SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
26–648PDF
2006
MONITORING RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
AROUND THE WORLD: A REVIEW OF THE
''COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES FOR 2005''
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MARCH 16, 2006
Serial No. 109–155
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey,
Vice Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
RON PAUL, Texas
DARRELL ISSA, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida
JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
CONNIE MACK, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
MICHAEL McCAUL, Texas
TED POE, Texas
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
BARBARA LEE, California
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM SMITH, Washington
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel
ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California,
Vice Chairman
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
BARBARA LEE, California
DIANE E. WATSON, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
MARY M. NOONAN, Subcommittee Staff Director
GREG SIMPKINS, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member
NOELLE LUSANE, Democratic Professional Staff Member
SHERI A. RICKERT, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member and Counsel
LINDSEY M. PLUMLEY, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
WITNESSES
The Honorable Barry Lowenkron, Assistant Secretary, Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State
The Most Reverend Thomas Wenski, Chairman, Committee on International Policy, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
Ms. Elisa Massimino, Washington Director, Human Rights First
Ms. Nina Shea, Director, Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom House
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Ali al-Ahmed, Director, Institute for Gulf Affairs
Ms. Sharon Hom, Executive Director, Human Rights in China
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations: Prepared statement
The Honorable Barry Lowenkron: Prepared statement
The Most Reverend Thomas Wenski: Prepared statement
Ms. Elisa Massimino: Prepared statement
Ms. Nina Shea: Prepared statement
Mr. Ali al-Ahmed: Prepared statement
Ms. Sharon Hom: Prepared statement
APPENDIX
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Honorable James A. Leach, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa: Material submitted for the record
Mr. Ali al-Ahmed: Letter to Her Excellency Dr. Condoleezza Rice, dated February 23, 2005
Mr. Ali al-Ahmed: ''Hypocrisy Most Holy''
Greek American Organizations' Policy Statement on Turkey's Suppression of the Religious Freedom of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
Mr. Ali al-Ahmed: ''Suggestions to Improve Saudi Religious Freedom''
Property Rights—the duty to restitute or adequately compensate WWII and post WWII confiscations
Alexandra Mareschi, Secretary-General of the International League of Victims of the Abuse of Power: The European Court of Human Rights and the Restoration of Property Rights after the transition process of formerly totalitarian communist regimes
Responses from Human Rights First to questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith
MONITORING RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AROUND THE WORLD: A REVIEW OF THE ''COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES FOR 2005''
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights
and International Operations,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. SMITH. We will begin the hearing by the Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations Subcommittee, and we are reviewing today the State Department's 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, and in doing so also examine the state of respect for human rights around the world. Perhaps it would be most useful to begin by reminding ourselves of some of the basic principles of human rights.
Most importantly, human rights are not a concession or a benefit conferred by a state; they are the entitlement of every human person on the basis of that person's inherent dignity and human worth. Thus, the Universal Declaration for Human Rights and subsequent international human rights treaties did not establish human rights, they recognized those rights. Therefore, human rights cannot be abrogated or otherwise removed by any government. They are entitlements preexisting and superseding the prerogatives of the government and as such are either respected or violated.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Certain human rights are fundamental and are the basis for the recognition and enjoyment of all other human beings. Foremost of these is the right to life. If a human being is denied or threatened with denial of right to life, the existence of other rights is meaningless. Any attempts to exclude any category of human beings from the invaluable right to life at the whim of expediency or the more powerful undermines and threatens the respect of life of all peoples.
A determination to take the life of one human being easily translates into taking the life of another, limited only by the relative power of the aggressor and the vulnerability of the one whose life is threatened. It is for these reasons that the life of every human being from conception to natural death is of such critical, overriding importance.
As affirmed by the Universal Declaration for Human Rights, liberty, justice, and peace in the world are built on the foundation of the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equally inalienable rights of all members of the human family. Human rights are central to the United States' foreign policy not only because they are a moral imperative, but also because they are essential to any effort to establish and maintain a democratic, peaceful, stable society. Those who ignore or repudiate human rights are sowing the seeds of instability, rebellion, and violence.
The Country Reports on Human Rights Practices are among the most important tasks undertaken by the Department of State. These reports allow the United States an opportunity to bear witness, to reassert fundamental principles, and also to examine its own conscience about whether its foreign policy comports with these principles.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Other annual reports such as the Trafficking in Persons Reports and the Report on International Religious Freedom also shine the spotlight on specific human rights areas which bear closer examination.
Although the human rights mechanism of the United Nations is not directly germane to the release of the country reports, the importance of the adoption yesterday by the General Assembly of the resolution establishing the new Human Rights Council is of such importance that it must be included in the discussion of this hearing. I personally am deeply disappointed and dismayed that the United Nations adopted such a weak and deeply flawed replacement for the discredited Human Rights Commission. Furthermore, the new Council's anticipated promotion of the goals and commitments emanating from the UN conferences and summits, measures not intended by the negotiating member states to be on par with human rights treaties, will dilute and trivialize the solemn importance rightly attributed to fundamental human rights.
Many of us in Congress will be watching the development of the new Council very closely, and we will strongly encourage the Administration to work assiduously to not only ensure that this new Council promotes and defends human rights, but also that it does not distort the established and accepted framework of fundamental human rights.
The 2005 country reports document reveals several important steps taken by the governments around the world to respect and promote the fundamental human rights of their citizens. Unfortunately, the news is not all good. The country reports also serve to confirm and document what we already knew in some cases: That last year has not been a good one for the state of human rights around the world. The Zimbabwe Government Operation Restore Order, for example, led to the demolition of houses and businesses and displaced or destroyed the livelihoods of more than 700,000 people. The Government of Belarus, President Lukashenko detained, fined, and imprisoned pro-democracy activists, including opposition politicians, students, and newspaper editors, for criticizing him and his regime. And the people of Nepal continue to suffer many serious human rights abuses both during and after the February to April state of emergency that suspended all fundamental human rights except for habeas corpus, and even habeas corpus orders issued by the court were not respected.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The totalitarian Governments of China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba all continued their persecution of political and religious dissidents. The Chinese Government and security forces in particular are cited in the 2005 reports as having increased their harassment, detention, and imprisonment of those perceived to be a threat to the government authority. The government considers the number of death sentences to be a state secret, but foreign experts estimated between 5,000 to 10,000 persons executed each year.
There were claims that 20 public protesters were killed last year during one demonstration, and the state-run media reported that, in general, 460 persons were killed through abuse or dereliction of duty. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak, reported after his November visit that torture in China remains widespread.
One of the most egregious human rights abuses that is receiving totally insufficient global attention is the one-child-per-family policy enforced in China since 1979. The policy says that if a woman happens to become pregnant with a second child, or even her first, and does not have a birth-allowed certificate, despite the government's best efforts to assure that this does not happen again, then the parent must pay a heavy fine, or the unborn child must be aborted. Heavy fines are imposed upon couples who have what they call unapproved children. The so-called social compensation fees can be up to 10 times a person's annual salary, compelling him to abort the baby or face the ruinous fines.
The Chinese Government goes to appalling lengths to enforce its one-child-per-couple limit, abusing the rights of Chinese women in particular to a degree that is both unique in kind and degree. For example, the government family planning bureaus conduct periodic pregnancy tests on married women and give them unspecified follow-up services. Fines for failing to undergo those tests can be as high as $16. It should therefore not be surprising that approximately 500 women in China commit suicide each and every day, more than five times the global rate. Possible reasons given for this tragic statistic include the country's birth limitation policies and the traditional preference for male children that leads to the demise of so many girls both before birth as well as after.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Officials who help individuals who evade the birth limitations are legally subject to significant and detailed sanctions on the one hand; those who meet the population goals established by their administrative region are rewarded. So if you get with the government program and permit your child to be killed either before birth or right at birth, you are rewarded by this government. Thus, it is no wonder that local officials violate individuals' rights in attempting to reduce the number of births in their region.
The 2005 reports stated that in just one province, 130,000 people were detained to force them or their relatives to submit to abortion or sterilization procedures. Several late-term abortions were also documented, and at least 7,000 people were forcefully sterilized in this one area alone. Local officials profited personally from the fees charged for the attendance at population schools. One legal activist was placed under house arrest for exposing these abuses. In other instances, forced sterilizations and abortions committed in pursuance of these harsh birth limitation policies were again documented throughout this report.
The combined effect of the birth limitation policies and the traditional preference for male children resulted in the disproportionate abortion of female unborn children at a rate of 116.9 to 100- overall, and now a shocking 151 for 100- for second pregnancies. So the number of girls to boys is absolutely out of kilter in the PRC. It has been estimated that as many as 100 million girls in China today are missing, and this is a direct result of this one-child-per-couple policy, and that is nothing other than gendercide, and it does, I believe, constitute crimes against humanity.
Elsewhere in the world, dictatorships in Belarus and Burma were unsurprisingly similar in their repressive methods to control and maintain power. Security forces in both countries arbitrarily arrested and detained citizens for political reasons. Police abuse and torture of prisoners continued in Belarus and in Burma, and abuses also included rape, and this Committee, as many of my colleagues know, held an extensive hearing on the ongoing atrocities by the former members of the SLORC, the ruling junta, to use rape as a weapon in Burma. And, of course, it also included beatings, forcible relocation of populations, and the conscription of child soldiers.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In Africa, a continent that this Subcommittee is particularly concerned with, human rights abuses continue to be widespread throughout the continent. In Ethiopia, the refusal of the opposition parties to accept the announced results of the May elections resulted in serious human rights abuses. Authorities arbitrarily detained, beat, and killed opposition members, and freedom of the press and freedom of assembly were severely curtailed.
In addition to the forced displacement mentioned earlier, Zimbabwe once again went through the charade of elections that, in fact, were marked by fraud and the improper participation of security forces in the tabulation of ballots, irregularities in the voter registration, and continued restrictions on speech, press, and assembly.
The world is also aware of the continuing tragic situation in Sudan. According to the World Health Organization, the conflict in Darfur has resulted in the deaths of at least 70,000 civilians, the internal displacement of more than 1.9 million civilians, and the flight of an estimated 210,000 refugees to neighboring Chad. Other estimations put it much higher, of up to 300,000 to 400,000 dead in Darfur.
When confronted with such numbers, one must take into account the attending human rights violations, including the abuse of children, extensive trafficking in persons, and acts of brutal torture, and violence against women.
Also alarming were reports of serious human rights violations by governments with which the United States has a close relationship. The 2005 reports give no indication that Saudi Arabia is correcting its traditional disregard for religious freedom. Officially sanctioned discrimination against the Shia Muslim minority continued, and Christians still face arrests and detention for practicing their faith even in the privacy of their own homes. One newspaper reported that 40 Pakistani citizens, including one Muslim, were arrested after holding Christian services in an apartment. Other human rights abuses took place in Saudi Arabia as well, including abuse of prisoners by security forces, arbitrary arrests, and legal and societal discrimination against women.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, I am deeply troubled by the lack of respect for human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam. Vietnam, as we know, is a one-party state run by the Communists which oppressively controls its citizens, rigidly represses political rights, and denies its people the exercise of religious freedom. The Country Report on Human Rights Practices documents that the government subjected religious leaders to administrative detention, including pagoda arrest. I saw that firsthand during my visit in December when I met with the Venerable Thich Quang Do in his pagoda. He could not leave. And subsequent to that he did leave, was subsequently arrested, only to be released, I think, because there was so much human outcry by those who respect him so much and want him free.
Just let me conclude by saying the biggest challenge with the country reports is not the reporting itself, but the uses to which this human rights reporting will be put to to achieve universal respect for human rights and thus greater peace and stability in the world.
Pope John Paul II once said: ''If you want peace, work for justice.'' These reports give us an insight, a real bird's-eye view as to what is happening in these countries and enables us to more authoritatively and, I think, hopefully more effectively work for justice, and, by doing so, to work for peace.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am pleased to convene this hearing of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations. The Subcommittee today is reviewing the State Department's 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, and in doing so, it is also examining the state of respect for human rights around the world.
Perhaps it would be useful to begin by reminding ourselves of some of the basic principles of human rights. Most importantly, human rights are not a concession or benefit conferred by the state. They are the entitlement of every human person on the basis of that person's inherent dignity and worth. Thus the Universal Declaration for Human Rights and subsequent international human rights treaties did not establish human rights—they recognized those rights. Therefore, human rights cannot be abrogated or otherwise removed by any government. They are entitlements pre-existing and superseding the prerogatives of the government, and as such are either respected or violated.
Certain human rights are fundamental, and are the basis for the recognition and enjoyment of all other human rights. Foremost of these rights is the right to life. If a human being is denied or threatened with the denial of life, the existence of other rights is meaningless. And attempts to exclude any category of human beings from the inviolable right to life at the whim of expediency or the more powerful undermines and threatens the respect of life for all peoples. A determination to take the life of one human being easily translates into taking the life of another, limited only by the relative power of the aggressor and the vulnerability of the one whose life is threatened. It is for these reasons that the life of every human being, from conception to natural death, is of such critical, overriding importance.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As affirmed by the Universal Declaration for Human Rights, liberty, justice and peace in the world are built on the foundation of the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. Human rights are central to United States foreign policy not only because they are a moral imperative but also because they are central to any effort to establish and maintain a democratic, peaceful, stable society. Those who ignore or repudiate human rights are sowing the seeds of instability, rebellion and violence.
It is therefore disturbing that human rights concerns are often subordinated to other concerns, such as trade, cooperation on terrorism, immigration control, or selling military equipment, in the name of maintaining relations with countries of high importance to U.S. strategic goals. This misses the point. The most important U.S. interest is the promotion of freedom and democracy and long-term stability. We are strong enough, and we are prosperous enough that we have no need to accept blood money or to send refugees back to persecution or to seek our alliances among regimes that murder and torture their own people.
The Country Reports are among the most important tasks undertaken by the Department of State. These Reports allow the United States an opportunity to bear witness, to reassert fundamental principles, and also to examine its own conscience about whether its foreign policy comports with these principles. Other annual reports, such as the Trafficking in Persons report and the report on International Religious Freedom, also shine the spotlight on specific human rights areas which bear closer examination.
Although the human rights mechanism of the United Nations is not directly germane to the release of the Country Reports, the importance of the adoption yesterday by the General Assembly of the resolution establishing the new Human Rights Council is of such importance that it must be included in the discussions of this hearing. I personally am deeply disappointed and dismayed that the United Nations adopted such a weak and deeply flawed replacement for the discredited Human Rights Commission.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Furthermore, the new Council's anticipated promotion of the goals and commitments ''emanating'' from UN conferences and summits, measures not intended by negotiating Member States to be on a par with human rights treaties, will dilute and trivialize the solemn importance rightly attributed to fundamental human rights. Many of us in Congress will be watching the development of the new Council closely, and we strongly encourage the Administration to work assiduously to not only ensure that this new Council promotes and defends human rights but also that it does not distort the established and accepted framework of fundamental human rights.
The 2005 Country Reports document several important steps forward taken by governments around the world to respect and protect the fundamental human rights of their citizens. Burundi concluded a four-year transitional process and large numbers of displaced persons were encouraged to return home. The election of President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in Liberia marked ''a significant milestone'' in that country's efforts to achieve democracy and peace. Afghanistan experienced its first parliamentary elections in almost 30 years, with women enthusiastically participating. And in Ukraine, the Orange Revolution resulted in a democratically-elected government and a notable improvement in respect for human rights.
Unfortunately, the news is not all good. The Country Reports also serve to confirm and document what we knew already, that the last year has not been a good one for the state of human rights in the world. The Zimbabwean government's Operation Restore Order led to the demolition of houses and businesses and displaced or destroyed the livelihoods of more than 700,000 people. The government of Belarus President Lukashenko detained, fined, and imprisoned pro-democracy activists, including opposition politicians, students and newspaper editors, for criticizing him and his regime. And the people of Nepal continued to suffer many serious human rights abuses, both during and after the February—April state of emergency that suspended all fundamental rights except for habeas corpus—and even habeas corpus orders issued by the court were not respected.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The totalitarian governments of China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba all continued their persecution of political and religious dissidents. The Chinese government and security forces, in particular, are cited by the 2005 Reports as having increased their harassment, detention and imprisonment of those perceived to be a threat to government authority. The government considers the number of death sentences to be a state secret, but foreign experts estimated that between 5,000 and 10,000 persons are executed each year. There were claims that 20 public protesters were killed last year during one demonstration, and the state-run media reported that in general 460 persons were killed through abuse or dereliction of duty. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak reported after his November visit that torture in China remains widespread.
One of the most egregious human rights abuses that is receiving grossly insufficient global attention is the one-child per family policy enforced in China since 1979. The policy says that if a woman happens to become pregnant with a second child, despite the government's best efforts to assure that this does not happen, then the parent must pay a heavy penalty or unborn child must be aborted. Heavy fines are imposed upon couples who have an ''unapproved'' child. These so-called ''social compensation fees'' can be up to ten times a person's annual salary, compelling them to abort the baby.
The Chinese government goes to appalling lengths to enforce its one-child limit, abusing the rights of Chinese women in particular to a degree that is unique in both kind and degree. For example, Government Family Planning Bureaus conduct periodic pregnancy tests on married women, and give them unspecified ''follow-up'' services. Fines for failing to undergo these tests can be as high as $60 US. It should therefore not be surprising that approximately 500 women in China commit suicide each day—more than five times the global rate. Possible reasons given for this tragic statistic include that country's birth limitation policies and the traditional preference for male children.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Officials who help individuals to evade the birth limitations are legally subject to significant and detailed sanctions. On the other hand, those who meet the population goals established by their administrative region are rewarded. Thus, it is no wonder that local officials violated individual's rights in attempting to reduce the number of births in their region. The 2005 Reports state that in just one province, 130,000 people were detained to force them or their relatives to submit to abortion or sterilization procedures. Several late-term abortions were documented, and at least 7,000 people were forcibly sterilized. Local officials profited personally from the fees charged for attendance at the ''population schools.'' One legal activist was placed under house arrest for exposing these abuses. Other instances of forced sterilizations and abortions, committed in pursuance of these harsh birth limitation policies, were again documented.
The combined effect of the birth limitation policies and the traditional preference for male children resulted in the disproportionate abortion of female fetuses at a rate of 116.9 to 100 overall, and a shocking 151.9 to 100 for second pregnancies. As a direct result of these ongoing crimes against humanity, China today is missing millions of girls, girls who were murdered in the womb simply because they are girls. A couple of years ago, the State Department suggested that as many as 100 million girls of all ages are missing—that is to say, they should be alive and well and are not, a direct consequence of the government's one-child policy. This gendercide constitutes one of humanity's worst blights, and a far greater peril to peace and security than is being credited at this time.
Elsewhere in the world, dictatorships in Belarus and Burma were unsurprisingly similar in their oppressive methods of control to maintain power. Security forces in both countries arbitrarily arrested and detained citizens for political reasons. Police abuse and torture of prisoners continued in Belarus, and in Burma, abuses also included rape, beatings, forcible relocation of populations, and conscription of child soldiers.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In Africa, a continent this Subcommittee is particularly concerned with, human rights abuses continued to be widespread throughout the continent. In Ethiopia, the refusal of the opposition parties to accept the announced results of the May elections resulted in serious human rights abuses. Authorities arbitrarily detained, beat and killed opposition members and freedom of the press and freedom of assembly were severely curtailed. In addition to the forced displacement mentioned earlier, Zimbabwe once again went through the charade of elections that in fact were marked by fraud and the improper participation of security forces in the tabulation of ballots, irregularities in voter registration, and continued restrictions on speech, press and assembly.
The world is all too aware of the continuing tragic situation in Sudan. According to the World Health Organization, the conflict in Darfur has resulted in the deaths of at least 70,000 civilians, the internal-displacement of more than 1.9 million civilians, and the flight of an estimated 210,000 refugees to neighboring Chad. When confronted with such numbers, one must also take into account the attending human rights violations, including the abuse of children, extensive trafficking in persons, and the acts of torture and violence against women.
The human rights record of Iran also worsened this past year, with numerous troubling violations reported. The government executed many political dissidents following trials that lacked due process. Dissent was criminalized and the death penalty applied to such offenses as apostasy, ''attempts against the security of the State, outrage against high-ranking officials and insults against the memory of Imam Khomeini and against the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic.'' A report released during the past year stated that at least 8 evangelical Christians have been killed in Iran and another 15 to 23 reported missing or ''disappeared'' over the past 15 years.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also alarming were the reports of serious human rights violations by governments with which the United States enjoys a close relationship. The 2005 Reports give no indication that Saudi Arabia is correcting its traditional disregard for religious freedom. Officially sanctioned discrimination against the Shi'a Muslim minority continued, and Christians still faced arrest and detention for practicing their faith, even in the privacy of their own homes. One newspaper reported that 40 Pakistani citizens, including one Muslim, were arrested after holding Christian services in an apartment. Other human rights abuses took place in Saudi Arabia as well, including abuse of prisoners by security forces, arbitrary arrests, and legal and societal discrimination against women.
Finally, I continue to be deeply troubled by the lack of respect for human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam. Vietnam is a one-party state run by the Communists which oppressively controls the ordinary lives of its citizens, rigidly represses political rights, and denies its people the exercise of their religious freedom. The country report on Vietnam documents that the government subjected religious leaders to administrative detention, ''pagoda arrest,'' and varying degrees of informal detention in their residences. Citizens who tried to exercise their rights to practice their religion, assembly, or expression also were detained at times for several days by security forces. Such conduct should not be ignored when a country is seeking stronger economic relations with the United States.
In conclusion, the biggest challenge with the Country Reports is not the reporting itself, but the uses to which this human rights reporting will be put to achieve universal respect for human rights and thus greater peace and stability in our world. Human Rights can not be the work of one political officer in the Embassy who prepares the annual report once a year and then turns to other tasks. Rather, it must be the foundation on which our bilateral relationships are based.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary Lowenkron, I want to commend you and your colleagues for your exhaustive work on the 2005 Country Reports. As I stated earlier, this is one of the most important services the Department performs. The cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy must be the promotion of American values, which include the protection and advancement of fundamental human rights of people around the world. The moral character and depth of soul of any society will be measured not by its military might, technological prowess, athletic excellence or GDP, but by the respect it accords to the inherent dignity and worth of every person who lives within its borders.
Mr. SMITH. I would like to yield to Mr. Payne for any opening comments he might have.
Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling the annual meeting about monitoring respect for human rights around the world, a review of the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2005.
As we know, it is extremely important that human rights be emphasized more, and that countries should be judged based on the manner in which they treat their citizens. And today we see too many countries still reigning terror on their own citizens, using weapons of war against them, using food as a weapon, and having ethnic and religious persuasions determining the future of individuals in countries.
We certainly have to rely on the work of the United Nations, and, as we push our agenda for human rights around the world—and speaking as the congressional delegate to the United Nations along with Mr. Royce, I was pleased that the Human Rights Council passed the resolution yesterday, which, although the United States voted against it, and three other nations, the United States said it will work with and support financially the work of the Human Rights Council.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As we know, the former Human Rights Council—I think it had a different name—Commission. It has been changed from Commission to Council—was really a total disgrace. Countries that were violators of human rights were elected to the commission. There was practically no regard for human rights as it related to membership.
And so a person might say, well, therefore, why do you support what happened several days ago? I support it only because it is a step in the right direction. There have been put in place reforms that would take a country out of its own bracket. Right now, Asian countries elect Asians; African countries elect Africans. They just go before their own group. From what I understand now, those nominees will have to go through a broader group.
To me, that is a big step in the right direction, because in many instances, in groupings, intimidation or the sort of ''scratch my back, I will scratch your back'' syndrome goes on; and if you don't say anything about the way I am treating, then I am certainly not going to say anything about yours. So, I think that, even though it is far from what we want, I think it is a step in the right direction.
And I think that Ambassador Bolton—who was supposed to be with us this morning, but had to go back to Washington because our voting that came up, which would have taken an hour out of the time he was supposed to be here, and he had to get back—I think makes his positions very clear. But I would really like to see our U.S. mission to the UN really become more engaged in the nitty-gritty negotiations.
In many instances, when the negotiations and things go on, and we see the result, then we express ourselves like we ought to. But if there is a stronger, time-consuming work within, as these negotiations go on, perhaps we could be a little bit more persuasive rather than to make our statement, say this is what ought to be; if it comes out other than that, then we vote no.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think that the United Nations know that there has to be reforms. They know the Hyde legislation said we will stop funding, we will go 50 percent of what we are funding now. We are only doing 21 percent, so we will be down to 11 percent. Japan is doing almost 20 percent right now, so that would push them up to perhaps 22 percent. And as we would diminish our contributions, as we have been doing—we are down to 27 percent for peacekeeping, we were at 33. We are down to 21 percent for overall dues, we were at 33, 50 percent at the inception. So as we decrease our contribution, of course I think we will also—because many feel that we should be out of it totally. Some of my colleagues feel that the United Nations is worthless. As we diminish our financial contribution, we are going to see that we are also diminishing our authority and our voice, and that is the flip side of imposing financial tax cuts to the UN.
So I certainly know that the annual report, as you know, the requirement was legislated by Congress in the 1970s, generated, of course, out of a concern over human rights conditions in the world and the desire to monitor them. The document we are receiving today is the 29th such report by the State Department.
I would hope that at some point some of our business leaders would read the report, because some of our biggest support financially is the countries that have horrible human rights records, like China. The balance of trade to China is so enormous, we don't even like to report it. However, their human rights record is atrocious. However, we have an official U.S. position which is outstanding, and we have outstanding diplomats who represent the United States and take time to have this report completed in detail with a lot of energy put into it.
But then we have our top Fortune 500s running over to China, continuing to give them the economic expertise that they need to even be more repressive. They say, well, if China gets to have a higher standard of living, then they may, in fact, become freer. Well, we haven't seen it. And so at some point I would hope that our great big Fortune 500 corporate leaders would pay some attention, because I think they can have impact by threatening perhaps to hold up the financial largesse which is going to China, and perhaps that could be another tool other than the United States withholding sometimes financial support to countries which in many instances are very small in the first place.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The State Department as relates to Sudan reports continued abuses by the ruling national party, which was formally the National Islamic Front. This is ongoing despite the comprehensive peace agreement, the agreement between the North and the South which has its first-year anniversary in January of this year.
I have constantly expressed concern about the painfully slow progress of the implementation of the CPA, including Khartoum's failure to remove large numbers of troop contingents in the South that was supposed to be removed at the signing of the accord over a year ago, as well as several other violations of the agreement. They still have disputed territories that they will not allow to be negotiated to find out whether they are part of the North or the South, and that is because there is oil in those regions, and they want it to be considered part of the North.
I caution our Government that we must not stand by and allow Khartoum to undo the progress made toward peace. For those of you who do not know, the genocide in Darfur continues to this very day. As a matter of fact, it is getting worse. Janjaweed has gone into Chad and has raided camps there, causing people in Chad to run back over the border to Darfur. And if that continues, there is some semblance of unrest in the Central Africa Republic as a result of the Lord's Resistance Army, which is even moving out into the Central Africa Republic for cover, and the Lord's Resistance Army is being supported by the Government of Sudan and Khartoum. And so we have a pariah government that continues to destabilize a whole region, yet it appears that instead of getting tougher on Sudan, we seem to be cozying up to them because we have heard that they are going to be supportive of us in our fight on the war on terror.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have been to Darfur camps several times, 2004, after introducing the resolution declaring genocide and again last year. I plan to go back again in the near future. I have interviewed people there who described the ordeal of being beaten by Janjaweed, seeing a small boy pushed into a hut and the hut then being burned to the ground. We have heard, as the Chairman said, estimates ranging of up to 400,000 people have died as a result of famine and dysentery and cholera and starvation; women and girls continue to be raped at unimaginable rates. This morning I had the privilege to meet at 7:30 with President Bush to discuss these alarming issues that continue to occur.
One year ago, the CIA invited Sudan's intelligence and security chief Salah Abdallah Gosh to visit Washington. This is at the height of the genocide. Now, how do you justify that? Is the war on terror the number one issue, and everything else goes by the board when you invite the person who is orchestrating the genocide, but could give you some insight to help you on your war on terror? We have to make a decision. Where do we stand as the moral leaders of the world? You really can't have it both ways. And I think that one of the problems that we are having in the world of losing prestige is because we have duplicitous types of policies. And so how could Salah Abdallah Gosh visit Washington, the man who is known as a ringleader in genocide? Our Government flew him over at taxpayer dollars in an executive jet. It is unconscionable.
So if we are serious about human rights as a Nation, about this report, which so much time has gone into and it is so well done by our diplomats in the vision responsible for the report, then we should do it. If not, then we should stop the report and just say, well, let us have a laissez faire policy and let them be. I know that is not what we want, but we ought to draw the line so that we know where we stand.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Just recently Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Jendayi Frazier spoke on a radio show about Darfur. When questioned directly about whether she believed that genocide continues, she repeatedly emphasized that had occurred, but she would not say that genocide was still ongoing. Back in the Clinton Administration when we brought these officials before the Committee, we asked them about genocide in Rwanda, and they talked about it looks like it could be something that appears to be like genocide. Either it is genocide, or it is not. And we continue to look the other way, as we did in 1916 with the Armenians and the Holocaust in Germany in the 1930s and Cambodia and Rwanda. And so if we are serious about it, we should get tough. We should have a no-fly zone. We should insist that NATO go into Darfur with the UN.
Back in 2003, in Liberia, we didn't ask Liberia whether Charles Taylor would allow UN troops in; we sent them in, and Taylor left, and now that country has one of the greatest Presidents; one of the best speeches I have ever heard since I have been in Congress, at a joint session, given by President Johnson Sirleaf yesterday where she just really was magnificent, because we took affirmative and assertive action. We need to do that again in areas where it is necessary.
And so although I have spent most of the time on the situation in Sudan, I think it is just worsening. I met with Kofi Annan Monday again about this problem; John Bolton on Tuesday. We just have to keep the pressure on. But human rights in general has to be respected more than what it is at the present time.
I guess we are running behind, so I will yield back the balance of my time.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Thank you.
Mr. Boozman.
Mr. BOOZMAN. No. Just thank you to you and the Ranking Member for holding the hearing.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you.
Ms. McCollum.
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for holding this hearing, and I want to thank some of the people who will be presenting testimony on the panel for also holding up the mirror to the United States.
We need to be having hard discussions taking place about the United States policy on torture. I am very concerned with the continued reports out of Guantanamo, reports we are hearing out of Afghanistan and the militia squads in Iraq, where the United States Government still has a presence and is interacting with the government over there, that we are not doing all we can as Members of Congress to make sure that torture is not something that the United States continues to be engaged in; that we have taken actions to hold people at high levels accountable; and that it is clear that under no circumstances will the torture of another human being sanctioned by our country.
Extraordinary rendition. We need to be having hearings and holding up the mirror to the United States about what role our Government has played in renditions. In other words, some of the very countries that we could be talking about today or have talked about in the past or are in the human rights report being singled out for not doing all that they should be doing to stop torture, we need to know, we need to have congressional hearings and oversights as to whether or not our country is engaged in sending people to those countries to be tortured, as has been in the case recently of the Canadian citizen again. We need to hold ourselves accountable. And only when we do that, only when we do that, will we be able to move forward once again with the high ground that we have had as leaders in human rights.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I hear this from parliamentarians throughout the world, both from democracies and emergent democracies. We have lost prestige. We need to recognize that fact. And this Congress has to hold this Administration accountable for the loss in prestige and do everything we can to make sure we are not committing acts of torture or violence.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Tancredo.
Mr. TANCREDO. No, thank you.
Mr. SMITH. Let me introduce Mr. Barry Lowenkron, who is the Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. And I would ask unanimous consent that his full statement be made a part of the record as well as the introductory notes, because we do have five votes, I am sorry to say, in succession. So, please, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BARRY LOWENKRON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU FOR DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. LOWENKRON. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith, Mr. Payne, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for holding this hearing on the 2005 reports, which were released last week. Your commitment to the reports, and your comments today, are very much appreciated.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to thank the Committee for your strong contributions to the promotion of human rights and democracy. When I engage foreign officials, as I did in Russia, China, and Vietnam in recent months, it strengthens my hand that the Members of this Committee, and others in Congress, take an active interest in the issues that I raise.
I look forward to working closely with you as we press forward on this bipartisan agenda, which I believe reflects the fundamental values of the American people.
As you know, this morning the White House released the National Security Strategy of the United States, and in his letter to the American people introducing the document, President Bush states that our strategy is based on two pillars. The first is promoting freedom by championing aspirants for human dignity, and the second is leading a growing community of democracies.
Mr. Chairman, these country reports are one of the important tools we have for advancing these efforts. For almost 30 years, the reports have served as a reference document and a foundation for action with other governments, organizations, and individuals seeking to end human rights abuses and strengthen the capacity of other nations to protect the fundamental rights involved. We work hard to ensure that the reports meet high standards of accuracy and objectivity, and I particularly appreciate your favorable comments about our report.
The reports include every member country of the United Nations except our own. We do, however, consider the human rights record of any government, including our own, to be a legitimate subject for international discussion and debate. And when I travel overseas and engage in human rights dialogues with other countries, I tell them, bring all of your concerns to the table.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Each report speaks for itself; however, I will, if I may, Mr. Chairman, make six cross-cutting observations based on the reports as a whole. First, countries in which power is concentrated in the hands of unaccountable rulers tend to be the world's most systematic human rights violators. These states range from closed totalitarian systems like North Korea or brutal military regimes like Burma that subject their citizens to a wholesale deprivation of their basic rights to authoritarian systems like Belarus and Zimbabwe in which the exercise of basic rights is severely restricted.
Second, human rights and democracy are closely linked, and both are essential to long-term stability and security. Free and democratic nations that respect the rights of their citizens help to lay the foundation for lasting peace. In contrast, states that severely and systemically violate the human rights of their own people are likely to pose threats to neighboring countries and the international community.
Iran is a case in point. In 2005, the Iranian Government continued to deprive basic rights to its own people and ignore their desire for responsible, accountable government. Tehran also continued to pursue a nuclear weapons capability, provide support to terrorist organizations, and publicly advocate for the destruction of the State of Israel.
Burma is another example. Only by Burma's return to the democratic path from which it was wrenched can the basic rights of the Burmese people be realized. The regime's misrule has inflicted tremendous suffering on the Burmese people and caused or exacerbated a host of ills for its neighbors, from refugee outflows to the spread of infectious diseases and the trafficking of drugs and human beings.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Third, some of the most serious violations of human rights are committed by governments within the context of internal and/or cross-border armed conflicts, such as in Sudan's Darfur region, an issue that Congressman Payne and Chairman Smith addressed and that I could not agree with more.
As a result of this conflict, at least 70,000 civilians had perished by the end of 2005. Nearly 2 million remain displaced. Over 200,000 refugees remained in Chad. Torture has been widespread and systematic, as has been violence against women, including the use of rape as a tool of law. The government and Janjaweed committed genocide in Darfur during 2005, and, as Secretary Rice stated in February, genocide is on going.
Fourth, where civil society and independent media are under siege, fundamental freedoms are undermined. In 2005, a disturbing number of countries from Russia to Venezuela, Zimbabwe to China, passed or selectively applied laws against NGOs and the media, restricting or having a chilling effect on the exercise of freedoms of expression, association, and assembly. I highlighted this issue on my recent trips to Russia, China, and Vietnam.
I traveled to Moscow in January at Secretary Rice's behest to deliver a clear message to the Russian Government about our deepening concern for NGOs. It was obvious that many in the Russian Government harbor a deep mistrust of civil society, and especially of organizations that receive foreign funding and are engaged in politically sensitive activities such as human rights monitoring. Earlier this year President Putin acknowledged the positive contribution of NGOs, but then he warned against ''foreign puppeteers.''
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many Russian officials see our promotion of democracy as part of a zero-sum game of geopolitical influence. I defended the work of the NGOs and explained our democracy assistance is designed to help ensure a level playing field. We do not pick winners, we do not pick losers.
Russia's new NGO law goes into effect in April, and we will carefully monitor how it is being implemented, as I know this Committee will.
In Beijing last month, I underscored to Chinese officials our deep concern about tightened restrictions on NGOs as well as the harassment and detention of activists seeking to address important social and political issues. Reiterating President Bush's message to President Hu, I made the case that NGOs can play an important role in China's development. I raised the increased restrictions on access to, and use of, the Internet, and pressed for the release of those serving sentences for expressing their views on line.
I then traveled to Vietnam to resume the United States-Vietnam human rights dialogue that was suspended in 2002. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to appearing before this Committee later this month to give you a full report on my trip, but I would add that during the discussions in Vietnam, I raised the case of Pham Hong Son, who was convicted of ''espionage for translating an essay on democracy from a Department of State Web site.'' I said bluntly and clearly, ''The American people will not understand why a country that wants a better relations with us would imprison someone for translating an article on democracy.''
In both Beijing and Hanoi, I cited the February 15th hearing before this Committee on restrictions on Internet freedom, as well as the formation, at Secretary Rice's direction, of the Global Internet Freedom Task Force.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Fifth, democratic elections by themselves do not ensure that human rights will be respected, but they can put a country on a path to reform, and they can lay the groundwork for institutionalizing human rights protections. Last year the people of Iraq went to the polls three times and held to democracy's course despite high levels of violence. The men and women of Afghanistan cast their ballots countrywide in the first free legislative election since 1969, even as the government struggled to expand its authority over provincial centers. And the first post-conflict elections in Liberia resulted in Africa's first elected female head of state, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, marking a milestone in a transition from civil war to democracy.
Violations of human rights and miscarriages of justice do occur in democratic countries. No governmental system is without flaws. In particular, democratic systems with shallow roots and scarce resources can fall far short of meeting their human rights commitments to citizens. Corruption can retard democratic development, distort judicial processes, and destroy public trust.
That said, the best guarantor of human rights is a democracy, with representative, accountable, transparent institutions, equal rights under the rule of law, a robust civil society, political pluralism, and independent media.
Sixth, progress on democratic reform and human rights is neither linear, nor is it guaranteed. Some states still have weak institutions of democratic government. They continue to struggle. Others have yet to fully commit to the democratic process. Steps forward can be marked with irregularities, and there can be serious setbacks. Democratically elected governments do not always govern democratically once they are in power.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But despite hard realities and high obstacles, there is an increasing worldwide demand for greater personal and political freedom, for the adoption of democratic principles of government. This growing demand derives from the powerful human desire to live in dignity and liberty, and the personal bravery and tenacity of men and woman in every age and in every society who serve and sacrifice for the cause of freedom.
As Secretary Rice has said, fulfilling the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and building vibrant democracies worldwide is the work of generations, but it is urgent work that cannot be delayed.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with you that 2005 in many ways was not a good year for human rights. I will pledge to you now my work, and the work of all of us together, to make 2006 a better year. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lowenkron follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BARRY LOWENKRON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU FOR DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Chairman Smith, Co-Chairman Payne, and Members of the Committee, thank you for holding this hearing to focus attention on the 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, released last week. Your commitment to the Reports is very much appreciated.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the Reports, as well as the current trends and concerns about how countries across the globe are putting into practice their international commitments on human rights.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that the introduction to the 2005 Reports, which provides an overview, be entered into the Record.
At the outset, I also want to thank the Committee for your strong contributions to the promotion of human rights and democracy worldwide, and for your support of the work of my bureau. When I travel overseas and engage foreign officials on our human rights and democracy agenda, as I did in Russia, China and Vietnam in recent months, it greatly strengthens my hand that the Members of this Committee and others in Congress take an active interest in the issues that I raise. I value your counsel and look forward to working closely with you as we press forward this bipartisan agenda, which reflects the fundamental values of the American people.
Let me begin with a few words about the production of the 2005 Reports, and then make some brief observations about their content.
For almost three decades, these Congressionally mandated annual Reports have been an essential element of the concerted efforts of successive Congresses and Administrations to promote respect for human rights worldwide. The Reports serve as a reference document and a foundation for our cooperative action with other governments, organizations and individuals seeking to end human rights abuses and strengthen the capacity of other nations to protect the fundamental rights of all.
As you know, Foreign Service Officers at our overseas posts go to great lengths to gather factual information for the Reports every year. I have a dedicated team in my own bureau in the Office of Country Reports, which spent the better part of the past year working on the 2005 Reports. Many others in my bureau and throughout the Department of State also labored long and hard to ensure that the Reports meet high standards of accuracy and objectivity. The Reports are based on information we received from governments and multilateral institutions as well as from indigenous and international non-governmental groups, academics, jurists and the media.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The 196 Reports include every member country of the United Nations except, of course, the United States. We do, however, make the point to those who comment on U.S. performance that we consider the human rights record of any government, including our own, to be a legitimate subject for international discussion and debate.
Each Report speaks for itself. However, I will if I may, Mr. Chairman, make six cross-cutting observations based on the Reports as a whole.
First, countries in which power is concentrated in the hands of unaccountable rulers tend to be the world's most systematic human rights violators. These states range from closed, totalitarian systems like North Korea, or brutal military regimes like Burma, that subject their citizens to a wholesale deprivation of their basic rights, to authoritarian systems like Belarus and Zimbabwe in which the exercise of basic rights is severely restricted.
Second, human rights and democracy are closely linked and both are essential to long-term stability and security. Free and democratic nations that respect the rights of their citizens help to lay the foundation for lasting peace. In contrast, states that severely and systematically violate the human rights of their own people are likely to pose threats to neighboring countries and the international community.
Iran is a case in point. In 2005, the Iranian government continued to deprive basic rights to its own people and ignore their desire for responsible, accountable government. At the same time, Tehran continued its dangerous policies of pursuing a nuclear weapons capability, providing support to terrorist organizations, and advocating—including in several public speeches by the new president—for the destruction of Israel.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Burma is another example. Only by Burma's return to the democratic path from which it was wrenched can the basic rights of the Burmese people be realized. The junta refuses to recognize the results of the historic free and fair legislative elections in 1990. The regime's cruel and destructive misrule has inflicted tremendous suffering on the Burmese people and caused or exacerbated a host of ills for its neighbors, from refugee outflows to the spread of infectious diseases and the trafficking of drugs and human beings.
Third, some of the most serious violations of human rights are committed by governments within the context of internal and/or cross-border armed conflicts, such as in Sudan's Darfur region.
As a result of the conflict, by the end of 2005, at least 70,000 civilians had perished, nearly 2 million remained displaced by the fighting, and over 210,000 refugees remained in neighboring Chad. Torture has been widespread and systematic in Darfur, as has been violence against women, including the use of rape as a tool of war. The government and janjaweed committed genocide in Darfur during 2005, and, as Secretary Rice has stated, genocide is ongoing there.
The already heartbreaking conditions in Darfur risk becoming even worse. Chad-Sudan cross-border violence has exacerbated the situation. In January 2005, the Sudanese government and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement signed a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) ending the 22-year North-South civil war, opening the way for the ratification of a new constitution in July 2005 and a government of national unity to serve until elections in 2009. Implementation of the CPA has been mixed and challenges remain. The CPA does, however, provide a framework for resolving conflict throughout Sudan, including Darfur. We welcome the African Union's decision to support a transition of its mission in Sudan to a UN peacekeeping operation, and we will work with the AU and our European partners to begin the transition as soon as possible. Progress must be made now to reach a speedy settlement at the Darfur peace talks in Abuja, Nigeria.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Fourth, where civil society and independent media are under siege, fundamental freedoms are undermined. A robust civil society and independent media help create conditions under which human rights can flourish by raising awareness among publics about their rights, exposing abuses, pressing for reform and holding governments accountable. Governments should defend—not abuse—the peaceful exercise of fundamental freedoms by members of the media and civil society even if they do not agree with their views or actions.
When states wield the law as a political weapon or an instrument of repression against civil society and the media, they rule by law rather than upholding the rule of law. The rule of law acts as a check on state power, i.e. it is a system designed to protect the human rights of the individual against the power of the state. In contrast, rule by law can be an abuse of power, i.e. the manipulation of the law and the judicial system to maintain the power of the rulers over the ruled.
In 2005, a disturbing number of countries from Russia to Venezuela, Zimbabwe to China, passed or selectively applied laws against NGOs and the media, restricting or having a chilling effect on the exercise of fundamental freedoms of expression, association and assembly.
I traveled to Moscow in January at Secretary Rice's behest to deliver a clear message to the Russian Government about our deepening concerns for NGOs. Upon arrival, I was greeted with the news that the NGO law, quietly signed on January 10 by President Putin, had been published that very morning. Over the next two days, I met with Russian and U.S.-based NGOs, Duma committee chairpersons, officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Human Rights Ombudsman, the Chair of the Presidential Human Rights Council, and representatives of independent media.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The new law goes into effect April 1, and we will carefully monitor how it is being implemented, as I know this Committee will.
It was obvious to me that many in the Russian Government harbor a deep mistrust of civil society, and especially of organizations that receive foreign funding and are engaged in politically sensitive activities such as human rights monitoring. Earlier this year, President Putin acknowledged the positive contributions of NGOs, but then warned against ''foreign puppeteers.'' Many Russian officials see our promotion of democracy as part of a zero-sum game of geopolitical influence. I defended the work of NGOs, telling Russian officials that our democracy assistance is designed to help ensure that elections are free and fair, not to pick winners and losers.
As I told my Russian interlocutors, NGOs can support governments and they can criticize governments, but NGOs should never be treated as enemies of governments.
I delivered a similar message in Beijing during my February trip. In meetings with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, the Public Security Bureau, the Ministry of Civil Affairs, the State Administration of Religious Affairs and the United Front Work Department, I underscored our deep concern about recent tightened restrictions on NGOs and the harassment and detention of activists seeking to address important social and political issues. Reiterating the message President Bush has delivered to China's President Hu Jintao, I made the case that NGOs can play a positive role in China's society and can be a force for stability as well as an important part of China's continued economic development.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also raised with Chinese officials the issue of increased restrictions on access to and use of the Internet and pressed for the release of those serving sentences for peacefully expressing their views online. With regard to the 2008 Olympics, I pointed out the obvious—that the tens of thousands of journalists and tourists who will come to the Games will expect to have free access to information on the Internet as well as to travel unfettered throughout China to tell the world about what it happening there. I urged China to lift all restrictions so that the story of the 2008 Games does not become the steps that China has taken to restrict its citizens' access to information.
Following my meetings in Beijing, I traveled to Vietnam to resume the U.S—Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue that was suspended in 2002 due to lack of progress by the government of Vietnam. During the discussions, I raised the case of Pham Hong Son, who was convicted of ''espionage'' for translating an essay on democracy from a Department of State Website. I made it clear to the government of Vietnam that the American people will not understand why a country that wants better relations with the United States would imprison someone for translating an article on democracy. I believe that the Vietnamese domestic Internet demand represents a thirst to enter the globalized world and pressed the government to allow Vietnamese citizens the freedom to use the Internet for peaceful purposes, including political ones, without fearing arrest.
In both Beijing and Hanoi, I cited the February 15 hearing before this Committee on restrictions on Internet freedom as well as the formation, at Secretary Rice's direction, of the Global Internet Freedom Task Force (GIFT). The GIFT will develop recommendations for her aimed at maximizing access to the Internet, and minimizing government efforts to block information.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Fifth, democratic elections by themselves do not ensure that human rights will be respected, but they can put a country on the path to reform and lay the groundwork for institutionalizing human rights protections. In 2005, the people of Iraq went to the polls three times and held to democracy's course despite high levels of violence. The men and women of Afghanistan cast their ballots countrywide in the first free legislative elections since 1969, even as the government struggled to expand its authority over provincial centers due to continued insecurity and violent resistance in some quarters. The first post-conflict elections in Liberia resulted in Africa's first elected female head of state, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, marking a milestone in Liberia's transition from civil war to democracy.
To be sure, violations of human rights and miscarriages of justice can and do occur in democratic countries. No governmental system is without flaws. Human rights conditions in democracies across the globe vary widely and these country reports reflect that fact. In particular, democratic systems with shallow roots and scarce resources can fall far short of meeting their solemn commitments to citizens, including human rights commitments. Democratic transitions can be tumultuous and wrenching. Unbridled corruption can retard democratic development, distort judicial processes and destroy public trust.
The best guarantor of human rights is a thriving democracy with representative, accountable, transparent institutions of government, equal rights under the rule of law, a robust civil society, political pluralism and independent media. To help countries that have chosen democracy institutionalize democratic practices and human rights protections and better deliver on democracy's blessings to their people, the State Department and USAID administer programs that help other countries strengthen their institutions of government and sink deeper roots for the rule of law. We encourage the full participation of all citizens, including women and minorities, in the public life of their countries. We promote political pluralism and level playing fields to help elections meet international standards. And we champion and defend the vital contributions to democracy of independent media and nongovernmental organizations.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sixth, progress on democratic reform and human rights is neither linear nor guaranteed. As a reading of the various reports will show, some states still have weak institutions of democratic government and continue to struggle; others have yet to fully commit to the democratic process. Steps forward can be marred with irregularities. There can be serious setbacks. Democratically-elected governments do not always govern democratically once in power.
But despite hard realities and high obstacles, there is an increasing worldwide demand for greater personal and political freedom and for the adoption of democratic principles of government. This growing demand derives from the powerful human desire to live in dignity and liberty, and the personal bravery and tenacity of men and women in every age and in every society who serve and sacrifice for the cause of freedom.
As Secretary Rice has stated: ''Fulfilling the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and building vibrant democracies worldwide is the work of generations, but it is urgent work that cannot be delayed.''
And now, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I will be happy to try to answer your questions.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you for your excellent statement.
I deeply regret, and I say this to all of our witnesses as well, we have about a half hour of voting. We will reconvene immediately after those votes are over. So we stand in recess.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Recess.]
Mr. SMITH. The Committee will resume its hearing. And again, I want to apologize to all of you, and especially for our witnesses, for that delay.
Let me, Mr. Secretary, thank you for your patience, and just ask a couple of questions, first, beginning with Vietnam and the interconnectedness of human rights policy with other parts of our Government, especially our Trade Representative. As we all know, Vietnam is striving to accede to the WTO, they are definitely looking for our cooperation, and yet they remain a CPC country, as we all know. And having just been there, I was concerned, having met with dozens, really scores, of people who are either under house arrest like Father Ly and Father Loi or the Venerable Thich Quang Do. And like you said in your statement, you did raise the issue of Dr. Pham Song, who, as we all know, got 5 years in prison and a 6th year after the 5 years to be spent under house arrest simply for downloading What is Democracy from the U.S. Embassy, Hanoi. And I met with his wife while I was there, and we brought this out in fuller detail in a previous gathering of our Subcommittee when we talked about the Internet.
But it seems to me that for the Vietnamese to really garner our support economically, especially as it relates to the WTO, they need to be making progress and moving in the right direction when it comes to human rights. I have always maintained that it is unrealistic to think they will respect intellectual property rights and copyright infringement statutes when they don't even respect their own people and treat them with such impunity.
While I was in Vietnam, I met with a number of people from the Northern Highlands, the Central Highlands who have had their churches destroyed, some of whom have been subjected to forced renunciations of faith. And I know that Ambassador Hanford as well has brought that up repeatedly with the Vietnamese. And interesting enough, when I met with a group of pastors who were on a visitor's program just a couple weeks ago, who were accompanied by government minders, for want of a better term, I asked one of those minders what—because she purported to be with an NGO. And I asked her, who pays your salary? Well, the government. You can't be an NGO when the government pays your salary. It is just not a—particularly as directly as they do.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I just would like to ask you whether or not the WTO and the head of the Special Trade Representative is working with our Human Rights Office in a cooperative way to say we mean business when it comes to human rights? Sure, we want you to prosper economically, but human rights matter with us.
Mr. LOWENKRON. Thank you, Chairman. Let me make a couple of comments on that. Well, first right off the top, yes, we are working closely together. And when I went to Vietnam to resume the human rights dialogue, I was not going solely as the Assistant Secretary of my bureau, but also on behalf of White House and the State Department to see if we could do something that needed to be done; in other words, to take a look at the relationship which Prime Minister Khai of Vietnam and President Bush, in the summer of 2005, agreed to elevate that relationship. And the issue was you cannot elevate it unevenly. What can we do in the issue of human rights so that, if we are to have a better, deeper, broader, more productive relationship with Vietnam, we would have to see progress on the human rights front?
This was the first time that I participated in a human rights dialogue with Vietnam. We had not had one since 2002; I was not in this position 3 1/2 years ago. But I was told by those who went with me that, unlike the past human rights dialogues, this one was generally free and cooperative. There was an effort to try to address these issues. I did stress that we do not have human rights dialogues for their own sake; they have to be results-based. Results-based means that we need to have progress on individual cases, and we need to have progress on what I call thematic cases, like religious freedom, which is why Ambassador Hanford accompanied me. Secretary of State Rice said that she wanted the Ambassador to come with me and be an integral part of the human rights dialogue. So he was with me in Hanoi, and, in fact, he stayed on for an additional time to work on the religious issue.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is clear that what you have in Vietnam is a desire for the WTO, but also a desire to host a good APEC summit when President Bush goes there at the end of the year. It also means that they want to find a way to deal with the CPC designation. And, again, that is why Ambassador Hanford was there, to tell them these are the things you have to do. And I also told them, I was very clear, I said that because the human rights dialogues that we had in the past were so desultory, that Congress passed the law that I am required by law to report to the Congress on the human rights dialogue that I have. And that is why I am looking forward to our hearing on the 29th when I will do exactly that.
Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that. I look forward to your further amplification on that, and also as well as how well or poorly our U.S. Trade Rep is working with you and whether or not they are actually taking the report into consideration, because very often it is a stovepipe mentality, and I think that enures against the people in Vietnam who need human rights just like anyone else.
Let me ask you with regard to the Human Rights Council, we had hoped to have the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations here today for Henry Hyde's Full Committee hearing, but the votes actually pushed that off the docket for today. So one of the questions that I would have had for him, and I would like to ask you as well, is on China and their statements about the Human Rights Council, who were effusive in their praise over the creation of this new Council. ''It marks an historic moment,'' says China's Deputy Permanent Representative at the United Nations. And it seems to me, and I have looked at the resolution very carefully, it is the same old same old. It is a horizontal move, it is not a move forward, and may indeed actually be a step backwards when a simple majority of the General Assembly is the prerequisite for service on that Council. And as the language in the document says, they should take into consideration what a country is doing with regards to human rights.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Well, we have seen at the Human Rights Commission every year that the Chinese have worked that commission so effectively, they do it 24/7, and they have evaded through tabling the motion, a motion of no action, any kind of real scrutiny despite the best efforts on a number of occasions by the United States delegation.
So my concern is that while everyone is breaking out the champagne, I think it is doing a grave injustice to the people who are the victims all over the world, especially in places like the PRC. So my question really is, your take on this, can there be some reforms even though this document now—this statement by the General Assembly has been agreed to? I know that our Ambassador and the State Department has said we are going to work to try to make it better, but how do you make it better since the founding document then becomes very, very determinative as to which direction they go in?
And, again, I would note that even in response to your report, I went online and read the Chinese response to it, and it was farcical. As you know, the Chinese torture with impunity; they mistreat their women, especially their littlest girls, the missing 100 million girls who have been subjected to cruel forced abortion. And that is not all of them, that is just the disparity between male and female, since the one-child-per-couple policy went into effect, pure gendercide.
What can we do to fix this Human Rights Council going forward? And if you could speak to China, having just been there, as to how you think we might make some progress on that country.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LOWENKRON. Thank you. If I can make several comments.
I did read the China human rights report on the United States. And I agree with you, there are so many fundamental differences between our two countries. Let me highlight one in particular, and that is every day I hear from our own nongovernmental organizations who ask about our own behavior and who comment and criticize about our own behavior. If a Chinese individual were to raise 1/100 of what is in our human rights report on China, if they were to put that on the Internet, if they were to try to publish the article or just say it, they would be accused of violating state law. It would be viewed as tantamount to espionage. That is a fundamental difference between the freedom for debate in a free society and what happens in China today.
If I were the Chinese, I would not be so happy about drinking that champagne, because one of the things that China had set out to do in ''reform of human rights in the UN,'' is to say we should move away from country-specific resolutions. They don't want them. It is true that they work 24/7. They don't want to work at all on that issue. Their belief is that we should not be singling out any country. I raised the human rights in the UN context when I was in China, and Chinese officials answered that they find that country-specific resolutions are confrontational, which means, by definition, if you raise unpleasant issues it is confrontational and you are not interested in good relations.
I share your disappointment in terms of the Human Rights Council. I do believe it is better than the Commission on Human Rights, but when I think of where we were 2 years ago when we started down this path, I would have hoped for more.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addressing your issue of what do we do now, I think it is a time for testing for this new Council. I think we need to see who is going to run, who gets on, what will go into the original—the first ground floor work of this Council, because, frankly, I don't think this Council has 5 years to prove itself. Mr. Eliasson said we will take a look in 5 years. In the court of world opinion, I think we will know very early on if they are going to be serious about tackling these human rights abuses or if they are not.
It is in that context that the Secretary made a decision for us to work with it, to see what can be accomplished with it. We hear the voices of nongovernmental organizations. Some of them support it, some were against, a lot were ambivalent, as we were. It is a time for testing, and that is what we are going to do in the months ahead.
Mr. SMITH. This is something that I will submit a dozen or so questions, if you could get back to us. But since we have another series of votes in the offing in an hour or less, and that could be a very long series, I would like to ask you very briefly, and we will move to the second panel.
On Cuba, the dissidents, the round-up in 2003 was an abomination. The best and brightest and bravest of Cuba are now behind bars. I am concerned about all of them, but Mr. Oscar Biscet is someone that I have a great affinity and respect for. You might want to speak to that.
Also if you could speak about Burma and the action by the Security Council, especially in light of the Havel-Mandela Commission statement. We had a hearing in this Subcommittee on Burma, and the time certainly is right to take it to the Security Council, it seems to me.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The forgotten people of India, the Dalits, you might want to speak to that and elaborate for the record later on. Russia you touched on, and the problems in Ethiopia. If you could answer a few of those, and I would like to spend all day here, but we do have votes. So, please, if you could, and then we will submit a larger series of questions.
Mr. LOWENKRON. Sure. And let me just say I will be available to come up and talk to you at any time on any of these issues.
In terms of Cuba, absolutely, most of those rounded up in the crackdown of 2003 are still languishing in prison. We have debated with some of our friends and allies what is the best approach. They said let us not be confrontational. Let us be quiet about it, and let us lower the temperature and try to get them out. That really has not worked.
Earlier this year the Secretary of State chaired a Cabinet-level meeting in order to develop and refine plans for post-Castro transition in Cuba. It covers the whole gamut of issues of how to deal with Cuba, and this is certainly an issue that will continue to get high-level attention in my bureau, the Department, and this Administration.
In terms of Burma, we will pursue all avenues on Burma. That means, first of all, seeing what more can be done in the United Nations context. Second of all, the Secretary of State raised Burma in Indonesia and in all of her stops. She is challenging ASEAN, and ASEAN is responding in a way that would suggest we are going to have a breakthrough anytime soon. But she has put that on the agenda. She insists that we need to end this reprehensible behavior on the part of Burmese.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In terms of the Dalits, 200 million of them, we are providing assistance programs, we are raising these issues with the Indian Government. We are dealing with the issue of forced conversions. This is something that is part and parcel in dealing with the human rights situation in India.
You mentioned Ethiopia. I would say that if there is one country that comes to mind in that part of the world in which you had a serious backsliding, it is Ethiopia. They had an election, and then they said, we don't like the results of the election, and 131 leaders of the opposition that refused to endorse the sham outcome ended up in prison. And the human rights situation in Ethiopia deteriorates.
I would also say it is the same with its neighbor, Eritrea, as well in which NDI, IRI, international nongovernmental organizations were all asked to leave last year. And I think the human rights report documents the sad state of human rights in both of these countries.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I would conclude in your conversations with the Indians with regards to the Dalits, if you could also bring up the use of gendercide in that country. One estimate, there may be some 60 million girls missing because of sex selection abortions, and that is a crime against women of horrific proportions. Thank you very much.
I would like to welcome our second panel to the witness table, beginning with Bishop Thomas Wenski, the elected chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on International Position Policy in November 2004. He assumed the role of the fourth bishop of the Diocese of Orlando. In that same year U.S. Attorney Paul Perez appointed Bishop Wenski to the Human Trafficking Working Group. He was appointed by Pope John Paul II as coadjutor bishop of the Diocese of Orlando in July 2003.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Elisa Massimino is the Washington Director of Human Rights First. She is the organization's chief advocacy strategist. She joined the Human Rights First as a staff attorney in 1991 and has directed the Washington, D.C, office since 1997. Previously she taught philosophy at several universities in Michigan before embarking on a second career in law. As litigation associate at Hogan & Hartson, she was pro bono counsel in many human rights cases.
We will then hear from Nina Shea, who has been an international human rights lawyer for 25 years, and for the past 10 years has directed the Center For Religious Freedom, a division of Freedom House, America's oldest human rights group. Since 1999, she has served as a Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, where she is the Vice Chairwoman. She has authored numerous articles on religious freedom, including a piece on Iraq's Constitution published in the Washington Post on August 4, 2005. In mid-2005, she served as advisor in the drafting of the Iraqi Constitution at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
Then we will hear from Mr. Ali al-Ahmed, who is a Saudi scholar and expert on Saudi political affairs. He is a writer and public speaker on Saudi political issues. He has authored reports on Saudi Arabia regarding religious freedom, torture, press freedom and religious curriculums; a frequent consultant to major world media outlets, including CBS News, CNN, PBS, Fox News, the Washington Post and Associated Press.
And finally we will hear from Ms. Sharon Hom, who is executive director of Human Rights in China and professor of law emerita at the City University of New York School of Law, a Fulbright scholar in China 1986 to 1988, and served on the U.S.-China Committee on Legal Education Exchange with China. Some of her publications include a coauthored interdisciplinary textbook and workbook, Contracting Law, and coedited English-Chinese Lexicon of Women and Law.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My understanding is Bishop Wenski cannot stay that long. Am I understanding of that correctly?
Bishop WENSKI. I have a plane to catch.
Mr. SMITH. So if you could proceed, and then maybe one or two questions, and then we will go to the rest of the panel.
STATEMENT OF THE MOST REVEREND THOMAS WENSKI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL POLICY, U.S. CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS
Bishop WENSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to testify. As you noted, I am the chairman of the Committee on International Policy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I will summarize my remarks and ask that my full written testimony be entered into the record.
As you know, the Catholic Church has a rather broad concern for human rights, but today I will focus on three areas related to religious freedom: First, the importance of religious freedom and its relevance to the conflicts in the world today; second, at the request of this Subcommittee, the place of religious freedom and the status of Christians in some Islamic countries; and third, several recommendations for U.S. policies regarding human rights and religious liberty in Islamic countries.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The USCCB welcomes this year's human rights report as a reminder of our Nation's commitment to defend human rights as a central element of United States foreign policy. Religious freedom lies at the heart of human rights from the perspective of Catholic teachings. Religious faith is oriented to the ultimate concern and purpose of human life. To deny religious freedom is to rob human persons of the ultimate meaning and direction of their lives. It is to violate their conscience.
Religious liberty begins with the right to worship according to one's conscience, but it does not end there. Religious freedom covers a broad range of vital activities from freedom to worship to freedom of conscience; from the right to establish schools and charities to the right to participate in and to seek to influence public affairs.
The promotion of religious freedom is also important for practical reasons. The moral values that flow from authentic religious belief can help build bridges between diverse communities. But our conference is not naive about the complex roles of religion in the world. In the context of globalization, ethnic and religious differences can be more easily exploited and manipulated for political ends. We have seen this tragic phenomenon in the Balkans, in the Sudan, in Rwanda, in India, and now in Iraq.
It is all too easy to misinterpret conflicts as primarily religious in nature. Often conflicts are complex combinations of economic, political, social and religious factors. A careful diagnosis of the unique aspects of each conflict is needed if the treatment is to be effective.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This complexity is why our conference is wary of too easily labeling conflicts as simply or totally religious. Government and other social institutions must be careful not to interpret conflicts too narrowly as primarily religious, because then other important causes, often the real causes of the conflict, may not be addressed.
Our conference applies the same fundamental criteria regarding religious freedom to all countries, whether or not they have Muslim, Christian, or other religious majorities. That said, there does appear to be a serious structural failure to recognize adequately the right of religious liberty in some countries with Muslim majorities. But the lack of religious freedom in some Muslim countries can be made worse in two ways: One, by ignoring or minimizing the problem; and two, by responding in ways that make the problem worse and put religious freedom at greater risk.
It is important to avoid an overly simplistic view that argues that there is a fundamental clash of cultures between all of Christianity and all of Islam. The violence in Afghanistan and Iraq, the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and several conflicts in Africa come close to being perceived in overly simplistic terms as contests of East versus West or of all of Islam versus all of Christianity.
Like Christianity, Islam is a religion with different expressions. Tensions among these expression of Islam have been exacerbated by the rise of militant Islam and the misuse of faith to justify violence.
If our own dialong with some Islamic leaders we hear these kinds of concerns: How will Islamic societies meet the social, political and economic aspirations of their citizens? Will violence against the innocent be repudiated? What religious vision of Islam will gain ascendency in the hearts and minds of Muslims, a more tolerant inclusive and engaged Islam or a more fundamentalist, exclusive isolationalist Islam?
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These realities require careful analysis, respectful dialogue and careful discussion. But the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops continues to be deeply concerned about mistreatment of Christians and other religious minorities in some Islamic countries. This does not mean that every instance of violence against Christians should be interpreted as persecution, or that there is an inevitable and systemic persecution of Christians and other religious minorities in countries with Muslim majorities.
The conditions of religious freedom are different from country to country and region to region. In general it appears to be the case, however, that in societies with growing militant Islamist influences, there are also often increases in intolerance and discrimination against religious minorities, including Christians. Our country must be cognizant, however, of a number of other social, economic, political and military factors that contribute to situations in which religious intolerance toward Christians and other religious minorities is more likely to grow. None of these factors justifies religious discrimination or persecution, but these factors contribute to a climate that is more conducive to religious intolerance.
First, the powerful forces of secularization and materialism that often accompany globalization are perceived by many Muslims as threatening to traditional Islamic values, as they are perceived by many Christians as threatening to Christian values.
Second, many in the Islamic world interpret aspects of this struggle against terrorism as a struggle again Islam itself. This misinterpretation precipitates a reactionary impulse to equate anything Western with Christianity.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Tragically, the abuse and humiliation of prisoners and detainees in U.S. custody has reinforced negative perceptions of the stuggle against terrorism in Islamic countries. Conduct of the so-called ''War on Terrorism'' merits careful and comprehensive review for its broader impact and consequences.
Third, the failure to secure a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with its resulting occupation of Palestinian lands, the current occupation of Iraq by United States troops, and the continuing presence of U.S. military in a number of Muslim countries contribute to some Muslim suspicions and hostility toward our Nation and its Christian majority and sometimes spill over into prejudices and distrust of indigenous Christians in Muslim nations.
In our written testimony we comment on the situation of Christians in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Holy Land, Nigeria, and the Sudan. The situations in each of these countries are unique and require a tailored United States response from the absolute denial of religious liberty in Saudi Arabia to the complex factors that put pressures on Christians in the Holy Land.
While the difficult situations of Christians vary in different countries with Muslim majorities, our conference offers several general policy recommendations to support religious freedom in some of these countries.
First, the U.S. needs to make religious liberty even more central to its foreign policy and practice and work collaboratively, consistently and intensively with Islamic countries to foster respect for religious liberty in theory and practice. The U.S. Government is closely allied with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt, and therefore can have considerable influence on their policies and practices.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second, we urge the U.S. Government to engage religious leaders more intensely and directly. Religious leaders can impact the attitudes and behaviors of leaders, and thus should be a key constituency for U.S. officials to consult.
Third, we recommend greater participation in and support for genuine interfaith dialogue. As Pope Benedict XVI said on August 20th, 2005, when he met with Muslim leaders in Cologne, Germany: ''Interreligious and intercultural dialogue between Christians and Muslims cannot reduced to an optional extra. It is in fact a vital necessity.''
Fourth, we recommend promotion of concrete reciprocity in policies and practices that relate to religious freedom. Reciprocity means that the Catholic Church expects support for efforts to permit the construction of Christian churches, schools and other religious institutions in Islamic countries and it expects countries with Christian majorities to allow the same for their Muslim minorities.
Fifth, the U.S. must address the social, economic, political and military factors that make it easier for opponents of religious freedom to incite religious intolerance. Social inequities, intense secularization, some abuses in the struggle with terrorism, the use of religious language to justify violence, and military occupations provide fuel for the fires of religious extremism and intolerance.
This testimony has focused on some problematic areas of the relationships between Islam and Christianity. Constructive and respective dialogue with Islam is imperative in today's world. Rather than deploring a clash of cultures, we need to foster cultures of dialogue and respect as keys to justice and peace. Promoting human rights and religious freedom is critical to the church's life and mission and to the pursuit of international peace. It is also at the heart of our Nation's founding principles.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My hope is that this year's human rights report can help advance religious freedom and human rights in important and concrete ways. In the words of Pope Benedict XVI, ''The defense of religious freedom . . . is a permanent imperative.'' Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Bishop Wenski follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MOST REVEREND THOMAS WENSKI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL POLICY, U.S. CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, allow me to thank you for this opportunity to offer testimony before the committee on the issue of human rights. Let me also express my appreciation to you for your leadership in promoting protection of human rights as a key aspect of U.S. foreign policy.
I serve as the Chairman of the Committee on International Policy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Committee's mission and major priorities include the advancement of human rights and religious freedom. I will summarize my remarks and ask that my full written testimony be entered into the record.
This testimony of our bishops' Conference will address: the importance and nature of religious freedom and its relevance to conflicts in the world today; and at the request of the Subcommittee, religious freedom and the status of Christians in some Islamic countries; and recommendations for U.S. policies to improve religious freedom in countries with Muslim majorities. Given the limitations of time and focus, today's testimony will not provide a comprehensive overview of our serious concerns for religious freedom in countries without Muslim majorities. In addition, clearly our Conference will continue to refine and develop our perspectives on Christian-Muslim relations in light of our ongoing dialogue and experience.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Annual Human Rights Report
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops once again welcomes the release of the annual human rights report by the Department of State. These annual reports document progress or the lack of it in achieving human rights, and serve as a visible reminder of the commitment that our nation has made to pursue human rights as a central commitment of U.S. foreign policy.
In today's world, a world of unprecedented advances in many fields and yet one marked by crushing poverty, intractable conflicts, bloody violence and widespread denial of human rights, building an international order on the foundation of fundamental human rights is not simply a moral ideal; it is a practical necessity. As the late Pope John Paul II declared: ''[R]espect for human rights [is] the secret of true peace.''(see footnote 1)
Today's advances in human knowledge and capacity offer humanity an unparalleled opportunity to affirm in law and practice the human dignity of every person, regardless of their religious tradition, social status, ethnic background, racial group, or national origin. But to move toward greater respect for human rights, humanity's technological and economic achievements must be matched by moral advancement, greater commitment to human rights and the active pursuit of the universal common good of peace with justice. In the words of our late Holy Father, a genuine respect for human rights throughout the world would represent ''a true milestone on the path of humanity's moral progress.''(see footnote 2) The annual human rights reports provide one important measure of this moral progress or lack of it.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Experience of the U.S. Catholic Bishops
The U.S. Catholic bishops are not strangers to the struggle for human rights and religious freedom. As pastors within a universal Church, we hear the cries and share the pain of believers of all religions around the world who suffer persecution, violence and discrimination. From apartheid in South Africa and religious persecution in the former Soviet Union and its satellites in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, to the human rights struggles in Central and South America, from today's challenges to religious freedom in China and Vietnam, Sudan and Nigeria, to those in Russia and Saudi Arabia, the Holy Land and elsewhere, our Conference has worked—sometimes visibly, and sometimes of necessity quietly—to defend, promote and advance human rights and religious liberty.
Delegations of our bishops' Conference have journeyed to many lands to express personally and visibly our solidarity with our brother bishops, our fellow Catholics and people of other faiths. The Conference has issued many public appeals and initiated numerous private communications to call for legal protections, to protest killings and detentions, and to promote victims' rights with the United States and foreign governments. Our Conference is deeply committed to promoting religious freedom consistently and persistently. We are proud to have played a significant role in the development and passage of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.
In our work for religious freedom, our bishops' Conference listens carefully to the pleas of those who suffer persecution and discrimination and learns from their experiences and seeks their counsel. This task includes consulting closely with local Catholic bishops throughout the world, with other religious leaders and with the Holy See. Our experience and conviction is that the victims of religious discrimination and persecution are often the best sources of information and the most reliable guides as to what should be done regarding their situation.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
THE IMPORTANCE AND NATURE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Religious Freedom and Human Rights
In testimony before this Subcommittee on November 15, 2005, Bishop Ricardo Ramirez of the Diocese of Las Cruces, a member of our bishops' Committee on International Policy, made the case that religious freedom is the first of our freedoms and lies at the heart of human rights from the perspective of Catholic teaching. This assertion is based on both the conviction and the experience of our Church.
Pope John Paul II taught: ''The most fundamental human freedom is that of practicing one's faith openly, which for human beings is their reason for living.''(see footnote 3) Faith is oriented to the ultimate concern and purpose of human life. To deny religious freedom is to rob human persons of the ultimate meaning and direction of their lives. Constraining religious liberty diminishes our humanity.
In its Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae), the Second Vatican Council declared: ''The right of religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person, as this dignity is known through the revealed Word of God and reason itself.''(see footnote 4) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by many nations of the world, is based on human reason. Catholic teaching on human rights is based on both reason and religious faith. Both the United Nations' Declaration and Catholic teaching root human rights in the dignity of the human person. The fact that both human reason and religious faith can lead to respect for human rights is evident in the collaboration of diverse actors and groups throughout the world who work to promote respect for inalienable and universal human rights.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A commitment to human rights is not alien to any authentic quest for religious or moral truth because it flows from the very nature of the human person and emerges naturally in all authentic religious, moral and cultural traditions as they move to express ever more deeply the truth of human life. It is significant that nations with widely varying religious heritages have embraced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It also is important to understand that full religious freedom is a rich reality with broad personal and societal implications. Religious liberty begins with the right to worship according to one's conscience, but it does not end there. Religious freedom covers a broad range of vital activities, from freedom of worship to freedom of conscience, from the right to establish schools and charities to the right to participate in and seek to influence public affairs. Religious freedom is inextricably linked to other fundamental human rights, such as freedom of association, freedom of speech, and the legal recognition of voluntary associations. Religious freedom is a right exercised by both individual persons and religious communities and institutions.
The Importance of Religious Freedom in U.S. Foreign Policy
The promotion and protection of religious freedom is also important for practical reasons. Despite some signs to the contrary, religion can be a powerful force for peace with justice. The moral values that flow from authentic religious belief can help build bridges between diverse communities. Our own bishops' Conference is involved in an interfaith initiative that unites religious leaders of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim traditions in the quest for peace in the Middle East. A shining example of the positive role that religion can play in the work of peace was the Day of Prayer for Peace in the World that was held in Assisi on January 24, 2002. The religious leaders gathered there from the four corners of the earth and virtually every major religious tradition adopted a Decalogue of Assisi for Peace. The first of its ten affirmations declared:
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We commit ourselves to proclaiming our firm conviction that violence and terrorism are incompatible with the authentic spirit of religion, and, as we condemn every recourse to violence and war in the name of God or of religion, we commit ourselves to doing everything possible to eliminate the root causes of terrorism.(see footnote 5)
Our Conference is not naiAE4ve about the complex and differing roles of religion in the world. We know that religion can be exploited and misused to foster conflict and intensify unhealthy rivalries. But we also know that religion is most often twisted in situations where coercion prevails over tolerance. In places enjoying authentic religious freedom, people are freer to enter into the quest for truth and more open to seeing ''the other'' as a brother or sister.
Given the enormous potential of religion to contribute to a more humane world, as well as the troubling ways religion can be manipulated, especially in coercive or repressive environments, religious freedom needs to be at the center of the work on human rights in U.S. foreign policy.
Nature of Conflict Today and Role of Religion
Today there is a growing recognition of the pluralism of religious belief. More and more people live shoulder to shoulder with others of different beliefs or no belief at all. Even in countries where one religion predominates, living in complete religious isolation is often no longer possible. Global communications sometimes make the world a virtual village. Increased immigration often makes people of diverse backgrounds neighbors. These new realities can move communities and nations in two very different directions: toward greater respect for others of differing religious belief or toward greater fear and intolerance. The challenge before humanity is to help build a global culture and practice tha