[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 10116-10117]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      EFFECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COUNTRIES OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

                                  _____
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 13, 2014

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I recently chaired a hearing on 
effective accountability for countries that blatantly commit religious 
or freedom violations or that turn a blind eye to such violations 
within their borders.
  The headlines are filled with examples. A 27-year-old mother, Meriam 
Yehya Ibrahim, is imprisoned and faces a death sentence in Sudan 
because she refused to renounce her Christian faith. This case in Sudan 
mirrors a similar incident in Nigeria in which Boko Haram shot Habila 
Adamu, who refused to renounce Christianity, just like Mrs. Ibrahim. 
Also in Nigeria, Islamic terrorist organization Boko Haram is holding 
over 200 school girls hostage (most of whom are Christian), after 
kidnapping them from their school dorms in the middle of the night.
  Anti-semitism has resurfaced in Ukraine with a series of violent 
attacks following the ouster of former Prime Minister Yanukovich.
  We have also received word that American Pastor Saeed Abedini, who is 
serving an 8 year sentence in Iran for his faith, was severely beaten 
and returned to prison. He had been hospitalized due to internal 
bleeding from beatings previously received in prison. His wife, Naghmeh 
Abedini, testified before my subcommittee in December and begged that 
the Administration make securing her husband's release a top priority.
  Tragically, many countries of the world are a long way from 
recognizing the human right of religious freedom set forth by Article 
18 of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
  In the United States, we claim religious freedom as the ``first 
freedom'' because of its placement at the top of the Bill of Rights 
enumerated in our Constitution, and because of its foundational role in 
the life of a free and democratic nation. Religious freedom is a 
constant reminder to governments that their power is limited, that 
governments do not create rights but merely recognize them, and that a 
man or woman's first duty is to his or her well-formed conscience.
  The evidence bears out the importance of protecting and promoting 
religious freedom. As the Pew Research Center and Berkley Center at 
Georgetown have shown, governments that protect and promote religious 
freedom have higher levels of social harmony. Just as importantly for 
national security, high observance of religious freedom is correlated 
with lower levels of religious extremism.
  In 1998, Congress had the foresight to make the protection and 
promotion of religious freedom a priority in U.S. foreign policy by 
creating an Ambassador at Large for Religious Freedom, the Office of 
International Religious Freedom at the Department of State, which 
authors the International Religious Freedom Reports on every country in 
the world, and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, 
with their watchdog report to Congress.
  Importantly, this landmark piece of legislation, the International 
Religious Freedom Act (IRFA), authored by Chairman Frank Wolf of 
Virginia, created a system for naming and taking action against 
Countries of Particular Concern or CPCs.
  Sixteen years later, the need for U.S. leadership on religious 
freedom could not be more critical--but the tools to achieve it are 
lightly used. The Administration recently announced its intention to 
appoint two new members to the U.S. Commission on International 
Religious Freedom--but the post of Ambassador-at-Large is in its 
seventh month of vacancy. The post has been empty for more than a third 
of this Administration, and the Ambassador's level of authority within 
the State Department has been demoted.
  Despite the fact that the IRFA called for an annual review of CPC 
designations, the Administration has not named CPCs since 2011. What 
few Presidential Actions--like sanctions--have been taken in 
correlation with the 2011 CPC designation, have now lapsed.
  History has shown that when the United States makes religious freedom 
a priority and that priority is conveyed to countries of particular 
concern, we have seen conditions

[[Page 10117]]

change with minimal harm to security or economic cooperation. For 
instance, the CPC designation worked as intended with Vietnam--until it 
was removed prematurely.
  In 2004, the Bush Administration designated Vietnam as a CPC as part 
of the larger bilateral relationship. Vietnam took positive steps 
toward reforming its laws and practices related to religious freedom 
and releasing religious prisoners.
  Other parts of the relationship--trade and security cooperation--
expanded at the same time. Vietnam saw that it was in its interest to 
take positive steps on religious freedom because it was a priority of 
the Administration and a prerequisite of a harmonious bilateral 
relationship.
  In 2006, the CPC designation was removed prematurely. In 2007, 
shortly after Vietnam gained World Trade Organization status, it 
launched a crackdown on religious leaders, free speech advocates, labor 
unions, and others that continues to this day.
  USCIRF has made a compelling case for why Vietnam should be 
designated as a CPC, why that designation would again produce results, 
and why it is in the United States interests to prioritize religious 
freedom in the bilateral relationship. Seven years later, we are 
waiting for CPC designation.
  The hearing took a close look at the ongoing need for the United 
States to actively pursue religious freedom as a priority goal of its 
foreign policy, as intended by Congress in the IRFA, and, specifically, 
the work of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in 
reaching this goal.

                          ____________________