U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–457PDF 2016

THE GLOBAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CRISIS AND

ITS CHALLENGE TO U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 16, 2016

Serial No. 114–217

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable David N. Saperstein, Ambassador-at-Large for International 

Religious Freedom, U.S. Department of State ................................................... 5

Robert P. George, Ph.D., McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton 

University (former chairman, U.S. Commission on International Religious 

Freedom) ............................................................................................................... 33

M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D., president, American Islamic Forum for Democracy 

(former vice-chair, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom) .... 51

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable David N. Saperstein: Prepared statement ................................... 9

Robert P. George, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ....................................................... 38

M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D.: Prepared statement ......................................................... 55

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 80

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 81

The Honorable David N. Saperstein: Exploring the Trends and Consequences 

of Religious Registration: A Global Overview .................................................... 82

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global 

Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations: 2016 Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious 

Freedom ................................................................................................................ 83

Written responses from the Honorable David N. Saperstein to questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith ........................ 89

(1)

THE GLOBAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CRISIS 

AND ITS CHALLENGE TO U.S. FOREIGN 

POLICY 

THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:40 p.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The subcommittee will come to order. 

And good afternoon to everybody. 

First of all, let me say I deeply regret the delay. We did have a 

series of more than two dozen votes on the floor. No one can ever 

anticipate that. So I thank you for your patience and forbearance. 

And we have no further votes, which is a plus and a minus. 

Some of the members are getting on planes to go home, and that 

is the minus. The plus is we won’t be interrupted for the remainder 

of the hearing. 

Let me begin by just noting I have chaired numerous hearings 

on religious freedom since the mid-1990s, starting with my first 

two: One was called ‘‘The Worldwide Persecution of Jews,’’ in 1996; 

and ‘‘The Persecution of Christians Worldwide,’’ which followed just 

a few weeks later. Ever since, I have chaired dozens of hearings examining worldwide attacks on religious freedom. 

Tragically, especially in recent years, the situation has significantly deteriorated and begs a significant, expanded, and sustained 

response from the United States and from the world community. 

On May 26, our subcommittee asked ‘‘What’s next?’’ after Secretary Kerry’s genocide designation. Our witnesses made excellent 

suggestions, including Supreme Knight Carl Anderson, who proposed—and I just encapsulate his recommendations—that we increase aid and ensure that it actually reaches those in need, support the long-term survival in the region of those ancient indigenous religions and ethnic communities, and punish the perpetrators of genocide and crimes against humanity. 

And I would note parenthetically that I have authored a resolution and had a series of hearings in this room about establishing 

a hybrid, a regional court, like we had in Sierra Leone. And we actually had David Crane, the chief prosecutor, who said, while the 

2

ICC is a nice idea, it has proven itself largely incapable of taking 

on a responsibility such as this. But a hybrid court, as we saw with 

Charles Taylor, gets those who commit these horrific genocide acts 

and puts them behind bars. And, in the case of Charles Taylor, it 

is for 50 years. 

Carl Anderson also emphasized that we assist victims of genocide 

in attaining refugee status. And that poses very significant problems, where Christians do not have the kind of access to the 

UNHCR that they ought to have and never get in the queue and, 

as a result, end game, never get here or any other third country 

for asylum. 

And, also, a very interesting point he made was: Prepare now for 

the foreseeable future of human rights challenges, as ISIS-controlled territories are liberated, by ensuring that Christians and 

other minorities have equal rights to decide the future. 

We are very, very grateful to have Ambassador David Saperstein, 

the Ambassador-at-Large for the International Religious Freedom 

Office, a man who has committed so much of his life to religious 

freedom, who will provide insight and a roadmap for going forward. 

It is also a very high honor to welcome the outgoing chairman 

of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, Dr. Robert George, as well as Dr. Zuhdi Jasser—two religious 

freedom leaders with exemplary records of service. 

Religious liberty is called America’s first freedom and one of our 

Nation’s founding ideals. It is the right to believe or not believe and 

to practice one’s religion according to the dictates of one’s own conscience. 

The right is not only an American value, it is a universal principle. The right to religious freedom flows from the dignity of each 

and every human person and, as such, deserves to be protected everywhere and for everyone—no exceptions. 

Sadly, in large parts of the world, this fundamental freedom is 

constantly and brutally under siege. The world is experiencing a 

crisis of religious freedom that poses a direct challenge to U.S. interests in the Middle East, central and east Asia, Russia, China, 

and sub-Saharan Africa. 

In Burma, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, there are Muslim, Christian, and Hindu minorities facing systematic violence and discrimination. In China, Vietnam, and North Korea, independent religious 

practice is viewed as an unwanted competitor to the communist 

state, leading to severe restrictions, arrests, and systemic torture. 

Governments are not the only ones repressing religious practice. 

Non-state actors increasingly are a pernicious threat to religious 

liberty around the world. In the Middle East, terrorist groups like 

ISIS have been committing genocide in an attempt to exterminate 

ancient religious communities. 

This subcommittee’s hearings include, most recently, one last 

month with witnesses from civil society who did focus on what is 

next when we are talking about the designation made by Secretary 

Kerry. 

We must ensure that we are doing everything we can to prevent 

genocide, mass atrocities, and war crimes against religious minorities in Iraq and Syria and to ensure perpetrators are held accountable. 

3

This is also true of Boko Haram, as I mentioned earlier. Both 

Greg Simpkins, our staff director, and I have viewed firsthand 

churches and mosques that have been destroyed by Boko Haram. 

I will never forget being in Jos, Nigeria, visiting with survivors 

who told harrowing stories of what it was like to have car bombs 

and people with AK-47s bursting into their congregations to destroy as many people as they possibly could. 

It is no coincidence that the worst violators of religious freedom 

globally are often the biggest threat to our Nation. They are those 

who wish the Americans the most harm. Thus, the promotion of religious liberty is also important to our foreign policy initiatives, especially the promotion of human rights in general and democracy 

in particular. 

Eighteen years ago, Congress passed the landmark International 

Religious Freedom Act of 1998. That act made protection and promotion of religious freedom a priority, which it had not been in 

U.S. foreign policy. Three different administrations have developed 

religious freedom policy, and three different administrations have 

had some success but also some failures to check the overall rise 

of religious-related violence and the decline of religious freedom 

globally. 

It is worth asking, what can we do better? Are new tools or ideas 

needed to help address the crisis? Does the International Religious 

Freedom Act need to be upgraded to reflect 21st century realities? 

Where are the flash points of persecution that need additional attention and resources, and how do we address them? 

That is why I introduced the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act, H.R. 1150, along with Representative Anna 

Eshoo. The bill is named after former Congressman Frank Wolf, 

the primary author and great champion of the original International Religious Freedom Act, and that legislation has been landmark and decisive in its implications. 

H.R. 1150 strengthens the role played by the Ambassador-atLarge for Religious Freedom within the State Department, gives 

the Ambassador more tools, and the ability to better utilize existing 

resources. The bill will elevate the Ambassador’s status, sending 

the signal inside the government bureaucracy that this policy a priority; it is not an asterisk at the end of a list of talking points that 

the President or Secretary of State has when he meets with his foreign interlocutors, especially Prime Ministers and Presidents. 

More importantly, it will demonstrate to victims of religious persecution that they are not forgotten. As it says in the Bible, ‘‘Hope 

deferred makes the heart sick.’’ And if people think that nobody 

has their back, people do lose heart. 

The bill also provides a way for the administration to better coordinate international religious freedom policy. And there are an 

ever-expanding number of special envoys, special advisers, and Ambassadors who often have overlapping mandates. 

U.S. diplomats also need better training to recognize and understand the issues that they will face during their service abroad, not 

some cursory, superficial ‘‘this is what religious freedom is, these 

are what the different denominations and beliefs adhere to, religious tenets,’’ to really get into the thick of it, so when they are 

4

deployed—and that includes Ambassadors—they are better 

equipped to deal in-country with the challenges that they will face. 

The bill gives the President new options to address the decimation visited upon religious minorities by non-state actors and terrorist groups. 

I have to point out, this subcommittee and my good friend and 

I and others have worked so hard for 3 years to get a Foreign Terrorist Organization designation for Boko Haram. If you go back and 

look at the record, we had Assistant Secretary of State Johnny Carson sit right where Rabbi Saperstein sits now, telling me, telling 

my subcommittee that they are just trying to embarrass the Presidency of Goodluck Jonathan, rather than being a radical Islamic 

organization intent on forcing people to become Muslim, and a radical portion of that as well, and also to kill pious Muslims who 

stand in their way. 

It took 3 years. It wasn’t until we were going to mark up a bill 

in this room, the day of it, under John Kerry, not under Secretary 

Clinton, because she was against it, that we had a designation of 

Foreign Terrorist Organization for Boko Haram. And we all know 

they are now the deadliest organization in the world, killing, maiming, raping, and butchering. 

Finally, this bill recognizes the connection between advancing religious freedom globally and U.S. national security and economic 

interests, the interrelatedness of all of it. The evidence has shown 

repeatedly that U.S. national security and economic interests are 

directly tied to religious freedom. Religious freedom can act to undermine the religious-related violence perpetrated by non-state actors. 

This bill, H.R. 1150, was unanimously passed by the House. It 

is pending in the Senate. Our hope and prayer is that the Senate 

will take it up. 

And, again, before going to our distinguished rabbi, Ambassadorat-Large David Saperstein, I would like to yield to Mark Meadows 

for any opening comments he might have. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will be very brief because, obviously, we want to hear from you. 

I think the troubling thing for most Americans and, indeed, for 

most of the country and the world at large is that rhetoric that we 

defend religious liberties without action actually does more harm 

than good. 

And I think, Ambassador, what I am hopeful to hear from you 

is the action that will follow our rhetoric and where we have to 

truly stand up—and we are seeing it across many of the headlines—on what religious liberty is and what it is not and really 

where we have to focus on as a body here in Congress and, indeed, 

as the beacon of freedom in the world that the United States holds 

is that we have to stand up. 

We can’t exchange the protection of religious liberties for economic gain. We can’t exchange the protection of religious liberties 

for potential geopolitical gains. What we must do is stand up for 

religious freedom, and the rest will follow. 

And so, Ambassador, I welcome you, as I do our two distinguished guests that will be on the second panel. 

And I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

5

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Meadows. 

But, just very briefly, Ambassador Saperstein is the Ambassadorat-Large for International Religious Freedom. He was confirmed by 

the Senate in December 2014, sworn in and assumed his duties in 

January 2015. 

Ambassador Saperstein previously served for 40 years as the director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. A rabbi 

and an attorney for 35 years, Rabbi Saperstein taught seminars in 

First Amendment church-state law and in Jewish law at Georgetown University Law Center. 

He has served on the boards of numerous national organizations, 

including the NAACP. In 1999, Ambassador Saperstein served as 

the first chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious 

Freedom. 

Rabbi Saperstein, it is an honor to welcome you. And please consume whatever time you think is necessary. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID N. SAPERSTEIN, AMBASSADOR-AT-LARGE FOR INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS 

FREEDOM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Chairman Smith and Mr. Meadows, I 

am really honored and pleased to be here, and thank you for this 

opportunity to discuss the critical issue of religious freedom. I am 

honored, as well, to address this with two such distinguished advocates for religious freedom, Robbie George and Zuhdi Jasser. 

I commend this subcommittee, all of you on this subcommittee, 

for your continuing focus and your effective efforts on behalf of the 

vital universal human right of religious freedom. And I thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, for your longstanding attention to international religious freedom violations, cases, and concerns. I truly cherish our 

partnership that we have had over the years. 

And one has only to read the headlines in recent weeks and 

months to know that the challenges to religious freedom are 

daunting. 

First and foremost, we absolutely must address the horrific and 

brutal predations of Daesh’s activities in Iraq and Syria. In the 

months since Secretary Kerry’s statement that, in his judgment, 

Daesh is responsibility for genocide, crimes against humanity, and 

ethnic cleansing in the areas that it controls, we have significantly 

strengthened our efforts to ensure a viable future for members of 

impacted communities. 

We must, as well, seek accountability for the heinous acts committed by the Daesh terrorists. As Secretary Kerry has said, the 

United States will strongly support efforts to collect, document, 

preserve, analyze the evidence of atrocities, and we will do all we 

can to see that the perpetrators are held accountable. 

In liberated areas, we are funding the investigation and documentation of mass graves, and we are looking into ways to use satellite telemetry and geospatial analysis to identify potential atrocity sites that remain in areas under Daesh control. 

With Iraqi and international agencies, we are engaged in discussions on how to best establish transitional justice programs to be 

developed now, before people begin to move back to communities, 

in order to mitigate the potential for renewed sectarian violence. 

6

We are also actively working with the Government of Iraq to 

identify and return cultural and religious artifacts stolen and later 

sold by Daesh to fund its activities. We are also working, particularly in partnership with the Smithsonian Institution, with local 

communities to help them determine how they can preserve their 

religious and cultural heritage, including by preserving churches, 

shrines, cemeteries, synagogues, and mosques. 

As a tangible outcome of the Secretary’s genocide announcement, 

in July we will be convening in Washington an intergovernmental 

conference to advance ways to protect religious minorities in Iraq 

and Syria. Before and during this meeting, we plan to map out the 

existing programs the varied countries are doing, identify current 

gaps in programming, discuss potential next steps, and to strengthen global collaboration in our assistance to religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq and Syria. 

To move to another topic, the Secretary has announced the designation of 10 Countries of Particular Concern for engaging in or 

tolerating systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of religious 

freedom, which included for the first time the addition of Tajikistan 

to that list. The CPC countries include Burma, China, Eritrea, 

Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, 

and Uzbekistan. 

I testified earlier before you that we wanted to make the CPC 

process more consistent, more robust. We would not limit ourselves 

to announcing these designations only at one point in the year, 

usually around the report. We can add countries whenever justified, as Tajikistan exemplifies, even as we work assertively to develop action plans with existing CPC countries to help them take 

steps necessary to move them off the CPC list. 

During my 18 months as Ambassador-at-Large, I have traveled 

to 20 countries, including 3 of the 10 CPCs. I will visit two more 

of them this July. During my trips, I have met with countless government officials, parliamentarians, human rights activists, religious leaders, believers from nearly all world religious traditions, 

including skeptics and nonbelievers, including those seeking reforms in their religious traditions and those seeking reforms within 

their governments, raising our concerns consistently along the way. 

What has stood out is the incredible irrepressible spirit of all the 

individuals who risk discrimination, imprisonment, and even death 

for simply seeking to live out their lives in accordance with their 

conscience. 

It is particularly memorable to me that I was in a crowded Sudanese courtroom in August 2015 to observe the release of two prominent prisoners of conscience, Pastor Yat Michael Ruot and Pastor 

Peter Yen Reith, for simply speaking about their faith. They had 

faced multiple charges, including blasphemy, promoting hatred 

amongst religious groups. They never should have been charged or 

imprisoned in the first place, yet now some of those charges—they 

were freed and out of the country—have been restored. 

And other Christian pastors, including Hassan Abdelrahim 

Tawor and Kowa Shamal, are currently in prison facing similar 

charges related to their faith. The continued presence of restrictive 

laws and the specter of heavy-handed government action against 

individuals of faith casts a pall over religious life in that country. 

7

And I mention Sudan precisely because I genuinely hoped that 

this was a country that was interested in making changes and 

could come off the CPC list. We had received some encouraging signals from key government officials, but we have yet to see the 

hoped-for improvements actualize. We must continue to press for 

reforms in all CPC countries, Sudan included. 

Now, Chairman Smith, I know of your keen interest in China, 

another CPC. In August 2015, we went to China to raise important 

concerns. We actually saw some positive signs in some geographic 

areas of the country, where more unregistered churches were allowed to function, more religious entities were allowed to engage in 

providing social services. 

I wish that we had been able to lift those up and to talk about 

them, but in other areas of the country—to talk about them even 

more than we did as indicative of changes in China. But, in other 

areas of the country, restrictions were far more than norm and far 

greater. 

Repression of Tibetan Buddhists and Falun Gong continues 

unabated. Restrictions on Uyghur Muslims have increased. Chinese 

officials have sought to politicize theology in state-sanctioned 

churches by compelling modifications of Christian teachings to conform to socialism. 

We were shocked when authorities detained human rights lawyer Zhang Kai and several other church leaders as they were preparing to meet with me about the tearing down of crosses in 

Wenzhou. I was appreciative of your calls, congressional calls, for 

their release and know similar calls that emanated from many 

with whom we work in the international community. They were finally released. The campaign to end, the campaign to destroy 

crosses appears to have stopped for the moment, but, as we know, 

too many others remain in prison for daring to stand up for their 

right to practice their relation. 

During the most recent U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, Secretary Kerry vigorously raised our concerns about growing restrictions on the exercise of religion and expression, particularly those that target lawyers, religious adherents, and civil society leaders. 

One potentially encouraging area is Vietnam. Since I was last 

here, we have engaged extensively with Vietnamese authorities to 

bring about needed changes in their proposed draft law on religion 

and belief. And I hope we can discuss this further in the discussion 

period. 

We have moved to expand the work of the International Contact 

Group on Freedom of Religion and Belief, which we helped to 

launch last year with my Canadian counterpart, former Ambassador for Religious Freedom Andrew Bennett. The Contact Group 

met just last month in a meeting here in Washington that we 

hosted. Representatives of the 16 countries and the European 

Union attended, working together to map out ways we can work together more effectively. 

With increased funding from Congress, we are significantly expanding our foreign assistance programs. Since the creation of the 

IRF office, we have devoted tens of millions of dollars to programs 

that contribute to the promotion of religious freedom. 

8

It is a deeply encouraging vote of confidence that you have appropriated—the Congress has appropriated additional funds in fiscal 

year 2015 and 2016. This will allow us to expand core religious 

freedom programs while starting new programs that will strengthen rule of law to protect and support the exercise of religious freedom and address issues of violent extremism in countries like Nigeria, like the CAR, Bangladesh, provide further emergency assistance to individuals mistreated for their beliefs, and help countries 

to live up to the goals of U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 

1618 by combating religious intolerance in ways that simultaneously advance freedom of expression and freedom of religion. 

Over the past year, we have significantly expanded religious freedom training programs both for other countries across the globe 

and for our own staff from Embassies all across the globe. 

More specifically, we have launched region-specific training sessions at Foreign Service Institute facilities around the world to 

help give our officers a clear understanding of what religious freedom entails, why it matters in the broad context of U.S. foreign 

policy, and how most effectively to promote those rights from an 

Embassy or consulate. We have received extraordinarily positive 

feedback from the nearly 130 State Department staff who have 

participated in these training sessions. 

At the same time, we also continue to offer the semiannual 4-day 

religion and foreign policy course that we run in conjunction with 

the Secretary’s Office for Religion and Global Affairs at the Foreign 

Service Institute in Arlington. 

Finally, congressional funding is making it possible to significantly expand the Office of International Religious Freedom and 

our work. In addition to Special Advisor Knox Thames and myself—Mr. Thames sits behind me today—the office currently has 

now 23 full-time staff, and we have plans to hire several more very 

soon. 

This makes it possible to expand the scope of our work to better 

address not only our regional and country-specific work but to develop teams on urgent issues, such as protecting religious minorities in the Middle East—and Knox Thames has done an extraordinary job on that and is the coordinator of the upcoming conference in July—the relationship between countering violent extremism and religious freedom; combating blasphemy and apostasy 

laws, an issue that is a major priority for us; and focusing on restrictive registration regimes. 

I actually am attaching and submitting a study on this latter 

issue of restrictive registration regimes that was commissioned by 

us this year. 

I welcome any questions that you might have. And, again, I 

thank you for your passionate attention to religious freedom concerns across the globe. You are a vital and indispensable partner 

in our work. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Saperstein follows:]

9


20457a-1.eps
10


20457a-2.eps
11


20457a-3.eps
12


20457a-4.eps
13


20457a-5.eps
14


20457a-6.eps
15


20457a-7.eps
16

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so much, Ambassador Saperstein. 

Because he has to go, but will come back, I would to yield to Mr. 

Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your accommodation. 

Ambassador, thank you for your testimony. 

So let me, I guess, pick up on one particular item. And, I guess, 

one of the concerns I had—you said there were 130 State Department employees that had participated in the training? 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Out of what universe? I mean, that sounds like 

a small number compared to——

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Well, at any given time, there are 

about 190 people, probably a few more, actually, because consulates 

sometimes have their own people, who have direct responsibility 

for——

Mr. MEADOWS. So you were saying 130 of the 190 that have the 

direct responsibility——

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. That is right. 

Mr. MEADOWS [continuing]. Participating? 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. They are the ones who came to our 

training——

Mr. MEADOWS. Oh, okay. All right. Well, that is a more significant number. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN [continuing]. At the Foreign Service Institute. Then, a larger number of people who don’t have those responsibilities participate in those training sessions, as well. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. 

After much, I guess, encouragement, we had a genocide designation that was made. And so, as I see that designation that has been 

made, I guess, Ambassador, my question is, what is next? We made 

the designation, so where is the action that would follow that? And 

please be specific, if you can. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Let me try my best to run through 

what the different pieces of this are. 

First, we hope to improve the condition of those—it is clear ISIL 

is not going to be removed tomorrow or the next day or next week 

or next month. The displaced populations are going to be there for 

a while, so the quality of life for them has to be improved. And we 

have seen significant increases in our funding for those——

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, we know we have done our part. I guess 

what I am asking is when are we going to see action on your part 

in a tangible way. I mean——

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Well, let me——

Mr. MEADOWS [continuing]. Because I am a fiscal conservative 

and I am willing to sign on because this is a priority for me. But 

yet, at the same time, if I continue to spend the American taxpayer 

dollars and no result comes from it, Ambassador, that needs to be 

a message that goes back to the administration, that——

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. So let me run—and I know you have 

to leave. I will do it as quickly as I can, but——

Mr. MEADOWS. No, we are good. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN [continuing]. Let me just run through it. 

17

I believe that the allocation of the recent additional 160-whatever-it-was million dollars that we did was a reallocation within 

our budget, not——

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN [continuing]. An additional allocation of 

Congress on that. So that is number one. 

Number two, there has to be accountability. I talked about the 

atrocities accountability pieces that we are doing of identifying 

where the sites are, helping to train people on the ground in how 

to protect those sites, both in the military when they move in and 

the actual minority communities, about what they can do to protect 

those sites. 

Third, people need to move back with security. And, in order to 

have security, the minority groups need to know that their own defense, local defense forces will be integrated into whatever system 

is protecting them. And we have now seen that there is additional 

training for those local defense forces that—and this is a new development since the genocide designation was made. Training of 

those defense forces is part of our training in general here. So that 

is another piece of what has to be done. 

Fourth, I talked about the transitional justice piece. We are 

going to have people go home to people who took over their homes, 

their businesses. They may have invested in those. Some were 

complicit in ISIL’s activities; some were not. They were just opportunistic. We have worked with the Iraqi Government on this. They 

have taken steps in terms of ensuring title remains with the people 

who have fled. But there needs to be a reconciliation process of how 

to do this. And we are working with the U.N. and others in order 

to begin to do that, and with NGOs who are specialized in mediation from prior places that atrocities have taken place. 

We have leaned very hard in terms of working closely with Prime 

Minister Abadi, who has said he wants to change the governance 

structure to ensure minorities have a greater role in governance. 

They need to believe they can help shape the future of the country, 

and we are working on that piece, as well. 

And then, of course, the central problem, which will be a partnership between Congress and the State Department, will be the economic rebuilding of those areas. And there are a number of proposals that are before us in our program areas to do pilot runs on 

some approaches to that economic rebuilding. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, Ambassador, with all due respect, some of 

those things that you have just mentioned had nothing to do with 

the genocide designation. I mean, they may be an offshoot of that, 

but their causal effect was not the genocide designation. Those 

were things that were white papers, things that we were already 

embarking on. 

And so I guess my question becomes, at what point in the process, in the spectrum of a designation gets made, we have all of 

these great things—and I am not suggesting that none of—all of 

those are great things that we should be doing. 

So I guess what I am saying is, for the American people, when 

we are really talking about affecting those who have been displaced——

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. So two brief points. 

18

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Here. I may not have been clear. Everything I talked about, I was talking about directly related to the 

minority communities who have been displaced and what is necessary to get them back to their——

Mr. MEADOWS. And those have happened since we made the 

genocide designation? 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Well, that would be my second point. 

Mr. MEADOWS. That was my point. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. That would be my second point. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Clearly, I believe and I believe our Nation should be proud of the fact that we were doing significant 

amounts of things, including our military action, the coalition 

of——

Mr. MEADOWS. I agree. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN.—60 countries to help, that we would 

have done had we declared genocide at the very beginning of this, 

and we acted accordingly to that. So the fact that we were already 

doing many of these things and we had plans already in motion 

even before it and we stepped up the implementation of that 

shouldn’t be the judgment of whether genocide mattered. 

The question is: What are we doing? Are we acting appropriately 

to a situation in which genocidal activity has been taking place? 

And all of this, what we did before and what we have done subsequently, I think paints a robust picture. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. 

So, with that robust picture, I will ask my last question. There 

is a thought or at least a hypothesis out there that it took so long 

to get the genocide designation that any followup that we are doing 

is more to comply with that and, in short, can be some window 

dressing. And that is not something that I am putting forth. I am 

just saying that that is something that I hear continually from my 

constituents and those that are concerned about this particular 

issue. 

So, as we look at that, how do we define success in terms of really addressing the atrocities that continue and have gone on and 

hopefully will stop soon? How do we define success where we are 

not judging it in terms of the number of people who have participated in a training program or the number of people that are doing 

this? How do we do that, Ambassador, so that the next time I vote 

for additional funding I am supported in that? 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. I will answer that directly. Give me 20 

seconds to make one other point. 

The conference that we are holding——

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN [continuing]. It was part of a sequence 

of conferences at the U.N. Security Council, then in Paris, that led 

to an action plan but without commitments from countries of what 

to do. 

After the genocide designation, we moved—the next conference 

got delayed 6 months—we moved immediately to contact all the 

sponsors—France, Spain, Jordan—to say, let us have an interVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:21 Sep 28, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\061616\20457 SHIRL
19

mediary conference that will be focused entirely on international 

commitments. That is a direct result of the——

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you. That is helpful. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. So the test for me is, does it protect 

these minorities, A? 

And I believe, when I saw our intervention on Mount Sinjar, 

when I saw our intervention in the Khabur River in the north of 

Syria here where ISIL was pushed out of areas and prevented from 

engaging in more genocidal activity because of our intervention, in 

that, with the extraordinary help of the KRG, there are safety and 

protection for these people. That is one thing. 

Secondly, can they go back safely, and do they have a chance to 

really rebuild and to restore these great, historic communities that 

were part of the marvelous, diverse tapestry of life in this region? 

And all of those pieces I have talked about are what we think 

the indispensable pieces are. And I gave you a roadmap as to 

where we are. Some are not as far along as they need to be, and 

we are pushing very hard to ensure that they are. Some we are 

making significant progress on. 

But those, to me, are the test. Can they remain safely in place 

at a quality of life that they will not feel their only option is to flee 

so that those who want to go home can? And then can they return 

back with justice, with security, and with opportunity, both economic opportunity and opportunity to shape the future of their 

country? And those, to me, should be the ultimate test. 

I think we are making progress, but the world community has 

a lot farther to go still into making that a reality. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I thank you for that direct answer. It is encouraging. We will certainly be following up. 

I hold you in very high regard, as I do your staff. Obviously, 

there are times where competing agendas take place here in this 

city. And so the message that I would like you to convey is this is 

one that should be a top priority. It is foundational of who we are, 

as freedom-loving Americans, and so it should be our top priority. 

And, as that, with the chairman’s leadership, we are going to continue to follow up. And so that message needs to be taken back, 

if you would do that for me, Ambassador. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. I give you my word that I will at the 

highest levels, Mr. Meadows. 

And you should be assured about one thing. It may have taken 

us a long time to actually get the actual evidence—because we 

didn’t have access this to areas that ISIL controlled—to get sufficient evidence. And a lot of people from the Hill and from the NGO 

community partnered with us in getting that evidence. Nobody 

pushed that process harder within the State Department to say, ‘‘I 

have to get to the legal standard, and this is an absolute priority 

for me’’ than did the Secretary. He deeply believed that we had a 

responsibility to make this determination once we were able to accumulate the evidence. He drove it. I would like to say that he 

drove it——

Mr. MEADOWS. Well——

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN [continuing]. Here and made sure that 

it happened. And I know it took longer than others would have 

20

wanted, including the Secretary, but he felt he had to meet the 

legal standard, and the second he did, he moved to make it public. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, if you would please pass along, if it doesn’t 

hurt him politically, my appreciation and, certainly, kudos to him. 

And I will yield back. 

I have to run. We will be monitoring this, and I will be back. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. I look forward to working with you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Meadows, thank you very much. 

And, Ambassador, a couple of questions. 

First, when Secretary of State John Kerry made his designation, 

he said, ‘‘In my judgment’’—and then he singled out the Shia, 

Yazidis, and the Christians. If that could be further delineated for 

this subcommittee, exactly—does that mean the entire government 

now, the administration, the U.S. Government made that? Or was 

it a Secretary of State’s judgment call? Is there any difference between the two? 

And so the definition of ‘‘genocide,’’ its legal and moral implications—what are the legal implications? What are the moral implications? 

I know what it took to get there, because I was part of that process as well. My first hearing on genocide against Christians was 3 

years ago in this room. And we heard from a number of NGOs who 

were almost bitter with how there was a looking askance by the 

administration. We had an administration witness who kept saying, ‘‘Let me take back that’’—because they raised all of these specific instances of what can only be construed as a genocidal series 

of acts—‘‘Let me get back to you’’ with, what that was all about. 

There was seemingly a lack of understanding, and I found it appalling, frankly. 

But we are here now. Legal and moral implications? 

And, again, when the Secretary said that, is that for Obama, for 

the Vice President, for everybody in the administration? 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. First, the delay in doing this was a 

matter of the legal definition. The functional part of it, from the 

moment that we mobilized those 60 countries to intervene to protect the Yazidi population on Mount Sinjar, we had been acting as 

though these were crimes against humanity. Both the President 

and the Secretary used language about potential genocides if we 

don’t stop it, et cetera, here. 

So we acted from the very beginning, as I said, in the standard 

we would have had we declared genocide. And the truth is we have 

been acting more forcefully than we did in other places where we 

did declare that there was genocide happening here, and we did 

from the very beginning. 

This was the Secretary’s determination. He is charged to make 

a determination. As he indicated, ultimately, there is his sense of 

the legal criteria on which he made his determination about genocide. 

In terms of criminal responsibility for it, that will be done in a 

court, in international courts. And much of the work we are doing 

about protecting these sites and the evidence is aimed at being able 

to have accountability in either Iraqi courts or international courts 

on these issues. 

21

So, that is a very important piece of this, but it is the Secretary’s 

determination, as the Secretary, that has always been the standard 

that we used. 

Mr. SMITH. I say that because, Ambassador, after Colin Powell 

made his designation on Sudan, there was a whole backstory about 

how it really doesn’t matter, it doesn’t bind the U.S. Government 

to taking any certain actions, and we heard that that kind of dialogue may be going on at the State Department. I certainly hope 

it wasn’t. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. I am pushing the envelope here about 

what I am——

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN [continuing]. About my own clarity on 

this. It is——

Mr. SMITH. I am not questioning your clarity. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. It is my understanding that that standard actually still holds. In other words, the United States Government did not feel that their legal obligation to act under the genocide treaty, as adopted and ratified by the United States Senate, 

legally compelled them to do any particular thing at that time. I 

think that has always been the standard of our legal interpretation. 

What the Secretary believed was, even before the designation, 

where we see crimes against humanity, where we see a potential 

genocide, we have a moral obligation to act. That was President 

Obama’s position. It was Secretary Kerry’s position. It was their 

justification for why we intervened at Mount Sinjar with the Yazidi 

crisis. It was not because we felt legally there was an obligation to 

act under the genocide treaty that was binding on the United 

States, but in terms of our national interests, our national values, 

and our moral responsibility, we had an obligation to act. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask you whether or not the administration is 

seriously considering, and your office perhaps encouraging this, 

that a P-2 designation be made so that those who are victims of 

genocide are processed expeditiously. 

Right now, we look at the numbers—and we asked for them from 

the Congressional Research Service—and the numbers of Syrian 

Christians admitted in fiscal year 2015 was 1.7 percent, and, so 

far, as of April 30, it was 2⁄10 of 1 percent who have gotten processed and have come here to the United States. 

And, it is almost as if—and we have heard from experts the difficulty of Christians—the UNHCR, very often under their auspices, 

it is very hard to get processed there. I had a series of hearings 

on the refugees’ side of it last year, and Anne Richard testified and 

raised all of these issues in September with PRM and many others, 

that if we don’t actively look for now what are the victims of genocide, we won’t find them. 

And I wonder if your office is fully integrated in working with 

PRM and the others to make sure that that happens. We have to 

go find these people. They are fearful, one, of having left. Some do 

stay in-country. CRS backs that up, too, that some fear that they 

have to stay as IDPs. But once they do want to come and emigrate, 

they don’t have a meaningful way to get from there to here. P-2 

would help that. 

22

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. It is my—again, I think you have conveyed that; I will continue to convey that. Anne Richard’s PRM 

would be the appropriate people to go into detail. 

Just a couple of quick points on this. 

Many refugees are not in camps. That is particularly true of 

Christian refugees. Many other refugees, including Muslim refugees, are in various host communities, both in the KRG, in Lebanon, in Jordan, and other places, as well here. So there is a need 

to reach these people, but UNHCR—and I saw in this my visit to 

their central regional operations in Thailand—they are very used 

to reaching out into other communities and actually have developed 

a fairly good system of doing that, and so have we. 

I understand—I hope I am correct on this—that we are now 

opening an operation in Erbil at our consulate that will allow people to apply in-country under certain limited circumstances. Again, 

the details you could get from the PRM or Iraq desk people on this 

here. 

I would remind us all that the percentage of people who have 

come from Iraq, of the 120,000-plus people who have come from 

Iraq that are minorities, almost all Christian, is 40 percent at this 

point. So you have a significant Christian population. 

It depends on who applies here. As I understand that, the percentage of people receiving the visas who happen to be Christian—

and these are done by estimates that are not records PRM or 

UNHCR keep. They don’t keep records about religious background. 

Everything is based on individual need of the person. But those 

groups who do, my understanding is that it is approximately the 

same percentage received as have applied for these visas. 

And there are increasingly rigorous efforts to reach people where 

they are, outside the camps, in the host communities. In some 

ways, it is not difficult, because when they go to host communities, 

the Christian population, they end up affiliating with churches 

there, and there is a network and system to get word out through 

these. 

So there has been progress made on that. And, again, you can 

get the details from PRM. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, just for the record, the UNHCR does have on 

its refugee resettlement form religion. And the numbers that we 

have—again, we asked the Congressional Research Service for 

their latest numbers—Christians in fiscal year 2016, 4; Muslim, 23; 

Muslim Shiite, 17; Muslim Sunni, 1,675; Yazidi, 10; and other, 7. 

So there is a——

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Is that of the people applied or received? 

Mr. SMITH. These are received. 

So the problem—UNHCR does have a—but the problem is, as 

well, the UNHCR doesn’t have access to these people, because in 

the camps—this is why I think the prioritization of those on the 

genocide designation declaration—I mean, the prioritization has to 

be, like, on steroids in order to go find them, make sure that they 

are being helped. And I——

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Is there a difference, Mr. Chairman, 

between the percentage of people who apply and receive? 

23

Mr. SMITH. This is from Syria. It doesn’t have a—at least the 

numbers we have—we will look at it, but——

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. It would be interesting to——

Mr. SMITH. But, again, the end game, well, how do you complete 

the loop, who actually gets here? Four. And it is not very many. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. It is my understanding—again, PRM 

can talk about this. 

Mr. SMITH. Yeah. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. It is my understanding that there are 

vigorous efforts both by UNHCR and by our own refugee people to 

reach people where they are. And that includes in the host communities there and——

Mr. SMITH. Well, on that very point—and we will be doing another PRM hearing. But, again, just as recently as our last hearing, 

which was in April, each of our witnesses and especially the 

Knights of Columbus, Carl Anderson, made it very clear—and they 

just did a fact-finding trip—that the food stuffs, the medicines were 

not getting to the Christians. It was almost like, they are not only 

at the bottom of the totem pole, they are just—they just don’t get 

it. 

And he made the strongest admonishment imaginable, that people will die, women will be sicker, particularly those who are pregnant and at higher risk of malnutrition and stunting for their children, unless the diocese and other faith-based institutions are further prioritized. 

And we have asked the administration, please, do that. And, you 

know, I know that is not your, you know, primary focus, but 

please——

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. We share those concerns, and we understand. We think that faith-based community has particular expertise and particular access to these populations. They are dealt 

with, as other groups are, based on their ability to do it. I think 

that ability is significant, and I think that is the way they should 

be treated, based on their ability to achieve what has to be done. 

And you have given the justification for why they are an effective 

partner in this work. 

Mr. SMITH. Before I yield to my good friend Dana Rohrabacher, 

Chairman Rohrabacher——

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Indeed. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Very quickly, a couple of very, very 

strong concerns. I chair the Congressional-Executive Commission 

on China. I have chaired 60 hearings on Chinese rights abuses. I 

was just there with two of my staff members, gave a major speech 

on human rights in Shanghai, at NYU-Shanghai, just in February, 

after 7 years of not being able to get a visa. 

My point and concern is, under Xi Jinping, the sinofication of religion, just like the draft law on NGOs, is a further tightening, the 

likes of which I haven’t seen. I have been in Congress 36 years. 

There is an aggressive move to decapitate all faiths—Tibetan Muslims, Muslim Uyghurs, and, of course, Christians, even part of the 

officially recognized church—this sinofication, a new rubric under 

which he has put this. 

We had a hearing just a few weeks ago on torture in China. And, 

of course, the U.N. has singled out China as an egregious violator 

24

on torture. Twenty years ago, in this room, we heard from Palden 

Gyatso, a Buddhist who couldn’t even get into Rayburn—you remember that hearing—couldn’t even get into Rayburn because he 

brought in the implements of—cattle prods that were being used 

against him and others. Horrible, horrible torture. 

It has gotten worse. We just heard from Golog Jigme, who talked 

about the torture chair—the ‘‘tiger chair,’’ which is a torture chair, 

and said, increasingly, they are using it against people of faith, 

particularly Buddhists, Tibetans, Christians, and Falun Gong. 

And our President, in my humble opinion, has not raised these 

issues—you have, but at the highest level, Xi Jinping to Obama 

and back—have not raised these in a way that says there will be 

real-world consequences if you continue torturing and maltreating 

people of faith. 

China is in a race to the bottom with North Korea. We all know 

it. It is getting worse. It is a CPC country, as it has been from day 

one. But I would hope that there would be a ratcheted-up effort to 

say to China: Stop it. 

I have never seen anything like it. When he went into detail, as 

did our other witnesses, about torture in China and explained how 

this chair, this tiger chair, just is an excruciating implement of torture. 

So please convey that and——

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. I truly will. 

And I will say again—that is one of the reasons I address the 

issue of sinofication in my testimony here. We were very disappointed that the conference on religion that they had, which we 

had hoped might show some progress, instead focused on this idea 

of the sinofication of religion, and that was in terms of the message 

of President Xi. And we hope there will be a significant change in 

that. 

I will say, as I did in my testimony, that Secretary Kerry was 

particularly strong at the seed dialogue that took place just a couple of weeks ago, particularly strong in speaking out about the violations of religious freedom. It was a very strong message and 

equally so on the broader human rights agenda. So the kind of disappointment, I think, and impatience for improvements in human 

rights that you have expressed I believe was expressed quite 

strongly by the Secretary. 

Mr. SMITH. My last question—I have a dozen, but I will submit 

the rest for the record—before going again to Dana. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Please. 

Mr. SMITH. On Vietnam. Four times, the Congress has passed my 

bill, called the Vietnam Human Rights Act. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Uh-huh. 

Mr. SMITH. Four times, it got over to the Senate, beginning in 

2004. Secretary Kerry put a hold on it, and it never—it set benchmarks, particularly on religious freedom, that could be achieved, 

and it froze, did not eliminate, froze any additional increases in foreign aid, which could be a great lever for us to use. It is pending 

here now again here in the House, but four times, four and 0. The 

Senate never even got a vote on it. 

25

I have been to Vietnam many times, like you, and I am glad, you 

know, you have raised those issues so strongly. But, please, Vietnam should be a CPC. 

I remember when John Hanford, right as the bilateral trade 

agreement was being negotiated, thought that it would be a great 

carrot—former Ambassador-at-Large John Hanford—to take Vietnam off the CPC list, in the hopes—and it was a hope. He had 

deliverables that he thought they were going to provide. They made 

all kinds of noise that they were going to change the registration 

agreements. I went to Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, and Hue, met 

with 60 different religious leaders while I was there, and government people. Everyone was saying, ‘‘This could be the beginning. 

We are on the precipice of real reform.’’ As soon as they got bilateral trade, they severed any kind of thought about human rights 

adherence and went, again, right back into the repression. 

I fear we are making that same mistake now. The Commission 

has made a recommendation for seven countries that they truly believe should be on the CPC list. You are right; anytime you want 

to make that designation, you are legally authorized to do so. The 

ones that are listed all ought to be on there, but Vietnam, I would 

put exclamation points behind it. Because they got away with murder when they got off of that list, because they reverted right back 

to the old ways. 

The people who signed Bloc 8406, a beautiful manifesto on 

human rights, one by one were hunted down and thrown into prison, including many of the people that I met with. Father Ly got 

rearrested. Now he has been out again, but he has been so hurt 

and damaged by their cruelty that they probably were fearful he 

would die while being incarcerated. 

So Vietnam has to be on that list. 

Finally, before President Obama made his trip—and we talk 

about gun control. When we lift a lethal arms embargo on a communist dictatorship that cruelly mistreats its people, what kind of 

background check do we do on the communist dictatorship as they 

are handing out whatever it is that we end up selling to Vietnam? 

To me, that is an egregious mistake that was made by the administration without conditionality. 

We had Mrs. Vu, Nguyen Van Dai’s wife, testify here. You might 

have met with her when she was here. Her husband, who I first 

met in 2005 in Hanoi defending Christians and others, a great 

human rights defender, a lawyer, a great lawyer, he is back in prison. After 4 years before in prison, 4 under House arrest, he is back 

in. He is not out. 

We begged the President to raise his case by name in-country 

and say, ‘‘You have to let him go.’’ We did it with Natan 

Sharansky. We did it with Soviet Jews, as you know, because we 

worked together so strongly on that. When I got elected in 1980 

and my first trip was to the Soviet Union on behalf of Soviet Jews, 

we always had lists and we always got people out. And now 

Nguyen Van Dai is back in prison, and I am just baffled by it. 

So please put them on the CPC list. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. I also will convey that. 

26

Just one word on Vietnam. They are writing a new comprehensive law. There will be two benchmarks. One, does the law makes 

significant improvements? 

In the various iterations of the bill, there have been some significant improvements, not enough to have the kind of minimally robust religious freedom that is necessary, but they are moving, in 

terms of the law, in a very positive direction. 

Now, until the law is implemented, it could be reversed, those 

gains could be lost. But if it continues in that direction, that will 

be one benchmark for us. The second benchmark is will it actually 

change anything on this ground and will it be implemented. 

But, because the new law is coming here, let’s continue to communicate on that together. And the second that law is done, we 

ought to have a hearing just on that to talk about how that law 

has met the international obligations of Vietnam and what the implications of the law will be. 

Right now, we are encouraged by what we are seeing, but, in the 

end, it is only the final product that really matters, and will it be 

implemented. There are lots of promises in constitutions all across 

the world about freedom of religion. What, in real life, is the experience of people? 

We have heard, unlike what you were talking about where people said, well, do this because it will be better, we are hearing real 

improvements on the ground in many of the areas of the country 

right now. And that is encouraging to us, but what matters is what 

the law finally says and how it is implemented. And we want to 

work with this committee——

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN [continuing]. To judge that and assess 

that when it happens. 

Mr. SMITH. I absolutely agree, but I would also add a note of caution. Yogi Berra once said, ‘‘It’s deja vu all over again.’’ This looks 

like a carbon-copy repeat of what they did during the bilateral 

agreement. There was great hope, particularly among the religious 

communities, many of whom surfaced themselves and went from 

underground to above ground, only to be——

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Here, we will be able to judge here. So 

let’s take a good look at that when——

Mr. SMITH. Chairman Rohrabacher? 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And let me again express my appreciation to Chairman Smith for 

the dedication that he has. Very few Members are willing to give 

up a couple hours on the breakaway day to try to strike a blow for 

freedom but also to give hope to people throughout the world that 

we still do have a high standard when it comes to human rights 

and especially to freedom of religion. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Mr. Rohrabacher, I see quite evidently 

you are one of those people, and thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, not so, because after I get done, I will 

have to run out and catch my airplane to be with my family in 

California. 

If you would indulge me, one thing, a story. And years ago, a lot 

of people know that I was Ronald Reagan’s speechwriter in the 

27

White House. And there was a fellow named Natan Sharansky, 

who is now in Israel because he got out, but, at that time, Natan 

Sharansky was a political prisoner in Russia, and he was in the 

Gulag. And we all knew about him, and we tried to get as much 

attention forced in that direction. He became a hero when he refused to recant public statements he had made saying that Russia 

was repressing not only the Jews but the rest of their citizens. And 

he refused to sign off on that, and so they kept him in the Gulag. 

And we knew about that in the White House, and we knew he 

was there suffering. And then he was freed. We traded a spy for 

him. We crossed that bridge over in Berlin, I guess, and I would 

say we got a saint and they got the devil. So, anyway, we were very 

pleased with that. 

About a week later, Sharansky ended up at the White House, 

meeting with President Reagan. And when he went in to meet with 

President Reagan, he came out, and there was an area there in the 

White House where someone who just met with the President can 

talk to the reporters and we can all see it inside our various offices. 

And speechwriters were all tuned in. He had been one of our cause 

celebre that we were trying to help during those years. 

And they asked him, well, what did you say to President 

Reagan? And he said, well, I told him the most important thing 

was don’t tone down your speeches. Now, you can imagine how the 

speechwriters felt about that. Champagne bottles were out, celebrating. Now we had this heroic world figure saying, don’t tone 

down your speeches, Ronald Reagan. 

Well, what happened is, of course—they said, well, why is that? 

And he said, well, I reminded the President that when I was at my 

bottommost darkest part of my incarceration, I was being kept 

there in basically a dungeon and with no contact except one person 

came in and gave me my meals. And someone, when they gave him 

his meals, had smuggled a piece of paper to him, and on that paper 

on his meals was written, ‘‘The President of the United States has 

just called the Soviet Union an evil empire.’’

And he said, when I knew that the President of the United 

States understood that and was willing to speak out to the world 

and say that, I knew there was hope for me. So we have to understand, when we speak with a loud voice, there are people—not just 

hopefully the jailers, but the people inside will be given hope as 

well. 

Quite frankly, when you mentioned—and I just would be very 

frank with you. When you talked about how they are rewriting this 

law in Vietnam, that did not give me hope. Vietnam is a country 

that does not believe in the rule of law. They don’t have an independent court system in Vietnam. They don’t really have a system 

of government that is elected and, thus, has a legal obligation to 

the people. 

The laws that were the most restrictive on government and restricting whatever oppression could happen among the people during the Cold War, do you know what that—it was the Russian Constitution. The Constitution of the Soviet Union had every protection 

in it. It meant nothing. Zero. 

And I am afraid in Vietnam they are going to have to prove it 

to us. I spent some time there, back in 1969, and I actually was 

28

up with some Montagnard tribesmen up in the central Highlands. 

And do you know what is happening to the mountaineers today? 

They have been converted to—Chris, they have been converted to 

Christianity. They are actually Evangelicals more than Catholics. 

And they are being severely repressed now. 

And I hope what we are doing gives them a sense of hope that 

we have not forgotten them. And it is in Vietnam’s interest to work 

with us now, so let’s make sure we reach out. 

And Russia came to a point where the Soviet Union could work 

with us and now—and then to Russia, I notice that there is one 

area that Jehovah’s Witnesses are now facing some problems. But 

I have been in and out of Moscow and Russia a number of times, 

and one thing that really has struck me is that they have almost 

total freedom of religion. I have met with the Mormons, the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Baptists. I have met with all of them, and 

none of them had any complaints. What a great achievement that 

is over—and, by the way, is also the head rabbi in Moscow. What 

a great achievement that is, as compared to the time when a paper 

was smuggled to a Jewish prisoner and gave him hope. 

So I am not quite as worried about Russia. We have to make 

sure they understand we are watching. 

But what really is upsetting to me about what the administration, perhaps what your job is and what I am worried about—and 

Representative Smith has already raised that—and that is we are 

not just in a world where people are being persecuted for their 

faith, we live in a world today where there is genocide going on, 

targeting people for their faith, and heinous acts of genocide 

against people simply for their religious convictions, and especially 

in the Christians and Yazidis in these countries. 

Now, I have a bill, H.R. 4017. It has not passed. The bill that 

we passed in Congress was a sense of the House, a congressional 

resolution that did not have—it is a sense of Congress that this is 

what should happen, that there should be priorities given to people 

who are targets of genocide. 

We thought that that fact that the House had expressed that, the 

sense of the House has been expressed, that maybe we would see 

something on the executive side of this equation. And, as Chairman 

Smith has just pointed out, it is not happening, when you have 

four Christians and thousands of Muslims coming into this country 

on a refugee or immigrant status from that very same country and 

area that we said, please, give priority to the people who are being 

targeted for genocide. This is totally unacceptable, and it indicates 

that the administration isn’t listening. I would hope that you take 

advantage of the bully pulpit. 

I will tell you, there were a number of times inside the White 

House when I worked there, I raised holy hell about things. No one 

on the outside knew I was raising holy hell about this or that. And 

I hope that behind the scenes—I don’t expect you to say anything 

bad about your boss, but at least we expect you to raise holy hell 

behind the scenes to make sure that we are doing what is right and 

that it is real. It is not just waiting for them to rewrite the law 

or something like that. 

So, please, go right ahead. 

29

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Well, I guess if any office should raise 

holy hell, it is the religious freedom office. 

A few quick responses. 

On your last point, I think right before you came in, I do want 

to remind you—I understand and will convey exactly the concerns 

that have been expressed here on this issue. I do want to remind 

you, in Iraq, 127,000 refugees have come in, 40 percent of them are 

minorities, almost all Christian, a significant number, because that 

is the people who have applied. 

If you remember, in Syria, many of the minority communities 

were in areas controlled by the government, and the government, 

before the civil war began, had been somewhat protective of those 

minority communities. They chose not to flee until the fighting 

came to those areas. So they were late into the displaced camps, 

they were late into the refugee situation, et cetera. 

It is my understanding—I’ll say it again—that the percentage of 

people who have been given refugee status approximate the percentage of people who have applied. That is my understanding. 

Again, you would have to have PRM in to see about that. 

We have opened up now a facility in Lebanon that will help 

reach the Christians as well as others in Lebanon, but a high percentage went to Lebanon from the Christian communities. We have 

opened up a facility there. We have opened up a facility at Erbil 

that will be able to accommodate those under particular circumstances, including some of the things I think you are alluding 

to, et cetera. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So let me be very clear about what you are 

saying, because what you are saying is not in sync with what we 

are talking about. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Help me out. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You do not expect to have the percentage of 

Christians who have applied to be the percentage who have been 

granted the status and been permitted to come here. The Christians and the Yazidis have been targeted for genocide. We expect 

them to far exceed those who have not been targeted for genocide. 

I have visited camps where have you lots of Muslims coming out 

of there. That is fine. I am not saying we should be anti-Muslim. 

The fact is, however, those Muslims haven’t been targeted for genocide. A lot of them are leaving because there is chaos. A lot of them 

are leaving because they don’t have a job and they really could actually do better elsewhere. 

The Christians and the Yazidis, who are targeted for genocide, 

should be far above how many——

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Mr. Rohrabacher, I appreciate that. I 

understand clearly what you are saying here. I am not playing 

games about words here, so please hear me for what I am saying 

here. 

PRM does not, as I understand it, keep track of the religious 

identity of the people they help. The question is do they meet the 

criteria and what is the need that they have. People who, whatever 

their religion, people who have been victimized by the kind of persecution is attendant to crimes again humanity and genocide are 

exactly the kind of people who would meet the criteria and get in. 

So the fact that they don’t call them Christians or whatever, they 

30

are the—but that percentage of people on the Syria side of it—and 

Iraq was different. That is why you have such a high percentage, 

way out of proportion in terms of more people getting the visas 

than their percentage of the population, way out of the proportion. 

Because they were amongst the first displaced and the first to 

apply, et cetera. It was a different pattern in Syria. 

But, again, let me stop there on this because you really should 

have the PRM people in to talk about this. This is really in their 

bailiwick. 

Very quickly, Natan Sharansky, one of the great heroes. Congress was phenomenal about the Soviet Jewry movement and about 

Natan Sharansky personally. He is a dear friend who I had the opportunity before taking this position to work with very, very closely 

on common concerns, and——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Ambassador—and then I will close off. I 

am sorry if I am taking too much time, Chris. 

Just to close off the Natan Sharansky story, and that is—so he 

had basically said how the President’s speech had given him hope 

and et cetera. Well, a couple days later, and how we speechwriters 

felt so good about that, a couple days later there was a party for 

him at the Israeli Embassy. It was mobbed, and I had been invited. 

And as he was, like—you know, he was the hero of the day. And 

he is coming down these stairs, surrounded by people. As you 

know, he is a short guy, so it is sort of like a hole in the doughnut 

there. And so, anyway, he gets down to the bottom. There is a huge 

crowd there. And I see him looking through the crowd, and somebody is pointing over to me. And he walks right through this 

crowd—and everybody wants to talk to him—he walks right 

through the crowd, went up to me, and he looks at me in my face 

and says, they tell me that you write speeches for President 

Reagan. And I said, well, yes, I do. And he said, I have often wondered who you are. 

And, you know, there are people out there suffering——

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. That is a very moving story. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. And they know that somebody 

there is going to be their spokesman. That is you. We know someone is there——

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. I have personally heard him tell the 

same story that you have talked about. He really believes the importance of what is said, which I will get to in just a moment here. 

I just returned not too long ago, a matter of weeks ago, from the 

central Highlands in Vietnam. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Really? 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. It is a more difficult situation there. 

We do not hear the same messages. On the other hand, on the 

other hand, you are seeing an enormous growth of the Evangelical 

community, somewhat of the Catholic community. That wouldn’t 

have happened 20 years ago. It wouldn’t have been possible 20 

years ago. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. It is an obvious point, but I would comment on, even there, compared to what was, there has been some 

improvement here. 

31

For those who are victimized, for those who are harassed by the 

police, for those who are in jail and are being physically persecuted 

there, it may not feel different at all. But, at a macro level, what 

we hear from people does show a positive direction. 

But, again, the test will be, what does the actual law—not the 

promise in the constitution—the laws say, and how it is implemented? And we said to the Vietnamese over and over again, you 

have a chance to really make a profound difference. 

And I am glad to come in and brief you on exactly what some 

of——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Great. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN [continuing]. Those changes are. I think 

they would be fascinating for you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Did you go to Pleiku? In the Highlands, did 

you go to Pleiku? 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. In that area, yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And where did you stay? 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Oh, I can’t remember. I can picture the 

hotel. I don’t——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It was a hotel? Yeah. There is an old French 

fort there that is——

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Ah. No, that was not where we were. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Anyway. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Finally, I would just make this obvious 

point. And I know my colleagues have been waiting patiently here. 

I would just make this point. What Natan Sharansky said to you 

about what it means for people there is exactly why our report 

names prominent political prisoners of conscience, religious/political prisoners of conscience, lifts up their cases, lifts up their name. 

When I travel to a country, almost every person that you have 

named, Mr. Chairman, I have raised directly with the ministry of 

justice, with the security ministry, with the religious ministry, et 

cetera. We want the government to know we are watching the 

plight of these people and are advocating for their fair treatment 

and their freedom, and we lift up their public voices. 

It is why I went to that courtroom in Khartoum, where I saw the 

two most prominent religious prisoners of conscience released. I 

don’t know whether our presence made a difference, but they and 

their lawyers, I think, believed that it did. I hear all the charges 

dropped here. 

We will continue to lift up and put a human face on the suffering 

of people who face religious discrimination and persecution everywhere in the world. And we won’t stop until the freedom which 

their inherent right is a reality in their lives. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

And, Ambassador Saperstein, thank you very much. And, as you 

go, again, I do hope you will look at USCIRF’s seven recommendations. Because——

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. You know——

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. On Pakistan, the Ahmadiyya, the Shia, 

the Hindus, the Christians. I remember being with you when Minister Bhatti was——

32

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Exactly. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Horribly gunned down. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Yeah. 

Mr. SMITH. We were all in mourning. Pakistan needs to get that 

designation and now. 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Every year, at the highest levels, the 

USCIRF designation recommendations are reviewed. We go back 

and review all of them in terms of providing information to the Secretary for his decisions, and they are taken quite seriously by the 

people over there. 

I mentioned I have been to a number of the CPCs; even more so, 

I have been to countries that are on the list of the recommended 

CPCs. 

Mr. SMITH. But, again, before your arrival——

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. So we really do take it very, very seriously. 

Mr. SMITH. Before your arrival, designations, which are supposed 

to be at least annual, were not happening. And Dr. George had testified at a previous hearing I had and just rang the alarm bell and 

said, where are the designations? 

Ambassador SAPERSTEIN. Well, now we are not even waiting for 

a yearly designation. Tajikistan was put on as soon as we made the 

determination. And it was the Secretary who conveyed that message personally about our concerns on their status here. 

I want to make it a more robust process here, so I share those 

concerns. I said that in my confirmation hearing. And I hope we 

are making noticeable improvement on this. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so much for your testimony, and thank 

you for your exemplary service. 

I would like to now welcome to the witness table Dr. Robert 

George, who is McCormick professor of jurisprudence and director 

of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions 

at Princeton University and formerly the chairman of the—and just 

left as chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious 

Freedom. 

He also has served on the President’s Council on Bioethics and 

as a Presidential appointee to the United States Commission on 

Civil Rights. He has also served on UNESCO’s World Commission 

on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology. 

He is the author of several books and has had his work published 

widely in academic journals. He is a regular commentator on major 

media outlets and has testified before this subcommittee and so 

many others in the House and Senate for many years. 

We will then hear from Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, who is the founder and 

president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. He is also 

a former vice-chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. 

Dr. Jasser is a first-generation American Muslim whose parents 

fled the oppressive Ba’athist regime of Syria. He earned his medical degree on a U.S. Navy scholarship, served 11 years in the 

United States Navy. Dr. Jasser has testified again before Congress. 

And I thank you both for your patience, especially with those 

long votes. 

But the floor is yours, Dr. George. 

33

STATEMENT OF ROBERT P. GEORGE, PH.D., MCCORMICK PROFESSOR OF JURISPRUDENCE, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 

(FORMER CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL 

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM) 

Mr. GEORGE. I have been up here so often, you would think I 

would know where the ‘‘talk’’ button is. But I do want to thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear, this time in my capacity as a private citizen. As you noted, my term on the Commission and as chairman of the Commission ended in May. It was a 

great honor to serve on the Commission and as its chairman. 

And I thank the Congress for having the wisdom and the foresight to create the U.S. Commission on International Religious 

Freedom, which does profoundly important work for the country 

and for persecuted people and prisoners of conscience abroad. I 

hope that, in the future, Congress will see fit to extend the life of 

the Commission, as it did recently, and to provide the Commission 

with the resources that it needs to do the very important work, assisting you, that the Commission does. 

If I may say personally, Representative Smith, it is always an 

honor to testify before you, most of all because of your profound 

and heroic witness to human rights and especially to religious freedom. You are an inspiration to those of us who have been in the 

movement. 

It is also a great honor—it always is—to testify at a hearing with 

my great friend, Ambassador David Saperstein. David Saperstein 

was a dedicated champion of religious liberty long before he took 

up his present duties as our chief spokesman, chief advocate within 

the administration as the Ambassador-at-Large for International 

Religious Freedom, and I am grateful for all the work that David 

has done. In his modesty, he kicks all the credit upstairs, but the 

reality is, whenever something good happens on the religious freedom front, something good comes out of the State Department, 

David Saperstein’s fingerprints are all over it. And try as he might 

to try to hide those fingerprints, they are very easy to discern. 

I am delighted to be testifying along with my great friend and 

colleague, with whom I served 4 years on the Commission, Zuhdi 

Jasser. Zuhdi will provide, Mr. Chairman, some details about the 

countries that have been in our focus. I am going to provide some 

general observations. 

First, the so-called secularization thesis, what sociologists have 

for 30 or 40 years called the secularization thesis—namely, the 

idea that, as modern life advances, as modernity advances, religion 

retreats—is dead. 

USCIRF’s mandate, making policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and the Congress about violations of 

religious freedom abroad, was, I think, regarded in some circles as 

not something that will be of lasting importance because of belief 

in the secularization thesis. But if modern events have proved anything, contemporary events have proved anything, it is certainly 

that religion is, remains, and will be into the future highly salient 

in people’s lives and, therefore, in our foreign policy and in foreign 

affairs. 

World events have, in short, exploded the so-called secularization 

thesis. As societies modernize, religion has not lost its authority, 

34

and secular institutions have not achieved the cultural, socioeconomic, and political supremacy that secularization theory predicted. Facts on the ground refute secularization’s supposed inevitability. Religion remains central in people’s hearts and minds and, 

thus, in their self-understandings and motivations. It continues to 

shape cultures and the internal politics and foreign policy goals of 

nations. My written testimony touches on Burma, China, and Iran 

in this connection, but I could have noted many other nations, as 

well. 

Secondly, why religious freedom? Well, if you don’t get religious 

freedom right, you don’t get foreign policy right at all. The secularization thesis’ well-deserved repudiation should reenforce religious freedom’s importance and its centrality in U.S. foreign policy. 

But I want to submit something further, and that is that, if religious freedom advocacy is left out of the equation, U.S. foreign policy objectives, including promoting human rights, promoting stability, promoting democracy, promoting economic well-being and 

women’s rights, will suffer. 

My written testimony highlights India and Pakistan, in particular, two different and historically hostile neighbors that the 

U.S. seeks to engage—notes these countries on that issue. But this 

engagement cannot succeed without dealing with the roles of religion, religious freedom, and religious freedom violations. 

Third, the importance of conscience. As a conscience right, religious freedom is more than merely the right to worship, more than 

merely the right to pray in one’s mosque or synagogue or church 

or temple or around the dinner table or on one’s knees at bedtime. 

It is much more that that. It is the right to follow one’s own conscience on matters of faith and belief wherever it leads so long as 

other people’s rights and essential principles of public order are respected. 

That call to conscience includes rejecting belief in any religion. 

Unbelievers have the right to religious freedom, too, the right to 

their unbelief, the right not to believe. So religious freedom is not 

just the right of religious people, though it is certainly that; it is 

more than that. It is the right even of unbelievers. It is a universal 

human right, a right that all of us, as human, possess. 

Now, let me turn to two issues that are central to the right of 

religious freedom as a practical matter: First, repealing blasphemy 

laws, the need to repeal blasphemy laws in the nations that maintain and enforce them; and, second, standing up for prisoners of 

conscience around the globe. 

Blasphemy laws restrict the freedoms of religion and expression, 

thereby violating two of the most basic civil liberties and hallowed 

human rights and leading, in some cases, to the destabilization of 

societies. Blasphemy is ‘‘the act of insulting or showing contempt 

or lack of reverence for God.’’ And you can imagine how such a 

thing, blasphemy understood or defined in that way, can be abused 

and misused and exploited as a tool of persecution. Pakistan, where 

blasphemy carries the death penalty or life imprisonment, has 

more people sentenced to jail or death for blasphemy than any 

other country. 

And that is why I urge Congress to pass House Resolution 290, 

introduced by Representative Pitts and Representative Jackson 

35

Lee, which calls for the global repeal of blasphemy laws. I would 

ask you, Chairman Smith, I would ask the Congress to prioritize 

the passage of that legislation. It is vitally important that Congress 

signals that blasphemy laws must go, that Congress signals its understanding that these laws are used for no reason other than persecuting minorities and that these laws are simply intolerable. 

Prisoners of conscience are people who are in prison for peacefully expressing their conscientiously held beliefs or their unbelief 

or for their mere identity, although they have neither used nor advocated violence. We must shine a light on them and the laws and 

policies that led to their imprisonment, and we need to hold the 

governments responsible for persecuting them accountable. While 

quiet diplomacy has its place, public inattention or public silence 

emboldens persecutors. Oppressive nations must be prodded publicly, and not merely by backdoor diplomacy, to protect their own 

people. 

I want to mention here publicly a recently released prisoner, Father Ly, for whom, Representative Smith, you have tirelessly advocated. We must remain vigilant about the conditions of his release 

and pay heed to the many others who remain in detention in Vietnam, where he was held, or elsewhere. 

Fourth, the role of civil society. As intermediaries between the 

state and individuals, civil society organizations and institutions 

undergird successful and stable democracies and, indeed, governments of all kinds. 

In unstable and authoritarian countries, the government controls 

and/or seeks to destroy the institutions of civil society, what Burke 

called the ‘‘little platoons,’’ reducing citizens, vested with Godgiven, fundamental rights independent of government, to mere subjects from whom governments’ arbitrary hand grants or withholds 

at its pleasure mere privileges. 

Too many countries, including Russia and India, are shrinking 

and even closing civil society’s space because these governments 

view civil society groups as threatening to their authority. They 

seek to ensure that there are no authority structures in society 

independent of government itself. 

Our Government should, in response to these efforts, vigorously 

support those groups, those organizations and institutions and associations comprising civil society. 

Fifth, and very importantly, the rise of non-state actors. When 

the International Religious Freedom Act became law back in 1998, 

Congress was understandably and rightly focused on governments 

as abusers of religious freedom. And there were certainly plenty of 

them, and that remains true today, alas. 

But because non-state actors are now among the primary and 

worse perpetrators of egregious abuses, permitting our Government 

to designate these non-state actors as severe violators would both 

reflect reality, the new situation, the new facts on the ground, and 

also allow Washington to better engage the actual drivers of persecution. 

So, Representative Smith, I want to commend your proposed legislation, H.R. 1150, which includes this important measure. And 

the more swiftly the Congress acts and the President makes that 

law, the better off those who are fighting for religious freedom 

36

across the globe and, of course, the victims for whom we are fighting will be. It is important that this go through. 

Sixth, genocide refugees and internally displaced persons. Of 

course, Ambassador Saperstein has spoken to this in some length. 

Confronting genocide and protecting refugees and internally displaced persons are among today’s top moral challenges. 

The hallmark of genocide is the intent to destroy a national, racial, ethnic, or religious group. The Commission on which I served 

until a few weeks ago called on the United States Government last 

December to designate the Christians, Yazidis, Shia, Turkmen, and 

Shabak, those communities of Iraq and Syria, as victims of genocide by ISIL. We pushed very hard. 

We also encouraged the United States and the international community to bear witness to these crimes and additionally designate 

genocide and crimes against humanity, whether those are committed by ISIL, by the Assad regime, or by others. It doesn’t matter 

who the perps are, who the perpetrators are, and it doesn’t matter 

who the victims are. What matters is, where genocide and crimes 

against humanity occur, they must be called out as such and designated as such as swiftly and unequivocally as possible. 

While we certainly welcomed Secretary Kerry’s March 2016 declaration that ISIL is responsible for genocide and we commend all 

who assisted in bringing the Secretary to that decision and announcement, we must do more. My written testimony for today includes additional recommendations. 

On refugees and internally displaced persons, the horrific refugee 

crisis worsened this year, with religion factoring into the worldwide 

humanitarian crisis, forcing literally millions to flee, including 3.3 

million people in Iraq; more than 11 million in Syria, the land of 

my own ancestry and, of course, the land where Zuhdi Jasser 

comes from; more than 2.2 million people in Nigeria; and about 1 

million in the Central African Republic. In Burma, 120,000 

Rohingya Muslims and at least 100,000 Christians are internally 

displaced. 

A record number of refugees are attempting to cross the dangerous Mediterranean, seeking safe haven in Europe, as we all 

know from watching television. With unprecedented numbers forcibly displaced, many fleeing religious persecution or religious-based 

violence, USCIRF issued recommendations, included in my written 

testimony, recommendations for a generous policy of receiving refugees, prioritized, as Mr. Rohrabacher rightly urged, by vulnerability to the worst offenses—murder, rape, torture, enslavement. 

There is a widespread but false belief, one rooted in the thought 

of some 19th century German philosophers, I believe, figures like 

Hegel and Marx, that we can rely on history to produce justice in 

the long run, that history will inevitably move in the direction of 

moral progress, that everything will certainly work out all right in 

the end. 

But this view ignores the radical contingency of human affairs 

and the reality of human freedom. History considered as some sort 

of quasi-personal or super-personal force will not guarantee religious liberty or justice of any kind for all or for anyone. If liberty 

and justice are to prevail, it will require the free choices, deterVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:21 Sep 28, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\061616\20457 SHIRL
37

mination, dedication, and courage of men and women, flesh-andblood human beings, citizens, and statesmen. 

Victory is not guaranteed. History does not give us a promise of 

everything coming out all right in the end, not in the world of 

human affairs. Victory for human rights and for justice is not foreordained, it is not in the cards. But it is possible. The possibility 

of progress toward religious freedom and the securing of other fundamental human rights is in our hands and in the hands of our fellow citizens. 

Congress has a vital role to play, as does the executive branch, 

as do activists, faith communities, civil society groups, everyone 

who is willing to lend a hand and put a shoulder to the wheel. So 

let us here, to use Lincoln’s phrase, highly resolve to turn the possibility of progress for religious liberty into reality. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. George follows:]

38


20457b-1.eps
39


20457b-2.eps
40


20457b-3.eps
41


20457b-4.eps
42


20457b-5.eps
43


20457b-6.eps
44


20457b-7.eps
45


20457b-8.eps
46


20457b-9.eps
47


20457b-10.eps
48


20457b-11.eps
49


20457b-12.eps
50


20457b-13.eps
51

Mr. SMITH. Dr. George, thank you very much for that very eloquent statement, comments. And thank you for your leadership at 

the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom. It has 

been extraordinary. It has been incisive and decisive. 

I read the reports. I am one of those who really actually sits 

down and reads the reports that you proffer. They are well-written 

and well-thought-out, and I thank you so much for the gravitas 

that you have brought to that chairmanship. 

Mr. GEORGE. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. I would like to now turn to Dr. Jasser. 

STATEMENT OF M. ZUHDI JASSER, M.D., PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ISLAMIC FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY (FORMER VICECHAIR, U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS 

FREEDOM) 

Dr. JASSER. Thank you, Chairman Smith and distinguished subcommittee members, for holding this important hearing. 

My name is Zuhdi Jasser. I am president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. And, as you mentioned, I am here as 

a former commissioner and vice-chair of USCIRF and am testifying 

as a private citizen. 

Let me first tell you how much of an honor it has been to serve 

with Chairman George and the rest of the commissioners and an 

honor it is to follow Ambassador Saperstein and become his colleague on this Commission. 

And I have to tell you, I also want to thank Senator McConnell 

and Congress for this humbling opportunity, as the son of immigrants from the most oppressive nation on the planet, Syria, to 

have been able to serve you in this capacity on USCIRF. 

And I request that my written statement be submitted for the 

record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

Dr. JASSER. Thank you. 

Before I start, let me also, as an American and humbly as a Muslim during this holy month of Ramadan, give my deepest condolences and prayers for the families and victims of the massacre in 

Orlando and to our Nation in this difficult time. 

On a global level, this hearing is especially timely given that 

there is global religious freedom crisis and a negative trajectory for 

religious freedom in countries that top the U.S. foreign policy agenda. 

It is evident from the media’s top headlines and its coverage of 

issues, including the genocide in Syria and Iraq, the role of religion 

in humanitarian crises worldwide is undeniable, including the 

forced displacement of the largest number of people since World 

War II and the plight of prisoners of conscience detained for simply 

expressing their God-given religious freedom or advocating on behalf of this freedom in countries such as China, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Syria, or Vietnam. 

Pivotal to human rights, central to our history, and affirmed by 

our international treaties and obligations, religious freedom is crucial to the security of every nation and that of our world. 

A number of studies have shown that in countries that honor and 

perfect this right, religious freedom generally is associated with a 

52

vibrant political democracy. Rising economic and social well-being 

and diminished tension and violence follow. In contrast, nations 

that trample on religious freedom are more likely to be mired in 

poverty, insecurity, or terror, violence, and radical extremism. 

This instability directly bears on not only the well-being of those 

societies but on the security of the United States and overall global 

stability. I can’t emphasize enough the wisdom in Congress in establishing USCIRF and looking at religious freedom as a parameter by which to guide societal successes versus societal failures. 

Religious freedom thus merits a seat at the table, and I personally would argue at the head of the table, with economic and security concerns as the U.S. and other nations conduct their complicated foreign affairs. But effectively promoting religious freedom 

can help the U.S. achieve crucial goals by fostering respect for 

human rights while promoting stability and ultimately our national 

security. 

So today I would like to focus on two things: One, how IRFA, or 

the International Religious Freedom Act, has been and should be 

used in the future; and, two, countries that are at the top of our 

foreign policy agenda where religious freedom remains under serious assault. And I have nine of them listed in my submitted testimony, and I will just cover two as examples. 

First of all, as far as IRFA, IRFA seeks to make religious freedom an important U.S. policy priority by, among other measures, 

establishing consequences for the worst violators of freedom of religion or belief. 

This law gave teeth, long overdue, to the effort by requiring the 

U.S. Government to designate annually countries of particular concern, or CPCs, thereby naming the worst foreign government violators that engage in or tolerate, as the statute says, systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations and take appropriate actions to create incentives for improvement and disincentives for inaction. A 

menu of possible actions is available, ranging from negotiating bilateral agreements, to imposing sanctions, to taking a commensurate action, to issuing waivers. 

IRFA did not limit violations to government actions. The law recognized that religious freedom violations also occur through government inaction against abuses by private actors. And this is very 

important. The 1998 statute does not, however, adequately address 

the increasing actions of non-state actors in failing or failed states. 

Allowing the United States to designate—it did allow the United 

States to designate the non-state actors perpetrating particularly 

severe violators of religious freedom would broaden the U.S.’s ability to engage the actual drivers of persecution. 

And I would tell you, that absence in the statute, I think, gives 

the State Department a pass sometimes in not designating certain 

countries that should be a CPC and that they use that as a crutch 

rather than naming them as CPCs because they are non-state actors. 

In order to effectively utilize all the tools provided in IRFA, 

USCIRF recommends the State Department: Number one, ensure 

that the CPC list expand and contract as conditions warrant and 

not just be frozen for the most part, other than the most recent adVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:21 Sep 28, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\061616\20457 SHIRL
53

dition that they had. It needs to expand and contract realistically 

on an annual basis, not on a decade basis. 

Limit the use of waivers to set periods of time, and subject them 

to review for renewal. 

And we also recommend that Congress take legislative action to 

require that the State Department make annual CPC designations. 

Should the State Department fail to do so, we also ask that the 

Congress expand CPC classification to allow for the designation of 

countries where particularly severe violations of religious freedom 

are occurring but a government does not exist or does not control 

its territory. Right now, those countries cannot be named. 

And we would ask that the expansion of the CPC classification 

to allow the naming of non-state actors who are perpetrating particularly severe violations of religious freedom. I commend you, 

Representative Smith, for including such a position in H.R. 1150. 

A couple country examples. In the interest of time, I am going 

to talk about two of them, Burma and Egypt. 

In Burma in 2015, peaceful elections ended more than 50 years 

of military-controlled government in Burma, yet the new government faces a myriad of human rights challenges. Throughout the 

year, the Burmese Government and non-state actors continued to 

violate religious freedom, and these violations became a defining 

element of their campaign season. 

The abuses were particularly severe for the Rohingya Muslims; 

their persecution became even more apparent when the magnitude 

of their flight from Burma captured international media attention. 

Instead of protecting those most in need, like the Rohingya, Burma’s Government intensified its actions, isolating and 

marginalizing vulnerable groups, leaving hundreds of thousands of 

internally displaced Muslims and others without basic necessities. 

The government allowed expression of hatred and intolerance toward religious and ethnic minorities to continue unchecked and 

shepherded the passage of laws of four discriminatory race and religion bills. And when I was there, we were told that that probably 

wouldn’t pass, and ultimately it did. 

And I can’t tell you how much Burma is a good example of how 

political and other portfolios end up trumping religious freedom 

portfolios, and it should be used as an example of why IRFA is so 

important. 

USCIRF continues to recommend in 2016 that Burma be designated a CPC. The State Department designated Burma a CPC 

since 1999. We ask that the U.S. Government use the term 

‘‘Rohingya’’ publicly and privately, which respects the right of the 

Rohingya Muslim community to identify as they choose and not be 

marginalized. 

And we ask that the U.S. enter into a binding agreement with 

the Burmese Government, as defined in 405(c) of IRFA, committing 

it to ending violence and the policies of discrimination against religious and ethnic minorities. 

Burma is a great example of the central importance of IRFA. A 

state may focus inordinately on political improvements, not putting 

IRFA at the head of table. 

As far as Egypt, a lot has transpired in Egypt over the past few 

years, with changes in government and revolutions. But while the 

54

Egyptian Government has taken positive steps to address some religious freedom concerns, including President al-Sisi’s public statements—which are now appearing to have been rhetoric—encouraging religious tolerance and moderation, past large-scale sectarian 

incidents have not been prosecuted, fueling a growing climate of 

impunity. 

In addition, the longstanding discriminatory and repressive laws 

and policies that restrict religious freedom remain in place like 

they always have been. During the past year, there was an increase in Egyptian courts prosecuting, convicting, and imprisoning 

Egyptian citizens for blasphemy and related charges. 

We recommended, thus, for a sixth year—the Commission did 

when I was on it—recommended for the sixth year in a row that 

Egypt be designated a CPC. 

USCIRF also recommends that we ensure a portion of the U.S. 

military assistance used to help police in Egypt implement an effective plan for dedicated protection for religious minority communities and their places of worship. And we also ask that they press 

the Egyptian Government to undertake immediate reforms to improve religious freedom conditions, including repealing the decrees 

banning religious minority faiths, including the Baha’i and Jehovah’s Witness faiths. 

Lastly, let me conclude by saying that we can and will see the 

constructive change by improving our use of existing tools for religious freedom and related rights and adding new tools for that purpose. If we renew our resolve to integrate this fundamental right 

more fully into our Nation’s foreign policy, we can bring genuine 

progress to those beyond our shores who yearn for freedom. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Jasser follows:]

55


20457c-1.eps
56


20457c-2.eps
57


20457c-3.eps
58


20457c-4.eps
59


20457c-5.eps
60


20457c-6.eps
61


20457c-7.eps
62


20457c-8.eps
63


20457c-9.eps
64


20457c-10.eps
65


20457c-11.eps
66


20457c-12.eps
67

Mr. SMITH. And, Dr. Jasser, thank you, as well, for your tremendous service on the Commission, your excellent writings, which I 

have read and inserted in the record from time to time. Thank you 

for that. 

Dr. JASSER. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. I know, Dr. George, you do have to leave for a train 

soon? 

Mr. GEORGE. I did, but we have pushed the train back. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. But I understand——

Dr. JASSER. I have to leave in 15 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. So I will be very quick. And I thank you again 

for your patience. 

I have read for testimonies. The full will be made a part of the 

record, and parts of the report, too, you know, that is permissible 

under our rules, especially the executive summary of the recent report. 

You heard earlier when I quoted from the Supreme Knight——

Mr. GEORGE. Carl Anderson. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Carl Anderson, who I have known for 35 

years. And he made some very, very good, keen observations about 

that the economic aid was not getting to the intended, the Christians were being bypassed by design or by accident, and also the 

importance of refugee status. And we have been raising that in this 

subcommittee for months, even years, that individuals who happen 

to be Christian, Yazidi, or Muslims who are being targeted don’t 

get the help that they need, but especially Christians and Yazidis. 

My question would be about—and its in your testimony, Dr. 

George—the encouragement to the Global Coalition to Counter 

ISIL, that they integrate their work so they understand religious 

minorities. We haven’t learned that lesson, it seems to me. 

I remember, with Kosovo, we actually had hearings with Archbishop Artemije, who would bring in these terrible depictions of 

centuries-old churches, monasteries being decimated by radical Islamic terrorists. 

And in Iraq, I remember on one trip to Baghdad hearing from 

Christians who said, ‘‘The Americans are here, and we are more at 

risk now than we were before Saddam Hussein,’’ when he 

reigned—a very, very terrible indictment, in my opinion. And then 

we would talk to the military, and they would say, ‘‘We have it covered,’’ but they didn’t. 

And I am wondering if the Global Coalition is more attuned to 

lessons learned, if you will—that they have to really have a special 

prioritization and a laser-beam focus on, especially now, those who 

have been designated victims of genocide. Do you think that is happening? What would be your recommendations there? 

Mr. GEORGE. Well, I think it is necessary. I think we will have 

to direct the question of whether it is happening to our friends in 

the administration. 

I am sure everybody is doing the best that he or she can on this 

issue. It is obviously very complicated. It involves coordination with 

other countries. It involves coordination with United Nations agencies. We are not always on the same page, our country with other 

countries or with the U.N. But I think we really do have to make 

a very, very, very special effort to protect the most vulnerable peoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:21 Sep 28, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\061616\20457 SHIRL
68

ple. I mean, I think that is the bottom line. Whatever has to be 

done, well, it needs to be done, will be done, should be done to protect the most vulnerable. And the most vulnerable are those who 

are vulnerable to the worst offenses, to enslavement, torture, rape, 

and murder. 

And Congressman Rohrabacher is right that that is not evenly 

distributed. Now, that doesn’t mean that it is only Christians or 

only Yazidis or never Muslims. There are Muslims who are targeted for the same sort of atrocities that Christians and Yazidis are 

targeted for. So you can’t deal with this simply by categorizing people neatly into groups. And yet we do know that the entire Christian community and the entire Yazidi community and some other 

smaller communities that we have outlined in the written testimony and in our report—all of the members of those communities 

are vulnerable in that way, all of them. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask you, the seven countries you recommended, and then you have a narrative for each, and you have 

conveyed some of that orally today. Let me ask you about Vietnam, 

if you might want to speak to that issue, which I think is a nobrainer, that they ought to be designated a CPC. They were taken 

off the list prematurely last time, in the hope—and it was a realistic hope maybe—that they would improve. They didn’t. 

Dr. George, I really appreciate your comment about the right to 

worship. I remember, in 1982, when I want to the Soviet Union, 

I kept hearing about how they had religious freedom enshrined in 

their constitution, and they defined it as right to worship, and even 

that was heavily truncated. But everything else—schools, hospitals, 

social services—all were part of the Communist Party’s domain. 

And I am very worried about a trend that is happening worldwide, as I think you are. It is not right to worship; it is much more 

robust and expansive than that. So thank you for reminding the 

subcommittee of that, and you might want to speak to it further. 

And, on India, my understanding is that you had hoped to travel 

to India last year. And I know that Rabbi Saperstein had made inquiries about doing that as well. Could you speak to that whole 

issue? 

Mr. GEORGE. Sure. Yeah, let me start with that one——

Mr. SMITH. Please. 

Mr. GEORGE [continuing]. And then go back to a couple of the 

other points that you made. 

Yes, we have sent delegations, including members of the Commission and members of our terrific staff. And I want to take this 

opportunity to commend—now that I am no longer on the Commission, I want to say what I said so often when I was chairing the 

Commission. 

The staff of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom is really quite extraordinary. It was just a privilege 

to work with such knowledgeable and dedicated people. There are 

very few of them; it is a small staff. They all do much more work 

than should be required of any individual, but that comes out of 

their dedication to the cause of religious freedom. 

Well, we send delegations, we have from the earliest days of the 

Commission, to countries, not only to meet with public officials and 

be schmoozed and entertained but also to try to see if we can meet 

69

with members of faith groups, ethnic minority communities, people 

who can give us the lowdown on what is really happening on the 

ground. 

We have found, over the course of our, what, 18 years or so now, 

19 years of existence, that these are very valuable opportunities for 

us to learn what is going on on the ground when it comes to religious freedom in these countries. 

And, ordinarily, we are welcomed, even by some of the worst offending regimes. We were, therefore, taken aback when our proposed visit to India to do some fact-finding there was rebuffed. 

Visas were not granted to our people to make the trip. 

Now, India is an ally. It is a democratic nation. There is much 

to praise in the record of India, and we know that, including in 

some human rights areas, but there are also some problems. And 

we wanted to get our finger on those problems, more deeply understand what we are quite confident is a complicated picture. So we 

wanted to send our delegation. And yet the Indian officials, by refusing to grant the visas, made that impossible. 

When I registered in the public media a relatively mild protest, 

saying that it is really unfortunate that India has not granted 

these visas, well, this was met with an outpouring of—I am not 

quite sure how to say this politely—abuse by people in India and 

those outside of India who are sympathizing with some of the 

groups that we are concerned about, especially Hindu nationalist 

groups that we are concerned about in India, met with abuse directed toward me and directed toward the Commission and directed toward my fellow commissioners, claiming that we were engaging in neo-imperialism and so forth and so on. 

Of course, we are worried about some things that have happened 

in India. Of course, there is the historic treatment of the Dalit, 

which is shameful. There is the, in some cases, persecution of Muslim minority groups, persecution of Christian groups, and, of 

course, some abuses toward Indians, including Hindus, who do not 

go along with the more extreme forms of Hindu nationalism. 

So we had a perfectly legitimate reason, Mr. Chairman, to visit 

India: To engage. We wanted to engage them, we wanted to listen, 

we wanted to hear what they had to say, the government as well 

as the civil society groups. We had a perfectly legitimate reason, 

but they don’t want us to come. 

And I do hope that when we seek visas again, when a future 

commission seeks visas, India will reserve itself on this and visit 

with our people and engage our people, talk with our people. And 

let’s see if we can work together toward improving the human 

rights and religious freedom situation in India, which the new 

President, President Modi, says that he wants to do. 

Now, you had raised a couple of other points, and I want to give 

Zuhdi a chance to speak, because he has to run, if he was something to say on those points. 

But on this matter of the reduction of religious freedom to the 

mere right to worship, I think we need to be very clear. We need 

to be clear in our own minds and we need to be very clear with 

those we are engaging on our own side, within the Congress and 

the administration, and very, very clear with, especially, offending 

70

regimes that the right to religious liberty is a broad right, it is a 

robust right. 

It is the right to hold a belief or no belief, as one’s conscience dictates. It is the right to change one’s faith from one to another, as 

conscience leads, or to abandon faith altogether if that is where 

conscience leads. 

It is the right to express one’s faith, Mr. Chairman, in public and 

not merely in private, to enter the public square and to express 

one’s views, advocate on behalf of one’s religious beliefs to others, 

as long as one also respects their right to listen or not listen as 

they see fit, to engage one to try to persuade one in the opposite 

direction. 

And, very fundamentally—and let this never be lost—it also 

means the right to enter the public square and, on the basis of 

one’s religiously informed convictions about justice and the common 

good, advocate positions regarding public policy, vie for the allegiance of one’s fellow citizens, seek to correct what one views as injustices, precisely as Dr. Martin Luther King did. 

Fortunately, we did not say to Dr. King, ‘‘You are a religious 

man, you are a preacher, you speak in terms of God and the Bible. 

That violates the separation of church and state. You can say that 

stuff in your church, but don’t enter the public square and try to 

change public policy based on this religious teaching.’’

To have said that to King would have been for us to be profoundly untrue to our own convictions and principles as embodied 

in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. And to say 

that to religious people today is equally an offense against the best 

in our traditions. 

Zuhdi, I want to give you a chance because you have to run to 

the airport. 

Dr. JASSER. Yeah. 

Thank you, Chairman. There are actually four things I want to—

and they may not respond directly to your last question, but just 

in the interest of time. 

First of all, there was a comment made earlier about the faith 

of the people escaping Syria. And as much as, certainly, there has 

been a genocide perpetrated against the Yazidis, the Christians, 

and other minorities by ISIS, to say that the Muslim community—

in all due respect to Congressman Rohrabacher’s opinion—is leaving because of jobs and other issues, they were targeted, I believe—

and this is my personal opinion, not that of the Commission. There 

was a genocide against the Sunnis and has been perpetrated for 

years, with over 500,000 killed. Somewhere upwards of 95 percent 

of those killed have been Sunni Muslims. 

They are not leaving because of jobs and looking for a better 

place. They are leaving because they have been targeted by the 

Assad regime. And our recommendations do ask that that be looked 

at. 

And to that, actually, the comments about Russia, I think, also 

need a contrary opinion to be responded to, which is that our Commission has listed Russia as a country on the Watch List or Tier 

2, and I have a dissent in our report, that I believe personally that 

Russia should be on the CPC list. It is not just the Jehovah’s Witness, but it is Muslims, and it is systematic—I believe systematic 

71

and egregious changes in the law. Their actions in Crimea, their 

actions in the Ukraine and other places have demonstrated their 

complete disregard for religious freedom, except the religion of the 

state. 

And I will say, again, taking off my USCIRF hat but simply as 

the chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, their 

actions in Syria are also perpetrating a genocide in a foreign operation, which I think mirrors what they do domestically in Russia. 

And I think you see this also with Iran, who is helping what is 

happening in Syria. What they do domestically they also do abroad. 

Next is the issue on Saudi Arabia’s waiver. I want to also leave 

you with the thought that we need to bolster IRF recommendations 

and statutes so that the waiver is not simply used. 

I have been to Saudi Arabia on behalf of USCIRF, and they almost seem more concerned about the verbiage than even whether 

we designated them as CPC, because they have had this absolution 

of getting a waiver from the White House and the State Department year after year. That is a blight on the impact of IRFA, the 

waiver that continues to be given to Saudi Arabia. 

And the waivers are used, understandably, for national security 

issues and others, but it makes the comments about Natan 

Sharansky and all these other things that we say, that we stand 

for freedom and prisoners of conscience, it makes it simply a paper 

drill rather than actually having impacts, as we said when we designated genocide. What is the impact if the IRFA act of sanctions 

and other things don’t fall into play? 

Lastly, I want to use Malaysia as an example. It has been on our 

Watch List. We went to Malaysia and Indonesia. We met with civil 

society groups. And to Dr. George’s comments, women’s groups 

after Islamic liberal groups told us: Stop calling us a moderate Islamic country. They have been headed toward more and more religious repression, and they do not feel—the groups we spoke to do 

not feel that it is a moderate Islamic country because of the infiltration of Islamism, Sharia state mentality, Wahhabism, and other 

infiltration. 

So these issues, I think, look at their designation that we talk 

about in our report. And I think it is also very instructive to show 

how religious freedom will follow than other degradations of freedoms in those countries. Thank you. 

Mr. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, if I can just reinforce that third 

point that Dr. Jasser made about the use of waivers. 

Now, the statute permits the waivers. There is no question about 

that, and we are not asking for that to be eliminated, but I do 

think it is very important, if a waiver is to be granted, that the 

waiver not be for an indeterminate length of time, that it not be 

an indefinite waiver, number one. And number two, I think it is 

critically important that we not give unconditional waivers. If we 

are going to do unconditional waivers, we are actually giving away 

the content of the CPC designations. 

So I am sorry that I would like to make this point to David, although he has heard me make it before. Unfortunately, he had to 

leave. But let’s press on this, if we possibly can. No more indefinite 

waivers. No more unconditional waivers. 

72

Mr. SMITH. As you know, the new International Religious Freedom Act, the one that has passed the House, does limit to 90 days, 

with an additional 90 days, except for true national security reasons, because waivers are violated with impunity by administrations. And unfortunately, this one has done so like no other. 

I would also point out that when it comes to implementation of 

these policies, faithfulness does matter. I also am the author of the 

Trafficking Victims Protection Act. On the most recent occasion, 14 

countries got inflated grades, and Reuters did the investigative 

work that proved that the tipoff, this trafficking person’s office 

clearly said, this is a Tier 3 egregious violating country, Malaysia 

was one of them, but for nonhuman trafficking purposes, got an inflated grade so that they could be part of the TPP. Or Cuba, because we have a rapprochement going, so we can throw them a 

bone even though their policies on trafficking are atrocious. Same 

goes for Oman and many other countries, 14 in total. 

So we need to insist, all of us, on faithful implementation of 

these statutes, whether it be religious freedom or trafficking or any 

other human rights——

Mr. GEORGE. Exactly. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Policy. 

And, Mark. 

Dr. JASSER. And just one last comment. I think there is nothing 

that is more exemplary, emblematic of the sort of end around that 

sometimes the State Department does on the CPC than the fact 

that Syria is not listed as a CPC. 

So to say that it is not a CPC, almost everyone I talk to says that 

is a bizarre thing. And then you look at non-state actor issues, et 

cetera, we have got to either fix IRFA so that Syria—use that as 

a template to hold State Department accountable, because if Syria 

is not a CPC, then what is a CPC? 

Mr. GEORGE. I also owe you an answer, Mr. Chairman, on Vietnam. And I think we just have to, frankly, acknowledge that a mistake was made back in 2005, 2006 when, after Vietnam did institute some reforms, the government acted precipitously, in my opinion, to remove them from the list, and of course, they slid right 

back into their old ways. 

We have—we, again speaking as if I am still on the Commission. 

I can’t get out of that mode. But the Commission, when Dr. Jasser 

and I were serving, and in the report for 2016, does recommend 

CPC status for Vietnam. And I want to here publicly again, urge 

the State Department at the earliest opportunity to make that designation. And my hope would be that it would have the good effect 

that it had earlier of getting some reforms for the suffering people 

of all faiths, by the way, of all faiths in Vietnam, whether we are 

talking about Buddhists, whether we are talking about Catholics, 

whether we are talking about the small evangelical Protestant minority. 

All are victims there. I mean, it is a classic case of a Communist 

regime wanting to eliminate or drive into the ground any alternative authority structure of any kind, and of course, religions are 

the most important alternative authority structures in any society. 

So let’s try to get Vietnam back on the list. 

73

Mr. SMITH. Thank you for that. The Venerable Thich Quang Do, 

I met him. He is still under pagoda arrest. He can’t leave his—he 

can’t walk out the door without government people pushing him 

right back in. Father Loi, there are so many, and then all of those 

who are actually in prison still. So thank you for that leadership. 

Mark Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Dr. Jasser, I am going to give you your exit and 

just say thank you so much for not only being willing to be bold 

and speak the truth. It is refreshing, because of your faith and because of who you are, to be able to use you in a real way to discern 

some of the aspects that perhaps, because of my faith, I would be 

ignorant of. And so I just want to say thank you. And I know you 

have got to catch a plane, so I don’t want you to have to hang 

around. 

Dr. JASSER. Thank you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. We have had a number of personal meetings, and 

I look forward to many more. And so I will pick up on a question 

for Dr. George as you leave. How about that? 

Dr. JASSER. Thank you. Let me just make one parting comment, 

as it has been such a humbling honor to serve on USCIRF. It is 

always amazing how the American public, media, Government 

are—we have this American penchant not to offend other faiths 

and to protect, in the name of religious freedom, protecting other 

faiths. 

And yet we forget that our roots—these halls were created by our 

forefathers who were devout God-fearing Christians that hated theocracy, that wanted to defeat theocracy, and yet we don’t want to 

give the same battle to Muslims. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Dr. JASSER. That somehow, if Muslims are against theocracy, or 

we, as Christians, or Jews or not, I am not a—I am Muslim, but 

we—the majority in America can’t enable Muslims who are 

antitheocracy to have a voice in the name of a faith they love with 

tough love, then we seem to have forgotten the roots of the Founding Fathers. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well said. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Jasser. 

Mr. GEORGE. May I, as my friend and colleague is leaving, just 

say one thing about him because I think it is very important for 

the Congress and for the American people to understand this. Dr. 

Jasser’s profound witness in favor of American ideals and institutions, in favor of liberty, in favor of justice comes from his Muslim 

faith. Does everybody understand this? This man is a good American, not because he is a bad Muslim. He is not a bad Muslim. He 

is a devout believing Muslim, and it is from his faith that he joins 

together with all of us who want to uphold religious freedom for all. 

So I would say to my fellow Americans: Look at this man when 

you are tempted to think that the only way a Muslim can be a good 

American is to be a bad Muslim. No. That is not what the witness 

and example of Zuhdi Jasser stands for. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well said. 

Mr. GEORGE. To be the very best of Muslims is like being the 

very best of Christians or very best of Jews. It is to be someone 

who stands for justice and human rights as Zuhdi Jasser has done. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well said. 

74

Dr. JASSER. I am—too humbling. Thank you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Dr. Jasser. 

Dr. George, let me come back to you. One, you just made a very 

impassioned and what I would think insightful argument on behalf 

of religious freedom, not the freedom to worship as we please. And 

there is a big difference between the two, and it seems like there 

has been—now, one includes the other, but a freedom of worship 

doesn’t necessarily include the expanse of what you just articulated. And I think that is a defining moment that we must, on 

every main street across this great country that we love, start to 

show the difference, because what has crept into so much of our 

rhetoric and speeches is the freedom to worship as we please. 

Would you agree that that is not what the Founding Fathers intended when we talked about religious liberty and protection? 

Mr. GEORGE. The Founding Fathers certainly, certainly, we can 

say this with certainty, did not mean to limit the free exercise of 

religion, as it says in the First Amendment, to the mere freedom 

to worship. The free exercise of religion certainly includes, centrally 

includes the freedom of worship, but it includes so much more. 

And that is why, Representative Meadows, I went into some detail. I am grateful to the chairman’s indulgence because it was a 

little bit off point, my little philosophical lecture, but I think it is 

relevant to the practical issues that we are dealing with today because some people are tempted to think that people enjoy freedom 

of religion if they enjoy the freedom to attend the mosque or the 

church or the synagogue, to pray around the dinner table or on 

their knees at bedtime. But the reality is, if that is all they have 

got, they have only got a fragment of the fundamental human right 

to religious freedom, which does include the right to go into the 

public square to advocate, to act on one’s religiously inspired or religiously informed judgments about justice and the common good, 

as Martin Luther King did. 

There is no sense, none, zero, in which our Founding Fathers, including Jefferson, who is often trotted out as an anti-religious person or as a person who wanted to restrict religion to the narrowest 

confines of the private sphere, there was no Founding Father, including Jefferson, who sought a privatization of religion. It was Jefferson, Representative Meadows, who said, speaking of slavery, 

himself a slave owner, who said, speaking of slavery: I tremble for 

my country—not just I tremble for myself, as if it were a private 

sin—I tremble for my country when I consider that God is just, 

that his justice will not sleep forever. 

There are some times when we must tremble for our country because of injustices that we, as a people, are guilty of, and there, 

the prophetic voice of faith must speak to us not in the narrow confines of private life but in our public lives together as citizens. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, it is indeed foundational. It is truly what 

I believe our Founding Fathers not only envisioned but practiced. 

And so in doing that, it is important for us as we preserve those 

liberties. So let me shift gears, and I want to talk a little bit about 

Sudan. 

I heard Ambassador Saperstein talk about the potential for real 

progress in Sudan. I know I have personally met with not only Sudanese Government officials here in Washington, DC, on this topic, 

75

as well as the economic prosperity of Sudan. We know where they 

are today in terms of not only sanctions but other potential retributions that—because of their government philosophy. And yet, I 

guess I would be remiss in not asking, is there a glimmer of hope 

where truly we can find the start, the kernel of a seed supposedly 

sprouting for religious liberty and protection? 

I have sensed some of that from government officials and from 

those who talk on their behalf here in Washington, DC, and yet I 

hear conflicting messages from those, some that are in countries. 

And I go way back with Sudan. My mom was in Khartoum almost 

50 years ago, and we have been very supportive of those who have 

horrifically had to eat leaves off of trees to survive. And so in doing 

that, it is not with an ignorance of what has happened but with 

a hope of what could potentially happen, and so I ask you to give 

me your candid thoughts on that. 

Mr. SMITH. Would the gentleman yield before——

Mr. MEADOWS. Sure. 

Mr. SMITH. I would just note, and I think the records reflect it, 

Mr. Meadows played the pivotal role in effectuating the release of 

Meriam Ibrahim. 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. He got the entire Congress mobilized, meetings with 

the Ambassador and he had a very, very effective diplomatic initiative that yielded the release of that wonderful woman and her children. So I just think the record should recognize that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, you are very kind. I thank the gentleman, 

and he is humble in not acknowledging his own role in that particular situation. 

But please, Dr. George. 

Mr. GEORGE. Well, I know I speak for an awful lot of people in 

the religious freedom advocacy community in saying that we thank 

you both for your efforts on her behalf. I had the pleasure of being 

on the dais with her when the Pope spoke in Philadelphia. She and 

I were among the warmup acts for Pope Francis, so I got to speak 

with her and then to listen to her give her speech. And she is a 

wonderful witness, and she is here because of your work. And we 

are just so grateful for her and for what you did for her, and in 

that way, also for all of us. 

Representative Meadows, my heart breaks for the people of 

Sudan. Those people have suffered for so long and so intensely. 

Weak government, corruption, persecution, abuse, civil war. It is 

hard to think of a spot on earth more bleak, more dismal for the 

people than Sudan. Religious freedom in Sudan remains—the conditions for religious freedom remain poor. I can’t—I can’t—I can’t 

give you a rosy picture. The reality is what it is. 

But I have known Ambassador Saperstein for many, many years. 

I have worked with him long before he came to his position as—

I wish he had more power. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yeah. 

Mr. GEORGE [continuing]. Before he came to his position as Ambassador. And if he perceives a glimmer of hope, that is enough for 

me to conclude that there is a glimmer of hope, but it can’t really 

be more than a glimmer. So the question is: How do we do someVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:21 Sep 28, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\061616\20457 SHIRL
76

thing with that? If there is a little ember still alive, how do we 

work to see if we can fan that into a flame? 

Well, first, of course, we have to acknowledge the reality. Since 

2011, members of Sudan’s Christian community, minority Christian community have been arrested, their religious buildings desecrated or destroyed, churches and their educational institutions 

and schools and so forth, Sunday schools closed, and their literature, even their religious literature has been confiscated. There 

continues to be a persecution. 

So if anything is to be done, our recommendations to our Government are as follows: Try to enter into an agreement with the Government of Sudan that would set forth our commitment—set out a 

set of commitments that the Government of Sudan would undertake to address the worst offenses. 

First, end prosecutions and punishments for apostasy. 

Second, maintain provisions currently in the interim constitution 

respecting the country’s international human rights commitments 

and guaranteeing religious freedom. At a minimum, those formal 

guarantees. Now, we know formal guarantees, parchment guarantees, as our Founders called them, aren’t enough, but they are a 

necessary condition of doing more, so we need to get those into the 

actual final constitution. 

Lift government prohibitions on church construction, the 

issuance of permits for building new churches; create legal mechanisms to provide compensation for those congregations who have 

had their churches destroyed; and get serious about addressing attacks on churches or on religious people, like Christians, who are 

victimized when rogue individuals or groups of thugs or mobs commit those atrocities against people. Prosecute them, punish them, 

repeal or revise all articles in the 1991 criminal code which violate 

Sudan’s international commitments to religious freedom and belief. 

And then finally, hold people accountable, whether they are government officials or private individuals, for any attacks on houses 

of worship, on individuals, any acts of discrimination against people because of their religious affiliation or religious beliefs. That is 

what we would like to see in an agreement entered into between 

our Government and the Government of Sudan. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Dr. George. 

Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. I thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Dr. George. And anything else, Dr. George, you 

would like to——

Mr. GEORGE. I would like to say a word about Pakistan. 

Mr. SMITH. Please do. 

Mr. GEORGE. We haven’t spoken enough about Pakistan. Of those 

seven nations that you rightly pressed Ambassador Saperstein 

about, the State Department not designating. We have made recommendations for designations as CPCs. Among those seven nations who haven’t been designated, despite our recommendation, in 

many cases despite more than a decade of recommendations, if I 

had to choose one, it would be a bit of a tough choice because you 

have got Vietnam, for example, on the list, but if I had to choose 

one, if the State Department would give me one that I could designate myself out of the seven, I am afraid it would be Pakistan. 

77

Pakistan is one of the world’s worst offenders. And once again, 

that is especially ironic because you have a democratic country, you 

have—always an ally of the United States. We have been calling 

for this designation for an awfully long time, and it is really high 

time that the designation be made. And remember, this is a place 

where the persecution and abuse is meted out against various religious minorities, including Muslim religious minorities, such as the 

Shia minority, or indeed those members of the Sunni community 

who dare to express any dissent from the extremism of the official 

policy. 

The abuse of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Pakistan, the 

ongoing egregious systematic long-term abuse rooted not only in 

government policy but in prejudice within the civil society has got 

to be made a priority. The Ahmadiyya Muslims are peaceful people. 

They have caused no harm to anyone in Pakistan. They simply 

wish to worship as their conscience leads them. They wish to call 

themselves Muslims because they believe that they are Muslims. 

They follow the Koran, the other traditional Muslim teachings, and 

yet, as a matter of constitutional law of Pakistan, they are discriminated against. In the very constitutional law, they are not permitted to call themselves Muslims. 

Now, within any religious community, there may be disagreements. Members of one Christian denomination may feel that 

members of another group who call themselves Christians aren’t 

really Christians because they don’t have the right doctrines and 

so forth, and yet we would rightly be appalled if anyone sought to 

use government power to punish people who called themselves 

Christians, despite somebody else believing that they are not really 

Christians. 

Well, government power is being used against the peaceful 

Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan. That is also true of Saudi Arabia, by the way, but it is especially true in Pakistan. And I would 

really like the Congress to make it a priority in the advocacy concerning Pakistan that Pakistan must cease the oppression of the 

Ahmadiyya. And I think the same should be true, by the way, 

when we are talking about the Baha’i minority in places like Iran. 

Here again is a peaceful religious group, has never caused anybody 

any harm, are persecuted simply because of their beliefs. 

These are really egregious cases because governments can’t hide 

behind the concern that, well, we are really fighting terrorism. We 

have to oppress this group or that group because terrorism is being 

incubated in those groups. Nobody can say that about the 

Ahmadiyya. Nobody can say that about the Baha’is. 

But back to Pakistan. The abuses are so widespread and so deeply entrenched that we need to put as much pressure as we can on 

our Government to put as much pressure as it can on the Pakistani 

Government so that it will begin to relent from its own abuses and 

start doing something about the abuses of religious minorities by 

private organizations or individuals or mobs burning down churches and so forth within Pakistan. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me a few minutes to 

make that point about Pakistan. 

78

Mr. SMITH. Oh, thank you. And as we know, Indonesia, as you 

point out, also is discriminatory toward Ahmadiyya, the Muslims. 

So I am losing my voice. I apologize. 

Thank you, Dr. George. I know you have missed two trains. I am 

deeply appreciative and——

Mr. GEORGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. I thank you for your tremendous leadership. It has made a colossal difference in a positive way, so thank 

you. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

Mr. GEORGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(79)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

80

f


20457n.eps
81

f


20457m.eps
82

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DAVID N. SAPERSTEIN, 

AMBASSADOR-AT-LARGE FOR INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

f


20457d.eps
83

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS


20457e-1.eps
84


20457e-2.eps
85


20457e-3.eps
86


20457e-4.eps
87


20457e-5.eps
88

f


20457e-6.eps
89


20457f-1.eps
90


20457f-2.eps
91

Æ


20457f-3.eps