[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROTECTING INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 18, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-152
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
91-569 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 OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania JACKIE SPEIER, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT,
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Pennsylvania
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
DOC HASTINGS, Washington ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
ROB WOODALL, Georgia TONY CARDENAS, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina Vacancy
KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Stephen Castor, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on National Security
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts,
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee Ranking Minority Member
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina JACKIE SPEIER, California
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming PETER WELCH, Vermont
ROB WOODALL, Georgia MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 18, 2014............................... 1
WITNESSES
Ms. Katrina Lantos Swett, Ph.D., Chair, U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom
Oral Statement............................................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 7
Mr. Thomas F. Farr, Ph.D., Director, Religious Freedom Project,
Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs,
Georgetown University
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Written Statement............................................ 29
Mr. Robert T. Smith, Managing Director and Regional Advisor for
the United States, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young
University
Oral Statement............................................... 36
Written Statement............................................ 38
Mr. Emmanuel Ogebe, Special Counsel, Justice for Jos Project,
Jubilee Campaign
Oral Statement............................................... 52
Written Statement............................................ 54
Mr. Tad Stahnke, Vice President, Research and Analysis, Human
Rights First
Oral Statement............................................... 70
Written Statement............................................ 73
Ms. Sarah Sewall, Under Secretary for Civilian Security,
Democracy, and Human Rights, U.S. Dept of State
Oral Statement............................................... 96
Written Statement............................................ 100
PROTECTING INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
----------
Thursday, September 18, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Security,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:20 p.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Mica, Gowdy, Woodall,
Bentivolio, Tierney, Maloney, and Kelly.
Staff Present: Brian Beattie, Professional Staff Member;
Melissa Beaumont, Assistant Clerk; Molly Boyl, Deputy General
Counsel and Parliamentarian; John Cuaderas, Deputy Staff
Director; Linda Good, Chief Clerk; Caroline Ingram, Counsel;
Jim Lewis, Senior Policy Advisor; Mark D. Marin, Deputy Staff
Director for Oversight; Ashok M. Pinto, Chief Counsel,
Investigations; Laura L. Rush, Deputy Chief Clerk; Andrew
Shult, Deputy Digital Director; Jaron Bourke, Minority
Administrative Director; Courtney Cochran, Minority Press
Secretary; Valerie Shen, Minority Counsel; Katie Teleky,
Minority Staff Assistant; Peter Kenny, Minority Counsel.
Mr. Chaffetz. Committee will come to order.
I'd like to begin this hearing by stating the Oversight
Committee mission statement.
We exist to secure two fundamental principles, first,
Americans have a right to know that the money Washington takes
from them is well spent; and, second, Americans deserve
efficient, effective government that works for them.
Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee
is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to
hold government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have
a right to know what they get from their government.
We will work tirelessly in partnership with citizen
watchdogs to deliver the facts to the American people and bring
genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. This is the mission
of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
I want to thank everybody for attending today and
particularly our witnesses that we're about to hear from.
The title of the hearing is ``Protecting International
Religious Freedom.'' I want to welcome Ranking Member Tierney
and members of the subcommittee and those of you that are here
in the audience.
Religious freedom, often referred to as the first freedom,
is a fundamental human right. It is enshrined in the First
Amendment of our Constitution. It is a right essential to our
human existence and one that all mankind deserves.
It is also a well-established tenet of international law,
including both the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, an
international treaty ratified by 156 nations, including the
United States of America.
Religious freedom has long been neglected as part of the
U.S. human rights agenda. Congress passed the International
Religious Freedom Act, creating new bureaucracies and policy
tools to ensure religious freedom became a core objective of
U.S. foreign policy.
Now, regrettably, nearly 16 years after its passage,
Congress's intent in passing the International Religious
Freedom Act is being thwarted by mandates within the act that
are also being ignored.
A few months after the hearing we held last June on this
topic, the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious
Freedom at the State Department resigned. Unfortunately, that
position has remained vacant for nearly a year.
But just recently the President nominated Rabbi David
Saperstein to serve as the next Ambassador-at-Large for
International Religious Freedom. This is a step in the right
direction. We hope that the United States Senate will confirm
this person sooner rather than later. Once confirmed by the
Senate, however, he must be given all the necessary tools and
resources to succeed.
A study released earlier this year by the Pew Research
Center found that 76 percent of the world's population lives in
countries with high or very high levels of restriction on
religion. Even more troubling, the number of countries with a
high or very high level of social hostilities involving
religion reached a 6-year peak in 2012, with hostilities
increasing in almost all major regions of the world aside from
the Americas.
Just last month in Nigeria, Boko Haram militants overran
the church compound and the rectory of the St. Denis Parish.
Militants are now using the former church compound as a base.
Shortly before these events, Boko Haram carried out a
series of bombings in the home of the predominantly Christian
community. Their gunmen used IEDs and petrol bombs to destroy
five churches.
Sadly, events such as these have become all too common.
Never has the time been clearer for the need to strengthen
America's religious freedom policy.
I am hard-pressed to name any countries where the United
States engagement on international religious freedom has made a
measurable impact to lessen the persecution of religious
minorities.
Given U.S. national security interests in combating
religious extremism and fostering stable democratic
institutions, the importance of promoting religious freedom is
clear. The administration's pattern of marginalizing
international religious freedom must end. We can certainly do
better.
It is my hope that our discussions here today will
highlight the areas where improvement is necessary while
offering recommendations as we move forward to ensure that
international religious freedom is at the forefront of American
foreign policy.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses,
but we are now going to hear from the ranking member and a
friend who is also celebrating his birthday today. So I know we
all join in wishing him a happy, happy birthday.
I recognize the ranking member, the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you for your best wishes as well. It is the anniversary of my
39th birthday, which I continually have over and over and over
again. So--and as a gift to all of you, I am going to waive the
oral presentation on my remarks and ask unanimous consent to
enter my remarks upon the record.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chaffetz. All members will have 7 days to submit
opening statements for the record.
And we will now recognize our panel.
Dr. Katrina Lantos Swett is the chair of the United States
Commission on International Religious Freedom and President and
CEO of the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights.
Dr. Thomas F. Farr is the director of the Religious Freedom
Project and the program on Religion and U.S. Foreign Policy at
Georgetown's Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World
Affairs.
Mr. Robert Smith is the managing director and regional
advisor for the United States at the International Center for
Law and Religious Studies at the J. Reuben Clark Law School at
Brigham Young University.
BYU happens to be my alma mater. Glad to have you here,
sir.
And Mr. Emmanuel Ogebe--did I pronounce that properly? He
said close enough. My apologies--is special counsel to the
Justice for Jos Project at the Jubilee Campaign.
Appreciate you being here.
And Mr. Tad Stahnke is the vice president for Research and
Analysis at Human Rights First.
We thank you all for being here and appreciate it. And
consistent with committee practices and rules, all witnesses
will be sworn before they testify.
So if you would please rise and raise your right hands.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. You may be seated.
Let the record reflect that the witnesses all answered in
the affirmative.
In order to allow time for discussion, we would appreciate
it if you would limit your verbal comments to 5 minutes. A full
statement and additional comments, we would be happy to enter
those into the record.
But now we will recognize Dr. Lantos Swett for 5 minutes.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF KATRINA LANTOS SWETT, PH.D.
Ms. Lantos Swett. Thank you, Congressman Chaffetz.
And, of course, it is a pleasure to be with you as well,
Congressman Tierney. More from my neck of the woods, New
Hampshire, and someone who served with both my father and my
husband in this body. So it is lovely to see you.
And I do request that my written statement be submitted for
the record.
This hearing is very timely. Events since my June 2013
testimony before this subcommittee starkly make the point. If
the U.S. doesn't get religious freedom right, we won't get U.S.
foreign policy right.
My written testimony reviews the International Religious
Freedom Act, IRFA, over the past 15 years and USCIRF's role in
its implementation and offers recommendations. My focus today
is on events that underscore the connections between religious
freedom, U.S. foreign policy, and U.S. and global security.
ISIL's barbarism in Syria and Iraq is in the forefront of
all of our minds. With its growing strength, occupation of
broad swaths of land, brutal executions, and threats to bring
its war to America and elsewhere, ISIL poses a chilling danger.
But we should remember ISIL is not alone in perpetrating
violence in these countries. USCIRF has highlighted the al-
Assad regime's killing of tens of thousands and displacing of
millions while exacerbating sectarianism, resulting in severe
religious freedom violations affecting all Syrians.
And USCIRF long has identified the Iraqi Government's
failure to stem non-state actors' egregious and growing
violence against civilians, which increased rather than reduced
Sunni-Shia tensions.
ISIL's recent extraordinary territorial gains in Northern
Iraq poses an existential threat, especially to religious
minorities, including Christians, Yazidis, Shabak, Kakai, and
Turkmen, and religious and ethnic minorities in Syria,
including Christians and Alawites.
Less well known and less well recognized is ISIL's
brutality against both country's Shia Muslims and dissenting
Sunni Muslims.
So what should the United States do? USCIRF has welcomed
U.S. assistance to the displaced in Northern Iraq, and we
strongly support additional assistance to meet dire needs.
We also support raising the refugee resettlement ceiling
and increasing the share of refugees from the region for Iraqis
and Syrians vulnerable to persecution and expanding the
existing priority categories that allow certain Iraqis direct
access to the U.S. admissions program without UNHCR referral.
While USCIRF cannot speak to the economic, political, and
military aspects of any plan to confront ISIL, we encourage our
government to weave into these plans the promotion of the
freedom of religion and belief and protection of religious
minorities.
But the U.S. Government needs to weave religious freedom
more broadly into its plans before crises erupt. ISIL isn't the
only non-state actor that persecutes. Just look at Boko Haram
in Nigeria and al-Shabab in Somalia.
Governments also play a repressive role in many countries,
including Burma, China, Russia, Pakistan, and Vietnam. These
violations often lead to instability and violence, thereby
underscoring the importance of the U.S. using all the tools at
its disposal, including IRFA.
With growing violent religious extremism and continuing
authoritarianism, the United States needs to energize and
mainstream the promotion of religion or belief.
The executive branch should reinvigorate its commitment to
religious freedom by, number one, ensuring that high-level
officials speak publicly about the importance of religious
freedom and include concerns across U.S. engagements with
countries, including in economic, political, and security
discussions, to achieve a whole of government effort.
We should mandate increased training for diplomats on the
importance of religious freedom and expanding U.S. Government
programming on religious freedom work on the ground.
We should work in coalition with other nations to advance
religious freedom, such as the contact group of governments
focusing on international religious freedom that has recently
been initiated by the Canadians.
We need to annually designate countries of particular
concern--and that is a term of art within the legislation--for
particularly severe violations of religious freedom, and if
administrations do not do this, Congress legislatively should
require annual designations.
We should ensure that countries of particular concern, or
the CPC list, expands and contracts as conditions warrant so
glaring omissions like Pakistan and Vietnam can be correctly
designated.
Congress has an important role to play in promoting
religious freedom by amending IRFA, our authorizing
legislation, to expand the CPC classification to allow us to
designate countries where particularly severe religious freedom
violations are occurring, but a government doesn't exist or
control its territory, such as in the Central African Republic,
and amending IRFA to allow non-state actors also to be
designated, those who perpetrate particularly severe religious
freedom violations, such as ISIL, which, in the case of ISIL,
they claim to be a state and, yet, under the terms of our
statue, we really wouldn't be able to address them directly.
We would like to see Congress sponsor legislation that
promotes freedom of religion or belief to give our government
the tools and resources it needs and signals to foreign
governments the importance of religious freedom in bilateral
relations.
We would love to see Congress hold more hearings such as
this one in support of religious freedom to reinforce that our
government must actively promote this freedom.
Congress is uniquely situated to raise concerns about
religious freedom during delegation trips abroad and supporting
those advocating for change by meeting with civil society and
prisoners.
And, finally, we would like to encourage members of
Congress to participate in the Defending Freedom's Project, an
effort of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, USCIRF, and
Amnesty, through which members of Congress individually
advocate for prisoners of conscience.
We face an enormously challenging landscape abroad for
freedom of religion and belief. We can seek constructive change
by making religious freedom a central component of U.S. foreign
policy, improving our use of existing tools and creating new
ones for a rapidly changing environment. Never have the stakes
been higher.
Thank you.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Swett follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Chaffetz. Dr. Farr.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. FARR, PH.D.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank
you for inviting me to this important hearing.
Let me begin by giving credit where credit is due, in the
State Department. There are in the Department officials who
care deeply about religious freedom and whohave worked hard to
improve U.S. policy. In my prepared testimony I give some
examples of their work.
Unfortunately, that work is marginalized within the
Department. Their efforts are ad hoc. None is part of an
integrated strategy to advance religious freedom. Indeed, such
a strategy has not existed for the almost 6 years of this
President's tenure, and it does not exist today.
As a consequence, the United States has had virtually no
impact on the global rise of religious persecution. We have
also missed important opportunities to employ religious freedom
policy as a means of undermining the development of violent
religious extremism, encouraging economic growth, and helping
struggling democracies to stabilize.
The evidence for this stark assessment is compelling. I
cannot, like the chairman, identify a single country in the
world where the United States, under this administration, has
advanced religious freedom or reduced religious persecution.
I believe the President's nominee for the position of
Ambassador-at-Large, Rabbi David Saperstein, should be
confirmed immediately. But when he steps into the job, the post
of Ambassador-at-Large will have been vacant for almost a year,
since the departure of the previous incumbent, and vacant for
over half the tenure of this President.
Compare the administration's treatment of this position
with another similar job, that of Ambassador-at-Large for
Global Women's Issues. Someone has been in that position for
virtually the entire tenure of this administration. Why?
Because women's issues are a priority, as they should be.
It is difficult to conclude that the religious freedom
Ambassador or the issue he represents are perceived as
important at the State Department. It is no surprise, then,
that the Ambassador for Women's Issues reports directly to the
Secretary of State, but the Ambassador-at-Large for Religious
Freedom reports to a much lower-level official, many levels
removed from the Secretary.
You can be sure that this marginalization of the Ambassador
and U.S. policy is not lost on America's diplomats, nor is it
lost on foreign governments and those who persecute on the
basis of religion.
Internationally, the status of religious freedom continues
to decline. Increasing numbers of human beings are subjected to
violent religious persecution either because of their religious
beliefs and practices or, as in the case in the recent barbaric
and cruel beheadings of British and American citizens, because
of the religious beliefs and practices of their tormentors.
As I see it, Mr. Chairman, there are two powerful reasons
for a comprehensive American strategy to advance religious
freedom. The first is a moral imperative.
Last year, at a conference in Rome, Iraqi Patriarch Louis
Raphael Sako, a man now in the eye of the storm, said something
that still haunts me. ``If they kill us all,'' he said, ``will
you do something then?'' I believe we have a responsibility to
that man and his flock and to the others of Iraq and Syria and
elsewhere who are fending for their lives.
But Patriarch Sako said something else that day. The title
of his speech was ``What happens to the Middle East if
Christians flee?'' The answer was two-fold. Terrible suffering
for the Christians, but also increased instability and harm to
the societies themselves.
Here lies the second reason for a comprehensive U.S.
strategy. Religious freedom isn't simply a right not to be
tortured or killed or the freedom to worship privately. It is a
fundamental human right that has distinct and inevitable public
dimensions. It is necessary, necessary not only for individual
human flourishing, but for the success of any state, especially
highly religious nations like those of the Middle East.
Ample research has shown what common sense suggests.
Democracies can't consolidate without religious freedom.
Economies can't develop without religious freedom. And
religious freedom can be a counter to violent religious
extremism.
For all these reasons, I call upon the President of the
United States to issue a presidential policy directive on
international religious freedom and American national security.
This directive would mandate a coordinated U.S. religious
freedom strategy. It would directly involve all U.S. foreign
policy agencies under the leadership of the Ambassador-at-
Large. It would direct mandatory training for American
diplomats and other officials involved in carrying out the new
strategy.
I would note one additional rationale for involving
religious freedom in our national security: Blood and treasure.
The successful surge of 2007 in Iraq created an opportunity to
convince the majority Shiite community that, if they failed to
integrate Sunnis and other minorities into the political
system, the new Iraqi state would fail. In short, they needed
to move toward religious freedom if they were to succeed as a
state that would be stable and free of religious violence and
conflict as it has today.
We didn't do that, and the consequences have been
catastrophic. Today ISIS poses a serious threat to the United
States. Military action is now necessary to defeat ISIS, but
integrating religious freedom into our future strategy can
undermine the institutions and habits that give rise to
Islamist terrorism and reduce the need for future military
action. At a fraction of the cost and without loss of blood on
the part of anyone, a diplomatic counterterrorism offensive
could increase American national security.
Let me end by quoting from Rabbi Saperstein's testimony
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He said, ``I
will seek to engage every segment of the State Department and
the rest of the U.S. Government to integrate religious freedom
into our Nation's stagecraft, counter terrorism, conflict
stability efforts, economic development and human rights.''
Precisely so, the Senate should confirm him immediately.
Saperstein is a talented man, but he will not succeed if the
President, the Secretary of State, and the Congress don't give
him the tools to succeed.
I end my testimony, Mr. Chairman, with five suggestions for
this committee and the Congress to amend the International
Religious Freedom Act which will help our religious freedom
policy to succeed.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Farr follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. SMITH
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. It is wonderful to be with you today.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss international
religious freedom, and my aim is to discuss the ways that the
U.S. can improve its religious freedom policy to make a
meaningful difference in improving international religious
freedom. I ask that my written testimony be submitted to the
record.
At the outset, let me indicate that I am conscious that
this year's hearing builds on testimony received by this
subcommittee at a similar hearing last year. That testimony
established that religious freedom throughout the world is
getting worse, not better.
And, unfortunately, initiatives under the International
Religious Freedom Act, or IRFA, are not doing as much as could
be done to reverse that trend.
Dr. Farr and the chairman have both indicated today that
they could not identify a single country whose religious
freedom has improved as a result of U.S. religious freedom
policy. That must change.
My written testimony endorses nine concrete recommendations
that were made last year, some of which have been repeated
today. I've noted in my written testimony that, in each case,
the act currently permits the suggested changes.
My first recommendation is to urge this subcommittee to act
on those recommendations from last year. My major additional
recommendations focus on urging much greater emphasis on those
aspects of IRFA that contemplate identifying and incentivizing
better religious compliance through the use of positive
measures authorized by the act.
The first policy goal of the act is condemnation. The act
specifically says that it shall be the policy goal of the
United States to condemn violations of religious freedom. This
policy goal undergirds the annual reporting requirements and
the sanction regime that the act establishes.
While it is no doubt important to retain those aspects of
IRFA that hold egregious violators to account, this purpose has
inevitably caused tension and concern in shaping U.S. foreign
policy. The practical result has been that, under both
Republican and Democratic administrations, the State Department
has failed to designate countries of particular concern, or
CBCs, annually and then to impose sanctions as required by the
act. In fact, they have--the State Department has designated
CPCs in only 3 of the last 7 years, with 2014 still pending.
In fact, the subcommittee has also heard that discrete
sanctions under the act have only been imposed on a single
country in its entire 16-year history. All other sanctions have
simply been double-counted or waived.
But with limited CPC designations and almost no actual
motivating sanctions, it is--is it any wonder that U.S. policy
has had sufficient--insufficient impact on the worldwide
international religious freedom?
What I suggest is that the problem may not be entirely with
State, but with the overemphasis on the condemnation goal in
IRFA and the sanction regime it implements. In my view, IRFA
should place much greater emphasis on identifying opportunities
for making a meaningful difference.
This can be done by first identifying the countries most
open to religious freedom improvements and, second, by
encouraging incentives and assistance to improve religious
freedom.
While sanctions are an important backstop for the worst
offenders of religious freedom, this isn't where many of the
real opportunities lie.
In addition to focus on countries of particular concern, we
need to focus on countries of particular opportunity, as my
colleague Cole Durham has called them. We need to do a much
better job of identifying the latter so we can help them find
ways to make concrete and significant progress in implementing
religious freedom ideals.
Fortunately, the annual effort to produce country reports
on religious freedom provides an excellent vehicle for
identifying countries of particular opportunity.
Additionally, IRFA already contains authorization for
providing positive incentives to encourage other countries to
improve religious freedom. The act already authorizes State to
pursue numerous positive incentives. These are described in
greater detail in my full statement.
Briefly, the State Department should, one, recognize and
reward countries making important religious freedom progress;
two, recognize meritorious or distinguished religious freedom
service by State employees through performance pay and awards;
three, link humanitarian, military, and other U.S. aid to
religious freedom progress; four, link U.S. economic incentives
to religious freedom progress; and, five, conduct country-
specific consultations to tailor goals and incentives for
different countries.
Since authorization for these positive incentives already
exist under IRFA, my strong recommendation is that Congress use
its oversight authority to investigate the extent to which
these positive incentives have already been used by State and
to encourage State to implement them in the future.
There is no doubt that many positive steps are being taken,
but I would recommend that the State Department be urged to
formulate a strategic plan for more systematic use of such
positive measures. Ideas from some of the embassies which have
developed the most effective positive measures should be shared
systematically with other embassies around the world.
In summary, instead of emphasizing name-and-shame tactics,
IRFA should be reoriented to identify and incentivize improved
performance through greater utilization of positive measures.
I believe that this positive approach will reinvigorate
U.S. policy on religious freedom and will help IRFA become a
much more powerful force to help improve the lives of millions
of persons who deeply desire religious freedom.
Thank you.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Ogebe. Did I--how do you pronounce your
last name?
Mr. Ogebe. Yes. It was the last.
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes. If you can turn on your microphone, that
would be great.
STATEMENT OF EMMANUEL OGEBE
Mr. Ogebe. Yes. Mr. Chairman, ranking member, members of
the committee, thank you very much for allowing me to testify
today.
This hearing is a very timely hearing. As you may have
heard in news, just yesterday Boko Haram bombed a school and
killed 15 people who were preparing to be teachers.
Let me start with three sobering statistics. The first is
that Christians are the most persecuted religion in the world
today. The second is that more Christians have been killed this
century than in previous centuries. And the third is that more
Christians were killed in Northern Nigeria in the year 2012
than the rest of the world combined.
Now, one of the things that Boko Haram has done was this
time last year they used chainsaws to decapitate over 150
Christians when they mounted a fake roadblock on a highway.
These are the kinds of atrocities that this group has engaged
in even before they abducted 300 young girls from a boarding
school in April.
With regard to the U.S. Commission of International
Religious Freedom, it is my thinking that they missed a golden
opportunity to alert the world to the atrocities and the
religious genocide that Boko Haram was conducting.
And what happened was that the USCIRF in its annual report
on Nigeria last year did not make a recommendation to the State
Department for Boko Haram to be designated as a foreign
terrorist organization. This, I think, would have been the
moment that USCIRF would have lent its voice to a critical
policy recognition of what this terrorist group was doing.
I also want to mention the response of the State
Department. The IRFA Ambassador at the time traveled to 27
countries in her 29 months in office. And at the time when you
had this horrendous anti-Christian genocide going on in
Nigeria, she did not meet with Christian leaders in that
country.
And I say this to say that we have a good law, but if we
have people aggressively implementing existing powers that they
have, that there are some of these issues that would not need
to be reformed. They are obviously clear issues that warrant
reform, but the existing paths are being underutilized.
I want to point out that the State Department has continued
to downplay the persecution of Christians in Northern Nigeria,
and this is a grave concern for us. There is nothing that ISIS
has done in Iraq in the last two months that they have not done
in Northern Nigeria in the last 3 years.
Now, let me say that we are all shocked by what ISIS has
done in beheading two American journalists, but Boko Haram has
tried to do that several times. And just last week we heard for
the first time the name of an American that Boko Haram
attempted to kill. Her name is Vernice Guthrie. Until this day,
the State Department has not publicly admitted that Americans
have been targeted by this horrific terror group.
I think I want to quickly make the linkage here. The groups
that terrorize people of other faiths in that country will
ultimately want to set their sights on bigger targets, and that
is why we see what is going on now, is that groups like ISIL
and Boko Haram want to reach America and want to kill
Americans.
Let me point out that one of the concerns we have had with
U.S. response is the effort to downplay the intent of these
groups. It is what I call the ``see no jihad, hear no jihad,
say no jihad'' strategy.
And we heard in Iraq, as in Nigeria, ``Oh, what you need to
do is create a more inclusive government. Violent jihadist
groups are not about inclusive governments. They are about
exclusive governments. They want to rule exclusively by
themselves.
I want to take a moment to say that I honestly believe that
we need to fund USCIRF better. I believe that USCIRF needs to
use its powers more effectively.
I want to submit my testimony for the record. But before I
hand over, I do want to pay tribute to a young girl who was
killed by Boko Haram.
I conducted a 1-month investigation after we found out that
Boko Haram had started using females as suicide bombers, and it
was my sad duty this week to notify members of the Chibok
community that Boko Haram that abducted about 300 Christian
schoolgirls from their school in Northern Nigeria has used one
of them and blew her up in a school and killed several people.
As a tribute to this girl, I want to mention the words of a
song that she is known for by people in her class. And what she
said was, ``We have come to the end of the world now. We have
to stand firm and be strong in the Lord because we are now in a
bad situation, and there's milk and honey in the place where I
am going. No matter the condition, I will not go back. The Lord
is my refuge. We are now in a bad situation. We better turn to
God now to enjoin him on the last day.''
And Boko Haram strapped this girl with explosives. We do
not know if she was aware what was on her body, but she was
blown up and killed in Northern Nigeria a few weeks ago.
Thank you.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Ogebe follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STATEMENT OF TAD STAHNKE
Mr. Stahnke. Thank you, Mr Chairman, Mr. Tierney, and
members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss this
important issue, international religious freedom.
Religious freedom's a cornerstone of secure and thriving
societies. Denying religious freedom is associated with
instability, rights abuses, and violent extremism. The rising
tide of violence and religious intolerance and restrictions on
religious freedom is clearly an ongoing threat to U.S. national
security.
The recent events in Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Pakistan, and
Egypt all underscore the urgency of formulating U.S. national
security policies that promote and protect religious freedom
and related human rights as part of the strategy to secure U.S.
national interests.
In the last year, there's been an alarming rise in deadly
violence targeting religious communities, ISIS and Boko Haram
seizing and holding territory, committing horrendous human
rights abuses.
It is also very troubling how effective these groups have
been in using mass and social media to get out their message
and to recruit followers. Burma, Pakistan, Egypt, all places
where we continue to see way--too much in the way of violence
targeting religious minorities.
Not at the same scale of violence, but also troubling is
growing anti-Semitic and other hate violence in Europe as neo-
Fascist, anti-Semitic political parties have gained electoral
strength throughout the region, particularly in Hungary and in
Greece.
My written testimony covers these situations. Let me make
three general points.
First, although non-state actors perpetrate much of the
violence, failures of governments play an enormous role.
Governments often create or fail to confront the conditions
that give rise to violence. There's a direct link between ISIS
success and the Iraqi Government failures on good governance
and addressing the grievances of the Sunni population.
Second, many of the situations we are discussing have
deteriorated because of the failure of governments to
adequately protect human rights and the rule of law and more
effectively confront discrimination and hatred.
Support for ISIS and Boko Haram has been fueled by human
rights violations by the Iraqi and Nigerian security services
and their paramilitary supporters. These aren't rogue
violations, but seemingly deliberate, abusive, and
counterproductive counterterrorism and security policies.
Third, the United States has invested a tremendous amount
of money, prestige and, in some cases, blood in the success of
these countries to become more stable, to move in a more
democratic direction more tied to the rule of law.
So the need is pressing. And what needs to be done?
First of all, as several of us have said, the Senate should
confirm Rabbi Saperstein to be the Ambassador-at-Large. It is
the immediate step that should be taken. I urge you to--urge
your colleagues in the Senate to do so.
Second, the United States needs country-specific strategies
to better integrate the promotion of religious freedom and
other human rights into its effort to confront each of these
national security challenges.
Developing and investing in these strategies is a way to
prevent security situations in countries that could eventually
deteriorate to the point where we would even contemplate U.S.
military action.
The elements of this type of strategy include promoting a
more rights-respecting approach by foreign governments to
counterterrorism; stopping U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia and
Qatar from funding religious extremism beyond their borders;
where there's political will, provide assistance to help
countries better integrate the security services with members
of religious minorities; and promote better law enforcement
response to violence--impunity for any act of religiously
motivated violence is a cancer that can spread out of control--
countering extremist propaganda and hatred; and, also,
assisting IDPs, refugees, and asylum seekers fleeing religious
persecution.
Now, in order to implement these strategies, the White
House and the State Department needs to better integrate the
Ambassador-at-Large into the work of national security,
conflict prevention, counterterrorism, countering violent
extremism, and democracy promotion.
Dr. Farr and I saw the same line in Rabbi Saperstein's
testimony, and I will highlight that, too. It is extremely
important. But how do you do that? And let me end with a couple
of specific recommendations.
There's a new national security strategy in the works, and
it should include a clear statement that it is U.S. policy to
advance international religious freedom and related human
rights as part of the strategy to promote stability in foreign
countries and combat terrorism.
Second, the President should create a permanent interagency
policy committee on religion, human rights, and national
security co-chaired by a deputy national security advisor and
the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom.
Give it resources. Give it a mandate to coordinate policies
across the agencies, as I think we have all been discussing.
Regardless of where the IRFA Ambassador sits in the
bureaucracy, the Secretary of State should ensure that the
Ambassador has regular and consistent access to him, to senior
State Department-level meetings, and fully integrated into the
broader policy discussions.
Finally, Under Secretary Sewall, who I know is going to
talk later, should create within her purview a unit that could
be deployed to the field to assess the risk of systemic
violence targeting religious communities and respond--make
recommendations and respond using the tools that she has within
her shop.
And, finally, the President should send Vice President
Biden to represent the United States at the upcoming high-level
OSCE Berlin conference on anti-Semitism, and I am hoping that
Congress also will send a high-level delegation to that
important meeting.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
[Prepared Statement of Mr. Stahnke follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank all of you for all your testimony. You
have--your fuller remarks, if there are some, obviously will be
entered into the record.
I would also just ask that, if you have very specific
recommendations or want to modify those at any time, please
send those forward as we digest--we are not only the Oversight
Committee, we are supposed to be the Government Reform
Committee. And certainly there are things that the law can do
to help catch up with what we are supposed to do.
Now I would like to recognize the gentleman from South
Carolina who cares passionately about these issues, Mr. Gowdy.
Mr. Gowdy. I want to thank the chairman, and I want to
thank all the panelists.
I want to just single out the one that I know the best, Dr.
Farr, who has done a lot, Chairman Chaffetz, to help me
understand the issues, and our mutual friend, John Hutchinson
from South Caroline.
Dr. Farr, I just have one question.
And then I want to yield my time to the gentleman from Utah
who has worked so assiduously on this issue.
You mention the Senate's heretofore failure to confirm the
Ambassador-at-Large. Among the mysteries of the world, a Senate
confirmation process probably ranks in the top three, at least
to me. So I don't--I don't know what the holdup would be.
Is there--one of your panelists mentioned our colleagues in
the Senate and--perhaps putting pressure on them, which
traditionally does not work. What can we do? Is there a holdup
that has been identified or is it just the normal Senate
schedule? And I'll let you answer that.
And then, Mr. Chaffetz, I would give the rest of my time to
you.
Mr. Farr. Thank you for that, Mr. Gowdy.
Others on the panel may know better than I, but I
understand that the committee was to vote on his nomination
today. It may be happening as we speak. The problem is that the
Senate is going to be in recess.
So if there's a way for the Senate to--which I know you
have no control over--to confirm him before they go on recess,
before the Congress does, it would be good, because he could
get into--into the job. But I do think at this point it is a
procedural matter rather than any opposition.
Mr. Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina.
If you were going to take this job on--you have all offered
recommendations that you can do. But what, realistically, can
that position actually do, given its status, given its
placement?
I know there are some recommendations on the elevation and
who they report to, different committees that we can--but if
you had an objective for this person in the first 100 days, the
first three, what would that be? What would be on that person's
list? What can they realistically actually do and accomplish?
And, again, I think you all know this. You have all stated
it. We just haven't seen the numbers and the meter move in the
right direction. In fact, it is going in the wrong direction.
Yes.
Ms. Lantos Swett. Well, I will be happy to take a crack at
that.
I think, to some degree, there needs to be an effort to
change the culture at the State Department. For many years
there was something that was known almost as--I think it was
called the secularization thesis, that as societies became more
modern, they would inevitably become more secular and that
religion was not really a terribly relevant factor or would not
continue to be a terribly relevant factor in the lives of large
numbers of people around the world. And, if anything, the
history of the last 25 years has undermined that--that now
somewhat discredited secularization thesis.
And I do think that Rabbi Saperstein will face a challenge
of sort of confronting a culture at the State Department that
has tended to sideline these concerns, has tended to view the
business of State as being, of course, maintaining, to the
extent possible, positive relations between the United States
and other countries, and when there are problems, working at
other levels and on other--on other areas of focus.
And so I--you know, I think it is critically important that
the next Ambassador-at-Large find a way to have that direct
access to the Secretary and, indeed, to the President. You
know, the terms of the statute say that the Ambassador-at-Large
is the principal advisor to the President and the Secretary of
State on matters relating to international religious freedom.
We no longer need to make the case. The world is in flames.
It is on fire with religious freedom atrocities, and those
atrocities have direct and terrifying implications for our
national security.
So I would say try not to be co-opted by the highly
bureaucratic nature of the State Department. Battle hard for
that ability to, in fact, fulfill the statutory, you know,
claim to be that principal advisor.
And, finally, I would say--and I don't underestimate the
value of this. And I happened to be with Rabbi Saperstein
yesterday at a powerful, wonderful event remembering and
honoring Anne Frank, the remarkable young woman who died in the
Holocaust, the Dutch woman.
He spoke so powerfully, so eloquently, in such an inspiring
fashion, and I do think that we should not underestimate the
power and the ability of someone of great passion, great
commitment, and great dedication to this issue to change the
narrative and to--to draw more focus to it.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
And my guess is you all have input on this. We can either
come back to that or, again, submit it to the committee.
We have a second panel, and we are going to also have a
second series of votes. So we have got try to balance that
time.
And I thank the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy.
Now recognize the gentlewoman from Illinois for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
One of the central tools of the International Religious
Freedom Act is the designation of countries of particular
concern, or CPCs, who are particularly severe violators of
religious freedom.
However, the CPC mechanism has not always been
consistently--and I understand--used consistently. And I
understand that the State Department has interpreted this
statute to not require annual designations.
For example, the Bush Administration did not make any CPC
designation after 2006, and the current administration has only
made two designations to far.
Dr. Lantos Swett, is that correct?
Ms. Lantos Swett. Yes. And we--if you are going where I
think you are going, we very much would encourage them to make
annual CPC designations, as contemplated in the statute.
Ms. Kelly. That is where I was going.
And can you tell me why.
Ms. Lantos Swett. Well, you know, we don't want the CPC
list to be a frozen sort of dead document that just sits on a
shelf. The process of evaluating on an annual basis whether a
country is progressing in the right direction, is regressing,
is--in and of itself, it brings pressure to bear on those
countries when they know that that process is dynamic. It also
gives you a much more dynamic opportunity to recognize when
progress has been made.
The worst thing that can happen is to create a list, stick
it on a shelf, and nobody thinks about it for 4 or 5 years. We
want State thinking about religious freedom because it really
matters to our national security and our foreign policy. So it
is the dynamism and the annual process that brings attention to
bear on the good guys and those making progress.
Ms. Kelly. Now, the other issue seems to be disagreement on
what countries should be designated between--you know, with the
International Religious Freedom Act, the State Department, and
the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.
How does the Commission determine which countries are
engaged in particularly severe violations?
Ms. Lantos Swett. Well, it is a very detailed process
involving a lot of research, drawing on information--testimony
and information that we get from a wide variety of sources.
Of course, to some degree, we rely on our significant State
Department interlocutors in the various countries, religious
communities, NGOs, outside organizations that do evaluations.
We take trips to those countries to make our own independent
assessments.
I hope I am not going to sound too self-congratulatory, but
I would say that the USCIRF CPC list is the gold standard. And
I recognize we have the luxury of not having to consider the
full range of concerns that our State Department has to deal
with.
So, you know, I think we need to cut them a little slack.
They have to balance things we don't at USCIRF. We have one
focus, which is international religious freedom.
But for that reason, I do think our list is the gold
standard. I think, if a country makes it on to our recommended
list, it has met the statutory requirements. And sometimes
State can't find their way to getting where we get to. But I
would commend that people consider the USCIRF list to be a
very, very good list.
Ms. Kelly. What reasons have they given not to go along
with your recommendations?
Ms. Lantos Swett. Oh, that is a good question.
You know, I don't want to put words into anybody's mouth;
and, so, I want to be very circumspect in answering that.
Certainly their formal responses would indicate that they
are not sure that the--that the bar has been crossed in a
statutory sense. But I would give as an example Pakistan, which
is a country that I think most people--looking at the statutory
language, looking at the reality of, you know, over 100 people
in prison, many of them on death row for violations of
outrageous blasphemy codes.
Look at the persecution of the Ahmadiyya Muslims in
Pakistan. Look at the threats and the murder of people like
Shahbaz Bhatti, the only Christian member of the Pakistani
Government before he was murdered and others would say this is
a country that has severe religious freedom abuses going on and
either perpetrated or tolerated or a situation of impunity by
the government.
Tom, I know you have something to add there.
Mr. Farr. Well, now--sorry. I am sorry. I didn't mean to
interrupt this----
Ms. Lantos Swett. Oh, no.
Mr. Farr. I didn't want to say something about the CPC. I
wanted to just say a word about the issue of how the Ambassador
could be effective, if I might. I will be very brief.
My first recommendation to the committee, which was the
first recommendation last year, is that the IRFA be amended to
require the Ambassador-at-Large to report to the Secretary of
State just as the Ambassador-at-Large for others, such as
women's issues, do.
You could put the Pope in this position, Mr. Chairman, and
buried in the bureaucracy as he is, he would not be effective.
It is because of State Department understands this issue as a
junior position. Foreign governments--it is not rocket
science--understand it is not a priority.
The Congress could make this happen. The State Department
is not going to do it. They are not going to do it with,
hopefully, Ambassador Saperstein.
Ms. Kelly. Can I just ask one more?
How effective have the CPC designations and resulting
actions been in actually changing the behavior of the offending
countries?
Ms. Lantos Swett. Well, I don't think I can be quite as
self-congratulatory in response to that question. Part of the
reason is, as has been mentioned by a number of us here on the
panel, neither--you know, none of the administrations since the
creation of IRFA have adequately utilized the tools that are at
their disposal.
When sanctions are imposed pursuant to a CPC designation,
they are always what we call double-hatted. So there is no
specific penalty associated to the designation as a CPC.
Mr. Smith suggested that we also need to look for countries
of particular opportunity. I think that is a great idea. I
think there needs to be--I am a believer in shame and blame.
You know, look. I am a Jewish mother. You know, I--daughter of
Holocaust survivors. So we belive in the power of guilt. We
really do. And it is a highly sophisticated art within that
tradition, if I may say so with tongue firmly in cheek.
But--so I do believe in shame and blame, but I don't think
it is enough by itself. So I think we need to look for positive
opportunities. But I would say this. When it comes to the
ineffectiveness of change as a result of CPC designations,
there is a role for sanctions.
And if I can quote the great Catholic writer G.K.
Chesterton, I think he once said, speaking of Christianity,
that it is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but it
has been found hard and not tried. And I think that that also
sort of has some relevance to whether or not we could bring
about more change if we had more robust and particular
sanctions associated with CPC designations.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you for the time.
Mr. Chaffetz. I think Mr. Stahnke wanted to add something
briefly, if we could, please.
Mr. Stahnke. Yes. Very briefly.
I think it is hard to point to success stemming from CPC
designation or actions that are taken. I would suggest take a
different approach. Right?
The administration is engaged on ISIS, on Boko Haram, on
Burma. These countries are ones where Rabbi Saperstein, as
Ambassador-at-Large, could be put at the table of the serious
policy discussions.
He could go there, and he could come back and lay out a
strategy for how to reverse the conditions that are plaguing
and producing these abuses. And I think that is something that
is achievable in a short term where there is already action
taking place.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
We are way over the--over the time. Let me go to Mr.
Bentivolio. You will have a chance to come back here.
The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bentivolio, is now
recognized.
Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for coming here today on this very
important issue.
America is waking up to the atrocities in the Middle East.
I have spoken 13 times on the floor of Congress about religious
freedom issues in the Middle East as well as China and other
places of the world.
And my office has been reviewing some of the standards, I
think, that the State Department has for how they rate
countries as far as the religious freedom. Are you familiar
with that? And I think you talked about that earlier. Can you
explain that in more detail?
Anybody want to answer that question, what that rating
system is all about in the State Department, how they rate
countries based on religion freedoms?
Mr. Farr. I don't think they do that, sir. I think what
they do is name the bad guys. That's the Countries of
Particular Concern list.
Mr. Bentivolio. Okay. So there is really no----
Mr. Farr. There is no ranking.
Mr. Bentivolio. --ranking, no matrix to use for how we--you
know, countries that are promoting religious freedom versus not
promoting or the opposite?
Mr. Farr. The Pew Research Center produces an annual report
that does, in effect, rank these countries and gives them
scores.
Mr. Bentivolio. And the reason I am asking this is because,
in order to promote religious freedom, you know, sometimes we
ignore those atrocities taking place, and yet the United States
Government will still write them a foreign-aid check for some
reason or another, usually in the form of tanks and airplanes
and AK-47s or similar.
So how do you feel about rating these countries based on
their matrix of religious freedom and foreign aid?
I notice, Mr. Smith, you have a list of--excuse me a
minute--yeah, ``As specified in the act, negative sanctions
include,'' but I don't see not getting a check from the United
States Government. Do you think that would have an effect one
way or the other?
Mr. Smith. Yes, of course it would. And, in fact, I am not
sure if that was totally understood. My testimony is that it
should be linked, that there should be a linkage between U.S.
aid, military aid, and religious freedom, which is already
recommended in the act.
Mr. Bentivolio. In the act.
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Bentivolio. But we are not enforcing it.
Mr. Smith. That is correct.
Mr. Bentivolio. That is what you are telling me.
Mr. Smith. That is exactly right.
And if I could just say, while the focus should be on
countries of particular concern because of the horrendous
religious freedom records that they have, most countries are
not CPCs. And so my testimony is that we should also focus on
those countries that are not the worst offenders because those
are the ones that legitimately want to improve their records
and are most susceptible to incentives and to persuasion.
When we think of the CPC countries, where we are really
talking about criminal activity and other forms of abuse, they
are not very responsive. And that is why there is a problem.
And if the goal of IRFA is to actually make a difference, we
need to also focus on those countries most susceptible to
positive incentives and persuasion.
Mr. Bentivolio. Very good.
So how do you think we should handle the present problem we
have in the Middle East with the persecution of Christians,
Coptics, and other minority religions?
Mr. Smith. Well, that is obviously a tremendous tragedy,
and there has been a lot of discussion over the past couple of
years about how it is increasing.
What needs to be done, in my view, is there needs to be a
strategy that is put into place by State. And it is not a
matter of simply giving some speeches or even writing an
effective report that explains the problem. There needs to be a
strategy for success. And that includes the type of efforts
that will be made, the linking of U.S. aid, U.S. incentives of
various kinds--economic incentives can be linked to religious
freedom--and identifying the people who are in charge of
religious policy in those countries, getting to know them and
trying to work with them.
Mr. Bentivolio. Do you think there is any hope in restoring
the homes in the communities that the Christians were forced to
leave after living there for thousands of years? Do you think
there is any chance of them ever going back with the present
state of affairs?
Mr. Smith. Well, we have to always hope that that can be
the case.
Mr. Bentivolio. Hope.
Mr. Smith. And it may take time, but quick action is needed
now to prevent further erosion.
Mr. Bentivolio. What do you mean by ``quick action''? Can
you be more detailed?
Mr. Smith. Well, the strategy that I am referring to----
Mr. Bentivolio. Okay. A strategy.
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Bentivolio. But you are not really outlining a specific
strategy. And I don't mean to attack you on this because there
is a lot of people here in Washington that use that word,
``strategy,'' but I haven't seen the details of that strategy.
Did you want to add something?
Excuse me. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. You bet.
Mr. Bentivolio. Appreciate it.
Ms. Lantos Swett. Just very specifically to your question
about whether or not these persecuted communities that have
fled could be resettled, we have had a number of briefings at
USCIRF from representatives of those communities. And I can
convey to you that what they said to us is: We cannot go back.
After what happened to us, after the way we saw our neighbors,
neighbors going back generation upon generation, either turn
against us or fail to defend us in any meaningful way, we
cannot rebuild our lives there.
Which is why I think one thing we need to be prepared to do
as a government is raise the refugee resettlement quotas for
some of these horribly targeted communities in the region of,
you know, Iraq, in particular, the area that ISIL has taken
over in Iraq.
So members of the communities are not feeling optimistic
about the idea of their lives resuming there.
Mr. Bentivolio. Just one more quick question?
Mr. Chaffetz. We have a second panel, and we have the vote
coming up.
Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
We will now recognize the gentlewoman from New York, Ms.
Maloney, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
And I would like to welcome all of the panelists and
particularly my good friend Dr. Lantos Swett, whom I first met
as the daughter of my former colleague and the wife of my
former colleague and a great candidate herself.
So it is good to see you still working hard on issues, and
wonderful to see you again.
The International Religious Freedom Act is the main
legislative vehicle through which Congress has authorized the
administration to respond to gross violations of religious
freedom. But in light of the sharp rise of religious
persecution, we should stop and ask how well the act is
equipped to deal with crises around the world and what changes
Congress can make to do it better.
And I would like Dr. Lantos Swett to answer that and
elaborate on what you actually wrote about in your testimony
and in your conclusion that IRFA's tools are, quote, ``almost
irrelevant'' in situations like Syria.
I would like to add that I went to the grave of Thomas
Jefferson, and, if I recall, on his headstone is not ``author
of the Declaration of Independence,'' not ``President,'' not
this or that, but what he chose to put on his headstone was
``the author of the Religious Freedom Act''--a basic, basic
belief in our country. And I really am very disturbed to see
the persecution of religion around the world that we have seen
particularly recently against Christians.
So I look forward to hearing your statement, Dr. Lantos
Swett.
Ms. Lantos Swett. Thank you so much.
We have made a number of recommendations, but I do think
probably the single most significant thing that could be done
to make IRFA a more effective piece of legislation, make USCIRF
and the IRFA office in the State Department more effective
would, in fact, be for our government at the highest levels to
prioritize this cause.
And I will say that I do see a shifting attitude. I think
it is becoming increasingly apparent to people at the highest
levels of our government that, if we don't get this piece
right, we will not be able to solve our most intractable
foreign policy and security challenges. If you overlay the list
of Countries of Particular Concern with the list of countries
of particular national security threat to the United States, it
is shocking how closely those two lists mesh, for the most
part.
One thing that I think is already contemplated in IRFA that
has not happened--and I think another member of the panel
referred to this--is it calls for, for example, a director-
level position at the National Security Council who could serve
as the special advisor on the National Security Council on
religious freedom issues.
I think my most passionate argument would be that people
need to stop thinking about religious freedom as a nice idea,
something that reflects our values, something that it would
make us feel good if people could, you know, sort of, practice
their beliefs more freely in other parts of the world. When you
have societies that repress, oppress, persecute on the basis of
sectarianism and religion, you create the seedbed for
extremism, for violence, for instability, and, ultimately, for
the export of terrorism. We really have got to get this right.
And I am so glad you brought that up about Jefferson
because I think that was our secret sauce as a country. That
was the piece we got right that was revolutionary at the time,
unheard of in human history, this notion that the government
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor
denying the free exercise thereof, this brilliant, simple
formulation--protecting the right of freedom of religion and
separating it from being intertwined with government. That is
the basic deal right there, and it made all the difference in
the way we developed as a nation.
So we need higher-level engagement, we need this to become
a priority at the State Department on the part of the
administration and in the Congress. IRFA--there are things we
can change there, but there is no magic bullet there. The magic
bullet lies in raising its priority.
Mrs. Maloney. But that is a hard thing to do. You have to
almost put it into the structure.
And I will join you and others in writing a letter to the
State Department or the President that this position on the
Security Council should be filled.
Ms. Lantos Swett. That would be great.
Mrs. Maloney. But what other things can we do to
institutionalize this? It is one thing to say, raise the
priority, but we know what government is like. You are under
tremendous pressures, usually understaffed, and so you go to
what you have to do. So you almost have to put a structure in
place.
What about special envoys? We use that all the time in
international affairs, maybe special envoys to special regions
on particular problems as we see it. If anybody would like to--
--
Ms. Lantos Swett. I am actually going to defer to Dr. Farr,
who I often refer to as my tutor on religious freedom and
really very knowledgeable----
Mrs. Maloney. My time is up now, so I request the chairman
let him respond.
Mr. Farr. Very, very briefly.
Two things: We don't need a special envoy. We have an
ambassador-at-large. Nobody is in the position. Get it filled,
and make this position report to the Secretary of State like
other ambassadors-at-large.
Secondly, I recommend in my testimony a Presidential policy
directive on religious freedom and national security. The
reality is we have nothing in our religious freedom policy to
respond to what is going on in the Middle East now--nothing
except speeches, words, and reports, in response to your
question.
We need a strategy that has action as part of it, but here
I am not talking about just talking about strategies. A
Presidential directive to develop a strategy on religious
freedom and national security, that will put us in a position
to do something.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
I am now going to recognize myself for 5 minutes.
I want to go to Mr. Ogebe, who--I really want to talk about
what is going on in Nigeria and Boko Haram.
There was a lot of criticism for Secretary Clinton, for the
State Department as a whole for not designating them as a
foreign terrorist organization. From your perspective, why did
that take so long?
But then, once it was designated, what changed? Did it
actually even make a difference or move the meter? And is it
getting better, worse, or is it just the same?
Mr. Ogebe. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Now, we, to this date, do not understand why the State
Department dragged its feet with the FTO designation. We do
know that there were individuals, 20 professors, that wrote to
the State Department and said, don't do it. We did write to
them and provide briefs and facts showing why this should be
done.
One of the really difficult aspects for us was the fact
that the State Department would not admit that Americans had
been attacked by Boko Haram.
Ultimately, they did the designation. But we do not know if
they have had the political will to implement the sanctions
required. We don't know if they just did it to just wish us
away.
I can give you a practical illustration of some of the
things that have emerged which an FTO designation
implementation would have showed. For example, there are
reports that Turkish Airlines has been flying arms into Nigeria
surreptitiously. Now, if we were aggressively tracking the flow
of arms and finances, that is an organization that by now the
State Department should have imposed sanctions on.
So we do feel that the situation has worsened. Just this
week, one Catholic diocese is reporting they have lost 2,500
members. That is one church losing the equivalent of 9/11--one
diocese.
So the situation is getting much worse, and we are now
thinking there needs to be a look at the Leahy amendment to see
how military assistance can be provided. Because Nigeria is a
country that is too big to fail, to use those terms.
Mr. Chaffetz. So, to be clear, what would you have the
United States do, from your perspective? What would you want
them to do?
Mr. Ogebe. Well, one of the first things would be to stop
the denial. It is hard to believe that till this day officials
continue to deny the serious killings of Christians that is
going on. But I honestly think that if there is military
assistance--last week, a top U.S. official said, you know, we
need to end the denial and the pride. Nigeria is losing
territory to these people. If she was genuine in her comments,
then we need to look at military assistance so that these
people can be stopped. They have taken over six cities in the
last couple of weeks, and that is not a good sign for the
entire subregion.
So we do need to look at military assistance. If the
Ambassador is appointed, that is one of the things that an
ambassador can hit the ground running. He can intervene, he can
engage with the Nigerian Government with the refugee situation
in Cameroon and so on and so forth.
Mr. Chaffetz. I thank you.
Unless there are some other pressing questions, what I
would like to do is thank this panel for their participation. I
would have preferred to have just one panel, quite frankly, but
we do have the person from the State Department, and we would
like her to have time to testify.
We would invite you to stay here and listen if you would
like. But if it is okay with the committee, unless there is an
objection, the committee is going to stand in recess for just a
couple of minutes while we change the panel there.
And we thank you so much for your dedication and commitment
to this issue and your passion. And it is a very important
issue, and we look forward to the continued dialogue with you.
We will stand in recess for just a few minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Chaffetz.The committee will come to order.
We are honored to have the Honorable Sarah Sewall. She is
the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human
Rights at the Department of State.
And we appreciate you being here.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn
before they testify. So if you would please rise and raise your
right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
Ms. Sewall. I do.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
Let the record reflect the witness answered in the
affirmative.
We again appreciate you being here. We are pretty generous
on the timing of your verbal comments. If you have additional
comments and testimony, I believe, which is a bit revised from
what you first gave us, that is perfectly acceptable. That is
fine, in this case. We will, obviously, make all of your
written comments part of the record. And if you want to add
something after the fact, we are happy to do that, as well.
So we will now recognize you for 5 minutes. If you would
just bring that microphone maybe straight there and make sure
it is on. And you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. SARAH SEWALL, UNDER SECRETARY FOR
CIVILIAN SECURITY, DEMOCRACY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF STATE
Ms. Sewall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Tierney--although I see
he is not here, but I wish him a happy birthday in absentia--
and members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to
appear before you today to provide the details on how the Obama
administration is promoting religious freedom worldwide.
Today's hearing couldn't come at a more appropriate time
because in too many corners of the globe religion is perverted
by cynical forces as a tool of subjugation to justify violence,
to expand power, and to advance parochial political agendas.
There is no greater example of this terrifying reality than the
metastasizing growth of the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant, ISIL, and the terrorist group in Iraq and Syria.
Countering violent extremism and promoting tolerance and
human rights is a policy priority that cuts across many of the
bureaus I lead as Under Secretary for Civilian Security,
Democracy, and Human Rights and, indeed, the entire State
Department. The most basic rights of freedom of expression in
thought, conscious, and religion are at the core of our work,
whether we are countering terrorism or preventing atrocities.
The United States Government is appalled by the horrendous
violence and violations of religious freedom and other rights
in Iraq and Syria. As the President told the Nation last
Wednesday, we cannot allow these communities to be driven from
their ancient homelands.
President Obama recognized the alarming nature of the
violence by ISIL against the Yazidi community last month,
saying that ISIL has called for the systematic destruction of
the entire Yazidi people, which would constitute genocide.
This threat, combined with the request from the Iraqi
Government, prompted President Obama to authorize a
humanitarian effort, reinforced by targeted air strikes, to
help save those trapped on Mount Sinjar. Again, in Amirli, we
airdropped food and water to Shia Turkmen, and we provided air
support for Iraqi forces that broke ISIL's siege and prevented
a humanitarian catastrophe. Going forward, the coalition
mission and our actions in Iraq will continue to help protect
vulnerable communities.
Mr. Chairman, our efforts to combat ISIL and ensure the
long-term safety of the religious communities now so threatened
in the Middle East are led by the administration's abiding
commitment to advance freedom of religion and protect people at
risk due to their faith.
Mindful that we can never do enough, yet focused on how we
can do more, this administration is seized by the pursuit of
religious freedom as a central foreign policy and national
security priority. In remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast
this year, President Obama explained why, saying, ``History
shows that nations that uphold the rights of their people,
including the freedom of religion, are ultimately more just and
more peaceful and more successful. Nations that do not uphold
these rights sow the bitter seeds of instability and violence
and extremism. So freedom of religion matters to our national
security.''
The President's commitment has been matched by that of
Secretary of State John Kerry. And just last week in Baghdad,
the Secretary urged the new Iraqi Government to protect and
integrate members of religious minorities, saying that we are
committed to working with the new government as long as they
are committed to diversity, to inclusivity, as long as they are
going to protect minorities in Iraq.
My team, including the International Religious Freedom,
IRF, office, has been directly engaged with those most targeted
by the violence waged by ISIL. I have met with representatives
of the Yazidi community in the United States a week after the
Mount Sinjar attack, and just last week, I met again within an
Iraqi human rights group advocating for religious minorities.
The State Department is, in fact, in regular communication
with representatives of these communities in Iraq and in the
United States. And that interchange has been vital in
protecting vulnerable groups and getting humanitarian
assistance directly to displaced community members.
The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, PRM, is
working to ensure humanitarian relief is reaching those in
need. And it has provided $171.8 million thus far in fiscal
year 2014 for aid to Iraqis both inside Iraq and in the region.
ISIL's recent assault on northern and western Iraq is an
extension of its brutal acts in Syria, where there have been
reports of mass killings in Christian and Alawite villages,
forced conversion at gunpoint, beheadings, kidnappings, and
extreme abuse of women from all communities, including
communities comprised of their fellow Sunni Muslims.
In all of our engagements with Syrians, from Secretary
Kerry down to the working level, we have consistently called
upon all opposition parties to respect the rights of all
Syrians, including the right to religious freedom, and to
pursue a government and legal framework that protects these
rights. Despite the challenges in realizing these goals, we
have been heartened that the Syrian opposition coalition we
have recognized has repeatedly and publicly denounced any
affronts to religious freedom.
Sadly, religious freedom violations are not limited to the
dire situation in Iraq and Syria. In nearly every region of the
world, we can see limitations on the freedom of--on the
exercise of religious freedom. In Pakistan, numerous religious
minorities face high levels of violence and discrimination.
Turkey refuses to recognize the Alevis' houses of worship
despite their 20 percent percentage of the population. And the
Greek Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch continues to face
restrictions, as well.
Pew Forum statistics highlight that over 80 percent of the
world's population claims a religion, while over 70 percent of
the global population lives in areas in which religious freedom
is restricted.
These statistics underscore the momentous step that the
Congress took in 1998 when it passed landmark legislation, the
International Religious Freedom Act, which sent a clear and
strong signal that the universal right of religious freedom
would be a priority of the United States' foreign policy. We
are deeply committed the our obligations under the IRF Act. We
acknowledge the significant contributions toward implementation
of the act that have been made by the United States Commission
on International Religious Freedom.
On July 28th, Secretary Kerry released the 2013
International Religious Freedom Report, which describes the
status of religious freedom in every corner of the globe. And,
at that time, he also announced his designations for Countries
of Particular Concern. This valuable tool highlights the most
egregious violations, and we use this tool, among the many
others outlined in the act, to advance international religious
freedom. And we press governments to stop violations when they
happen, wherever they happen, and not only in countries of
particular concern.
Religious freedom, as well as the broader spectrum of human
rights, remains a priority in U.S. foreign policy, and it is
related more broadly to questions of governance and stability.
Around the globe, in countries emerging from conflict or
undergoing great change, like Burma and the Central African
Republic, we find that fostering respect for religious freedom
and a culture of tolerance is central to the creation of a just
and lasting peace and a stable government. And this is a trend,
I think, to which earlier witnesses testified.
As created by the 1998 IRF Act, the Ambassador-at-Large for
International Religious Freedom serves as the principal advisor
to the Secretary of State and President on religious freedom.
And, just last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
held a hearing to consider the nomination of Rabbi David
Saperstein. I understand that Rabbi Saperstein has now been
voted out of business committee. He has a long and
distinguished career pressing for international religious
freedom, and we are hopeful for his speedy confirmation so that
his efforts and energies can join in the important work already
ongoing within the Department.
The challenges of religious freedom around the globe far
exceed the efforts of any one person. They require broad
cooperation both inside and outside of government. My
colleagues and I work with colleagues throughout the
Department, our missions overseas, and the White House to
ensure that the government is working together to advance
religious freedom overseas. While we can never do enough, we
continue to strive to meet our obligations under the IRF Act in
both letter and in spirit.
We appreciate Congress' support for international religious
freedom, and we want to continue working closely with the
legislative branch on our shared concerns and efforts to
advance international religious freedom. I look forward to your
questions and to our continued cooperation on this critical
issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chaffetz. Well, thank you. And thank you for your
participation.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Sewall follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Chaffetz. And we should refer to you as ``Dr. Sewall.''
We are going to change your nameplates out. And as long as I
keep talking, the camera will probably stay on me and they
won't even notice it. But, again, we thank you for your
expertise and your passion on this issue.
We heard previous testimony from our panelists that some
want to see more of a stick approach; there should be more
consequences for those who that don't participate in religious
freedoms. And then we also heard from Mr. Smith, for instance,
and others that said there ought to be some sort of incentives
and rewards and some recognition for those that are actually
moving in the right direction to encourage those types of
behavior.
What I see from afar is not much movement of the needle in
the right direction. We hear some of the most horrific things
you can possibly imagine--Boko Haram and what's going on there.
We want to do something that's effective, that actually moves
the needle. I think most Americans do care about this, and it
does become the focal point of a lot of conflict around the
world in which our men and women--you know, it gets to a much
more serious level.
So what, from your vantage point, actually works and that
we need to do more of? What specifically do we need to do more
of?
Ms. Sewall. Well, as a former Sunday school teacher, I can
confess that I share that desire to make our values promotion
in the context of religious freedom, in the context of a
broader human rights commitment, to be realized in a very
practical level around the globe. And so I think I would like
to respond to your question in two different ways.
You know, first, I think one of the very clear realizations
that we have had in the context of the ongoing conflict in both
Syria and Iraq--and they are not new revelations, but they are
really crystallized in the form of ISIL's rapid advance--is how
central the question of religious freedom is to broader foreign
policy questions and concerns that we have as a government.
So I think one of the challenges for anyone who is
passionately committed to the issue of religious freedom is to
sometimes recognize where the issue is worked on with great
fervor and commitment even if the leading tag on the issue
isn't religious freedom per se. In other words, I think we are
hugely and deeply involved in promoting religious freedom in
many aspects of our foreign policy that people don't
necessarily think of, first and foremost, as questions of
religious freedom. And I think the ISIL frame, because of the
brutality and the particular flavor of the evil that it
perpetrates in the name of religion, has really raised that
issue in a way that we haven't perhaps appreciated before.
Mr. Chaffetz. Can you give me any example of something that
we have done that has actually been effective----
Ms. Sewall. Yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chaffetz. --specific to this topic?
Ms. Sewall. So let me talk a little bit about some of the
things that we have done that we think the United States can be
extremely proud of.
Active engagement by the administration in Armenia
encouraged the passage of a law to protect conscientious
objectors. That may sound like a small thing, but conscientious
objectors in the past were not allowed to have a status. And so
that is a significant and precedential example of a concrete
impact from engagement. It led to the release of 28 Jehovah's
Witnesses in the fall of 2013.
We work with international partners to train law
enforcement practitioners on tools to combat intolerance,
discrimination, and violence on the basis of religion or
beliefs using methods that ensure respect for freedoms of
speech and assembly. Those have effects that we don't
necessarily track per se, but the training itself is very
concrete, and it lives on in the commitment of those who carry
it out.
We have worked, for example, in the context of the current
Egyptian Government, where the prosecution of a few
perpetrators of violence against religious minorities has
occurred, that is obviously an insufficient response to the
broader question of religious freedom in Egypt. Nonetheless, it
has an important deterrent effect, and it demonstrates support
for communities that we have long recognized as besieged in the
context of Egypt's laws.
Tunisia, the birthplace of the Arab uprising, is a great
example, I think, of how democracy can foster robust debates
about how countries uphold fundamental rights. And, again, the
constitution that was ratified in 2014 is not perfect, but I
think we can be--we must be mindful and grateful for the
strides that it takes in the constitution for guaranteeing the
liberty of conscious, belief, and worship. That is a
significant change.
Mr. Chaffetz. Okay.
So this new position--I mean, it is bingo night over in the
United States Senate, so who knows if we can get this person
actually confirmed before they go into recess. It is good to
see movement within the committee, but to have this position
actually confirmed by the full United States Senate, I think we
all share the concern that it takes way too long.
What are you going to specifically do to make sure that the
Rabbi is at the table and has a significant portfolio so that
he can actually, you know, help move the ball forward?
You know, part of the concern that we heard from the first
panel is that, at least structurally on the organizational
chart, he's a little bit deeper into the bowels of the
organization as opposed to a direct line of sight to the
Secretary himself. So how do you deal with that, as somebody
within your organization?
Ms. Sewall. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. Let
me try to answer it in two different ways.
I mean, first, I think, in terms of the bowels of the
bureaucracy, I would like to think of myself as having been
bureaucracy-free for a good many years before I had the good
fortune to be confirmed to join this administration. It is only
through working within the State Department that I have come to
appreciate the centrality that the bureaus themselves play in
ensuring that the issues that they represent are folded across
the entire State Department's work. In other words, I have come
to believe and see in my daily practice the advantage of being
inside a bureau.
So, for example, whoever is the Ambassador-at-Large will
have limits on his or her attention. What the Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor can do is ensure that that
person and that staff is integrated into the panoply of issues,
whether they are the questions of government reform in Tunisia
or in Iraq or whether they are bilateral engagements with China
or elsewhere. The reach of the Ambassador-at-Large is vastly
magnified by being within DRL.
And I have seen that in its manifestation. A great example
of that, Mr. Chairman, would be the role that the Office of
Religious Freedom was able to play in bringing information from
the Yazidi community directly to the planners who were working
on the military support, both the humanitarian support and the
air strikes, and the ability to lash up that expertise and
specialized knowledge within the realm of a larger bureau that
was centrally engaged in a broader range of issues and then
particularly manifest in the context of the conduct of the war.
So I think it was a great example of how being within a
bureau can magnify the impact of the Ambassador-at-Large.
Mr. Chaffetz. Well, there is deep concern from a number of
people to make sure that this position is fully implemented. I
appreciate your commitment there. I don't doubt it. This
position will be a newly filled position since you have had
your confirmation. So I want to offer as much encouragement as
we can to make sure that this person hopefully will get Senate
confirmation sooner rather than later and that they are fully
integrated and have a place of prominence.
I do think the points that were made earlier, that so many
of our Nation's conflicts are still rooted in some of the basic
prohibitions that a lot of people have on the practice of
religion, some of this dates back thousands of years. And they
are difficult, emotional issues, but I think it is important to
the United States of America. It is part of our success. And we
want to make sure that it is given the full weight and measure.
But I think we now will recognize the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Mica, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you. And I apologize. I came in late.
I was delayed. But I certainly commend the chairman and ranking
member for holding this hearing.
And it is an important hearing. I think everyone looks to
the United States for leadership, particularly on moral issues.
And we have sort of tried to set the pattern throughout our
history as a Nation that would protect human rights.
You have an important position. How many people work with
you in your office? Your title is Under Secretary for Civilian
Security, Democracy, and Human Rights, Dr. Sewall?
Ms. Sewall. My front office----
Mr. Mica. Can't hear you.
Ms. Sewall. Excuse me. I am sorry, Congressman.
My front office has, I believe, about 20 people. And the
bureaus that live within the J Under Secretariat, in cumulative
total, number roughly 2,000.
Mr. Mica. Two thousand people work within----
Ms. Sewall. Across seven bureaus and offices.
Mr. Mica. --working to protect civilian security,
democracy----
Ms. Sewall. We do counterterrorism work, sir.
Mr. Mica. Uh-huh.
Ms. Sewall. We do security sector reform.
Mr. Mica. I see. Like, civilian security is----
Ms. Sewall. We do counterterrorism.
Mr. Mica. Is that like--I mean, we just lost two
journalists, Mr. Foley and Mr. Sotloff. Would you be involved
in those kind of cases too? They were held as hostages and
slaughtered.
Ms. Sewall. The Bureau of Counterterrorism is part of my
mandate as the Under Secretary for Civilian Security,
Democracy, and----
Mr. Mica. So the 2,000 people that you oversee in that
office have some of that responsibility.
And then we are trying to get this nomination of Rabbi
Saperstein to serve as the State Department's next Ambassador-
at-Large for Religious Freedom. Now, has that position--how
long has that position been vacant?
Ms. Sewall. I believe it has been vacant for almost a year.
We are very excited about the nomination of Rabbi Saperstein--
--
Mr. Mica. Now, does he report to you or someone else?
Ms. Sewall. One of his first visits, I believe, was to my
office, where he said, I need to know how important this issue
is. And he was very vociferous in his desire to----
Mr. Mica. But he would report to you. Is there another----
Ms. Sewall. He reports--his office is based within the
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. He will----
Mr. Mica. Is there another Secretary or a Deputy Secretary
position----
Ms. Sewall. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. --between you and him?
Ms. Sewall. He will be reporting to the Assistant Secretary
for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
Mr. Mica. Okay.
Ms. Sewall. He, of course, will be able to report directly
to the Secretary with any information, updates, or questions
that he might have. So he will be----
Mr. Mica. So you would prepare protests, or you would--in
cases where, like, civilians like Foley and Sotloff were
slaughtered, do you prepare any human rights violation protests
with--I guess, would that be directed, where people say--we had
a witness from the--was it Nigeria?-- who spoke of the
slaughter of Christians there.
If there are instances where these violations are
egregious--slaughter of innocent people because of their
religion, or innocent civilians--you protest where? Is it the
United Nations Human Rights Council?
Ms. Sewall. Sir, our policy towards Nigeria has multiple
dimensions, and many of the offices within my Under
Secretariat, as well as the regional----
Mr. Mica. I know, but I think one of the witnesses said
there was more slaughter of Christians in Nigeria than all the
other instances.
Ms. Sewall. Yeah, I was surprised by that number. I will
need to investigate that.
Mr. Mica. But I would be surprised if you were surprised--
--
Ms. Sewall. Yeah.
Mr. Mica. --because you are in charge of that.
Ms. Sewall. Right. It might not be accurate. So we just
need to investigate it.
Mr. Mica. Well, it sounds like a lot. But----
Ms. Sewall. It is a lot.
Mr. Mica. But what I----
Ms. Sewall. The slaughter by Boko Haram is horrific.
Mr. Mica. Yes. And my question is, you have a position--you
just said you have 2,000 people that work for you. And we have
some way to engage at the international community. Have we
forwarded a protest from your department or the State
Department or the United States within either the--I guess it's
the Human Rights Council of the United Nations? Have we done
anything?
Ms. Sewall. I would have to investigate whether we----
Mr. Mica. You don't know whether we----
Ms. Sewall. I don't want to misspeak, Congressman.
Mr. Mica. I mean, I find it astounding because----
Ms. Sewall. I have taken an oath, so I need to be very
careful.
Mr. Mica. --I think that--yeah. I think that you should be
aware, particularly where there is the slaughter of innocent
civilians, be it media people or people for religious freedom,
of what actions we are taking to----
Ms. Sewall. Sure. I would love to explain them to you.
Mr. Mica. Now, ISIS or ISIL might be a more difficult
entity to come after because it is not a defined state, but
certainly Nigeria is.
Ms. Sewall. Uh-huh. Would you like to know what we have
done on behalf of our efforts against Boko Haram in Nigeria?
Mr. Mica. From you now, yes.
Ms. Sewall. I could explain because I have been to Nigeria
to raise these issues----
Mr. Mica. No, but it's not there too. It's also--to bring
this to world attention--this is the Department of State
witness, Mr. Chairman, isn't it?--we deal in these
international bodies; we lodge protests. And someone in the
State Department, the Secretary or someone, has to initiate an
action in a body, and that's our--we deal with other states.
So my question is, what have we done----
Ms. Sewall. We talk to other states repeatedly----
Mr. Mica. But we have not lodged anything or initiated----
Ms. Sewall. I can repeat my answer. I will need to check
and find out whether or not we have lodged----
Mr. Mica. Again, I found it astounding, Mr. Chairman, that
a witness could come before us on an issue like that and not
know if we have even lodged a protest in the appropriate
international body.
If there is some other international body you've protested
to or taken action to, I would like to know.
For the record, maybe she could submit it. Thank you.
Ms. Sewall. I would be happy to.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
I now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, the
ranking member, Mr. Tierney, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Dr. Sewall. And thank you for your
good wishes earlier on in your testimony.
I understand that you are not the person that would be
making any objections to international bodies and others. It is
probably left to the Secretary, on that basis. But please tell
us what you have done, particularly with respect to Boko Haram,
and what actions you took in your position and capacity.
Ms. Sewall. Thank you.
Well, it is a team effort because the President has spoken
directly to the President about his concern and ways in which
we can help them defeat this scourge. We have been leaders with
some of our closest NATO allies in trying to build a global
coalition--or, sorry, a regional coalition to defeat Boko
Haram. We have had numerous regional meetings where we have
sought to encourage the neighbors to increase their military
activity as well as their information-sharing.
We have made significant inroads in helping the Nigerian
government understand their need to be more responsive, not
simply on a military level but also in the context of
addressing some of the grievances that exist in the northeast.
This is an issue that has been on the U.S. diplomatic radar
screen and has been the focus of a wide range of meetings in
different European capitals, in Nigeria. We have been sounding
the alarm about Boko Haram. We have condemned its violence
against all Nigerians--Christians but also Muslims.
And I think, you know, the First Lady's concern with the
behavior of Boko Haram has been a great example of American
values and engagement at work. And the notion that we have not
been significantly--and our example of highlighting the abuses
of Shekau's really brutal campaign against all Nigerians has
been front and center in our Nigeria policy and our engagement
with allies and with others to try to highlight the
difficulties that exist there now.
Mr. Tierney. I think you started to indicate that you
personally had taken a trip to Nigeria on that basis.
Ms. Sewall. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. Would you relate to us what your impressions
are of the responsiveness that you were getting from Nigerian
officials when you make a presentation?
Ms. Sewall. Thank you for that question.
I went--I would have to check on the date. I believe it was
about 2 months ago, when I went as part of a delegation. We
were, at the time, concerned--and I testified before the
House--to convey our concern about the Nigerian Government's
recognition of the fundamental violations of human rights in
northeast Nigeria and, in particular, their failure to mobilize
effectively to confront the military threat of Boko Haram.
I can tell you that a more recent delegation, which
included my colleague at the State Department, Assistant
Secretary Linda Thomas-Greenfield, just returned from Nigeria,
where they reported that the Nigerian Government, while now
extremely concerned, has yet to be able to take effective
action. And so we are in discussion now within the government
about ways in which we might further encourage action both by
Nigeria and by its neighbors because the situation is extremely
dire.
Mr. Tierney. Do you think that Nigeria has the capacity----
Ms. Sewall. I am concerned that Nigeria does not have the
capacity, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Is there anything else you want to add in terms of Nigeria
and where you think we ought to go?
Ms. Sewall. No----
Mr. Tierney. To help build that capacity, for instance.
Ms. Sewall. Well, there is a host of challenges in trying
to work with Nigeria, not the least being--and this relates to
the broader point that I was trying to make about how
mainstream questions of religious tolerance are. Because they
are part of a question of governance and whether or not a
government is responsive to its people and protects all of its
human rights, to include the freedom of religion.
I think that the protection of rights in the northeast or
the attention to rights in the northeast has not been what it
was. And that, in turn, allows for--creates conditions in which
it is easier for extremism of other forms to thrive.
And so, as we look to promote religious freedom, we can do
so with the confidence that when we advocate our values
overseas to foreign governments we are actually advocating
something that is, even though they may not see it in the short
term, very much in their long-term interest, which is to
promote tolerance and freedom and human rights as a state so
that they can hope to enjoy greater stability within the state.
And it is a theme that we see not just in Nigeria. We see
it also in Iraq and Syria. We see it in many places around the
globe.
And the fact that the United States is consistently raising
freedom of region and human rights in its engagements
bilaterally, even with countries with whom we fundamentally
disagree on a number of issues, I think, speaks to its
centrality in U.S. foreign policy and the fact that, while
Rabbi David Saperstein will be an enormous boost and we all
hope for his speedy confirmation--and I, for one, am really
looking forward to having him join the team in the State
Department--this is work that goes on every day by many
officials within the Department, and it is truly a central
element of our foreign policy today.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Doctor.
Yield back.
Mr. Chaffetz. Just a few more questions as we wrap up.
You would acknowledge that Christians, at least at this
time, are the most persecuted group around the world; is that
your belief?
Ms. Sewall. I think Christians are extremely persecuted
around the world.
Mr. Chaffetz. Do you not agree that they are the most
persecuted at this point?
Ms. Sewall. I don't have the numbers in front of me, so it
is hard for me to say that as a statistical matter. But I am
completely open to getting back to you with the numbers on that
question, sir.
Mr. Chaffetz. When would you get back to us with those
numbers?
Ms. Sewall. If the numbers exist, I will be back to you
later this afternoon.
Mr. Chaffetz. Okay. I would hope that, at your level of
your expertise--and you've got a number of things you're
responsible for--that you would have those at your fingertips
at any given time.
Ms. Sewall. But, sir, I don't need the numbers to know that
the persecution of Christians is wrong and should be an
American foreign policy priority, as the persecution of all
religious minorities is.
Mr. Chaffetz. I would agree that all--what I don't see is
any success.
Ms. Sewall. Well, I could--could I continue on that for a--
--
Mr. Chaffetz. There are a host of materials and information
and third-party groups and we just heard testimony from a whole
host of people who've made, I think, a very solid point that
what is happening or not happening in the State Department, it
isn't working.
Ms. Sewall. Well, I don't disagree. And I said in my
testimony that we can never do enough to guarantee religious
freedom any more than any other human right around the world.
It is an uphill climb, but we are committed.
And I think you would be really interested in at least this
set of facts. In the last few years, at least 100 people
imprisoned for their faith have been released following USG
advocacy in eight countries in the Middle East, South and
Central Asia, East Asia, and Africa. It is not an exhaustive
list, but I know that we all long for some quantitative measure
of impact, and I can at least with confidence give you that.
Mr. Chaffetz. And I appreciate that. I look forward to
having that and seeing that. I would also hope that you would
be receptive to some of the other very worthwhile, credible
outside groups who have done a host of this work and listen to
their perspective, as well.
Let me ask you about one of the policy recommendations. And
it seems simple to me that there would be or should be an
annual designation. Is that something that off the top of your
head is objectionable, to annually try to evaluate and make
some sort of designation? Is there any reason not to do that?
Ms. Sewall. When I have asked the office about that issue,
I get a very interesting answer, which is that they are
constantly reviewing for designation. There is no minimum
requirement or maximum requirement; they are constantly in that
process.
And so I think that, as facts on the ground change and as
the reviews continue, my understanding is that that is the
basis on which they then designate, that it is not----
Mr. Chaffetz. So it would be relatively easy, if the
Congress were to request something to just compile, that what
seems to be constantly in motion, to have some sort of date or
whatnot, that we could get this annual designation. Is that
fair?
Ms. Sewall. I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?
Mr. Chaffetz. So if Congress were to designate a date by
which we try to do some sort of annual report, that that
shouldn't be extraordinary in terms of effort and something--if
it's constantly in motion, to just simply take a snapshot in
time.
Ms. Sewall. Well, as you know, the administration has many
reports that it is required to report. So----
Mr. Chaffetz. Well, my understanding is that this year's
designations were the first one--at least the staff is telling
me, this year's were the first since 2011. So they are sporadic
at best. And we will explore this with you. If there's other
reasons, something that we're not thinking of, I'd appreciate
it if you'd share that with us.
But it seems like a simple request. It would give us a good
snapshot. It would remind us, and I think it would be
important, that--as was pointed out, the last thing you want to
do is designate a country as somewhat problematic and not have
them have the ability to climb off that list.
And it should be just, in my personal opinion, much more
than a list. There needs to be some sort of consequence. There
needs to be some sort of reward, some sort of reason to, you
know, move in the right direction. I guess that's the point.
I have a host of other questions, but in the absence of
what we're doing here and the time, I guess my last comment
would be: We would certainly appreciate it in the future if we
could have your participation, and other people in the State
Department, on one panel rather than two panels. The
opportunity to just share in the spirit of cooperation and
understanding, that we have one panel to share these things
back and forth, I think we would find that we would be very
bipartisan. And we may get to the point where we have to insist
on that, but I'd appreciate your consideration to be able to
have that on the one panel. It would be a better use of the
Congress' time, I think a better use of your time. And we would
ultimately come up with a better product. And I'd appreciate--
--
Ms. Sewall. I suspect I'm entering a long--a long history
with regard to that issue. And----
Mr. Chaffetz. It has been back and forth. And I think we
are going to have to be more insistent in making sure that we
have productive panels and that we have the good, candid
dialogue.
I know you are committed to what you do and your passion in
what you do. You are very accomplished in your background. I
appreciate the type of talent and thought that you bring to
this.
It is, obviously, a concern of ours that the religious
liberties, religious freedoms become an integral part of the
State Department's efforts in all of our foreign policy. It is
very important. It should not be delegated to just one of those
other things we need to check the box on. And that's, I think,
the impression that we're trying to leave with you and with
others.
And I appreciate the good men and women who do work on this
issue within the State Department and those in the outside
groups who care passionately about these issues. And we thank
all of you for your participation today. I think we learned a
lot from this, and we've got to make sure that we actually act
upon it.
So, with that, we will stand adjourned. Thank you.
Ms. Sewall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 4:11 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]