[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE TROUBLING CASE OF MERIAM IBRAHIM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 23, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-199
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-830 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
TED POE, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MATT SALMON, Arizona THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
MO BROOKS, Alabama DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
TOM COTTON, Arkansas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
PAUL COOK, California JUAN VARGAS, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Massachusetts
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia GRACE MENG, New York
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
TED S. YOHO, Florida TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
SEAN DUFFY, Wisconsin JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
CURT CLAWSON, Florida
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and
International Organizations
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Zuhdi Jasser, M.D., Commissioner, United States Commission on
International Religious Freedom................................ 8
The Honorable Tony Perkins, president, Family Research Council... 19
The Honorable Grover Joseph Rees (former General Counsel, U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service)........................ 32
Mr. Omer Ismail, senior policy advisor, Enough Project........... 41
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Zuhdi Jasser, M.D.: Prepared statement........................... 11
The Honorable Tony Perkins: Prepared statement................... 22
The Honorable Grover Joseph Rees: Prepared statement............. 35
Mr. Omer Ismail: Prepared statement.............................. 43
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 62
Hearing minutes.................................................. 63
Zuhdi Jasser, M.D.: USCIRF Sudan Policy Brief.................... 64
THE TROUBLING CASE OF MERIAM IBRAHIM
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
Global Human Rights, and International Organizations,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o'clock
p.m., in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon.
Christopher H. Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Smith. The subcommittee will come to order.
Let me begin by, again, expressing my apology for the
lateness of our start. We did have two votes, recorded votes.
They went longer than anyone could have anticipated.
For weeks this spring the world watched as Meriam Ibrahim,
a pregnant Christian woman in Sudan, faced flogging and the
death penalty because her government would not accept that she
had lived her life as a Christian and married a Christian man.
Meriam has demonstrated both courage and grace under pressure,
giving birth in jail in May, while chained, and caring for her
two children, including her newborn, not only under restraints
but without the normal amenities that any pregnant woman and
nursing mother should expect.
The harsh application of Sharia law on non-Muslims was the
trigger, and everyone knows this, for the two-decade-long civil
war in Sudan that eventually led to the secession of the South.
Sudan is one of 20 countries in the world who have laws against
apostasy, defined as the abandonment by an individual of his or
her original religion.
In Sudan, apostasy is effectively considered leaving the
Muslim faith, particularly the interpretation of Islam followed
by authorities there. In Sudan, to leave the Muslim faith is an
automatic death sentence. If you are considered an apostate,
you cannot legally marry someone of another faith, and for this
Meriam was also charged with adultery and sentenced to
flogging.
However, this story is not just about harshly applied
religious and legal principles in violation of national and
international law. Daniel Wani, Meriam's husband, is a
Christian, who is a dual American and South Sudanese citizen.
He has lived in the United States for more than a decade. He
married Meriam in late 2011, and they had a son a year later.
Somehow, the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum could not find a way
to help bring this American to get his family out of Sudan
before the crisis developed. Even after she was arrested and
released last year on charges involving apostasy.
Today's hearing is intended to examine the facts as we know
them and to determine how strictly applied rules almost led to
the officially sanctioned beating and execution of a young
woman who has lived as a Christian all of her life, but who has
now been told that she has no right to choose her religious
belief.
This hearing was originally scheduled to take place in
June, but at the urging of Sudanese officials and Mark Meadows,
who has been doing yeoman's work on this issue, and some in our
Government, we postponed it to allow for quiet diplomacy to
take place. However, Meriam's legal entanglements seem to be
increasing now rather than diminishing.
We intend for this hearing to be a strong appeal to the
Government of Sudan to use their legal authority to end the
official entanglements Meriam has faced since her arrest in
January and subsequent trial. A Sudanese court initially ruled
that the mere fact that her father was Muslim means that she
should have been raised as a Muslim. She was given 3 days to
convert to Islam, but she told authorities she would not
abandon her Christian faith. Her refusal to leave the faith she
had practiced her entire life led to her being in mortal fear
for her life.
Fortunately, a Sudanese appeals court believed that she
considered herself Christian and overturned her conviction on
apostasy and adultery charges. However, members of her family,
allegedly, have appealed the overturning of her conviction.
Meanwhile, the Government of Sudan rearrested Meriam for using
South Sudanese documents in an attempt to leave the country
while she was released on bail. That case is still pending.
Finally, Meriam's family has filed a case in domestic law
court to establish that she is Muslim and that her brother, who
was unable to prove his legal connection in the original
apostasy/adultery case, should be her legal guardian under
Sharia law. The hearing date for at least part of that case is
currently set for August 4, because she was not given a written
summons to appear at a July 17 hearing on the matter.
We cannot be absolutely certain of the exact chain of
events that led to this situation. The Department of State
understandably decided not to testify at this particular
hearing, although this will become a hearing in a series of
hearings until this is resolved. Daniel and Meriam are still in
Sudan at this point, and we will invite the State Department to
give a full accounting and any insights they might want to
provide.
Daniel and Meriam are still in Sudan, as we all know, at
this point. Daniel is free to leave with his children, but has
chosen of course to stay with his wife until she, too, can
leave with her family. Since Meriam's conviction in May, a
bipartisan, bicameral congressional coalition has worked
tirelessly to undo the harsh penalties for her under the
apostasy and adultery laws, and to secure her family's
repatriation to the U.S.
Contact was made with Daniel, as well as the U.S. Embassy
in Khartoum, and the Sudanese Embassy right here in Washington.
Eventually, the headquarters offices of both State Department
and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services got involved. You
know, one wonders why this matter had to come to a crisis stage
before a means could be found to avoid what now seems to have
been an inevitable outcome in this case.
Daniel told congressional staff that he sought help from
the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum, but was told that he should seek
an attorney, since the situation was mostly focused on his wife
who was not an American. This was the advice he received even
when he was--when arrested and had his passport seized. An
American citizen should expect more, I believe, from his
government's representatives in a foreign country when the
country's government has taken action against them.
Sudanese officials do not have the right to force someone
to be Muslim when they assert their beliefs to be otherwise.
Under the principles of natural law, which are the basis of our
governing documents and those of countries around the world,
there are certain inalienable rights endowed by our Creator.
The decision on how to worship our Creator is one of them.
Elements in Sudan's Islamic clergy and in the government
interpret the Koran, to give them license to tell people how
they will live out their faith, whether they consider
themselves Muslim or not.
In Meriam's case, her father had been absent from her life
since she was a small child. Her Christian mother raised her as
a Christian. Sadly, Meriam is not the only Sudanese who chose
differently on the matter of faith only to be faced with a
death sentence for that choice. Sudanese activist Mahmoud
Mohammed Taha was arrested and charged with apostasy in 1984
for his efforts to end Sharia law in Sudan. He was subsequently
executed.
In some countries, Christian converts have been forced to
renounce their faith and conform to the version of Islam
favored by the government of that day. Some of these countries
have constitutions that ostensibly guarantee religious freedom,
even as they may also have laws that actually contradict those
rights.
Except for Malaysia, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the
United Arab Emirates, the other 15 countries, including Sudan,
have signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights guaranteeing freedoms for their citizens.
Article 18 of that document enshrines ``the right to
freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.'' Speaking of the
rights of the individual, that article also forbids ``coercion
which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion
or belief of his choice.''
Article 18 also guarantees ``the freedom to have or to
adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either
individually or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship,
observance, practice and teaching.''
The current report by the U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom cites Sudan as a Country of Particular
Concern due to its government's engaging in systematic,
ongoing, and egregious violations of freedom of religion.
According to USCIRF, Sudan is the world's most violent abuser
of the right to freedom of religion or belief.
Thankfully, we have the author of that law, the
International Religious Freedom Act, Frank Wolf, who back in
1998 authored that landmark legislation. And today testifying
we have Zuhdi Jasser from the Commission, who recommends in his
testimony that not only should the U.S. Government take
appropriate actions against Sudan, as detailed in IRFA, but
that our Government should also make freedom of religion and
human rights a centerpiece of the U.S.-Sudan bilateral
relationship, as that has not been the case to date.
The troubling case of Meriam Ibrahim should warn of future
incidents in which those who do not believe in Islam are
defined by the government, are persecuted, or placed in fear of
death or torture. We, again, appeal to the Government of Sudan
to use all legal means at its disposal to free her, this
courageous young woman, allow her to pursue her faith and join
her husband in the United States.
I would like to yield to a friend and colleague, the
ranking member, Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership and
for convening today's hearing. I would also like to thank our
distinguished witnesses, and I look forward to hearing your
perspective on the socio-political context in Sudan as it
relates to this case, the legal framework, as well as adultery
laws and information on the limitations on religious freedom.
As we prepare to hear from today's witnesses, I hope we can
learn critical lessons from their experiences and use them to
increase awareness and support for the improved protections of
human rights and religious freedom in Sudan.
I am also interested in hearing an update on the case. I
met not too long ago with representatives from the Embassy, and
it was my understanding that this case was going to be resolved
very soon. So I will be interested to hear your updates.
Thank you very much. I yield back my time.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
I would like to now yield to a gentleman on the committee,
Mark Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank each one of
you for your valuable time in coming here, and I think the
fundamental question for all of us is, is this a day where
truly religious freedoms of all faiths are going to be upheld
and valued in America? And with that, it is critical history
shows us--and it is not about--just about Christian faith. It
is of many faiths. History shows us that time and time again
when we don't value that the outcome is tragic.
And so I thank each one of you for coming today to spend
your valuable time to not only continue to intercede on behalf
of Meriam, but to also make it a reminder to those of us in a
freedom-loving world that it is critical that we stand on those
foundations of upholding religious liberty. If there are
policies that we can use to go more toward valuing that, I look
forward to hearing from each of you on that particular subject.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your
leadership.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Meadows. And I want to thank you
for the meetings that you arranged with the Ambassador in an
attempt to try to do this as efficaciously as possible, and the
meeting that you did convene was I think a very important one,
but still, it has not yielded the result that we are all hoping
and praying for, but thank you for that leadership.
Mr. Pittenger.
Mr. Pittenger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
participate and for holding this hearing of such great
importance. I commend you for your tireless dedication, as
always. I have watched you now for the last 30 years bringing
the right of freedom of religion to everyone in the world.
I would also like to thank the witnesses for appearing
before us today and for the dedication you have shown to
defending human rights and religious freedoms, freedoms of
conscience throughout the world.
The case of Meriam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag is tragic, a story
now, regrettably, that is being told throughout the world,
she--a young woman imprisoned because she has chosen to be a
believer and follower of Jesus Christ. Her punishment for
following her faith, for refusing to convert to a religion she
does not believe in, death by hanging.
The Sudanese Government declared her marriage to a
Christian man unlawful, and, therefore, convicted her of
adultery, punishable by 100 lashes. Thankfully, an appellate
court overruled both of these convictions, but Ms. Ishag still
is not free. While trying to leave Sudan with her husband and
children, one which she gave birth to while she was in prison,
the family was again detained on claims of using false travel
documents.
Here is a family simply trying to believe in their own
convictions and live out their faith, trying to practice their
own religion, and this is what they have been subjected to.
While Ms. Ishag's case has garnered significant media
attention, we must remember that denial of the basic human
right to religious freedom is not an isolated case.
As members of the United States Congress, it is vital that
we continue to shine light on all of the cases of injustice and
for the United States to continue exerting whatever pressure we
can on governments who so blatantly and obviously infringe upon
those rights.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do yield back.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Pittenger, thank you very much for your
comments and your leadership.
We now yield to Chairman Frank Wolf. And, again, he is the
author of the International Religious Freedom Act, landmark
legislation that finally, at long last in 1998, put religious
freedom as a core element of our U.S. foreign policy. Chairman
Wolf?
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for
having the hearing. I think, as Mr. Pittenger said, you have
probably done more than anybody else in the time that I have
served here, so I want to thank you.
I want to thank the witnesses. I think there are two
points. I think our State Department is failing us. We have
seen their lack of action on people in Korea. We have seen
their lack of action with regard to people in Vietnam. We have
seen their lack of action to not even visit Liu Xiaobo's house
in China when he is the Nobel Prize winner, and his wife is not
well, and we see the fundamental weakness.
And we have also seen the failure of this administration
with Pastor Abedini. I mean, Pastor Abedini and his wife, they
are American citizens and we can't even get them to do
anything, nor will the Secretary meet with them. So this is not
a surprise.
Secondly, I think I would just separate myself out from the
State Department. Weakness is never good. And we are weak. We
are perceived as weak. Now, I say somewhere out there--and I
can almost predict who--there is a representative or two of the
Sudanese Government. They are going to listen. They are going
to send a message back to al-Bashir who is an indicted war
criminal. Indicted war criminal. Two-point-one million people
died in the North-South battle. He has blood on his hands.
So this ought to be a test. If Meriam is not out in 2 or 3
weeks, the word should go out they will never be off the list.
They will always be on the terrorist list. There will always be
sanctions. We will bring the government down. What they are
doing with the Nuba Mountains, what they are doing with regard
to Darfur, they were responsible for the genocide in Darfur and
it still continues today.
So they are going to look to see how strong you are. One of
them out there--they may have a law firm working for them,
too--will come back and tell them, ``If Meriam is not out in 2
weeks, never should they ever be taken off the sanctions
list.'' And we should make sure the U.N. tracks al-Bashir down
when he goes to Egypt, or wherever he goes, and bring him so he
goes to The Hague and stands as a criminal.
And thank you for having the hearing.
Mr. Smith. Chairman Wolf, thank you very much.
Mr. Cotton.
Mr. Cotton. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and Ranking Member
Bass, for letting me join your subcommittee today, first off.
Second off, I would like to closely associate myself with the
remarks of Frank Wolf, a great champion in the United States
Congress for religious liberty. It is a travesty that Meriam
was detained at all in Sudan, or that her detention has
continued. I agree with Mr. Wolf she should be released
posthaste, if not in 2 weeks from now.
But it is troubling that this is part of a pattern more
broadly throughout the Middle East and North Africa, and,
regrettably, all around the world. Twenty countries now have
laws penalizing apostasy, and eight of those can legally impose
the death penalty for apostasy, for nothing more than being a
follower of Jesus Christ.
I saw this kind of persecution firsthand when I was a
lieutenant with the 101st Airborne in Iraq and Baghdad in 2006,
Christian churches being vandalized and Christians being
persecuted and driven out of their homes and neighborhoods. We
see it again today in Mosul as the Islamic State is driving
Christians out of that city where they have lived almost since
the times of Jesus Christ.
As a country that was founded by religious refugees, and
for whom religious freedom is our very first freedom, it is
incumbent upon us in this institution, as well as the President
and the State Department, to rectify the injustice, not just
when it involves Americans, like Pastor Abedini or Meriam and
her family, but to the greatest extent we can all around the
world.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Cotton, thank you so very much, and thank
you for your extraordinary military service.
I would like to now introduce our distinguished panel. We
are very fortunate to have four very knowledgeable and eminent
individuals to provide testimony to the committee, beginning
with Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, who is a member of the U.S. Commission
on International Religious Freedom. He is also the founder and
president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.
Dr. Jasser is a first generation American Muslim whose
parents fled the oppressive Baathist regime of Syria. He earned
his medical degree in the U.S. Navy, on a U.S. Navy
scholarship, and served 11 years in the Navy. Dr. Jasser has
testified before Congress before, including before our
subcommittee, and has briefed members of the House and Senate
frequently on issues related to religious freedom.
We will then hear from The Honorable Tony Perkins, who is
president of the Family Research Council. He is a former member
of the Louisiana legislature where he served for 8 years, and
he is recognized as a legislative pioneer. Since joining FRC in
the fall of 2003, he has launched new initiatives to affirm and
defend the Judeo-Christian values upon which this nation was
founded.
Tony Perkins and FRC have led the way in defending
religious freedom. He hosts a daily national radio program and
broadcasts a daily commentary heard on over 300 stations
nationwide. His daily email update is sent to tens of thousands
of individuals throughout this country and in the world.
We will then hear from Ambassador Grover Joseph Rees, who
has served as the first United States Ambassador to East Timor,
and as Special Representative for Social Issues in the U.S.
Department of State where he was responsible for promoting
human dignity, including issues affecting vulnerable persons
and the family within the U.N. system.
He was also a senior staff member of this committee. As a
matter of fact, he was general counsel and staff director,
where he was responsible for human rights and refugee
protection, and he played a major role in drafting an enactment
of important human rights legislation including the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act, International Religious Freedom Act,
and the Torture Victims Relief Act.
Of high significance as well, he served as general counsel
of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and was
extremely knowledgeable, especially in fighting against the
forced repatriation of many, including the Vietnamese boat
people.
As a direct result of his work, some 20,000 Vietnamese who
were sent back were brought to this country, were rereviewed
when they were improperly screened out as refugees. So I want
to publicly acknowledge the extraordinary work that he did to
ensure the safe immigration of those people, those Vietnamese
boat people, to the United States.
And, finally, we will hear from Mr. Omer Ismail, who was
born in the Darfur region of Sudan and spent over 20 years
working both independently and with international organizations
on relief efforts in human rights. He fled Sudan in 1989 as a
result of his political views and helped found the Sudan
Democratic Forum, a think-tank of Sudanese intellectuals
working for the advancement of democracy in Sudan.
In addition, he co-founded the Darfur Peace and Development
Organization to raise awareness about the crisis in this
troubled region. He currently works as policy advisor to
several agencies working in crisis management and conflict
resolution in Africa.
Thank you as well for your leadership and for being here. I
would like to begin with Dr. Jasser.
STATEMENT OF ZUHDI JASSER, M.D., COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES
COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Dr. Jasser. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and Ranking Member
Bass, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the extremely troubling case of
Meriam Ibrahim. I ask that my written testimony be submitted
for the record.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
Dr. Jasser. Meriam Ibrahim's case must--must continue to
draw international attention until she and her family leave
Sudan for freedom in the United States. Even then, the
international community must continue to focus on Sudan,
because while Meriam's case is among the most egregious, it is
only the latest example of the Sudanese Government's deplorable
religious freedom and human rights record. It is simply the tip
of the iceberg, as we have heard from many of your comments.
This record has earned Sudan a Country of Particular
Concern (CPC) designation since 1999 from not only our
commission but also from the State Department. The government
imposes a restrictive interpretation of Sharia law on Muslims
and non-Muslims alike, and charges individuals with the capital
crime of apostasy, flogging Sudanese for undefined acts of
indecency and immorality, and arrests, threatens, harasses, and
discriminates against Christians and others with minority
views.
These religious freedom violations, along with the violence
in Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile, and Darfur, derive from
President al-Bashir's policy of Islamization and Arabization.
Meriam's ordeal began with her February 17 arrest--here is
a picture of her from before her arrest. At that time, her
brother reported to the police that she had left Islam to marry
a Christian man, a capital crime in Sudan. The Sudanese
Government's application of Sharia law prohibits a Muslim woman
from marrying a Christian man. However, while Meriam was born
to a Muslim father and an Ethiopian Orthodox mother, her father
left the family when she was six, and she was essentially
raised a Christian.
Meriam was convicted on May 15 of apostasy and sentenced to
death by hanging. Because the court did not recognize her
marriage, she was also found guilty of adultery and sentenced
to 100 lashes. While imprisoned, Meriam gave birth on May 27 to
her baby daughter, who was detained with her and her 2-year-old
son.
On June 23, an appeals court cancelled the apostasy charges
and death sentence, most likely due to the international
attention that many of you and others have brought, and ordered
her release from prison. She and her family then were detained
on June 24, a day later, in Khartoum's airport when they sought
to leave the country, after which she was held with her family
at a police station, and then arrested again on document fraud
charges. Since June 27, she and her family now remain in Sudan,
safely, as the Sudanese Government continues to block their
departure from the country.
On July 17, Meriam's brother, alleged brother, challenged
the appeal that had overturned her apostasy and adultery
convictions. The Sudanese Supreme Court has up to 3 months to
review the brother's court action. And that is her current
status.
Meriam's ordeal reflects more deeply the Sudanese
Government's enforcement of a rigid ideology against Sudan's
religiously diverse population, particularly non-conforming
Muslims and Christians. As detailed in our commission's
November 13 policy brief, which we have available in the back--
I request that that also be submitted for the record.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, it will be made a part of the
record.
Dr. Jasser. Thank you. The Sudanese Government has
implemented Sharia law for more than 30 years, with the 1991
Criminal Code Act being the cornerstone of that implementation.
The Act addresses offenses that violate public order and carry
the death sentence for apostasy, stoning for adultery, prison
sentences for blasphemy, and floggings for undefined offenses
of honor, reputation, and public morality.
Since 2011, there has been an alarming increase in the
number of persons arrested and found guilty of what are called
hudood offenses, with the most dramatic increase in the number
of those such as Meriam arrested for apostasy, carrying an
automatic death sentence. For example, in the past 3 years
alone, more than 170 persons have been arrested, the majority
of whom practice a version of Islam which differs from that of
the ruling National Congress Party of al-Bashir.
Government pressure on Christians in Sudan has also
increased since South Sudan's 2011 independence, with the
government announcing in July that it no longer would issue any
permits--this is just a few weeks ago--for new church
buildings. In the last several years, at least 11 churches have
been attacked and others threatened. Individual Christians have
also been arrested, threatened, and harassed, in Nuba, and
South Sudanese Christians continue to be arrested and deported.
The Sudanese Government also discriminates against its
minority Christian community by promoting conversion openly to
Islam, prohibiting foreign church officials from traveling
outside Khartoum, using school textbooks that negatively
stereotype non-Muslims, and giving preferential treatment to
Muslims in employment and services and in court cases involving
Muslims against non-Muslims.
So what can we do? Meriam's case underscores the need for
the U.S. Government to do the following. First, we need to
continue to advocate tirelessly for Meriam and her family to
immediately leave Sudan and that all charges against her be
dropped, and all prisoners who have been jailed on account of
their religion or belief also be released and the charges
against them be dropped.
Second, we need to redesignate Sudan as a CPC and take
appropriate actions that follow thereof. We also need to make
religious freedom and human rights a centerpiece of the U.S.-
Sudan bilateral relations, and take the conversation beyond
simply being the issue of violence.
We need to press the Sudanese Government to engage in an
inclusive and transparent constitution drafting convention. We
also need to require before normalizing relations or lifting
sanctions, that the Sudanese Government abide by international
standards of freedom of religion and belief. And we must also
support all those civil society groups monitoring the
implementation of the public order laws and advocate for their
immediate repeal.
We must hold the Sudanese Government accountable to protect
and respect freedom of religion or belief, not only for Meriam
Ibrahim but for all Sudanese.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Jasser follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Dr. Jasser, thank you very much for your
testimony.
The Honorable Tony Perkins.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TONY PERKINS, PRESIDENT, FAMILY
RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Perkins. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
Bass, and members of the subcommittee. I want to thank you for
not only the opportunity to address the situation of Meriam
Ibrahim, but also for the work that this subcommittee has done
on religious liberty around the world. And with that, I want to
briefly address the broader issue of religious liberty
internationally.
I would like to address the why and the how. First is the
why. Now, I am here, as many have tracked the media reports
that have been out there, some accurate, some not. I have
worked with members of this committee, other Members of
Congress, and I have also engaged in conversations, ongoing
conversations, with Sudanese officials.
The why we are here I think is very clear. We are here
because of the courage of a 27-year-old mother, a 27-year-old
mother. If you will, just for a moment, imagine the situation
in a prison in Khartoum which the U.N. says has an infant
mortality rate of one child a day dying in that prison. At her
side, 8 months pregnant, is a 20-month-old boy, and she is told
that if she will denounce her faith in Jesus Christ, there is
the door, you can be a free person. But, yet, she refused to
denounce her faith because she had the courage to stare death
in the face.
What has America done? Where is the courage in America to
speak out for those who are suffering at the hands of dictators
who refuse to recognize not an American right, but a human
right? A human right of religious freedom, to determine the
destiny of one's own life, to live your life according to your
own conviction and your faith. Why the silence in America?
Now, you might be tempted to say, ``Well, this is just one
case. Why the big deal?'' This is not an isolated case, as Dr.
Jasser said, but just in April another individual who the
attorneys have asked that the name not be used, was detained
under the same charges of apostasy and facing the same possible
outcome.
We also have to consider Daniel, her husband, American
husband that has been referenced here, a man who is bound to a
wheelchair, who was powerless to do anything to secure the
freedom of his wife and his children, and yet he went to the
State Department waiting for them to act on behalf of his
children and his wife, and there was silence until just
recently.
Now, while other governments have called attention to
Meriam's situation, including the European Parliament passing a
resolution, and the British Government's Prime Minister
speaking publicly, as I said, the U.S. Government has been
practically mute. Even after multiple activist organizations
initiated petitions with hundreds of thousands of signatures,
the U.S. Government's disinterest in the plight of an American
and his family is simply indefensible.
And, of course, we do this ignoring the International
Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which states that
``It shall be the policy of the United States to
condemn violations of religious freedom and to promote
and to assist other governments in the promotion of the
fundamental right to freedom of religion.''
The United States has clearly failed to adequately condemn
this violation or to speak out clearly and with conviction and
courage on behalf of Meriam.
Religious freedom is increasingly under attack around the
world today. According to Pew Research Center, as of 2012,
Christians continue to be harassed in more countries than those
of any other faith, Muslims not far behind.
Religious freedom is a fundamental inherent in
international human right. Yes, it is a core American ideal, an
ideal that we should defend at home and abroad. And a warning
should be sounded across America that an indifference to
religious persecution abroad can only lead to greater religious
intolerance here at home.
Now, the binding International Convention on Civil and
Political Rights, which there has been a reference to, ICCPR,
explicitly states,
``Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought,
conscience, and religion. This right shall include
freedom to have or to adopt a religion or a belief of
his choice and freedom, either individually or in
community with others in public or private, to manifest
his religion or belief in worship, observance,
practice, and teaching.''
And that is binding.
U.S. inaction overseas is all the more troubling when U.S.
citizens are involved as has been referenced, such as Daniel
Wani, Pastor Saeed Abedini detained in Iran, and Kenneth Bae in
North Korea.
And I want to point out the U.S. indifference to religious
hostility is not limited by political party. It was under the
George W. Bush administration's allowance of blasphemy laws
under the new Afghan constitution that almost led to the
execution of Abdul Rahman, a Muslim convert to Christianity,
who only escaped with the assistance of the U.N. when he was
offered asylum in Italy.
It is difficult to look at these facts and not understand
them in light of the current administration's unilateral
reinterpretation of religious freedom domestically. This
administration believes religious belief should be quarantined
to private spaces and excluded from the public space.
This truncated view of religious freedom domestically, more
accurately described as the freedom of worship, is matched by
the administration's failure to even address the growing
threats to religious freedom internationally. Indeed, U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry only commented on Meriam
Ibrahim's case after international outcry over her plight made
it impossible for them to remain silent.
Now, there is more reasons we should be involved and
concerned about religious freedom. There is a growing body of
research that points to nations that protect religious freedom
as nations that have freer economic markets, and, therefore,
greater economic stability and prosperity.
This religious intolerance, as evidenced in Sudan, must be
condemned in its own right, yet such intolerance is also
harmful because it stifles economic growth in countries that
need economic growth greatly. In turn, the lack of economic
growth fosters instability and a lack of security.
There is the why. What is the how? Religious freedom should
be a central priority in U.S. diplomatic and strategic
engagement worldwide in order to promote freedom for its own
sake as well as for reasons of global stability and security.
The U.S. and this committee must seriously consider making
human rights and religious freedom a central component of U.S.
international aid contributions. In short, promoting religious
freedom promotes societal well-being at home and abroad.
We must--in this particular case, the administration should
specifically work to ensure Meriam's children are immediately
granted U.S. citizenship as all of the proper documents have
been submitted and continue to provide Meriam and her family
physical protection while they are in Sudan. Their lives are at
risk. Provide Meriam and her family the proper medical care.
There are reports that the child, Maya, was injured at birth.
We need to make sure that they have the proper medical care.
And then we must pressure the Sudanese Government to ensure
that legal proceedings conclude quickly, as in yesterday.
And then, secondly, we must urge Congress to pass H. Res.
601, the Trent Franks resolution that condemns the treatment of
Meriam Ibrahim and pressures the administration to act in
accordance with the United States' responsibility to be a
strong advocate for religious freedom generally, and Meriam
specifically.
It was Meriam's courage that brought us here today. Now, it
is our turn to act with courage to bring Meriam and her family
to America.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perkins follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much, Mr. Perkins, for your
testimony.
Ambassador Rees?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GROVER JOSEPH REES (FORMER GENERAL
COUNSEL, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE)
Ambassador Rees. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking
Member, and members of the subcommittee, thank you so much for
the opportunity to testify at this timely and important
hearing, and I am very honored to be on a panel with these
extremely distinguished and dedicated witnesses. Thank you.
I have been asked to testify on a narrow question about the
citizenship of the two children. Whether the two children of
Meriam Ibrahim and Daniel Wani are United States citizens who
should be given appropriate documentation of their citizenship,
and who should be afforded such protection and assistance as
the Government of the United States typically gives its
citizens who are residing or visiting in other countries.
Now, United States citizenship law with respect to children
born overseas to a United States citizen is fairly
straightforward. Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act provides in pertinent part that when a child is born
outside the United States and its possessions to parents one of
whom is a United States citizen and the other of whom is a
foreign national, the child is a citizen at birth, provided
that the U.S. citizen parent has lived in the United States for
at least 5 years before the birth and that 2 of those years
were after the parent had reached the age of 14.
Looking at the facts of the case, which have been set forth
by other witnesses, and lining them up against the law, it
seems pretty clear that these two children are United States
citizens and should be certified as such. The two parents were
married at the time of both births. Mr. Wani is listed on the
birth certificate of Martin, the oldest child, as the father.
There is as yet, I understand, no birth certificate for Maya,
who was born while her mother was in prison. But there is no
reason to think that anyone else will be put as the--will be
listed as the father on that birth certificate.
It would seem that the application for a Certificate of
Citizenship or for a Report of Consular Birth Overseas should
have been granted, yet Mr. Wani says it wasn't. Importantly, by
the way, Section 309 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
sets forth some additional requirements for children born out
of wedlock. If the parents are not married at the time of the
birth, there has to be ``clear and convincing evidence'' of the
blood relationship between the child and the United States
citizen parent.
Importantly, that provision does not apply to children who
were born of a marriage of the parents. And yet Mr. Wani says
that he has been asked to provide a DNA test. So what it looks
like is that the State Department is applying the test--the
consular officer in question is applying the test that the
statute provides for out-of-wedlock births instead of the one
that is provided for children born in marriage.
Now, some supporters of Mrs. Ibrahim have said that this
must mean that our Government is applying Sharia law to the
case, because if the law is--if the marriage is not recognized
under Sudanese law, then they are not married, and he would
have to meet the test of blood relationship by clear and
convincing evidence, and perhaps a DNA test would be
appropriate.
I can't say that is not what the consular officer was
thinking. I don't know. But I think that unfortunately this may
be indicative of a broader attitude, a broader culture of
negativity and denial, that many of us who work in the
immigration and citizenship area have encountered not only in
this case, not only in cases involving Sudan or involving
Christians, but in cases across the board and around the world.
I am an alumnus of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, and I worked with many fine and conscientious people.
But we often had to confront this idea that our job was to turn
everybody down and then somebody would straighten it out later
on if we were wrong.
I later learned working with the--I used to say we either
needed to change our attitude or we needed to change the sign
on the door to say ``Anti-Immigration and Naturalization
Service.'' And I later learned working for the State Department
and working for this committee that that culture of denial is
even more robust, unfortunately, in the consular corps than in
the Immigration Service.
This doesn't happen because consular officers or
immigration officers are bad people. Most of them are fine and
decent and conscientious people. It happens partly because they
really do encounter fraud. They really do encounter frivolous
applications. And we all know the adage ``Once bitten, twice
shy.'' I think a corollary of that is that if you are bitten
four or five times you are probably shy the rest of your life.
Consular officers also work typically in--a lot of what
they do involves non-immigrant visas. And for non-immigrant
visas, tourist visas, visitor visas, the law says that you are
presumed to be an intending immigrant. That is, you are
presumed to be lying until you can prove to the satisfaction of
the officer that you really will return to your home country
according to the terms of your visa.
Now, the problem is that a lot of consular officers seem to
carry over that extreme skepticism which is required by law in
some cases to cases where the law doesn't require it, including
the provision of documentation and other consular services to
United States citizens.
Now, I want to suggest--in my written testimony, which I
hope will be accepted for the record, I have given some
specific language in the Foreign Affairs Manual that seems to
encourage consular officers in this attitude that somehow
citizenship is a benefit that they are conferring, and that
they have discretion, and that they ought to do the same kind
of investigation in a case involving a married couple, a child
of a married couple, as they would in an out-of-wedlock case
under the statute.
I do want to say that it is possible that the facts of the
case--there could be facts known to the consular officer that
would justify requiring further evidence, not just the fact
that the parents were married and that the father is on the
birth certificate. For instance, if Mr. Wani's passport showed
that he hadn't been in Sudan at any relevant time when the
child could have been conceived, then it would be reasonable to
ask for more evidence.
That is not what Mr. Wani said happened. He says that from
the very beginning when he approached the consular officer he
was told ``I don't have time.'' He said that the consular
officer was rude and high-handed.
If that happened, it was a violation of the law. When a
consular officer denies a visa to somebody who is eligible for
that visa, that might be bad policy. That might be a bad
decision. But that is within the discretion of the consular
officer. But citizenship is not a benefit. The consular officer
isn't making you a citizen by giving you the certificate. You
either are or you are not a citizen.
And if a consular officer denies the appropriate
documentation, appropriate assistance and protection, to a
United States citizen, he or she is not just making bad policy,
not just making a bad decision, he or she is violating the law.
I am happy to say that the State Department--that I am
proud of our Government, that in the last few weeks they seem
to be making amends. They seem to be providing Mrs. Ibrahim and
her family with the appropriate attention and care and are
really working to solve this case. It is nice to know that
first principles can sometimes trump institutional cultures and
institutional concerns. In this case, the principle is that we
Americans do not leave our own in harm's way.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Rees follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Ambassador Rees, thank you very much. And
without objection, the additional information you would like to
make a part of the record is so ordered.
Mr. Ismail.
STATEMENT OF MR. OMER ISMAIL, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, ENOUGH
PROJECT
Mr. Ismail. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass,
and honorable members. I am honored to be here to appear before
you to testify in this important case of Meriam Ibrahim, and I
kindly request that my testimony be included in the record.
My testimony is going to focus on showing that this is not
an isolated case. The case of Meriam Ibrahim is not an isolated
case. It is a pattern of behavior that the Government of Sudan
has demonstrated through the years.
Ten years ago yesterday, the United States Congress
determined that the violence that plagued the Darfur region of
Sudan is a genocide perpetrated by the country's own
government. The brutal Janjaweed militia that is recruited,
armed, and financed by the Government of Sudan rode through the
villages terrorizing civilians, raping women, burning homes and
markets, and destroying the livelihood of a great number of
communities.
That same tyrannical government is persecuting Meriam
Ibrahim and sentenced her to death by hanging because of her
religious convictions. The Government of Sudan is the main
perpetrator and culprit in the violence across Sudan that is
visited on millions of Sudanese who this government considers
enemies for no other reason than being different from the image
it sponsors. This government flaunts a brand of Islam and
promotes a racial identity that is exclusive and divisive and
met with widespread rejection and resistance among the majority
of the Sudanese people.
According to credible reports, Meriam Ibrahim was born to a
Muslim father and a Christian mother, and she chose to be
Christian. Meriam would not be considered a criminal in any
democratic society that respects human rights because she would
have the right to choose her religion and her life. The
Government of Sudan, however, not only ignores its citizens'
human rights, it disrespects its own constitution and the laws
drawn from it.
According to the Sudanese Interim National Constitute of
2005, and I quote, ``Every person shall have the right to the
freedom of religious creed and worship.'' In practice, the
Government of Sudan does anything but adhere to its own
contract with the Sudanese people.
Shortly after the secession of the South of the country
from the motherland became inevitable, President al-Bashir
declared in Al-Gadarif in eastern Sudan in 2010 that Sudan
would become a country ``with no racial or religious
diversity.'' Successive events that took place thereafter
proved that this statement was not a slip of the tongue but a
government policy that spares no one who opposes it.
The issue of racial diversity was dealt with by continuing
the raging war in the periphery that, in addition to Darfur,
witnessed unprecedented violence in the Nuba Mountains and
South Blue Nile in addition to callously questioning dissent in
the urban centers by killing students in cold blood and
committing widespread rape and torture.
The violence has led to hundreds of thousands of displaced,
in addition to refugees that have fled to the neighboring
countries, including the restive South Sudan. Food is used as a
weapon of war, and the fate of close to 1 million Muslims,
Christians, and practitioners of indigenous religions and other
faiths is in jeopardy.
The genocidal regime in Khartoum was not satisfied with the
social engineering that it ushered in to distort the ethnic
composition of the country, but it coupled that with a no less
lethal policy of religious intolerance. In April 2012, an old
church in the outskirts of Khartoum was burned down to the
ground by a mob of supporters of an Islamic cleric who is a
member of the government appointed Islamic Ulama Council.
In addition, many Sudanese Christians complain about
discrimination in getting jobs or in the workplace when they
are employed, in addition to a general atmosphere of
intimidation and intolerance. In academia, staunch
fundamentalists were appointed to the faculty of the
universities and devised syllabi to indoctrinate the students,
and they banned all opposing activities in the schools.
Furthermore, the State of Khartoum issued a decree banning
all building permits for new churches and Christian schools,
claiming that the capacity of the existing churches and schools
is more than enough to serve the Christian minority of 3
percent of the population. This figure was not supported by any
census or any credible statistics.
In the areas of the Nuba Mountains and the South Blue Nile,
mosques, as well as churches, and the limited number of
hospitals, are subject to indiscriminate bombing that is meant
to scare civilians and drive them into the horrors of
displacement. The government authorities and the security
apparatus are used to harass people of different faiths other
than Islam through intimidation and terror.
The case of Meriam Ibrahim has backfired by making citizens
more aware of the extent of the callous behavior that the
government is willing to carry out in order to achieve its
objective of remaining in power at any cost. Her case is also
serving as a wakeup call to all peace-loving nations that this
regime should be dealt with in a manner that will force it to
alter its behavior.
In conclusion, I respectfully ask this honorable
institution, which represents the American people, to support
the moderate Sudanese opposition that is working diligently for
the democratization and the respect for human rights. The
Sudanese Muslims and Christians and practitioners of other
faiths deserve to live in peace among themselves and with other
fellow human beings. History will look kindly at those who help
them live in dignity and with the most sacred value of all,
freedom.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ismail follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Mr. Ismail, thank you very much.
My understanding, Ambassador Rees, you will have to leave
at 4:00?
Ambassador Rees. My plane is running late, so I can leave a
little bit after that. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. That is great. Thank you. Let me just begin with
a couple of opening questions, and then yield to my colleagues.
First, as you said, Ambassador Rees, in your statement, in
a CNN interview dated May 30, an interview of Daniel Wani by
Nina Elbagir. This is Mr. Wani speaking in response to a
question, ``Sadly, it is not the U.S. Government. When the
problem began, the U.S. consul here had a very negative
position on this. She was very high-handed. She was very, very
rude. She said, and I quote, `I don't have the time.' ''
If you could perhaps elaborate on this culture of denial
that you mentioned earlier, because this has been a systemic
problem that I and you, when you served as staff director for
this committee and I have been in Congress now for 34 years,
all over the world we encounter this, and I will give you a few
examples.
Tony Perkins mentioned Saeed Abedini. Saeed Abedini's wife,
Nagmeh, was originally told, ``There is nothing we can do.''
Frank Wolf convened a hearing of the Lantos Commission and
passionately called on the State Department and Secretary
Kerry, and then they said that they will raise it, and
Secretary Kerry did issue a statement.
When Nagmeh came here, she was still bewildered by the lack
of engagement on the part of the U.S. Government on behalf of
this American being held by the Iranians. As we hold nuclear
talks, human rights fell off the page, if you will.
Chen Guangcheng, there were four hearings on Chen
Guangcheng, and he was given back to the Chinese secret police
under guard in a ``hospital'' where he could not leave, and
there was an unbelievably porous assurance that Chen Guangcheng
would be okay. That is what we were told.
Thankfully, he testified by way of a phone call and said,
``I want to come to America,'' and 6 hours later that
permission was granted. And we had more press here than I have
ever seen before and that helped his case.
I had a couple of my constituents stuck in Abkhazia as well
as in South Ossetia, so I went there. And I found out, to my
shock and dismay, that the Consul General had said that this
marriage, purported marriage, of an American who used to be a
guard at the White House, so he had to be vetted quite
effectively, and he was telling the truth, and this woman who
was of Georgian origin was bogus, and, therefore, the little
child who was in Abkhazia was stuck and literally was prostrate
as Russian tanks went through her town, and obviously everybody
was scared to death something might happen to her.
And then, finally, Jacob Ostreicher, we have had several
hearings on Jacob. He is finally out because of a private
extradition effort, or an effort to ferry him out of the
country by way of an automobile. At first we were told, and I
was told this directly by the Embassy and by top people in the
State Department, at his request I asked this question: If
Jacob goes to the Embassy, will he be welcomed? Because he felt
his life was in dire jeopardy. He even had for a while
Venezuelan guards, of all things, guarding him when he was in
the hospital. They said, ``We will put him out the door.''
I made that phone call myself and heard that and just said,
``Are you kidding?'' An American? I mean, we are supposed to be
the oasis. So, Mr. Ambassador, if you could speak to this
culture perhaps a little bit more, because I think there needs
to be a sea-change of attitude, which, again, the IRFA bill,
the religious freedom bill, was supposed to do about religious
freedom.
Part of that legislation had text in it about training
Foreign Service Officers to understand the importance and
centrality of religious freedom, and that trading has been very
slight all these years. So if you could answer that question, I
would appreciate it.
Ambassador Rees. Well, Mr. Chairman, there are at least
three things going on. One of them I have already spoken to,
which is that you do get fraudulent applications, you do get
frivolous applications. We are not supposed to grant those
applications. And perhaps there is a natural human tendency
when you have been snookered a couple of times to assume that
the snookering level is 99 percent instead of some lower
number, and that is just an occupational hazard of these kinds
of jobs.
A second--but we have all seen people in customer service
jobs, which is what this is, who frankly have outlived their
usefulness on those jobs and ought to go find other jobs. And
so I think we do need to try to inoculate people against that
tendency to deny good cases simply because some cases are
fraudulent. And that is particularly true where you are dealing
with people who may well be American citizens.
The second thing has to do with the institutional culture
of the State Department itself, broader than just consular
officers. The State Department is a foreign ministry. A foreign
ministry's main job is to deal with governments. With other
foreign ministries, with governments of other countries. And
these kinds of issues, these humanitarian issues, these human
rights issues, these refugee issues, they complicate what many
Foreign Service Officers see as their main job, which is to
improve the relationship between the United States and that
other government.
Now, I am not suggesting that they are simplistic or one
dimensional. Everybody knows that we have to pay attention to
those other issues. But I don't think that the natural reaction
of somebody who has to go deal with the foreign ministry in the
country that he is living in every day, when he hears about a
Meriam Ibrahim case, he is not going to say, ``Oh, boy, a
chance to strike a blow for human freedom.''
He might understand that is his duty. We hope he does. But
it is not something that makes the State Department's life
easier.
The third thing with these high profile cases where Members
of Congress involved is--as you know, I have seen it from both
sides. I worked in Congress, I worked in the State Department.
The executive branch in general, and the State Department in
particular, hate to be told what to do by Congress. And so
there is this faux integrity that gets built up, that we are
not going to be politically influenced, we are going to do what
we would have done anyway.
Now, I don't want to say that happens all the time, and I
do have to say, as I said in my testimony, that there are many
fine and decent and conscientious people in the State
Department, that many of them do the right thing even if it
hurts their career. But I do think that institutions have
institutional cultures, and that there are some of those
tendencies that we need to fight.
Mr. Smith. If you could answer that as well, but you
mentioned, Dr. Jasser, about no CPCs, the fact that they have
not been redesignated. And Robbie George, who was then the
chairman of USCIRF, and now Katrina Lantos Swett has taken over
that leadership as chairman, no CPCs have been named since
2011, which I think is a huge abrogation of duty on behalf of
the administration. Hopefully, they will do it soon and do it
robustly, including all of those countries that need to be so
named.
But I think if you could speak to whether or not that sends
a message to countries that are committing egregious violations
of religious freedom, when we don't even do the designations
anymore.
Dr. Jasser. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and that really was
the followup to Ambassador Rees' comments, is that, you know,
we started a program on prisoners of conscience, that various
members have adopted, if you will, various prisoners across the
spectrum in many different countries because these cases, like
Meriam Ibrahim, are emblematic of deeper problems typically,
not only in Sudan but in every one of these countries where
prisoners of freedom of conscience, of faith, belief, that are
in prison simply because of their belief are a sign typically
of more systematic, egregious, and ongoing violations of
religious freedom and human rights related to that.
So as a result, that is why you make the connection between
these prisoners. And when we defend them, when our President,
when our State Department, our Embassies defend these prisoners
and say that we want them released and freed, it then sends a
message that our freedoms that we defend at home, and our
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, actually means
something. And we have been concerned at the Commission that
there has been a stagnation, and there has been no designations
of CPCs since 2011.
The lists, while there is no disparity on Sudan, we have--
both the State Department and our commission agrees that they
are a CPC, they have not redesignated them since 2011, and we
hope that when their report comes out they follow that quickly
with a designation.
So it is important that when these designations are made it
sends the message that we believe that there is egregious and
ongoing violations, and, as a result, it carries with it the
sanctions that the law--the statute provides. And I think that
is how we translate the plight of people like the brave and
courageous people like Meriam Ibrahim that get translated into
a process and policy that means that, then, religious freedom
becomes the centerpiece.
And most studies have shown recently repeatedly that
countries that honor these principles then become more
successful economically and more secure and less threats of
terrorism and regionally become better actors in the world. So
this is why I think it is very important that this be
highlighted, and they have not do so. And we hope--their report
is supposed to be coming out this week. I think it has been
delayed again, and hopefully it will be followed by a
redesignation of Sudan and other countries.
Mr. Smith. I have some additional questions for Tony
Perkins and Mr. Ismail, and I will go back to that in the
second round. I would like to yield to Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to get a sense from the panel how widespread they
think apostasy is in countries, one, where we are in conflict
with, but also in countries where we are allied. And if you
could respond to that, any of the panelists, I am not sure
which one of you might know.
Dr. Jasser. Thank you, Ranking Member Bass. You know, the
issue of the implementation, as our report on Sudan talks
about, typically what happens with countries that enact more
draconian forms of Sharia law, apostasy violations become a
central part of that as we saw in Afghanistan and in Pakistan
and in other countries in which the restriction upon the
implementation of religious freedom is based upon one of the
red flags for the government being that if somebody leaves his
or her faith, and apostasy being one of those, but typically it
is not isolated.
We see the cries of apostasy, if you look at Raef Badawi in
Saudi Arabia, he is a Muslim who reports being a Muslim and yet
he is in jail on a crime of apostasy because the version of
Islam that he defended was not one in line with the Saudi
Government. So typically where you see governments like Saudi
Arabia or Iran or Sudan that implement draconian, more
restrictive forms of Sharia, apostasy is often one of the
centerpieces, but linked to apostasy, then, are blasphemy laws
that the government controls free speech with and then crimes
against especially women, controlling their ability for dress
and expression and property. All of that follows the whole
implementation of Sharia if you will.
Ms. Bass. So do any of the panelists know exactly what her
situation is right now? I mean, I realize she is still
incarcerated, but the Embassy says that there is supposed to be
a hearing, it is supposed to be an expedited process. Now, I
heard that a few weeks ago. Obviously, it is not that much
expedited, but I wanted to know if any of you had information
on her exact status now.
Mr. Perkins. The information is not completely reliable. As
the press reports one thing, Sudanese officials say something
else, and we often find the two are in conflict. But she is in
a safe house overseen by----
Ms. Bass. Is she under house arrest, is that what it is?
Mr. Perkins. She is not under house arrest. She is actually
under the watch care of the U.S. Embassy.
Ms. Bass. Oh.
Mr. Perkins. And so she has been released from
incarceration. When she was seeking to leave the country----
Ms. Bass. Right.
Mr. Perkins [continuing]. And detain, she was detained for
a few days in the police station, then released. They had a
bond and she was released, and she has been released to the
custody of the oversight of U.S. officials. So she is safe at
present, as long as she stays where she is. If she moves off of
the property where she is currently residing, there is concern
for her safety.
Ms. Bass. Why can't she leave the country? I mean----
Mr. Perkins. They have not issued her documents in order
for her to leave.
Ms. Bass. Her Sudanese passport?
Mr. Perkins. Correct.
Ms. Bass. Was it correct that she was detained because she
had a South Sudanese passport?
Mr. Perkins. That is correct information based--that is
correct based on the information we have.
Ms. Bass. And do we know where she got that from, why she--
--
Mr. Perkins. From the South Sudanese Embassy.
Ms. Bass. You look like you want to respond. Mr. Rees looks
like he wants to say something.
Ambassador Rees. Well, I don't--I am not sure it was a
passport. My reading of--I am just reading the same news
reports everyone else is. My reading is it was probably a
travel document issued by the Government of South Sudan,
because Mr. Wani, who is an American citizen, has dual
citizenship----
Ms. Bass. I see.
Ambassador Rees [continuing]. With South Sudan. And we, the
United States, issue travel documents to people who are not
citizens. We issue them, for instance, to lawful permanent
residents, and it was probably a document like that.
Ms. Bass. So at this point, what do you think--again, any
of the panelists--what do you think that we could do to be
concrete and helpful in this situation now, as it stands now? I
am not talking about the broader picture but just in terms of
her and getting her out of the country. Mr. Ismail?
Mr. Ismail. Thank you, Madam Ranking Member. I think the
pressure should continue on the Government of Sudan to release
her, because being there is not serving the purpose of anybody.
And uniting with her family in the place that she wants to
travel to is a right of all Sudanese people, and she should
exercise that right. And she should be given what is called an
exit visa out of Sudan, and she is free to go to the
destination of her choice.
I think without that pressure her situation is going to be
in jeopardy, and we don't know, because the Government of Sudan
also is under pressure from some of the fundamentalist
constituencies. And I would say they brought it on themselves,
because it would have been one of the many, many, many cases
that our normal everyday people go to court, but they made a
political issue out of it.
And now it backfires and the fundamentalist constituency of
the government is pushing them, and they are saying, ``You
shouldn't release this woman because this is a clear case of
apostasy and we want to prosecute her.'' The government, I
don't think they are interested, but also I believe there are
some elements inside the government, because the government is
now really not in control of everything. I believe there are
some elements inside the government want to get some mileage
out of this. At the end of the day, ``Here, the United States,
we release this person to you. What is in it for us?'' And so
it becomes, you know, kind of a quid pro quo of some sort.
So that is also a possibility, but I think it is not
serving the larger purpose of the bad rap that the government
has got----
Ms. Bass. Thank you.
Mr. Ismail [continuing]. As a result of this case.
Ms. Bass. Thank you very much.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the ranking member. I thank each of
you. I am going to follow up with a few questions and would
like for you to comment on this. Many people, at times, think
that the voice to free people like Meriam and her family is
just silent; they are just a few people, it is a few activists
here or there. Mr. Perkins, would you say that--could you
comment on just what you are hearing from either your listeners
or people that are contacting you from the American people? Can
you give us a sense of what you are hearing?
Mr. Perkins. Congressman Meadows, I think the--what we have
actually seen internationally from Great Britain and how this
was really a front page story, and leading to the Prime
Minister making statements on it, is more reflective, really,
of where the American public is on this issue as we have seen
hundreds of thousands, there was a White House petition that
garnered over 50,000 people that signed that in a very short
window of time, that are concerned about this.
I think people recognize that there is a correlation
between religious persecution abroad and the growing religious
intolerance here at home. And I also think that people realize
that there was a time when it meant something to be an
American, that when you were in--you found yourself in trouble
someplace in the world, that you were not alone.
Unfortunately, what we are seeing increasingly is that if
you are an American on foreign soil, and you are held captive,
you are alone. And I think that scares people. They want to
return to where it meant something to be an American, and that
is why I believe people are responding to this and saying
Congress should do something. I know Members of Congress have
received lots of phone calls on this, and I know Congress is
doing what they can.
I express my public appreciation to you for the work that
you have done on this particular case, but it is a broader
symptom of a greater problem with our country here today and
our defense of religious freedom.
Mr. Meadows. So, Mr. Ambassador, your comment earlier that
the State Department does not want to have Congress telling
them what to do, how can we encourage them? You know, they
don't express that when they come before this committee for
authorization or the Appropriations Committee for their budget,
so I am shocked to hear this kind of information. But what can
we do to work hand in glove with the State Department? They
have a difficult job, obviously.
Ambassador Rees. Well, I think that recognizing a tendency,
recognizing an institutional tendency, doesn't mean that you
have to assume that forever after everybody who works for that
other institution is your enemy. There are many people in the
State Department who would be very sympathetic on this
particular case, for instance.
I think there is one phrase that I remember. I have never
heard it before or since, but I must have heard it 20, 30 times
when I was working as a staff member for this committee some
years ago, and we would be in negotiations with the State
Department, and they would complain that something on human
rights or on refugees that went into a little too much detail,
they would say, ``We know how to handle these cases. We don't
have to be taught how to suck eggs.'' That was the favorite
expression.
So I think that--and it always made me wonder, why would
anybody want to learn how to suck eggs? But I think that you
need to reach out, as I know the committee has, to the State
Department on these issues and say, ``How can we help?'' But
making clear that help includes an active role in the process,
an active concern for the outcome.
And you are right, there are many times when the State
Department is very anxious for Congress to get involved, but of
course we used to do the State Department authorization bill
every 2 years, and the State Department's idea of a great
authorization bill was, ``Here is $13 billion. Be good.''
Whereas, many Members of Congress wanted paragraph after
paragraph after paragraph about what to do in Haiti and about
what to do in Sudan, what to do in Burma, and you need to reach
a mean between those extremes.
Mr. Meadows. So, Dr. Jasser, let me come to you. There are
those within the Muslim countries who say that all we are
trying to do is export our Christian faith. And yet I know in
the case of Sudan that is really not what this is about. My
mother went there 51 years ago, I believe, on a medical
mission. I have friends who served in the Peace Corps, very
dear friends who served in Khartoum in the Peace Corps. For
many years, my family and my kids have sent money to provide
for relief for Sudan, Sudanese people that were in harm's way.
How do we do a good job of elevating religious freedom and
liberty without it being one dimensional? Because, really, when
we look at religious liberty, it is across all faiths, and yet
sometimes we put a priority on one faith or another in terms of
what we will or will not tolerate. So how do we do that? How do
we communicate that to a predominantly Muslim world in North
Africa and the Middle East?
Dr. Jasser. Well, you know, I think, Mr. Meadows, that is
really a wonderful question, and I think that the wisdom of the
IRFA is that it is about religious liberty for all the citizens
in the countries that we review and decide their CPC status on.
And if you look at the citizens, for every--as much as often,
the religious freedom limitations for minorities can be a
touchpoint of the conversation.
One of the things our commission always talks about is the
fact that within the majority there are those in those
countries, Sunnis, for example, I, as a Sunni Muslim, know that
those who have a minority viewpoint within a majority
population are also as persecuted, if not more, than the
minorities.
And I think I would ask anyone, through not only the work
of our commission but also the implementation of the IRFA
abroad, in countries to see that it is not specifically related
to Christian minorities, but really related to any prisoners of
conscience who have wanted to express their particular practice
of faith differently and have been arrested for it or have
suffered because of those expressions.
And I think that is really what we have been expressing. It
has not been about advancing or protecting Christianity. I know
that as a Muslim. But it has been about advancing and
protecting liberty, and that is when those countries are more
secure.
There is no wisdom in believing that protecting only
minorities protects a country's security. It is about
protecting freedom for all of its citizens, and that is the
wisdom of the International Religious Freedom Act. And we hope,
you know, that an Ambassador is named soon for religious
freedom who can begin to advance these ideas. That spot has
been vacant for some time, and I think this would allow the
world to see that America is not just about protecting our own
rights but protecting every citizen and their right to the free
practice of faith or no faith.
Mr. Meadows. Right. Mr. Perkins, you made a comment in your
opening statements where you said that we are here because
someone that was 27 years of age had the courage to stand up
for her faith. That cut deep to my heart, because in a similar
situation, knowing that my kids were in a prison, knowing that
a simple word would release them, I don't know that I would
have had as much courage, and so it was very convicting.
I think the other part of that, though, is if a voice of a
27-year-old woman, mother, that I have never met, I have only
seen pictures, can cause us to come together and cause us to
start to understand that religious freedom is not only
paramount, but it is foundational for who we are as a nation,
what would you say to the millions and millions of Americans
that are out there that many times allow us each and every day
to make small concessions?
Each and every day we sometimes look the other way, when
something is said, something is done. We say, ``Well, that is
just the way things are.'' But yet they continue to get worse
if we are not willing to stand up as this brave young mother
has so eloquently articulated. What would you say to them? What
do we need to do as a nation?
Mr. Perkins. Well, Congressman Meadows, I think just
looking at this table is a reflection that is unique to America
and our understanding of religious freedom. To my right, a
Muslim; to my left, a Muslim and a Catholic, Protestant,
Evangelical; and we are here for the same reason. We are here
not in conflict, but we are here in concert. We are not here
working against one another, but we are working together for
someone that none of us have ever met, as you pointed out.
It is a principle. It is a foundational principle through
which I would say, as former late Harvard professor Samuel
Huntington pointed out, that America became an economic
powerhouse in part because of its religious ethic. That
provided for the ability for us to be successful as a nation.
So that silence on behalf of whether it is Meriam and that
growing persecution abroad--I mean, as we see what is happening
in Iraq, as it is becoming an Islamic state and Christians are
being told that either they leave, convert to Islam, or they
pay an impoverishing tax, or they die, that should be a concern
for us as Americans. In fact, in our historical record, it has
been a concern, because this indifference abroad will lead to
greater religious hostility at home, which ultimately affects
the well-being and the prosperity of our society as a whole.
So I believe we must advocate for individuals like Meriam.
As has been pointed out, there are many more like her, but this
is one we know about. This is one we cannot escape. We have no
excuse not to help this mother and her family.
Mr. Meadows. Well, I want to thank you and your work as the
American people have reached out. You have been daily, hourly,
minute by minute, advocating on behalf of Meriam and religious
freedom, and I want to thank you personally, but also on behalf
of our Nation, for speaking up for someone who does not have a
voice, because the silence that so often is deafening cannot be
something that we tolerate. So I want to thank you.
Mr. Ismail, let me come to you. You said something earlier
that said that your belief is the Sudanese Government is
wanting something from this. You know, what basis--why would
you say that? So you are saying that it is--the release would
be predicated on Congress giving them something?
Mr. Ismail. It is just speculation on my side, that some of
the elements inside the government might see this as an
opportunity to gain something from the United States. This
government is desperate to get recognition, especially from the
United States, because this is the country that has all kinds
of sanctions against it. This is the country that designated
this government to be a sponsor of terrorism.
This is the country that is not supporting international
law in the sense that President al-Bashir has been indicted by
the International Criminal Court, and so on and so forth. So,
and this is the country where we have a testimony like this
from all these wonderful people who are trying to support this
woman in need.
And in this support, I don't see the support to Meriam
Ibrahim only. There are 1 million Meriam Ibrahims in Sudan that
are Christians, that are Muslims, that are practitioners of
other faiths, that were persecuted daily. The women that were
sentenced to 40 lashes or 50 lashes because they are wearing
pants, the women that were without any kind of respect, the
decency of human beings, were considered indecent in public,
and they were faced with all kinds of threats and harassment.
This is a case where the Government of Sudan is trying to
see if they can--or at least some elements there, to see that,
well, if we do this, what is in it for us? We have seen from
Naivasha and even before that when the negotiations for the
peace agreement, the negotiations to the secession of South
Sudan, this government is always demanding something.
They create obstacles, so that when they come and they
release these obstacles, somebody will say, ``Oh, they did
this, they are good, so let us reward them.'' And they do just
enough to get this monkey off their back--that is called the
international community--and they are not sincere in going the
extra mile to make sure that they do this in good faith.
Every single step that they have done, be it negotiation
with the rebels, be it through, you know, letting the South go
as they boast, it wasn't because of them. It is because of the
will of the people of South Sudan that they seceded that
country.
So the government is willing to do everything, including
incarcerating people or detaining them by force, or put them in
house arrest, so that they can get something out of this.
Mr. Meadows. Well, let me comment on that, because I--we
met with some of the Sudanese officials here in Washington, DC,
as I know Mr. Perkins has, and I think any relationship has to
be built on mutual trust and respect. But negotiating for
Meriam's release, with financial or other concessions, is not
something that is on the table. I think we have made that very
clear.
But I am hopeful that if there is a new day in Sudan, that
this can be the start. And it may be very embryonic, but it
could be the start of perhaps a new relationship where
religious freedoms are not only held up, but a relationship
that is, to both countries, mutual benefit. But to negotiate
because there is a woman in prison or being held, or thousands
of others, for small, incremental changes, is not what this is
about.
And so, Mr. Ambassador, I want to come back to you before
your plane. You know, this is the only time I have ever heard
of applauding a delayed plane, but I thank you for bearing with
us. You said that the State Department likes for us to say,
``Okay. Here is $13 billion; go do with it what you will and do
a good job.''
How can we encourage them that addressing situations like
Meriam will foster more of an open, non-earmarked, non-
directive way in terms of finances going forward? Because if
they are truly standing up for the Meriams or the Saeed
Abedini's or whomever it may be, I am more willing to look at
it and say, ``Well, we don't have to put parameters.'' How do
we do a better job of working with the State Department where
they can see the will of the American people?
Ambassador Rees. Well, it is a very big conversation, and
it is a conversation that has been going on for a long time. I
remember Senator Helms when he was chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee used to say they needed an America desk at
the State Department. And Secretary Albright responded by
saying, ``The America desk is me.'' And so--and I believe that
you need to keep on doing what you are doing. You need to keep
on having hearings like this.
I assume the State Department was invited to this hearing.
Maybe if you have another one they will come and have something
to say at the appropriate time. I think you need to--I think it
is okay for Congress to legislate on foreign affairs matters.
There are some in the executive branch who think that is
unconstitutional. I don't think it is unconstitutional.
And I think that the executive branch's job is to execute,
Congress' job is to make policy. The International Religious
Freedom Act, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, these are
examples of cases where--the State Department resisted both of
those bills. And it wasn't that they said they didn't agree
with the objectives. They did agree with the objectives, but
they didn't think they needed a legal framework in which to
operate.
Trafficking at least, once it became law, the Department
has taken that issue to its bosom. They really do the job. They
really do the reports well. International religious freedom, I
think sometimes they do well, but it has taken them a little
more time to get used to that idea. But you change the
legislative landscape, gradually people will begin to get used
to it, and sometimes even to like it.
Mr. Meadows. Well, I am going to yield to my good friend
and the chairman of the subcommittee, and I am going to yield
not only the mike but his chair back to him.
Mr. Smith. No, no. Stay put. Stay put. Stay put. Thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your advocacy,
because it has been extraordinary. I want the record to show
that Mark Meadows has been absolutely relentless in pushing all
of us--didn't take much push for a few of us, but certainly
made it very clear that this was one of the highest, if not the
highest priority. So I want to thank him for his leadership.
I want to thank our distinguished witnesses again for your
testimonies, which were very comprehensive and I think
extraordinarily incisive. You know, human rights usually is
demoted in U.S. foreign policy. That has been my experience. I
have probably chaired some 500 hearings over the years on human
rights, and it has never ceased to amaze me how when it talked
about it is usually page 4, if it is there, in terms of our
priorities, somewhere at the bottom of page 4. And that is not
the way it ought to be.
Recently, we had a hearing on North Korea, and our former
Special Envoy to Sudan, who is also co-chair of a North Korean
human rights organization, said that when the Six-Party Talks
were still underway, he and so many others, including me, tried
to make human rights a part of that, and it was excluded. So
when those talks imploded and nothing happened on the nuclear
issue, we got even less when it came to human rights.
Same goes with Iran. We have asked Secretary Kerry
repeatedly to include human rights, and he has not done so. It
is only the nuclear issue, and that is not going very well
either.
If you could perhaps speak to the minimalist effort that I
believe has been expended. I mean, the President, if he has
time for golf and time for all of the other things that he
engages in that would be called recreational, he should pick up
the phone and call some top leadership. Maybe he wouldn't want
to talk to al-Bashir. He is an indicted war criminal, and I met
with him in the year 2005 with Greg Simpkins, and we had more
of an argument than a conversation. But pick up the phone and
say, ``We want these Americans to come back.'' That is not a
heavy lift. And the same goes to Secretary Kerry and others, to
be in contact with them.
What is your thought on that? It seems to me that they
measure the prioritization of administration by how up the
chain of command they are admonished and even demanded of. What
is your thoughts on that? Dr. Jasser?
Dr. Jasser. Thank you, Chairman Smith. You know, I think
from the perspective of a commission focused on religious
liberty, one of the reasons for our existence is that we hope
to push the needle to emphasize the importance that the focus--
the current focus, regardless of what the motivation is--and I
can't speak for how the State Department chooses its
priorities, but, you know, if you look at the situation in
Sudan, the violence that they have tried to address, which has
been the centerpiece of their current focus, is trying to
address the violence in places within the states of Southern
Kordofan, Blue Nile, et cetera. It has failed. We have not done
anything to address that. Why? Because one of the primary, if
not the primary, reason for that violence is the use of
religious repression and institutionalized mechanisms through
Sharia law and other ways that have prevented religious
freedom.
And if that became--if religious liberty became a focus, we
may then start to make some headways in an embryonic fashion
with various cases like Meriam's and others that would begin to
show that we are not only looking to stop the symptom, which is
violence, but the causes, which is the lack of religious
freedom and whatever tools, whether it be, you know, draconian
Sharia law or places like North Korea that are just repressive
prisons of governments, the bottom line is that the prevention
of religious freedom, as we know in our history, is the first
freedom for a reason.
And, you know, I think that ultimately that needs to become
a centerpiece of American foreign policy, and we think it will
then change and move the needle to decrease violence. And as we
have seen, as Mr. Perkins mentioned earlier, across the world
from Iraq with ISIS and other places, it is not a coincidence
that religiously violent organizations are beginning to fill
this vacuum. And that vacuum needs to be filled with something
else, and it can only be filled with the idea of religious
liberty, I believe, as a step toward a solution.
Mr. Perkins. Mr. Chairman, I think the State Department has
been busy aggressively pursuing its values and human rights
priorities, which have not included religious liberty. They
have been exerting pressure upon foreign governments to abide
by their values and their views, which are in large part
inconsistent with the majority of Americans. And I think
because of that, when we are talking about pushing the LGBT
agenda on foreign governments and making that a priority at the
State Department, religious liberty has suffered as a result.
That has been a higher priority for this administration
rather than a foundational principle upon which this nation is
rooted in, and, as we have talked about, the economic success
of other nations have benefitted from. So I think what we are
creating by our negligence is greater world instability.
Now, to verify that, all you have to do is pick up the
newspaper, and the world is imploding. And what is this
administration doing? Scant, little, when it comes to these
core value issues that guarantee the freedom and protection of
not just American citizens, but the value of human life in
general and this fundamental principle of religious liberty. I
think the administration is very busy, but not about the
people's business.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Ambassador Rees?
Ambassador Rees. I do want to put in a good word for some
of the people who work on these issues in our Government,
including in the State Department. I said earlier that I think
it took a while for the bureaucracy, if you will, to warm to
this issue the way they did to trafficking. Trafficking, very
early after the passage of the Act, which the State Department
opposed, they decided to implement it, and they implemented it
vigorously.
The International Religious Freedom Act, you could tell the
first few years they weren't very vigorous. And when I was in
the State Department, I mean, a week didn't go by that we
didn't get a memo telling us to do something, a cable telling
us to do something about trafficking. We didn't get those about
religious freedom nearly as often.
I meet with State Department officials. I do a lot of work
on Southeast Asia, and I meet with--both with the regional
bureau and with the human rights bureau, the DRL (Democracy,
Human Rights, and Labor), and with some other bureaus. And in
recent years I have sensed that the people in DRL at least
really do take these issues seriously, and they really do know
more about chapter and verse of what is happening to Montagnard
Protestants in Vietnam, and what is happening to Hoa Hao
Buddhists in Vietnam, than they did a few years ago.
And so I think the legislation is working. The work that
you are doing, that Congress is doing, to highlight these
issues, the work that the Commission is doing--I don't know if
the Commission has had the same experience, but I think there
was real hostility to the Commission a few years ago within the
Department.
I think there are still people in the regional bureaus in
particular who, as I said earlier, see their job as having a
good relationship with these other governments. And we all hear
about knock-down, drag-out battles within the Department where
the Democracy Bureau, the Ambassador for Religious Freedom, may
recommend that a certain country be a CPC, and the Embassy in
that country, the U.S. Embassy in that country and the regional
bureau come back with everything they have got and they manage
to defeat that. But that happens in trafficking as well. That
is just one of the realities of working in institutions is that
they are not monolithic.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Ismail?
Mr. Ismail. Thank you, Chairman Smith. In my view, humbly I
would say freedom is indivisible. And the people of Sudan, they
don't have freedom, period. There is no freedom of speech.
There is no freedom of assembly. There is no freedom to choose
your religion. There is no freedom to choose anything.
What we want in Sudan is that the rest of the world,
including or spearheaded by the United States, helping us gain
the freedom of the people of Sudan. Freedom, as it is,
indivisible. Freedom in everything. That is not available
today. What we need to do with this government, this honorable
institution, is to push the Government of Sudan to change or
else.
We have to say in the loudest voice that this government
needs to open up. We need more democratization in Sudan. We
need to give the freedom of the people of Sudan to choose their
government, to choose whoever they want to represent them, to
choose their religion, and to have absolute choice on
everything.
Without that, we are going--maybe pushing just for
religious freedom or maybe for freedom of speech, and the other
freedoms will be curtailed, and we have a freedom that is not
complete. I think the people of Sudan deserve better. They
deserve to live like the rest of people in the world, with
dignity and with respect to their rights.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Ismail, just ask you a question. It would
seem to me that in any dictatorship or authoritarian government
there is always people, even within the government, who could
be called reformers. Very often, they stay quiet for obvious
reasons. We saw it after Tiananmen Square. There were a number
of people, including in the People's Daily, who showed
themselves. They thought things were changing, and
unfortunately, when things didn't, they found themselves in
prison or in the Laogai as a direct result.
I believe there is at least some tug of war going on in
Khartoum between some people who would like reform and those
who do not. My hope is that if we start putting clear lines of
demarcation, and the international community, and especially
the U.S. Government, ratchets up significantly the importance--
when I met with President al-Bashir, he spent most of his time
talking about lifting the sanctions.
And I said, ``That is not hard to do. There are
conditionalities attached which have everything to do with
respecting fundamental human rights and protecting the value
and the dignity of life. And those sanctions are a goner when
that happens.''
We need to ratchet up, I think. And I think, Mr. Perkins,
your point about other issues becoming prioritized, frankly, I
have been shocked and dismayed by how many Ambassadors and
foreign leaders have told me to my face that the LGBT agenda is
what trumps everything in the U.S. foreign policy. So religious
freedom, in a way, is seen as an impediment to the advancement
of that.
And even the former head of the UNFPA, Dr. Sadik, when it
came to the abortion issue, said that the last remaining
barrier to promoting the culture of death worldwide was
churches and synagogues and mosques, who believe in the
sanctity of human life, including unborn children.
So there is a tension, I think, within the State
Department. I know that DRL has pushed that issue to the
exclusion of most everything else. And Secretary Clinton's
statement to the Human Rights Council a couple of years ago
couldn't be more clear, that that was the priority, to the
exclusion, I believe, of most everything else.
So it is a very, very important issue, because now we are
seeing how it demonstrates on the ground when a woman of faith
is neglected, at least for several months, and I would say
mistreated, as well as her children and her husband. You know,
as I think Ambassador Rees said recently, they are doing things
that we all can be proud of, but at first there was--and why
did that--why did it take an outcry by Members of Congress,
Members of the U.S. Senate, religious freedom NGOs, and others,
to bring a focus upon this? It seems wrong to me that it takes
that kind of pressure just to do the right thing.
So if you wanted to speak to any of that, and then I think
you have some concluding remarks as well.
Mr. Meadows. Well, I want to thank the chairman for his
words. They have actually called votes. We have got just a few
minutes left, and I want to--this is defining day. It is a
defining day for America. Are we willing to stand up and say
enough is enough? And I thank each of you for being here today
to take time from your busy schedule.
But it is also a defining day for Sudan. They have a choice
to make. Either to make a decision that will hopefully provide
a foundation for moving forward or to make another decision
that could cause irreparable harm to the relationship going
forward.
And so with that, we pray for Meriam's safe arrival in the
United States, and I thank each of you, and we will adjourn.
[Whereupon, at 4:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]