U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

86–650PDF 2014

THE WORLDWIDE PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS

MEETING AND 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 THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 11, 2014

Serial No. 113–175

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 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

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 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

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 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KAREN BASS, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

BRIEFER 

His Excellency, the Most Reverend Francis A. Chullikatt, Permanent Observer, The Holy See Mission at the United Nations ....................................... 8

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Elliott Abrams, Commissioner, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom ................................................................................. 23

Mr. John Allen, associate editor, The Boston Globe ............................................. 68

Ms. Tehmina Arora, attorney, Alliance Defending Freedom-India ..................... 76

Mr. Benedict Rogers, team leader for East Asia, Christian Solidarity Worldwide ....................................................................................................................... 88

Mr. Jorge Lee Galindo, director, Impulso 18 ......................................................... 99

Khataza Gondwe, Ph.D., team leader for Africa and the Middle East, Christian Solidarity Worldwide ................................................................................... 105

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

His Excellency, the Most Reverend Francis A. Chullikatt: Prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 13

The Honorable Elliott Abrams: Prepared statement ............................................ 26

Mr. John Allen: Prepared statement ...................................................................... 71

Ms. Tehmina Arora: Prepared statement .............................................................. 79

Mr. Benedict Rogers: Prepared statement ............................................................. 91

Mr. Jorge Lee Galindo: Prepared statement ......................................................... 101

Khataza Gondwe, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ....................................................... 109

APPENDIX 

Meeting and hearing notice .................................................................................... 128

Meeting and hearing minutes ................................................................................. 129

Written responses from Ms. Tehmina Arora to questions submitted for the 

record by the Honorable David Cicilline, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Rhode Island ........................................................................... 130

His Excellency, the Most Reverend Francis A. Chullikatt: Material submitted 

for the record ........................................................................................................ 131

The Honorable Elliott Abrams: Letter from Members of Congress to the 

Honorable John Kerry, Secretary of State, U.S. State Department ................ 136

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: Statement 

for the record from Brian Grim, President, Religious Freedom & Business 

Foundation ............................................................................................................ 139

(1)

THE WORLDWIDE PERSECUTION OF 

CHRISTIANS 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2014

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 10 o’clock a.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. Thank you for being here for this very important hearing on the global persecution of Christians. 

I just would note parenthetically that I chaired my first hearing 

when I became chairman of the subcommittee that monitors 

human rights back in the mid-1990s when we recognized that there 

was an explosion of persecution, harassment, and discrimination 

against Christians occurring worldwide and so from since 1995 and 

today, almost 20 years, it has gone from bad to extraordinarily 

worse. 

So that’s why we’re having this hearing. I would also note to my 

colleagues that we have had many country-specific hearings over 

the years and even over the last several months including one on 

Syria, three on the Coptic Christians and some regional hearings. 

But this one is to look at the global reach. There is a dangerous 

and, I would suggest, a frightening phenomenon occurring globally 

in the persecution of Christians. 

Today’s focus on anti-Christian persecution is not meant to minimize the suffering of other religious minorities who are imprisoned 

or killed for their beliefs. As the poet John Donne once wrote, ‘‘Any 

man’s death doth diminish me.’’

We stand for human dignity and respect for life from the womb 

to the tomb, and this subcommittee has and will continue to highlight the sufferings of religious minorities around the globe, be they 

Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan, Baha’i in Iran, Buddhists in occupied 

Tibet, Yazidis in Iraq, or the Muslim Royhinga people in Burma. 

Christians, however, remain the most persecuted religious group 

in the world over and thus deserve the special attention that today’s hearing will provide them. 

As one of today’s witnesses, the distinguished journalist John 

Allen, has written, and I quote him, ‘‘Christians today indisputably 

2

are the most persecuted religious body on the planet and too often 

their martyrs suffer in silence.’’

Researchers from the Pew Center have documented incidents of 

harassment of religious groups worldwide, a term defined as including ‘‘physical assaults, arrests and detentions, desecration of 

holy sites and discrimination against religious groups in employment, education, and housing’’ and it has concluded that Christians 

are the single most harassed group today. 

In the year 2012, Pew reports, Christians were harassed in 110 

countries around the world. This is particularly true in the Middle 

East where one of those we will hear from today, Archbishop 

Francis Chullikatt, has said, and I quote him, ‘‘flagrant and widespread persecutions of Christians rages even as we meet.’’

Archbishop Chullikatt was the Papal Nuncio to Iraq, where he 

has seen repeated violent assaults on Christians, such as the October 31st, 2010 assault upon Our Lady of Deliverance Syrian Catholic Church in Baghdad in which 58 people were killed and another 

70 were wounded. 

Attacks such as this have led the Christian population of Iraq, 

whose roots date back to the time of the Apostles, to dwindle from 

1.4 million in 1987 prior to the first Gulf War to as little as 

150,000 today, according to some estimates. 

Much of this exodus has occurred during a time in which our 

country invested heavily in blood and treasure in seeking to help 

Iraqis build a democracy. 

As we witness the black flag of al-Qaeda again flying over cities 

such as Fallujah, which we had won at the cost of so much American blood, we wonder how it is that for Christians in Iraq life appears to be worse now than it was under the vicious dictator Saddam Hussein. 

If we turn to Egypt, we see a Christian population which dates 

back to the Apostle St. Mark also being oppressed. At a hearing we 

held on December 10th, Human Rights Day, we heard how churches had been subjected to mob attacks and burned. 

For example, in April 2012, St. Mark’s Cathedral, seat of the 

Coptic Pope, was attacked by 30 to 40 Muslim youths. While dozens of Copts were sheltering inside, security forces joined—didn’t 

stop—joined the mob. 

Rather than dispersing the crowd, they participated in the allnight attack or stood idly by as rocks, gasoline bombs and gas canisters were lobbed into the iconic cathedral. 

I call your attention to the photographs of churches in Egypt to 

illustrate the outrages perpetrated against Christians simply for 

being Christian. Likewise, last year this subcommittee held a hearing on the persecution of religious minorities in Syria. 

Syria had been a place of relative tolerance for religious minorities in the Middle East, including groups like the Mandeans, who 

trace their roots to the time of St. John the Baptist and whom they 

still revere. 

It is in this connection with the past which has helped bring radical Islamists to Syria, where not only do they seek to overthrow 

the violent dictator Bashar al-Assad, but also seek to eradicate 

Christianity from the land. 

3

I would note parenthetically that when asked our panel of NGO 

witnesses said to a group that what’s happening in Iraq constitutes 

a genocide against Christians. 

Last September, members of the al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda linked 

group, attacked the town of Malula. Why this is significant is because Malula is a living link with the time of Christ, a Christian 

village in Syria where Aramaic, the language of Jesus, is still spoken. 

It is for this reason that Malula has been targeted. In the words 

of one of those attacking this small village whose way of life had 

remained largely unchanged over the centuries, the Mujahadeen 

are seeking to ‘‘conquer’’—this is their quote—‘‘the capital of the 

Crusaders.’’ Such is the perspective of one whose vision has been 

distorted by hatred. 

But it is not just in the Middle East where we see the persecution of Christians. I would like to recall one story of one man that 

I met in September along with Greg Simpkins, our staff director 

on the subcommittee, when we were in Jos, Nigeria, and then in 

Washington when we held a hearing on the terror group Boko 

Haram last November. 

It was in the face of this man that I was able to witness the face 

of the persecuted church once again, which indeed is also the face 

of Christ. Habila Adamu is a businessman from Yobe State in 

northern Nigeria. 

On the night of November 28, 2012, masked gunmen arrived 

with AK–47s and entered his home. They told his wife to leave and 

they were there to do the ‘‘work of Allah.’’ The questioning began. 

‘‘Are you a policeman?’’ He said, ‘‘No.’’ ‘‘Are you a Nigerian soldier?’’ 

He said, ‘‘No.’’ ‘‘Are you a Christian?’’ He said, ‘‘Yes.’’

Then they asked him why he has not accepted Islam, when he 

has heard the message of Muhammad. He replied, ‘‘I am a Christian. We are also preaching the gospel of the true God to you and 

to other people who do not yet know God.’’

They then asked Habila, ‘‘Are you ready to die as a Christian?’’ 

He said, ‘‘I am ready to die as a Christian.’’ They asked him again, 

‘‘Are you ready to die as a Christian?’’ He replied, ‘‘I am ready,’’ 

and before he had closed his mouth a bullet ripped through him. 

You can see the exit point of the wound in the photo before you 

and he sat right there at our witness table and told his story and 

you could have heard a pin drop in this hearing room as he related 

to us what he had been through. 

I thought while he was testifying how many of us, whether I 

would have the courage to stare martyrdom in the face and refuse 

to renounce Christ and he, amazingly, professed nothing but love 

and a sense of reconciliation even for those who had so badly mistreated him and his face is still, as you would expect, very badly 

scarred. 

Habila Adamu, by the grace of God—as I said, he did survive 

and testified—the term hero is one thrown around loosely these 

days—he is truly a hero, and there are so many more like him, 

many whose names we don’t know and are known only to God. 

We will hear today stories from around the world where Christians are under attack again simply because of the beliefs that they 

4

profess. We will hear witnesses discuss persecution in places such 

as Burma, Vietnam, Eritrea, even in this hemisphere. 

According to some estimates, China is on track to become the 

largest Christian nation in the world, though numbers are hard to 

pin down because most of these Christians remain underground 

and cannot worship freely. 

As U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom Commissioner Elliott Abrams points out in his testimony, independent 

Protestants and Catholics continue to face persecution for refusing 

to affiliate with government-approved religious groups. 

Protestant house church groups that refuse to join the state-approved Protestant religious organizations are deemed illegal and 

experience harassment, fines, detentions, imprisonment, and torture. 

Approximately 900 Protestants were detained in the past year 

for conducting public worship activities. Seven Protestant leaders 

were also imprisoned for terms exceeding a year. 

The Chinese Government issued a directive to eradicate unregistered Protestant churches over the next 10 years, including 

through force. 

Police have embraced the plan, raiding meetings, seeking to 

break up large churches that previously operated openly, and detaining religious leaders. They are on a tear. 

It has gotten worse in China. It has not gotten better. I would 

note again parenthetically Frank Wolf and I, right before the 

Olympics went to China to meet with a number of house church 

leaders. 

Every one of them were arrested, detained, roughed up and the 

one that we did meet with after the fact he too was persecuted, 

simply for meeting with two congressmen, simply for trying to live 

out their faith as they see fit. 

The Chinese Government continues to appoint bishops without 

Vatican approval and place them in leadership positions, setting 

back Vatican-Beijing relations. Dozens of Catholic clergy, including 

three bishops, remain in detention, in home confinement under surveillance or have disappeared. 

Bishop Thaddeus Ma Daqin, the Auxiliary Bishop of Shanghai, 

has been missing since he publicly announced his resignation from 

the state-approved Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association in June 

2012. 

Bishop Su of Baoding, pictured right over there on the extreme 

left, I met with him the early 1990s. He had already spent several 

decades in the Laogai. He was tortured and yet this man had nothing but a sense of love and reconciliation toward his tormenters 

and a few months later he was rearrested. 

A few years later he was arrested and now has disappeared and 

we don’t know where he is. He may even be dead at the hands of 

his captors. 

When he celebrated Mass in a dingy little apartment, there was 

nothing, not even the slightest hint of malice in Bishop Su’s eyes 

or words. He prayed for his tormenters. I was dumbfounded by that 

faith. It just totally inspired me. 

In Vietnam, to name one of these countries, where churches are 

forced to register and worship outside of state-authorized churches 

5

is forbidden, Christian ethnic minorities such as the Hmong and 

Montagnard are allowed to exist in uneasy tension with the governing authorities, knowing that the heavy hand of the state could 

stop their worship at any time. 

Vietnam’s Catholics, both clergy and laity, fill Vietnamese jails 

as prisoners of conscience for calling the government to account to 

a higher law than that of arbitrary dictates. 

The attack on a Catholic funeral procession in the village of Con 

Dau in 2010 resulted in more than 100 villagers being injured, 62 

arrested, five tortured, and at least three deaths. This should remind one of the brutality that Christians face in Vietnam. 

As I mentioned Vietnam because now, in secrecy, negotiations 

are being held over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to which Vietnam seeks entry, and if we focus on the utility and profits of increased trade without holding Vietnam to account for its human 

rights record, we miss an opportunity to better the lives of those 

who are beaten, imprisoned and even killed for their faith. 

I met Father Ly when he was under house arrest. Father Ly is 

now back in custody. We have a picture of him while he was before 

the magistrate, and secret police are holding his face and this man, 

this great Christian Catholic leader who wants nothing but democracy and religious freedom for his country, has been beaten and he 

along with so many others of different faiths in Vietnam continue 

to languish in the prisons throughout Vietnam. 

I would like to thank our witnesses, for most of them traveled 

here to be with us today from great distances and at their own expense. 

It is important to hear from voices from outside the beltway, and 

we appreciate our witnesses coming here from as far away as 

India, the United Kingdom, Mexico and from within the United 

States, from Denver and from New York. 

And lest we appear ungrateful, thanks to the incomparable U.S. 

Commission on International Religious Freedom and especially its 

commissioner here today, Elliott Abrams, who I and members of 

this committee have known for over three decades. 

He once walked point as Assistant Secretary for Human Rights 

in the Reagan administration. I thank him for his extraordinary 

leadership over these many years. 

And one brief word about protocol and procedure—we will first 

hear from Archbishop Francis Chullikatt, the representative of the 

Holy See to the United Nations. 

As Archbishop Chullikatt holds the equivalent of the rank of Ambassador, he will not be testifying in the pure sense of that word 

but rather briefing Congress this morning pursuant to our House 

rules and we will then go to our other witnesses when we reconvene as a hearing. 

And I would like to say Frank Wolf is here and the USCIRF was 

created by the legislation that he wrote back in 1998—landmark 

legislation called the International Religious Freedom Act. 

I want to thank him for his extraordinary leadership over these 

many years and, again, Elliott Abrams is now here as part of that 

commission and I thank him again for his leadership. 

I’d like to yield to Chairman Rohrabacher for any comments he 

might have. 

6

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, and I would like to 

thank the chairman for the time and effort that he puts in to try 

to save the lives of suffering people throughout the world. 

We have the opportunity here in America to make a difference 

with our outrage but we have to express that outrage and we have 

to make sure that our voices are loud, are clear, and specific in 

order to save those oppressed people who are perhaps the closest 

to saints that we have today in that people are suffering for their 

own religious convictions. 

I think America is a little bit hesitant about being as aggressive 

as we should be and I think that’s because in a world that’s filled 

with suffering that we, and we are a country that is a vast majority 

of our people consider themselves Christians, that we are self-conscious in thinking that if we speak up with a loud voice about the 

persecution of Christians that this will appear self-serving to our 

own political ends. 

The fact is that Christians are being slaughtered today and we 

are in an era when that slaughter is being ignored. We today are 

calling upon our fellow Members of Congress but also on the American people to step forward with a loud voice and stand by our fellow Christians but also people of other faiths but today we’re focusing on Christians—to stand beside those who are suffering for their 

religious convictions. 

We need every community who has religious convictions to stand 

together when any community, whether it’s Christians or Jews or 

Muslims or Buddhists, we need to stand together in unity to send 

a message because this truly is the issue of righteousness versus 

evil and we as believers must stand together if evil is to be defeated. 

So we went through communism where ideologically we had a 

group—a large group, millions of people who felt that it was their 

job to displace the belief in God, period, with an atheist dictatorship because that would restructure the world. 

Well, that was an evil that we face and I’m so happy to have 

stood with many of you and with Elliott and others to help defeat 

that force when it was an expanding force in the world. 

Well, now we face another evil and that is where people who are 

fanatics in their own faith are committing horrible acts against 

people of other beliefs and especially today we focus on Christians. 

So today we call on all of the good people of the world to join us, 

speak loudly and aggressively against this evil so that too can be 

defeated and fall into, as Ronald Reagan said, the ash heap of history. 

And hopefully our children will see a world in which they say, 

you mean people who believed in God in a different way killed each 

other back then. 

We can create that kind of world but we have to commit ourselves to it and I’m so grateful—I’m so grateful, Mr. Chairman, to 

your leadership and Frank Wolf and others who have spent so 

much time and effort in their political life to try to make this difference in the world. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman Rohrabacher, thank you very much. 

Mr. Meadows. 

7

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and thank each of you, some of my friends who are here with 

us today, and I’ll be very brief. 

It is important that we emphasize this particular story because 

so many times it does not get reported. Atrocities happen across 

our world and, quite frankly, they go as a very small headline on 

a back page of some newspaper somewhere, and for us to highlight 

that is a critical component. 

The priority that it should be for not only this Congress but for 

the American people is a story that is steeped in freedom and really economic prosperity because when you look at it, when you have 

freedom you truly have the economic prosperity that goes with 

that. And so as a priority, I mean, many of us have a number of 

other conflicting things. 

I know I have four hearings today and I’ve chosen to be here because this is a critical time and where we can make a difference. 

So I look forward to hearing your testimony and your briefing 

and I thank you so much, and I’ll yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much. 

I’d like to yield to Joe Pitts, the chairman of the Health Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Although I’m not on this committee, thank you for asking us to 

attend and thank you for holding this very important and timely 

hearing. 

It is disheartening, to say the least, that this committee needs 

to hold a hearing bearing the title ‘‘The Worldwide Persecution of 

Christians.’’ I’ve sat on numerous hearings over the last few years 

focusing on the persecution of specific religious minorities. 

But it is evident that there is a global systematic persecution of 

those around the world that profess the Christian faith and this 

persecution reaches every region of the world. 

It’s not deterred by any political structure or strength of the 

state. Whether Christians find themselves in a country with an authoritarian government or a theistic state or even a popular democracy, Christian minorities are vulnerable to and have been encountering denial of rights by government regimes. They’ve been encountering communal violence, even specific targetings that result 

in ransom and terrorism and even murder. 

In cases where Christians are facing government restrictions or 

abuse by the state, our Government holds an obvious venue for addressing these issues through our dialogue with those states. Specifically, states in recent years have increased the enforcement and/

or the adopted laws that deter conversion or to deem certain expression of faith as blasphemy. 

Whether it be Kazakhstan, its 2011 laws restricting religious activity, or Pakistan’s anti-blasphemy laws, or the anti-conversion 

laws in many states in India including the populous state of Gujarat, our Government can and must speak out and elevate policies 

that address these issues. 

Late last year, Keith Ellison and I introduced a resolution calling 

for the repeal of the anti-conversion laws in India and it calls for 

religious freedom and related human rights to be included in the 

United States and India’s strategic dialogue. 

8

It’s my belief that we need a corresponding escalation of policies 

with all of our allies and within all of our strategic relationships 

in order to combat this worldwide and systemic persecution. 

So I look forward to hearing the recommendations of our witnesses and thank them for their participation today, and thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us to sit in. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Chairman Pitts, and I would 

also note that Chairman Pitts has been a leader on assisting Christians in Burma. 

Other places as well, but Burma he has had a special heart for 

those suffering the Karen and others. So I thank him for that leadership which he has helped—we have all gotten behind him on 

those efforts. 

Pursuant to the House rules, in order to receive a briefing from 

a diplomat deployed with the United Nations the hearing stands in 

brief recess subject to the call of the chair, and then we will go 

back to the hearing setting. So Archbishop Chullikatt, if you could 

come and present your remarks. 

Archbishop Francis Chullikatt is from the Holy See Mission to 

the United Nations. He was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI to be 

Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations in New 

York in July 2010. 

He previously served the Holy See as Apostolic Nuncio to Iraq 

and Jordan where he served from 2006 until 2010. Previously, he 

served as a priest and as the secretary to an archbishop in his native India. 

He has also served as a diplomat in Honduras, southern Africa, 

and in the Philippines. 

Archbishop Chullikatt, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HIS EXCELLENCY, THE MOST REVEREND 

FRANCIS A. CHULLIKATT, PERMANENT OBSERVER, THE 

HOLY SEE MISSION AT THE UNITED NATIONS 

Archbishop CHULLIKATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Smith. I wish to also to recognize other members of this subcommittee, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Wolf, and Mr. Pitts and I wish 

also to recognize Mr. Elliott Abrams for his presence here and to 

all other members who are invisibly present on this panel and all 

of our audience. 

I am so happy to be here and so thankful for giving me this opportunity to come and brief all of you about the topic that we are 

discussing at the hearing. 

It is such a vital issue that we have to consider very seriously. 

As I say, when these things or these symptoms start manifesting 

we have to nip it in the bud. 

Otherwise, it will start as a sign of intolerance and later on it 

will move to the stage of discrimination and thereafter will definitely come about that final stage of persecution, which we are 

going to talk about. 

So thank you for this opportunity once again to address you and 

the committee today. Your recognition of the consequential need to 

consider and respond effectively to existing and emerging threats 

to religious freedom in the world today is indeed commendable. 

9

Such threats manifest not solely under authoritarian regimes or 

in traditional societies but even, I regret to say, in the great democracies in the world. 

The Constitution of the United States apprehends well what the 

Holy See consistently affirms, namely, that religious freedom is 

also the first freedom, a fundamental human right from which 

other rights necessarily flow and which must always be protected, 

defended, and promoted. 

Pope Benedict XVI identified religious freedom as, and I quote,

‘‘The pinnacle of all other freedoms. It is a sacred and 

inalienable right. In includes, on the individual and collective levels, the freedom to follow one’s conscience in religious matters and, at the same time, freedom of worship. 

‘‘It includes the freedom to choose the religion which one 

judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public. It 

must be possible to profess and freely manifest one’s religion and its symbols without endangering one’s life and 

personal freedom. Religious freedom is rooted in the dignity of the person. It safeguards moral freedom and fosters 

mutual respect.’’

Every government bears the profound responsibility to guarantee 

in its constitution, as your First Amendment and the entire text secure, religious freedom for its people and must moreover uphold 

the religious liberty both in principle and in fact. 

Today, however, religious persecution, be it overt or discreet, is 

emerging with an increased frequency worldwide. Even in some of 

the Western democracies, the longstanding paragons of human 

rights and freedoms, we find instances of increasingly less subtle 

signs of persecution including the legal prohibition of the display 

of Christian symbols and imagery, legitimate expressions of beliefs 

that for centuries has enriched culture, be they on the person or 

on public property. 

This suggests a profound identity crisis at the heart of these 

great democracies which owe to their encounter with Christianity 

both their origin and culture, including their human rights culture. 

I personally have witnessed many egregious threats to religious 

liberty during my service around the globe, especially in Iraq and 

in Jordan where I served for 4 years as Apostolic Nuncio of the 

Holy See. 

My current posting also makes me familiar with the work of the 

United Nations which your great nation has helped establish when 

the world society was desperate for an institution whose mission 

would be to secure and maintain the international peace and security. 

The founding charter of the United Nations mandates that it will 

fill this mission through safeguarding the fundamental and inalienable rights and responsibilities of each member of the human family. The preservation of authentic religious freedom thus stands at 

the heart of the U.N.’s solemn responsibility. 

Having said this, allow me to address the following two points 

in my brief remarks. I will also be submitting to the committee two 

more detailed texts for your further consideration. 

10

The first issue on which I wish to focus today concerns challenges to religious freedom in the Middle East, particularly for 

Christians who, since the beginning of Christianity 2000 years ago, 

have been continuous inhabitants of that important region of the 

world. 

A second issue I will touch upon briefly concerns the responsibility of the United Nations toward safeguarding this religious freedom. 

I also wish to highlight the crucial role the United States of 

America bears in the work of the U.N. by virtue of its significant 

influence with this organization as well as its permanent membership in the Security Council. 

Regarding my first point, flagrant and widespread persecution of 

Christians rages in the Middle East even as we meet. No Christian 

is exempt whether or not he or she is Arab. 

Arab Christians, a small but significant community, find themselves the target of constant harassment for no reason other than 

their religious faith. This tragedy is all the more egregious when 

one pauses to consider that these men and women of faith are loyal 

sons and daughters of the countries in which they are full citizens 

and in which they have been living at peace with their neighbors 

and fellow citizens for untold generations. 

One of the most graphic illustrations of ongoing brutality confronting Arab Christians is the emergence of a so-called ‘‘tradition,’’ 

of bombings, of Catholic and other Christian houses of worship 

every Christmas Eve, which has been going on now for the past 

several years. 

Will there be no end in sight for this senseless slaughter for 

those who on that very night proclaim the birth of the Prince of 

Peace in some of the oldest Christian communities in the world? 

As is increasingly obvious, governments are by no means guaranteeing religious freedom consistently among fundamental human 

rights and, at worst, violations take the form of the outright persecution of religious believers by state actors. 

For its part, the Holy See regularly urges the world’s attention 

to serious violations, of the right to religious freedom in general as 

well as to recent and continuing instances of discrimination or systematic attacks on Christian communities in particular. 

In a recent statement to the United Nations Human Rights 

Council, the Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations in Geneva said the following, and I quote,

‘‘Research has indicated that more than 100,000 Christians are violently killed because of some relation to their 

faith every year. 

‘‘While other Christians and believers are subjected to 

forced displacement, to the destruction of their places of 

worship, to rape and to the objection of their leaders, several of these acts have been perpetrated in parts of the 

Middle East, Africa, and Asia and are the result of bigotry, 

intolerance, terrorism and some exclusionary laws. 

‘‘In addition, in some Western countries where historically the Christian presence has been an integral part of 

the society, a trend emerges that tends to marginalize 

Christianity in public life, ignore historic and social conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:24 Aug 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\021114\86650 SHIRL
11

tributions and even restrict the ability of faith communities to carry out social charitable services.’’

Pope Francis himself, in praying recently for all Christians who 

experience discrimination on the basis of their belief, stated, and 

I quote,

‘‘Let us remain close to these brothers and sisters who, 

like the first martyr of the church, St. Stephen, are unjustly accused and made the objects of various kinds of violence. 

‘‘Unfortunately, I am sure they are more numerous 

today than in the early days of the church. There are so 

many. This occurs especially where religious freedom is 

still not guaranteed or fully realized. 

‘‘However, it also happens in countries and areas where 

on paper freedom and human rights are protected but 

where in fact believers and especially Christians face restrictions and discrimination.’’

His predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, similarly pointed out the 

same problem in his 2012 address to the members of the diplomatic 

corps accredited to the Holy See. At that time, he stressed the following. 

I am quoting here his words,

‘‘In many countries, Christians are deprived of fundamental rights and sidelined from public life. In other countries, they endure violent attacks against their churches 

and their homes. 

‘‘At times, they are forced to leave the countries they 

have helped to build because of persistent tensions and 

policies which frequently relegate them to being second 

class spectators of national life and in other parts of the 

world we see policies in that marginalizing the role of religion in the life of society. 

‘‘It even happens that believers and Christians in particular are prevented from contributing to the common 

good by their educational and charitable institutions.’’

Mr. Chairman, this past autumn in a message to the ecumenical 

patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, Pope Francis called to 

mind the 1,700th anniversary of the Edict of Milan which brought 

about the end to the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire and drew attention to the many Christians of all the churches 

and ecclesiastical communities who in many parts of the world experience discrimination and at times pay with their own blood the 

price of their profession of faith. 

The Pope also stressed the urgent need for effective and committed cooperation among Christians in order to safeguard everywhere the right to express publicly one’s faith and to be treated 

fairly when promoting the contribution which Christianity continues to offer to contemporary society and culture. 

Current circumstances make it particularly important that 

Christians work together to ensure religious freedom for all and to 

this end it is crucial that every government guarantee religious 

12

freedom for each and every person in its country, not only in its 

legislation, but also in practice. 

Strictly connected to religious freedom is respect for conscientious objection of which everyone should be able to avail himself or 

herself. Conscientious objection is based on religious, ethical, and 

moral reasons and under universal demands of human dignity. 

As such, it is a pillar of every truly democratic society and precisely for this reason civil law must always and everywhere recognize and protect it. After all, these steps ensure not only human 

dignity but the dignity of democratic institutions. 

Regarding my second point, which concerns the United Nations, 

the essential importance of religious freedom for each and every 

person, community and society is confirmed by the foundational 

international legal instruments and other documents. 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states the following. 

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. 

This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and 

freedom either alone or in community with others and in public or 

private to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. This is from Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

Since the summer of 2010, Mr. Chairman, as the Holy See’s representative to the United Nations, I have labored alongside many 

people of good will to bring an end to the suffering in the world. 

The religious persecution of Christians throughout the Middle East 

looms large in this theater of suffering. 

The United Nations General Assembly addresses the question in 

certain resolutions which we have a hand in negotiating. However, 

these noble efforts fail to receive the profile they justly deserve on 

the world stage. 

Only member states especially with leadership profiles like the 

United States can take decisive steps to ensure that the nonderogatable human right of religious liberty becomes more robustly 

protected worldwide. The self-evident truths underlying healthy democracy, truth upon which both President Jefferson and the church 

agree require as much. 

The religious freedom which the law is expected to protect and 

promote abides no mere passive toleration but requires rather that 

states guarantee the basic preconditions that permit its free exercise by citizens in both their private and public endeavors. 

Allow me now to express my gratitude for efforts this committee 

undertakes in promoting religious liberty and those it will undertake in this issue to bring an end to further suffering and social 

exclusion of Christians. 

As I mentioned, I also leave for your consideration two documents of crucial concern to my briefing today—the Lineamenta or 

Guidelines for the 2009 Synod of Bishops Special Assembly for the 

Middle East, which I had a strong role in promoting when I was 

Nuncio to Iraq and Jordan, and the second document is Pope Benedict XVI’s 2011 World Day of Peace message entitled ‘‘Religious 

Freedom: The Path to Peace.’’

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I express my gratitude to you and 

to this subcommittee for this important opportunity to express soliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:24 Aug 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\021114\86650 SHIRL
13

darity with all Christian believers in the harsh reality of the persecution of their communities and adherents at this present time, 

and we look to your country to stand true to its own Constitution 

and to show its leadership in every forum in working to end the 

erosion of this most fundamental of human rights. 

I thank you for the attention. 

[The prepared statement of Archbishop Chullikatt follows:]


86650a-1.eps
14


86650a-2.eps
15


86650a-3.eps
16


86650a-4.eps
17


86650a-5.eps
18

Mr. SMITH. Archbishop Chullikatt, thank you for your very eloquent statement, for your never-ending, indomitable effort on behalf of beleaguered Christians and people of all faiths throughout 

the world, particularly in your posting at the United Nations. 

I know some of the members would just like to make a very brief 

statement. I’ll make a very brief question statement. 

As agonizing as it is for adults to endure and mentally process 

the discrimination that comes in many parts of the world for being 

a Christian, I’ve often wondered, and you lived it in Iraq, how the 

most vulnerable among us, especially children, cope with being attacked, taunted, having their parents beaten, maybe even killed, 

maybe even brothers and sisters, and maybe themselves simply because they are Christians. How does a young person deal with this? 

Archbishop CHULLIKATT. Thank you for raising that question because this is one of the heartbreaking stories that I had witnessed 

on a daily basis when I was in Iraq, especially as you are mentioning and highlighting with so much of passion that you have always demonstrated, Mr. Chairman, for the suffering of these people 

around the world, especially those countries in which the Christians, because of their faith, they are undergoing these kind of discrimination, intolerance and persecution. 

And when I look at those children, those innocent victims of this 

kind of persecution where they have to live in fear just because 

they happen to be Christians, they have not committed any crime. 

They are children, and even if they were to follow these kind of 

atrocious and horrible stories on a daily basis on the TV screen, 

which I’m sure that will be affecting psychologically these children, 

and when they go to the schools when they are not even sure 

where they’ll come back safe and sound or alive after the school 

and sometimes when they see in front of their own eyes when the 

car bombs explode and the human bodies are torn apart and these 

kind of horrible scenes, don’t you think that will leave a lasting 

scar in their memory, in their mind and in their life? 

And here we are talking about a new generation of Iraqi society 

that has to be built up and is this kind of a society, a generation 

that we want to build up and whom are we going to blame later 

on if some of these children were to end up within the terrorist 

groups. These are the kind of crimes that they are witnessing on 

a daily basis and now you need only to turn on the TV screen you 

can see that on a daily basis car bombs are going off in Iraq and 

do you think that people don’t see it? 

Do you think that the children don’t see these kind of atrocious 

acts that are taking place? And is this the kind of formation that 

we are giving to the young generations that have to become the future leaders of the country? 

So it is really a painful thing. It is not only the terrorist acts that 

are being committed but the impact it will have on the incoming 

generation that you have, that has to be borne in mind. 

So that is where some of the painful feelings that I always used 

to have and I was seeing this kind of horrible things and these 

bloody attacks that continuously are being repeated within the 

Iraqi society. 

And I hope that the government will take all the necessary measures so that peace and security can be brought to that land because 

19

that is the most essential thing at this point in time that Iraq society wants, and thank you for that question. 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you for the overview that you’ve given 

us today. 

I’d just like to ask something that’s been perplexing for me on 

this issue and that is when you look at the Middle East it’s my understanding and why I’m asking this is if it’s incorrect I’d like you 

to correct this misperception that I have, that under Saddam Hussein Christians actually were more protected than now that you 

have a more democratic government and I understand that that 

may be true with Assad as well in Syria. 

Maybe you could give me a little insight into that and should 

that mean that—what does that mean by how we should approach 

this problem? 

Archbishop CHULLIKATT. With regard to the security that prevailed during those regimes, what happened was because of the 

policy of the government, of the regime at that time, there was security not only for the minorities but all over the country because 

under a dictatorship, of course, you know, there is law and order 

both in place but oftentimes it is what it is. 

So not only the minorities but throughout the country, you know, 

you could also take a walk during midnight and nothing will happen to you because there was law and order which was forcibly imposed on the situation of the country. 

So, of course, the minorities benefited from that. But it was not 

just for the minority but this is all over the country. So anybody 

who dared to question the regime, of course, we know what happened. 

So it is under that threat of the consequences that anybody 

would go to undergo during those—the time of those regimes that 

the so-called security and peace prevailed in those societies. 

And, of course, the minorities felt protected because they were 

participants under the benefit that came about from this strict law 

and order that were imposed by those regimes. 

I think that was one of the reasons, although sometimes it is 

being interpreted that it was a special protection that was offered 

to the minorities, and the minorities, of course, because of the situation that prevailed, they could exercise all their rights and they 

were free, the freedom of worship especially, as it happens in Jordan, for example, as it happened in Syria. 

Now, in Syria what we see is practically a replay of what happened in Iraq and you can already see now what is happening in 

Syria is having its own spillover effect both in Iraq and we have 

seen what happened recently in Fallujah and the same thing also 

in Lebanon. 

So during the time of the intervention in Iraq the spillover effect 

was in Jordan and Syria, also Lebanon and Turkey, the same thing 

is being seen also at this time, unfortunately, for what is happening in Syria where also the minorities now, especially the 

Christians, are also starting to leave the country. 

And there’s one of the—this is called the silent exodus of Christians from Syria. So it is so sad to see the same thing is being repeated over and over again and I hope this will be the last time 

20

that we are seeing such this conflict that is taking place in those 

countries and because of this conflict the Christians are caught in 

the crossfire and they are becoming the most vulnerable group that 

is paying the highest price. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much for that answer. That 

is really helping me to have a understanding of that perplexing 

analysis, so thank you very much for clearing that up. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you. It’s good to see you again. When we 

met the last time one of the things that struck me was your heart 

for people of all faiths. There was not a political agenda there. 

One of the things that we struggle with in raising the persecution of Christians or of Jews is that it sometimes gets put in political perspective of trying to take a government and putting a government out of control and that’s most often is not the agenda. 

So how would we—how would we show heart for the people without a government entity looking at it as an overt threat to their 

national sovereignty where we’re really looking at at protecting 

those that are being persecuted? What advice would you give us on 

that? 

Archbishop CHULLIKATT. This issue has been brought up also 

during many sessions of the Security Council. We take all the regime change that oftentimes seems to be the scope of some of the 

interventions. 

But as it is happening now, yesterday started the Geneva 2 conference that has been resumed in Geneva. We have so much of the 

other possibilities to bring the government accountable for what is 

happening in there, especially when they are violating the fundamental human rights, and that is why the Holy See has always 

promoted and supported the diplomatic channel that has to be exhausted first and foremost. 

And I’m so happy to see that in the case of Syria that is what 

is taking place now, although it is a little late but it is better late 

than never. The Geneva 2 conference is the right process to follow 

where all sectors of the society join in in deciding the future of that 

nation because after all we are not going to live in Syria. 

The Syrians are going to live in Syria and they have to take ownership of their country and their future, and they are the one to 

shape how to run their country and the international community 

is there to support and facilitate this process. 

And this is the process that the Holy See has been always promoting and myself as the representative of the Holy See I will also 

join in wholeheartedly in moving forward this process. It’s not only 

in Syria. 

Wherever it happens we should make the people of that nation 

take the ownership of the destiny of that nation and then we bring 

in our support and facilitate that process and to hold the governments when they are violators of the fundamental human rights 

and the democratic principles accountable and we have in the national court of justice, in fact, in the criminal court and we have 

all the mechanisms set in place and why don’t we make use of 

that? 

So immediate military intervention is not the solution and we 

know what happened in those instances that we decided for the 

21

military intervention. Without having a precise exit strategy, it is 

very easy to go in and start the conflict and afterwards oftentimes 

we don’t know how to get out of it. 

So without any exit strategy we should not go in into any nation 

and start a policy or project that would not bring us a satisfactory 

solution. Thank you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 

I have a very quick question. Thank you for your testimony. I 

found it very, very helpful. 

Out in the region I’ve heard people use the expression, ‘‘First the 

Saturday people and then the Sunday people,’’ meaning that they 

eliminate the Jewish population, then they eliminate the Christian 

population. 

I was also told that in Iraq, and you may have the numbers differently, that in 1950 the Jewish population was roughly 150,000. 

I was told that it may now be down to maybe four or five individuals. Is that accurate? If you could help me. 

But what was the Christian population in Iraq, say, in the year 

2000 and what is the Christian population in Iraq now? Thank you. 

Archbishop CHULLIKATT. There has not been any official census 

that was being done in Iraq about even the population at large. So 

it is still being disputed, the different figures that we see in the 

news reports and from the church authorities there. 

Yesterday, I was reading one of the statements by the Chaldean 

patriarch, Louis Raphael Sako, who mentioned that in Iraq at this 

point in time there are 1⁄2 million Christians. 

So this is the number that he gave. In fact, that seems to correspond to the representation of Christians in the Parliament. 

There are five representatives of the Christian community in the 

Parliament, which is based on the 100,000 Christians would represent one parliamentary representatives so they have five. 

So I think that number goes together with the quota system that 

has been introduced in the Iraqi Parliament. But my guess is that 

it should be between 300,000 and 350,000 Christians because of the 

ongoing exodus of Christians from Iraq. And you know that if you 

go to Detroit or California you can see the number of Iraqis that 

have settled in the United States and the same thing also, you 

know. 

Regarding the Jewish exodus, I think they were also, because 

they were a minority there, they had to go through the same fate, 

you know, because once the fight between the Sunnis and Shi’as 

started the minorities were the targets also. 

The Christians, for example, in a place in Baghdad called Dura 

it used to be practically a Christian town there but now there is 

nobody left over there—there are only a few families there. 

Because of the threat of security that they have, the insecurity 

that they are experiencing they all moved out to the northern part 

of Iraq. In the case of Jews, the same thing or the Mandeans or 

the Shabaks or the Turkmens they are all victims of this sectarian 

violence that is going on in Iraq. 

So nobody has been exempt from it including the Jews. The only 

people who are now protecting themselves in a stable manner are 

22

the Kurdish people because they have a semi-autonomous region in 

the northern part of Iraq where they can exercise quasi-independence. 

So all of the minorities they are being targeted and they are the 

victims of the sectarian violence that is happening in Iraq. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Chairman Pitts. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Archbishop, for your testimony. 

We’re all familiar with the Soviet model of imposing registration 

of churches that some of the emerging republics have adopted like 

Kazakhstan that has resulted in a crackdown on minority Christian groups. 

We’re familiar with the anti-blasphemy laws like in Pakistan 

that has resulted in the strong in society taking advantage of the 

weak with false charges on blasphemy. 

I’m interested in your view of the anti-conversion laws in some 

of the states in India and the impact on minorities. Could you 

elaborate on that, please? 

Archbishop CHULLIKATT. Thank you for asking that, especially 

because I am from India originally. So we are really worried about 

this anti-conversion law because India is expected to be one of the 

great democracies in the world and India has thrived so far so well 

it is because of that multi-religious and multicultural democratic 

system that you have put in place. 

But as we know, there will always be some radical elements 

within the Indian society and this is the re-emergence and emergence of the radical groups in India that are making such a lot of 

noise around the world. And unfortunately, there are some political 

parties in India who are indirectly supporting these radical groups. 

And so they feel emboldened because of this indirect support that 

they get from certain political parties within the Indian political 

system and they take that kind of liberty in going after the minorities, especially the Christians, and you mentioned about Orissa is 

one of those states where this anti-conversion will is put in place 

which is important because if the religious freedom is being respected this is totally against and there’s no way you can—you can 

justify such a law. 

How could you possibly imagine that in order to convert to other 

religion or to renounce your own religion you need a piece of paper 

from the state government? This is absurd and the bishops in India 

have been complaining about it. 

They have presented to the national government. They have protested. They expressed many times but it seems that because of 

these certain parties, political parties, who are supporting these 

radical groups within the society they have a free hand in exercising these kind of discriminatory actions against the minorities—

religious minorities, especially the Christians. 

And I think the United States can do a lot in putting pressure 

on the Indian Government to put in place the laws they would respect. The laws are already there. It’s only a matter of implementing that law at the state level so that these minorities are protected also in India because once the sectarian violence starts in 

India that will bring in eventually the fragmentation of the Indian 

society. 

23

We don’t want that to happen. So we are still early to do that 

kind of legal system to be put in place so that India can truly and 

really enjoy the fruits of the true democracy and to show to the 

world that it can really show to the world that India is indeed a 

democratic country where everybody enjoys his or her rights to the 

fullest manner and the Indian Government will be there to protect, 

especially the minorities in the country. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

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

Thank you very much, Archbishop Chullikatt. We deeply appreciate your testimony and your leadership. 

This official briefing is now concluded. We will now reconvene a 

hearing of the subcommittee. 

I’d like to now welcome to the witness table our first panel of the 

official hearing, beginning with Mr. Elliott Abrams, who is a senior 

fellow from Middle Eastern Studies at the Council of Foreign Relations in Washington. He served as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor in the administration 

of George Bush where he supervised U.S. policy in the Middle East 

for the White House. 

Mr. Abrams was educated at Harvard College, the London School 

of Economics and Harvard Law School. After serving on the staffs 

of Senators Jackson and Moynihan, he was an Assistant Secretary 

of State in the Reagan administration and received the Secretary 

of State’s distinguished service award from Secretary George P. 

Schultz. 

Mr. Abrams was president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center 

in Washington from 1996 until joining the White House staff. He 

was a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious 

Freedom, in 1999 to 2001 and chairman of the commission in the 

latter year, and is serving an additional term as member now 2012 

to 2014. 

Mr. Abrams is also a member of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial 

Council which directs the activities of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial 

Museum and a member of the board of the National Endowment 

for Democracy. 

He teaches U.S. foreign policy at Georgetown University’s School 

of Foreign Service. 

Secretary Abrams. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ELLIOTT ABRAMS, COMMISSIONER, U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS 

FREEDOM 

Mr. ABRAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

subcommittee. 

Thanks for inviting me to testify on behalf of the commission and 

for holding the hearing. The persecution of Christians is a growing 

and searing affront to our consciences and beliefs. 

For Christians struggling worldwide for the freedom to practice 

their faith, you’re demonstrating concern and solidarity here that 

I think will lift their spirits and, we hope, put their governments 

on notice that you care about this issue and will continue to shine 

a spotlight on their misdeeds. 

24

Because of these efforts, yours and others, people know about 

persecution of people like Pastor Saeed Abedini—I’ll just hold up 

his picture—in Iran, Asia Bibi in Pakistan, a young Catholic 

woman, and Father Ly, who’s been mentioned, in Vietnam. 

Their persecution reflects a disturbing reality for many Christians around the world. There are about 2 billion Christians worldwide, and in many of those countries, persecution is widespread 

partly because in many of the countries in which they reside, 

they’re members of small minorities—ethnic minorities, language 

minorities or they’re viewed as linked to the West, to the United 

States, and to Europe. Of course, in many cases, Christianity represents an alternative source of authority, and for tyrannical governments and extremist nonstate actors, this is viewed as a threat 

to their own power. 

So Christians and other religious minorities find themselves in 

the crosshairs often of authoritarian or totalitarian regimes on the 

one hand, and theocracies on the other. 

Both of these kinds of dictatorships violate the religious freedom 

of Christians and others because they seek to exclude or limit these 

dissenters’ ability to communicate with each other, practice their 

faith and, of course, they resent Christians’ loyalty to their faith. 

In the case of terrorist groups and other nonstate actors, the 

problem is the presence of these private individuals or groups who 

commit violence against Christians and very often governments tolerate these actions and later fail to bring the perpetrators to justice. 

In my written testimony, I talk about 18 countries and governments which are among the world’s worst violators and I talk 

about some of the individuals who’ve been imprisoned in many of 

these countries for their Christian faith. 

These names come from the Defending Freedom Project of the 

Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. You have to mention 

these names. 

We have to shine a light on them and others until they are free, 

and raise the issue of religious freedom until the countries that imprisoned those prisoners of conscience comply with the international legal documents and treaties that they have signed and 

protect this fundamental human right. 

Let me just say a word about Egypt and Vietnam. In Egypt, 

there has been a good deal of sectarian violence against the Copts 

for years and especially during the Muslim Brotherhood government period of President Morsi. 

Conservative clerics and extremists often use incendiary sectarian rhetoric and incitement without any accountability, and unfortunately, the post-Morsi era has gotten off to a similarly bad 

start. 

Violent religious extremists and thugs in August launched attacks against churches throughout the country, as the archbishop 

mentioned. At least seven Copts were killed and more than 200 

churches and other Christian religious structures, homes, businesses assaulted. 

Just last October, four Copts were killed including two sisters 

aged 8 and 12, when gunmen on motorcycles opened fire at a wedding party outside a church near Cairo. 

25

While the government, before, during, and after the Morsi period, 

has failed to bring to justice the perpetrators of these sectarian attacks, the courts have continued to convict and imprison Egyptians 

charged with blasphemy, with a disproportionate number, of 

course, being Christian. 

There’s been some renewed hope among Christians in Egypt in 

the Christian community following the ouster of President Morsi 

and some changes to the new constitution that potentially could 

mean more religious freedom for Copts. However, their situation 

and their future today are precarious. 

In Vietnam, religious conditions are poor. The Vietnamese Government imprisons individuals for religious activity or religious 

freedom advocacy and seeks to stop the growth of ethnic minority 

Protestantism and Catholicism. 

Ethnic minority Protestants and Catholics, particular in the Central Highlands, have been arrested, beaten, and face forced renunciations of their faith for practising outside the approved government religious organizations. 

Hmong and Montagnard Protestants continue to experience government sanctioned efforts to force their renunciations of faith. The 

government has sanctioned violence against and arrested Catholics 

for peacefully advocating for religious freedom. 

Let me just mention again Father Ly, who’s been in prison on 

and off for the crime of advocating religious freedom in Vietnam. 

He has spent more than 20 years in prison and was last returned 

to prison after a March 2007 show trial in which, as that pictures 

shows, he was muzzled. One other thing I would mention just at 

the end, which is that in the act, the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, the post of Ambassador-at-Large for International 

Religious Freedom was created. It’s vacant and it really needs to 

be filled. The President, last week at the National Prayer Breakfast, suggested a nomination would be coming quickly. 

I hope so, because this is the key official within the U.S. Government executive branch coordinating and developing U.S. policy for 

international religious freedom, and if there is a long vacancy, it 

weakens the attention of the executive branch, it weakens the efforts in the executive branch, and it sends a message to countries 

around the world of inattention and lack of concern. So I think we 

all hope that a nomination comes forward very quickly. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Abrams follows:]

26


86650b-1.eps
27


86650b-2.eps
28


86650b-3.eps
29


86650b-4.eps
30


86650b-5.eps
31


86650b-6.eps
32


86650b-7.eps
33


86650b-8.eps
34


86650b-9.eps
35


86650b-10.eps
36


86650b-11.eps
37


86650b-12.eps
38


86650b-13.eps
39


86650b-14.eps
40


86650b-15.eps
41


86650b-16.eps
42


86650b-17.eps
43


86650b-18.eps
44


86650b-19.eps
45


86650b-20.eps
46


86650b-21.eps
47


86650b-22.eps
48


86650b-23.eps
49


86650b-24.eps
50


86650b-25.eps
51


86650b-26.eps
52


86650b-27.eps
53


86650b-28.eps
54


86650b-29.eps
55


86650b-30.eps
56


86650b-31.eps
57


86650b-32.eps
58


86650b-33.eps
59


86650b-34.eps
60

Mr. SMITH. Secretary Abrams, thank you very much, and without 

objection your full very extensive testimony which goes country by 

country by country will be made a part of the record and I do hope 

members—I know members who are here will read it because 

they’re all so very interested, will read it and I respectfully hope 

that the press will look at it as well because it really gives insights 

as to what’s truly happening on a country by country basis. 

And I remind everyone that when your commission was established by Frank Wolf’s bill the whole idea was to provide an appraisal of the situation on the ground accurately, to be independent, to be comprehensive, because we know so often human 

rights are an irritant to much of—many of those who do statecraft 

and religious freedom even more so, and one of the things that Mr. 

Wolf put in his bill was to train Foreign Service Officers to be 

much more knowledgeable about all things pertaining to religious 

freedom and religious organizations and individuals. 

You perhaps might want to touch on whether or not you think 

that’s happening but I’m glad you brought up the Ambassador-atLarge and I do hope the President follows through on his Prayer 

Breakfast promise. 

We’ve had an administration where 21⁄2 years there was an Ambassador-at-Large, but for the rest of this administration’s time, 

there has been no Ambassador-at-Large and that is the point person and so that’s a missed opportunity that is huge and hope that 

is filled soon. 

Just one general question, if I could. Do you find when the commission makes its recommendations like which countries ought to 

be designated Countries of Particular Concern (CPC), as you have 

done repeatedly with Vietnam, for example, do you find that the 

administration is receptive or do they push back? 

You know, we push too. You know, we’ve been trying to get the 

administration and every time, a high official appears, whether it 

be on Vietnam or others—and others do raise the issue—what is 

the delay in promulgating those designations? 

And then, just as important, ensuring that step two, the other 

shoe, that real sanctions—and there are 18 of them prescribed in 

the act—are followed up on? And some of those sanctions are very 

significant and would definitely get the attention of an offending 

country. 

Mr. ABRAMS. Thank you for the question. 

The system is not working. It’s not working properly. It’s not 

working the way it was established in the act. It hasn’t under several administrations, I have to say. 

It’s not just the Obama administration. The Obama administration made CPC designations only once in the first 4 years and the 

act requires them every year. 

And actually, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Wolf and you, Mr. Chairman, wrote 

a letter about this, of course, last May which I’d like to submit for 

the record because I think it’s——

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. ABRAMS [continuing]. A useful reminder of this. The problem 

is in part that it sends a message to other governments that we 

don’t care, and there are a lot of things that can be done. 

61

On the sanctions angle, all too often there are no sanctions or 

there’s a double hatting. That is, you have a country that’s under 

some other sanction and so you say oh, that’s for religious freedom 

too. 

But the act provides for a lot of flexibility. It provides an opportunity to go to a country, to a foreign government and say we care 

about this—something needs to be done. 

Just as an example, you can take action—the U.S. Government 

can take action against individual members of a foreign government who are involved in religious persecution, officials of that government, officials of provinces, officials of units of that government 

to name names and say that those people, for example, will never 

be admitted to the United States. 

There’s lots of flexibility and I’m afraid we’re not using it. And 

so the message that comes across is one of inattention and the 

CPC’s system, I would say, is broken. 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

And Elliott, again, thank you over the years for all you’ve done 

to make sure—we get a lot out of focus too. We start focusing just 

on some of the problems—daily problems that we have and sometimes free people can forget the big picture and the big picture, of 

course, are these moral trends that are permeating the world and 

that United States should be an influence in the right direction. 

The question I have to ask is this and , again, a more perplexing 

question. Our business community insists that if they do business 

in dictatorships like China and like Vietnam now—we have a business community rushing into Vietnam to take advantage of their 

labor—they insist that by being there and doing business that that 

will help reform and protect the rights of people like religious believers. What is the record there in terms of China and Vietnam? 

Has the presence of an American business community been a 

positive element toward the securing of certain rights or has it 

been just the opposite or just what has the effect been? 

Mr. ABRAMS. My impression is that it has had no positive impact 

on international religious freedom. I mean, we did a lot of business 

with Nazi Germany too in the 30s and that didn’t have much of 

an impact on religious freedom. 

What has had an impact is when the U.S. Government puts pressure on and we see this in the case of Vietnam. Religious freedom 

has risen and fallen. The amount of persecution by the government 

has not stayed level. 

It rises and falls, and one of the bases on which it rises and falls 

is the Vietnamese Government’s impression of what it needs to do 

to get U.S. Government approval for that commerce to increase. 

So I don’t blame the businessmen. That’s their business. But it’s 

up to the U.S. Government, I think, to set the rules and to keep 

the pressure on. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would it be right for us to expect that if a 

businessman invests like in Vietnam or China and to be able to at 

least enforce on their own grounds the right of these people to have 

a Bible in their possession, et cetera? 

Mr. ABRAMS. I think it would be a great thing for businesses to 

try to do. It’s hard. We see this in the case of American universities 

62

which are active in China where the amount of free speech, free 

thought, academic freedom that is available is quite limited and 

universities are having to figure out are they going to stay in 

China under those conditions. 

But I would think that businesses should at least try this. I don’t 

know if we’re going to see many profiles in courage but it would 

be very nice to see a few. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would hope that businessmen that consider 

themselves Christians—I can’t speak for other faiths here but if 

they consider themselves to be Christians they should be willing to 

commit that at least in their own operations that they would promote and protect people of faith and——

Mr. ABRAMS. I think that’s a great idea. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Well, thank you very much, Elliott. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you. 

It’s good to see you again. Thank you for your service. The students at Georgetown have a real jewel. I’ve found you to be someone who is unrelenting but analytical and looking at the facts and 

I think that your written testimony today is an example of that. 

My question for you is, really, you’ve highlighted it a little bit in 

terms of this is not just this administration’s problem. It’s a problem that has persisted, and yet here in just a few minutes I’ll be 

meeting with business leaders representing business leaders from 

Egypt. 

And yet most of the time when discussions happen they’re either 

purely human rights or religious freedom discussions or purely economic and business, and it seems like that we have a tough time 

coupling the two together. 

So what would you say are the major impediments to doing that 

in terms of either with the State Department or with us as Congress? How can we do a better job of coupling those two together? 

Mr. ABRAMS. Well, it is hard, particularly because businessmen 

are interested in serving their shareholders and making a profit. 

So I think we need to arm them with the ability to say to the 

Egyptians in the case you mentioned commerce is not going to be 

possible, it’s not going to thrive, it’s not going to grow under conditions of religious persecution and disorder. 

The bitterness and violence that creates in Egypt will be communicated to American businessmen and they won’t want to go to 

Egypt. 

You know, there are many other places to invest in the world. 

So I think the way to bring it together is try to make an argument 

for their self-interest, that if the American impression of Egypt is 

a place that is being torn by violence and sectarian hatred and persecution of Christians, they’re not going to get the investment they 

want. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And one follow-up to that, if you don’t mind. So 

you mentioned about filling this particular position. What else can 

be done in terms of work with the State Department to help make 

this part of the dialogue when negotiations are going on? 

Mr. ABRAMS. Well, when you have hearings and have State Department officials up here, ask them about it and press them on 

63

the record, their own record or the record of their own part of the 

State Department. 

Some Embassies are much better at this than others and I think 

that’s something worth asking about as well. Urge the administration to name their Countries of Particular Concern. 

I think it’s very important also to talk about specific political 

prisoners in public and also with members of the administration—

what has been said. 

It really is important. If you go back to the Soviet days, people 

in the Gulag told us the mentioning of names was critically important when they heard it from a President, the Secretary of State, 

Members of Congress. 

I think you can do it when you visit as part of CODELs and you 

can ask high officials of the executive branch to do it when they 

come up here for testimony and when they visit. 

And then I think this question of adopting political prisoners, 

which about 20 Members of Congress have done, is a great idea 

and can really motivate communities back home too. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Secretary Abrams. We welcome you. 

When Mr. Smith was reading your bio, something just popped 

out at me. You have worked for the two biggest giants on this 

issue—President Reagan and Senator Jackson—and I guess what 

I wanted, and maybe this is not the time but what—I think they 

were great men so we just put that out there. One was a Democrat 

and one was a Republican. 

But what creates the Jacksons and the Reagans? Is it that they 

lead the nation? Because President Reagan gave the speech the evil 

empire, tear down the wall—Secretary Shultz wore the bracelet, 

went to Moscow. 

Scoop Jackson did what he did. But did that come from the people to the Congress and the executive branch or did President 

Reagan who is, I think, the leader and Scoop Jackson the leader 

did they then mobilize it whereby the people then—am I making 

myself clear? Where did that come from? 

Mr. ABRAMS. Let me say at the beginning that I unfortunately 

never worked for the third giant on this issue, which is you, Mr. 

Wolf. 

I think it came from within them. I think they had a belief that 

these values that we’re talking about are the values of the American people and that therefore our foreign policy had to reflect 

those values, that you couldn’t have a foreign policy that was what 

was then known as based on realpolitik, that you had to have a foreign policy that represented the moral values of the American people and that if you tried to do that the American people would support that effort. 

So I think it came from within them but it was based on a view 

of the nation and the American people that led them to say this—

our foreign policy has got to reflect our moral values. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Wolf. 

Mr. Marino. 

64

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Chairman. I apologize for being late. 

I’m trying to juggle, like everyone else is, four or five things. 

Mr. Secretary, it’s a privilege and an honor to see you again. 

Welcome. I always enjoy our exchanges, and if I am asking a question that has already been asked just give me the high sign and 

I’ll read the Cliff’s Notes on it. 

But we know what persecution is taking place. We know with 

reasonable certainty where it is taking place. What can the United 

States do or what should we do concerning sanctions with these 

countries? 

Mr. ABRAMS. The International Religious Freedom Act mentions 

a wide variety of possible sanctions, some of which can be individual sanctions on officials who’ve engaged in persecution and 

some of which, of course, are what we usually think of economic 

sanctions. 

I think that what we need to convey to the governments that are 

engaging in persecution or permitting it with impunity is we care 

and this will affect our relations. Sanctions are not always the 

right formula. 

I think you begin by showing that you care about this and the 

sanctions are actually just a way of sending the message. There are 

many ways of sending the message. 

Secretary Shultz, who Mr. Wolf mentioned, did it by making sure 

that he raised human rights issues at the beginning of meetings 

with the Russians under the view that, you know, if it’s the last 

thing you mention when the clock is running out they know that. 

They see that. 

So he wanted to make sure they realized that for him this came 

first. I think there are going to be cases where we will find talking 

with them about it doesn’t work. Engagement fails. 

Going after individual officials may fail, and you may want to try 

to impose some form of economic sanction to just get the message 

home that this will cost you in your relations with the United 

States. We will not have normal relations if this kind of persecution goes on. So I don’t think it should be taken off the table. 

There will be cases where it’s perhaps the last resort but it’s the 

right thing to do. I think it’s got to be part of the spectrum of possible moves by the United States Government. 

Mr. MARINO. From an economic standpoint and from a trade perspective, are we in a position to deal with this? Is this something 

that we are looking at the lesser of the two evils and saying if we 

do talk about, and I’m going to focus in on sanctions—monetary 

sanctions or trade sanctions—how much of an impact—how much 

of a negative impact is that going to have on our economy? 

Mr. ABRAMS. Well, it will vary, of course, Mr. Marino, from case 

to case. In the case of our sanctions on Iran, for example, or our 

sanctions a few decades ago on Iraq, I think it’s hard to make an 

argument that it’s very damaging to the United States. 

It’s usually more damaging for the other country because we 

have this fantastically rich market and they want to be able to access it and they want to be able to get American investment. 

So I think usually we can be the beneficiary of this. That is, we 

will not suffer very much. They’ll be the ones who are suffering. 

There will be cases. 

65

I mean, China, obviously, is a gigantic market and American 

businesses want to access that market and it’s also true that it’s 

very hard in the case of a government like that, a communist regime, to speak to them persuasively on the subject of religious freedom. 

I know President Bush tried, constantly, to talk to the Chinese 

leaders about their misunderstanding of the nature of religious 

freedom and of the role of religion in society. I think it’s fair to say 

he got nowhere. 

So there are going to be cases where economic sanctions may actually hurt the United States and will not advance the cause of religious freedom. I think it has to be a case by case analysis. 

But there are so many—if you look at the list of countries there 

are so many of them that are under developed or middle income 

or poor and they’re desperate for American investment and access 

to the U.S. market and in those many cases, economic and financial sanctions can have an impact. 

Mr. MARINO. Particularly in the—on the continent of Africa we 

have a tremendous capability there if we, as we say back in Pennsylvania, play our cards right. I’ve been to China. I met with the 

officials. 

They’re very polite, give real good lip service and even when 

they’re here visiting. But, again, we can tell that just from the 

tenor of the conversation it’s we will listen but nothing will change. 

So I think we need to ask State to take a very serious look at these 

matters. 

I thank you again. It’s a pleasure. I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Just to conclude and just one final question, if I 

could, Mr. Secretary, and again, your testimony speaks to one 

country after the other and I appreciated you highlighting the Central African Republic. 

We had a hearing on November 19th here in this room and we 

heard from Bishop Nongo who told us how escalating the outsiders 

especially where on the radical Islamic side, you know, he said 

moderate Muslims are no problem but the radicalized ones, just 

like in Nigeria with the Boko Haram and yesterday there was a 

very heartbreaking story in the Washington Post about a man 

whose throat was slit, was Christian and his family wheeling him 

off in a wheelbarrow. 

I mean, these are sorrowful situations that are beyond words. 

One of the things that Greg Simpkins and I took away from our 

trip to Jos, Nigeria, we met with the evangelicals, the Christians. 

We went to firebombed churches. 

We heard at great length from individuals who had lost loved 

ones, who were tortured themselves, who had, sadly, scars from the 

flames and in one case the man, as I mentioned earlier, who was 

literally shot in the face with an AK–47. 

But one of the biggest takeaways, however, was that the Catholic 

bishop was working very closely with the imams in Jos and I mean 

very close to try to put up a united front against this extremism 

by Boko Haram, and one of the clerics said that if we speak out 

against Boko Haram on a Friday we will be dead as Muslims on 

Saturday. 

66

So I think the more our Government does to get around all those 

who wish peace and reconciliation and tolerance the better and, 

again, if you’d like to comment, that would be great. 

But Bishop Nongo couldn’t have been more clear and he also 

fought the international community to some extent as have others 

with this idea that well, both sides are doing it. No, there is an aggressor. We saw it in Bosnia. 

Remember when people would say oh, well, the Croats first in 

Croatia, then in Bosnia and Mr. Wolf and I were in Vukovar right 

before it fell, met with Slobodan Milosevic who said he had nothing 

to do with the MiGs flying over dropping bombs that we saw ourselves and yet the international community says well, both are at 

fault. 

No, one was the aggressor. One was defending themselves and 

I think the same thing is happening but I think the ally that gets 

overlooked is that there are a lot of moderate Muslims as we saw, 

Greg and I, in Jos who are saying we want to pursue our faith—

we do not want this violence. 

And secondly, your comments on China were excellent about not 

staying within the confines of the human rights dialogue. To me, 

that is a dead end, a cul-de-sac. 

It is a hermetically sealed kind of conversation that has such 

limited impact and as you know yourself during the Bush administration even with some of the other countries like Vietnam we 

would suspend them because they were a venting—you know, it 

was an X in the box for State Department people to come to that 

table and say oh, but we’re having a human rights dialogue. 

It needs to be integrated with all things related to that country 

and, as you pointed out, all the sanctions prescribed by Mr. Wolf’s 

bill vis-a`-vis China, and you said it earlier, why aren’t they being 

adhered to—why aren’t we making a huge point of holding torturers of Christians and all faiths so they don’t get visas. 

It means making a list. It means some due diligence on the part 

of State and I would say parenthetically I also did a bill in 2000, 

the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations 

Authorization Act—it was my law—we put a provision there that 

said on a related human rights abuse, forced abortion, that anyone 

involved with that heinous crime is inadmissible to the U.S. 

We asked the Congressional Research Service how often it’s been 

implemented—less than 30 times, and that was, you know, on a 

crime against women that has been without parallel. So, Secretary, 

if you want to make any concluding remarks, but thank you. 

Mr. ABRAMS. Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, thank you again 

for holding this hearing. 

I think that something was said at the very beginning that we 

as a country have been reluctant to weigh in on the question of 

persecution of Christians in particular and we shouldn’t be. 

It’s not a form of colonialism or imperialism. It’s a defense of 

human rights. It’s a defense of the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights. All these countries have pledged to protect religious freedom and they’re violating their own pledges. 

So we should not be at all restrained or hesitant in raising this 

and pressing this cause, and I thank you for doing it today. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary. 

67

I’d like to now welcome our second panel, beginning first with 

Mr. John Allen who is an American journalist who specializes in 

news about the Catholic Church and is considered one of the foremost experts on the Vatican. 

He recently became an associate editor with the Boston Globe. 

Prior to that, he was a senior correspondent for the National 

Catholic Reporter where he worked from 1998 until this year and 

has served as an analyst of Vatican affairs for CNN and NPR. 

Mr. Allen is also author of several books about the Catholic 

Church and has written two biographies of Pope Benedict XVI. He 

is also the author of ‘‘The Global War on Christians: Dispatches 

From the Front Lines of Anti-Christian Persecution.’’

We will then hear from Ms. Tehmina Arora, who is an attorney 

with the Alliance Defending Freedom in India, a position she has 

held since January 2012. Her work focusing on protecting minority 

rights and religious freedom includes litigating cases and conducting legal training. 

Previously, she worked as the advocacy director at the Evangelical Fellowship of India where she managed a team of attorneys 

and advocates who worked for the rights of Christians. 

We’ll then hear from Mr. Benedict Rogers, who is East Asian 

team leader at Christian Solidarity Worldwide where he specializes 

in Burma, Indonesia, and North Korea. He’s the author of five 

books and several major reports. 

Mr. Rogers travels widely in the region including making more 

than 40 visits to Burma and its borderland, several visits to Indonesia and a trip to North Korea. 

He is a regular contributor to international media including several major newspapers and television networks. 

And then we’ll hear from Mr. Jorge Lee Galindo, who’s the director of Impulso 18, a non-governmental organization dedicated to 

promoting and defending liberty of belief in religion in Mexico. He 

has helped establish many religious organizations in Mexico and 

acts as the legal representative for many of them. 

He has given presentations at various fora, seminars, workshops, 

and roundtables and given many interviews on radio programs on 

things related to ecclesiastical law in Mexico. 

In addition, Mr. Galindo was president of the Latin American 

Network of Christian Lawyers from 2006 to 2010 and currently 

acts as legal counsel to that network. 

And finally, we’ll hear from Dr. Khataza Gondwe, who is currently team leader for Africa and the Middle East at Christian Solidarity Worldwide. She researches religious liberties issues and promotes awareness through interviews and articles in international 

media and elsewhere. 

She’s worked extensively on religious-related violence in Nigeria 

and the dire human rights and religious freedom situation in Eritrea, the rise of sectarian violence in Egypt, and the harassment 

of the house church in Iran. 

I thank you again for being here and providing the subcommittee 

the benefits of your wisdom and counsel. 

68

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN ALLEN, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, THE 

BOSTON GLOBE 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this hearing on what I have come to see as the premier human 

rights issue of the early 21st century as well as the greatest story 

never told about Christianity in our time. I’ll begin very quickly 

with an overview of the global situation. 

There are an estimated 2.3 billion Christians in the world today, 

which makes Christianity the largest single religious tradition on 

the planet, representing about one third of the human population. 

Christianity’s greatest growth in the early 21st century is occurring in Africa—sub-Saharan Africa—and parts of Asia. 

The Christian population in Latin America has remained relatively constant but there has been tremendous movement from 

the majority Catholic tradition to expanding Evangelical and Pentecostal churches. 

Despite the dire decline in the indigenous Arab Christian population of the Middle East, there is actually a burgeoning pocket of 

Christianity in the Middle East and the Gulf States composed not 

of natives but of expats drawn to work in the domestic service and 

oil industries. 

Interesting tidbit—there are 1.5 million Catholics alone in Saudi 

Arabia today, 1.3 million of whom are Filipinos. It’s the largest Filipino diaspora in that part of the world. 

Bottom line is that Christianity’s most dramatic growth today is 

coming in neighborhoods that are not always distinguished by a robust respect for religious freedom, which is one factor feeling what 

I’ve described as a global war on Christians. 

The high end estimate for the number of Christians killed for 

their faith every year today is 100,000. That’s a number that comes 

from the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at GordonConwell Theological Seminary. 

There are others who would put the number lower. Thomas 

Schirrmacher of the World Evangelical Alliance pegs the number 

at 20 new martyrs per day, which adds up to about 7,300 a year. 

American scholar Rodney Stark goes lower still. He thinks the 

number is a few hundred per year. Of course, all this hinges on 

how you define religious persecution. 

Bottom line, however, is that the high end estimate would put 

the number of Christians killed for their faith every year at one per 

hour. The low end estimate puts it at one per day. 

Wherever the truth lies, this is a global scourge that commands 

our attention, and there are other indices. The Pew Forum finds 

that Christians suffer some form of harassment either de jure or 

de facto in a staggering total of 139 countries. That’s two-thirds of 

all societies on Earth. 

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom—we’ve already heard from Secretary Abrams—finds that 

Christians are the only religious tradition discriminated against in 

all 16 of the top 16 offenders. That’s from their 2010 report. 

The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism found that between 2003 and 2011 terroristic 

attacks on Christians around the world shot up by 139 percent and 

the evangelical advocacy and relief organization Open Doors estiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:24 Aug 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\021114\86650 SHIRL
69

mates that roughly 100 million Christians a day are subject to 

some form of physical coercion, arrest, torture and so on. 

A few brief snapshots of what’s happening—we already heard 

mention of the attack on the Syria Catholic Cathedral of Our Lady 

of Salvation in downtown Baghdad on October 31st, 2010. 

In itself the fact the church was bombed that day is no novelty. 

Of the 63 Christian churches in Baghdad, 40 of them have been 

bombed at least once since 2003. What followed was unusual. A 

band of the Islamic fundamentalist gunmen stormed the church, 

they shot the priest saying Mass, they shot the two deacons assisting him. 

They left more than 50 people dead. I had the opportunity to 

interview one of the survivors, a young Chaldean woman by the 

name of Fatima who now lives in Rome and who dedicates every 

waking moment of her life to helping her fellow Christians get out 

of Iraq. She survived that day. She was singing in the choir. 

She survived that day by pulling bodies over her and playing 

dead for the agonizing 4 hours it took for someone to come and liberate the church. One hopes she is wrong in her prognosis that 

Christianity has no future in Iraq but it is impossible to fault either the personal experience or the reasoning that has led her to 

that conclusion. 

But it would be mistaken to think that anti-Christian persecution is entirely an artifact of radical Islam. The most violent antiChristian pogrom of the early 21st century actually occurred in the 

northeastern Indian state of Orissa in 2008 when machete-wielding 

Hindu radicals attacked a series of Christian targets, left as many 

as 500 Christians killed, at least 50,000 homeless, many of them 

taking refuge in a nearby forest for weeks. An estimated 5,000 

Christian homes, hundreds of churches and schools and so on were 

destroyed. 

In Burma, members of the Chin and Karen ethnic groups who 

are strongly Christian are considered dissidents by the regime, subject to various forms of imprisonment, torture, forced labor. 

Their communities have actually even been targeted by helicopter strikes. A Burmese air force official confirmed in talking to 

foreign press that these zones of majority Christian population are 

considered free fire zones and they basically have a fire on sight 

warrant. 

Mr. Chairman, you’ve already talked about the mayhem currently being unleashed in Nigeria by the militant Boko Haram 

movement. North Korea, of course, is widely considered the single 

most dangerous place on the planet to be a Christian. 

Roughly a quarter of the country’s 200,000 to 400,000 Christians 

are believed to be living in forced labor camps. The anti-Christian 

animus is so strong that people with Christian grandparents are 

frozen out of senior government jobs, senior positions in the military, senior levels of economic life and so on. 

The estimate is that some 300,000 Christians in North Korea 

have disappeared since the armistice in the 1950s. And these, by 

the way, are illustrative examples. This is by no means the whole 

story. 

70

To conclude, a brief thought about why this global war on Christians is so often wrapped in silence. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I believe we have a problem with narrative. 

In the West, we are conditioned to think of Christianity as an 

all-powerful, all-controlling, wealthy, vastly influential social institution, which makes it very difficult for ordinary Americans to get 

their minds around the idea that Christians can actually be the 

victims of persecution. 

Say religious persecution to most Americans, the images that 

come to mind are the Crusades, the Inquisition, the wars of religion and so on—chapters of history in which Christianity was, of 

course, the villain. 

This narrative is badly out of date but it’s done little to weaken 

its hold on our imagination. The truth, the demographic and practical truth, is that the typical Christian in this world is not an affluent American male pulling up to church in a Lincoln Continental. 

The typical Christian in the early 21st century is a poor woman 

of color and mother of four in Botswana or a poor Dalit grandmother in Orissa. The reality is this. Projections are that the share 

of the Christian population that’s living outside the West and in 

the developing world is going to reach three-quarters by the middle 

of this century. These Christians often carry a double or triple stigma representing not only their faith but also often an oppressed 

ethnic group or a social class and they are perhaps—this is the 

most fundamental fact—they are targets of convenience for anyone 

who is angry with the West. 

It is very difficult for ordinary people, obviously not impossible 

but difficult, to strike against an American Embassy or the headquarters of the European Union. 

It is very easy to walk down the block and attack the Christian 

church that is on that corner even though the irony is often the 

Christians in that society have deeper historical and cultural roots 

than their assailants do. 

The point is this. I think as a Christian we have perhaps special 

cause to be concerned with this rising tide of anti-Christian violence but I think it requires no religious faith whatsoever to see 

this as a towering human rights concern. 

You did not have to be Jewish in the 60s and 70s to be concerned 

about dissident Jews in the Soviet Union, you did not have to be 

black in the 80s to be concerned about apartheid in South Africa 

and you do not have to be Christian today to see our ability to defend Christians at risk as the key test, ‘‘the canary in the coal 

mine’’ for our ability to mobilize any human rights concern at all. 

And to the extent, Mr. Chairman, you can change the narrative, 

thank you for your effort in doing so. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]

71


86650c-1.eps
72


86650c-2.eps
73


86650c-3.eps
74


86650c-4.eps
75


86650c-5.eps
76

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Allen, for your very comprehensive look and for your leadership. 

Ms. Arora. 

STATEMENT OF MS. TEHMINA ARORA, ATTORNEY, ALLIANCE 

DEFENDING FREEDOM–INDIA 

Ms. ARORA. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you 

for holding this important hearing and inviting me to testify today. 

India, in spite of its long tradition of religious tolerance, finds 

itself struggling with violence against religious minorities. While 

the Muslim community bears the brunt of this violence, over the 

recent years the tiny Christian community which stands at a mere 

2.3 percent of the population has faced increased hostility. 

Reports by faith-based rights agencies show that Christians suffer an average of 150 violent attacks annually with many more 

going unreported. These attacks include physical and sexual assault, brutal murders, and desecration of places of worship and 

graveyards. 

My written submission contains more details. With the exception 

of the state of Orissa in 2007 and 2008, the attacks are scattered 

and are primarily concentrated in the states where Hindu nationalist party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, or the BJP, is in power. 

The states of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh 

have recorded the most number of attacks in the past 2 years. 

Perpetrated on the pretext of preventing forcible conversion, the 

attacks are often carried out by Hindu extremists who see India as 

a Hindu nation with a common fatherland, language, religion, and 

culture. This ideology leaves little space for religious minorities. 

The agencies involved in such attacks include the Bajrang Dal, 

the Dharmasena, the Hindu Vahini, the Ram Sena, all offshoots of 

the umbrella Hindu nationalist group, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak 

Sangh, or the RSS. Recent media reports suggest the involvement 

of members of similar groups also in terror attacks including the 

bombing of trains, mosques, and churches. 

One cannot forget that the RSS has been banned on previous occasions for fomenting violence against religious minorities. It is 

deeply disconcerting to see the BJP prime minister candidate and 

present chief minister of Gujarat, Mr. Modi, openly align himself 

with this ideology as a member of the RSS and call himself a 

Hindu nationalist. 

Christian persecution, however, is not just about violence. It is 

compounded by the impunity enjoyed by the violent mobs which is 

also a cause for concern. Many victims of violence complain of the 

lack of police action including hostility toward Christians. 

The impunity was most evident in Orissa and in 2008 violent 

mobs killed over 75 people, mostly Christians, burned over 5,000 

homes and over 260 churches and prayer halls. Though approximately 2,500 complaints were registered of mob violence, only 828 

were ever registered by the police. Charges were framed against 

the accused in only 512 cases, most of which ended in acquittals. 

Only nine people have ever been convicted of killing two Christians. 

77

The police also failed to record statements of key witnesses, conduct test identification periods, and collect and send forensic evidence which resulted in acquittals for lack of evidence. 

According to the government’s own records, only 15 appeals were 

filed by the state in over 180 cases in which more than 2,700 people were acquitted. Apart from the violence, I would also like to 

draw your attention to two discriminatory laws which greatly restrict the freedom of religion in India. 

Six Indian states have enacted laws titled Freedom of Religion 

Acts, or anti-conversion laws as they are more commonly known. 

These laws require the person converting to give details of his or 

her conversion to the district administrative head either prior to 

the conversion ceremony or subsequent to it. The law in Gujarat 

requires you to take prior permission before a conversion. 

The laws penalize any failure to report a religious conversion 

with jail terms up to 1 year and fines. The laws also penalize conversion by force, fraud or inducement or allurement with jail terms 

up to 5 years or fines up to $1,500. 

Repeatedly, these vague laws have been used to target and harass Christians. Hindu extremists have frequently worked the anticonversion laws to incite mob violence and having Christians arrested without evidence. The acts are weak and do not carry the 

required checks and balances to ensure protection against their 

misuse. 

They violate the freedom of association and conscience and the 

right to privacy. They make every religious conversion suspect and 

liable for scrutiny and remove the agency of the convertee, allowing 

the state to determine if the conversion is valid or not. 

In September 2012, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh declared a section of the Himachal Pradesh law as unconstitutional 

which required the person to give a 30-day prior notice to the district administration. 

The court held that the procedure was violative of the Indian 

constitution. However, similar provisions remain in other state 

laws. The second law I would like to talk about is the 1950 Presidential order which states that no person who professes a religion 

different from the Hindu, Sikh, or Buddhist religion shall be 

deemed to be a member of the Schedule Caste. 

As you may know, that due to the oppressive caste system in 

India there are policies and laws that allow affirmative action and 

special protection for the Dalit or Schedule Caste communities. 

However, Dalits who accept Christianity are denied protections and 

benefits available to other Hindu, Sikh, or Buddhist Dalits merely 

on account of their religious beliefs. 

This is despite the fact that the disadvantages and discriminations faced by Dalit Christians are well documented by several 

agencies including those of the government. A petition is pending 

before the Supreme Court of India since 2004 but the government 

hasn’t filed its reply to date. 

In closing, I would like to make a few recommendations. I would 

urge you to support the resolution for protecting religious freedom 

in India. I would urge you to follow up on the recommendation of 

the Government of the United States to the Government of India 

to ensure that laws are fully and consistently enforced to provide 

78

adequate protection for members of religious minorities in the recent Universal Periodic Review. 

I would urge you to send delegations to meet with victims of violence and visit sites of community violence. This has been hugely 

helpful, especially in this case of Orissa, to see whether the recommendations are being met and to better understand the complexities of the issues involved, to use appropriate forms of dialogue 

to raise concerns about the status of religious minorities and the 

impunity enjoyed by Hindutva forces and continue to find ways to 

fund civil society efforts to combat human rights abuses and promote religious tolerance. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Arora follows:]

79


86650d-1.eps
80


86650d-2.eps
81


86650d-3.eps
82


86650d-4.eps
83


86650d-5.eps
84


86650d-6.eps
85


86650d-7.eps
86


86650d-8.eps
87


86650d-9.eps
88

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Arora, thank you very much for your testimony. 

Without objection, your full statement, which was very heavily documented and footnoted, will be made a part of the record and all 

of your full statements as well. But thank you so much. 

Ms. ARORA. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Rogers. 

STATEMENT OF MR. BENEDICT ROGERS, TEAM LEADER FOR 

EAST ASIA, CHRISTIAN SOLIDARITY WORLDWIDE 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members, may I first 

of all thank you very much indeed for holding this hearing on this 

critically important subject, for giving me the opportunity to testify 

and may I also pay tribute to your many years of leadership and 

activism on this and other human rights issues. 

In the limited time available today I intend to concentrate my remarks on just two areas of focus—Indonesia and Burma. But I 

have provided written testimony on Vietnam and Laos as well. 

And I’d like to just begin by echoing very strongly your remarks 

made at the beginning by saying that in Christian Solidarity 

Worldwide we work very much for freedom of religion or belief for 

all. Freedom of religion is indivisible and is a basic right to which 

all people of all beliefs in every country are entitled. 

And in that context, whilst I talk about Indonesia and Burma, 

it’s important to note that other religious groups face severe persecution, particularly the Ahmadiyya and Shi’a Muslims in Indonesia 

and the Rohingyas and other Muslims in Burma. 

Nevertheless, I would absolutely agree that Christianity is the 

most widely persecuted religion in the world today, facing threats 

from a wide range of sources in almost every corner of the globe. 

And so I turn now to two parts of the globe starting with Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim majority nation, a nation that 

has made a remarkable transition from authoritarianism to democracy, a nation that has a tremendous tradition of religious pluralism, harmony and freedom, and yet that tradition of religious 

pluralism in Indonesia is increasingly under threat. Two weeks 

today CSW will launch in London a major new report, and I just 

hold it up—I believe it has been sent to your office this morning 

because it has just gone to print today—‘‘Indonesia Pluralism in 

Peril: The Rise of Religious Intolerance Across the Archipelago.’’

For Christians in Indonesia, there are two major threats—regulatory restrictions and vigilante intimidation and violence. According to the Communion of Churches in Indonesia, at least 430 

churches have been attacked, closed down or burnt down since 

2004. 

According to the Jakarta Christian Communication Forum, the 

number of attacks against Christian churches reached a total of 75 

in 2012, which marks a steady rise from 10 in 2009 to 47 in 2010 

and 64 in 2011. 

The situation is most severe in Aceh, where in May 2012 17 

churches were closed down. Christians in Aceh live in fear and 

worship in secret. However, the persecution of Christians in Indonesia is by no means confined to Aceh. 

In West Java, for example, there have been several cases where 

churches which are legally licensed have been forced by local mayVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:24 Aug 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\021114\86650 SHIRL
89

ors to close and in at least two cases those churches have challenged the mayor’s ruling to close them in the courts. 

In both those cases, the courts have ruled in favor of the churches including all the way up to the Supreme Court and yet the 

mayor refuses still to permit the churches to open in defiance of the 

Indonesian Supreme Court. 

I visited both those churches. I’ve stood with congregations outside their locked church building as they attempted to hold a Sunday service in the street outside because they were not permitted 

to use their building. 

And in both instances we were surrounded by a mob of angry 

Islamists shouting things like, ‘‘Christians, get out. Kill the Christians.’’

The pastor of one of those churches, the Reverend Palti 

Panjaitan, whom I’ve interviewed four times, has received death 

threats, false criminal charges and constant abuse. 

Last year I interviewed Pastor Bernhard Maukar of a Pentecostal church in West Java. His church has been attacked several 

times. On one occasion, a mob climbed over the gates during a Sunday service and he told me, and I quote,

‘‘They pulled me by my tie, taking me to the gate. They 

took other church members, pulling them by their clothes. 

They were shouting, ‘Go out, Reverend. We will kill you.’ 

Our church members ran away. Some of them were teenagers and children and they were traumatized by the experience.’’

On the 27th of January, 2013, his church was attacked again and 

he was beaten. Two days later, Pastor Bernhard, not his attackers, 

was sentenced to 3 months in prison for running an unregistered 

church. 

This year, Indonesia will hold both parliamentary and Presidential elections. I have more detailed recommendations in my 

written submission but the key recommendation I would highlight 

is that it’s essential that these concerns are raised with all the Indonesian Presidential candidates and the new President, once he’s 

elected, is encouraged by the international community to address 

these concerns. 

I turn now to Burma. In many respects, in the past 2 years there 

have been some extraordinary changes in Burma and I wholeheartedly welcome the progress. 

However, there is still a very long way to go and in relation to 

freedom of religion there have been serious setbacks with a severe 

and dramatic rise in anti-Muslim hatred and violence, which I’ve 

been involved in trying to address. 

Christians have not so far been widely targeted by this rise in 

what I can only describe as militant Burman Buddhist nationalism, 

although there are reasonable concerns that that movement currently focused on the Muslim community could affect Christians in 

the future. 

But on the whole, whilst Christians have not been targeted by 

Buddhists in society, decades of discrimination by successive military regimes have left a legacy of policies of discrimination which 

continue. 

90

In 2007, CSW published a report called, ‘‘Carrying the Cross: The 

Military Regime’s Campaign of Restriction, Discrimination and 

Persecution Against Christians in Burma,’’ and although that report is now 7 years old much of the evidence is still valid today. 

More recently, the Chin human rights organization with whom 

we work very closely has published two excellent reports. 

Both CSW and CHRO have documented serious violations of 

freedom of religion affecting Christians in Burma, notably the destruction of crosses in ethnic Chin and Kachin states, and the military’s role enforcing Chin Christians to build Buddhist pagodas in 

place of crosses. 

There’s also been cases of forcible and coerced conversion of Chin 

Christians to Buddhism often through the provision of education in 

military-run schools and discrimination in public service. 

As I draw to a close, I just want to share one story. In March 

2013, I visited Kachin State in northern Burma and documented 

attacks on Kachin Christians. 

I interviewed the wife of one Kachin political prisoner who had 

visited her husband just a month after his arrest in 2012 and she 

told me this, and I quote,

‘‘When I visited my husband he was covered in blood. 

His nose was broken. An iron bar had been rubbed along 

his legs. 

‘‘He was forced, and I emphasize forced, against his will 

in prison to engage in homosexual sex with other male 

prisoners. He was told that as he was a Christian he 

should kneel on very sharp stones with his arms outstretched like Christ on the cross and then other prisoners 

were forced to dance the traditional Kachin dance around 

him. He was beaten on his hands and arms and they were 

hit in the head with guns.’’

Mr. Chairman, we urge the United States to encourage the Government of Burma to end policies of discrimination along religious 

lines and to issue an invitation to the United Nations Special 

Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief to travel to Burma, to 

visit all parts of the country to investigate these violations. 

The persecution of Christians in the Middle East has drawn particular attention in recent months and very understandably so. But 

while the persecution of Christians in the Middle East is perhaps 

the most acute form of persecution, it is important to remember 

that the persecution of Christians is indeed a worldwide phenomenon today. 

In Southeast Asia, as I have tried to outline, Christians in Indonesia and Burma but also in countries like Vietnam, Laos, and Malaysia, which I have not had time to speak about, continue to face 

discrimination, restrictions and persecution which amount to serious violations which require international attention. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers follows:]

91


86650e-1.eps
92


86650e-2.eps
93


86650e-3.eps
94


86650e-4.eps
95


86650e-5.eps
96


86650e-6.eps
97


86650e-7.eps
98


86650e-8.eps
99

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Galindo. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JORGE LEE GALINDO, DIRECTOR, 

IMPULSO 18

Mr. GALINDO. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak today. 

Latin America is often overlooked in discussions of international 

religious freedom, yet serious violations of religious freedom regularly take place in the region, most notably in my own country, 

Mexico, but also in countries like Cuba and Colombia. 

In Mexico, the most severe violations of religious freedom take 

place in regions under the jurisdiction of traditional indigenous law 

referred to as ‘‘uses and customs,’’ which takes precedence over 

civil law. 

Religious intolerance is most prevalent in the southwest of Mexico. Individuals who wish to practice a religion that is not of the 

majority are persecuted by those who disagree with their choice to 

change their religion and beliefs. 

These authorities believe that their culture is being damaged and 

they do not accept that the freedom of the individual can take precedence over their traditions. 

Violence is frequently used against the victims and in some cases 

this has escalated to murder. Unfortunately, the government almost never chooses to prosecute those responsible for these criminal acts and a culture of impunity in regard to violations of religious freedom becomes further entrenched. 

There have been attempts in Mexico to address this problem 

through the law. However, the conflicts continue. One of the reasons from my point of view is that no government up until the 

present day has taken the matter as seriously as it merits. 

The situation is exemplified in the case of the forcibly displaced 

community of Los Llanos in late April 2009. A traditionalist mob 

attacked the Protestant Church in Tzotil village during a prayer 

service, beating the pastor. 

One month later, the same church was attacked again and completely destroyed. In September of the same year, local authorities 

sent a letter to the Governor of Chiapas State, explicitly declaring 

that they have given the Protestants a deadline to leave the village 

and if they did not do so they would use force to expel them. 

In January 2010, the local authorities informed the Protestants 

that they were no longer permitted to attend village assemblies 

and that they were prohibited from cultivating their crops. 

Finally, 13 homes belonging to the members of the Protestant 

Church were completely destroyed, leaving 31 people homeless, and 

finally forcibly displacing the community. 

The group filed a complaint with the National Human Rights 

Commission, CNDH, in late January 2010. Its conclusions and recommendations on November 30 of the same year found that the 

fundamental rights of the Protestants had been violated by the 

local and state authorities in Chiapas and recommended that they 

be allowed to return to their homes for protection by the government and that their right to their religious freedom be upheld. 

100

In April 2011, the CNDH visited San Cristobal de las Casas to 

follow up the progress of the implementation of their recommendations. No option has been taken by the state or Federal authorities. 

In June 2013, in the face of government inaction the group of 31 

attempted to return to their homes accompanied by supporters and 

journalists. One mile outside of Los Llanos they were surrounded 

by traditionalists who proceeded to stone them. 

Two pastors were taken hostage and separated from the larger 

group by the traditionalists. The two were tied up, stripped of their 

clothing, beaten and had gasoline poured on them. 

They were forced to walk one mile with their hands and feet 

shackled to the village center of Los Llanos where the traditionalists threatened to burn them alive. 

The entire group was held up until state officials arrived and 

freed the group. They negotiated an agreement in which the local 

authorities agreed not to beat or mistreat the prisoners or to force 

them to pay a fee for their liberations and the Protestants agreed 

not to press charges. 

Of course, as in so many other cases, no charges were filed. No 

one was prosecuted and the community remains displaced. 

This case may seem extreme but it is unfortunately typical both 

in terms of the level of intolerance and violence and the state and 

Federal Government’s failure to respond in any meaningful way to 

protect the rights of the victims and to uphold the rule of law. 

If I may, I will now address another serious and growing threat 

to religious freedom in Mexico today—the rise of narco-criminal 

groups. Extortion aimed at houses of worship has become normal 

in the north of our country. 

Criminal groups see churches as attractive targets for money 

laundering. Pastors and priests who refuse to cooperate with criminal activities are threatened and kidnapped, in some cases in the 

middle of religious service. 

In December 2013, two priests in the State of Veracruz were 

murdered and in the State of Tamaulipas two priests were forcibly 

disappeared. A fourth was beaten to death and a fifth was attacked 

with a baseball bat and admitted to the hospital in critical condition. 

In addition, many of the criminal groups have adopted a kind of 

pseudo-religiosity, some other through the cult of Santa Meurte or 

St. Death. Others, like the Knights Templar in Michoacan, have 

cultivated their own kind of theology mandating that all places of 

worship in village they control must place a bust of their leader, 

El Chayo, inside the temples to be venerated and worshipped. 

There are severe penalties for refusing. One of those priests murdered in December is believed to have been targeted because he refused to bow to a narco’s group demand to hold a Mass dedicated 

to St. Death. 

I’m aware of at least one Catholic parish in the State of 

Michoacan which has been effectively shut down because the 

Knights Templar have vowed to kill any priest the Catholic Church 

sends there. 

This concludes my presentation. I am grateful for the opportunity 

to address you all, to highlight the serious threats to religious freedom in my country and the larger region in Latin America, and I 

101

sincerely hope this will begin a discussion that will lead to protection of religious freedom for all in Mexico. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Galindo follows:]


86650f-1.eps
102


86650f-2.eps
103


86650f-3.eps
104


86650f-4.eps
105

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

Dr. Gondwe. 

STATEMENT OF KHATAZA GONDWE, PH.D., TEAM LEADER FOR 

AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST, CHRISTIAN SOLIDARITY 

WORLDWIDE 

Ms. GONDWE. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and distinguished 

members for the opportunity to speak at this very important hearing. 

We believe in miracles so miraculously I will give a run down on 

Africa in 5 minutes. 

Broadly speaking, the majority of Christians in sub-Saharan Africa experience hostility, harassment, repression, restrictions or violence from two main sources—firstly, from militant Islamist ideology and resulting insurgencies that have taken advantage of preexisting local issues, weak application of the rule of law or power 

vacuums occasioned by the chronic failure of state structures. 

The Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram and its offshoot, 

Ansaru, perhaps provide the clearest examples of this trend today. 

From its inception in 2002, Boko Haram made it clear that Christians and symbols of the Federal system were its primary targets. 

It was also made clear that the group’s aim was to be accomplished by violence. During Boko Haram’s abortive uprisings during 2003 and 2004, violence was directed at Christian and Federal 

targets in Yobe State. 

Following the destruction of Maiduguri headquarters and 

extrajudicial killing of its leader in 2009, the group went underground, reemerging to launch attacks that indicated a degree of 

specialist training. Purported spokesmen for the group have since 

stated that it is variously affiliated with other Islamist groups in 

Africa such as al-Shabaab and AQIM. 

As the increasingly religious dimension to Boko Haram’s actions 

became clearer and the group itself articulated its aims of religious 

cleansing or, in the case of Ansaru, the creation of a caliphate, this 

became evident to all. 

However, realization of the extent of this campaign of cleansing 

is currently being to some extent obscured by the oft repeated 

phrase that more Muslims and Christians have died at Boko 

Haram’s hands. 

This ignores a dramatic rise in religious cleansing, particularly 

in Borno State last year. During 2013, over 46 villages were destroyed. 

Around 14,000 Christian villages were displaced in the Gwoza 

area of Borno State close to the Cameroonian border and an unknown number of Christians were murdered with women and girls 

kidnapped and forced into sexual slavery. 

Hostages taken by Boko Haram and Ansaru in Nigeria are often 

held in neighboring Cameroon. This cross border element underlines the transnational nature of Boko Haram/Ansaru and their 

ties with jihadi movements on the continent. 

One of the leaders of Ansaru is said to be a Cameroonian national. Nigerians potentially from Boko Haram or Ansaru were reportedly sighted in northern Mali where al-Qaeda affiliated 

Islamist groups sought to take advantage of a political vacuum and 

106

preexisting tensions between the political center and marginalized 

or under-developed periphery. 

Even more recently, according to a senior U.N. staff member, 

Boko Haram has already created some kind of presence in the Central African Republic where similar chronic and preexisting power 

vacuums have been exploited to transform what was essentially a 

struggle for resources and political power into an increasingly religious one, raising very real fears of the partitioning of the country 

along religious lines. 

Pre-existing issues facilitated the rise of religious extremism in 

northern Nigeria also. Temporarily obscured by the current terrorism is the long-term comprehensive and systematic 

marginalization of non-Muslim communities, which has been facilitated tacitly or deliberately by successive state governments and 

non-state actors over decades, and this has always been undergirded by violence. 

There are areas where religion is the determining factor in all 

sectors. Access to education, employment, opportunities, graveyards, land for houses of worship, social amenities, and even vaccination initiatives are predicated on belonging to the right or appropriate religion, and the religion-ruling community has become 

the de facto state religion. 

This underlying and systematic modulization which predates the 

ending of military rule will need to be addressed whenever the 

Boko Haram crisis comes to an end in order to ensure such groups 

no longer enjoy conditions in which they can flourish. 

These violations have occurred despite the fact that Nigeria’s 

constitution contains provisions promoting freedom of religion and 

forbidding discrimination against any citizen. 

Events in Tanzania appear to be mirroring those in Nigeria. Societal discrimination based on religious affiliation is increasingly 

reported from the predominantly Muslim areas and in the semi-autonomous Zanzibar archipelago which is 98 percent Muslim. 

Uamsho or Awakening, a separatist religious movement founded 

in 2001, has benefited from local dissatisfaction with the terms of 

political union and is alleged to be behind an increase in violence 

targeting local Christians and particularly pastors, and an extreme 

interpretation of the religion of the majority community has taken 

precedence over civil law and constitutional provisions for religious 

freedom. 

On the Tanzanian mainland where Christians and followers of 

traditional beliefs are thought to constitute a majority, there are 

also reports of increasing discrimination, of a rise in religion-related violence and of a lack of justice in the aftermath of such violence. 

There is, as well, the looming threat of international terrorism 

here. The arrests in early October 2013 of 11 al-Shabaab suspects 

allegedly undergoing military training in Tanzania’s Mtwara region 

provided a fresh indication of the group’s determination to advance 

its influence and aims by exploiting local grievances. 

According to a veteran journalist, and I quote him here, ‘‘AlShabaab and al-Qaeda are now using Zanzibar as a stepping stone. 

Their target is the whole country of Tanzania and the African conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:24 Aug 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\021114\86650 SHIRL
107

tinent at large. This is the biggest threat ever. Training on our 

land proves that they are here.’’

Turning to the second trend, Christians in sub-Saharan Africa 

experience hostility, harassment, repression and even violence due 

to authoritarian regimes where political considerations or the governing religious ideology mitigates against all pluralism. 

As a former Marxist Liberation Movement, the Eritrean regime 

has a long-held ideological antipathy toward religion of any sort, 

appearing to have deemed religious adherence as a competing and 

dangerous allegiance and a source of national division. 

2002 saw the harsh enactment of a law—a 1995 law, with the 

Ministry of Information issuing a decree obliging all religious 

groups to register or cease all activities. 

The decree also obliged all groups except the Orthodox Church, 

the Catholic Church and Lutheran Church and followers of Sunni 

Islam to officially register and function under the surveillance of 

the Ministry of Religious Affairs. 

None of those who have met these requirements have received 

registration to date. The 2002 decree marked the acceleration of 

open repression with the initiation of a campaign of arrests particularly targeting Evangelical or Charismatic Pentecostal Christians, and this has continued until today with varying degrees of 

intensity. 

The repression was accompanied by inflammatory statements 

from officials with religious believers equated with Islamist extremists and vilified as non-indigenous, unpatriotic agents of foreign interests who were seeking to undermine public morality and divide 

and destabilize the country. 

Between 2,000 and 3,000 Christians are thought to be detained 

indefinitely in Eritrea without charge or trial and pending a denial 

of faith. Torture is rife in these detention centers with prisoners 

being held in such inhumane conditions as metal shipping containers, underground cells, and in the open air in desert areas surrounded by barbed wire or thorns. 

Authorized denominations also suffer repression, most significantly in a series of government-initiated punitive measures from 

2005 to 2006. The legitimate patriarch of the Orthodox Church who 

had resisted government interference in church affairs was forced 

from office and placed under house arrest where he remains to 

date. 

His supporters were jailed or conscripted, and we’re talking 

about priests. Similar pressures regarding conscription were also 

exerted on the Roman Catholic Church. In Sudan, the religion of 

the majority as interpreted by the current regime is treated preferentially. 

Following the secession of South Sudan, religious freedom violations increased. The state made assessments of churches and then 

claimed and demolished places of worship after April 2012. 

In addition, northern-based church leaders began to receive 

threats and at least two instances experienced direct attacks. Between December 2012 and April 2013, we noted an increase in harassments, arrests, and detentions of Christians. 

108

Foreign Christians were deported at short notice and their property confiscated by the state. I’d just like to conclude with two very 

broad recommendations. 

The first one is with regard to the Islamist uprisings and 

insurgencies. To echo what was said by the first speaker, early 

warning signs must be heeded and when intolerance manifests 

itself actions should be taken decisively. 

In the case of Nigeria, academic debate delayed action unnecessarily. In the case of the Central African Republic, slowness in 

sending adequate troops to enforce security is going to allow problems to fester and get even worse than they are. 

Once a decision has been taken to act, action must be decisive. 

And secondly, in the case of Eritrea, voices in the U.S. have been 

speaking of normalizing relations with this country. 

We’re all for normalization. However, integrated into any discussions should be, as a primary benchmark, access to long-term political and religious detainees for the Red Cross and for the families 

of these detainees and also for any other relevant body. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gondwe follows:]

109


86650g-1.eps
110


86650g-2.eps
111


86650g-3.eps
112


86650g-4.eps
113


86650g-5.eps
114


86650g-6.eps
115


86650g-7.eps
116


86650g-8.eps
117


86650g-9.eps
118

Mr. SMITH. Dr. Gondwe, thank you very much. You did pack a 

lot in, as did all of you. As Mr. Allen said, there is a global war 

on Christians and your testimonies and that of our previous witnesses have made that absolutely clear, and I do hope members of 

the press and especially policy makers in free countries realize that 

this is surging in a way that is unprecedented, I think, in human 

history. 

Your testimonies with great detail and accuracy have laid out 

what is happening and I’m so deeply appreciative. Would you like 

me to yield to you? 

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

I’ve got to run to another meeting but I wanted just to say thank 

you to each one of you for not only your testimony but the detailed 

nature of that testimony and assure you that what we will do—we 

have a staff member that is committed to this particular issue. 

As the chairman knows, it is—it’s an honor to serve with him 

and fight for this particular cause and we’ll be going through your 

written testimony in detail and perhaps we’ll be following up with 

you with some questions and some plans of action. 

But I wanted to thank you for the sacrifice of time and certainly 

the well thought-out testimony, and I’ll yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much. 

I know, Mr. Allen, you do have to leave and I just want to ask 

you one question, although I have many. You make a very disturbing point about how ordinary people in the West are conditioned to see Christianity as an agent of repression and not a victim. 

As has been pointed out here and you’ve said it as well, you 

know, very often the real face of Christianity is an African woman 

with four children or, as I think you also said, a Dalit. 

You know, the false sense of somebody in a limo, that may be 

on some of the TV shows but it is not the everyday experience and 

that would include here as well. 

What do you think accounts for such negative conditioning and 

is any of that because the church as a teacher, as an exhorter, as 

an admonisher does play the role of spiritual teacher and guide, 

you know, and people rebel against that? Or is it just this false 

sense? 

You know, this may not fit as an analogy but I’ll never forget my 

first trip the Soviet Union in 1982 on behalf of Soviet Jews and 

Pentecostals, the number of people, and we heard this throughout 

the 1980s especially, who thought that ‘‘Dallas’’ was somehow 

America. 

It wasn’t yet there. They weren’t showing American movies or 

sitcoms or anything else yet, but that was creeping into the populace and they all thought we were—you know, the streets were 

paved with gold in the United States. Nothing, of course, could be 

further from the truth. What accounts for that? 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think it’s a complex situation 

but I will speak now as a media professional. One thing I have 

learned from more than 20 years in the media business narratives 

do not have to be accurate to be shockingly durable. 

I mean, once something is sort of cemented in the popular consciousness, and that can happen very quickly, it can take a much 

119

longer period of time to move it out and I think the practical reality 

is, first of all, perceptions tend to be framed by local reality. 

So, you know, Americans look around at what is visible about 

Christianity in their own back yard and there are often fairly expensive looking Catholic cathedrals or, you know, lavish Pentecostal mega-churches and they sort of draw the conclusion that 

‘‘Christianity Incorporated’’ is a multinational with some pretty 

deep pockets. 

I think part of the reality too is that Christianity is associated 

with some controversial stands on the wars of culture in the West 

which shapes some elements of our culture to have a sort of negative predisposition. 

But however you explain it, these amount to explanations and 

not excuses. Again, I insist that the practical reality of the early 

21st century is that two-thirds of the Christians on this planet live 

outside the West. 

More than 50 percent of them live in poverty. That share is going 

to be 3⁄4 by mid-century. That’s the reality of who Christians are 

on the ground today and many of them live in dramatically at-risk 

situations, as we have heard chronicled by this panel. 

So however you explain the inadequate narrative that we have 

there’s no way of justifying it. 

It’s time for that narrative to be punctured and be replaced with 

a more accurate impression of who Christians are and the risks 

they face and, again, on behalf of all of us I thank you for your efforts to do that. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Allen. Thank you. I know 

you do have to leave but we appreciate it. 

Let me ask some questions of our other distinguished panelists, 

if I could. Mr. Rogers, you pointed out that Christians in Aceh live 

in fear, people worship in secret. One church leader told CSW we 

do have a comprehensive partnership here in this country between 

the State Department and the leadership of Indonesia and I’m 

wondering if you have any sense that there is a robust component 

of human rights and religious freedom as a part of that. 

Parenthetically, I actually visited Banda Aceh after the tsunami 

and I can tell you had it not been for the sailors aboard the USS 

Abraham Lincoln and the helicopters that they dubbed the ‘‘Gray 

Angels,’’ many Muslims and Christians alike would have died because they were the tourniquet on what was a very, very serious 

situation of hunger and sickness as a result of the tsunami. 

All of that good will gleaned from that are the Indonesians listening to us or are they moving in the wrong direction, and what 

about that comprehensive partnership? Is it working? 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much. 

One of the things that I always try to emphasize talking about 

the situation in Indonesia is that Indonesia does have this great 

tradition of religious pluralism. Its constitution, its founding state 

ideology known as Pancasila is a pluralistic ideology. 

It gives protection for the six recognized religions in Indonesia 

and that’s a tremendous credit to the world’s largest Muslim majority nation. And so when I’m talking to people in Indonesia and in 

the Indonesian Government I try to frame the argument very much 

in terms of their own achievements and their own tradition being 

120

in peril, and similarly they’ve made this great transition from the 

Suharto era dictatorship to a thriving democracy that I think too 

is in peril by these violations of religious freedom and also violations of the rule of law. 

When I gave the example of the two churches where the Supreme Court had upheld their right to exist and the local mayor 

was defying the Supreme Court and nobody has taken action to ensure that the Supreme Court’s rulings are implemented, the 

churches remained locked and the mayor is free to defy the court. 

So it then becomes rule of law issues. 

But if I may just add a third point, I think that there is a myth 

out there in the world about the current Indonesian Government 

led by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. 

He is often seen as a force of moderation and the Government 

of Indonesia is seen as being largely sympathetic to our concerns 

but being weak and unable to take action. And my research in this 

report that we’re about to publish shows that that is completely untrue. 

I have to conclude very sadly that President Yudhoyono is neither a force nor particularly moderate. When you look at his 10-

year presidency he has introduced the most sectarian and discriminatory legislation of any Indonesian President. 

He’s introduced legislation that has had a direct impact on 

churches as well as on other communities. He’s actually made, himself, very inflammatory remarks, particularly in a speech to the 

Council of Indonesian Ulema, where he basically gave them a 

green light to issue discriminatory fatwas—religious rulings, and 

some of his own ministers have made very inflammatory remarks. 

So I think we’re actually dealing with a government that is more 

complicit with this than perhaps we like to admit or they like to 

admit, and my hope in this close relationship that the United 

States has with Indonesia, particularly looking ahead to Indonesia’s Presidential elections this year when the current President 

will leave office, I hope the United States will really put pressure 

on the incoming President to tackle these issues. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask you about Burma. You really had very 

specific information about the repression against Christians and, 

frankly, very often there is one major step forward in one area and 

all is seen as well, everything is fine there and we say let’s move 

on and look elsewhere. 

And when Aung San Suu Kyi came here and spoke she was eloquent as she always has been and very brave and, of course, and 

she absolutely deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. But for a lot of 

Americans and policy makers it’s like Burma is off the list of anything that we need to be looking at and yet you give some very 

compelling insights as to ongoing repression against Christians. 

Could you elaborate? 

Mr. ROGERS. Absolutely. I think, of course, there have been some 

tremendous openings in Burma. I’ve experienced them myself. 

It’s possible to do things in Burma that would have been inconceivable just a couple of years ago. I was in Burma most recently 

in October–November and I was able to give trainings and workshops in human rights and religious freedom that just would have 

121

been impossible a short time ago. So those positive steps are welcome. 

But you’re absolutely right, there is this tendency to think that 

just because Aung San Suu Kyi is released and is now sitting in 

Parliament and because many political prisoners have been released that our job is done and Burma is a normal country. 

My conclusion on Burma is, if I may, just two brief points. Firstly, I think there has been a change of atmosphere but not yet a 

change of system. So there has been a relaxation in some respects 

and an increase in freedom in space for civil society, to some degree 

freedom of expression. 

But at the same time, an increase in religious intolerance directed both—most starkly, actually, against the Muslim community 

in Burma but also this long legacy that I described of violence 

against and persecution of Christians. 

And I wrote a piece recently in the Wall Street Journal where 

my concluding line was the beginning of the beginning may have 

just begun, and by that I mean yes, there are some positive 

changes but there’s a very, very long way to go and we must not 

think that by any means that our job is done, as the evidence I’ve 

given today shows. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Arora, you, again, spent a great deal of time delineating the problems in India and you also talked about the anticonversion laws. 

Could you tell us what accounts for the Gujarat’s extreme law, 

what the role of the BJP is, and what happens, what are the consequences potentially in terms of religious liberty, if the BJP wins 

the upcoming elections in May? 

Ms. ARORA. Well, the Gujarat law, to start with, was enacted by 

a BJP government. Mr. Narendra Modi as chief minister enacted 

that law. It is perhaps the most severe——

Mr. SMITH. Could you come closer, please? 

Ms. ARORA. It is perhaps the most severe law of all the anti-conversion laws and actually requires permission to be sought before 

any religious conversion. 

An enquiry will be conducted into every religious conversion and 

there are high penalties levied if that procedure is not followed. 

The law itself is very vague and allows for Christians and Muslims in fact to be targeted under this. There have been several instances of Christians and Muslims being prosecuted under the law. 

Thankfully, there have been no convictions as of date. The BJP 

has called for a national anti-conversion law so we see that as the 

most immediate something coming through if they were to come to 

power and we have also seen the impunity that is enjoyed by the 

Hindutva forces, as I outlined in my testimony, in Orissa. 

But we have seen that across the states in the state of 

Karnataka, in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, I have spoken to police officials on several occasions who have informed me well, you 

know, the pastor is converting. 

I mean, even conversion has become an issue, let alone conversion by force, fraud or inducement and we see that rising as the 

BJP comes to power. Already there is a sense of euphoria among 

the ranks, almost agree that they will be coming to pass. So that 

is something that as minorities that is deeply feared. 

122

Mr. SMITH. Is the United States doing enough to raise these 

issues, for example, our Ambassador to India, the State Department, in your view? 

Ms. ARORA. I think more can be done. India is very receptive to 

agencies, organizations, governments speaking to us. I think more 

can be done. 

I think some has been done. Especially when you look at Orissa 

there has been some focus that was put on the state of Orissa. But 

across the country there just needs consistent dialogue with the Indian Government on these issues. So I would urge the Government 

of the U.S. to do that. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Dr. Gondwe, you’ve touched on country after country 

with great detail. One of the narratives here is that somehow alShabaab is on the wane, especially since they have not fared as 

well as they would have hoped in Somalia. 

But then they struck very hard in Nairobi and that was one 

wake-up call. Then you go on to talk about the target of al-Shabaab 

and al-Qaeda using Zanzibar as a stepping stone. Their target is 

the whole country of Tanzania. 

And I think a lot of people forget that when Nairobi got hit in 

1998 so did Dar es Salaam, and I actually chaired the hearings 

when Admiral Crowe who headed up the accountability review 

boards talked about how we didn’t think they could hit there. 

That was not one of the targets that we thought extremist Muslims would focus on and a matter of fact I actually wrote the Embassy Security Act to further protect at least U.S. interests there 

with the more diplomatic security. 

But the point being I think we are naive to some extent thinking 

that somehow there’s a decline or they’re on the wane when we—

when you come forward with evidence about just how they are multiplying and growing more lethal and dangerous every day. Could 

you elaborate on that? 

Ms. GONDWE. Yes. From the research I have done it shows that 

al-Shabaab has actually actively gone forward to recruit nationals 

from, you know, the different countries, particularly along the coast 

and also inland. 

Quite a few of the people who have been arrested in Kenya recently are actually Kenyan nationals, not necessarily Somali nationals of Somali ethnicity, and the same thing has also been happening in Tanzania and elsewhere. 

I think it’s very easy to say they’re on the wane because military 

actions in Somalia itself appear to be being quite effective and 

there have been a few strikes that have taken out leaders, et 

cetera, et cetera. 

However, what has not been factored into the equation is that 

they have been pretty effective in taking advantage of youth who 

feel that they have no stake in society and giving them a reason 

to live, so to speak, and also a religion. You know, with religion on 

top of it it gives them some kind of raison d’etre and it’s those people that people should be worried about more than anything else. 

And I think, for example, in the UK we had the killing of Lee 

Rigby in broad daylight in London. That was a wake-up call that 

there are youths there too who feel they have no stake in society 

and are actually being actively targeted in different ways. 

123

In the UK we’re hearing about targeting within the prison system and these are the people that we should be worried about. I 

don’t know if that’s a thing that the U.S. has been looking at but 

the targeting of disaffected unemployed youths in Africa is a very 

worrying thing. 

While we were in Tanzania we heard anecdotal evidence of people being trained and then sent back even to my country Malawi 

and other places where they are sort of sleeper cells almost and are 

being prepared to move when there’s a time to move. 

I don’t have hard evidence of that but considering what has been 

happening elsewhere I wouldn’t doubt what we heard. 

Mr. SMITH. If I could ask you as well, you point out that between—and testifying between 2,000 to 3,000 Christians are detained indefinitely at any given time in Eritrea. 

You point out that as with tens of thousands of other prisoners 

of conscience none have been formally charged or brought to trial 

and all are held pending a denial of faith. 

Torture is rife in Eritrea’s detention centers with prisoners being 

held in such inhumane conditions as metal shipping containers, underground cells and in the open air desert surrounded by barbed 

wire or thorns, and you go on to further detail that horrific mistreatment. 

My question is in your view has the American Government, has 

the African Union, has the Human Rights Council weighed in effectively on behalf of these persecuted Christians and other prisoners 

of conscience in Eritrea? 

Ms. GONDWE. I would say the American Government has weighted in probably the most effectively and I commend the American 

Government for that. 

Mr. SMITH. Could you come closer, please? Thank you. 

Ms. GONDWE. They have weighted in possibly the most effectively 

and I commend the American Government for that. The others 

have fallen in line slowly. 

But initially the concern about Eritrea was that it was a destabilizing influence in the Horn of Africa siding with al-Shabaab and 

facilitating things for al-Shabaab so the initial U.N. sanctions 

against Eritrea focused on security issues, forgetting that the people of Eritrea are probably its biggest victims. 

The Human Rights Council has now weighted in far more effectively with the creation a Special Rapporteur on human rights in 

Eritrea. However, Eritrea refuses to engage with the Special 

Rapporteur so that’s slightly problematic. But at least Eritrea is 

now being challenged at the international level for its treatment of 

its citizens. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Galindo, you when into great detail about the 

group that filed the complaint with the National Human Rights 

Commission in 2010 and people living in Chiapas. 

The question is from what I gleaned from your statement here 

is that the local police, local governing authority were in solidarity 

with traditionalists and were part of the problem. 

Did the Federal Government send in Federal troops, Federal police to intervene and under the new Presidency of Mexico has there 

been any change, any focus on trying to ensure a robust religious 

freedom there? 

124

Mr. GALINDO. Yes. Let me answer it this way. 

As I told in my speech, no government until the present day has 

taken the matter as seriously as——

Mr. SMITH. So the present day has taken it more seriously? 

Mr. GALINDO. Yes. I think the old President, not in this administration before also they only said in their campaigns about this 

issue but in their practice we do not have any support of this important theme. 

Let me explain it to you in this way. In 1992, our constitution 

was modified—1992. It was the first time after 70 years that the 

churches were going to be recognized. I mean, 70 years no churches 

in Mexico. 1992 they said okay, we understand they are—we have 

to register them. The authority in that year thought that it was—

one of every 100 churches registering all of them. 

Now almost we have 8,000. So if you can travel in 1992 our law 

now is limited. I mean, is not—is not enough. Now I think that the 

time is correct in this moment. Why? Because a few year—months 

ago the international treaties and our constitution are equal. 

So just to—I’m speaking of 1 year ago the human rights are considered very, very, very important in Mexico. So we are expecting 

that in this administration we can have good results. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Galindo, if I could ask you, you’ve pointed out 

that there’s another serious and growing threat to religious freedom in Mexico and you said over the last 6 years the government 

has attempted to confront narco-trafficking and criminal networks 

with the full force of the law. 

However, extortion aimed at houses of worship have become normal and you pointed out that in 2011 the Catholic bishops conference announced more than 1,000 priests have received threats. 

And then you went on to talk about in 2013 two priests in the 

State of Veracruz were murdered and you go on to talk about some 

of the others who have been mistreated or murdered. 

The question is—two questions. One, is it narco-trafficking and 

human trafficking? Are they doing both? And what is the government doing to try to—I mean, we have gangs here in the U.S., as 

you know so well, and one of the most disturbing evolutions of 

those gangs is that they’re not just doing drugs. They’re also selling 

women. They have commodified women and it’s becoming a very 

serious, obviously, horrible exploitation of young girls and women 

but it makes an enormous amount of money for these gangs. Is 

that something that’s happening in Mexico as well? 

Mr. GALINDO. Well, exactly I don’t know and exactly the way but 

the thing is that we have a very, very big problem with narco-traffickers, yes. I mean, they are working I don’t know how and they 

have a lot of strength to do the thing that they are doing. 

The thing is that the churches—that is my issue—they are afraid 

to continue working, I mean, because of the evil that they have. We 

have—the problem is in the north of our republic more than the 

center or the south—in the north of the republic near the States—

I mean, Chihuahua and Sinaloa and all the north. 

So what we are trying to do is by the churches just to work as 

they used to and the—to pray, to be very intelligent how can they 

affront that problem. But maybe—I think maybe we have those 

things of treatment of persons. 

125

Mr. SMITH. You have pointed out that with the Cuban Government—very often it’s a matter of indifference or lack of enforcement of law in some governments—but in Cuba’s case it’s the government. 

Perhaps you might want to elaborate on that. We’ve had several 

human rights hearings in this subcommittee on Cuba and one of 

the only, besides some of the political prisoners and those who have 

set up so boldly the churches are one of the last remaining bulwarks against tyranny by Fidel Castro. 

Mr. GALINDO. Yes. The thing is that they want to control everything. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Mr. GALINDO. That’s a problem. They want to control everything 

and religious also. So that’s the big problem. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Rogers, should the Congress and the President 

move forward with TPP toward Vietnam without conditionality on 

human rights? 

Mr. ROGERS. Just to clarify exactly——

Mr. SMITH. The Trans——

Mr. ROGERS. TPP? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. Yes. The new trade agreement that——

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. That the President is seeking fast track 

authority for. 

Mr. ROGERS. I certainly don’t believe it should be without conditions. I think the very serious human rights issues and particularly 

religious freedom affecting Christians and affecting other religious 

communities in Vietnam should absolutely be looked at by the 

United States and the Vietnamese Government should be pressed 

to address those concerns before the agreement is signed. 

Mr. SMITH. I would just point out for the record that in April and 

June I chaired two hearings on Vietnam and human rights with 

the focus on religious freedom and my hope is that both parties 

here in the Congress will listen very carefully to what’s happening 

on the ground in Vietnam. 

Before the bilateral agreement occurred, there was all of this 

hope and expectation that religious freedom and other human 

rights would break out of their bloc where they’ve—and there 

would be a change. 

Nothing even close to that happened. It went in the opposite direction and Vietnam now has deteriorated. Bloc 8406, you know, 

the folks that signed that wonderful human rights charter, systematically have been arrested and hunted down, and I made a trip 

to Vietnam some years ago right before the bilateral agreement 

and visited dissidents in Hue, Hanoi, and Ho Chi Minh City and 

most of those individuals have been arrested, rearrested. 

Father Ly was under house arrest when I met him. He is now 

back in prison. It would be unconscionable and I think it’s unconscionable for the Obama administration not to be insisting on 

human rights conditionality with a country that has already shown 

that they want economic benefits sans linkage to human rights 

conditions. Is there anything else the distinguished—yes? 

Mr. GALINDO. Yes, sorry. I forgot to tell you something. In this 

administration with this President we are hopefully that this is 

126

going to be arranged, I mean. But we are thinking—we are seeing 

that they are afraid of our new groups—not Christian groups, new 

groups. 

They are afraid and they are putting some limits not in the law 

and they are trying to see how they can limit them to grow. I 

mean, that’s also a problem. 

We are not talking only of Christians but we are talking about 

new groups that they are trying to associate and they’re having a 

little bit of problems like Scientology or a lot of them that they are 

trying to get in in the law. 

But the government says I don’t—I don’t like them and I want 

to stay back a little bit. So that’s also a problem of religious liberty 

for the new groups. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

I want to thank you again for your extraordinary testimony, your 

leadership. I want you to know that your testimony as the hearing 

record will be very widely disseminated. 

We hope that the State Department takes note and reads carefully what you have conveyed to the subcommittee and I would like 

to enter into the record a statement by Dr. Brian J. Grim, president of the Religious Freedom and Business Foundation, entitled 

‘‘Persecution of Christians: Getting the Numbers Straight.’’

Hearing no objections, it is so entered. And again, I thank you 

so very much. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:02 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(127)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

128

f


86650n.eps
129

f


86650m.eps
130

f


86650h.eps
131

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY HIS EXCELLENCY, THE MOST REVEREND

FRANCIS A. CHULLIKATT, PERMANENT OBSERVER, THE HOLY SEE MISSION AT THE

UNITED NATIONS


86650i-1.eps
132


86650i-2.eps
133


86650i-3.eps
134


86650i-4.eps
135

f


86650j.eps
136

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELLIOTT ABRAMS, 

COMMISSIONER, U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM


86650k-1.eps
137


86650k-2.eps
138

f


86650k-3.eps
139

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


86650l-1.eps
140


86650l-2.eps
141

Æ


86650l-3.eps