[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 109 (Thursday, July 22, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H5974-H5981]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THIS ADMINISTRATION MUST FIND ITS VOICE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Critz). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. WOLF. This administration must find its voice on human rights.
On April 21 the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof authored a
piece that closed with the following words: ``If President Obama is
ever going to find his voice on Sudan, it had better be soon.''
Two weeks after the article ran, I wrote the President, and I submit
a copy of the letter for the Record, putting forth a number of
recommendations in the hopes in salvaging the administration's
languishing Sudan policy. My concerns echoed those voiced by six
respected NGOs who the week prior had run an ad in the Washington Post
and Politico calling for Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice to
exercise ``personal and sustained leadership on Sudan'' in the face of
a ``stalemated policy'' and waning U.S. credibility as a mediator.
Sadly, Kristof's assessment can be applied elsewhere around the
world. It seems that President Obama and the administration as a whole
have struggled to find its voice when it comes to the promotion and
protection of basic human rights and religious freedom. These most
cherished ideals, which are at the very heart of the American
experiment, have time and again been sidelined by this administration's
foreign policy. This is a grievous mistake which has dire implications
for the world's dissidents and democrats who yearn for freedom and look
to America to be their advocate.
Looking back to Sudan, a nation I first visited in 1989, and most
recently in 2004 when Senator Sam Brownback and I were the first
congressional delegation to go to Darfur where there is genocide, I
remain deeply concerned
[[Page H5975]]
that the country is headed for a resumption of a civil war if the U.S.
fails to exert its necessary leadership. While there were certainly
times that I was critical of the Bush administration's policy, it is
indisputable that President Bush and former Special Envoy John Danforth
were instrumental in securing, after 2\1/2\ years of negotiations, the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the CPA, which brought about an end to
the brutal 20-year civil war in which more than 2 million perished,
most of whom were civilians.
A recent New York Times column by author David Eggers and Sudan
activist John Prendergast titled, ``In Sudan, War is Around the
Corner,'' spoke to this reality. The pair wrote, ``Shortly after George
W. Bush entered the White House, he decided he would put the full
diplomatic leverage of the United States to work in ending this war,
one of the bloodiest conflicts of the 20th century. He succeeded.''
Eggers and Prendergast rightly noted that when the South is given the
opportunity to vote for independence in January, as guaranteed by the
CPA, the conventional wisdom is that they will waste no time in
severing ties with Khartoum. This shouldn't come as a surprise
considering that President Bashir remains at the helm of Khartoum. Long
an indicted war criminal, he was earlier this month also officially
charged by the International Criminal Court with orchestrating genocide
in Darfur. Bashir's murderous aims in Darfur are not without precedent.
With just 6 months to go, Khartoum persists in dragging its feet,
undermining installing the process at every turn. Furthermore, the
deeply flawed April elections do not bode well for the fate of a free
and fair and timely referendum process. Failure to deliver on the long-
awaited promise of a respectable referendum could have grave
implications.
While some of the administration's rhetoric has improved of late,
notably during Vice President Biden's trip to Africa, we have yet to
see the administration apply real consequences to Khartoum. In fact,
most Sudan watchers would agree that we have seen little to no evidence
since the administration's release of their Sudan policy that they have
any intention of utilizing sticks. Rather, they appear to be relying
exclusively on carrots.
A July 14 Associated Press article entitled ``Promises, Promises:
U.S. Fails to Punish Sudan'' described the administration's track
record on Sudan this way: ``The words of the Obama administration were
unequivocal: Sudan must do more to fight terror and improve human
rights. If it did, it would be rewarded. If not, it would be punished.
Nine months later, problems with Sudan have grown worse. Yet the
administration has not clamped down. If anything, it has made small
conciliatory gestures.''
Eggers and Prendergast, in their New York Times piece, close with a
chilling warning as it relates to the months ahead in Sudan: ``This is
President Obama's Rwanda moment, and it is unfolding now, in slow
motion. It is not too late to prevent the coming war in Sudan, and
protect the peace we helped build 5 years ago.''
{time} 1850
President Obama and his advisers need not rely on the warnings of
those in the advocacy community and on Capitol Hill when it comes to
the high stakes in Sudan in the days ahead. Rather, they can simply
look to the Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. intelligence
community, which recently predicted that over the next 5 years, listen
to this, ``a new mass killing or genocide is most likely to occur in
southern Sudan,'' more than any other country.
A welcomed step toward preserving the tenuous peace would be to
provide Southern Sudan the air defense system that the Government of
Southern Sudan requested and President Bush reportedly approved in
2008. This defensive capability would help neutralize Khartoum's major
tactical advantage, a virtual necessity in light of the scorched earth
tactics and Antanov bombers that have marked their genocidal campaigns
of the past and would make peace and stability more likely following
the referendum vote.
During the campaign for the Presidency, then-Candidate Obama said,
``Washington must respond to the ongoing genocide and the ongoing
failure to implement the CPA with consistency and strong
consequences.'' These words still ring true today, and yet, apart from
a recent National Security Council statement expressing support for
``international efforts to bring those responsible for genocide and war
crimes in Darfur to justice,'' we have seen an administration and a
President struggling to find its voice on this most pressing human
rights issue. Special Envoy Gration, at a recent event on Capitol Hill,
reportedly went so far as to say that the genocide charges against
Bashir will make his job harder.
What about the people who died as a result of this genocide in Sudan?
Sudan is not an anomaly. Consider China, a country where human rights,
religious freedom, and civil society continue to be under fierce attack
by the country's ruling Communist Party.
From the outset, this administration chose to marginalize human
rights in the context of U.S.-China bilateral relations. On the first
trip to Asia, Secretary of State Clinton was downright dismissive of
human rights concerns saying that ``those issues can't interfere'' with
economic, security, or environmental concerns.
A firestorm of criticism ensued. Human rights organizations were
rightly dismayed. How had impassioned advocacy for the dignity of every
person been relegated to a position of mere interference? And this in
spite of Obama campaign promises to be ``frank with the Chinese'' and
``press them to respect human rights.''
In China, we again see an administration which seems unable to find
its voice on human rights. A glance at the news from the last several
weeks alone makes it painfully clear that that voice, the voice which
speaks out on behalf of those enduring tremendous persecution and
oppression at the hands of their own government, has never been more
necessary.
A July 5 Associated Press story reported that Yu Jue, ``A best-
selling author and fierce critic of the Communist Party was taken into
custody by the police on Monday for reasons that were unclear.''
The AP reported on July 15 that ``dozens of blogs by some of China's
most outspoken users have been abruptly shut down while popular Twitter
services appear to be the newest target in government efforts to
control social networking.''
Veteran dissident Liu Xianbin, an original signatory of Charter 08, a
historic pro-democracy manifesto, was arrested by Chinese authorities
on June 27 on suspicion of ``inciting subversion of state power.''
July also marks the 1-year anniversary of the deadly suppression of
Uighur protestors last summer in the northwest of China. China's
beleaguered Uighur Muslim community continues to face severe repression
in the aftermath of the violence. According to multiple independent
news sources, authorities installed 40,000 security cameras throughout
the city in anticipation of the 1-year anniversary.
Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy,
authored a piece in the Washington Post on the occasion of the
anniversary. He highlighted a report by the Uighur Human Rights Project
aptly titled, ``Can Anyone Hear Us?'' which documents ``the firing on
protesters that led to hundreds of deaths, as well as mass beatings,
the arbitrary detention of thousands, and a 10-month communication
shutdown that cut off the region from the outside world.''
Gershman closes his piece with the following charge: ``The United
States and the international community should also support the Uighurs'
3-month-old call for an independent international investigation into
the events of last July and the opening of a meaningful dialogue with
Chinese authorities. Uighur voices have been crying in the wilderness.
It's time to listen.''
It is indeed time to listen. It is also time to add America's voice
to the chorus of voices within China pressing for greater freedoms and
basic human rights.
Just last week, I had the honor of meeting with two courageous
Chinese human rights lawyers visiting the U.S. for legal training and
to brief policymakers on the situation facing those defending rule of
law in China. These
[[Page H5976]]
lawyers often choose to represent, at their own peril, those human
rights activists, house church leaders, bloggers, et cetera, who face
persecution in the form of trumped-up charges and the absence of due
process. The lawyers said quite pointedly that their lives improve, and
those of their cohorts in prison or facing other pressures by the
Chinese Government, when the West speaks out for their plight and
raises their cases by name. Why does not the Obama administration speak
out for the plight and raise their cases by name?
This sentiment is nothing new. I remarked that they are China's
Sakharovs and Solzhenitsyns. Similarly, these giants in the cause of
freedom time and again recounted how their lives in the gulags improved
when the West and President Reagan championed their cause and
challenged the lies that were at the foundation of the Soviet system.
It seems this administration, the Obama administration, has forgotten
the lessons of history to the detriment of China's young democrats.
In their annual Freedom in the World Report, the NGO Freedom House
documented a litany of abuses perpetrated by the Chinese Government and
then made the following observation: ``While these acts of repression
are disturbing, so is the absence of protest from the democratic world.
When the Soviet Union arrested a dissident or suppressed religious
expression, it drew widespread condemnation by figures ranging from
heads of state to trade union leaders, as well as by human rights
organizations and prominent humanitarians. China's current actions, by
contrast, elicit little more than boilerplate criticism, and just as
often they provoke no response whatsoever.''
Elsewhere in Asia we see an administration seeming to align itself
with the oppressor over the oppressed. Look at Vietnam. On July 19, AFP
reported that Kurt Campbell, Assistant Secretary of State for East
Asian Affairs, said, ``As I look at all the friends in Southeast Asia,
I think we have the greatest prospects in the future with Vietnam.''
This is a strange affinity and statement to have with a government
that our own State Department said ``increased its suppression of
dissent, arresting and convicting several political activists'' during
the reporting period of the 2009 Country Report on Human Rights
Practices.
{time} 1900
The State Department report continues: ``Several editors and
reporters from prominent newspapers were fired for reporting on
official corruption and outside blogging on political topics. Bloggers
were detained and arrested under vague national security provisions for
criticizing the government and were prohibited from posting material
the government saw as sensitive or critical. The government also
monitored email and regulated or suppressed Internet content. The
government utilized or tolerated the use of force to resolve disputes
with a Buddhist order in Lam Dong and Catholic groups with unresolved
property claims.''
Today, Secretary Clinton is in Vietnam for the ASEAN meetings.
Initial news reports indicate that she raised human rights concerns in
a meeting with the foreign minister and afterwards with journalists,
and I appreciate that. However, a new New York Times story today
pointed out that the timing of her comments on the sensitive issues
``suggested that she wanted to make her point and move on.'' If the
administration is truly concerned about human rights and religious
freedom in Vietnam, they would take the concrete step of placing
Vietnam back on the Countries of Particular Concern, the CPC list, as
has been recommended by the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Leonard Leo, chairman of the commission, rightly points out that
Vietnam's human rights record has only improved when its ``feet were
held to the fire.'' Leo continued: ``But once Vietnam, with U.S. help,
joined the World Trade Organization in 2007, religious freedom and
human rights advocates have experienced waves of arrest,'' Leo said.
Waves of arrests from our ``friend'' in Southeast Asia? Are the
Vietnamese, who are persecuting the Catholic Church, the Montagnards,
the bishops, and killing people our friends?
Or consider North Korea. Without question, this country is one of the
darkest places on the globe. More than 200,000 North Koreans, including
children, are being held in political prison camps. It is estimated
that between 400,000 and 1 million people, 400,000 and 1 million
people, have died in these camps, having been worked to death or
starved to death. Is anyone in this administration going to speak out
or say anything or do anything about that?
Last summer an op ed in The Wall Street Journal featured a quote from
a North Korean refugee woman who said: ``If I had a chance to meet with
President Obama, I would first like to tell him how North Korean women
are being sold like livestock in China and, second, to know that North
Korean labor camps are hell on Earth.'' Let me just repeat what she
said again. She said: ``If I had a chance to meet with President Obama,
I would first like to tell him how North Korean women are being sold
like livestock in China and, second, to know that North Korean labor
camps are hell on Earth.''
However, because North Korea possesses nuclear weapons and threatens
not only to use them against neighboring countries, but also to share
nuclear weapon technology with such rogue states as Burma and Syria,
the international community, the U.S. included, has tended to downplay
or outright ignore the horrendous human rights abuses in North Korea in
the interest of trying to negotiate, through the so-called six-party
talks, an end to its nuclear program. When North Korea falls and
freedom comes, a lot of people in the West, and this administration, I
think, will really feel guilty for not having spoken out and advocated
for these people.
But nothing has been achieved by these negotiations, and the recent
sinking of the South Korean ship has stalled efforts to revive the six-
nation talks. Even in the face of North Korea's nuclear ambitions, it
is inexcusable that its abhorrent human rights record is relegated to
the back burner and that the North Korea Freedom Act, passed by
Congress, has not even been fully implemented. Why has the Obama
administration had so little to say about those trapped in ``hell on
Earth''?
Now, looking to the Middle East, we again see an administration whose
advocacy on behalf of persecuted peoples has been sorely lacking. A
February 6 ABC news story opened with the following observations:
``Across the Middle East, where Christianity was born and its followers
once made up a sizeable portion of the population, Christians are now
tiny minorities.''
This is perhaps no more true than in Iraq. With the exception of
Israel, the Bible contains more references to the cities, regions and
nations of ancient Iraq than any other country. Abraham came from Iraq.
Tragically, Iraq's ancient Christian community is facing extinction.
The U.N. High Commission for Refugees estimated that some 250,000 to
500,000 Christians have left the country since 2003 and about half the
Christian population and a large number also have been killed.
While I have appreciated and am very grateful for Ambassador Chris
Hill's commitment to this issue during his time as U.S. Ambassador, and
while I believe that Michael Corbin, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State who is in charge with working on Iraqi minority issues, cares
deeply about the issue, and both are good men, I see a continued
unwillingness, unwillingness, at the highest levels of the State
Department to acknowledge and ultimately address the challenges facing
these ancient-faith communities.
A 2009 column in The Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger summed it
up this way: ``Candidate Obama last fall sent a letter to Condoleezza
Rice expressing `my concern about the safety and well-being of Iraq's
Christian and other non-Muslim religious minorities.' He asked what
steps the U.S. was taking to protect `these communities of religious
freedom.' Candidate Obama said he wanted these groups represented in
Iraq's governing institutions. Does President Obama believe these
things?''
I long advocated, both during the previous administration and in the
current administration, for the U.S. to
[[Page H5977]]
adopt a comprehensive policy to address the unique situation of these
defenseless minorities. I have also pressed for a high-level human
rights representative at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Such a U.S.
presence is critical with a U.S. presence in Iraq drawing down and our
bilateral relations now governed by the Strategic Framework Agreement.
Among other things, we must be actively engaging the Government of
Iraq to press for adequate security at places of worship and ensure
minority representation in local police units. These are just some of
the steps that could be taken to assist in the preservation of these
ancient-faith communities. We have a moral obligation to do so. The
Obama administration has a moral obligation to do so.
I was reminded of this again last week while meeting with a visiting
high-level delegation of Iraqi bishops. Their impassioned pleas must
not be ignored. We do not want to see the eradication and the
elimination of the Christian community, the Assyrian, Chaldean Catholic
community, in Iraq. We need to protect them.
Turning now to Egypt. Eli Lake pointed out in a July 18, Washington
Times piece: ``The Obama administration ended support for a small fund
operated by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo that supported groups promoting
Egyptian democracy and that bypassed any clearance from the Egyptian
Government.'' They ended it.
Ellen Bork, director of democracy and human rights at the Foreign
Policy Initiative, summarized the situation well in a recent Weekly
Standard piece. She said: ``Doing something for democracy in Egypt
would require a policy reversal in Washington. Since the end of the
Bush administration and the beginning of the Obama administration,
there has been a retreat,'' and let me say I was critical during the
Bush administration. More should have been done then, but equally now
under the Obama administration. ``There has been a retreat, including a
cut in funding for democracy programs and acquiescence to an Egyptian
veto over which groups may receive U.S. funds.'' They are going to let
the Egyptian Government that is doing the persecution decide which
group gets the funds.
Ironically, U.S. support for democracy promotion in Egypt is
dwindling at a time when the people of Egypt are increasingly
dissatisfied with the current regime. A Washington Post story yesterday
reported that ``a protest in Alexandria last month was attended by
4,000 people, a high number in Egypt, where many people are afraid to
join demonstrations.''
Lorne Craner, president of the International Republican Institute,
who has a history of caring deeply about human rights and religious
freedom, echoed these sentiments about the administration's human
rights and democracy promotion policy in Egypt and elsewhere around the
world, in recent testimony before the House Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
{time} 1910
He said, ``A lack of strong, consistent leadership from the top of
the administration has become apparent to the bureaucracy. One result
is the cutting or slowing of funding for democracy programs in
countries like Belarus, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and
Zimbabwe. Another consequence is that our embassies abroad''--and this
is painful to hear--``are providing less diplomatic support on human
rights and democracy. Asked about the U.S. position on democracy in
Egypt, our Ambassador to Cairo praises the country's press freedoms.''
The American Embassy in Cairo should be an island of freedom. The
American embassy in every country should be an island of freedom.
Those yearning for greater freedoms in Egypt are not alone in facing
the ire of their government. So, too, Egypt's Coptic Christian
community faces increasing hardship. USCIRF, the commission, in its
recently released report, described a deteriorating situation for this
community. USCIRF found that ``the reporting period marked a
significant upsurge in violence targeting Coptic Orthodox Christians.
The Egyptian Government has not taken sufficient steps to halt
repression of and discrimination against Christians and other religious
believers, or in many cases to punish those responsible for violence or
other severe violations of religious freedom. This increase in violence
and the failure to prosecute those responsible forces a growing climate
of impunity. And even though our own State Department has concluded
that the last 3 years have been marked by a decline of religious
freedom conditions in Egypt, there has not been a significant change in
U.S. policy.
Elsewhere in the region, Morocco is actually an example where
American citizens, many of whom are people of faith, are receiving
hostile treatment by the Moroccan Government. Over the last 4 months,
dozens of American citizens and scores of other foreign nationals have
been deported and denied reentry into the Kingdom of Morocco for
allegedly proselytizing. Authorities have refused to turn over any
evidence or offer any explanation of the charges. Among the individuals
who were deported or denied reentry were businessmen, educators,
humanitarians, and social workers, many of whom had resided in Morocco
for over a decade in full compliance with the law. Additionally, those
deported were forced to leave the country within 2 hours of being
questioned by the authorities, having to leave everything behind.
Over the past several weeks I have met with and heard from scores of
Moroccan Christians. Many feel their voices have long been silenced,
and these events highlight some of these pressures they experience. On
March 19, I wrote to the U.S. Ambassador to Morocco, Sam Kaplan,
sharing my intent to meet the Moroccan Ambassador to the U.S. and
urging Ambassador Kaplan to ``convey to the Government of Morocco that
Members of Congress are watching these events closely and the outcome
could negatively affect our bilateral relations.''
I've also spoken with Ambassador Kaplan on several occasions and
shared with him my deep disappointment that the U.S. Embassy and the
State Department have not been more publicly outspoken on behalf of
these American citizens. It is the primary responsibility of the United
States Embassy to defend and advocate for U.S. citizens and interests
abroad. Unfortunately, the Moroccan Government has been utterly
unwilling to compromise. Perhaps they think they don't need to, given
the number of high-powered lobbyists, including several former Members
of Congress, that the Moroccan Government has on retainer. I don't know
how a former Member of Congress could ever go out and represent the
Moroccan Government knowing what they're doing to American citizens and
feel very, very comfortable. And do the American people know about
this?
And the American people should understand not only are they expelling
Americans from Morocco, but they should also know that I have urged the
Millennium Challenge Corporation, the MCC, to suspend the 5-year
compact with Morocco, which is worth $697.5 million. That's right, you,
the American taxpayer, are giving the Moroccan Government $697 million.
They're expelling Christians from Morocco--although they've hired a
couple of former Congressmen that, unfortunately, used to serve in this
body. I mean, can you believe it? They're expelling Americans, and yet
the Moroccan Government expects that we will give them $697.5 million?
I will offer an amendment on this floor when the foreign operations
bill comes up to suspend or cut this program, and I urge any Member who
wants to vote the other way to go home to wherever you're from, whether
it be the north, south, east or west, and tell your constituents,
that's right, I understand; I voted to continue to send all this money
to Morocco, $697 million. Yes, I understand we have a deficit. Yes, I
understand we have great debt. Yes, I understand they're expelling
Christians, Americans from the country, but I'm still going to give
them that money.
The MCC awards compacts on the basis of 17 key indicators of
eligibility, six of which fall under the category of ``ruling justly.''
However, recent events raise serious questions regarding the Moroccan
Government's willingness to abide by the principles outlined in the MCC
indicators. And--and I am very appreciative of this--a recent Wall
Street Journal op-ed rightly pointed out that during a time of economic
hardship, the unemployment rate at 9.5
[[Page H5978]]
percent, ``U.S. taxpayers won't tolerate financing governments that
mistreat Americans solely because of their religion.'' I appreciate the
Wall Street Journal doing that editorial.
Can the administration not find its voice when it comes to the rights
of U.S. citizens being trampled abroad? I've been assured that the
State Department is raising the matter privately with the Moroccan
Government. Frankly, this is insufficient. The manner and the means by
which we raise concerns of this nature with foreign governments
communicate a whole host of unspoken messages. I hope the lobbyists for
Morocco--particularly those who have been former Members of Congress--
are not influencing the State Department and are not influencing the
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Do we simply have a private meeting with the ambassador and ask him
to look into the matter, or does the Department's press secretary issue
a statement expressing deep concern? Or better yet, does President
Obama call the King of Morocco and make it clear that treating American
citizens this way will not be tolerated? The President should pick up
the phone and say to the head of the Moroccan Government, we will not
give you $697 million in the Millennium Challenge grant as you're
expelling Americans from your country. Each approach has distinct
undertones which highlight the level of priority and seriousness that
the U.S. Government places on a particular issue. Privately raising the
issue with Moroccan Government officials is a far cry from what we used
to see by doing it publicly.
Even as the administration is struggling to find its voice on human
rights, changes within the State Department threatens to
institutionalize the marginalization of these core issues. The State
Department's International Religious Freedom Office, IRF, has been
without ambassadorial leadership, as is required by law, for more than
18 months. After increasing pressure from Congress and religious
advocacy groups, Obama named Suzan Johnson Cook to this post in June.
She has not been confirmed. Eighteen months, nobody's there.
{time} 1920
With a void in senior leadership at the IRF office, I have been
increasingly alarmed by reports that the office is being subsumed into
the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.
Tom Farr, the first Director of the U.S. State Department Office of
International Religious Freedom, described what is happening this way
in a Washington Post online column: ``The ambassador will not report
directly to the Secretary of State as do other ambassadors at large,
all of whom are experts in their fields. The staffers who reported to
predecessors will not report to Johnson Cook should she be confirmed.
The position will be emasculated, in direct contravention of the
legislation that created it.''
In a May 25 letter to Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights
and Labor Michael Posner, I raised these concerns in detail.
I submit a copy of the letter for the Record.
If the changes described by Farr move forward, this could potentially
violate U.S. law and break with 10 years of established practice under
previous administrations, both Democratic and Republican. The
Ambassador-at-Large position was established under the International
Religious Freedom Act of 1998, of which I was the primary author, to
promote religious freedom abroad. The legislation specifically states,
``There is established within the Department of State an Office on
International Religious Freedom that shall be headed by the Ambassador-
at-Large for International Religious Freedom.''
Considering the importance of religious freedom to U.S. foreign
policy and human rights promotion, I am alarmed by the possibility that
DRL could be removing supervisory control from the Ambassador-at-Large
over the Office of International Religious Freedom.
These reported changes, combined with the long ambassadorial vacancy,
do not bode well for the Baha'i leader imprisoned in Iran's notorious
prisons or for the Ahmadi Muslim in Pakistan, subject to officially
sanctioned discrimination and persecution. Who will be their advocates?
Who will advocate for the Baha'is? Who will advocate for the Ahmadi
Muslims in Pakistan? Who will be their advocates?
The IRF office is but one example of internal changes at the State
Department. Not many people know this, but the congressionally mandated
Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, headed by a special envoy,
only has a single dedicated staff person. During the Bush
administration, there were three to five employees at various points.
An April 2010 CNN story featured the findings of a study released on
the eve of the Holocaust Remembrance Day, which found that the number
of anti-Semitic incidents more than doubled from 2008 to 2009. At a
time when anti-Semitism is on the rise globally, the special envoy is
relying almost exclusively on the already stretched thin IRF office for
her staffing needs, therefore making it more difficult for the IRF
office to fulfill its congressional mandate.
If the old adage ``personnel is policy'' is true, then you could
surmise that the absence of necessary personnel is itself a shift in
policy priorities.
There are staff vacancies also at the State Department that are
deeply troubling. On June 24, I wrote Secretary of State Clinton about
the Office of the Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues.
I submit the letter for the Record.
I was prompted to write the letter, in part, because it had come to
my attention that there was only one person working in the office. Have
you seen how China has plundered Tibet, and there is one person working
in the office?
Congress codified the position of the Special Coordinator for Tibetan
Issues as part of the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002. Not long after the
establishment of the office, Congress approved language directing that
the office ``consist of three professional, full-time staff members and
additional support staff, as needed, in addition to the special
coordinator.'' Their current inadequate staffing levels, at that point
17 months into the administration, were troubling and at odds with
congressional intent.
Further, the congressionally mandated Report on Tibet Negotiations,
which is due to Congress by March 31 of each year--and we are in July--
has not yet been submitted. These developments, or lack thereof, send a
message about the priority this administration is placing on Tibet.
Does this administration care about the plundering and the persecution
in Tibet?
I have visited Tibet. I have been there. I have seen what has taken
place in Drapchi prison. I have seen and talked to Buddhist monks who
have told me about their times. I have seen the cameras on all of the
buildings. I have seen the areas that they have bulldozed and large
areas of loss. They have taken away the Tibetan culture. I have seen
that. So does not this administration care about that?
That message is not inconsistent with the message the White House
sent last fall in declining to meet with the Dalai Lama when he was
visiting Washington--the first time since 1991 that the Nobel Prize
recipient and spiritual leader was not afforded a meeting with the
President of the United States.
In closing, the complexities of foreign policy do not escape me. I am
well aware that there are multiple dimensions to our bilateral
relations with countries around the globe, but if the United States of
America cannot be relied upon to speak out on behalf of those whose
voices have been silenced, then it is, indeed, a dark day for millions
around the world who are yearning to breathe the sweet air of freedom.
Where the administration fails to find its voice, Congress must stand
in the gap. For decades, human rights enjoyed bipartisan support in
this body. Now I fear these issues have fallen victim to bipartisan
apathy. Too often, we underestimate the power of our words or, worse
yet, the power of our silence.
The late Robert Kennedy, speaking in 1966 Cape Town, South Africa, to
a gathering of students committed to challenging the injustice of
apartheid, famously said, ``Each time a man stands up for an ideal or
acts to improve the lot of others or strikes out against injustice, he
sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a
million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a
[[Page H5979]]
current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and
resistance.''
America must stand up for the ideals upon which our own experiment in
self-governance was founded. America must strike out against injustice,
whatever form it takes. America must believe that even the mightiest
walls of oppression can tumble and work toward that end.
The hour is late and the stakes are high. Will the administration
accept this charge? Will the Obama administration accept this charge?
Can President Obama find his voice? Will the ``ripples of hope,'' of
which Bobby Kennedy spoke, once again infuse America's foreign policy?
We'll see.
House of Representatives,
May 5, 2010.
Hon. Barack H. Obama,
President, The White House,
Washington DC.
Dear Mr. President: ``If President Obama is ever going to
find his voice on Sudan, it had better be soon.'' These were
the closing words of New York Times columnist Nicholas
Kristof two weeks ago. I could not agree more with his
assessment of Sudan today. Time is running short. Lives hang
in the balance. Real leadership is needed.
Having first travelled to Sudan in 1989, my interest and
involvement in this country has spanned the better part of 20
years. I've been there five times, most recently in July 2004
when Senator Sam Brownback and I were the first congressional
delegation to go to Darfur.
Tragically, Darfur is hardly an anomaly. We saw the same
scorched earth tactics from Khartoum in the brutal 20-year
civil war with the South where more than 2 million perished,
most of whom were civilians. In September 2001, President
Bush appointed former Senator John Danforth as special envoy
and his leadership was in fact instrumental in securing,
after two and a half years of negotiations, the Comprehensive
Peace Agreement (CPA), thereby bringing about an end to the
war. I was at the 2005 signing of this historic accord in
Kenya, as was then Secretary of State Colin Powell and
Congressman Donald Payne, among others. Hopes were high for a
new Sudan. Sadly, what remains of that peace is in jeopardy
today. What remains of that hope is quickly fading.
I was part of a bipartisan group in Congress who urged you
to appoint a special envoy shortly after you came into
office, in the hope of elevating the issue of Sudan. But what
was once a successful model for Sudan policy is not having
the desired effect today. I am not alone in this belief.
Just last week, six respected NGOs ran compelling ads in
The Washington Post and Politico calling for Secretary
Clinton and Ambassador Rice to exercise ``personal and
sustained leadership on Sudan'' in the face of a ``stalemated
policy'' and waning U.S. credibility as a mediator.
In that same vein, today I join that growing chorus of
voices in urging you to empower Secretary Clinton and
Ambassador Rice to take control of the languishing Sudan
policy. They should oversee quarterly deputies' meetings to
ensure options for consequences are on the table.
There is a pressing and immediate need for renewed,
principled leadership at the highest levels--leadership
which, while recognizing the reality of the challenges facing
Sudan, is clear-eyed about the history and the record of the
internationally indicted war criminal at the helm in
Khartoum. We must not forget who we are dealing with in
Bashir and his National Congress Party (NCP). In addition to
the massive human rights abuses perpetrated by the Sudanese
government against its own people, Sudan remains on the State
Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. It is well
known that the same people currently in control in Khartoum
gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden in the early 1990s.
I believe that this administration's engagement with Sudan
to date, under the leadership of General Gration, and with
your apparent blessing, has failed to recognize the true
nature of Bashir and the NCP. Any long-time Sudan follower
will tell you that Bashir never keeps his promises.
The Washington Post editorial page echoed this sentiment
this past weekend saying of Bashir: ``He has frequently told
Western governments what they wanted to hear, only to reverse
himself when their attention drifted or it was time to
deliver . . . the United States should refrain from
prematurely recognizing Mr. Bashir's new claim to legitimacy.
And it should be ready to respond when he breaks his word.''
Note that the word was ``when'' not ``if' he breaks his word.
While the hour is late, the administration can still chart a
new course.
In addition to recommending that Secretary Clinton and
Ambassador Rice take the helm in implementing your
administration's Sudan policy, I propose the following policy
recommendations:
Move forward with the administration's stated aim of
strengthening the capacity of the security sector in the
South. A good starting point would be to provide the air
defense system that the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS)
requested and President Bush approved in 2008. This defensive
capability would help neutralize Khartoum's major tactical
advantage and make peace and stability more likely following
the referendum vote.
Do not recognize the outcome of the recent presidential
elections. While the elections were a necessary part of the
implementation of the CPA and an important step before the
referendum, they were inherently flawed and Bashir is
attempting to use them to lend an air of legitimacy to his
genocidal rule.
Clearly and unequivocally state at the highest levels that
the United States will honor the outcome of the referendum
and will ensure its implementation.
Begin assisting the South in building support for the
outcome of the referendum.
Appoint an ambassador or senior political appointee with
the necessary experience in conflict and post-conflict
settings to the U.S. consulate in Juba.
Prioritize the need for a cessation of attacks in Darfur,
complete restoration of humanitarian aid including ``non-
essential services,'' unfettered access for aid organizations
to all vulnerable populations and increased diplomatic
attention to a comprehensive peace process including a viable
plan for the safe return of millions of internally displaced
persons (IDPs).
When the administration released its Sudan policy last
fall, Secretary Clinton indicated that benchmarks would be
applied to Sudan and that progress would be assessed ``based
on verifiable changes in conditions on the ground.
Backsliding by any party will be met with credible pressure
in the form of disincentives leveraged by our government and
our international partners.'' But in the face of national
elections that were neither free nor fair, in the face of
continued violations of the U.N. arms embargo, in the face of
Bashir's failure to cooperate in any way with the
International Criminal Court, we've seen no ``disincentives''
or ``sticks'' applied. This is a worst case scenario and
guaranteed, if history is to be our guide, to fail.
Many in the NGO community and in Congress cautiously
expressed support for the new policy when it was released, at
the same time stressing that a policy on paper is only as
effective as its implementation on the ground. More than six
months have passed since the release of the strategy and
implementation has been insufficient at best and altogether
absent at worst.
During the campaign for the presidency, you said, regarding
Sudan, ``Washington must respond to the ongoing genocide and
the ongoing failure to implement the CPA with consistency and
strong consequences.'' These words ring true still today.
Accountability is imperative. But the burden for action, the
weight of leadership, now rests with you and with this
administration alone. With the referendum in the South
quickly approaching, the stakes could not be higher.
The marginalized people of Sudan yearn for your
administration to find its voice on Sudan--and to find it
now.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf,
Member of Congress.
____
House of Representatives,
May 25, 2010.
Hon. Michael Posner,
Assistant Secretary, Department of State, Washington, DC.
Dear Assistant Secretary Posner: I write regarding a matter
of great concern--namely the reported plans by the Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) to reorganize the
Office of International Religious Freedom. It has come to my
attention that structural changes may be implemented that
could result in the Ambassador-at-Large for International
Religious Freedom losing direct supervisory control over the
staff of the Office of International Religious Freedom. Such
changes could potentially violate U.S. law and break with 10
years of established practice under previous administrations,
both Democratic and Republican.
As you know, the Ambassador-at-Large position was
established under the International Religious Freedom Act of
1998 (IRFA), of which I was the primary author, to promote
religious freedom abroad. The ambassador is charged with
making policy recommendations for the U.S. Government toward
``governments that violate freedom of religion or that fail
to ensure the individual's right to religious belief and
practice . . .'' The ambassador also serves as the
``principal adviser to the President and the Secretary of
State regarding matters affecting religious freedom abroad .
. .'' IRFA created the Office of International Religious
Freedom to support the Ambassador-at-Large in his or her
work. Section 101(a) under Title I of IRFA specifically
states that ``there is established within the Department of
State an Office on International Religious Freedom that shall
be headed by the Ambassador-at-Large for International
Religious Freedom.'' [Emphasis added]
Considering the importance of religious freedom to U.S.
foreign policy and human rights promotion, I am alarmed by
the possibility that DRL could be removing supervisory
control from the Ambassador-at-Large over the Office of
International Religious Freedom. Given my intimate
involvement in IRFA's passage, I can say with assurance that
such a decision would directly contradict the intent of the
act and undermine the critical role of the position. The U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom shares this
concern, and in its 2010 annual report urged the
administration to ensure the ambassador's direct oversight of
the office.
[[Page H5980]]
I have been concerned for some time at the priority, or
lack there of, that this administration places on religious
freedom. For 16 months now, the president has failed to
appoint an Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious
Freedom. This persistent vacancy, and these reported changes
within the State Department are alarming and do not bode well
for the Tibetan Buddhist monk forbidden from having a picture
of the Dalai Lama or for the Iraqi Christian who has
helplessly watched their ancient community be decimated by
violence.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to ensure that the
Ambassador-at-Large maintain direct oversight of the Office
of International Religious Freedom, and only those DRL
officials reporting directly to the Ambassador-at-Large be
given managerial authority over the office staff. IRFA was
clear in creating direct lines of authority from the office
staff to the ambassador. It is critical that the Ambassador-
at-Large continue to head the office, consistent with IRFA.
As these concerns directly relate to the inner-workings of
DRL and the IRF office, I respectfully request that any reply
to my letter come from you rather than the assistant
secretary for Legislative Affairs. Thank you for your
assistance. I look forward to hearing from you.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf,
Member of Congress.
____
House of Representatives,
June 24, 2010.
Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Clinton: I am writing about some areas of
concern related to the Office of the Special Coordinator for
Tibetan Issues that I believe merit attention. Specifically,
I am concerned that the Office of the Special Coordinator is
understaffed. It has come to my attention that there is only
one person currently working in the office, and that another
position has been unfilled since January 2009. It is my
understanding that a third position has never been filled.
After years of congressional advocacy for the creation of a
special office in the Department of State on Tibet, the
Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues was established by
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 1997 and charged
with protecting the human rights of Tibetans, preserving
their religious, cultural, and linguistic heritage, and
promoting substantive dialogue between the Chinese government
and the Dalai Lama or his representatives.
As you know, Congress codified the position of the Special
Coordinator for Tibetan Issues as part of the Tibetan Policy
Act of 2002. Both you and I were cosponsors of the original
stand-alone bills in the House and the Senate respectively.
The legislation detailed the duties and responsibilities of
the special coordinator which included coordinating ``United
States Government policies, programs, and projects concerning
Tibet'' and maintaining ``close contact with religious,
cultural, and political leaders of the Tibetan people,
including regular travel to Tibetan areas of the People's
Republic of China, and to Tibetan refugee settlements in
India and Nepal.''
Not long after the establishment of the office, Congress
identified that the special coordinator needed additional
resources in order to effectively carry out its mission. In
fiscal year 2006, the House and Senate Appropriations
committees approved language directing $1 million for the
Office of the Special Coordinator to carry out its statutory
responsibilities. The committees also directed that the
office ``consist of three professional full-time staff
members and additional support staff, as needed, in addition
to the special coordinator.'' Congress's interest in these
funding and staffing levels has been reaffirmed in subsequent
appropriations bills. Given this history, the current
inadequate staffing levels, 17 months into the
administration, are troubling and are at odds with
congressional intent.
Further, I have also learned that the one staffer in the
special coordinator's Office was pulled back from a
previously scheduled visit to Dharamsala, India, in early May
2010. I understand that one of the goals of this staffer's
trip was to participate in a selection process for students
under the Tibetan Fulbright program, and that the meeting was
cancelled. I expect that she was also scheduled to meet with
officials of the Central Tibetan Administration as part of
routine oversight of the U.S. government programs that
benefit the Tibetan refugee communities in India. Staff
members from the special coordinator's Office have been
travelling to Dharamsala ever since the creation of the
office. Such trips, which include engagement with the leaders
of the Tibetan exile community, are essential for the
fulfillment of the responsibilities of the office and are
explicitly authorized by the Tibetan Policy Act. The
oversight provided by these trips is vital to ensuring that
taxpayer investments in these communities and programs are
sound.
Additionally, I understand that the Report on Tibet
Negotiations, which is required by section 613(b) of the
Tibetan Policy Act and is to due to Congress by March 31 of
each year, has not yet been submitted. These developments or
lack thereof send a troubling message about the priority this
administration is placing on Tibet.
A recently released report by the International Campaign
for Tibet makes clear that the need for this office is as
pressing as it has ever been. The report titled, ``A 'Raging
Storm': The Crackdown on Tibetan Writers and Artists after
Tibet's Spring 2008 Protests,'' found that over 50 Tibetans,
including 13 writers, have ``disappeared'' or have faced
torture or harassment as a result of expressing their views.
The Chinese government's deplorable human rights record,
specifically in Tibet, necessitates the department's
immediate and unwavering attention.
Given these concerns, I respectfully request that you
provide my office with the following information:
A report on the department's efforts to fill expeditiously
the two vacant positions in the Office of the Special
Coordinator for Tibetan Affairs;
An explanation for the cancellation of the scheduled May
trip to Dharamsala by the staffer from the special
coordinator's Office; and
The status of the Tibet Negotiations report and any
explanation for why it has not been submitted to Congress by
the required date.
Best wishes,
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf,
Member of Congress.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gohmert).
{time} 1930
Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from Virginia, truly a conscience in
this body, for those profound words of challenge, bringing us back to
the roots from which this great Nation has grown.
And I realize the time grows late, and it is the last hour that we
will be in session this week. And if the gentleman would indulge me, I
know that we have a President who has said we're not a Christian
Nation, and I will not debate that.
But it is so critical to look at our roots. And so I would like to
direct, Mr. Speaker, back to the words of Roger Williams when he said:
``That forced worship stinks in God's nostrils, that it denies Christ
Jesus yet to come; that in these flames about religion, there is no
other prudent, Christian way of preserving peace in the world, but by
permission of different consciences.''
These are the words of our Founders that set this Nation in motion,
that pointed us in the direction of religious tolerance.
1701, William Penn drafted the Charter of Privileges and said:
``First because no people can truly be happy, though under the greatest
enjoyment of civil liberties, if abridged of the freedom of their
consciences, as to their religious profession and worship: And Almighty
God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits,
and the Author as well as Object of all divine knowledge, faith and
worship, who only can enlighten the mind, and persuade and convince the
understandings of people, I do hereby grant and declare that no person
or persons inhabiting this province or territories, shall confess and
acknowledge one Almighty God, the Creator, upholder and ruler of the
world; and profess him or themselves obliged to live quietly under the
civil government, shall be in any case molested or prejudiced in his or
their person or estate, because of his or their conscientious
persuasion or practice.''
Going back to our heritage, that this country was based on these
principles, taught in the Bible, discussed by our Founders, and made
the basis of our beliefs in religious freedom, Thomas Jefferson said:
``God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a
nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a
conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift
of God? That they are not to be violated, but with His wrath? Indeed, I
tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His
justice cannot sleep forever.''
And it ought to cause every American to tremble when they think of
the injustice we're allowing to be perpetuated on our citizens around
the world. It ought to break the hearts and minds and consciences of
everyone.
A United States President said these words, referred to a Mr. Levi, a
Galveston, Texas lawyer and a president of the National B'nai Brith,
drafted President Theodore Roosevelt a telegram denouncing a Russian
pogrom in 1903. The Czar of Russia was so stung by Roosevelt's message
that he formally refused to accept it. Some Americans complained that
Roosevelt had gone too far. He replied that there were crimes so
monstrous that the American conscience had to assert itself. And there
still are.
[[Page H5981]]
``No one is a better witness to the transience of tyranny than the
children of Abraham. Forty centuries ago, the Jewish people were
entrusted with a truth more enduring than any power of man. In the
words of the prophet Isaiah, `This shall be my covenant with them, said
the Lord: My spirit which is upon you, and the words which I have
placed in your mouth, shall not be absent from your mouth, nor from the
mouth of your children, nor from the mouth of your children's children,
said the Lord from now for all time.'
``It is not an accident that freedom of religion is one of the
central freedoms in our Bill of Rights. It is the first freedom of the
human soul: the right to speak the words that God places in our mouths.
We must stand for that freedom in our country. We must speak for that
freedom in the world.''
Could the current administration and President dare to do any less
than this President that is so reviled in this administration,
President George W. Bush?
I would like to just finish with one other thought, and that was what
was related to have happened in Iraq after United States troops
liberated Iraq, not for any purpose other than to liberate and to free
the people there, and to assure us that they would not be a threat to
their neighbors or the rest of the world.
President Bush appointed a retired general named Jay Garner. I had
heard the story relayed before and I called him this evening to ask if
I could retell it here.
He was in charge of looking about, talking to people all around Iraq,
and seeing what kind of government would be best suited for Iraq so
that we could help the Iraqi people establish a nation of strength and
a representative, hopefully, a representative government. And he talked
to people around the country. And over and over, people kept referring
him to this huge man, a Shiia, a cleric, who wore the black turban, the
black robes, and was a descendant, apparently, of Mohammed. And
everyone kept telling him he had to talk to this man because everyone
looked to him for insight, for words of wisdom.
And so eventually General Garner went, made an appointment, visited
with him. He had a number of people with him, including a reporter. He
was often a freelance report, but at this point a reporter for Time
magazine.
And apparently this cleric spoke very good English, but he said he'd
like to tell in his own language what should be done. And he talked for
quite some time in his language. Everything was recorded.
And then he said, let me tell you in a nutshell what I've said. We
need a constitutional process, perhaps like yours in the United States,
where we create a constitution. But it must be written by Iraqis. The
government must be of Iraqis. And it must be based on the lessons of
Jesus Christ and bring all the nation together.
General Garner said when he left that interview with the people in
the entourage, he asked the others, did everybody hear what I just
think I heard? And they said, yes. Could you believe he said you needed
a constitution based on the teachings of Jesus Christ?
And he asked the reporter from Time, are you going to put that in the
story? He said, no one would believe that.
But when you think about the wisdom of this great Shiia cleric,
apparently, Shari'ah law does not allow for freedom of religion and
worship when it's considered in context too often. That's the way it's
interpreted. It's only the teachings of Jesus that allow for a
constitution that allow for freedom of worship. Whether you're Muslim,
whether you're following the teachings of Mohammed or Jesus or Moses,
it's only those teachings that give us the kind of Constitution we
have.
But since we have that Constitution, and we have been given the
foresight by our Founders of what is required to do justice, to love
mercy, we can do nothing less than what my friend from Virginia has
indicated. We must stand for those who seek to worship as the
directives of their heart lead them.
And I thank my friend so much for the very touching time he has spent
here on the floor. And I hope and pray that this administration will
take those words to heart. I thank my friend.
Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman.
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________