RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION AS A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS National and International Remedies TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1982 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 11:40 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. I would like to apologize for the delay. Whenever the full Foreign Affairs Committee is in session, subcommittees cannot meet. It is a committee rule, so we had no other choice than to delay this morning's hearing until after the full committee had concluded its work. The subcommittee today is taking up the last in a series of hearings on the subject of religious persecution. We have attempted over the course of the last two sessions of Congress to take a different approach to human rights. We have tried to identify the various contributing factors to human rights violations so that as a government, we can focus more acutely on what constitutes human rights violations. In the last session of the Congress, with the help of Mr. Shestack, we identified disappearances as a human rights violation. That resulted in the passage of a congressional resolution which directed our delegation to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to set up a working group, which has been very effective in dealing with that problem. We also included disappearances as part of the basic description as to what constitutes a human rights violation in both sections 502B and 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act. Let me note that we attempted at the outset of these hearings to narrow the scope of this subject. We recognized that we could get into questions of religious freedom, religious intolerance, and into all kinds of areas. In focusing on religious discrimination and persecution, we wanted to find those instances where people were victims of repression solely because of their religious beliefs. As a result, we have had a chance to focus on places like Iran where the Baha'i faith is experiencing ongoing repression over a period of 138 years. We have looked at the Copts in Egypt. We have looked at the church in Latin America, Presbyterians in certain Asian countries, Christians and Jews in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. We really feel we have been fairly comprehensive in these hearings in trying to identify those instances or areas where religious persecution is an acute problem. Finally, the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning passed our resolution which was adopted by the subcommittee a few weeks ago in anticipation of trying to get final action before this lame duck session expires-if it ever does-the resolution on religious persecution. The resolution notes international treaties and other documents concerning religious freedom. It also cited those instances to which I just referred where the subcommittee has identified problems of religious persecution. The operative sections of the resolution would direct the President to do all he can at international forums, specifically the United Nations to bring more attention to religious persecution. It mandates our delegation at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to set up a working group on this problem. Unfortunately, some on the committee objected to a "whereas" clause which identified the problems of the Coptic Christians in Egypt. They argued that the clause would bring ill will to our relationship with President Mubarak of Egypt, so there was an effort to remove that provision. I countered with another amendment which suggested that we remove all "whereas" clauses which made reference to any country. That amendment passed and it is my hope that the full House will take up this resolution during the week.1 This session today is very important in that we want to explore ways in which we can be effective on the problem of religious persecution. The panelists are all very experienced in this area. If we come up with any new ideas, we still have the opportunity of maybe amending the resolution on the floor or going into the Senate for concurrent action so we can expand the resolution. In any case, we are looking forward to your testimony on this our final hearing on the problems of religious persecution. [Mr. Bonker's prepared statement follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DON BONKER, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS This is the ninth and final hearing in the series on the subject of religious persecution as a violation of human rights. Over the past year, the Subcommittee has heard dozens of expert witnesses on the problem of religious persecution around the world. They gave detailed testimony as to the desperate situation of the Baha'is in Iran, the Church in Latin America, Jews and Christians in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Presbyterians and other Christians in Asia, the Copts in Egypt, and the Falasha Jews in Ethiopia. From all the available evidence presented to the subcommittee there can be no doubt that the free exercise of religion is limited in most parts of the world. Discrimination, imprisonment, torture and death are often the price that are paid for one's religious belief. At its last hearing, the Subcommittee considered and passed a comprehensive resolution condemning all forms of religious persecution and discrimination as a violation of human rights. The resolution, which was adopted by the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning, cites numerous references to the fundamental right of reli 1 House Concurrent Resolution 434 passed the House on December 17, 1982. See app. 27 for text of resolution. gious freedom in international and national laws. It calls upon the President and other official representatives of the United States to work for the establishment of a working group on the elimination of all forms of religious persecution and discrimination at the 39th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. It is my expectation that the full House will take up this important resolution during the week. As the Subcommittee examined the various instances of worldwide religious persecution around the world, we were continually faced with the question: What can the American people and their government do to pressure foreign governments to allow the free practice of religion or belief? How do we help those individuals to immigrate to countries which will allow them to worship freely? It is unlikely that the United States can end religious persecution but we can make the issue an integral part of our foreign policy. If America is to remain faithful to her past and the values inherent in those documents which formed this great democracy, then we must stand for religious freedom and human rights in the many countries that still abuse their citizens. Religious freedom is synonymous with the protection and promotion of human rights. This morning we are priviledged to have with us three distingiushed witnesses to assist us in addressing national and international remedies to the problem of religious persecution. Mr. BONKER. We shall begin with the former head of our delegation to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights during the 36th session, Mr. Jerome Shestack, who is now president of the International League for Human Rights. Jerry is a very noted leader in this important area and in the field of human rights and no stranger before our subcommittee. Jerry, it is always a pleasure to have you appear before the subcommittee. We are always enriched by what you have to say. We look forward to your testimony this morning. STATEMENT OF JEROME SHESTACK, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE U.N. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Mr. SHESTACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I begin by congratulating you on your reelection, which is a tribute to your ability and also to the good sense of the voters of Washington State. I might say at this point in exercising the kind of nostalgia one encounters, at this time of year that when you first became chairman of this subcommittee, many in the human rights community wondered what you would be like, since you were following a very distinguished predecessor. And we have found that your decency and commitment to human rights, your willingness to take initiatives, your courage in the face of opposition, have been a real boon to the Human Rights Committee and to the human rights community. Speaking as one representative of that community, we congratulate you on your achievements and are glad to consider you a friend of human rights. Mr. BONKER. Thank you, Mr. Shestack. Mr. SHESTACK. I am going to speak today on measures to improve the effectiveness of the new Declaration Against Religious Intolerance which was adopted last year at the United Nations. I have a prepared statement, and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I shall submit that statement and considerably abbreviate my testimony before the subcommittee today. Mr. BONKER. Without objection, Mr. Shestack's statement will be placed in the record. Mr. SHESTACK. The history of the passage of the Declaration Against Religious Intolerance is a fascinating one and is detailed at some length in the statement that Mr. Tom Johnson has prepared and which he will be testifying on, so I won't go into it. Suffice it to say there were 20 years of frustrating negotiations until the matter was finally resolved. When I was privileged to serve as U.S. representative to the Commission on Human Rights, we made a determined effort to finally end the years of negotiation and achieve the declaration. We did not achieve it in 1980, but we did obtain a resolution from the Commission giving the matter the highest priority and in 1981 the success was achieved. I would like to mention briefly a tribute to three people who were very closely involved in the success of the declaration and its final adoption. One is Ambassador Yvon Beaulne from Canada, who, as chairman of the Commission in 1979, made heroic progress in moving the declaration along its way. A second person is Mr. Tom Johnson, who is here today from the legal adviser's office, and who was a member of the U.S. delegation in 1980. I asked him at that time to take charge of the negotiations and the working group on the declaration and he continued thereafter. His persistence and skill played a major measure, I think, in the final adoption of the Commission. Career officers in the legal adviser's office are not often recognized, but I believe it important to recognize what the persistence of one talented lawyer can do in achieving a favorable result. The third person is Ambassador Abdullah Diye from Senegal, who was chairman of the working group in 1981 and was enormously skillful and successful in getting the final adoption of the declaration through the Commission, from which point it passed through to the Third Committee and then the General Assembly. The example of those three persons shows that determined and committed individuals can accomplish a great deal. It is a frustrating process at the U.N. and one which discourages many because the pitfalls and obstacles to developing standards are so many. But if you find persons who will persist and are dedicated to the task and who have patience, which one needs badly in that forum, then there is a chance of success. And the adoption of the declaration is an illustration of that lesson. Mr. Chairman, the Declaration Against Intolerance is not a document that will be relegated to the archives. It deals not with just the abuses of the past. The plague of intolerance is a virulent strain and appears frequently with all of its ancient viciousness. It is here today in the persecution in Iran against the Baha'is and the persecution in Syria against Jews. In the Soviet Union against Catholics and Jews, it appears in many areas, Moslem against Christian, and Christian against Moslem; Fundamentalists against Moslem Traditionalists, against Buddhists in Vietnam, against Jehovah's Witnesses in many places. Your subcommittee has taken testimony on many of these instances. I am sorry that the congressional resolutions to which you adverted has seemed to eliminate those examples. They should not be eliminated in the interests of any political vagaries of the time, but should be included as evidence of the persistence of the recurring plague of religious persecution and intolerance. The declaration we are discussing today is certainly a document of freedom. While it is not a covenant it still remains a force and a source of customary international law. Just as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is regarded by many legal scholars today as customary international law, so I believe the declaration in due time will be cited, will be part of resolutions on the international scene and ulimately will be regarded as customary international law despite the fact that is a declaration and not a covenant. Of the international measures that can be used to make the declaration more effective there are some already existing, and then there is a need to develop new initiatives. With respect to the existing measures, one is the use of the 1235 resolution that allows the expression of concern regarding religious persecution and intolerance before the Commission on Human Rights and the Subcommission. There was a time when the use of that procedure to highlight religious persecution in particular countries was frowned upon, but recently there has been a great deal more leeway in the Commission in that connection. During the 1980 session, for example, under that procedure I highlighted persecution of Jews and Catholics, particularly Catholics in Lithuania, Latvia, and the Ukraine, by the Soviet Union. More recently the league and others have highlighted persecution against the Baha'is in Iran. That is a significant complaint forum, and I would hope the U.S. delegates in the future will use the 1235 procedure to identify and highlight religious persecution and intolerance in various parts of the world. The Commission on Human Rights is an important forum, and the highlighting of that persecution certainly must give pause to offending governments. At the very least it gives hope and encouragement to those who are persecuted. The 1503 procedures at the Commission are confidential procedures. To that extent they are less effective. But they are effective in the sense that governments who are offending and accused in the 1503 procedures are in a sense in the dock and they must answer for their offenses. What is particularly important is to see that the material that is presented before the Subcommission and the Commission is well documented, and that it can sustain the challenges of those who try and remove it from the agenda. The United States, itself, as one of the participants in the 1503 procedure should be well prepared and ready to sustain the complaints that NGO's put in before the Subcommission and which reach the Commission. Mr. BONKER. Are you familiar with specific examples of countries being referred to in 1503 proceedings as a result of religious persecution? Mr. SHESTACK. There has been persecution documented in the 1503 procedures in East Germany, in Paraguay, to some extent in Turkey, and in other areas. Since the procedures are confidential I am not at liberty to speak of what happened when I was at the Commission, and I am not knowledgeable as to what has happened in the confidential procedures since. I mention it, though, as a forum in which the United States and other like-minded nations |