[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STATE DEPARTMENT ANNUAL REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOR
2000
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 7, 2000
__________
Serial No. 106-178
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/
international--relations
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-683 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa TOM LANTOS, California
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DAN BURTON, Indiana Samoa
ELTON GALLEGLY, California MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
DANA ROHRABACHER, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
PETER T. KING, New York PAT DANNER, Missouri
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South BRAD SHERMAN, California
Carolina ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MATT SALMON, Arizona STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
AMO HOUGHTON, New York JIM DAVIS, Florida
TOM CAMPBELL, California EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BARBARA LEE, California
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Richard J. Garon, Chief of Staff
Kathleen Bertelsen Moazed, Democratic Chief of Staff
------
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DAN BURTON, Indiana Samoa
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
PETER T. KING, New York BRAD SHERMAN, California
MATT SALMON, Arizona WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
Grover Joseph Rees, Subcommittee Staff Director
Jeffrey A. Pilch, Democratic Professional Staff Member
Douglas C. Anderson, Professional Staff Member
Marta Pincheira, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Robert A. Seiple, Ambassador-at-Large for
International Religious Freedom................................ 4
Firuz Kazemzadeh, Vice Chairman, U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom.............................................. 7
Joseph Assad, Middle East Research Director, Freedom House....... 30
Acacia Shields, Uzbekistan Researcher, Human Rights Watch........ 33
Jimmy Zou, Falun Gong practitioner and former detainee in China.. 36
Reverend Pha Her, Pastor, Lao Evangelical Church................. 37
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress
from New Jersey and Chairman, Subcommittee on International
Operations and Human Rights.................................... 48
The Honorable Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania................................................... 51
The Honorable Robert A. Seiple................................... 53
Firuz Kazemzadeh................................................. 58
Joseph Assad..................................................... 74
Acacia Shields................................................... 80
Jimmy Zou........................................................ 86
Reverend Pha Her................................................. 87
STATE DEPARTMENT ANNUAL REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOR
2000
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2000
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on International
Operations and Human Rights,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:35 p.m. in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
Smith (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Smith. I would like to call the hearing to order. If
you could please take your seats.
Good afternoon. I am very pleased to convene this hearing
on the occasion of the second annual State Department Report on
International Religious Freedom. I am particularly pleased that
our witnesses include Robert Seiple, the Ambassador-at-Large
for Religious Freedom, and Firuz Kazemzadeh, the Vice Chairman
of the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom, as
well as four private citizens who have been victims of or
witnesses to religious persecution in countries around the
world.
The creation of the Commission and the office of the
Special Ambassador-at-Large as well as the institution of the
annual religious freedom reports are among a number of measures
provided by Congressman Frank Wolf's landmark legislation on
international religious freedom, which was marked up by our
Subcommittee in 1997 and enacted by Congress in 1998. All of
these measures represent important steps toward helping
millions of people around the world who are persecuted simply
because they are people of faith. But the reports themselves
clearly demonstrate that we need to do more.
This year's annual report, like last year's, does an
admirable job of stating most of the unpleasant facts about
religious persecution in countries around the world.
Nevertheless I have two concerns about the reports. First, they
sometimes seem to deflect attention from egregious government
actions by surrounding them with exculpatory introductions or
obfuscatory conclusions. Second, the best statement in the
world about religious persecution is unlikely to do any good if
it is not followed up by forceful or coherent policy for ending
such persecution.
In general, this year's Annual Report on International
Religious Freedom is clear and honest about denials of
religious freedom by governments with which our own government
enjoys friendly relations, such as Saudi Arabia, France,
Austria, and Belgium. But somehow the statements become less
clear in the reports on governments with whom we are trying to
improve relations such as Communist governments of North Korea,
Laos, and Vietnam. For instance, the report on Laos states that
religious persecution was ``largely due to the actions of a few
party cadres in a few provinces,'' whom the central government
was ``apparently unable to control.'' similarly the report on
Vietnam discusses the Vietnamese Government's policy of
recognizing certain ``official religions'' as though it were
evidence of a degree of religious tolerance, rather than part
of a systematic policy to force believers into phony
government-controlled religious organizations in order to
facilitate the destruction of genuine religions that existed in
Vietnam long before the Communist government came to power.
A careful reading of these reports suggest there was a
struggle in the State Department between people who wanted to
tell it like it is and those who did not want to say anything
that would set back the relationship between the United States
and whatever odious regime happens to be in power in the
country to which they were posted. Nevertheless, on balance the
annual report is thorough, honest, and strong.
My deeper concern, however, is that this report--like the
annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices--may not have
any practical effect on U.S. policy. This is particularly sad
because the International Religious Freedom Act provided an
important mechanism for bringing about such effects. The law
provides that on or before September 1 of each year, the same
day the annual report is due, the President shall review the
status of religious freedom in each foreign country to
determine which governments have engaged in or tolerated
particularly severe violations of religious freedom during the
preceding 12 months. If the President makes that finding of
fact about a particular country, that its government has either
engaged in or tolerated violations that are particularly
severe, he is bound to designate that country as a country of
particular concern for religious freedom. He must then either
impose diplomatic, political or economic sanctions against the
government of that country or explain why he does not intend to
do so.
Last year the President designated only five countries of
concern, along with two de facto authorities that are not
recognized by the United States as national governments. In
choosing these seven regimes--Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, Sudan,
Serbia, and the Taliban--the President made only the easy
choices. Six of the seven are already under severe sanctions
for reasons other than religious persecution. The seventh, the
Government of Communist China, represented a tough choice for
the Administration, but the facts were so clear that it is
difficult to imagine any other outcome.
At last year's hearing, Ambassador Seiple, I urged you to
take a close look at several other countries whose governments
clearly engaged in religious persecution that is particularly
severe, such as Vietnam, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia. Later,
in July of this year, the Commission on International Religious
Freedom wrote to the Department and urged that Laos, North
Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Turkmenistan be added to this year's
list. The Commission's letter also made clear that a strong
case could be made for the inclusion of India, Pakistan,
Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.
Mr. Ambassador, in light of these recommendations and of
the clear evidence in this year's report of particularly severe
violations in all of these countries, I am deeply disturbed by
reports that the Administration will not designate a single
country of particular concern this year beyond the seven that
were designated last year. I hope you can provide us with some
insights into the Administration's thinking on these
designations.
Mr. Ambassador, as you know, totalitarian regimes often
come down harder on religious believers than on anyone else.
This is because nothing threatens such regimes more than faith.
As political philosophers from Thomas Jefferson to Gandhi have
made clear, the strongest foundation for the absolute and
indivisible nature of human rights is the belief that these
rights are not bestowed by governments or international
organizations, but by God. So our government needs to
understand that human rights policy, and particularly our
policy toward the denial of religious freedom, must be a top
priority in U.S. foreign policy, not a footnote and certainly
not an afterthought. We must recognize that good and evil
really do exist in the world, and we must act on the
consequences of that recognition.
I would like to yield to my good friend from Pennsylvania
for any comments.
[The prepared statement of Representative Smith appears in
the appendix.]
Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will submit my entire testimony in writing for the
record. I would like to make a few comments.
First of all, thank you for holding today's timely hearing
on the State Department's Annual Report on International
Religious Freedom. Continued reporting on this issue is vital
as thousands of people around the world suffer at the hands of
their governments or communities simply for the peaceful
practice of their religious beliefs. In Saudi Arabia, in China,
Indonesia, Sudan, Vietnam, Laos, Burma, Pakistan, India,
Afghanistan, Morocco, the Maldive Islands, Egypt, countries in
Central Asia, even France, individuals and groups experience
harassment, sometimes physical harm, imprisonment and at times
even death because of their beliefs.
Earlier this summer I travelled to Indonesia and Pakistan
to meet with people who experienced persecution for their
faith, and the stories that we hear are heartbreaking, and I
comment on some of those in my testimony.
Regarding the report, some of the assertions in this report
are controversial, such as whether or not there has been
noteworthy improvement regarding religious freedom in Sudan,
Laos, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Government actions that
initiate increased religious freedom are appreciated. However,
governmental statements or actions often are not translated
into reality on the ground. In Sudan, where a religious
genocide is ongoing and reports continue to flood my office
about the government bombing of schools and churches in the
south, the report does not convey an ongoing sense of the
genocide against the Christian animist population in the south.
In Egypt the noteworthy improvements cited do not appear to
outweigh the tragic violence experienced against the Copts
experienced in a year covered by the report.
I want to commend the State Department officials who worked
to research and compile these reports. I look forward to
continued improvement on access to and reporting of religious
liberty violations.
I would like to add a special thank you to Ambassador
Robert Seiple for his service to our Nation and to the
individuals around the world as he leaves his post next week. I
certainly wish you all the best in your life after government.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Representative Pitts appears in
the appendix.]
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Pitts.
Mr. Pitts. I would like to introduce our first two very
distinguished witnesses beginning with Ambassador Robert
Seiple, who has served as the first U.S. Ambassador-at-Large
for International Religious Freedom since May 1999. Previously
he served as principal advisor to the President and Special
Representative to the Secretary of State for International
Religious Freedom. Before his tenure in the executive branch,
Ambassador Seiple was president of World Vision, President of
Eastern College and Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and
vice president for development at Brown University.
We will next hear from Dr. Kazemzadeh--I am sorry, Doctor--
who is the Vice Chairman of the United States Committee on
International Religious Freedom. Until recently he also served
as secretary for external affairs of the National Spiritual
Assembly of the Baha'i in the United States. He is also a
professor emeritus of history at Yale University, where he
taught Russian history for more than 35 years.
Ambassador Seiple, you may begin.
Mr. Seiple. Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Ambassador, if you wouldn't mind suspending,
although I didn't hear the bells, there is a vote on the child
enforcement amendment on the floor right now. So if you do not
mind, we will suspend for a few minutes and then reconvene the
hearing. I am sorry.
[Recess.]
Mr. Smith. Let me apologize for that delay, and I would
like to resume the hearing now.
Ambassador Seiple, if you could begin.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. SEIPLE, AMBASSADOR-AT-LARGE FOR
INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Mr. Seiple. Thank you very much.
In the intervening screening time, I was able to find the
button that gives us a higher voice level.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I want to thank
you for holding this hearing, and I am honored once again to
appear before you.
As I prepare to depart the position of Ambassador-at-Large
after 2 years of service, I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman,
that the Office of International Religious Freedom has not had
a better friend. You and your staff, in particular Mr. Rees and
Mr. Anderson, have done so much to make our mission a success
that I would be remiss in not thanking all of you publicly. I
do so not only on behalf of the International Religious Freedom
Office, but also on behalf of those around the world for whom
your efforts to promote religious liberty have provided redress
and hope.
Mr. Chairman, I have two goals this afternoon. The first is
to formally present the second Annual Report on International
Religious Freedom and to inform you of the Secretary's decision
with respect to the countries of particular concern under the
International Religious Freedom Act. The second is to give you
my sense of where things stand with respect to religious
freedom worldwide.
During the course of the past 12 months, my office has
monitored carefully the status of religious freedom worldwide.
We have traveled to many of the countries in which religious
liberty is at risk. We have had access to the large and growing
volume of press and NGO reporting on religious freedom. Last,
but perhaps most importantly, we have reviewed the excellent
reporting from the U.S. missions abroad.
U.S. diplomatic reporting on religious freedom has always
been good, but it has become better under the tenure of
Secretary Albright, who made it a point of emphasis soon after
her arrival in the Department. Some people being the day
reading the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. We
would read reports from some of the finest minds, patriots,
folks who want to serve their country, who are part of that
Foreign Service occupying those posts around the world.
This year's report covers the period from July 1, 1999,
through June 30, 2000. It contains 194 country chapters, an
introduction and an executive summary. This year the executive
summary highlights the improvements in religious freedom. We
have provided an improvements section because it is prescribed
by the act, but also because we think it is terrifically
important that the United States encourage improvements.
I am proud to present the second Annual Report, all 1,500
pages of it, on International Religious Freedom.
Now, a word on designations under the act, something that
you had brought up.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the IRF Act has established a
very high standard for this designation. In order to be
designated, the government of the country must have engaged in
or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious
freedom. As we apply the act's criteria in deciding what action
to take, we try to place them in the context of diplomacy. Is
diplomacy working? Are there trends in one way or another? Is a
particular action likely to help or hinder our diplomatic
efforts to improve the situation? None of these is
determinative, but all are important as we decide how to
proceed with any given country.
With respect to the Secretary's decisions this year, let me
first note that she has decided to redesignate the five
countries designated last year. They are Burma, Iran, Iraq,
Sudan and China. In addition, she is renewing her
identification of Serbia and the Taliban of Afghanistan as
particularly severe violators. Neither constitutes a country as
envisioned by the act.
During the course of the year, my office reviewed the
records of all other countries which we believe might approach
the designation standard. After carefully reviewing these
records, and I would say also taking the recommendation of the
independent Commission as well, and looking at everything we
had to work with, I have concluded that no other countries
reached that standard. I have reviewed this matter with the
Secretary, and she has approved my recommendations. Let me just
add that they were my recommendations, that it was not a split
between the Secretary of State or anyone else in the State
Department in our office. These recommendations came from our
office. And I would obviously be happy to answer any questions
when we get to that part on any one of the countries that we
looked at.
Let me give you a brief assessment of my office's work and
a few thoughts on the status of religious freedom. I believe
that we are implementing the terms of IRF Act of 1998 in an
effective way, faithful to the intent of the Congress, the
President and the Secretary of State. The Office of
International Religious Freedom is well integrated into the
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, thanks in great
part to my friend Assistant Secretary Harold Koh.
The process of producing the annual report has itself
played a major role in integrating our office and the issue
into the mainstream of U.S. foreign policy. The report has
become a focal point for discussion of religious freedom and
has dramatically increased public awareness of our mission.
Our mandate has also caused us to reach out to American
religious communities. I am very proud of our outreach program
to the Muslim community. I consider this program a success, and
my office intends to expand it to other American religious
communities.
My ex officio membership in the U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom has been a productive and
pleasant one. The Commission brings a separate set of eyes and
a sharp focus to our common task of promoting religious
freedom.
With the support of Assistant Secretary Koh, my office has
grown to a staff of five officers other than myself, and we are
in the process of recruiting three more. Their workload is
heavy and growing, and it involves some of the most
invigorating work in the field of diplomacy. We are met almost
daily with a new challenge, a refugee family fleeing religious
persecution and needing our help, a new draft law that
restricts minority religions, new arrests, deportations, or
executions of religious people, and we have had some small but
important victories.
Our office has had the opportunity to improve the lives and
fortunes of a few families and individuals suffering for their
religious beliefs. These are the things, Mr. Chairman, that
give us hope and make us even more determined to persevere in
the promotion of religious freedom.
But in all candor, I must tell you have that we have made a
very modest beginning in attacking the root causes of religious
persecution and discrimination. The problem has no simple
solution. The annual report provides a measure of the problem
and shines a spotlight on it. On balance it is a critical tool
in our goal of promoting religious freedom, but to get at the
root causes of persecution, we must go beyond the spotlight,
the designations and the sanctions. We must convince
governments that religious belief is not something to be
feared, but a source of social and cultural strength. We must
build bridges between religions, attacking the sources of fear
and distrust that feed violence.
We must encourage believers of all stripes to summon the
best from their traditions. Every world religion, Mr. Chairman,
has some example of the Golden Rule. For example, the
monotheistic religions believe that every human being,
religious or not, believer or infidel, is created in the image
of the Creator. To defile another human being, to destroy a
person's dignity, to live without respect for human life, these
are attacks on the very nature of things and the divine source
of that life.
Every religious tradition is plagued by men and women who
exploit and abuse the sacred, expropriating it as a divine
license for persecution and violence against others. In their
hands religion becomes a mobilizing vehicle for nationalist and
ethnic passions. We have seen this outrage played out on stages
from Afghanistan to Serbia to Sudan. We must not view the
actions of such imposters and hypocrites as representative of
any true religion. Religion can be, ought to be, a source of
reconciliation and hope, of unity and respect.
The authors of our Constitution knew that religious freedom
touches upon the most fundamental and universal attributes of
humanity, the quest for the ultimate gain and purpose that is
shared by every human being. In this, we are truly one human
family.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am proud to have been the first
Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom. I am
satisfied that our office has done its job well, not only
complying with the law, but in laying the groundwork for future
progress as well. When all is said and done, our work will be
judged not by the denunciations we make or the sanctions we
impose, but by the people we help. As far as I am concerned,
that endeavor lies at the heart of what it means to believe.
Thank you for having me here today. And obviously, I will
be happy to take any and all questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Seiple appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador. I look
forward to hearing your responses to the questions.
We will be joined momentarily by a few other Members,
including the Ranking Member, Cynthia McKinney.
I would like to invite Dr. Kazemzadeh, if you would,
present your testimony.
STATEMENT OF FIRUZ KAZEMZADEH, VICE CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMISSION
ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Mr. Kazemzadeh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Firuz Kazemzadeh. I am honored to serve as Vice
Chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious
Freedom. I wish to thank the Subcommittee for inviting a
representative of the Commission to testify before you today on
the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. I ask
that my complete written statement be made part of the hearing
record. I also beg your permission to leave early after the
termination of this panel so I can catch a plane home to
California.
Mr. Smith. Without objection.
Mr. Kazemzadeh. Thank you.
The Annual International Religious Freedom Report is
important to keep religious freedom high on the foreign policy
agenda and an important tool to promote religious freedom
abroad. It is the yardstick with which to measure our progress
in meeting the goals of the statute.
I would like to take a moment now to speak about Ambassador
Seiple. The Commission commends the work that Ambassador Seiple
and his staff have put not only into the annual religious
freedom report, but also their substantial efforts throughout
the year to keep religious freedom on the foreign policy
agenda. Ambassador Seiple has also made a significant
contribution to the work of the Commission on which he has sat
as an ex officio nonworking member, and we value him very much
as our colleague.
The Commission will strongly urge the next President to
move quickly to fill the vacancy with a person as knowledgeable
and as distinguished as Ambassador Seiple. It will also urge
the new Congress to impress upon the new President the
importance of doing so. As the Commission noted in its own
first annual report released in May, as important as the report
itself is the impact that its preparation has had on the State
Department and on our embassies. This year's report generally
shows more complete understanding of religious freedom issues
and extensive fact-finding and verification. It reflects hard
work on the ground.
In other respects as well this year's report is an
improvement over last year's. And I note with pleasure that
some of the recommendations the Commission made in its annual
report appear to have been adopted by the Department. Each
country report now has an introduction, generally identifying
the most significant religious freedom problems in that
country. There are separate subsections that detail relevant
law. Our review of the Department's instruction table sent to
the embassies earlier this year also shows that the Department
incorporated many of the Commission's suggestions in what
information is solicited from embassy officials.
For example, the report focuses in its dozen or so pages
relating to Sudan mainly on the policies and practices of the
Sudanese Government with respect to religious freedom per se,
giving only a page to atrocities being committed as part of the
civil war, including, for example, aerial bombing of hospitals
and schools, abduction of women and children, and the burning
and looting of villages. There are, moreover, significant gaps.
The report fails to describe the pivotal role that oil
extraction is having, especially in enhancing the ability of
the Government of Sudan to continue in its criminal behavior.
Similarly it does not focus on the delivery of humanitarian
aid; for instance, the long-standing refusal of the Sudanese
Government to allow humanitarian aid to reach some regions.
Another notable problem is that this year's report includes
a section in the executive summary entitled ``Improvements in
International Religious Freedom,'' which are also reported in
the individual country chapters. The Commission believes that
the reporting of such ``improvements'' must be carefully
handled in order to avoid misrepresentations of the conditions
of religious freedom. Labeling what are really positive
developments, and such positive developments deserve to be
noted, as ``improvements'' confounds positive steps with real
and fundamental progress in eliminating religious persecution.
The mention of such positive steps in the executive summary can
overshadow an overall negative situation. The executive summary
should be the place to report on fundamental lasting changes in
the protection of religious freedom, as may be the case in
Azerbaijan, but not particular events that may be positive.
Severe persecutors can make a positive gesture without
improving the overall conditions of religious freedom. On
occasion they do it to deflect criticism and to misguide
foreign observers.
In the case of Sudan, for instance, the positive
developments highlighted in the executive summary are changes
of a shallow nature, and not the type of developments that
would signal a change in the regime under which religious
believers suffer horribly.
Another example is Laos, where the release of religious
prisoners, in itself a welcome event, is characterized in the
executive summary as significant improvement. But the Laos
section of the report noted that, ``the government's already
poor record for religious freedom deteriorated in some
aspects.'' these contradictory messages are found in the
report's discussion of Vietnam as well.
The Commission is pleased that the State Department has
listed for a second year Burma, China, Iran, Iraq and Sudan as
``countries of particular concern'' [CPCs] as well as the
Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the Government of Serbia.
This year's annual report affirms that the conditions in those
countries have not changed sufficiently so as to warrant a
change in designation. The Commission is disappointed, however,
that the Secretary of State has not named Laos, North Korea,
Saudi Arabia and Turkmenistan as CPCs. On July 28, the
Commission wrote to the Secretary concluding that the
governments of each of these four countries have engaged in
particularly severe violations of religious freedom and thus
meet the statutory threshold for designation as CPCs. I have
attached this letter to my written statement for inclusion in
the hearing record. The Commission's conclusion was based on
the information that was available to us at that time. The
information contained in the 2000 annual report only affirms
that these countries should be designated as CPCs.
The label ``country of particular concern'' is important.
It brings into the spotlight the egregious violators. But the
act of labeling is only one aspect of the statute. The statute
requires policy responses and, again, the International
Religious Freedom Report is a report on U.S. actions to promote
religious freedom and not only a report on facts and
circumstances.
I would like to focus for a moment on actions taken in
response to the CPC designation, and then speak more broadly to
U.S. policy initiatives in certain countries.
Nowhere in the report did the State Department mention the
sanctions it may have imposed as a result of a country's
designation as a ``country of particular concern.'' This is
consistent with State's previous practice. It has, to our
knowledge, done nothing to publicize the sanctions imposed
under IRFA and at times appears to go out of its way to avoid
mentioning them. In the cases of Sudan and China, the sanctions
the State Department identified are inadequate and ineffective.
Regarding Sudan, the Department stated last October that, ``In
order to satisfy the sanction requirements of IRFA, the
Secretary of State also uses the voice and vote of the United
States to oppose any loan or other use of funds of
international financial institutions to or for Sudan pursuant
to the International Financial Institutions Act.'' More
effective actions that the Commission has recommended include
closing U.S. capital markets to companies that participate in
the Sudanese oil fields, and taking steps to end Sudan's
ability to control foreign food aid and use it as a weapon of
war. Regarding China, the Department stated that the Secretary
of State restricts exports of crime control and detection
instruments and equipment. It is difficult to believe that this
sanction sends a strong message to Beijing on religious
freedom.
I would also note that under IRFA, the President must take
action (or issue a waiver of the requirement to take such
action) with regard to all countries the government of which
engages in or tolerates violations of religious freedom, and
not only CPCs. These actions do not appear to be so recorded in
the annual report.
In general, the report shows that U.S. Embassy personnel in
a number of countries have been working to raise the issue of
religious freedom with their foreign counterparts. Embassy
personnel have also made inquiries and sought to monitor the
legal proceedings of some religious detainees. Ambassador
Seiple and his staff have traveled widely to reinforce the
message of the importance of religious freedom to the United
States.
The Commission applauds these actions. However, progress in
the promotion of religious freedom also requires that steps be
taken at the highest levels of interaction between the United
States and foreign governments. Religious prisoners and
persecution must be prominently raised in virtually every
meeting between American diplomats and violator governments.
As a parenthetical point, I would like to note that in the
executive summary of this year's report, actions taken by the
Commission itself are listed in the section on what the U.S.
Government has done with respect to a number of countries. This
practice should not be continued. The Commission is not
empowered by Congress to implement U.S. foreign policy, but to
make policy recommendations. Congress has required the
Commission to report on its activities separately from the
State Department. Including Commission actions in the annual
report may blur the distinction between it and the State
Department in the mind of the American public, NGO's, victim
communities and foreign governments.
The report shows a number of countries where the
deterioration in the conditions of religious freedom have not
resulted in an adjustment of U.S. policy. In the case of China
the report bluntly states, and rightly so, that the Chinese
Government's attitude toward religious freedom has
deteriorated, and persecutions of several religious minorities
has increased. The report reflects the situation in almost
excruciating detail. Arrests of Falun Gong and Zhong Gong
practitioners and Christians worshipping in unregistered groups
have accelerated dramatically. At least eight Uigher Muslims
from the Xinjiang Autonomous Region have been executed in June
and July on charges of splitting the country. The receptivity
of the Chinese Government to the United States concerns about
religious freedom in China also appears to have deteriorated.
The Chinese Government has refused to reinstate official
bilateral dialogue on human rights and religious freedom.
Government officials have refused to meet with U.S. Embassy
officials who intended to raise religious freedom issues with
them. The Department's special coordinator for Tibet and a
member of her staff were denied visas for travel to Tibet. It
is distressing that the Administration and the majority of the
House of Representatives is willing to overlook all of this in
pursuing its campaign for permanent normal trade relations
status with China.
Turkmenistan is another example of where the State
Department concludes that conditions of religious freedom have
worsened, yet the reported U.S. actions do not appear to
reflect any change in U.S. policy. A promise by President
Niyazov to the State Department to allow minority religious
groups to register, thus legalizing their activity, has yet to
be realized.
A third example is France where the report describes in
detail some disturbing recent events that threaten the
religious freedom of minority religious groups. In particular
the National Assembly in June of this year passed the bill
targeting the so-called sects for dissolution and establishing
a new crime of mental manipulation. It is now pending in
France's Senate. However, a comparison of this year's report on
what the United States has done, with the last year's report on
what the United States did, shows that despite worsening
conditions, the United States appears to have done less.
The report also illustrates a number of instances why U.S.
policy does not appear to be in line with the gravity of
religious freedom problems in a particular country.
The report on the Sudan does not display any coherent or
concentrated plan of the U.S. Government to deal with the
situation. We have not seen evidence of the sort of
concentrated and coherent policy that has any hope to succeed.
Consequently in May of this year as a key part of our
recommendations on Sudan, we laid out a specific 12-month plan
of action for the President, urging particularly that he
personally launch a vigorous campaign to inform the world of
Sudan's war crimes. In addition, the Commission has raised with
the State Department and the National Security Advisor the
issues of delivery of humanitarian aid in the face of continued
interference by the Government of Sudan and of oil extracting
enhancing the ability of the Sudanese Government to prosecute
the war.
The Commission has asked Mr. Berger to investigate reports
that the Commission received from credible sources--Anglican
and Catholic bishops in the Sudan--that U.N.-provided
humanitarian aid for Sudan, including U.S. aid, is being
manipulated to force religious conversions among the country's
displaced and needy religious minorities. I have attached a
copy of the Commission's August 14, 2000, letter to the
National Security Advisor to my written statement.
With regard to North Korea, the report notes that the
United States does not have diplomatic relations with this
country. Nevertheless the United States does have a policy with
respect to North Korea, and one that has undergone significant
change in the last year, including the announcement of the
lifting of certain sanctions against the country. We are not
taking a position on the wisdom of those actions; however, it
is apparent from the report that human rights and religious
freedom have not played a role in the development of policy
with respect to one of world's worst religious freedom
violators.
The 2000 annual report states a sobering fact. Much of the
world population lives in countries in which the right to
religious freedom is restricted or prohibited. As the richest
and most powerful nation on Earth, the United States can do
significantly more to vindicate this right abroad. As the
freest nation on Earth, it must do more.
On behalf of the U.S. Commission on International Religious
Freedom, I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation to
present the Commission's perspective.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kazemzadeh appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Smith. Dr. Kazemzadeh, thank you very much for your
testimony.
I would like to you recognize my good friend, the Ranking
Democrat on the Subcommittee, Ms. McKinney.
Ms. McKinney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do have a statement that I would like to submit for the
record.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. McKinney. I also have an observation that I would like
to put forward at this time and perhaps hear from the
witnesses.
I am concerned as it appears to me, and I am not sure not
to me alone, that as we go about looking at other countries in
the world and basically pointing a finger on what they are
doing right and what they are doing wrong, mostly what they are
doing wrong, I note that Secretary Albright has called this
grim reading, and we do the same thing with our annual human
rights report where we basically tell friends and our foes
alike that they need to do a better job in protecting human
rights and in protecting religious freedoms in this particular
point, but we rarely take a look at ourselves. And on the issue
of human rights and on the issue of religious freedom, I do
have one concern that I just wanted to put out there.
It appears to me that we have here in this country passed a
law that has resulted in the imprisonment of eight people, and
it appears to me to be solely because of their religion. I am
talking about the secret evidence law, and the appearance that
here in this country we have declared a war on Islam. And I
know if it appears to me to be that way, I am sure it appears
to be that way around the world. And while we point our finger
at other people, I think we better take a good close look at
ourselves and the way we treat our religious minorities here in
the country, or else I fear that it really could come back to
haunt us.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will relinquish my time, and I
look forward to the question-and-answer period.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Ms. McKinney.
Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me say I applaud you for this very important annual
hearing of the international religious freedom committee. I
would like to also commend Ms. McKinney for her steadfastness
as relates to human rights around the world.
I will not make an opening statement, but will wait until
the questioning period, and at that time I will make a question
or two. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Payne.
Let me begin with an observation.
Obviously passing this legislation was extremely difficult.
Ambassador Seiple, you might recall the near Herculean efforts
that the Subcommittee had to go through in order to get the
bill passed over the various hurdles. I remember part of the
objections were actually coming from the Administration, the
Secretary of State and her Assistant Secretary of State John
Shattuck continually told us, almost like a mantra, that this
would establish a hierarchy of human rights. On October 23,
1997, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said, ``Although
well-intentioned, this bill'' talking about the religious
freedom bill, ``would create an artificial hierarchy among
human rights with the right to be free from torture and murder
shoved along with others into second place.''
All of us objected vigorously to that very bogus
characterization of what we were intending to do at the time.
Just as when many of us opposed apartheid, as I think everyone
did, I also believed that sanctions were a very useful remedy
and I supported--despite the fact that many in my party did
not--a very strong sanctions regime. That didn't mean that
racism was somehow being put above other human rights. It just
suggested that racism needs to be spotlighted when it is so
egregious, when it is systematic, and when it is state-
sponsored.
The same can be said for what we did on Jackson-Vanik when
we risked superpower confrontation in order to provide a
relief, a safety net, a lifeline, if you will, to Soviet Jews
who were being repressed and the very few others who got out as
a result of that linkage between MFN and human rights or
immigration issues with regard to the former Soviet Union.
There was no hierarchy of human rights established. We
emphasized one. Hopefully all the others moved along. And I
think it is just fair to note that there was considerable
opposition.
I say this because the facts will bear this out. On page 18
of the executive summary, it is pointed out, Ambassador Seiple,
that ``the Ambassador,'' you, ``has begun the task of
integrating U.S. policy on religious freedom into the
mainstream of U.S. foreign policy and at the same time into the
structure of the Foreign Service and the Department of State.''
Hallelujah. That is exactly what we were trying to do with the
creation of your office, and all of the like-minded aspects of
the bill. It was meant to say that religious freedom is
important. It doesn't trump any other freedom, but it ought to
be emphasized because it has not had its rightful place at the
table.
I want to thank you. Looking at your itinerary over the
last year or so, you have been a very activist Ambassador. We
are very grateful for the work you have done. We know that when
you march into a capital and you speak to various people,
including Presidents, Prime Ministers, and dictators, that you
do speak from the heart, you speak with authority, and we are
grateful for that.
Having said that, just a few points with regard to the
policy and where we are now.
You mentioned a moment ago about the designations of the
countries being within the context of diplomacy, and I would
just like to note that section 402(b)(1) of the International
Religious Freedom Act of 1998 requires the President to
designate each country, the government of which has engaged in
or tolerated what it terms particularly severe violations of
religious freedom. According to section 3 of the law, such
violations include torture or other cruel treatment, prolonged
detention without charge, causing the disappearance of persons
by abduction or other clandestine detention or other flagrant
denials of rights to life, liberty or the security of persons.
When I look at the list, and again I am glad that we do
have a list, but again I think as the good doctor just
mentioned a moment ago, as the Commission did in its letter,
there are other countries that fit that designation. It seems
to me that there was a misreading of the law when it comes to
the so-called ``context of diplomacy.'' That should be all
about the response to, not the inclusion of, a country.
Diplomacy should address the question ``is it better to push or
use this carrot or stick,'' but not ``how do you get on the
list in the first place.''
So I note with regret and sadness that countries like Laos,
North Korea, and Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam for example, were
not included. It seems to me that the record clearly should
have placed them there. And North Korea, where apparently there
have actually been executions, should have been a no-brainer.
Yes, we have difficulty with access to the country in question,
but certainly the evidence and the reporting that has come out
indicates presumptively they should have been put on the list.
So I would ask you if you would, to speak further to this
issue of ``context of diplomacy.'' And, Doctor, if you could
speak to that as well. It seems to me there is a misapplication
of the statute going on. I don't think it is done with bad
intentions. I think you are very faithful to your principles,
but it seems to me that should be the response. What is the
best way to deal with Saudi Arabia? That is a different issue
than going on the list, which should be a matter of what the
evidence is on the ground.
Otherwise, what is the purpose of the waiver, which was
very, very generous? That was a point that we worked very
closely with the Administration on to make sure the waiver was
as wide as it could possibly be, giving the President maximum
flexibility when it comes to prescribing a certain course of
action.
Ambassador.
Mr. Seiple. This is a very interesting comment, and I think
this is a very interesting discussion to have. You were right
in terms of the parts that were read relative to the mandate
under the legislation.
There is also something, however, that runs throughout the
legislation, inherent in the legislation, if I can use the
phrase of some other people, a ``do no harm clause'' that we
also need to take into account. In other words, if we violate
the spirit of the legislation by performing a designation or
creating a sanction in our diplomacy in any way, shape or form,
we violate what the act was meant to be.
So if our public presentation of a finding, for example, is
going to make it much more difficult for people in that host
government country to have freedom--I mean, it is easy for us
here in the confines of the last remaining superpower to want
to wield more stick than carrot, but we serve an awful lot of
people in our primary constituency who have nothing but sticks
every day, and if we are going to make it more difficult for
them, do we not violate the spirit of the act which essentially
says do no harm?
Now, granted, once you take that as an assumption, you get
into some very subjective areas of interpretation, and, rightly
or wrongly, let me give you a couple of examples of how we
played this out.
There are some cases where we asked our sources whether we
could reveal what is going on, whether we can go to the next
step and do a designation and a sanction.
And because these are people that are on the ground that
are bearing the brunt today, we feel some obligation to listen
to those voices. We also look at what is applied on the
diplomatic side. In Turkmenistan, for example, we have a number
of things that are still in play. Are they going to reduce the
number required for registration? Right now it is 500. Only
Muslims and Russian Orthodox qualify. Are they going to reduce
it? We have had this discussion.
We have had the discussion of the repayment compensation to
the Adventist for the destruction of the church. We had a
discussion on amnesty for people of conscience. We also saw in
April where this president came out with a decree that
essentially said we are not going to disrupt private worship.
This was a huge boom for the Jehovah's Witnesses who were being
harassed, for the Baha'is who were being harassed, for all the
minority faiths there. So there was some reason to look at what
was in play and what we were asking over a period of time to
have done.
Now, again you have a subjective judgment to be made when
how much is enough time before you bring down the hammer. But,
another part of this legislation is the clear sense that we
should be in the business of promoting religious freedom. This
is one of the reasons we have that section on noteworthy
achievements. My goodness let's have some integrity when
somebody does something right.
We have caveats before this section. We have said that this
does not mean that we can all walk away because they have done
something right. In many cases, they are the worst offenders.
Significant improvement sometimes comes from people who are the
worst offenders. But it lacks integrity if we always use the
stick and say you are doing this wrong and that wrong and we
never give anybody credit for what they are doing right. It
makes it much more difficult to have the conversations that are
going to take place over a long period of time whether we fix
this.
I think it is true, the Congressman and my good friend
Firuz and the Commission and the office that I represent, we
all do want the same thing. And by and large, we look at the
same facts and come to the same conclusions on this point of
discernment as to what happened. The real issue is what do you
do with what happens? And I would take the stand that we have
taken and gone through any specific country that you would
like, but we did it with our eyes open. And we did it for the
constituency, the No. 1 constituency that we serve, those
people who this day are suffering because of how they believe,
who they believe, where they believe. And we have to stand with
them. We stand with the persecuted. That is what the act says.
We stand with them in terms of promoting their cause, and I
think we have been faithful to that.
Mr. Smith. Dr. Kazemzadeh.
Mr. Kazemzadeh. On the same subject?
Mr. Smith. Yes, please.
Mr. Kazemzadeh. Well, as Mr. Seiple said, there are
differences in what ought to be done. We are in agreement on
basic facts. Evaluations will differ. If I may say
parenthetically that the words of Ms. McKinney touched me very
much because the strength of America's influence abroad will
ultimately be commensurate with the situation at home. If we
have achieved successes in other fields, it is because of our
domestic strength and the same will apply to human rights and
to freedom of religion. But some of the disagreements I think
are legitimate. And it is not for the Commission, obviously, to
resolve these. I was speaking on behalf of the Commission. This
was the decision of that body. And in some instances it does
not coincide with the views of the State Department.
Mr. Smith. Let me ask you, Dr. Kazemzadeh, whether or not
you agree with his analysis of this issue of the context of
diplomacy in deciding which countries are put on the list and
which are kept off, which was the main point of my question to
Ambassador Seiple. Having worked so diligently on that
legislation with Grover Joseph Rees and others, I thought it
was very clear that the original designation does not have that
kind of open endedness and flexibility. That has to do with
what we do afterward. We tell the truth, we say exactly what
the situation is on the ground, and then we decide what is the
best course of action to mitigate the abuse.
So that is basically the question I wanted to ask you.
Whether or not that has been adhered to, especially in light of
the Commission's request that several other countries be added
to the list.
Mr. Kazemzadeh. It is a very interesting point. Just before
the hearing started, Mr. Seiple and I were talking about this.
The position of the Commission is the same as yours, Mr.
Chairman, that facts ought to be stated; and if the facts
warrant the inclusion of the country on the list of ``countries
of particular concern,'' that should be made very clear.
Now, what the U.S. Government shall do next, that I think
the diplomatic lens through which you look at it should apply.
Obviously the interests of the United States are varied and
cannot be all decided ahead of time. The government, the
Administration should have a great deal of leeway to act one
way or another. But I think that on the question of
designation, the Commission does not share that particular
point of view.
Mr. Seiple. Let me give you an example of where I think we
have a difference, and again we can go back and make a judgment
on how the methodology should proceed. The situation in Laos. I
was there twice in the last year. I don't know if there is
anybody in this room who has gone to Laos twice in a year, but
I went not because it is great country, not because they have
great weather, because they were in danger if they continued
what they were doing, namely, forced renunciations of faith.
People who would not renounce, go to jail. If people go to jail
in Laos, many times it is in leg stocks. It is the worst kind
of situation.
And to put the context of diplomacy over that, we could
either just sit back and watch Laos disintegrate and these
people stay in jail, and then come back and play our power
game--namely we are the powerful and yes we have 194 countries
which do not include our own but we somehow seem to be able to
live with the fact that we can judge everybody else--play the
power game, make sure the press are aware, and throw the book
at them at the end of the year.
I felt it was much more important, given the spirit of the
bill, of the act as I saw it, namely to promote and not to
punish: To give them a heads up, say look, we want to work with
you. We want to try to find a way out of this situation. We
want to find a way that creates sustainable solutions so we
don't have to revisit this. Laos is a poor country. It has very
little going for it. I mean, it is almost picking on them to
throw the book at them.
Can we fix it some other sustainable way that brings
dignity back to the human being. We have the discussions there,
we had a number of discussions with the Ambassador here. We had
a number of demarchees throughout the course of the year. We
finally from the start of the year when 55 to 60 Christians in
this case were in jail, got that figure down to 25. In ways
that, quite frankly, I didn't think were possible because there
are problems even in a communist country and maybe especially
in a communist country where they don't control as much as they
think they control.
So we had a couple of Hitlers out there, a couple of
governors who essentially were kings of their fiefdoms, and
they weren't listening to the central government. We got that
changed. It was late in the game. The Commission was not
brought up to speed about it because it happened after the
reporting period. But it came to the point where now in all of
Laos we have a number of 25.
Now, let me just say that these things are not linear
progressions. We take one step forward and sometimes two steps
back. Hopefully some days three steps forward. In this case we
did an extraordinary thing in the government getting them to
work with these recalcitrants, with these difficult Governors
to points where jails were open and people were let out. And
people were not being forced to renounce their faith.
Now the legislation is written so that if they go back and
say, ``Oh, we got a by, we can do it all over again,'' we can
throw the book at them next week. We can throw the book at them
next month. We can throw the book at them next year. We don't
have to wait until 1 September of every year. The bottom line--
point however is if we had designated them and then tried to
work the diplomatic side, the door would have been shut. The
conversation would have been over. When you designate and
sanction a country you change the relationship, sometimes, in
my opinion, irreparably.
So if that was the original intent of the bill and somehow
we are in variance against the spirit of the act, this is a
point we really ought to come back and talk about some more. It
is a very important act. It is whether diplomacy will have a
chance to work to the betterment of the first constituency that
we were called to serve as opposed to a legal interpretation of
an act.
Mr. Smith. Because I would assume that within the context
of diplomacy is if the decision was made in a way similar to a
Laos we don't think it is working all that well and the
situation on the ground as is pointed out the respect for
religious freedom has deteriorated markedly during the last
half of 1999 according to the report.
Let me ask you if you could update us on China. I was just
reading some news articles a couple of days ago about the
underground Catholic Bishop Joseph Su from Hebei province who
was arrested as were several others. I know you raised his
case. I actually met with Bishop Su when he was briefly out and
celebrated mass for our small delegation and immediately got
rearrested. If there is anything you can do to shed light upon
the situation in China, that perhaps amplifies what is in the
report since it has been released. Also, what actions are
contemplated vis-a-vis China.
Mr. Seiple. China is an extremely tough case. I think we
could have the same discussion we just had and insert China as
to the question ``did it do any good?'' Would we have had a
better chance without putting them in reports which now are
mandated to come out three times a year between the Commission
and the two that come out regarding democracy, human rights,
and labor in the State Department? It is a good example of
designation and a sanction and it has been made clear here that
the sanction doesn't seem to be much of anything.
Let me tell you that the designation was everything. We
undressed China in public for what it is doing. Does that make
it easier for us to talk to China? Absolutely not. Was it the
right thing to do? I think so because diplomacy had failed. We
had no other avenues. They had taken away the ability to have a
dialogue. Let me say this about sanctions, I think it is right
to have sanctions in the bill. We have gotten a lot of good
positive things happening because we have used the threat of
sanctions. But in China, things were bad, and the integritous
thing to do was to designate them: and things have gotten worse
in this past year.
I could give you examples from the Falun Gong situation.
Let me just give one that talks in my mind to the bankruptcy of
the communist ideology. A 60-year-old woman, her daughter is
called to the prison to pick up her body. Her crime, she is a
meditator, she is a Falun Gong adherent. She is bleeding, dried
blood from the ears, from the eyes, and from the mouth. She has
got every tooth in her mouth broken. Her body is covered with
bruises. We have this from a fairly credible source: Last
February she was made to run up and down outside in the snow
until she collapsed, a 60-year-old woman. Now how do you stand
by and allow that to happen.
I mean, at this point the context for diplomacy is gone.
They have to be lifted up for who they are and what they have
done. And they have to be lifted up in an international way.
And we have done that. I think that is the best use of this
part that was so carefully and painstakingly put together
through yourself and Frank Wolf and Under Secretary Eizenstat,
a very creative use of flexible sanctions for the purpose of
advancing the spirit of the act, thinking about 60-year-old
women who nobody thinks about, who nobody talks about, who can
disappear from the face of the earth, except we got a letter.
And I wish that was the only situation that was part of the
marked deterioration. A few weeks ago, they arrested 130
members of the Fauncheng church, one of the groups that were
targeted in this anti-cult law. It is an underground church;
there are three American citizens involved. The citizens
gratefully were let out. I have to say this for China, they do
a good job when there is an American citizen involved. Give
them credit for that.
That doesn't take away from anything that we have said
about China. We have got a bankrupt system. It is failing. They
are scared to death. What they don't understand, what they
can't control, what appears to have an outside influence,
takes--puts the fear of whatever into them. And they call it
stability, but it really is the paranoiac fear for control. And
we need to worry about China in the years ahead. Soft landings,
hard landings, how PNTR works, we have a bad situation there.
So that is a little bit of an update on China, but it also fits
into this other discussion and how we utilize as intelligent
beings the spirit of the act.
Let me just say, when we go out to these places and say in
1998, when you folks were not very bipartisan in this town, you
voted unanimously for this particular act. The greatest thing
to come out of this act is that it raises hope, hope for these
people living on the cruel edges, hope for these people who are
having to bury their 60-year-old mothers, that the last
remaining super power cares for them and is willing to do
things for them even if it costs them money or prestige or
whatever.
Hope is a future concept. In order to be credible in the
future it has to be tangible in the present. These people know
that we have a report that undressed China publicly. They know
we have an independent commission that works on behalf of the
voices. They know that people like yourself and Joseph Rees are
working every day to make sure that their lives approach human
dignity and that human dignity becomes a reality for more
people in our lifetime. It is an amazing amount of hope. The
best thing that this act has done is to make hope credible on
the cruel edges of the world.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Cynthia.
Ms. McKinney. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would just also
say that lobbyists who were--you were here pounding the halls
of Congress advocating permanent normal trade relations with
China didn't care very much about that 60-year-old woman
either. And apparently no one else in the Administration did
because they delinked human rights and trade.
Let's talk for just a moment about Sudan, Mr. Ambassador. I
am reading in Dr. Kazemzadeh's testimony that on Sudan more
effective actions that the Commission has recommended include
closing U.S. capital markets to companies that participate in
the Sudanese oil fields. Could you talk to me about the fact
that is it that companies are raising money here in the United
States for the oil exploration and that is going on in Sudan?
Mr. Seiple. I think you have correctly summarized what is
happening. And I think as we looked in the Commission meetings
in Sudan, the most creative thing that I have seen in a long,
long time was this issue of barring. How do you do it, the
issue of barring international companies who come to this
country for the sole reason of raising capital and will
eventually go, sometimes directly go to a process in a
government and a country like Sudan. And believe me we have
done about everything possible to Sudan including the throwing
of Tomahawk missiles at Khartoum, but we haven't gotten their
attention. And there are problems throughout that country but
the problem really, and there is no moral equivalency between
what goes on in the north and what goes on in the south, the
problem is in the government of Khartoum. After 17 years and
over 2 million people killed, the issue is how do you increase
the gain or the pain of prosecuting that war. Because unless
you make it so painful for them to stop or so good for them to
stop it is going to continue for another 17 years. That got
very, very complicated when Sudan had access to resources
because they are pumping $32 a barrel oil. Some of which came
about because money was raised in the United States of America,
people made investments.
Now, there are all kinds of issues here and frankly where
this needs to be sorted out is in the Treasury Department. But
let me say that I think it is a very creative idea. And it
could have a tremendous boon to the human rights establishment
if we could find a way to deny this from governments or
companies who are working in governments that are harmful to
the dignity of people. I think it should be pursued. I think it
will be pursued. I am sure there will be all kinds of legal
hurdles. But I would suggest it to you and this Committee to
work with the Commission on that and to work with the
Department of State and Treasury on that because it is a most
creative idea.
Ms. McKinney. Dr. Kazemzadeh, you have suggested in your
testimony that there were some recommendations put forward with
respect to Sudan. How do you feel--what do you think the
Administration ought to do with respect to your
recommendations?
Mr. Kazemzadeh. The Commission has made five specific
recommendations. The first was that the United States should
begin a 12-month plan to pressure the Government of Sudan to
improve human rights. The recommendation says that if there is
not a measurable improvement in the religious freedom in the
Sudan by the end of the period, the United States should be
prepared to provide non-lethal and humanitarian aid to
appropriate opposition groups. This was the first proposal.
The second proposal that the U.S. Government should earmark
more humanitarian aid for building public works such as roads
and bridges in southern Sudan which apparently lacks a proper
infrastructure for the delivery of the aid and for the well-
being of the people.
The third proposal was that the United States should work
toward a military no-fly zone over Sudan because, again, these
bombings by air of hospitals and schools have been particularly
horrible examples of repression.
The fourth proposal, the U.S. Government should prohibit
any foreign corporation from seeking to obtain in capital in
the U.S. market as long as it is participating in Sudanese oil
field development because there is a kind of an irony there of
United States citizens in effect contributing money for
repression in another country. And finally, that there should
be an investigation of how far and how much of the debt the
China National Petroleum Company intends to retire, how much of
the debt arose from its Sudanese activities and whether U.S.
underwriters knew or should have known of any such earmarking.
So these were the complete proposals of the Commission made
on the Sudan issue.
Ms. McKinney. And Ambassador Seiple, what is the
Administration's position on those recommendations?
Mr. Seiple. Well, they are being discussed at the
Department of Treasury as I suggested. I am not quite sure
where they will come out. But again they are looking at
legislation that is already in place and whether we contradict
any of that in the rights of people in this country to invest
and all those difficult issues. But again my encouragement to
everyone would be to continue to push that. It is a most
creative way to help the people that are suffering in Sudan
because of who they are, where they are. It is a very
important, could be a very important tool. We could get an
awful lot of attention from despotic governments if they
understand that this great fountain of venture capital is not
at their disposal until they clean up their act. But it has to
be pushed.
Ms. McKinney. Mr. Chairman, I am finished.
Mr. Smith. Sure. Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Sort of in the
light of questioning that Ms. McKinney had in regard to the
Sudan, I too think that this is one of the worst tragedies that
has been going on for over 4 decades and have received very
little attention. About 7 or 8 years ago, I took my first of a
number of trips to Southern Sudan. The last one a year or so
ago I went to Loka, Tombe and other places. Just last night, I
met with the delegation late into the evening of people from
the Norwegian Aid and we discussed the whole question of the
problems with food aid. Now, we asked our government that OLS
was--certainly when they have an opportunity simply to bring in
food when they want to, they use food as a weapon, that we have
a language put in to allow food aid to go through not OLS
means. Unfortunately, even though the legislation was passed
there, there was opposition from traditional food aid
organizations I think such as CARE and some of the others that
opposed food aid and non-lethal assistance to NGO's and perhaps
even SPLA in the south.
And we have a number of problems, as you know, the question
about the oil companies. That Talisman oil, as you know, we
were able to get that in New Jersey. With the assistance of
Congressman Smith, we pressured the Governor of New Jersey and
they sold Talisman. As you know, it is tied in with the
People's Republic of China and Malaysia as an oil conglomerate.
And the fact that there is more oil in the south is going to
simply increase Khartoum's reign of terror on the south.
Second, there has been an increase in bombing as we talked
last night. They are becoming more frequent. Just disrupting.
When we were in Yei we thought they were going but he watched
the chickens. Because if the chickens start running, then the
children running and when the children run, you know the
Antelopes are coming. And they continued the bombing and
continued this continuously. And I too am at wit's end to try
to understand why the Administration has not put forth a
stronger position against the Khartoum Government. The gum
Arabic question when we tried to have sanctions against that
was once again allowed to continue to move forward.
So I agree with you wholeheartedly that food is used as a
weapon it is used too in religious persecutions. There is
starvation still in the Nuba mountains, the question of the
lack of any other organization being able to bring in food into
the south of Sudan really makes this particular problem I think
one of the most egregious that we see in the world. Either of
you have any idea of why this continued problem continues to go
along without outrage in the world? Luckily we have more and
more people getting involved, primarily students who are
getting involved in the whole question which has gotten some of
the adults to have more concern. But can either of you give us
any light on why this continued crisis catastrophe continues to
go out much attention on the part of the worlds?
Mr. Seiple. I wish my old friend Firuz would have an answer
and an antidote and a silver bullet for what has gone on for 17
years. I think we are in agreement here that this is a conflict
that humbles us all. Why it continues. Why Khartoum would do
this. Why discussions that go on with our special envoy, which
was an additional plus to have that resource, that facilitator
in the IGAD process and so on, why he can be having
conversations with his interlocutors in Khartoum about
unilateral or bilateral cessation of activities and those same
airplanes are rolling bombs out the back. We had Max Gazeze
here, Bishop Gazeze, about a week after they bombed the school.
And these are--these were first graders--14 first graders who
were sitting under a tree having an English lesson. And the
bombs hit and 14 of the children were killed. And the diplomat
out of Khartoum said it was an intentional target. This is
craziness.
In terms of what can be done, let me first address why
there is not more outrage. These are personal points of view: I
think the sense of intractability works against people getting
involved, understanding the situation, which is complex,
understanding Africa and how things work with the neighborhood,
which is complex. And then also this has been a war without
heroes. I certainly do not want to create a moral equivalency
between what has been allowed to happen in the south and what
goes on in the north, but it has been hard to find an
opposition leader to firmly get behind in all respects. In
terms of the OLS everybody has questioned why we allow Khartoum
to veto where the food goes. Again it is crazy.
The Government, the U.S. Government has been diverting more
and more of its food into non-OLS areas. We have to have people
to deliver the food on the ground. And the World Food Program
[WFP] is one of the few programs that is an international
organization that can do that. Very few of them can. But right
now our--the money that we give to non-OLS food, if you take
WFP out of it, is about the same as we give for OLS food. So
there has been a switch and it is changing. Is it enough change
to bring it to an end? No. Again if it were easy, it wouldn't
have gone on for 17 years. It wouldn't have killed 2 million
people.
We wish there were more genuine outrage, that there were
more facts presented like we are doing today, that more people
would understand that what is at stake really in a global
village has some impact and import to how they live, who they
are.
As I said at the beginning of this, this is a conflict that
humbles us. I think if we quadruple everything that we are
doing we could sill sit here and say, gee, how could we do
more. We would welcome the input from this Committee. We
welcome the input from the Commission. We have welcomed the
creativity that has come about largely through the Commission
work, and we all want the same thing. It is a tough, tough nut
to crack.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. We are going to continue to
pressure and continue to work with the Commission. There are--
we have some allies out here. This is something we have to make
a No. 1 priority. We have to continue to enlighten the world.
We are starting to see more and more interest on the People's
Republic of China. They have got more and more people coming
in, and there is a rumor that they have a goal of getting
several hundred thousand people in Sudan and working the
fields, and laborers are there now and technicians. So this is
really going into the wrong directions.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Seiple. You mentioned the NGO, and I failed to comment
on that. I was head of an NGO that was very much involved. In
fact, we got kicked out of the north because we were told we
weren't needed. We were out for 6 months and 250,000 people
starved to death, and we went back in the south illegally
because human dignity is more important than the sovereignty of
the state. I think that is the position that most of the NGO's
that are there now take. But it is very hard to ask a known
governmental organization to be part of the distributing system
to the opposition forces regardless of how they individually
feel, very hard to take the role of one party in a conflict
over another. It puts them in a very, very awkward position. It
might be the right thing to do. They might ultimately do it.
But we really strain the philosophical basis of who they are
when we take away their impartiality.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Payne.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, as always I applaud and
commend your tremendous leadership as a true champion not only
of human rights but religious freedom. It always is an issue
that I really, really appreciate that you have taken the
forefront on this, trying to bring about the better change as
far as religious freedom is concerned, not only perhaps in our
own country but throughout the world. I certainly want to
commend both Ambassador Seiple and Mr. Kazemzadeh for very
comprehensive reports that have been submitted for the
Committee Members to review.
Recently there was a 60 Minutes interview between Mike
Wallace and the President of the People's Republic of China. It
was a very interesting dialogue between President Zemin Jiang,
I believe is the pronunciation of his name. And there seems to
be a quite a difference of values between Western nations, if
you will, as opposed to those who are representing the Asian
countries. And one of the things that was raised as you had
suggested earlier, Mr. Ambassador, about religious freedom and
how the perception is by someone representing 1.3 billion
people, one out of every five persons living in this planet, he
is the leader of the most populous nation of the world. The
dialogue came down to the point, well, it is very easy for
Western countries to look at religious freedom but in a very
different way.
I wanted to ask Ambassador Seiple if there is an--and I am
not defending whatever action you have taken against the 60-
year-old lady that you had mentioned earlier, but I am only
saying is there a difference, definite difference of values on
how we from the Western aspect of philosophy and whatever you
want to call it, as opposed to how people have to cope with the
realities, that form of government, may it be communist or
whatever other form that is taken. And I say these not in a
critical way. I am just trying to understand, at least have a
sense of understanding of the problems that they are having to
deal with, not just in religious freedom but even just the mere
existence, providing food on the table for some 1.3 billion
human beings living on that part of the world.
For starters, I want to share with you I am not a
historian, but it is my understanding when the People's
Republic of China was founded in 1949 there were 400 million
Chinese living since 1949. And our own country's population
right now is about 273 million. We are now the third most
populous nation in the world. But from the perspective of
someone like Mr. Zemin giving this, there is a different
perception about religious freedom as we would have it, even
though we have a problem with religious freedom. If there is a
question of high school students that could not give prayers
before football games, the Supreme Court is involved in this.
I am very curious, Ambassador Seiple, if perhaps the
President of the People's Republic of China gives that
perception. There is a difference of perception here. I wanted
to ask you if there may be some sense of truth in that
observation.
Mr. Seiple. We certainly agree that they have 1.3 billion
people. And we should not ignore that. We should be very active
in China. We cannot take a closed-minded position to that.
There has to be engagement with China that has integrity. I
wish that Harold Koh, the head of--Assistant Secretary for
Human Rights, could also answer this question. He is Asian, and
he represents what we all want to represent; namely, the
universality of the concept of human rights, the concept of
religious freedom. I think one of the very bright things, smart
things, wise things that was done when the International
Religious Freedom Act of 1998 came together, is seen in the
preamble. The preamble was written in the context of the
international covenants, the International Declaration of Human
Rights, and all of what came after 1948. Interestingly that
came into being a year before the Communist Party in China.
China always talk about its culture, its systems, its
history. The Communist Party is the carpetbagger in China. 50
years. That is it. The Chinese culture of course goes back
millenniums. But the preamble suggests that these are covenants
that are already in existence. America didn't invent this idea.
Jimmy Carter used to say we didn't invent human rights; in many
respects human rights invents us. On the basis of the dictates
of the American people, through a representative government, to
put our considerable shoulder to the wheel to covenants
existing internationally that countries like China had already
signed--inherent in those covenants is the concept of mutual
accountability. China could come and point out our problems. We
should welcome that. They should hold us accountable for human
rights abuses if they exist in this country, and we should feel
free to do the same. We don't do this because we have invented
something special and unique in America, or that it is part of
our history.
You know, there is something that transcends the nation's
states, something that transcends national boundaries. It is
human dignity. It is the sanctity of life which we have in
common with every single person on the planet.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I suppose where I am coming from, Mr.
Ambassador, I don't question your statement in response, so we
go after China, we undress China. I guess my concern is that
are we doing the same for Saudi Arabia, where we talk about the
rights of religion freedom and religious freedom in that
country. And of course Saudi Arabia is a very important country
as far as our foreign policy is concerned. It is not a non-
democratic country. They don't elect the shahs and kings there.
You are born into the royal family.
How would you address--the concern I have, are we evenly
distributing the pressure? If we are doing it for China, are we
doing the same for Saudi Arabia or other countries that are not
necessarily democratic in substance as far as we are concerned?
Mr. Seiple. When we write the reports we write with the
same methodology, looking for facts that we can verify and then
stating those facts as they are. In terms of what you do with
those facts and the methodology employed and the next step
forward, there is a difference. I had a fascinating afternoon
in Saudi Arabia talking about these issues not only with their
government officials but with their clerics. In China, we are
not allowed to have that dialogue. That was suspended in China.
So you do what you can do when you can do it. If they gave us
more leeway, we would take it.
Are we happy with where Saudi Arabia is today? Absolutely
not. And our record on that, our chapter on Saudi Arabia points
that out. Our chapter on China again, with the same kind of
integrity and methodology to fact finding and truth telling is
done in a similar fashion.
Mr. Faleomavaega. As much as we are doing a 365-day
calendar year that celebrates Christmas, do you think
something--we should also have a national day for Buddha and
let's say even for Mohammed?
Mr. Seiple. I am not sure of the specifics because you are
hitting me cold, but should we respect the Buddhist faith,
should we respect the faiths that are not traditional in this
country that might be new?
Mr. Faleomavaega. A national holiday the same way that we
do the same for Christmas.
Mr. Seiple. Do we have a national day for our Christmas
because of our culture or because of our religion?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Good question.
Mr. Seiple. I don't want to step out and say we should have
a national day for something without more reflection on it. But
if the question is should we have respect, mutual respect,
equal respect, for other things, than what might be those that
were traditionally involved in the founding of this country,
our majority faiths today, absolutely. Absolutely. A country's
human rights record ultimately is fashioned by how it treats
the minority representation, not the majority, and we have some
work to do there. We are superficial in our understanding of
the Islamic faith.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Ambassador, I could not agree with
you more on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Ambassador Seiple, let me ask you a few follow-up questions. In
his testimony, Joseph Assad, the Middle East Research Director
for the Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom House, takes your
shop to task on the Egypt section. He points out in his
testimony that the Egypt section of the State Department's
religious freedom report is very uneven. The serious findings
of violations of religious freedom against Egypt's Copts of the
last year are undercut by the report's determination that so-
called ``noteworthy improvements'' have occurred and the
finding of a trend toward improvement in the government's
respect for and protection of the right to religious freedom.
In fact, the improvements cited at the beginning of the
Egypt section are either misrepresented, such as the
restriction on church repairs, or are insignificant in contrast
to the grave violations, arrests, and denials of justice
experienced by the Copts over the last year. Freedom House's
Center for Religious Freedom is concerned that the report may
be soft pedaling the persecution of the Copts in deference to
the Middle East peace process.
For example, the report describes the massacre of
Christians in Al-Kosheh earlier this year as clashes and
exchanges between Muslims and Christians. Since all of those
who were murdered in the village were Copts, this description
is comparable to describing the Ku Klux Klan lynchings as
clashes and exchanges between blacks and whites. We hope that
these shortcomings in the report's Egypt section do not stem
from American insensitivity due to Cairo's role in the Middle
East peace process. The credibility of the report hinges on
their ability to state accurately and unflinchingly the status
of religious freedom irrespective of other U.S. strategic and
economic interests.
He then goes on to point out many of the concerns of the
Coptic church and individuals, including the vulnerable young
Christian women and girls who are targeted by extremist Muslim
groups and pressured to convert to Islam, sometimes with the
cooperation of local police. He has many other examples of the
violence and discrimination against Christian Copts. How would
you respond to that characterization, which is very strong?
Mr. Seiple. Joseph Assad is a good friend of mine. I have a
great respect for his reflective thought and his methodology
and his conclusions. I would take exception with a friend--that
is the beauty of dialogue with friends--that the improvement
section is still important. We have touched about this earlier.
I find that we lose credibility as I mentioned before, when we
only talk about those things that are wrong and not those
things where progress has been made. I think we have to be
larger than simply hitting people. We have to find ways to lift
them up to a higher standard. Sometimes the mere mention of
something positive is that instrument that can do that. And I
hope that will be the case here.
I have never been accused of being a soft peddler in my
life. I don't think we have soft peddled Egypt. I think you
talk to the Egyptian Government, and you get a chance to do
that from time to time. Whether or not they like the
international religious freedom report and the
characterizations, there is no question that this year in the
terrible events at the end of December, beginning of January in
Al-Kosheh, terrible from a human rights perspective, terrible
from anybody who believes in the dignity of people, but I do
have to say and Joseph has to say that the Egyptian Government
handled this one sight better than they handled it the year
before.
Why did they do it? They did it because we talked to them.
We explained the problems. We explained the way they were going
to be perceived by the rest of the world. If they continued to
do what they did essentially after Al-Kosheh, I mainly to try
to put something--shove it under the rug, forget about it, say
it didn't happen. And in Al-Kosheh I, we can use that
terminology, in August 1998 they did everything wrong. At least
the government response to these terrible abuses, these
terrible occurrences this year, was a great deal better than
before and that is progress.
Again, I don't think anyone can read the entire Egypt
section and feel that we have given them a buy because they are
a long-term ally. We think we have told it like it is. We may
have difference on how much of this is tied to societal
hostilities, how much of it is tied to the lack of human rights
and how much it is specifically tied to a significant degree to
religious freedom issues. But that is why we have these kinds
of conversations.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Ambassador, I say this with respect too,
because I do greatly respect you, I think it is important to
raise these issues, even though we now have another vote on the
floor of the House. But there is a very strong statement coming
from the Uzbekistan researcher who will also be testifying
shortly, Ms. Shields, who has worked on the ground in Tashkent.
She is a researcher for Human Rights Watch. She makes the
points--I would like to quote that briefly and try to get your
response with regard to Uzbekistan.
While this year has seen at least two dramatic and
disturbing attacks on Christian believers and several
detentions of Christians for alleged missionary activity, one
of which was documented in the State Department report, the
problem of religious repression in Uzbekistan is first and
foremost a problem of government ordered discrimination in
violence against pious Muslims on a vast scale.
Since late 1997, Uzbek police and security forces have
arrested thousands of pious Muslims. These arrests are illegal
and discriminatory; they target people who belong to
unregistered Islamic groups who practice outside state
controlled mosques or who possess Islamic literature not
generated by the government. Police routinely torture and
threaten detainees, deny them access to medical treatment and
legal counsel and often hold them incommunicado in basement
cells for up to 6 months. Trials are grossly unfair as judges
systematically punish independent Muslims with lengthy terms in
prison for their religious beliefs and affiliations, ignoring
allegations of torture and allowing coerced self-incriminating
statements of evidence, often the only offered evidence, to
convict.
This year's IRF report recognizes neither the anti-
religious nature of this repression nor the human rights crisis
it has produced. It argues that victims are engaged in activity
that is primarily political and therefore that Uzbekistan
cannot be said to be violating the victim's religious freedom.
This campaign of repression based on religious beliefs and
practices is blatant and irrefutable, and the arrest of
thousands of independent Muslims is now well-documented.
Only sophistry has allowed the Administration to avoid
classifying Uzbekistan as a country of particular concern for
its gross violations of religious freedom.
How do you respond to that? Again I have had hearings in
the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and you
are up on Uzbekistan and we have focused very much on the
religious repression. I, too, find it puzzling and perhaps
there is an answer.
Mr. Seiple. I do think there is an answer. Again, I very
much respect the work of Acacia Shields. I know the size of her
heart. We spent time together with a number of Muslim women
during my last trip there. I have been there twice looking at
these issues. First of all, there are horrendous human rights
problems in Uzbekistan. I hope that nothing in the report
minimizes the fact that we have huge human rights issues. What
we need to be sensitive to, however, is that human rights,
other human rights do not use the International Religious
Freedom Act and hold it hostage and try to make it work so that
this can be used against the situation over there.
We have had--this past year we have had a number of people
released from prison. We have had a liberalization of the
registration process. We have had a promise followed up on that
there would be roundtables and conferences on the 1998
religious law, which we feel was the most harsh religious law
in that part of the world or any part of the world. All those
things have happened. Namely, diplomacy has had some major
successes here.
Again is it linear? Do you ever go two steps forward, one
step back or three steps back? You bet. This is a country that
has been around for 10 years and it comes out of the Soviet
system with some of the same personalities in place. But
basically the difference is this: The Uzbeki Government sees
the opposition parties as wanting to come in and take over
violently their government. And I looked at the bombing of
February 16, 1999 when their paranoia on that issue became very
real. They have a point. They live in that neighborhood. There
are forces that would like to turn that country inside out and
turn it into a form of political Islam or Islamic extremism.
Now, that does not mean that they should throw the net so
wide that they bring in innocent people, whatever the religion,
and they end up in jail, they end up in those torture chambers
or prisons that exist in Uzbekistan. Every conversation that we
have had with our interlocutors has said what you are doing by
that, it is a massive human rights violation and you are
radicalizing moderate people by bringing them into the net and
keeping them in prison and torturing them. Now, are they doing
it because of their religion? This is a Muslim country. 85
percent of the people in the country are Muslim. Do people who
are Muslim in the country worship freely? By and large yes. It
is a huge human rights issue. We do not see that as a specific,
to a significant degree, religious freedom issue. Regarding the
religious freedom issues, we have had nothing but cooperation.
I hope some day one good cooperative effort will lead to a
further cooperative effort and we get what Acacia Shields wants
as well; that is, these jails be opened up, the general amnesty
takes place, and this massive human rights violation is
ameliorated.
Mr. Smith. I thank you for that response. I do have
additional questions. I am sure my good friend from Georgia
does likewise. We would like to submit them to you.
For instance, on Burma, where there has been obviously a
very bad turn for the worse, and although maybe that is
political, there seem to be some religious overtones to it. In
Indonesia there seems to be a rising tide of intolerance. On
trips that I have taken there I have raised that very issue. I
know you have as well. It seems as if there may be collusion if
not outright backing of certain violence against Christians.
There are serious problems in North Korea, as I mentioned
earlier, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam. I do have a number of
questions that I would like to pose to you.
So again time does not permit, but we will make them a part
of the record.
Mr. Seiple. We would love to keep the conversation going.
You know I am the talking head in the office. The person who
does all the heavy lifting, an incredible job and incredible
person, is my deputy Tom Farr. And gratefully our staffs are
working, and talking heads come and go, but the good work will
continue, and I am at your disposal in the future.
Mr. Smith. In all candor, I know Mr. Farr. I think the
world of him, but you are more than a talking head. You have
done a great job and we appreciate it. Even when there is a
difference of opinion, I know it is coming from the heart and
you know we just agree to disagree on certain countries that
perhaps are not included.
But I want to thank you for your great service. The
Subcommittee, I know all of us in a bipartisan way, deeply
respect you and wish you well.
Mr. Seiple. Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith. We do have a vote on the floor. The Subcommittee
will stand in recess until that vote is concluded and then we
will take on the second panel.
Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
[Recess.]
Mr. Smith. The Subcommittee will resume its sitting.
I would like to introduce the next panel, panel two, a very
distinguished group of people, beginning with Joseph Assad, who
is the research director for Sudan and the Middle East at
Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom here in
Washington. An Egyptian Christian human rights activist who is
fluent in Arabic, Mr. Assad travelled to Egypt this past July
to investigate the January 2000 massacre of Christians in Al-
Kosheh. He represented Freedom House at the United Nations
Human Rights Commission in Geneva and has led fact-finding
missions in numerous countries for the Center for Religious
Freedom.
Next we have Acacia Shields, who is the Uzbekistan
researcher for Human Rights Watch and serves as the director of
that organization's field office in Tashkent. A previous
employee of Amnesty International. Ms. Shields joined Human
Rights Watch in 1997 as the Europe and Central Asia Division
coordinator on Central Asia and the Caucasus. Ms. Shields
studied Islamic law and Middle East politics at Brown
University and earned her master's degree in international
affairs and human rights from Columbia University.
Third we will hear from Dr. Jimmy Zou, who is a Falun Gong
practitioner. During a visit to China last year to visit his
parents, Dr. Zou was arrested and tortured by Chinese
authorities during his 6-day detention. Currently a Federal
employee in Washington, D.C., Dr. Zou earned his doctorate in
mathematics from the University of Connecticut.
Finally, we will hear from Reverend Pha Her, who is the
secretary of the Lao Evangelical Church, which is the
headquarters of the Christian and Missionary Alliance
denomination in Laos. Reverend Her traveled to the United State
from Laos earlier this summer.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Assad, if you could begin.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH ASSAD, MIDDLE EAST RESEARCH DIRECTOR,
FREEDOM HOUSE
Mr. Assad. On behalf of Freedom House's Center for
Religious Freedom, I congratulate you, Mr. Chairman and Members
of the Committee, for holding these important hearings today.
Mr. Chairman, Freedom House applauds your dedicated efforts for
many years for religious freedom in many countries around the
world.
I am appearing here both as a representative of the Center
for Religious Freedom and as a Coptic Christian born and raised
in Egypt, who has witnessed firsthand the problems facing the
Middle East's largest religious minority. I return to my native
Egypt frequently. My last visit was in July in order to
investigate the facts surrounding the Al-Kosheh massacre of
last January, which was mentioned earlier in the first panel.
I have been asked to concentrate my remarks on the pivotal
country of Egypt and the Coptic perspective of religious
persecution in that country. The Egypt section of the State
Department's Religious Freedom Report is very uneven. The
serious findings of violations of religious freedom against
Egypt's Coptic minority of last year are undercut by the
report's determination that so-called ``noteworthy
improvements'' have occurred and the finding of a ``trend
toward improvements in the government's response for and
protection to the right of religious freedom.''
In fact, the improvements cited at the beginning of the
Egypt section are either misrepresented, such as the
restriction on church repairs, or are insignificant in contrast
to grave violations, arrests, and denials of justice
experienced by the Copts over the past year. Freedom House's
Center for Religious Freedom is concerned that the report may
be soft-pedaling the persecution of Copts in deference to the
Middle East peace process.
For example, despite last December's announcement by Cairo
to the contrary, government officials still enforce
restrictions to building and repairing churches, restrictions
that do not apply to mosques. Most Copts we talked to in Egypt
this summer stressed that in practice they still face the same
barriers as before. None of the religious leaders could point
to an example of a church which was able to conduct repairs
without an official permit as required under the old law. We
talked to several pastors and priests whose churches were
denied permits for repairs even after the new changes in the
law were made. The priest of one church we visited in upper
Egypt was recently arrested after he installed a metal grille
to be used as a doormat without the government's permission.
Therefore, the report's assertion that the new Presidential
decree has had a positive effect in the facilitation of church
repairs appears to be unwarranted.
In addition to the long-standing problems faced by the
Copts, which are well known to this Committee, this past year
Egypt has witnessed several severe setbacks for religious
freedom, setbacks that are difficult to reconcile with the
State Department's annual report's findings of noteworthy
improvements. The most egregious of these occurred in the
southern Egyptian village of Al-Kosheh in one of the worst
massacres of Coptic Christians in recent history. The Egypt
section of the report mischaracterizes what occurred in Al-
Kosheh as sectarian violence and as clashes and exchanges
between Muslims and Christians. Since all of the murdered in
the village were Coptic Christians, this description is
comparable to describing the Ku Klux Klan lynchings as
exchanges between blacks and whites.
The report concludes that the government's response is
improved, with the government responding quickly to restore
order. These assertions contradict the accounts of eyewitnesses
to the massacre, Egyptian human rights observers and the Coptic
Pope's own assessment of the government's response. As a matter
of fact, in an extraordinary written protest, Coptic leader
Pope Shenouda charged the Egyptian Government of not doing
enough to stop violence and demanded answers for why the police
withdrew from the area minutes before the massacre began.
In July, as part of a Center for Religious Freedom team, I
spent 3 weeks in Egypt documenting and investigating Al-Kosheh
where 21 Christians were killed, dozens were injured after they
were attacked by rampaging Muslims in early 2000. One Muslim
was also killed in a nearby village by a stray bullet fired by
another Muslim.
While in Egypt our team interviewed families of victims,
dozens of eyewitnesses. They gave us firsthand descriptions of
the attack. Nine of the dead Copts were killed in their own
houses, which indicates that they were hunted down as were
sought to escape. Three of the dead were females, one an 11-
year-old girl, and four were under the age of 16, and one was
85. One man was reportedly asked to renounce his Christian
faith. When he refused, his arm bearing a Christian tattoo was
cutoff, and he was stabbed to death. A mob then burned his
body. His mother was an eyewitness to these events.
While there was destruction of property in Al-Kosheh by
both Muslims and Christians, all those murdered were
Christians. The massacre in January of 2000 cannot be
understood apart from the events in Al-Kosheh of 1998. The
murder of two Copts in August allegedly by five Muslims was
followed by the arrest, abuse and sometimes torture over the
next 6 weeks of about 1,000 Copts by local Egyptian police. The
government continues to deny that discrimination occurred by
police nor brutality in Al-Kosheh.
Coptic Bishop Wissa was also arrested for reporting
publicly on this incident. No police officer was penalized for
the well-documented mass abuse and incidents of torture in Al-
Kosheh of 1998. There can be little doubt that the failure of
justice for Christians after the police dragnets and abuse of
1998 left the Coptic community vulnerable to further assaults
by sending a signal that the Christian community could be
attacked and driven from their homes with impunity.
The Al-Kosheh massacre of 2000 is compounded by the
government attempts to muzzle nongovernmental organizations and
human rights defenders who reported on it. Government pressure
has led to the closing of the Center for Legal Studies in Human
Rights, and the Ibn Khaldoun Center for Development Studies,
while the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights significantly
scaled back its activities. Sociologist and prodemocracy
activist Dr. Saad Eddin Ibrahim was arrested and detained
earlier this summer. These NGO's are essential institutions for
furthering democratization and religious tolerance from within
Egyptian society.
Mr. Chairman, this is why I stated that the State
Department's report soft-pedals the Egypt section because this
is major, and it was not acknowledged in the report. Two days
ago 21 Muslims were convicted on relatively minor charges in
connection with the Al-Kosheh massacre. To date no one has been
convicted or sentenced for murder or attempted murder in the
massacre itself.
Until now the Government of Egypt has consistently
downplayed the extent and seriousness of violence against
Egypt's Christian community. It has characterized the Al-Kosheh
massacre of last January as simply a random event that is
unconnected with religion. It is too early to tell if the
convictions announced 2 days ago are the turning point.
We are concerned that if the Government of Egypt fails to
take appropriate police action and legal redress, the situation
may continue to spin out of control, with escalating violence
and deepening religious polarization.
Finally, I wish to comment briefly on the Sudan section, a
report so shamefully weak, its inadequacies can only be
explained as an attempt to cover up a U.S. policy failure of
historic proportions. Nowhere in the section is conveyed a
sense of the ongoing genocide being waged by the government
against its southern religious and racial minorities that was
condemned in House Resolution 75 of a year ago. Only on page 6
of an 8-page account in two short paragraphs is the war that
has already killed 2 million from the Christian and animist
homelands addressed, a war in which religion plays a major
roll, according to the U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom.
The section emphasizes noteworthy improvements and concerns
itself mostly with milder bureaucratic restrictions and
instances of harassment. In its search to find improvements,
the State Department report leaves the impression that
government bombing of civilian targets stopped in April, when,
in fact, the regime's relentless bombing campaign continued
throughout the summer and brought to a halt the international
humanitarian lifeline the south depends on.
The report fails to address the fact that the U.S. aid is
manipulated by the regime to enforce its strategy of selective
mass starvation. It also makes mention of the serious charge of
the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in an
August 14 letter to the National Security Advisor that U.S.
food aid is being channeled to Islamic relief groups that
require conversion as a precondition to receiving the aid.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Assad appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Smith. Mr. Assad, thank you very much for your
excellent testimony.
Acacia Shields, if you would proceed.
STATEMENT OF ACACIA SHIELDS, UZBEKISTAN RESEARCHER, HUMAN
RIGHTS WATCH
Ms. Shields. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
express my appreciation for this opportunity to speak to the
Subcommittee about the repression of religious freedom in
Uzbekistan.
My remarks here will be a summary of my written statement,
which I ask to be entered into the record.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, your statement and that of
all our witnesses will be made a part of the record.
Ms. Shields. My name is Acacia Shields, and I am the
Uzbekistan researcher for Human Rights Watch based in Tashkent.
Human Rights Watch has investigated violations of civil and
political rights in Central Asia since 1990, and we have had a
field office in Uzbekistan since 1996.
For the last year and a half, I have been living in
Uzbekistan and have investigated religious repression in the
country and carefully documented hundreds of cases of
religiously motivated arrests, detention and torture of
believers and other forms of discrimination and harassment. I
have interviewed hundreds of victims and relatives of victims
of religious discrimination, and, again, I am profoundly
grateful to this Subcommittee for this opportunity to bring
their stories to you and to comment on the way in which this
campaign of oppression is treated in this year's State
Department Annual Report on International Religious Freedom.
The arrests of Muslims in Uzbekistan are discriminatory.
Believers are targeted for membership in unregistered Islamic
groups. Those who practice outside state-controlled mosques are
also targeted for arrest. Even possession of Islamic literature
is grounds for arrest. Trials are grossly unfair as judges
systematically punish independent Muslims with lengthy terms in
prison for their religious beliefs and affiliations and ignore
compelling allegations of torture.
This year's international religious freedom report
recognizes neither the antireligious nature of this repression
nor the human rights crisis it has produced. It argues that
victims are engaged in activity that is primarily political,
and, therefore, that Uzbekistan cannot be said to be violating
the victim's religious freedom.
We believe this position is misguided. We do not believe
the Government of Uzbekistan has made improvements that merit
credit, as the report suggests. And we do believe that the
Administration should name Uzbekistan as a country of
particular concern for religious freedom and adopt appropriate
measures as foreseen by the International Religious Freedom
Act.
The arrest and conviction of thousands of independent
Muslims is now well-documented. Human Rights Watch has
monitored dozens of trials and obtained officials court
documents for several hundred additional cases. The majority of
indictments and judicial verdicts state clearly that the basis
for the charges and convictions is their religious practice and
beliefs, which the state then construes as evidence of
antistate activity and attempt to overthrow the constitutional
order. These practices include participating in unsanctioned
prayer groups or conducting private religious teaching,
membership in an unregistered Islamic organization, or, again,
possession or distribution of literature of such an
organization.
The State Department's International Religious Freedom
Report also creates a false distinction between moderate
Muslims, whom it defines as those who participate in
government-run activities, and those who operate outside the
state-run Muslim hierarchy. The Uzbeki Government, it argues,
supports the former, but is intolerant of the latter. In fact,
a moderate Muslim may practice within and beyond state-run
Muslim structures.
Finally, the International Religious Freedom Report gives
credit for Uzbekistan's progress when, in fact, none is due.
Its discussion of positive improvements, for instance, cites
the release of six Christians last year prior to the release of
the 1999 International Religious Freedom Report. This is a move
that we see as a calculated effort to avoid designation as a
country of particular concern and to distract the
Administration from the lack of progress in the treatment of
Muslims. I would add also that it is a move for which they have
already received credit last year.
The government's campaign against pious and independent
Muslims took a dramatic turn from bad to worse when Tashkent,
the capital, was rocked with several bomb explosions in
February 1999. The government immediately blamed Islamic
extremists, and security forces were given carte blanche to use
any and all means to round up these so-called enemies of the
state.
The arrests and convictions have continued in the year 2000
at an alarming rate. Some who are released prior to the
International Religious Freedom Report last year were
rearrested this year. The government's tactics in this campaign
recall some of the worst moments of the Soviet era. It has
created a climate of suspicion and fear in which neighbors
inform on one another, mothers turn their sons over to police
and local authorities organize hate rallies to denounce pious
Muslims and their relatives as enemies of the state. Family
members are detained and even arrested by the police. They are
held hostage by authorities who state outright that until their
relatives are arrested, these mothers, fathers and other loved
ones will sit in jail.
Women are often detained and threatened with rape in front
of their husbands or sons in order to coerce the men to make
self-incriminating statements. This happened to Darmon
Sultanova, who met with Ambassador Seiple during his last visit
to Uzbekistan. She recalled in that meeting how police came to
her home and asked who in the family studied Koran and how many
times a day they prayed. The officers arrested Sultanova's
sons, Uigun and Oibek Ruzmetov, on charges of Wahhabism and
detained Sultanova and her husband. Police stripped the elderly
woman naked and handcuffed her to a radiator in a basement
cell. They brought in her sons, beaten and bloody, and
threatened to rape the young men's mother if they did not
confess to a range of charges including membership in an
illegal religious group and participation in several unsolved
murders throughout the country. The young men signed the police
statement.
Uigun and Oibek Ruzmetov recounted their ordeal at trial
and declared their innocence, but the judge did not investigate
the charges of police abuse, and, declaring that the young men
had taken part in forbidden activities of a reactionary
underground religious organization of Wahhabists, found them
guilty on charges of murder, weapons possession and illegal
activities and sentenced the young men to death. The Ruzmentov
brothers were executed by firing squad.
I would like to share one other case with you that is
illustrative of the type of wrongful arrests of pious Muslims
that is being carried out by Uzbek security forces today.
Imam Abduwahid Yuldashev was deputy to an outspoken and
independent-minded religious leader, Obidhon Nazarov, who has
since fallen afoul of the Uzbek Government. Police arrested him
on falsified charges of narcotics possession. Yuldashev was
later released on appeal shortly before the publication of last
year's International Religious Freedom Report. This release was
lauded by State Department officials as a sign of progress.
However, this is not the whole story.
On July 24 of this year, police rearrested Imam Yuldashev.
This time they charged him with Wahhabism and spreading jihad
ideas. This time they denied him access to a lawyer. Yuldashev
is today languishing in his second month of incommunicado
detention in the basement of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
building in Tashkent, without access to legal representation or
medical treatment. There are many others like him.
Just yesterday on September 6, 15 men charged with
membership in Hizb ut-Tahrir were sentenced to prison terms
ranging from 12 to 16 years.
This year's report on international religious freedom notes
the efforts made by the United States to remind Uzbekistan of
its obligation to respect freedom of conscience, to
differentiate between terrorists and peaceful Muslim believers,
but this message is not getting through. Visiting U.S.
officials have raised concerns, issued demarches on specific
cases and pressed for changes in the domestic laws, but the
Government of Uzbekistan has only intensified its campaign.
More must be done.
As you know, the International Religious Freedom Act was
designed in part to ensure a clear and consistent U.S. policy
on freedom of religion. While the Uzbek Government sometimes
receives sharp criticism from U.S. officials, it also received
an estimated $30 million in U.S. assistance in 1999. Since
1995, Uzbekistan also received $980 million in credits from the
U.S. Export-Import Bank. Awarding this kind of privilege and
benefit in the face of egregious violations casts doubt on the
United States' commitment to religious freedom and gives abuser
states such as Uzbekistan the impression that they can carry on
with oppressive policies and still profit.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize that Uzbekistan is in a
profound human rights crisis, at the center of which is
religious persecution. The Administration should abide by its
legislative obligations and designate Uzbekistan as a country
of particular concern for religious freedom.
I want to thank you again for giving me the opportunity to
share our findings, and I welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Shields appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Miss Shields, for your very
compelling testimony.
I would like to now invite our third panelist Dr. Zou, a
Falun Gong practitioner.
STATEMENT OF JIMMY ZOU, FALUN GONG PRACTITIONER AND FORMER
DETAINEE IN CHINA
Mr. Zou. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this
important hearing. It gives the millions of Chinese----
Mr. Smith. Could you try to turn on the microphone--I think
it may be turned off--and bring one of the microphones close.
Mr. Zou. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this
important hearing. It gives millions of Chinese Falun Gong
practitioners an opportunity to voice their suffering in their
appeal to the world for their search for help. On behalf of
tens of millions of Chinese Falun Gong practitioners, I would
like to express my gratitude for the House resolution that you
introduced last November and the law you have recently
sponsored.
Please allow me to introduce myself briefly. My name is
Jimmy Zou. I came from China and am now an American citizen.
Currently I work as an actuary with a Federal insurance agency
in Washington, DC. Falun Gong is a self-improvement of mind and
body from traditional Chinese culture. I attended a free Falun
Gong workshop in 1996 in Washington, D.C. Since then I have
been practicing Falun Gong exercises every day. I also tried to
become a better person at home and in workplace by following
Falun Gong principle: Truthfulness, compassion and tolerance.
Last summer I took leave and traveled back to China. I
arrived in Beijing by train from my hometown on November 30.
The next day I walked by Tiananmen Square and went to see the
ceremony of the changing guards of the national flag. I was
with a group of some 200 tourists when a policeman approached
me and asked me if I was a Falun Gong practitioner. I hesitated
1 second and then said yes. Immediately I was taken into a
police car and sent to Tiananmen Square police station.
I kept demanding my rights. Nobody answered me. The police
forced a body search on me first and took Mr. Li's book, Zhuan
Falun, away from me. I protested and said that they had no
right to rob my personal belongings for I did not commit any
crime.
Because I protested for my right, a policeman said I should
be punished. Then came three policemen who surrounded me. One
of them took away my glasses by force and then struck my both
eyes fiercely with his fists, and the other two punched my
shoulders and arms and kicked my legs. In 2 minutes I felt
dizzy, and my left eye swelled like a bulb.
Then three policemen forced my arms to be crossed behind my
back, handcuffed me in a special way. One hand came down from
above the shoulder and the other hand came up from my lower
back. I cried out with pain. There were another eight Falun
Gong practitioners, all handcuffed like that, in the room. A
young lady handcuffed stood on my left; an old lady, over age
60, also handcuffed like that on my right. For every 4 or 5
minutes a police shocked each person's neck, hands and kidneys
with an electric cattle prod.
This special way of handcuff caused severe physical pain.
It is usually only applied to criminal offenders in China.
After a few minutes the pain in my arms and shoulders was
unbearable. All the other eight Falun Gong practitioners have
been handcuffed like that for at least a half hour. A middle-
age gentleman, his both hands were swollen twice the normal
size and purple color. I felt his hands must be injured.
The police also ordered us to bend down our heads close to
the ground to increase the physical pain. The old lady on my
side sometimes stood up to reduce the pain. I could not believe
any human person could torture an old lady like that.
About 6 o'clock in the afternoon, I was sent to another
detention facility in Beijing where I was detained in a room
together with other Falun Gong practitioners. There were a high
school teacher, college students, doctors, peasants and
community engineers. More than half of them were women. Most of
them were detained because of visiting official appealing
bureau and trying to appeal for Falun Gong and calling on the
government to correct the mistake and stop crackdown on Falun
Gong.
I ask them how the government would punish them. They said
that they would be sent back to their hometown and detained for
at least another 15 days. If they would not sign a pledge
giving up practicing Falun Gong, they might be sent to labor
camps. Some practitioners kept talking to the police to explain
that Falun Gong is a practice for mind and body. We are all
good people. The government should not treat us like criminals.
After 6 days of detention, I was released. Later I
retrieved my passport and returned to America.
I hope the Chinese Government would respect people's basic
human rights and the rights guaranteed by Chinese Constitution,
and thank you, Chairman for giving me this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zou appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Dr. Zou.
Pastor Her.
STATEMENT OF PHA HER, PASTOR, LAO EVANGELICAL CHURCH
Reverend Her. [The following statement was delivered
through an interpreter.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Committee. Because of the language barrier, that I cannot
speak English, I would ask your permission to let my
interpreter read a portion of my testimony.
My name is Pastor Pha Her. I am one of the pastors of the
Lao Evangelical Church in Vientiane, Laos. My responsibilities
are to recruit and provide training for new pastors.
This year marks the 50 year anniversary that the Gospel has
reached the Hmong-Lao in Laos. My wife and I, along with eight
other ministers and elders, were invited to attend the
anniversary celebration that was held in Minneapolis, MN, on
July 30 to August 4, 2000.
The Lao Communist Government does not want any religious
group getting together worshipping openly because they fear
that organized religious groups are perceived as resistance
activity against the government. For many year the only way to
conduct church services for the Christians were to get together
as a small group inside individuals' homes or outside in the
jungle where no authorities can see. Basically we are operating
underground. We provide services for them quietly and
intelligently during the day or at night.Most of the groups did
not have Bible, so we have to share one Bible among the group.
The government implemented a very strict regulation against
all religious group. More foreign missionaries were detained.
No international development projects which were affiliated
with Christians were allow to implement within the scope of
helping Christians. Thus party government began to harass and
arrest pastors and elders. The Lao Evangelical Church started
to shift hands due to constant harassment and duress. This was
all happening in contradiction to the Constitution of the
Republic of Laos, which was adopted on August 14, 1991, where
freedom of worship was allowed. Prime Minister Numhak Pomsavanh
and President Phumivong Vichit wrote in Article 3, section 30
that any Laos citizen have the right to worship any religion.
The Lao Government accused the Christians of being enemy of
the state. We were forced out of all villages in accusation of
being Christians who were friends and allies of the United
States and friends of Christians from foreign countries. As
Christians we were accused of receiving money from other
countries to bribe the Lao to convert to Christianity and for
organizing resistance against the party government. All these
were untrue.
The Lao Communist Government falsely accused the Christians
of not worshipping, revolution, waging war against the Lao
Communist Party Government and among other religious groups. It
is simply not true. In fact, the Christians were forced to
recant their faith or they would be imprisoned without any
justification. Therefore, there is no peace for the people in
Laos. We constantly worry about our safety every day.
Recently U.S. State Department's executive summary stated
that Laos is among the significant improvements in religious
freedom. Apparently most of the problems against religious
freedom occurred among remote villages in Laos. I invite the
U.S. State Department officials to travel the remote areas to
observe these atrocities. The State Department had contacted
the Lao Government to discuss or express the situation, but the
Lao Government did nothing to improve the situation.
I personally believe that these situations are getting
worse. As you will see later in my testimony, in addition, I am
concerned that more Christians are being arrested and
imprisoned. Most of the cases involve the Hmong ethnic,
including some of the recent refugee returnees from Thailand
refugee camp.
Since my youth I have served God faithfully, work with
integrity, served the church righteously and taught them to
obey and respect the government and its laws. Incidentally, the
Lao Government has a history of discrimination against certain
ethnic groups. They have no respect of their own Constitution.
They arrested and imprisoned many ethnic groups, particularly
in remote villages, and especially the Hmong. The fact that
Hmong have several religious beliefs does not mean any religion
is bad or is against the government.
Recently the Government of Laos passed out documents saying
that whoever is a religious person must recant their faith or
face imprisonment and have their property or farm taken away.
This year the believers were forced to recant their faith, and
many were arrested. Many churches were closed and taken over by
the Lao authority. From a foreigner's perspective, it may seem
as if there is nothing wrong. The truth is the Christians are
being greatly oppressed and being forced to imprisonment, a
list of 70 names of the imprisoned Christians included in my
testimony. The Lao Government arrests and imprisons Christians
all over the place throughout the country. In addition, I could
only account Christian imprisonment. I am sure there are many
others who are not Christians, but are arrested and imprisoned
for different reasons as well.
Before July 15, 2000, a total of 33 churches and service
places were ordered to close and were locked so no one could
get in to worship God. It could be more to close and took over
by the Lao Communist Party by now. A list is attached in my
testimony.
If the believers agree to recant, they could avoid
imprisonment. The authority forced the believers to sign an
agreement and then would report to high authority that the
believers did it in their own free will to recant their faith
without being forced. If anyone questioned or commented about
it, the government would consider those people as opposing the
government. They were arrested and were forced to comply.
After arrival in the United States, I was notified that my
job as a Bible instructor of the Lao Evangelical Church had
been terminated, and my name was reported to the authority of
the Ministry of Interior. There is no guarantee for my safety
if I return to my homeland, Laos, because I am subjected to
arrest.
The last telephone conversation I had with my family was on
the evening of September 3, 2000. I was informed that after my
wife and I had left Laos, more churches were locked up and
guarded by the Communist authority. I now face a difficult
struggle in my life, especially since we have five little
children behind in Laos, the ages ranging from 1\1/2\ to 13
years old.
My wife and I have determined that it would not be safe for
us to return to Laos in the meantime. We miss our children very
much. After my wife heard about the insecurity of our life, she
cried out about our children's safety and well-being.
In conclusion, the problem of the religious persecution in
Laos is a very complicated issue. The search for a permanent
solution requires the participation of the superpower nations
like the United States and the international community's strong
commitment on the part of monitoring the Lao People's
Democratic Republic Government to make sure that the people
have freedom. Therefore, I strongly submit to you that it is
essential for the United States, the United Nations and the
international community to be actively involved in the search
for a permanent solution to the political problem in Laos.
Many solutions to the problem of Laos are just Band-Aids,
while other solutions get bungled in red tape. The most
effective way to eliminate the religious persecution in Laos is
to make sure that the people in Laos have the right to worship
in their own ways. To provide people in Laos with long-term
security, a delegation of human rights and religious right
groups can be organized to go to Laos for the purpose of
gathering information on various cases happening among
religious groups, including those in remote areas. This is only
just a start to cracking down the oppression of Christians
there. I am afraid that the Lao Communist Government can crack
down on other religious groups at any time.
The economic, political, social and religion in Laos,
however, is seldom able to compete for attention like other
countries. This will make the resolution to human rights in
Laos both urgent and compelling into the international
community. Therefore, I call on the U.S. Congress, all
countries, other governments and human rights organizations to
look into this situation in Laos.
In addition, I would like to recommend the following
points: First, release those imprisoned as described above
because they are impoverished, and wives and children are
suffering. Second, don't force the believers to recant their
faith, and leave them alone so that they can have a place to
serve their God. Third, stop the duress and the accusations
against the believers. Fourth, Lao Government gives back their
churches and any property that belongs to the believers. Five,
give back freedom and equal rights of religion to everyone in
Laos.
God bless America, and God bless the people in Laos.
[The prepared statement of Pastor Her appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Smith. Thank you very, very much for your testimony.
I would like to ask a few opening questions if I could.
Ms. Shields, in reading your testimony and hearing you
present it, I thought of Mr. Assad, who pointed out that the
Middle East negotiations keep the Administration from
designating Egypt as a country of particular concern. But that
raises a question of why Uzbekistan? What could be the
political reason for excluding it, given this reprehensible
record of repression against, as you point out, pious Muslims.
And the fact that Ambassador Seiple actually met with one of
those who has actually been through this certainly must have
brought home to him the severity of the situation. But when you
put together the numbers and the systemic and pervasive nature
of the repression, laid out the way you have, it seems
inescapable that it ought to be on the list.
Just looking at the very clear and unambiguous language of
the statute--and, again, what we do with that in terms of our
remedy or attempted remedy is left to prudent people to decide
what is best--but as to the actual designation, do you have any
speculation as to why Uzbekistan is kept off?
Ms. Shields. I would hesitate to speculate on behalf of the
State Department and its motivations; however, I can say that
the government seems to have loaned its language to the State
Department, and the State Department for whatever reason has
adopted it almost whole cloth. And I would really caution
against the danger of accepting explanations and language
offered by abuser states that is clearly designed to cover up
the abuse as actual explanation. For instance, the improvements
cited in the report give us a lot of trouble. And I would also
like some explanation of why these are designated as
improvements.
One of the three developments that the report points to
this year was a roundtable held in Uzbekistan to discuss
religious freedom. That roundtable--I attended that roundtable
in which government functionaries delivered prepared speeches
regarding the amount of religious freedom already available in
Uzbekistan. This was a show put on for U.S. Government
officials in attendance. It did not include discussion, it did
not include any recommendations for change, and there were
certainly no conclusions and no changes made. This is clearly
not progress and should not pass as such.
Mr. Smith. Could you speculate as to whether or not you
think oil or pipelines might have anything to do with it?
Ms. Shields. I think that--I would not speculate in that
direction. I think that the United States has decided that
Uzbekistan will be its island of stability in Central Asia and
has put all of its eggs into that basket, and will continue
this policy, it seems, despite the fact that Uzbekistan is
going down the road of a pariah state and ignoring any and all
opportunities to make improvements and join the family of
democratic nations.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Assad, any further comments you might want to make on
Egypt? I would make one passing reference that I raised the
massacre, the 1999 massacre, myself with President Mubarak when
he was visiting, and not only did he go into very savvy spin
control, he immediately pointed out that several of his top
people, or at least one in particular, Boutros-Ghali, is a
Coptic, and he immediately walked over and started telling me
how I had my facts wrong and I was misinformed and that they
were doing everything they can. It was just a local issue.
You seem to indicate in your testimony it is much more
pervasive than that--you might want to comment on that. Egypt
has been very good, I have to admit, at tamping down the issue
itself. It is not going to go away, and I think many of us on
both sides of the aisle are going to continue bringing it up
because it seems to be a worsening situation.
The second issue that you bring up, with regard to the
Sudan, is that the report fails to address the fact that U.S.
aid is manipulated by the regime to enforce the regime's
strategy of selective mass starvation. You also point out the
serious charge of the U.S. Commission in its August 14 letter
about the Islamic groups requiring conversion as a precondition
to receiving food aid. Could you elaborate on these two points?
Mr. Assad. Mr. Chairman, for the first point about
President Mubarak and the Egyptian Government's official
response to the Al-Kosheh, it has been unfortunate that despite
the overwhelming evidence, including photographs and
documentation by Egyptian human rights organizations and Muslim
observers in the area, that have documented this case, it
appears that the Egyptian Government is more concerned about
its image internationally and does not want the world to know
that there is a problem. And for--many of the Coptic activists,
both in the United States and in Egypt, have pointed out that
Egypt needs to recognize, first of all, that there is a Coptic
problem and that Copts do have problems that warrant the
government's attention. So it is not surprising to see
officials like Minister Boutros-Ghali and the President himself
denying persecution.
Often Coptic leaders in Egypt under pressure by the
government would publicly deny that there is persecution. But I
think it has been seen very clearly that after the massacre of
2000, that even the Coptic Pope has been very vocal, which he
usually refrains from making such remarks in criticizing the
government and calling for investigations.
So our hope is that the government leaders would realize
that this issue, like you mention, Mr. Chairman, will not go
away, and that there will be a continued interest from the
international community about what happens to Egypt's Coptic
community.
Mr. Assad. Also, a brief comment on your second question
about the Commission's letter to National Security Advisor
Sandy Berger. It has been reported to the Commission by two
different witnesses, one called the Commission from the Sudan
reporting that there are many aid organizations, particularly
Muslim organizations operating sometimes out of Khartoum, that
are withholding--I should mention these organizations are
recipients of USAID funds--and are withholding aid from
Christians and coerce them and sometimes force them to convert
to Islam before that aid is delivered.
Mr. Smith. Reverend Her, earlier you heard the Ambassador,
Ambassador Seiple, speak to the situation in Laos, which is
frankly contrary to your testimony in terms of improvements
versus lack of improvements. Do you think that Laos ought to be
considered a country of particular concern to the United States
and therefore come under the possibility of being sanctioned?
Implicit in the Ambassador's statement was an assertion
that in this so-called ``context of diplomacy,'' sometimes you
might actually hurt people by naming a country as one of
particular concern, that the people inside of Laos would
actually be more injured by designating the Laotian Government.
Reverend Her. I believe that the Laotian Government have
tried for the last 25 years to solve its own problem and they
still cannot. And I see like the best way issue that we need
help from the international community to step in to help solve
the problem.
Mr. Smith. OK. Let me ask a question of Dr. Zou. I have
almost on a daily basis gone to various Web sites to check out
the latest indignity committed against Falun Gong by the
Chinese Government. And it is not only the repression that is
contemptible, the government's ongoing use of academics to
claim that Chinese public opinion supports the crackdown on the
Falun Gong could not be further from the truth. The Chinese
dictatorship is what supports that. The world community doesn't
support that, it vigorously opposes it.
In any other context the pretext used by the government
would be laughable. But there are real victims, people who have
been incarcerated, such as yourself, who have actually suffered
torture, as you described that extension of the arms behind
your back. What should the U.S. Government do? I mean, we--this
Administration and I say this with sadness, the majority of
Republicans and a minority of Democrats concurring--have
stripped away the use of sanctions, in terms of economic most
favored nation status, or as it is now called normal trading
relations, which in my view gave the green light to the
dictatorship to do as they will to the Falun Gong or Catholics
or Tibetans or anyone else in China. But that won't be the last
word. There will be a number of us who continue to speak out.
What should the new Administration do vis-a-vis China, the
largest country, amidst this in-your-face crackdown? It seems
to me that we have done so little other than speak out and
express our concerns. What would be your recommendations as a
living, breathing witness to the repression?
I will get those when I return. Regrettably there is
another vote on the floor that is almost concluded. I do have
to get to the floor for what I think is a series of votes and
then our chief counsel, Mr. Rees, will ask a few questions and
then close the hearing. But I look forward to seeing what your
recommendations would be to us, because it seems we have
squandered most of the arrows that were in our quiver,
economically, to really try to persuade the Chinese to do what
is right.
Mr. Zou. Mr. Chairman, because the Falun Gong is self-
improvement of mind in the body and we have no position on
the--like economic sanction or social measure you can take to,
you know, to pressure Chinese Government, but certainly in the
hope the American Government and calling on the Chinese
Government to engage a peaceful dialogue with practitioners and
to stop the persecution in China and also to condemn in the
China's Government and their--the crime they committed and to--
and also in the--I believe the U.S. Government we will make a
wise decision in like how to, you know, deal with either trade
or other measures between the U.S. Government and the Chinese
Government. And that is what I like to say.
Mr. Rees. I will just ask one question that Congressman
Smith would have asked if he had been able to remain and then
we will close the hearing. For all the witnesses, you heard the
Ambassador's testimony to the effect that putting a country on
a list of countries of particular concern, even if you could
technically justify it with the facts--the definition is they
are either engaging in or tolerating particularly severe
denials of religious freedom--but if you put them on the list,
they are going to stop talking to you, and they might get
worse. If you leave them off the list, maybe you can make some
other improvement. So his argument is that you may be hurting
the people that you are trying to help by following the literal
terms of the statute and putting them on the list if they have
committed particularly severe forms of persecution or denial of
religious freedom.
Now, three of you live or work in countries that are not on
the list, that are not listed as countries of particular
concern--Egypt, Uzbekistan, and Laos. Dr. Zou, your situation
was in a country that we did put on the list. What is your
reaction to that argument in the context of the country that
you know about? Would continuing to talk quietly to them be
more effective or would publicly identifying them as a
particular severe violator of religious freedom be more
effective?
Mr. Zou. My personal opinion, it may not be right, is the
fact that you put the country who committed those crimes on the
list itself is not because simply state the fact those in the
crime you are committed does not like--for example, you mention
that because of this some government would, you know, hurt
their people more, but even they are doing that that is not
because what you are doing, you know, in the state or give all
the facts and put those facts out. That is because they simply
do not want to change and correct their mistakes.
My opinion is you put out those facts and let more people
know because people all have their conscience no matter their
government or individuals and they will do whatever they can to
help those people. If you hide, you know, those facts, that is
not going to change the situation either. So my personal
thought is speak of is better way.
Mr. Rees. Pastor Her.
Reverend Her. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Ambassador,
the illustration that we should peacefully negotiate or talk to
the government, the government. However, I believe that the
communist government, they like to be thought peaceful but they
doing harm behind it. And if the Ambassador want to pursue his
way, I would like to request that he should monitoring very
closely with the Laotian Government because the--usually the
Laotian Government, they will talk to the foreign diplomat in a
nice way, but when they turn around behind them, what they do
to the people is an opposite way. So I would like the U.S.
Government to monitor very closely on the issue.
Mr. Rees. Thank you.
Mr. Assad.
Mr. Assad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to,
just thinking of Ambassador Seiple's remarks on China when he
declared that China was decided to put China as a country of
particular concern, after the failure of all private diplomatic
initiatives, that were taken in this regard. But it is
important to remember that while the diplomatic efforts are
taking place people continue to suffer in these countries. In
respect to Egypt I again reiterate the fact that persecution
still exists in Egypt, but I think that the State Department
report needs to report the facts and make its designations
irrespective of any strategic or economic interest that we
might have in some countries. And in many cases we have seen in
Egypt the Copts church has been raising the concerns with the
Egyptian Government. We have complaints that date back to 1972.
But yet the same complaints are being raised today.
So I think that in these cases, that publicly and honestly
reporting on the activities of these countries, that might be
the best hope that these minorities have.
Mr. Rees. Ms. Shields.
Ms. Shields. Ambassador Seiple pointed out that designation
should sometimes be held up when diplomatic initiatives are in
play. I would question the use of that. The law, as has already
been pointed out, gives a lot of flexibility for diplomatic
initiatives, even after a country has been designated a country
of particular concern. But thinking about Uzbekistan, I can see
where diplomacy has not worked. The issue of religious freedom
has been raised there in talks that have not yielded results at
the highest level. Secretary Albright visited Uzbekistan and
spoke about religious freedom with President Karimov. She
emphasized the importance of distinguishing between peaceful
Muslim believers and terrorists, those who use violence to
achieve their ends. There has only been a downward slide since.
I would also say that last year when we saw the first
release of the religious freedom report, Uzbekistan feared that
it would make the list. And for the first time, we saw releases
of religious prisoners, including six Christians, for which
they have been given ample credit, and some Muslim believers.
Now, many of the Muslim believers have been rearrested in the
subsequent crackdown, but we see what effect even the fear of
being named a country of particular concern can have. And I
would say that to designate Uzbekistan as a country of
particular concern would only do a service to the people of
Uzbekistan, and finally telling the truth and calling it like
it is.
Mr. Rees. Thank you. Pursuant to the previous order of the
Chairman, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
September 7, 2000
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8683.049