Testimony by Preeta D. Bansal, Chair
Hearing on the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom
2004 and the Designation of Countries of Particular Concern
Before the House International Relations Committee of the United
States House of Representatives
October 6, 2004
USCIRF Chair
Preeta D. Bansal testifies before the HIRC on the State Department's
2004 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom and
the Designation of Countries of Particular Concern.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee, let me
begin by thanking you for the opportunity to testify today at this
important hearing. I plan to summarize the Commission's testimony
in my oral remarks, but would like to request that my full written
statement be included in the record.
Six years after the passage of the International Religious Freedom
Act of 1998, or IRFA, it has become abundantly clear that promoting
freedom of thought, conscience and religion and related human rights
abroad is vital to U.S. foreign policy and to our strategic, as
well as humanitarian, interests. When observed, freedom of religion
or belief is one of the linchpins of stable, democratic, productive
societies in which the rule of law and human rights are accorded
value. When denied, generations of hatred and societal instability
may be sown - and, as has been demonstrated all too often, such
hatred and instability spill over national borders. The promotion
of religious freedom throughout the world is therefore an essential
tool in the war against the extremist and violent religious ideologies
that currently threaten us. The State Department's Annual Report
on International Religious Freedom provides Congress and the
public an opportunity to assess not only the state of religious
freedom around the world but also what the U.S. government is doing
to promote this key U.S. foreign policy objective.
Mr. Chairman, I am here to testify on the State Department's Annual
Report on International Religious Freedom 2004 and the designation
of "countries of particular concern," or CPCs, at a time
when the Secretary of State has recently named three new CPCs: Eritrea,
Vietnam, and Saudi Arabia. The Commission has long called for these
new designations, particularly that of Saudi Arabia, and we welcome
this decision, as it represents an important step forward in demonstrating
the U.S. government's commitment to the promotion of freedom of
thought, conscience, religion and belief as part of its overall
foreign policy. At the same time, IRFA is very clear that more is
required of the U.S. government than just naming these three countries
as CPCs. Important obligations, in the form of consequent actions,
flow from the CPC designation, and my testimony will address precisely
what those obligations are. In the interest of time, I will focus
particularly on the new designation of Saudi Arabia, a country on
which the Commission has focused considerable attention since the
Commission began its work six years ago.
In addition to the new CPCs and the next steps as required by IRFA,
my testimony will touch on the situation in Iraq, where the U.S.
government has a special obligation to ensure that freedom of religion
or belief for every Iraqi is guaranteed. As we are required to do
by statute, I will comment about the Annual Report, in relation
to the country reports and the U.S. refugee program. Finally, I
would like to take advantage of this opportunity to discuss the
Commission's work with regard to the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which covers a vital region including
all of Europe, the former Soviet Union, Canada and the United States.
The need to promote religious freedom for the growing Muslim minority
populations in OSCE countries, together with the need to recognize
and to combat growing anti-Semitism in the region, cannot be understated.
Three New Countries of Particular Concern: Designation
is Only a Beginning - The Need for Responsive Action to Address
Religious Freedom Violations
The designation of severe religious freedom violators as CPCs continues
to be one of the most significant human rights decisions for any
U.S. Administration. The five countries named as CPCs in the past
and re-named last month by the Secretary of State, Burma, China,
Iran, North Korea, and Sudan, are all subject to pre-existing sanctions,
and the U.S. government has thus not taken any additional actions
as a result of their designation. With the recent designation of
Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, and Eritrea, however, we now find ourselves
in an unprecedented situation. This year, for the first time since
the passage of IRFA, the State Department must do more than rely
on pre-existing sanctions to meet IRFA's requirements.
Though we support the new designation of these three countries,
the Commission would like to call attention to the fact that CPC
designation is not an end point, but only the beginning of focused
diplomatic activity to promote freedom of religion or belief. In
addition to CPC designation, IRFA stipulates that the U.S. government
respond with action to address violations in CPC countries. Until
this year, for every country named a CPC, the only official action
taken by any U.S. administration has been to invoke already existing
sanctions rather than to take any additional action pursuant to
IRFA. While the reliance on pre-existing sanctions may technically
have been correct under the statute, it was unacceptable as a matter
of policy and not in keeping with the spirit of IRFA. Moreover,
the State Department has not once to date submitted to the Congress
the required evaluation of the effectiveness of prior actions against
CPCs. This past disregard of IRFA requirements represents a serious
failure in U.S. foreign policy that the Commission hopes will not
be continued.
According to IRFA, now that CPC designations have been made, the
Secretary of State must do three things within 90 days of the time
of designation, which would be some time in mid-December: first,
consult with the foreign government in question and others; second,
either take an action from one of several specified in IRFA (or
a commensurate action), or conclude a binding agreement, or waive
taking an action altogether; and third, report to Congress on the
action taken, which should include an evaluation of the impact of
that action.1 Thus
the outlined scheme consists of consultation, responsive action,
and then reporting and evaluation to Congress.
With regard to the second critical step - responding substantively
to the CPC designation by action, binding agreement, or waiver of
action - IRFA provides some flexibility. It outlines several actions
available to the U.S. government in response to CPC designation.
These include: the withdrawal, limitation, or suspension of development
assistance; limitations on loan guarantees or credit provided by
such institutions as the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation, or the Trade and Development Agency; the
withdrawal, limitation, or suspension of security assistance; a
vote against loans from international financial institutions; a
prohibition on U.S. financial institutions from loans or credits
totaling more than $10,000,000; and a prohibition on U.S. government
contracts with the country in question.2
IRFA also specifies that in lieu of one of the above actions, the
U.S. government can negotiate a binding agreement with the foreign
government to cease, or take substantial steps to address and phase
out, the act, policy, or practice constituting religious freedom
violations.3 As
an alternative, the Secretary of State may waive the application
of any of the actions specified in IRFA, but only if: (1) the foreign
government has ceased the violations; (2) the waiver would further
the purposes of the IRFA; or (3) an important national interest
of the U.S. requires such a waiver. It is important to note that
any waiver must be reported to Congress, along with a detailed justification.4
As noted, the State Department has yet to take any of these formal
steps with regard to previously designated CPCs, and the Commission
has been concerned about this underutilization and disregard of
the statutorily prescribed process. For all of the CPC-designated
countries, new as well as past CPCs, the Commission looks forward
to working with the State Department as it formulates statutorily
required responses to religious freedom violations. In the coming
weeks, the Commission intends to provide recommendations on steps
that can be taken with regard to the newly-designated CPCs, in particular.
Saudi Propagation of Religious Intolerance and Hate
The Commission's long-standing recommendation of CPC designation
for Saudi Arabia was based in part on the Saudi government's violations
of religious freedom within its own borders, where, as the State
Department itself has been noting for several years, religious freedom
simply "does not exist." The Saudi government forcefully
bans all forms of public religious expression other than that of
the government's interpretation of one school of Sunni Islam so
that ultimately, all individuals, Muslims and non-Muslims alike,
are denied freedom of conscience and belief in Saudi Arabia. This
impedes the development of alternative voices within the Islamic
tradition, as well as debate within and dissent from prevailing
state-imposed orthodoxy.
The ongoing and egregious violations of religious freedom by the
Saudi government include: torture and cruel and degrading treatment
or punishment imposed by both judicial and administrative authorities;
prolonged detention without charges and often incommunicado; and
blatant denials of the right to liberty and security of the person,
including coercive measures aimed at women and the wide jurisdiction
of the religious police (mutawaa), whose powers are vaguely defined
and exercised in ways that violate the religious freedom of others.
The Commission welcomes the fact that during last month's press
conference announcing the release of the Annual Report on International
Religious Freedom, the Ambassador-at-Large for International
Religious Freedom, for the first time, raised the Commission's other
serious concern about Saudi Arabia: credible reports that the Saudi
government and members of the royal family, directly and indirectly,
fund the global propagation of an exclusivist religious ideology,
Wahhabism, which allegedly promotes hatred, intolerance, and other
abuses of human rights, including violent acts, against non-Muslims
and disfavored Muslims. The lack of religious freedom inside Saudi
Arabia, together with the Saudi government's alleged funding and
global propagation of a particular, radically intolerant interpretation
of Islam, impedes the development of voices of toleration and debate
within the Islamic tradition in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.
The U.S. government should be highly concerned about the allegations
that Saudi Arabia, by funding propagation of an exclusivist religious
ideology, is engaging in activities that have a detrimental effect
on the protection of freedom of religion or belief in at least 30
foreign countries, as well as in the United States. Because of its
concerns, the Commission last year recommended that the U.S. government
formally examine whether, how, and to what extent the Saudis are
funding extremist activities, and urged Congress to fund such a
study and make public its findings. In April of this year, Congress
took up the Commission's recommendation, and several Members of
Congress wrote to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting
that the GAO seek information from the relevant agencies and consult
with outside experts, including the Commission, on the promotion
of religious extremism to determine what the U.S. government is
doing to identify sources of Saudi funding for institutions that
advocate violence and intolerance, and what the U.S. government
is doing to counter that influence. The Commission looks forward
to working with the GAO in carrying out this important study.
The Commission plans soon to issue recommended responses pursuant
to the IRFA statute to follow up on the CPC designation of Saudi
Arabia. We note, however, that there are several small steps the
U.S. government can take immediately. For example, the U.S. government
should urge Saudi Arabia to safeguard the freedom to worship privately;
permit clergy to enter the country and perform private religious
services; and permit non-Wahhabi places of worship to function openly
in special compounds or in unadorned buildings. These represent
the barest minimum that could be done to improve the appalling religious
freedom situation in Saudi Arabia.
Other CPCs
The Commission welcomed the designation of Vietnam, a country recommended
for CPC status by the Commission since 2001. Religious freedom conditions
have deteriorated in Vietnam, including for ethnic Montagnard and
Hmong Christians, the leaders of the United Buddhist Church of Vietnam,
and "house church" Protestants, all of whom face arrests,
detentions, discrimination and, in some areas, forced renunciations
of faith. In view of its active repression of religious freedom
in the past and for the government of Vietnam's failure to respond
to the international community's repeated requests to address ongoing
violations of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion
or belief, Vietnam unmistakably warranted a CPC designation.
The State Department's acceptance of the Commission's recommendation
of CPC designation for Eritrea is also commendable. The government
of Eritrea in the past two years has embarked on a campaign against
various religious groups, including through the closure of all houses
of worship not belonging to officially recognized religious denominations,
the arrest of participants at prayer meetings and other gatherings,
and the imprisonment of armed forces members found in possession
of certain religious literature.
The Commission would like to note for the record that it remains
troubled that Turkmenistan has not been given the CPC designation
it so clearly merits. The State Department's own reports have consistently
concluded that religious freedom conditions continue to deteriorate
in Turkmenistan, a highly repressive country whose leader is currently
imposing a state religion based on his own personality cult. Though
the Turkmen government recently announced a few positive legislative
changes, those small, judiciously timed measures will do little
or nothing substantially to change the country's highly restrictive
religious freedom conditions. Clearly, Turkmenistan deserves to
be named a CPC. The Commission also found that the governments of
India* and Pakistan have engaged in or tolerated particularly severe
violations of religious freedom, and recommended that they be designated
as CPCs.
2003 Designations Omitted
Before leaving the subject of CPCs, the Commission would like to
register concern about the delay in naming CPCs in the past two
years. The fact that designations for 2002 were not made until March
2003 means that there were effectively no CPC designations at all
for the 2003 cycle. CPC designations - and subsequent actions -
are vital to advance U.S. protection against severe violations of
religious freedom. Promoting religious freedom as outlined in IRFA
and ensuring global respect for freedom of thought, conscience,
and religion or belief and related human rights will further the
U.S. government's campaign against terrorism and its goal of promoting
democratic reform. The need to adhere to IRFA procedures therefore
remains of critical importance.
Iraq: Religious Freedom Remains Critical
The Commission notes that Iraq is no longer on the U.S. government's
list of CPCs. In addition, the 2004 Annual Report on International
Religious Freedom contains no country report on Iraq. The absence
of a report should not in any way be construed as an indication
that religious freedom is not essential to the development of a
stable and democratic Iraq. In fact, heightened awareness of the
freedom of religion or belief is critical in the coming months,
as the Iraqi people embark upon the historic task of crafting a
permanent constitution.
The U.S. government cannot lose sight of the vital need to ensure
that the fundamental right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion
or belief is guaranteed in Iraq's permanent constitution. Understanding
the shortcomings of the recently adopted Afghan constitution illustrates
this important policy objective with respect to Iraq. In Afghanistan,
another country in which the United States has substantial influence
due to extraordinary circumstances, the Constitution adopted last
January does not contain explicit protections for the right to freedom
of thought, conscience, and religion or belief that would extend
to every individual. More significantly, all of its individual rights
provisions - including the right to life - can be trumped by ordinary
legislation. Such law, in turn, is valid only if it conforms to
the sacred religion of Islam, and the Afghan Supreme Court is empowered
with evaluating the validity of legislation according to Islam.
And so reconstructed Afghanistan faces the real spectre of a constitutionalized
judicial theocracy in which individual rights are easily trumped.
The new Constitution does not fully protect Afghans, including individual
Muslims, who want to debate the role of religion in law and society,
or to question interpretations of religious or other precepts without
fear of retribution.
Let me give you an anecdote from the Commission's 2003 visit to
Afghanistan to demonstrate that our concern on this matter is not
theoretical or fanciful. The head of Afghanistan's Supreme Court
is a man who has shown little regard for those who disagree with
his hard-line interpretation of Islam. He told those of us visiting
Afghanistan that yes, he supports international human rights standards,
with the exception of three: freedom of expression, freedom of religion,
and gender equality. Although we are in the halls of Congress and
not the Ford Theatre, I think it is fair to say, "Other than
that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" It is the Afghan Supreme
Court - headed by this man - that has been given the authority to
interpret the suitability of all legislation.
With no guarantee of the individual right to religious freedom
and a judicial system instructed to enforce Islamic principles and
Islamic law, the new Afghan constitution does not fully protect
individual Afghan citizens against, for example, unjust accusations
of religious "crimes" such as apostasy and blasphemy.
There are also fewer protections for Afghans to debate the role
and content of religion in law and society, to advocate the rights
of women and members of religious minorities, and to question interpretations
of Islamic precepts without fear of retribution. This could permit
a harsh, unfair, or even abusive interpretation of religious orthodoxy
to be officially imposed, violating numerous rights by stifling
dissent, which is permissible within the Islamic tradition.
It is critical that what happened in Afghanistan not be repeated
in Iraq. In the early stages of the drafting of Iraq's interim constitution,
the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL), the sections on fundamental
freedoms and human rights did not include guarantees of the right
to freedom of religion or belief for every Iraqi. In response, as
it had done in the case of Afghanistan, the Commission developed
for senior U.S. policymakers a series of specific recommendations
that would ensure in the TAL guarantees to the right to freedom
of religion or belief for every Iraqi. The Commission met or corresponded
with senior U.S. officials in the Coalition Provisional Authority,
the State Department, and the National Security Council to discuss
the specific concerns and recommendations regarding the TAL. The
Commission wrote to then-Administrator L. Paul Bremer of the CPA
expressing its concern about early drafts of the interim constitution,
and the Commission also advised on the content of House Resolution
545, introduced by Representatives Dana Rohrabacher and Carolyn
Maloney, expressing the sense of the House that the TAL should ensure
that every Iraqi be guaranteed the right to freedom of thought,
conscience, and religion.
An important breakthrough then occurred, when the Coalition Provisional
Authority (CPA) and the Iraqi Governing Council included the right
to freedom of thought, conscience, and religious belief and practice
for every Iraqi in the March 8, 2004 public release of the Transitional
Administrative Law, or TAL. This precursor to the country's eventual
permanent constitution is an historic step for Iraq and each Iraqi.
It is also potentially a model for the entire region and its significance
should not be lost in the midst of the present difficulties in Iraq.
The United States must take active steps to ensure that the protections
for religious freedom enshrined in the TAL make their way into the
permanent Iraqi constitution.
The Importance of a High-Level Human Rights Official
Given the unique conditions prevailing in Iraq, the Commission
strongly recommends that the U.S. government create a high-level
position within Embassy Baghdad to advance human rights, including
the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief,
as a key U.S. policy objective. This senior human rights official
should have the requisite experience and rank, report directly to
the Ambassador and be supported by a unit of advisers based out
of the embassy and its constituent posts.
In view of the unfolding situation in Iraq, the United States has
an historic opportunity to infuse the Iraqi national recovery and
political reconstruction process with the effective promotion and
advocacy of international human rights standards. A future Iraq
that respects human rights, including freedom of thought, conscience,
and religion or belief, is more likely to be at peace within its
own borders and with its neighbors. At the same time, the effective
promotion of human rights in Iraq cannot be undertaken in the usual
manner by relegating these issues to junior embassy staffers or
overburdened ambassadors, since the combination of a number of unprecedented
factors at play in Iraq demands an unprecedented high-level response
from the United States.
Designating a high-level official demonstrates support for Iraqi
efforts to make human rights a high-priority issue and consolidates
and advances the U.S. role thus far. As noted above, the TAL commendably
contains a bill of rights guaranteeing to each individual Iraqi
a wide range of human rights protections, including freedom of thought,
conscience, and religion. Given the massive level of U.S. financial
assistance appropriated for the reconstruction and relief effort
in Iraq, we must not let human rights get lost in the profusion
of programs, contracts, and other related efforts. U.S. goals in
the region cannot move forward without institutionalizing human
rights protections, and such protections can better be ensured by
positioning a high-level envoy with appropriate resources on the
ground during the transition period in Iraq.
The Annual Report on International Religious Freedom
The Annual Report on International Religious Freedom is
a highly significant part of the process of promoting religious
freedom throughout the world. The 2004 Annual Report is, characteristically,
a significant accomplishment that continues to demonstrate the substantial
efforts of the foreign-service officers in our embassies around
the world, as well as the Ambassador-at-Large for International
Religious Freedom and his staff at the State Department's Office
on International Religious Freedom.
Individual Country Reports
Many of the individual country reports in the 2004 Annual Report
continue to be lengthy and revealing. However, the Commission remains
concerned about a number of informational inaccuracies in several
important reports. Let me provide a few examples.
The country report on Saudi Arabia gives the impression that the
religious freedom situation is improving there, despite the fact
that the essential characteristic - the absence of religious freedom
- remains unchanged. Although the country has for the first time
been named a CPC, the report on Saudi Arabia for the first time
contains a section describing purported "Improvements and Positive
Developments in Respect for Religious Freedom," which perhaps
too enthusiastically champions as positive developments actions
that did little to alter the actual situation. What is more, the
report continues to omit any mention of reports of the Saudi export
of an intolerant and hate-filled religious ideology in a number
of countries throughout the world.
The report on Afghanistan does not address the "fatal flaw"
in the country's new Constitution that was described earlier in
my testimony. Though mention is made of the fact that followers
of religions other than Islam are free to exercise their faith,
the report does not address the fact that individual Muslims are
not granted unambiguous protections for the right to freedom of
thought, conscience, and religion. Nor does the report explicitly
address the profound threat to religious freedom that exists in
the form of the new Constitution's repugnancy clause that states
that "no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions
of Islam," and the fact that the Supreme Court is empowered
to make this determination. Given that the Supreme Court is currently
headed by a man who told this Commission last year that he does
not fully accept freedom of religion, these clauses in the Constitution
represent grave threats indeed to religious freedom in Afghanistan.
This year's country report on Sudan drops the previous year's treatment
of the issue of abduction of women and children and the taking of
slaves, a practice that was sometimes accompanied by forced conversion
to Islam. It would have been useful for the report to have included
an update on both of these issues, noting, for example, whether
any progress had occurred, due to the lessening of north-south armed
conflict, on the return to their ancestral home-areas of persons
who had been displaced or enslaved.
The country report on Turkmenistan concludes that "the status
of government respect for religious freedom, from a legislative
perspective and in practice, improved during the period covered
by this report." While it is true that four minority religious
communities have been registered (Adventist, Baha'i, Baptist, and
Hare Krishna) under eased registration requirements, there are also
reliable reports that even members of these newly registered religious
communities have continued to suffer harassment at the hands of
the police. Six Jehovah's Witnesses imprisoned as conscientious
objectors to military service were released, but two more were jailed.
In addition, the country's former chief mufti was given a 22-year
term of imprisonment, after a closed trial, during this period of
reporting. Given Turkmen President Saparmurat Niyazov's ever-growing
repressive cult of personality and its imposition on the religious
life of the country via enforced pressure to praise and promote
his so-called spiritual writings, including in mosques and churches,
it is difficult to believe that the status of religious freedom
in Turkmenistan has genuinely improved.
The report on China was more forceful than last year's report on
the matter of the persecution of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang. In
addition, the section on Tibet was more detailed than in previous
years and in some areas contained stronger, more explicit language
about developments in that region. For example, the report had better
coverage this year of conditions for Tibetans in Sichuan and other
regions outside of the Tibet Autonomous Region.
However, the report makes no mention of new laws dealing with "illegal
religious activity" passed in various areas, including in the
city of Qingdao and in counties in Hunan and Jiangsu. The passage
of these laws in the fall of last year was followed by a spate of
church closings and the destruction of church buildings in areas
where these laws came into effect. The report also inaccurately
describes Zhejiang as a province where unregistered religious activity
faces less pressure than in other places. In fact, in 2003, approximately
10 underground churches in Zhejiang were destroyed. Some of this
activity is noted at other places in the report, but the language
in the report makes it seem as if the situation in Zhejiang has
largely improved, and that is not the case.
Although the China country report mentions the forced postponement
of the Commission's visits to China (though the reason for the postponements
was not given), it does not mention the postponement of a planned
visit by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture in June 2004, a visit
that was postponed by Chinese officials who claimed they did not
have time to prepare the locations, including labor camps, where
visits were requested.
Finally, the report on North Korea now states more clearly that
repression "has increased" in North Korea, that churches
in Pyongyang are "controlled by the state," and that refusal
to conform to expected rituals and practices of the worship of Kim
Jong Il "may result in severe punishment." In other sections
of the report, however, unnecessarily hesitant language is employed.
Documentation from the reports of a number of NGOs and from numerous
refugee testimonies provides ample evidence that North Korean refugees
who admit contact with Christian groups in China are subject to
immediate detention, torture, and sometimes execution. Yet, the
State Department's report continues to use tentative language, stating,
for example, that "harsher" treatment "appears"
to occur. The collective weight of these NGO reports and refugee
testimony offers enough evidence for the Department to remove the
qualifying statements from their report language.
Absence of Reporting on U.S. Policies
The overall quality of the Annual Report is an indication that
the U.S. government is taking seriously the issue of religious freedom.
At the same time, the Annual Report is meant to be a report on U.S.
policies and activities to promote those policies, and not only
a report on conditions. However, it is not apparent from the information
presented in the Annual Report that the State Department has conducted
its activities in a coordinated way to implement particular policies
and to achieve specific goals.
Ambassador Hanford has visited several countries of concern to
the Commission and other senior Administration officials have raised
religious freedom problems with foreign governments. Their efforts
should be fully reported so that the Congress and the public can
better determine if all of the tools Congress made available under
IRFA to advance the protection of religious freedom abroad are being
used. From the information presented in the 2004 Annual Report,
the Commission is concerned that this is not the case. We encourage
that the Congress consider requiring the State Department to report
on policies, aid and other programs with respect to each country,
as part of its annual reports.
Religious Persecution and the U.S. Refugee Program
Congress intended the Annual Report on International Religious
Freedom to serve as an important resource for officials hearing
the claims of those persons seeking asylum or refugee status in
this country. The United States has a long tradition of welcoming
those fleeing religious persecution. The flow of refugees and religious
persecution are inextricably linked, and this is acknowledged throughout
Title VI of IRFA.
Noting the Annual Report's role as a resource for immigration adjudicators,
the Commission has previously testified about its concern that Appendix
E of the 2003 Report, the "Overview of U.S. Refugee Policy,"
contained misleading and incomplete information, particularly about
East Asia. The Commission welcomed changes to the 2004 Annual Report
that resulted in significant improvements in this section. However,
the Commission remains concerned that, as in last year's report,
the 2004 Overview of U.S. Refugee Policy section contains little
indication of the serious problem of intra-religious persecution,
but instead focuses almost exclusively on the persecution of religious
minorities by a majority religious community. Moreover, there is
no mention of significant refugee-source countries such as Eritrea
and Afghanistan, where serious religious freedom problems persist;
indeed, Eritrea was designated a CPC this year. Saudi Arabia, a
newly-designated CPC, and Pakistan, which the Commission has recommended
be designated a CPC, are cited in the refugee section for their
mistreatment of religious minorities, but the section does not indicate
how the U.S. Refugee Program has been responsive to this mistreatment.
The report's refugee section describes in some detail how the U.S.
Refugee Program is responding to the needs of religious minorities
who have fled Iran. However, the document contains only generic
descriptions of how the United States assists other refugee groups
that are fleeing religious persecution. The Commission hopes that
future reports will describe in greater detail how the Refugee Program
is responding to the needs of specific groups of refugees who have
fled severe violations of religious freedom.
The Commission would like to reiterate its recommendation that
several steps be taken to improve the institutional linkages between
religious persecution and access to the U.S. Refugee Program. These
include: (1) better training of refugee and consular officers in
the field on refugee and asylum adjudications and human rights,
particularly religious freedom, as required by sections 602 and
603 of IRFA;5 (2)
a systematic effort to improve access to resettlement for those
who have fled CPCs and other countries where there are severe violations
of religious freedom; and (3) the implementation of the operational
requirements imposed on the refugee program by IRFA.6
The State Department and the Department of Homeland Security have
yet to implement fully some of IRFA's key statutory provisions concerning
the refugee program. The Commission has recommended that the State
Department carefully consider each CPC designation made by the Commission
and determine how the U.S. refugee program could strategically reinforce
U.S. policy to promote religious freedom, and to protect those who
seek to exercise this fundamental human right. The Department has
invited the Commission to participate in the recently revitalized
regional working groups on refugee admissions. The Commission welcomes
this invitation, which will provide one appropriate framework to
improve access to the U.S. Refugee Program for those who have fled
religious persecution.
Promoting Freedom of Religion or Belief in the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE): Combating Discrimination,
Intolerance and Xenophobia Including Anti-Semitism
Before concluding my testimony, I would like to mention the Commission's
activities with regard to the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe (OSCE). For several years, the Commission has participated
in U.S. delegations to OSCE, which includes all of Europe and the
former Soviet Union as well as the United States and Canada. The
Commission has made recommendations relating to the work of the
OSCE in both the general area of freedom of protecting the right
to religion or belief and also specifically on combating discrimination,
intolerance and xenophobia, including anti-Semitism, in OSCE member
states. Commission participation increased in the last year, as
the OSCE held special meetings devoted to both religious intolerance
and anti-Semitism.
There is an important need to recognize and to address the resurgence
of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic acts of violence throughout the
OSCE region. Separately, in light of the declining birth rates in
Europe along with the in-migration of mainly Muslim minorities into
Europe, government respect for freedom of religion is important
for members of Muslim minorities who will, in a few decades, represent
major portions of the populations of such countries as France, Belgium,
the Netherlands and England.
The 55 member states of the OSCE have agreed to extensive and forward-looking
standards in protecting freedom of religion or belief and combating
discrimination, xenophobia, and intolerance, including anti-Semitism.
These issues comprise part of what is called in the OSCE the "Human
Dimension." Working with representatives from the State Department's
Office on International Religious Freedom and the U.S. Commission
on Security and Cooperation in Europe (the "Helsinki Commission"),
the Commission has ensured that U.S. statements at these meetings
noted violations of the right to freedom of religion and belief
in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Belarus, Russia, and Azerbaijan,
as well as "burdensome registration requirements that hinder,
instead of facilitate, religious freedom." The Commission has
issued general recommendations to the OSCE regarding burdensome
registration requirements that apply to varying degrees throughout
the OSCE region.
In the course of its work on religious freedom issues with the
OSCE, the Commission has recommended the creation of two new positions
in the OSCE to be appointed by the Chairman-in-Office: a Special
Representative on Discrimination and Xenophobia, and a Special Representative
on Anti-Semitism. These officials would provide continuing high-level
attention to these issues, including meeting periodically with the
leadership of relevant countries. The Commission has also advocated
concrete action by the OSCE and OSCE participating states to engage
in a regular public review of compliance with OSCE commitments on
freedom of religion or belief, and on racial and religious discrimination,
including anti-Semitism, including by facilitating an active role
by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as part of that process.
Conclusion
I have described our work in only a few regions and countries.
Our work, though, has a global scope. We make every attempt to approach
our work and the principle of religious freedom evenhandedly, and
do not elevate the concerns of any one religious community above
another. In fact, we just released a Policy Focus on Nigeria, a
copy of which is attached to this testimony for the record. Nigeria
is a country where religious freedom continues to be under threat,
and we make several policy recommendations to encourage the Nigerian
government to take steps to deal effectively with religious tension
and conflict. We look forward to working with you and your staffs
on implementing those recommendations.
Thank you again for holding this important hearing and inviting
the Commission to testify. I am happy to answer any questions that
you may have regarding my oral or written statements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Commissioners Bansal, Gaer, and Young dissent from the Commission's
recommendation that India be designated a country of particular
concern (CPC). Their views with respect to India are reflected in
a separate opinion, attached to a letter sent to Secretary of State
Colin L. Powell on February 4, 2004 and available on the Commission's
Website (www.uscirf.gov). Commissioner Chaput also joins this separate
opinion, and would place India on the Commission's Watch List rather
than recommend that it be designated a CPC.
1 See IRFA sections 402(b),
403, and 404.
2 IRFA section 405(a)(9)-(15).
3 IRFA sections 402(c), 405(c).
4 IRFA section
407.
5 Of the programs put in place
in response to IRFA's training requirements, the Asylum Corps has
distinguished itself with its enthusiastic compliance. The Commission
urges the other refugee and asylum decision-making entities-the
Consular Service, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and
the nascent Refugee Corps-to comply with IRFA requirements by emulating
the Asylum Corps' basic training and continuing education programs.
The Commission is ready to support and participate in such training
efforts. The importance of training adjudicators, judges, and consular
officers, who have the authority to refer refugees to the Department
of Homeland Security for an interview, cannot be over-emphasized
in ensuring protection for those who are fleeing religious persecution.
6 Section 602 of IRFA contains
broad requirements for the Refugee Admissions program, including:
(1) guidelines for addressing hostile biases in personnel retained
at refugee processing posts; (2) guidelines to ensure uniform procedures
for establishing agreements with overseas processing entities and
personnel; and (3) uniform procedures for such entities and personnel
responsible for preparing refugee case files for refugee adjudications.
There is no mention of any of these requirements by the State Department
in the relevant Appendix of the 2004 Annual Report on International
Religious Freedom.
|