U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–292 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

REVIEW OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT’S ROLE IN 

PROTECTING INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS 

FREEDOM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 11, 2017 

Serial No. 115–61 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Blake Farenthold, Texas 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Greg Gianforte, Montana 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

Val Butler Demings, Florida 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Jimmy Gomez, California 

SHERIA CLARKE, Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCKENNA General Counsel 

CORDELL HULL, Senior Counsel 

SHARON CASEY, Deputy Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY

Ron DESANTIS, Florida, Chairman 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma, Vice Chair 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Val Butler Demings, Florida 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Jimmy Gomez, California 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on October 11, 2017 .......................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Michael G. Kozak, Senior Advisor, Bureau of Democracy, 

Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Ms. Kristina Arriaga de Bucholz, Vice Chair, Commission on International 

Religious Freedom 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Thomas F. Farr, Ph.D., President, Religious Freedom Institute, Director, Religious Freedom Research Project, Georgetown University, Associate Professor, Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 37 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 39 

Mr. Rob Berschinski, Senior Vice President, Policy, Human Rights First 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 43 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 45 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

REVIEW OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT’S ROLE 

IN PROTECTING INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS 

FREEDOM 

Wednesday, October 11, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ron DeSantis [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives DeSantis, Russell, Duncan, Foxx, Hice, 

Comer, Lynch, Demings, Welch, and Gomez. 

Also Present: Representatives Gowdy and Palmer. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The Subcommittee on National Security would 

come to order. 

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at 

any time. 

The right to practice your religion freely is one of the cornerstone 

freedoms we have in our country. In fact, demonstrating its importance, freedom of religion is in the very first amendment of the Bill 

of Rights in our Constitution. Other countries take a narrower view 

of freedom of religion. Some impose an official religion, while others 

actively persecute those practicing a disfavored religion. 

We are pleased to have here today witnesses from the State Department; the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, an independent, bipartisan government agency charged with 

monitoring the religious environment overseas; the president of Religious Freedom Institute; and a witness from the nonprofit group 

Human Rights First. 

In the State Department’s most recent annual report on international religious freedom, the Department noted the U.S. Government promotes religious freedom because countries that effectively 

safeguard this human right are more stable, economically vibrant, 

and peaceful. The failure of governments to protect these rights 

breeds instability, terrorism, and violence. 

Looking at countries with more restrictive religious practices, one 

sees that many of them have significant national security concerns. 

One commentator, a former high-level State Department and NSC 

official, surveyed a number of conflicts in U.S. history and noted, 

quote, ‘‘Including World War II, every major war the United States 

has fought over the past 70 years has been against an enemy that 

also violated religious freedom.’’ As examples, he pointed to Nazi 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

Germany, North Korea, North Vietnam, and Saddam Hussein’s 

Iraq, as well as other sub-war conflicts, including the Cold War 

standoff with Soviet communism. The subcommittee is interested 

in hearing about the correlation between national security risks 

and restrictions on the freedom of religion abroad. 

We had a hearing on this issue in 2014, and there have been 

some developments since then. Just last December, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Frank Wolf International Religious Freedom Act.That law amended the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act, which made clear that international religious freedom is 

a national security issue. 

The Wolf Act contemplates using a whole-of-government approach, including our national security agencies, to encourage religious freedom abroad. One way we can do this is already enshrined 

in Federal law: allowing the denial of a visa to come into the 

United States for a foreign government official responsible for particularly severe violations of religious freedom. 

To help Congress and the American people better understand religious freedom abroad, both the State Department and USCIRF 

produce annual reports discussing countries’ levels of religious freedom. By law, State is required to designate countries of particular 

concern. State’s deadline this year is in mid-November, and I’m 

eager to see which countries are designated. 

The report listed countries of particular concern, but it also listed 

terrorist entities like the Islamic State, the Taliban, and Al 

Shabaab. It goes without saying that those enemies are hostile to 

the free exercise of religion and pose national security risks to the 

American people. 

Looking at the USCIRF list of countries of particular concern, 

there are a number of which are potential national security 

threats, including China, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, and 

Syria, among others. 

To help the United States’ mission to enable religious freedom 

worldwide, the International Religious Freedom Act required the 

appointment of a Senate-confirmed ambassador. President Trump 

nominated former Senator and current Governor of Kansas Sam 

Brownback for the position, and he has had his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just last week. 

As this subcommittee discussed during the 2014 hearing, the ambassador position sat vacant for extended stretches during the 

Obama administration. It is important that the Senate move quickly to confirm Governor Brownback. The world must know that the 

United States takes its role seriously as a world leader in promoting religious freedom. 

Testifying today from the State Department is Ambassador Michael Kozak, Senior Advisor for Democracy, Human Rights, and 

Labor. Also testifying is Kristina Arriaga, who serves as Vice Chair 

on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. 

Joining us, as well, is Professor Thomas Farr, who is president 

of the Religious Freedom Institute, the director of the Religious 

Freedom Research Project at Georgetown University, and associate 

professor of the practice of religion at Georgetown School of Foreign 

Service. Finally, we have Rod Berschinski, a senior vice president 

of policy at Human Rights First. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

I want to thank the witnesses for their attendance. I look forward to your testimony today. 

And, at this point, I’d like to recognize the ranking member of 

the subcommittee, Mr. Lynch, for his opening statement. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to thank you for 

holding this hearing to examine the progress of U.S. Government 

efforts to promote international religious freedom. 

I’d also like to welcome and thank our panel of witnesses this 

morning for its willingness to come and help this committee with 

its work. 

The U.S. framework to address international religious persecution is based on our shared commitment to advancing religious 

freedom as a fundamental and inalienable human right. 

It also recognizes that the protection of religious freedom abroad 

is critical to our national security. As recently stated by Secretary 

of State Rex Tillerson—this is a quote—‘‘Where religious freedom 

is not protected, we know that instability, human rights abuses, 

and violent extremism have a greater opportunity to take root,’’ 

close quote. 

Similarly, the independent U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom underscores that religious freedom is a vital element of national security and critical to ensuring a more peaceful, 

prosperous, and stable world. 

In furtherance of these objectives, the Office of International Religious Freedom at the State Department monitors religious persecution and discrimination worldwide and releases an annual report 

detailing the status of international freedom in each country. The 

office also identifies—and this is a particular term to the study— 

countries of particular concern for subsequent designation by the 

Secretary of State given their severe violations of religious freedom. 

In announcing the first annual report on religious freedom issued 

under the Trump administration in August of 2017, Secretary 

Tillerson highlighted the particular threat posed by the terrorist 

group known as ISIS as a result of its genocidal activities targeting 

Yazidis, Christians, Shia Muslims, and other religious and ethnic 

minorities in Iraq and Syria. This latest report also notes that 10 

nations were rightfully designated as countries of particular concern—those have been listed by my colleague, the chairman—in 

October of 2016, including, again, North Korea, Iran, China, Saudi 

Arabia—excuse me—and Saudi Arabia. 

As the State Department continues its work to identify countries 

of particular concern for 2017, the Office of International Religious 

Freedom should coordinate with the United States Commission on 

International Religious Freedom. Congress has statutorily authorized this bipartisan and independent commission to conduct its own 

oversight in this area and develop policy recommendations to further inform the State Department’s designation process. 

Importantly, the Commission has strongly recommended that the 

State Department add six countries to its list for 2017 due to their 

perpetration and/or tolerance of systematic, ongoing, and egregious 

violations of religious freedom. 

Chief among these additional countries is Russia. This year, in 

fact, marks the first time that the Commission has recommended 

Russia as a country of particular concern, in light of its continued 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

religious freedom violations in the Russian mainland as well as activities in Ukraine and Crimea. According to the Commission’s 

2017 annual report, Russia presents a unique case in religious persecution, as the sole state to have not only continually intensified 

its repression of religious freedom but also to have expanded its repressive policies to the territories of a neighboring state by means 

of military invasion and occupation. 

The repressive policies implemented by the Russian Government 

include administrative harassment, arbitrary imprisonment, and 

extrajudicial killing, as well as the enactment of new laws in 2016 

that criminalize all non-government-sanctioned private religious 

speech. 

Moreover, the Russian Supreme Court recently upheld a Justice 

Ministry order calling for the liquidation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses denomination and prohibiting its operations as a so-called 

extremist organization. Russian security forces also continue to 

subject minority Muslim groups to fabricated terrorism charges, 

kidnappings, and disappearances. 

I strongly believe that the State Department should accept the 

Commission’s recommendation and add Russia to the designation 

list. 

Reports of religious persecution and intolerance in Russia are not 

at all surprising, considering the impunity with which the Russian 

Government continues to conduct itself on the world stage. In January of 2017, our Nation’s intelligence community issued an unclassified and unprecedented high-confidence assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign 

aimed at the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. This malicious campaign included cyber breaches and other covert intelligence operations, as well as nefarious efforts undertaken by Russian Government agencies, state-sanctioned media, and even paid social-media 

users to spread Russian-desired messaging and to interfere in the 

election. 

To date, our committee has not held a hearing to examine that 

intelligence-community-wide assessment that Russia attempted to 

undermine our national security and compromise the very foundation of our democratic process. 

And, in closing, I just want to say that I am very happy that the 

name of Frank Wolf was resurrected in today’s hearing. I had a 

wonderful part of my tenure serving with Frank Wolf, and I know 

he represented the 10th Congressional District in Virginia. It is 

great that we’re carrying on the work of such a great champion of 

religious freedom. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to discussing these and other 

issues with today’s witnesses, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. DESANTIS. I thank the ranking member. 

I have introduced the witnesses in my opening statement, but, 

just for the record, we do have Ambassador Kozak, we have 

Kristina Arriaga, we have Dr. Farr, and we have Mr. Berschinski. 

So we appreciate you all being here. Thank you. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. So if you could all please rise, raise your right 

hand. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you’re about to give 

is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 

you God? 

Thank you. Please be seated. 

All witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your testimony 

to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be made a part 

of the record. As a reminder, the clock in front of you shows your 

remaining time. The light will turn yellow when you have 30 seconds left and red when your time is up. Please also remember to 

press the button to turn your microphone on before speaking. 

And, with that, I would like to recognize Ambassador Kozak for 

5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL G. KOZAK 

Mr. KOZAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For you and members of 

the committee, thank you for holding this hearing to focus attention on international religious freedom—a cherished American 

value, a universal human right, and a Trump administration foreign policy priority. 

As you mentioned, President Trump has nominated Governor 

Brownback to be the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom. Amongst his other accomplishments, he’s coauthored two books on the subject and, as Senator, was a key sponsor 

of the International Religious Freedom Act. We could not ask for 

a more distinguished nominee. 

President Trump has stated that the United States looks forward 

to a day when people of all faiths—Christians and Muslims and 

Jewish and Hindu—can follow their hearts and worship according 

to their conscience. Vice President Pence has said, under President 

Trump, America will continue to stand for religious freedom of all 

people of all faiths across the world. 

In August, Secretary Tillerson mentioned that conditions in 

many parts of the world are far from ideal. As was mentioned, he 

stated that ISIS is clearly responsible for genocide against Yazidis, 

Christians, and Shia Muslims and is responsible for crimes against 

humanity and ethnic cleansing. 

United States efforts to help include our leadership of the Global 

Coalition to Defeat ISIS. Coalition-backed forces have liberated 

more than three-quarters of the territory ISIS once controlled in 

Iraq and about two-thirds of the territory it once controlled in 

Syria. ISIS has not regained control of any of this territory due in 

part to the Coalition’s work to stabilize liberated communities. 

But more robust steps must be taken in coming months so that 

Iraq’s religious minority communities can provide for their own security. We continue to support the Iraqi Government’s efforts to enhance local government and establish local security forces. 

Stabilization projects in Iraq include minorities ISIS targeted for 

genocide. In Sinjar District, a predominantly Yazidi area, the U.N. 

Development Programme has completed the rehabilitation of the 

Sinouni hospital and primary health clinic, seven schools, and 

seven water wellheads and pumps, and has more projects planned 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

for later this year. In the historic Christian town of Bartella, 

trained explosive ordnance disposal teams have cleared schools, 

medical facilities, and other key infrastructure. 

These efforts are setting up conditions for displaced people to voluntarily return to their home. We will ensure stabilization assistance reaches all liberated areas as quickly as possible. 

Our bureau is working on programs that empower minorities to 

advocate on issues such as key pieces of legislation. Programs also 

promote stabilization efforts, more equitable and representative political participation, and access to services and governance structures. These programs engage the majority as well as minority 

communities, recognizing that preservation of ethnic and religious 

minorities in Iraq cannot be sustained without support and understanding of their value within mainstream Iraqi society. 

Another global concern is our work to reform discriminatory laws 

that deprive many of their ability to exercise their religious belief. 

Iran, for example, has 20 individuals executed in 2016 on charges 

that included waging war again God. Members of the Baha’i community are in prison for abiding their beliefs. 

In Saudi Arabia, the government does not recognize the right of 

non-Muslims to practice their religion in public and has used prison sentences, lashings, fines for apostasy, atheism, blasphemy, and 

insulting the state’s interpretation of Islam. 

In Turkey, non-Sunni Muslims face discrimination and violence. 

The United States continues to advocate for the immediate release 

of Pastor Andrew Brunson, who has been wrongfully imprisoned 

there. 

In Bahrain, the government continued to target Shia clerics, and 

members of the community were discriminated against in government employment, education, and the justice system. 

In China, the government tortures, detains, and imprisons thousands for practicing their religious beliefs. 

In Pakistan, two dozen people are on death row or life imprisonment for blasphemy. 

And, in Sudan, the government arrests and intimidates clergy. 

We appreciate the committee raising the connection between the 

state of international religious freedom and America’s national security. Our efforts to defend religion, in brief, is in our national interest. Places where religious freedom is denied, left unattended, 

can become full-blown security crises with effects far beyond their 

immediate neighborhoods. Mass migration caused by persecution 

can be destabilizing. And resentment borne of discrimination and 

persecution for one’s faith can create a fertile ground for 

radicalization to violence and terrorist recruitment. 

In closing, I would note that the International Religious Freedom 

Act calls on our government to stand for liberty and stand with the 

persecuted, to use and implement appropriate tools in the United 

States foreign policy apparatus, including diplomatic, commercial, 

charitable, educational, and cultural channels, to promote respect 

for religious freedom by all. 

We appreciate that these issues have always had strong bipartisan support, and we want to work closely with Congress to help 

persecuted minorities. Thank you again for holding this hearing to 

review the U.S. role in protecting international religious freedom. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Kozak follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 30292.001

Testimony of 

Ambassador Michael Kozak 

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor 

Before the 

Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security 

October 11, 2017 

Chairman DeSantis and Members of the Committee, thank you for holding this hearing to focus 

attention on international religious freedom, a cherished American value, a universal human 

right, and a Trump Administration foreign policy priority. 

As you know, President Trump has nominated Governor Sam Brownback of Kansas to be the 

Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom. The Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee held a hearing on the nomination last week. Governor Brownback is the highest 

ranking government official ever to be nominated for this important post, and he brings great 

commitment and experience. He has co-authored two books on the subject, and as a Senator was 

a key sponsor of the International Religious Freedom Act. We could not ask for a more 

distinguished nominee. 

President Trump has stated that the United States looks forward to a day when, 'people of all 

faiths, Christians and Muslims and Jewish and Hindu, can follow their hearts and worship 

according to their conscience." And Vice-President Pence has said, "Since the founding of our 

nation, America has stood for the proposition that the right to believe and the right to act on 

one's beliefs is the right of' all peoples at all times .... Under President Trump. America will 

continue to stand for religious freedom of all people, of all faiths, across the v.•orld." 

In August, when Secretary Tillerson released the 2016 International Religious Freedom Report, 

he noted that almost twenty years after the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act 

"conditions in many parts of the world arefarfrom ideal.·· Secretary Tillerson said that we 

cannot ignore these conditions, and then emphasized that, "ISIS is clearly responsible for 

genocide against Yezidis. Christians, and Shia A1uslims in areas it controls or has controlled 

ISIS is also responsible for crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing directed at these same 

groups, and in some cases against Sunni A1uslims, Kurds, and other minorities." 

United States efforts to help members of minority religious communities are broad, and include 

our leadership of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. To date, Coalition-backed forces have 

liberated more than three quarters of the territory ISIS once controlled in Iraq, as well as about 

two thirds of the territory it once controlled in Syria. ISIS has not regained control of any of this 

territory due in part to the Coalition's work to stabilize liberated communities. 

Religious minorities face a critical moment and we understand the gravity of the situation, one in 

which Iraq's historic diversity risks disappearing. Robust steps must be taken in the coming 

months so Iraq's religious minority communities can provide for their own security. We continue 

to support the Iraqi government's efforts to enhance local governance and establish local security 
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 30292.002

forces and to eventually incorporate these local forces into law enforcement agencies to meet 

local security requirements as Iraq transitions from major combat operations against ISIS. 

We are committed to ensuring that stabilization projects in Iraq remain inclusive of all 

communities in need, including minorities ISIS targeted for genocide and who have historically 

experienced discrimination and marginalization. In Sinjar district, a predominantly Y ezidi area, 

UNDP has completed the rehabilitation of the Sinuni Hospital and the primary health clinic, 

seven schools, and seven water wellheads and pumps, and has more projects planned for later 

this year. Additionally, the Department of State's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs and our 

Coalition partners support the removal of explosive remnants of war in areas liberated from ISIS 

control. In the historic Christian town ofBartallah, trained explosive ordnance disposal teams 

have cleared schools, medical facilities, and other key infrastructure. These efforts- and many 

more like them- are helping set the conditions for displaced persons to voluntarily return to their 

homes, but there remains much to do. We will continue to work with UNDP to ensure 

stabilization assistance reaches all liberated areas as quickly as possible, including minority 

communities in the Ninewa Plains. 

The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor supports minority communities in Iraq 

through programs that empower minorities and civil society groups to advocate on issues that 

impact minority communities, such as key pieces oflegislation. Additionally, programs seek to 

promote greater inclusiveness of minorities within Iraq society through reconciliation and 

stabilization efforts; more equitable and representative political participation; and access to 

services and governance structures. These programs engage the mainstream community as well 

as minority communities, recognizing that preservation of ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq 

cannot be sustained without support and understanding of their value within mainstream Iraqi 

society. 

Another global concern is our work to reform discriminatory laws that deprive many of their 

ability to freely exercise their religious beliefs. The 2016 International Religious Freedom 

Report makes clear that many governments around the world use discriminatory laws to deny 

those within their borders freedom of religion or belief. For example, in Iran, Baha'is, 

Christians, and members of other religious minorities are targeted for their faith. Iran continues 

to sentence individuals to death under vague apostasy laws 20 individuals were executed in 

2016 on charges that included "waging war against God."' Members of the Baha'i community 

are in prison today simply for abiding by their beliefs. 

In Saudi Arabia, we remain concerned about the state of religious freedom. The government 

does not recognize the right of non-Muslims to practice their religion in public and has applied 

criminal penalties, including prison sentences, lashings, and fines, for apostasy. atheism, 

blasphemy, and insulting the state's interpretation of Islam. Of particular concern are attacks 

targeting Shia Muslims, and the continued pattern of social prejudice and discrimination against 

them. We urge Saudi Arabia to embrace greater protection for religious freedom for all. 

In Turkey, authorities continued to limit the human rights of members of some religious minority 

groups, and some communities continue to experience protracted property disputes. Non-Sunni 

Muslims, such as Alevi Muslims, do not receive the same governmental protections as those 

2 
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 30292.003

enjoyed by recognized non-Muslim minorities and have faced discrimination and violence. 

Additionally, the United States continues to advocate for the release of Pastor Andrew Brunson, 

who has been imprisoned in Turkey, exactly one year as of October 7. 

In Bahrain, the government continued to target Shia clerics, community members, and 

opposition politicians with questioning, detentions, and arrests. Members of the Shia community 

there continue to report ongoing discrimination in government employment, education, and the 

justice system. The Secretary of State, Ambassador and other senior officials have met with 

government officials to urge them to implement fully the Independent Commission oflnquiry's 

recommendations on the reconstruction of places of worship; to respect freedom of expression 

for clerics; to ensure Shia had equal access to employment and services; to pursue reconciliation 

between the government and Shia communities; and to further empower the human rights 

ombudsman to engage with the government in support of the right of prisoners to practice their 

religions. 

In Burma, Muslims, Christians, and members of other religious minority communities continue 

to report physical abuse, arbitrary arrest, and detention on account of their religious beliefs by 

security forces in areas of violent conflict. Rohingya Muslims face particularly harsh treatment, 

including severe restrictions on freedom of movement and access to citizenship, and coercive 

population control measures, including forced abortion. In the last two months, we have seen 

horrific reports of security forces razing Rohingya villages and committing grave human rights 

violations against Rohingya men, women, and children. Roughly 509,000 Rohingya have fled to 

Bangladesh, and more continue to arrive each day. Over half of Burma's Rohingya population 

has now been forcibly displaced. 

In China, the government tortures, detains, and imprisons thousands for practicing their religious 

beliefs. The government has instituted harsh new policies restricting Uighur Muslims' and 

Tibetan Buddhists' religious expression and practice, detained unknown numbers of Uighurs and 

Tibetans for their religious beliefs, and demolished or appropriated centers of worship 

throughout the country. Members of unregistered Christian ''house churches" face harassment, 

detention, and imprisonment for their unapproved religious activities, and for their refusal to join 

state-sanctioned churches. Falun Gong practitioners have also been singled out for harsh 

treatment and detention. 

In Pakistan. more than two dozen people are on death row or serving a life imprisonment for 

blasphemy. Human rights organizations continue to express concerns regarding the 

marginalization of Ahmadiyya Muslims. We have urged the government to protect the human 

rights of members of religious minorities. 

In Sudan the government arrests, detains, and intimidates clergy and church members. It denies 

frequently permits for the construction of new churches and is closing or demolishing certain 

existing ones. We have provided the Government of Sudan recommendations for how to 

concretely improve observance of religious freedom and urge them to take concrete steps to that 

end. 

3 
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 30292.004

We appreciate this Committee for raising the connection between the state of international 

religious freedom worldwide and America's national security. While the moral imperative to 

promote religious freedom around the world is clear, our efforts to defend freedom of religion or 

belief for all people is directly in our national interest. When we look at all of the places in 

which religious freedom is denied around the globe, it is not difficult to conclude that left 

unattended these situations can become full blown security crises with effects far beyond their 

immediate neighborhoods. Mass migration caused by persecution or violence against individuals 

based on their religion can be destabilizing to both the countries of origin and resettlement, and 

resentment born of discrimination and persecution for one· s faith can create a fertile ground for 

radicalization to violence and terrorist recruitment. By using our diplomacy to address these 

problems before they become security crises, we improve the security of our own country and 

that of our allies, and by doing so, work to relieve our taxpayers of the greater burdens stemming 

from full-fledged global crises. 

In closing, I would note that Congress was wise in passing the International Religious Freedom 

Act of 1998, which calls for our government to "[Stand] for liberty and [stand/ with the 

persecuted, to use and implement appropriate tools in the United States foreign policy 

apparatus, including diplomatic, political, commercial, charitable, educational, and cultural 

channels, to promote respectfor religiousfreedom by all governments and peoples. " We 

appreciate that international religious freedom issues have always had strong bipartisan support, 

and we want to work closely with Congress to help persecuted religious minorities. Thank you, 

again, for holding this hearing to review the U.S. role in protecting international religious 

freedom. 

4 
12 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

Ms. Arriaga, you’re up for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTINA ARRIAGA DE BUCHOLZ 

Ms. ARRIAGA. Thank you. My name is Kristina Arriaga. I’m the 

vice chairwoman of the United States Commission on International 

Religious Freedom. 

Today, I’d like to offer three observations, which I explore more 

fully in my written testimony. Thanks for accepting it for the 

record. 

Number one, we ignore religious freedom at our own peril. The 

U.S. Government must factor into its foreign policy religious freedom, a foundational human right, a source of peace, stability, and 

economic vitality, and a key factor in countries worldwide. For example, those whose religious freedom has been violated can become 

susceptible to extremist indoctrination, and governments that commit violations or allow them to occur with impunity often sow the 

seeds of their own instability. 

Number two, some view religion as competition or as alternate 

source of authority. This is dangerous to the United States. These 

countries use national security concerns to justify violating religious freedom, they pit groups against each other to enhance their 

own power, they allow violators to act with impunity, and they incite vigilante groups and others to violence. However, by exercising 

control in these ways, governments in Russia, Syria, Iraq, Saudi 

Arabia, and Pakistan, for example, create more instability, not enhance authority. 

Number three, hit them where it hurts. No one who violates 

human rights in their own country should be granted a visa to 

come to this country. The U.S. Government has tools to address religious freedom violations, including the 1998 IRFA, the 2016 

Frank Wolf International Religious Freedom Act, and the Global 

Magnitsky Act. However, we must have the political will to use 

these tools, and that is sometimes where we can fall short. 

Congress plays an indispensable role, including by holding hearings, passing new legislation, and appropriating ample funding, exercising oversight, focusing on accountability, continually creating 

and refining the tools needed to address challenges, including accountability for genocide and crimes against humanity, using your 

own bully pulpits to highlight violations, and advocating for those 

who are persecuted and detained. 

I will end by focusing on two issues dear to my heart: religious 

prisoners of conscience and women and religious freedom. 

I hope all members can support prisoners through the Tom Lantos Commission Defending Freedoms Project, launched in conjunction with USCIRF and Amnesty International USA. To do our part, 

each one of us are advocating for a prisoner as part of our Religious 

Prisoner of Conscience Project. I chose Fariba Kamalabadi, who is 

in Iran in prison simply because she’s a Baha’i. 

Last week, during a USCIRF delegation visit to Turkey, Commissioner Sandra Jolley and I drove to the remote prison of Kiriklar 

to meet with Pastor Andrew Brunson. We were the first to see him 

besides his wife, attorney, and the consular officer. He has been imprisoned on fabricated charges. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
13 

This picture—he doesn’t look like this anymore. He’s lost over 50 

pounds. He has suffered tremendous psychological pressure. And 

we must continue to advocate for his immediate release. 

Finally, building lasting peace and security requires the participation of women. Especially during conflicts, women are often targeted for violence and discrimination, with religion or the excuse 

of religion used to disempower women. In fact, it is a betrayal of 

the very foundations of freedom of religion or belief whenever it’s 

misused to justify inexcusable and harmful practices, such as female genital mutilation, child brides, and forced conventions. Unfortunately, this practice has been exported. In our own country, 

there are half a million girls at risk for female genital mutilation. 

My written testimony ended by quoting Martin Luther King. 

Here, I would like to quote Yogi Berra, who said, ‘‘If you come to 

a fork in the road, take it.’’ The United States must commit to travel the road of advocating for international religious freedom with 

determination, passion, and commitment. 

Thank you very much. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Arriaga follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 30292.005

TESTIMONY 

BEFORE THE NATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

ON 

REVIEW OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN PROTECTING 

INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 

BY 

KRISTINA ARRIAGA 

VICE CHAIRWOMAN 

U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 

OCTOBER 11, 2017 
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 30292.006

I am Kristina Arriaga, Vice Chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom 

(USCIRF). Thank you for the opportunity to testify today before the National Security 

Subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on the "Review of 

the U.S. Government's Role in Protecting International Religious Freedom." 

I am honored to appear before this subcommittee and appreciate your interest in USCIRF's 

assessment of the government's role in protecting international religious freedom. In my 

testimony, I will highlight: why we should care about freedom of religion or belief as a core human 

right and a source of peace, stability and economic vitality; the different ways governments, 

recognizing the power of religion, seek to control their citizens and in the process sow instability 

and insecurity; the tools, some new, that our government can and should use; and 

recommendations for Congress. 

It saddens me to report that the state of affairs for international religious freedom appears to be 

worsening in the depth and breadth of violations by both govermnents and non-state actors. 

Religious minorities and dissenting members of the majority community face many abuses 

worldwide, including imprisonment, displacement, and genocide, and non-state actors present 

increasing challenges. In fact, the violations are so egregious that less egregious abuses often go 

ll11lloticed. However, as I will note shortly, I believe that there is an increased recognition of the 

importance of this precious right to stability and security, and with this recognition some new tools 

have been created to confront these challenges. 

Why the Freedom of Religion or Belief needs to be a Factor in U.S. Foreign Policy 

When we consider the conditions and possible trajectories of countries that top the U.S. foreign 

policy agenda and the national security implications if these conditions are not addressed, it seems 

obvious that our government, using international standards, must factor freedom of religion or 

belief into our foreign policy. And then there is another fact: simply put, people care about 

religion. A reported 84% of the world's population identifies with a specific religious group, and, 

according to the most recent Pew Research Center study on global religious restrictions and 

hostilities, more than three-quarters of the world's population live in countries in which religion is 

restricted significantly, either by the government or societal actors. 

So we know that religion and religious freedom are key factors in nations that top the U.S. foreign 

policy agenda. We also know that people care about religion. Yet for far too long, the U.S. 

government did not give this foundational human right the priority it merited. Many in government 

asserted that religion belonged, if at all, in the private sphere, or simply did not matter much in the 

modern world. This view reflects what commonly has been known as the secularization thesis: 

that as societies progress and modernize, religion loses its authority and secular institutions achieve 

supremacy. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. World events repeatedly have demonstrated that religion 

remains central to people, and our nation and its diplomats cannot have productive dialogues and 

satisfactory relations or outcomes if we ignore, downplay, or dismiss religion's pivotal role. 

I am pleased to report that our government increasingly is recognizing the importance offrcedom 

of religion or belief as a source for lasting stability and sustainable security, and that violations of 

1 
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 30292.007

this essential freedom can feed instability and insecurity. As Secretary of State Tillerson noted 

when releasing the most recent International Religious Freedom Report, ''[w]here religious 

freedom is not protected, we know that instability, human rights abuses, and violent extremism 

have a greater opportunity to take root." Then Secretary of State John Kerry made the same point 

in 2013 remarks: "when countries undermine or attack religious freedom, they not only unjustly 

threaten those whom they target; they also tl1reaten their country's own stability." 

For the past several years, more Executive Branch officials are working on international religious 

freedom than ever before and Congress has supported USCIRF' and passed measures that include 

robust funding for international religious freedom-related issues. 

Violations of Religious Freedom 

Government Abuses: Many foreign governments also understand the importance of freedom of 

religion or belief. Some are fearful of religion (and its adherents) as an alternate source of 

authority, especially in light of the relative ease of communication in the Internet age. These 

nations seek to repress this unwelcome competitor for their absolute power through repressive 

legal systems and laws, brute force, crack downs, and imprisoning members of religious 

communities. These tactics create more instability, not the enhanced security these governments 

seek. Examples of these types of governmental abuses include: 

• "Securitizing" Religious Freedom: Some governments- including those in Russia, Central 

Asia, and China- use national security concerns to justify religious freedom violations. They 

severely limit religious communities' activities through anti-extremism and anti-terrorism laws 

which stifle peaceful dissent and imprison non-violent religious practitioners and their 

advocates. 

• Pitting Groups against Each Other to Enhance its Power: Both the Saddam Hussein and 

Bashar al-Assad regimes in Iraq and Syria pitted communities against each other, creating the 

conditions that lead to sectarian strife and conflict once these regimes began to lose their tight 

grip on power. Even today, the inability and sometimes refusal of the Iraqi and Syrian 

governments to curb sectarian attacks (such as those of the Popular Mobilization Forces 

assaults on Iraq's Sunni Arab population, and the Shi'a Iranian-backed militias attacks on 

Sunni Arab communities in Syria) have exacerbated religious tensions between Syria's and 

Iraq's diverse religious communities. 

• Allowing Violators to Act with Impunity: Coupled with efforts to sponsor violent ideologies, 

government inaction to prevent or punish religious freedom violations is a proven recipe for 

abuses. Instead of enforcing the law and protecting vulnerable populations, some governments 

turn a blind eye to violations, thereby creating climates of impunity. For example, funding 

reportedly originating in Saudi Arabia is used globally to finance religious schools, mosques, 

hate literature, and other activities that support religious intolerance and, in some cases, 

violence toward non-Muslims and disfavored Muslims. In Nigeria, the federal government 

continued to fail to implement effective strategies to prevent Muslim-Christian violence or to 

hold perpetrators accountable. 
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 30292.008

• Targeting a Group and Inciting Vigilante Groups and Others to Violence: Government 

targeting of members of religious minority communities, or dissenting members of majority 

communities, incite vigilante and other groups to violence. For instance, in India, seven states 

have adopted anti-conversion laws that restrict the right of individuals to freely convert from 

one faith to another. These Jaws have created a climate in which Hindu Nationalist groups, in 

particular, feel emboldened to harass and violently attack religious minority communities, 

especially Christian churches, leaders, and laity. In Iran, hundreds of pro-government articles 

have appeared online and in print inciting religious hatred and encouraging violence against 

Baha'is. 

Blasphemy charges and accusations also can incite violence by vigilante groups in many 

countries. Blasphemy is "the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for 

God." In nearly 70 countries worldwide, laws criminalize acts and expression deemed 

contemptuous of sacred things, which some governments justify as necessary to promote 

religious harmony. In fact, they do the opposite: they restrict the freedoms of religion and 

expression, thereby violating two of the most hallowed human rights, and lead to abuses and 

the destabilization of societies. 

Pakistan, where the crime of blasphemy carries the death penalty or life imprisonment, has the 

dubious distinction of having more people sentenced to jail for blasphemy than any other 

country. USCIRF is aware of nearly 40 prisoners convicted of blasphemy charges who have 

received life sentences or are on death row in Pakistan. Others have been killed by vigilante 

mobs just for being accused of blasphemy. 

USCIRF recently released two reports on blasphemy. Respecting Rights: Measuring the 

World's Blasphemv La>rs shows how blasphemy laws around the world fall short of 

international human rights benchmarks. The report catalogs the offending laws found in more 

than one-third of the world's nations. The other report highlights selected blasphemy cases, 

underscoring the fact that these unfair laws impact individuals. 

Abuses by Non-State Actors: Governments are not the only actors that commit severe religious 

freedom violations. Increasingly, non-state actors, especially in failing or failed states, commit 

systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom. Non-state actors vary greatly 

and include individuals, mobs, vigilante groups, anti-government insurgents, and militant 

organizations. They differ signiiicantly in ideology, purpose, end goals, and level of international 

and domestic recognition. Generally, they are motivated by a violent religious ideology and seek 

to impose their religious beliefs on local populations and harshly punish those who do not abide 

by their religious edicts. 

Non-state actors are among the primary perpetrators of egregious religious freedom violations, and 

the source of instability, in countries including the Central African Republic, Syria and Iraq, 

Nigeria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. 

3 
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 30292.009

Selected Case Studies 

The United States government has an important role to play, both reactively and proactively, in 

promoting freedom of religion or belief: pursuant to international standards. Both the International 

Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) and the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act 

provide some of the tools to do so, including the "country of particular concern" (CPC) 

designation. Through the CPC designation, the U.S. government designates countries that commit 

systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of freedom of religion or belief, as defined in 

international human rights law. I discuss these and other tools in more detail later in my testimony. 

Burma, Iraq and Syria, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Russia, to name just a few, are nations in which 

egregious religious freedom violations threaten stability and progress. Not recognizing these 

violations for what they are, but rather blaming other factors, limits the United States' ability to 

achieve its foreign policy goals. 

• Burma: While Burma has taken some important steps in its transitiOn from a military 

dictatorship, conditions for the country's religious and ethnic minorities have severely 

deteriorated. The Burmese security forces have created a staggering humanitarian disaster, 

which the United Nations has labeled ethnic cleansing, by killing hundreds of Rohingya 

Muslims and forcing more than 400,000 to seek refuge in Bangladesh since late August. Nonstate actors such as Ma Ba Tha and other nationalist individuals and groups merit continued 

international scrutiny for their severe violations of religious freedom and related human rights. 

Given that the National League for Democracy (NLD) government has allowed systematic, 

egregious, and ongoing violations of freedom of religion or belief to continue, USCIRF has 

recommended that Burma continue to be designated a CPC. in 2017. The State Department has 

designated Burma as a CPC since 1999, most recently in October 2016, and should continue 

to make this designation. 

• Iraq and Syria: Religious freedom conditions in Syria continue to deteriorate and significant 

challenges remain in Iraq. Notwithstanding differences between the two. religious minorities 

and dissenting members of the majority community in both nations face the Islamic State of 

Iraq and Syria's (lSIS) egregious and barbarous attacks. These attacks have threatened some 

communities' very existence. Regrettably, the actions of both governments provided fertile 

ground for ISIS's advancement. 

In March 2016, then-Secretary of State Kerry proclaimed that groups including Y azidis, 

Christians. and Shi'a Muslims in Iraq and Syria are victims of genocide by ISIS, also referred 

to as Dacsh. In his statement, Secretary of State John Kerry rightly observed that: "Daesh is 

responsible for genocide against groups in areas under its control," is "genocidal by selfproclamation, by ideology, and by actions:· and that it "kills Christians because they are 

Christians; Yezidis because they are Yezidis; Shia because they arc Shia." 

On August 15, 2017, at the release of the International Religious Freedom Report, Secretary 

of State Tillerson similarly stated that "ISIS is clearly responsible for genocide against Y ezidis, 

Christians, and Shi' a Muslims in areas it controls or has controlled," and "is also responsible 

4 
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 30292.010

for crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing" directed at these and other groups. He also 

stated that "the protection of these groups and others subject to violent extremism is a 

human rights priority for the Trump administration." 

While there has been some success militarily in confronting ISIS, religious and ethnic 

minorities in both nations face daunting challenges. Thus, the swift enactment ofH.R. 390, the 

Iraq and Syria Genocide Emergency Relief and Accountability Act of 2017, is imperative. 

This vitally needed measure would provide emergency relief for victims of genocide and 

crimes against humanity in Iraq and Syria, address urgent humanitarian, stabilization and 

recovery needs, and provide accountability for perpetrators of these crimes. In addition, 

USCIRF has recommended in 2017 that Syria be designated as a CPC, and that ISIS be 

designated an "Entity of Particular Concern" for its systematic, ongoing and egregious 

violations in Iraq and Syria. 

• Nigeria: Widespread challenges continue to impact religious freedom in Nigeria. Fears of 

ethnic and religious domination are longstanding. Religious identity, which frequently falls 

along regional, ethnic, political, and socioeconomic lines, routinely provides a flashpoint for 

violence. Sectarian violence between predominately Muslim herders and Christian farmers has 

increased, and the Nigerian federal government has failed to implement effective strategies to 

prevent or stop such violence or to hold perpetrators accountable. The Nigerian government at 

the federal and state levels continues to repress the Shi'a Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN), 

including holding IMN leader Sheikh Ibrahim Zakzaky without charge, imposing state-level 

bans on the group's activities, and failing to hold accountable Nigerian Army officers who 

used excessive force against IMN members. The Nigerian military continues to recapture 

territory from Boko Haram and arrest its members, but the government's nonmilitary efforts 

to stop Boko 1-Iaram are insufficient. Finally, other religious freedom abuses continue at the 

state level. Based on these concerns, in 2017 USCIRF again has recommended that Nigeria be 

designated a CPC, as the Commission has since 2009. 

• Pakistan: Pakistan has a severe religious freedom problem. Both USCIRF and the State 

Department consistently have documented the Pakistani government's systematic, ongoing, 

and egregious violations. Religiously discriminatory constitutional provisions and laws, such 

as the country's blasphemy and anti-Ahmadiyya laws, continue to result in prosecutions and 

imprisonments. At least 40 individuals have been sentenced to death or arc serving life 

sentences for blasphemy. An elderly Ahmadi, Abdul Shakor, was sentenced in January 2016 

to eight years in prison, three years under the Penal Code for blasphemy and five years under 

the Anti-Terrorism Act. Religious minority communities, including Christians, Hindus, 

Ahmadis, and Shi'a Muslims, also experience religiously-motivated and sectarian violence 

from both terrorist organizations and individuals within society; the government's 

longstanding failure to prevent or prosecute such violence has created a deep-rooted climate 

of impunity that has emboldened extremist actors. Provincial textbooks with discriminatory 

content against minorities remain a significant concern. 

USCIRF has recommended every year since 2002 that the State Department designate Pakistan 

a CPC. Despite USCIRF's longstanding recommendation, the State Department has never 

designated Pakistan as a CPC. 

5 
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 30292.011

• Russia: Russia has not only intensified its repression of religious freedom, but it also expanded 

its repressive policies to the territory of a neighboring state by means of military invasion and 

occupation. The government has implemented these policies, ranging from administrative 

harassment to arbitrary imprisonment to extrajudicial killing, in a fashion that is systematic, 

ongoing, and egregious. In mainland Russia, new laws effectively criminalized all private 

religious speech the state does not sanction. The government also banned the Jehovah's 

Witnesses and has targeted the Scientologists, and has tried innocent Muslims on fabricated 

charges of terrorism and extremism. In the North Caucasus, particularly in Chechnya and 

Dagestan, security forces carried out with impunity arrests, kidnappings, and disappearances 

of persons suspected of any links to "non-traditional" Islam. In Crimea, which Russia has 

occupied since 2014, Russian authorities have co-opted the spiritual life of the Muslim 

Crimean Tatar minority and arrested or driven into exile its community representatives. In the 

Russian-occupied para-states of eastern Ukraine, religious freedom is at the whim of armed 

militias not beholden to any legal authority. Russia also has not tolerated critics of these 

policies: the two most prominent domestic human rights groups that monitor freedom of 

religion or belief were officially branded as "foreign agents" in 2016. Based on these 

particularly severe violations, in 2017 USCIRF for the first time has recommended that Russia 

merits being designated a CPC. 

Tools in the U.S. Government Arsenal 

The U.S. government has tools, some of which are new, that can be used to help counter the 

violations of religious freedom abroad and the resulting violence and insecurity, and help nations 

achieve freedom of religion or belief. For these and other efforts, Congress needs to appropriate 

ample funding, exercise its oversight responsibility, tirelessly focus on accountability, and 

continually create and refine the tools needed to address new challenges, including accountability 

for genocide and crimes against humanity. 

Before noting some of these tools, I want to highlight legislation I referenced earlier and urge its 

immediate enactment: H.R. 390, the Iraq and Syria Genocide Emergency Relief and 

Accountability Act This bill has two main goals: (I) promoting accountability for the various 

atrocity crimes committed by ISIS and other foreign terrorist organizations operating within Iraq 

and Syria and (2) addressing humanitarian, stabilization, and recovery needs for persecuted 

religious and/or ethnic minorities. The House passed the bill and sent it to the Senate where the 

Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported out an amended version that included the provisions 

of S. 905, the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act, another vitally needed measure. USClRF 

urges the full Senate quickly to take up this urgently needed legislation, the House swiftly to 

reconsider it, and the President expeditiously to sign it into law. 

Current tools include: 

IRFA: Congress, recognizing the need to arm the U.S. government with tools to address the 

violations of the freedom of religion or belief, introduced and passed the International Religious 

Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA), which President Clinton signed into law (P.L. 105-292). IRFA, 

among other provisions, stipulates that the President should designate as CPCs those countries that 

commit "systematic, ongoing, and egregious" violations of religious freedom. The Act also 

6 
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 30292.012

provides a menu of actions that the U.S. government should take in consequence of this 

designation. 

• USCIRF's CPC recommendations: USCIRF recommends that the State Department again 

designate 10 countries as CPCs in 2017 because of the governments' "systematic, ongoing. 

aud egregious" violations of religious freedom: Burma. China, Eritrea, Irau, North Korea, 

Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, aud Uzbekistan. USCIRF also finds that six 

other countries meet the CPC standard aud should be so designated: Central African Republic, 

Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Syria, and Vietnam. 

• The Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom: IRFA created the position of 

the Ambassador-at-Large for International Freedom (AAL). The AAL heads the Office of 

International Religious Freedom and helps coordinate the Executive Branch's efforts in 

support of freedom of religion or belief abroad. USCIRF has urged the prompt appointment of 

a qualified aud experienced individual who, after confirmation, is given the authority and 

resources necessary to carry out the position. USCIRF also has called for the development and 

implementation of a whole-of-government strategy to guide how the U.S. government will 

protect and promote religious freedom abroad and the establishment of an interagency working 

group, which the AAL co-chairs with the Special Adviser to the President on International 

Religious Freedom, to oversee implementation. 

As an ex-officio member of USCIRF, the AAL is a direct connection between the Executive 

Brauch and the Commission, which is a legislative entity. Commissioners deeply valued the 

many contributions of the last AAL, Rabbi David Saperstein, and welcomed the nomination 

of Governor Sam Brownback as the new AAL. 

The Frank R. Wolflnternational Religious Freedom Act (P.L.l14-281): IRFA was amended 

several times, but none of these measures, until the Wolf International Religious Freedom Act, 

focused on updating the law so that it would rct1ect contemporary conditions on the ground and 

provide needed new tools. Impmtant provisions in the Wolf Act include: 

• The Ambassador at Large: The Act requires that the Ambassador at Large report directly to 

the Secretary of State and be the principal adviser to the Secretary on international religious 

freedom matters. However, according to the Secretary's reorganization plan, the Ambassadorat-Large is to report to the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy. aud Human 

Rights (J). 

CPC Requirements: The Act requires the President to make CPC designations not later than 

90 days after the release of the annual report (November 13, 2017) and notify Congress not 

later than 90 days after these designations (February 11, 2018) about the parties responsible 

for the violations giving rise to the designation, the actions the U.S. government has taken in 

response, and the effectiveness of these actions. 

• Special Watch List: The Act also creates a State Department "Special Watch List" by requiring 

the President to designate annually each country that engaged in or tolerated severe violations 

7 
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 30292.013

of religious freedom during the previous year but does not meet, in the opinion of the President, 

the CPC threshold. 

USCIRF's Tier 2 is similar in character to the Special Watch List. In the 2017 Annual Report, 

USCIRF placed 12 countries on Tier 2: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Cuba, Egypt, India, 

Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, and Turkey. USCIRF's Tier 2 includes countries 

where the violations are serious and meet one or two, but not all three, of the ·'systematic, 

ongoing, and egregious" test. 

• Entities of Particular Concern: The Act requires the President to identify non-state actors that 

commit systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations and designate them as "entities of 

particular concern," or EPCs. The act defines a non-state actor as "a non-sovereign entity that 

exercises significant political power and territorial control; is outside the control of a sovereign 

government; and often employs violence in pursuit of its objectives.'' 

f 

USCIRF recommends in the 2017 Annual Report that ISIS in Iraq and Syria, the Taliban in 

Afghanistan, and al-Shabaab in Somalia be designated EPCs. But for the territorial requirement 

in the new law, USCIRF would have recommended Boko Haram, the Taliban in Pakistan, and 

ISIS affiliates in Bangladesh and Egypt. 

• Curriculum/Training for Foreign Service Officers: The law requires the Ambassador-at-Large, 

in coordination with other Federal oflicials as appropriate and in consultation with USCIRF, 

to make recommendations to the Secretary of State about the curriculum to be used for 

religious freedom training for Foreign Service Officers. Such training is to be included in the 

A-1 00 course all Foreign Service officers attend and the courses required of every Foreign 

Service Of1icer, deputy chief of mission, and ambassador prior to a posting outside of the 

United States with segments tailored to the particular religious demography, religious freedom 

conditions, and U.S. strategies for advancing religious freedom in each receiving country. The 

law also recommends that the curriculum and training materials be shared with the U.S. Armed 

Forces and other Federal departments and agencies with personnel stationed overseas. 

• Designated Persons List for Particularly Severe Violations of Religious Freedom: The law: l) 

directs the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Ambassador-at-Large and in 

consultation with relevant government and nongovernment experts, to establish and maintain 

a list of foreign individuals to whom the consular post has denied a visa on grounds of 

particularly severe violations of religious freedom, or who are subject to financial sanctions, 

or other measures, for particularly severe violations of religious freedom; 2) requires the 

Secretary to submit to Congress a report that contains the list required under this subsection 

and a description of the actions taken; and 3) requires updates to the report every 180 days 

thereafter and as new information becomes available. 

• National Security Strategy: The law recognizes the connection between security and the 

promotion of religious freedom by expressing, through a sense of Congress, that the President's 

annual national security strategy report should promote international religious freedom as a 

foreign policy and national security priority and should articulate that promoting religious 

freedom is a strategy that protects other, related human rights, and advances democracy outside 

8 
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 30292.014

the United States; and the national security strategy report should be a guide for the strategies 

and activities of relevant Federal agencies and inform the Department ofDefense's quadrennial 

defense review. 

• Prisoner List: The law requires USCIRF, to the extent practicable, to compile online and in 

official publications, lists of persons it determines are imprisoned, detained, disappeared, 

placed under house arrest, tortured, or subject to forced renunciations of faith for their religious 

activity or religious freedom advocacy by the government of a foreign country that the 

Commission recommends for designation as a country of particular concern or a non-state 

actor the Commission recommends for designation as an entity of particular concern, and 

include as much publicly available information as practicable on the conditions and 

circumstances of such persons. 

The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act: This Act gives the United States a 

powerful accountability tool by authorizing the President to impose U.S. entry and property 

sanctions against any foreign person (or entity) who: 

• Is responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of internationally 

recognized human rights committed against individuals in any foreign country seeking to 

expose illegal activity carried out by government officials, or to obtain, exercise, or promote 

human rights and freedoms; 

• Acted as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign person in such activities; 

• Is a government oflicial or senior associate of such official responsible for, or complieit in. 

ordering or otherwise directing acts of significant corruption, including the expropriation of 

private or public assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the 

extraction of natural resources, bribery, or the facilitation or transfer of the proceeds of 

corruption to foreign jurisdictions; or 

• Has materially assisted or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods 

or services in support of, such activities. 

Focusing on Prisoners of Conscience: It is vitally important to shine a light on prisoners of 

conscience who have been unjustly prevented from enjoying the most fundamental human rights 

enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and 

Political Rights, and other international human rights instruments and standards, as well as on the 

laws and actions that have led to their imprisonment. It also is important to advocate for these 

prisoners of conscience until they are free- and until the countries that have imprisoned them have 

implemented needed reforms that reflect the internationally approved standards that many of them 

have agreed to in writing but violate in practice. 

A focus on individuals makes concrete and understandable the impact of unjust laws: people often 

are numbed by large numbers and cataclysmic events that are beyond their control and 

understanding. To address this concern, the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission launched an 

initiative in the House of Representatives, in conjunction with USCIRF and Amnesty International 

9 
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 30292.015

USA, called the Defending Freedoms Project. The initiative aims to draw attention to prisoners 

of conscience around the world by having Members of Congress advocate in support of individual 

prisoners. 

Along with working to fulfill the prisoners lists mandate noted above from P.L. 114-281, OSCIRF 

has created the Religious Prisoners of Conscience Project whereby Commissioners select a 

prisoner of conscience (see Appendix), advocate on his or her behalf, and highlight the conditions 

in the country that led to their imprisonment. Commissioners' selections are: 

• China: Gulmira !min Vice Chair Sandra Jolley 

• China: Panchen Lama Commissioner Tenzin Dorjce 

• Eritrea: Patriarch Abune Antonios- Commissioner Thomas J. Reese, S.J. 

• Iran: Fariba Kamalabadi- Vice Chair Kristina Arriaga 

• Iran: Pastor YoucefNadarkhani- Commissioner Jackie Wolcott 

• Pakistan: Abdul Shakoor- Chairman Daniel Mark 

• Russia: Bagir Kazikhanov Commissioner John Ruskay 

• Saudi Arabia: Raif Badawi- Commissioner Cliff May 

Empowering Women through Religious Freedom: Building lasting peace and sustainable 

security requires the participation of women, and during conflicts, women often are targeted for 

violence and discrimination. Around the globe, many women are deeply religious, yet religion 

has been used to disempower women. USCIRF's reporting has documented that women and girls 

often are victims of religious freedom violations, violent extremism, discriminatory personal status 

laws, and laws that restrict religious dress, and has highlighted the plight of female prisoners of 

conscience. In fact, it is a betrayal of the very foundations of freedom of religion or belief 

whenever it is misused to justify inexcusable and harmful practices such as female genital 

mutilation, child brides, and forced conversions. 

While such dire vulnerabilities exist, Commissioners began to be concerned that this kind of 

reporting could be viewed as supporting the entrenched misperccption that women's rights to 

equality and freedom of religion or belief are clashing rights. This misperception, however, does 

not take into account that the freedom of religion or belief is neither a right of·'religion"' as such, 

nor an instrument for the support of religiously phrased reservations and limitations on women's 

rights to equality. This view also misperceives the universal nature of all human rights and their 

indivisibility, interdependency, and inter-relatedness and the duty of all states to promote and 

protect human rights. One hundred and seventy-one states affirmed this stance in the Vienna 

Declaration and Programme of Action which the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna 

adopted on June 25, \993: 

All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The 

international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on 

the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and 

regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be 

borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural 

systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms 

10 
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 30292.016

With this understanding, the Commissioners decided to explore the complexities and synergies 

between the rights of women and girls and the freedom of religion or belief. To that end. USCIRF 

commissioned the report, Women and Religious Freedom: Synergies and Opportunities. 

The report explored this common misperception that women's rights to equality and freedom of 

religion or belief are clashing rights, finding instead that the two are indivisible and interrelated. 

Harmful practices affecting women and girls cannot be accepted as legitimate manifestations of 

religious freedom because the assertion of one human rights claim cannot be used to extinguish 

other rights. Moreover, freedom of religion or belief can play an important role in responding to 

harmful practices by: mobilizing belief-based actors; supporting individuals to understand and 

interpret their religion in harmony with the rights of others; and encouraging everyone to consider 

whether their religious laws should be imposed on others. 

USCIRF will continue to explore these synergies and opportunities to usc the freedom of religion 

or belief as a tool to empower women. 

Congressional Leadership is Needed 

Congress has an important role to play in promoting the freedom of religion or belief abroad. 

Along with urging Congress to work with and support the Commission, USCIRF urges Members 

of Congress to: 

Support Legislation and Take Initiatives that Promotes Freedom of Religion or Belief 

Abroad: Through legislation and appropriations, the Commission urges Congress to develop an 

international religious freedom strategy, support legislation that highlights positive examples, and 

focus on issues including: anti-blasphemy laws, genocide, violent religious extremism, religious 

prisoners of conscience, and religious freedom violations in specific countries. The Commission 

also urges Congress, through legislation and other initiatives, to urge the Executive Branch to more 

fully integrate international religious freedom policies into democracy promotion, public 

diplomacy, countering violent extremism and counterterrorism, and multilateral diplomacy. 

Finally, USCIRF urges Congress to craft legislation that includes remedies that underscore the 

human rights, foreign policy and national security dimensions of religious freedom and address 

violations by: 

• Developing additional targeted visa bans and asset freezes for foreign government officials and 

other individuals and entities implicated in egregious violations of religious freedom; 

• Developing specific sanctions directly related to a country's violation of religious freedom; 

• Requiring the State Department and other Federal agencies to certify, prior to obligating aid to 

countries that violate religious freedom and related human rights, that the countries receiving 

any U.S. funding are implementing policies to protect the freedoms of religion, expression, 

association, and assembly, and providing heightened security for targeted religious 

communities and their places of congregation and worship; and 

11 
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 30292.017

• Creating political, financial, and diplomatic tools to address particularly severe violations of 

religious freedom committed by non-state actors and foreign individuals as well as 

governments. 

Hold Hearings in Support of International Religious Freedom: USCIRF urges Congress to 

hold hearings on international religious freedom and related issues. 

Focus on Competency in International Religious Freedom During Confirmation Hearings: 

During confirmation hearings for officials in the State Department (including Ambassadorial 

nominees) and other agencies, USCIRF urges that Members of Congress raise the importance of 

freedom of religion or belief as a central component of U.S. foreign policy, and highlight the need 

for these officials to exhibit a core competency in this area. 

Monitor Required Curriculum Development and Training for Foreign Service Officers and 

Provide Adequate Funding: USCIRF urges Congress to conduct oversight on the required 

training specific to religious freedom for all Foreign Service Officers, the development by the 

Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom of a curriculum for training Foreign 

Service Officers on international religious freedom, and the sharing of the curriculum and training 

materials with the U.S. Armed Forces and other Federal entities with personnel stationed overseas 

or working with the international community. USCIRF also urges Congress to encourage the 

Ambassador-at-Large to consult with USCIRF on the development of this curriculum, and 

appropriate sufficient funding to develop and implement this curriculum and training. 

Engage the State Department, USAID and other Entities: USCIRF urges Congress to 

encourage the State Department, USAID, and other government entities to prioritize programs that 

develop and disseminate educational and teacher training materials, especially in countries of 

concern, on international human rights and religious freedom standards and the centrality of 

interfaith understanding to achieving development objectives. USCIRF also urges that these 

programs be implemented especially in countries with public and private education systems that 

promote religious intolerance and extremism, and that the National Endowment for Democracy 

and other entities that receive federal funding solicit competitive proposals on specific 

international religious freedom programming. 

Conduct Oversight on the Implementation of P.L. 114-281, the Frank Wolf International 

Religious Freedom Act: Given that this law includes new mandates and responsibilities for both 

the State Department and USCIRF, USCIRF urges that Congress conduct oversight and ensure 

that adequate funding is appropriated to fulfill the new mandates and responsibilities. 

Support Civil Society, Prisoners of Conscience, and Religious Freedom Advocacy Networks 

Abroad: During delegation trips abroad, USCIRF urges that Members of Congress meet with 

individuals and organizations that promote religious freedom and related human rights, targeted 

religious communities, and people detained for their religious freedom and human rights work or 

beliefs. USCIRF also urges Members to undertake delegations to "countries of particular concern" 

and "Special Watch List" countries to examine conditions of religious freedom. Finally, USCIRF 

urges that Members of Congress work with religious freedom advocacy networks including the 

International Panel of Parliamentarians on Freedom of Religion or Belief. 

12 
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 30292.018

Support Congressional Entities that Focus on Religious Freedom and Related Human 

Rights: USCIRF urges Members of Congress to support the cf1orts of the Tom Lantos Human 

Rights Commission, the Congressional International Religious Freedom Caucus, the Religious 

Minorities in the Middle East Caucus, and the Senate Human Rights Caucus. 

Promote Religious Freedom through Public Commemorations: USCIRF urges Members of 

Congress elevate international religious freedom through Congressional press releases, briefings, 

hearings, and one-minutes on the Floor. For example, International Religious Freedom Day 

(October 27) and Religious Freedom Day (January 16) provide opportunities for public 

commemorations. 

***** 

While we face an enormously challenging landscape for the freedom of religion or belief abroad, 

I believe that a consensus finally is being achieved that this freedom is a foundational human right, 

a key factor in achieving stability and security abroad, and a necessary component of U.S. foreign 

policy. Such centrality is underscored by the many millions who care about this fundamental 

freedom, the governments that fear and oppress it, the other governments that support it, and the 

many prisoners of conscience worldwide who languish in detention because of their religious 

beliefs, actions, identity, and advocacy. We must not forget them. 

The U.S. government, with Congress needing to play a central role, also has tools in its arsenal 

that would facilitate the promotion of this key freedom. The possibility of achieving real progress 

toward religious freedom and other human rights is in our hands, the hands of our fellow citizens, 

and the hands of citizens of nations worldwide. 

We must not delay and we must have the political will to take action. As Martin Luther King said: 

"Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable ... Every step toward the goal of justice 

requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of 

dedicated individuals." 

13 
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 30292.019

Appendix: Religious Prisoners of Conscience 

Through USCIRF's Religious Prisoners of Conscience Project, Commissioners advocate in 

support of a prisoner of conscience. Through increased education, outreach, and advocacy, 

USCIRF hopes to raise awareness of these and other individuals being imprisoned for their religion 

or beliefs, reduce their number, and highlight the country conditions that led to their imprisonment. 
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 30292.020

Gulmira Imin 

Country: China 

Key Fact: Community leader. website administrator, and government 

worker 

Detained Since: July 14, 2009 

USCIRF Advocate: Vice-Chair Sandra Jolley 

Biography: Gulmira lmin is a Uighur Muslim and fonner web 

administrator for Salkin, a Uighur-language website. Ms. !min was also a 

government employee in Urumqi. the capital of the Xinjiang Uighur 

Autonomous Region in Northwest China. Xinjiang is home to the majority 

of the country's Uighur Muslim population. 

Ms. !min was born in 1978 in Aksu in Xii,jiang and graduated in 2000 from the Chinese-Uighur translation 

department of Xinjiang University. In spring 2009. Ms. !min became the moderator of Salkin. a website to 

which she had previously contributed poetry and short stories. Many of her online writings criticized 

government policies. 

On July 5, 2009, Ms. !min participated in a major demonstration protesting the deaths of Uighur migrant 

workers in Guangdong Province. Initially peaceful, the protests turned violent, with about 200 people, 

including ethnic Han Chinese, killed during the riots and controntations with police. On July 14, 2009, Ms. 

!min was arrested in Aksu after authorities alleged she had organized the protests, posted an announcement for 

them on Salkin, and leaked state secrets by phone to her husband in Norway. Her family was not notified of 

the arrest and was unaware of her location until the October 2009 airing of a China Central Television 

documentary that depicted !min in prison garb. 

On April!. 2010, the Urumqi Intenncdiate People's Court sentenced Ms. !min to life in prison under Articles 

103, Ill, and 296 of China's Criminal Law on charges of"splittism, leaking state secrets, and organizing an 

illegal demonstration." Ms. !min alleges she was tot1urcd and forced to sign documents while in detention. 

She also reportedly was not allowed to meet with her lawyer until the trial. Her was subsequently 

rejected. Ms. !min is currently detained in the Xinjiang Women's Prison (Xinjiang 2 Prison) located in 

UrumqL \vhere she is allowed one family visit every three months. 
30 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 30292.021

Gedhun Choekyi Nyima - The Panchen Lama 

Country: China 

Key Fact: l J <h Panchen Lama 

Disappeared Since: May J 7, 1995 

USCIRF Advocate: Commissioner Tenzin Dorjee 

Biography: Gedhun Choekyi Nyima was born on April 25, J 989 in Lbari County, 

Tibet. After the death of the 1Oth Panchen Lama, His Holiness the Dalai Lama 

chose Gedhun on May 15, 1995 to be the 11th Panchen Lama, which is the second 

highest position in Tibetan Buddhism. 

Three days after his selection as Panchen Lama, Chinese government authorities kidnapped then six-year-old 

Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and his family. On November J J, J 995, Chinese authorities announced their ov.n pick 

to serve as the Panchen Lama: Gyancain Norbu. Most Tibetan Buddhists have rejected him. 

In the more than 20 years since Gedhun' s abduction, Chinese authorities have provided little information about 

his whereabouts, alleging that they need to protect him from being "kidnapped by separatists." In May 2007, 

Asma Jahangir, then-United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, suggested that the 

Chinese government allow an independent expert to visit and confim1 Gedhun's well-being. On July 17, 2007, 

the Chinese authorities said that he is a "perfectly ordinary Tibetan hoy" attending school and leading a normal 

life, and that he '"docs not wish to be disturbed.'' Chinese authorities also say that the state employs both of his 

parents and that his brothers and sisters are either working or at university. 
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 30292.022

Patriarch Abune Antonios 

Country: Eritrea 

Key Fact: Patriarch oCthe Eritrean Orthodox Church 

Detained Since: May 27, 2007 

USCIRF Advocate: Commissioner Thomas J. Reese, SJ. 

Biography: Patriarch Abune A.ntonios was bom on July 12, 1927, in 

Himberti. a town north of the Eritrean capital, Asmara. His father was a priest 

At the age of five, Patriarch Antonios entered the monastery of Dcbre Tsege 

Abuna Andrewes, where he was educated, ordained a deacon at the age of 12, 

and then served as a monk. Patriarch Antonios was ordained a priest in 1942 

and was eventually elected Abbot iu 1955. 

When the Eritrean Orthodox Church first sought its independence, Patriarch Antonios was one of the live 

abbots from monasteries sent to Egypt to be ordained a bishop so that the church would be able to constitute 

its own Holy Synod. Antonios was ordained as Bishop Antonios ofHamasien-Asmara on June 19, 1994, in 

Saint Mark's Cathedral in Cairo by !!is Holiness Shenouda IlL Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria. 

Following the death in 2003 ofAbune Yacoub, then Patriarch of the Eritrean Church, Patriarch Antoni<JS was 

elected as the third Patriarch of the Eritrean Orthodox Church by a joint vote of the Holy Synod and 

representatives of all dioceses in the presence of the delegates of the Holy Synod of the Egyptian Orthodox 

Church. Pope Shenouda Ill, assisted by Eritrean and Coptic Orthodox Metropolitans and Bishops, ordained 

and enthroned Antonios as Patriarch on April 23. 2004. 

The Eritrean govemmcnt notified Patriarch Antonios on January 20. 2006, that he would no longer lead the 

country's largest religious denomination after he called for the release of political prisoners and refused to 

excommunicate 3,000 parishioners who opposed the government. One year later, on January 20, 2007, 

authorities confiscated Patriarch Antonios· personal pontifical insignia. On May 27, 2007, the Eritrcan 

govcmmcnt replaced Patriarch Antonios with Bishop Dioscoros of Mendcfera, forcefully removed the 

Patriarch from his home, and placed him under house arrest at an undisclosed location. Patriarch Antonios, 

who is 90 years old, continues to be held incommunicado and reportedly is being denied medical care despite 

suffering !rom severe diabetes. 

Eritrean authorities briefly allowed Patriarch Antonios to appear in public for the first time in over a decade at 

a Mass held at St. Mary's Cathedral in Asmara on July 16. 2017. However. the Patriarch was prevented from 

eoncelebrating or speaking to his congregants during the event and was quickly placed back under detention 

after the Mass concluded. 
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 30292.023

Fariba Kamalabadi 

Country: Iran 

Key Fact: Developmental psychologist and Baha'i member 

Detained Since: May 14. 2008 

Charges: Espionage. propaganda against the Islamic Republic, and 

establishment of an illegal administration 

USCIRF Advocate: Vice-Chair Kristina Arriaga 

Biography: Fariba Kamalabadi was born on September 12. 1962, in Tehran, Iran. Ms. Kamalabadi graduated 

from high school with honors but was barred from attending uniwrsity due to her Baha'i faith. 

In her mid-30s, Ms. Karnalabadi embarked on an eight-year period of informal study and eventually received 

an advanced degree in developmental psychology from the Baha'i Institute of Higher Education (B!HE), an 

altemative institution the Baha'i community of Iran established to provide higher education lor its young 

people. The Iranian government docs not recognize the !3JHE. 

Ms. Kamalabadi is one of the seven Baha'i leaders knoVIn as ·'Yaran .. or "Friends," who tended to the spiritual 

and social needs of the Iranian Baha'i community in the absence of a fonnally elected Baha'i leadership due 

to restrictions by the Iranian government. The other six members are Mahvash Sabct, Jarnaloddin Khanjani. 

Al!fNaeimi, Saeid Rczaic, Behrouz Tavakkoli. and Vahid Tizfahm. 

Ms. Kamalabadi was arrested on May 14. 2008 after an early morning raid on her home. Ms. Kamalabadi and 

the other Baha'i Seven were held incommunicado for weeks, placed in solitary confinement for months. and 

spent a year behind bars without access to legal counsel. In 2010. the seven were tried and convicted of charges 

of "espionage" and "spreading propaganda against the regime.'' The Seven were sentenced to 20 years in 

prison, longer than any current prisoners of conscience in Inm. 

In 2013. Iran passed a reformed Islamic Penal Code that stipulated that courts may carry out only the most 

severe punishment assigned to a prisoner, rather than carrying out multiple, similar punishments for related 

crimes. In early 2016, the Baha · i Seven were informed that this rule would be applied to their cases, reducing 

their imprisonment trom 20 years to I 0 years. 

Ms. Kamalabadi currently is being held in Tehran's Evin prison. along with other female prisoners of 

conscience. 

Ms. Kamalabadi married fellow Baha'i Ruhollah Taefi in 1982 and they have three children. Vargha, Alhan, 

and Taraneh. Ms. Kamalabadi's father was fired lfom his job in the government health service in the 1980s 

because he was a Baha'i; he was later imprisoned and tortured. 
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 30292.024

Youcef Nadarkhani 

Country: Iran 

Key Fact: Pastor repeatedly targeted by the Iranian government 

Start of Latest Government Action: May 13,2016 

Charges: Acting against national security 

Sentence: 1 0 years imprisonment and two years of exile in southern Iran 

USCIRF Advocate: Commissioner Jackie Wolcott 

Biography: Youeef Nadarkhani was born on April 11, 1977 to Muslim parents in Rasht Iran. Although he 

was not religious as a child, he converted to Christianity when he was 19, becoming a member of the Only 

Jesus Chmch. He is the pastor of a 400-member house church and a member ofthc evangelical Church of !ran. 

Pastor Nadarkhani and his wife were among several Christians whom oftlcials trom the Iranian Ministry of 

Intelligence detained in the city ofRasht on May 13, 2016, releasing them the same day. Three other Christians 

arrested v.ith them (Yasser Mossayebzadeh, Saheb Fadaie, and Mohammad Reza Omidi) also were released 

on bail. However, on July 24, Pastor Nadarkhani again was detained, charged with '·acting against national 

security," and accused of being a Zionist and eYangelizing, He was released the same day on condition that he 

raise within a week the equivalent oflJS $33,000 t(>r bail. 

ln October 2016, Pastor Nadarkhani and his three eo-defendants were tried in Rash!. However, the com1 could 

not reach a verdict and transferred the case to a court in Tehran. The Revolutionary Court in Tehran held 

hearings in December 2016 and February and June 2017. During the June 24, 2017 hearing, officials charged 

them with "acting against national security:' and the presiding Judge Ahmadzadeh reportedly accused their 

church of annually receiving 500,000 pounds ($650,000) from the British government. Non-presiding Judge 

Abolghasem Salavati reportedly burst into the courtroom and disrupted the proceeding, proclaiming that 

Christians ''make foolish claims." On July 6, 2017, the four Christians received a verdict backdated to June 24. 

Each was sentenced to I 0 years in prison and was allowed twenty days to appeal. Nadarkhani received an 

additional sentence of two years in exile in Nikshahr in southern Iran. As of August 15, 2017, Nadarkhani has 

yet to report to prison and the status of the appeal is uncertain. 

Iranian authorities have previously targeted Pastor Nadarkhani on numerous occasions. His first imprisonment 

took place in December 2006 when he was charged with "apostasy" and "evangelism," but was released two 

weeks later. On October 13, 2009, while applying to register his church, he was arrested after protesting a 

government policy that required all students, including his two young sons, to study the Quran in school. The 

tribunal charged Pastor Nadarkhani with and "evangelism.'' On September 22. 20 I 0, he verbally 

was issued a death sentence for apostasy. November 13, 2010, ot1icials of the Revolutionary Tribunal 

delivered the \\Titten verdict from the September trial: execution by hanging. The and his attorney, 

Mohammad Ali Dadkhah, appealed the sentence. The Court f(,und in September 201 that Pastor Nadarkhani 

had committed apostasy because he was born to Muslim parents and left Islam after the age of majority. 

Advocacy and human rights groups believe his execution order was issued in February On September 8, 

2012, amid continuing international outcry. l\adarkhani was acquitted of apostasy in a retrial and the court 

rescinded the death penalty, allowing him to leave prison, though he was brietly rearrested on December 25. 

2012 before tinally being fully released on January 7, 2013. 
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 30292.025

Abdul Shakoor 

Country: Pakistan 

Key Fact: 80-year-old Ahmadi manager of a bookshop and optician store 

Detained Since: December 2, 2015 

Charges: Propagating the Ahmadiyya faith and stirring up "religious hatred'' 

and "sectarianism'' 

Sentence: Three years in prison under the Pakistan Penal Code for blasphemy and live years under the AntiTerrorism Act on January 2. 2016 

USCIRF Advocate: Chairman Daniel Mark 

Biography: Abdul Shakoor was born on February 2, 1937 in Qadian. India. He is married and the father of 

five daughters and two sons. Before his arrest. Mr. Shakoor was the manager of an optician ·s store and 

bookshop in the main bazaar of Rabwah (also known as Chenab Punjab Province. Pakistan. The 

population of the Ahmadiyya community in Rabwah, about 70.000, 95 percent of the city's total 

population. Many view the city as the de facto headquarters of Pakistan ·s Ahmadiyya community. 

On December 2, 2015, onicials from the Counter Terrorism Department of the Punjab Police and Pakistan's 

Elite Force raided the bookshop Mr. Shakoor managed. He was arrested along with the shop· s assistant, Mazhar 

Abbas a Shia Muslim- and accused of selling an Ahmadiyya commentary on the Qur'an, among other 

publications. The officials confiscated Ahmadiyya publications during that raid and a later raid that took place 

on December 9. After their arrest. the two men were held in unknown locations and were not permitted to 

contact their families. 

Mr. Shakoor's trial was held in the Anti-Terrorism Court in Faisalabad, Punjab province, with the ot1icers who 

raided the bookstore as the only witnesses. The prosecution entered into evidence a letter (ostensibly recovered 

during the December 9 raid) from the Ahmadiyya Director of Public Affairs to Mr. Shakoor notifying him that 

the Punjab provincial government had banned some Ahmadiyya literature and that he should neither display 

nor sell the banned literature. Ahmadiyya leaders assert that the prosecution fabricated the letter to support 

their story, noting that none of the literature cited in the letter was banned until January 20, 2016, after the 

trial's conclusion. Mr. Shakoor contended during the trial, and maintains the position, that he did not distribute 

any of the literature listed, although he admits to being in possession of some of them. However. possession 

of Ahmadiyya literature is not a crime in Pakistan. 

On January 2. 2016, Mr. Shakoor was given a five-year prison sentence for violating article 11-W of the 1997 

Anti-Terrorism Act (A TA) which involves "printing. publishing. or disseminating any material to incite 

hatred.'' He also was given a three-year sentence for violating article 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, for a 

total of eight years. (Section 298 of Pakistan's Penal Code criminalizes acts and speech that insult a religion 

or religious beliefs or defile the Qur'an. the Prophet Muhammad, a place of worship. or religious symbols.) 

Mazhar Abbas was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for violating article 11-W of the ATA. Mr. Shakoor 

filed a 'ATit petition for bail and appeal against the verdict with the Lahore High Court. On multiple occasions, 

the Lahore High Court listed Mr. Shakoor·s appeal on the daily docket but each time the ease was postponed. 

The last postponed hearing date was believed to be June 22, 2017. Mr. Shakoor remains in prison and is 

suffering from a hernia and back pain. 
35 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 30292.026

Bagir Kazikhanov 

Country: Russia 

Key Fact: Follower of Said Nursi 

Detained Since: April2014 

Sentence: Three and a half years' imprisonment 

USCIRF Advocate: Commissioner John Ruskay 

Biography: Bagir Kazikhanov was born on September 9, 1983 in the Republic ofDagestan, an administrative 

entity of the Russian Federation. 

Mr. Kazikhanov organized regular Islamic study sessions in rented flats between 2012 and 2014. During these 

sessions, he and his fellow Muslims studied the works of the Turkish Islamic revivalist theologian Said Nursi, 

along with watching football. Nursi, who died in 1960, was an ethnic Kurd who "Tote a body of Quranic 

commentary advocating tbe modernization of Islamic education. Nursi also criticized the secular character of 

the post-Ottoman Turkish government, for which he was persecuted. Nursi's emphasis on the integration of 

modern science into Islamic learning is said to have inspired Fethullah Giilen, the prominent exiled Turkish 

Islamic preacher. Although Nursi's writings do not advocate hatred, violence, or the violation of human rights, 

many ofNursi·s works are banned in Russia, reportedly due to state opposition to foreign spiritual and cultural 

influence. 

Mr. Kazikhanov was arrested in the city of Ulyanovsk on April 9, 2014, after pat1icipating in one of these 

study sessions, which authorities deemed to be the "organization of extremist activity" under the Criminal 

Code Article 282.2, Part !. He was accused of recruiting a terrorist cell of Nursi followers as pat1 of a supposed 

··Nurdzhular" movement, which was officially banned in Russia in 2008 but is widely believed to be a legal 

fiction invented for the purpose of prosecuting Nursi adherents. Mr. Kazikhanov was held in a pre-trial 

detention center from April to October 2014, and then placed under house arrest until his Februm·y 25, 2015, 

conviction by Judge Natalya Damayeva at the Lenin District Com1 in Ulyanovsk. Judge Damayeva sentenced 

Mr. Kazikhanov to three and a half years· imprisonment. 
36 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 30292.027

RaifBadawi 

Country: Saudi Arabia 

Key Fact: Blogger 

Detained Since: June 27, 2012 

Charges: Violating Islamic values and propagating liberal thought 

Sentence: 10-year imprisonment, 1,000 lashes, a fine of 1 million riyals (equal to about $266.000) and banned 

from any media work or foreign travel for 1 0 years after his release from prison 

USCIRF Advocate: Commissioner Clifford D. May 

Biography: Raif Badawi was born on January 13, 1984. in K.hobar, Saudi Arabia. He is a blogger. activist. 

and the creator of the website Free Saudi Liberals. which encourages debate on religious and political matters 

in Saudi Arabia. 

First detained on apostasy charges in 2008, Mr. Badawi was released after a day of questioning. He was then 

arrested on June 17, 2012 and charged with insulting Islam through electronic channels. Later, Mr. Badawi 

was brought to court on several charges, including apostasy, a conviction which carries an automatic death 

sentence. Badawi's website reportedly had hosted material criticizing "senior religious figures." Mr. Badawi 

also suggested that Immn Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University had become "a den for terrorists." 

Mr. Badawi appeared before a district court in Jeddah on December 17, 2012. charged with "setting up a 

website that undermines general security," "ridiculing Islamic religious figures," and "going beyond the realm 

of obedience." On July 30, 20Ll, the Jeddah Criminal Court sentenced Mr. Badawi to seven years in prison 

and 600 lashes for founding an internet forum that "violates Islamic values and propagates liberal thought." 

On May 7. 20!4, an appeals court increased the punishment to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in prison. He also 

received a fine of 1 million riyals (equal to about $266,000) and is banned from any media work or foreign 

travel for l 0 years after his release from prison. 

On January 9, 2015, Mr. Badawi was flogged 50 times before hundreds of spectators in front of a Jcddah 

mosque. He has not received additional floggings, due partly to international reaction and partly to a medical 

doctor's finding that he could not physically endure more lashings. On June 7. 2015. Saudi Arabia's Supreme 

Court denied another appeal from Badawi and upheld the sentence of 1,000 lashes. 

Mr. Badawi received the 2015 Sakharov Prize for his human rights work. Raif Badawi married Ensaf Haidar 

in 2002 in Saudi Arabia; they have three children. His wife and children were granted political asylum in 

Quebec. Canada in 2013. 
37 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

Dr. Farr, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. FARR, PH.D. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My message to you today is straightforward and hopeful. Advancing religious freedom more successfully in our foreign policy can 

help the victims of religious persecution abroad and increase the 

security of the American people. But if we are to succeed, we will 

need to change some of our thinking and strengthen some of our 

programs at the State Department. 

Growing evidence indicates that religious freedom can undermine 

religion-related terrorism. The evidence applies to violence that 

emanates from any religion, but the primary threat to U.S. national security and that of most other nations, especially Muslimmajority nations, is Islamist terrorism. 

Our approach to terrorism as a religious freedom issue has understandably focused on the minority religious groups victimized by 

the terrorists or by governments. The methods historically used by 

the State Department to address religious persecution consist in 

large part of annual reports and annual designations of the worst 

violators. The International Religious Freedom Act also authorized 

economic sanctions. 

These reports are important. They are vitally important. They 

are generally accurate and reliable. But they are entirely diagnostic in nature. They shine a light on the problem but do little to 

solve it. 

Unfortunately, economic sanctions are rarely effective. When 

they’ve been tried, they haven’t worked. Governments are unlikely 

to change their religion policies because of sanctions alone. Additional policies are needed to supplement the leverage provided by 

sanctions or other negative incentives the United States might impose. 

State Department-funded programs are a good place to start, especially if those programs provide convincing reasons to the target 

nations why religious freedom is in their interests. Under former 

Religious Freedom Ambassador David Saperstein, program funding 

increased to $20 million a year. But even that amount pales in 

comparison to other programs intended to protect American national security. 

Unfortunately, the religious freedom programs that do exist, 

such as those mentioned by Ambassador Kozak, which are often 

splendid programs, are not part of a strategy, certainly not an allof-government strategy. They are spread too thin. They are too ad 

hoc to have any appreciable impact on Islamist terrorism or to convince governments that religious freedom is in their interest. 

The unfortunate reality is that our religious freedom policy has 

been isolated from the mainstream of U.S. foreign policy. Until recently, it’s been largely overlooked as a means of promoting stability and national security. 

Social scientists at the Religious Freedom Institute, where I 

work, are demonstrating something that America’s founders understood instinctively: Religious freedom forms the basis of other 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

human rights. It’s necessary for the success of any society, especially highly religious societies. 

The evidence shows that religious freedom has a causal impact 

on social, political, and economic goods, such as long-term political 

stability, economic growth, and undermining religion-related violence. Societies that lack religious freedom are far more likely to 

incubate, experience domestically, and export internationally religion-related terrorism. 

The reverse is also true; societies that protect religious freedom 

generally do not incubate or export violence and terrorism. Several 

Muslim-majority states in West Africa, for example, have avoided 

the violent extremism that plagues other Muslim states. Each has 

significant legal protections for religious freedom of Muslims and 

non-Muslims. The result is a stabilizing religious pluralism that 

discourages religious extremism. 

Let me conclude with some practical recommendations. 

Religious freedom policy can advance U.S. national security by 

focusing less on rhetorical enunciations and combining practical incentives with convincing self-interest arguments. 

For example, the State Department recently announced the withholding of $290 million in aid to Egypt because of its harsh restrictions on religious communities and other human rights violations. 

This is a good start but unlikely to change things on the ground. 

Egypt is not going to change its religious freedom policies for $290 

million. 

The U.S. should also provide the Egyptian Government with 

hard evidence that their repressive laws and policies—that altering 

their repressive laws and policies will benefit Egypt, for example, 

by reducing the violent extremism that is harming the country’s 

all-important tourist industry. 

Iraq provides another opportunity. Since 2014, the U.S. has allocated nearly $1.7 billion in humanitarian aid to Iraq, but most of 

that aid has not reached the Christian minorities designated by us 

as victims of ISIS genocide. This is a U.S. national security problem as well as a humanitarian problem. Religious pluralism is a 

necessary condition for long-term stability in Iraq. If minorities do 

not return and stay, Iraq will likely become a perpetual Shia-Sunni 

battleground, where terrorism flourishes. 

Success in these efforts will not come easy, Mr. Chairman, but 

the long war against Islamist terrorism cannot be won with law enforcement and military force alone. America needs new ideas and 

new combatants to win this war, and religious freedom should be 

part of the mix. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Farr follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 30292.028

Religious Freedom and American National Security 

A Hearing of the National Security Subcommittee of the 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, October 11, 2017 

Thomas F. Farr 1 

Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch, and members of the sub-committee, thank you for 

holding this important hearing and for inviting me to testifY. 

My message to you today is straightforward and hopeful: advancing religious freedom 

successfully in our foreign policy can help the victims of religious persecution abroad and 

increase the security of the American people. 

But if we are to succeed we will need to change some of our thinking at the State Department 

about religious freedom, and our approach to promoting it in U.S. foreign policy. 

Growing evidence indicates that an effective religious freedom policy can help increase our 

security, and that of other nations, by undermining religion-related terrorism. The evidence 

applies to violence that emanates from any religion. But the primary threat to U.S. national 

security, and that of most other nations, especially Muslim-majority nations, is Islamist 

terrorism. 

Integrating the promotion of religious freedom across all U.S. foreign policy agencies is essential 

to reducing religion-related terrorism. This work will be accelerated the Senate's confirmation of 

Governor Sam Brown back, the President's nominee for the position of U.S. Ambassador at 

Large for International Religious Freedom. 

Governor Brownback has the opportunity and the skills to build upon the work of his 

predecessor, Ambassador David Saperstein, and integrate religious freedom into American 

national security strategy. I urge the Senate to confirm Governor Brownback immediately. Those 

suffering violent religious persecution around the world, including the Rohingya Muslims of 

Burma and the Christians and Yazidis oflraq, need him on the job now. 

The Existing IRF Approach to Islamist Terrorism 

Most Islamist terrorism is born and incubated in the Middle East. Our approach to terrorism as a 

religious freedom issue has understandably focused on the minority religious groups victimized 

by ISIS or the governments in the region such as Syria, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. As we 

should, we focus most of our attention on the terrible suffering of religious communities that our 

Thomas Farr is President of the Religious Freedom Institute. He also directs the Religious Freedom 

Research Project at Georgetown University, where he is an associate Professor of the Practice of Religion 

and World Affairs in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. Farr was the first Director of the 

State Department's Office oflntemational Religious Freedom (1999-2003). 
40 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 30292.029

own government has designated as victims of genocide, including Yezidis, minority Shiites, and 

Christians. 

2 

The methods historically used by the State Department to draw attention to the victims of 

religious persecution, and to their persecutors, consist of annual reports on the status of religious 

freedom, and annual designations of the worst violators- the ·'countries of particular concern" or 

CPCs. The 1998 International Religious Freedom (IRF) Act also authorized economic sanctions 

and the funding of religious freedom programs. 

All of these provisions arc needed. The annual reports from the State Department and the U.S. 

Commission on International Religious Freedom are accurate and thorough. Both the State 

Department and the Commission are to be commended for their most recent reports. In 

particular, I want to recognize the work of Dan Nadel, Director of the State Department's Office 

oflnternational Religious Freedom, and his staff, as well as Knox Thames, Special Adviser for 

Religious Minorities in the Middle East and South/Central Asia. These two men have led U.S. 

IRF policy since the departure last January of Ambassador Saperstein. 

As for the annual identification of the worst persecutors, the "countries of particular concern," 

that report is also vitally important. 

But the problem is that these reports are entirely diagnostic in nature. They shine a light on the 

problem but do little to solve it. 

Economic sanctions are rarely effective. When they have been tried, they have not worked. 

Governments are unlikely to change their religion policies because of sanctions alone. Additional 

policies are needed to supplement the leverage provided by sanctions or other negative 

incentives the United States might impose. 

State Department-funded IRF programs arc a good place to start, especially if they provide 

reasons why religious freedom is in the target nation's interests. Program funding historically has 

hovered around $4 million annually, an amount Ambassador Saperstein succeeded in increasing 

to $20 million. But even that amount pales in comparison to other programs intended to protect 

American national security. 

Moreover, IRF programs funded by State, though often meritorious, are not part of an all-ofgovernment strategy. They are spread too thin and are too ad hoc to have any appreciable impact 

on Islamist terrorism, or to convince governments that religious freedom will improve 

governance, stimulate economic grmvth, or undermine religious violence. 

The unfortunate reality is that IRF policy has been isolated from the mainstream of U.S. foreign 

policy.lt has been overlooked as a means of promoting stability and national security. 
41 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 30292.030

How Religious Freedom Undermines Terrorism 

Until recently the social sciences have ignored the connections between religious freedom and 

religion-related violence. However, scholars at the Religious Freedom Institute are 

demonstrating something that the American Founders instinctively understood: religious 

freedom is the basis for all other rights. It is necessary for the success of any society. The 

evidence shows that religious freedom has a causal impact on other social, political, and 

economic goods, such as long-term political stability, economic growth, and even better health. 

3 

But the religious freedom effect that can best contribute to American security, and help 

persecuted minorities at the same time, is to help prevent religion-related violence and terrorism. 

Societies that lack religious freedom, such as those of the Middle East, are far more likely to 

incubate, suffer domestically, and export internationally, religion-related terrorism. 

The reverse is also true. Societies that protect religious freedom generally do not incubate 

religious violence and terrorism. Despite its difficulties with Hindu radicalism, India's success as 

the world's largest democracy, with a huge and largely peaceful Muslim minority, stems in large 

part from its history of religious tolerance. The same can be said of Indonesia, the world's largest 

Muslim country. Despite its own Islamic extremism, Indonesia's tolerant Islamic civil society 

helps keep that nation democratic and stable. That both India and Indonesia are moving in a 

worrisome direction is precisely because each is experiencing a decrease in respect for the 

religious freedom of all their citizens. But, at present, neither is an exporter of religion-related 

terrorism. 

In West Afiica, no less than seven Muslim-majority countries-- Senegal, Mali, Niger, Guinea, 

Burkina Faso, Sierra Leone, and The Gambia-have avoided the violent extremism that plagues 

other Muslim states. Each has significant legal protections for the religious freedom of Muslims 

and non-Muslims, and each encourages interreligious cooperation. The result is a stabilizing 

religious pluralism that discourages religious extremism. 

How to Integrate Religious Freedom into U.S. National Security Strategy 

How can religious freedom be integrated into our national security strategy? For one thing, by 

focusing less on ineffective rhetorical denunciations, and instead combining practical incentives 

with arguments that appeal to the self-interest of the target society. 

For example, the State Department recently announced the withholding of$290 million in aid to 

Egypt because of human rights violations, including harsh restrictions on religious communities. 

This is a good start, but unlikely to change things on the ground. History strongly suggests that 

Egypt will not alter its policies on religious freedom for $290 million. 
42 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 30292.031

The U.S. should augment the withholding of aid by providing hard evidence that altering 

repressive laws and policies will benefit Egypt, for example by reducing the violent extremism 

that is harming the country's all-important tourist industry. 

4 

To date, U.S. religious freedom arguments to Cairo have emphasized injustice, human rights, and 

international law. Those arguments have been correct, and fruitless. They should be amplified 

with evidence that religious freedom, by requiring full equality for all religious groups and open 

debate about Islam, does not sanction violence or extremism, and will work to undermine it. 

U.S. aid can also help develop the institutions that will advance religious freedom, by, for 

example, integrating religious freedom training into programs with Egyptian military and local 

police forces, judges and lawyers, educational institutions, and civil society groups. 

Iraq provides another opportunity. Since 2014, the U.S. government has allocated nearly $1.7 

billion dollars to Iraq for humanitarian assistance (USAID Fact Sheet, 9/20/17). Most of that aid 

has not reached the Christian minorities designated as victims of! SIS genocide. Most are 

unlikely to return to their ancestral homes without aid. 

The plight of Christians, Y azidis and other minorities in Iraq is of course a monumental 

humanitarian crisis. But it also constitutes a serious U.S. national security problem. Religious 

pluralism is a necessary condition for long-term stability in Iraq. If minorities do not return and, 

over time, become fully integrated into Iraqi society, that nation will very likely become a 

perpetual Shia-Sunni battleground where terrorism flourishes. 

The office oflnternational Religious Freedom should ensure that USAID, State Department, and 

Defense resources are expended to counter the religion-related violence that is at the root of this 

crisis. The U.S. should mount a sustained campaign to convince Iraqi stakeholders that they will 

never live in peace and security without the pluralism that non-Muslim minorities bring. With 

our help, Iraq must provide security, jobs, and religious freedom to these non-Muslim minorities 

so that they can integrate into Iraqi society. 

Success in such efforts will not come easy. But the long war against Islamist terrorism and 

religious persecution cannot be won with law enforcement and military force alone. America 

needs new ideas and new combatants to win this war. Religious freedom should be part of the 

miX. 
43 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Berschinski, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROB BERSCHINSKI 

Mr. BERSCHINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

having me here today to testify. 

I work in an organization whose mission is to foster American 

global leadership on human rights, including religious freedom, not 

just as a moral obligation but also as a vital national interest. I 

bring this perspective to today’s hearing and hope that it will inform discussion this morning in at least three ways. 

First, it’s important to recognize that the U.S. Government’s 

work to ensure that foreign governments do not encroach on an individual’s rights to freedom of religion and conscience will be less 

effective if these efforts are divorced from work to uphold other 

fundamental freedoms. 

As several have mentioned, a review of the U.S. Government’s 

list of countries of particular concern bears out this fact. In no 

state is religious intolerance an outlier to a more widespread pattern of abuses. Simply put, repressive governments tend to seek 

control over any organized body of individuals and to view those 

outside of the government’s direct control as a threat to their 

power. 

Thus, attacks on religion and belief often relate to and sometimes 

stand in for attacks on political opposition, human rights activists 

and lawyers, as Ms. Arriaga mentioned, on women, on LGBT people, and on ethic minorities. This fact is worth bearing in mind as 

this committee considers the administration’s ability to promote religious liberty and reduce attacks on religious communities. 

As this committee is no doubt aware, the administration’s budget 

request of $37.6 billion to fund the State Department and USAID 

for fiscal year 2018 is roughly 30 percent lower than that which 

Congress appropriated for fiscal year 2017. The request for humanrights-related work, which includes funding dedicated to international religious freedom, seeks to cut even deeper. While both 

the House and Senate to date have largely rejected these draconian 

cuts, the fact that they were both proposed in the first place should 

raise questions. 

The administration deserves credit for nominating a distinguished public servant for the position of Ambassador-at-Large for 

International Religious Freedom. Yet the White House has yet to 

announce a nominee for the position of Assistant Secretary of State 

for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor or nominees to lead the 

Bureaus of East Asian and Pacific Affairs and Near Eastern Affairs, among others. These are areas of ongoing gross abuses 

against religious minorities, and we deserve to have appropriately 

credentialed leaders focusing on them daily. 

Secretary of State Tillerson recently wrote that, while he intends 

to retain the position of Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom and place other envoys under this position, he did 

not plan to have the Ambassador-at-Large report directly to him, 

which, in my analysis, does not appear to conform to the Frank 

Wolf Act. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 

The Secretary also indicated that he sought to eliminate other 

positions working to advance religious tolerance. This includes the 

U.S. Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, 

which was created during the Bush administration and has since 

performed a valuable, tangible function: to increase protections for 

believers and nonbelievers alike. 

Additionally, the administration has elected, through its various 

travel bans and recent decision to cap the number of refugee admissions at an all-time low, to take steps that will be seen by audiences around the world as not in keeping with America’s leadership 

role in promoting religious freedom and protecting the most vulnerable. 

This brings me to my second point, which is that among the 

greatest challenges to religious freedom today is that foreign governments are acting in the name of countering terrorism to repress 

their citizens. 

As we have seen from countries as diverse as Azerbaijan, Bahrain, China, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Tajikistan, governments are increasingly conflating peaceful religious expression with 

terrorist activity in order to justify repression. Not only do such 

laws and policies regularly threaten religious communities and 

other peaceful civic organizations, they often have the effect of advancing the very radicalization that they are ostensibly meant to 

confront. 

In the Middle East, these actions contribute to the heightened 

sectarian nature of the wars in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Countries 

including Azerbaijan, China, and Tajikistan have moved aggressively against members of peaceful political opposition groups and 

religious communities, often justifying their actions on dubious 

counterterrorism grounds. And, as was mentioned, in Russia, recently amended anti-extremism laws have established a legal 

framework that allows the state to curtail essentially all forms of 

peaceful dissent as well as disfavored religious speech and practice. 

Concluding with a third point, I’d like to touch on an issue that 

deals with rising anti-Semitism in Europe, a trend that the U.S. 

Government should do more to address head-on. 

Examples of anti-Jewish violence from members of Muslim communities in France and elsewhere, as well as recurring credible allegations of anti-Semitic statements by members of the U.K.’s 

Labour Party, demonstrate that this is not a trend confined to a 

certain sector of European society or the political spectrum. 

That said, in countries ranging from France to Germany to Hungary to Poland, right-wing populist parties and governments are increasingly trafficking in and turning a blind eye to anti-Semitic 

rhetoric. They are thus engendering climates increasingly conducive to violence. 

In instances in which these parties have come to power, as in 

Hungary and Poland, they have embarked on a multifaceted effort 

to undermine the rule of law, weaken governmental checks and 

balances, and impair civil society. As these values underpin transatlantic security and prosperity, this should alarm us all. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Berschinski follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
45 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 30292.032

·t l· human rights first Amerca~ :deals. Ln1versal values. 

Testimony of Robert G. Berschinski 

Senior Vice President for Policy 

Human Rights First 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY 

HEARING ON 

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN PROTECTING INTERNATIONAL 

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 

October 11, 2017 
46 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 30292.033

Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for 

giving me the opportunity to testify today regarding the U.S. government's important role in 

protecting international religious freedom. 

The right of each of us to believe and worship as our conscience dictates is enshrined in both the 

U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Freedom of religion-to 

believe or not believe, to change one's beliefs, and to practice one's faith in private or in 

observance with others-is the essence of what makes us human. 

During my time in the Obama administration, I was privileged to work closely with then 

Ambassador-at-Large David Saperstein, as well as the many dedicated staff of the State 

Department's Office of International Religious Freedom. These men and women embody the 

professionalism and nonpartisanship so integral to the successful advancement of U.S. foreign 

policy. 

Today, I work at an organization, Human Rights First, whose mission is to foster American 

global leadership on human rights not just as a moral obligation, but also as a vital national 

interest. Our belief is that the United States is strongest, most secure, and most prosperous when 

our policies and actions match our ideals. 

I bring this perspective to today's hearing, and hope that it will inform discussion this morning in 

at least three ways. 

First, it's important to recognize that the U.S. government's work to ensure that foreign 

governments do not encroach on an individual's rights to freedom of religion and conscience will 

be less effective if they are divorced from efforts to uphold other fundamental freedoms. 

As the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) rightly stated in its most 

recent aruma! report, freedom of religion is impossible without the freedom to assemble, to 

express one's views, and to live under the equal protection oflaw. 

A review of the U.S. government's list of Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) bears out this 

fact. The ten countries currently listed as CPCs by the U.S. State Department include a veritable 

who's who of the world's most repressive and abusive governments. In no state is religious 

intolerance an outlier to a more widespread pattern of abuses. Rather, from North Korea to Saudi 

Arabia to Uzbekistan, attacks on freedom of conscience constitute only one aspect of a broader 

approach to limiting civil and political rights. 

Simply put, repressive governments tend to seek control over any organized body of individuals, 

and to view those outside the government's direct control as a threat to their power. Thus, 

attacks on religion and belief often relate to, and sometimes stand in for, attacks on political 

opposition, human rights lawyers and activists, women, LGBT people, and ethnic minorities. 

This fact is worth bearing in mind as this committee considers the U.S. government's ability to 

confront attacks on religious communities. As illustrated by the establishment and 

implementation of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 and the Frank R. Wolf 

1 
47 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 30292.034

International Religious Freedom Act of2016, the Congress and executive branch each deserve 

credit for promoting religious freedom as a key U.S. foreign policy interest. At the same time, 

current trends in the funding, staffing, and organization of the State Department leave room for 

concern that maximizing protections for freedom of conscience and other human rights are 

increasingly at risk. 

As this committee is no doubt aware, the administration's budget request of$37.6 billion to fund 

the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development for fiscal year 2018 is 

roughly 30% lower than that which Congress appropriated for fiscal year 2017. The 

administration's request for human rights-related work, which includes funds dedicated to 

promoting international religious freedom, amounted to roughly 62% of requests made in recent 

years, or a reduction of roughly 38%. While both the House and Senate have to date largely 

rejected these draconian cuts, the fact that they were proposed in the first place should call into 

question the administration's commitment to advancing fundamental freedoms. 

The administration deserves credit for nominating a distinguished public servant for the position 

of Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom. Yet the White House has yet to 

announce a nominee for the positions of Assistant Secretary of State for the bureaus of 

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; East Asian and Pacific Affairs; and Near Eastern Affairs, 

among others. Given the inseparability of ensuring religious freedom from other pressing human 

rights matters, as well as ongoing abuses against religious minorities in countries ranging from 

Burma to Syria, the lack of well-qualified diplomats in these vital positions does little to advance 

American interests, including the protection of religious minorities and other vulnerable 

populations. 

Continuing with the theme of personnel being policy, I would recommend that Congress reflect 

on the implications of Secretary of State Tillerson's recent letter to Senator Corker with respect 

to envoys working to advance religious freedom and conduct outreach to religious communities. 

While I commend the Secretary for his stated intention to retain the positions of Ambassador-atLarge for International Religious Freedom, Special Advisor for Religious Minorities in the Near 

East and South/Central Asia, and U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, I 

would note that his desire to place the Ambassador-at-Large under the Under Secretary for 

Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights appears not to conform with the Frank R. Wolf 

International Religious Freedom Act, which states that the Ambassador-at-Large "shall report 

directly to the Secretary." 

I also suggest that Congress question the utility of the State Department eliminating other 

positions working to advance religious tolerance and freedom of conscience. In particular, the 

U.S. Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which was created during 

the George W. Bush administration, has performed a valuable function in working with 

governments around the world to reject so-called blasphemy laws. Notably, in2011, the Special 

Envoy to the OIC played a significant role, in coordination with other offices in the State 

Department, USCIRF, and Members of Congress, in working with members of that organization 

to successfully defeat the "defamation of religions" resolution previously sponsored at the UN, 

and substituting for it a resolution that addresses the roots of religious intolerance while 

2 
48 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 30292.035

protecting freedoms of belief and expression in a manner consistent with First Amendment 

principles. 

Finally, on this topic, I would urge that the administration not view the policies that it has 

implemented with respect to its various travel bans, and its recent decision to cap the number of 

refugee admissions at an all-time low of 45,000, as existing in isolation from America's 

leadership role in promoting religious freedom and protecting believers abroad. 

An in-depth study concluded by my organization in July on the first six months of the 

administration's travel and refugee admissions bans demonstrated a significant drop in 

resettlement of Syrian and Muslim refugees. Among other things, we found that since the 

President's January 27 Executive Order, the United States has cut its resettlement of Syrian 

refugees by 80 percent, despite this population representing about 40 percent of global refugee 

resettlement needs. The United States' sharp reduction in the resettlement of these vulnerable 

individuals, the majority of whom are women and children, sends the wrong message to the 

world about America's commitment to religious liberty. 

To its credit, USCIRF has spoken out consistently in favor of resettling and otherwise protecting 

those fleeing war and persecution, including religious persecution. Doing so is completely in 

keeping with America's highest ideals. As dozens of our nation's senior-most security experts 

have stated, before being resettled, refugees are subjected to among the most rigorous screening 

of any population entering the United States. Terrorists, meanwhile, are eager to tout these 

policies to buttress their false narrative that the United States is at war with Islam. 

This brings me to my second point, which is that the greatest threat to religious freedom today is 

increasingly governments acting in the name of countering terrorism to repress their citizens and 

curtail human rights. 

As we have seen from countries as diverse as Azerbaijan, Bahrain, China, Iran, Russia, Saudi 

Arabia, and Tajikistan, to name but a few, governments are increasingly conflating peaceful 

religious expression with terrorist activity in order to justify repression. The effect of this trend is 

two-fold. Not only do such laws and policies regularly threaten religious communities and other 

peaceful civic organizations directly, they often have the effect of advancing the very 

radicalization that they arc ostensibly meant to confront. 

To touch briefly on instances of this trend: 

In Bahrain, following the orchestrated crackdown of2016, the government has increasingly 

turned its attention toward clerics from its majority Shi'a population in what UN experts have 

described as systematic harassment on the basis of religious affiliation. In so doing, it has often 

charged religions leaders with unsubstantiated claims of supporting terrorism and extremism. 

Saudi Arabia continues to classify as terrorism most forms of peaceful dissent, including 

contesting the government's interpretation of Islam. Iran continues to discriminate against, 

imprison, and in some cases execute members of its Sunni minority community (among other 

populations), on national security grounds. 

3 
49 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 30292.036

These actions contribute to the heightened sectarian nature of the wars advanced by governments 

and their affiliated proxies on both sides of conflict in Syria, Iraq, andY emen. Intensification of 

sectarian divisions is driving both Shi'a and Sunnis toward a zero-sum contest for survival, with 

negative impacts on these groups and other religious minorities, such as Christians and Yazidis 

in Iraq. 

Countries including Azerbaijan, China, and Tajikistan have moved aggressively against members 

of peaceful political opposition groups and religious communities, often justifYing their actions 

on dubious counterterrorism grounds. These actions in tum risk promoting the views of the most 

radical actors within these communities. 

In Russia, recently amended anti-extremism laws have established a legal framework that allows 

the state to curtail essentially all forms of peaceful dissent, as well as disfavored religious 

practice. The Russian government's definition of"extremism" goes well beyond the threat, much 

less the use, of violence, so as to encompass essentially all peaceful religious rites and speech not 

sanctioned by the state. 

The third point that I'd like to touch on deals with rising antisemitism in Europe, a trend that the 

U.S. government must do more to address head on. 

Human Rights First is proud of its standing as one of the few globally-oriented human rights 

organizations outside of the Jewish advocacy community to consistently prioritize antisemitism 

as a human rights concern. For more than a dozen years, we have placed a special emphasis on 

documenting and combating this form of bigotry, which threatens individual communities as 

well as the stability of European democracies and institutions such as the European Union, the 

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and NATO. 

Today, we are witnessing an unprecedented and alarming resurgence of antisemitism in a 

number of western, central, and eastern European countries. The factors underpinning these 

trends are complex. They include the growing power of populist and ethno-nationalist political 

parties and governments, at times backed for cynical reasons by Russia; the migrant and refugee 

crisis, and xenophobia stoked by several national governments; and actors that inappropriately 

conflate discrimination and violence against Jews with opposition to Israeli state policies. 

Examples of anti-Jewish violence from members of Muslim immigrant communities in France 

and elsewhere, as well as recurring credible allegations of antisemitic statements by members of 

the UK's Labour party, demonstrate that this trend is not confined to a certain sector of European 

society or its political spectrum. That said, in countries ranging from France to Germany to 

Hungary to Poland, right-wing populist political parties and governments are increasingly 

trafficking in, or turning a blind eye to antisemitic rhetoric. They are thus engendering climates 

increasingly conducive to violence. 

Antisemitic crimes, some 93% of which are linked to far-right extremists, have risen in Germany 

in the first eight months of2017, compared with last year. The country's recent election ensured 

that a radical-right party will enter the Bundestag for the first time since World War II. 

4 
50 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 30292.037

The Hungarian government has in recent years engaged openly in historical revisionism and 

attempted rehabilitation of antisemitic figures from its interwar and World War II-era 

governments. More recently, the President of Hungary's Federation of Jewish Communities 

confronted its Prime Minister over a government-led propaganda campaign that the former 

described as returning Hungary's Jews to living in a state of fear. 

The European Jewish Congress has in recent months publicly expressed what it described as 

"grave concerns" over the rise of antisemitism in Poland, and a deterioration of relations between 

the country's Jewish community and government. Researchers at the University of Warsaw have 

documented that acceptance of antisemitic hate speech is rising across the country, particularly 

amongst younger Poles. 

At least two factors bind together these disparate national-level trends, each of which should be a 

cause of concern for the U.S. government. First, far-right populist parties in Europe appear to be 

cloaking latent antisemitism in more active forms of anti-Muslim bigotry. Second, in instances in 

which these parties have come to power, as in Hungary and Poland, they have embarked on a 

multifaceted effort to undermine the rule of law, weaken governmental checks and balances, and 

impair civil society. As described elsewhere, intolerance for religious plurality has tended to 

coincide with actions that threaten other aspects of democracy and human rights. As these values 

underpin transatlantic security and prosperity, this should alarm us all. 

Recommendations 

Based on the above, Members of the Committee should consider the following 

recommendations, which are meant to improve the U.S. government's role in protecting 

international religious freedom: 

I. In coordination with committees ofjurisdiction considering the administration's State and 

Foreign Operations appropriations requests for fiscal year 2018 and beyond, ensure a 

holistic approach to efforts to advance religious freedom, including by fully funding the 

needs of the State Department and USA!D, recognizing that, in order to be effective, such 

efforts must by necessity cut across a multitude of bureaus and programs. 

2. Urge the White House and Secretary of State Tillerson to nominate for confirmation 

appropriately qualified individuals to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for 

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, and to head vacant leadership roles in regional 

bureaus. 

3. Engage Secretary of State Tillerson on his initial recommendations concerning the 

ongoing reorganization of State and USA!D, noting that an individual with a record for 

building tolerance and respect across faiths should be nominated to serve as Special 

Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism; and that he should reconsider retention of 

the position of U.S. Special Envoy to the Organization oflslamic Cooperation. 

5 
51 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 30292.038

4. Recognizing that repressive governments frequently justify human rights violations 

against religious cmmnunities and other peaceful dissenters on the basis of countering 

terrorism, which in tum can fuel alienation and violence, review U.S. government 

security-focused policies and assistance to foreign govermnents to ensure that they do not 

contribute to counterproductive actions. 

5. Prioritize protecting the rights of displaced minority religious communities in Iraq to 

return to their homes in safety, which would serve as a powerful renunciation ofiSIS' 

extremist ideology. 

6. Challenge the administration to uphold the United States' bipartisan tradition of 

welcoming those fleeing conflict and persecution by reviewing and revising its decision 

to cap refugee admissions at an all-time low. Human Rights First recommends that the 

administration cap refugee resettlement at no less than 75,000 individuals at a time in 

which the number of people displaced stands at the highest level since World War II. 

7. Consider increasing foreign assistance to fund civil society groups, including those 

promoting religious freedom and interfaith dialogue, and combatting antisemitism, in 

central and eastern Europe. 

8. Increase diplomatic engagement with European allies backsliding on democracy and 

human rights, including with respect to religious freedom and tolerance. 

9. Support efforts to pass the Combating European Anti-Semitism Act of2017 (H.R. 672), 

which would amend the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to require enhanced 

reporting in the State Department's annual International Religious Freedom Report on, 

inter alia, the security challenges facing European Jewish communities; the efforts of the 

U.S. government to partner with European law enforcement and civil society on these 

issues; and European educational initiatives that aim to impart values of pluralism and 

tolerance. 

6 
52 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

The chair notes the presence of our colleague, the gentleman 

from Alabama, Mr. Palmer. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. 

Palmer be allowed to fully participate in today’s hearing. 

And, without objection, it’s so ordered. 

The chair also had noted the presence of the full committee 

chairman, but I think he will grace us with his presence shortly. 

The chair now recognizes myself for 5 minutes. 

Dr. Farr and Ambassador Kozak, you both touched on some of 

the discrimination against people in places like Iran and Saudi 

Arabia. Mr. Berschinski had mentioned how sometimes the oppressing people based on religion can be a proxy for just political 

disagreements, but in Iran and Saudi Arabia the root of the discrimination is just based on a sharia-based society. I mean, the law 

is being applied to where, if you’re not of that particular persuasion, you are disfavored, correct? 

Mr. KOZAK. Yes. I mean, I think both are true, that you’re 

disfavored because you’re not of that persuasion, but it’s also people who want to maintain political power make themselves the interpreters of what is the applicable religious doctrine. So they play 

off each other to a very bad effect. 

Mr. FARR. Couldn’t agree more. This is religious persecution, 

plain and simple. It’s motivated by a religious view that certain religious opinions and groups are not acceptable. Ms. Arriaga has 

talked about these Baha’i in Iran, these women who have been in 

prison for 10 years for nothing more than being Baha’i. That’s religious persecution par excellence, if I can put it that way. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So what—because you had mentioned some of the 

countries in Africa that don’t have the same problems. What is the 

distinction between those? 

Because I noted, you know, the President of Egypt, el-Sisi, he 

gave a speech in front of some of the Islamic clerics, and he said, 

look, you can’t have a faith that views its role to be at war with 

people who disagree with you. So he was, I think, trying to chart 

a course where, you know, you can have an Islamic-based society 

that doesn’t necessarily do that. 

But what separates the Irans from the countries that, even 

though they have Muslim majorities, are not trying to discriminate 

against non-—and it’s not just non-Muslims. I mean, you’ve got to 

be this certain type of Muslim if you’re in Iran. 

Mr. FARR. Precisely so. And I think the answer lies in the history 

of these countries, but it also, in these seven West African countries, has to do with the fact that they’ve discovered this works. I 

mean, it produces more economic growth, it produces more political 

civility, people are killing each other less, people are freer. 

So some of this is just practical. And what I’ve called for is for 

us to be a little bit more down to Earth in the way that we can 

convince governments that it’s in their interest to allow greater religious freedom or at least religious tolerance. Move away from 

some of these crackdowns. 

Each government is tough—and you named the two toughest, 

frankly, other than North Korea: Iran and Saudi Arabia. They are 

very, very difficult. But it doesn’t mean we should not be really trying to make the self-interest argument to them, particularly in 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
53 

Iran, where you have, it seems to me, a large number of younger 

Iranian citizens who are generally pro-American. They are open to 

some of these messages, but if they speak out, they’re going to get 

hurt. We need to address those problems too. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, I hope that—I mean, the practical point you 

make about the experience clearly is lost on the ruling elites in 

Iran. But, hopefully, throughout Iranian society, where I think you 

do have people who are much more pro-Western in terms of some 

of their values, that that could be an impetus to eventually go in 

a different direction with that society. Because, I mean, it’s a totalitarian state. 

What about the suspension of the visas for people who are denying religious freedom? Ms. Arriaga, you mentioned it. It’s in the 

law. I mean, my view is we ought to enforce that. I mean, if we’re 

not going to enforce this stuff, then why are we even passing it? 

What has been done to do that? I mean, I think if we followed 

the law, it’d be very difficult for people from Iran and Saudi Arabia 

to get visas to come here, but yet that happens. 

Ms. ARRIAGA. We need to have a more comprehensive way to 

keep those lists. We know for a fact that there are thousands of the 

children of human rights violators around the world that come here 

to go to school and go to college here, and the Wolf Act precisely 

is asking for a more comprehensive list of violators as well as a 

more comprehensive list of conscience prisoners. So making sure 

that we have the correct information is a good place to begin. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Ambassador Kozak, what’s the answer? 

Mr. KOZAK. Yes. No, we’ve found that the visa denial is a very 

effective tool, whether it’s for human rights violations generally or 

religious freedom violations in particular. 

One of the complications of making lists is that there are multiple bases for denying people visas, and the consular officers tend 

to take the easiest one. So if you have someone who has committed 

extrajudicial killings or torture, they’re banned anyway as part of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act, so they don’t need to go to 

the question of did they do this for religious reasons or did they 

do this for human rights reasons. So it makes compilation of lists 

a little bit complicated. 

But it’s a very effective tool, and we’ve deployed it, I think, to 

great effect in a number of places. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. My time is up, and I will recognize 

the ranking member for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let’s take this from sort of a 30,000-foot level. I know that President Trump has recommended a 30-percent cut in the State Department budget. That’s for the State Department and also USAID. 

Let me put it in the words of a Republican Senator, Lindsey 

Graham. He described that move, cutting the budget by 30 percent, 

as, quote, ‘‘radical and reckless.’’ 

Ms. Arriaga, your feelings on that? 

Ms. ARRIAGA. The United States Commission on International 

Religious Freedom makes recommendations to the State Department, but we do not take a position on its budget. I’m sure Ambassador Kozak will be happy to answer that question. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
54 

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Kozak, she just threw you under the bus, but go 

ahead. 

Mr. KOZAK. I support the President’s budget request—— 

Mr. LYNCH. Oh, do you? 

Mr. KOZAK. —as any administration—— 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. 

Mr. KOZAK. —witness would. But—— 

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Berschinski, how about you? 

Mr. BERSCHINSKI. So, as I mentioned a little bit in my testimony, 

I think, overall, the budget cuts are pretty reckless. I think that 

they were made out of the gate, without appropriate understanding 

of the nature of diplomacy, the number of complex issues the State 

Department and USAID are working through. I think ultimately 

they’re going to harm our ability to promote human rights and religious liberty as well. 

Mr. LYNCH. Fair enough. 

So, Ms. Arriaga and Mr. Berschinski, you both bring up the situation of Russia in your written remarks. As you’ve both noted, last 

year, new Russian laws effectively criminalized all private religious 

speech not sanctioned, not approved by the Russian Government— 

sort of a government filter on religious speech. 

Also, the Jehovah’s Witnesses were banned in the North 

Caucasus. Particularly in Chechnya and Dagestan, security forces 

continue to carry out arrests and kidnappings of people suspected 

of any link to, quote, ‘‘nontraditional Islam,’’ as defined by the government. 

So, Mr. Berschinski, do you think that Russia’s repression of the 

religious rights of its own people and those of neighboring countries 

is something that should be of particular concern to the United 

States? 

Mr. BERSCHINSKI. I do. 

And I wouldn’t limit it to just repression on religious grounds. In 

addition to all the things you mentioned, the Russian Government 

is involved in a widespread focus on repressing any actor or organization that can pose a challenge to state control. 

So we see that in terms of journalists and opposition politicians 

murdered and imprisoned. We see it in terms of broad-based attacks on NGOs working on human rights and religious freedom, 

certainly, but also on issues of health and the environment, forcing 

dozens to close, many more tarred as foreign agents, as traitors, 

harassed, raided, and so on. 

We see a media landscape that at one point had a fairly free and 

fair media environment that’s now essentially a propaganda machine directed and controlled by the Kremlin. We see it in terms 

of what should be described as pogroms against gay people in 

Chechnya, detaining them illegally, abusing them, and, in some 

cases, murdering them. 

So we see this repression across the board right now in Russia. 

And I think that we can draw a tie between the repression that the 

Russian Government is enacting at home and its behavior abroad, 

some of which was mentioned earlier in terms of the invasion of 

Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, the attacks on the Tatar Muslim 

minority population there, as we all know, the Russian Government’s involvement in Syria and the Russian Government’s inVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:20 Aug 15, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\30292.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
55 

volvement in both the U.S. Presidential election and what seem to 

be continuing efforts to raise societal tensions in the United States 

and in countries across Europe. 

I think this is a continuing threat, and I feel that there is reason 

for the U.S. population to be concerned, because the repression at 

home is tied to some of these behaviors abroad. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. 

Ms. Arriaga, in the most recent report that I have on the U.S. 

Commission on International Religious Freedom, they talk about 

what’s going on in eastern Ukraine and also in Crimea. We don’t 

hear a lot about that. What is going on? That report seems to lay 

out some very repressive activity. 

Ms. ARRIAGA. Yeah. USCIRF continues to receive weekly reports 

of Putin’s thugs acting with impunity. The Jehovah’s Witnesses 

have even produced, for instance, videos, information being planted 

in their houses of worship. And, unfortunately, in Ukraine and Crimea, we have received reports of people being arrested arbitrarily 

and also being executed without a trial. 

John Ruskay, a fellow commissioner, has adopted a Muslim political prisoner from Russia. He was accused of studying pacifist 

Islam. His name is Bagir Kazikhanov. And we are advocating for 

individuals, humanizing the story and also highlighting what’s 

going on in Crimea and the Ukraine. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. 

Thank you for your courtesy. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

The chair now recognizes Chairman Foxx for 5 minutes. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for convening this hearing. 

Ambassador Kozak, I believe the freedom-defending world can do 

more to prevent atrocity crimes if it can deter severe violations of 

religious freedom earlier on. The Frank Wolf Act amends the 1998 

International Religious Freedom Act in several ways, including by 

creating the designating persons list and sanctioning mechanisms 

for non-state actors. 

Could you elaborate on how this provision of the act could be 

used to address violations of religious freedom, particularly those 

committed by Burmese security forces, non-state actors, and other 

nationalist groups and individuals against the Rohingya minority 

facing ethic cleansing? 

Mr. KOZAK. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The act does give us some additional tools in being able to—I 

mean, obviously, we have spoken out against non-state actors 

who’ve committed these gross violations, as Secretary Tillerson did 

with respect to the genocidal acts of ISIS in Iraq, and we have been 

able to speak out against individuals. But I think this will give us 

an opportunity or an impetus to put them together more methodically. 

The Rohingya situation today is just appalling. The attacks with 

security forces and also societal attacks have resulted, at this point, 

in half of the people in Rakhine State, half of the Rohingya, leaving 

and living across the border in terrible conditions—murders, rapes, 

just every manner of atrocity committed against them. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
56 

We have, as I think you know, been trying for years to find some 

way to throttle back people’s behavior in this respect and have appealed to the government, appealed to the Burmese military to stop 

it. But it’s a little bit what the chairman said: People in power— 

sometimes the argument as to what’s in the best interest of the 

country doesn’t resonate with them because it’s not in their best interest in terms of maintaining their own power. And trying to find 

the right combination of carrots and sticks to persuade them to do 

otherwise is difficult. 

But it’s something that’s got to be done. It’s something we’ve 

spent an awful lot of time and energy on, trying to find the right 

combination of programs, diplomatic activity, advice, pressure. And 

hopefully we will find a way to throttle it back, because it’s a terrible situation that’s getting worse. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you. 

Ms. Arriaga, I note in your testimony you highlighted how religion has been used to disempower women and that women and 

girls are often victims of religious freedom violations, extremism, 

and discriminatory personal status laws. 

Could you discuss the complexities and synergies between the 

rights of women and girls, freedom of religion, and what religious 

freedom advocates have been doing to address the issue? 

Ms. ARRIAGA. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

We at the Commission have issued a brand-new report precisely 

on the synergies between religious freedom and women’s rights. We 

find that countries that fully respect religious freedom also ban 

child brides, they also allow communities to reject harmful practices such as female genital mutilation. Women who are divorced 

are not forced into poverty. Women are not forced to convert to the 

religion of the person they’re marrying. Marriages are recognized. 

It’s been, unfortunately, our experience that women’s rights and 

religious freedom advocates were not working together. They 

thought that rights were pitted against each other. However, after 

we issued this report, we have met with a number of academics at 

Oxford, we have met a number of parliamentarians through the 

International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or 

Belief, and we have found there has been a great reception. We 

think we can double the advocates for religious freedom if we take 

in advocates for women’s rights as well. 

Ultimately, human rights are interdependent, and to take one 

out of the equation arbitrarily or artificially hurts the rights of everyone else. And every single human right should be considered in 

tandem as cooperating and collaborating with each other. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentlewoman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Gomez for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

When I was sworn into Congress, I said that one of my main duties was to fight for my constituents, no matter where they were 

from, no matter what God they worshipped, no matter the color of 

their skin; if they came here, they believed in our values, contributed to our country, that they deserved a place here in the United 

States of America. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
57 

And freedom of religion and freedom of expression are the bedrock freedoms on which our country was founded. It is these freedoms that should give us the authority and ability to do what we 

can to promote these freedoms with people around the world. It is 

the moral authority upon which our ability to promote international religious freedom rests. 

Unfortunately, religious freedom under this administration 

means nothing more than giving certain groups the license to discriminate against people of color, Muslims, people of a non-Christian faith, and the LGBT community. It is deeply disturbing to me 

that some people have used religious freedom as their basis to fire 

people who don’t share the same religious beliefs or who are 

LGBTQ. Where I come from, that is just discrimination, plain and 

simple. There is no need to dress it up. 

I believe that this administration’s repeated attempt at a Muslim 

ban, the normalization of racism by this Department of Justice, 

and the brazen attacks on the LGBT community undermine our 

moral authority and undermine our ability to promote religious 

freedom abroad. 

Quick question. Last week, Attorney General Sessions issued a 

directive to all Federal agencies which included the following guidance: ‘‘To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, religious observance and practice should be reasonably accommodated 

in all government activity.’’ The Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBT rights group, called these guidelines a, quote, ‘‘all-out 

assault on civil rights’’ and a, quote, ‘‘sweeping license to discriminate.’’ 

Mr. Berschinski, do you believe that the rolling back of regulations protecting LGBT groups in the name of religion promotes religious freedom? 

Mr. BERSCHINSKI. Thank you, Congressman. 

What I would say in response to that is that I think that the protections for religious freedom that are enshrined in the First 

Amendment do not and should not give broad license to discriminate against any class of people. 

So, with the understanding that some of the memoranda that the 

Department of Justice has put out are long and complex, just came 

out and have yet to be fully analyzed, I would say that I would 

hope that the Department of Justice would act fully in keeping 

with that spirit. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Thank you. 

Commissioner Arriaga, you’ve mentioned that some people use 

discrimination against other religions as a way to promote their 

own self-interest. Have you seen any of that here in our country 

recently? 

You don’t have to answer that question. 

Let me ask you one other question. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom does not review repression 

of religious freedoms in the United States. How would the banning 

of a particular religious group affect your analysis of religious freedoms in this country? 

Ms. ARRIAGA. I’m sorry. Could you repeat the question, please? 

Mr. GOMEZ. How would the banning of a particular religious 

group affect your analysis of religious freedom in this country? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
58 

Ms. ARRIAGA. Mr. Gomez, my name is Kristina Arriaga. As a fellow Latino, I think I know a little bit of what you’re talking about 

in terms of discrimination. 

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom advocates for all religions in every single country. We find 

that banning one religion or granting preference to one or the other 

is generally not in accordance with the Universal Declaration of 

Human Rights, Article 18. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Great. 

Mr. Berschinski, according to a recent report by the Council on 

American-Islamic Relations,there has been a, quote, ‘‘91-percent increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes during the first half of the year 

compared to the same period in 2016.’’ Would a 91-percent increase 

in a foreign country over a 6-month period raise concerns for you? 

Mr. BERSCHINSKI. Yes, absolutely, it would. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Thank you so much. 

One of the things that I’m trying to highlight is that our ability 

to promote religion freedom abroad rests on how people view how 

we promote that same freedom in our own country. Anything that 

undermines it makes our ability less so and weakens our ability to 

protect religious freedom of individuals in other countries. 

Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the vice chairman, Mr. Russell, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. RUSSELL. I thank the chairman. 

And I also thank the chairman for holding this important hearing. I think it’s vital not only to, obviously, how we treat all human 

beings, but also it intertwines in so much of our foreign policy and 

our relations around the globe in making sure that these differences and these pretexts do not become a thing that divide and 

ultimately result in the slaughtering of thousands of innocent people, which seems to be the trend of history. 

Mr. Chairman, I guess I would like to speak a little bit about— 

you know, having extensively traveled the globe and fought in several different places around it, while some of our colleagues may 

imagine that we have such religious oppression in this country, 

this is one of the greatest nations that we have as far as religious 

tolerance. Differences in religious opinion? Sure. Protected by the 

First Amendment? Also. 

But those opinions being forced upon religious groups to force 

them to violate their rights of conscience, which are also protected 

in the First Amendment, we can’t use one group’s pretext or agendas to violate the religious beliefs of another group. And in that, 

I think the United States does very well. 

As I look at this list of the CPC recommendation nations, there’s 

a trend that I find kind of interesting. Sixty percent on the recommended list are Asian countries. And we often focus on, you 

know, the habitual troublemakers, you know, that we become accustomed to, but we’re seeing 60 percent in Asia, 25 percent in Africa, and 15 percent in the Middle East. And I find that intriguing 

because oftentimes we don’t make the type of investments in Asia, 

and yet this is where we’re seeing a, just on the CPC list, interesting trend. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
59 

Along that line, too, on the Tier 2 countries, two key allies of the 

United States are on this list, one a NATO ally, which is of particular concern. 

And, Ms. Arriaga, you intrigued me with your visa restriction but 

extend that to the education piece, which I think would be useful. 

But, as I try to walk through that, one of the successful programs that we have is the international military exchange program, IMET. And, you know, in decades past, we’re kind of darned 

if we do and darned if we don’t. You know, if we try to promote 

human rights through the education of military officers, most of 

which will grow up to be major commanders and generals in that 

nation and, you would hope, would be trained in our values, you 

know, they can actually do some good. On the other hand, if you 

exclude them, then, you know, they will not be exposed to any of 

those Western things. 

And one of the things we see with Turkey right now, as they continue to oppress, is even ferreting out those that have been trained 

in Western countries, particularly the United States, out of their 

military. And that causes great alarm. 

So I’ve stated several observations here, and I would like, kind 

of, your commentary on that and anyone else that would like to 

opine on some of these observations and what concerns you might 

have. Thank you. 

Ms. ARRIAGA. Thank you, Mr. Russell. 

I just came back from Turkey 3 days ago. The situation there is 

extraordinary. There is an enormous amount of stress and anxiety 

on the Turkish people on the minority religious communities. As 

you know, Pastor Brunson has been incarcerated; it’s been a year 

last Saturday. And, regrettably, as you also know, 24 hours before 

USCIRF’s arrival to Turkey, a DEA officer, whose a Turkish national, was arrested. 

So I think right now Turkey stands as a NATO ally who’s having 

great difficulties respecting human rights in that country. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Which is part of the NATO charter, by the way. 

It’s embedded in that alliance. 

Do you see resistance in calling out Turkey in these, you know, 

Tier 2 countries? Are you getting pushback on that? 

Ms. ARRIAGA. Well, USCIRF continues to be greatly troubled by 

the recent developments. And, unfortunately, when we see such a 

bad panorama for human rights in general, for all the journalists 

getting arrested, generally religious freedom also falls in the same 

category. 

We met with several religious communities in Turkey that still 

have no legal persona. Turkey has spent a great deal of the summer revising its textbooks. There is a mandatory religious education, which characterizes anyone from a minority religion as 

being outside of the spectrum of, many times, acceptable behavior. 

This is very traumatic for children. 

So we will continue to watch closely what’s going on. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, I thank you for that. 

And I would love to hear from the others, but, unfortunately, Mr. 

Chairman, my time has expired. I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
60 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice, 

for 5 minutes. 

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

And I want to thank each of our panelists for being here this 

morning and for the role that each of you play in defending religious liberties around the world, regardless of what that religion 

may be. 

My background is that of a pastor for about 25 years before being 

in Congress. And I personally have seen a lot of what you deal 

with, and this has been an area of great concern of mine for a long 

time. And I appreciate the fact that y’all are on the tip of the spear 

in trying to deal with this and keep us informed. 

Religious liberty is a universal right, not just something that we 

cherish here in America. It should be something that is cherished 

around the world, regardless, again, of what the religion may be 

that is held by an individual. We’ve brought up today already some 

in the Muslim communities, be it in places like Burma or Russia 

or the Middle East, even, where the Yazidis—I mean, we’re seeing 

that. 

The one area of concern for me, not so much with your work, but 

it seems at least with the media and otherwise that is largely missing is the persecution of Christians around the world that seems 

to largely go unnoticed. 

And I recall in November 2012 that, from Germany, Merkel, 

made the comment that Christianity was the most persecuted religion in the world. And, of course, that statement was met with a 

great deal of criticism, but it’s backed up, and there have been 

many, many reports, as you well know, of the plight that Christians are facing in many places around the world. 

And, goodness, we can even look at some of the various laws of 

apostasy that many countries have, where, if someone converts to 

Christianity, the punishment can be extremely severe and torturous. 

And many of these countries you’ve mentioned, from Saudi Arabia to Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar—I mean, the list goes on and 

on and on and on. North Korea. We’re seeing some horrible stories 

coming out of North Korea. China. In fact, I have a resolution to 

try to call China’s hand on some of the catastrophes happening 

there. 

And, bottom line, we just can’t allow these things to continue. 

They’ve got to be brought to the public’s awareness and to be dealt 

with. 

Just a couple of questions within all that context. 

Ambassador, let me begin with you. When the State Department 

is considering which refugees are admitted to the United States, 

what role, if any, does the threat of religious persecution against 

an individual play in the determination as to whether or not they 

would be allowed to come to the United States as a refugee? 

Mr. KOZAK. Thank you, sir. 

It’s key. The definition of a refugee is somebody who has a wellfounded fear of persecution based on religion or political opinion or 

several categories, ethnicity, but religion is one of them. So, to 

qualify as a refugee, if you say, I have a well-founded fear of persecution, that is the key thing you have to show. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
61 

In terms of deciding, you know, how to allocate our refugee numbers around the world, they tend to look at what are the most vulnerable populations, the most at-risk populations. And, again, that 

can be based on people who are at risk because of their—— 

Mr. HICE. Do you believe that allocation is properly manifested 

when it deals with Christians around the world? I mean, we’ve 

got—the studies I’ve seen—some 200 million Christians around the 

world suffering persecution in one way or another. 

Mr. KOZAK. Yeah. And you’ve got, like, now we’re usually in the 

order of 75,000 or 50,000 refugee numbers per year to allocate. 

It really depends on the particular area. In some countries, I 

think we’ve had a high percentage of the refugees coming in have 

been Christians because Christians have been persecuted there. In 

others, it gets—— 

Mr. HICE. Let me ask my—— 

Mr. KOZAK. Yep. 

Mr. HICE. —final question. I’ve only got 20 seconds. What does 

Congress need to do to help achieve the goal of both awareness and 

of stopping religious persecution around the world? 

And I’ll open that to anyone who would like to answer. 

Mr. KOZAK. Well, I think you already have given us a tremendous amount of tools. The International Religious Freedom Report, 

which is mandated—and, as Dr. Farr said, it’s diagnostic, but 

that’s where you start. And we try to do a good job of saying what 

is the problem in each one of these places. 

Then you have the second set of, what do you do about it? And 

there, the tools that have been given—having an office with programming, having an ambassador-at-large who can go around the 

world and try to raise awareness of these issues, having sanctions 

that we can apply, whether it’s on visas or on economic assistance 

or military assistance or other things—those are all the kinds of 

tools you would use for other diplomatic efforts. But it’s putting the 

combination together, getting across-the-board effort from the government. 

I think one of the things that adds to that, though, is the efforts 

of individual Members of Congress. People do pay attention when 

they hear you and your colleagues speak up on these issues, because they know that decisions that affect them are made in Congress as well as in the executive branch, and it really amplifies the 

message we’re trying to get across. 

Ms. ARRIAGA. If I—— 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Did you want to—— 

Ms. ARRIAGA. Yeah. If I may add,H.R. 390 has passed the 

House;it’s now in the Senate. In the Senate, it was amended to include assistance to the Syrian population. It would be terrific if this 

passed and there was more funding appropriated immediately for 

that, for genocide victims. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, did you want to ask questions? 

Mr. GOWDY. If the chairman would allow. 

Mr. DESANTIS. I think I have no other choice but to allow. 

Mr. GOWDY. Oh, but you do. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
62 

I want to thank you for having this hearing, Chairman DeSantis, 

and for your commitment to religious freedom. 

Dr. Farr, it’s good to see you again. 

I asked you a question during the last administration, and, in 

the interest of fairness, I’m going to ask you the exact same question under this administration. 

Leave Congress out of it for a second;just focus on the executive 

branch. What are the three things that you would change, if you 

could, at the executive-branch level given the fact that we have had 

a change in administration?What are the first three things that 

should be done, from your perspective, in this sphere? 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Gowdy, speaking as a fellow South 

Carolinian. 

One of those things has already been done, and that is that the— 

this goes to something Mr. Lynch asked about earlier, and that is 

the budget cuts in the State Department. I agree with Mr. 

Berschinski that this was a bad idea. 

But one of the good things that has happened, in my view, is 

that the Office of International Religious Freedom has become larger. And so long as the positions that are being moved in there are 

being moved with the funds to support them—which I think is the 

case, but I’m not sure. As long as that is the case, that is a good 

thing. So what I am talking about is more staff and more oomph 

for the Office of International Religious Freedom. 

The second thing the Wolf Act requires, and that is that the Ambassador-at-Large report to the Secretary of State. Now, as has already been mentioned here—I forget who mentioned it. It may be 

my colleague to the left. 

Thank you for mentioning it. 

In the same letter where Secretary Tillerson proposed moving 

these positions under the Ambassador-at-Large, he said he is going 

to report to a lower-ranking official. Well, this is pretty clear in the 

law:The Ambassador-at-Large shall report to the Secretary of 

State. 

Why is that important? Is that a magic wand? No, it’s not. It, in 

fact, however, improves the status of the Ambassador-at-Large in 

the office, in my opinion, for the governments out there and, just 

as importantly, for American diplomats, who have seen historically 

this position as sort of a, you know, just below a high level—let me 

put it that way—within the State Department. I think it’s very important, and Congress should, in my view, insist that the Ambassador report to the Secretary of State. 

But the final thing, the third thing, Mr. Gowdy, is the subject of 

my testimony today,and that is that the International Religious 

Freedom policy of the United States is not yet aligned with our national security policy. It’s not an all-of-government thing. It is still 

focused in a single office, with not enough oomph to do this. 

This may be changing under this administration. There may be 

something in the national security strategy of the United States, 

when it’s produced, that draws religious freedom in, as I think it 

should be. But that is a major, major remaining step to take, in 

my opinion. 

Thank you for the question. 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, sir. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
63 

You touched upon what I find to be a fascinating dualism in your 

opening statement, that our national security interests are actually 

advanced when countries have more enlightened policies with respect to religious liberty. 

I like to anticipate arguments on the other side, and sometimes 

the other side—I don’t mean Democrats. I mean the other side of 

this issue. Sometimes folks on the other side, which are both Republicans and Democrats, will make the argument that we need to 

be more patient with the following countries because they are of 

such significant national security interest that we should overlook 

the following things. 

You made the exact opposite argument, and I want to give you 

a chance to extrapolate on that. 

Mr. FARR. Well, thank you. It’s pretty broad without focusing on 

a particular country, but the ones where this happens, such as 

Saudi Arabia—that’s a very good example of where we need the 

support of the Saudis. We need cooperation, intelligence, military, 

and otherwise. And yet it is the mother lode of Islamist extremism. 

It is the place where the ideology that energizes Islamist extremism begins. 

We need to do both. There is no simple answer to any foreign 

policy question, let alone one that has to do with religion. 

I think we are deficient in providing to the Saudis reasons why 

it’s in their interest to begin—not to adopt the First Amendment 

or move toward religious freedom in the broad way that we view 

it here, but toward religious tolerance, because it can begin to benefit them. 

And, in fact, we have opportunities. The regime itself talks a 

very good line internationally when it talks about its approach to 

their own religion. We should be working—and we are working, but 

I think we treat this almost as a boutique issue. We don’t have 

enough resources working with the Saudis behind the scenes to 

convince them it’s in their interest. 

The same would be true of Iran. It would be true of China. It 

would be true of any country where I believe we can make this an 

all-of-government effort to convince them it’s in their interest. 

That’s a broad answer to a broad question. I hope I’m being responsive. 

Mr. GOWDY. You did. Thank you, Dr. Farr. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The chair now recognize Mrs. Demings for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and to our ranking member as well. 

And to our witnesses,thank you for being with us. 

According to a United Nations official, the Burmese Government 

has been carrying out a, quote, ‘‘ethnic cleansing’’ of the Rohingya, 

an ethic group, as you all know, that primarily belong to the Muslim faith. According to the United Nations, 500,000 civilians have 

fled from Burma to Bangladesh since August 25th, 2017, alone. 

Commissioner, can you please speak to how the Burmese Government is essentially attempting to erase the Rohingya from 

Burma? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
64 

Ms. ARRIAGA. We at USCIRF have monitored that situation with 

great concern. We received reports that some of the Rohingya Muslims were even walking barefoot over barbed wire to try to get to 

Bangladesh and flee. And, in fact, USCIRF is planning to have a 

delegation go to Burma and Bangladesh in the next few weeks precisely to address this issue. It is, without a doubt, an incident of 

ethnic cleansing without precedent in that country. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Burma has been listed as a country of particular 

concern by the State Department for over a decade. 

Commissioner, again, has Burma’s appearance on the State Department’s countries-of-particular-concern list had any affect on the 

regime’s persecution of religious minorities? 

Ms. ARRIAGA. It’s hard to tell. The developments in the last few 

weeks have, again, been unprecedented. We have watched them 

with great concern, and every single voice needs to rise to defend 

the Rohingya Muslims. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Dr. Farr, what do you believe the United States 

can do to stop the, quote, ‘‘ethnic cleansing’’ that is occurring? 

Mr. FARR. Well, I, frankly, prefer to call it religious cleansing. I 

mean, these are Muslims, and this is religious persecution of the 

first order. 

And you’re quite right, they’ve been on the list for over 10 years. 

I was in the Office of Religious Freedom when these lists were created by the law and began to implement them,so I think it’s actually been longer than 10 years. And while I would never suggest 

that these lists are not important—I said in my testimony they are 

vitally important—they’re just lists. They’re just pieces of paper 

that list a bunch of countries on them. 

And we say we’re looking at economic sanctions. As far as I 

know, there’s only been one set of economic sanctions—I could be 

wrong about this, and Ambassador Kozak can correct me. But the 

last time I paid attention to this, there was only one country in the 

world that we had ever imposed new economic sanctions on because of the 20-year-old International Religious Freedom Act,and 

that, as I recall, was Eritrea. And, to say the very least, it didn’t 

work. And that was part of my reason for arguing in my testimony 

that we need more than words and we need more than sanctions. 

So whatever we’ve tried in Burma has not worked. I think we 

have an opportunity now not only to condemn them, which we 

should be—we should be speaking out. We need Ambassador 

Brownback in that position so that he can go to Burma and speak 

about this, which I think he will. But we also need to begin to work 

with the Burmese to get in front of this problem, because it will 

happen again. And the fact that they’re on this list won’t make a 

bit of difference in the world, in my opinion. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Last week, while addressing the United Nations 

Security Council, the U.N. Secretary-General said this, and I quote: 

‘‘The situation has spiraled into the world’s fastest-developing refugee emergency, a humanitarian and human rights nightmare.’’ 

Mr. Berschinski, should the United States enter into negotiations 

with Bangladesh to allow for a certain percentage of displaced 

Rohingya to resettle in America? 

Mr. BERSCHINSKI. Well, I wouldn’t want to get out front of the 

United States’ overall refugee resettlement program. As I underVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:20 Aug 15, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\30292.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
65 

stand it—and Ambassador Kozak can speak to this in more 

depth—there are, among other things, related to U.S. efforts on resolving the crisis, intensive talks going on right now with the Government of Bangladesh. 

But I think, to your larger point, perhaps, this speaks to the cap 

on refugee resettlement overall that the Trump administration has 

put in place. I would say that, were I able to respond to Chairman 

Gowdy’s question along the lines of what three things could this 

administration do to improve the plight of persecuted religious minorities of all kinds, raising that cap would improve the lives of 

Christians, Muslims, and others. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you so much. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentlelady yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 

Palmer, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for allowing me to participate in this very important hearing. 

Ambassador Kozak, the State Department’s most recent report 

discusses a number of countries’ failings on religious freedom. 

Many of those countries are a source of threats to the United 

States. But that list doesn’t include non-state actors, does it? 

Mr. KOZAK. The current list does not include non-state actors because they—those were added by the Wolf Act, which will kick in 

this year. So the list that will come out next month, I guess, at this 

point, will also include non-state actors. 

Mr. PALMER. So the list will? Does the State Department have 

any concern about including them on the list? 

Mr. KOZAK. No, sir. It was simply that we were responding to the 

earlier mandate from Congress,and this has now broadened. In 

some ways, it actually helps to provide context, because, in many 

of these places, the worst atrocities are being committed by nonstate actors. Witness the genocide committed by ISIS in Iraq and 

Syria. And it just didn’t fit within the reporting mandate before, 

and now it does,and we’re happy for it. 

Mr. PALMER. And you have the same thing with the Taliban and 

Boko Haram and those groups. 

Mr. KOZAK. Right, any group that we find is a group of particular 

concern with respect to committing the most serious acts of countering religious freedom. 

Mr. PALMER. Those are the hard, extreme cases of the violation 

of religious freedom. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. KOZAK. Yes, sir. The way it’s defined in the act is it’s particularly severe violations, such as torture, extrajudicial killings, 

long-term imprisonment without charges, use of rape against people. So it’s not, you know, the unfortunately run-of-the-mill thing, 

like refusing to register or provide legal status to a particular 

group or even the bans on allowing groups to worship. This is 

where it gets violent and people are being killed or—— 

Mr. PALMER. There’s softer forms of religious persecution or violation of religious freedom that would include discriminating 

against who they could hire or who they could associate with. 

Would you agree that happens as well? 

Mr. KOZAK. Oh, absolutely, sir. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
66 

Mr. PALMER. Would you agree that that happens in the United 

States? We had one of our colleagues make some—— 

Mr. KOZAK. Yeah. 

Mr. PALMER. —allegations along those lines. I’d just like to point 

out that, you know—and we’re really focused on what goes on 

internationally, and I think appropriately so, but there’s also violations that have occurred in the United States that violate an individual or a particular denomination or religion’s right to free exercise. 

Mr. KOZAK. Well, what we tend to say, sir, on violations internationally is that every country violates human rights, including 

the human right of international religious freedom, because countries are made up of humans. But the question is what does a 

country do about it when that happens. Do we have appropriate 

laws? Do we have appropriate enforcement mechanisms? 

Mr. PALMER. Well, I just want to point out—— 

Mr. KOZAK. And I think that’s where we’re proud of our own 

mechanisms. 

Mr. PALMER. —that here in the United States we’re not immune 

to that. 

Dr. Farr, we’ve seen that, where Catholic Charities and nonprofit 

groups and other groups have been taken to court over their refusing to hire people who don’t practice their faith or who don’t believe 

the things that they believe. Does that concern you? 

Mr. FARR. It does. 

And to return to something that Mr. Gomez had said—and I 

completely agree with him, although I may not apply the same 

principle as he did—and that is that,if we don’t understand what 

free exercise of religion is and what it means in this country, how 

can we convince other people abroad that it’s of value to them? 

And you’re quite right; in my view, the free exercise of religion 

is what this means. It means the full equality of all religious 

groups and citizens in our country and certainly the right of religious groups of all kinds to adhere to their most fundamental values and not be forced by government, whether at the State, local, 

or national level, to violate their consciences. 

So we do have a problem. We need to solve it. 

Mr. PALMER. And I think that’s particularly true considering that 

it is in our Constitution as the First Amendment that our government will make no law prohibiting the free exercise. 

And I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that we’re not immune to this. And there was a particular example of this, a Supreme Court decision that was a unanimous decision against the 

United States Government, the previous administration, HosannaTabor v. EEOC, in which members of the Supreme Court—again, 

9–0 decision.This was a case in which our government argued that 

a religious organization or denomination could not have the freedom to hire who they wanted to, who practiced their religion, 

shared their beliefs. And in a 9–0 decision—you even had a couple 

of justices call it extraordinary or amazing, including Justice 

Kagan. I just think we need to be aware of that as well. 

I yield back. And I thank you again for allowing me to participate. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
67 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Welch for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank the panel for your testimony. 

In 2016, the U.S. Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation helped get this passed, the Marrakech Declaration, which, as 

you know, affirmed the support of over 250 Muslim leaders for defending the rights of religious minorities in predominantly Muslim 

communities. 

Dr. Farr, what’s your view of the Marrakech Declaration as far 

as enhancing the national security of the U.S.? 

Mr. FARR. Thank you for that question, Mr. Welch. 

I think the Marrakech Declaration is a major step forward. It’s 

realistic. It’s not some pie-in-the-sky declaration of something that 

does not emerge from the heart of Islam. Sheikh bin Bayyah and 

the others who are behind this declaration, in my view, have constructed a modest but realistic declaration from the heart of Islam, 

which many Muslims agree with, that Islam is not a religion that 

has to put others at a disadvantage. 

Again, I want to—this is not a declaration of religious freedom 

as we would have it. But it does no good to have people put words 

out there that don’t mean anything. So I am a big supporter of this 

because I think it is, in fact, precisely the kind of thing that our 

government should be behind, my religious freedom institute is behind, and we are, in fact, working with these very people—— 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. 

Mr. FARR. If I could just get—— 

Mr. WELCH. Go ahead. 

Mr. FARR. —this one more—I know we’ve run out of time. 

Mr. WELCH. Yeah. 

Mr. FARR. This is—they recognize they have a problem. 

Mr. WELCH. Right. 

Mr. FARR. And we need to help them solve that problem, not by 

wagging our finger or putting them on a list, but by helping them 

see and perform the duty that they already see for themselves. Put 

it that way. 

Mr. WELCH. Right. And that’s called diplomatic engagement. And 

I know Secretary Tillerson, among other things, is focusing on a reorganization of the State Department. And I think it’s a fair concern for any new Secretary of State to try to figure out how best 

to organize the Department and allocate its limited resources. But 

my understanding is that one of the proposals is eliminating the 

U.S. Special Envoy to the OIC. 

Ambassador Kozak, what’s your view about the implications of 

that recommendation? 

Mr. KOZAK. Well, first, let me say that I’ve worked very closely 

with our previous ambassadors, representatives to the OIC, who 

have been housed in different places in the State Department over 

the last couple of administrations and even some switches during 

the last administration. 

You know, I’m not going to predict where the Secretary is going 

to come out on the reorg plan, but my understanding is—or the redesign plan—but my understanding is that he wants to fold that 

function into the Office of Religious Freedom. It’s currently part of 

the Office of Religion and Global Affairs, which in his letter—which 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
68 

is a straw man that he put out there for consultation with Members—would merge. 

So I think the function of having somebody engaged with the 

OIC is one that is intended to continue;it’s a question of how you 

place it bureaucratically. And that’s a fair thing to be juggling. 

Mr. WELCH. Yeah. You know, you’ve had so much practical experience in this. There’s a tension always in our foreign policy and 

in our State Department responsibilities, the realpolitik concerns of 

our engagement with another country. Sometimes they’re in conflict with our advocacy for basic values like religious freedom. And 

it would seem to me that the job of the Secretary, among other 

things, is to try to balance those so that there’s an ongoing engagement and outreach to protect the religious liberty of citizens 

around the world. 

So how would you recommend that we maintain that State Department commitment? It’s got to be real. It’s got to be people who 

are empowered. But it also has to coexist with other challenges 

that this country faces. 

Mr. KOZAK. Yes. Well, I think as many of the witnesses have said 

and the chairman and other chairman alluded to, the respect for 

human rights, including religious freedom, is vital to getting countries to where they can stand on their own and not generate giant 

security problems for the United States. And we’ve seen that over 

and over again. 

And, as Dr.Farr points out, it’s a question of how do you persuade them. Very difficult to persuade the leaders of a country that 

are bound and determined, who think their own status in power requires them to do repressive things. 

But that’s where we try to, first, work with the society writ large. 

Our bureau, almost all of our programming goes to working with 

nongovernmental organizations to try to change societal attitudes 

and, through that, to try to convince governments. 

You also have to get—it’s great to have specialty offices, like our 

own bureau, like the Office of Religious Freedom, that can develop 

the arguments and so on, but you do need to spread those out so 

that they’re being made—and this, I think, is the case in this 

area—that they’re being made by our military officers when they’re 

talking to their counterparts to say, hey, there’s a smarter way to 

fight this insurgency than the way you’re doing it. You need to, you 

know, show greater respect for people’s rights, you don’t want to 

alienate people, and so on. 

So it’s pulling that all together. Both within the Department and 

interagency, it’s absolutely crucial. 

Mr. WELCH. All right. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. COMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My first question is to Mr. Berschinski. 

In your testimony, you raised the important issue of rising antiSemitism in Europe that is contributing to a climate of violence towards Jewish people in these countries. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
69 

Do you believe that this trend has been exacerbated by the continued opposition to the state of Israel that we see at various international organizations, particularly the United Nations? And how 

do anti-Israel campaigns, such as the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions, BDS, movement, play into the current climate of anti-Semitism? 

Mr. BERSCHINSKI. Thank you, Congressman, for that question 

and for raising the issue of anti-Semitism. 

I think there are a lot of different factors involved in what we’re 

seeing in terms of anti-Semitism. My written testimony goes into 

this in some depth. 

I think that some of it is a matter of extreme governments that 

are coming into power and are interested in rolling back rights 

across the board in countries with histories of anti-Semitism, to include mass deportation and killing during the Holocaust. 

I think that there are elements related to Muslim communities 

in Europe and some of the anti-Semitic feelings that they bring. 

And to speak to your question directly, I also do think that there 

is a dynamic in which people are confusing opposition to Israeli 

Government policies with it being appropriate to harbor discriminatory views against the Jewish population. So, just like here in 

the United States, we can agree to disagree on various governmental policies, but one should never hold that against a religious 

or ethnic group. 

Mr. COMER. Thank you. 

Next question. Ambassador, does the State Department have any 

concerns with making non-state designations? And do you expect to 

declare non-state actors as EPCs going forward? 

Mr. KOZAK. As to the first part of your question—and thank you 

for it—no, we have no problem with it. I had mentioned earlier, I 

think, actually, it helps us, because it’s been difficult in the past 

to give context when some of the worse violations have been committed by non-state actors but the report was only focused on state 

actors. So, in that sense, it’s helpful, and we look forward to it. 

As to, you know, whether and which organizations will be designated, I would say: Stay tuned. That’s the Secretary’s decision 

and one that he involves himself in very personally, so we’ll see 

that in due course. 

Mr. COMER. Okay. Thank you. 

Let me follow up with this. The IRFA also outlines 15 Presidential actions that may be initiated toward any country found responsible for particularly severe violations of religious freedom. 

How many times since 1998 has the State Department recommended a Presidential action be taken against a particularly 

bad religious freedom violator? 

Mr. KOZAK. Thank you. 

I think we’ve had 11 countries over time that have been on the 

CPC list. The current 10, and Vietnam was on at one time. I believe in all but three of those countries we have applied Presidential actions. In some cases, they were waived. I’m thinking 

Saudi, in particular. 

As Dr. Farr alluded, though, oftentimes these are countries that 

have committed so many bad acts that we already have a wide 

array of sanctions against them. So sometimes putting them on the 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
70 

CPC list doesn’t add an additional sanction; it double-hats an existing sanction. 

But that can become important, because when you go to start 

taking sanctions off in response to improvements in other areas, if 

they haven’t improved on religious freedom, we’re in the position 

of saying, look, we can’t revoke that one until you make some improvements in this area. 

So the actions have been taken, but it is complicated by the fact 

that there are so many other aspects of the relationship that are 

also problematical. 

Mr. COMER. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. 

I want to thank our witnesses again for appearing before us 

today. I thought it was a good hearing, and there was a lot of good 

stuff put on the record. 

The record for the hearing will remain open for 2 weeks for any 

member to submit a written opening statement or questions for the 

record. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER