[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE GOVERNMENT'S RECORD ON IMPLEMENTING THE INTERNATIONAL
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 13, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-41
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-139 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania JACKIE SPEIER, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT,
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Pennsylvania
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
DOC HASTINGS, Washington TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
ROB WOODALL, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky TONY CARDENAS, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Stephen Castor, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on National Security
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee Ranking Minority Member
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina JACKIE SPEIER, California
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming PETER WELCH, Vermont
ROB WOODALL, Georgia MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 13, 2013.................................... 1
Ms. Katrina Lantos Swett, Ph.D., Chair, U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom
Oral Statement............................................... 6
Written Statement............................................ 9
Mr. Thomas F. Farr, Ph.D.,Director of the Religious Freedom
Project, Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs,
Georgetown University
Oral Statement............................................... 22
Written Statement............................................ 25
Ms. Tina Ramirez, President, Hardwired, Inc.
Oral Statement............................................... 35
Written Statement............................................ 38
Mr. Amjad Mahmood Khan, Esq., Assistant National Director of
Public Affairs, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA and A Vice
President of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Lawyers Association USA
Oral Statement............................................... 47
Written Statement............................................ 50
Mr. Chris Seiple Ph.D, President, Institute for Global Engagement
Oral Statement............................................... 55
Written Statement............................................ 58
APPENDIX
The Hon. Jason Chaffetz, a Member of Congress from the State of
Utah, Opening Statement........................................ 82
EXAMINING THE GOVERNMENT'S RECORD ON IMPLEMENTING THE INTERNATIONAL
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT
----------
Thursday, June 13, 2013,
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Security,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Lummis, Mica, Duncan,
Gowdy, Woodall, Bentivolio, Issa, Lynch, Speier, and Kelly.
Also Present: Representative Lankford.
Staff Present: Brien A. Beattie, Majority Professional
Staff Member; Molly Boyl, Majority Senior Counsel and
Parliamentarian; Caitlin Carroll, Majority Deputy Press
Secretary; Sharon Casey, Majority Senior Assistant Clerk; John
Cuaderes, Majority Deputy Staff Director; Adam P. Fromm,
Majority Director of Member Services and Committee Operations;
Linda Good, Majority Chief Clerk; Mark D. Marin, Majority
Director of Oversight; Laura L. Rush, Majority Deputy Chief
Clerk; Scott Schmidt, Majority Deputy Director of Digital
Strategy; Jaron Bourke, Minority Director of Administration;
Devon Hill, Minority Research Assistant; Adam Koshkin, Minority
Research Assistant; and Safiya Simmons, Minority Press
Secretary.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. The committee will come to order.
I would like to begin this hearing by stating the Oversight
Committee mission statement.
We exist to secure two fundamental principles: first,
Americans have a right to know that the money Washington takes
from them is well spent and, second, Americans deserve an
efficient, effective Government that works for them. Our duty
on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to protect
these rights.
Our solemn responsibility is to hold Government accountable
to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they
get from their Government. We will work tirelessly in
partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the
American people and bring genuine reform to the Federal
bureaucracy. This is the mission of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee.
Good morning, and I thank everybody in attendance here to
talk about this hearing's topic, which is Examining the
Government's Record of Implementing the International Religious
Freedom Act. Now, unfortunately, as you look at this panel, we
have some very distinguished people who have done some great
work in this field, who are great experts and care passionately
about this issue.
At the same time, we are sincerely disappointed that the
State Department decided not to make their witness available.
Ambassador Cook was invited to attend. We think this would have
been a valuable part of the dialogue. On May 30th, 31st, the
very end of the month, State Department confirmed verbally that
the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom,
again, Ambassador Suzan Johnson Cook, would be available to
testify at the June 13th hearing.
Based on that, we sent a letter to Secretary Kerry, on June
5th, requesting the ambassador's testimony at the hearing. When
we confirmed that I would insist on a one panel structure,
State withdrew the ambassador from the hearing, citing what
they claim is a longstanding State policy of not permitting
their witnesses to testify on the same panel as non-government
witnesses.
Although the U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom also
raised concern about having Chairwoman Katrina Lantos Swett on
the same panel as non-government witnesses, we still requested
that we have one panel. We believe it is a more effective,
efficient way to conduct a hearing; it allows members of
Congress to ask pertinent questions. And to suggest that we
have to have two panels, as opposed to one panel, seems a
ridiculous use of the Congress' time and efforts. So they have
made this choice.
But I do want to highlight that on October 7th, 2012, the
ambassador sat on a panel again with Chairwoman Swett and an
Italian professor. In fact, here is a picture of the two of
them sitting next to each other on the panel. And just because
it is the United States Congress they decide that they can't
sit and testify and talk about issues next to each other. It is
obviously the practice of the State Department to do this.
In fact, Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation hearing on combating
privacy, on April 10th, 2013, Assistant Secretary of State for
Political Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro testified on the same
panel as Mr. Neil Smith, the head of underwriting for Lloyds
Market Association, a private concern in London.
So it is obviously the practice of the State Department to
allow their State Department employees to testify with private
sector people on the same panel. They have done it in Congress;
they have done it in private settings. But somehow, before the
Oversight Committee, they are electing not to make their
witness available.
Consequently, I don't believe that this will be as full of
a hearing as it could possibly be. It will be a better
discussion. This should not be contentious. But there are
issues that we need to address as the United States Congress.
This is terribly disappointing. It is a waste of the Congress'
time. And when we know that she was available to attend, to not
make that witness here available today is just inexcusable.
With that, I will yield to the ranking member, Mr. Lynch,
from Massachusetts.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the witnesses who are here for your
cooperation and willingness to help the committee with its
work.
Let me take the procedural issue first, the one that the
chairman has illuminated for us.
If I could just amplify, in defense of the Secretary of
State, this has been a practice for a long, long time. I
remember when I was the chair of the subcommittee on this
committee and I was trying to consolidate the hearing to make
it more effective and efficient. I tried, myself, to get Bush
administration officials to come in; they insisted on the
identical protocol, which is that the executive branch agencies
and representatives would testify separately.
Some of the agencies refused to sit alongside union
officials who were called to testify because of the adversarial
nature of those positions. There was also the fear that there
would be crossfire, which is entertaining for us, but
uncomfortable for the executive branch. So this protocol has
been in place for a long, long time. So let me defend the
Secretary of State and also the Administration for continuing
this practice that has been in practice for a long, long time.
It is frustrating, but sometimes that is how democracy is, and
hopefully at some point we will be able to at least get some
cooperation on matters that are non-adversarial, which I think
this hearing qualifies.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congress passed the International
Religious Freedom Act in 1998 to establish international
freedom as a key objective of U.S. foreign policy. The bill
passed with widespread bipartisan support. A GAO report issued
in March on the implementation of the bill found that the Act
was largely implemented faithfully and properly.
The Office of International Religious Freedom, which
operates within the Department of State and is headed by the
Ambassador at Large, assists the Secretary of State with
promoting religious freedom and designating certain countries
that fail to do so as countries of particular concern. The
Independent Commission on International Religious Freedom
conducts reviews of violations of religious freedom and
publishes an annual report, among other duties.
The GAO did, however, point out two problems that have
diminished the impact of the promotion of international
religious freedom since 1999: first, GAO noted that the
Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom has
always had a lower organizational status within the State
Department than other ambassadors at large. Despite the State
Department's own guidelines stating that the Ambassador at
Large outranks the assistant secretaries, in practice, however,
the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom
reports to the Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights
and Labor. This was true when the position was created in 1999;
it has persisted through the Bush Administration and continues
to this day.
Secondly, GAO found that the International Religious
Freedom Act failed to define how State and the Commission on
International Freedom should interact, leading at times to
unnecessary tensions within foreign governments. These
challenges have also existed under multiple administrations,
secretaries of state, and ambassadors.
As Dr. Lantos Swett states in her written testimony,
neither Republican nor Democratic administrations have fully
utilized IRFA as the key foreign policy tool as it was intended
to be. This is unfortunate and we can do better. Every human
being has the right to freedom and of the freedom from
religion, and ensuring these rights are upheld and protected
worldwide should be a key component to American foreign policy.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Lankford. [Presiding.] Well, thank you and good
morning. I am going to make a quick opening statement as well,
and then we will move straight on to your statements also.
Religious freedom, as we know well, is a core American
value. It is often referred to as our first freedom because of
its prominent place at the beginning of our Constitution, the
First Amendment. But religious freedom isn't just an American
value; it is also recognized around the world as a fundamental
human right codified in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
Religious freedom is about more than just religious
beliefs; it is about an individual freedom of conscience, that
is, the right to believe or not to believe whatever one
chooses, without fear of retribution from those who disagree.
That is something every American, religious or otherwise,
should care about. It is an indispensable cornerstone of
democracy, liberty, and social harmony. A particular government
society is intolerant of minority religious belief, there is a
pretty good chance it will be equally intolerant of other
beliefs that may not fit the norm, whether in politics,
economics, or science.
Religious freedom, therefore, should be a nonnegotiable
tenet of life in our modern world. Yet violations of religious
freedom are all too common in the world today. As we speak,
untold millions of people face discrimination, prison, torture,
and even death for no other reason other than they hold on to a
religious belief that is different from their fellow citizens,
their government, or both.
That is why, in 1998, Congress passed the International
Religious Freedom Act. Congress' intent was to elevate the
status of religious freedom in the halls of the American
foreign policy rhetorically and institutionally. The Act
created a new International Religious Freedom Office within the
State Department and a new ambassador at large to lead it. It
also created the Independent U.S. Commission on Religious
Freedom to work cooperatively with the State Department in
order to advance the cause of religious freedom around the
world.
One of the functions of this subcommittee and of the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee as a whole is to make
the Government work more efficiently and effectively. That
means we aren't just interested in hearing about how many
reports the Government has produced or how many meetings it has
held. Rather, we want to hear about outcomes that the
Government has achieved. Have the institutions' policies and
procedures put in place as a result of the International
Religious Freedom Act actually resulted in more religious
freedom? In other words, is this working?
Unfortunately, the available data is not encouraging.
According to a study by the Pew Research Center, 75 percent of
the world's population lives under high or very high levels of
religious restrictions, up from 68 percent in 2007. Thirty-
seven percent of the countries in the world place high or very
high restrictions on religion, up from 29 percent over the same
period. This data indicates we are moving in the wrong
direction, something confirmed by just watching or reading the
news.
Equally discouraging is the apparent lack of substantive
action by the State Department to champion religious freedom
abroad. According to a recent GAO study, the Ambassador at
Large, who Congress intended to be the Secretary's principal
advisor in religious freedom, reports to a mid-level official
in the State Department, many levels below the Secretary. The
Secretary has not made any designation of countries of
particular concern for violations of religious freedom since
2011, despite the fact that the Act requires it annually and
billions of U.S. dollars and U.S. taxpayer funds continue to
flow each year to countries that routinely and egregiously
violate religious freedom and human rights.
Would any of us be surprised to learn that other countries
no longer take seriously when we condemn particular violations
of religious freedom?
Now, I do understand the State Department has to balance a
lot of competing national interests, but what I cannot
understand is how standing up for a core value like religious
freedom should not be at the top of the priority list. This is
all the more true in a time when we are locked in a struggle
against religious extremism and violence. It is not a
coincidence that the most dangerous extremist movements today
have emerged from countries with the worst records on religious
freedom.
I expect we will hear more from our witnesses today about
the important link between promoting religious freedom and
combating religious extremism. I hope that our discussion today
will give us a better idea of what progress we have made in
those 15 years since the passage of the IRFA, and I look
forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses.
Mr. Lankford. Now let me get a chance to be able to
introduce our distinguished witnesses, and any other members
that would like to make an opening statement can submit that
for the record and will have seven days to do that.
On our panel today, Dr. Katrina Lantos Swett is the Chair
of the United States Commission on International Religious
Freedom and President and CEO of the Lantos Foundation for
Human Rights. For those who don't know, Dr. Swett is the
daughter of the late beloved Congressional icon, the Honorable
Tom Lantos.
I also want to follow up on what Mr. Chaffetz said, as
well, and note that unlike the State Department, the Commission
on Religious Freedom graciously agreed to appear on a panel
with other non-governmental witnesses, and we do thank you for
being here today.
Dr. Thomas Farr is the Director of Religious Freedom
Project, the program on religious and U.S. foreign policy at
Georgetown's Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World
Affairs. Dr. Farr has served in both the U.S. Army and the
Foreign Service. As an Army officer he taught history at West
Point and served as Adjutant General of the Army's
Transportation Command in Europe. He has served as the first
director of the State Department's Office of International
Religious Freedom starting on 1999. Thanks for being here.
Ms. Tina Ramirez is the President and Founder of Hardwired,
Incorporated, a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing
religious freedom law and policy worldwide. She most recently
served as Director of International and Government Relations
for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and helped found the
International Religious Freedom Caucus here in the House of
Representatives. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Mahmood Amjad is the Assistant National Director of
Public Affairs for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and Vice
President of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Lawyers Association in the
United States. He also works as a litigation associate for a
prominent D.C. law firm. Thank you for being here.
Dr. Chris Seiple is the President of the Institute for
Global Engagement, a research education diplomatic institution
that builds sustainable religious freedom worldwide through
local partnerships. A former Marine infantry officer, Dr.
Seiple's last posting was to the Pentagon, where he was a
member of the Strategic Initiatives Group, an internal think
tank for the commandant of the Marine Corps.
I also want to acknowledge the presence of Tom Lantos'
widow here today. We are honored to have you here today. You
are always welcome.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in
before they testify. If you would please stand and raise your
right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about
to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you, God?
[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.]
Mr. Lankford. Thank you.
Let the record reflect all witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
You may be seated.
In order to allow time for discussion, we would ask you to
limit your testimony to five minutes. If any of you have not
testified before, the basic ground rules are there is a little
clock in front of you. There are also lights that are green,
yellow, red. That is a pretty good sign. Green means go; red
means stop.
You will have about five minutes. If you go a couple
seconds over, I am quite sure we will give mercy. Of all places
we would demonstrate mercy, it would be in a conversation about
religious freedom. But we would like you to be as close as you
can to that time period to allow time for conversation and
questions.
Dr. Swett, we will recognize you first.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF KATRINA LANTOS SWETT, PH.D.
Ms. Lantos Swett. Thank you so much. I am delighted to be
here. Before I begin my formal testimony, I just want to say
that it is both a privilege to appear before this committee, a
privilege to appear with these distinguished colleagues, and I
want to give a particular hello to Congresswoman Speier. We
have known each other as friends for many decades and you are
doing such an admirable job following my late father's
footsteps. So it is really a delight to be here with you as
well.
Thank you all, members of this committee, for holding this
hearing, and I do request that the balance of my testimony, the
written testimony, be submitted for the record.
Mr. Lankford. Without objection.
Ms. Lantos Swett. Religious freedom is a pivotal human
right affirmed by our Nation and international treaties and
obligations. It is also crucial to our security and the
world's, especially the post-9/11 world. Simply stated,
religious freedom abuses often trigger violent religious
extremism, including terrorism, and many governments, including
those that top our foreign policy and security agendas, either
perpetrate or tolerate such abuses.
I hope my testimony helps underscore the importance of
promoting religious freedom and utilizing the tools that the
International Religious Freedom Act, IRFA, provides. By using
these tools, and, frankly, I believe they have never been fully
used, the U.S., both the executive branch and Congress, can
encourage respect for this right and address factors driving
religious repression and extremism.
In October 1998, IRFA became law due to concerns about
religious persecution worldwide and the perception that
religious freedom was a neglected human right. IRFA includes
three mechanisms that monitor religious persecution abroad: an
Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom within
the State Department; a bipartisan and independent USCIRF, of
which I serve as chair; and a country of particular concern,
CPC, designation for nations engaged in or tolerating
systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations.
IRFA created USCIRF as an independent, bipartisan body
distinct from the State Department to monitor religious freedom
worldwide and make policy recommendations to the President,
Secretary of State, and Congress. Far from duplicating the
State Department's work, USCIRF's independence allows it to
speak publicly and, may I say, more freely about violations and
recommend U.S. engagement.
One of USCIRF's chief responsibilities is to recommend to
the State Department countries it should designate as CPCs for
their systematic, ongoing, and egregious abuses. In its 2013
report, USCIRF recommended that the State Department
redesignate the following countries as CPCs: Burma, China,
Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and
Uzbekistan; and found that seven others also meet the CPC
threshold and should be so designated by State: Egypt, Iraq,
Nigeria, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam.
Unfortunately, neither Republican nor Democratic
administrations have designated CPCs in a timely manner, and
they generally have imposed preexisting sanctions, not unique
actions. The Bush Administration issued several designations in
its first term, but allowed the process to fall off track in
its second; and the Obama Administration issued designations
only once during its first term.
Under IRFA, countries remain designated until removed, but
any corresponding penalties expire after two years. The
countries currently designated were named in August of 2011.
Given the two-year life span of any CPC-associated sanctions,
we urge that the presidential actions not expire this August,
as they will if no action is taken.
We continue to believe that when combined with the prospect
of sanctions or other actions, CPC designations can move
repressive governments to undertake critical changes.
Unfortunately, the State Department has issued indefinite
waivers on taking any action against two currently designated
CPCs, Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia. And by relying on
preexisting sanctions, such double-hatting, in effect, provides
little incentive for CPC designees to reduce or cease
violations.
My written testimony includes other recommendations in
accordance with IRFA. They include, as you have suggested,
giving the Ambassador at Large direct access to the President
and Secretary of State; creating and filling a director level
religious freedom position at the National Security Council;
the Secretary of State compiling a list of prisoners persecuted
abroad on account of their faith; the President identifying
officials responsible for religious freedom abuses and, where
appropriate, publishing their names in the Federal Register;
and our diplomats receiving training to promote religious
freedom abroad. While such training now is voluntary, it should
be mandatory for diplomats, as well as relevant members of the
military.
Because we, of all people, know what happens when religious
extremism is exported as terrorism, USCIRF urges our Government
to prioritize religious freedom not only as a core human right,
but a vital part of any security-driven counter-extremism
strategy.
And I believe I might have exceeded my time already, so I
will defer the rest of my oral testimony, but look forward to
touching on those things that I wasn't able to in our
discourse.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Lantos Swett follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.013
Mr. Lankford. Thank you, Doctor.
Ms. Lantos Swett. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lankford. Dr. Farr.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. FARR, PH.D.
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for calling this important hearing and
giving me the opportunity to speak.
This is the first and only congressional oversight hearing
on the operation of the IRFA since its passage in 1998. I
applaud you for taking this on. Let me add, however, that it is
very unfortunate that the Administration has decided that this
hearing is not important enough to send a representative. As
you will see, I consider this unfortunately symptomatic of the
Administration's view of international religious freedom
policy.
I want to address four questions this morning: Why do we
have an international religious freedom policy? How are we
doing? What explains our shortcomings? And how can we improve?
Let me begin by giving you two rationales for IRFA. First,
advancing religious freedom is the right thing to do. Studies
by the Pew Research Center show that unjust restrictions on
religious individuals and groups, as well as violent
persecution, have steadily increased in recent years. The
results have been catastrophic for millions of human beings in
many societies. This tragedy provides a clear moral and
humanitarian basis for U.S. policy.
But, second, advancing international religious freedom can
increase America's national security. There are approximately
70 countries where restrictions on religion are severe. That
list of countries includes virtually all the nations whose
internal stability, economic policies, and foreign policies are
of vital concern to the United States, including Iran, China,
Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Egypt.
Increasing religious freedom in these countries can
undermine religion-related violence and terrorism, promote
economic growth, and help democracy to route and remain stable.
If the United States could move these nations toward religious
freedom, we would be helping the victims of persecution and
increasing our national security at the same time.
Mr. Chairman, the Pew studies strongly suggest an answer to
the second question concerning the effectiveness of U.S.
policy. Notwithstanding the hard creative work of the State
Department's Office of International Religious Freedom, it
would be difficult to name a single country in the world over
the last 15 years where American religious freedom policy has
helped to reduce religious persecution or to increase religious
freedom in any substantial or sustained way.
In fact, the Pew reports make it clear that in most of the
countries where the United States has poured blood, treasure,
and diplomatic resources, levels of religious freedom are
declining and religious persecution is rising.
So what is the explanation for this ineffectiveness? Let me
give you two. First, the anemic, largely rhetorical methodology
employed by all three administrations under which IRFA has
operated; second, a loss of conviction among policymakers that
religious freedom is the first freedom. None of the
administrations responsible for IRFA has adopted a robust view
of the policy mandated by the law; each has assumed a narrow,
highly rhetorical approach characterized by reports, speeches,
lists of severe persecutors that have little effect, and a
State Department activity known as raising the issue, which
should not be confused with solving the problem.
IRFA has driven some internal progress at State, but there
is no comprehensive U.S. strategy in place to advance religious
freedom in the Muslim world or elsewhere. While Congress
appropriates millions of dollars annually for democracy and
counterterrorism programs, little of that money is spent on
promoting religious liberty.
Let me name three obstacles to a robust religious freedom
policy in the Department. First, the annual reports are good,
but they are mostly descriptive narratives, largely unconnected
to strategies or programs. They cannot and do not, by
themselves, reduce persecution or advance freedom.
Second, U.S. diplomats are not trained to know why
religious freedom is important and how to advance it. The
Department has begun a training program on religion and foreign
policy, where I have been honored to teach, but it remains
voluntary, ad hoc, and weak on religious freedom.
Third, all of the ambassadors at large for religious
freedom have been and remain isolated within the State
Department and severely under-resourced. Given these and other
problems, it is hardly surprising that neither U.S. diplomats
nor foreign governments see religious freedom as a priority for
the United States.
So why have three administrations failed to make this
policy a priority? The overarching explanation, in my view, is
that a significant proportion of our officials no longer
believe that religious freedom is the first freedom. For
America's founding generation and most generations since,
religious freedom was believed necessary for the well-being of
all individuals and societies.
In particular, religion in the public square was considered
crucial for the health of democracy. Many of our foreign policy
leaders today, however, see religious freedom as a private
matter, with few legitimate public purposes. For some,
religious liberty is in no sense necessary to individuals and
societies; rather, it is merely one in an ever growing list of
rights claims, in this case a claim of privilege by religious
people that must be balanced against all other such claims.
Such views are reflected in domestic positions taken by the
Obama Administration, but also in its foreign policy. In a 2009
speech, Secretary of State Clinton insisted that ``to fulfill
their potential, people must be free to worship and to love in
the way that they choose.'' Note that Secretary Clinton evokes
the freedom to worship, not religious freedom.
But worship is essentially a private activity, with few, if
any, civic or public policy implications. She implies that a
right to love is a comparable right. The Obama Administration
has weighed religious freedom against other right claims it
believes important, such as the right to contraceptives and
abortifacients or to same sex marriage, and has found religious
freedom to be an inferior right.
This helps to explain why, in its foreign policy, the
Administration has applied far more energy in its international
pursuit of a right to love than it has religious freedom. It
also helps to explain why our religious freedom policy is weak
and under-resourced.
Let me close quickly with five amendments I would propose
to the IRFA that would remove some of the internal obstacles to
a more effective religious freedom policy.
First, mandate that the Ambassador at Large report directly
to the Secretary of State.
Second, give the Ambassador the resources he or she needs
to develop strategies for key countries around the globe. This
need not, and I want all of you to hear this, please, involve
the appropriation of new monies, but the allocation of existing
appropriations for programs such as democracy promotion and
counterterrorism.
Third, make training of American diplomats mandatory at
three stages: first, when they enter the foreign service;
second, when they receive area studies training, prior to
departing for post; and, third, when they become deputy chiefs
of mission and ambassadors.
Fourth, require the State Department issue the list of
countries of concern annually, along with a comprehensive
analysis of all the policy tools applied in each of these
countries, including programs that target democratic stability,
economic growth, and counterterrorism.
Finally, require the Department to respond in writing to
the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom to their
recommendations. At the same time, require the Commission to
pay greater attention to why the United States is not
succeeding in advancing religious freedom.
Thank you for having me here today.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Farr follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.023
Mr. Chaffetz. [Remarks made off microphone.]
STATEMENT OF TINA RAMIREZ
Ms. Ramirez. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you for allowing me the opportunity to come before you
today and provide this testimony. I would like to ask that my
full statement be submitted for the record.
Mr. Lankford. Without objection.
Ms. Ramirez. The question before the committee today is
whether the U.S. Government has been effective in implementing
the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 and, if not,
then what has happened to American leadership and what can be
done to strengthen it.
To respond to the first part of this question, one thing is
absolutely clear: religious freedom has more often than not, as
you have heard today, been treated as an annoying thorn in our
side, something we are obligated to address out of duty rather
than genuine concern. We fail to recognize that violations of
religious freedom are a symptom of a deeper cancer that must be
addressed for human freedom and rights-based societies to
flourish. This has been true of every administration since
1998, as has been noted.
So what has happened to American leadership on
international religious freedom? In highlighting the situation
of the current administration, it is important to begin by
recognizing some positive steps that have been taken: the
President raised the persecution of Rohingya Muslims recently
with the Burmese president; Secretary Kerry condemned anti-
Semitic remarks by the Turkish prime minister; and the State
Department worked to defeat the Defamation of Religions
Resolution at the United Nations. Important steps.
However, unfortunately, other actions and policies
inconsistent have given religious freedom advocates, foreign
governments, and the general public the impression that
religious freedom is simply a low priority for our Government.
For instance, the delayed appointment of the current Ambassador
at Large, two and a half years into the first term of the
President; the Ambassador's demoted rank; the Administration's
calls to negotiate with state sponsors of terrorism, coupled
with the failure to respond quickly and decisively when
peaceful protesters in Iran, Egypt, and Syria look for
international support; providing support to opposition groups
in Syria, but not opposition groups in Burma, even though
ethnic cleaning and genocide are occurring there; the recent
waiving of conditions on aid to Egypt and the persistent
national security waivers for Saudi Arabia; the infrequent
discussion of religious freedom in meetings between the
President and foreign governments, such as in recent visits
with the Turkish prime minister or the Chinese president, in
Turkey, in particular, the absence is well noted with the
situation today; the consideration by the State Department to
ease visa restrictions despite requirements in IRFA that they
not do that for people that have been involved in egregious
violations of religious freedom. They have been considering
easing visa restrictions on Narenda Modi, chief minister of
Gujarat State, who is responsible for the egregious persecution
of Muslims there and more recently has invited a delegation of
top Sudanese officials, led by presidential advisor Nafi ali
Nafie, also known as the Butcher of Sudan, to the White House;
and, of course, the failure to designate any countries of
particular concern since 2011.
In addition to this list, one can note the comments by my
colleague, Tom Farr, related to the absolute absence of any
concern for religious freedom by State Department officials.
Despite the best intentions, as religious persecution
continues to worsen each year, with 5.1 billion people living
under egregious persecution, it seems that the policy is simply
not working. Therefore, what can be done to strengthen American
leadership on this issue?
An effective U.S. religious freedom policy requires both
presidential leadership and implementation by the State
Department and other officials. I have highlighted
implementation in the current administration, but the problems
I raise reflect a deeper problem of how this raise is
perceived, which must be addressed universally throughout
Government. Religious freedom is not just about religious
people; it is a right of conscience for people of all faiths
and none; it is a freedom for those suffering from religious
oppression as well as religious persecution; it protects an
individual's beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be; and it
protects them from being forced to adopt beliefs that
contradict their conscience; it is the first thing often to go,
as you have noted, when autocratic governments want to oppress
their citizens and silence dissenters, minority communities or
those they consider undesirable elements of society, as we have
seen throughout history.
Because religious freedom provides a foundation for the
conscience of a nation that undergirds every human right,
dismissing it in our foreign policy is simply shortsighted.
This is why, when the U.S. Government issues waivers for
countries that violate religious freedom, it is sending a mixed
message. Essentially, despite the fact that religious freedom
can't be suspended under international law, it is a non-
dirigible human right, we are inadvertently saying that we
believe it is a negotiable right when it comes to our national
interests. This is a problem.
Therefore, without a comprehensive, strategic, and
consistent policy, brutal regimes will slide back into their
old habits and instability will increase worldwide. Outdated
policies and responses will simply not work with today's
challenges. Taking the time to develop a strong offensive and
proactive policy is difficult, but it will save us money and
diplomatic energy in the long run because it will help build
more stable rights-based societies that reduce the need for
international interventions.
This is why, in 2007, I worked with Congressman Frank Wolf
to secure the first funding designated for religious freedom
programming, which, although mandated under IRFA, had never
been implemented for 10 years. I also found that there were no
required training programs in religious freedom for foreign
service officers in the Diplomatic Corps, as provided under
IRFA, so we tried to work to do something on that. Of course,
as Tom has noted, it is still in process at the State
Department.
There are two policies that I think are important for the
U.S. Government to consider right now, and I have listed a
number of them in my formal testimony that you can see. The two
that I would like to highlight are, number one, the U.N.
Special Rapporteur for International Religious Freedom, our key
ally in this fight, has been understaffed and resourced at the
U.N. So the main person internationally that should be working
with us to actually change policy is not even being supported
by the United Nations. For an organization that we support
substantially fiscally, that should be remedied. And the U.N.,
because they are supposed to be such a champion of religious
freedom and human rights, why don't we call on them to issue a
decade for religious freedom and see what they actually will
do?
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Ramirez follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.032
Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Amjad?
STATEMENT OF AMJAD MAHMOOD KHAN
Mr. amjad. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank
you for inviting me to testify here today before this
committee. I want to, first of all, convey the regrets of Amjad
Khan, who was supposed to be here originally and could not make
it because of travel difficulties. I also want to specially
recognize Congresswoman Speier, who has been a long-time friend
of our community. I also want to request permission from the
committee to submit the full extent of our remarks for the
record.
Mr. Lankford. Absolutely. Without objection.
Mr. Amjad. Thank you.
So I will make three main points today. First, I will
discuss the strengths of the International Religious Freedom
Act and the ways in which it has benefitted out community;
second, I will touch upon the Act's key role in enhancing
national security; and, finally, I want to discuss a few of the
ways in which the Act can be made even more effective.
Before I delve into these points, allow me to very briefly
introduce our community to you. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community
is a revivalist movement within Islam that espouses the motto
of love for all, hatred for none. As a central tenet of its
faith, the community rejects violence and terrorism for any and
all reason. When violent extremists label their acts of
terrorism as jihad, it is the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community that
is usually first and most forceful in its denunciation,
focusing on both conveying true Islamic teachings to Muslims
around the world, as well as removing misconceptions of Islam
in the West. Today, our community is established in more than
200 countries and its tens of millions of adherents will follow
the only spiritual caliph in the Muslim world, His Holiness
Mirza Masroor Ahmad, who resides in London.
Our community is arguably the most persecuted Muslim
community in the world, as has been recognized by the U.S.
State Department, the U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom, and dozens of human rights non-governmental
organizations.
Over the past decade, hundreds of Ahmadi Muslims have been
murdered in Pakistan, and dozens more in other countries around
the world. Indeed, in 2010 alone, 99 Ahmadi Muslims were
murdered in Pakistan, the deadliest year ever for the
community. In Pakistan, our community is declared to be non-
Muslim by constitutional amendment and is effectively barred
from participating in national elections, such as the one that
took place last month to elect a new government.
It is clear, then, that the International Religious Freedom
Act is a critical piece of legislation for our community, which
brings me to my first main point: how the IRFA has helped our
community and its strengths. The Act has helped to raise
awareness within those countries in which Ahmadi Muslims, and
indeed all religious minorities, face persecution, as well as
in the United States, where organizations like the U.S.
Commission for International Religious Freedom under the able
leadership of Dr. Swett and The Becket Fund for Religious
Liberty has advocated for the release of Ahmadi Muslim
prisoners of conscience and the protection of their rights to
practice their faith freely, and without fear of government or
extremist reprisal.
My second main points relates to the underappreciated role
of the IRFA in enhancing our national security. Today, violent
extremism is perhaps the central threat to U.S. national
security, both at home and our embassies and military
installations abroad. And while terrorism has nothing to do
with religion, those who carry out these acts are often
brainwashed into believing that they somehow serve a religious
purpose. This is true for terrorists everywhere who rely on
religious justification.
As it relates to the Islamic world, by enhancing the
freedom of minority sects and protecting scholars at risk, the
IRFA can help restore pluralism to Muslim-majority countries.
By virtue of the Act, the ulema, the scholars, who support acts
of violence can be challenged not just on moral grounds, but
based on international human rights principles that are
consistent with Islamic law, thus removing misconceptions from
the mass public that have persisted, unchecked, for decades.
Having noted some of the IRFA's benefits and strengths,
both intrinsically and in the struggle against violent
extremism, I now wish to bring to the committee's attention my
final main point: ways in which this Act can be strengthened,
not just to further its core purpose, but to help save lives,
to help other nations establish their own religious freedoms,
and perhaps one day make the Act itself unnecessary. I note
five areas of improvement.
The first area of improvement relates to information flow
and content at the U.S. State Department's various bureaus and
embassies and consulates. Despite our ever-readiness to provide
information to the Department, its written correspondence is
sometimes wrought with errors concerning the persecution cases
with which it deals. Some of this must be attributed to unclear
information on the ground but, simply put, the political
officers assigned to the International Religious Freedom
portfolio, often first-and second-tour professionals, must be
given more training and emphasis on this subject. Their
training should include more practical procedural instruction
so that all officers, irrespective of cone or assignment, are
able to advocate for human rights and religious freedom, and
understand how to interact with religious communities'
representatives in the United States, gather information in the
host countries, and take action.
The second area of improvement relates to responsiveness.
Desk officers, regional bureaus, and overseas posts are
sometimes non-responsive for long stretches of time to acute
requests for assistance in countries that have seen the worst
violations of international religious freedom. For example,
despite briefings by our community, the U.S. Embassy in Saudi
Arabia has provided only limited assistance and support
relating to the release of two Saudi nationals and Ahmadi
Muslim prisoners of conscience, who I am sad to report are
still languishing in jail, without charge, for more than one
year, and this despite a law on the books capping such
confinement to six months. So while our community fully
appreciates the tremendous strain and workload placed on
embassies abroad, I believe a greater level of responsiveness
to the concerns of vulnerable religious communities can go a
long way in achieving U.S. engagement on acute issues of
religious persecution.
The third area of improvement relates to prioritization.
International religious freedom, despite being a portfolio
item, usually takes a back seat to security, democratization,
and even economic issues like energy security. The tragic
events of 9/11 have taught us that we must make human rights
and religious freedom a tier one issue in countries that we dub
state sponsors of terrorism. Only when we break the hold of
religious domination by extremist clerics will there be a
viable opposition or alternative for the massages in those
countries. Consistent with U.S. law and policy, under the
current Leahy Process, the State Department vets its assistance
to foreign security forces to ensure that recipients have not
committed gross human rights abuses. When the vetting process
uncovers credible information that an individual has committed
a gross violation of human rights, U.S. assistance is withheld.
It is unclear whether violations of international religious
freedom constitute a gross violation of human rights for
purposes of the Leahy Process, but, in my view and
recommendation, they should.
Let me briefly touch on the final two areas.
The fourth area of improvement relates to feedback and the
need for a feedback loop and admin and enhanced communications
that could be made with a concerned community upon the release
of a country's report.
The final area of improvement relates to structure.
Currently, the Ambassador at Large for International Religious
Freedom has not been vested with the necessary authority and,
as has been covered here by other witnesses, must be empowered
to directly assist with the implementation of recommendations
related to the persecution of international religious freedom.
In conclusion, let me say that the primary source of our
community's persecution is religious extremists who espouse a
militant perversion of Islam. Our community strongly believes
that all such religious extremism must be cut at its root, and
we welcome all and any and all efforts by the U.S. Government
to redress global restrictions to international religious
freedom. The IRFA provides vital safeguards to protect a
fundamental universal human right, and while we wholeheartedly
support the Act, we hope that Congress urgently improves upon
its limitations and shortcomings in a manner that strengthens
the Act's original mandate. Our community stands ready to
assist in this process.
Thank you very much.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Amjad follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.037
Mrs. Lummis. [Presiding.] I thank the gentleman and would
like to recognize Dr. Seiple. Now, did I pronounce that
correctly?
Mr. Seiple. Yes, you did, ma'am.
Mrs. Lummis. You are recognized. Thank you for joining us.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS SEIPLE, PH.D.
Mr. Seiple. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members, for
the opportunity to speak with you. And thank you to my
panelists for the presentations they have made.
I respectfully request that my statement be included in the
record.
I would like to take a little bit broader approach and
think about where we have been in order to think about where we
probably need to go.
This week, and this month in particular, remind us of the
best and the worst of our own history. Three hundred twenty-one
years ago witches were hung in Salem because they dared to
differ with the majority culture in their beliefs or their
behavior. Of course, in that same great State of Massachusetts
Bay Colony, Quakers had been hung 32 years earlier. A guy by
the name of Roger Williams fled that, anticipating that tyranny
of a majority culture and only being allowed to worship one
way, and went to Rhode Island. I have lived in both States;
they are both good places.
But this is the important point: Roger Williams created a
space where Quakers and Jews and Baptists and Native Americans,
whom he paid for the land, could live together from the bottom
up. Then his genius was to institutionalize that in the Rhode
Island Colonial Charter of 1663 and intentionally link
religious freedom to the civility of a society and the
stability of the State. In other words, if you repress people,
you are going to make them mad and they are going to agitate
against the State, and that is bad for the home team.
Now, two facts kind of drive everything I think that we
need to think about. One is that 84 percent of the world
believes in something greater than themselves. Eighty-four
percent. You can't put it in a category. You can't put it in a
committee. It is everywhere. And the other fact, which has
already been mentioned, is 75 percent of the world faces
restrictions on their capacity to exercise their freedom of
conscience or belief. Seventy-five percent of the world.
Which is also to say that we are discussing various issues
about our own Act, but the situation has gotten worse in 15
years, and it is getting worse. Which is to say we are all to
blame. We need to think about how we work together, government
and grassroots, top-down and bottom-up, non-government, all on
the same panel, all on the same sphere, trying to make things
better, because it is in our national interest and it is the
right thing to do.
So I would like to make five comments about where we might
go in the future, fully aware that there are many good things
that have happened since the passage of the Act, to include the
establishment of a standard and that we are a voice for the
voiceless worldwide. That did not exist before the Act and we
should not make light of that as we self-critique, as we are
very good at in this Country. So here are five things to think
about as we think about the future.
One is we have to think through what we mean by religious
freedom and what we mean by religious engagement. Our combatant
commands, our chaplains, our military, our intelligence
community, pick a U.S. governmental agency, they have to deal
with religion, they have to engage the world as it is. How are
they being trained to think about this issue? So I think we
need a focal point for religious engagement, a focal point that
focuses on the broader issue of working with and partnering
with religious communities worldwide to demonstrate how they
contribute to the common good and the stability of the state,
which in turn would free up the religious freedom office to be
just that, religious freedom, and not be a catchall for
everything religious, because there are no places in our
Government where people can come and talk about the religious
issues. That is number one.
Second, I think we need a global religious engagement
strategy of some kind to be incorporated into the national
security strategy. Such a strategy would address this broader
picture and, at the same time, accelerate and accentuate the
capacity to focus on religious freedom in its own context, as
opposed, again, to it being a catchall for all things.
Third, we need education and training for the entire U.S.
Government personnel on this issue. It starts at State
Department, it starts at the Foreign Service Institute but,
like I said, it is not just the Foreign Service officers. There
are a lot of braves ones going outside the view from the
embassy window, but there are also a lot of brave folks in DOD
and the intelligence community, and they have to think through
these things. And often it is the case that the best of faith
will defeat the worst of religion, and we have to think that
through and how that works, and build the relationships
necessary to do it.
Fourth, the GAO report has been highlighted. We have to
give attention to that, especially the decreasing size of the
Office of International Religious Freedom and the fact that an
ambassador at large reports to a deputy assistant secretary.
That is not in keeping with the Act. That is not good for our
Country. That is not good for the voiceless overseas. It is not
good for our national security.
And then, last, we need to think about new ways of
partnering together. I happen to be the senior advisor to the
Secretary of State in a pro bono, unpaid position in the
Religion Foreign Policy Working Group, and the top-down of our
Government has invited civil society bottom-up speaking into
how U.S. foreign policy is formed and informed. That is
unprecedented. That is exactly the nature of the times that we
live in. I also co-chair a religious freedom roundtable that
meets every two months here on Capitol Hill. Our next big event
is 27 June. We would love to have some of you all speak. But
that is the bottom-up inviting the top-down in, and that is the
nature of the world that we live in. Top-down, bottom-up,
government and grassroots have to work together or no change is
sustainable. So that kind of model can be replicated.
And the last thing that I might say in summary is this:
maybe it is time to think about a global religious engagement
act that clarifies roles and responsibilities and expectations
for U.S. agencies regarding the engagement of religious
communities and religious issues worldwide, and, therefore,
further strengthens the role that the Office of Religious
Freedom can play at the State Department.
Thank you for your time.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Seiple follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.045
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the gentleman and the entire panel for
your testimony today. Deeply appreciate your presence and want
to register my regret that the witness from the State
Department, Ambassador Johnson Cook has left an empty chair
here today. I do thank all the witnesses and now will yield to
our first set of questions, which will be asked by the
gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I too
would like to express my regret about the ambassador not being
here to testify, especially when the State Department has
asserted a policy or hidden behind a policy that they have not
applied in several other instances, as Chairman Chaffetz
pointed out in his opening statement.
But the question that I have relates to something that
happened last week. Last week, an Egyptian court sentenced 43
staff members of pro-democracy, nongovernmental organizations,
including 16 Americans, to prison terms of up to five years for
their activities to support civil society and democracy. One of
those 16 Americans is the son of Secretary of Transportation,
Ray LaHood. And what I am wondering about is this: Some people
don't like to admit this or point this out, but our direct
foreign aid is a small part of the budget. It amounts to many
billions, so it is important, but about half of what the
Defense Department spends in other countries is just really
pure foreign aid. We do most of our foreign aid through the
Defense Department; it is not called foreign aid. We do aid
through almost every department and agency in the Federal
Government in other countries. So we are spending many, many,
many billions in other countries each year.
And I would like to know if the witnesses feel that we
should, in some way, tell these countries that are rated as
CPCs or are clear violators of religious freedom, that we
should tell these other countries that we may have to start
reducing not only our direct foreign aid, but even, more
importantly, all the aid that we are doing through all these
other departments and agencies in the Federal Government. I
would like to know if any of you have any comments about that.
Yes.
Ms. Ramirez. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Just in response
briefly to the situation in Egypt. I actually worked for
Congressman Bilirakis and one of his former employees was also
involved in the situation there, and I don't know if he was one
of the 43 convicted, but he was one of the people that were
held a couple years ago. So the situation is very dire in
Egypt, and what happened when the government allowed the
conviction of those 43 NGO workers, many of them American NGO
workers, as well a number of NGOs, is that it sent the message
that there is an authoritarian policy in Egypt that is
essentially going to run underground all the civil society
organizations that are necessary to sustain democracy there.
So it is extremely unfortunate that just last week, while
this was happening, we also waived any conditionality on the
aid that we are providing Egypt. The U.S. Government has
provided Egypt billions of dollars in aid over the last 30
years, and when Congressman Obey, who was chair of the
Appropriations Committee at the time, tried to condition that
aid on the basis of human rights and a number of other issues,
the Egyptian government actually did respond favorably and they
began to address some of the problems along the border of the
Gaza Strip.
So we know that just by conditioning aid, we are not going
to lose an ally. It would be naive of us to think that. The
fact is that history shows they have actually paid attention
when we condition our aid.
The other fact is that this is not the Egyptian
government's money, as they often like to think it is. Aid is
the American taxpayers' money, and they have a right to know
that that money is not being used, whether it is supposedly for
military or being subverted to the security apparatus, which
has always happened in Egypt, to basically suppress the
population when we have a policy that prioritizes religious
freedom as a fundamental human right, not a negotiable one.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you. The Heritage Foundation, just
yesterday, issued a report calling for a freezing of U.S. aid
to Egypt in response to this situation that I talked about, and
what it seems to me is we should at least consider doing this
to countries that aren't doing anything to increase religious
freedom.
Dr. Swett?
Ms. Lantos Swett. I just want to echo some of those
comments, and I think we need to absorb the fact that it sends
an extraordinarily negative message when we do not respond with
some sort of conditionality on aid when this kind of really
egregious behavior occurs. I also agree that it does not and
will not derail our necessary relations with countries when we
act in that way. But at the end of the day that is really a
decision for the Congress. I mean, this is where the Congress
has to act to hold any administration's feet to the fire in
terms of how that aid is to be handled. But I think, as a
general principle and policy, the notion that there should be
no strings attached and that there should be no conditions for
aid that is provided by the United States Government when
actions that are in clear violation of our most fundamental
principles and our own national interest is just an unwise
policy.
Mr. Duncan. My time is up, but I do want to say this: This
is my 25th year, and your father was mentioned several times,
but I see your husband sitting out there too, and he also was a
very respected member of Congress. I don't want to leave him
out.
Ms. Lantos Swett. Thank you so much.
Mr. Duncan. Dr. Farr wants to say something.
Mr. Farr. Could I, briefly?
Mr. Duncan. Yes.
Mr. Farr. First, Egypt has never been a country of
particular concern in 15 years. I believe the Commission has
recommended that it be placed on the list. I would note that
prior to the Arab Spring Egypt was ranked by the Pew studies as
one of the worst, if not the worst, country in the world. This
was under Mubarak. It will be interesting to see, next week,
when the next Pew report comes out, where the Arab Spring Egypt
stands.
Second, in 15 years we have levied economic sanctions
against only one country that had been on all the 15 lists, and
that was poor, old Eritrea, where things have gotten worse as a
result of those sanctions, not better.
We should condition aid in Egypt and these other countries,
in my view. We should do this creatively. I think to go to the
point you raised, Mr. Duncan, this will strengthen civil
society.
And this is my final point: We need to do more than throw
these CPC lists out. We need not only to condition the money,
but we need to strengthen those in Egypt who already stand for
religious freedom. We need to stand with them and provide
opportunities for them to speak out, and that is another place,
in my view, we are failing.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the gentleman and yield to the
gentlelady from California, Ms. Speier.
Ms. Speier. Madam Chair, thank you.
Let me officially welcome former Congressman Dick Swett to
this hearing today. It is great to have you here as well.
Let me say to each of you as panelists you have truly been
eloquent this morning. We have hearings in this committee two
or three times a week, and I don't know that we have ever heard
from a group of people that were more articulate and compelling
than you, so thank you very much for your comments today.
I might also add that every time we have a hearing there is
an issue raised. Sometimes it is about the IRS and their
conferences, or the General Services Administration, or the
fact that we have contractors that don't pay their taxes; and
typically what we find out is that we do have rules on the
books, but we tend to waive them. We had a hearing this week on
suspension and debarment. But as it turns out, as tough as we
have these rules on the books, we don't use them. Or when we do
suspend, as we have on occasion, with big defense contractors,
we then waive it because they are the only contractor that can
do the work.
So I don't want you to feel that somehow you are the only
group of people who have come here to make the case about laws
that we have on the books that we somehow ignore. It is,
unfortunately, a consistency around here that is, I think, very
troubling and something this committee should spend more time
on.
You have all talked in varying ways about a number of
issues that need to be fixed. One is the structure, the fact
that the ambassador at large function does not really exist,
that it is a reporting-to function. You have talked about a
lack of communication and you have talked about the need for
training.
I would think that if we attempted just one of those areas
and really honed in on that, that we could make some dramatic
changes. I mean, to have this law on the books for as long as
it has been on the books, and this is the first hearing that
has been held, is deeply troubling to me, and I am sure it is
to you as well.
So I guess what my question would be to each of you is: If
there was one thing we could tackle and really fix, what would
be your highest priority?
Let's start with you, Dr. Swett.
Mr. Seiple. Thank you, ma'am. Education and training.
Ms. Speier. Education and training?
Mr. Seiple. Education and training. You don't change
behavior in our own Government, or other places, unless you
change the mind-set.
Ms. Speier. All right.
Mr. Seiple. And people have to be integrated. Goldwater-
Nichols, 1986, the Congress dictated, top-down, that the four
services would get along and be educated and trained together.
I am a product of that out of the Naval Post Graduate School,
and I don't think of the U.S. Army as the Army dogs anymore,
because I am just a jarhead. We are on the same team fighting
the same way, and that is because I was in the classroom
together and I was exposed to think critically and holistically
about all issues; and we need something like a Goldwater-
Nichols for the entire inner agency that it brings in issues
like religious engagement and religious freedom, because it has
been totally ignored, and everything happens by happenstance as
a result.
Ms. Speier. Thank you.
Mr. Amjad?
Mr. Amjad. Thank you. Each of the areas you highlight I
tried to touch on in my presentation, and I certainly would
agree that probably the most low-hanging fruit, if you will, is
probably responsiveness and information flow. There are other
areas, such as ultimately prioritization, that I think will
have to be addressed, but in terms of ensuring that concerns
are addressed on a timely basis and that the folks who are in
charge of addressing them are adequately trained and understand
the nuances that go into these very complex issues I think is
absolutely critical.
To touch briefly on something that was discussed a moment
ago about Egypt and other countries in the Arab Spring, one
thing we have noticed as a community is that as the hopes of
the Arab Spring are clear to us, as evident are the perils of
the forces that are rising that may bring freedom for
themselves but may, in the process, seek to silence freedom for
others, including minority groups such as our community. We
have, as I discussed during my remarks, active cases in Saudi
Arabia, we have cases in Lybia; we have had cases historically
in Egypt, in the UAE. There are many countries around the Arab
world where the forces that are rising up we have to monitor
very closely to ensure that they do not use the rise of a
religious tide as a way to silence those who may hold different
views from themselves.
Ms. Speier. My time is about to expire, but I would like to
get to each of you.
Ms. Ramirez?
Ms. Ramirez. I will be brief. What I would say is what I
had said during my statement earlier, that the U.S. should
initiate a U.N. decade for religious freedom, and part of that
should be that instead of just reporting on countries, we
should actually use that report to develop, with the U.N.,
strategic comprehensive strategies to have incremental advances
in laws and policies in countries all over the world.
Mr. Farr. Three quick points. Whatever you do, don't do it
informally; amend the law and make it clear. The law already
says the State Department is supposed to be training Foreign
Service officers. Fifteen years later it is not happening. Make
it mandatory, and I suggested three areas where it should be
mandatory.
And I agree with what Chris said, but I would say the top
priority would be to give the Ambassador at Large the status,
and the resources, but the status to make the argument within
the administration, any administration, within any State
Department. We don't have a senior official in the foreign
policy establishment who has the status to make arguments on
behalf of this. Imagine what would happen if that person did.
It is, to me, obvious that this is a very important and every
easy fix to make to the IRFA.
Ms. Lantos Swett. I won't echo what my colleagues have
already said, but I think there is a deeper way in which this
has to be addressed, and that is that religious freedom must
become a key priority of American foreign policy. I look back
at the way in which human rights more broadly became embedded
in our U.S. foreign policy; it started in the Congress. There
was a movement, there was a passage of the law that, for the
first time in any nation's history, designated human rights,
the promotion of human rights as a principal goal of U.S.
foreign policy. That is where it started, and the legal
structure was created and then a president came along, Jimmy
Carter, who sort of raised high that standard and really
adopted that with a passion, and it became sort of a road from
which we couldn't turn back.
We have never yet reached that critical mass with religious
freedom, and it is truly the first freedom. The whole range of
other human rights flow from this fundamental protection of
religious freedom, conscience, and belief. So at the end of the
day all of these fixes can only go so far until and unless we
get the sort of impassioned congressional leadership on this
issue that then inspires an administration to raise that banner
high and not have religious freedom remain the poor cousin, you
know, the sort of shunted off, in the corner, every now and
then a few rhetorical flourishes are thrown out, but it is not
truly integrated.
And it is increasingly implicated in our national security
challenges. Look at every country that poses a serious threat
to our Nation. They all are huge religious freedom violators
and abusers; they are hotbeds of extremism, which translates
into terrorism. So it is not just nice feel good stuff, it is
are we going to be safe as a Country.
Ms. Speier. Madam Chair, thank you for letting me exceed my
time.
Mrs. Lummis. The Chair is being very generous with the
clock, but we have, as you have mentioned, a very distinguished
panel of witnesses, and we appreciate their advice and counsel
today.
The chair now yields to the gentleman from South Carolina,
Mr. Gowdy.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I want to thank you
and I want to thank Chairman Chaffetz and I want to thank my
colleagues, frankly on both sides of the aisle, for having this
hearing. It is stunning to me, Dr. Farr, that this would be the
first oversight hearing. When I think about some other hearing
titles that I have experienced in the last two-plus years, it
is stunning.
So I commend you, Madam Chairwoman, Chairman Chaffetz, and
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, because this is an issue
of great importance to the people that I work for in South
Carolina, one of whom has traveled the whole way from South
Carolina to be here today, John Hutchison and others in my
district care as much about this issue as they do any other
issue.
And how we interact, frankly, Madam Chairwoman, with
countries that discriminate or persecute on the basis of
religion or access to education or gender, frankly, says as
much about us as it does about them.
So, Dr. Farr, I want to start by asking you this. And I
think I know the answer, but I would rather you give it to me.
Why would the most powerful country on the planet be reluctant
to cite Egypt, hypothetically, or Saudi Arabia, hypothetically,
as a CPC when the evidence dictates that it should be cited as
such? What is the reluctance?
Mr. Farr. Well, it is a good question, Mr. Gowdy. I think
there are two answers. Of course, the honest answer is I can't
be sure. I think I know. I will tell you what I think. In the
first place, I suspect there are those in the Administration,
in fact, I know there are those in the Administration, arguing
that this kind of sanctioning because of religious freedom is
beside the point; we have bigger fish to fry; we can't
condition our aid on something as unimportant as religious
freedom.
Now, as the chairman said earlier, it is important that we
all acknowledge that religious freedom isn't the only issue we
have with any of these countries, including Egypt. There does
have to be some balancing of American priorities. But the
striking thing is that this is just not there as a priority; it
isn't looked at as a priority.
So the second thing I would say in answer to your question
is that some of this is just, rather than hostility, it is
indifference; it is that the issue doesn't come up in our
senior policy circles, which is one reason why we need an
Ambassador-at-Large with the status and authority to be present
at these senior meetings within the State Department and within
any given administration to make the case for religious
freedom, which is not, as I said in my remarks, not just
special pleading for religious people, it is about the whole
country of Egypt and its stability, its civil society, its
nourishing of extremism. Remember that Osama Bin Laden and
others were members of the Muslim Brotherhood at one time. I
mean, these ideas are important in Egypt and in much of the
Middle East. So advancing religious freedom there is a very,
very important national security issue for the United States,
so we need somebody in the administration to make that case.
Nobody is doing it.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I hear these phrases like American values
and who we are as a people, and there just seems to be a
disconnect between our purported American values and whether or
not it is echoed with our policy decisions. So I want you to do
this for me: You have a South Carolina connection. I want you
to assume that the voters in my district were to wise up and
elect you and kick me out, and that you were sitting up here
next term of Congress. Specifically what are the first three
things you would do if you were sitting here instead of sitting
there?
Mr. Farr. Well, I would apologize to the people of South
Carolina, first, congressman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Farr. Especially those I know from your district,
namely my family and others.
Three things. The first thing I would do is ask Congress,
work with other members of Congress that care deeply about this
issue to get Congress involved on both houses much more
energetically on the issue of religious freedom; calling
hearings, making speeches, talking about this issue as a
national security issue as well as an issue of our values. So
the first answer is Congress, pay attention to this. I mean,
the fact that there has been no hearing in 15 years is a
congressional issue.
The second thing I would do is amend the International
Religious Freedom Act quite concretely. Some of the stuff is
new that we said; some of it is tightening up language that
already exists. As I have said, training is already there in
the IRFA; thou shalt train. Well, you know, it depends on what
that means. In some definitions of it, I suppose the State
Department is training, but they are just doing it
halfheartedly and on an ad hoc basis. So amend the IRFA,
tighten it up and get a bipartisan approach to getting that
done.
Finally, I would ask members of Congress to speak out in
their personal roles on the importance of the first freedom. I
really think this is a bipartisan issue. The first freedom
doesn't just mean, as the chairman said, this is the first
thing in the First Amendment; it is because the people of South
Carolina and, frankly, the people of every State in this Union
deeply believe in the value of religious freedom; not just a
special pleading, because I am a Baptist or a Muslim or an
Ahmadiyya, but because it is good for this Country, and
including non-religious people. And I would love to hear more
people speak out about this because I think it is important.
Mr. Gowdy. Madam Chairwoman, my time is up, but I do want
to thank all of the witnesses for living out the first American
value and doing a better job, the five of you, than we, or I
should say I, have done. So thank you.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the gentleman and will now yield to
the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Kelly.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. A couple
times now people have talked about the training that is
necessary, and I am interested, by any of you, how would you
improve the training? What specific things do you think should
be included in the training?
Ms. Lantos Swett. I will just jump in. I think the first
thing is to make it mandatory, and not optional. Dr. Farr is
involved, as he said, and participates in the training that is
currently available, so he can speak more directly to how that
curriculum perhaps should be tightened up, but making it
mandatory. I want to once again reiterate how important it is
that the issue of religious freedom not be cast as sort of a
nice, feel good, sort of soft thing, that because it sounds
like a laudable goal to pursue, we want to say nice things
about it. It is implicated in our national security. It is
implicated in the caliber of life that people living in these
societies have.
The Pew studies have been mentioned several times today.
One thing that I don't think was mentioned is that there is an
extraordinary and compelling correlation that the Pew study
shows between societies that do a good job of robustly
protecting religious freedom and the levels of stability, the
status of women in those societies, their economic welfare, and
a whole host of criteria, whole host of desirable outcomes that
we want to see in other countries, they correlate with the
robust protection of religious freedom. So, in a way, recasting
religious freedom as one of our hard targets, not a soft
target, I think is critically important, because it is easy to
sideline the extras, the frosting on the top, the things that
just make us feel good. When our State Department, when our
Congress, when our Country comes to see religious freedom as
one of our hard goals, then I think we are going to see the
sort of focus and the sort of resources and the sort of
prioritization that really is critical.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Ms. Ramirez. Congresswoman, if I could just add to that.
Recently I developed two different training manuals on
international religious freedom and provided training abroad to
civil society government officials, and the Department of
Justice is actually working with civil society and foreign
governments with some of those materials. So I think there are
three main objectives that I would provide. One is that the
State Department officials need to understand the benefits,
which Mrs. Lantos Swett had suggested as well.
They also need to understand what the law says. It is one
thing to educate people on religious tolerance, etcetera; it is
another thing to tell them this is an international legal
standard that we are accountable to under international
covenants on civil and political rights. And regardless of
whether countries have signed that or not, it is already
established as an international norm jus cogens, a norm that
can't be derogated from, so it is a standard of international
law, and our Foreign Service officers should understand that
and be able to articulate it.
And then, third, one of the problems that I found, which
Mahmood had explained, was that there is a lot of bias in our
State Department officials and embassies around the world. We
have had a number of problems with visas, with people going in
of different faith communities or ethnic backgrounds that are
discriminated against in getting visas, and a lot of that comes
from a bias against religious or ethnic communities. So I think
that they need to recognize their own bias in order to be able
to really treat people under the international standard of
religious freedom.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Seiple. May I add one thing, please, Madam Chair? Thank
you.
We do this kind of training all around the world, religion
rule of law, religion security and citizenship, and then I have
also participated in the FSI, Foreign Service Institute,
courses here, and two things stand out to me in terms of how to
think about it. One big thing: you have to give people
permission to participate. Often there is a cultural or a
religious or some kind of obstacle that sometimes is even
subconscious that says I can't talk about this. In our own
culture, we all know good people don't talk about religion and
politics in polite company, assuming you keep polite company,
right? So to hear the two things that help in our culture give
permission, but I have also found it useful overseas. One is
you have to be able to place it in a broader context, and for
me that is the art of grand strategy and recognizing that you
have to bring all elements of national power, hard and soft,
government and non-government, together to preserve peace.
Religious freedom is preemptive peace if we implement it
correctly.
The second element is this: we have to known our own
history. That is why I opened my remarks with Rhode Island
versus Massachusetts. It is not some touchy-feely,
Thanksgiving, big buckles on your shoes experience that we all
talk about and don't know anything about; it is a very
practical thing. There were no witches or Quakers hung in Rhode
Island because they were not seen as a minority threat to the
majority culture and the stability of that State, because they
talked about things in public. So we have to know our own
history. And then as we relate to others what it is in their
history so we can come alongside the best of who they are,
because nobody wants to be tolerated, they want to be
respected; and they don't want to be known as the homeland of
terrorism or oppression, and there are good people in bad
places who are willing to partner with us, but we have to be
able to relate to them in that kind of way.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I know Dr. Farr wanted to add, if we can
indulge him.
Mrs. Lummis. Please do, Dr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you so much.
Ms. Kelly, thanks for asking that question.
Quick points. One, don't write a letter, amend the IRFA.
Two, make it mandatory, as Dr. Lantos Swett suggested. Three,
this needs to occur throughout a Foreign Service career. Most
FSOs serve 20, 30 years. I was honored to serve for 21 years.
You can't just have one course. So you should do it at the
beginning, when you come in, so-called A100 course, and then
during the area studies courses that each Foreign Service
officer has before they go out to post that tells them what is
going on in that particular area of the world. And then when
they become very senior, deputy chiefs of mission and
ambassadors, they hear this again.
The content is important. Dr. Lantos Swett mentioned this.
Basically, why is this important to our Country and how do you
do it? Chris Seiple's outfit does this, my Religious Freedom
Project at the Berkley Center at Georgetown is developing
materials that can be used in such a course. So this isn't
rocket science, it is something our Country has been doing
pretty well for a long time. Our foreign policy should do it
better than it is doing.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the gentlelady and now yield to the
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bentivolio.
Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for appearing here today.
I was really looking forward to this. And I have probably more
questions than five minutes would cover, but I am going to
start out.
Basically, in light of recent events, the IRS scandal,
monitoring journalists' phone records, the NSA collecting
metadata on American citizens, not to mention the massive
Obamacare coming to bear on us, the Administration seems intent
on monitoring and controlling every aspect of our lives, while
ignoring our most basic freedoms. This again is exhibited by
the Administration's refusal to elevate the role of
international religious freedom in its foreign policy. The
issue of religious freedom is one that matters greatly to me.
The Constitution of the United States guarantees this right
and is one of the cornerstones of this great Nation. The fact
that a majority of the people in this world face persecution
and oppression because of their faith is something that should
offend every American. It is a right that I believe should be
afforded to every person, regardless of their nationality or
religion, so long as that faith does not harm or infringe on
the rights of other people. Religion should not be used as a
weapon, nor should it be considered a crime.
But listening here today, I heard Mr. Duncan, who seems to
have a solution to a problem, and I would like to explore that
with you and get your opinion on kind foreign aid to a rating
system I think is run or something the State Department already
has or this organization already has to foreign aid. Is that
something that you have kicked around? Have you thought about
it? I would like your opinions on that.
Ms. Lantos Swett. Well, under the IRFA Act, when a country
is designated as a CPC, a country of particular concern, and
those are countries that meet a pretty tough standard. The
religious freedom violations have to be systematic, ongoing,
and egregious, so it is really sort of embedded in that
society. Then the Secretary of State and the Administration is
entitled to proceed with sanctions of a variety of sorts, and
one of our criticisms as a commission, and this extends back
prior to the current Administration, so we have been sort of
equal opportunity critics of various administrations, is that
none of them have used the tools that IRFA provides to try and
actually bring about change.
You know, there are examples, I think Saudi Arabia was
mentioned, of a country that has been designated as a CPC, but
all sanctions and all consequences flowing from that have been
waived for other countervailing reasons. So I would say that
from USCIRF's perspective we would strongly encourage this
Administration, future administrations, and have been critical
of past administrations for not using the tools that are
already there.
And specifically as to the question of conditioning foreign
aid on meeting certain standards as they relate to religious
freedom, I would certainly say that that should be on the
table. It is a way of bringing about a change in conduct. You
know, the point of exercising that sort of leverage is to
achieve positive change for that society, and the positive
change in that society, Egypt would be a good example, redounds
to our benefit, meets our security concerns and our goals as a
Country as well. But at the end of the day it helps change
Egypt for the better.
If I could just indulge in a little walk down Memory Lane,
when my father, Congressman Lantos, served in the Congress many
years ago, he proposed taking a small portion of our annual aid
to Egypt, I think it was $150 million, perhaps, and devoting
it--this was under Mubarak--to strengthen civil society groups,
to strengthen human rights organizations, both to help them and
to send the message; and, of course, it was opposed by the
State Department at that time, opposed by the Administration at
that time, and I don't think he was successful. But we saw, I
think, in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, how wise that
policy would have been, to say to somebody who was an ally, but
was a repressive dictator at the same time, you have to begin
to change and we are going to take some of the money we give
you to for other reasons and devote it to these groups as a way
of sending a message. That was a right approach then. It wasn't
followed then. I think we need to be open to that sort of
approach now.
Mr. Bentivolio. Anybody else? Mr. Farr?
Mr. Farr. I couldn't agree more with Dr. Lantos Swett.
There are two things, just to reemphasize what she said. On the
one hand, there is the negative use of foreign aid, withdrawing
it or putting some kind of restriction on the aid that we are
already giving, which I support. I would note that the
International Religious Freedom Act, as in many other ways,
makes it possible for the State Department to do something, but
does not require it; and 15 years later we can see what that
has meant. It rarely, if ever, has happened and has never been
used effectively.
But even more important, in my opinion, than the negative
use of foreign aid is what Mr. Lantos, who I had the honor of
knowing myself, tried to get the Administration to do, and that
is to use foreign aid to support civil society, to support
religious freedom organizations within Egypt and everywhere in
the world. These people have to have an opportunity to speak up
for themselves. So it is not only foreign aid, it is also
putting conditions on our aid to Egypt and these other
countries to say if you do not let these people speak, we will
withhold aid from you. We have to create a space for them. That
is what religious freedom means; it means the opportunity for
people to speak out. We will never undermine religion-related
terrorism in the Middle East or anywhere else if we do not
provide an opportunity for people from within those traditions
to say the Quran does not require suicide bombing, or the
inequality of men and men, or the suppression of non-Muslims.
Those people exist in every one of these societies, but they
cannot speak out because they will be charged with blasphemy.
We don't pay the slightest attention to this kind of stuff.
We do at the international level. I shouldn't say that. The
Administration has done some pretty good stuff in the United
Nations, but the United Nations, forgive me, Tina, is not where
the problem is. The problem is in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt,
and in these countries.
So sorry for the long-winded answer, but it is a very
important question. Thank you.
Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the gentleman and I thank the
panelists for this extraordinary level of advice. The chair now
recognizes herself for five minutes to ask some questions that
are going to take us down a different road. I wanted to allow
the other members of our dias to ask their questions first,
because we are talking on the 1,000 to 15,000 foot level about
policy, and your specific recommendations in that regard are
deeply appreciated.
I want to pursue a different course of questioning. It is
with regard to the way an individual has been treated under
this law and whether there are times when we either may get it
wrong or have the opportunity to rehabilitate the status of
someone who has been targeted under this law. I want to talk
specifically about Chief Minister Modi of Gujarat Province in
India.
India is the world's largest democracy, and Chief Minister
Modi was denied a visa under this law, continues to be denied a
visa under this law, when he is now the leader of his political
party in India and is likely to become a candidate for prime
minister. In addition, the incident about which he was denied a
visa was a riot in which it was alleged that he was slow to put
down the riots, and a disproportionate number of Muslims were
killed in those riots compared to the rioters who were killed
who were Hindus.
Now, somehow that has been converted into egregious
violations of religious freedom for which he is directly
responsible, when in fact the press accounts said that he was
alleged to have been simply non-responsive in a timely manner,
in the eyes of some, to the riots, which were not organized by
him.
Furthermore, the courts in India have not found him to be
guilty of anything, in spite of numerous court proceedings in
India regarding his involvement in those activities. The courts
in India really have no conclusory highest court. Litigation in
India can go on and on and on, and yet, in spite of almost a
decade of litigation against Mr. Modi, he has never been found
guilty of any wrongdoing.
Therefore, I have some concerns about the application of a
continuing denial to him of a visa to the United States. Here
is someone whose province is growing dramatically in its hiring
of people, in the welfare of their families. We have a gigantic
Ford Motor Company manufacturing facility going in in Gujarat.
There is an enormous Tata vehicle assembly facility in Gujarat.
There are numerous companies moving in because of the economic
climate and the elevation of the quality of life in terms of
employment in Gujarat Province. Gujarat Province is the most
receptive province in all of India to employment, to raising
the standard of living, and enormous projects to develop their
water and to develop their infrastructure are going on.
Now, in light of that decade of history, are we correct to
continue to deny a specific individual in the largest democracy
in the world a visa to the United States? I just throw that out
for the panel.
Ms. Lantos Swett. Madam Chairman, I apologize in advance
because I think you probably won't like my answer, so I will
preface what I am going to say with that. The events that took
place in Gujarat were very grave and very serious. By some
accounts, 2500 people were killed during the rioting, and many
thousands more displaced and injured, and Minister Modi was the
governor of the province at the time. There is, we feel at
USCIRF, a considerable cloud that still hangs over his conduct
during those riots, and some of the recent evidence is more
recent.
There have been reports by India's own commission on human
rights, so the national entity responsible for evaluating the
state of human rights in India issued quite a critical report
in which they said that there was responsibility for a failure
to act to protect on the part of the government officials and
the police. There is, perhaps most troubling, a sworn affidavit
from a senior police officer who was part of the police forces
in Gujarat at the time, who is quoted in that affidavit as
having Minister Modi say very specifically that the police
should not intervene to stop the rioting because--and because I
don't have the actual language in front of me, I am perhaps
paraphrasing here, but the gist of what he said was that the
Hindu community had the right to sort of let off steam, and
that they were angry and agitated at their Muslim neighbors,
and that the police should not intervene to stop the rioting,
which was overwhelmingly directed at the Muslim community.
Finally, the Indian Supreme Court, and you are right, it is not
completely analogous to our Supreme Court, but they have also
issued a ruling.
So I think it is fair to say that there has still been a
lack of full transparency and accountability. And, you know, as
someone who believes very passionately that accountability is
part of how we advance and embed human rights globally as a
standard to which all countries need to live up to, I am
reluctant to look at the notable achievements of that province
under Minister Modi in the economic sphere and say that that
progress sort of covers or excuses very grave concerns and
shortcomings as they relate to human rights. So I want to be
very candid and opening in saying that, last year, USCIRF did
send a letter, perhaps you have seen it, and I would be happy
to have it provided to you, to then Secretary Clinton in which
we did urge the State Department to sort of stand firm in what
we believe has been a principle position now for a number of
years.
But I would also point out that that, in point of fact, as
far as I know, Minister Modi has not applied for a visa, so it
is not that he has been preemptively denied one. That is
something that would only come into play were he to make an
application for a visa. So in that sense it is not like there
is an ongoing sanction against him. And, as I said, I am sure
my answer perhaps is not one that you agree with, but that is,
I think, the position of USCIRF.
Mrs. Lummis. Well, I am interested in your position because
of what I know in terms of the last 10 years in that province.
Let's assume, now hypothetically, that there is a situation
where someone has been alleged to have or proven to have been
involved in an incident that is alleged to have been motivated
by religion. If there is a period of time, a lengthy of period,
after which there is no exercise of similar concern, is there a
point at which the lifting of those kinds of concerns should
occur?
Ms. Lantos Swett. Well, as a hypothetical matter, I think
of an analogy to our own system of justice. We have a statute
of limitations, certainly, as it relates so that you only have
a certain period of time in which you can bring a prosecution
for a past wrong. I mean, I think there is a potential analogy
there.
But I am not sure that that analogy would translate into a
rebuttal of the points I tried to make as it relates to
Minister Modi because I do think there has to be some
transparency and accountability, and, again, it is certainly
the view at USCIRF that the questions and the clouds continue
to hang over Minister Modi, and I think that there is some
benefit for that being part of the mix within the Indian
political environment, that his opponents, should he stand for
prime minister, this would be something that would be, I am
sure, debated and discussed within their context.
Now, clearly, if he were to become the head of state, that
becomes a different situation; you have to deal with that. Each
nation, each sovereign nation has the right to choose their own
head of state. We know that, for example, in Iran, they elected
as president somebody that we take a rather dim view of in this
Country for two terms, but you have to sort of contend with
that reality should it come to pass.
Mrs. Lummis. Dr. Farr?
Mr. Farr. This is one of those cases that gives me some
sympathy for my colleagues at the State Department. You raise
something we have talked about a little bit today, and that is
the tension between religious freedom and other American
interests. I mean, if this guy is going to be the prime
minister of India, that is something we have to pay very close
attention to. And you mentioned the economic interests in
Gujarat. So we have to weigh these.
I once gave a speech entitled, We Have No Orders to Save
You. This was from the police report on the Gujarat incident.
This came from a Human Rights Watch report in which Muslim
women were surrounded, their houses surrounded, they were
raped; pregnant women had their babies ripped from their wombs
by these Hindu mobs and killed in front of them. This was truly
a horrible religion-based pogrom massacre, and Mr. Modi was the
guy in charge of those police, at a higher level, no doubt
about it. So this is a very serious problem.
But here is where I come out on this, for what it is worth.
This, for a long time, was the only example that I could give,
I think this happened in 2006 or somewhere in there, of the
United States doing anything under the International Religious
Freedom Act, anything. One visa application pulled. And, to me,
to put this in larger perspective, the fact that, you know,
this is the case is simply a function of our irresponsibility
in the operation of the International Religious Freedom Act.
So I am sidestepping the issue a little. It is a very, very
tough one. I guess I would probably come down with the
Commission on this; I would be very hesitant, given the fact
that we haven't done anything else in the world to pull what we
have done on this issue, the symbolism of our allowing this
would, to me, just be too much.
Mrs. Lummis. Allowing what?
Mr. Farr. Allowing Mr. Modi to come to the United States.
Pulling this visa prohibition, given the fact it is the only
thing that we have done, or one of the few things that we have
done under this Act. The symbolism of that I think would be
very, very bad. If he becomes prime minister, of course, we
have to look at it.
Mrs. Lummis. Even though their own courts have not found
any wrongdoing.
Mr. Farr. Their courts are notorious for not.
Ms. Lantos Swett. And I would just weigh in there too. We
have had very interesting discussions at times about sort of
rule of law issues in India and they have, in many ways, of
course, a very legitimate court system, but they themselves
would say that they are slow and have had challenges in trying
to address these issues. So I don't think it would be fair to
say that there has ever been a determination that there was no
moral culpability on the part of Modi in this matter, and it
was, as Dr. Farr has so powerfully said, a very terrible,
terrible circumstance.
Mrs. Lummis. So we are applying an American religious
standard, but a non-American legal standard, because in the
United States you are innocent until proven guilty. But, Dr.
Lantos Swett, you just said there has been no finding that he
was not involved.
Ms. Lantos Swett. Well, the invocation of a legal standard
is a little bit complicated because, of course, we are in no
way attempting to impose a legal penalty on Minister Modi, and
would have no ability to do so. The question is whether or not
we would extend him the privilege of a visa to visit this
Country, and I think we do that a lot, impose those sorts of
moral judgments. The most recent example would certainly be the
Magnitsky Act, which was passed by Congress late last year,
which imposes visa restrictions and a freezing of assets on any
Russian officials we believe to be implicated, not convicted,
but implicated, in the death of Serge Magnitsky.
So I think that we, in a sense, comparing apples and
oranges because we are talking about withholding a privilege,
the privilege of visiting this Country, not imposing a legal
penalty. You are right, it would not be consonant with our
American legal standards to presume a guilt and impose a
penalty in that sense, but we can say there is enough smoke
here and enough concerns, and enough red flags, if you will,
that we are not going to extend this privilege.
Mrs. Lummis. I do very much appreciate this discussion
because it does, I think, illustrate the challenges that are
presented here when we are trying to sort out the appropriate
application of the Act. It may, as one of you pointed out, help
illustrate the challenges to the State Department, but I am
deeply grateful and this committee is deeply grateful for your
recommendations about how to elevate the intent of Congress and
of the goals of the Act in a way that is appropriately
administered in the State Department, and I deeply, deeply
appreciate, on behalf of this panel, your attendance here
today. This has been an elevating and wonderful discussion.
Thank you for your commitment to religious freedom on behalf of
this entire panel.
The panel is excused with our gratitude and this hearing is
concluded.
[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2139.047