One can choose in the Soviet Union to be a Christian or not to be Christian.

One can be a religiously observant person and one chooses not to be an observant person. It is a voluntary choice. With reference to Jews, it is not a voluntary choice. You are, as Mr. Goldfarb noted, obligated to be Jewish; it is inscribed in your internal passport that you are a Jew.

To the extent that the state engages in a campaign against Judaism, its attacks constitute an assault upon every Jew in the Soviet Union, even if he didn't choose to partake of Judaism per se.

Even if he tries now, even if he tries to pass, as it were, to get by, he simply cannot. The nature of the discriminatory policy of the Soviet regime today is such that Jews can no longer-or only with great difficulty-even if they are totally atheist-get into universities and thereby obtain job opportunities.

There is a veritable Nuremberg kind of blood factor that operates here.

Even if a Jew is the product of a mixed marriage and is identified in his passport, in his internal documents, as being a Russian or a Ukrainian, if he seeks to work in major institutions, scientific and research institutions in the Soviet Union, he will not only be asked for his own passport, his own documents, but also will be asked about the nationality of his parents. And if one of his parents is identified as a Jew, he may find it is totally impossible to be admitted as a worker in one of these scientific or research institutions.

You have a Nuremberg blood factor now operating in the Soviet Union with all the ramifications that that stands for.

Mr. BONKER. How are the Moslems treated in that context? You are quite right about Christians making a voluntary choice. Of course, if they don't make a choice, they are not Christians, but how about the Moslem faith in the Soviet Union? I know that is not your area, but you are very knowledgeable.

Mr. KOREY. It is not my area. I will comment very tangentially about it.

The Moslems, for example, have the equivalent of seminaries or theological academies for the training of priests; for example, in Tashkent, the Moslems who inhabit most of central Asia-Uzbeks, Tadzhiks, Kirghiz, Turkmen, and so forth-they have very little problem with reference, for example, to circumcision. While the state conducts a vigorous campaign against the Jewish ritual of circumcision, for Moslems, the campaign simply doesn't apply. That is to say, they are permitted, as it were, to continue this kind of practice.

Or take the Koran. There hasn't been a Hebrew Bible published in the Soviet Union since 1929. In contrast, there are thousands of copies of Korans published in the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union has been trying to cultivate, for obvious reasons, part of their geopolitical strategy, the Moslem communities abroad. One of the better ways of trying to win that support is by providing a certain amount of concessions to the Moslems within the Soviet Union.

Mr. BONKER. It seems to me if the Soviet authorities were concerned about potential internal threats to their authority that they

have a lot more to fear from the Moslem population than the Christians or even the Jews. The denial of the practice of a faith, the prohibition of institutions and education and so on is really an effort to eliminate that faith. However, all it seems to do is to strengthen that faith.

When you think about what Mr. Goldfarb had to say, that there is an upsurge of nationalism with an emphasis on ethnic origin, I thought that was a rather intriguing statement.

If there is anything that is going to bring down the Soviet Union internally, it is an uprising of its ethnic population. With the 40 to 50 million Moslems who are there and if they really assert themselves as they have in other parts of the Middle East, then that could be a formidable problem for the Soviet Union.

It seems to me that it is not a matter of protecting the state, but that this form of persecution against the Jews has much deeper roots.

Mr. KOREY. You are absolutely correct. There are historical routes to anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union that go way, way back to Czarist times. It was on Russian soil that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the most notorious anti-Semitic fabrication, was produced. It became the basis, as you know, of Hitler's program for the elimination of Jews.

The word pogrom is a Russian word meaning destroy or ruin. It is now the 100th anniversary of this term entering the lexicon of international discourse. It was started as a result of the pogroms of 1881 and 1882.

So you have a long history of anti-Semitism which the Bolsheviks initially tried to oppose.

Mr. BONKER. That is another thing that is interesting. Mr. Goldfarb said his grandfather was a Bolshevik, probably wanted a new system, a new form of government that would put an end to this kind of persecution.

Did you want to comment, Mr. Goldfarb?

Mr. GOLDFARB. Yes. I think this is what happened with Jews in the Soviet Union. They definitely, the majority of them, welcomed the Bolshevik Revolution. They thought there would be a real end to persecution.

For a while it was so. The bans on Jewish movement and settlement and education were lifted by the revolution, provided that you were not religious, provided you were not traditionalist, provided you were not Zionist, and provided you did not participate in any kind of any political activity.

If you were Jewish, you were welcome to participate in the building of the new society, on their terms.

This lasted until after World War II, as far as I understand, because that was the end of Stalin's rule.

Let me comment on another thing which I think is appropriate here. I think we should not try to compare which religion is more persecuted in the Soviet Union. There is definitely a basic antireligious trend in the Soviet Union.

There is also a general trend to suppress any kind of nationalism of minorities in the Soviet Union in order to keep the empire in one piece. But there are special aspects of the Jewish situation.

These aspects are, first, that Jews are living dispersed among others there. There is no way to organize themselves even in legally allowed, accepted, and loyal groups.

Third, since the beginning of the state of Israel, Jews are a minority which represent, whether or not they or the authorities like it, represent a foreign country which belongs to the free world.

Any artifact of Jewishness-not to speak, say, about religion, but about Jewishness, the Star of David, a book in Hebrew, a lapel pin, a mezuzah, the little thing that you put on the door, is considered as an artifact of the outside world which is out to get us, to get our country.

This is the specific danger. So in essence a practicing Jewish religion becomes a much more political issue, an issue of associating with something foreign, alien, and vicious for the public there as compared to practicing Russian orthodoxy, a religion which, of course, is not a picnic anyway.

Mr. BONKER. I want to thank each of you. We are studying this issue to see if we can incorporate into the human rights laws the concept of religious persecution.

So far, attempts to describe human rights have been devoid of any reference to religious persecution. You are helping us compile a record that shows this to be a very blatant violation of human rights wherever it exists. For your contribution, I want to thank each of you for being here.

The subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]

RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION AS A VIOLATION OF

HUMAN RIGHTS

Coptic Christians in Egypt and Falasha Jews in

Ethiopia

THURSDAY, AUGUST 5, 1982

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,
Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:19 a.m., in room 2255, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Don Bonker (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. BONKER. The Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations will come to order.

Today we are meeting in another of a series of hearings concerning specific cases of religious persecution as a human rights violation. This will be the fourth case that the subcommittee has considered.

We started with two general oversight hearings. Then we had a hearing on the case of the Baha'is in Iran who are suffering under a repressive government. We then had two sets of hearings on religious persecution in the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc countries. One concerned the Pentecostals and the other concerned Christians, and the Jews. Today we are taking up another case of religious persecution as a human rights violation.

This phenomenon of religious persecution is not limited to any political system or region of the world. Unfortunately, it occurs all too often. People are made to suffer simply because of their religious faith. The two specific examples that are the subject of today's hearings are the Falasha Jews in Ethiopia, who are relentlessly persecuted, though it's not clear whether it is an act perpetrated by the Government of Ethiopia or just individuals out of control. Obviously, it is a problem that has been occurring now for some time.

In Egypt we have a situation involving the Christian Coptics. They are still being repressed despite a promise that was made to me some months ago when President Mubarak appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee. I asked him specifically about the fate of the Coptics that were being held in Egypt. At that time I had received assurances that they would be released shortly.

The sad truth is that the free exercise of religion is limited, at least to a degree, in many parts of the world.

[Mr. Bonker's prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DON BONKER, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

This is another in the series of hearings on religious persecution as a violation of human rights. Today we will consider two more cases-the Falasha Jews in Ethiopia and the Coptic Christians in Egypt.

The five hearings held so far leave no doubt that many innocent people around the world are victims of a special kind of human rights violation-religious persecution. This phenomenon is not limited to any political system or region of the world. Unfortunately, it occurs all too often. People are made to suffer because of their religious and ethical convictions.

Two specific examples are the subject of our hearing:

In Ethiopia the Falasha Jews and the Christian community are relentlessly persecuted though it is not clear whether it is an act perpetuated by the Government of Ethiopia or individuals-out of control-acting on behalf of that government.

In Egypt many Coptic Christians are still being held despite a promise made to me many months ago by President Mubarak that all detainees would be released. The sad truth is that the free exercise of religion is limited, at least to a degree, in most parts of the world. Discrimination, imprisonment, torture and death are often the price that one must pay of one's religious beliefs.

We are privileged to have with us several witnesses who are experts on the questions of religious persecution of the Falasha Jews and the Coptic Christians.

We are anxious to hear from our witnesses today. We have a distinguished panel, but before we get to the public witnesses, I would like to call upon two colleagues who have been in the forefront of our human rights effort in the Congress and specifically in this area of religious persecution.

That is Barney Frank, who represents a district in the State of Massachusetts, and Representative Tom Lantos, who hails from the State of California.

I should mention that Annette Lantos has been a source of encouragement in these hearings. She has provided the subcommittee continuing information on religious persecution around the world. It is really a pleasure to have both of my distinguished colleagues appearing before the subcommittee this morning. We will first begin with Barney Frank.

STATEMENT OF HON. BARNEY FRANK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to congratulate you again for the role you have taken here and I think it was important that you listed, as you did, the range of subjects this subcommittee is concerned about, whether we are talking about the Soviet Union, Iran, or other nations which may be more friendly to us. I think it is important to establish the legitimacy of the concern of this subcommittee and that you have not picked and chosen, and it was not a case of, well, if it is an ally of America we will look the other way, but if it is a somewhat hostile country, we will focus on it.

We can only have leverage on behalf of human rights if we have seemed to be, and in fact are, honest about it. By that I mean we do not pick and choose human rights issues and do not make it a partisan foreign policy issue. Your subcommittee has really played a major role in this.