[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 145 (Thursday, October 16, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Page S12733]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      RELIGIOUS LIBERTY FOR IRAQIS

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to discuss something that I 
consider a major cornerstone to any free society--religious freedom.
  I recently offered an amendment during the markup that would 
condition the money going to the Coalition Provisional Authority, CPA, 
by ensuring the preservation of ``full rights to religious freedom for 
all individuals, including a prohibition on laws which would 
criminalize blasphemy and apostasy.'' The first part of that phrase, 
``full rights to religious freedom for all individuals,'' is extremely 
important given the recent historical record on constitutions that 
established Islam as the official religion of the state. Pakistan is an 
Islamic Republic in which the constitution extends some rights to 
groups to engage in their religious practices.
  However, the constitution does not allow for the freedom of 
conscience of individual believers, either within different sects of 
Islam or for those wishing to convert. Therefore, the biggest danger 
may be to those who do not subscribe to the prevailing interpretation 
of Islam. With the Afghan constitution just now coming to light, the 
international community and the Afghan people are slowly becoming aware 
that their constitution will not preserve their individual right to 
believe what they wish.
  On October 1, 2003, the New York Times published an op-ed piece 
written by members of the United States Commission on Religious Freedom 
which precisely outlined the significant importance of only supporting 
a constitution that, and I quote, ``clearly and unequivocally enshrines 
human rights and religious freedom.'' We must not settle for anything 
less and we must not encourage the Afghan people to settle for any 
less. As stated in the article, ``After all, it is not just 
Afghanistan's future that is at stake. Iraqis are watching to see what 
minimum standards of individual rights will be acceptable to the United 
States.''
  In addition, the last part of the phrase which would prohibit 
criminalization of blasphemy and apostasy is equally as important. As 
much as the constitution must be absolutely secular, those who would 
freely renounce their faith, apostasy, or those who would speak out 
profanely against religion, blasphemy, must have their rights 
preserved. The freedom of religion is more than just the ability to 
practice one's faith, but is central to other rights and freedoms, 
including a free press, public assembly, free speech or the right to 
petition the government. All of these freedoms will be circumscribed if 
religious freedom is not part of an Iraqi constitution and a 
reconstituted Iraq.
  My amendment, which also appears in the House language, would also 
require the President to submit a report to the Congress every 90 days 
detailing efforts to make religious freedom a major tenet of the Iraqi 
constitution. If Secretary Powell's recent statement is correct, then 
there should be a constitution in six months. That would, at most, 
require two reports on the status of the constitution if completed 
within 6 months.
  In my view, religious freedom is the bedrock on which freedom, hope 
and progress rest and should be a top priority as we discuss the many 
foreign policy issues at hand.
  I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times op-ed article be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Oct. 1, 2003]

                        Silenced Again in Kabul

                (By Preeta D. Bansal and Felice D. Gaer)

       Washington.--American efforts to build a democratic, 
     tolerant Afghanistan are facing a serious challenge: the 
     draft of the Afghan constitution, which may be made public as 
     early as this week, does not yet provide for crucial human 
     rights protections, including freedom of thought, conscience 
     and religion. The United States and the international 
     community should insist that the draft presented by the 
     constitutional commission explicitly protect these core human 
     rights for all Afghans.
       Despite reports to the contrary, the current draft versions 
     of the constitution enshrine particular schools of Islamic 
     law, or Shariah, that criminalize dissent and criticism of 
     Islam through blasphemy laws.
       If this draft is ratified in December by the loya jirga, or 
     grand council, the freedoms of Afghan citizens would continue 
     to be in the hands of judges educated in Islamic law, rather 
     than in civil law. Official charges of blasphemy, apostasy or 
     other religious crimes could still be used to suppress 
     debate, just as they were under the Taliban.
       Making changes in the draft is all the more important 
     because, as Afghanistan's Human Rights Commission and the 
     United Nations' Assistance Mission in Afghanistan have 
     reported, Afghan reformers seeking to express their views on 
     their new constitution have been hindered by threats, 
     harassment and even imprisonment. In one case, an editor and 
     a reporter have been charged with blasphemy for publishing an 
     article questioning the role of Islam in the state.
       On our recent trip to Kabul as members of the bipartisan 
     United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, 
     we met many Muslims who recognize the compatibility of Islam 
     with human rights. Yet these Muslims are being intimidated 
     into silence by vocal and well-armed extremists.
       Freedom-loving Afghans won't be able to rely on 
     conscientious judges to protect religious freedom without an 
     explicit reference to it in the constitution. Afghanistan's 
     chief justice, Fazl Hadi Shinwari, for example, has shown 
     little regard for those who disagree with his hard-line 
     interpretation of Islam. He told us that he accepted the 
     international standards protected by the Universal 
     Declaration on Human Rights--with three exceptions: freedom 
     of expression, freedom of religion and equality of the sexes. 
     ``This is the only law,'' the chief justice told us, pointing 
     to the Koran on his desk.
       Even in a self-proclaimed Islamic republic, however, all 
     citizens, Muslims as well as non-Muslims, must be free to 
     debate the role of religion and to question prevailing 
     orthodoxies without fear of being subjected to trials, prison 
     or death. At a minimum, Afghan leaders should amend the draft 
     constitution to specifically ensure the human rights 
     guarantees that Afghanistan has already accepted and ratified 
     in six international treaties. Afterward, the United States 
     must ensure the safety of reformers who want to speak out at 
     the loya jirga to ensure that the constitution of Afghanistan 
     makes possible a free and just society based on the rule of 
     law.
       While respecting that Afghans should determine their own 
     future, United States officials must not let a ``hands off'' 
     policy lead to political conditions that will embolden 
     repression and enable a few to hijack the future from the 
     many Afghans who hope to embrace freedom.
       After all, it is not just Afghanistan's future that is at 
     stake. Iraqis are watching to see what minimum standards of 
     individual rights will be acceptable to the United States. 
     Unfortunately, the message that the Afghan draft constitution 
     is giving Iraq is the wrong one. We should instead send our 
     own message to President Hamid Karzai, to Afghan officials 
     and to the Afghan people: Americans will only support a state 
     with a constitution that clearly and unequivocally enshrines 
     human rights and religious freedom.

                          ____________________