U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

68–021 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

THE U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: FIRST ANNUAL REPORT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 24, 2000

Serial No. 106–166

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

PETER T. KING, New York

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

MATT SALMON, Arizona

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

TOM CAMPBELL, California

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

PAT DANNER, Missouri

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff

KATHLEEN BERTELSEN MOAZED, Democratic Chief of Staff

PAUL BERKOWITZ, Professional Staff Member

NICOLLE A. SESTRIC, Staff Associate

(III)

C O N T E N T S

WITNESSES

Page

Rabbi David Saperstein, Chair, U.S. Commission on International Religious

Freedom ................................................................................................................ 5

Elliott Abrams, Commissioner, U.S. Commission on International Religious

Freedom ................................................................................................................ 9

Nina Shea, Commissioner, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom ........................................................................................................................ 12

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress from New

York and Chairman, Committee on International Relations ........................... 28

Rabbi David Saperstein ........................................................................................... 30

Elliott Abrams .......................................................................................................... 41

Nina Shea ................................................................................................................. 49

(1)

THE U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: FIRST ANNUAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:25 a.m. in room

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order.

The 105th Congress enacted the International Religious Freedom

Act of 1998 to give priority to combating religious persecution

worldwide among U.S. foreign policy objectives. The Act established

the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom,

which monitors religious freedom in other countries and advises

the President, our Secretary of State and Congress how best to promote religious freedom and to combat religious persecution abroad.

The Commission has held hearings on religious persecution in

China and in Sudan, and commissioners have given congressional

testimony on religious freedom in China, in Russia, in the Sudan,

and in Turkmenstan. In addition, they have spoken out about intolerance and persecution in Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, and Vietnam.

Personally, I am very troubled by the reports we are hearing

about persecution of Christians in Egypt. We would hope that the

next report of the Commission would look more closely at that

problem.

Nevertheless, we are very pleased with the Commission’s work

and its first annual report released on May 1. It pulled no punches

and made very pragmatic recommendations.

For example, the Commission is right on the mark by recommending that before granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations

[PNTR] to China, that Congress should announce it will hold annual hearings on human rights and religious freedom in China,

and extend an invitation to His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, to address a joint session of the Congress.

Among the Commission’s many recommendations on Russia were

two that would significantly help focus the Administration’s Russia

policy, including that the State Department should make the humanitarian and human rights crisis in Chechnya a high priority

issue in United States-Russian relations, and that the U.S. Government, as an urgent diplomatic priority, should press President

2

Putin to reverse the edict requiring liquidation of nonregistered religious groups.

With regard to the Sudan, we are very pleased that the Commission suggested that our Nation should launch a vigorous campaign

led by the President to inform the world of Sudan’s war crimes,

crimes against humanity, and genocidal activities.

We also agree with the Commission that the United States

Should engage in a multilateral and bilateral effort to increase economic and other pressures on the Sudan’s government.

Today the Congress will be voting on whether or not to grant the

People’s Republic of China [PRC] Permanent Normal Trade Relations status. The significance for our Nation of the outcome of this

one vote is enormous for our national security, for our economic

strength, and for our moral standing around the world.

As the Commission suggests, it would be an extraordinary mistake to empower China’s military and repressive dictators with

more trade-generated wealth and resources. To lend our assistance

to their unrelenting repression of religion is unconscionable.

This Commission sends a bold message to governments around

the world that American citizens believe the right to worship God

freely is one of our most cherished human values.

I would hope that as we consider the Commission’s suggestions,

we will give them the highest priority as we fashion our Nation’s

foreign policy. I look forward to hearing the Commissioners’ statements.

I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Gejdenson, our

Ranking Minority Member.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. Thank you.

I think we all in this country recognize the centrality of an individual’s right to his own religious views, and obviously we oppose

an official central government view of religion, although that seems

to come under attack, even in this Congress periodically, as we see

arguments for the Ten Commandments being placed in schools. So

even our own tolerance of religious differences, or people who

choose not to believe in any organized religion, sometimes comes

into question here.

I think we are a tremendous force for freedom and independence,

and we also have to figure out how it fits into other societies where

traditional issues may make it more difficult to have the same set

of rules that we operate under.

Clearly, we would be uneasy in the midst of an attempt to bring

some peace and order to Kosovo to see massive efforts at conversion and proselytizing going on. So I think what we have to do is

make sure that our very serious and proper effort to give people

religious freedom and to give religious organizations the rights that

we would hope could exist in any society, I think we have to understand that not every society is the United States, and if we think

of what is happening today in Lebanon, or if we go back a few

years when the fighting between Muslims and Christians ceased,

I do not think on day one we would want to argue, for instance,

that everybody should be out there trying to proselytize each other.

While I hope we can continue what we have done, I hope that

we also recognize that there are societal differences, and that we

want to make sure that as we press for religious freedom, we do

3

not create flashpoints in societies; that this process has to be one

that builds confidence that individual rights, individual family values, individual beliefs are protected as well.

Thank you, very much.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to welcome our distinguished panelists and

thank them for their great work they have done in this report.

The first annual report of the United States Commission on

International Religious Freedom is, indeed, a milestone in the

struggle to end persecution of religious believers around the world.

The chairman of the Commission, Rabbi David Saperstein, and the

eight other commissioners are to be congratulated on their diligence and thanked for their courage.

I am very pleased that Chairman Saperstein and Commissioners

Elliott Abrams and Nina Shea could be here with us today.

The 70-page report, together with a companion 158-page staff

memorandum, carefully analyzes the factual situation in certain

countries where religious freedom is stifled, and recommends concrete steps that the U.S. Government should take if it genuinely

wants to improve religious freedom around the world.

The report demonstrates that the Commission is doing its job

looking honestly at the facts, and then speaking truth to power,

whatever the political cost.

In particular, it took great courage for the Commissioners, some

of whom were appointed by President Clinton, to unanimously oppose Permanent Normal Trade Relations for the People’s Republic

of China.

One of the report’s key recommendations is that, while many

Commissioners support free trade, the Commission believes that

the U.S. Congress should grant China PNTR status only after

China makes substantial improvement in respect for religious freedom. That would be as measured by several specific standards outlined in the report.

That guidance, driven not by politics or ideology, but by the dismal facts of the situation in China, deserves careful consideration

this week, and especially today as we move toward a vote on the

House floor.

I urge each of my colleagues to look at that documentation and

to read other documentation like the country reports on human

rights practices.

Mr. Chairman, I think a little historical lookback very briefly is

in order. We will recall that in 1992, President Clinton accused his

opponent of coddling the dictators of China, and promised that he

would deny MFN to China, and this is his words, ‘‘As long as they

kept locking people up.’’ .

Facing the spring of 1993 with a vote that was likely to strip

China of MFN, Mr. Clinton preempted congressional action that

year with the issuance of an executive order that gave the PRC one

more year to reform—‘‘significant progress in human rights’’ were

the words that were used in the executive order, and the President,

in his speech, in announcing the executive order, said in part,

‘‘Starting today, the United States will speak with one voice on

4

China policy. We no longer have an executive branch policy and a

congressional policy. We have an American policy. We are here

today because the American people continue to harbor profound

concerns about a range of practices by Chinese Communist leaders.

We are concerned that many activists and pro-democracy leaders,

including some from Tiananmen Square, continue to languish behind prison bars in China for no crime other than exercising their

consciences. We are concerned by the Dalai Lama’s reports of China’s abuse against the people and culture of Tibet. The core of this

policy will be a resolute insistence upon significant progress on

human rights in China. To implement this policy, I am signing

today an executive order that will have the effect of extending

most-favored-nation [MFN] status for China for 12 months. Whether I extend MFN next year, however, will depend on whether

China makes significant progress in improving its human rights

record.’’ Mr. Chairman, I and many others on both sides of the aisle, had

nothing but praise for the President. However, within weeks and

certainly within months, there were profound doubts about the seriousness of the policy.

In January 1994, midway through the probationary period, I led

a human rights mission to China, and was shocked to be told by

every Chinese leader that I met, every single one of them, and I

met with many, that Mr. Clinton would continue MFN without conditions, and that his human rights linkage was pure fiction.

Ambassador Stapleton Roy accompanied me on many of those,

and was a witness to them saying, we are going to get it. This is

nothing but politics back in the United States.

A year later, the Administration, after the executive order was

issued, delinked human rights and trade. The Chinese hardliners’ new profits trumped respect for human rights. A very dangerous

precedent was set so that every dictatorship around the world

stood up and took notice. When it comes to intellectual properties

and the pirating of CDs and video cassettes, then and only then

this Administration employs the credible threat of sanctions to

ameliorate Beijing’s behavior.

Mr. Chairman, and Nina Shea and everyone who is testifying

knows this, our subcommittee has had 18 hearings and markups,

and several more where China was part, but 18 hearings and

markups where we focused on Chinese religious persecution, on

Chinese use of the Laogai, forced abortion, the ongoing oppression

against religious freedom and Tiananmen Square protestors, the

crackdown that has been unrelenting, and yet we continue this love

affair with the Chinese dictatorship, hoping next year somehow

things will improve.

I want to thank, again, the Commission for the very important

contribution it has made, looking only at the facts, and going where

the facts take us.

The Commission’s report and recommendations on the Sudan

outline a welcome and specific means of strengthening the U.S. response to the hell on earth that is created by Khartoum’s genocidal

religious war against southern Sudan. The United States must

seek new ways of ending that conflict, which has already claimed

2 million lives.

5

I am troubled that the State Department has restricted the Commission’s access to documents regarding U.S. policy toward Sudan,

and I intend to use my subcommittee’s oversight jurisdiction to

help rectify this denial of critical information to the Commission in

the future.

I am very glad there was a focus on the 1997 Russian law and

on freedom of conscience and religious association being used to repress citizens. I am also glad that other examples in Vietnam,

Saudi Arabia, and others are cited. Hopefully more will be done in

those areas in the future.

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, Mr. Chairman, has provided Congress and the Administration

with a detailed, objective, and responsible blueprint for curtailing

religious persecution abroad. I hope that every Member will read

it. I hope members of the press will take the time to read it, analyze it, and hopefully we will act upon it in the very near future.

Chairman GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for his comments.

If no other Member seeks recognition, we will now proceed with

the testimony of our panelists.

We have with us today Nina Shea, who is the director of the

Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom House. She has had more

than 20 years of work in international human rights as an attorney. She is the author of ‘‘In the Lion’s Den,’’ a book on anti-Christian persecution around the world. Previously she served on the

Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom for the Secretary of

State.

We also have with us Elliott Abrams, president of the Ethics and

Public Policy Center. He is the former Assistant Secretary of State

for Human Rights and for Inter-American Affairs in the 1980’s. He

is a former assistant counsel to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation and special counsel to Senator Jackson,

and served as Chief of Staff to Senator Moynihan.

We have with us also Rabbi David Saperstein, who is the director of the Religious Action Center, Reformed Judaism. Rabbi

Saperstein has headed several religious coalitions and served on

the boards of numerous national organizations. He also is an attorney and teaches seminars in both the first amendment, church and

State law, and on Jewish law at Georgetown Law School. He is the

Chair of the Commission.

His latest book is Jewish Dimensions of Social Justice, the

United States Commission on International Religious Freedom,

Moral Choices of Our Time.

We welcome our three distinguished panelists. Our panelists may

summarize their statement and put their full statements in the

record. You may proceed according to your decision on who goes

first.

STATEMENT OF RABBI DAVID SAPERSTEIN, CHAIR, U.S.

COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, not

only for the gracious invitation to appear here today on behalf of

the Commission, but to you and Mr. Gejdenson and Mr. Smith. It

is hard to think of three more effective and outspoken advocates on

behalf of religious freedom across the globe, so we are eternally

6

grateful for the leadership that you have shown in this, and for

your lifelong work on behalf of the oppressed, wherever they might

be today.

We report to you on a milestone event, the issuance of the first

annual report of the United States Commission on International

Religious Freedom.

It is a result of the IRFA process, the International Religious

Freedom Act passed unanimously by Congress. The vision of the

IRFA process is this: The founders of our country understood that

the words ‘‘were endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable

rights’’ put religious freedom at the center of the fundamental

rights and liberties to which every human being is entitled.

It is the first of the enumerated rights in our first amendment.

It is central to the human condition and to what we have striven

for during so many decades of the 200-plus-year history of this

country; to ensure that the religious life of the individual and of religious communities could flourish without the government restraining or interfering with that freedom, that this is a part of the

vision of human rights that cuts across the global community, and

as such, it ought to be at the heart of the United States’ foreign

policy.

As we look around the globe, however, we find that this fundamental liberty is under serious threat. In Sudan, the Islamist extremist government is bombing church-run schools and hospitals.

In China, we see mass arrests of phoning practitioners, the harassment and arrests of leaders of the Muslim Uiger community, the

continued systematic infringement of the Tibetan Buddhists’ religious freedom, and the arrests of leaders of the underground

Catholic and Protestant churches. In Iran, Baha’is are sentenced to

death just because they are Baha’is.

All these things testify that the work of this Commission is urgent work, work of fundamental liberty and of priority importance.

There are two observations 1 year into this process. First, in creating the Ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom

and mandating a State Department report once a year, something

significant has changed in the way the U.S. foreign policy work is

done.

Over an extended period of time, in preparing the State Department report on religious freedom, foreign service officers and embassies across the world and regional bureaus here in Washington

at the State Department, who are charged to oversee this report

had to focus on what to say about religious liberty, how to deal

with it, how to express it, how to define it, how to describe what

is happening on the ground in countries across the globe, and what

America’s interests are regarding this issue. Difficult decisions required the attention and involvement of high-ranking State Department officials.

As our Commissioners traveled to other countries this year,

throughout the world we met and worked with foreign service officers who are now knowledgeable about the issue of religious freedom, who have nurtured relationships with religious leaders of oppressed groups and more accepted groups in those countries; who

have overseen their plight; who have raised issues for them with

7

the governments to which they represent us, and are involved in

diplomatic efforts to combat religious persecution.

It is the role of this commission on an ongoing basis, and then

summarized once a year in its report, to make recommendations directly to the President, to the Secretary of State, and to you, the

Congress of the United States, related to combating religious persecution and enhancing religious freedom.

Because of the delay in appointments of members of the Commission and delays in the congressional funding, we have only been

staffed for 6 months and in offices for about 4 months. As a result,

we decided that while, and this is the essential point, Mr. Chairman, that while engaging in the ongoing monitoring of general U.S.

policy on religious freedom, while we were visiting a number of

countries, while we made ongoing policy recommendations regarding emerging urgent situations wherever and whenever they occurred, and in total, these recommendations made throughout the

years addressed urgent situations in nearly a dozen countries, that

we would focus on three priority countries. This was not to the exclusion of other countries.

Let me just take for a moment the country that you raised,

Egypt. Throughout the year we kept a very clear eye on what was

happening in Egypt. Twice we communicated directly with the national security adviser and with the President of the United States

upon President Mubarak’s visits here to raise the issue of religious

freedom generally, and the situation of the Copts in particular. The

President did so at a meeting. He was present in the room where

human rights advocates raised these issues at the second meeting.

We have urged the Secretary of State, who has been quite responsive to our requests, to continue to raise the issue of religious

freedom in Egypt. That is representative of the work that we did

in an ongoing basis in a number of countries.

However, we hear your concern on this issue. It was not one of

the three priority countries. We will be expanding the list of priority countries, a decision to be made over the next few weeks,

which that would include. But we will continue to focus on Egypt

and other countries whenever the circumstances so require. We will

continue to share with you, Mr. Chairman, our views on that issue.

We welcome your thoughts on this issue as to what we ought to

be recommending and urging as well.

Of the three priority countries that we focus on, two represented

countries in which systematic egregious and ongoing manifestations of religious persecutions occurred. Those countries are China

and Sudan. My colleagues will talk at some length on those two

countries in a moment.

At the same time, we selected another country that I will spend

a few minutes on, Russia, which reflected a completely different dynamic, a country that allows much more religious freedom. There

are not the same manifestations of religious persecution we find in

the countries of particular concern, but there are, in Russia, growing problems.

This is a country with which the United States has close relations, and the ability to make its voice heard more effectively. So

we targeted Russia because there are so many religious groups in

that country, and in many ways, it is a litmus test for all the other

8

newly independent countries that have sprung up in central Asia

and throughout Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet empire.

We are deeply concerned about some of the trends in Russia. In

particular, we are concerned that in 1997, the Duma passed a socalled religion law that creates a hierarchy of religious organizations that effectively restricts the rights, powers, and privileges of

smaller, newer and religious communities and establishes an onerous and intrusive registration process and other mechanisms of

State interference with the activities of religious organizations.

Congress has been following that. We commend the work of this

Committee on behalf of the religious groups in trying to find ways

to encourage Russia not to implement that law.

At a national level, the country of Russia has been restrained.

Clearly, at the regional and local level, however, there are widespread abuses.

One of our major recommendations is that the State Department

and the Congress monitor what is happening at the regional and

local levels and try to encourage the national government to create

checks on the abuses that are happening there as well.

Mr. Chairman, there is a new development that should attract

the attention of this Congress as an issue of urgent concern. On

March 26, little noticed by the media, President Putin signed an

amendment to the 1997 religion law.

On the good side, it extended by 1 year the deadline for the registration or reregistration of religious organizations. However, it

also had an alarming negative note, requiring that unregistered

groups be liquidated after December 31, 2000.

In addition, in January 2000, President Putin signed an important directive specifying that one of the measures necessary to protect Russian national security is ‘‘a state policy to maintain the

population’s spiritual and moral welfare and counter the adverse

impact of foreign religious organizations and missionaries.’’ Mr. Chairman, it is too early to say how this directive will be interpreted by regional and local authorities who have been the most

zealous in denying registration, harassing, and liquidating unregistered religious communities. The range of groups that have been

affected include the Roman Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, Seventh

Day Adventists, even orthodox Old Believers.

The liquidation of unregistered religious communities after December 31 of this year would have particularly grievous consequences for hundreds, if not thousands, of smaller religious

groups.

The Commission has, therefore, recommended that this Congress, the U.S. Government, continue as a major diplomatic priority to make efforts to insure that legitimate religious groups that

have not registered are not liquidated. We hope you will join us in

urging the President of the United States, when he meets directly

with President Putin at the upcoming summit, to raise this issue

as an issue of priority concern.

Regional and local authorities not only have interfered in practice with the religious freedoms of unregistered groups. One-third

of Russia’s constituent regions have enacted regulations that are

plainly unconstitutional and have affected all religious groups.

9

Central authorities in most cases failed to enforce Federal law,

and in many cases, have themselves been guilty of violating both

national and international human rights standards.

Let me bring to the Chair’s attention one other development of

this past week. There has been a long tradition of anti-religious

feeling against Muslims, against Jews, going back many decades,

many centuries in Russia.

We have seen some alarming new developments in terms of the

Jewish community in the past week. Vladimir Kuzinsky, who is a

media mogul there but the chair of the Russian Jewish Federation,

has been targeted by the government television. He is accused of

being your tool, the U.S. Congress, and of the international Jewish

community.

This is language that has no place being sanctioned by the government of Russia. We urge that our government ask the Russian

government to stand up and to denounce the mounting anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish, anti-religious rhetoric that we are hearing here.

This is something that needs to be dealt with at an early point,

and your intervention on behalf of our efforts is of the utmost importance.

Finally, I appreciate Mr. Smith’s admonition that we need to

have the full cooperation of the State Department on the whole. We

have been surprised at the level of cooperation. They have been

very open to our recommendations.

We need their support in making documents available, and we

need your support in the funding for this Commission in the future.

We look forward to increased cooperative relations between the

Congress and the Commission in the years to come.

[The prepared statement of Rabbi Saperstein appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Rabbi Saperstein.

Former Assistant Secretary of State, Elliott Abrams.

STATEMENT OF ELLIOTT ABRAMS, COMMISSIONER, U.S.

COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Mr. ABRAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My job is to talk for a

few minutes about China. I guess I cannot complain about the timing today.

The Commission did, over the last several months, conduct research, and we held hearings about religious freedom in China. We

found a sharp deterioration in religious freedom in China in the

past year.

We found that violation of religious freedom in China is egregious, ongoing, and systematic. Let me give some examples of what

we mean by that.

First, the right to freedom of belief is explicitly denied to the 60

million members of the Chinese Communist Party, to all members

of the Chinese military, and to all citizens under the age of 18, and

that obviously means hundreds of millions of people.

The State has reasserted its monopoly over the spiritual education of children, and participation by children in any religious activity can be prevented.

Second, the State has control over all authorized religions. Regulations now require that all religious groups register with local

10

units of the Religious Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Civil Affairs, and affiliate with an official organ of one of the five recognized religions.

It is in this very narrow officially sanctioned space, this cage,

that people may exercise their religious beliefs in China. Many of

these limits imposed on registered churches are clearly in violation

of accepted international standards of freedom of religion, such as

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

To take one example, authorities limit the building of mosques,

monasteries, and churches, even for the approved religious groups.

They restrict the numbers of students in Christian seminaries, in

Buddhist monasteries, in Islamic schools.

Third, it seems that the authorities are determined to eliminate

all religious activity they cannot directly control. If it is not under

government control, they want it stopped. Of course, the clearest

example of this are the Protestant house church movement and

Catholic churches loyal to the Vatican. Leaders of large Protestant

house church networks who in 1998 challenged the government to

a dialogue, have been targeted for arrest. Unauthorized Protestant

places of worship have also been destroyed.

There is a concerted effort to eliminate underground bishops and

bring them under the authority of the officially sanctioned Catholic

church. The bishops are being pressed not for cooperation only, but

for obedience. In January of this year, the official government

Catholic church ordained five bishops without Vatican approval.

Probably the worst incident in the last year happened 1 year ago

in May 1999, when a young priest, Father Yan Wei Ping, was detained while performing mass. He was found dead on a Beijing

street shortly after being released from detention.

There is continuing repression in Tibet and Xinjiang, some of the

worst repression in China. Amnesty International reports that the

authorities in Xinjiang have closed mosques and Koranic schools,

halted the construction of unauthorized mosques, prohibited the

use of Arabic script, and required Muslims who are party members

or who work in government offices to abandon the practice of Islam

or lose their jobs.

In Tibet, religious institutions are likewise tightly controlled. To

take an example of what is going on, in 1995, the Dalai Lama identified a young boy as the new Panchen Lama. The Chinese government immediately denounced his choice, detained that boy and his

family, and pushed the acceptance of their own choice as the new

Panchen Lama.

The Chinese authorities continue to hold the Panchen Lama at

an undisclosed location and refuse all requests to visit him put forward by official and unofficial foreign delegations. Over 1,000

monks and nuns were expelled from their monasteries in 1999,

making over 11,000 since 1996.

Finally, I would mention the Falun Gong Sect. You are familiar,

of course, with what has happened. The government detained more

than 35,000 Falun Gong practitioners in the last year. Some detainees were tortured. Others have been held in mental institutions

for reeducation. In closed trials, some Falun Gong leaders have received prison sentences of 6 to 18 years.

11

When Congress established the Commission, you asked us to

make recommendations about policy to the executive branch and

the legislative branch. Commission members represent both parties

and represent several religions, but we were unanimous in our recommendations about China. Let me just read you what we said

about China.

The Commission believes that in many countries, including some of China’s neighbors, free trade has been the basis for rapid economic growth, which, in turn, has

been central to the development of a more open society and political system.

This belief has been a major factor in the annual decision by presidents and congressional majorities of both parties to grant MFN to China each year over the past

two decades.

Moreover, a grant of PNTR and China’s membership in the WTO may, by locking

China into a network of international obligations, help advance the rule of law there

in the economic sector at first, but then more broadly over time.

Nevertheless, and this was the Commission’s recommendation, given the sharp

deterioration in freedom of religion in China during the past year, the Commission

believes an unconditional grant of PNTR at this moment may be taken as a signal

of American indifference to religious freedom. The government of China attaches

great symbolic importance to steps such as the grant of PNTR, and presents them

to the Chinese people as proof of international acceptance and approval.

The grant of PNTR at this juncture could be seen by Chinese people struggling

for religious freedom as an abandonment of their cause in a moment of great difficulty. The Commission, therefore, believes Congress should not approve PNTR for

China until China makes substantial improvements in respect for freedom of religion.

We then gave some recommendations. We suggest the following

standards for measuring whether there have been improvements in

China:

(1) An agreement by China to establish a high-level dialogue

with the United States about religious freedom.

(2) China has signed the International Covenant of Political and

Civil Rights in 1997 and never ratified it. What about ratification?

(3)Permitting unhindered access to prisoners, religious prisoners,

for the Commission or other groups like it; disclosure of the condition and whereabouts of persons imprisoned for reasons of religion

or belief; release from prison of all persons incarcerated for religions reasons.

(4) We also hope Congress would establish a mechanism for annual review of human rights in China, annual hearings or proposals like the Levin Commission.

(5) We urge that Congress invite the Dalai Lama to address a

joint session of Congress.

(6) We hope the United States will continue to initiate a resolution to censure China at the annual U.N. Human Rights Commission meeting, and that this effort, which we failed at for several

years now, be led personally by the President.

(7) We urge a multilateral campaign to seek the release of Chinese religious leaders imprisoned or under house arrest.

(8) We urge the United States to raise the profile of conditions

in Xinjiang for Uighur Muslims there.

(9) Finally, we urge the United States to use its diplomatic influence with other governments to ensure that China is not selected

as a site for the International Olympic Games.

The Commission does not suggest that all the actions outlined

above serve as preconditions for PNTR. They are standards to

measure progress. We did not propose a strict formula. Congress

12

must weigh the evidence and decide how much must be done before

PNTR is granted.

Without any further action, we fear that elimination of the annual review mechanism for trade relations with China may be seen

as a symbol of American indifference to human rights and religious

freedom in that country. That would be a terrible message to send

to the government and to the people of China.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the privilege of appearing here

today. Thank you for our continuing leadership on religious freedom and human rights issues around the globe.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Abrams appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Secretary Abrams.

Ms. Shea.

STATEMENT OF NINA SHEA, COMMISSIONER, U.S.

COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Ms. SHEA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify

on behalf of the Commission today. I will be addressing Sudan.

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom decided to focus on Sudan because we found that it is the

world’s most violent abuser of the right to freedom of religion and

belief.

A civil war has raged in Sudan for 17 years, a war that ignited

when the regime in Khartoum attempted to impose Sharia or Islamic law on the non-Muslim south and in which religion continues

to be a major factor.

Last January, Commissioner Elliott Abrams traveled to the

Sudan for the Commission and interviewed a church leader, who

concluded that the government would like to remove the church

from Sudan, to ‘‘blow out the candle,’’ as he put it so poignantly.

Moreover, he said this persecution is intensifying, making ever

worse the security problems the church faces from the war itself.

‘‘Islam is the crux,’’ he explained. The government wants all the resources in its hands, and wants to use them to create a fully Islamic country, he told Commissioner Abrams.

As it prosecutes its side of the war, the government of Sudan is

carrying out genocidal practices against its religious and ethnic minorities. Such practices include aerial bombardment, scorched

Earth campaigns, massacres, slavery, forcible conversion, and its

most lethal tactic, what Senator Frist has termed ‘‘calculated starvation,’’ which brought 2.6 million people to the brink of starvation

in 1998 alone.

Calculated starvation is achieved by using brutal means to drive

entire communities off their lands, thus creating vast numbers of

internal refugees who are dependent on humanitarian relief for

survival, while at the same time barring international relief flights

from delivering aid.

Estimated at 4.5 million, they number the largest internally displaced population in the world. As a direct result of the conflict,

some 2 million persons have been killed, mostly Christians and followers of traditional beliefs in south and central Sudan. This is

more than Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda and Sierra Leone combined.

13

That the government of Sudan has not yet prevailed in the war

may be due to the fact that until last year, it has been financially

strapped and in default to the IMF and other international lenders.

Last August, oil developed in south Sudan by foreign companies in

joint venture partnership with the Khartoum government came on

stream, and has begun to provide windfall profits to the regime, as

well as a critical source of new international respectability.

As Secretary Albright recognized, the proceeds from the oil revenues will be used to support the Sudanese military’s actions, and

the human tragedies in Sudan are likely to become worse. There

is ample evidence that this is already happening.

Since February, a Catholic primary school in the Nuba Mountains has been bombed, killing 19 children and their teacher. Samaritan’s Purse Hospital near Juba, operated by the family of Reverend Billy Graham, has been bombed five times. A clinic of Voice

of the Martyrs, the Clinic of Irish Concern, and other relief centers,

churches and civilian targets in south Sudan, have all been bombed

by the government in one of the most relentless bombing raids of

the war. This is all since February.

In addition to the conflict which the Sudanese government declares to be a Jihad against both non-Muslims and dissident Muslims, the regime is responsible for other forms of religious persecution throughout the country. These concern the Commission as

well.

Muslims who do not subscribe to the government’s extremist interpretation of Islam are persecuted. They are forced to conform in

their dress, their prayers and practices, and in their sermons to the

regime’s strict interpretation of Islam.

Other Muslims are perceived as disloyal to the regime, declared

apostate, and thus targeted for death. Christian schools were nationalized in 1992. Christian churches and prayer centers continue

to be demolished, and the government has not granted permission

to build or repair a church in over 30 years. The regime suppresses

Christian and African traditional religions in a variety of ways.

The scope of the humanitarian tragedy of Sudan dwarfs all those

of other recent conflicts, and yet Sudan receives far less international attention. Neither the international community nor the

United States has any plan to address the mounting tragedy in

Sudan, although the United States Commission proposes a comprehensive set of policy options to significantly strengthen the

United States’ response to the crisis in Sudan.

The Commission’s recommendations provide both disincentives

and incentives for the Sudanese government to comply with international standards of religious freedom and other basic human

rights.

These include bringing world moral opprobrium to bear upon the

genocidal regime by raising the profile of the Sudanese regime’s

atrocities, given Sudan’s greater priority in foreign policy, and

making a determination on whether it, in fact, constitutes genocide

under international law.

Our recommendations also include providing non-lethal aid to opposition groups in order to strengthen the defenses of the vulnerable civilian populations once certain conditions are met.

14

In addition, the Commission recommends increasing economic

pressure on the regime, especially by restricting foreign companies

involved in Khartoum’s strategic oil industry from raising money in

U.S. capital markets.

The Commission calls for greater transparency and disclosure for

foreign companies engaged in Sudan’s oil sector that are seeking to

obtain capital in U.S. markets. Also, because of the extremely egregious, in fact genocidal, nature of the religious persecution in

Sudan, the Commission urges that access to U.S. stock and bond

markets be restricted in this specific case where foreign companies

are engaged in a Sudanese enterprise that is itself sanctioned

under U.S. law.

Because the regime continues its genocidal practices, the Commission’s recommendations also set forth measures to ameliorate

the agony of the targeted population in south and central Sudan.

These include ensuring food aid reaches starving communities by

channeling more aid outside the U.N. system, supporting through

peaceful means a military no-fly zone, and strengthening an infrastructure to sustain civilian life in the South.

The Commission’s recommendations, for the most part, are based

on the same principles that proved so effective in ending apartheid

in South Africa during the 1980’s. That is, identifying the Sudanese

government as a pariah state and intensifying its economic isolation.

None of the Commission’s recommendations call for the involvement of U.S. troops or U.N. peacekeeping forces. They do not risk

involving the United States in a dangerous quagmire of financial

and military obligations. They do require American resolve and

leadership.

Past occurrences of genocide fill the pages of our newspapers to

this day, and they continue to haunt our policy leaders. The Commission recommendations are intended to help while lives remain

to be saved, and to do so through peaceful means.

This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I refer you to my

written statement.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Shea appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Shea, for your statement. I

thank our panelists for taking the time to be with us this morning.

I will address a few questions and then turn to my colleagues.

Mr. Abrams, on human rights, we pursue diplomatic engagements, but things seem to have gotten worse and worse. Why have

we had so little apparent impact on China? How should we look at,

for example, the Patriotic Association of Churches? Should we shun

them as collaborators with the government or embrace them, since

they are trying to survive under an undemocratic government?

Mr. ABRAMS. Mr. Chairman, if I can take the second question

first, I think we should, in essence, embrace them. I think if you

take the Chinese so-called Patriotic Church, those are people who,

if they could safely do it, would be loyal to the Vatican. There is

no indication, no reason to think that they would not. But these are

people who may be forced or be unwilling to take the risks themselves or for their families and children of acting outside the officially sanctioned Catholic church.

15

I think the Vatican’s own position toward them is that the door

should always be open to them, and that there is nothing to be

gained by condemning them or shunning them.

Why have we had so little impact? That is a very, very tough

question. I would offer one theory. I think the regime in China is

an illegitimate regime. I do not think there are very many communists left in China, including in the government.

The whole ideological basis for the regime is gone, and I think

the people who are running the country are terrified of alternative

belief systems like Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and desperate,

therefore, to try to keep them from growing. Those are losing battles over the long run, because the regime’s lack of legitimacy I

think is increasingly obvious inside China, even inside the government.

I think what that should lead us to believe is that we need to

keep it up, to keep up the human rights pressure until there is improvement.

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, may I just add a word to that?

Chairman GILMAN. Yes, Rabbi Saperstein.

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. The question is often asked, we have had

MFN. We do it every year, there has not been improvement. It has

not worked. We also could say we have had expanding trade over

the last decade, we have had far more interaction than we have

had, and there has not been a noticeable impact, as well.

I think it is important to realize that we crafted our recommendations on things we thought were actually politically doable for the Chinese government, and that would have an impact.

We did it because in the past, there has been a connection. When

MFN was up in 1992, Han Dongfun was released, and Liu Qing

was released, Wang Dan was released when MFN was up the next

time, and when the IOC was considering having the games there.

Likewise, Wei Jingsheng was first released during the debate of

the IOC on whether or not to have the games there in his first release in 1993.

We can go down the list. The PRC issued white papers on human

rights when they began to negotiate with the International Red

Cross, when they invited the U.N. Special Meeting on Religious Intolerance, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. All of

these were at times when MFN was being considered again, during

that period of time when the IOC was making recommendations on

where the Olympic games should be.

While it is always difficult to prove cause and effect, and you

have to be a little concerned about the post hoc, ergo propter hoc,

that because things happen at the same time, they are connected.

The pattern has been that within certain limits, the Chinese government has tried to make improvements to send messages to the

broader international community.

We chose things we thought were doable and that would send

those messages and begin to make significant improvements. We

think it was a wise approach for the Congress to adopt.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Rabbi.

Ms. Shea, considering the overall U.S. policy toward Sudan, we

are concerned by the perceived ad hoc nature of our initiatives.

16

When we try to enunciate what our policy is to the Sudan, we find

it difficult to enunciate that.

In your opinion, what is our policy, or what should be our policy

toward Sudan?

Ms. SHEA. Mr. Chairman, we have devised a comprehensive plan

over the next 12 months for Sudan. This would be a package of incentives and disincentives based on whether or not there is substantial and systematic progress in the human rights area in

Sudan, as measured by such things as stopping the bombing, stopping the enslaving, stopping the massacring and the calculated

starvation, which killed so many people.

This would mean that we would be linking—we propose linking

rewards such as diplomatic relations or more humanitarian aid to

the areas under the government control, and linking sanctions,

such as multilateral trade sanctions, capital markets sanctions, so

forth, to the behavior of the government over the next 12 months.

If there is a marked deterioration and/or if there is no sign that

the government is seriously engaging in any type of human rights

reform, then we propose actually giving non-lethal aid to the opposition forces.

What we lack right now is any kind of comprehensive policy. At

some points we see criticism by the Secretary of State of the government, and in the next week we may see a lifting of sanctions

for some Arabic companies. The next week we may see granting an

IPO, as we did—granting permission for an IPO in China in April.

This carve-out entity, an artificial carve-out entity of CNPC,

which is the largest financier of the pipeline that is fueling Sudan’s

prosecution of the civil war, it is all over the place.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you very much.

Rabbi Saperstein, we appreciate your comments about the persecution in Egypt. Can you tell us why Egypt was not one of the

countries that received special attention from the Commission this

year? We just heard some very distressing testimony the other day

about the killing of some 20 people, I think it was in El Kush.

Would you comment on that quickly?

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Surely. We have been following that incident

very closely. There have been two major incidents a year apart in

El Kush. That is exactly why we made the recommendations to the

President.

We did not choose Egypt simply because we felt that China, as

the largest country in the world population-wise, proved itself to be

an equal opportunity depriver of fundamental rights and could not

be ignored. Sudan, for the reasons that Ms. Shea articulated, could

not be ignored. We wanted to show a completely different paradigm

with another very influential country.

We had limited time this year because of the lateness of starting

up, but we did follow what was happening in Egypt and a number

of other countries. We will continue to do that. Whether or not

Egypt will be on our expanded list of in-depth countries we will

look at, we will decide that in the next few weeks. Your personal

concern about this will certainly be taken into consideration.

There are a number of factors we have to weigh in doing that,

but Mr. Chairman, no matter what, whether it is an in-depth country or not, we will continue to monitor on an ongoing basis and

17

make recommendations on an ongoing basis to the Administration

on the situation in Egypt.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I was unable to hear your testimony, Mr. Abrams, but I would

like to begin with a brief question.

Has the Commission taken a position on PNTR, and if so, what

is it?

Mr. ABRAMS. Yes. The Commission urged that Congress not approve PNTR until there is improvement in the human rights situation in China. We gave a list of not preconditions, but standards

we thought that Congress might use to judge whether there had

been any improvement.

Mr. PAYNE. As for the question regarding the Chinese Christians,

there is an indication that many Chinese attend churches. These

churches are often officially recognized by the Chinese government,

and many are crowded every Sunday.

In your research on China, did you speak with representatives

from these state-recognized churches? If so, were you able to differentiate between the percentage of Chinese Christian worshippers at official churches as opposed to unofficial churches?

Mr. ABRAMS. I have some numbers in the report. I am not sure

I am going to be able to pull them out that quickly.

I guess I would say in a certain sense there is an artificial distinction between the official and unofficial churches. If you are taking Protestant or Catholic churches, beliefs are basically the same.

Some people just do not want to take the risk or the hassle, the

dangers of being in an unofficial church, and therefore affiliate

with the official one, but they are not enemies.

I think that if religious freedom were to come to China, we would

see the merger of the official and unofficial very quickly.

If I could supply the numbers for the record, we do have in our

report some estimates.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you.

What is the current situation with the Falun Gong as it relates

to the movement? Are arrests still being made?

Mr. ABRAMS. There are. There has been no change in the government’s policy toward Falun Gong. There are actually other groups

of a similar nature that are still very much being persecuted by the

government. Arrests continue. It is kind of amazing that, with the

number of people detained, and the government admits to 35,000

people having been arrested, they have not been able to crush that

movement. Practitioners continue to show their faces in Beijing

and to be arrested. There has been no change in the government’s

attitude.

Mr. PAYNE. Finally, how do you think we can pressure the Chinese government to begin negotiating with the Dalai Lama or the

Tibetan government in exile? Do you think the State Department

ought to step up its game plan?

Mr. ABRAMS. We have made one proposal in our recommendations with respect to the PNTR debate. That is that you, in Congress, invite the Dalai Lama to address a joint session, by way of

kind of raising his stature and showing the Chinese government

18

that the United States is not going to abandon its support for freedom of religion in Tibet.

The Dalai Lama himself has taken a very accommodating or

compromising view over the past decade with respect to China and

is not demanding independence for Tibet at all, but the Chinese position seems to have hardened over the last few years.

I think the answer is to continue to give the Dalai Lama the respect and consideration that he deserves, and to show the Chinese

government that this is not an issue that is going to go away, and

that it is one that actually engages the beliefs and emotions of

many Americans who are, of course, not Buddhists.

Mr. PAYNE. Let me ask Rabbi Saperstein quickly, I know you

traveled to PRC with one of my constituents, Monsignor

McCarrick. You were on that trip, right?

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. I actually was not. I have been to the PRC.

That was Rabbi Schneier, my friend and colleague, who went on

that trip.

Mr. PAYNE. I know he insisted on seeing prisoners and it was not

on the schedule.

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Of course, Archbishop McCarrick is one of the

non-members of the United States Commission on International

Religious Freedom, so we would be glad to have him respond to

any questions that you would like. We can do it in writing afterwards.

Mr. PAYNE. Finally, I will ask Ms. Shea, about the current policy

mentioned. Several trips were made, one with Mr. Campbell to the

south Sudan, another with Mr. Tancredo, and many years ago I

traveled there as well. We see that the problem continues.

As you may already know, we had a provision in the current legislation which would allow food assistance going outside of the OLS

regime. OLS is controlled by the government of Khartoum, and

uses food in many instances as a weapon, as you mentioned about

the near starvation in 1998.

We received strong opposition from traditional organizations like

CARE among others. They opposed alternative routes of having

this food made available, which I strongly support.

Has your organization taken any kind of initiatives, since you

strongly support non-lethal goods to the SPLM, the movement, and

people in the South? Have you had any discussions with the opponents of this alternative food source, and what has been the result?

Ms. SHEA. Thank you for your question. Of course, I am very

much aware of your own efforts, and Mr. Campbell’s and Mr.

Tancredo’s efforts on Sudan. I want to thank you very much. After

all, you were the sponsor of Resolution 75, which is so important

and historic.

We have had hearings on Sudan. Commissioner Elliott Abrams

went to Sudan for the Commission. We have talked to a wide range

of people. I think there are two issues involved here. One is food

aid that bypasses the U.N. system that defies the veto of Khartoum, that gets through to the starving people. We recommend that

the U.S. Government should increase its aid to non-OLS providers

so food aid gets to the people.

We also address the question of whether to give non-lethal aid

to the rebel forces. We determined that after a 12-month period, if

19

the government shows no sign of progress, systemic and substantial progress in human rights, and if the rebel forces themselves,

the opposition forces show or adopt some kind of procedures for improving its human rights record, and we recognize it has problems,

such as, procedures for a fair trial or giving access to human rights

observers. If those conditions are met, we then urge that non-lethal

and humanitarian aid be provided to these forces through nonOLS—not through OLS or non-OLS distributors; that is, not going

through the usual humanitarian groups, but actually providing

them some other way.

Mr. PAYNE. I certainly support that. I would even go a step further, if there will continue to be the offensive as when we were

there last time. They come and drop bombs. When we had the new

Ambassador and the special envoy to Khartoum, as he was meeting

they bombed the south. It happened when Jimmy Carter was

there.

It seems to me to be a pariah government, whether Basheer says

it is Terrabe, and whether this battle is going to be important or

not, at some point in time we need to look at not only non-lethal,

but lethal support for the movement in the south. I yield back the

balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Smith.

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

I just want to say at the outset that there are many Members

of Congress, and Mr. Payne, is one of the most attentive Members

to human rights issues and has always been at my subcommittee

hearings. Even though he is not a member, he comes and fully participates. But his question to Mr. Abrams, former Secretary of

State for human rights, I think underscores a real problem that we

have had with the media especially.

Had the United States Commission on International Religious

Freedom, had your Commission come out in favor of granting permanent normal trade relations, it would have been a story for a

week. There would have been in-depth interview. All of the Commissioners, all of you would have been—and I say this without fear

of exaggeration—you would have been showcased, if you will, on

television after television.

We have had, as I said earlier, hearing after hearing on Chinese

human rights abuses, 18 of them. And I personally have gotten on

the phone, called The Washington Post, called all of the papers. My

press secretary has done it. Time and time again, the press table

was absolutely absent. Occasionally we got an AP reporter to string

by and pick up a thing or two and then walk out.

There has been very, very little focus on the real situation on the

ground, leaving the ground open for a tremendous and very effective disinformation campaign that has worked like a charm.

The real situation on the ground is laid out in the Human Rights

Practices Report by the State Department, 77 pages of singlespaced type telling all of us about what is actually happening and

continues to happen in China. Yet we get this sugarcoating by the

media about what is truly going on there.

One thing I think needs to be made very clear, Mr. Chairman.

We have never had linkage of human rights with China. We had

20

the attempt at it by the Clinton Administration for 1 year. I happen to believe, in looking at the full story, it was a very disingenuous exercise. As I said in my opening statement, weeks after it

was linked, so-called, people in the State Department and many

others said we really did not mean it. Do not worry about it.

I saw that in full force in Beijing talking to high level Chinese

officials who said, there is no doubt we are getting MFN. Mr. Clinton will just rip up that executive order, which is what he did. So

Potemkin Village has been sold to the American people, and your

report, I think, does a tremendous job in trying to at least bear witness to the truth.

I want to point out as well that Stephen McFarland did a great

job as executive director of the hearing that we had just several

days ago. When asked a number of probing questions, he spelled

out the situation. I want to thank him for his expertise and his

commitment to truth, as well.

Let me just, again, point out that there has never been a linkage.

We have had an experiment in delinkage, and things have gotten

worse. We have had delinkage throughout the Bush Administration, we have had delinkage throughout the Clinton Administration. So anybody who says—and let me just also say, even with the

idea of the annual review, when you have a president who stands

ready to veto, that means you need super majorities in the House

and Senate.

The threat has not been credible except when it comes to intellectual property rights. There it is, a credible threat. There we see

real movement.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, today’s vote is so important, because

we have an opportunity to say we are going to hold something back

for real. There is no gamesmanship here, no brinksmanship here.

Should we succeed today, I think we see some changes on the

edges.

You see on the statement, there has been a sharp deterioration

in freedom of religion. We have been tracking, and Amnesty and

all the human rights groups have been tracking a steady downward

spiral in each and every category of human rights observance, or

lack of it. You point out a sharp deterioration.

Would you elaborate on that?

Mr. ABRAMS. One example of that would be the Falun Gong. If

one goes back, say, 2 years ago, this was not happening. All of a

sudden, there is an extraordinary attack on the Falun Gong and

other similar movements.

I think it is also fair to say that there has been a further

clampdown in the last year both in Xinjiang and in Tibet, and

there are some very obvious cases of this.

I think we would say that the trend over the years has been

down, but that it has been down even more sharply over the last

12 months. What is extraordinary about that is that the Chinese

government knew this debate was coming. This is not a surprise,

that PNTR is going to come up in the year 2000. Nevertheless, they

clamped down vigorously on religious freedom in China, presumably with the calculation that in the end, not enough Members of

Congress would care enough about it.

21

Our fear is that whatever motivates Members to vote the way

they do, and there are many motivations, our fear is that the

wrong message will be received by the Chinese government and the

Chinese people. The message they take away from this will be, we

can keep it up because the Americans do not care that much.

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Let me just add something that I think is remarkable about this report and the recommendations.

Chairman GILMAN. Rabbi Saperstein.

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. That is about the background, political and

religious, about the viewpoints of people on this commission. There

are some who would agree with every word that you have said.

There are some who are strong free traders. There are some who

really believe the Administration is right in its argument about

constructive engagement in the long run.

There are some who would disagree with what you said, who

really believe that this is an Administration that is deeply committed to human rights and to religious freedom. I tend to fall into

that group myself.

Yet, despite that, it was unanimous. Indeed, of the 50-some-odd

recommendations in the report on China, Sudan, Russia, how the

State Department should do its work even more effectively than it

has done, all but one of the recommendations was unanimous. In

that one recommendation there was a single dissent.

We really worked hard to come up with this. On this point,

PNTR, with all the differences of our assessment of the Administration, all of the differences in our sense of the approach of what

works and what does not work, the one thing that was clear to us,

in light of your question, is that in a year that there have been

such disastrous reversals, that we needed to pick things that were

doable.

If the Chinese government wanted to send signals to us that they

want a new relationship on these issues, they want an appropriated relationship on these issues. We picked things that were

doable, that they really could do and do soon. We think that is the

proper position.

Mr. SMITH. If I could, Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, Wei

Jingsheng, when he has testified said, and this is counterintuitive

to some, at least, that when we are making nice with the Chinese

dictatorship, they actually treat the prisoners, democratic prisoners

and religious prisoners, more harshly than when we have an edge,

when we are saying that we really mean business.

Let me also say, Nina Shea gave us, Frank Wolf and I, a list of

religious prisoners a year ago that Frank literally put into Li

Peng’s hand. Li Peng was so dismissive, so incredibly arrogant in

saying this is not true. None of these people are here because of

their beliefs. He just blew it off as being totally irrelevant. He

looked at the list and would not even touch it. Frank was handing

it to him. He repelled and put his hands back as if it was electrified in some way. It was incredible, an insight. Then he went on

and gave this 5-minute dissertation about how there is no such

thing as religious repression.

That kind of denial in the face of the facts needs to be met with

the reality, which you have done.

22

Finally, let me just say, the $3 million per year provided to the

Commission, is it adequate? Is it being provided? Are you hopeful

that it will be provided by the Committee on Appropriations?

The expedited removal process, which is mandated by the International Religious Freedom Act, we understand there are some

problems with funding there, if you will take a moment to elaborate on that.

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. I can do it briefly. We are OK on the funding

on the expedited removal provisions. There were some technical requirements on what the Congress hoped to effect with this. It took

us a little longer to go through. We needed to get out a description

of the proposals and to ask the people to come in in a formal way

that we did not anticipate in the beginning.

Because of the lateness of our funding from the Congress and the

lateness of the appointments of the Commissioners, we did not

have time to complete that work. We hope to do so over the next

months.

In terms of the general funding, we have looked very carefully at the budgetary issue. The original legislation had a $3 million authorization a year. When the Congress put the correcting legislation through, unfortunately, it stripped the multiyear authorization

requiring it to be reauthorized every year. That means we will need

your support and attention on this. I appreciate it.

We have gone through our budget very, very carefully. Because

we were late starting up and there is some money left over this

year, we were able to tighten things up and to ask for a $2.5 million authorization or appropriation. We have really tried to be responsible in this. Although the $3 million politically you would agree on, we are asking for the $2.5

million. We hope we will have your strong support for that, Mr.

Chairman, the strong support of this Committee for the appropriation this year.

We appreciate the letter that you and Mr. Gejdenson have already sent and the support some of you have given us here. That

will allow us to do the kind of work you wanted us to do effectively

in the future.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Rabbi Saperstein, for your outstanding

work and efforts, and to Mr. Abrams and Nina Shea, thank you

very much.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I have two questions, one on Vietnam and one on

Sudan. I will address the questions on Sudan to Ms. Shea, but I

don’t know to whom I should address the question on Vietnam, so

perhaps to any of you.

This question stems from my visit there in December with my

wife and Congressman John Cooksey and Congressman Don Payne.

In going through, we made a visit to Thich Quang-Duc, who is

leader of the non-government Buddhist church effectively, because

the venerable leader in Wai is under pagoda arrest. So instead we

visited with Thich Quang-Duc.

The government did not put it on the schedule, but I just went.

I got in a taxicab and went. As we were leaving, incidentally, the

government guides said to Congressman Cooksey, so it is a bit

hearsay now, you can go anywhere in Ho Chi Minh City, even to

23

visit Thich Quang-Duc. That was to kind of let us know that they

knew that we had gone.

He is a remarkable man, and I was proud to sponsor him, along

with a lot of our colleagues, for the Nobel Peace Prize.

I don’t know your recommendations regarding NTR, because we

have that annual vote on Vietnam just as we do with China. Did

you form a recommendation, that is my first question?

I will ask my question on Sudan now. My time will run out, but

the Chairman will be more lenient on you answering than on me

asking. That is not true, by the way. He is a very lenient Chairman

and a great American.

The Sudan question I want to put to you very candidly. Here is

the other side. I want to get your response to the other side, OK?

So understand, and I am sure you do, that this is not necessarily

what I think is right.

The other side argues, Sudan is a created country. It does not

make any sense to have an Arab north, a black south. The province

of Equatoria, for example, was fought over between the French and

British in the famous nonbattle at Fashoda. The result is an illogical country. Ever since, the south has been trying to break off.

That is true throughout the Sahel in Africa, countries that make

very little sense from an ethnic or historical point of view.

What we have going on here is a civil war. That does not mean

there are not human rights abuses, that does not mean that there

is not starvation or the use of food as a weapon. But the rebuttal

is, it is not religious. It happens to be that the north is Muslim,

it happens to be that the south is, they say animist or Christian.

In reality, this rebuttal goes, the war is a civil war based on an

illogical creation and really is not related to religious persecution.

So do we, therefore, not care about it or say it is irrelevant? No.

But it may not be right to call it what you have called it.

Those are the two questions I would like to hear answers to on

Vietnam and Sudan.

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Let me try the Vietnam question quickly, and

ask Elliott Abrams, who has also been involved in this, or Nina as

well, to answer it.

As I indicated, the ongoing work of the Commission in evaluating

countries and making recommendations has been going on all year

long. It included countries with serious problems all across the

world. The report focused on a few countries in particular, but we

have been covering the gambit. Vietnam has been one of those that

we have paid particular attention to.

We have met with representatives of groups from Vietnam talking to us about their problems, the Montagnard Protestant pastors

just this past week. We have met with representatives with the

Catholic community. I have met at the Vatican with one of the

highest ranking Vatican officials, who is one of the heroes for religious freedom in Vietnam. We met with Hoa Hao community. That

is a Buddhist community in Vietnam.

We made recommendations related to some of this to the State

Department during the year, so this is an issue we are watching

closely. This is clearly a country that raises significant concerns.

They are detailed in the State Department report. We have been

monitoring that. We are meeting with people and making recVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:58 Jan 08, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 68021.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
24

ommendations to the State Department. We will continue to do so.

We appreciate your own interest in this, as well.

Mr. CAMPBELL. How do you recommend I vote on NTR this year

for Vietnam?

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. That is interesting, we did not address that

issue. I think perhaps we may need to do so as we continue our

own deliberations. I appreciate you putting that on the table for us

to consider.

Mr. CAMPBELL. It would matter, so I hope we can get a recommendation.

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Do either of you have anything to add on

that?

Ms. SHEA. No.

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Nina.

Ms. SHEA. We have made a determination that although there

are many factors, and this is a multifaceted conflict going on in

Sudan, that religion is a major factor, and that it was the government’s breaching of the Addis Ababa agreement in 1983 that ignited this war. They breached it by trying to impose Sharia law

throughout the south.

Up until that point, under the Addis Ababa agreement, the south

had political autonomy and they were able to practice their religion, various religions in the South.

So we made a determination that the war, this rebellion, started—it was a rebellion after all—against the imposition of Sharia,

and that to this day, religion plays a major factor in this war; that

the government manipulates Islam, uses Islamic symbols, calls it

a Jihad, stirs up Arab tribesmen on the basis of religion to try to

impose its extremist form.

We had a hearing, and Bishop Mangenases, a Catholic bishop,

testified before us. I would like to just give you a little quote about

what he said about the bombing of the school he founded in the

Nuba mountains, a Catholic primary school that was bombed on

February 7th and 8th by the Russian bombers of the government.

He said,

The Catholic church has set up the only well-established school in the area with

more than 360 students. Fourteen of these students were killed outright in the raid,

and the number of wounded has been fully determined.

Truly this is a slaughter of the innocents, an unbridled attempt at destroying

their children. I have tried time and again to tell the world that the national Islamic

Front regime in Khartoum has been, and is conducting a campaign of genocide

aimed at exterminating the Christian African and nonArab populations of Sudan in

order to establish a uniform Arab Islamic fundamentalist free state in the heart of

Africa.

This terrible heart-breaking incident is yet another piece of evidence, if more were

still needed, that the war in Sudan is a religious, and I underline that it is religious,

an ethnic war launched by Khartoum and aimed at the destruction of the people.

We cannot take back the 14 martyred children under the trees of Kyuda. There

are many Rachels today in the Nuba Mountains weeping for their children. What

we can do is call upon the international community to refuse to stand by while the

Christian and peoples of the Sudan are exterminated.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Tancredo.

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very quick

here.

25

I read at the beginning of your report, the transmittals to the

President, to Madeleine Albright, to the Speaker, and to Mr. Thurman.

Have you had a response from anybody?

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. The State Department came out with a public

release the day we issued the statement commending the report.

They took issue with some of the obvious places that you would expect they would take issue with, particularly the PNTR recommendations that we made.

There has been some informal communication with the White

House. I would presume soon after the PNTR vote is over that they

have been focused on, that there will be more extensive discussions, but there have been ongoing communications at fairly high

levels of the White House related to the report.

We have not yet had formal communications with the leadership

in Congress. We have testified before the Senate Committee on

Foreign Relations, before this Committee, and several of the subcommittees, Mr. Smith’s subcommittee, the House Committee on

Ways and Means, related to the report. So there has been a great

deal of interest and interaction. We have not heard back formally

from that.

We expect to have conversations again after the PNTR vote that

has absorbed much of the time and attention of the leadership.

Mr. TANCREDO. When the State Department did talk to you, the

difference they picked out was with regard to China and PNTR.

Was there any discussion of your position on Sudan?

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. I do not have the statement with me. It is my

recollection that they did make comments related to our recommendation about aid to the SPLA and concerns about that. I

cannot remember how direct, whether it was implied—Ms. Shea?

Ms. SHEA. I think they said they would take it under consideration, they were studying it, and they would get back to us.

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. On many of the other things, there were complimentary things in their willingness to look carefully. Ambassador Seiple, in terms of the recommendations made directly to his

office and how the report has gone, was expressly commendatory

of the report and indicated he would adopt a number of the recommendations that we have made.

Mr. TANCREDO. You may recall that there was a way in which

the Secretary of State explained the reluctance on the part of the

Administration to become any more involved with Sudan on the

basis that it was not marketable publicly in the United States— that the whole issue was not marketable.

Do you have a sense at all that this will help us help them make

it marketable?

Ms. SHEA. I hope that the Administration adopts some of our policy recommendations across-the-board in our report. It is clear that

they are not going to adopt the PNTR——

Mr. TANCREDO. There is still time.

Ms. SHEA. I am not optimistic. Therefore, I think the pressure is

even greater that they take up our recommendations on Sudan and

come forward with a comprehensive plan, and instead of sanctioning the Greater Nile oil project 1 day, waiving trade sanctions

for a company the next day, and so forth and so on, that they need

26

to have a clear, consistent message to this genocidal regime in

Khartoum.

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Perhaps the most important thing to add to

that is, among all of the recommendations we made, the No. 1

thing we were concerned about is the President of the United

States, the Administration, and the Congress using the bully pulpit

to raise awareness of this issue. A number of our recommendations

were aimed at that.

The Administration has been open to us in terms of willingness

to meet with us directly, the Secretary of State, with Bishop Casis.

Right after the bombing, they have stepped up the number of statements that they have made on it. We are urging them to be more

assertive, more consistent in raising this issue.

There may be a limit right now. There is no magic pill to take

here, but the place to begin is to focus national and international

attention on this horrific situation here, and many of our recommendations were aimed at encouraging this.

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you very much. I appreciate the testimony

and your work on the Commission. I think it has been exemplary.

I guarantee you this, I am going to go over now and start the process of using the bully pulpit.

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Tancredo. I want to thank

our panelists for their patience and the extensive review of the

problem. We look forward to working with you in the days ahead.

The Committee will stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(27)

A P P E N D I X

MAY 24, 2000

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62