[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER SIEGE WORLDWIDE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 12, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-204
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-741PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
_______________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
MATT SALMON, Arizona KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
PAUL COOK, California ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas GRACE MENG, New York
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TED S. YOHO, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CURT CLAWSON, Florida BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
DANIEL DONOVAN, New York
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Mark P. Lagon, president, Freedom House............ 5
Thomas Farr, Ph.D., president, Religious Freedom Institute....... 22
Ms. Amanda Schnetzer, director, Human Freedom Initiative, The
George W. Bush Institute....................................... 31
Mr. Mark Bromley, chair, The Council for Global Equality......... 39
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Mark P. Lagon: Prepared statement.................. 8
Thomas Farr, Ph.D.: Prepared statement........................... 24
Ms. Amanda Schnetzer: Prepared statement......................... 34
Mr. Mark Bromley: Prepared statement............................. 41
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 72
Hearing minutes.................................................. 73
The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign
Affairs: Letter from the Anti-Defamation League................ 75
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York:
Statement of David Stacy, Government Affairs Director, Human
Rights Campaign.............................................. 81
Statement of Judy Shepard, President and Co-Founder, Matthew
Shepard Foundation........................................... 84
The Honorable David Cicilline, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Rhode Island: Prepared statement.................. 86
HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER SIEGE WORLDWIDE
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2016
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Royce [presiding]. This hearing will come to
order. This morning we meet to survey the troubling state of
human rights around the world.
Freedom House does a report every year. Its 2016 World
Report shows the 10th consecutive year of decline in global
freedom. Unfortunately, the world's most abusive governments
continue their abuses while non-state actors have become
boastful promoters of unspeakable evil.
Whether in Syria, Iraq, Libya, or the Sinai, ISIS has set a
new standard for brutality--bombing Shi'ite neighborhoods,
selling young Yazidi girls into sexual slavery, slitting the
throats of Christians, throwing gay men to their deaths from
rooftops. The House of Representatives and the White House have
recognized ISIS attacks on Yazidis, on Christians, on Shia
Muslims. All of this has been recognized as genocide, and
``genocide'' is the only word for it.
In Africa, Boko Haram continues to attack Christians and
many Muslims. From church and mosque bombings to mass
kidnappings of children, this deranged group has cut a wide
swath of terror through Nigeria and neighboring countries,
killing thousands and displacing millions.
In May, a mob of Islamists in southern Egypt reportedly
forced a 70-year-old Christian woman to walk naked through the
streets before burning down homes belonging to Christian
families. This is just one of many recent attacks against
Christians in Egypt.
Religious minorities from nearly every faith face
persecution somewhere in the world.
Human trafficking remains a global epidemic that preys on
millions of women, girls, and migrant workers who are trapped
in degrading and dangerous forms of modern slavery. In June,
the House passed Congressman Trott's legislation to address
another ghoulish form of exploitation--trafficking in persons
for the removal of their organs.
Many regimes such as China, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Vietnam
continue to deny basic political rights to their citizens.
North Korea's brutal Kim dynasty continues to imprison entire
families in its vast and deadly gulag that holds more than
100,000 political prisoners. The death toll from the Assad
regime's deliberate targeting of civilian populations in Syrian
is staggering. It is estimated to be in the hundreds of
thousands.
According to experts, press freedom has declined to its
lowest point in 12 years. In places like Russia and Iran, we
have seen governments take extreme measures to stifle
communication, intimidate political opposition, and deny basic
rights of speech and assembly to disfavored groups, including
LGBT persons.
Child marriage has dire, life-long consequences for the
health, safety, education, and opportunity of the estimated 15
million girls that it victimizes every year. That is one girl
every 2 seconds.
Torture, extrajudicial killings, forced conscription of
child soldiers, so the list goes on and on.
Too often, public discussions present a false choice
between stability and human rights. That has been the favored
dodge of dictators and despots since the last century. But U.S.
national security is bolstered when states are stable, and
stability ultimately depends on respect for fundamental human
rights. Human rights can't be our only foreign policy guide,
but neither can human rights be discounted, which happens too
often.
America has inspired the human rights movement worldwide
for decades. This hearing will help us understand what is
driving the global decline in human decency that I have
mentioned and is to discuss how we can turn around this
depressing trend, including by being the best example we can
be. Promoting respect for the human rights of all people serves
the national interest and the national values of the United
States.
I now turn to Mr. Cicilline, and I yield him 2\1/2\
minutes. And I am informed that Mr. Engel in the meantime is on
his way here.
Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you and
Ranking Member Engel for holding this important hearing.
Human rights form the most fundamental basis of our
democracy. What has set us apart from other nations for more
than 200 years is our dedication to fundamental freedoms,
equality, and universal values.
It is especially poignant that this hearing is being held
on the 1-month anniversary of the massacre of 49 people at a
gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, which underscores the
importance of this hearing. If the basic human rights of people
for simply being who they are makes them targets in the United
States, sadly, serious and sometimes deadly human rights abuses
exist in nations all over the world.
According to Freedom House, freedom around the world has
been in steady decline for 10 years, and 2015 had the steepest
decline yet. The war in Syria, the resulting refugee crisis,
and the rise in extremism have all contributed to crackdowns in
the name of so-called security and a general decline of human
rights in every region in the world.
I am especially concerned by the uptick in abuses against
vulnerable populations who are already at grave risk in many
countries, especially religious and sexual minorities. In
particular, lesbian and gay, bisexual, and transgender
communities around the world have experienced horrific
violence, and violations of basic human rights have put
individuals in these categories at grave risk for injury or
death simply because of who they are. LGBT people abroad face
horrific persecution, threats, constant harassment, lack of
access to healthcare, marginalization, violence, and death
because of their status or perceived status of being gay,
lesbian, or transgender.
There is an important national security angle to this
issue. Anti-LGBT rhetoric and violence that spreads around the
world can also come home to harm American citizens. It is
crucial that we fight this rhetoric and violence, not only
because it is the right thing to do, but also because it
ensures that it does not come back to harm American citizens
again.
Countries that are attacking LGBT people are also the ones
most likely to crack down on human rights and civil society
generally. Nowhere have we seen this more violently than in
ISIL-controlled territories, where men have been accused of
same-sex activity and publicly-executed in horrifying ways.
In light of the ongoing discrimination and violence faced
by the LGBT community around the world, their struggle for
equality and justice abroad remains significant. There are
still many countries in which homosexualality is illegal, LGBT
persons are persecuted, and public support for the LGBT
community is prohibited. Over 75 countries have anti-LGBT laws.
There are nearly 300 reported cases of transgender people
murdered in 29 different countries last year and countless
underreported cases around the globe.
What may be most disturbing is that the highest number of
murders have been in countries with strong trans-movements and
civil society organizations that carry out forms of
professional monitoring. Because of the particular heinous
nature of the violations routinely committed against LGBT
communities around the world, this hearing is particularly
important. We know the United States Government's attention and
engagement on human rights makes a difference.
In 2011, President Obama addressed the United Nations
General Assembly and stated that, ``No country should deny
people their rights because of who they love, which is why we
must stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere.''
Soon thereafter, President Obama issued a Presidential
Memorandum entitled, ``International Initiatives to Advance the
Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Persons,'' to address the global challenges of the LGBT
community. In the following years, we saw the creation of the
Office of the Special Envoy for Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Persons at the Department
of State and a Senior LGBT Coordinator at the U.S. Agency for
International Development. Our commitment to promoting the
human rights of the LGBT community is clear and we must ensure
it continues.
Although these examples of U.S. Government and U.N. support
for LGBT human rights are positive steps, the violence and
rights abuses faced by the LGBT community worldwide is
unacceptable and we need to do more. A great man, Elie Wiesel,
once told us, ``We must take sides. Neutrality helps the
oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormenter,
never the tormented.''
It is on all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, to
ensure that we continue working long after today to defend and
protect human rights of all persons around the world. I hope
this hearing will help to bring greater attention to these
issues and motivate this committee to take action to protect
the human rights of all people.
And I thank you again, Mr. Chairman and the ranking member,
for yielding. I look forward to hearing from all of our
witnesses today.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Cicilline.
Let me introduce our distinguished panel here to the
members. Ambassador Mark Lagon is the president of Freedom
House. Previously, Ambassador Lagon served as the Ambassador-
at-Large and Director of the Office to Monitor and Combat
Trafficking in Persons, as well as the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State in the Bureau of International Organization
Affairs. We welcome him back to the committee.
Dr. Thomas Farr is president of the Religious Freedom
Institute, and prior to this position, Dr. Farr served as the
founding Director of the State Department's Office of
International Religious Freedom.
Mrs. Amanda Schnetzer is the founding director of the Human
Freedom Initiative at the George W. Bush Institute. Previously,
Mrs. Schnetzer was a senior fellow and director of studies at
Freedom House.
Mr. Mark Bromley is the chair at the Council for Global
Equality, and previously, Mr. Bromley worked for more than a
decade at Global Rights. And he served as a foreign policy
fellow for Senator Feingold from 2001 to 2002.
So, without objection, the witnesses' full prepared
statements will be made part of the record. Members will have 5
calendar days to submit statements or questions or any
extraneous material for the record.
I am going to go to our ranking member, Mr. Engel, to use
the balance of the time, if you have an opening statement you
would like to make.
Mr. Eliot Engel of New York.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to commend
our colleague, Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island, for his eloquent
statement.
And I am glad the committee is focusing on threats to human
rights around the world and how it ties into America's security
and interests.
I know our witnesses are about to speak. I want to welcome
you personally to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
The committee has considered a wide range of human rights
issues that affect every region in the world, and we have dealt
with abuse of civil and political rights as well as rights to
life and personal safety.
And so, I want to welcome you.
We have seen a troubling trend in recent years. According
to Freedom House, for the 10th consecutive year of declining
freedom around the world, and 72 countries were in a downward
trajectory last year versus just 43 that made gains when it
comes to human rights.
I am told that the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee, as we speak, is holding a hearing about legislation
that we believe would permit discrimination against LGBT
Americans. So, it is just always a fight.
And with respect to those rights, LGBT rights, we have seen
a particularly disturbing trend of laws that criminalize same-
sex activity and other oppressive political policies aimed at
the LGBT community. We see this in places like Russia, Brunei,
and Uganda. And when you see LGBT rights under assault, it is a
pretty good predictor that governments are cracking down on
human rights in civil society more generally.
Nowhere have we seen more horrific treatment of LGBT
persons than in areas controlled by ISIS. Gay men have been
publicly executed in just horrific ways. When we see these
kinds of abuses, we have an obligation to act. Basic rights and
human dignity are at the core of American values. No person
should endure violence or discrimination just because of where
they live, how they worship, or who they love.
And beyond a moral imperative of advancing human rights, we
have a security interest in these issues. It has been a month
today since the shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando.
This was an ISIS-inspired hate crime. When messages of hatred
and bigotry are allowed to thrive, it creates a risk to us
right here at home.
So, I am glad, and I commend the chairman, that the
committee is taking up this issue. I am grateful to all
witnesses and I look forward to their testimony.
Again, I want to thank Mr. Cicilline.
And I want to just single out one of our witnesses, Mark
Bromley, who will talk to us about the violence and persecution
facing the LGBT communities around the world.
I thank all our four distinguished witnesses, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman Royce. Well, I thank you, Mr. Engel.
And I will encourage Ambassador Lagon and all of our
witnesses here, if you summarize your remarks, I think that is
most impactful. And then, we will go to questions and answers
after you have begun.
So, Ambassador, we will go with you first.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARK P. LAGON, PRESIDENT, FREEDOM
HOUSE
Ambassador Lagon. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, and
members of the committee, it is an honor to testify.
Human rights and freedoms around the world are inextricably
linked to the national security and economic interests of the
United States. Not only is investing in these principles a
natural expression of our values, it is a necessity to protect
our own interests. Our diplomacy and foreign assistance should
empower human rights defenders and reformers to build free,
flourishing, and peaceful societies.
``Freedom in the World,'' Freedom House's flagship
publication, has, indeed, documented the 10th straight year of
a global decline in freedom affecting 105 countries during that
decade. The three areas where the sharpest declines have
occurred are freedom of expression, rule of law, and freedom of
association.
Economic pressures have fueled public unrest and have been
met with harsh crackdowns in many of the world's authoritarian
countries. Rulers in Azerbaijan, China, Egypt, Ethiopia,
Russia, and Turkey, among others, have used antiterrorism laws,
blasphemy and insult laws, and laws governing the registration
and foreign funding of non-government organizations to
effectively muzzle civil society and stamp out dissent. This
crisis has been accompanied worldwide by growing xenophobic
sentiment in many parts of the world, including in the West, in
Europe.
It is my view and Freedom House's that it is better to
spend a small amount now to strengthen good governance and
maintain peace than to spend a large amount in the future on
military intervention or rebuilding after war. Ethiopia is
prime example. Viewed as a key partner in the war on terror,
its harsh repression of dissent raises questions about its
long-term viability as an effective partner.
We often fund healthcare, food aid, and climate change, and
efforts like those in Ethiopia, but we don't always fund
governance. But, without good governance, there can't be any
reliable access to food or healthcare.
In the same way that security is unsustainable without
fair, democratic institutions and rule of law, so, too, is
economic development. Governments built on the respect for
human rights and rule of law tend to foster transparent, stable
environments conducive to free enterprise.
Strong growth in certain repressive states sometimes gives
the misleading impression that authoritarianism is good for
business. The People's Republic of China is a perfect example.
Freedom House found that repression has worsened under
President Xi Jinping. In response to the 2015 stock market
drop, Xi's government has unleashed aggressive interventions in
the market, enhanced censorship, arrested over 200 involved in
public interest legal activism, and passed a sweeping,
deliberately vague law which will impact more than 7,000
foreign NGOs and their local Chinese partners.
One of the affected organizations, the American Chamber of
Commerce in China, found that anti-corruption and intellectual
property rights remain a concern for Americans doing business
in China. Their surveys also indicate that four out of five
companies reported being negatively affected by Chinese
internet censorship.
Freedom House argues that we should ensure that we are
investing in our wins. Tunisia is one of the success stories of
the Arab Spring, arguably, the only one, but its nascent
democracy is still in danger. Terrorist attacks and ISIS
recruitment tempt Tunisia's Government to take steps that might
imperil the path toward democracy consolidation, undercutting
the positive elections and new constitution ensuring civil
liberties.
Another glimmer of hope is in Burma, where an overwhelming
victory for Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy
represents a remarkable turnaround, but ethnic and religious
tensions persist with violence against the Muslim Rohingya and
the largely Christian Kachin. This is why Freedom House in its
programmatic work has a project in Burma working on religious
pluralism and why U.S. policy should continue to invest in
Burma.
If we are serious about enabling nations to build free,
flourishing, and peaceful societies, there are several things
Freedom House would recommend.
First, the United States should make democracy and human
rights integral to our foreign policy. In Egypt, for instance,
a more effective U.S. policy would use the leverage of military
assistance to pressure the el-Sisi regime to loosen its
controls on Egyptian society and give Egyptians avenues for
peaceful dissent to contribute to real stability.
Second, democracy and human rights should be a consistent
component of our foreign policy agenda, raised at the highest
levels from the President on down. A Freedom House study in
late 2014 found that democratic powers tend to shy away from
pressing human rights in China. That is a mistake, and for the
United States it demeans, rather than increases, our
credibility.
Third--and I will finish in a moment--we should generate
solidarity among the democracies to invest in human rights and
democracy support.
Fourth, we should support civil society groups consistently
because they are key agents of peace and prosperity. We should
not allow U.S. aid to prop up repressive governments that
squash independent groups.
And finally, Congress should pass the Global Magnitsky
Human Rights Accountability Act, which will impose visa bans
and asset freezes on foreign officials responsible for human
rights violations and large-scale corruption.
Reversing the decade-long slide in human rights and
democracy is important for stability and growth to be truly
sustainable. The United States need to apply the many assets it
has to fighting for pluralism. These steps are low-cost and
high-value investments suited precisely to a time of husbanding
resources for what is most important.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Lagon follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Feel free if you want to follow up, Doctor.
Do you have a few words there?
STATEMENT OF THOMAS FARR, PH.D., PRESIDENT, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
INSTITUTE
Mr. Farr. I do, indeed.
Chairman Royce. Please share them with us.
Mr. Farr. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, members of
the committee, thanks for inviting me to testify. I am going to
address the global crisis of religious freedom, the largely-
ignored consequences of this crisis for our nation, and how
religious freedom can increase American security here and
abroad.
At a recent conference, a young Iraqi couple described the
terrible travail of Christians in Iraq and Syria, and I quote:
``ISIS terrorists are raping and killing children in front of
their parents. Then, they are killing the parents.'' If
something doesn't stop this slaughter, they told a stunned
audience, Christians and Christianity will soon be eliminated.
The same is true of the Yazidis and other minority religions.
This is but one of millions of stories of terrible human
suffering resulting from the vile religious persecution that is
occurring with growing frequency around the world. We are
witnessing in the 21st century a global human rights
catastrophe, one with extraordinary consequences for the United
States.
Last month the Pew Research Center issued the latest in a
series of annual reports. The findings are chilling. Let me
cite three.
First, three-quarters of the world's population lives in
countries where religious freedom is severely restricted.
Second, over the past 8 years, nations experiencing
injuries and deaths from religion-related terrorism have
increased from 17 nations to 60.
Third, social hostility toward religion in America has
increased so dramatically that the United States is now listed
in the category of high levels of social hostility toward
religion.
Among the most serious consequences of this global crisis
is the growing threat of violent Islamist extremism and
terrorism, which continues to be incubated in the Middle East
and exported around the world, including to the American
homeland. Advancing religious freedom successfully in U.S.
foreign policy would help to undermine terrorism.
Unfortunately, religious freedom currently plays no part in our
national security policy, but it should. The fate of Christians
and other minorities in Iraq and Syria is closely related to
American national security. If these minorities are eliminated,
with them will go any opportunity for pluralism and stability.
Iraq and Syria will become perpetual training grounds for
terrorism.
Unfortunately, military means alone are not going to defeat
the scourge of violent Islamist extremism. Even if we defeat
ISIS as a military force, we will not have eliminated the
source of terrorism. We must also defeat the ideology of
extremist Islam. Otherwise, it will continue to spread as a
global agent of terrorism. If we fail at this task, we will
face continued upheaval in the Middle East and elsewhere as
well as an increase in violent attacks on our own children at
home.
The only force that can defeat the ideology of violent
Islamist extremism is Muslims themselves, stakeholders in the
nations where this ideology is dominant. But this cannot happen
without the advancement of religious freedom in those nations.
In recent years, Georgetown's Religious Freedom Project has
demonstrated how religious freedom helps societies achieve such
goods as stable democracy, economic growth, and undermining
violent religious extremism. For example, in many Muslim
majority countries, public debate over Islam is dominated by
those whose radical understandings of Islam are protected by
laws against blasphemy and defamation. Muslims are, in effect,
prevented from debating publicly their own religious
principles.
Success in advancing religious freedom would break this
radical monopoly, empowering Muslim reformers to argue not only
that Islam rejects terrorism, but it requires equality for all
citizens, including non-Muslims and women. Religious freedom
will provide young Muslims an alternative to extremism by
encouraging them to participate in their own political systems,
an opportunity that has rarely existed in nations where
Islamist terrorism has emerged and flourished.
And so, Mr. Chairman, if we succeed at advancing religious
freedom, these societies will become more stable and the
American people more safe and secure.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Farr follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
STATEMENT OF MS. AMANDA SCHNETZER, DIRECTOR, HUMAN FREEDOM
INITIATIVE, THE GEORGE W. BUSH INSTITUTE
Ms. Schnetzer. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, and
distinguished members of the committee, it is an honor to be
here today.
My comments will focus on the connection between promoting
human rights and freedom abroad and maintaining our security
here at home. Seventy-five years ago, President Franklin
Roosevelt delivered his famous Four Freedoms speech to
Congress. He warned that ``at no previous time has American
security been as seriously threatened from without as it is
today.'' In making the case to end U.S. neutrality in the war,
President Roosevelt redefined America's role in the world by
intertwining our national security with the fight against
tyranny beyond our shores. ``The future and safety of our
country and our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events
far beyond our borders,'' he warned.
This principle is just as relevant today, as the
adversaries of freedom once again gain ground. Although
substantially more people in the world experience liberty today
than at the end of World War II, more than half the world's
population still lives in countries where basic political
rights and civil liberties are only partly respected, if at
all. The last decade, in particular, has not been good for
freedom, as Mark Lagon told us.
As the challengers to liberalism gain adherence, it is in
the direct and immediate interest of the United States to
support the advance of human rights and freedom abroad. The
current mood in the United States does not appear conducive to
this strategy. New Pew research polling shows that 70 percent
of Americans want the next administration to focus on domestic
policy over foreign policy. Yet, in order to address the major
threats that keep Americans awake at night, strong U.S.
leadership is still required.
So, where do we go from here? One step would be for
policymakers to make the promotion of democracy and human
rights an important part of their foreign policy agendas. This
March, 139 policy experts, civil society leaders, and former
elected officials, Republicans and Democrats alike, signed a
letter encouraging the Presidential candidates to do just that.
The letter called it a ``false choice'' to pit the pursuit of
democratic ideals against national security.
A second step would be to engage the American people in a
conversation about the impact of advancing freedom on our own
peace, prosperity, and security here at home. At the end of
World War II, for example, many questioned whether democracy
was compatible with Germany and Japan. Today these are among
our strongest partners and allies in the world, and Americans
reap tangible benefits.
During the Cold War, the United States supported democratic
reform in then authoritarian allies such as Taiwan and South
Korea, the Philippines, and Chile. The end of the Cold War was
a major victory for freedom in Central and Eastern Europe and
for American peace and security.
Today the morale and strategic imperatives of advancing
human rights can be seen in numerous examples. I will take
three from our work at the Bush Institute.
As First Lady and still today, Laura Bush has made the
empowerment of women in Afghanistan a priority. Women and girls
have made important gains since the end of Taliban control.
Yet, those achievements are fragile and the need for continued
U.S. support and engagement is there. It matters to Americans
because investing in women in Afghanistan promotes stability
and helps reduce the possibility of future terrorist attacks on
the United States emanating from that country.
The Institute is also investing in the next generation of
women leaders in the Middle East, in Egypt and Tunisia. Tunisia
may be the only success story of the Arab Spring, but the
sentiments that inspired democratic uprisings across the region
remain: Frustration with injustice, lack of freedom, and a
dearth of economic opportunity.
The same factors were present in Syria, but the failure to
liberalize there and elsewhere in the Middle East has had
devastating consequences. It is in the interest of the United
States to see the forces of freedom eventually prevail.
The Institute's Liberty and Leadership Forum is helping
develop young leaders in Burma who are playing important roles
in their country's democratic opening. For more than two
decades, U.S. policy focused on isolating Burma's military
junta and advancing the cause of Aung San Suu Kyi and the
democratic opposition. Today Burma's strategic importance is
also rising, as China grows more aggressive in consolidating
its power and influence in Asia.
There is also the example of North Korea. In 2015, the
Institute released a report calling for new approaches to
address the human rights abuses of the Kim regimes. One of the
report's recommendations is to treat human rights and the
nuclear threat as symbiotic. Policy opportunities including
human rights, integrating human rights into mainstream
diplomacy, the sanctions regime, and frameworks for looking at
future unification are among them. The recent decision to
sanction Kim Jong Un and 10 other North Koreans for human
rights abuses is a move in that direction.
A third step in breaking the false dichotomy of human
rights and national security would be to encourage relevant
research. The Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, for
example, has done important work documenting the DPRK's use of
forced labor to generate revenue for the government, including
its nuclear program.
Finally, a fourth step would be to seek immediate
opportunities for bipartisan action. In 1982, President Ronald
Reagan acknowledged that policymakers can disagree on many
things, but he said, ``on one point, all of us are united--our
abhorrence of dictatorship in all its forms.'' He then called
on leaders in Europe and the United States to ``take actions to
assist the campaign for democracy.''
The founding of the National Endowment for Democracy
followed a year later with strong bipartisan support. The
creation of the Millennium Challenge Corporation in 2004 is
another example of important bipartisan action.
In the current political environment, this may be a tall
order, but the stakes at home and abroad are high, and American
leadership is essential.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Schnetzer follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
STATEMENT OF MR. MARK BROMLEY, CHAIR, THE COUNCIL FOR GLOBAL
EQUALITY
Mr. Bromley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Engel.
Thank you, Mr. Cicilline, for your opening remarks.
I would like to say a bit more today about the human rights
protections that are under siege for lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender individuals globally. The targeted attack on
the gay bar in Orlando just 1 month ago, as already noted, is a
sobering reminder of that fact. I would like to argue here
today that targeted LGBT violence and anti-LGBT propaganda in
general challenge fundamental democratic values and pluralistic
societies everywhere.
For many LGBT individuals globally, particularly in the
nearly 80 countries that criminalize consensual same-sex
relationships with long prison sentences or death, violence is
an everyday reality. The State Department's Annual Human Rights
Report confirms this. In this year's report, targeted LGBT
killings are cited in countries ranging from Honduras to Russia
to Pakistan. In Zimbabwe, families subjected their LGBTI
members to corrective rape. In Ecuador, private treatment
centers confined LGBTI persons against their will. From
Azerbaijan to Kenya and from Guatemala to Turkey, and Indonesia
to Sri Lanka, the State Department reports on the abuse of LGBT
citizens by police forces.
Given these findings and turning back to Orlando and its
global legacy, I believe our country and our allies must not
underreact or overreact, and we must not confuse the difference
between the two. To be sure, ISIS is, indeed, a threat to the
LGBT community, as it is to other ethnic and religious
communities in the Middle East and beyond. As noted already,
the State Department has found that ISIS is responsible for
genocide against Yazidis, Christians, and Shia Muslims. In the
same way, ISIS has also targeted LGBT individuals with
ferocious violence and a similar intent to destroy the
community.
OutRight Action International has documented more than 40
men who have been accused of sodomy and killed in horrific
public executions in the recent past, and those are just the
cases that ISIS itself has taken credit for. Last summer the
United States and Chile cosponsored a Security Council briefing
on LGBT-related atrocities in ISIS areas.
But ISIS is not the only perpetrator. On another front,
Russia has led a new assault on LGBT organizations and
individuals through an anti-propaganda law that bans all public
discussion of homosexuality, even in the context of HIV/AIDS.
Authoritarian governments from Uganda to Kazakhstan, and
even allies such as Egypt and Indonesia, have adopted anti-LGBT
rhetoric to justify the closing of civic space. While targeting
gay groups, Russia has also gone after democracy and human
rights groups, and it just adopted alarming new restrictions on
religious groups as well.
At the same time, I urge us not to overreact. We must not
close our borders or turn inward. We need to offer protection
to refugees, including LGBT refugees who are some of the most
vulnerable individuals on the planet. And we must not allow
countries to justify sweeping anti-democratic actions in
response to terrorism.
So, in this global environment, what course should we chart
abroad? First, in the LGBT context, we should continue to
invest in the Global Equality Fund at the State Department,
which is supported by 13 other countries under U.S. leadership.
The Fund has assisted frontline human rights defenders in more
than 80 countries globally. The State Department is also
identifying opportunities to address bias-motivated violence by
supporting law enforcement and by including new hate crimes
courses in our International Law Enforcement Academies around
the world.
We also should support USAID and the World Bank as they
identify development opportunities for individuals and
demonstrate the macroeconomic benefits of LGBT participation in
the workplace. A World Bank study recently concluded that
homophobia costs the Indian economy $31 billion or more
annually in lost economic opportunities. In short, these very
modest U.S. investments offer important long-term dividends.
This is also the moment to engage multilateral
institutions, including the United Nations. The Human Rights
Council created a new, independent expert position to respond
to these abuses just 2 weeks ago. And the U.N. Security Council
condemned the killings in Orlando, recognizing for the first
time that individuals were targeted because of their sexual
orientation.
Mr. Chairman, countries that turn on their own LGBT
citizens or that scapegoat them to distract from broader
political or economic failings are equally likely to turn on
other ethnic or religious minorities and on human rights and
democracy groups writ large. The Anti-Defamation League has
documented strong links between anti-Semitism and homophobia in
Europe and beyond. The actors are the same, the intentions are
the same, and the violence is too often the same.
In contrast, our strongest allies, from Canada to our
European partners to Israel, have strong civil rights
protections for their LGBT citizens. This is not a coincidence,
and we should make that point to governments that hope to
deepen their relationship with the United States.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bromley follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Bromley.
Let me begin with a question to Mr. Farr. This concerns the
importance of promotion of religious freedom in the fight
against radical Islamist extremists such as ISIS or Boko Haram.
How would you say the United States could most productively
support that goal?
Mr. Farr. Well, thanks for that question, Mr. Chairman. One
very practical thing, if I might say so, if I could commend the
committee for passing out H.R. 1150, which is now in the
Senate. If that bill is signed and sent to the President and he
signs it, I think it will energize the State Department. It is
the Frank Wolf International Religious Freedom bill. It will
empower, give greater resources and status to the Ambassador-
at-Large, who is an excellent Ambassador, David Saperstein,
along with Knox Thames, who is the Special Advisor for
Minorities in the region. These people, if they had more
authority and resources, I think could do the kinds of things
that I think the United States could do, but is not doing.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Doctor. I appreciate that.
Let me ask Mrs. Schnetzer a question here about North
Korea. I know you have done a lot of work on that front. Maybe
you could tell us what could improve the human rights situation
there in North Korea, in your view.
Ms. Schnetzer. Yes, sir. I think the way to improve the
human condition in North Korea is multifaceted. Our work at the
Bush Institute, we have introduced reports that talk about
opportunities both for government, for civil society, and for
the private sector to try to address the grievous abuse of
human rights in that country.
There are a variety of ways to do that from a policy
standpoint and for civil society and business to engage. One
example that we are continuing to work on is the opportunity on
the policy front to look at the intersection of our approach to
human rights in North Korea and our concerns about security and
nuclear, and that, for too long, those two have been considered
in parallel form, perhaps as disconnected from one another.
What we are finding is that those two are intimately linked;
that the way the North Korean Government treats its own people
has a direct link to how they engage others in the world and
act internationally. And as I mentioned, there is even research
beginning to emerge that shows that things like the use of
slave labor, the human rights abuses of the regime can be
directly connected to the resources coming into the regime,
including for its nuclear program.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
The last question I am going to ask is the Freedom House's
report would label Russia as not free. So, Mr. Lagon,
Ambassador, we have seen the space for independent media sort
of disappear in Russia. We had the opposition leader Krym
Realii blocked, or I should say the Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty reporter. More concerning to me was Vladimir Kara-
Murza, the journalist that was poisoned last December. And
then, in January you had President Putin signing the new law,
the restrictions on social media and internet communications. I
would just ask you for your observations on this.
Ambassador Lagon. A lot of people have focused on the
situation for civil society groups with the foreign agents law
and the undesirable organizations law. I am glad you ask about
the media situation. There has been longstanding control or
influence over major media operations, but things are getting
worse for journalists.
It is part of two lobes of active, well-funded Russian
policy: Control of the media at home and intimidation of those
who would be dissenting voices.
Chairman Royce. Well, when you are being poisoned, when you
tell your audience, ``I fear that I might be poisoned by the
regime''----
Ambassador Lagon. That is about as intimidating as it gets.
Chairman Royce. But, I mean, you get poisoned and, then,
you are hospitalized for poisoning.
Ambassador Lagon. Yes.
Chairman Royce. It is concerning. It is concerning to me
because the independent media, I was following some of the
reporters in Moscow and one of the last independent papers.
After the fifth journalist was shot without anyone discovering
who shot him, it began to establish in my mind the conclusion
that the regime apparently didn't want any independent media.
So, I would ask, how impactful has the West been in finding
alternative ways to get information in through social media or
in through broadcasting to offset some of this?
Ambassador Lagon. Not impactful enough. And I think that
your own interest in public diplomacy and legislation to focus
on that is very important. I think the United States should
work on assisting indigenous independent media, funding to
train journalists. We are encouraged in emergency assistance to
all of the world to those who are intimidated as voices in the
media and as human rights defenders.
I think Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty not only should
have good content on the political situation, filling in for
the absence of independent media, but it should actually be
designed to engage viewers more. In fact, to have entertainment
will allow more people to hear the truth as well.
And think about ProPublica that has looked at the web of
corruption around the world. We ought to try to promote
something similar to ProPublica in Russia to cover the
corruption situation because the gangland violence situation
that you describe in Russia is because of the mating of human
rights oppression and corruption in the regime.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. My time has expired.
Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record testimony from the Human Rights Campaign in support of
this hearing.
Chairman Royce. Without objection.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Engel. Mr. Bromley, let me ask you this question: In
March 2015, I sent a bipartisan letter to USAID with Chairman
Emeritus Ros-Lehtinen urging targeted funding to protect the
human rights of LGBT individuals in the Northern Triangle
countries of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. As you know,
violence against the LGBT community in these countries has
reached dangerous levels. I was particularly disturbed by the
recent murder of LGBT activist Rene Martinez in Honduras. The
United States is providing $750 million in new assistance to
Central America this year and, hopefully, in subsequent years.
How can this funding be used to help the LGBT community in
Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala? How specifically can
USAID and the State Department better assist the LGBT
population in Central America? I know Chairman Ros-Lehtinen
joins me in concern of all these issues.
Mr. Bromley. Thank you, Mr. Engel, and thank you, Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen, for your support on that initiative.
As you mentioned, the levels of violence in Central America
are dangerously high. The average life expectancy of a
transgender woman in Central America is estimated to be 35
years of age and probably lower in Honduras and some other
countries. So, this is a real epidemic of violence, and support
is important.
There have been some steps with U.S. Government support,
including the creation of a Special Victims Unit in Honduras to
help investigate LGBT cases as well as other priority human
rights cases, and new hate crimes training covering LGBT hate
crimes for police officers from that region in our
International Law Enforcement Academy in San Salvador. But, to
date, we haven't really seen the fruits of these investments.
I think the key is that we really need to double-down on
our investment in that area to bring civil society into the
process, so that they are working with the ILEA, that they are
working with the Special Victims Unit, to really ensure that
there is coordinated action on civil society's side as well as
the government side to respond to these abuses.
And, ultimately, at the political level from your seat here
in Congress and from our Embassies in those countries, we need
to ensure that the political will is there. I think we have
seen moments of political will, but at times that political
will has stumbled. So, I think more of the same, but it is an
urgent request.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
Let me ask you this: You have mentioned in your testimony
the horrific abuses inflected by ISIS on gay men, people being
thrown off buildings, stoned to death, and all videotaped to
serve as a warning to others. LGBT individuals are sometimes
forced to flee for their lives, and I understand that it is
difficult to determine how many refugees of LGBT there are
since LGBT people often do not self-identify. They fear
violence and retaliation from their community or even from
other refugees.
So, it seems to me the LGBT refugees from different parts
of the world suffer unique vulnerabilities and face difficult
circumstances. Can you tell us more about that, the continued
challenges they face while fleeing or in a refugee camp, or
even when already resettled in another country?
Mr. Bromley. Thank you, Mr. Engel.
Absolutely. As I mentioned, LGBT refugees are probably some
of the most vulnerable individuals on the planet. Even when
they are forced to flee their own country, which is a decision
that no individual takes lightly, they find themselves in a
refugee community, often in a country that is equally hostile
to LGBT individuals, in a refugee community that doesn't
understand their own situation or their claim for protection on
the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. And
they are exposed to extreme levels of violence and persecution
in camp settings, in particular.
We are seeing large concentrations of LGBT refugees,
particularly in cities in Turkey, where they are also very
vulnerable and often forced to the margins of society.
Fortunately, UNHCR and the U.S. Government are looking at
opportunities to identify those LGBT refugees. As you noted,
the first challenge is convincing them that it is safe to come
out, to tell authorities, to tell UNHCR who they are and why
they need protection. Once they are identified, there are
opportunities to offer additional protections, to offer refugee
processing in a way that is both sensitive and efficient, to
try to get them out of danger as quickly as possible.
But those steps need additional support. We really need to
continue to push UNHCR, which is on the frontlines here. As the
largest investor in UNHCR, I think we can make sure that they
make a difference.
Mr. Engel. And let me ask you one final question. The State
Department Global Equality Fund supports courageous frontline
human rights defenders, and not enough can be said of their
bravery to fight against the hate and the violence, the
vitriol. I think of the dauntless Frank Mugisha in Uganda whose
colleague was brutally murdered; he continues to stand up for
those who want dignity in their lives or the countless others
who work under the threat of violence, detention, and beatings.
What more can the U.S. Government do to support these
frontline human rights defenders?
Mr. Bromley. Thank you.
I do think the Global Equality Fund is a remarkable fund
and one that we have really been able to use to great
advantage. It is co-funded by 13 other governments. So, we are
not in this alone. We are pooling the resources, and the U.S.
is using our broad reach through our Embassies to really lead
that Fund and help identify those activists on the frontline
who are most in need of support.
But I think we need to really support that fund. We can
grow it with more governments. I believe there are a couple
more that are going to be coming into the Fund. But that takes
diplomatic engagement and it takes U.S. leadership to show that
we will continue to be a leader in that Fund and in this
struggle to support some of these truly brave human rights
defenders who are on the frontlines in places like Uganda and
elsewhere where it is really difficult to be standing up for
fundamental freedoms and for pluralistic societies.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, and I want to thank all the
witnesses. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Randy Weber of Texas.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Lagon, this is for you. The U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom 2015 Annual Report stated that,
``By any measure, religious freedoms abroad has been under
serious and sustained assault since 2015.'' Of course, we all
have been talking about that. You know that.
The Freedom House's 2016 Freedom in the World report noted
violence against religious minorities on each continent, paying
special recognition to assaults in India, Bangladesh, Brunei,
Cuba, Angola, and Macedonia. This increase in violence against
religious minorities prompted many to flee their homelands and
seek refuge elsewhere, especially in Europe. And then, the
report goes on to state that, ``This mass influx fueled an
already-rising tide of hatred and violence targeting Muslims
and Jews, particularly in Western Europe.''
With that as a backdrop, there have been reports of rising
anti-Semitism in Europe, the BDS Movement, for example,
especially in states that had a resurgence of the far right and
far left parties gaining--I don't know if they are gaining
control but obviously being active. Last year, Israel saw the
largest immigration of Jews in decades. Some have attributed
this growing anti-Semitism to general xenophobic responses to
mass immigration from the Middle East. Do you believe that is a
reasonable correlation?
Ambassador Lagon. I think there are people who are
responding in Europe in xenophobic and nativist ways, and they
are putting Muslims all into one category. I think that there
is a really disturbing trend which one has seen over years that
has spiked on anti-Semitism as well. It is not something I like
doing to have to point out that there are disturbing trends
among Western countries. But the kinds of statements that you
see from the Czech President about those arriving from the
Middle East who are Muslims being an organized invasion and the
increase in the assault, even in Germany which has welcomed
those who are refugees, and of neo-Nazis in an anti-Semitic
way, we are seeing a trend of an increase in the worst kind of
xenophobia, not just discrimination, but real violent
persecution.
Mr. Weber. As Ambassador-at-Large, 2007 to 2009--is that
right?--you, obviously, have paid attention and, obviously,
what you all do is paying attention. Do you know of any other
anti-Semitic against the Jewish state, do you know of any other
xenophobic, as you call it, response to a country or a state
like that against the Jewish state of Israel?
Ambassador Lagon. Well, there is a distinctive persecution
of Israel, and one sees it, in particular, in the U.N. For my
sins, I worked for the State Department on U.N. affairs.
Mr. Weber. For your ``sins''?
Ambassador Lagon. Yes, for my sins. You know, working as a
Deputy Assistant Secretary----
Mr. Weber. You must have had some really bad sins.
[Laughter.]
Ambassador Lagon. I see that at the U.N. where there is a
distinct special focus on Israel and, in fact, even global
conferences that are on xenophobia have focused distinctly on
Israel.
Mr. Weber. Okay, but why is that? You are quantitating it
with the amount of focus. Why?
Ambassador Lagon. In my view, it is a stalking horse for a
criticism of the West, a criticism of globalization, and a
criticism of big democratic powers by picking on Israel.
But I think it is worth looking at a broader pattern of
xenophobia. My parents are immigrants from Poland. I am deeply
disturbed, as anyone should be, about the turn of events in
Poland where the government is quite nationalist and it is
treating those who are migrants as possibly suspect for
terrorism. We should worry about the coarsening of views in
Europe and, indeed, in the United States. Anti-Semitism is one
of the most disturbing forms of it, but not the only.
Mr. Weber. But would you say that the rise of terrorism--it
depends on how far back you want to go--but anti-Semitism has
been around a long--I don't know of any other state, and this
is your specialty, any other people who have been discriminated
against on that level like the anti-Semitism that we have seen
for years. Would you agree with that?
Ambassador Lagon. Well, anti-Semitism has, sadly, been a
corrosive feeling for centuries. We should remember every time
we invoke the phrase ``never again'' related to genocide that
we are most likely speaking of an effort to stamp out the
Jewish people in Europe.
Mr. Weber. So, one last question.
Ambassador Lagon. And anti-Semitism continues in mild,
intense, and in deeply-violent----
Mr. Weber. Okay. Well, I am out of time. Forgive me.
But one last question very quickly, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
So, you are watching the Iran nuclear giveaway, I call it.
And so, you are watching the statements of Ayatollah Khomeini
that Israel is a one-bomb nation. Does that concern you?
Ambassador Lagon. Yes, of course it does. And I think that
you should take dictators and theocrats seriously when they
talk about trying to wipe a nation off the map.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Thank you.
Ambassador Lagon. If I may just comment, for a long time
U.S. policy tried to satisfy the human rights issues on Iran to
focus on the nuclear issue. Now that there is a nuclear deal,
no matter what one might think of it, it is time to focus on
those human rights issues and put the kind of pressure on
Iran----
Mr. Weber. So, let me paraphrase it, if I may, Mr.
Chairman.
So, what you are saying is, if a dictatorial regime has
zero respect for human rights, they can't be trusted and need
to be dealt with in a harsh way?
Ambassador Lagon. I have no trust for a regime that treats
its own political opponents or certain minority groups as less
than human.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Brad Sherman of California.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
I have one question just for the record that I won't ask
for an oral response, but it builds on what the gentleman just
said, and it is a tough one. And that is, is it appropriate in
screening refugees from the Middle East and determining who to
admit to exclude someone who has such extreme anti-Semitic
views that their presence in the host country, they may not
engage in violence themselves, but it creates a culture in
which violent anti-Semitism is applauded, at least in one
cultural segment of the country? So, I will ask for that as a
written response.
Mrs. Schnetzer pointed out the slave labor problem in North
Korea. I should point out that, while the case on work camps is
now closed, there is only a matter of time before it is, I
think, reopened. There is just too much money to be made there.
And those slave labor products may well enter the United States
duty-free under our free trade agreements and particularly TPP.
Those of us who fought for ironclad assurance that goods made
north of the DMZ would not enter duty-free failed in both
agreements. And it is only a matter of time, I think, before
slave labor goods come into our country from Kasung.
I want to comment a little bit about the background here,
and that is legitimacy. Governments need to answer the
question, why is it legitimate for them to rule? For hundreds
of years, monarchy served as an answer. Now monarchy is being
swept into the dust bin of history. Democracy is the only
system that can answer that question, and it can allow for
peaceful succession and a role for opponents.
There are a few other systems that offer legitimacy.
Communism, there is no vanguard of the proletariat left.
Theocracy exists in Iran, and there are some dictatorships
allied by theocratic elements. I fear that that is becoming
increasingly true in Turkey.
But, ultimately, you end up with a lot of governments that
are just illegitimate who cannot answer the question, why are
you in power except you happen to have guns? And so, they try
to find an enemy. First, they seek an external enemy with
exaggerated nationalism, but they also can seek an internal
enemy, and then, they can demonize that enemy and use that as a
way to rally support.
Switching to another topic, I believe it was the chairman
who pointed out how horrific events in Syria are. We should
point out that those millions of displaced people and hundreds
of thousands of deaths could not occur if Assad didn't have
allies. There is a lot of focus on Russia because, even if a
former nuclear power does something modest, you have to pay a
lot of attention because they have hundreds of nuclear weapons
behind them.
But most of Assad's support comes from Iran. Thugs are
being flown into Damascus or being brought by Iran in from
Lebanon. And we are now asked to provide the planes that will
be used to take more thugs, more weapons, to Assad. As long as
we put ``Air Iran,'' rather than ``Iran Air Force,'' on the
outside of these planes, we are told that that cleanses our
soul and our responsibility. And we are told that we should
sell these with no U.N. monitor to make sure that the plane is
not used to fly to carry weapons to Assad.
Finally, let me be the only person to say anything happy
here. And that is, if you look at the long arc of history, it
does bend toward justice. That is not a phrase that I invented.
In the 18th century there was only one democracy. We had far
more in the 19th century. We had far, far more in the 20th
century. And I am confident that we will see in the 21st
century the march of democracy and human rights around the
world.
Let me try to bring in one question. Mr. Bromley, in 2011,
the Obama administration issues its Presidential Memorandum on
International Initiatives to Advance Human Rights of LGBT
Persons. How are they doing?
Mr. Bromley. Great. Thank you for that question.
The Presidential Memorandum I think has been a very
important government-wide tool to look at the various funding
streams and programs that we have internationally that could be
leveraged to really offer additional support for LGBT
communities in some really hostile environments. And I think
they have been doing a really good job.
I think there are a couple of important features of the
Presidential Memorandum. It requires each of the foreign
affairs agencies to report annually back to the White House on
what they have been doing to really look at the problem and
leverage some of their existing assets to address the problem
of discrimination and violence against LGBT individuals. And
that reporting-back process allows additional interagency
coordination and sharing and some reflection that allows us to
carry forward and really create some new synergies in our
programming. So, I think that has been incredibly important.
I also think that it has allowed a focus on violence
prevention. I think at the end of the day what we really need
to do is use our foreign affairs assets to help countries tamp
down on hate violence and the really extreme levels of violence
against LGBT individuals. That will allow them, then, to
organize and demand their rights as legitimate citizens in any
country.
And so, I think, again, this coordination, particularly
around violence prevention programs and human rights
initiatives, has been incredibly important, and we certainly
hope that it is an effort that will continue into future
administrations.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, the case on industrial
complexes, as you know, has been shut down. And secondarily,
there is a conflict division, shall we say, between how we read
the agreement? The agreement seems pretty ironclad in terms of
disallowing South Korea to participate if they allow those
goats to come through. I know the enforcement is an issue with
you, but just for the record.
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman, I did note in my comments that
it is currently shut down, but I suspect that it will be opened
in the next year or two.
And as to whether the language is adequate, one has to
wonder why the proponents of the agreement were unwilling to
put in the iron ironclad language that many of us were pushing
and why they insisted upon the language that I think will allow
the----
Chairman Royce. No, no. I think they put in what they
thought was the iron ironclad, but maybe there is a new iron
ironclad----
Mr. Sherman. They certainly didn't listen to those of us
who were pushing for----
Chairman Royce. Suffice it to say that there is a
disagreement on the interpretation there.
We are going to go to Mr. Ted Yoho of Florida.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the panelists being here.
And when I ask these questions or my statement, I want you
to think how we can better do our foreign aid and how we can
get better results ultimately, is what we are looking for.
Freedom House, the 2016 Freedom in the World report, a
decline in global freedom in each of the past 10 years; 60
percent of the world's population now living in countries
designated as partly free or not free at all. Perhaps even more
troubling has been the recent backsliding of respect for human
rights in longstanding democracies. Many regimes have responded
to popular grievance and anti-democratic sentiment by closing
space for political dissent and uncensored discourse. Other
countries have seen discrimination against religious
minorities, LGBT, you know, what we have talked about here.
In Malawi, albinos have become targets for organ
harvesting, fueled by beliefs that their body parts can be used
in witchcraft to bring wealth and cure disease. And Russian
world human rights offenders, Putin's regime closed independent
media outlets and jailed journalists. And we see that all over
the world. And a perceived rise in anti-Semitism across Europe
has led to record numbers of Jewish immigrants leaving, as Mr.
Weber talked about, for Israel.
You know, it just goes on and on and on, and it gets to be
a very bleak picture. Yet, the United States of America and
other countries have invested billions and billions, if not
trillions, of dollars over the last 30 years, 40 years. In
Ethiopia, since World War II, we have given tens of billions of
dollars. Yet, everything seems to be in decline.
And I think it was you, Ambassador Lagon, talking about the
human rights and suppression along with corruption go hand-in-
hand with declining freedoms. I just came back from a trip in
South America. In every country we went to there was corruption
in the government. We have been over to Africa, the Middle
East. Corruption in all these governments, yet we do business
with them. We know countries like Vietnam are involved in the
slave trade, human trafficking, things like that, and we put
stipulations on them that you must meet our standards and we
will trade with you, or you must meet our standards and we will
give you foreign aid. Yet, we know they are not doing it. Yet,
we trade with them and we give them foreign aid.
Why should we continue that? Why should I go back to my
district and talk to my constituents and say, ``We have to keep
giving foreign aid.''? And I understand the purpose. We are
trying to create democracy and good trading partners. But I
think it is time that we played hard ball in this and pick out
those countries that are willing to come to this side of the
table, and let's support those. And if we can get a win here,
you know, success breeds success.
But what we are doing over the last 30 years seems to be
lunacy on the majority of it for me. What are your comments?
Ambassador Lagon. Why don't I briefly just talk about the
tools that we have in the toolbox? Legislators, those in the
executive branch, have an opportunity to talk with the American
people about what we can do.
We should be able to use the sticks. One reason I am in
favor of the Global Magnitsky Sanctions Act is to target those
particular officials who are responsible for corruption or the
human rights abuses themselves, put the squeeze on them, and
put their leaders in the position of either cutting them loose
and losing backers in their heinous regimes or hugging them and
showing that their regimes are bad.
I used to be the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large to Combat
Trafficking in Persons. When countries are on Tier 3, they
should get the sanctions that the 2000 Trafficking Victims
Protection Act provides for and not be given a waiver.
In terms of aid, which you properly ask about, Ethiopia is
a fantastic example in which the United States has bankrolled a
government, ostensibly to fight terrorism. In Fiscal Years 2013
and 2014, there was a combined $1.2 billion in foreign
assistance and not a dime on governance programs. And it has
gotten all the way up to $1.25 million in governance programs
out of over $650 million in aid in Fiscal Year 2015. That is an
imbalance.
Then, finally, I need to make an appeal. If you are worried
about the budget problem for the United States and spending our
resources in a prudent way, governance programs are a good
small investment. That is actually a form of foreign assistance
that makes much more sense than those that have no ties
whatsoever.
Mr. Yoho. Where can you give me an example that has worked
well? Because Ethiopia, I look at your Freedom Index from your
organization; they are not free. After billions and billions
and billions of dollars being put into that, why are we not
getting a better result or bang for the buck.
Ambassador Lagon. Let me give you a couple of examples, one
that involves Freedom House and one that is not----
Mr. Yoho. Hold on just a minute.
Madam Chairman?
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen [presiding]. Yes, you are a little bit
over, but maybe we will do that in a concise answer.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you.
Ambassador Lagon. I will be quick.
In Burma, Freedom House is working on religious pluralism
and tolerance, so that the gains in the direction of democracy,
which are by no means consolidated, can, in fact, be
worthwhile. That is a place for a little bit of sustained
assistance.
In Nigeria, one of the few countries in which there has
been continued aid in sub-Saharan Africa, the fact that all the
democracy support organizations like NDI and others were there
helped the elections go in the right direction, and we now have
a tougher regime that confronts corruption and fights Boko
Haram.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Thank you, Mr.
Yoho.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Sires of New Jersey.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ambassador Lagon, thank you. Thank you for being here, and
all the other witnesses that we have here.
As a followup to my colleague Ted Yoho, is selective
enforcement problematic in terms of other countries taking us
seriously? We have seemed to turn a blind eye to some countries
and, yet, we come down hard on others. Do you see that as a
problem for all the countries to take us seriously and say,
``Well, you know, they do this in Ethiopia.''?
Ambassador Lagon. Selectivity is a problem. In fact, when
the United States itself engages in forms of surveillance or
treatment of detainees that make it easier for dictators to
say, ``Well, you are doing the same things we are,'' that is a
problem.
But the selectivity of sanctions and of assistance programs
is a problem. One reason Freedom House is so strongly in favor
of the Global Magnitsky legislation is that there are some
countries that you are not going to imagine there being
comprehensive sanctions. The United States is not going to
embrace comprehensive sanctions against China because of our
business engagement. But it would be really important to have
legislation where you could target those officials who are
responsible for corruption and the worst human rights abuses,
so that you signal that it will not be something the United
States would accept. And that would really help with that
problem of selectivity.
Mr. Sires. Thank you.
Dr. Farr, I represent a large group of Catholic Christians
in my district. One of the concerns that I always have when I
speak to them, and they share with me, is their safety. I am
just wondering, are they safer today than they were in Egypt?
Mr. Farr. I don't know how the answer to that could be yes.
I think the answer is, no, they are not safer. One could make
an argument that under General el-Sisi things have calmed down.
So, if you compare it to a year or 2 years ago when Egypt
seemed to be on the verge of internal collapse, they are safer
for the moment. But, if you look at this over the long-term, I
think the Coptic Christians and other minorities in Egypt
remain in peril, which is why I support the idea of not only
targeted funding of religious freedom activists in places like
Egypt, but a more systemic approach to developing religious
freedom not only as a way of protecting Copts, but of
developing good governance in Egypt. So, I think religious
freedom for the Copts as well as all of Egypt's citizens can
protect the Copts. The answer to your question is, no, they are
not. In my view, we are not doing enough to address this
problem over the long-term.
Mr. Sires. Thank you.
I am one of those people that believes that in South
America we are going in reverse. You have Ecuador where they
beat up, they file lawsuits against the press. Are we going
backwards in some of these countries?
Ambassador Lagon. I think we are going backwards, and that
is a disturbing thing when countries that have been in a free
category or, you know, would be considered democracies are
going backward. There is a trend of populism in Latin America,
and in South America in particular, where the formula is
leaders speaking in favor of the poor in their country, but, in
fact, being grossly corrupt, intimidating opposition and media.
So, the pattern you describe in Ecuador has also been seen in
Venezuela in a most heinous form, but in Bolivia and elsewhere.
But there are glimmers of hope. The fact that people----
Mr. Sires. Except in Cuba.
Ambassador Lagon. In Venezuela things went in the right
direction.
Mr. Sires. Yes, but, except in Cuba, there is no hope
there.
Ambassador Lagon. Cuba, I am not saying that there is a
regionwide trend that is in the right direction. It is, in
fact, in the wrong direction. But in two places, glimmers of
hope: Argentina moving away from the Kirchner's corruption and
intimidation of opposition and those people standing up to the
Venezuelan Government and coming out for parliamentary
elections late last year in favor of the opposition.
Mr. Sires. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Sires.
Mr. Perry is recognized.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Ambassador, I want to focus a little bit of attention
on the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe and the fact that it
seems to be enshrined in the U.N. Human Rights Council by their
votes and actions.
I am wondering if you could advise us as well, Mrs.
Schnetzer, on what you think the United States should do to
leverage our position to curb that financially, if you think
that that is something, or otherwise. Because what I see, it is
almost unbelievable that we just stand for it and allow it to
continue.
Ambassador Lagon. Look, I have very open eyes about the
U.N.'s problems, which is the main place where people attack
Israel and sometimes express anti-Semitism.
Mr. Perry. Sometimes? Sometimes they don't.
Ambassador Lagon. It is regularly a place where Israel is
focused on more than any other nation for criticism. However,
it is my view, as someone who is involved in the negotiation of
creating the U.N. Human Rights Council, that for all of its
faults, it is better for the United States to be in the room
and to create an atmosphere in which there is more balance
rather than less balance.
Mr. Perry. Okay, so we are in the room, but how are we
stopping it?
Ambassador Lagon. The United States is the only nation that
not only can assert its vote, but actually form coalitions and
browbeat other nations into moving in the right direction. It
is a worse situation for Israel at any U.N. body if the United
States is not there.
Mr. Perry. All right. If I could, Mrs. Schnetzer, any
thoughts quickly?
Ms. Schnetzer. Yes, sir. So, I think it is important to
note that in the Middle East today there are two democratic
countries, Tunisia and Israel. I think it is important to
continue to find ways to stand by those countries that are our
democratic allies and supporters----
Mr. Perry. Agreed.
Ms. Schnetzer [continuing]. And those that are moving in
the right direction, but still have a long way to go.
I do think that it is important for the United States and
for Government and for Congress to find those opportunities for
leveraging influence. I am disturbed about the trends that we
see in Europe today. I am disturbed about some of the rhetoric
in our own country today, and to find the opportunities for
leverage and influence is important.
Mr. Perry. Let me just tell you from this policymaker's
standpoint it doesn't seem like we have a plan or a vision to
tangibly do that. It is a goal, but we are looking for some
opportunity that shows up at some point, and then, we will take
advantage of the opportunity. That is hoping on chance and
luck, and I would like to see us do a better job.
I have a limited amount of time, so I appreciate that.
Mr. Bromley, listening to your statements, I am wondering
about your organization's position on Sharia and its treatment
of the LGBT community in the countries where Sharia is strictly
enforced, if there is such a community in those communities. I
have heard of a lot of funding, advocacy for a lot of funding,
but other than reports, not a whole lot of deliverables. And I
am just wondering about your--we can get into that, but what is
your organization's public position and statements on that
issue of Sharia, not only the treatment of women, but the LGBT
community, in particular?
Mr. Bromley. Certainly. Thank you for the question.
The most radical interpretation of Sharia does include the
death penalty for LGBT individuals, and that, obviously, is a
grave human rights----
Mr. Perry. I know that. I want to know what your position
is. What are your public--and I don't mean to be short, but I
have got a limited amount of time. So, I am trying to get the
information.
Mr. Bromley. I mean, we have condemned the death penalty
that was adapted in Brunei as part of a Sharia reform in
Brunei, and we have been quite critical of that and believe,
actually, that that raises serious questions about whether
Brunei should be in----
Mr. Perry. So, you only condemn the death penalty portion
of Sharia or you condemn the actions of Sharia as they----
Mr. Bromley. No, absolutely other actions of Sharia,
including lesser penalties that are still corporal penalties or
any penalty for consensual same-sex relationships is a
violation of fundamental human rights and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
Mr. Perry. And what about those practitioners that would
wish to enact and practice Sharia in America with the same
prohibitions for women and for the LGBT community? What is your
organization's public position?
Mr. Bromley. Well, with respect to the LGBT community, you
know, any strict enforcement of Sharia would be a violation of
the U.S. Constitution, and we obviously----
Mr. Perry. And you have made those statements in that
regard?
Mr. Bromley. I would be happy to. I am making them now.
Mr. Perry. Okay. That is important.
Mr. Bromley. Absolutely.
Mr. Perry. It is important to make sure people are aware,
if you are going to have this message, to have it out there,
not just have it reactively when asked, but have it proactively
as an advocate for human rights for every single person on
every single continent, including this one.
Mr. Bromley. No, absolutely. There are mixed systems that
don't interpret Sharia that way. But a strict interpretation of
Sharia would be a violation of the Constitution of the U.S. and
certainly a violation of U.N. human rights.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield.
Chairman Royce [presiding]. Thank you.
We will go to Mr. David Cicilline of Rhode Island.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
again and Ranking Member Engel for holding this hearing.
I also want to thank Representative Lowenthal who I know
rearranged his schedule at another subcommittee hearing to be
here today, and I appreciate that very much.
Thank you to our panelists. This testimony has been really
helpful and I think illustrates how serious human rights issues
are around the world. And we could probably have you here all
day and continue this discussion, but I will try to get to my
questions.
First, the State Department report on human rights cited a
pattern of abuse against LGBT people around the world from
police or other security forces in countries around the world.
And this is a really serious issue.
As an example, the report states that 82 percent of people
surveyed in Bolivia claim that they or someone they knew had
been detained arbitrarily by police because of their sexual
identity. So, Mr. Bromley, would you speak to this issue, and
Mr. Ambassador, about what we can do and what we are doing
successfully to help sensitize police on protection rather than
persecution of LGBT individuals around the world, and how we
can do that more effectively?
Mr. Bromley. Thank you, Mr. Cicilline. I think this is an
absolutely important question. I do think police violence is
really the key to a lot of other forms of persecution and
subjugation of LGBT individuals in many countries.
I think the key is really trying to find opportunities to
work with police forces to ensure that they see tolerance and
respect for LGBT individuals, and, indeed, all minorities,
including religious or ethnic minorities, as a point of
professionalism. To do that, we have seen U.S. Embassies
reaching out and supporting international visitor programs, for
example, for senior police officers. There have been a number
of senior police officers who have come to the United States
from Jamaica, where there are high levels of violence against
the LGBT community. And that opportunity to come here and to
talk to other police officers in the United States, and
understand that professionals don't do this and that it is
simply not acceptable, I think those really are making a
difference, those visitor programs.
And there are ILEAs, International Law Enforcement
Academies, that are rolling out hate crime trainings through
all of the ILEAs this year. Again, I think that makes the point
that this sort of violence is not professional, it is not
acceptable, and it is not going to result in promotion to
higher levels of your profession.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
Mr. Lagon?
Ambassador Lagon. So, in law enforcement you see problems,
a sense of omission and a sense of commission. If law
enforcement do not hold to account those who would commit
violent acts of hate against the LGBT community, then justice
isn't real. If they are actually complicit in committing
violence against the LGBT community or harassing them, that is
a horrendous problem.
You asked about how we can improve the situation. One, I
think that the envoy that exists at the State Department for
LGBT issues should be codified. I commend you for trying to
make that position a permanent one, one that doesn't have to
depend on a particular President or a particular Secretary of
State.
And then, secondly, we have talked about the Global
Equality Fund. Freedom House is the coordinator of a consortium
called Dignity for All that gives emergency assistance to LGBT
persons and activists who are under duress. That is exactly the
kind of investment that makes sense to help those who are most
vulnerable.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
I have two final questions. A number of ASEAN countries
criminalize homosexuality, including Brunei, Singapore,
Myanmar, and Malaysia. Other than Thailand, there is no country
in the ASEAN group that has anti-discrimination laws that
guarantee equality of all citizens regardless of sexual
orientation and gender identity.
What strategies could the U.S. Government employ in our
engagement with ASEAN and these countries, in particular, to
encourage these governments to address these human rights
challenges?
The second question is, what countries are LGBT persons
most under threat and where should we be kind of paying
attention in the next year or two that might not be on our
radar?
So, I will ask you, Mr. Ambassador and Mr. Bromley.
Ambassador Lagon. Yes, I will go first this time.
I think when you look at the ASEAN countries, we should
think of the voice of the United States as twofold, from the
U.S. Government but, very importantly, from the business
community, since the United States has such reach.
So, having an envoy that is dedicated for these issues and
making sure that, when there is a dialog at the Secretary of
State level or the Cabinet level, that these issues be brought
up, including by those who are conducting the trade
relationship. That makes sense.
The business community knows that they will not have as
dynamic an investment atmosphere or a labor force if it doesn't
include everybody who has talent, including the LGBT community.
So, U.S.-headquartered multinational corporations have been and
should all the more speak up with ASEAN nations: You need to
have greater assets in your economy and not to sideline LGBT
people.
Mr. Bromley. For ASEAN, I would definitely echo that. I
think in that region our business relationships are stronger
than some of our political and diplomatic relationships. And
certainly, I know in the negotiations of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership these issues have been raised. I think however that
goes forward, whether it is renegotiated or goes forward as is,
we need to continue to leverage that trading relationship, that
economic relationship to move forward.
It is absolutely unacceptable that Singapore recently told
multinational corporations that they should not be supporting
their LGBT employees or Pride events in Singapore. As the hub
of multinational business in Asia, that is just not acceptable,
and we need to make that clear both diplomatically but
economically as well.
In terms of your other question on countries to look toward
in the coming years, I do think Turkey is really important. It
is the one country in the Middle East where we have seen a
vibrant LGBT civil society community. It is the country where
we have thousands, tens of thousands of LGBT refugees from the
entire region.
Unfortunately, the trends have been in the wrong direction.
The past 2 years the Pride parades have been prohibited.
Parliamentarians from Europe who tried to attend have been
arrested. I think the trends are really concerning, but I think
it is the country where we really need to figure out how to
turn that around and to encourage a pluralistic view in a
Middle Eastern country that has such a large geopolitical
significance.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Cicilline.
We go to Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I
thank you for holding this hearing on such an important topic.
I believe that the cause of human rights must be a larger
priority in our foreign policy agenda. The administration's
requests for human rights and democracy and governance funding
are lower every year, and Congress has had to fill in the gap
by providing more for these programs on its own.
On top of that, the sanctions laws, which are designed to
hold human rights violators accountable, are not being enforced
the way that they should be. For example, the Venezuela Defense
of Human Rights and Civil Society Act authorized the State
Department to deny visas, freeze the assets of Venezuelan
officials responsible for human rights abuses. Yet, the State
Department has only pulled approximately 60 visas and the last
and only time that anyone was sanctioned was in March 2015,
when seven individuals, only seven, were designated. We can do
better. We must do better.
In my native homeland of Cuba, human rights have not been
improved one bit as freedom of expression remains severely
restricted. People are still being harassed. They are being
beaten, imprisoned for speaking out against the regime.
But, rather than using the tools at our disposal in these
countries and everywhere to hold regimes accountable,
restrictions are instead being lifted, putting more money into
these authoritarian regimes and, then, used to repress the
people of Cuba, for example.
We see it also in places like Iran where, despite abundant
evidence of human rights violations and multiple laws that
allow the State Department to sanction responsible officials,
the laws are simply not being enforced.
In places like Egypt, where we have an important ally, our
inability to program funds for human rights and other
development challenges has created a backlog of hundreds of
millions of dollars.
Promoting and defending human rights worldwide is one of
our core values. That is what we stand for as a country. It is
crucial to both our economic and national security. They are
all intertwined.
So, while it is proper and correct that we continue to
appropriate funds and pass sanctions laws with these goals in
mind, if they are not going to be used, if they are not going
to be enforced, we are only damaging our own interests while
abandoning all of those who are still suffering.
So, I ask three questions in general and anyone can answer.
How effective can we be at promoting and defending human rights
if we aren't programming the funds set aside for this purpose
or even enforcing the laws designed to hold human rights
violators accountable? Secondly, how can we ensure that people
living under repressive regimes who need our assistance, they
need it the most, are getting the help that they need? And
lastly, how can we hold the administration, any administration
from any party, responsible when it refuses to enforce the
sanctions laws that Congress passes?
Ambassador?
Ambassador Lagon. Let me address the group of your
questions this way: On programming, I think it is very
important that Congress took the step in the appropriations
bill of fencing off funding for democracy and governance.
Because anytime that there is a Presidential initiative, and it
may be worthy, Power Africa or whatever, the funding that
Congress would like to see spent on our values and the basic
interests, as I argue in my testimony, found in democratic
governance, those funds get raided. So, it is a great thing
that Congress took that step.
To address your first and your last questions, sanctions,
it is not a panacea, but I am a strong advocate of the Global
Magnitsky Sanctions Act because, especially if it is in its
strongest versions of the legislation, Congress has an
opportunity to nominate those who ought to be subject to those
sanctions as officials responsible for corruption and
repression. If Congress is concerned about the executive branch
using sanctions, the strongest version of the Global Magnitsky
bill gives Congress that voice.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I am
sorry I have to have a phone call. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ileana. I
appreciate it.
Alan Lowenthal from California.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I want to
compliment you and commend you for holding this hearing on the
1-month anniversary of tragic events in Orlando.
And it is so important that, as we talk about the siege on
human rights throughout the world, that we have spent a great
deal of time and energy on the human rights of the LGBT
community. I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this.
I want to move on to Mr. Bromley and follow up on what the
Ambassador said about the creation of the special envoy
position. I worked on that with Senator Markey when we first
introduced last session the International Human Rights Defense
Act. And now, we have a bill with many Members of Congress as
cosponsors to codify that and make it permanent.
I want to state on the record I think Mr. Berry has done an
excellent job. He has traveled throughout the world
crisscrossing, speaking to everybody. I think he has been bold
in his message that LGBT rights are human rights. It is a
difficult task and he has done an amazing job. I really wish to
commend him and his professionalism.
I would really like to know what you believe is the
significance of this special envoy position and what it has
meant to the international LGBT community. And how important is
it that we make this a permanent position at the State
Department?
Mr. Bromley. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal, and thank you for
your leadership in supporting that position.
We absolutely agree with you that the position should be
codified. It is an important position. And we also agree that
Randy Berry, the special envoy, has done a remarkable job in
that position. In just 1 year, he has been to 30 countries. I
think his focus has been really thoughtful. He has been to some
of the difficult countries, but he has been to many of the
countries that we consider to be in the movable middle,
countries where some one-on-one diplomatic engagement in the
right way with the right tone, often behind the scenes, really
can make a difference; where we can talk to countries like
Vietnam that actually are starting to go in the right
direction, not on other human rights issues, but at least on
this one. And I think those conversations have been incredibly
important.
Initially, we were not supportive of creating a position at
the very beginning of this administration when the Human Rights
Bureau was really starting to look at how to integrate LGBT
issues in a more holistic way into our human rights policies.
And we thought that, if you created a position right away, it
would likely be, you know, it could impact that integration of
the issue across the Department.
But the Human Rights Bureau has really led a thoughtful
integration effort, and it came to the point, with your support
and others, where we really needed a focal point to ensure that
the integration that is happening in the regional bureaus, in
the functional bureaus, that there is some coordination and
that there is a person out there traveling the world,
representing our values on these issues. So, we think it is
incredibly important. Randy Berry has done a fantastic job, and
we absolutely would like to see this codified.
Mr. Lowenthal. I would like to return and change the
subject a little bit to Vietnam and Cambodia. You just
mentioned Vietnam and some of the advances. I think it was the
Ambassador who said that human rights should be an integral
part of our foreign policy.
You know, recently, President Obama visited Vietnam. The
administration lifted the lethal weapons sale ban to Vietnam. I
thought this was supposed to be tied to improvement on human
rights. Have you seen any evidence, have any of you seen any
evidence that lifting the lethal weapons sales ban was
justified by human rights improvement? Was this a decision that
was based upon what we have seen? Because I have not seen any
dramatic human rights improvement.
Ambassador Lagon. If I were President Obama, I would be
pretty angry because, when he visited Vietnam, that government
went to great lengths to embarrass him by putting pressure on
human rights defenders precisely when he went there.
Mr. Lowenthal. That is exactly right.
Ambassador Lagon. I happen to be in favor of the Trans-
Pacific Partnership. I think openness helps. I happen to be
encouraged that Vietnam and Burma want better relations with
the United States because of trying to counteract China in the
region. But we should not let nations like Vietnam, Cambodia,
Malaysia off the hook on human rights and human trafficking
because of some alleged strategic interests. We aren't doing
anybody a favor thinking counterbalancing China or free trade
is a reason to lose the leverage to talk about human rights.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, just in conclusion, you know, this discussion
that we are talking about, about human rights, comes at the
same time that Dr. Kem Ley, a prominent political advocate and
anti-corruption activist, was shot and killed in Phnom Penh in
Cambodia. At the same time, there is this repressive crackdown
by the Government of Cambodia against all political opponents.
My question is, are we doing enough to promote a democracy
and the rule of law in Cambodia? I know we are going to be
looking at a markup this week. But I would just like to end by
saying, in the midst of all of this, we are seeing, I agree,
some changes. We have had a wonderful hearing today. But I am
also seeing some of the most repressive activities going on
throughout the world.
With that, I will yield back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Alan.
Mr. Lowenthal. And thank you for your leadership on the
Cambodia resolution.
Chairman Royce. I appreciate it very much, Mr. Lowenthal.
We will now go to Dan Donovan from New York.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for
my tardiness. I was chairing a homeland security hearing at the
same time this began. So, a lot of the things that you spoke
about I missed. So, I would rather ask a general question to
all of you, rather than repeating a lot of the things you
probably already spoke of.
You know, our country is based on freedom of religion,
freedom of assembly, freedom of speech. Not every country is.
We respect human rights, maybe not so well at times, but the
lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual community, for women's
rights. We don't exploit children for the most part, I believe.
That is our belief, whether it be sexually or in the workplace.
But other countries do and other countries don't have the same
beliefs that we do.
Are we able to change the mindset, the culture of other
countries? Do carrots work, like trade agreements, as you said,
Mr. Ambassador? Or do sanctions work, as we spoke about, some
of my colleagues spoke about earlier, sanctioning countries
that exploit people and don't recognize human rights?
I was just curious about your general opinion about whether
or not we, as a nation, can change the way of life in other
nations to more conform to our beliefs and our way of life.
Ambassador Lagon. Let me be brief. It is such a big and
important question.
Mr. Donovan. That is why I asked the question.
Ambassador Lagon. But I think we should just be careful,
when we talk about cultures, that we don't kind of become
resigned that things can't change.
You know, these things are universal. To quote former
President Bush, it is a form of bigotry of having low
expectations for certain cultures, that they can't support
human rights or they won't support human rights or that they
are not ready for democracy. We should try to encourage before
we turn to sanctions, I think to show that countries will
benefit themselves from more open economies, and being
inclusive, including all the assets in those societies, is the
way to start.
But, ultimately, if they are flagrant human rights abusers,
we should be willing to use sanctions. And we should be careful
that countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, that we treat as
allies in a global struggle against terrorism, are not so
flagrantly engaging in repression, including in Saudi Arabia
against a certain brand of Muslims, Shia, that, in fact, it is
not serving our interests.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Donovan, if I could just quickly respond to
that as well?
Mr. Donovan. Yes, please.
Mr. Farr. I agree with Mark that sanctions are an important
part of the toolkit, but they can't be the only one. In the
region of religious freedom, the sanctions have been pretty
much the only arrow in the quiver for these 20 years almost
since the International Religious Freedom Act was passed. I
think it is an important arrow and it is being strengthened.
But, in order to change countries at a cultural level, you
have to, in my view, go to their self-interest. I think there
are arguments--we have discussed some of them here today--on
the issue of religious freedom. If you want stable democracy
and you are a highly religious society, it simply won't work
without religious freedom. If you want economic growth and
development in your country and you are a highly-religious
society, you can't do it without religious freedom.
Our Founders understood this. William Penn said, ``Come to
Pennsylvania. We have religious freedom. It is good for
business.''
So, this isn't rocket science, but we don't do a very good
job at making these arguments to countries that they can accept
that leapfrogs some of these cultural boundaries. There are
self-interest arguments that we have to make.
Ms. Schnetzer. Thank you, sir, for that important question.
I work at the Bush Institute. We start with one basic
principle, that freedom is a universal human right. So that,
regardless of where you are born on the earth, what language
you speak, what religion you practice or don't practice, there
is something innate in the human being that wants to be free
and wants to exercise that freedom.
And so, there are sort of two sides, I think, to the answer
of your question. One is, with governments that repress their
own people, what are the tools of influence and leverage that
we can use to encourage them to move in the right direction?
The other side of that is, what support can we give to the
individuals who are on the frontlines of advocating for freedom
and human rights in their countries? And so, funding and other
kinds of support to them is critical. Whether it is in Burma or
Cuba or in the Middle East, those human frustrations I think
are the same. And it is important to remember them, but also
use those tools of influence that we have as well.
Mr. Donovan. So, you would suggest, besides external
influences like the United States Government, supporting the
internal influences on trying to change the suppression of
human rights is equally as important?
Ms. Schnetzer. Yes, sir, I do. I think it is important to
provide support and encouragement and the spotlight, and all
the things that we can do for those who want that support.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you.
Mr. Bromley, 2 seconds because the chairman is ready to
shut down.
Mr. Bromley. Absolutely. And in the LGBT context, changing
hearts and minds is a long-term objective, but it is one that
we are making progress on. U.S. ``carrots'' diplomatically are
working. And when the President travels and speaks about LGBT
issues, it really does make a difference. When he traveled to
Kenya last year and spoke at State House about LGBT issues as a
fundamental human right, that really did change the discourse
in Kenya. And there were some really nasty bills that were
moving through the Parliament in Kenya that have disappeared.
It does make a difference. The U.S. is a thought leader,
and when we speak, people do pay attention.
Mr. Donovan. That is good to know.
Thank you all for your answers.
Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Donovan.
We go to Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Farr, I wanted to follow up on Mr. Sires' earlier
question about Egypt and the state of affairs there for Coptic
Christians, in particular, but religious minorities overall. I
wondered if you could just expand on your statement a little
bit.
I had a chance to visit there probably a little less than a
year ago, met with some Coptic Christian leaders and families
who felt that the situation has improved dramatically. But I
just wonder if you could qualify your comments and expand on
that a little.
Mr. Farr. Sure. I was in Egypt under the regime of Mubarak
and met with a number of Egyptian Coptics and others, including
Muslims at the Al Azhar University. At the time the Coptic
Christians were saying pretty much the same thing. ``We're
doing okay. We have to keep our heads down. We have periodic
problems. But please don't come in and make trouble for us.''
That was followed, of course, by the so-called Arab Spring,
where things were completely turned upside down for Coptic
Christians and other minorities. Now they do seem to have
stabilized.
My only point is that I think it is a mistake to be too
shortsighted or at least look at a short horizon. We don't know
what is going to happen in Egypt. I don't think we should be
turning it upside down ourselves, but I do believe we should be
planning for the future and planting more seeds than we are for
the idea that, whatever happens in Egypt, you have to have
religious freedom for all these citizens. You have to allow
everyone to participate in this country.
Egypt fancies itself an emerging democracy, I believe, not
a dictatorship. So, I think we could be doing more to play into
that over the long-term.
I hope that answers your question.
Ms. Gabbard. Yes. Thank you.
And forgive me if you have already covered Bangladesh. I
was not here earlier. But I wanted to bring up the recent
hackings, attacks, and other horrific violence that has
occurred, in particular, amongst the Hindu, Christian,
Buddhist, atheist, LGBT, secularist communities. You know,
these attacks have been highlighted more in the news recently,
but, in fact, in 2013, Hindu temples, 700 to 1500 homes were
vandalized or burned, 47 temples destroyed. We are seeing
similar trends in the years since and, of course, most
recently, different seculars, bloggers, and others have been
attacked in the street. Clearly, the Government of Bangladesh
is not in control of the situation there. It continues to get
worse.
For whomever would like to comment, what can be done to get
the Government of Bangladesh to take the necessary action to
quell these attacks that are creating such a terror-like
atmosphere for the citizens there?
Ambassador Lagon. If I may, I think there is a problem
throughout South Asia, not only in Bangladesh, of religious
groups or people because of their gender identity being
targeted.
Freedom House, in assessing human rights in countries
around the world, not only looks at how governments act and how
they treat or persecute groups, but how freedom is felt in
societies. In places like Bangladesh, you are in danger, under
threat, or vulnerable.
We must not only insist that governments not repress the
voice of opposition or minorities, but, in fact, that they
implement justice. Laws on paper or treaties that have been
ratified are meaningless if governments do not make sure that
people are not subject to violence or that people have true
access to justice.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you.
Mr. Farr. If I might just add to that?
Ms. Gabbard. Please.
Mr. Farr. When people abuse others for religious reasons,
that is religious persecution. So, it is very important to
understand why this is happening. Often, it is because of an
extremist interpretation of Islam.
Sometimes it is governments are complicit; sometimes they
are not. And so, sorting this out is very important in
constructing a response.
I would mention again that H.R. 1150, which this committee
has passed out and the House has passed, creates something
called an entity of particular concern, which is added to the
countries of particular concern list, which would identify
entities within country, terrorist groups or otherwise, who are
responsible for this kind of abuse.
It also calls upon the State Department to construct a list
of foreign individuals who engage in gross violations. So, this
is refining the stick, if you will.
But, at the end of the day when people are abusing others
for religious reasons, one of the answers has to be to free, if
you like--I don't particularly like this word--but the
moderates within that tradition, wherever it is. They cannot
speak out in most of these countries because of the laws and
practices.
So, promoting religious freedom is focusing on that problem
as well, and we don't do a very good job of it. We need to do
better.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Thank you very much, Tulsi.
Thank you to our witnesses here, to Ambassador Lagon and
Amanda Schnetzer and Dr. Farr and Mark Bromley. We very much
appreciate the work, also, that you have done, Ambassador, that
your organization has documented that this is the 10th year of
decline of global freedom.
This committee has moved legislation to try to address some
of these issues. The Global Magnitsky Act was one that we
recently passed out of committee. We also, on the subject of
human rights in North Korea, passed the legislation here that
we feel helped create that environment in which the
administration, complying with that law, spoke out on North
Korean human rights and worked with the United Nations in order
to try to take action there.
But there is so much work to be done here. And so, we want
to continue to encourage each of you. You have given us a lot
to consider. And I also appreciate the insights that came from
many of our members here testifying and in their cross-
examination with you witnesses here today. So, thank you very
much.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]