[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 147 (Thursday, October 15, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12642-S12643]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for some months now, pressure has been
building for the enactment of legislation that would address the long-
neglected but widespread problem of religious persecution in a number
of countries, notably persecution of Christians. This legislation,
which has been approved by both Houses of Congress and has been sent to
the White House, addresses that problem in a manner that will allow the
flexibility to protect U.S. interests. Because there was no Committee
Report for this legislation, it is important that appropriate guidance
be given as to the intent behind the legislation, for the benefit both
of the Executive Branch and, in particular, the Commission established
by the Act. As an original cosponsor of the legislation, I wish to
supplement the Statement of Managers submitted by Mr. Nickles to draw
particular attention to two provisions in the Act that address what is
the fundamental duty of any government: to protect the rights of its
own citizens.
The primary purpose of this bill is to address the rampant
persecution in many foreign countries by the governments of those
countries against their own people. But however repugnant we find
persecution of citizens of foreign countries--and properly so--it is
even worse when we find that the U.S. government has too often turned a
blind eye to violations of Americans' religious freedom by persecuting
regimes. For example, the State Department has collaborated with the
denial of religious freedom by shutting down Christian services on the
premises of the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) and punished a
whistle-blowing State Department official who protested. Similarly, the
State Department has refused to take any meaningful action to secure
the release of an unknown number of minor U.S. citizens who have been
kept from leaving Saudi Arabia and who have been forcibly converted to
Islam. This is an especially acute problem in the case of girls, who
will not be able to leave Saudi Arabia even after reaching the age of
majority--in effect, theirs is a life sentence.
This bill addresses both of these issues, and the intent of Congress
is clear. First, the bill requires the State Department to report on
both practices as they affect the rights of American citizens (section
102(b)(1)(B) (i) and (ii)). This report should be detailed and specific
both as to the nature of the violations and the remedial actions that
have been applied. Second, because forced religious conversion is among
the violations that mandate presidential action under this bill,
documentation of the victimization of minor U.S. citizens in this
manner by any foreign government should be of particular note in the
President's decision to take action. Third, section 107 mandates access
for U.S. citizens to diplomatic missions and consular posts for the
purpose of religious services on the same basis as the many other
nongovernmental activities unrelated to the diplomatic mission that
frequently are permitted access. Fourth, the Commission should take
particular note of Congress' intent in the provisions relating to
violations of Americans' rights in making its recommendations and
should be strict in reviewing U.S. government policies in this area.
And fifth, notice of these violations of U.S. citizens' rights should
prompt a thorough review of the Department of State's too-often
dismissive attitude toward these concerns in comparison to its desire
to cultivate good relations with foreign governments.
access to u.s. missions abroad
It is important to note that these concerns were not invented in the
abstract but are drawn from real problems of real people. On the
question of the State Department's negative attitude toward the desire
of American citizens to be afforded the opportunity for worship in
countries where this is forbidden, the following is relevant (from The
American Spectator, ``Saving Faith: Why won't the State Dept. stand up
for Christians?'' By Tom Bethell, April 1997):
The Saudi dictatorship forbids all non-Muslim religious
activity, but services were for years held on embassy and
consular grounds in Riyadh and Jeddah. In the 1970's,
hundreds of Catholics attended Mass within the U.S. mission
each week; Protestant services were equally well attended,
and Mormons had their own service. (No American diplomats
thought to be Jewish are stationed in Saudi Arabia.) Within
the British mission, such religious services continue today.
But the U.S. mission has now phased them out. In contrast,
the U.S. consulate in Jeddah sets aside special facilities
for Islamic worship, five times a day, whether by Americans,
Saudis, or embassy employees from other countries.
I met with Tim Hunter at a restaurant near his home in
Arlington, Virginia. Before joining the Foreign Service, he
told me, he had worked for the U.S. Army in
counterintelligence and as a political appointee to various
federal agencies. When he arrived in Saudi Arabia in 1993 he
was told by the Consul General that his ``informal duties''
would include monitoring the ``Tuesday lecture,'' a euphemism
for the Catholic Mass held on consulate grounds. By then, the
number of attendees had dwindled to fifteen. The reason was
not hard to find. Hunter's job was to tell any inquiring U.S.
citizens that the embassy knew nothing about any such service
or ``Tuesday meeting.'' Only if callers were extremely
persistent was he to meet with them and gauge their
trustworthiness.
Since this was entirely irregular and contrary to U.S. law,
Hunter decided to blow the whistle. He even told the FBI what
was going on. Within days of telling visiting officials from
the Inspector General's office he was ordered to return to
the U.S. A State Department review panel observed that Hunter
had not ``absorbed the Foreign Service culture''--an
understatement. In April 1995, Hunter recalled, ``two
uniformed officers of the State Department's Diplomatic
Security Service, displaying brightly polished 9mm caliber
pistols, appeared at the office of my supervisor [James
Byrnes] and advised him that I was being removed from further
employment.'' Today Hunter calls the U.S. mission in Saudi
Arabia a ``rogue part of the U.S. diplomatic establishment.''
Thomas Friedman provided an oblique corroboration in the New
York Times, noting in December 1995 that the U.S. has
``withdrawn diplomats from Riyadh whom the Saudis felt became
too knowledgeable and frank about problems in the kingdom.''
Section 107 of this bill will remedy this problem. The State
Department may not adopt a cavalier attitude toward the requests of
U.S. citizens for access for the purpose of religious worship or
suggest that such requests are uniquely unrelated to the conduct of the
diplomatic mission in comparison to other permitted activities, for
example, the dispensing and social consumption of alcoholic beverages
and the serving of pork products, that are also contrary to Saudi law.
Many other social and American community activities without any
discernable diplomatic purpose will no doubt continue, and in most
cases should continue, but religious service access requests under
section 107 may receive no less consideration. The fact that several
other foreign consulates afford access to worship for their citizens
disproves any
[[Page S12643]]
suggestion that diplomatic interests preclude similar provisions for
Americans by the State Department. The annual report required under the
bill must make this clear, and the Commission should give strict
scrutiny to enforcement of this provision according to its clear
intention. Finally, the victimization of Mr. Hunter for blowing the
whistle on this matter is unconscionable, and the Commission should
recommend and monitor speedy redress of his status by the State
Department.
forced conversion of minor u.s. citizens
If the neglect of the worship needs of Americans abroad is
deplorable, inaction in the cases of the victimization of minors who
have been taken to a foreign land, subjected to forced religious
conversion, and prevented from returning to the United States where
they would enjoy religious freedom is intolerable. One particular case
illustrates the severity of this problem, that of Alia and Aisha Al
Gheshiyan. In Chicago, Illinois, on January 25th, 1986, Alia, aged
seven, and Aisha, aged three and a half, visited the apartment of their
father, Khalid Bin Hamad Al Gheshiyan, a citizen and Saudi Arabia. The
girl's mother, Patricia Roush had been awarded custody of the children
by a U.S. court but had agreed to permit their father to have the
children for an overnight visit. He promised to return them to their
mother the next day. However, instead of returning the girls to their
mother, Al Gheshiyan abducted the two girls and took them to Saudi
Arabia. On January 28th 1986, an Illinois court issued a warrant for Al
Gheshiyan's arrest on charges of child abduction.
Having been removed from the United States and placed under the law
of Saudi Arabia, where no non-Islamic region may be practiced, the
girls (who had been baptized as Christians) were obliged to give up
their previous Christian identity. According to their mother, who has
secured documentation of her daughters' mandatory conversion to Islam:
My daughters Alia and Aisha Gheshiyan were raised in a
Christian home by a Christian mother and were not familiar
with Islam or their father's family, culture or religion.
(Which he stated he was disobeying when he was in the United
States for twelve years). My daughters are now young women
who are nineteen and sixteen years of age with no possible
choices of religious freedom. If they do not practice Islam,
they could be killed--quite possibly by their own father.
This is not uncommon in Saudi Arabia. If a child, especially
a daughter, does not submit to her father's commands, he has
the right to put her to death.
It is important to remember that in cases like that of Alia and
Aisha, their plight amounts to a life sentence, because under Saudi
law, even after attaining majority (as Alia already has) they may not
travel abroad without their father's permission (in the case of
unmarried girls and woman) or their husband's permission (in the case
of married women).
As if the total denial of rights to these Americans were not bad
enough, even more deplorable has been the response of the Department of
State, which has simply dismissed the matter as a ``child custody''
case and has advised Ms. Roush to hire a lawyer for proceedings in a
Shari's religious court--a court in which she, as a non-Muslim and a
woman, has virtually no standing. There is no evidence that the State
Department has ever dealt with this (and other such forced conversions)
as not just a private dispute or a routine consular access case but as
a state-to-state matter involving not only the solemn obligation of the
government of the United States to secure the rights of its citizens
but of the indefensible hostility of the Saudi government toward
religious freedom. If the United States could make the fate of
prominent Soviet Jewish ``refuse-niks'' Natan Scharansky and Ida Nudel
a matter of national policy in American relations with the Soviet
Union--as we should have--the fate of Alia and Aisha must be seen as a
litmus test of the willingness of the State Department to give proper
weight to the requirements of this statue in its relations with the
Riyadh government. The Commission should recommend specific action as
the highest level to ensure that the United States no longer gives the
impression that such treatment of its citizens is acceptable or is only
a routine ``private'' or ``family'' matter.
____________________