hearing transcript (pdf - 690 kb) - House Foreign Affairs Committee ...

32
Such issues merit much greater focus, as the status of religious
freedom in post-Taliban Afghanistan is not merely about a regime
change, but about how that regime and its leaders are moving to
restore tolerance and respect for international human rights norms
and how they will treat all citizens, women and men, who seek to
exercise that freedom.
At this time in history, we believe that the U.S. Government
should be looking closely at these issues and informing the American
people how its presence is or is not changing the status of
freedom in that country. In this regard, our Commission has recommended
that the President appoint, without delay, a high level
special enjoy to advance human rights in Afghanistan.
Now, a second theme that we find in the report is that criticism
of some of the countries appears to have been muted. We draw attention
in particular to Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan in that regard.
The third trend is that there is a hesitancy to state conclusions
in most reports. Instead, the reports rely on the allegations of others
who are usually unnamed. This is shockingly evident in the report
on India, in which it is stated ‘‘human rights groups and others’’
have suggested that the authorities in Gujarat have not responded
adequately to acts of violence against religious minorities.
We do not know, but we would like to know, what is the U.S. Government’s
view of this? Did it reach that level?
A fourth trend is that the annual report continues to provide
some, but only some, information on anti-semitism. The Commission
reiterates its recommendations cited earlier that State Department
officials should report accurately and comprehensively on
such acts, going beyond each host government’s information, which
commonly overlooks religion-related underpinnings.
Fifth, it might be helpful for the Department to strengthen its
instructions to posts in order to increase awareness about international
human rights norms and the work of international and regional
human rights mechanisms. These are mentioned episodically
and inadequately.
Finally, where there are judgments, we find that some of the conclusions
that are reached in the report are questionable in our
view, such as the reports that there have been improvements with
respect to religious freedom in Vietnam and Egypt and that conditions
have remained the same in China and in Russia.
I see I am just about at the end of my time.
The countries that are designated as CPCs should be based on
these reports. The reports provide ample evidence of the fact that
the countries, Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, Sudan and North Korea
should be renamed as CPCs, and that also the violations in several
additional countries should get that designation. They rise to that
designation. The Commission believes those countries are India,
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Vietnam, and Laos.
Finally, there were four other countries the Commission felt
came just below the CPC level, and we have established a watch
list, placing on it Egypt, Indonesia, Nigeria and Uzbekistan.
The main emphasis of the rest of our testimony is that the IRFA
reports don’t contain as good a description of the policies that the
State Department has adopted and undertaken as we know it has
VerDate May 01 2002 14:37 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 082261 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\IOHR\100902\82261 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL