman. There being no further business to come
before the committee, we stand in recess. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the committee adjourned, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
S. 1868 THE INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT OF 1998
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
Morning Session
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:38 a.m. in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jesse Helms,
Chairman, presiding.
Present: Senators Helms, Grams, Robb, and Brownback.
The Chairman. The chair would offer his apologies for
something that is going on all over the Senate this morning. No
committee has been able to meet until this one. We are the
first to meet. The problem is that the entire work of the
Senate has been held up for weeks because of a piece of
legislation that never had a potential for passage in the first
place, and it has none now, and one way or another we are
trying to get rid of it so we can get around to the Senate's
real business. We do not even have a budget agreement, a budget
resolution.
So let me say this to you. I want to have a full hearing of
this subject, because it is near and dear to my heart
personally. Now, we will go as far as we can before the meeting
of the Steering Committee, which begins about 12:30; and then
we will come back this afternoon if necessary and continue and
do the best we can. I thank you for being tolerant of the
situation.
Now then, back on May the 12th, John Shattuck, Assistant
Secretary for Human Rights, set forth for this committee the
administration's views on the bill bringing you here today, S.
1868, the title of which is the International Religious Freedom
Act. Today's panel of distinguished religious leaders will
discuss the merits of S. 1868 and other proposals to combat
religious persecution and promote religious liberty abroad.
Now, our witnesses have come a long way to be with us, from
New York City, from North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama. But the
committee is especially grateful to Bishop Mano, the Anglican
Bishop of Peshawar in Pakistan--did I pronounce that right?
Bishop Mano. That is right.
The Chairman. So far, so good.
He has traveled all the way to be with us. I should note
that the Episcopal and/or Anglican Church is represented by 70
million members in 165 countries.
Now, sadly, Pakistan has taken center stage with respect to
persecution of Christians with Pakistan's infamous blasphemy
law. I personally look forward to your perspective about the
hardships of living as a Christian under a regime so hostile to
Christianity and how the legislation the committee is
considering today could improve your situation and the lives of
religious minorities elsewhere.
Bishop Mano, you are in our thoughts and prayers and we
will keep in touch with you after you return to your homeland.
Bishop Mano. Thank you.
The Chairman. Now, the committee also welcomes Dr. Richard
Land, a good friend, who since his election in 1988 has been
President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the
Southern Baptist Convention's Agency for Applied Christianity.
Dr. Land knows a thing or two about our subject today as
Southern Baptists--and by the way, I am one of them--have
approximately 5,000 missionaries in 147 countries and their
1998 budget for international missions is $210 million. I know
you are eager to see Congress act on legislation addressing
this issue and we welcome your views.
Also supporting legislation on this issue is Felice Gaer,
Director of the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement
of Human Rights of the American Jewish Committee. Ms. Gaer is
also a member of the International Human Rights Council at the
Carter Center and is associated with the Human Rights Watch. I
understand that you are no stranger when it comes to testifying
before Congress, and certainly we look forward to hearing your
views.
Dr. John Akers, we welcome you, sir. Dr. Akers is Chairman
of the Board for East Gates Ministries International and
Special Assistant to Billy Graham.
Last but certainly not least, we welcome yet another
Southern Baptist leader, but with a different point of view.
Dr. O'Brien is Director of the Global Center of Beeson Divinity
School at Samford University. He was a missionary in Indonesia
from 1962 to 1971, and I understand that Mrs. O'Brien is the
Executive Director of the Southern Baptist Women's Missionary
Union. We welcome you, and I will tell my wife when I get home
tonight that I met the husband of the lady who is in charge of
an organization that Dot belongs to.
Senator Biden has not yet arrived. Everybody is in a state
of flux this morning. But I have a policy of not starting
unless the minority party is represented or I am told by a
representative of Senator Biden that we should proceed without
him.
Now, Bishop Mano, we want to start with you.
Bishop Mano. Thank you.
The Chairman. If you will help us control the time, I would
appreciate that. There will be ample time for questioning and
so forth. But we welcome all of you, four gentlemen and lady,
and God bless you for coming. Bishop.
STATEMENT OF THE RIGHT REVEREND MUNAWAR KENNETH RUMALSHAH
(MANO), ANGLICAN BISHOP OF PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN
Bishop Mano. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and other
distinguished Senators and friends. Thank you for this
opportunity to tell my story and share some of the experiences
of being a Christian in Pakistan.
I would like to open my remarks with a few words of a
martyr and a dear friend of mine what gave his life for the
cause of freedom to be a Christian in Pakistan:
The Christians of Pakistan are being held in a death
sentence blackmail by the blasphemy law, under which
their small businesses are being taken over, their
property seized, and the situation is such that their
women are not safe. Therefore, in protest against 295-C
[that is the penal code] and other black laws, in the
name of my oppressed Christian people, secularism and
democracy, I am taking my life.
These were the last recorded words of John Joseph, Roman
Catholic Bishop in Pakistan, who lay down his life on May 6,
1998, to protest the death sentence imposed on a fellow
Christian under Pakistan's blasphemy law.
The death of Bishop Joseph created shock waves throughout
Pakistan and has utterly devastated my already marginalized
community. This event has triggered a chain reaction where the
majority Muslim community--and that is about 96 percent--is
tightening the noose on Christians in the most public fashion,
by physical harassment and creating an atmosphere of fear and
insecurity.
My hope in being here today is to pay tribute to the
sacrificial act of Bishop Joseph, to make sure that all this
has not been in vain, and in doing so to focus the attention of
my government and indeed the world on the plight of the
Christian community in Pakistan. My concern also includes the
issues of religious discrimination and persecution against
fellow Christians and people of other faiths across the world
who suffer dehumanization and torture simply because they want
to have the freedom to practice the faith of their choice.
I am the Bishop of the Church of Pakistan, which is a part
of the Worldwide Anglican Communion. Anglicans, of course, are
known as Episcopalians in this country. The Church of Pakistan
is the largest Christian denomination in our country today,
formed in 1970 by the amalgamation of Anglicans, Lutherans,
Scottish Presbyterians, and the Methodists. There is also a
strong Roman Catholic presence, along with other Protestant
denominations.
We Christians make up about three percent of the population
of Pakistan. We are privileged to be part of the country of
Pakistan, which we serve with all our passion and dedication,
knowing that it is ours. Our ancestry on that soil goes back
thousands of years. Yet it is a country which, in proclaiming
the faith of the majority community, that is the faith of
Islam, seems to be, wittingly or unwittingly, excluding us
Christians and other religious minorities from its shared
organic life.
Pakistan was perhaps the first state in modern history
created exclusively on the basis of religious identity. The
events of the past 50 years have shown that, in spite of having
good intentions, such states are bound to evolve toward
religious exclusivism.
Now, allow me to share with you how the rights and freedoms
of religious minorities have been eroded in Pakistan's 50-year
history because of the majority community's view that this land
is for the Muslims, to which many would add ``for Muslims
only.'' Here are several examples, some of which I use.
Take a simple word like ``freely.'' In the original
constitution of Pakistan Christians and other religious
minorities were allowed to practice their faith ``freely.''
This word was removed from the constitution more than 10 years
ago as it was deemed to be threatening the Islamic fabric of
Pakistan. It appeared to the religious minorities to be quite
an innocuous amendment at the time, but we are now reaping its
ugly consequences.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to build, for
example, our places of worship. Pakistan also is now practicing
an apartheid electoral system. As a member of a minority, I am
barred from standing for election as a member of parliament
representing the majority community or even from voting in the
main election for Muslim members of parliament. Instead, I am
restricted to voting for one of a handful of minority members
of parliament, with no influence on who runs my country. Non-
Muslims have indeed become politically voiceless people.
As a religious minority, we live under a constant feeling
of socio-economic strangulation. There is massive employment
discrimination, both in the public and private sector. Usually
only the most menial jobs are available to Christians, who
remove human excrement from the streets. We are being socially
ostracized and economically paralyzed simply for the sin of
being Christians. We are no longer a church serving the poor,
but we are the church of the poor.
Over the years Pakistan has been trying to introduce
Shariah--that is the Islamic law--and its related ordinances as
part of a program of Islamization. Perhaps the worst aspect of
it in recent times has been the use of the dreaded blasphemy
law. This has been part of the legal statute for a couple of
centuries, but has been resurrected over a decade ago as part
of the Pakistan penal code. It is section 295-C, which reads:
Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by
visual representation, or by imputation, innuendo, or
insinuation directly or indirectly defiles the sacred
name of the Holy Prophet Mohammed will be punished with
death or imprisoned for life, and shall also be liable
to fine.
The intent behind this law seems perfectly reasonable,
because we should respect the great leaders of all religions.
Such a law is there simply to counter any disrespect to such
persons. Unfortunately, great problems arise when these laws
get exploited and abused.
In Pakistan, for us Christians and other religious
minorities the misuse of this law by members of the majority
community has achieved draconian proportions. It has often been
used by private citizens to settle old scores and take up
vendettas. There have been some frightening incidents related
to it.
In fact, the ultimate despair of the late Bishop John
Joseph was that he could not find a competent lawyer to appeal
the death sentence of his parishioner, Ayub Masih. All such
lawyers feared for their lives. A judge who acquitted one of
the few Christians who escaped from such a sentence was
murdered in broad daylight two years after his judgment. I
offer here some of the examples just to show how our small
community is being brutalized and victimized in the name of
religion under this law.
Tahir Iqbal, a young Christian bound to a wheelchair
through illness, was a convert from Islam. He was brutally
murdered by a frenzied mob because he was said to have, at
least inadvertently, insulted the Prophet of Islam due to his
conversion.
Another, a 14 year old girl Carol Shakeel, was accused of
blasphemy at school. In order to save her life, she became a
Muslim with the consent of her family because 225 local
mullahs--that is the religious leaders--signed an oath to kill
her.
I have here, sir, before me a catalogue of these cases of
these cases which have been properly documented and can
withstand the test of credibility. You may wish to examine them
at your convenience.
I think it is incumbent upon me to speak on the suffering
of religious minorities in other parts of the world as well. I
am in constant contact with some of the acute situations within
the Worldwide Anglican Communion, which is composed of nearly
70 million members, as, sir, you have already referred to.
Perhaps the situation which concerns us most at this moment is
the plight of our fellow Christians in Sudan. The Christians of
Sudan have become targets of persecution, facing daily gross
violations of human rights. The situation has driven thousands
of them to leave their homes and escape to refugee camps.
Our brother Bishop, Nathaniel Garang by name, bolsters the
Dinka people with words of conviction and hope by describing
their seemingly intolerable situation: ``We are very hungry in
this time, but we are feeding on God,'' he said.
I would also like to speak of the situation in Myanmar, or
Burma as it used to be called, but I am afraid time is short
and I will simply refer you to my statement submitted for your
records.
Now I would like to share my views on the specific pieces
of legislation that your committee is considering. Let me paint
a picture, in broad strokes, of what I believe can be helpful
from the United States. As you know, I am here because I
believe in the cause of religious liberty in Pakistan and
around the world. Believe me, it would have been easier to stay
at home. But for me, and for many of my Christian brothers and
sisters in Pakistan, silence is not an option any longer.
I do not believe the U.S. can remain silent either. Since
the Pilgrims first set sail in 1607 in search of a place to
practice their religious beliefs, religious freedom has been a
cornerstone of your country's history and culture. No, the
United States should not stand by today in silence in the face
of religious persecution worldwide. You need to hear the cry of
people around the world who suffer for their faith, who are
denied the basic right to believe, which you so naturally take
for granted.
The central question is how the U.S. can respond most
effectively to the cry of the persecuted faithful. I understand
the legislation passed in the House would mandate severe
economic sanctions against countries that engage in religious
persecution. This approach might have positive effects in
certain circumstances, perhaps in Sudan, but I fear that in
other circumstances severe sanctions could trigger reprisals
against the religious minority for having caused the sanctions
and also cause suffering and misery to the poor of the country.
It is my experience that this approach is less helpful and
in some cases can even do more harm than good. But clearly
there are many choices than just imposing heavy-handed
sanctions or doing nothing. There is an entire array of foreign
policy options which can positively affect human rights
conditions in other countries.
The legislation we are here to discuss today, the Nickles
bill, gives your government a range of options, from a private
diplomatic reprimand all the way through economic sanctions.
This flexibility is crucial to effective action.
In Pakistan, I believe the most helpful response from the
U.S. is one that says: ``We do not like what we see and hear.''
The international community's recognition of religious
persecution in Pakistan has a subtle and yet profoundly
positive effect on the plight of the Christian community.
There is the need to have a constant dialog between the
U.S. and our country on this and other human rights issues. The
diplomatic hot line must be in action all the time.
Of course, all this may only apply to Pakistan. I do not
know the best approach for other people who suffer for their
faith around the world, let us say in China or Sudan or parts
of the Middle East. These are all very different situations
which need different approaches. This case by case approach is
the heart of the Nickles bill.
I support the Nickles bill's use of the broad,
internationally accepted definition of ``religious
persecution.'' It recognizes both gross violations of human
rights and the more subtle and prevalent forms of religious
persecution experienced worldwide, such as church burnings, job
discrimination, the stifling of religious expression, and the
inability to hold services. A severe limitation of the House
bill is that it only responds to the most extreme cases of
religious persecution.
Finally, the Nickles bill requires the U.S. Government to
consult with nongovernmental organizations, including churches,
concerning the state of human rights and religious persecution.
This provision is crucial if you are to find the most effective
ways of fighting persecution while at the same time protecting
the religious minority in offending countries. It is obvious to
me that with this hearing you are conducting today that the
Senate is committed to consulting the religious minority
communities.
In this fiftieth anniversary year of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, I call on this Congress, which has
focused attention on the important problem of religious
persecution, to push for an international bill of rights to
protect religious minorities everywhere. I am not calling for a
hierarchy of human rights. I am calling for religion to have
finally an equal seat at the human rights table.
Sir, as I conclude my statement, one factor seems to be
overwhelmingly evident. There are situations in our world where
your religious identity can be your death warrant. This happens
in Pakistan and other parts of South Asia. Although my personal
experiences are those of a minority Christian in a majority
Islamic land, it could equally be the experience of Muslims in
the Philippines or Bosnia, of Buddhists in Tibet, of Hindus in
Sri Lanka, and so on.
I am also aware that these conflict situations are not
exclusively based on religious identity. Other factors such as
race and ethnicity are also major components of these
situations. The difference is that we are born with our race
and ethnicity and bear its consequences, both good and bad, for
the rest of our lives. But, sir, religion is a person's free
choice. I believe each and every human soul on this planet
Earth must be given complete freedom to choose and practice his
or her own faith. Creed should never be mixed with race,
culture, or status in life. It is indeed a sacred choice. No
one should be allowed to mutilate and desecrate this God-given
privilege.
You, my American friends, uphold this principle dearly; and
I am sure you understand our predicament. I hope the American
people will continue to offer themselves as an instrument of
peace, hope, and justice for human situations where this
fundamental of all human rights is being denied.
Thank you, sir, for being patient.
[The prepared statement of Bishop Mano appears in the
Appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you, Bishop Mano.
I followed you as you read your manuscript, the text of
your remarks, and I am sure my reaction is going to be the same
to the other four of you.
I am sorry and I apologize that more Senators cannot be
here today, and I am going to try to do something about that.
For openers--and the staff may as well take this as a
directive--I want the remarks of all five of these people, four
gentlemen and lady, printed separately in a bound volume, which
I want to mail to every religious editor, every religious
commentator whose name we have, so that they know the enormity
of what is going on in this world. Now, I knew in a vague sort
of way--and I think I am pretty much like other Senators.
But let me give you an example of what he left out. The
blasphemy law has often been used by private citizens to settle
old scores and take up vendettas. The worst aspect is that 90
percent of such cases never reach a court of law. The courts
increasingly tend to lean toward the Muslim accuser, whose
single testimony is enough proof of the crime, and of course
the witness of a Christian is not even admissible.
Now, regardless of whether we are Baptists, Methodists, or
Jewish, Catholic, whatever, this is unthinkable, and I think
the people of America need to understand what you have
testified to today. I will not go further.
Dr. Land, we would be delighted to hear from you and I am
looking forward to your remarks.
Dr. Land. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. I want to make clear that all of your remarks
this morning will be in one little package that we will
circulate. We have pretty good mailing lists available to us.
STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD LAND, PRESIDENT, ETHICS AND RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY COMMISSION, SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION
Dr. Land. Thank you, Senator.
All of us owe a great debt of gratitude to all of those who
have struggled to keep the flickering flame of concern for
victims of religious persecution alive in our midst, where so
many in our society have seemed intent on remaining unaware or
even willfully ignorant of the extent to which basic human
rights have been denied around the world, specifically often in
the form of religious persecution of Christians.
Until recently the persecution of Christians in various
parts of the world has not been a high profile item on
America's agenda. There are several possible reasons for this
oversight. First, too often people in the West, peering through
the selective prism of Christian history in the West,
reflexively think of Christians as persecutors rather than the
persecuted.
Second, an increasingly secularized West and its leadership
elites tend to be indifferent and often uncomprehending of a
spiritual world view which endures persecution and death for
the sake of belief.
Third, the silence of the various Christian communities in
the West which could influence this situation in a significant
way has also contributed to the tragic silence and neglect of
this issue.
I am both delighted and grateful to say that this tragic
neglect has ended. The Conference on Global Persecution of
Christians sponsored by the Puebla Program on Religious Freedom
and held January 23, 1996, here in Washington was a long-needed
wakeup call for many in the American faith community. Many of
us had our eyes opened in a new and life-changing way to both
the savagery and the extent of the persecution of fellow
Christian believers in various parts of the world, most
significantly in Islamic countries, such as the Sudan, Saudi
Arabia, and communist regimes, such as Cuba, China, and
Vietnam.
There was virtual unanimity of support from the conference
participants for the statement of conscience of the National
Association of Evangelicals concerning worldwide religious
persecution. The NAE, which represents tens of millions of
evangelical Christians, has produced a statement of conscience
which outlines the facts of such persecution, states the
principles of opposition against such persecution, and issues a
call for actions which would directly address such
persecutions.
I want to compliment Steven Rosenfeld of the Washington
Post, ``Human Rights For Christians, Too,'' in the Washington
Post, for lending his influential forum and powerful voice to
this issue. Mr. Rosenfeld is absolutely right when he writes
that: ``Politically as citizens and objectively in terms of the
pain of foreign brothers, the Christian community has right and
reason to be heard. The effort will save lives.''
On the same day that Mr. Rosenfeld's eloquent analysis was
printed in the Washington Post, the Executive Council of the
General Convention of the Episcopal Church joined the group
chorus of resolve on this issue by expressing its support in
principle of the statement of conscience concerning worldwide
religious persecution and in support of religious liberty.
The 15.9 million member Southern Baptist Convention,
reflecting a growing concern on this issue, has passed
overwhelmingly three separate resolutions on this issue at its
1995, 1996, and 1997 annual conventions. The 1995 resolution
expresses support for all peoples suffering denial of religious
liberty, but especially for those who are of the household of
faith and even more particularly for those who share Baptist
convictions and commitments.
The resolution further calls upon my agency, as well as
others, to seek ways to represent even more effectively the
concerns of this convention to various government, diplomatic,
and religious leaders at home and abroad. This testimony is at
least partly an attempt to respond to that challenge issued by
the Southern Baptist Convention.
In addition, Pope John Paul II has spoken out yet again
against the persecution of Christians in his address to the
Vatican diplomatic corps on January 13, 1996. In that speech
the Pope raised the issue of religious persecution in some
Islamic countries, as well as China and Vietnam, as places
where persecution of Christians is presently being perpetrated.
He decried such abuses as ``an intolerable and
unjustifiable violation, not only of all the norms of current
international law, but of the most fundamental human freedom,
that of practicing one's faith openly, which for human beings
is their reason for living.''
When Episcopalians, Evangelicals, Southern Baptists, and
Roman Catholics are all voicing grave concerns over the
persecution of Christians in other countries, critical mass has
been reached. I believe we are witnessing the mere beginnings
of a broad-based movement which will insist with increasing
intensity that the Government of the United States of America
take serious and important steps to use its influence to insist
that the offending foreign governments stop these atrocities.
Let me be clear that we are not insisting that the U.S.
Government seek to hold the entire world to the pristine
standard of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment religious
liberty rights and guarantees, as desirable and as beneficial
to humankind as we believe that would be. We are insisting that
basic human rights be recognized.
These persecutions of Christians are clear and unacceptable
violations of the United Nations 1948 Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. The international family of nations has agreed
that all human beings have the inherent right to freedom of
thought, conscience, and religion. The persecutions are real
and they are widespread.
As our Southern Baptist Convention resolution notes,
countries as diverse and far flung as Bulgaria, Russia, Mexico,
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, Cuba, Romania,
India, and China have well documented and systemic patterns of
persecuting Christians. A focused campaign against these
persecutions, supported by a committed domestic constituency,
such as sensitized and informed American Christians, can and we
believe will have tremendous and far-reaching results. The
inspiring paradigm of the plight of Soviet Jewry and the
tremendous impact that the American Jewish community was able
to achieve by galvanizing the will and determination of the
American people is the best argument both for the ability to
make a life-changing difference and for the fact that efforts
achieved can be far-reaching.
The American campaign on behalf of Soviet Jews helped to
seal the fate of Soviet repression in its far flung empire. We
believe a campaign to use American governmental influence to
stop the persecution of Christians may have similar dramatic
results. Evangelicals and Catholics are being persecuted in
many of these countries by those who are seeking to hold back
the twenty first century by using the repressive methods which
have made the twentieth century's history the bloodiest in
terms of human beings slaughtered.
Christians are threats to the anti-democratic forces which
oppose modernity, and if the western secular elites do not
understand this, make no mistake, the Chinese, Vietnamese, and
Cuban commissars and the Islamic ayatollahs do.
Further, if the U.S. Government makes the price for
persecuting Christians, usually the most vulnerable people in
these societies, unacceptable, it strengthens the moderate
Islamic elements in these societies in their attempts to resist
the thuggery and persecution perpetrated by Islamic radicals in
their midst.
Clearly, the United States has been woefully negligent in
dealing with the issue of the persecution of Christians around
the world. This issue has not occupied a significant place in
American foreign policy. It has not even been on the State
Department's radar screen. That must change.
We believe strong and effective legislation is necessary to
rectify the current situation regarding the U.S. Government and
the widespread persecution of Christians and others of faith
around the world. We strongly support legislation which
provides to the greatest extent possible:
One, objective and independent factfinding. We believe
effective legislation must include a Senate-confirmed
Ambassador-director to undertake the task of factfinding on
this issue. We also believe that there should be a Senate-
confirmed commission and regular Congressional review of the
findings and recommendations of this office and commission.
Two, accountability from the executive branch of
government. This would include, but not be limited to, public
reports of the President's response to the Ambassador-director
and commission's findings, reports and recommendations;
mandatory actions subject to reasonable Presidential waivers
which must be explained publicly to the American people; and
Congressional review of the President's responses to the
commission's reports and recommendations.
Third, effective relief of religious persecution around the
world. Legislation which would make a legitimate distinction
between what would be defined in the United States as
discrimination against religion. Once again, we are not arguing
for America's First Amendment standard as the world's
requirement, as much as they would all benefit from adopting
that standard, as opposed to real religious persecution.
The legislation should not so narrowly define religious
persecution as to limit the legislation's application only to
the most extreme forms of persecution which seem aimed at the
elimination of particular religious minorities in a society.
Traditionally, the role of our embassies in foreign lands
has not been only to represent the American Government, but to
symbolize American values. It seems that, at least in regard to
persecution of Christians, often the State Department has been
in the posture of abject surrender to the most repressive of
regimes which have denied fundamental American values of
freedom from religious persecution. That must change.
We are told that the twenty first century will be the
Pacific century. What kind of century will it be? America has
great power and influence. Such power contains responsibilities
as well as privilege. We must do all we can to influence the
Asian powers of the future to recognize the basic human rights
of their citizens, including Christians.
Experience tells us that governments, like children, often
do not what you expect, but what you are prepared to inspect.
We expect our government to insist that nations who want to be
in good relation with us cease and desist from persecuting
Christians. We will be inspecting whether they do so.
China's leaders have been quoted as dismissing America as a
moneybags democracy which is only interested in trade benefits
and the financial bottom line. I reject that analysis of our
nation. I believe a majority of Americans reject it. We want a
U.S. Government human rights policy on religious persecution
that is as good and decent as our people, our ideals, and our
heritage demand. A foreign policy that denies our basic values
and seeks only to meet the requirements of commerce and
business is and will always remain totally unacceptable.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Let me ask you a question. I am delighted to sit here and
have my conscience hurt by what I am not doing myself. Now, I
know Paige Patterson pretty well. Do you know him?
Dr. Land. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I am from North Carolina. He is the new head
of the State Baptist--no, the Southern Baptist Convention.
You have a good radio-television department down in
Louisville, do you not?
Dr. Land. In Atlanta, yes, sir.
The Chairman. In Atlanta.
Dr. Land. And Fort Worth.
The Chairman. Would you be willing to take the lead to get
some material that the public would listen to and not flip a
dial? It can be done. This story needs to be told. I do not
think the American people know it, and I have known it probably
more than some in the Senate because I have been interested in
it. But if you will take the lead in examining the
possibilities of a production of television material, a program
or two programs and maybe some spot announcements, I will be
glad to see what I can do to get a reasonable endowment from
people who are interested in this to finance it, because I know
it will cost. If you will do that, I will do that.
Dr. Land. Well, I appreciate that interest, Senator, and I
will certainly take up the matter as soon as it is possible for
me to do so with Dr. Patterson, who is, as you mentioned, the
new President of our Convention, as well as Dr. Reccord, who is
in charge of the North American Mission Board's communications
department, as well as Dr. Rankin with the International
Mission Board in Richmond.
The Chairman. Very good. Ms. Gaer, we welcome you. You may
proceed.
STATEMENT OF FELICE GAER, DIRECTOR, JACOB BLAUSTEIN INSTITUTE
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE
Ms. Gaer. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Few issues have been as central to the work of the American
Jewish Committee as speaking out to protect minority religions
from prejudice, discrimination, bigotry, and violent attack. We
thank you for your invitation to our committee to address this
committee today. These are core issues before us, religious
persecution and religious freedom--core issues not only for our
organization, but I believe for all Americans: men and women,
Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Bahais, and
others.
We believe that ending religious persecution abroad merits
a high profile in U.S. foreign policy. The legislative efforts
in the Congress on this matter over the past year have rightly
focused popular attention on the topic, on ways the U.S. could
and should adjust its foreign policy to address such matters
most effectively.
We are convinced that prevention of religious persecution
at home and abroad requires sustained, sophisticated legal and
political tools. The proposed legislation, the International
Religious Freedom Act, promises to provide that sophistication
and sustained effort. With attention to a number of our
concerns, including the importance of integrating this issue
into the machinery the Congress has already created to protect
international human rights globally, the American Jewish
Committee believes this bill will be an important addition to
American diplomacy.
Our written testimony begins with an overview of religious
repression, which we believe has been amply documented by
private, religious, secular, government, and international
organizations. Those who persecute others for their religious
beliefs and practices, for being different, display a perverse
inventiveness in their inhumanity. The variety of actions
perpetrated against religious believers range from physical
attacks to weaving a web of so-called legal measures--they are,
in-fact, illegal measures--that so severely inhibit religious
communities and their members that they violate most of the
norms of freedom of religion. Some of the most common kinds of
violations are outlined in our written statement.
A word about antisemitism and religious repression. The
annual World Report on Antisemitism, published by the Institute
for Jewish Policy Research in Great Britain and the American
Jewish Committee here, reveals the complexity of the causes and
the diversity of the manifestations of this age-old form of
hatred, which as we know has led to genocide in our own time.
Among the trends identified in the last World Report are
the salience of antisemitism for far right, neo-Nazi, and
extremist groups, many of whom work through the ballot box to
legitimize and spread hatred. It demonstrates that most
militant antisemites are young unemployed males in North
America and Europe, Australia, and the Middle East, that
antisemitism--both religious and political antisemitism--is
widespread in the former Soviet Union, and that the authorities
in Russia and many of the other former Soviet Union states do
not take action against those who commit various acts directed
against Jews.
The World Report demonstrates that numbers tell only part
of the story. Overall, violent incidents have declined, but in
some places they are up. They are up in France, but down in
Germany. Countries as distant as South Africa, Indonesia, and
Argentina have seen the reappearance of antisemitic violence in
the last year alone. There has been an upsurge in antisemitic
graffiti, threats, and attacks on property.
We also speak in our written statement about extreme
measures directed against women. In many countries and in many
religions, extremists, sometimes governments as well, have
established measures to enforce subordination and obedience
from women that deny them their rights to equality and liberty,
including religious freedom. For example, in Afghanistan
Taliban authorities have sanctioned beatings on the streets or
at home as a means of enforcing submission from women. Such
measures constitute a form of religious persecution and the
Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights
has addressed these issues in a recent conference on religious
fundamentalisms and the human rights of women.
Mr. Chairman, the causes of antisemitism and other forms of
religious persecution are many. No single germ theory can
account for it. Perhaps a stress theory might be more
appropriate. The pathology of these persecutions becomes
visible only if the accepted societal balance breaks down. When
societies begin to stress economically, socially, politically,
and are near breakdown, that is when there is greater
manifestation of antisemitism and scapegoating of those who are
different.
This leads us, Mr. Chair, to a major conclusion of every
expert who has examined this subject: Repression of religious
freedom and acts of religious intolerance, including violence,
are commonly manifested in combination with other human rights
abuses. We believe it is therefore essential for the members of
this committee and all others engaged in shaping U.S. policy on
religious persecution to bear this in mind.
It is also true that governments are not always the
perpetrators. Communities of believers may instigate actions
against other communities. In such instances the root causes
may be complex, but the obligations of governments to stop such
violence and discrimination are clear. In our written statement
we briefly identify some of the causes of religious
persecution.
We turn next, Mr. Chairman, to the challenging question of
making sanctions an effective tool of policy. The complex
causes of religious persecution, as well as the close
interrelationship of curtailment of religious freedom with
other human rights repression, suggests that a broad and
flexible strategy is needed for effective response. We have
previously identified a ten-point plan for preventing
persecution of religion abroad and have appended it to my
statement, with your permission. With our recommendations on
the elements of such a strategy, we hope to inform this debate.
As the plan reflects, sanctions are a key tool of U.S.
policy, but they should not be the sole substitute for a
broader and focused policy response. U.S. sanctions should be
designed to fit the specific policy objectives of specific
cases.
Many support sanctions because the imposition of sanctions
registers disapproval and disassociates the U.S. from atrocious
acts. Sanctions demonstrate the credibility of the
international norms that have been breached, backing up
rhetoric with action. Sanctions punish abuser countries, but,
properly conceived and used early enough, they can also prevent
the deterioration of a situation into violence or warfare.
It is therefore advisable for us all to think of sanctions
less as punishment than as a nonviolent deterrent which can
serve as an alternative to the use of military force. Some
sanctions, especially individual financial sanctions, can be
fine-tuned and targeted at the perpetrators themselves. Thus,
one of the most important values of sanctions is that they
place the responsibility for improvement directly on the
perpetrators.
Mr. Chairman, there are numerous critics of sanctions who
question their effectiveness and the process by which they are
established. You know the arguments: they are long term, they
are blunt instruments, we use them too early, they hurt
Americans, and they are hard to implement and even harder to
remove.
Our organization does not take such a dim view of the
efficacy of sanctions, but neither is it the case that they are
always the most appropriate measure. The impact of sanctions
often varies with the specific situation and key factors
include the dependence between the countries involved, whether
they are unilateral or multilateral, targeted to governments or
private businesses, whether retaliation is likely, and,
frankly, whether alternatives to sanctions are available and
have been tried or not.
In this connection, we reiterate that automatic sanctions
applicable to every country in the world do not in the case of
religious persecution offer the best approach for rewarding
compliance by individual governments with the norms we are
seeking to uphold. As indicated earlier, the complex and many
causes of religious intolerance and repression suggest that our
capacity to address these problems should be no less
sophisticated and multi-layered than the problem itself.
In the view of the American Jewish Committee, the
International Religious Freedom Act offers the promise of
genuine efficacy in combating religious persecution and it
meets the conditions we have set out for sanctions. It promotes
a flexible approach to sanctions, it allows for policy
responses that are country specific and that are situation
specific. We have argued for some time that a menu of
calibrated and discretionary sanctions, instead of the
automatic sanctions provided in Wolf-Specter, is what is
needed. This stems from our analysis of the causes as just
described.
Mr. Chairman, we commend the Nickles-Mack bill's
incorporation of a definition of acts of religious persecution
that follows the definitions of freedom of religion and belief
currently found in both international and U.S. law. Broad
definitions of religious persecution and gross violations of
religious freedom in Nickles-Mack are more likely to include
the kind of repression that actually affects religious
communities worldwide and we believe it is important that the
definition not weaken the international standard on religious
freedom which the U.S. Government and nongovernmental
organizations have worked so hard to establish and maintain and
have done so despite the most severe opposition.
At the least, the definition should not exclude practices
and acts perpetrated against Jews and other communities of
faith that have been understood to constitute persecution,
whether those are preventing people from forming congregations
or worshipping together, denying employment, social services,
health care, access to education, or ownership of property. All
these have been abused in the name of religion.
Similarly, forbidding the right to leave, to marry, to
inherit, or even educate one's own children. Such practices
have led to violent conflicts and even genocide and they are
often the first harbingers of persecution of communities of
faith. If we are serious about combating religious persecution
and about preventing even worse atrocities, these practices and
acts should be addressed by the bill.
Mr. Chairman, we do, however, have a number of concerns
with respect to three issues: the definitions in the bill, the
requirements of duplicative reporting, and the creation of a
more elaborate bureaucracy that is not linked to or aimed at
strengthening existing human rights machinery in our
government.
We welcome the determination signaled by the numerous
governmental offices and high level posts proposed by the
Nickles-Mack bill. But we are concerned that the new
bureaucracy to be created could duplicate rather than
strengthen existing policy bodies, particularly those in the
human rights field, and could end up isolating the religious
persecution monitoring programs from the information-gathering
and diplomatic apparatus of the State Department.
As to the two-tiered definitions in the bill, they
commendably encompass more forms of religious intolerance than
Wolf-Specter. However, the Nickles-Mack bill uses the term
``gross violations'' to refer to egregious acts, which we
understand would normally be termed persecution. It uses the
term ``persecution'' to refer to ``any'' act or violation.
In our judgment, the terminology is reversed.
``Persecution'' normally refers to widespread and ongoing
patterns of activity, while ``violations'' usually refer to
separate acts. The term ``persecution'' is widely used to
trigger asylum provisions for would-be refugees and it would
undoubtedly complicate our asylum policies to refer to
individual acts.
We would encourage a technical review of the use of the
definitions describing particular repressive acts relating to
religious freedom, and we would encourage consideration of
whether there could be a threshold established for the
requirement that one or more of the flexible menu of sanctions
must be applied to individual incidents.
The Chairman. I am sorry.
Ms. Gaer. I did not know what the buzzer was for.
The Chairman. That is not a fire drill. That is the least
innocuous thing that we do around here. That is a quorum call.
I am sorry. Proceed, please.
Ms. Gaer. Mr. Chairman, a word for women. Section 2(a)(3)
of the Nickles-Mack draft outlines the elements of religious
freedom cited in article 18 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, to which the U.S. is a party. It
states that: ``Religious freedom is a fundamental right of
every individual, regardless of race, country, creed, or
nationality.''
But both the Covenant and the Universal Declaration, like
the U.N. Charter and other instruments, also identify sex as
one of the factors which must not be disregarded in ensuring
that everyone shall have the freedom cited. It would be helpful
to correct this error by adding sex to the list cited in
section 2(a)(3). We believe it is important to signal that
everyone means everyone: Every individual in every country in
the world has the right to practice his or her religion, alone
or in a community of others, in public or in private, and to
manifest it.
The foregoing comments should not be viewed as mitigating
from our view that the Nickles-Mack bill is the preferred form
of legislation in the area of religious freedom. Because of the
sophisticated menu of choices offered, clearly linking and
integrating the pursuit of an end to religious persecution to
overall U.S. policy, it is well constructed and calculated to
achieve the goals of helping oppressed communities abroad.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gaer appears in the
Appendix.]
Senator Grams (presiding). Thank you very much.
We are going to take a break right now and come back at
2:15 to allow you to have an opportunity to have a lunch break.
The chairman is also going to be gone for a little while. So we
are going to recess this hearing until 2:15. Thank you very
much.
[Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the committee was recessed, to
reconvene the same day at 2:15 p.m.]
[Recess]
Afternoon Session
Senator Grams. This hearing will now come to order again. I
want to thank you very much for your patience and I hope you
all had a chance to get some lunch.
We would like to finish the opening statements from our
witnesses today. Dr. Akers and Dr. O'Brien, I would like to
begin with your opening statements. Dr. Akers, please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN AKERS, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, EAST GATE
MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL
Dr. Akers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ladies and
gentlemen. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear
before you today in connection with the proposed International
Religious Freedom Act of 1998.
American organizations which are involved in religious and
humanitarian service in other countries have an enormous stake
in this issue, and I am grateful you have invited some of us
who represent denominations and mission agencies to participate
in this hearing. Currently over 170,000 Americans, representing
over 800 denominational and nondenominational agencies, are
involved in some type of religious work overseas. Their work
runs the gamut from evangelism and church planning to schools,
hospitals, disaster relief, agricultural and other development
projects, and other kinds of humanitarian aid.
Let me be clear about our perspective. Religious
persecution is abhorrent to all of us and any country which
consistently practices it cannot expect to be accepted within
the circle of civilized nations today. Many mission agencies
face this problem almost daily in their work. Yet for far too
long religious persecution has been overlooked in discussions
about human rights. We therefore welcome the recent attention
which has been given to the problem of religious persecution
and we thank you for your concern. I am sure that we also were
all very moved by the testimony of our friend from Pakistan
today.
Like other mission agencies, the organization I represent
today, East Gates Ministries International, of which I am
Chairman of the Board, is a nonprofit, nonpolitical religious
agency. It is not my intention, therefore, to speak about the
possible political or economic repercussions of this bill. Nor,
frankly, am I equipped to give a point by point analysis of
this proposed bill. I am sure you will be studying carefully
the thoughtful suggestions that others have made and will be
making.
Instead, today I would like to bring to your attention two
concerns that I have, what I might call two benchmarks against
which I believe any final version of this bill should be
measured. I hope you will keep these two concerns before you as
the bill continues to be debated.
First, I believe the final version of any bill on religious
persecution must take into account its potential impact on the
work of American mission organizations that are working
overseas. Many American mission agencies work in what are
frankly very difficult circumstances, including societies where
there may be discrimination or even persecution against
religious minorities. Often they are able to continue their
work only because they have learned to stay clear of political
involvements and to demonstrate that they are attempting to
work for the betterment of that society and its people.
If, however, the United States, for example, were to impose
automatic harsh sanctions without exception against every
society judged to practice religious discrimination, almost
certainly some governments, not all but some governments, would
react with immediate reprisals against American mission
organizations. In extreme cases, they would be banned from
continuing their work and their personnel might be in serious
danger. I trust you will always keep this in mind as the debate
continues.
Second, we believe any final version of any bill on
religious persecution must take into account its probable
impact on the religious believers it seeks to help. The old
adage of Hippocrates applies here as well: First, do thy
patient no harm. The point is this: In some societies, not all,
but in some societies, stringent and thoughtless measures by
the United States could actually make the situation worse for
believers rather than better.
Religious persecution is usually a far more complex issue
than we are willing to admit. As a church leader from one Asian
country said to me: If my government concludes we Christians
are the cause of bad relations between our two countries, they
will only make life more difficult for us. The bottom line is
this: As you consider this bill, please remember that each case
of persecution is different. In our view, a one size fits all
approach is dangerous and will end up hurting religious
minorities in some countries, not helping them. Any bill must
avoid inadvertently hurting those it seeks to help.
In asking you to remember the potential impact of a
religious persecution bill on both American mission agencies
and on foreign believers, I do not mean to imply that I am
opposed to the specific bill that is before this committee.
That is not the case. This bill's measured approach to the
subject and its wide range of responses to instances of
religious discrimination are, I believe, significant
contributions to the legislative debate about this issue.
However, in light of the two concerns I have outlined, let
me respectfully suggest four possible additions to the present
bill for your consideration.
First, I urge that the bill explicitly require multilateral
consultations and actions wherever possible. I realize that
this can be very difficult at times, but I feel that is
important to underline. Aside from the obvious advantage of
bringing the moral weight of the international community to
bear against gross acts of religious persecution, a
multilateral approach could also help minimize the impact on
American mission organizations which might otherwise be singled
out for reprisals.
Second, we suggest that consideration be given to placing a
time limit on the act. Let me be honest. Many of us who are
involved in foreign missionary activity admittedly become very
nervous whenever any governments become involved in religious
matters that affect us. We know that this can lead to
unforeseen problems, whether it is anyone's intention or not.
Requiring the act to be renewed periodically would give all of
us a better opportunity to spot any problems it might be
inadvertently causing, including problems for mission agencies
or indigenous believers.
Third, we urge that the bill explicitly require those
involved in its implementation to take into account not only
the immediate religious situation in a specific country, but
also the overall trend. This can work in both ways. Some
countries may be making a good faith effort to reverse their
past policies of religious discrimination and this
discrimination should be rewarded and taken into account.
Others may be taking the first steps toward a more onerous
policy. This also needs to be spotted and acted upon. Again, we
would hope that the trend in a specific country would be taken
into account.
Finally, we urge the committee to write into the bill as
many safeguards as possible to avoid politicizing this issue. I
do not pretend to know the exact formula for accomplishing
this. Some have suggested the strengthening of the role of the
Department of State, that this might help. Other suggestions I
am sure have been made a well. I would not pretend to know what
the answer is.
But I do know, however, that an annual squabble between the
President and the Congress over specific instances of religious
persecution will hurt those of us who seek to serve in other
countries. I believe it will also hurt the cause of religious
freedom in some countries. I hope you will do everything you
can to keep this politicization from happening.
Again, I thank you for your concern for this subject and
your kind attention to our comments today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Akers appears in the
Appendix.]
Senator Grams. Thank you very much, Mr. Akers. Dr. O'Brien.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN O'BRIEN, DIRECTOR, THE GLOBAL CENTER,
SAMFORD UNIVERSITY
Dr. O'Brien. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, like others, for this opportunity to appear.
I am coming from a little bit different perspective. The
lens through which I am looking at this largely is as both an
expatriate who has lived in the international scene within
societies differing from ours religiously, politically, and
from about 30 years of international work both through the
Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, where
I served in administration in Richmond, Virginia, for many
years and now subsequently through International Urban
Associates, part of the Pacific Rim Think Tank, through the
Plowshares Institute that deals with empowering for
reconciliation with justice, from that kind of background.
The reality of religious persecution we have all confessed
to. Everybody at this table today is in full agreement it is
here, and for that reason we are grateful for the initiatives
of Senator Nickles and Lieberman and others here in the Senate,
whose efforts both serve to ratchet up our concern while
attempting to provide legislative measures through which we
can, in partnership with other concerned states, influence
change in those areas of proven violation of religious liberty
and human rights.
However, the complexity of defining religious persecution
is extremely challenging. In attempting to define it so that
the perpetrators can be exposed and dealt with, we discover a
multi-complex braid of culture, ethnicity, economics, politics,
and religion. Any legislation that calls for concrete and-or
pejorative steps must be wisely crafted in order to avoid
deeper problems on the ground where the conflict exists as well
as a negative boomerang effect on the United States.
My family and I lived and worked in Indonesia between the
years 1963 and 1971. In those years we experienced runaway
inflation, an attempted coup d'etat in 1965, a bloody massacre
over a 6-month period following the coup, and the initiation of
the New Order under the newly installed President Suharto at
that time.
During the 6-month cleanup operation which was carried out
in the name of crushing the communist party, there were
instances of torture and killings between Javanese and Chinese,
between Muslims and Christians, neighbor against neighbor. The
umbrella motive for the operation was politician cleansing and
stabilizing of nationhood. Meanwhile, religious and ethnic
factors played a role, taking advantage of the larger movement
in order to carry out vendettas on other levels.
The same is true when harassment, torture, and persecution
on religious grounds is carried out. It is often difficult to
ferret out if this is purely religious persecution or are there
socioeconomic, cultural, and-or ethnic motivations mixed in?
For instance, some of the church burnings in Indonesia
during the years 1996-'97 were not all purely based on
religious bias. There is a perception that Christians are more
affluent. Because the ethnic Chinese of Indonesia comprise no
more than four percent of the population and control about 75
percent of the wealth and because many Chinese are Christians,
a general image of Christians often carries with it a false
perception of affluence that simply is not true.
Among the churches burned over the past three years, many
if not most were comprised of very poor congregations. But the
clouded picture of who Christians are and any advantage they
may have economically confuses the whole issue. That is not to
say there were no burnings based on pure religious conviction,
but sometimes the picture is too hazy to make categorical
declarations.
On the other hand, in the current scene today in Indonesia
there are small radical groups who wreak havoc because of
encouragement from sermons in the mosques. Rich or poor is not
the motivation, and the religious harassment now taking place
is carried out in a quasi-political vacuum during the tense
transition of leadership from Mr. Suharto to President Habibie.
While the Indonesian armed forces have traditionally stood
together in support of the Pancacilin, which is the
foundational document of the nation, and opposed any attempt to
turn Indonesia into an Islamic state, observant Indonesians are
noticing a more divided military now where many seem to be
turning green while others are still strong supporters of the
red and white. Given the current political climate in
Indonesia, the more radical elements of Islam, who from 1945
have pushed for the adoption of the Jakarta Charter as the
basis of law in Indonesia, are once again pushing for an
Islamic state.
The next 6 to 12 months hold awesome implications for
Indonesia as a nation and therefore for the region and the
world. Depending on the political decisions made, which in
Indonesia are inextricably intertwined with religion, the
potential for the exacerbation of religious persecution
targeting minority Christian groups is very sobering. Add to
that the willingness of some persons who embrace a radical form
of Islam to sacrifice any existing economic framework if that
is what it takes to create an Islamic state further complicates
the balancing of the national equation.
The reason I focused on this is because Indonesia
symbolizes the complexity of the religion question in most non-
western societies. For instance, in the Middle East there have
been recent allegations of systemic persecution of Christians
by the Palestinian Authority. A recent factfinding trip by
scholars and journalists sponsored by Evangelicals for Middle
East Understanding could not substantiate any of the
allegations. While there are isolated instances and tensions
that mark any culture with majority and minority populations,
there was no proof of a rising tide of anti-Christian
sentiment. The Executive Director of that movement in a press
release in Jerusalem said: ``We found disturbing indications of
political motivations behind recent publicity about Christian
persecution. We deplore efforts of anyone to pit people of one
faith against those of another religion in order to strengthen
a political position.''
From China, the West receives very mixed signals about the
Three-Self Patriotic Movement and the China Christian Council.
Naysayers give the impression that the China Christian Council
is led by either members of the communist party or they are at
least collaborationists under the control of the government.
Therefore, the ``underground'' church is the only true church
comprised of members who are uncompromised. Those who know
personally the leadership of China Christian Council, who have
worshipped in what is referred to as ``open churches,'' and who
have observed the theological training centers have a very
different impression.
In 1979 the Chinese government recognized five religious
entities: Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims, Protestants, and
Catholics. They did not recognize such indigenous movements as
Watchman Nee's Little Flock, Seventh Day Adventists, and
others. The government views them as cults and outside the
freedom of religion policy.
However, when some of their leaders were jailed, the leader
of the China Christian Council and his associate traveled to
Beijing to protest on their behalf. The government leaders
responded by saying to them: Well, we do not understand the
difference between true Christians and cults. They were open to
be taught the difference.
About 1980, China Christian Council was formed to work both
inside and outside of China. The Three-Self Patriotic Movement,
formed in 1955, only works inside China.
During my tenure at the Foreign Mission Board, we worked
with the China Christian Council and helping to fund the
beginning of the Amity Foundation Press in Nanjing. Since its
inception in the mid-eighties, the Amity Press has printed and
distributed within China 20 million Bibles. One can even find
Bibles for purchase at the Tass News Agency bookstores. Pastors
of unregistered churches come to the registered churches to get
their Bibles and hymn books.
You know, my experience has been that almost anything you
read about in China is true, it is happening somewhere. There
may be leaders in one province who are harassing and
imprisoning members of unregistered churches, while in the
adjacent province there may be a Christian revival breaking
out. Pastors of unregistered churches invite pastors of
registered churches to come and preach, and they do. No pastor
of a registered church would go uninvited to an unregistered
church lest the members there think that they were spies.
One pastor in Guangzhou boasts about being pastor of the
largest ``underground'' or unregistered church in China. The
church meets on the second floor of a building immediately
above the police station. Everything they do is quite open and
known by everyone.
What am I saying? All of this is to say that there are
complexities in all these situations that demand a very studied
approach to any applied action. How can we then influence
change through the kind of legislation that you are crafting?
My assumption in coming is that there is going to be some
legislation.
My hope is that we can influence change in all of these
countries, like Pakistan, Sudan, Indonesia, wherever it is
happening, China. So let us build on the strengths already
present in S. 1898 and further craft a highly effective
instrument for achieving the aims of the bills, and let me just
allude to a few of these.
First, build into the mechanism the mandate for the
assigned person or group in the State Department to engage in
multilateral, multinational dialog with religious and political
leaders in all the appropriate nations that can provide
collaborative insights needed for any recommendations to the
President. While this is in the bill at the moment, I would
plead that it be built in much earlier, so that multilateral,
multinational dialog does not happen in regards to sanctions,
but that it happens in regard to defusing the issue before we
ever have to get that far along.
Second, sources identified for garnering information on
religious persecution must be chosen with utmost care. I would
plead for the cross-referencing of sources and data. It is so
important to reduce the potential for reports being crafted
from either incomplete or biased data. Furthermore, gathering
data must be done in such a way so as not to jeopardize the
presence and work of expatriate mission groups and
missionaries.
While in Indonesia, I was accused of being an agent of the
CIA during those very troubling times leading up to the coup in
the early 1960's. Such connections in the minds of local people
undermine the very honest work one is there to do. We were
approached by agents as missionaries.
Information-gathering and reporting on religious
persecution must be done in a way that protects it from being
suspect as a tool of any intelligence service. In highly
volatile areas such as Indonesia, China, the Middle East, to
mention a few, examples of reporting through the emotional
lenses of the source may produce slants that should be measured
against other reports that may or may not have their own
slants. The bill can require the new commission or whatever
appropriate entity at State to carefully design reporting
processes that include all of these entities.
Third, as regards to any possible sanctions, the bill must
include steps that guarantee the United States, in
collaboration with all appropriate parties, will not take any
action that would produce unintended consequences for the very
victims we are trying to help. Sanctions and discontinuance of
aid, especially if done unilaterally, may well evoke reactions
from authoritarian regimes that are aimed at the persecuted.
In fact, the whole issue of sanctions, while needing to be
there, should be a last ditch approach if used at all. I would
hope that the President would have the freedom as well as the
motivation to call for findings that prove sanctions would be
useful and serve their purposes, while not hurting the people
we are wanting to help.
It seems to me it would greatly strengthen the President's
hand and give him or her much greater flexibility in dealing
with those nations engaged in continuing patterns of gross
violations of religious and human rights if most of the work
was done in State, within a new commission and-or any other
appropriate apparatus until the need arises for the United
States to prove its will and commitment through Presidential
action.
Fourth, I would say that, given the fact of religious
persecution in some form happening in so many nations, the bill
must be careful not to paint all of them alike with broad-brush
strokes. Not all persecution is state-sponsored or endorsed.
Not all persecution is carried out by groups while a regime
either looks on approvingly or turns its head. Sadly, some
persecution is Christian against Christian, Hutus versus Tutsi
in Rwanda for instance. Some Christians might evoke the label
of being persecuted when in fact they just happen to have been
arrested because they broke the law. That even happens in our
country.
Mechanisms to provide case by case analysis should be built
in so as to deal most appropriately with each situation.
To wrap up, let me just say I am encouraged by the will of
this Congress to lift to high visibility to reality of severe
and gross persecution of Christians and persons of other
religions at the hands of their perpetrators. I encourage all
of you to take a strong stand through the forging of
legislation that is worthy of being related to the same cause
that calls for the commitment unto death from believers who
understand the cost attached to their faith.
As much as lie it within you, guard this effort from any
appearance of politicization. Martyrs deserve better.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. O'Brien appears in the
Appendix.]
Senator Grams. Thank you very much, Dr. O'Brien. I want to
thank all of our witnesses for great statements and a lot of
good information.
We have been joined by Senator Robb of Virginia. Senator
Robb, do you have any statements or comments you would like to
make?
Senator Robb. Mr. Chairman, I do not. I regret that I was
unable to join the panel this morning. I have collected all of
their statements. I would like to join in thanking our
distinguished witnesses for their testimony and witness. I will
look forward to reviewing those, and I thank you for holding
this hearing. Unfortunately, I am not going to be able to
remain for the questioning because we have a compartmentalized
hearing over in Intelligence to which I have to repair at this
particular moment. But I thank you very much.
The only testimony that I heard live in its entirety was
that by Dr. O'Brien, but it is refreshing to have such balanced
views that reflect pros and cons. We frequently get someone who
is very committed to one side or another, one view or another,
and it is always refreshing to have that kind of candor.
I look forward to reviewing all the views that have been
expressed, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Grams. Thank you very much.
I do have a quick opening statement myself that I would
like to read to get into the record, which shows some of my
concerns as well before we begin questioning. Hopefully,
Senator Helms will be joining us, and others, before too long.
But I want to start out by thanking the chairman for
holding the hearings today, which allows us to hear testimony
from religious leaders on the Nickles International Religious
Freedom Act. I believe this bill is more reasonable than the
Wolf-Specter bill, but I still have some serious concerns and
hope that we can work to achieve what I believe are some needed
improvements in the legislation.
I am concerned about human rights abuses of all kinds, I
oppose all abuses, including religious persecution, and believe
we should seek ways to address these types of injustices. But I
also strongly believe legislation that imposes sanctions or
threatens sanctions, especially unilaterally, can be
counterproductive. Such legislation could lead to harm of
believers in other countries, and I believe this legislation
could do that. So do many religious leaders in this country and
others who have served as missionaries abroad. They have
accomplished so much to bring more religious freedom to the
world. So much more progress is needed.
But should we be the ones to tell them how to accomplish
that? I think they are wise and many of them object to this
government-directed approach. Many other countries will see the
U.S. as attempting to force our values, our religious beliefs,
on them.
I also believe efforts to force progress through sanctions
can be counterproductive. Persecution would not necessarily
stop, and again believers could be placed in harm's way. The
affected country will turn to other nations which have not
sanctioned them, so not only have we not accomplished our
purpose, but we may have harmed U.S. economic interests as
well.
Now, I have been blamed for looking at this solely for the
impact that this legislation would have on trade. But that is
my secondary concern. My chief concern, and one that has
repeatedly been brought to my attention by religious leaders,
is how effective would legislation like this be? Would it work?
Would it help us combat religious persecution and promote
religious freedom?
Quiet diplomacy has been doing that. So will the work of
those here before us today. So will the efforts of those who
have been reached abroad by religious leaders of all faiths in
the past. As I often say, the most productive changes can come
from inside a country, from an awakened people, and not from
outside threats.
I was also struck by a comment by one of the drafters of
this legislation, that there will be few, if any, gross
violators subjected to sanctions. Now, if that is so, why are
we even considering legislation? Would it appear that we are
promoting a solution that is not achievable?
Again, I wanted to thank the chairman for inviting all the
witnesses here today. I just want to note that we had many
requests from numerous other religious leaders who also sought
to be here to testify against this legislation, but I
understand how limited our time is. But I do have some comments
from those that I would like to enter into the record as if
read. I also have some statements that they have mailed to us
which I will also put into the record as well.
I want to work with this committee. I want to work with the
chairman and also with Senators Nickles and Lieberman, to try
to improve this legislation. There are some things that I think
could be improved, such as the list of countries could be
classified, for one thing; that there could be more flexibility
in the determination of sanctions and more effort placed on
multilateral approaches. The waiver authority needs to be
broadened and the Congressional disapproval authority needs to
be narrowed or at least defined more in its scope.
So if we are to pass legislation in this area, these are
some essential changes that I think will help win more support,
as well as protect believers in countries that are labeled as
gross violators. I intend to pursue these changes both in the
committee and on the floor.
I also want to agree with one of our witnesses who said
earlier this morning that silence is not an option. I believe
that. I think that we very seriously have to look at these
concerns. But I also believe that if we pass legislation we
should have some confidence that it is going to accomplish our
goals. As for the Hippocratic Oath, I think as Dr. Akers
mentioned: First, do no harm. I say this in reference to those
who might endure even more religious persecution because of
actions that we take here.
With those comments, I see the chairman has rejoined us.
Chairman Helms, I would like to return the hearing to you for
your first question.
[The prepared statement of Senator Grams appears in the
Appendix.]
Mr. Grams. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the
National Council of Churches opposing S. 1868 and a letter from
James C. Dobson, Focus on the Family, Chuch Colson, Prison
Fellowship, Gary L. Bauer, Family Research Council, and Randy
Tate, Christian Coalition, be inserted into the record.
[The information referred to appears in the Appendix.]
The Chairman. I think the committee is in good hands. You
stay right where you are.
Once again, I would apologize for pushing you around today,
but this has been one of those days. Maybe you have those days
in your shop as well. You do not?
Dr. Akers. Never.
Senator Grams. Never.
The Chairman. Anyway, I thank you for your patience, and I
hope you have enjoyed lunch a little bit, and I appreciate your
coming.
Let me ask a few questions just for the record. Bishop
Mano, you mentioned in your statement--and I want to make sure
that the record is clear and my mind understands it, because
you may have to live with the outcome of this. You stated that
you do not support the bill which recently passed the House of
Representatives, Representative Wolf's bill or the Wolf-Specter
bill.
Given the choice between Wolf and Nickles-Lieberman, which
is this bill by this Senate, and doing nothing, which choice
would you advise us to take?
Bishop Mano. The reason for saying that, I think it has
been already said enough by the panel, and that is that the
House bill is a bit high-handed. At least that is how it comes
to us. The option of straight sanctions is not a way forward,
at least in my situation and perhaps in most situations.
This bill as we hear and read about it gives the breadth,
the diversity, the multipurpose options through which I think
more than one approach can be used to rectify very intricate
and very difficult situations. As I think one of my fellow
speakers have already said, the whole issue of religious
discrimination is an extremely complex issue and we can play it
in many different ways, both the perpetrators and the
persecutors.
I think this bill gives you that option to choose a course,
a calibrated course which can be adapted to each situation and
then respond in that way.
Particularly one or two things which really appeal to me,
for example the whole notion of an ambassador at large thing. I
think here is a roving Ambassador who can, through his
contacts, begin to detect these human situations.
The other thing which I feel could be part of it which I
have been advocating, that during the whole South African
situation, if you recall, sir, the U.N. used to send the group
of eminent people. The former Prime Minister of Canada was one
member of such a group. These were the kind of things where I
feel perhaps people from different religions could be used to
intervene in those situations and bring hope and rectification,
rather than just sort of have a shot at each other.
So there are different avenues of this bill I believe which
are appealing as a multipurpose approach, rather than one of
just a bang-bang approach.
The Chairman. Very good.
Dr. Land, would you address the same question?
Dr. Land. Yes, sir. We supported the Wolf-Specter bill in
the House because we feel that we want the best bill that can
be gotten out of this Congress. We believe that something is
necessary. That was the vehicle in the House.
We have testified here today that, in generic terms, that
we want the best bill that accomplishes the objectives that we
laid out. I think that the Nickles bill certainly addresses our
concerns substantially in the Senate. Our position is we want
the best bill that can be passed in this Congress by both
houses of the Congress and sent to the President for his
signature. We believe that this is--that it is important that
there be an effective mechanism to have our government make
this a high profile issue with other governments around the
world and the people in those societies.
The Chairman. Do you have an opinion? I think I know what
yours would be.
Ms. Gaer. I think I indicated that this is a preferred--
that the Nickles-Mack strikes us as a preferred approach and
that no approach would be a mistake, and that this is
calibrated, flexible, situation specific, country specific. It
offers the possibility of being effective. That is what we
would like to see, greater effectiveness in combating religious
persecution everywhere.
The Chairman. Dr. Akers.
Dr. Akers. Senator Helms, I hope you will appreciate the
fact that Billy Graham is always very reluctant to have any
statement made that might be interpreted as a political
statement. So with that preface, however, I would concur that
there are many features of the Nickles bill that I believe will
address the concerns that we would have concerning the
complexity of religious persecution in various parts of the
world.
Many of us on this panel have made some suggestions that I
am sure you will be considering, that I hope would sharpen the
bill. With those considerations taken into account, I believe
that this could be a useful bill. I do feel that it needs
periodic review so that we are sure that actions that are taken
are not counterproductive, even if they are unintended.
The Chairman. Parenthetically, are you familiar with the
effort to build a fund for Ruth Graham's International Care for
Children?
Dr. Akers. I thank you for your part in that. Ruth was up
here the other day, with your kind encouragement, and we thank
you for your part, your personal part, in helping express her
concern and Dr. Graham's concern for children's health.
The Chairman. Well, they are a great couple.
Dr. Akers. I send you their regards.
The Chairman. I have known Billy for the majority of my
life now. I hate to say that.
How about you, Dr. O'Brien?
Dr. O'Brien. Thank you. I certainly feel that the Nickles
bill is much further down the road than the House bill and
would be much preferable. I look at it as a work in progress.
With all of the suggestions that have been here, I would hope
it is further crafted, with this caveat: With the demise of
Marxist ideology and the U.S. considered a lone superpower, in
reality what happened when that ideology crumbled, we moved
into a world of multipolar powers, a multipolar reality.
H.G. Welles in 1933 brought a radio address in which he was
decrying the fact that we did not have many professors of
foresight. If we could build into this the kind of foresight
that is being instructed by current realities--when the wall
came down in both Moscow and then literally in Berlin, we were
so euphoric we did not see the other walls that had been draped
with political ideology trappings for all those years, the
walls of ethnicity and tribalism.
Of the 30-some odd wars raging today, there is not a single
one of them across a geopolitical boundary. We are coming into
an era in which those who feel a sense of loss of something are
taking hold of that which they feel they can control. We are
facing, I think, some of the greatest trials in the future of
this very issue and others.
My plea with all that is that the committee and the Senate
will further craft an instrument that has a great deal of
foresight built into it and not simply be dealing with the
tyranny of the urgent, whether it be from any constituent
pressure or the realization that we are onto something that has
to be brought to the forefront for this Nation as well as other
nations.
So yes, I applaud this work in progress and would assume
very optimistically that there is still some work to be done
that will reflect foresight.
The Chairman. I see that we have been joined by the
gentleman from Kansas. We are just speaking informally and
asking questions.
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate very much the panel. I have been in and out and I
apologize for not having heard more of your statements. I have
held, though, two hearings, three hearings, in the subcommittee
that I chair on the issue of religious persecution and
religious freedom. So I have grown somewhat familiar with it,
and delighted with the chairman's leadership on this topic that
we are now considering and moving forward on, something I
consider a foundational human rights as religious freedom, that
it is the basis on which so many others of our freedoms are
built.
I would just like to state, Mr. Chairman, if I could and
for the record, that I commend the people who have proposed the
legislation, the International Religious Freedom Act, or S.
1868. I admire this bill for many reasons, strongly support it,
and I appeal for its support today. I think this is a noble and
a significant effort to empower advocacy for those who suffer
insidious institutionalized religious abuse worldwide in
contravention of basic human rights, in contravention of those
basic human rights, and, I might add, in contravention of the
principles on which this land was founded by people seeking
religious freedom.
This legislation addresses the problem of state-sponsored
persecution of peaceful religious groups. It recognizes the
intricacies of and responds accordingly. It constitutes a
multifaceted platform for advocacy. Most importantly, it
eloquently, I think, articulates our governmental commitments
to defend religious freedom as a fundamental human right
protected by international law.
I am going to talk very frankly about this. If we do not
defend religious liberty, who is? If the United States does not
defend religious liberty, who will? And if we do not do it now,
then when?
In my foreign travels, I am continually humbled by the
esteem that people have for America. Why this uniquely elevated
position for this country? I think the answer really is pretty
simple: We are great because we have been good, a good people;
and we are good because we still fight for things like freedom
and for those who suffer for its sake.
The most insidious form of religious persecution is state-
sponsored, which this bill acknowledges. How do sincere people
stand against the crushing onslaught of a hostile national
government? I have talked with a number of people who have
tried to stand against that, and they cannot do it. They are
powerless to do it and to get it done. Yet they continue to try
to stand, because their faith calls them to do it, whatever
that faith might be.
How does an individual or a small faith community stand
against the national security forces? Imagine countries where
entire divisions of national police are dedicated to stalking
peaceful people of faith. At the extreme, countries indulge in
violent attacks involving unbridled cruelty.
As I am speaking, thousands and probably tends of thousands
are sitting in jails because they dared to peacefully share
their religious convictions. Their numbers are unknown as well
as their names. Yet they are the type of democracy dissidents,
like Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn.
I just would close with two questions that I think are
posed by this debate. One is should we advocate for the
religiously persecuted? I believe the answer is strongly and
unequivocably yes. The religious persecuted are as worthy as
are democracy dissidents and represent the same principles.
The second question: What is the best approach? The one
which recognizes the intricacies of mistreatment and offers a
nuanced response is the one that I believe is the best
approach, one which facilitates advocacy for those who are
struggling to practice this simple yet profound freedom.
Bluntly put, instead of waiting for the ravage the
Holocaust wrought, we should have more protested the infamous
start of it, the night in 1938 when the Nazis shattered the
windows of Jewish businesses throughout Germany and Austria.
That is when we should have started. This bill is crafted to
timely challenge such institutionalized brutality against
minority faith communities.
Bottom line, any individual who dares to stand alone
against a hostile national government for this fundamental
right deserves the advocacy that this bill empowers. So I
strongly support it. I am delighted this panel has been here to
testify, and I will be looking to more of your input as we go
along on this debate.
Thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Grams. Thank you very much.
I only have a couple of questions and then I will turn it
back over to Sam for some questions and the chairman as well.
Bishop Mano, I appreciate your testimony and the
persecution you have faced, and I understand that you are
representing the Episcopal Church, which has been so helpful
drafting the Nickles-Lieberman legislation as an alternative to
the Wolf-Specter approach. However, I am intrigued by the
position of the church on one hand and a statement that you
made back on April 24 of 1988 which does not recommend the
Wolf-Specter-Nickles approach at all, but instead the more
positive actions that I believe have helped us pursue religious
freedoms in other nations.
You recommended dialog with the majority community based on
mutual trust and respect, progress to help minority
communities, multilateral efforts, efforts by a group of
prominent religious leaders to help address conflicts. I
appreciate your good work and many of the challenges that you
have faced, but I believe the Nickles bill, which persecutes
the persecutors, would probably conflict with those statements
you made in April.
Your comments on that?
Bishop Mano. Thank you. That was, with respect, I think
April 1998, not 1988. I did not speak on the bill at all. It
was at a different conference hosted by the Episcopal Church
here.
Of course, I think, being human and living in a situation
as we do, dialog is at the heart of our relationship. Until my
grave I will advocate dialog at all levels, with my enemy, with
my friend, with my well-wisher, with my persecutor. Absolutely,
that is not in question at all.
But I personally do not understand the nuances of the
comparisons of which is a better bill. The way I read it, the
way I have heard, the way I understand, I do not think this
bill is to persecute the persecutors. This bill is there to
rectify the situation, which is a deplorable situation. I think
you were here when I made my presentation. This is the only
sacred God-given choice which I have.
If I may just give you an example. I lived in Britain for
many years. I was a black person there. If anybody called me
``black'' there, it hurt me. It felt like a worm. But in
Pakistan I could be one of the top five percent of the
community there, but I have chosen to be counted amongst the
bottom five for my faith. That must be honored. It is not for
sale. It is not easily dispensable. It is precious to me, and I
have made that choice.
My sort of contention is that the choice must be respected,
and in order to do that I think human society must create that
freedom. I am struck by the other Senator's remarks. We should
have woken before the Holocaust happened. It is a very real
situation of our time. It is not too much in the past. We must
wake up to the religious persecution wherever they may be,
before it is too late. We have had it in our times already. I
do not think it is persecuting the persecutors, not that I see
it.
Senator Grams. Thank you very much, Bishop.
Dr. Land, all of us want to address the problems of
religious persecution. The question is how do we do this. I
think we all have the same goals in mind, but struggling for
ways to find some answers or to find some ways to solve these
problems. But certainly there are many ways our government can
help pursue those problems with other governments. We can do
more to organize more multilateral efforts, as I think has been
mentioned earlier. Even sanctions applied multilaterally would
be better than a unilateral type of approach.
But I have been perplexed after hearing from so many who
have served in ministries abroad of how this kind of
legislation could be counterproductive and again, as we talked
about, that some of those that are being persecuted could even
face more persecution as a reprisal possibly for some of the
actions that might be taken. Also, should the government decide
what religious persecution is or even what religion is and who
gets on the list. The government would decide who the gross
violators are, who gets sanctions and who gets a slap on the
wrist. The government would decide who gets off the hook due to
foreign policy or maybe other concerns.
Then, to make matters worse, the whole business is further
politicized by allowing the Congress to disapprove of some of
the sanctions possibly because they want even tougher
sanctions.
How this club over the head approach, if we could call it
that, would ever work is of great concern to me, because I
believe it in some ways could be counterproductive.
Do you have any disagreement or thoughts about that?
Dr. Land. I do have both some thoughts and disagreements. I
first of all do not think it is a club over the head approach.
It seems to me to be a well-stocked arsenal with numerous
nuanced approaches, depending on the particular situations and
trying to give flexibility, and bringing the people's
representatives more directly involved in a matter of such
close personal interest to the people and not leaving it just
to the State Department and just to the executive branch, but
making Congress more in partnership with them.
I will say to you that I did before I came to give
testimony today consult with Dr. Gerry Rankin, who is the
President of the International Mission Board in Richmond, and
with the Executive Vice President there, Dr. Don Kammerdeiner,
and they both agreed that legislation was necessary, that
religious persecution around the world is outrageous, and that
something effective needs to be done. They both told me that
they believe that legislation was both beneficial and
necessary.
Of course, they want the right kind of legislation, as I
think we all do. I think the worst thing we can do is to do
nothing. We have done nothing for far too long. To put it
charitably, the United States State Department under both
Republicans and Democrats has had a remarkably tin ear to this
particular kind of persecution. I do not believe that is going
to stop without some kind of effective legislation from the
Congress.
Senator Grams. Ms. Gaer, do you think this legislation
could be perceived as pro-Christian legislation in the Middle
East?
Ms. Gaer. This legislation is drafted with a clear base in
universal standards. The definitions, the articulation of what
constitutes relating persecution or gross violations--the terms
are a little mixed up--fall squarely within those international
definitions. If the legislation is applied with the same degree
of sophistication with which it was drafted, this legislation
will be perceived as pro-religion, pro-freedom, and not anti-
anyone or any particular religion.
Senator Grams. Could a country be deemed a gross violator,
Ms. Gaer, subject to sanctions, but still be moving toward of
religious freedom?
Ms. Gaer. The way the legislation is drafted, a gross
violator would be a country that has a particular pattern and
hits a fairly high standard. If I understand the question, you
are asking can there be inconsistencies in policy in terms of
addressing that country and in categorizing it?
Senator Grams. If it still has not attained a certain
level, but is moving in that direction, could it still be or
would it still be labeled as a gross violator, which could have
a negative effect on further progress?
Ms. Gaer. Well, that of course depends on the skill of
those who are gathering the information and analyzing it and
assessing the overall situation. That is why this is being
handed over to, ideally, to a group of experts and special
appointees who have to come back in some cases and get the
advice and consent of this body. So that there is that kind of
expertise in making those assessments.
I think that there are cases where acts taken place that
are focused on religious violations that are inconsistent with
what goes on otherwise in the country. But the overwhelming
evidence of those who engage in persistent abuse of religious
norms is that they are themselves also engaged in gross
violations of other human rights norms. So you do not normally
see religious persecution as an aberration. You see it in a
complex web of other forms of violations.
Senator Grams. Dr. Akers, I believe that you and Dr. Ned
Graham's work with the house churches in China has been very
positive. China believes that many of those house churches have
more internal politics than religion in mind. What are you
doing with the Chinese to convince them that these are true
religious communities?
Dr. Akers. I think there are several things that might be
said about that. First of all, we have found in recent years at
least that some of the strongest advocates in defending the
rights of the house church have been those in the leadership of
the official church. That may strike you as strange, but we
know that there are many instances where instances of abuse to
the house church have been brought to the attention of the
leadership of the official church and they in turn have
defended before the government those people and often with
success.
Another thing that I would say is that one of the goals of
the Reverend Ned Graham's work has been to work not only with
the churches and to work legally, but in the course of working
legally we have established close relationships with some of
the government agencies that oversee religious life in the
People's Republic of China. We say to them quite frankly that
we know that they have problems and we are concerned about
those problems.
In fact, Senator, from time to time when we are presented
with lists of prisoners of conscience that come from various
organizations in the West, we forward those on to our contacts
within the government of the PRC and ask them to investigate
and, because they trust us, they often carry through on that. I
do not claim that everything gets solved, but nevertheless
there is an openness now that we find helpful.
I think, Senator Helms, you know that Dr. Graham's
perspective across the years has been engagement wherever
possible. Even in the old years of the Soviet Union, there were
many that had questions about him going to the various
countries in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. I suppose
even now that could be debated. But nevertheless he felt that
the opportunities that he had, that no one else really had, to
visit those countries, to preach, to talk openly with high
level leadership, that those were significant and that those
would help in the long term the cause of religious freedom.
That is a perspective that we continue in our work in the
People's Republic of China.
Senator Grams. I know some have suggested that Chinese
officials have demanded that you oppose this type of
legislation to avoid any setbacks in your relationship with
them. Have you ever felt threatened by the Chinese leaders in
this regard?
Dr. Akers. No, absolutely not. None have ever suggested
that to us. We have sought to maintain our independence, both
from them and from interests in this country on one side or
another, whether they are economic interests or whatever. We
seek to maintain our independence.
I think that they know that that would be counterproductive
in the long term were they to try and pressure us in any way.
One of our strengths as an organization, Senator, is that we
have been able to establish contacts not only with the official
church, but with the so-called house church in China. We have
staff in Hong Kong and in Shanghai that travel extensively,
Chinese staff, that travel extensively throughout the PRC,
mainly making contacts with the house church.
We know many of the problems that there are. We know many
of the opportunities that they have as well. I would just say
that with this we find that even those who are in the house
church who are very suspicious of their own government at the
same time welcome the interest that we show in them and our
ability to talk with their government in a reasonable way about
their situation.
Senator Grams. One quick question for Dr. O'Brien. Is the
Southern Baptist Church split at all on this issue?
Dr. O'Brien. I do not know. There are almost 40,000
churches. All of them are autonomous.
Senator Grams. So that is a yes?
Dr. O'Brien. You could get 41,000 opinions from the 40,000.
Frankly, sad to say, I am sure there are a lot of our
people in churches who are unaware, and some of it may be their
own fault for not being more proactive in getting information.
But a lot of it is the fault of the institutions of our Nation,
including the media and other things that have taken precedence
over this kind of reality. So I think with this kind of action
it is certainly coming to the fore.
It takes about five years to say hello to Southern
Baptists. So it will be a while before it gets into the total
grassroots.
Senator Grams. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Better not get us Southern Baptists talking
about each other. One of my favorite stories, sir, if you will
forgive me for intruding with a personal note: A country church
in North Carolina grew and prospered. It got so many members
that some of them felt that they were being neglected by the
pastor--you know how that goes. So they split off and they
bought a lot across the road and set up another church.
There were two rather large Baptist churches right across
the road from each other, and they had a little battle about
everything, including the billboard or whatever you call the
bulletin board that appears out in front of the churches, at
least in North Carolina. The preacher in the number one church,
he put his sermon topic on the board for the following Sunday,
and the subject was going to be ``What is Hell?''
The preacher on the other side looked at that, went back
in, got his letters, and he said: ``Come Early and Hear Their
Choir.''
The Chairman. But let me tell you something. This business
of trying to play politics with religion, even the politics of
trying to do good sincerely, it is a tough thing, because
chances are you are going to be misunderstood.
Let me tell you a personal enlightenment that I had. I
first ran for the Senate and was elected in 1972. I would not
have run if I thought I was going to be elected, but when I
found out I was elected it was too late to back out. But during
that campaign somebody sent me a copy of Alexander
Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago. I do not know if any of you
or all of you have read it or not. It was one of those books
that you had to read every page three times to make sure you
understood what he was saying, because it was a little stuffy.
But along the campaign, I read and read and read and read,
and I perceived finally the message that I think somebody
upstairs wanted me to see, and that this man was a religious,
Christian man.
So after I came to the Senate I got his address. He was in,
for 20 years, I think, in the Gulag, and there are so many
tales he has told me and others, several when he came to my
home. We finally got him over here one time.
But he was to me a strange man, but a good man, and I was
surprised to realize how deeply religious he was. I think that
is the way with a lot of people who do not wear it on their
shoulders. I try not to put it on my shoulders ever, but I do
want to do what is right about this thing, but I do not want to
do it for a political reason. That is the reason I want all of
you to sort of help and guide me in the position that I am
going to take with respect to whatever we do if we do it.
Now, I wish I had a magic wand, and I am sure everybody
feels that way. I see the little children with bloated bellies
on television, I find myself praying, I say: Lord, is there
anything I can do about this? And I do not get a very clear
answer. I have even said I would be glad to quit the Senate and
go over. Ted Kennedy would appreciate that if I went.
But it is not an easy thing to do, rather than object to
the suggestions, that we change it and improve it. I
particularly appreciate all that you have said and done about
that, and I think all Senators will, particularly the principal
sponsors of the bill.
So I thank you for coming. This has been an enlightening
experience for me and I know it has been sort of a disconnect
for you, with us going and coming and having meetings and so
forth. I hope the next time we get together we will not take up
so much of your time.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you let me suggest to
them: I have never made a speech in my life that on the way
home I did not say, why did I not say so-and-so? Ever done
that? Why did I not think of saying that? So before you start
on the way home, if you have got anything further to add, a
suggestion to make, I wish you would do it, because all of this
is being taken down and it will be helpful to us.
Instead of making you last, let us make you first, Dr.
O'Brien.
Dr. O'Brien. I think that is fine for today. I appreciate
the openness to continue to communicate while this is being
crafted.
The Chairman. Let us do that.
Dr. Akers. I feel the same way.
You feel the same way?
The Chairman. Ms. Gaer?
Ms. Gaer. I quite agree. I also want to add that the very
consideration of both kinds of legislation has moved the
administration very far in significant ways, and that that is
also to be commended. They have established all kinds of new
bodies, new attention, new directives. The Secretary personally
has told people they have got to get trained and be sensitive
to these issues. I think that that is a real value that we do
not see yet, but it has happened, and that is a change from a
year ago. They may not be satisfied with the idea of this
legislation just yet, but I think you will make a big
difference on the way the bureaucracy, the State Department
officials in all areas, begin to think about these issues.
So thank you.
The Chairman. Well, let me say parenthetically, I intend to
have a personal chat with a lady friend named Madeleine
Albright, who is by all odds the most attentive Secretary of
State we have ever had. We do not agree on everything, but one
thing about that lady, she will tell it like it is and she will
not try and deceive you. There have been some others who may
not have been exactly like that.
Dr. Land.
Dr. Land. Well, I want to say how much I appreciate this
committee giving its attention and the attention that comes
with this committee's attention to this issue.
No Southern Baptist would ever seek to speak for all
Southern Baptists. If there are 15.9 million Southern Baptists,
there are probably at least 20 million opinions, which I am not
sure what that says about the mental health of Southern
Baptists. But I will go out on a limb and say that if there is
near unanimity on any issue among Southern Baptists, it is on
the issue of religious freedom being the fundamental human
rights.
The First Amendment to our Constitution and its freedoms of
religion are there primarily because of the witness of our
Baptist forebears against colonial persecutors who did not give
in 9 of the original 13 States the kind of religious freedom
that was granted at the Federal level in the First Amendment.
Now, there certainly is not unanimity on the best way to
deal with the problem, but the fact that we expect our
government to deal with the problem and that everyone should
have freedom to worship their God--as Roger Williams said: ``A
man's relationship with his God is so sacred that no other
human being has a right to interfere with it.''
The Chairman. The last word, Bishop.
Bishop Mano. Just to say that for some of us it is indeed a
unique occasion, a dream come true, that a body like yours have
taken the trouble to deliberate on this very vital human issue.
I do not think I can pick up your suggestion that we start
continue writing little chits to say that this is what I forgot
and this is the new one. I am maybe too far for that purpose,
but nevertheless grateful for the offer.
I just want to say that I hope it will not get drowned in
the political versus the spiritual syndrome. I think that has
gone on for too long. Spiritual or religion is holistic and I
think it, at least in our case and I am sure for other people,
it concerns the totality of our life existence. Sadly, over the
years I think in the Christian world we have tried to create an
artificial division as to, this is the political or this is the
normal life and this is the spiritual life. It has not served
us well.
We do not want to create religious monsters, either here or
anywhere else. But we do want the flow of religious generosity,
graciousness, peace, care, embrace, to go around the world,
because I believe if there is one God and we are his followers
and believers, then how on Earth we can continue to kill each
other and one another in his honor? We have had a terrible
record for 500 years, the longest war in history, over
religion. You dig out behind many of the human conflict issues,
this surfaces. This must stop in order to honor our God and I
think for the good of humanity.
We thank you for finally taking up this issue for all of
us.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, and with that fine
assertion I suppose the chairman is going to put us in recess.
But this has been a great day for me and I hope it has been a
good one for you. Next time we will do it all in one piece. Go
in peace. God bless you. Thank you.
Senator Grams. Thank you very much. The hearing is
concluded.
[Whereupon, at 3:27 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Hearing of May 12, 1998
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted by the
Committee to Assistant Secretary John Shattuck
Question Submitted by Senator Helms
Question. The Presbyterian Church of the United States (PCUSA) has
been negotiating for some time with the Pakistani government for the
return of schools that were nationalized in 1972. An agreement with
Pakistan was reached in 1997 but, despite positive statements by
Pakistani officials, it has yet to be implemented. What is the status
of efforts to bring this matter to a just resolution?
Answer. US officials at the State Department and at our posts in
Pakistan have been working closely with PCUSA to resolve the long-
standing property dispute. During the most recent US meetings with
officials of the Pakistani provincial government in Punjab, where the
PCUSA properties are located, we received assurances that the official
notification of the denationalization of the school properties would be
announced shortly. As with previous assurances of this nature, we plan
to continue our consultations with PCUSA to see that the governmental
authorities follow through.
Both PCUSA and the Pakistani governmental authorities have
consistently treated the dispute as a property issue. The parties are
also concerned with the need to improve educational conditions and
opportunities in Pakistan. They have not treated the property dispute
as a case relating to freedom of religion.
Questions Submitted by Senator Grams
Question. Your statement appears to acknowledge there may be
legislation passed on this issue. Do you believe we need legislation?
Do you believe it is productive?
Answer. We believe that the Administration currently has the
necessary tools and legislative mandate to pursue international
advancement in religious freedom and other human rights. Legislation
best serves our mutual goal of promoting and upholding religious
freedom when it consolidates and strengthens existing mechanisms rather
than creating new ones and when it represents a united approach by the
Administration and the Congress to send a clear message about the
importance of this issue.
Question. By supporting amendments to the legislation, you send the
message it is satisfactory if the amendments are approved. Is there any
way to amend the basic, flawed premise of this legislation?
Answer. The Clinton Administration already has done more than any
previous Administration to address and highlight the issue of religious
freedom. We believe that the Administration already has the necessary
tools and legislative mandate to promote freedom of religion and oppose
violations of this right throughout the world.
Currently, the Nickles bill could create problems that would be
counterproductive in our efforts to pursue religious freedom globally.
We have serious concerns about the bill's reporting requirements which
would require that countries be identified as violators or gross
violators and would automatically trigger executive or economic
sanctions. Other specific problems with the bill are discussed in
detail in my testimony at the hearing on May 12.
Legislation best serves our mutual goal of promoting and upholding
religious freedom when it consolidates and strengthens existing
mechanisms rather than creating new ones and if it represents a united
approach by the Administration and the Congress to send a clear message
about the importance of this issue.
Question. How would you define ``gross violators?'' Where to you
draw the line between the gross violators that are sanctioned and
subject to congressional disapproval and the rest of the countries
which can receive lesser sanctions against them? When I asked this
question during the hearing, you responded generally on the entire list
of countries in the annual report subject to some kind of action.
Again, I would just like some idea of the what would go into the
decision making process the President must address that separates out
the ``gross violators'' which actually receive the sanctions, which,
again, prompts the Congressional disapproval process.
Answer. The Administration would determine that a government is a
``gross violator'' when it engages in a consistent pattern of human
rights violations of the type contained in the bill or in Section 116
of the Foreign Assistance Act as amended. In making this determination,
we might look at a number of factors, including the severity of the
abuses, and whether they are widespread, for example.
Determining which countries engage in or tolerate persecution as
defined by the bill might be difficult, and drawing the line between
those and the countries which engage in a consistent pattern of gross
violations would be even tougher. The definition of ``gross
violations'' in the bill appears consistent with international and U.S.
standards. It is similar to the standard that we use, for example, at
the UN Human Rights Commission. However, in international fora,
countries accused of gross violations sometimes respond to the
accusations made against them, and provide additional information about
their laws or practices that help us to make a clearer judgment. We do
not expect most countries would be willing to cooperate in this manner
with the U.S. in examining determinations to be made under this bill.
This is one factor that will make it especially difficult to come up
with consistent and reliable determinations.
Question. What countries would you envision are ``gross
violators?'' Do you see a lot of pressure on the President to label
certain countries gross violators?
Answer. Since the bill requires the President to make the
determination, it would be inappropriate for me to prejudge what will
be his decision. Any determination would take into account the kind of
information in our annual Human Rights Reports, which is an impartial,
and often sobering, record of human rights practices worldwide.
Question. Should religious persecution be separated from other
human rights concerns? Is religious persecution reported on the human
rights report and country reports?
Answer. Religious liberty also means free speech, and freedom of
assembly and association. If people lack the freedom to practice their
faith, it is likely that other human rights will be restricted and that
intolerance and violence will be more prevalent. Lack of these rights
also impedes efforts to establish societies that promote liberty and
justice.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognize that all citizens have
the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right
includes freedom to change one's religion or belief, and freedom--
either alone or in community with others, and either in public or
private--to manifest one's religion or belief in teaching, practice,
worship, and observance. No government can legitimately deny it, no
matter what the justification, for it is universal, inalienable, and
endowed by virtue of birth.
Freedom of religion is also a bedrock issue for the American people
and their government. The United States is committed to confronting
violations of religious freedom, including religious intolerance and
discrimination, no matter where they may occur around the world.
The actions of governments that violate these rights and persecute
persons because of their religion or belief, are detailed in the
Department of State's Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,
which provide a description of the situation regarding religious
freedom of over 190 countries. Widely viewed as an objective, thorough,
and credible summary of human rights practices worldwide, the Country
Reports address the question of whether or not a country's constitution
or other basic law provides for the right to practice the religion of
one's choice, and if so, whether the government respects and enforces
that right in practice. The Country Reports note the existence of an
official state religion, or an otherwise dominant religion, and whether
or not that adversely affects religious freedom for others.
In order to determine whether religious persecution exists, the
country reports analyze myriad factors in each country. For example,
the Department of State considers the existence of various types of
restrictions on religious freedom, such as whether a government bans or
discourages specific religions or religious factions. The Country
Reports distinguish between the treatment of different subgroups within
particular religions, e.g., members of Christian or Muslim subgroups
who face discrimination or persecution, whereas other members of these
religions do not.
The country reports also describe the many ways in which
governments restrict religious freedom. For example, whether a
government restricts organized religions in establishing places of
worship and training numbers of clergy adequate to serve believers;
whether a government requires religious instruction in public schools
(and if so, whether it is limited to instruction in a state or
otherwise dominant religion); whether a government requires that
religious groups be licensed, and if so, what controls it imposes;
whether a government restricts religious publishing (including
publications in languages such as Latin, Hebrew, and Arabic, which have
religious significance); and whether a government prohibits links with
coreligionists in other countries, or with a supranational hierarchy
(such as the Vatican). The Country Reports also examine whether a
government prohibits religious travel, such as the Hajj; whether a
government designates religion on passports or national identity
documents; whether a government prohibits or discourages conversion to
minority religions; whether a government persecutes converts to
minority religions; and whether a government forbids missionaries from
entering the country or restricts their activities (e.g.,
proselytizing).
The Country Reports also cover problems of societal discrimination
and violence against members of religious minorities. The reports cover
religiously motivated violence by sects, private groups, or
individuals, and sectarian rioting and/or violence. They include
instances of discrimination/harassment by members of one sect of a
religion against those who belong to another sect. The reports also
cover societal or governmental discrimination against members of
religious minorities with respect to employment, education, housing,
and health services, etc.
Department of State officers, both in Washington and overseas,
monitor religious persecution on a year-round basis. They maintain
contacts with government officials, nongovernmental organizations, and
leaders and members of numerous religious denominations. In 1993 the
Secretary of State instructed all embassies to establish inter-agency
committees on human rights. In recent years the Department of State has
made additional efforts to aggressively pursue issues of religious
freedom in the field. In December 1996, the Department alerted all U.S.
diplomatic missions to the establishment of the Secretary of State's
Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad, underscored the
importance of religious freedom as one of our worldwide human rights
objectives, and urged increased reporting on problems in the area of
religious freedom. Posts were asked to give special attention in their
reporting to specifying the religions or denominations that are targets
of discrimination and persecution. In 1997 U.S. missions abroad were
again instructed to give careful attention to issues of religious
freedom, to increase their reporting, and to focus also on treatment of
non-traditional religions and sects. As a result of these instructions
there has been an increase in the reporting from posts on issues of
religious freedom and religious persecution.
In the last few years we have increased our efforts to cover
religious persecution in even greater detail than before in the annual
reports, and we do not believe that an additional reporting requirement
is really necessary.
Question. Should the report focus on religious freedom, not
religious persecution? Shouldn't this report be one that indicates
where a country is on religious freedom rather than an accusatory
document citing incidences of religious persecution that may not be
government approved?
Answer. The goal of the legislation should be to facilitate U.S.
Government efforts to promote religious freedom and oppose violations
of this right. It should serve to reinforce our message to other
governments about the importance of the universal right to freedom of
religion. We would urge that the terms in the legislation reflect this
goal and refer to religious freedom. Furthermore, religious persecution
generally covers only limited acts of violations of religious freedom.
Legislation focusing on ``religious freedom,'' rather than on
``religious persecution,'' would facilitate more extensive reporting
and discussion about country conditions, giving credit where credit is
due and clearly highlighting problems and violations where they exist.
Question. How many countries would be on the report each year? I
understand that Belgium would be on the list?
Answer. It is difficult to give an exact number, but we would make
a good faith effort to comply with the legislation. The definition of
``religious persecution'' in the Nickles bill would likely require us
to report on a majority of the countries in the world. As a result of
the current definitions in the Nickles bill, many countries with
overall good practices on religious freedom could be categorized and
cited as engaging in one or more acts of ``religious persecution'' as
defined in the bill.
The example provided in my testimony was Austria, which grants
certain education benefits and subsidies to groups that qualify for
registration and recognition but does not in fact require registration
or restrict groups' freedom to worship.
Question. If this report is one that labels and threatens, isn't
this just another counterproductive jab at a country that threatens
their sovereignty? Doesn't this turn into an elevated political debate
rather than a focused, behind-the-scenes effort to combat religious
intolerance?
Answer. We need to remain focused on the important goal of ensuring
that believers of whatever faith are permitted to exercise their right
to religious freedom. We need to have a full range of options for
addressing this issue. Sometimes public condemnation is the best way to
press a country to change. Sometimes quiet, personal efforts by
diplomats, other officials, or even private citizens, can be the best
way to bring about change. We need to pick the best approach for each
problem.
Question. Does the U.S. have incidences of religious persecution?
Yet, certainly, we can claim to have religious freedom?
Answer. While there is religious intolerance among certain groups
in the United States, there is no state-sponsored religious
persecution. In fact, our Constitution and legal system were written to
ensure freedom of religion. Privately held intolerant opinions
occasionally lead to criminal acts, which are vigorously prosecuted by
the authorities. Examples would include attacks on Muslims and mosques
following the Oklahoma City bombing, anti-Semitic attacks by racist
groups and the deliberate burning of predominantly Black churches. The
U.S. Government established a special task force to investigate church
arson and provided funds to rebuild the church structures. In our
foreign policy we can and do distinguish between religious persecution
carried out or sanctioned by public authorities and criminal acts
perpetrated by individuals without any government connivance.
We are indeed able to proclaim in international fora that the U.S.
Government safeguards religious freedom. For example, the Department of
State reported to the U.N. Human Rights Committee on Civil and
Political Rights (July, 1994) that ``people in the United States have
broad freedom to practice their religions. Government restrictions on
the exercise of religion have been permitted only to the extent that
those restrictions are embodied in neutral laws designed to protect
public health and welfare, or where religious practices otherwise pose
a substantial threat to public safety.''
Question. How would being listed in the report affect a country
that is moving toward religious freedom?
Answer. A report that is focused on ``violator'' countries--whether
or not the government is responsible--and that deems that all countries
included in the report are worthy of punitive action sends a strong,
public, negative message. In some cases, this may be an appropriate and
effective message to convey. In other cases, it may in fact be
counterproductive and impede our human rights diplomacy and cause
further persecution of religious minorities.
The bill's Annual Report on Religious Persecution would include
countries where the government is responsible for the acts of
persecution, as well as those where it is not. Inclusion in a report
that labels a country as a violator, regardless of the government's
ability to control the violations, could play into the hands of
extremists seeking instability and further weakening of the government.
Question. Shouldn't we attempt to take truly gross violators of
religious freedom, as we do human rights, to the UN or, on our own,
pursue multilateral sanctions rather than unilateral sanctions which
don't work?
Answer. We are already spotlighting gross violations of human
rights in multilateral fora, including violations of the fundamental
rights to religious freedom and freedom of conscience. The U.S.
Government, for example, opposes most types of lending by international
financial institutions to China, Iran and Sudan in part because of
these countries' policies of religious persecution. At the UN Human
Rights Commission, countries that do not respect the freedom of
conscience of their citizens are frequently censured by the
international community.
Questions Submitted by Senator Ashcroft
Question. Reports indicate that the President will begin his visit
to China with an appearance at Tiananmen Square. If the President is
going to Tiananmen Square in June, why not visit the site on June 4,
the anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre?
Answer. During warm weather months, it is Chinese practice to hold
arrival ceremonies for heads of state in front of the Great Hall of the
People adjacent to Tiananmen Square. The arrival ceremonies for other
heads of government who have visited China since 1989, including the
U.K., Russia, Japan, France and Israel, have been held there.
The President's strong views about what happened in Tiananmen in
1989 are well-known and a matter of public record. He made clear in his
public statement carried live over Chinese television to an estimated
300 million viewers that the use of force to break-up the
demonstrations, and the consequent killing of many innocent civilians,
was wrong and a grave mistake by the Chinese leaders.
Question. What will the President say in Tiananmen Square? Will he
honor the students that were killed there in 1989?
Answer. In his public statement immediately after the Tianamen
Square arrival ceremony, President Clinton emphatically declared that
the use of force to break up the 1989 demonstrations, and the
consequent loss of life of many innocent civilians, was wrong and a
grave mistake by the Chinese leaders. The statement was broadcast over
live television to an estimated 300 million viewers in China.
Question. The Chinese government has engaged in a systematic and
massive campaign to repress religious minorities, and has implemented a
general repression of political dissent in China. Therefore, why did
the Administration not introduce and support a resolution to condemn
China's human rights atrocities at this year's meeting of the U.N.
Human Rights Commission?
Answer. The United States decided not to sponsor a resolution on
China at the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva this year because
of steps taken by china and in anticipation of further progress.
Among those steps China has taken are: (1) its decision to sign the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which codifies
the principles of the universal declaration on human rights; (2) its
signature of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural
Rights in the fall of 1997; (3) the release of a number of prominent
political prisoners whose cases we have highlighted to the Chinese
government; (4) its invitation to the U.N. Arbitrary Detention Working
Group which visited Chinese prisons, and its agreement in principle to
an exchange of U.S. and Chinese prison officials; (5) its agreement to
create a U.S.-China forum for discussion of human rights issues.
Our decision does not mean we accept that China's human rights
record is satisfactory; it is not. We will speak out publicly about
that record and advocate forcefully for human rights progress through
diplomatic channels as well.
Question. Was there a deal struck with the Chinese government that
the United States would not introduce the resolution in exchange for
the release of a select few political prisoners?
Answer. The U.S. decided not to sponsor a resolution for the
reasons noted above, i.e. because of steps China has taken and further
steps which we expect to be taken.
Question. The 1996 State Department Report on Human Rights
practices stated that ``No dissidents were known to be active at year's
end'' in China. In this country of over 1 billion people, would you say
that is still an accurate assessment of the level of political dissent
in China?
Answer. No. The State Department's 1997 China Human Rights Report
noted that a number of dissidents, academics, and former officials
issued public statements, letters or petitions challenging the
government's policies or advocating political reform. Generally
speaking, the government's response to dissent over the past year has
been somewhat more tolerant than in recent years.
Question. If the Administration has reservations about the Nickles
bill and the Wolf-Specter legislation on religious persecution, what
kind of legislation would you propose to deal with this problem?
Answer. The goal of any legislation addressing religious freedom
issues should be to facilitate U.S. Government efforts to promote
religious freedom and oppose violations of this right. It should serve
to reinforce our message to other governments about the importance of
the universal right to freedom of religion.
As currently drafted, the Nickles bill would be counterproductive
to our efforts to pursue religious freedom globally. By forcing the
Administration to identify, label, and sanction violators and gross
violators of religious freedom, the bill could undermine or even halt
our bilateral and multilateral human rights diplomacy.
We would like to work with the Congress to craft legislation that
would strengthen existing mechanisms to deal with the problem of
violations of religious freedom. We should avoid creating new or
parallel structures which could produce fragmented or ineffective
policy on this issue.
Question. What did the President mean when, in discussing a
religious persecution bill now pending before Congress, he stated such
legislation would place ``enormous pressure on whoever is in the
executive branch to fudge an evaluation of the facts of what is going
on?''
Answer. I would not presume to speak for President Clinton. That
said, I would be glad to point out some of our serious concerns with
the Wolf-Specter legislation.
The Wolf-Specter bill mandates a wide variety of automatic
sanctions against governments that either engage in religious
persecution or fail to combat societal persecution. The mechanics
appear designed to make sanctions more likely to be imposed, cumbersome
to waive and difficult to terminate. The stringent ``national
security'' standard of the waiver would appear to shut the door on any
considerations of US policy interests that do not rise to the level of
a direct threat to our national security (e.g. regional peacemaking and
stability, environmental protection, etc.).
The bill provides no flexibility to tailor our religious freedom
policies to differing circumstances in different countries. Influencing
policy would be sharply limited as a consequence. Affording the
President such limited discretion in the area of foreign affairs is
contrary to the national interest and constitutionally suspect.
In addition, the imposition of automatic sanctions would have
little effect on government-sponsored religious persecution in most
countries, but would make a productive human rights dialogue with
sanctioned governments far more difficult or even impossible. It runs
the risk of strengthening the hands of governments and extremists who
seek to incite religious intolerance. We fear reprisals by repressive
governments against religious persecution victims. The bill also runs
the risk of harming vital bilateral relations with key allies and
regional powers.
President Clinton and Secretary Albright have made it crystal clear
that the issue of religious freedom is a foreign policy priority. We
are committed to working in the most effective way to combat the
persecution now victimizing many people of faith around the world.
Question. Have you, or to your knowledge, the President, ever
misrepresented information to Congress concerning human rights
practices of other countries, either in a formal certification process
or in general testimony?
Answer. No. The Country Reports on Human Rights Practices has a
widespread and well deserved reputation for thoroughness, accuracy,
objectivity, and credibility. The descriptions of the human rights
situations in various countries that we provide in the Country
Reports--including the accounts of the practices of some of our closest
friends and allies--are comprehensive and hard hitting. My bureau, the
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, spends thousands of
person-hours every year closely reviewing and actively editing the
draft Country Reports submitted by our embassies, to correct any
inaccuracies or omissions and to ensure consistent compliance with our
standards. There is an increasing consensus as to the high quality and
thoroughness of the Country Reports.
Questions Submitted by Senator Biden
Question. Please comment on the definition of ``religious
persecution'' set forth in Section 3(9) of S. 1868. How does it compare
with law on the right to religious freedom?
Answer. Although international human rights law does not define
religious persecution per se, perhaps the closest term would be
``intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief,'' which
is defined in the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, as:
``any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on
religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect
nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise
of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis.''
The Nickles' bill definition of religious persecution as any
violation of the right to freedom of religion appears to be far
broader. While it is important to oppose any violation of this
universal human right, all such violations do not necessarily fall
within the definition above or constitute persecution of individuals
based on religion.
Violations of religious freedom generally refer to violations of
the right to freedom of religion as defined and protected in several
international instruments. The Charter of the United Nations calls on
the organization and its Member States to ``promote universal respect
for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all
without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.''
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, recognizes in Article
18, that ``everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion'' as a right stemming from the inherent dignity and equality
of every person. It also provides the individual with the ``freedom to
change his religion or belief'' and the ``freedom, either alone or in
community with others and in public or private, to manifest his
religion or belief in teachings, practice, worship, and observance.''
A number of widely adopted human rights treaties clearly obligate
States Parties to respect freedom of religion. The most widely
supported treaty protective of religious freedom is the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by a majority
of United Nations Member States, including the United States. The ICCPR
provides a detailed summary of the most basic guarantees for freedom of
religion in Article 18, which states:
(1) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought,
conscience, and religion. This right shall include freedom to
have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and
freedom, either individually or in community with others and in
public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in
worship, observance, practice, and teaching.
(2) No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair
his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his
choice.
(3) Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief may be
subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and
are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, morals
or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
(4) The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to
have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable,
legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of
their children in conformity with their own convictions.
The U.N. General Assembly's Declaration on the Elimination of All
Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief,
adopted by consensus in 1981 provides the most extensive description of
religious freedom in an international instrument. The Declaration is
not binding on States, but provides important guidelines that were
accepted by consensus and that reflect established principles of
customary international law. This declaration makes clear that
religious freedom includes: the right of each individual, alone and in
community with others, to worship and assemble; maintain religious
institutions; make, acquire and use necessary articles and materials;
write, issue and disseminate relevant publications; teach in suitable
places; solicit and receive voluntary contributions; train, appoint,
elect or designate leaders; observe days of rest and celebration; and
establish and maintain communications with others.
Question. It has been argued by some that the procedure
established in this bill may complicate US efforts to promote religious
freedom, instead of furthering those efforts. In your position, you
have had the opportunity to hear from some of the communities that
would be most affected by this legislation. What has been the reaction
of religious communities overseas to the legislative proposals now
before Congress? Do you believe this legislation adequately protects
those it seeks to help? Has the Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom
Abroad, or any of its members, taken a position on this legislation?
Answer. If we are to identify, label and sanction a country for its
treatment of a particular religious group, it could place that
religious group in greater jeopardy by extremists who would wrongly
cite them as the reason for punitive policies by the United States.
Inclusion in a report that labels a country as a violator, regardless
of the government's ability to control the violations, could play into
the hands of extremists seeking instability.
In addition, if we were to identify countries as sanctionable or to
actually sanction countries it would become difficult for Americans to
exercise their faith by proceeding overseas as missionaries to
establish churches in such countries.
The Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad has not taken a
position on the legislation. I would refer you to individual members of
the committee for either their personal views or those of the
organizations they represent.
Question. The definition for religious persecution used in the
bill appears to establish an indiscriminate standard for determining
whether a country ``engages in or tolerates'' religious persecution. It
would appear to set an extremely low threshold, such that dozens of
nations may be labeled as religious persecutors. I realize that you
cannot predict the outcome with certainty, but how many nations, in
your estimation, would be ``identified'' as a government which
``engages in or tolerates acts of religious persecution'' under Section
102(b)(1)(A)(I) of S. 1868?
Answer. When you have a definition that is a broad as the one in
this bill, which is basically any act in violation of religious
freedom, it could be read to include, for example, discriminatory
actions on behalf of one religion versus another. In my testimony I
mentioned the example of Austria, which actually does provide some
benefits to one religion and not to some others, even though nobody is
required to register and people are allowed to continue to exercise
their religion. It would involve publicly branding a large number of
countries as sanctionable through an annual reporting process.
Question. You testified that the bill mandates new reporting,
training, and other requirements without providing for additional
resources. Please provide a cost estimate of the new requirements in
the bill. How many additional staff positions, if any, would be
required to fulfill these requirements?
Answer. We are very concerned about the burden that additional
reporting requirements would place on the department, in a time of
diminishing resources. Speaking for my own bureau, I can tell you that
additional unfunded mandates require diversions of resources from what
we are doing in other areas to promote human rights.
To complete the reports required in this legislation would require
a dedicated full-time reporting staff. We believe it would take twelve
well-trained officers and two secretaries, plus new equipment. My
bureau estimates the cost in excess of a million dollars.
Question. In your experience as head of the Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor, what methods have you found to be the most
effective in promoting respect for human rights standards?
Answer. It's difficult to answer this question simply, since the
circumstances in each country are different.
In most cases, the first and most effective step to promoting
greater respect for human rights in a country is to have objective
reliable information about the true situation in that country. I
believe that our Country Reports on Human Rights practices is an
important tool in that respect.
Technical assistance can also play an important role. In countries
that have embarked on the difficult process of political reform, this
can be one of the most effective methods. By supporting the efforts of
NGO's or other organizations that provide guidance on election issues,
training for judges and defenders, or assistance to indigenous human
rights groups, we can have a significant impact. Even in countries in
which the government is opposed to change, the assistance that the US
government and international organizations provide to support civil
society programs--for example, groups to protect the interests of women
or children in the workplace or to promote environmental issues--can
lay the foundation for the development of more transparent and
accountable government, which can be a first step toward greater
respect for human rights.
We also have an array of bilateral and multilateral diplomatic
measures to use. We rely first on the ability of our Embassies to
influence the views and decisions of host country governments.
Sometimes that is best done in quiet approaches to officials, and
sometimes in a more direct and open manner, through press statements or
formal demarches. In some cases, we may find it effective to warn a
country that bilateral assistance decisions will be affected by its
human rights record. While the situation differs from country to
country, some regimes are willing to forego US foreign assistance in
order to repress political movements that could endanger their
supremacy. This is especially true if other donors do not join with us
in reducing or ending assistance.
Finally, I would address the issue of sanctions. Sanctions should
remain in our arsenal of potential measures. We have used bilateral
sanctions recently, for example, in the case of Burma and of Sudan, in
response to human rights abuses in both countries. In Nigeria, we have
applied a visa ban which prevents travel to the US of Nigerian
officials. We should be aware, however, that economic sanctions are
most effective when they are multilateral, rather than bilateral.
Questions Submitted by Senator Feingold
Question. For many years, the State Department has produced an
annual report on the state of human rights around the world, with
detailed profiles on each country. These reports include a discussion
of religious persecution. How does the State Department define
religious persecution? What type of information is included in the
report? How does the State Department monitor religious freedom during
the year? Can you make any generalizations about the state of religious
freedom around the world? Do you think the current level of reporting
on religious freedom is sufficient? Why or why not? In what ways might
it be improved?
Answer. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for the
right of all persons to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
This right includes freedom to change one's religion or belief, and
freedom--either alone or in community with others, and either in public
or private--to manifest one's religion or belief in teaching, practice,
worship, and observance. The actions of governments that violate these
rights and persecute persons because of their religion or belief, are
detailed in the Department of State's Annual Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices, which provide a description of the situation
regarding religious freedom in each country covered. The country
reports address the question of whether or not a country's constitution
or other basic law provides for the right to practice the religion of
one's choice, and if so, whether the government respects and enforces
that right in practice. The country reports note the existence of an
official state religion, or an otherwise dominant religion, and whether
or not that adversely affects religious freedom for others.
In order to determine whether religious persecution exists, the
country reports analyze myriad factors in each country. For example,
the department of state considers the existence of various types of
restrictions on religious freedom such as whether a government bans or
discourages specific religions or religious factions. The country
reports distinguish between the treatment of different subgroups within
particular religions, e.g., members of Christian or Muslim subgroups
who face discrimination or persecution, whereas other members of these
religions do not.
The Country Reports also describe the many ways in which
governments restrict religious freedom. For example, whether a
government restricts organized religions in establishing places of
worship and training numbers of clergy adequate to serve believers;
whether a government requires religious instruction in public schools
(and if so, whether it is limited to instruction in a state or
otherwise dominant religion); whether a government requires that
religious groups be licensed, and if so, what controls it imposes;
whether a government restricts religious publishing (including
publications in languages such as Latin, Hebrew, and Arabic, which have
religious significance); and whether a government prohibits links with
co-religionists in other countries, or with a supranational hierarchy
(such as the Vatican). The Country Reports also examine whether a
government prohibits religious travel, such as the Hajj; whether a
government designates religion on passports or national identity
documents; whether a government prohibits or discourages conversion to
minority religions; whether a government persecutes converts to
minority religions; and whether a government forbids missionaries from
entering the country or restricts their activities (e.g.,
proselytizing).
The Country Reports also cover problems of societal discrimination
and violence against members of religious minorities. The reports cover
religiously motivated violence by sects, private groups, or
individuals, and sectarian rioting and/or violence. They include
instances of discrimination/harassment by members of one sect of a
religion against those who belong to another sect. The reports also
cover societal or governmental discrimination against members of
religious minorities with respect to employment, education, housing,
and health services, etc.
Department of State officers, both in Washington and overseas,
monitor religious persecution on a year-round basis. They maintain
contacts with government officials, nongovernmental organizations, and
leaders and members of numerous religious denominations. In 1993 the
secretary of state instructed all embassies to establish inter-agency
committees on human rights. In recent years the department of state has
made additional efforts to aggressively pursue issues of religious
freedom in the field. In December 1996, the Department alerted all U.S.
diplomatic missions to the establishment of the Secretary of State's
Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad, underscored the
importance of religious freedom as one of our worldwide human rights
objectives, and urged increased reporting on problems in the area of
religious freedom posts were asked to give special attention in their
reporting to specifying the religions or denominations that are targets
of discrimination and persecution. In 1997 U.S. missions abroad were
again instructed to give careful attention to issues of religious
freedom, to increase their reporting, and to focus also on treatment of
nontraditional religions and sects. As a result of these instructions
there has been an increase in the reporting from posts on issues of
religious freedom and religious persecution.
In general, the state of religious freedom around the world is
decidedly mixed. As I noted in my statement before the committee, there
are numerous instances of violations of religious freedom, including
discrimination, persecution, and legislative restrictions.
I believe that the current level of reporting on religious freedom
is both extensive and sufficient. The Annual Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices is widely viewed as an objective, thorough, and
credible summary of the human rights practices of over 190 countries.
In the last few years we have increased our efforts to cover religious
persecution in even greater detail than before in the annual reports,
and we do not believe that an additional reporting requirement is
really necessary. Preparation of the Country Reports requires the
efforts of hundreds of department officers, both in Washington and at
our embassies and consulates overseas. We are very concerned about the
burden that additional reporting requirements would place on the
Department, in a time of diminishing resources.
Question. The Nickles bill would establish a US Commission on
Religious Freedom. What, in your view, would be the difference in
mandate of such a commission and the already-established Advisory
Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad? Can you briefly explain the pros
and cons of each, from your perspective?
Answer. In December 1996, the Clinton Administration established
the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom (AC) as a
demonstration of commitment to address issues of religious tolerance
through new and creative means. The Advisory Committee convenes large
public meetings where they receive statements from experts and other
members of the public, and it holds small working group sessions to
elaborate a public report for the Secretary of State and the President.
Their work involves discussions with a broad range of interested
parties: religious communities, congressional offices, academic
institutions, human rights organizations, business corporations, and
labor groups, as well as various sectors of the US Government, such as
State, DOD, INS, NFATC, USIA, USAID, and Commerce. Their primary
function is to advise the U.S. Government on ways of enhancing U.S.
foreign policy to oppose violations of religious freedom--including
persecution, to facilitate conflict resolution and reconciliation, and
to promote religious freedom.
There are several differences between the current Advisory
Committee and the Commission on International Religious Persecution
proposed in the Nickles bill. The Nickles Commission would consist of
an extremely limited membership and would risk being unrepresentative,
unlike the membership of the Advisory Committee. The current Advisory
Committee consists of twenty persons who are religious leaders
representing millions of Americans of different faiths and scholars who
have dedicated their professional lives to focus on religion and human
rights. The diversity conveys a strong message around the world that,
despite theological differences, individuals of every faith can stand
united in pursuit of freedom of religion for all.
The participation of a broad variety of leaders from among the rich
diversity of faiths in America and worldwide has also been extremely
helpful in addressing sensitive incidents of religious persecution
around the world. When the Russian Duma moved to restrict religious
practice in Russia, for example, Father Leonid Kishkovsky, an Advisory
Committee member, was extremely helpful in facilitating dialogue with
the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church. Members of our Advisory
Committee representing different branches of Islam also helped
reinforce our communications with the Saudi Government regarding the
importance of religious freedom. And several members of our Advisory
Committee representing Evangelical, other Protestant, and Catholic
communities, have been instrumental in establishing dialogue with
vulnerable communities of faith in various countries. Advisory
Committee members of different faiths have intervened directly on
behalf of victims of persecution and led important inter-faith
initiatives for conflict resolution.
We are also concerned by an imbalance in the process for appointing
members to the Commission. Under the Nickles bill, the Congress would
select twice as many members as those selected by the Administration.
We believe that Congress should select half the membership and that the
Administration select the other half. There should also be a process
for coordinating the selection of members to help ensure that the final
make-up of the Commission be fair and balanced, representative of the
many religious traditions in America.
The goal of the Commission should be to facilitate U.S. Government
efforts to promote religious freedom and oppose violations of this
right. It should serve to reinforce our message to other governments
about the importance of the universal right to freedom of religion. We
would urge that the Commission's name reflect this goal and be the
Commission on International Religious Freedom.
The Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad delivered an
Interim Report to the Secretary of State and the President in January
1998. The Secretary of State has already moved to implement appropriate
recommendations and the President has distributed the report to all
U.S. Government agencies and urged careful consideration and
implementation of the recommendations as appropriate. The Nickles bill
should also clarify the role of the Commission as advisory. The
responsibility for determining and implementing U.S. foreign policy
properly lies with the Administration and the Congress.
Question. The issue of religious freedom is addressed in several
important treaties. These include: the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948; the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); and the
UN General Assembly's Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion and Belief. With
respect to these treaties, I was struck by a section in the January 23,
1998 Interim Report of the Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom
Abroad, which you chair. The section reads:
The global nature of this issue is illustrated by the very
fact that religious freedom is dealt with in a number of
international treaties and covenants. As such, members of the
international community cannot dismiss valid criticism of
actions and policies that contravene these international
instruments as `interference in a country's internal affairs.'
The universal nature of the issue and the manner in which it
has been addressed by the international community essentially
define violations of religious freedom and other human rights
as concerns of the world community as a whole. The denial of
religious freedom to anyone is, therefore, a matter of concern
for all and an issue that should be raised in international
fora and in the course of normal diplomatic contact . . .
Can you elaborate on the assertion that states essentially have a
``right'' to raise issues concerning religious freedom with other
states? From this perspective, is there a difference between the
treatment of religious freedom and that of other human rights?
Answer. There is no question that states have a right to raise the
issue of human rights, including religious freedom, both bilaterally
and in international fora. This right flows directly from the
international treaties and covenants that protect human rights and
religious freedom. Religious freedom is not only an American value, it
is also a universally recognized human right. By adhering to
international human rights instruments, such as the Universal
Declaration and the ICCPR, states have assumed the obligation to
protect all human rights. Therefore there should be no difference
between treatment of religious freedom and other human rights. In that
regard, the President and Secretary Albright have made it clear that
advancing religious freedom is a foreign policy priority of the United
States. All U.S. diplomatic posts have been instructed to place greater
emphasis to religious freedom both in reporting and in advocacy with
foreign governments. In addition, the U.S. has worked to promote
religious freedom in multilateral fora, such as the UN Human Rights
Commission.
Question. To what extent is the issue of religious freedom
discussed in the context of the UN Commission on Human Rights? What has
been the US position in this regard?
Answer. Religious freedom is a core concern of the UN Commission on
Human Rights, which addresses the issue in a variety of ways. In 1986,
for example, the Commission, with strong backing by the U.S., created
the position of Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, whose
mandate is to examine incidents and governmental actions in all parts
of the world that are inconsistent with the Declaration on the
Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance Based on Religion or Belief
(adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1981), and to recommend remedial
measures. The current rapporteur has visited numerous countries,
including China, Iran, Pakistan, Greece and the Sudan. He visited the
U.S. earlier this year.
The Commission also addresses religious freedom through a series of
thematic resolutions. In 1998 these included resolutions on
Implementation of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion and Belief; on
Freedom of Expression and Opinion; on Tolerance and Pluralism as
Indivisible Elements in the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights;
and on Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic Religious and
Linguistic Minorities. The U.S. took a leading role in negotiating the
texts and co-sponsored these resolutions, all of which were adopted by
consensus at the Commission. Furthermore, we joined consensus on an
omnibus resolution on racism, which, among other things, urged
governments to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary
Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related
Intolerance, whose mandate allows him to investigate discrimination and
intolerance worldwide, including anti-Semitism.
In addition, country-specific resolutions, as appropriate, condemn
religious intolerance. For instance, at this year's Commission the U.S.
once again introduced a resolution on the Sudan, which condemned that
country for a number of serious human rights abuses, including denial
of the freedom of religion. The resolution passed by a wide margin. We
also supported resolutions condemning human rights abuses, including
religious persecution, in other countries, such as Iran, Iraq, Burma
and Afghanistan.
Question. Are there examples of countries in which persecution
based on religious belief is more prevalent or egregious than
persecution based on the denial of other human rights? If so, where?
Are there places where the opposite is true, i.e., where freedom of
religion is accepted or tolerated, while other civil liberties are not?
Answer. In general, countries that have constitutional safeguards
for the civil liberties of their citizens, and an independent
judiciary, do a good job of defending the religious freedom of their
citizens as well. There are some countries which have an array of human
rights problems but do not, on the whole, have problems with religious
freedom. Cambodia is one example; Peru is another. This situation most
often arises when most of the population share the same faith. In
Cambodia, for instance, there are ethnic tensions between native Khmers
and Vietnamese residents, and political differences between parties and
factions, but almost all citizens of the country are Buddhist, and
there have not been reports of interference with the religious
practices of the few non-Buddhists there. In a number of countries,
there are problems suffered by certain religious minorities despite a
generally acceptable record of respect for human rights. For example,
Johovah's Witnesses face restrictions in many countries, including
several in Europe.
Question. In an effort to integrate policies that promote religious
freedom, the January 23 Advisory Commission Interim Report recommends
that the Secretary of State should create a high-level position and
possibly a new office to focus on religious freedom. Do you think this
is necessary? How would such a person contribute to the existing work
that is already conducted by your bureau on this topic? Do you support
the provision in the Nickles bill that would establish an Office of
International Religious Freedom to be headed by an Ambassador-at-Large
who would be subject to Senate confirmation? Why or why not?
Answer. In June 1998, the President announced the appointment of a
new Senior Advisor for International Religious Freedom, Dr. Robert
Seiple. Secretary Albright created the position which will be located
in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. The Senior Advisor
will be responsible for developing policies that promote religious
freedom and facilitate conflict resolution around the world by
coordinating an interagency approach to integrate religious freedom
fully in U.S. foreign policy. He will also facilitate the work of the
Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad.
The title of Ambassador-at-Large is generally used for permanent
temporary assignments and would be inappropriate for this position.
Question. The Advisory Commission Interim Report makes several
other recommendations regarding State Department action. With the
acknowledgment that this report was released just a few months ago,
please comment on the extent to which the following recommendations
have fed into State Department processes and/or whether plans are being
considered to implement them:
religious freedom concerns should be incorporated into all
appropriate high-level meetings and visits;
embassies should raise routinely cases of imprisoned
religious believers and other individual cases where religious
freedom is violated;
the State Department and other government agencies should
pay special attention to the status of religious freedom when
considering arms sales or military assistance, or economic aid;
foreign affairs officers should receive special human rights
training.
To what extent, if at all, would such action imply that the issue of
religious freedom is being given greater emphasis than other civil
liberties in terms of Department activities?
Answer. The Clinton Administration has placed unprecedented
emphasis on supporting religious freedom worldwide and has worked to
make this concern a central element of U.S. foreign policy. The
President and the Secretary of State have raised this issue with
leaders from China to the Middle East and have made it clear to U.S.
Government officers serving in every corner of the world that religious
freedom is a foreign policy priority. In addition, this message was
emphasized by the establishment of the Advisory Committee on Religious
Freedom Abroad and through its activities, which have included the
participation of a full range of U.S. Government officials, ranging
from the President to desk officers.
In the last two years, Secretary Albright has sent a series of
cables to U.S. posts throughout the world instructing our embassies to
step-up their advocacy and reporting on this issue. The recommendations
in the Advisory Committee's Interim Report reinforced this message and
offered suggestions for enhancing these actions.
The issue of religious freedom is squarely on the U.S. agenda with
foreign leaders throughout the world. During his recent trip to China,
for example, the President raised the issue in his private and public
meetings, and I had a separate meeting with the Director of the Chinese
Bureau of Religious Affairs. Our Ambassadors are intervening more
frequently with host government around the world to raise the issue and
seek the resolution of cases of religious persecution. Reporting on
this issue has become more routine and detailed.
The Administration has made it clear that the promotion of human
rights, and specifically religious freedom, is a central part of U.S.
foreign policy--whether it involves economic, military, or other types
of assistance. The State Department and other government agencies
currently evaluate the impact of arms sales or military assistance on
human rights, which includes religious freedom. We are working with
U.S. corporations to promote the Model Business Principles established
by this Administration as a voluntary code of conduct to help companies
uphold and promote universal human rights standards, including
religious freedom. Whether State Department officers are responsible
for political, consular, trade, or military affairs, the National
Foreign Affairs Training Center provides them with basic training which
includes information on human rights. The Advisory Committee
recommendations are helpful, nonetheless, in identifying areas
involving religious freedom that can be further strengthened or
improved.
This year, we are facilitating meetings between Advisory Committee
members and additional U.S. agencies, including the National Security
Council, the Department of Defense, the National Foreign Affairs
Training Center, as well as nongovernmental and religious groups
focused on promoting U.S. policy to advance religious freedom and other
human rights.
Religious freedom is a cherished human right for Americans. U.S.
policies are designed and intended to promote freedom of religion and
other human rights in Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We are
highlighting and pursuing the issue using the range of foreign policy
tools currently available to us.
__________
Hearing of May 12, 1998
Prepared Statements of Committee Members and Witnesses
Prepared Statement of Chairman Helms
Today's hearing is to assess the incredible, senseless injustice of
religious persecution abroad and to focus on legislation designed to
end this injustice.
Specifically, we will discuss S. 1868, the International Religious
Freedom Act of 1998, sponsored by Senators Nickles, Lieberman and
others. The Committee is honored to have the senior Senator from
Oklahoma, Senator Nickles and the junior Senator from Connecticut,
Senator Lieberman here to testify on behalf of their proposal.
I am a co-sponsor of this bill, and I am hopeful that it will
receive broad bipartisan support from this Committee and the Senate as
a whole.
The Committee will also hear today the Administration's perspective
on the state of religious freedom abroad, as well as what steps have
been taken to address this persistent human rights problem. Secretary
Shattuck, Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor,
will discuss with us the Administration's position on the International
Religious Freedom Act.
This Committee has led several historic steps taken by the Senate
in recent days to advance U.S. foreign policy interests--including
passage of a far-reaching State Department reorganization and U.N.
reform package and the NATO Expansion Treaty.
Nevertheless, I believe it is obvious that neither initiative has
stirred the hearts and souls of the folks back home in churches and
synagogues to the same degree as learning about the growing persistent
torture and abuse of Christians, Jews and other religious minorities at
the hands of intolerant foreign governments.
Americans are eager to learn what their government is doing to ease
the suffering of their brothers and sisters overseas. They are not at
all satisfied with the answers they are getting. I am sure these
people--who are the backbone of this nation--have no quarrel with
establishing special committees, or issuing reports, or having high
level meetings with church groups. But Americans are looking for
concrete action from the State Department and the White House--and
certainly, people persecuted because of their faith in foreign lands
deserve more than kind words and gestures.
It is important to emphasize that this issue, and the growing
concern of Americans, have not fallen on deaf ears among Senators on
this Committee. I especially want to thank Senators Brownback and
Ashcroft for using their subcommittees to focus attention on this
issue.
Senator Brownback chaired two hearings to examine several of the
most egregious examples of religious persecution in the Near East.
Senator Ashcroft held a moving hearing on the tragic plight of
Christians in southern Sudan. (These innocent people have been brutally
tortured, sold into slavery and, in some instances, literally crucified
by the radical Islamic government simply because of their faith in
Christ.)
Senator Gordon Smith offered an amendment to the foreign aid bill
in response to a Russian law restricting religious freedom. Many other
Senators have also actively promoted the cause of religious freedom and
tolerance abroad.
The point is this: an increasing number of Members of Congress are
coming to the conclusion that we, as a people and a government, must do
more to advance the cause of religious freedom across the globe. That
is why the International Religious Freedom Act and other proposals are
moving through Congress.
This is not a partisan issue, and S. 1868 is not a partisan bill.
Furthermore, the bill does not favor one faith over another. Democrats
and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, are deeply concerned
regardless of whether the U.S. Government is the leader--in word and in
deed--in promoting religious tolerance abroad.
It is often pointed out--and I believe it with all my heart--that
no matter what laws are enacted, religious intolerance will never be
erased from the earth. I also believe that the prayers of millions of
Americans and other believers around the world will accomplish more
than any Act of Congress.
That does not mean we should not try. I hope the Administration
will join with us as we attempt to strengthen U.S. leadership in this
area.
Prepared Statement of Senator Nickles
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I greatly appreciate the
opportunity to speak to you today on the issue of religious persecution
and religious freedom. This is an issue that has troubled me for some
time. I greatly value the right I have to worship as I please. In fact,
I consider it to be one of the most precious rights I have.
Unfortunately, in far too many countries around the world religious
persecution is common place and in still more countries state laws and
policies restrict religious freedom.
For many years I have worked with my colleagues, Senator Helms,
Senator Lugar and Senator Nunn to help win the freedom of those around
the world who have suffered because of their religious beliefs. While
we have been successful on many occasions, sadly in some cases we have
not been successful. Most of this work was done quietly and behind the
scenes.
I should also mention, Mr. President, that in 1996,1 was honored to
sponsor a Senate resolution on religious persecution, which passed by
unanimous consent. In that resolution, the Senate made the strong
recommendation ``that the President expand and invigorate the United
States' international advocacy on behalf of persecuted Christians, and
initiate a thorough examination of all United States' policies that
affect persecuted Christians.''
Congressman Frank Wolf and Senator Arlen Specter have done
marvelous work during the past year in bringing this issue to the
attention of the public. Were it not for their work, I am certain that
we would not be having this hearing to discuss this issue. Therefore, I
want to publicly thank my friend in the House, Congressman Frank Wolf
for his marvelous efforts and of course our colleague and my friend in
the Senate Arlen Specter for his outstanding efforts as well.
Mr. Chairman, we are here to discuss the tragic reality that
literally millions of religious believers around the world live with
the terrifying prospect of persecution--of being tortured, arrested,
imprisoned, or even killed simply for their faith. Millions more around
the world are denied, by government policy, the ability to practice
their religion. I believe some hope can be found in the bill that
Senator Lieberman and I introduced, the International Religious Freedom
Act.
The International Religious Freedom Act will establish a process to
ensure that on an ongoing basis, the United States closely monitors
religious persecution worldwide. I want to briefly touch upon some of
the aspects of the International Religious Freedom Act that I believe
are important.
The Nickles bill is more comprehensive
International Religious Freedom Act uses a broad definition of
religious persecution. This definition ranges in scope from the most
egregious form of religious persecution imprisonment, torture or
death--to the most common--the inability of one to speak freely about
one's religion, or to change religion.
This is an important aspect of the bill. If the definition of
religious persecution were limited to only torture, imprisonment or
death, the International Religious Freedom Act would only cover about a
dozen countries, and would not include 90 to 95 percent of the
religious persecution that takes place in the world--the ability to
practice one's religion.
An example of the importance of this distinction is the recently
passed law in Russia that would put restrictions on the activities of
churches in Russia that have not been there for 15 years or more.
Despite the fact that more than 90 Senators voted to take action
against the Russian government for passing this law, Russia would
escape any action if we limited it to only the most sever type of
persecution. Clearly under our bill Russia would be held accountable
for its actions.
The Nickles bill is more effective and flexible
Under the provisions of the International Religious Freedom Act,
the President is required to take action against those countries that
engage in religious persecution, although the President is given the
discretion to calibrate that action in response to each country's
particular situation. This is an important feature of the bill. Instead
of a bill that states if X happens then the government must do Y, the
bill allows the President to decide what is the appropriate action to
take for that country.
In essence, this allows the President to weigh a variety of factors
such as strategic importance, the historical relationship between the
United States and that country and the severity of the religious
persecution in that country when determining an action, instead of a
one sanction fits all countries approach.
Let me explain why I believe this is important. Under the one
sanction fits all countries approach, if a country like Egypt were
cited as a country that engages in religious persecution, the President
would be required to take action. If the President is given only the
choice of cutting off all foreign aid or waiving that action, I think
we all know that the current President and probably any future
President would most likely choose to waive the sanctions rather than
cut off aid because of the nature of our relationship with Egypt.
But what kind of a message would this send to the world? A country
like Egypt would know that if it has a sensitive relationship with the
United States it can persecute people of faith with impunity because
the U.S. will waive the sanctions. On the other hand, those countries
that don't have a close relationship with the Untied States will see
the hypocrisy in our policy as it becomes the whipping boy for the
United States.
As I said, our bill allows the President to weigh a variety of
factors such as strategic importance, the historical relationship
between the United States and that country and the severity of the
religious persecution in that country when determining an action. In
the case of country like Egypt, instead of cutting off all foreign aid,
or waiving any action, the President can choose to limit a portion of
the U.S. assistance provided to Egypt. He can choose to withhold a
certain percentage of that assistance until the situation improves, and
if it doesn't more aid will be withheld next year.
I believe this flexibility also makes the International Religious
Freedom Act more effective. In our bill sensitive countries like Egypt
know that there is the possibility that it will loose some of its U.S.
assistance if it does not improve its track record, and so it probably
will. This contrasts greatly to a country that knows that because of
its close relationship with the United States the President will
probably waive any action. Thus, making a change in that country's
behavior less likely because nothing is at stake and so there is little
incentive to change its behavior.
This is also why I believe our approach is extremely effective. We
provide the President with a menu of options that makes it less likely
that he will waive action and more likely that he will take action.
We need to keep our eye on the goal. The goal of our bill is NOT to
punish countries, but to change behavior, and if it is more likely that
the President will take an action then it is more likely that behavior
will change. And that, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion should be the goal
of any legislation dealing with religious persecution--changing
behavior in other countries.
The Nickles bill provides for Congressional oversight
A feature of our bill that I really think is important is that our
bill allows for Congressional review on any action that the President
takes. Under our bill, if the President uses a waiver, or imposes a
sanction or a diplomatic measure that the Congress does not agree with,
then the Congress can pass a resolution of disapproval overturning the
President's action.
I think this is important because even if the Congress fails to
pass a resolution of disapproval there will be a public debate in the
Congress on the climate of religious freedom in the country upon which
the Congress is attempting to change the President's action. This
Congressional review also prevents the President from taking an action
and the book being closed until next year.
The Nickles bill seeks to promote religious freedom
The International Religious Freedom Act, also seeks to promote
religious freedom. The bill insists that U.S. foreign assistance should
place a priority on developing legal protections and respect for
religious freedom, by promoting exchanges and visits of religious
leaders in the U.S. and abroad, and by making one of the priorities of
our international broadcast programs the promotion of and respect for
religious freedom.
The bill is still a work in progress
I appreciate this opportunity to speak briefly about the bill. I do
want to say that it would be very presumptuous of Senator Lieberman and
I to think we have crafted a perfect bill. And in fact, the offices of
several Senators and several organizations that monitor what we do up
here on Capitol Hill have contacted my office to let us know that we
haven't. These offices, both on and off the Hill have suggested changes
and improvements. I can assure you all that we are seriously
considering the merits of the issues that have been raised and how to
best resolve those issues. In other words, the bill is still being
worked on, and, I believe, improved.
Having said that, I believe we have crafted a bill that has many
positive characteristics that deserve consideration before the Foreign
Relations Committee and the Senate as a whole. I firmly believe that
this bill can be an effective tool that the United States can use to
bring about a change in the world when it comes to religious freedom.
In short, Mr. President, this bill seeks to ensure that the United
States Government aggressively monitors religious oppression around the
world and takes decisive action against those regimes engaged in
persecution, all while maintaining the integrity and credibility of the
United States' foreign policy system.
Mr. Chairman, what was a mere resolution in 1996, I hope to see
become a reality in 1998. While we acted then with words, I hope we can
act now with deeds with the International Religious Freedom Act.
__________
Prepared Statement of Senator Lieberman
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is a great honor to
speak before you today. I regard this occasion with mixed emotions. It
is solemn, because our presence here today is prompted by the horror--
there is no other word for it--of the fact that around the world, as we
speak, millions of religious believers are living under the unrelenting
fear of imprisonment, torture, abuse, or even death, simply for their
faith in God. Yet this occasion is hopeful, because I believe the
legislation before you today--the International Religious Freedom Act--
has the potential to substantially galvanize our government to take
responsible, effective action against such oppression.
There are those who would say that we have no obligation, even no
right to take a stand against religious persecution in foreign
countries. I disagree. We read in the prophet Isaiah: ``Stop doing
wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed.''
Silence and disinterest are not acceptable options. We in America bear
a special obligation in this regard because our nation was founded by
men and women seeking refuge from oppression for their religious faith.
Let us not forget the opening words of faith in our own Declaration of
Independence that all men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable
rights. Let us not overlook the fact that our Bill of Rights enshrines
religious freedom as the First Freedom.
Whether we embrace it enthusiastically or admit it reluctantly, the
fact remains that much of the rest of the world looks to our nation for
moral leadership. Paul Wolfowitz has said that the fundamental goal of
American foreign policy today is to make sure that the 21st century is
not a repeat of the 20th Century. Two world wars, a cold war, and the
brutal slaughter and repression of millions of people by totalitarian
regimes, have made the last 100 years the bloodiest in the history of
mankind. A frightening number of those victims have been perversely
singled out because of their faith. This cannot be allowed to continue,
but if we choose to ignore the oppression, who will be responsible for
the results?
Mr. Chairman, this problem is real and urgent and it is not limited
to any particular faith nor any particular region. Allow me to cite
some of the areas of concern.
Russia: Last summer Russia passed one of the most
restrictive laws since the Soviet era, effectively shutting
down a tremendous number of independent churches and religious
organizations, and severely restricting the religious freedoms
of its citizens.
Pakistan: The ``blasphemy laws,'' which make any derogatory
remark about the prophet Mohammed a capital offense, have been
used to terrorize Pakistan's minority faiths, particularly
Christians. Just two weeks ago, a Pakistani Christian named
Ayub Masih received a death sentence under this law on
suspicious, and unproven, charges, leading to the subsequent
and tragic death last week of Bishop John Joseph.
China: The nation with the world's largest total population
also has the dishonorable distinction of having the world's
largest population of persons imprisoned for their religious
faith. Catholics, Protestants, Muslims in the north, and
Tibetan Buddhists all suffer under China's totalitarian
controls on religion.
Vietnam: Unfortunately, the recent market reforms in this
communist nation have not been accompanied by reforms in
personal freedoms. Buddhist monks, Catholic priests,
Evangelical pastors, and lay believers of several faiths suffer
under the constant threat of arrest, beatings, and
imprisonment.
Egypt: Besides severely restrictive policies against church
construction and repair, Egypt has been home in recent years to
serious violence against Christians. Islamic militants have
murdered Coptic Christians. According to State Department
reports, Government security forces have been charged with
arresting and torturing Egyptian citizens who made the decision
to convert from Islam to Christianity.
Mr. Chairman, the International Religious Freedom Act offers real
solutions to the real problem of discrimination and persecution based
on religion. Its balanced, comprehensive approach guarantees that our
government will take the most effective action against religious
oppression and stand up for the rights of the faithful, and, therefore,
be true to our unique founding ideals.
The Act begins with a clear and comprehensive definition of
religious persecution, encompassing any violations of the
internationally recognized norms of religious freedom. This includes
both acts of overt violence as well as onerous policy restrictions on
the faithful. In other words, we are talking about basic, fundamental
human rights standards. Paul Marshall's seminal work Their Blood Cries
Out, which has served as a manifesto for the recent movement against
religious persecution, defines ``religious persecution'' as ``in
general, the denial of any of the rights of religious freedom'' (p.
248). I should note, Mr. Chairman, that this broad definition of
religious persecution is premised on the hard lessons of history.
Violent reigns of terror have usually begun with less violent but
nonetheless insidious oppression. The seeds of Hitler's genocidal death
camps in the late 1930s and 40s were planted in the early 1930s, when
Nazi policies restricted and stigmatized the Jewish people. We must not
wait until it is too late. We must excise the roots of religious
persecution before they have a chance to spread.
The first, and in many ways most difficult task in combating
religious persecution is to report the facts. The light of truth-
telling must expose these dark deeds. Only when we know can we then
act. Over and over again, as many voices have been raised to draw
attention to religious persecution, the response we have heard from an
awakened public has not been ``I don't care,'' but rather, ``I didn't
know.'' When the facts of religious persecution are told, they speak
for themselves, and action will follow.
The International Religious Freedom Act contains many provisions to
ensure that these facts come to light. U.S. Embassies are tasked with
maintaining communication with religious communities and NGOs in order
to make sure that their stories are heard. The Act sets consistent,
high reporting standards for the ``freedom of religion'' sections in
the State Department Country Human Rights Reports. More importantly,
this bill establishes an Annual State Department Report on Religious
Persecution, which will highlight and describe those countries where
persecution is of particular concern. Finally, it tasks the particular
country desks with maintaining lists of persons known to be imprisoned
for their faith and publicizing policies that restrict religious
freedom. These prisoner lists and issue briefs are to be made available
to Executive branch or Congressional leaders who will be meeting with
foreign dignitaries, to ensure that particular religious persecution
concerns are effectively and consistently communicated.
Mere reporting, however, is not enough. The International Religious
Freedom Act establishes an annual mechanism to guarantee that the
United States takes effective, responsible action against every country
cited in the Annual Report on Religious Persecution. By offering the
President a creative ``menu'' of options, including an array of both
diplomatic and economic measures, this bill provides for the most
effective response possible. Accordingly, this bill does not constrain
our foreign policy to a ``one size fits all'' remedy, but rather
presents a sophisticated, balanced, and comprehensive set of options.
Allow me to note here my personal appreciation for the hard work
put in on this important problem by my esteemed colleague Senator Arlen
Specter, Congressman Frank Wolf, Mr. Michael Horowitz and many others
who have worked tirelessly, first to inform the rest of us and then to
lead the fight against the scourge of religious persecution. The Wolf/
Specter legislation is a pioneer in this historic awakening of a common
cause that we share.
The nature of religious persecution varies tremendously from
country to country. Likewise, the status of the relationships between
these countries and the United States varies tremendously. By requiring
action but allowing significant latitude in choosing the response, The
International Religious Freedom Act gives the President the mandate he
needs and the options he now lacks as the Chief Executive to lead the
battle against the wide array of religious persecution and
discrimination.
Consistent with its balanced approach, The Act provides
accountability and an independent voice. It establishes a Commission on
International Religious Liberty, to be comprised of experts in the
fields of religion, human rights, and international relations. The
Commission will enable our government to benefit from the collective
expertise of persons whose lives are dedicated to religious liberty.
The Commission's independence will also provide a safeguard against the
temptation to politicize what should be a non-political, moral crusade.
Mr. Chairman, the imposition of sanctions is not an end in itself.
Regimes which engage in religious persecution must be held accountable
and The Act contains strong measures in this regard. But we must not
overlook the possibilities of preventing oppression by the promotion of
religious freedom, and The Act contains several provisions to that end.
For example, USAID is instructed to include funding to encourage and
assist legal protections for religious freedom in restrictive
countries, and the international broadcasting and foreign exchange
programs funded by the United States will include attention to
religious freedom.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, The International Religious Freedom Act
provides tools to every arm of the United States foreign policy
apparatus to ensure that combating religious persecution is a top
priority. In a larger sense, I believe that this bill, and the movement
that sparked it, may herald a renewed vision and purpose for United
States foreign policy. Much has been said about the lack of focus in
our foreign policy following the end of the Cold War. That debate will
continue, as well it should. But it is my strong conviction that our
national interest includes a moral purpose. None is greater or more
American than protecting the freedom of the faithful. In standing for
the rights of believers around the world, we stand for the right, and
when America stands for the right, we are at our strongest!
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Dodd
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for holding this hearing today
on international religious persecution. I think that this is a very
important subject and one that deserves the attention of the Senate and
the Executive Branch.
For those of us in the United States who are blessed with religious
freedom, we take it for granted that we can worship according to our
own personal religious beliefs--and that we can do so openly and
without fear of punishment or sanction by our government.
Unfortunately, for far too many people in other parts of the world
this is not the case. Many individuals face discrimination, prison and
even physical abuse for simply wanting to worship God in the way they
believe best. This clearly should not happen. The United States and
other governments who have enshrined religious freedom as an important
and protected right must take steps to work to ensure that peoples
throughout the world are also accorded such a cherished right.
I know that a number of bills have been introduced in the House and
Senate on the subject of international religious persecution. Among
other things these bills seek to establish U.S. policy and procedures
for further religious freedom. They also provide for the imposition of
sanctions against those governments which continue to practice
religious persecution or tolerate such practice by others. I too would
like to see every government around the globe promote and protect the
internationally recognized human rights of its citizens, including the
right to religious freedom. I believe U.S. policy should have that as
its objective. However, I also believe that ultimately the Secretary of
State and the President are responsible for carrying out this policy
and they can only do so if we give them some measure of flexibility. It
isn't possible or practical for the Congress to legislate every detail
of how the administration should proceed in order to further respect
for human rights, including religious freedom. Moreover, I don't think
we want to suggest that other internationally recognized human rights
such as freedom of expression, freedom from torture, freedom from
sexual abuse, etc., are any less important or deserve less protection
than does freedom of religion.
Senators Nickles and Lieberman have introduced a bill that provides
some flexibility to the Executive Branch in carrying out the policies
articulated in the bill. I believe their approach is a step in the
right direction and I would hope we could work together with the
administration to further fine tune the legislation so that it can make
a useful contribution in furthering respect for religious freedom
throughout the world.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this
afternoon both about the Nickles/Lieberman bill, as well as about the
subject of religious persecution generally and U.S. policy initiatives
designed to address it.
__________
Prepared Statement of Assistant Secretary Shattuck
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I would like to thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the work
being done by the State Department to promote religious freedom around
the world and to present our perspective on S.1868, the ``International
Religious Freedom Act Of 1998.'' Mr. Chairman, under your leadership,
this Committee has worked diligently on human rights, including
religious freedom. The Administration has been privileged to work
closely with the Members of this Committee to address a wide variety of
concerns. We applaud your efforts. I look forward to working with you,
your colleagues on the Committee, and your staff in regard to the
legislation at hand.
Mr. Chairman, the promotion of religious freedom, both at home and
abroad,remains a high priority for this Administration. In their words
and actions, the president and the Secretary of State have demonstrated
to our friends and foes alike that advancing religious freedom is a
matter of the highest concern in our foreign policy. Throughout the
world, the United States upholds human rights, including the principle
that freedom of religion, conscience and belief is a universally-
recognized human right and fundamental freedom. As President Clinton
declared on Religious Freedom Day, January 16, 1998, ``We must continue
to proclaim the fundamental right of all peoples to believe and worship
according to their own conscience, to affirm their beliefs openly and
freely, and to practice their faith without fear of intimidation.''
Freedom of religion is a bedrock issue for the American people and
its government. Indeed, the United States in large part was founded by
people who fled religious persecution and intolerance. Their desire for
religious freedom prompted the establishment of many of the colonies,
where they wrote the principle into their laws and charters. As the
poet James Russell Lowell wrote, religious freedom was the seed that
produced democracy.
Our country's founders recognized the importance of religious
freedom.Thomas Jefferson called it ``the creed of our political faith
[and] the text of our civil instruction.'' He recognized the inherent
link between religious freedom and freedom of speech, assembly, and
association. That is why he and the other Founding Fathers insisted on
the prominent placement of freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights,
as the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Mr. Chairman, it would be a mistake to regard religious freedom as
a uniquely American value. It is a concept basic to every one of the
world's major belief systems. It also is an internationally-recognized
human right. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Covenant on Civil and political Rights recognize that all
citizens have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
This right is inherent in the dignity of every human being. No
government can legitimately deny it, no matter what the justification,
for it is universal, inalienable, and endowed by virtue of birth.
Unfortunately, however, there are some in the world today who
refuse to recognize this fundamental right and who discriminate
against, restrict, or even persecute those of other faiths. Whether
Christian, Muslim, Buddhist,Jew, Hindu, Baha'i, or of another creed,
believers around the world continue to suffer for their faith. Take,
for example Ayub Masih, a Christian from the village of Arifwala,
Pakistan. On April 27, Masih was sentenced to death for blasphemy. His
crime? A Muslim neighbor had accused him of making derogatory
statements against Islam. In spite of his denials, Masih is now
sentenced to die. Last Friday, both Karl Inderfurth, the Assistant
Secretary for South Asian Affairs, and I met with Pakistan's Ambassador
to deplore and condemn the imposition of a sentence of death on any
individual for the peaceful expression of his beliefs and to call upon
that Government to repeal their blasphemy law. We also expressed our
sorrow at the tragic death of Bishop John Joseph, who dedicated his
life to defending the rights of all religious minorities to worship
freely, and expressed deep concern over reports that Pakistani troops
had fired tear gas at mourners during the bishop's funeral procession.
Mr. Chairman, suppression of the right to religious freedom not
only is an intolerable invasion of an individual's human rights, it
also can lead to grave consequences for political and economic
stability. If people lack the freedom to practice their faith, it is
likely that other human rights will be restricted and that intolerance
and violence will be more prevalent. Lack of these rights also impedes
efforts to establish societies that promote liberty and
justice.Pakistan is not the only country where the United States has
concerns.
In Sudan, a bloody civil war fueled by a extremist regime's
intolerance of animists, Christians, and some Muslims has continued
unabated. Iran's religious minorities continue to experience
discrimination and persecution, particularly evangelical Christians and
Baha'is. Burma's persecution of the Rohingya Muslim minority resulted
in refugees fleeing to Bangladesh. In the aftermath of the Pope's visit
to Cuba, the government has relaxed the harshest aspects of its
mistreatment of the Catholic Church, but it still maintains extensive
restrictions on religious activities. The Church has little or no
access to the media, and cannot publish religious materials, sponsor
social events, or establish schools.
In China unofficial religious groups, including Protestant and
Catholic groups,have experienced varying degrees of repression. In some
areas, house and unofficial churches worship without official
interference. In other areas,religious believers have been subjected to
tight restrictions and harassment.Citizens worshipping in officially
sanctioned churches, mosques, and temples report little or no day-to-
day interference by the government. In Xinjiang and Tibet, tight
controls on religion have continued and, in some cases, intensified.
Evidence of fear and suspicion of minority religions has grown in
Europe, in both former Communist countries and those with long
traditions of democracy and tolerance. Motivated in part by fear of
deadly movements such as Solar Temple and Aum Shinri-kyo, some European
countries have sought to restrict freedoms for a disparate group of
minority faiths, lumping them all together as ``cults,'' and compiling
lists for closer observation.
This trend also has been particularly strong in countries where the
Orthodox Church has lobbied the government to restrict minority
religions. In Russia, for example, a new restrictive and potentially
discriminatory religion law could affect minority religions, including
some offshoot Orthodox groups. Some Religious communities may be forced
to wait up to fifteen years before attaining full legal status, which
is a requirement for owning property,publishing literature, inviting
foreign guests, operating schools, and conducting charitable
activities. The law also erects barriers against foreign
missionaries.Already, however, some local officials have used the new
law on numerous occasions to pressure unpopular religions in their
districts. The President has raised our concerns about this new law
with President Yeltsin, and will submit a report to Congress on the
issue later this month.
Mr. Chairman, this Administration is committed to confronting
violations of religious freedom, including religious intolerance and
discrimination, no matter where they may occur around the world. I
would like to outline some of the steps we have taken to implement this
commitment.
President Clinton and Secretary Albright have made it clear to all
United States agencies and embassies to treat this issue as a priority
and have insisted that it be integrated into the core of our foreign
policy. President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and Secretary Albright
have met with eminent religious leaders such as the Dalai Lama and Pope
John Paul II. U.S.Government officials at every level have raised
specific cases of violations religious freedom in countless meetings
with foreign leaders and their representatives.
During our recent trip to China, Secretary Albright raised the
issue of religious freedom. I met with Ye Xiaowen, director of the
Chinese Religious Affairs Bureau, to raise a number of concerns. Just
this last Saturday, we received word that two of the individuals whose
cases we raised, Bishop Zeng Jingmu and Father Lu Gengyou, have been
released from jail. This is an important step, but we are concerned
that Bishop Zeng has been placed under house arrest and that these
cases are only two among many. We expect the government of China to
respect the rights of its citizens to express their faith freely and to
release all those held for the peaceful expression of their religious
or political beliefs.
Permit me to relate another example. Most of you know I have
traveled to turkey on a number of occasions in my capacity as Assistant
Secretary. On Several of those trips, I visited southeastern Turkey and
met with metropolitan Samuel Aktas of the Syriac Orthodox Church.
Before my February trip, I learned that the Governor of Mardin recently
had suspended permission for the Church to provide religion and
language classes. This Decision came on the heels of a dispute over the
renovation of the Church's fourth-century Dayrul Umar Monastery,
leading to a police order to halt work.
I met first with the Governor and then the Metropolitan, and
brought the two of them together. In my meeting with the Governor, I
secured from him a promise to extend written authorization for religion
and language classes to resume at Church facilities. The Governor also
committed himself to forging a solution to the problem of church
renovations. I am happy to report that the governor has kept his word,
authorizing religion and language classes to resume. In addition,
Turkish authorities have agreed to permit Church officials to use their
own architect to prepare the required renovation plan. We are hopeful
the actual renovation work will begin shortly.
Although the challenges faced by religious groups in other
countries are more complex and not so readily addressed, I believe this
case is a useful example of how this Administration has used diplomacy
to accomplish the objectives we share with regard to religious freedom.
Our diplomatic efforts have not been limited to personal diplomacy,
however.In a series of unprecedented worldwide cables, Secretary
Albright has instructed all U.S. diplomatic posts to give greater
attention to religious freedom both in their reporting and in their
advocacy. The Secretary of State Has signaled to State Department
employees and foreign governments alike that the promotion and
protection of religious freedom is a key component of our human rights
policy. As a result, our embassies and diplomats all over the world
have intervened more aggressively on behalf of religious freedom.
In Saudi Arabia, for example, freedom of religion does not exist,
as the government prohibits the public practice of religions other than
Islam. The Secretary of State, Ambassador Wyche Fowler, and other
United States Officials have encouraged the Saudi Government at the
highest levels to make further progress on religious freedom. We note
as a positive development that defense Minister Sultan stated publicly
last fall that the Saudi Government Does not prohibit non-Muslim
worship in the home.
In Vietnam, Ambassador Pete Peterson, has been forceful in raising
religious freedom issues. Although religious observance is increasing
in Vietnam, the government continues to restrict severely some
religious practices, and to control organized religious activity. In
response, Ambassador Peterson has instructed his staff to establish
broad contacts with Catholic, Protestant and Buddhist groups throughout
society. Embassy officers have attended religious ceremonies and
visited churches and temples in Hanoi and the countryside. In Addition,
Ambassador Peterson has intervened on behalf of American citizens
penalized for importing religious materials and Vietnamese citizens
under arrest for the peaceful expression of their religious beliefs.
There are other examples as well. In Austria, the Embassy engaged
the foreign ministry on behalf of non-recognized religious groups that
had problems obtaining resident permits for foreign religious workers.
In response, the Austrian government adopted administrative procedures
that helped alleviate the problem. In Greece, Embassy staff traveled to
Crete to look into problems of a charismatic Christian group that the
government had not allowed to proselytize. The officer's visit resulted
in the government entering into a dialogue with the group. In Laos,
Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin intervened with high-level officials when a
group of Americans and Lao were arrested for holding a Bible-study
meeting in January. She emphasized the importance to the US of
upholding international standards on human rights, including
protections regarding religious freedom. All of the Americans and most
of the Lao were released. However, since several of the Lao will face
prison terms,the Embassy continues to push for their release.
The State Department also reports publicly on limitations to the
internationally-recognized right to religious freedom in our annual
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, which provides information
on 194countries and territories. The Country Reports contain specific
sections on religious freedom, which have been expanded significantly
by this administration to include greater detail on religious
intolerance and discrimination. We do not hesitate to use the Reports
to shine the light on violations of the right to religious freedom, no
matter where they occur. Our Reports state the facts clearly and
unequivocally, outlining U.S. concerns. Last year, we also issued a
report on ``U.S. Policies in Support of Religious Freedom: Focus on
Christians,'' which details recent U.S. Government actions taken on
behalf of persecuted Christians and followers of other faiths around
the world.I am submitting a copy of that report for the record.
The United States also employs targeted restrictions on countries,
including economic sanctions, trade limitations, and visa restrictions.
After Deputy Assistant Secretary Gare Smith traveled to Sudan last
summer to gather information on religious persecution, slavery, and
prospects for a peaceful end to the civil war, the President imposed
sweeping new economic sanctions against the Government of Sudan. The
sanctions deprive the Khartoum regime of the financial and material
benefits of U.S. trade and investment, including investment in Sudan's
petroleum sector.
The Secretary also has taken action to institutionalize our
commitment to religious freedom. One demonstration of this approach is
the Secretary's participation in the Advisory Committee on Religious
Freedom Abroad and her move to implement its recommendations. The
Advisory Committee, which was established in December 1996, is a
distinguished panel consisting of twenty religious leaders who
represent millions of Americans of all major faiths and denominations,
and scholars who have dedicated their professional lives to the study
of religious liberty and other human rights. The Committee, which I
chair and for which my staff provides support, is responsible for
advising the secretary of State and the President on the ways and means
of more comprehensively integrating the protection and promotion of
religious freedom abroad into our foreign policy.
In its first fourteen months, the Advisory Committee has heard the
testimony of experts, government officials and victims of religious
intolerance and discrimination. Committee members have discussed
concerns, presented diverse viewpoints, and learned much from one
another. They paid considerable attention to such issues as the
adequacy of existing refugee and asylum procedures; the training of
State Department and other U.S. personnel; the use of U.S. resources
devoted to social and cultural exchange, rule of law, and the promotion
of tolerance, civil society and respect for human rights; and
initiatives to support peace and reconciliation in areas of conflict.
On January 23, the Committee submitted its Interim Report and
recommendations to Secretary Albright and President Clinton, a copy of
which I am submitting for the record. This report is of great
significance. It Supports the expansion of our work as a government in
promoting and defending religious freedom. It recognizes the important
and considerable efforts we have undertaken and provides specific
recommendations for additional government action. It represents the
consensus of a wide array of religious groups from American society on
how best to promote religious freedom. As we go forward in formulating
strategies to address the many foreign policy and human rights
challenges involving religious freedom, the Committee's report and its
forthcoming work should play an important role in helping us understand
the religious dimension of these problems and in engaging religious
communities and leaders to address them.
The Advisory Committee's report made a wide variety of practical
recommendations on U.S. policy. Committee members focused on reviewing
current U.S. Government efforts and finding ways to make them more
effective. They also sought to identify new approaches through which
the united States can advance religious freedom.
The Secretary has accepted the Advisory Committee's recommendation
to establish a senior-level position in the Department of State to
coordinate,integrate and implement policies that institutionalize the
promotion of religious freedom into the U.S. Government's foreign
policy apparatus. This Official, who will report to me, will be
responsible for developing an integrated,interagency strategy. This
will be a senior position at the level of a Deputy Assistant Secretary.
We anticipate being able to announce the Secretary's choice for this
position in the very near future, and will consult with you and other
Members of Congress on this positive decision.
In the meantime, the Advisory Committee is continuing its work,
with the assistance of my staff, with the purpose of offering more
detailed recommendations at the end of the year. Their focus this year
is on integration of religious freedom concerns into U.S. assistance
and training programs; the use of specific foreign policy tools to
promote religious freedom; refugee and asylum procedures; and dialogue
with religious NGOs, businesses and other communities.
We also have used multilateral fora to speak forcefully and shape
international policy in support of religious freedom and in opposition
to violations. At Conferences of the Organization on Security and
Cooperation in Europe, we have stepped up our advocacy for religious
freedom, delivering public statements that challenge governments in the
Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union to uphold
international standards and confronting them on cases of concern. At
the United Nations Commission on Human Rights,the United States led the
successful effort to create a Special Rapporteur on religious
Intolerance. We also raised awareness of religious freedom and
spotlighted religious intolerance and discrimination in a number of
countries.
Through our programs, the U.S. Government is sponsoring and funding
programs to promote religious liberty and tolerance. For example, the
United States Information Agency has established a special
International Visitors Program to bring clerics, journalists,
politicians and academics to the United States for discussions on
``Religion in America.'' Participants meet with American Christian,
Muslim, Jewish and ecumenical groups to discuss the idea of religious
tolerance and its importance in American life.
We also broadcast our message of religious freedom throughout the
world. Editorials and news features on Radio Free Asia, Radio Free
Europe, Radio Liberty, Radio Marti and the Voice of America regularly
identify and report on religious freedom issues and discuss efforts by
the United States to address its concerns, both bilaterally and
multilaterally.
The Administration also strongly supports religious reconciliation
in countries torn by religious and ethnic conflict. Consistent United
States leadership has been critical to the peace processes in the
former Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, and the Middle East. Our work to
promote human rights, justice and the rule of law also facilitates
religious reconciliation. For example, the United States provides
assistance to the Annex Six Human Rights Commission, the human rights
arm of the Dayton peace process. Our aid permits an internationally-
appointed Human Rights Ombudsperson to investigate cases of human
rights violations, and a Human Rights Chamber composed of eight
international and six Bosnian judges to adjudicate the cases and offer
legally-binding judgments. These efforts help to promote religious as
well as ethnic reconciliation.
Another example from Bosnia is U.S. support for the International
Commission On Missing Persons. A major U.S. initiative to support the
peace and reconciliation process in the former Yugoslavia, the ICMP
currently is chaired by Senator Bob Dole. It applies pressure to the
regional parties in the former Yugoslavia to expedite resolution of
missing persons cases; provides assistance to families of the missing;
and supports the exhumation process and identification of remains where
possible. Its reconciliation work helps, literally on a case-by-case
basis, to promote religious and ethnic reconciliation in the region.
We also recognize and support the important role of the private
sector in promoting religious freedom. Through the Model Business
Principles, the administration emphasizes that freedom of expression
and association(including religious expression and association), non-
discrimination based on religious belief, and recognition of ethical
conduct in business complement and support sustainable economic
development. Last year, we gave the first annual best Global Practices
Award to John Kamm, president of Asia Pacific Resources, for his
efforts to obtain the release of individuals detained and imprisoned by
Chinese authorities for the non-violent expression of their political
and religious beliefs. We plan to continue to make this award to
companies that make significant contributions in human rights,
including religious freedom.
And of course, we recognize and applaud the critical efforts of the
many non-governmental religious and human rights groups that spotlight
abuses wherever and whenever they occur. They are invaluable partners
in our effort to focus world attention on the issue of religious
freedom. We work regularly with them to raise religious freedom at
international fora. In addition, we facilitate direct dialogue between
foreign governments and U.S.-based religious and human rights groups.
One such effort was the product of last October's Summit between
President Clinton and President Jiang Zemin of China. Summit
discussions of religious issues prompted President Jiang to invite a
delegation of distinguished American religious leaders to visit China,
including Tibet, to observe religious practice there. A private
delegation, led by the Reverend Dr. Don Argue,President of the National
Association of Evangelicals, Archbishop Theodore McCarrick of the Roman
Catholic Archdiocese of Newark, and Rabbi Arthur Schneier, President of
the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, visited China Between February 9th
and March 1st.
These three leaders have a distinguished record of advocacy on
behalf of religious freedom throughout the world. Reverend Argue and
Archbishop McCarrick are members of the Secretary's Advisory Committee
on Religious Freedom Abroad, where they serve as coordinators for
subcommittees on religious persecution and conflict resolution. Both
have extensive experience monitoring violations of religious freedom
worldwide. Rabbi Schneier has worked on inter-faith initiatives to
advance human rights globally and has experience in China. The
delegation's mission underscored previous messages conveyed by
President Clinton on the importance of human rights, especially
religious freedom, and stressed the need for improvement in the climate
of religious freedom in China.
The delegation's trip was significant for two reasons. First, it
underscored the importance the U.S. government and the American people
attach to religious freedom. Second, it opened the door for increasing
dialogue among Chinese and American religious communities.
The delegation met with President Jiang, national and local
government officials, and members of registered and unregistered
churches. They spoke with Protestants, including evangelicals,
Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Taoists. They traveled to
Beijing, Nanjing, Shanghai, Lhasa, and Hong Kong.They pressed hard for
the release of religious prisoners, for decreased official supervision
of religious sites and practices, and for an the preservation of
Tibet's unique cultural and religious heritage. Their subsequent report
provides a candid assessment of religious life in China and details
their efforts to initiate dialogue with the Chinese.
We also work to strengthen our commitment to religious liberty
through our role in the asylum process. We support INS Asylum Officers
and Immigration Judges by providing them with expert advice on human
rights conditions and recent political developments overseas. For the
past year we emphasized improving the quality of this information,
particularly by strengthening our ``Profiles of Asylum Claims and
Country Conditions Reports'' and by paying increased attention to
issues of religious persecution. In the coming year, we plan, for the
first time, to create a full-time permanent staff that will have
responsibility for both commenting on asylum applications and preparing
the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. We believe having
the same professional staff work year-round on these issues will
strengthen both our advice to asylum adjudicators and our annual
Country Reports.
In sum, this Administration views religious freedom as a foreign
policy priority.As Secretary Albright has noted, ``Our commitment to
religious freedom is more than the expression of American ideals. It is
a fundamental source of our strength in the world. We simply could not
lead without it. We would be naive to think that we could advance our
interests without it.'' The Administration Has responded to Americans
of every faith and belief and to Congress. We are taking concrete
action to oppose religious discrimination, end religious intolerance,
and promote religious freedom around the world.
With that important background, let me now turn to S.1868, the
``International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.'' The Administration
strongly supports the bill's objectives of combating religious
persecution and promoting religious freedom. We appreciate the efforts
of Senator Nickles and his co-sponsors to try to craft a bill that
reflects our shared focus on these issues. We recognize that this
Congress, like this Administration, has focused greater attention on
this issue than any predecessor. With this in mind, we remain committed
to engaging with you in a dialogue on this matter. We seek to work with
you to advance religious freedom through a variety of means. Such
efforts will send a strong message abroad that the Administration and
the Congress stand united in support of religious freedom around the
world.
As I have mentioned, this Administration is actively engaged in the
struggle for religious freedom. Regarding further initiatives, we
believe that legislation best serves our mutual goal of promoting and
upholding religious freedom when it consolidates and strengthens
existing mechanisms rather than creating new ones in their stead. With
that in mind, let me summarize our major concerns. I invite your staff
to work with us in the days ahead to discuss these in greater detail so
we might best promote our shared goals. We have specific concerns about
the bill's sanctions and reporting mechanisms; its definition of
religious persecution; its waiver provisions; its mandating of new
reports without providing for additional resources; and its creation of
new institutions.
Our first major concern is the bill's requirement that the
President impose one (or more) of sixteen executive actions and
economic sanctions on any country identified as engaging in or
tolerating religious persecution. We are concerned that the bill's
sanctions-oriented approach fails to recognize the value of incentives
and dialogue in promoting religious freedom and encouraging further
improvements in some countries. As I discussed above, many of our more
notable work on behalf of religious freedom has come thanks to the pro-
active approach of our diplomats in Laos, Turkey, Austria, and
elsewhere.
We also believe that the sanctions provisions will be
counterproductive. In particular, while the imposition of sanctions is
likely to have little direct impact on most governments engaged in
abuses, it runs the risk of strengthening the hand of those governments
and extremists who seek to incite religious intolerance. We fear that
the sanctions could result in greater pressures--and even reprisals--
against minority religious communities. This Is a message we are
receiving from both missionary groups and overseas religious figures,
who point out that minority religious communities risk being accused of
complicity in this American effort.
We also believe that sanctions could have an adverse impact on our
diplomacy in places like the Middle East and South Asia, undercutting
Administration Efforts to promote the very regional peace and
reconciliation that can foster religious tolerance and respect for
other human rights.
We do understand that the legislation contains waiver provisions.
However,those provisions would not eliminate the annual, automatic
condemnations required by the legislation, which are our principal
source of concern. To be sure, public condemnation--and even
sanctions--may be appropriate in many instances, but not in all cases.
As I have suggested, if the United States does not have the flexibility
to determine when and how to condemn violators, we could endanger the
well-being of those we are all trying to help. This would limit U.S.
efforts to work collectively with other nations to promote religious
freedom, reconciliation, and peace, not to mention other critical
national security objectives.
Our second concern is the bill's definition of religious
persecution as any limitation on the right to religious freedom without
specifying a threshold of severity to merit this categorization. We
agree that all violations of the right to religious freedom are
important and deserve to be addressed. They should not, however, all be
categorized as religious persecution, which has a particular meaning in
domestic and international law. With so broad a definition, the term
would lose its meaning and power, thus making it difficult for the
United States to address serious or widespread violations and secure
positive change.
In fact, a majority of the countries in the world--many with
overall good practices on religious freedom--could, under such a
definition, be categorized as engaging in religious persecution. As a
result, countries with generally good records on human rights,
including religious freedom, could be cited as religious persecutors.
For example, Austria, which grants certain education benefits and
subsidies to groups that qualify for registration and recognition but
does not in fact require registration or restrict groups' freedom to
worship,nonetheless could find itself cited under the bill's current
terms. The bill thus could designate entire regions as persecutors
without making even the most basic distinctions among individual
countries.
In addition, the bill defines the term ``persecution'' in a manner
that is inconsistent with international and U.S. law and that could
undermine our asylum and refugee policies. By defining persecution as
it does, the bill runs counter to long-standing U.S. and international
policy, which has sought to protect those facing persecution from legal
definitions that could be construed narrowly to deny them protection.
Furthermore, we believe that any bill should focus on government action
or inaction with respect to any limitation on the internationally
recognized right to freedom of religion and not on the concept of
religious persecution, which can include actions that do not involve
governments. We believe that the goals of the sponsors could be
achieved by focusing on limitations to religious freedom rather than
using the term ``persecution.''
Our third concern is the nature of the bill's waiver mechanism.
Under the bill,the President could waive sanctions for reasons
unrelated to religious freedom if he determines that such a waiver
would be in the national security interests of the United States. We
believe that national security is too high a standard and could unduly
limit the President's ability to protect a wide range of important and
potentially vital national interests unrelated to our security
concerns. A change in the waiver standard from national security to
national interest would ensure that all the interests of the American
people are protected.
Our fourth concern is that the bill would create significant new
reporting,training and other requirements without providing for
additional resources. As our work to promote religious freedom
indicates, we understand and appreciate the desire of Members of
Congress for expanded monitoring and reporting on religious freedom
issues. We are prepared to work with you in exploring ways to broaden
our efforts. But we fear the current provisions are not workable. The
bill would require the following reports each year:
On September 1st, preparation of the annual Country Reports
on Human Rights Practices begins. The bill would require that
the existing sections on religious freedom be expanded--an
initiative this Administration has already undertaken and is
committed to continuing. The Reports are released by January
31st.
Preparation of the Annual Report on Religious Persecution
would then begin. It is due May 1st.
The Presidential determination of gross violators and
intended action is due June 1st, thirty days after submission
of the Annual Report.
The report from the Commission created by the bill is due
August 1st.
The report to Congress on the President's Determination of
Gross Violators and Intended Action is due September 1st. It
then would be necessary to begin work on the next year's
Country Reports.
These reports are time- and staff-intensive. If I may speak on a
personal note, I have great respect for the work done by the people in
my Bureau, who to a person are exceptionally dedicated to the cause of
human rights. Many Already work very long days and on weekends, and
give up much of their holiday season to prepare the annual Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices. The Preparation of the Country
Reports involves embassy personnel, officers in our regional bureaus,
and approximately half of the staff in my bureau, who work on the
reports throughout the year but particularly intensively for about
three months. Yet I estimate that the additional reporting requirements
in this bill could more than triple their workload and decrease their
availability to respond to other urgent human rights concerns.
The new reporting requirements also could obligate the Secretary to
identify other human rights programs to cut back or eliminate in order
to implement these unfunded mandates. The ultimate effect could be the
reduction of staff available to work on other important human rights
initiatives, including those that promote religious freedom.
Our fifth concern is the bill's creation of new institutions. The
bill would establish an Ambassador-at-Large and an Office on Religious
Persecution at the Department of State, with the advice and consent of
the Senate. The Ambassador would chair a new Commission on
International Religious Persecution. Our concerns regarding these new
institutions are threefold. First, as I noted earlier, we believe that
any legislation instead should consolidate and strengthen existing
mechanisms rather than create new ones.The Ambassador-at-Large position
largely duplicates that of the soon-to-be-designated senior
coordinator, and the Commission in large part replicates the work of
the Secretary's Advisory Committee. Second, we believe that the bill
limits the Secretary's discretion to ensure that human rights and
religious freedom receive priority attention in the Department of
state. Third, the bill's structure and wording may in some cases
actually limit the goals of its sponsors. For example, the title of
``Ambassador at Large'' recently was redefined within the Department of
State as a temporary position and is rarely used.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with this
Committee to strengthen our mutual commitment to promote religious
freedom. The President and the Secretary of State have by word and by
deed demonstrated that the promotion and protection of religious
freedom is a foreign policy priority. This Committee, under your
leadership, also has played a leading role.In our efforts, we are
joined by many courageous men and women around the world for whom this
is not merely a matter of principle, but a matter of faith. We must not
let them down.
Acting alone, neither the Administration nor Congress can hope to
accomplish this important task. I commend the authors and sponsors of
the bill for their efforts and for their contributions to the debate
about religious freedom and US policies to address this important human
rights concern. We must work together to develop the most effective
policies and programs possible. We welcome these initiatives and look
forward to developing means to meet our shared goals. Only then will we
be able to stop those who would oppress religious freedom and help
those who would promote it.
Thank you very much.
__________
Prepared Statement of Senator Thomas
Mr. Chairman, the freedom of religion--to believe or worship as one
chooses, to change those beliefs, or even to have no beliefs at all--is
one of the most basic and fundamental of human rights. That right is
enshrined in the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
it transcends ethnicity, race, culture, and political background.
But as we know, the persecution of people based solely on their
religion is an unfortunate reality of today's world. It occurs in
several countries within the jurisdiction of my subcommittee: Laos,
Vietnam, the People's Republic of China, and North Korea to name a few.
The common denominator, in almost all cases, is an authoritarian
regime--in these cases communist regimes--which in order to control its
citizens also feels a need to control their minds
Of course, because we ourselves are Christians the instances of
religious intolerance that hit closest to home for us involve the
persecution of Christians abroad. We can empathize with their plight,
not simply because they are our coreligionists, but because of our
history; our own country was founded by men and women who fled England
because they were persecuted for their Christian religious beliefs. But
Mr. Chairman, our revulsion at this type of human rights abuse is not--
and should not--be any different than when the subject of the
persecution is not a Christian but a Buddhist, or Muslim, or Daoist. A
central tenant of our philosophy as Americans is that each individual
should be free to follow his or her religion, Christian or otherwise,
without interference or fear.
In recent years, our government has intensified its support of
religious freedom abroad. For example, Secretary of State Albright has
stated that advancing religious liberty is a foreign policy priority;
she has instructed our embassies to give greater attention to religious
liberty, report more actively on the issue, and provide suggestions on
how the government might most effectively address questions of
religious intolerance. The State Department's annual human rights
reports give more attention to religious persecution and procedures for
reviewing asylum requests have been modified to make reviewers more
sensitive to religious persecution. And on January 23, 1998, the
Secretary of State announced that she would appoint a new, senior-level
coordinator 'within the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor to
ensure that U.S. actions to advance religious freedom are fully
integrated into U.S. foreign policy.
Congress, too, has done its part to address the problem. Congress
has pursued its concerns about a number of religious intolerance issues
in hearings especially in this Committee that have highlighted
restrictions on religious liberty in many parts of the world, and has
passed legislation relating to specific countries. This bill is another
laudable step in that effort, and one aimed at addressing religious
persecution on an international level.
While I strongly support the goals of S. 1868, and many of its
provisions, I am concerned by the sanctions portion of the bill. My
colleagues know that I generally do not believe that unilateral trade
sanctions, imposed for whatever reason, are effective tools of U.S.
foreign policy. They rarely, if ever, work because they are--by
definition--unilateral. In the case of economic sanctions, for
instance, there are few if any goods in today's global economy which
are produced solely in the United States. Once a unilateral sanction is
in place, there is nothing to prevent the target country from simply
acquiring the goods somewhere else--China and its purchases of Airbus
Industrie airplanes over Boeings comes most readily to mind. And our
``allies'' are often more than happy to circumvent us and fill the gap
we've left, as we've seen in the case of Iran. All we end up doing,
then, is the economic equivalent of cutting off our nose to spite our
face.
I realize that often that leaves us in the unenviable position of
doing nothing and watching the human rights abuses continue unabated,
or imposing sanctions and shooting ourselves in the foot. And I believe
that S. 1868 is a very good attempt at reconciling those two seemingly
mutually exclusive positions. So I look forward to the testimony today,
and to working with the bill's authors after today to help craft a bill
that addresses the problems without causing others.
__________
Prepared Statement of Senator Ashcroft
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing on S.
1868, the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. This bill
represents an important effort to raise awareness of religious
persecution overseas. In our own history as a nation and in the
histories of countries around the world, religious freedom has been at
the center of movements for broader civil liberty. Thus, efforts to
restrict religious freedom strike at the heart of liberty itself.
If the Administration had been more aggressive in confronting
religious persecution abroad, such legislation might not be necessary.
In fact, at a White House meeting to discuss one of the major bills on
religious persecution, President Clinton told religious leaders that
legislation which actually required him to confront persecution abroad
would put ``enormous pressure on whoever is in the executive branch to
fudge an evaluation of the facts of what is going on.''
That is a startling statement by the President of the United
States, which not only calls us to question this Administration's
commitment to fight religious persecution, but the reliability of other
presidential certifications on issues such as Chinese missile and
nuclear proliferation. Such statements by Administration officials make
it clear why legislation to address religious persecution is needed.
Sudan
Religious persecution is a tragic fact of life in many countries,
from Latin America to Asia to Africa. Religious persecution in Sudan
and China has been of particular concern to me. As Chairman of the
Africa Subcommittee, I held a hearing on religious persecution in Sudan
in September of last year.
Religious persecution has become enmeshed in a brutal Sudanese
civil war that has taken more than 1.5 million civilians since 1983,
with over 4 million more being displaced by the fighting. An estimated
430,000 refugees have fled Sudan to seek safety in neighboring
countries.
Human rights organizations working in Sudan have testified before
Congress that the government uses ``aerial bombardment and burning of
villages, arbitrary arrests, torture, chattel slavery especially child
slavery--hostage taking, summary executions, inciting deadly tribal
conflict, the abduction and brainwashing of children, the arrest of
Christian pastors and lay church workers, and the imprisonment of
moderate Muslim religious leaders'' to suppress dissent and form a
radical Islamic state. Such barbarous atrocities, along with Sudan's
support for international terrorism, has led me to introduce
legislation to cut off financial transactions with the Sudanese
government.
China
The viciousness of religious persecution in Sudan should not
callous us to the very real and brutal oppression taking place in other
countries. As Nina Shea notes in The Lion's Den, China has more
Christians in prison because of religious activities than any other
nation. The State Department's first comprehensive review of
persecution against Christians, issued in July 1997 and entitled ``U.S.
Policy in Support of Religious Freedom,'' says, ``The Government of
China has sought to restrict all actual religious practice to
government-subsidized religious organizations and registered places of
worship.''
China's efforts to restrict religious freedom are driven by
oppressive policies which seek to make all religion subservient to the
state's secular objectives. In the book China: State Control of
religion, Human Rights Watch states that ``the Chinese government
believes that religion breeds disloyalty, separatism, and subversion.''
The book goes on to note: ``Chinese authorities are keenly aware of the
role that the church played in Eastern Europe during the disintegration
of the Soviet empire.''
Rather than embrace and encourage the free expression of faith, the
Chinese government is engaged in a massive, ongoing, and brutal effort
to repress non-sanctioned religious activity. Ministers or lay people
who seek to practice their faith free from bureaucratic interference
and oppression are subjected to imprisonment, torture, and worse. The
Far Eastern Economic Review noted that 15,000 religious sites were
destroyed by government police in the first five months of 1996 alone.
Paul Marshall and Nina Shea note that ``China's underground Christians
are the target of what they themselves describe as the most brutal
repression since the early 1 980s when China was just emerging from the
terror of the Cultural Revolution.''
And yet, in spite of such repression by the Chinese Communist
government, this Administration declined even to sponsor a resolution
at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights condemning China's human rights
record. Apparently, some type of back door deal was made with the
Chinese government in which a few prisoners would be released and we
would turn our head and close our ears to the thousands that remain in
Chinese prisons and labor camps.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that it is time for the Senate of the United
States to take a stand on this issue of religious persecution. It is
also time for the Executive Branch to take a stand on this issue.
Rather than look at how we might ``fudge'' legislative requirements to
avoid confronting oppression abroad, let us have the courage of our
convictions.
The President will be going to China next month, and his first stop
will be at Tianamnen Square, the site of so much bloodshed just nine
years ago. If the President will not use that forum to pay homage to
the students who died there, then he should skip that part of the trip.
Better yet, he should skip the summit altogether.
The liberties for which those students fought and died are the
liberties which this and other bills on religious persecution seek to
advance. The Chinese people one day will realize their freedom and
seize their liberty. When they do, Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that the
democratic government of China will view the United States as a friend
who stood for freedom during this last twilight struggle with communist
oppression.
__________
Prepared Statement of Senator Feingold
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing on S. 1868, the
International Religious Freedom Act, introduced in the Senate by my
distinguished colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles.
Mr. Chairman, I am still reviewing this important piece of
legislation, as I am sure are the rest of the members of this
Committee. So I appreciate the opportunity today to delve into some of
the policy issues raised by this bill with our distinguished witnesses.
As you well know, the issue of religious freedom is clearly an
important one for this Committee, and indeed, for our country. Freedom
of religion is one of the bedrock principles of American democracy. Our
founders, who came to America in part to flee religious intolerance,
championed freedom of religion as a universal right, and, made it an
integral part of the Constitution through the Bill of Rights.
Throughout our history, immigrants from every comer of the globe
have arrived on our shores seeking a community where they could
practice their religion openly and without fear of persecution. Today,
we value the separation of church and state as one of our guiding
principles.
But, we are all well aware that such liberties are not fully
enjoyed everywhere, and there are millions of people who daily face
persecution or intolerance because of their religious beliefs. Worse
yet, the exploitation of religious and ethnic differences for political
ends has become all too common in the post-Cold War era.
These trends have been around for centuries but have been getting
serious press attention in the last several years. They mirror the
myriad other abuses that are conducted or at least tolerated by non-
democratic regimes around the world. Examples of restrictions on basic
freedoms--of expression, of association, of the press--abound, and
those who dare violate such restrictions face imprisonment, repression
or even death. As we meet here this afternoon, it is likely that
somewhere, a political prisoner is being beaten by the police or armed
forces, or some paramilitary group whose members might include police
officers or soldiers. It is likely that a union organizer is being
detained or harassed by authorities, that a woman is being raped by
government thugs, that a newspaper is being shut down, or that a
prisoner has ``disappeared.''
The question for us today is what is the appropriate U.S. policy
response to religiously motivated acts of oppression by other nations?
I firmly believe that the defense of human rights around the world
relates directly to our ``national interests'' and, as such, demands
leadership from the United States, a nation founded on respect for
individual rights and liberties.
We are bound by the documents that created this country to promote
and defend certain principles: that we are all created equal, that we
are born with certain inalienable rights, that government is legitimate
only with the consent of the people, and that government should exist
to promote the general welfare and to secure the blessings of liberty
for all. Our other national interests--security and economic
opportunity--have the best chance for advancement in a climate of
freedom and respect for individual rights, and are undermined by the
absence of that climate.
I have tried never to shy away from supporting the use of every
economic, diplomatic or rhetorical tool to advance our human rights
agenda. It is through the vigorous use of these tools that the United
States can exercise the type of leadership such fundamental violations
of justice demand. To a certain extent, this is the approach implicit
in the bill we are considering today, which would impose selected
sanctions on countries that ``engage in or tolerate religious
persecution.''
But, with all due respect to my colleague from Oklahoma, I am
somewhat concerned about the basic premise of the bill, which would
appear to subordinate other fundamental rights to the right to
religious freedom. As we defend the freedom of religion, should we not
just as vigorously defend the rule of law, basic human rights and the
exercise of political rights? How would we react if, tomorrow, Sudan's
ruling National Islamic Front suddenly lifted its Shar'ia law and
allowed Christians to worship freely? Would we then tolerate the forced
conscription of children, the lack of press freedom and the
manipulation of humanitarian assistance that also takes place in the
Sudan?
I also have some concerns about the possible duplication of
existing government resources favored by the bill, as well as the lack
of sanctions on arms sales and military transfers.
Nevertheless, I commend Senator Nickles for his efforts and I look
forward to learning more about these issues from him and from Assistant
Secretary Shattuck.
__________
Hearing of June 17, 1998
Prepared Statements of Committee Members and Witnesses
Prepared Statement of The Right Reverend Munawar Rurnalshah
Introduction
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and other distinguished Senators. Thank
you for this opportunity to tell my story and share some of the
experience of being a Christian in Pakistan.
I would like to open my remarks with a few words of a martyr and a
dear friend of mine who gave his life for the cause of freedom to be a
Christian in Pakistan.
The Christians of Pakistan are being held in a death-sentence
blackmail by the Blasphemy Law, under which their small
businesses are being taken over, their property seized and the
situation is such that their women are not safe. Therefore. in
protest against 295-C and other black laws and in the name of
my oppressed Christian people, secularism and democracy, I am
taking my life.
These were the last recorded words of John Joseph, Roman Catholic
Bishop in Pakistan, who laid down his life on May 6 1998 to protest the
death sentence imposed on a fellow Christian under Pakistan's blasphemy
law. The death of Bishop Joseph created shock waves throughout Pakistan
and has utterly devastated my already marginalized community. This
event has triggered a chain reaction where the majority Muslim
community (about 96%) seems to have started a process of tightening the
noose on the Christians in the most public fashion--by physical
harassment and creating an atmosphere of fear and insecurity. My hope
in being here today is to pay tribute to this sacrificial act of Bishop
Joseph. To make sure that all this has not been in vain and in doing so
to focus the attention of my government and indeed the world on the
plight of the Christian community in Pakistan. My concern also includes
the issues of religious discrimination and persecution against fellow
Christians and people of other faiths across the world who suffer
ignominy and torture simply because they want to have the freedom to
practice the faith of their choice.
Being a Christian in Pakistan
I am an Anglican bishop in the Church of Pakistan. Anglicans, of
course, are known as Episcopalians in this country. The Church of
Pakistan is the largest Christian denomination in our Country today,
formed in 1970 by the amalgamation of Anglicans, Lutherans, Scottish
Presbyterians, and the Methodists. There is also a strong Roman
Catholic presence, along with the other Protestant denominations. We
Christians make up about 3% of the population of Pakistan.
We are privileged to be part of the country of Pakistan, which we
serve with all our passion and dedication, knowing that it is ours. Our
ancestry on that soil goes back thousands of years. And yet it is a
country which, in proclaiming the faith of the majority community, the
faith of Islam, seems to be wittingly or unwittingly excluding us
Christians and the other religious minorities from its shared organic
life. As you will know already, Pakistan was created in 1947 to be a
homeland for the Muslims of South Asia. The Founding fathers dreamt of
a Pakistan for the Muslim, but where other religions could also feel
part of it. Quaid Azam said, ``You are free, you are free to go to your
temples, you are free to go to your Mosques or to go to any other place
of worship in this state Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or
caste . . . we are all citizens and equal citizens in this state.''
Perhaps that dream was too utopian. The creation of a religious state
where all have equal status was bound to be wishful thinking, indeed a
contradiction in terms. Pakistan was perhaps the first state in modern
history created exclusively on the basis of religious identity. The
events of the past fifty years have shown that in spite of having good
intentions, such states are bound to evolve toward religious
exclusivism.
Now allow me to share with you how the rights and freedoms of
religious minorities have been eroded in Pakistan's 50-year history
because of the majority community's view that this land is for the
Muslims, to which many would add ``for Muslims only.''
Take a simple word like ``freely.'' In the original constitution of
Pakistan, Christians and other religious minorities were allowed to
``practice their faith freely.'' This word was removed from the
constitution more than ten years ago as it was deemed to be threatening
the Islamic fabric of Pakistan. It appeared quite innocuous at the time
but we are now reaping its ugly consequences.
In Pakistan it is becoming increasingly difficult to build
our places of worship. We are being told often unofficially at
least, that no permission can be given for the building of
churches. Simply because it is a land for the Muslims.
Pakistan is now practicing an apartheid legal system. As a
member of a minority, I am barred from standing for election as
a Member of Parliament representing the majority community, or
even from voting in the main elections for members of
Parliament. Instead. I am restricted to voting for one of a
handful of Minority Members of Parliament. With no influence on
who runs my country. Non-Muslims have become politically
voiceless. This is an aberration and an antithesis of anything
called democracy. Our global family was in agony when apartheid
was being practiced in South Africa and yet seems to be quite
ignorant of the situation in Pakistan and perhaps other such
places;
As a religious minority, we live under a constant feeling of
socioeconomic strangulation. Jesus taught us to serve the poor
of society. In Pakistan, we bear the burden of actually being
the poor of society. In my own diocese in northwest Pakistan,
85% of my people are severely deprived. The only jobs available
to most of them is the removal of human excrement from the
streets. We are being socially ostracized and economically
paralyzed simply for the ``sin'' of being Christians. As an
example, the number of Christians in employment in the federal
government of Pakistan is 0.7%, and 87% of those are in the
lowest three categories. The reason? This is a land for
Muslims, and we are merely Christians.
Over the years, Pakistan has been trying to introduce Shariah (the
Islamic Law) and its related ordinances as part of a program of
Islamization. The Shariah promises to govern and regulate the lives of
people as an obedience to the sovereignty of God. On the face of it, it
looks harmless, even desirable. After all, in the Christian Bible, we
too acknowledge the sovereignty of God and seek his Kingdom. But with
the imposition of Islamic law, citizens can only respond to this
sovereignty through an Islamic way. This makes life extremely difficult
for those who are not Muslims. It is even suggested that non-Muslims in
Pakistan should be given the status of a Dhimmi under the Shariah Law.
This means that we will be treated like conquered people and would be
offered protection only after the payment of a special tax. How could
we become ``conquered people'' in our own homeland? Currently, Shariah
is being practiced selectively in Pakistan, but even then it has begun
to affect our lives as Christians in serious ways.
For example, at least once a month I am confronted with cases where
a Christian has accepted Islam mainly to get divorced or remarried. The
worst aspect of it is that the Christian spouse left behind is not
accepted as legally divorced, whereas the one who has become Muslim is
accepted by the law of the land as legally divorced or remarried.
Take another example of this, if any adult Muslim converts to
Christianity or any other faith, he is automatically denied of his
inherited rights. I know of a case of a convert who has been
incarcerated in jail for the last 17 years, even without any proper
trial or verdict, simply for his so-called Apostasy.
Perhaps the worst aspect of Islamization in recent times has been
the use of the dreaded Blasphemy Law. This has been part of the legal
statute for a couple of centuries, but has been resurrected over a
decade ago as part of the Pakistan penal code. Its section 295-C says:
Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by visible
representation, or by any imputation, innuendo. or insinuation,
directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy
Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) shall be punished with death. or
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
The intent behind this law seems perfectly reasonable because we
should respect the great leaders of all religions. Such a law is there
simply to counter any disrespect to such people. Unfortunately, great
problems arise when these laws get exploited and abused. In Pakistan.
for us Christians and other religious minorities, the misuse of this
law by members of the majority community has achieved draconian
proportions. Its burgeoning and wide spread use since 1986 has caused
panic in my community, as well as to other religious minorities. It is
indeed like a Damocles sword hanging over our heads. It has often been
used by private citizens to settle old scores and to take out
vendettas. There have been some frightening incidents related to it.
The worst aspect is that 90% of such cases never reach a court of law;
the mobs resolve these cases in impromptu ``Kangaroo Courts.'' And even
if they do reach court, the courts increasingly tend to lean toward the
Muslim accuser, whose single testimony is enough proof of the crime
and, of course, the witness of a Christian is not even admissible.
In fact the ultimate despair of the late Bishop John Joseph was
that he could not find a competent lawyer to appeal the death sentence
of his parishioner, Ayub Masih. All such lawyers feared for their
lives. A judge, who acquitted one of the few Christians to escape from
such a sentence, was murdered in broad daylight--two years after his
judgment. I offer here some of the examples just to show how our small
community is being brutalized and victimized in the name of religion:
Tahir Iqbal, a young Christian bound to a wheelchair through
illness, was a convert from Islam. He was brutally murdered by
a frenzied mob because he was said to have at least
inadvertently insulted The Prophet of Islam due to his
conversion.
A teenage boy was accused of writing insulting remarks
against the Prophet on a Mosque wall. He, along with his Uncle,
was sentenced to death, but with the intervention of the
government at that time, was helped to leave the country. The
boy was eventually certified to be an illiterate.
A fourteen-year-old girl, Carol Shakeel, was accused of
blasphemy at school. In order to save her life she became a
Muslim with the consent of her family. At the same moment, 225
local Muslim religious leaders signed an oath to kill her.
It is worth noting that until the introduction of section 295-C,
hardly any cases under the Blasphemy Law surfaced during the previous
40 years in the life of Pakistan. I have here with me a catalogue of
these cases which have been properly documented and can withstand the
test of credibility. You may wish to examine them at your convenience.
I would like to end this section by narrating a personal
experience. I quote, ``We dared not cry, we could not shout for help.
We had to hold our breath as we huddled together under the bed, as some
human vultures were seeking to devour us. They had already desecrated
our beautiful church and had set alight our precious books and other
meager possessions. They wanted to kill each one of us.'' This was the
chilling narration of a seven-year-old boy who had assumed the role of
spokesperson. With a matter-of-fact tone, he described the events of a
day in February 1997 when a crowd of around 30,000 Muslims invaded
Christian communities around Shantinagir, burning churches and creating
havoc because it was rumored that a Christian had torn the pages of the
holy Koran. ``Why would they want to kill you?'' we asked. A small
voice came from one of his companions ``Because we are Christians.''
Suffering Around the World
I think it is incumbent upon me to speak of the suffering of
religious minorities in other parts of the world. I am in constant
contact with some of the acute situations within the worldwide Anglican
Communion, which is composed of nearly 70 million members in 165
countries. Perhaps the situation which concerns us most at this moment
is the plight of our fellow Christians in Sudan. I recently shared a
platform in New York with one of my fellow bishops from that country.
The Christians of Sudan have become targets of persecution, facing
daily gross violations of human rights. They suffer torture,
enslavement, and incessant fear of genocide. This situation has driven
thousands of them to leave their homes and escape to refugee camps.
The Sudanese government is attempting to force Christians to choose
between renouncing their faith and renouncing food, education, jobs,
and even life. The people living in the Nuba mountains are fleeing war
zones in search of security, food, shelter, and medicine. The pride of
their youth is trapped in refugee camps in the neighboring countries of
Kenya and Uganda, desperate for education and freedom. All this has
been happening for the last decade and over, and yet the human family
seems to be either oblivious or impotent to bring an end to this
tragedy. The fact that, in spite of all this, these people display an
unshakable faith, is nothing short of miraculous. A brother bishop,
Nathaniel Garang, bolsters the Dinka people with words of conviction
and hope by describing their seemingly intolerable situation, ``We are
very hungry in this time, but we are feeding on God.'' Please note that
here too, it is the struggle for the supremacy of Islam and its Shariah
in Sudan which has so completely decimated the lives of these
communities.
There is also the example of Myanmar (Burma) where Church
properties are frequently confiscated for the building of municipal
police stations and military barracks. In one war-torn area alone, a
group of 16 churches has been reduced to two. In areas like these, it
also happens that orphaned Christian children have been removed by the
military and taken to orphanages in Buddhist pagodas where they are
raised in the majority religion of Buddhism. Religious and secular
publications are rigorously controlled. The import of Bibles translated
into the indigenous languages is prohibited and it is difficult for
non-Buddhist Faiths--Christians and Muslims--to obtain permission to
build houses oF worship. The tragedy is that minority faiths in Myanmar
bear the threat of extinction.
Legislation Before the U.S. Senate
For a few moments, I would like to share my views on the specific
pieces of legislation your Committee is considering. Let me paint a
picture in broad terms of what I believe could be helpful from the
United States. As you know, I am here because I believe in the cause of
religious liberty, in Pakistan and around the world. Believe me, it
would have been easier to stay at home. But for me, and for many of my
Christian brothers and sisters in Pakistan, silence is not an option.
We are called to proclaim the Good News of our faith, and to stand for
our faith in the face of persecution. To stay silent about our
experience as a religious minority in Pakistan would be prudent. But in
the long run, it would do more harm to the cause of what we believe.
I do not believe the United States can remain silent either. Since
the Pilgrims first set sail in 1607 in search of a place to practice
their religious beliefs, religious freedom has undergirded your
country's history and culture. No, the United States should not stand
by today in silence in the face of religious persecution worldwide. You
need to hear the cry of people around the world who suffer for their
faith, who are denied the basic right to believe, which you so
naturally take for granted.
The central question is how the United States can respond most
effectively to the cry of persecuted faithful. I understand the
legislation passed in the House of Representatives would mandate severe
economic sanctions against countries that engage in persecution. This
approach could have positive effects in certain circumstances--perhaps
in Sudan. But I fear that in other circumstances, severe sanctions
could trigger reprisals against the religious minority for having
caused the sanctions, and also cause suffering and misery to the poor
of that country. It is my experience that a heavy-handed approach is
less helpful, and in some cases, can even do more harm than good.
But, clearly, there are more choices than just imposing heavy-
handed sanctions or doing nothing. There is an entire array of foreign
policy options which can positively affect human rights conditions in
other countries. The legislation we are here to discuss today, the
Nickles-Lieberman bill, gives your government a range of options--from
a private diplomatic reprimand, all the way through economic
sanctions--with which to respond to religious persecution. This
flexibility is crucial to effective action. In circumstances of severe
persecution, the bill allows for more severe sanctions, but again
maintains the flexibility of calibrating those sanctions for the
particular situation. I believe your current law already allows for
this response to gross violators of human rights. Also, the bill allows
the sanctions to be waived if the cause of religious liberty would be
jeopardized.
In Pakistan, I believe the most helpful response from the U.S. is
one that says, ``We don't like what we see and hear.'' The
international community's recognition of religious persecution in
Pakistan has a subtle and yet profoundly positive effect on the plight
of the Christian community. Yes, some extreme elements react with anger
and defiance. But, overall, sunshine on the situation helps. There is
the need to have a constant dialogue between the U.S. and our country
on this and other issues of human rights. The diplomatic ``hotline''
must be in action all the time. Of course I say this from my experience
as it relates to Pakistan. I do not know the best approach for all
people who suffer for their faith around the world--in China, Sudan.
parts of the Middle East. These are all very different situations which
need different approaches. This case-by-case approach is the heart of
the Nickles-Lieberman bill.
This year, the international community is celebrating the 50th
anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which reminds
us ``to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by
progressive measures, national and international, to secure their
universal and effective recognition and observance. One of the more
important aspects of the Nickles-Lieberman bill, I believe, is that the
bill uses the Declaration's broad, internationally accepted definition
of religious persecution. This definition recognizes both gross
violations of human rights, and the more subtle and prevalent forms of
religious persecution experienced worldwide. such as church burnings,
job discrimination. stifling religious expression, and the inability to
hold services. A severe limitation of the House bill is that it only
responds to the most extreme cases of religious persecution, ignoring
the vast majority of restrictions on religious liberty that occur
around the world.
Finally, the bill includes another important provision, which
requires the U.S. government to consult with nongovernmental
organizations, including churches, concerning the state of human rights
and religious persecution. This provision is crucial if you are to find
the most effective ways of fighting persecution, while at the same
time, protecting the religious minority in offending countries. It is
obvious to me with this bill, and with this hearing you are conducting
today, that the Senate is committed to consulting the religious
community. Sadly, the House version would not do this.
As I conclude my statement, one factor seems to be overwhelmingly
evident, which is that there are situations in our world where your
religious identity can be your death-warrant. This happens in Pakistan
and other parts of South Asia. It happens in China, Sudan, the Middle
East, and in many other parts. Although my personal experiences are
those of a minority Christian in a majority Islamic land, it could
equally be the experience of Muslims in the Philippines or Bosnia, of
Buddhists in Tibet, of Hindus in Sri Lanka, and soon. I am also aware
that these conflict situations are not exclusively based on religious
identity. Other factors such as race and ethnicity are also major
components of these situations. The difference is that we are born with
our race and ethnicity and bear its consequences, both good and bad.
for the rest of our lives. But religion is a person's free choice. I
believe each and every human soul on this planet earth must be given
complete freedom to choose and practice his own faith. Creed should
never be mixed with race, culture, or status in life. It is indeed a
sacred choice. No one should be allowed to mutilate and desecrate this
God-given privilege. You, my American friends, uphold this principle
dearly, and I am sure you understand our predicament. I hope the
American people will continue to offer themselves as an instrument of
peace, hope, and justice for human situations where this fundamental of
all human rights is being denied.
Thank you.
__________
Prepared Statement of Felice D. Gaer
Few issues have been as central to the work of the American Jewish
Committee, which was founded in 1906 in response to pogroms against
Jews in Russia and eastern Europe, as speaking out to protect religious
minorities from prejudice, discrimination, bigotry, and violent
attacks. Through our Jacob Blaustein Institute for Human Rights and
other programs, we have worked to establish international norms and
standards to protect religious freedom, to devise policies and
machinery to bring pressure to bear on governmental authorities
worldwide to end religious intolerance and repression, and to see that
the US has fair and generous asylum policies when victims of such
repression come to our country.
We thank you for your invitation to the American Jewish Committee
to address this Committee about legislation addressing religious
persecution and religious freedom issues abroad. These are core issues
not only for our organization, but for all Americans, as the freedoms
we seek to promote abroad are the same that have shaped our own nation:
religious tolerance, pluralism, and a belief in fairness, equality, and
liberty for all persons, including men and women, Jews, Christians,
Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, Bahais, and others.
We believe that ending religious persecution abroad merits a high
profile in US foreign policy. Further, the legislative efforts in the
Congress on this matter over the past year have rightly focused popular
attention on religious persecution abroad and ways the US should adjust
its foreign policy to address such matters most effectively. We are
also convinced that prevention of religious persecution at home and
abroad requires sustained, sophisticated legal and political tools. The
proposed legislation, the International Religious Freedom Act (with a
number of adjustments that we will outline later in this testimony)
promises to provide that sophistication and sustained attention to this
key issue. With attention to a number of our concerns, including the
importance of integrating this issue more centrally with the machinery
the Congress has created to protect international human rights
globally, we believe this will be an important addition to American
diplomacy.
I. An Overview of Religious Repression
Religious repression and intolerance worldwide has been documented
by religious organizations, detailed in international human rights
reports, cited in the Department of State's annual country reports on
human rights, and chronicled year by year at the United Nations, where
a Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance outlines cases that come
to his attention and explores the issue in respect to various
countries.
Those who persecute others for their religious beliefs and
practices--for being different--display a perverse inventiveness in
their inhumanity. The devious devices they come up with as a cover for
their actions seem unbounded. The variety of actions perpetrated
against religious believers range from physical attacks to weaving a
web of so-called legal measures that so severely inhibit religious
communities and their members that they violate most of the norms of
freedom of religion. Among the most common kinds of violations of
religious freedom have been:
Physical attacks:
Killings, attacks on individuals' physical security--
including torture.Religious extremism can often lead to violent
acts and measures directed against individuals who do not
submit to the strictures of such a group; these are violations
of the right of each person to physical integrity, to be free
from torture and unjust killing.
Limits on proselytizing and possessing religious articles:
These restrict the right to manifest one's belief.
Closing and destroying places of worship limiting religious
publications, controlling the right to elect one's own
religious leaders:
These are limits on the right to believe.
Discrimination in employment, education, housing, the right
to own property, access to credit, etc.
These measures are targeted to inhibit the ability of members
of a religious community to participate fully in society and
deny them equality and the ability to enjoy their human rights
in numerous areas. Such measures may or may not be prescribed
by law, and not all of them specifically affect the ability to
form religious organizations, or manifest belief, but they
commonly severely limit the rights of members of a particular
religious communities and in many instances amount to ongoing
harassment and persecution of entire communities. Measures like
these often have the intended side effect of creating an
inferior status of whole communities of believers and can
assure or perpetuate poverty and hence, powerlessness of such
groups.
Forced exile and local expulsions of religious believers:
In addition to their other obvious implications, such actions
also deny freedom of movement.
Excessive limitations on freedom of expression and freedom
of assembly:
These commonly accompany other violations and persecution of
minorities exercising freedom of religion or belief.
Public officials are sometimes responsible for these abuses
(particularly when there are legal or official limitations on religious
freedom and related rights), but in many cases groups of private
individuals may perpetrate the acts which harass or terrorize persons
who belong to--or are perceived to belong to--communities that manifest
other faiths than the officially favored or accepted ones.
Harassment of different religious communities sometimes takes
different forms: it is not always accompanied by violent actions
against religious communities or their forced expulsion. On the
contrary, the techniques of persecution are much more insidious,
sometimes quiet, sometimes ``legal'', and often a mixture of methods.
Antisemitism and Religious Repression
The annual World Report on Antisemitism, published by the Institute
for Jewish Policy Research (UK) and the American Jewish Committee
(USA), reveals the complexity of the causes and diversity of
manifestations of this age-old form of hatred by outlining each
country's political and economic setting, the general climate of racism
and xenophobia, the historical legacy of past antisemitism, the nature
and ideology of extremist political parties and movements, actions by
governments and measures seen as ``pandering'' to racist sentiment, as
well as the specific details of violent and other. manifestations of
antisemitism ranging from arson to harassment and the promotion of hate
against Jews. The most recent report, for example, cites upsurges in
1996 in antisemitism in such diverse countries as Turkey, Egypt,
Argentina, Spain, Germany (which, despite recent improvements,
continues to be the site of the highest number of incidents), Russia,
and Canada. It also reveals the extent to which the Internet has become
a vehicle of choice for the spread of anti semitic hatred.
Among the trends identified in the last World Report are:
The salience of antisemitism for far right, neo-Nazi and
extremist groups, many of whom work through the ballot box to
legitimize and spread hatred.
Most militant antisemites are young, unemployed males in
North America and Europe, Australia, and the Middle East. The
report states: ``The main factors involved in the success of
the far right are unemployment, economic uncertainty, crime,
anti-immigrant feeling, and concern at the possible loss of
national identity as a result of globalization and European
integration. Antisemitism has been displaced by other forms of
racism in many of these settings . . .''
Antisemitism is widespread in the former Soviet Union
(``FSU''). Antisemitism is part of the ideology of the
political opposition, the so-called ``red'' (communist) and
``brown'' (fascist) parties. There are two classic forms of
antisemitism in the former Soviet Union countries: (1)
antisemitism based on religious themes which incites hatred by
reviving outrageous ``blood libels''; and (2) political
antisemitism which continues the canards against Jews developed
and propagated from years of state-sponsored antisemitism in
the Soviet bloc states. Jews and Jewish communities report on
both ongoing incidents of repression and their very well-
founded fear of further persecution. Commonly, the authorities
in Russia and many of the FSU states do not take action against
those who commit various acts directed against Jews.
Numbers tell only part of the story. Violent incidents of
antisemitism are recorded by groups in many of the countries.
Overall. they have declined from the high recorded in 1995
although the actual number of incidents recorded in 1996
increased. Such incidents are up in France, but down in Germany
and Austria. But countries as distant as South Africa,
Indonesia and Argentina have seen the reappearance of
antisemitic violence in the last year.
While there has been less physical violence or attacks on
persons, there has been an upsurge in antisemitic graffiti,
threats, and attacks on property.
Extreme Measures Directed Against Women
In many countries and religions, extremist religious organizations
and sometimes governments as well have established measures to enforce
subordination and obedience from women that deny them their rights to
equality and liberty. For example, in Afghanistan, Taliban authorities
have denied women the right to maintain jobs outside the home and have
sanctioned beatings--on the streets or at home--as a means of enforcing
submission from women. Such measures constitute a form of religious
persecution. The Jacob Blaustein Institute has paid special attention
to the human rights of women in its work. Recently we co-sponsored with
the George Washington School of Law, a conference examining the
intersection of ``Religious Fundamentalisms and the Human Rights of
Women,'' which examined the practices of fundamentalist movements in
all of the major religions and identified the ways international human
rights norms were relevant to their behavior.
The Complex Causes of These Abuses
The causes of antisemitism and other forms of religious persecution
are many: no single ``germ theory'' can account for it. To use another
analogy, a stress theory might be more appropriate. The pathology of
such persecution becomes visible only if the accepted societal balance
breaks down. When societies begin to stress economically, socially,
politically, and are near breakdown, there is greater manifestation of
antisemitism and scapegoating of those who are different. Sometimes
this takes the form of physical violence. In other situations, the
persecution may be more pervasive and take other forms.
This leads us to highlight a major conclusion of every expert who
has examined this subject: repression of religious freedom and acts of
religious intolerance, including violence, are commonly manifested in
combination with other human rights abuses. We believe it is essential
for the members of this committee, and all others engaged in shaping US
policy on religious persecution abroad, to bear this in mind when
formulating US policy. It is also true that the governments are not
always the perpetrators:communities of believers may instigate actions
against other communities. In such instances, the root causes may be
complex, but the obligations of governments to stop such violence and
discrimination remain clear.
Sometimes the piety of one religious group or its leader is simply
a mask for other prejudices which intrinsically have nothing to do with
religion. Instead, historical, socio-cultural or physical factors may
provoke the hostility. Often, the sacred teachings of religion are
themselves twisted and construed to condone the prejudice.
In sum, the causes of religious persecution are many and require
extensive analysis. We briefly identify some of them here.
(1) Ignorance and lack of understanding;
(2) Conflicts and variations in public religious identification and
manifestations. In some instances, if a religion legitimizes
secularization, the religion itself may become a target of persecution
by those advocating greater religiosity in public affairs;
(3) Exploitation or abuse of religion or belief--particularly among
so-called ``new'' religions--for questionable ends, such as criminal
activity, use of narcotics, etc.
(4) Historical legacy of the role and conflict of religions in the
pursuit of power extending back to ancient, medieval or colonial times
and the manipulation of this past for present-day political purposes.
(5) Social tensions, particularly those associated with the arrival
of immigrant groups with unfamiliar religions, which can contribute to
a sense that the minority religion is challenging the state's or the
dominant religion's control
(6) Absence of dialogue between those espousing different religions
or beliefs
(7) The pursuit of power. As we have seen in so many post-cold-war
conflicts, leaders often use or attack religion to justify their own
effort to obtain power and wealth, and to repress others for reasons
that have little to do with differences in religious belief
II. Making Sanctions an Effective Tool of Policy
The broad scope and complexity of the causes of religious
persecution, as well as the close interrelationship of curtailment of
religious freedoms with repression of other human rights, suggest that
a broad and flexible strategy is needed for effective response. We have
previously identified a ten-point plan for preventing persecution of
religion abroad, appended to this statement, that incorporates our
recommendations as to the elements of such a strategy. I submitted this
plan to the State Department last year for consideration by the
Secretary of State's Advisory Panel on Religious Freedom Abroad.
As the plan reflects, sanctions are a key tool of US foreign
policy, but they should not be the sole substitute for a broader and
focused policy response. In the 1990s, sanctions have been employed
with increasing frequency; one study reminds us that the US has
employed sanctions more since 1993 than in all the prior years of this
century. It is our view that US sanctions should be designed to fit the
specific policy objectives of specific cases. They are most effective
when they are part of a policy response, not an alternative to one.
Many support sanctions because the imposition of sanctions
registers disapproval and disassociates the US from atrocious acts.
Sanctions also demonstrate the credibility of the international norms
that have been breached, thereby backing up rhetoric with action.
Imposing sanctions is aimed at punishing abuser countries. But this is
not enough: properly conceived and devised, sanctions can also have a
preventive function. If used early enough, they can prevent the
deterioration of a situation into violence or warfare. It is therefore
useful to think of sanctions less as punishment than as a non-violent
deterrent which can serve as an alternative to the use of military
force. They also offer the added value of being a policy response that
the American public and Congress generally support (when they have been
imposed, the congressional votes are usually overwhelming). Unilateral
sanctions can be imposed relatively easily--by national governments
acting alone, which is relatively easy to do particularly by comparison
with multilateral sanctions. It is also true that some sanctions--
especially individual financial sanctions--can be fine-tuned and
targeted at the perpetrators themselves. Not only do they embarrass
perpetrators of human rights abuses, but they press for changes in the
behavior of state authorities which may well limit their action
immediately or in the future. Thus, one of the most important values of
sanctions is that they place the responsibility for improvement
directly on the perpetrators.
But there are numerous critics of sanctions who question their
effectiveness and the process by which they established. This subject
has received considerable attention here in the Senate, as well as in
the House of Representatives. Opponents of sanctions argue that they
don't work, that they are a long term, not a short term, instrument.
And while they may be aimed at perpetrators, it is argued, sanctions
can be blunt instruments that harm innocent citizens instead of the
perpetrators. Some say that sanctions are imposed too early, when other
tools--like diplomatic representations, public criticism, and other
measures--could still work. Because they are often punitive, and likely
to be rejected by the target state, we often hear that sanctions can
undermine US competitiveness and economic security, thereby harming our
own nation. They can be costly not only in terms of lost business, it
is said, but also costly if the legal and operational structures to
impose sanctions quickly and effectively have to be established from
scratch. At present, multilateral structures to enforce sanctions are
weak or don't exist, and national ones need further improvement, too.
Finally, sanctions are hard to remove. Some of the members of this body
have been encouraging a process to ensure an independent assessment on
the likely effectiveness of particular kinds of sanctions before they
are imposed
We do not take such a dim view of the efficacy of sanctions, but
neither is it the case that they are always the most appropriate
measure. The impact of sanctions often varies with the specific
situation. Among the key factors are the degree of dependence between
the countries involved, whether the sanctions are unilateral or
multilateral, whether they are targeted on a government or private
businesses within a country, whether retaliation is likely and whether
alternatives to sanctions are available and have been tried or not.
Sanctions are not a substitute for active diplomacy nor for policy; but
when the abuses are egregious and when other aspects of policy fail to
change this, sanctions must be an active part of American foreign
policy that members of the legislative and executive branches should
have the discretion to use when necessary.
In this connection, we note that automatic sanctions applicable to
every country in the world-deemed a ``one size fits all'' approach--do
not, in the case of religious persecution, offer the best approach for
rewarding compliance by individual governments with the norms we are
often seeking to uphold in our diplomatic efforts. As indicated
earlier, the causes of religious intolerance and repression are many
and complex. Our capacity to address them should be no less
sophisticated and multi-layered.
III. The International Religious Freedom Act
Over the past year, the Wolf-Specter bill (the Freedom from
Religious Persecution Act, S. 772), introduced in June 1997 and passed
by the House of Representatives last month, brought much-needed
attention to and action on behalf of the plight of untold numbers of
people around the globe who are suffering because of their religious
beliefs. More recently, an alternative initiative directed to this
crucial problem has been introduced, the Nickles-Mack-Lieberman bill,
titled the International Religious Freedom Act (S. 1868). It is the
latter bill that is the focus of my remarks today. We strongly support
the policy objectives of the bill:
to condemn religious persecution and to promote and assist
other governments in advancing the right to religious freedom;
to channel US security and development assistance away from
governments that engage in violations of human rights,
including religious freedom, and towards those who respect it;
to be vigorous and flexible in an effort to reflect our
deeply held principles but to produce the most effective and
principled response, given the diversity of behavior,
violations. and the status of US relations with any country;
to advance multilateral norms and initiatives to combat
religious persecution abroad; and
to use and implement appropriate tools in the foreign policy
apparatus to this end--diplomatic, political, commercial,
charitable, educational, and cultural.
In the view of the American Jewish Committee, the International
Religious Freedom Act offers the promise of genuine efficacy in
combating religious persecution, and meets the conditions we have set
out above for sanctions: it promotes a flexible approach to sanctions
and it allows for policy responses that are country-specific and
situation-specific. We have argued for some time for a menu of
calibrated and discretionary sanctions instead of the automatic
sanctions provided in Wolf-Specter. This stems from our analysis both
of the causes and practices of religious repression, and from our long-
standing experience with respect to efforts to correct such behavior.
The Nickles-Mack bill provides for a sophisticated and calibrated
menu of sanctions in response to findings that countries conduct
religious persecution and/or gross violations of human rights. Sixteen
different forms of executive action or economic sanction are offered
for any country identified to be engaging in or tolerating religious
persecution. The President is mandated to take the action or actions
that most appropriately respond to the nature and severity of the
religious persecution, and to seek to target action as narrowly as
practicable with respect to the agency, foreign government or specific
individuals responsible, and to make reasonable efforts to conclude
agreements on ending such persecution. In addition, provision is made
for presidential waivers, and a process of consultation and negotiation
makes it less likely that a country will be designated as engaged in
widespread and ongoing abusive practices in a situation where that
finding is unwarranted. The bill allows for consultation with the
community of believers most affected by the repression, and hence, the
flexibility to utilize the means deemed most effective and least likely
to provoke further harm to those who are already its victims.
We also commend the Nickles-Mack bill's incorporation of a
definition of acts of religious persecution that follows in important
respects the definitions of freedom of religion and belief currently
found in both international and US law. The broad definitions of
religious persecution and gross violations of religious freedom in
Nickles-Mack are more likely to include the kind of repression that
affects religious communities worldwide. It is important that the
definition adopted in this legislation not weaken the international
standard on religious freedom which the US government and non-
governmental organizations have worked so hard to establish and
maintain--despite severe opposition--in international instruments and
forums. At the least, the definition should not exclude practices and
acts perpetrated against Jews and other communities of faith that have
in the past been understood to constitute persecution (e.g., preventing
religious believers from forming congregations or worshipping together;
denying employment, social services, health care or access to
education, or ownership of property; forbidding the right to leave, to
marry, to inherit or to educate one's children; perpetrating hate
crimes and destruction of property, etc.). Such practices have led to
violent conflicts and even genocide. They are often the first
harbingers of persecution of communities of faith. If we are serious
about combating religious persecution abroad, and about preventing even
worse atrocities, these practices and acts should be addressed by this
bill.
However, we do have a number of concerns with respect to the
definitions set forth in the bill, its requirements of duplicative
reporting, and the creation of a more elaborate bureaucracy that is not
linked to and aimed at strengthening existing human rights machinery in
our government.
Nickles-Mack would create new government offices and high level
posts subject to Senate confirmation to monitor and report on religious
persecution worldwide. It requires separate reports on countries, with
sanctions required for countries that are determined to be engaged
directly in religious persecution (which, as defined, can consist of
single acts or violations) or for governments inactive in discouraging
it. The bill also requires overall improvement in State Department
reporting on religious persecution in the annual human rights country
reports, changes in INS training and handling of religious asylum
claims, and a wide array of other educational, training, and reporting
measures.
We welcome the determination these measures signal: to make the US
government pay attention to egregious practices of religious
intolerance. But we are concerned that the new bureaucracy to be
created would duplicate rather than strengthen existing policy bodies,
particularly those in the human rights field. Moreover, it could
isolate the religious persecution monitoring programs from the
information-gathering and diplomatic apparatus of the State Department.
As indicated earlier, evidence shows that religious persecution
commonly takes place when there are other human rights abuses. Better
integration of the new apparatus into existing policy structures would
do more to provide early warning and prevention of religious repression
than its isolation.
In addition, the International Religious Freedom Act would create
new posts in both the Department of State (an ambassador-at-large
requiring Senate confirmation) and the National Security Council,
including a 2-year, 6-person Commission on International Religious
Persecution, replacing or supplementing the current Advisory Committee.
But the new positions in the State Department would not be formally
connected to the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. We
believe that further attention should be given to linking them clearly
so that this combined machinery would be more effective within the
government. We remain concerned about creating an isolated and possibly
competing mini-bureaucracy on religious freedom issues; it is our view
that this must be linked to the machinery focused on protection of all
human rights. We are concerned that the machinery proposed in Nickles-
Mack not only duplicates but also challenges (rather than reinforces or
strengthens) human rights structures within State created 20 years ago
and those in the White House/NSC. If the aim is to strengthen the
consideration of human rights and religious freedom issues by the US
government in its foreign policy, then this function should be
incorporated within the existing structures which are already engaged
in monitoring, reporting and other activities related to ending
religious persecution worldwide. We have noted with regret that the
Human Rights Bureau in State is now the smallest Bureau in the
Department and is smaller even than the Protocol Office. If we want to
be effective in stopping religious repression, that is simply wrong.
The Nickles-Mack bill requires multiple reports and determinations
of which countries are religious persecutors and/or gross violators by
the new machinery, with the reference to gross violators suggesting a
series on ongoing egregious forms of religious intolerance.
The Nickles-Mack bill has a number of other provisions about which
we have concerns. Most prominent among these are its two-tiered
definitions. The definitions in the Nickles-Mack bill commendably
encompass more forms of religious intolerance than Wolf-Specter.
However, the Nickles-Mack bill uses the term ``gross violations'' to
refer to egregious acts which we understand would normally be termed
persecution, and the term ``persecution'' to refer to ``any'' act or
violation. The terminology seems to be reversed: persecution normally
refers to widespread and ongoing patterns of activity, while violations
usually refer to separate acts. Moreover, the term ``persecution'' is
widely used to trigger provision of asylum for would-be refugees and it
would undoubtedly complicate our asylum policies to use it to refer to
individual acts. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The reference to asylum policy brings to the fore another issue
that should be mentioned in light of the commendable concern for
victims of religious persecution that the Wolf-Specter and Nickles-
Mack-Lieberman initiatives reflect. A scant two years ago, the Congress
enacted ``expedited exclusion'' provisions that will inevitably result
(if they have not already done so) in this nation's returning persons
with meritorious claims for asylum to nations of origin where they face
death, torture or other grievous harm. That awful possibility
confronts, of course, those who flee persecution of any type, not just
victims of religious persecution. We urge the Congress to seek an early
opportunity to provide for an across-the-board elimination, or at least
substantial modification, of expedited exclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We commend the authors of the bill for making this definition broad
enough so that it is not limited merely to government action. The bill
recognizes (in Sec.102 (b)(1)(ii)) that other actors, including
religious communities themselves, may carry out acts of violence or
repression against other such communities which differ from them, and
that government inaction in the face of such incidents is itself an
egregious act. Whether it constitutes complicity is one of the issues
that those compiling the reports will have to study. We know too well
from our own history that silence in the face of such repressive acts
is never acceptable.
The implications, however, of the reversal of normal terminology
regarding the definitions of ``violations'' and ``persecution'' in the
Nickles-Mack bill raise some serious and real concerns, both in policy
and administration. Section 401(b) requires that the President ``shall
take one or more of the actions'' designated as sanctions in Sec.
405(a) for each country identified in the mandated Annual Report on
Religious Persecution as engaging or tolerating acts of religious
``persecution.'' Yet nearly every country--including our own--may have
some individual instances in which there are abuses of the right to
freedom of religion or belief of one or more of its citizens, and these
may be met with inaction by the government. Unless the definition of
sanctionable cases is modified, the bill may well mandate US officials
to make private demarches or public statements in a vast number of
individual cases (which are termed ``persecution'' in Nickles-Mack).
While this may be desirable in the abstract, it may so dominate the
human resources available to the Department of State and other US
officials as to become administratively unwieldy. Therefore, we would
encourage a technical review of the use of the definitions and terms
describing repressive acts related to religious freedom in the bill.
This could include consideration of whether there should be a threshold
established for the requirement that one or more of the flexible menu
of sanctions must be applied for individual incidents. This would not,
of course, preclude the possibility that the President and US
diplomatic officials could still be encouraged to make private or
public demarches and representations regarding individual incidents,
but merely modify the requirement that they must do so in each
instance. This reflects both matters of definition and of sheer volume
of cases requiring independent action by US officials under this bill.
In its initial list of findings, the Nickles-Mack bill begins with
an appropriate series of references to and citations of the universal
norms on freedom of religion in the UN Charter, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human
Rights and various regional instruments. However, two technical details
appear to have been omitted. First, the bill omits mentioning norms on
religious freedom included in the regional human rights instruments of
the Organization of African Unity and the Organization of American
States, which should be referenced because they further demonstrate the
universality of freedom of thought, religion, and belief. And Section
2(a)(3), which outlines the elements of religious freedom cited in
Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
to which the United States is a party, states that ``Religious freedom
is a fundamental right of every individual, regardless of race,
country, creed or nationality. . . .''
Both the Covenant and the Universal Declaration (like the UN
Charter and other instruments) also identify sex as one of the factors
which must not be disregarded in ensuring that ``everyone'' shall have
the freedoms cited. It would be helpful to correct this error by adding
``sex'' to the list cited in Section 2(a)(3). We believe it is
important to signal that ``everyone'' means everyone. Every individual,
in every country in the world, has the right to practice his or her
religion, alone or in the community of others, in public or in private,
and to manifest it.
Finally, on the positive side, the Nickles bill provides for
consultation with the communities of believers under threat, so that
the sanctions, if imposed, will not create more problems on the ground
if those most directly affected by them are opposed to them. But it is
ironic that it provides for this kind of consultation abroad, but does
not appear to provide for it within the US government and the State
Department in particular. Some of the lines of authority within the US
government need to be clarified, beginning with the relationship of the
Ambassadorial-level post to the human rights bureau.
IV. Conclusion--Is This Bill Really Necessary?
The foregoing comments should not be viewed as mitigating from our
view that the Nickles-Mack bill is a preferred form of legislation in
the area of religious freedom. Because of the sophisticated menu of
choices offered, clearly linking and integrating the pursuit of an end
to religious persecution to overall U.S. policy, it is well constructed
and calculated to achieve the goals of helping repressed communities
abroad.
We believe the net result of the Nickles bill, with some of the
changes outlined above, would be a better integration of concern about
religious persecution as an aim in US foreign policy, and result in a
better outcome in preventing and putting an end to religious repression
in at least some instances.
This Committee has already heard from Assistant Secretary of State
for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor John Shattuck on the bill and
there are voices in the Administration (and in the Congress) that argue
that neither Nickles-Mack nor Wolf-Specter is necessary, that the
Administration already has the authority to do what is necessary. We
note, and appreciate that, through the creation of an advisory
committee on religious persecution, the issuing of specialized country
reports, and the instructions issued to diplomatic posts and promises
made in public by the Secretary of State to create an office on
religious persecution, the Clinton Administration has treated the issue
of promoting religious freedom abroad with more seriousness than its
predecessors. No prior Administration, Democratic or Republican, has
done as much to heighten attention to this issue overall.
But we are not satisfied that the views and directives of the
Administration leadership have changed the way the government
bureaucracy--from the State Department to Commerce, from the National
Security Council to the Department of Labor, from the Bureau of East
Asian Affairs to the Bureau of African Affairs and elsewhere--addresses
and takes action abroad to prevent and protect against religious
intolerance and violent acts that stem from it. Our experience with the
human rights legislation adopted by the Congress--over the objections
of past Administrations--demonstrates that it is essential to make
officials at the working level, at diplomatic posts abroad, as well as
right here in Washington, aware of the problems posed by this kind of
prejudice and bigotry, and the threat to stability, peace and security
posed by such abuses. Our goal is to make American policy more
effective. We believe the Nickles-Mack-Lieberman bill has the right
approach. It is calibrated, can be situation-specific, offers
flexibility in its application and imposition, but forces American
policy makers and officials to ask questions, confront the facts, and
explore realistic options available to them. A review of our experience
with the Soviet Jewry movement reveals that US action on religious
persecution can succeed when the efforts are integrated within existing
structures and offer flexibility in its application. This offers
lessons for our consideration of the International Religious Freedom
Act today.
In sum, Mr. Chairman, we are convinced it would be helpful to have
legislation that focuses attention on this real area of need and that,
with the changes we have recommended, has the potential to make a real
difference. Americans should not be hesitant about speaking out in
support of persecuted religious groups. Neither should we be reluctant
to speak to other human rights abuses that affect those groups and
societies every day. We believe America can and must lead--and that to
do so it needs the support, infrastructure, commitment, and means to do
so. We look to you and this Committee to achieve those ends.
Attachment
The American Jewish Committee's Ten-Point Plan for Preventing
Persecution of Religion Abroad
presented to the secretary of state's advisory committee on religious
persecution abroad, july, 1997
(1) Strengthen the universality of all human rights norms, including
those affirming religious freedom.
Strengthening universality can give the United States a much more
powerful bilateral tool with which to combat flouting of religious
norms. The more the international community stresses the universality
of human rights, particularly through the UN, regional organizations
and through a wide variety of other governmental actions, the harder it
becomes for violator governments to argue that their actions are
justified or that they are being singled out for criticism. Often, the
same countries whose present governments complain about the norms being
``foreign'' were participants in the drafting and adoption of the norms
and voted in favor of them.
Strengthening universality requires, among other items:
affirmation that religious freedom applies to all and the
standards cannot be different for different religions or
different countries;
an expert presence at international human rights sessions at
the UN and the ability to use that presence effectively to
preserve and extend protections of the elements of freedom of
thought, conscience, religion and belief;
year-round attentiveness to monitoring human rights
violations worldwide that affect religious believers and
communities of believers;
stronger capacity within the State Department to monitor,
report on and make policy recommendations to advance religious
freedom for all worldwide.
Strengthening universality also implies greater support for
building up the capacity of human rights monitoring groups within
countries themselves to hold governments accountable for their actions
that abuse human rights, including religious freedoms. There is an
opportunity to use the Agency for International Development (AID) and
the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) more effectively to promote
this capacity and to ensure that freedom of religion is something that
is routinely monitored by these and other groups..
(2) Go country-specific and situation-specific
Human rights organizations have demonstrated that initiatives that
``name names'', and focus on (and embarrass and/or punish) specific
countries are the most effective in changing a government's behavior
when the government itself is in a position to turn on or turn off the
repression. In situations where the government finds itself (or argues
that it is) unable to do anything to stop the violence or repression,
embarrassment and punishment alone may not work. In such cases, more
carefully calibrated policies are needed to encourage officials to take
active measures to stop or prosecute those responsible. The goal of
trying to bring about effective change should always be at the
forefront of such country-specific actions.
Enlist Congressional oversight powers to ensure that
existing US policy on human rights and religious freedom is
better implemented. Ask to see how the US government's policies
on ``human rights as a pillar of US foreign policy'' are
operationalized--region by region and country by country. Ask
for regional Assistant Secretaries to testify to the committee
on how their regions. It would be useful to form county task
forces to which other experts could be added and invited.
(3) Be there: Get the facts, analyze the situation and convey concern
over religious persecution when it exists
The key to effective and credible human rights activism is the
identification and verification of relevant information: in short,
fact-finding.
Beef up the capacity of international bodies and specialists
to monitor and report on violations of religious freedom and
related human rights abuses.
Support the capacity of the UN Special Rapporteur on
Religious Intolerance and the High Commissioner to carry out
efforts to report fully and credibly and to take measures to
prevent religious persecution.
(4) At every US embassy abroad, beef up the ``field'' presence and
expertise in identifying early signs of religious persecution,
preventing it and promoting religious freedom
There is a great need to improve the training of US diplomats,
including political appointees such as ambassadors, on human rights
including freedom of religion and belief with a special emphasis on
improved fact-finding, reporting, consultations, and diplomatic
activities while posted abroad. The Administration has begun to take
steps in this direction. Early experiences with human rights monitoring
by the US government have demonstrated the magnitude of the task of
sensitizing US foreign service officials and other diplomats serving
abroad on these matters. Efforts in recent years to improve monitoring
and reporting on discrimination against women and abridgment of labor
rights in the country reports should be emulated in the area of
religious freedom.
(5) Strengthen existing Human Rights Institutions
The UN's first Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, Angelo
d'Almedia Ribeiro (Portugal), concluded that religious freedom is so
interrelated with other freedoms (e.g., freedom of association,
assembly, speech, etc.) that the best guarantee of eradicating it is
building effective institutions for democracy, rule of law and socio-
economic measures that remove inequalities. In this way, we can
directly address the root causes of the inter-denominational conflicts
at the same time as we build institutions that can hold those
responsible to account.
(A) Strengthen the Bureau of Human Rights, Democracy and
Labor (DRL)
The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor in the Dept. of
State is presently the smallest Bureau in the Department--smaller than
the Protocol office. It is facing further cutbacks. Rather than bypass
or weaken these key institutions, built up over the past two decades,
those seeking to prevent and stop religious persecution should favor an
increase in the number of personnel and expertise on religious freedom
on the DRL Bureau's staff. For this reason, any senior official, such
as the proposed Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Freedom, should be
attached to the human rights bureau and report through its Assistant
Secretary.
(B) Strengthen development of means of accountability:
finding ways to hold perpetrators of abuses
accountable within their own societies, and if that
does not work, ensure there is an appropriate
international forum
There are two promising ways to achieve this:
(C) Strengthening national institutions
If those responsible for perpetrating abuses of religious freedom
are to be held to account, there must be national institutions capable
of acting effectively, not standing idle. Government officials, police,
and courts all need to be strengthened and made more effective and
credible. Current foreign aid projects to build respect for the rule of
law and ensure accountability within countries are inadequate and will
need substantial strengthening.
(D) Creating an International Criminal Court to hold
perpetrators of genocide and related persecution
accountable when national courts are ineffective or
unavailable
Such an entity would expand upon the UN tribunals created for
former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Discussions of the scope and nature of
such a Court are under way at the UN. The Convention against Genocide
(to which the US is a party) calls for a court to punish those
responsible for genocide, which includes destruction (or intent to
destroy) the members of a group in whole or in part. Persecution
against religious groups may fit such a category
(6) Encourage inter religious contacts while maintaining stronger
contacts with communities of faith within a country
International contacts as well as presence in countries of concern
can serve as protection for those at risk of persecution and
beleaguered communities. In addition, human rights advocates have found
that it is essential to consult wherever possible with those in the
country concerned who are leading efforts to defend freedoms there.
Their views as to what helps and harms them should be given major
consideration.
(7) Promote specialized education at home and abroad about human rights
and religious freedom
Community organizations and the US government should use the 50th
anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights this year as
an opportunity to educate Americans and others about human rights,
including religious freedom, and to raise the profile of these issues.
We are pleased to point out that a community action guide, entitled
``In Your Hands,'' prepared by our Jacob Blaustein Institute for use
nationwide during the 50th anniversary, contains a substantial section
on religious persecution with activities every American can take to
learn about and work to end such behavior.
(8) Speak out and lead new initiatives wherever possible
At summit meetings, and other high-level encounters, the US should
expend greater effort should to put religious freedom and other human
rights into a position of prominence. At ordinary sessions of the UN
Commission on Human Rights, the General Assembly and other
international bodies, it is important that the US always speak out
against incitement to hatred. On such issues, the US is often the only
country that will do so; its leadership is truly indispensable to
bringing others to speak out as well.
At summit meetings and diplomatic events, the US should speak out
for the values of freedom and human rights, including religious
freedom. Such speeches must not be limited to our shores, but repeated
and affirmed abroad by our highest leaders. The US should make it clear
that these are universal rights, not just American concerns.
(9) Work with new constituencies and build bridges
One of the great lessons of the Soviet Jewry movement, as well as
the human rights movement itself has been the importance of broadening
support for ending human rights abuses, and working in coalition with
other civic groups. Concern about religious persecution should not be
the concern only of faith-based organizations. Among the constituencies
that should be enlisted in these efforts are women's organizations,
human rights groups, religious communities, business activists, and
other local constituencies.
(10) Review and revise asylum procedures to make them more fair
For instance, it would be important to fix the country profiles
given to USINR interview officers and other personnel. Too often these
emphasize possible grounds to deny asylum rather than to understand the
problems faced by persecuted communities
Steps should also be taken to end the summary exclusion
proceeding--for all.
__________
Prepared Statement of the Rev. Dr. John N. Akers
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, and friends.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today
in connection with the proposed ``International Religious Freedom Act
of 1998.'' American organizations which are involved in religious and
humanitarian service in other countries have an enormous stake in this
issue, and I am grateful you have invited some of us who represent
mission agencies to participate in this hearing.
Currently over 170,000 Americans, representing over 800
denominational and nondenominational agencies, are involved in some
type of religious work overseas. Their work runs the gamut from
evangelism and church planting, to schools, hospitals, disaster relief,
agricultural and other development projects, and other kinds of
humanitarian aid.
Let me be clear: Religious persecution is abhorrent to all of us,
and any country which consistently practices it cannot expect to be
accepted within the circle of civilized nations. Many mission agencies
face this problem almost daily, and yet for too long religious
persecution has been overlooked in discussions about human rights. We
therefore welcome the recent attention which has been given to the
problem of religious persecution, and we thank you for your concern.
Like other mission agencies, the organization I represent today--
East Gates Ministries International--is a nonprofit, non-political
religious agency. It is not my intention, therefore, to speak about the
possible political or economic repercussions of this bill. Nor am I
equipped to give a point-by-point analysis of the proposed Bill. I am
sure you will be studying carefully the thoughtful suggestions others
have made.
Instead, today I would like to bring to your attention two concerns
we have--what I might call two benchmarks, against which I believe any
final version of this bill should be measured. I hope you will keep
these two concerns before you as the Bill is debated.
First, we believe the final version of any bill on religious
persecution must take into account its potential impact on the work of
American mission organizations.
Many American mission agencies work in what are frankly difficult
circumstances, including societies where there may be discrimination or
even persecution against religious minorities. Often they are able to
continue their work only because they have learned to stay clear of
political involvements, and to demonstrate that they are working for
the betterment of that society and its people.
If, however, the United States were to impose (for example)
automatic, harsh sanctions without exception against every society
judged to practice religious discrimination, almost certainly some
governments would react with immediate reprisals against American
mission organizations. In extreme cases they would be banned from
continuing their work, and their personnel might be in serious danger.
I trust you will always keep this concern in mind.
Second, we believe the final version of any bill on religious
persecution must take into account its probable impact on the religious
believers it seeks to help. The old adage of Hippocrates applies here
as well: First, do thy patient no harm.
The point is this: In some societies, stringent and thoughtless
measures by the United States could actually make the situation worse
for believers, rather than better. Religious persecution is usually a
far more complex issue than we are willing to admit. As a church leader
from one Asian country said to me, ``If my government concludes we
Christians are the cause of bad relations between our two countries, it
will only make life more difficult for us.''
Please permit me to add a word of background here. One question
that is often overlooked is this: Why are people persecuted for their
faith?
There are many answers to that question, of course. At the root of
most persecution, however, is the perception that a minority religious
group is different, and that they are therefore a threat to the
established social or political order.
Anything which magnifies that perception of differentness,
therefore, usually only makes things worse. This is precisely why it is
so difficult for a foreign government (such as ours) to single out a
particular religious group for attention. Doing so may actually
heighten its perception of differentness by their surrounding society,
thus making them the focal point of greater antagonism and
discrimination.
The bottom line is this: As you consider this bill, please remember
that each country and each case of persecution is different. In our
view, a ``one size fits all'' approach is dangerous, and will end up
hurting religious minorities in some countries, not helping them. Any
bill must avoid inadvertently hurting those it seeks to help.
In asking you to remember the potential impact of a religious
persecution bill on both American mission agencies and on foreign
believers, I do not mean to imply that I am opposed to the specific
bill that is before this Committee. That is not the case. This bill's
measured approach to the subject, and its wide range of responses to
instances of religious discrimination, are significant contributions to
the legislative debate about this issue.
However, in light of the two concerns I have outlined, let me
respectfully suggest four possible additions to the present bill for
your consideration.
First, we urge that the bill explicitly require multilateral
consultations and actions wherever possible. Aside from the obvious
advantage of bringing the moral weight of the international community
to bear against gross acts of religious persecution a multilateral
approach could also help minimize the impact on American mission
agencies, which might otherwise be singled out for reprisals.
Second, we suggest that consideration be given to placing a time
limit on the Act. Let me be honest: Many of us who are involved in
foreign missionary activity admittedly become very nervous whenever any
governments become involved in religious matters that affect us. We
know that this can lead to unforeseen problems. Requiring the Act to be
renewed periodically would give all of us a better opportunity to spot
any problems it might be inadvertently causing, including problems for
mission agencies or indigenous believers.
Third, we urge that the Bill explicitly require those involved in
its implementation to take into account not only the immediate
religious situation in a specific country, but also the overall trend.
This can work both ways. Some countries may be making a good faith
effort to reverse their past policies of religious discrimination, and
this should be rewarded. Others may be taking the first steps toward
more onerous policies, and these need to be spotted and acted upon.
Finally, we urge the Committee to write into the Bill as many
safeguards as possible to avoid politicizing this issue. I do not
pretend to know the exact formula for accomplishing this; I know some
have suggested that strengthening the role of the Department of State
might help. I do know, however, that an annual squabble between the
President and the Congress over specific instances of religious
persecution will hurt those of us who serve in other countries, and
will also hurt the cause of religious freedom in some countries. I hope
you will do everything you can to keep that from happening.
Again, I thank you for your concern for this subject, and for your
kind attention to these comments. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ East Gates Ministries International (with offices in Seattle,
Hong Kong and Shanghai) works openly with both the officially
recognized and unofficial churches of the people's Republic of China,
to assist them with legally-printed Bibles, literature, leadership
training, and other resources. East Gates is headed by the Rev. Nelson
Graham, son of Dr. and Mrs. Billy Graham.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________
Prepared Statement of Dr. William R. O'Brien
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before your committee today. I am William R.
O'Brien, Director of the Global Center at Samford University in
Birmingham, Alabama. I have been in this position since March 1991.
Prior to that, I served in administrative staff positions from 1976 at
the Foreign Mission Board, Southern Baptist Convention, including
Executive Vice President from 1980 to 1989, and Director of Public
Affairs and the Global Desk from 1989 to 1991. My family and I served
as Southern Baptist missionaries in Indonesia from 1963 to 1971.
Currently my wife, Dellanna, is Executive Director of Woman's
Missionary Union, Auxiliary to the Southern Baptist Convention. WMU is
the largest women and girls' organization in America, with
approximately one million members.The organization stays abreast of
domestic and international realities in order to provide solid missions
education for local churches, and promotion of national offerings in
support of Southern Baptist missions at home and abroad. In its 110
year history, WMU has successfully raised about $2 billion dollars for
world missions.
In addition to almost twenty-seven years service through the
Foreign Mission Board, I bring several years of international
involvement through the Pacific Rim Think Tank of International Urban
Associates, Plowshares Institute (a ministry wholly committed to
conflict management and empowering for reconciliation with justice),
Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding, the Russian/American Logos
Group (founding body of a Christian Music Conservatory and Cultural
Center in Moscow), and co-chair of a task-force serving the Birmingham
Civil Rights Institute.
The Reality of Religious Persecution
I am deeply grateful for the focus on religious persecution in both
the House and the Senate of our United States Congress. The initiatives
of Senators Nickles, Lieberman and others in the Senate, and
Congressmen Wolf and Specter in the House serve to both ratchet up our
concern while attempting to provide legislative measures through which
we can, in partnership with other concerned states, influence change in
those areas of proven violation of religious liberty and human rights.
Such efforts help to overcome any malaise and apathy within our own
press and other media that may contribute to both ignorance and
insensitivity of the American people. While religious persecution per
se in many parts of the world is a verifiable reality, persecution of
Christians too often has not captured the attention of the media or
politicos in proportion to the depth of the issue. In Their Blood Cries
Out author Paul Marshall says the story about Christians ``is a story
that is all but ignored and unknown in the world at large, and little
better known in the Christian world.'' (Word Publishers, 1997, pg. 4)
The reality of what has been happening for a long time cannot be
denied. Documented instances of the persecution of Christians, as well
as the persecution of adherents of other religions, are available to
the public through print, Internet access, and contact with numerous
advocacy groups. (See Appendix A in Their Blood Cries Out.)
The Complexity of Defining Religious Persecution
Life in general is basically ``messy.'' In spite of attempts to
neatly categorize our activities and relationships in order to control
and protect our lives, it never works. For instance, ``sacred'' and
``secular'' are Siamese twins; attempts to surgically separate them
usually bring death to one, or both. In attempting to define religious
persecution so that the perpetrators can be exposed and dealt with, we
discover a multi-complex braid of culture, ethnicity, economics,
politics, and religion. Any legislation that calls for concrete and
pejorative steps must be wisely crafted in order to avoid deeper
problems on the ground where the conflict exists, as well as a negative
boomerang effect on the United States.
My family lived and worked in Indonesia from 1963 until 1971. In
those years we experienced run-away inflation, an attempted coup d'etat
in 1965, a bloody massacre over a six-month period following the coup,
and the initiation of the New Order under the newly installed President
Suharto. During the six-month ``clean-up operation'' which was carried
out in the name of crushing the Communist Party, there were instances
of torture and killing between Javanese and Chinese, Muslims and
Christians, and neighbor against neighbor. The umbrella motive for the
operation was political cleansing and stabilizing a sense of
nationhood. Meanwhile, religious and ethnic factors played a role,
taking advantage of the larger movement in order to carry out vendettas
on other levels.
The same is true when harassment, torture, and persecution on
religious grounds are carried out. It is often difficult to ferret out
if this is purely religious persecution, or, are there socio-economic,
cultural, and/or ethnic motivations mixed in? For instance, some of the
church burnings in Indonesia in 1996/97 were not all purely based on a
religious bias. There is a perception that Christians are more
affluent. Because the ethnic Chinese of Indonesia comprise no more than
4% of the population and control about 75% of the wealth, and because
many Chinese are Christians, a general image of Christians often
carries with it a false perception of affluence that simply is not
true. Among the churches burned over the past three years, many, if not
most, would be comprised of very poor congregations. But the clouded
picture of who Christians are and any advantage they may have
economically confuses the whole issue. That is not to say that there
were no burnings based on pure religious conviction, but sometimes the
picture is too hazy to make categorical declarations.
Some of the Muslims involved in church burnings in East Java are
members of the Nahd'atul Ulama Party, the largest Islamic party in the
country comprised of over 30 million members. In 1996 I co-led a small
group of theological professors to Indonesia in a saturation immersion
in the culture. We spent two hours at the Nahd'atul Ulama Party
headquarters with Mr. Abdurrahman Wahid, chairman of the party, and one
of the most influential Muslim leaders in Indonesia. Mr. Wahid is a
religious and political moderate. He related stories about traveling to
east Java to meet with communities and Christian leaders to explain the
burnings were not party policy, were not part of the teachings of the
Koran, and made every attempt to build bridges of understanding for the
good of the community. These instances reflect the reality of
uncontrollable persons or groups who act out of their own radicality
and not based on any state or political policy or backing.
On the other hand, in the current scene there are small radical
groups who wreak havoc because of encouragement from sermons in the
Mosques; rich or poor is not the motivation. And the religious
harassment now taking place is carried out in a quasi-political vacuum
during the tense transition of leadership from Mr. Suharto to President
Habibie. While ABRI (the Indonesian armed forces) have traditionally
stood together in support of the Pancacila (the foundational document
of the nation), and opposed any attempt to turn Indonesia into an
Islamic state, observant Indonesians are noticing a more divided
military now where many seem to be turning ``Green'' while others are
still strong supporters of the ``Red and White.'' Given the current
political climate in Indonesia, the more radical elements of Islam, who
from 1945 have pushed for the adoption of the Jakarta Charter as the
basis of law in Indonesia, are once again pushing for an Islamic state.
The next six to twelve months hold awesome implications for Indonesia
as a nation, and, therefore, for the region and the world. Depending on
the political decisions made, which in Indonesia are inextricably
intertwined with religion, the potential for the exacerbation of
religious persecution targeting minority Christian groups is very
sobering. The willingness of some Muslims to sacrifice any existing
economic framework if that is what it takes to create an Islamic state
further complicates balancing the national equation.
The reason I have focused on the Indonesian scene vis-a-vis the
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 is not simply because I
happen to know Indonesia. Indonesia symbolizes the complexity of the
religion question in most of the non-western societies.
For instance, in the Middle East there have been recent allegations
of systemic persecution of Christians by the Palestinian Authority. A
recent fact-finding trip by scholars and journalists sponsored by
Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding could not substantiate any
of the allegations. While there are isolated incidents and tensions
that mark any culture with majority and minority populations, there was
no proof of a rising tide of anti-Christian sentiment. Dr. Donald
Wagner, Executive Director of EMEU, stated in a press release from
Jerusalem on May 22, 1998 and reissued in Chicago on June 8, 1998, that
``we found disturbing indications of political motivations behind
recent publicity about Christian persecution. We deplore efforts by
anyone to pit people of one faith against those of another religion in
order to strengthen a political position.''
From China the West receives very mixed signals about the Three-
Self Patriotic Movement and the China Christian Council (CCC).
Naysayers give the impression that the CCC is led by either members of
the Communist Party or they are at least collaborationist and under the
control of the government. Therefore, the ``underground'' church is the
only true church comprised of members who are uncompromising. Those who
know personally the CCC leadership, who have worshiped in many open
churches, and who have observed the theological training centers have a
very different impression.
Background and definitions at this point may be helpful. The Three-
Self Patriotic Movement was formed in 1955 by seven pastors who
realized crucial changes were taking place in China, and if the church
was to survive some new initiatives were needed. The movement was
concerned only about work inside China. During the most critical days
pastors and believers worshiped in what Westerners would call
``underground'' churches. The Chinese pastors refer to worshiping only
with the family or with one or two sets of neighbors. This would occur
in homes.
In 1979 the Chinese government recognized five religious entities:
Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims, Protestants, and Catholics. They did not
recognize such indigenous movements as Watchman Nee's Little Flock,
Seventh-Dy Adventists and others. The government views them as cults
and outside the freedom of religion policies. (However, when some of
their leaders were once jailed, the leader of the China Christian
Council and his associate went to Beijng to protest on their behalf.
The government leaders responded by saying they did not understand the
difference between ``true Christians'' and ``cults,'' and were willing
to be taught the difference.)
With increasing freedom of religious expression over the past
twenty years there are now 37,000 registered churches and meeting
places with between 12-15 million members. A registered meeting place
may lack the ability to pay a pastor or be unable to have a church
building. There are also unregistered meeting places that cooperate
with the CCC. We do not know how many unregistered/non-cooperating
meeting places there are. The estimates of the total number of
Protestant and Catholic Christians registered and unregistered, vary
widely. In a land so vast, mixed with cultural characteristics that do
not place an emphasis on numbers, it is futile to try to verify
accurately the Christian population of China.
About 1980 the China Christian Council was formed to work both
inside and outside of China. Major departments of the Council include
church, social ministries, theological education, evangelism, lay
training, and ministries among minorities. When the Amity Foundation,
with its Amity Press, was formed in the mid-1980s, it came under the
direction of the CCC. During my tenure at the Foreign Mission Board we
worked with the CCC in helping to fund the beginning of the Amity
Foundation Press in Nanjing. Since its inception in the mid-1980s the
Amity Press has printed and distributed within China 20 million Bibles.
One can even find Bibles for purchase at the Tass News Agency
bookstores. Pastors of unregistered churches come to the open churches
to get their Bibles and hymn books.
My experience has been that almost anything one reads about in
China is true; it is happening somewhere. There may be leaders in one
province who are harassing and imprisoning some unregistered church
leaders while in the adjacent province there may be a Christian revival
breaking out. Pastors of unregistered churches invite pastors of open
churches to preach in their pulpits. Pastors of open churches always
wait for those invitations. In their position if they attended an
unregistered church uninvited they may be accused of being spies by the
people. One pastor in Guangzhou boasts about being pastor of the
largest underground, or unregistered church in China. The church meets
on the second floor of a building, immediately above the police
station. Everything they do is quite open and known by everyone. All of
this to say there are complexities in all of these situations that
demand a very studied approach to any applied action.
During February 1998 three U.S. religious leaders (Jewish,
Catholic, Evangelical) traveled as a delegation to China to meet with
Chinese political and religious leaders concerning the issue of
religious freedom. They noted in their report the transition over the
past twenty years from a Cultural-Revolution policy of banning all
religious activity to an allowing and tolerating of organized religious
activity under the supervision of the Communist Party's United Front
Work Department. Officials feel this reality reflects the general trend
to economic reform and greater social openness. All the more reason to
keep the dialogue open and work from within the Chinese system. It is
crucial to understand a ``Middle Kingdom'' mindset and culture.
Friendship and trust earns one a place at the Chinese table.
To influence change that can bring both relief and ultimately the
eradication of religious persecution calls for wisdom, patience, and
cross-cultural collaboration. But that alone is not enough. For any
captives of an Enlightenment worldview that only embrace a closed
universe devoid of Ultimate Purpose, it is impossible to understand
that to wage a battle against religious persecution is to enter a
different sphere: spiritual warfare where one is not wrestling against
flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, in the words of
St. Paul. Therefore, how best can we accomplish the stated goal of the
legislative framework before us? How best can we avoid simplistic
solutions, unilateral actions, and a vacuous pragmatism that could be
interpreted as an arrogance that perpetrators of persecution repay with
resistance and more conflict instead of the hoped-for outcome of the
reduction and eradication of such activity?
Influencing Change
To build on strengths already present in S.1868 and further craft a
highly effective instrument for achieving the intended aims of the
bill, I recommend several considerations:
1. Build into the mechanism the mandate for the assigned person/
group in the State Department to engage in multilateral dialogue with
religious and political leaders in all the appropriate nations that can
produce collaborative insights needed for recommendations to the
President. In the light of a long history of persecution, appropriate
and judicious delays due to multilateral engagements will not endanger
an over-all game plan of intentionality in dealing with this issue. It
could even allow and encourage the use of focused diplomacy that just
might provide a breakthrough short of more drastic action.
2. Sources identified for garnering information on religious
persecution must be chosen with utmost care. Cross-referencing of
sources and data is important so as to reduce the potential for reports
being crafted from either incomplete or biased data. Furthermore,
gathering data must be done in such a way so as not to jeopardize the
presence and work of expatriate mission groups and missionaries. From
my own experience in Indonesia, during the buildup to the coup attempt
we expatriates were viewed as CIA agents. Such connections in the minds
of local people undermine the very honest work one is there to do.
Information gathering and reporting on religious persecution must be
done in a way that protects it from being suspect as a tool of the
intelligence service.
In highly volatile areas such as Indonesia, China, the Middle East,
to mention a few, examples of reporting through the emotional lenses of
the source may produce slants that should be measured against other
reports that may or may not have their own slants. The bill can require
the Commission or whatever appropriate entity at State to carefully
design reporting processes that include the emphases mentioned above.
3. As regarding any possible sanctions, the bill must include steps
that guarantee the United States, in collaboration with all appropriate
parties, will not take any action that would produce unintended
consequences for the very victims we are trying to help. Sanctions and
discontinuance of aid, especially if done unilaterally, well may evoke
a reaction from authoritarian regimes that are aimed at the persecuted.
Christians, and/or any other persecuted religious groups, could bear
the brunt of the anger of totalitarians or terrorists who react to what
they perceive and experience as arrogance on the part of a lone ranger
super power. In fact, the whole issue of sanctions should be an
absolute last ditch approach, if used at all. The President should call
for findings that prove sanctions would be useful and serve their
purposes, while not hurting the people we most want to help. It seems
to me it would greatly strengthen the President's hand, and give him or
her much greater flexibility in dealing with those nations engaged in
continuing patterns of gross violation of religious and human rights if
most of the work was done in State, within any new Commission, and/or
any other appropriate apparatus until the need arises for the United
States to prove its will and commitment through Presidential action.
4. Given that religious persecution in some form is happening in so
many nations, the bill must be careful not to paint all of them alike
with broad brush strokes. Not all persecution is state sponsored or
endorsed. Not all persecution is carried out by groups while a regime
either looks on approvingly, or turns its head. Sadly, some persecution
is Christian against Christian, e.g., Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda.
Mechanisms to provide case-by-case analysis should be built in so as to
deal most appropriately with each situation.
Conclusion
I am encouraged by the will of this Congress to lift to high
visibility the reality of severe and gross persecution of Christians
and persons of other religions at the hands of their perpetrators. I
encourage all of you to take a strong stand through the forging of
legislation that is worthy of being related to the same cause that
calls for commitment unto death from believers who understand the cost
attached to their faith. As much as lieth within you, guard this effort
from any appearance of politicization. Martyrs deserve better.
__________
Prepared Statement of Senator Rod Grams
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today which will
allow us to hear testimony from religious leaders on the Nickles
``International Religious Freedom Act." I believe this bill is more
reasonable than the Wolf-Specter bill, but I still have serious
concerns, and hop we can work to achieve some needed improvements.
I am concerned about human rights abuses of all kinds, including
religious persecution, and believe we should seek ways to address these
types of injustices. But I strongly believe legislation that imposes
sanctions or threatens sanctions, especially unilaterally, is
counterproductive. Such legislation could lead to harm of believers in
other countries. I believe this legislation could do that, and so do
many religious leaders in this country and others who have served as
missionaries abroad. They have accomplished so much to bring more
religious freedom to the world. So much more progress is needed, but
should we be the ones to tell them how to accomplish that? Think they
are wise, and many of them object to this government-as-dictator
approach that many other countries, I believe, will see as U.S. efforts
to force out values and religious believes on them. I also believe
efforts to force progress through sanctions are counterproductive.
persecution will not stop. Again, believers could be placed in harm's
way. The affected country will turn to other nations which have not
sanctioned them. So not only have we not accomplished our purpose, but
we have harmed U.S. economic interests as well.
I have been blamed for looking at this solely for the impact this
legislation would have on trade. That is my secondary concern. My chief
concern, and one that has repeatedly been brought to my attention by
many religious leaders, is how effective would list legislation be.
Would it work, would it help us combat religious persecution and
promote religious freedom. Quiet diplomacy will do that. So will the
work of those here before us today. So will the efforts of those who
have been reached abroad by religious leaders of all faiths. As I often
say, the most productive changes come from inside a country, from an
awakened people, not from outside demands.
I was also struck by a comment by one of the drafters of this
legislation that there will be few, if any, ``gross violators'' subject
to sanction. If so, why are we even considering this legislation? Would
it appear we are doing something, when, in fact, our goals would not be
accomplished.
Mr. Chairman, while I thank all of the witnesses for appearing here
today. I had many requests from religious leaders who sought to
testify, but I understand how limited our time is. I would just like to
mention a few of them who are not here, and some of their comments: The
Rev. Dr. Albert Pennybacker of the National Council of Churches has
spent a lot to time looking at the issue of religious persecution and
broadly criticizes the Nickles bill. Bishop Sammy Azariah, Church of
Pakistan, indicates this bill will ``definitely be misread in other
lands of the world.'' Dr. Amien Rais, Chairman of Muhamadiyah,
Indonesia, a Muslim, said ``it is very important for us to distinguish
between morality of rhetoric and morality of results,'' inferring the
legislation does not work. Dr. Clifton Kirkpatrick, Clerk of the
Presbyterian Church, says that this debate is more about politics than
helping those committed to their faith. Dr. Marian McClure, Director,
Worldwide Ministries Division of the Presbyterian Church says, ``in
some contexts Christian churches exist and thrive only to the extent
that they are able to disassociate themselves from western power.'' In
fact, that is why many missionaries indicate they oppose legislation
but prefer not to testify. The American Family Association Network of
Georgia says ``monitoring religious is not a constitutional function of
the Federal Government ... this bill increases the size and scope of
the Federal Government.'' This group prefers an oversight committee in
Congress on religious persecution.
According to the New York Times, a Coptic Christian minority
member of the Egyptian people's Assembly was quoted as saying, ``Those
who are trying to incite foreigners to interfere in Egypt's internal
affairs, are, in fact, stabbing Copts in the heart.'' Oliver Thomas of
the National Council of the Churches of Christ submits a statement
urging that these human rights abuses are best countered
multilaterally. Rev. Dr. David Hirano of the United Church Board for
World Ministries believes unilateral sanctions will not work. he wisely
reminds us the Bible opposes fighting persecution with persecution.
Rev. Dr. Riad Jarjour, Rev. Jane Dempsey Douglass, Rev. Randolph
Nugent, Rev. Dr. Hertsfeld, and Bishop Andrew McKerrick are all well-
known church leaders critical of this legislation. ask that statement
of some of these leaders be included in the hearing record, Mr.
Chairman.
I would like to work with you, Mr. Chairman, and Senators Nickles
and Lieberman, to further improve this legislation. Such as, the list
of countries should be classified, for one thing. There should be more
flexibility in the determination of sanctions and more effort placed on
a multilateral approach. The waiver authority also needs to be
broadened, and the congressional disapproval authority narrowed. If we
must pass legislation in this area, these are essential changes that
will win more support as well as protect believers in countries labeled
gross violators. I intend to pursue these changes both in committee and
on the Floor of the Senate.
Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I look
forward to the testimony here today. I agree with one of our witnesses
who said, ``silence is not an option.'' But I also believe if we pass
any legislation we would have confidence it will accomplish our goals.
But as the Hypocratic oath says: ``First, do no harm.''
I say that in reference to those who might endure more religious
persecution because of our actions.
__________
Additional Material Submitted to the Committee for the Hearing Record
Letter to Hon. Trent Lott, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate
June 16, 1998
The Hon. Trent Lott
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Lott: We are greatly encouraged by the recent actions in
Congress that demonstrate a growing concern with the rnatter of
international religious persecution. We were especially heartened by
the overwheluiing House vote in favor of Representative Frank WoWs
Freedom from Religious Persecution Act (H.R. 2431).
We are concerned, however, that the Senate may not make an equally
serious effort to pass legislation addressing this issue. We are
particularly disturbed by the role of wealthy corporate interests in
attempting to prevent these human rights issues from being addressed by
Congress. Are our leaders willing to play hardball with China on
Hollywood's pirated CD's and video tapes, but not with governments
involved in persecuting people of faith? What a travesty if we as a
nation subordinate our historic stand for freedom and human rights to
the pursuit of profits.
As you know, Senator Don Nickles has introduced companion
legislation in the Senate to deal with this urgent issue. We applaud
him and his leadership and we urge that you use every means available
to bring legislation before the Senate for the earliest possible
consideration. We strongly encourage the Senate to enact sirnilar
legislation that embodies the principles represented in the Freedom
from Religious Persecution Act:
Provides for independent and objective fact-finding about
religious persecution.
Requires clearly specified and appropriate action against
persecuting regimes.
Makes the President accountable to Congress and the American
people for the actions he takes in this regard.
Failure to pass a law that contains these limited principles would
cause great disillusionment to persecuted religious believers around
the world. We cannot be silent while people of faith continue to endure
imprisonment, torture, slavery, and murder. Not to act and act quickiy
would be a shocking betrayal of America's historic role in the world as
the great defender of human rights.
On behalf of persecuted believers around the world, we urge you to
work expeditiously for the passage of legislation that maintains the
American tradition of defending freedom and basic human rights.
Sincerely,
James C. Dobson,
Focus on the Family
Chuck Colson
Prison Fellowship
Gary L. Bauer,
Family Research Council
Randy Tate,
Christian Coalition
cc: Senator Don Nickles, Senator Jesse Helms, Senator Tim Hutchinson
__________
Material Submitted by The Anti-Defamation League
Anti-Defamation League,
New York, NY 10017.
ADL WELCOMES INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT
New York, NY, June 17, 1998 . . . The Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
today welcomed the introduction of the International Religious Freedom
Act (S. 1868) being considered in hearings before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee today. The Act would create a framework to promote
religious freedom internationally and sanction nations engaging in
brutal forms of religious persecution. The comprehensive system of
reporting and training of US personnel complements a similar House-
passed measure sponsored by Frank Wolf (R-VA).
In a letter to bill's lead sponsors Sens. Don Nickles (R-OK) and
Joseph Lieberman (DCT), Howard P. Berkowitz, ADL National Chairman and
Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, said the Act would
``strengthen our nation's hand against oppression and lend hope to
millions of religious believers.''
As the Foreign Relations Committee markup of the bill approaches,
the League is working with sponsors on refinements that would further
enhance its effectiveness. In light of concern that the measure might
sanction an overly broad group of nations, the League recommended that
the bill clearly distinguish between the broad standard by which the US
should monitor and engage in diplomatic efforts to promote religious
freedom and the standard used to target sanctions against the most
oppressive regimes.
Messrs. Berkowitz and Foxman noted ``As a community that has
experienced horrific persecution, we have seen first hand the
consequences of silence and inaction and have benefited from America's
engagement and moral leadership.''
The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading
organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that
counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.
__________
Material Submitted by The Office for Church in Society--United Church
of Christ
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA,
May 5, 1998.
Dear Member of Congress:
Increasingly it appears that the overseas consequences of religious
persecution legislation may have been misunderstood. Its impact may
well be to further empower religious extremists. I write to alert you
to this possibility as you weigh your decision on this well-intended
legislation.
This past week we invited religious leaders from several areas of
the world to come to the United States to describe conditions in their
countries: Pakistan, Russia, Indonesia, the Middle East and Africa. A
list briefly identifying our distinguished guests is attached.
Many of you and many congressional staff members responded to our
invitation to meet with them. Many could not. Let me summarize the
recurring themes in their reports.
First, each overseas guest indicated that U.S. intervention in the
internal life of their countries as a self-appointed monitor of
religious persecution would be strongly questioned and could be broadly
resented. It would have negative impact on other aspects of
international relationships. Most importantly our guests felt that
except in extreme cases, a sanctions-based approach would hurt the very
people it is intended to help.
Second, such U.S. intervention will have little capacity to check
or alleviate whatever religious tensions exist or whatever religious
persecution may occur: such acts tend to be non-governmental, actively
opposed by governmental leadership, often precipitated by
fundamentalist elements and best resolved by those who live in the
setting or country where there are such occurrences.
Third, what is reported as religious persecution is often
understood locally as something quite different.
In Sudan, civil war and racial hostility play a far larger role in
what are acknowledged to be tragic abuses of human life including
physical maiming and even assassination and murder. U.S. sanctions
invite alternative suppliers; only multilateral sanctions have the
capacity to be effective. Also, such actions block aid from U.S.
churches.
In Pakistan where a Christian was condemned for execution, it was
broadly recognized that he was mentally unstable and his sentence was
stayed while extradition was arranged through the Christian community
there. Incidentally, the USA refused to accept him; Germany did,
through church connections.
In Indonesia the extensive burnings of churches has a
fundamentalist history related to economic and political tensions.
However, local Muslims have regretted the burnings and in the vast
majority of instances have assisted the Christian community in
rebuilding, a fact hardly ever reported. Further, U.S. intervention
will tend to fracture the Muslim/Christian cooperation that is
developing.
In Russia the fundamentalist factor is actively present on both
sides of some conflicts, and it occurs between Christians. Even the
questionable new law on religion when placed in the context of Russia's
long-term religious history has at least the positive value of giving
official standing to a plurality of religious groups. Numerous such
groups are now recognized and there is broad agreement that the most
egregious aspects of the law will need both tempered administration and
future change. It is important to recall that for 900 years Russia had
only one recognized religion (Orthodox Christianity) and for most of
the last 100 years was officially atheist. Religious openness is a new
experience in Russia and has existed now for only seven years.
Without recounting all of the descriptions given by our guests, it
is clear that they presented a far different picture of religious
persecution than we have seen thus far. The recent report from the
three clergy officially traveling in China reflects a similar condition
in that country. Our overseas guests affirmed that local religious
leaders and government officials are in most instances addressing local
situations. Further they underscored that where U.S. sanctions in any
form or even governmental reprimands are called for, only multilateral
efforts will succeed.
It was clear that energy for the religious persecution legislation
is not coming from religious communities overseas. This opens the
possibility that victims of religious persecution when it does occur
may find themselves caught up in a cause more than being listened to or
actually helped.
Several Members of Congress questioned our overseas guests directly
as to whether religious communities in their countries were requesting
this legislation. None were.
As to what the United States could do to further religious liberty,
each guest spoke appreciatively of the U.S. commitment to religious
liberty. Then they asked that their religious liberty be respected and
allowed to grow indigenously without U.S. intervention. They spoke
instead of the need for U.S. help to build up opportunities for the
poor and the disadvantaged as a way to dispel hostilities between
religious groups. They suggested attention to the need for good health
care, education, economic development and job opportunities. These
would encourage religious liberty for all people and reduce the
possibility of group conflicts and human abuse. They indicated that the
need is for a positive response, not a punitive one.
Additionally, I have included a statement from Dr. Youssef Boutros-
Ghali, Egyptian Minister of Economy and a member of a distinguished and
respected Coptic Christian family. He spoke at a briefing held here at
our invitation a few weeks ago while Congress was in recess. I think
you will find his comments very helpful.
Also, a brief set of statements made here by our guests is
included. You may wish to review their own words.
Our providing the opportunity for religious leaders from overseas
to be heard here is meant to be a contribution to your thoughtful
consideration of the proposed legislation. Their voices have not
previously been heard. We would have invited such religious leaders
earlier had we been included in providing public testimony. Perhaps
even now their views will be useful.
Please feel welcome to contact me at the National Council's
Washington Office if you wish to pursue this issue further or if I can
be of help in any other way.
Cordially,
(Rev. Dr.) Albert M. Pennybacker,
Associate General Secretary for Public Policy.
cc: Rev. Dr. Joan Brown Campbell, NCCC General Secretary
______
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the
USA
June 10, 1998
Washington, DC 20002
Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Council of Churches of Christ
in the U.S.A., I want to share our views of the religious persecution
legislation before Congress.
Specifically, we are concerned that the International Religious
Freedom Act (Nickles-Mack) be ajusted modestly to make it a more
palatable and religiously sensitive bill. Our interest is in amending
it to provide for ``findings'' of potential effectiveness prior to any
sanctions and defining persecution more precisely.
Our hope is that legislation can be considered that the major
Protestant and Orthodox communities, including the African American
Churches, can support. The full listing of the church bodies in the
national Council of Churches is attached.
Thank you for giving this your attention.
Cordially,
(Rev. Dr.) Albert M. Pennybacker,
Associate General Secretary for Public Policy.
______
Member Communions of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in
the U.S.A.
African-American Protestant Churches:
African Methodist Episcopal Church
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
National Baptist Convention of America
National Baptist Convention. USA
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
Progressive National Baptist Convention
Historic Peace Churches:
Church of the Brethren
Friends United Meeting
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends
Orthodox Churches:
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Armenian Church of America
Coptic Orthodox Church in North America
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North & South America
Orthodox Church in America
Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in the USA
Serbian Orthodox Church in the USA and Canada
Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch
Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America
Protestant Churches:
American Baptist Churches in the USA
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Episcopal Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Hungarian Reformed Church in America
International Council of Community Churches
Korean Presbyterian Church in America
Moravian Chttrch in America, Northern & Southern Provinces
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Reformed Church in America
Swedenborgian Church
United Church of Christ
United Methodist Church
Churches of Other Traditions:
Mar Thoma Church, Diocese of North America and Europe
Polish National Catholic Church of America
______
Attachments
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA,
June 2, 1998.
Statement on Proposed Federal Legislation Addressing Religious
Persecution
Religious persecution is a scourge that has afflicted humankind for
most of its history. With varying degrees of intensity, persons of
faith have been subjected to discrimination, imprisonment and, in some
cases, torture and death. In religious terms, where the powers of the
world claim for themselves what is finally God's sovereignty, believers
are unavoidably in jeopardy.
At the close of the bloodiest century in history, it is fitting
that Congress would turn its attention toward the goal of reducing, if
not eliminating, this most fundamental violation of human rights.
Legislation has now been introduced in both chambers of Congress
(and passed by the House) that is intended to alleviate the suffering
of persons around the globe who wish to exercise their God-given right
to worship as they see fit. Representatives Frank Wolf, Ben Gilman,
Christopher Smith and Lee Hamilton as well as Senators Arlin Specter,
Don Nickles, Joseph Lieberman and Connie Mack are to be commended for
their roles in guiding this legislative effort. Religious groups, such
as the National Association of Evangelicals, also deserve credit for
placing the issue of religious persecution at the top of the nation's
moral agenda.
The National Council of the Churches in the U.S.A. CCC) has worked
to ensure that any proposed legislation has the intended result of
actually reducing the incidence of religious persecution as well as
improving the lot of those who are the victims. Many of the concerns
raised by the NCCC have been addressed, but questions remain. We hope
these questions will continue to be explored honestly and openly as our
government seeks to craft an appropriate response to this pressing
international concern. In particular, we hope to ensure that the faith
communities most affected by the proposed legislation have an
opportunity to be heard. To that end, we are in communication with our
overseas partners and missionary leaders and are making them accessible
to members of Congress and to the press.
After much thought, prayer and deliberation, we offer the following
suggestions to those desiring to pass legislation that addresses
religious persecution:
1. Violations of human rights abroad are best addressed through
multilateral efforts. A unilateral response is often ineffective and
counter-productive. Further, unilateral action may destroy America's
ability to participate in development efforts that improve' lift for
the poor and alleviate the conditions that give rise to various human
rights abuses including religious persecution.
Comment: One of the biggest weaknesses of both the House and
Senate bills is the failure to provide real support and
encouragement for multilateral efforts. Unfortunately, the
opportunity to amend the House bill has been lost, but modest
changes in the Senate bill could help to ensure that it will
have the intended effect of actually reducing religious
persecution. First, Section 401 or 403 of the ``International
Religious Freedom Act'' (IRFA) could be amended to require the
Secretary of State to seek multilateral support before
unilateral sanctions are imposed. Another possibility is to
provide additional funds to the United Nations earmarked for
international tribunals that could hear charges of religious
persecution. Finally, the 30 day delay before the imposition of
sanctions under Section 409 could be extended in order to allow
for diplomacy as well as for multilateral efforts.
2. Appropriate training for government personnel as well as more
thorough investigation and reporting is likely to reduce the incidence
of religious persecution.
Comment: These sections of both the House and Senate bills are
adequate.
3. Sanctions should be a matter of thoughtful last resort, not
automatic first resort. As indicated above, multilateral participation
in invoking of sanctions is the desirable strategy.
Comment: Obviously, the House bill is flawed in this regard. The Senate
bill, on the other hand, has more flexibility. However, to ensure that
IRFA meets its intended goal, Section 401 should be amended in two
ways. First, the Secretary of State should be required to review the
Commission on International Religious Persecution's recommendations
before they are passed on to the President. This may be intended by the
sponsors, but it is unclear from the text of the bill. Second, and more
importantly, the President should be required to make a finding that
any sanctions recommended by the Commission are likely to help rather
than hinder the plight of the victims before any sanctions are imposed.
This decision could be subject, to congressional review under Section
409 as with other decisions of the President under Title IV of the
bill.
4. Care should be exercised so that traditions and cultures of other
nations are respected. Although we cherish and affirm the principles of
the First Amendment as the best mechanism for protecting religious
liberty, we recognize that they are rooted in western philosophical,
political and religious thought We should not seek to impose the
American arrangement on others. This includes respecting the traditions
of established religions and churches common to European as well as
Islamic nations. America's response to religious persecution must not
be perceived as ``anti-Islamic.''
Comment: Section 3 of IRFA should be modified in accordance
with suggestions by the State Department to ensure that the
bill will not sweep into its reach every nation that has an
established religion or that practices some form of
discrimination. Casting the net too widely is likely to strain
relations with numerous nations at different places on the
religious freedom spectrum and could actually reduce religious
freedom as well as diminish opportunities for missions
organizations headquartered in the United States.
5. Steps should be taken to ensure that the issue of religious freedom
is not further politicized Making the State Department rather than the
White House the locus of our overseas efforts is one means of
encouraging this. Annual showdowns between the President and the
Congress over appropriate responses to the actions of a particular
nation should be avoided. Disagreements over responsive action should
not become the basis for partisan wrangling. Meaningful review by the
Secretary of State should be part of any effective strategy for
combating religious persecution.
Comment: Decisions to move the locus of persecution monitoring
from the White House to the State Department helped to ``de-
politicize'' proposed federal legislation. The issuance of a
separate, annual report on religious persecution (Section 6 of
the ``Freedom From Religious Persecution Act'' and Section
102(b) of the ``International Religious-Freedom Act'' may,
however, serve to politicize the issue in a manner that
actually harms overseas faith communities as Democrats and
Republicans seek to use the annual event for domestic political
gain. The suggestion simply to fold the religious persecution
report into existing human rights reports should be considered.
By subjecting any proposed legislation to these five principles,
members of Congress can help to ensure it will have the intended result
and that it will enjoy the support of the broad spectrum of America's
faith communities.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Excerpts from the National Council of Churches' Press Conference with
International Religious Leaders
tuesday, april 28, 1998
Key Statements Concerning Religious Persecution Legislation:
``It has been a deep concern to us that often the debate has tended
to deal much more with American politics or even American religious
issues than the opportunity to hear firsthand from friends and
colleagues who have really tested their own life and the firm
commitment to their faith, at times against great odds, and out of a
deep commitment for the well-being of the church and other faith
communities''
--Dr. Clifton Kirkpatrick, Clerk of the
Presbyterian Church
``I believe if it is viewed from the morality of rhetoric that bill
is very inspiring, very gladdening. But I am very doubtful whether it
is easy to implement and whether the result of the implementation is as
good as expected by those gentlemen, the Congress members, who
initiated this bill.''
--Dr. Amien Rais, Chairman on Muhamadiyah, a
Muslim community of 28 million Indonesians
``Our consideration is that bill--if the bill will be approved,
then it will jeopardize the relationship between the Christians and
Islam in Indonesia.''
--The Rev. Dr. Joseph Pattiasina, General
Secretary of the Communion of Churches in
Indonesia
``The good intention of the American people to make sure that
everybody in the world can enjoy religious freedom, religious liberty,
may, at the end, produce more suffering for the people. And that is why
we would like to appeal for that part of the legislation, that it be
restudied again.''
--The Rev. Dr. Soritna Nababan, Batak
Protestant Christian Church Central Council
Member
``And I would like to emphasize the last point, that we call for a
logic of empowerment of the victims, for a strategy of prevention
through consciousness-raising dialogue and inter-religious cooperation,
which, in my opinion, is more effective.''
--Dr. Riad Jarjour, General Secretary, Middle
East Council of Churches
``However, the bill in question, though may have very good
intentions in this city, will definitely be misread in other lands of
the world.''
--Bishop Sammy Azariab, Moderator, Church of
Pakistan.
Rev. Dr. Albert Pennybacker, Associate General Secretary, National
Council of Churches (Dr. Pennybacker is responsible for policy in the
Washington Office of the National Council of churches.):
First, I want to say a word about the concerns of the National
Council in this whole discussion about religious persecution. We have
invited our guests today because we have been deeply concerned about
the issue of religious persecution so concerned that we want the
Congress and the American people informed about how this affects those
who live in countries where religious persecution has been alleged.
[. . .]
[B]efore they speak, we are particularly pleased to have the stated
Clerk of the Presbyterian Church in the USA, its senior executive
officer, my friend of many years, Dr. Clifton Kirkpatrick, join us. And
you should know that prior to his current assignment of executive
leadership for the Church, he chaired the Global Mission Ministries of
the Presbyterian Church in the USA, and is deeply informed about and
deeply concerned about the issue of religious freedom and religious
persecution. And I want to invite Dr. Kirkpatrick to come and make a
brief statement to us.
Dr. Clifton Kirkpatrick, Clerk of the Presbyterian Church. (Dr.
Kirkpatrick is the senior executive officer of the United States
Presbyterian Church. Prior to his current assignment he chaired the
Global Mission Ministries of the Presbyterian Church in the USA):
As Al shared with you, I am currently the stated Clerk in the
Presbyterian Church, but I had the wonderful privilege, for 15 years,
of directing our Church's work in partnership with Christians around
the world. And I need to tell you that the issue of religious
persecution is therefore not an academic issue for me, but a very
personal one, in that I have had the occasion over and over again to
know friends and colleagues who have literally suffered for the cause
of their faith, and am deeply concerned about this matter.
We, as a part of the National Council of Churches, and as the
Presbyterian Church share a deep concern for religious persecution and
its ending in a context that affirms that human rights are God-given
rights for all people. The concern we have as we come to this is not
over the issue of whether there needs to be response to religious
persecution, but a commitment that that response needs to be done with
the utmost sensitivity.
It has been my experience over the years that there were many times
in which there was human suffering around the world because our
government did not stand firm for human rights. But there are also
other occasions in which had there been automatic sanctions and the
like, we might well have increased the persecution against the very
people we were concerned about.
And so the concern we come with is that the U.S. Government, as it
does move forward in a process of responding to concerns of religious
persecution, do that in a context of support for universal human
rights, do that with the kind of flexibility that does not, if you
would, throw the baby out with the bath water, of offering and imposing
solutions that might create deeper problems, do that in a multinational
context, with others around the world. But, most of all, design
whatever legislation might be designed in consultation with those who
are the leaders of the churches and of other faith communities around
the world that are indeed dealing with the front lines of these issues.
It has been a deep concern to us that often the debate has tended
to deal much more with American politics or even American religious
issues than the opportunity to hear firsthand from friends and
colleagues who have really tested their own life and the firm
commitment to their faith, at times against great odds, and out of a
deep commitment for the well-being of the church and other faith
communities.
Dr. Amien Rais, Chairman of Muhamadiyah. Muslim. Indonesia. (Dr. Rais
leads Muhamadiyah, a nation-wide Muslim community of 25 million
Indonesians. He is a respected university professor and intellectual
leader in Indonesia. He has become a strong advocate for religious
liberty in a nation that has the largest Muslim population in the
world.):
I have [a] position concerning the Wolf-Specter bill. Let me quote
Mr. Demetri Simes when discussing what the pluses and minuses of the
Vietnam War. He said the other day that it is very important for us to
distinguish between morality of rhetoric and morality of results. I
believe if it is viewed from the morality of rhetoric that bill is very
inspiring, very gladdening. But I am very doubtful whether it is easy
to implement and whether the result of the implementation is as good as
expected by those gentlemen, the Congress members, who initiated this
bill.
The reason why I quoted the distinction between morality of results
and morality of rhetoric, I believe that when it is implemented,
suppose the bill is approved and then implemented by the
administration, what will take place in developing countries is even
more tension. I am afraid that my Christian brothers and sisters in
Indonesia will be put into the corner, you know, because maybe in the
minds of the Indonesia people, who are not very well educated--and of
course the mass is always more emotional, you know--maybe they will
accuse the Christian brothers and sisters as having responsibility in
the creation of the bill.
And I also believe that when implementation--when the time of
implementation comes, it is very difficult for Washington to deal with
any human rights violation, as mentioned in the bill. I can imagine
that the United States, as a superpower, still has limitations in terms
of military, in terms of economy, in terms of, you know, concrete
measures which are going to be taken. So this thing, I think, must be
brought into account, and we must consider it more deeply.
The Rev. Dr. Joseph M. Pattaisina, Christian. Indonesia. (Dr.
Pattaisina is the General Secretary of the Communion of Churches in
Indonesia. Prior to assuming this ecumenical post he was a local and
regional leader in his church. He is highly regarded as an effective
voice for the Christian community in a predominately Muslim nation):
I am the General Secretary of the Communion of Churches in
Indonesia. As you know, the largest population of Islam in the world is
in Indonesia. But we are not the Islamic state. And our Constitution,
in 1945, stated very clear that we have the freedom of religion in
Indonesia. So based on this, we would like to express our opinion
concerning the act, persecution acts, that will be approved by the
Congress.
Our consideration is that bill--if the bill will be approved, then
it will jeopardize the relationship between the Christians and Islam in
Indonesia. Because Islam is 87.5 percent from the 202 million, and the
Protestant . . . 6.5 percent, and . . . Catholics . . . 3.5 percent.
[. . .]
So the relationship is based on the Islam and Christians. Although
we face the problem about the burning and destroying . . . [of
churches] since 1967 . . . until February of this year, about 400
churches [have] been burned and destroyed, but we see that the burning
of the churches and destroying of the churches is not based on the
conflict of Islam and Christian in Indonesia, but based on the
political problem that is facing the gap between the rich and the poor.
[. . .]
[W]e insist the government [pay] serious attention, especially
[that those] who burn the churches and destroy the churches . . . be
brought to the court and be sentenced.
[. . .]
So we believe that this bill that will be passed by the Congress is
not helpful for us. . . . Christians [are] part of the whole nation of
Indonesia. . . . [W]e have the responsibility . . . to keep the
relationship between Islam and Christian in dealing as one nation.
The Rev. Dr. Soritua A. E. Nababan, Christian. Indonesia. (Dr. Nababan,
of the Batak Protestant Christian Church (Lutheran heritage), is a
member of his church's Central Council. He is both a pastor and a past
General Secretary of the Communion of Churches in Indonesia. For years
he was an active youth minister and leader. Currently, he also serves
as the Vice Moderator of the Central Committee of the World Council of
Churches.):
I would like to express my appreciation to the American people,
through Congress, that took initiative to introduce legislation to make
sure that religious liberty everywhere will be safeguarded and that
religious persecution anywhere should be given up. I do sincerely mean
it.
The problem comes when it is somehow related to the political and
economic interests of the American people, and also with sanctions.
That the sanctions affect many countries around the world. The good
intention of the American people to make sure that everybody in the
world can enjoy religious freedom, religious liberty, may, at the end,
produce more suffering for the people. And that is why we would like to
appeal for that part of the legislation, that it be restudied again.
The Rev. Dr. Riad Jarjour, General Secretary, Middle East Council of
Churches. Christian. Middle East. (A Presbyterian, Dr. Jarjour heads an
ecumenical community of Christian bodies throughout the Middle East,
including the Roman Catholic Church. A native of Syria, he currently
lives in Beirut.):
I come from the Middle East, which is the cradle of the three
monotheistic religions, and where religions have started for thousands
of years and we still witness that revival of religion in that region.
What I have for you is some points concerning religious persecution.
The U.S. campaign, the proposed legislation and the finger pointing
to countries and communities, is frequently depicted as a crusade. And,
more often than not, we activate historical memories, with their many
unhealed wounds.
We have strong reasons, as the Middle East Council of Churches and
as a group of Christian and Muslims who work together, to fear that it
is increasingly provoking general distrust between Christians and
Muslims, Arabs and Americans, as well. We have equally strong reasons
to express our anxiety in seeing the crusade impact negatively on
Christian-Muslim relations in many countries, and especially in the
Middle East and Asia, notwithstanding all efforts in those countries
that uphold core citizenship and common national identity between
people of different faiths.
It would be naive to overlook the serious risks of a recurring
Muslim perception of the Christians as aliens at home, local extensions
of Christendom, minorities protected and used by the West in line with
the old pattern of divide et impera, divide and you will dominate.
Many people in the Middle East, including the small minority that
are supportive or appreciative of the campaign for religious
persecution, argue that the primary dividing force and determined in
their condemnation of certain countries are political positions towards
certain governments, that de facto hierarchy established between
countries and, at times reordered, does not correspond to their
comparative records on religious persecution as much as it reflects
their consideration of political expediency.
[. . .]
The notion of religious persecution needs to be sharpened. It is
often amalgamated with social discrimination and political
marginalization. Understandably, there has been a trend among exiles,
self-exiles and migrants from many countries in the South, the Middle
East more particularly, to overstate some sort of religious persecution
or the fear of it as the most determining factor in their decision to
leave their home countries. What is said and upheld in this community
of people should not be heard uncritically. The right to enjoy full
freedom in carrying out evangelical activities needs to be looked at
sensitively. The reference to evangelization evokes a painful history
in our part of the world. In some cases, continuing practices that are
frequently denounced by Muslims and Oriental Christians, who saw
foreign missionary activity in the context of a colonial and hegemonic
design. They perceive, and still do, proselytism as being a violation
of religious freedom.
I am pressured for time, but I want to say Christians face in many
Arab countries and predominantly Muslim countries a number of problems.
That is true. Most of which are of a social, economic and political
nature. These problems affect Muslims and Christians alike. But they
are exacerbated in the case of the latter by their dwindling numbers or
the erosion of their influence in public life and their growing anxiety
for the future of their children, a great number of Muslims have become
increasingly aware that the predicament of Christians going to a
global, societal crisis.
Dialogue and cooperation between Muslims and Christians at various
levels of shared living needs to be intensified in order to address the
problem. Any impediment of such relationship impairs the chances of
improving the situation of the Christians. There are situations where
Christians are targets of sectarian violence. Yes, there are many of
these situations. And also non-Christians, too.
In some other situations, Christians are victims of fanaticism and
bigotry. But this is much less a consequence of discriminatory
government policies than an expression of social prejudice or political
strategies of radical opposition.
Finally, freedom of belief and worship, guaranteed by law in most
Arab countries, is not in serious jeopardy. Freedom of conscience and,
more particularly, the right of converting from Islam is quite
problematic. While most countries do not enforce by law and practice
the prescribed capital punishment of apostasy with the conversion from
Islam, it is quite often not tolerated socially.
Such intolerance have taken in a number of cases extreme forms of
violence. There has been cases where converts from Islam have not only
been discriminated against or been harassed, but subjected to legal
sanctions on the grounds of disturbance of civil peace, social order or
inter-communal harmony. A reexamination of the meaning of apostasy,
starting from a conceptual, historical approach, as well as the
reaffirmation of the right of belief or disbelief on the basis Koranic
injunction of no compulsion in religion, and the tradition of the
Prophet Hadis, is on the agenda of Muslim-Muslim and Muslim-Christian
agenda. And I would like to emphasize the last point, that we call for
a logic of empowerment of the victims, for a strategy of prevention
through consciousness-raising dialogue and inter-religious cooperation,
which, in my opinion, is more effective.
Bishop Sammy Azariah, Moderator, Church of Pakistan. Christian.
Pakistan. (Bishop Azariah, an Anglican, is a respected leader in the
Christian community as a whole. As Moderator, he is the senior leader
in his church, with both pastoral and public service experience.):
We admire the democratic principles of this land and the concern of
this country it is showing towards human rights in other parts of the
world. However, the bill in question, though may have very good
intentions in this city, will definitely be misread in other lands of
the world.
The reason, firstly, being that the bill has an overemphasis
towards the Christian community. And this overemphasis would definitely
create problems for the minority churches in other lands. It will
definitely create obstacles in the process of interfaith dialogue,
which is very, very important to our existence in countries like
Pakistan and others.
Persecution of a religious nature or persecution of any nature is
not welcome, is not acceptable. But our concern is that the economic
and the trade sanctions which are being proposed in this bill cannot be
the best way of dealing with situations where there is persecution.
Because it will definitely create obstacles for the United States and
for other international human rights organizations to be able to get
into deep situations of discovering the causes of difficulties in that
country or in that land. It will cut off a relation with those
countries.
Dr. Anatoly Krasikov, President, Russian Chapter, International
Religions Liberty Association of Russia. Christian. Russia. (As a
member of the Russian Orthodox Church, a community where many are
supportive of the new religious statutes in Russia, Dr. Krasikov is the
leader of an interfaith body committed to religious liberty.):
I have never studied English . . . [s]o I ask you to be [indulgent]
with me when I make errors, mistakes.
The situation, religious situation, in Russia is complicated. That
is why, after the adoption of a new law, some important changes were
producted in the attitude of the state, respect of religious
organizations. [. . .] In the new law . . . [i]t is not possible to
give special advantage to one religion or disadvantage to one religion.
[. . .]
I represent here the International Association for Religious
Liberty, our Russian branch. This organization, in our country, was
created by all religious organizations together, and the scientists and
public persons, and supported by the Orthodox Church, Protestants,
Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Catholics--practically all
organizations.
[. . .]
Many organizations finally have supported the law for different
reasons. That is why the first part of the law is excellent, the part
[that] confirmed the constitutional principle of equality before the
law of all organizations. But we must not forget that for 1,000 years
our country had no real liberty of religion. For nine centuries we had
one religious organization, which was an organization of the state.
Then we had a century of atheism of state. And only 7 years of real
religious liberty.
And for over 80 years, we had, as you know, a . . . dictatorship,
Communist dictatorship. [But] with the changes, the people are the
same. [T]he mentality of many people is the same.
[. . .]
That is why we, as an organization, we follow all case of violation
of human rights . . . And sure, we need your solidarity. Row to express
this solidarity is another question.
That is why you know, and I know too, each dictatorship needs to
have enemies. [Without] enemies exterior and interior, it is not a
dictatorship. So the United States had, I believe, had a very good
position during, for example, the Helsinki processes, during the
preparation of the Helsinki agreements. And the example of the past, a
good example of the past, have to be used by all of us.
I have not the counsel to give to the American, to the United
States, up to decide how to express this solidarity. But I would like
if we must be together in this important moment of our life.
__________
Office for Church in Society--United Church of
Christ,
Washington, DC 20002,
May 5, 1998.
Dear Senator: Religious persecution is a serious problem around the
world. We are grateful that Congress has called increased attention to
this important problem and is seeking effective ways to address it.
However, there are certain aspects of the two main religious
persecution bills now under consideration by Congress which cause us
great concern.
Can the power of the U.S. government be used effectively to address
this world-wide problem? Will imposing political and economic sanctions
on certain countries do more harm than good for those of various faiths
facing severe discrimination and persecution both from their
governments and from various social forces the government may lack the
political capacity to restrain'?
Many of us in the Christian community have been prayerfully
reflecting on these issues for some time. Persecution of Christians is
not new. Neither is the persecution of many different religious groups.
Many of our global partner churches face persecution. Many work with
great courage and effectiveness at challenging these forces for
themselves and for other religious traditions. We have learned a great
deal from our partners about what works and what doesn't.
With the upcoming vote on the Wolf/Specter ``Freedom from Religious
Persecution Act of 1998'' and the emergence of the Nickles/Lieberman
``International Religious Freedom Act of 1998,'' we are gravely
concerned that these bills, while well-intentioned, will acmally do
more harm than good.
Part of our concern is the question of how these bills will be
applied. Both Wolf/Specter and Nickles/Lieberman have significant
provisions for political input before sanctions could go into effect.
Thus, it seems unlikely that sanctions will be applied against close
allies. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, and even Germany have been
accused of religious persecution. And we indeed believe that
governmental persecution of certain religious groups exist in each of
these countries. But given the geopolitical realities we doubt very
much that they would face sanctions. If serious sanctions are to prove
effective, they must be applied by an international body and carried
out internationally. Unilateral economic sanctions will not be
perceived as fair and will not be effective.
Wolf/Specter began as a bill to fight Christian persecution, and
explicitly named Islam as a dangerous force in several nations. This
has led to a perception in many Muslim countries that the U.S.,
perceived as a ``Christian Nation,'' was taking sides against Islam.
While Wolf/Specter has now had these very negative ideas amended out of
the bill, it or any other bill addressing the issue may continue to be
viewed by many nations as an anti-islam bill.
Wolf/Specter has now become a bill with a very narrow definition of
religious persecution. which would apply to only a few countries.
Because China is still persecuting some Christians, Buddhists and
members of other religious groups who fail to register with the
Religious Affairs Bureau. it would almost certainly fit the criteria.
Will economic sanctions against China stop religious persecution? Will
economic sanctions be helpful to the growing religious communities
struggling for a place of dignity and integrity in China today?
In the recent decades Christians in China did face horrible
persecution. However. the persecution was most severe when China was
most isolated during the Cultural Revolution. We are greatly concerned
about the possible plight of our Chinese Christian sisters and brothers
in an atmosphere of increased economic and political isolation. Would
sanctions imposed on China cause them to stop persecuting people of
faith, or simply lead to greater persecution? It is our belief that
isolating China will increase, rather than decrease religious
persecution in the world's largest country.
While our concern certainly goes beyond persecution of Christians.
we have learned a great deal about the changing faces of Christianity
in China since we first sent missionaries there in 1830. Since the
Chinese Government passed the Religious Law in the early 1990's
requiring churches and religious organizations to register with the
government. churches which refuse to register (for whatever reason)
have technically been in violation of the country's law. To be labeled
an unregistered or underground Christian is to be viewed with suspicion
by the government. The presence of underground Christians has sometimes
reinforced the Chinese governmental notion that Christianity is
unpatriotic and foreign, even dangerous to the status quo. Christians
in China have had to work hard to be perceived as a legitimate part of
Chinese society. Therefore,there is concern that Wolf/Specter will
reinforce the connection between Christianity and foreign powers.
Under the best scenarios some forms of persecution might be stopped
by Wolf/Specter. But under any scenario, Christians in China would face
increased alienation from their society.There are some in this country
who would like to increase that alienation, as a strategy for bringing
down the Chinese government. The vast majority of the millions of
Christians in China, however, do not share this goal. They resent being
pawns in a foreign strategy to undermine their government. Having them
suspected of this kind of subversion will only increase their
persecution and alienation.
The Nickles/Lieberman Senate bill, on the other hand, defines
religious persecution quite broadly. Current estimates by the State
Department are that it would apply to over 75 countries. Every Muslim
country would be on the list. While Wolf/Specter will very likely have
disastrous consequences for Christians in China, Nickles/Lieberman may
well have disastrous consequences in the Middle East and throughout the
Islamic world. In dominantly Muslim countries, Christians fight to be
perceived as a legitimate part of that society. Certain radical Muslim
forces continue to label Christians as agents of the West.
By using U.S. power to accuse all Muslim countries of religious
persecution and hitting them with one or more of 16 different
sanctions, radical Muslim forces will be strengthened in their attempts
to associate Christianity with the West, even though Christianity has a
longer tradition in some of these societies than the faith of their
Muslim persecutors. Christian groups and other religious groups will
feel that the U.S.is attempting to divide and separate them from the
rest of their society. This pattern of invasion and division has been
going on for centuries in places like Egypt, and is well understood in
the Middle East. This helps explain why the Middle East Council of
Churches and other Christian groups in the Middle East are so upset
with the dangers in this legislation.
We have heard Foreign Relations Chair Gilman and many others speak
of the need to put some ``teeth'' in U.S. efforts to curb persecution.
If putting ``teeth'' in our efforts would result in less persecution,
perhaps they should be considered. But the Bible counsels a different
approach, urging that we pray for the persecuted, pray that we
ourselves will have courage when faced with persecution, but NEVER
urging us to fight persecution with persecution.
Economic and political sanctions are a form of war. diplomatic and
economic war. They are designed to hurt people. Think of the Just War
criteria that have been developed over the centuries by the church. Are
these sanctions really the ``last resort?'' Are these sanctions really
authorized by the proper authority, or would an international body be
the more credible and legitimate authority to attempt to judge
religious differences and conflicts in an international setting? Will
innocent civilian populations be hurt by these instruments of economic
war? Do these sanctions have a reasonable chance of success? We urge
you to pay more attention to these moral questions.
We greatly appreciate your concern for those who suffer for their
faith. We ask that you prayerfully consider what might be done. We hope
that you will continue to engage in dialogue with those facing the
persecution, to understand the many differing and complex contexts of
persecution, before relying on ``teeth'' or economic sanctions to
address this problem.
What can be done? Increasing public awareness of the problem is
certainly appropriate. Despite some unfortunate beginnings to this
discussion, we are pleased that the real discussion is now taking
place. Certainly the President needs to speak out regularly and
forcefully on this important issue. Increased training for foreign
service personnel is also a positive move, and we are pleased to see
these provisions in the legislation. More assistance to refugees
fleeing persecution is also extremely helpful. Applying universal
standards of conduct and using international forums to address the
issue is also needed, and we regret that the legislation has not gone
as far as it might in seeking to use international structures.
But will any unilateral economic sanctions work? We do not believe
the sanctions in the Wolf/Specter bill will be effective. We are still
studying the Nickles/Lieberman bill, with its sixteen levels of
sanctions. We firmly oppose economic or trade sanctions for this
purpose, but look forward to working with the Senate to examine the
consequences of other various sanctions. Cutting non-humanitarian
assistance, for example, may well be an appropriate step in certain
situations.
We have worked with the National Council of Churches to suggest
amendments that will lessen the damage done to our ecumenical partners
by these bills and increase the likelihood that effective means to
lessen persecution can he developed. But we remain extremely skeptical
that any approach relying on unilateral sanctions will have the
consequences people of good will intend.
Sincerely yours,
The Rev. Dr. David Hirano,
Executive Vice President,
United Church Board for
World Ministries.
The Rev. Dr. Ryan Kuroiwa,
Executive Director,
UCC Office for Church in Society.
__________
Material Submitted by The Southern Baptist Convention
Southern Baptist Convention,
Washington. DC 20002-4916,
June 17, 1998.
sbc's land supports anti-persecution legislation
Southern Baptist ethics agency head Dr. Richard Land testified
before the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee June 17 in
support of legislation addressing worldwide religious persecution. ``We
believe strong and effective legislation is necessary to rectify the
current situation regarding the U. S. government and the widespread
persecution of Christians and others of faith around the world,'' he
said.
Land is the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty
Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. The commission is the
ethics, religious liberty and public policy agency of the 15.9 million
member denomination, comprised of 40,000 churches nationwide. Land is a
graduate of Princeton University, the New Orleans Baptist Theological
Seminary and Oxford University (D. Phil). He also hosts a daily radio
program, ``For Faith and Family,'' which airs on 196 stations across
the country and in Canada.
The Southern Baptist Convention has passed overwhelmingly three
separate resolutions on this issue at its 1995, 1996 and 1997 annual
conventions, Land said. The 1995 resolution expresses ``support for all
peoples suffering denial of religious liberty, but especially for those
who are of the household of faith, and even more particularly for those
who share Baptist convictions and commitments.'' The 1997 resolution
states ``as Southern Baptists we believe that all people should have
the God-given freedom to form and hold opinions and religious beliefs
and propagate them without interference from or coercion by any
government, religion, or person.''
Southern Baptists, who have one of the largest international
mission organizations in the world with more than 5,000 missionaries
serving in over 130 countries, share ``grave concerns over the
persecution of Christians in other countries'' with Episcopalians,
Evangelicals, and Roman Catholics. ``(A) critical mass has been
reached. I believe we are witnessing the mere beginnings of a broad-
based movement which will insist with increasing intensity that the
government of the United States of America take serious and important
steps to use its influence to insist that the offending foreign
governments stop these atrocities,'' said Land.
``The issue has not occupied a significant place in American
foreign policy. It has not even been on the State Department's radar
screen. That must change,'' he said. ``We believe strong and effective
legislation is necessary to rectify the current situation.'' Land urged
legislation which provides to the greatest extent possible: Objective
independent fact-finding through a Senate confirmed ambassador/director
and commission; accountability from the executive branch of government,
including reasonable Presidential waivers of mandatory sanctions and
public reporting; and effective relief of religious persecution around
the world.
``We are not insisting that the U.S. government seek to hold the
entire world to the pristine standard of the U.S. Constitution's First
Amendment's religious liberty rights and guarantees, as desirable and
as beneficial to humankind as we believe that would be. We are
insisting that basic human rights be recognized,'' Land said. ``We want
a U.S. government human rights policy on religious persecution that is
as good and decent as our people, our ideals, and our heritage
demand.''
The Foreign Relations Committee is considering the International
Religious Freedom Act, sponsored by Sen. Don Nickles, R.-Okla. The
House of Representatives passed the Freedom From Religious Persecution
Act, a bill addressing the same issue, May 14 by vote of 375-41.
__________
Material Submitted by The Episcopal Church--Office of Government
Relations
The Episcopal Church--Office of Government
Relations
Washington, DC 20002
June 17, 1998
Anglican Bishop Details Religious Persecution in Pakistan
urges senate passage of international religious freedom act of 1998
WASHINGTON--A leading bishop in the largest Christian denomination
in Pakistan provided an eyewitness account of religious persecution in
that country today and urged Senate passage of the International
Religious Freedom Act of 1998.
``I am here because I believe in the cause of religious liberty, in
Pakistan and around the world,'' Bishop Munawar ``Mano'' Rumalshah
testified. ``Believe me, it would have been easier to stay at home. But
for me, and for many of my Christian brothers and sisters in Pakistan,
silence is not an option.''
Rumalshah described the state of Islamic law in Pakistan and
detailed the murder of a wheelchair-bound convert; a death sentence for
a teen charged with blasphemy, and the dilemma of a young woman with
two choices--conversion to Islam or death.
His testimony came during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee
hearing on bipartisan legislation offered by U.S. Senator Don Nickles
(R-Okla.). The bill is designed to help America develop appropriate and
consistent responses to violations of religious liberty worldwide.
``I do not believe the United States can remain silent either. You
need to hear the cry of the people around the world who suffer for
their faith, who are denied the basic right to believe, which you as
Americans so naturally take for granted,'' said Rumalshah. ``But the
United States' response must not be simplistic. Clearly, there are more
choices than just imposing heavy-handed sanctions or doing nothing.
Every situation of religious persecution around the world is different
and requires a different response to be effective.''
The Anglican Rumalshah has served as bishop in Peshawar, Pakistan,
since 1994 and ministers to Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians and
Methodists.
__________
Statement Submitted by Gerard F. Powers on Behalf of the U.S. Catholic
Bishops
We are grateful for the opportunity to submit written testimony on
behalf of the U.S. Catholic bishops regarding the International
Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (S. 1868). We are also grateful for this
committee's efforts, and those of other members of Congress, both to
make the American public more aware of religious persecution abroad and
to make religious liberty a top foreign policy priority of the United
States Government.
Our testimony, which reiterates many of the same concerns raised in
our September 10, 1997 testimony before the House International
Relations Committee on H.R. 2431, has two parts. First, we will outline
our experience of religious persecution as a universal Church present
in nearly every corner of the world, while briefly setting forth our
understanding of religious liberty as a fundamental human right and a
basic American value. Second, we will express our general support for
S. 1868, while raising concerns with certain aspects of that
legislation and making clear our willingness to work with the sponsors
to strengthen the bill.
Today there is new and unprecedented public attention to ongoing
violations of religious liberty around the world. This is not, however,
a new issue for the U.S. Catholic bishops. From religious persecution
in the Soviet bloc and Latin America during the Cold War to China and
Sudan today we have worked--sometimes quietly, at other times more
publicly--on behalf of those denied their fundamental human right to
religious liberty. We have made solidarity visits, issued appeals for
the legal protection of religious liberty, protested killings and
detentions, and met with dissidents and U.S. and foreign government
officials alike to press our concerns. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., Most Reverend Theodore E. McCarrick, ``Religious
Freedom Today,'' March 31, 1997; Most Reverend Theodore E. McCarrick,
``Statement on Renewal of MFN for China,'' May 21, 1997; Most Reverend
Daniel P. Reilly, ``Statement on Vietnam,'' September 15, 1994; U.S.
Catholic Conference letter to Immigration and Naturalization Service on
religious grounds for asylum in abortion and sterilization cases,
February 27, 1990; U.S. Catholic Conference, A Time for Healing and
Dialogue: A Pastoral Reflection on U.S.-Vietnam Relations, 1989; U.S.
Catholic Conference, A Word of Solidarity, A Call for Justice: A
Statement on Religious Freedom in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union,
1988; U.S. Catholic Conference, Religious Liberty in Eastern Europe,
1977; numerous statements on aspects of religious persecution in
Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Cuba and
Mexico in the 1970s and 1980s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As pastors of a universal Church, the U.S. Catholic bishops are all
too familiar with the human face of religious persecution around the
world. We mourn the deaths of two outstanding Catholic bishops, both
vigorous advocates of human rights, who died in tragic circumstances in
Guatemala and Pakistan in recent weeks. We have attended funerals for
other bishops, local clergy and missionaries, especially in Central
America, who preached the Gospel at their peril. We know priests and
bishops in China who have spent years in prison for their faith. We
have supported the local Church in Vietnam as it faces intolerable
restrictions on its ability to minister to the faithful. We have sought
to support church leaders in Burundi who have been attacked for their
efforts at reconciliation. Through Catholic Relief Services, the
overseas relief and development agency of the U.S. Catholic bishops, we
have assisted Bosnian Muslim, Serbian Orthodox and Catholic refugees in
Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia whose family members were killed and
whose churches, mosques and homes were destroyed as a part of ethnic
cleansing, while strongly supporting the efforts of a newly-formed
Bosnian inter-religious council and other initiatives aimed at
reconciliation. During the 1980s we supported the Catholic Church in
Poland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe as it sought to remain an
independent voice for gospel values and human rights. Today we support
the Catholic Church and other minority religions in Russia in the face
of recently enacted discriminatory legislation.
Our tradition holds that religious liberty is indivisible, equally
applicable to all on the basis of every person's equal dignity as
having been formed in the image and likeness of God. Hence our
solidarity with all victims of religious persecution of all faiths.
That is why Catholic Relief Services provides assistance on the basis
of need not creed, its beneficiaries ranging from Hindu and Muslim
victims of religious strife in India to persecuted members of
traditional religions and Christians of all denominations in Sudan.
Similarly, the U.S. Catholic Conference's Migration and Refugee
Services, one of the largest private refugee resettlement agencies in
the United States, seeks to obtain refugee status and asylum in the
United States for persecuted believers of all faiths.
Even this partial account of worldwide religious persecution, and
of our efforts to oppose it and assist its victims, underscores the
scope and gravity of this crisis. In all these and in many other cases,
we have worked and prayed for greater religious freedom for decades. We
welcome new allies in this vital work, as well as the promise of
congressional action to advance religious liberty.
In all our activities, we listen first to the pleas of those who
are being persecuted and seek their counsel on ways we can reduce their
suffering. For us that means close consultation with bishops of a given
country as well as with the Holy See. We are convinced that the victims
of religious persecution are themselves the best sources of information
and advice. They are the experts on their own situation; they
understand the cultural and social conditions in which they must
struggle for their own liberty, and they are the ones most affected by
the protests and actions of outsiders. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Examples of those with whom we consult include, among others,
Bishop Carlos Ximenes Belo in East Timor, Archbishop Simon Ntamwana in
Burundi, Archbishop Rafael Nbingi Mwana A-Nzek and Bishop Macram Max
Gassis of Sudan, Cardinal Vinko Puljic in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusciewcz in Russia, Cardinal Jaime Ortega in
Cuba, the Bishops' Commission for Social Concerns (CEPS) in Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listening to those who are suffering confirms our conviction that,
as Pope John Paul II has said, ``religious persecution is an
intolerable and unjustifiable violation . . . of the most fundamental
human freedom, that of practicing one's faith openly, which for human
beings is their reason for living.'' \3\ Religious persecution is truly
a grave evil because it attacks an individual's very identity and most
intimate and fundamental values; it undermines conscience and subverts
community. Indeed, religious freedom is, as the Holy Father has said, a
``cornerstone'' of the structure of human rights, an ``irreplaceable
factor'' in both the individual good and the common good, which
consists of a just and peaceful social order. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Address to the Diplomatic Corps, January 1996.
\4\ Pope John Paul II, ``World Day of Peace Message,'' January 1,
1988 Origins 17:28 (December 24, 1987): 493.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious freedom has both a personal dimension--freedom of
conscience--and a social dimension--free exercise of religion. \5\
Freedom of conscience is the freedom to make a personal decision based
on one's beliefs free from external coercion. Because human nature is
both personal and social, freedom of conscience is tied to the social
dimension of religious liberty: the free exercise of religion by and
within communities of faith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious
Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae) (1965); National Conference of Catholic
Bishops, A Word of Solidarity, A Call for Justice: A Statement on
Religious Freedom in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union (Washington,
D.C.: USCC, 1988): 6-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious liberty covers a broad range of activities, from freedom
of worship to the right to establish schools and charities and to
participate in and seek to influence public affairs. Therefore, it is
inextricably linked to other fundamental human rights, such as freedom
of association, freedom of speech, and legal recognition of voluntary
associations. It is a right not just of individuals but also of
religious communities. Denial of legal status to religious groups
violates religious liberty just as surely as discrimination against
individual believers.
Given our understanding of religious liberty and our experience
with religious persecution, we are encouraged by the increased
attention these issues are receiving. In particular, we welcome the
ongoing work of the Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on
Religious Freedom Abroad, on which two of our bishops serve.
We also welcome congressional efforts to help ensure that religious
liberty--a core American value--play its proper role in shaping the
U.S. foreign policy agenda. We have supported, and continue to support,
the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act (H.R. 2431), which was
passed by the House of Representatives last month by an overwhelming
375-41 vote. This bill provides appropriate policy responses to many of
the most egregious forms of persecution involving widespread killing,
torture, enslavement, forced relocation, confiscation and the like. In
these limited cases, the bill would end military aid, sales and
financing to some of the world's most brutal regimes that, in many
cases, violate not only religious liberty but also the full range of
basic human rights. Among other things, the House bill would also end
most other forms of U.S. assistance, while exempting humanitarian and
development aid to avoid indirect harm to those whom the bill seeks to
help.
Both the House bill and the Senate bill share certain common
features that we support:
Both bills seek to promote religious liberty by implementing
some of the Secretary of State's Advisory Committee's welcome
recommendations, notably in the areas of improved training and
incentives, emphasis on religious liberty as a factor in
allocating aid and organizing exchanges, as well as other new
structures and processes designed to focus attention on this
issue. These helpful and carefully considered recommendations
deserve prompt implementation.
Both bills properly address persecution against all
believers of all faiths in all countries.
Both bills mandate official U.S. responses to serious
violations of religious liberty, while allowing some
flexibility of response. The House bill does so through its
waiver provisions, the Senate bill through its menu of options
and waiver provisions.
Both bills rightly link U.S. aid and foreign policy
generally to other states' performance on religious liberty, a
linkage that the U.S. bishops have long urged for the full
range of fundamental human rights.
Both bills address religious liberty violations primarily
through aid cut-offs rather than trade sanctions. Neither bill
imposes an embargo. The House bill's sole trade provisions ban
U.S. exports of items used in persecution and exports to
specific governmental entities directly involved in
persecution. The Senate bill includes several trade measures as
part of a much broader menu of responses, but these are not its
chief focus.
Both bills properly exempt most humanitarian and development
aid in order to avoid indirect harm to vulnerable populations
which the bill seeks to help. While seeking to minimize the
impact of sanctions on innocent civilians, both bills also
attempt to target those directly responsible for persecution.
These are essential features of any morally acceptable
sanctions regime, as the bishops maintained in their 1993
teaching document, The Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace.
In the matter of sanctions, our experience of a variety of
sanctions regimes has led us to be cautious and deliberate in
advocating their use as a policy instrument. The bishops have taken a
case-by-case approach to the imposition of sanctions, supporting them
(with adequate humanitarian safeguards) in some cases as an alternative
to war (e.g., Iraq and Yugoslavia) and in response to human rights
violations (e.g., denial of MFN for China, Jackson-Vanik in Eastern
Europe, ending military aid to El Salvador). In other cases we have
opposed sanctions, notably in the case of the comprehensive embargo
against Cuba.
While we support the aims outlined above, we believe that the
Senate bill should be modified and strengthened in several ways.
First, we believe that it is essential to fashion an acceptable
definition of actionable persecution, for this definition will in turn
determine the bill's coverage. The House bill sets a very high
threshold for action by defining persecution in terms of bodily harm
and confiscation, thereby limiting that bill's application only to the
most egregious cases of persecution. The Senate bill, on the other
hand, defines persecution much more broadly, both on the basis of
existing U.S. law (the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) and of widely
accepted international declarations and agreements (the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights) by which nearly all states have agreed to be bound.
The Senate bill further distinguishes two categories of persecution.
One includes lesser violations of religious liberty, such as
discrimination, which are to be addressed by various private or public
expressions of official U.S. disapproval (options 1-8 of the sanctions
menu); the other, more severe category of persecution requires a
response selected from a stiffer set of sanctions (options 9-16 of the
sanctions menu).
There are undeniable advantages to incorporating definitions of
religious persecution that the Administration is bound to enforce under
existing U.S. law and by which nearly every state has agreed to be
bound under existing international law. Moreover, the Senate bill is
based on the appropriate assumption that U.S. policy should be
concerned with such violations of religious liberty as wholesale
destruction of church property, onerous registration requirements and
other unreasonable prohibitions and forms of intimidation short of
actual violence that effectively deny freedom of conscience and free
exercise of religion.
As a matter of principle, we agree with the sponsors of the Senate
bill that all violations of religious liberty are serious matters that
the U.S. government should seek to address by means of the wide array
of instruments at its disposal. But as a matter of practical judgment,
we take seriously the argument that congressional action in this area
should focus primarily on the most serious cases of persecution, as the
House bill does.
Second, the Senate bill's broad coverage is matched by a
correspondingly broad range of policy options from which the president
must choose. This approach seeks to strike a balance between two
objectives: Congress's rightful and clearly expressed intent to mandate
proportionate and effective responses to religious liberty violations
and the Executive's concern for maintaining sufficient flexibility to
respond to such violations with appropriate measures in specific cases.
The Senate bill's attempt to strike this balance raises several
concerns, however. As the current version of the bill allows the
president complete discretion to select just one option and to decide
how far to apply it, we favor both strengthening and consolidating some
of menu options 9-16. In our view, the most severe cases of persecution
merit stronger responses. We are also concerned that the ``commensurate
action'' provision, without clearer standards, may unduly undermine the
menu approach. We therefore urge the sponsors to strengthen these key
provisions as they seek to reconcile the bill with H.R. 2431.
In addition, we are concerned by the provision (sec. 405(d)(2))
that appears improperly to subordinate religious liberty to
intellectual property rights.
Third, we support the Senate bill's waiver authority for national
security purposes and in cases where the president deems imposing
sanctions as counterproductive for those victims whom the bill seeks to
help, as we did in the case of H.R. 2431. We are, however, concerned by
the additional waiver for cases where the president deems that
``substantial steps'' are being made to end persecution, given the
record of similar waivers in drug cooperation and anti-terrorism
legislation. The other waivers seem fully sufficient to meet
Administration concerns about flexibility, and we would oppose any
broadening (or lowering) of the national security waiver standard to
one of ``national interest.''
Finally, while we welcome the humanitarian exemptions rightly
included in the Senate bill, we are concerned that certain types of
nonhumanitarian development aid may be subject to the aid cut-off
provisions of section 405(a)(9). Given the moral significance of this
issue, we would hope that the bill would make clear, either in the
language of the bill or in the committee report, that sanctions would
not include bilateral aid programs that, while not technically
humanitarian in nature, nevertheless have a significant humanitarian
impact. Here we are referring to those economic, cultural and political
development programs, administered by nongovernmental agencies, that
directly empower the poor or directly alleviate poverty (e.g., micro-
enterprise development, child survival, education, rural infrastructure
and agricultural development), as well as those that contribute to the
development of civil society and the rule of law. Permitting such aid
channeled through nongovernmetal organizations would help to avoid the
moral problem of punishing the poor, victims of religious persecution
and members of opposition groups for the misdeeds of their rulers.
Similarly, multilateral aid that serves the poor and vulnerable
should be explicitly exempted from the bill's sanctions. Here we are
referring to some of the health, education and grassroots development
programs funded under the World Bank's International Development Agency
(IDA) and other forms of multilateral development assistance.
In conclusion, while we welcome the higher profile and priority now
being given religious liberty, we have been repeatedly disappointed
that both the Congress and the Executive, during both Republican and
Democratic administrations, have generally placed economic and
political interests ahead of religious liberty and human rights.
Whether it is China or Indonesia, Sudan, Pakistan, Bosnia or Russia,
religious liberty should be a primary concern of U.S. foreign policy.
We remain committed to this bipartisan effort to pass truly
effective legislation that advances religious liberty and addresses the
plight of those who suffer simply for their faith.