REP. GILMAN:
Thank you Ambassador Seiple, and we thank you for your work in religious freedom. And we know it's a fairly new initiative for our government, but we appreciate what you've done to date with regard to these issues. Ambassador Seiple, is it in contravention of internationally recognized human rights standards for any state to provide to some religions financial benefits? For example, the right to sue or the right to give religious instruction in public schools - it would have to provide those rights to other religions.
Should the government tax the receipts of sub-churches or temples or whatever -- synagogues, and not others. If a country's government permits or encourages discrimination in employment based on religion, can that nation be said to be respecting freedom of religion?
MR. SEIPLE:
Well, this is discrimination. And I think the international covenants, again, all four of these countries should be familiar; they are signatories to them. They're members of the global community as it relates to these documents. They're very, very clear that you do not discriminate on the basis of thought, conscience, and belief, that's fairly broad. It was intended to be broad, so any time that you have a minority faith, minority thought, a minority belief that is exposed to these kinds of abuses, it is against the covenants and the international instruments that they have already signed.
These instruments, by and large, have been put in place so that governments would protect minority faiths. And ultimately, a government is determined, in terms of its human rights record, by how it treats its minority faiths. So all of this is very much tied to these international instruments.
REP. GILMAN:
Mr. Seiple, does the administration believe that Windows 2000 is being boycotted in Germany because of Mr. Jensen's religion? And what, if anything, can we or are we doing about that? And what are we doing proactively about the sect filters, as they relate to employment in Germany? And does the administration work actively to counter French or German anti-sect activists when they appear in countries in Eastern Europe?
MR. SEIPLE:
The Jensen case we have been following. We feel it's outrageous; we feel it's far fetched, it's the ultimate in paranoia. But it is a good example of the excesses, of the over reach of what happens when these things are allowed to happen under the impunity offered by a government that has not come down hard on the right side of this issue. Yes, we follow this; yes, we have spoken here and abroad with the Germans about the sect filters and the obvious potential for discrimination against a religion because of it, and we will continue to do that.
REP. GILMAN:
Thank you Mr. Ambassador. Ambassador, what will our reaction be if the French adopt a law which would allow easy dissolution of sects and which criminalize mental manipulation?
MR. SEIPLE:
I understand your question -- the easy dissolution of sects by the French. The problem we have had from the beginning is this rather large, indiscriminate list of 173 different organizations, they have been put on that list because of a commission report that was commissioned by the government. No one knows how they got on that list; no one knows the criteria or the definitions that were used to be placed on that list.
And then the commission, after filing its report, is put out of business, and there's not way to get off the list. So, we have this huge list floating out there with the potential for discrimination in some of the acts that many of you have already mentioned: individual discrimination against jobs, threats, harassments, all kinds of things. We have met with a number of the people who are on this list, have talked to them, continue to meet with them and continue to guide them as to what might happen.
We have also spent a great deal of time with the French, asking the French to meet with them, and not let the same thing simply hang out there. There is some good news to report on the part of the French. Cooler heads seem to be starting to prevail, and at the various senior levels of government we see a different attitude towards this. And hopefully, this attitude of intolerance that has been fostered in times past will begin to be ameliorated, and we'll have a different kind of resolution to this particular issue.
REP. GILMAN:
Thank you Ambassador Seiple. Mr. Gejdenson.
REP. GEJDENSON:
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Let me ask you -- one, what's the impact of the European Union? Are there attempts by the European Union to set a standardized procedure to deal with these kinds of issues?
MR. SEIPLE:
Well, the place for them to take issues is the place where any member of the union also can bring them up. Like all of these cases, we need specifics. And we need to put the specifics through a specific process in order to find out if the process is going to deliver the right answers to people who are suffering for their faith. And I would say that's also the case with the European --
REP. GEJDENSON:
-- but they haven't begun to do that.
MR. SEIPLE:
It has not been the player that the OSCE folks have been.
REP. GEJDENSON:
If I was sitting in Europe, I could look back here and argue that here in the United States -- I can't remember the year -- but it wasn't until the Scientologists won in court in '93 that we gave them normal status, I guess you could say. How do we view their situation as different than ours, in the sense that we obviously have a tax court that creates hurdles for people who join together, some are accepted as religions, some aren't. And how do we then look at the Europeans and say, well, you've got a process but we don't like it? What's the difference there?
MR. SEIPLE:
Well, they have process. They have a very mature juridical process, a judicial process. The fact is that they haven't put their money where their mouth is. These are issues that have been floating around for years, and they haven't been taken to court and decided in court. And our feeling has been either put up or shut. If you believe this is wrong or believe a particular sect is harmful to the government, or harmful to the health, or brainwashing of people, or traitor to the democracy, whatever the thing is that's being floated out there, take it to court and decide it. You've got the maturity of the court system to do that. But the fact is that none of these issues go that far, and so they continue to be innuendos.
REP. GEJDENSON:
And part of what I've seen in the past or pamphlets by, I think, one of the conservative political parties that were clearly reminiscent of the depiction of Jewish people or Jewish beliefs by the Nazis, but it wasn't the government. And so, one, what's the government response? I know in this country we generally get a very clear statement that government officials and the government finds offensive the actions of the Nazi party or the Ku Klux Klan. I think, generally, there's a revulsion officially and individually by legislative members. What has the German government done in response to those pamphlets, and I think you're familiar with them, with a fly swatter and what have you, killing scientologists. What's been the government's official response to the political party that issued those pamphlets?
MR. SEIPLE:
Well, as far as I know, it hasn't done enough. Normally, what happens to get this thing to a higher level, and normally to a level of some sanity, is that it comes from within the state, it comes from the people. It has to happen from within. At the same time, we bring all of this to the attention of our interlocutors on the German side and say, look, these are things that are sticking out there. You have a very highly developed judicial system, the rest of Europe looks to you Germany and the implementation of law. And if you cannot abide by the international covenants that you've already signed up to, this sends absolutely the wrong signal.
REP. GEJDENSON:
Has the German government done anything in response to these pamphlets that are done by non-governmental organizations? Do they take any actions, either rhetorically or legally against them? Is there a legal course they could take?
MR. SEIPLE:
Well, they generally push them down to the state level.
REP. GEJDENSON:
And what do the states do?
MR. SEIPLE:
That depends on the state. There are some states like Hamburg, Berlin, and Bavaria that are very anti-scientology. And you can pretty much guess what's going to happen there. So this goes back and forth. It's a little bit of legislative buck passing. We don't feel good about it; we speak out against it; we have been forceful, again, with our interlocutors on all of these issues. But ultimately, I think the society in Germany is going to have to, as they have in other parts of Europe, rise up and make these same statements.
REP. GEJDENSON:
What does the national government do if there are anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim activities, religions that they recognize? Does the national government take action or does that also go to the state government?
MR. SEIPLE:
Well, I don't know the specific answer to that. But I would imagine that this would be such a public outcry that both national and state governments would have to respond.
REP. GEJDENSON:
Thank you.
REP. GILMAN:
Thank you Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Salmon.
REP. SALMON:
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Ambassador Seiple, it's wonderful to have you here today. I just have a couple of questions, and the first one is, I've been working on this for the last 5 years that I've been in Congress, and I know that there had been some activity before that, and the talk doesn't seem to be working. In fact, it's not getting better it's getting worse and it's expanding to other countries.
When we started working on this several years ago it seemed isolated. It seemed more isolated in maybe Germany and Austria, but it seems that some of the other countries are being emboldened by a lack of standing up to them. And I'm wondering, is there any other recourse that we as a nation can take? For instance, in the Jensen example that Mr. Gejdenson brought up, or I believe it was the Chairman brought up, that seems to me to be a violation of our trade agreement. When American businesses are adversely impacted by these countries, is that not something that can be brought before the WCO, and should it be, and who has the responsibility to do that?
And secondly, I know when we've had human rights concerns with other countries we've brought up resolutions that the UN or some of the UN committees -- we brought up resolutions -- have we considered doing that, bringing up a UN resolution? And I say this because it appears that what we're doing is not working, what more can we do? And do you have any recommendations for the Congress, is there something that we can do since it appears that the problem isn't getting better, it's getting worse?
MR. SEIPLE:
Well, there are a number of questions in your comments. This may be the darkness before the dawn as well. We see some progress; we see some progress in France. We were very concerned that this had been personalized in such a way that all dialogue was going to be lost on this subject. Countries claim their sovereignty on these issues. And, of course, an American trying to tell a Frenchman sometimes does not go over as good as we think our intentions have been; but there has been progress.
What we're talking about here are the tactics; what do you do? I think there are two point of discernment on truth. One, is what is actually going on in France, Germany, Belgium, and Austria? Listening to your opening comments, all of you, I think we're right on board with all of that. These are the issues as they've been spelled out. Now what do we do about them? They are allies; do we get a lot more done by hitting them over the head publicly, ranting and raving or whatever? Do we do a better job talking softly and sustain that conversation over a long period of time?
We've certainly had these discussions at the OSCE. We have been very, very vocal. The Helsinki folks have been part of that -- name names, point fingers, everything has been right out there.
Again, resistance, step back, put their feet on the ground. You mentioned the trade issues. The title 7 report that comes out from the U.S. trade representative mandated on a yearly basis, as of last year, May of '99, started to mention the problems with sect filters and the potential for problems.
And that is a direction that we may have to go at some point, if the case exists on the procurement side that discrimination has taken place on the basis of religion. So, these are complicated issues. I can only assure you that we are as passionate about these things as you are, and are constantly hammering these things home. Many times we do it much more quietly than people would like. And I think at that point folks do have to judge whether it's helping, is it good, is it time for a tactical change?
This is a group that flew with us in Kosovo. They flew with us in Kosovo on a human rights issue, a moral imperative. We weren't fighting that war together to gain oil or to get land or anything else, it was a moral imperative. They understand that; they should understand this. And we've tried to take those kinds of principles and develop our arguments from them. Again, I'm more optimistic about this because of the attention it's getting, because of the attention of a hearing like this.
I think things are beginning to move our way. Muslims in France, for example, easier time. Some of the Scientology questions in France are being quietly adjudicated in favor of Scientology. These are good markers to look at, but we will continue to monitor and continue to pursue. And will we have to raise our voice? We have not been accused of being shy.
REP. GILMAN:
Thank you very much. Mr. Manzullo.
REP. MANZULLO:
Thank you very much Mr. Ambassador. I appreciate your coming here. I think the United States is too timid. This doesn't make sense. There's an official document from the German government saying that they're going to discriminate against people based upon the fact that they belong to Scientology Church. We seem to be splitting hairs here on whether or not the Germans are saying this is in fact the government or it's a type of business practice.
But with there being absolutely no proof that this business practice, to use their word, is hurting or endangering any trade issues, I think for the U.S. government to waste time on whether or not this is a religious issue, or simply another non-tariff barrier put up by the Germans, is a waste of time. And I would suggest that what we do is immediately file a four panel, have the thing adjudicated in the WTO -- that takes a long enough time. I've got a document here that we were just furnished from the State Department on the background from 2,000 titles, 7 reports.
The last sentence says, commerce will seek to resolve the issue through a bilateral context with senior German trade officials et cetera. Well excuse me, but we have the tools. We've got the WTO. And I think there should be a world flushing of this issue. I think the Germans should be held to account in the strongest terms possible, that we should use the strongest, powerful measures of the United States now before more injury is done to our business interests and to Mr. Jensen's company.
The Germans are going to understand this issue. Sure, they flew with us in Kosovo; that's really important. We also fought to liberate Kuwait, and they've turned their backs on us and they're jacking up the price of gasoline; that's how they say thank you to the U.S. And I think the only way that this nation can stand as a beacon for religious freedom is to insist, in the strongest terms possible, through a WTO panel, get this thing going, get the gears moving. Because I am sure that we would win it on that basis as opposed to going along on some bilateral context. Your comment.
MR. SEIPLE:
Well, I'd be happy to take that recommendation back and give it to the appropriate people to follow through on. The fact is we do not have a specific case under this title 7 report. And when we get a specific case then it can be pursued.
REP. MANZULLO:
Yeah, but we have a written policy.
MR. SEIPLE:
But you don't have a specific case to put against the policy. My point is only this, I think it's premature to call them timid when they haven't been able to apply what is now in the report. When a specific case comes, and then if we sit on the sidelines or do less than our duty, then I think it would be fair to say we haven't used the power that's at our disposal.
REP. MANZULLO:
So Mr. Jensen, in his testimony, can state that his company has lost any percentage of market share of one contract with the Germans. Then what you're saying is that would be a sufficient threshold showing of damage to bring the panel under the WTO.
MR. SEIPLE:
I don't think I said that. But I would like to take your suggestion on the WTO and put it against this particular incident which has not yet been formulated into a case, on the federal level, that is noted under our title 7 U.S. trade agreements.
REP. MANZULLO:
Whenever the Scientologists have brought actions in Germany, the courts there don't have the precendential tolerance that we have in our country. So they get ordered in terms of whether or not the court system could protect them there. But my understanding also is that the officially recognized religions, the German exacts the 8 percent from the people who belong to the organized religion. They run the money through the government, and then the government doles it back out to the individual churches.
That being the case, this appears to be the fact that perhaps they're concerned that the fact that people would be attending the Scientology philosophy would drop out of one of the officially organized churches - doesn't make this an internal revenue issue from Germany. Then in turn, I think that they use it to show that it's still another NTB, non-tariff barrier that they're using to exclude American products. We need to expose this big time, and put ultimate pressure on Germany to get them back off, to get them to rescind that ridiculous contract with government procurement.
I'm going to send a letter to the German Ambassador to do that. Whenever I meet with the members of the EU. This might even be a violation of the EU agreement itself among the member countries. But we need to explore, under the heaviest basis, to nip this type of religious persecution in the bud now before people are really hurt.
MR. SEIPLE:
I have no disagreement with that.
REP. MANZULLO:
I appreciate your coming here. Thank you.
REP. GILMAN:
Thank you Mr. Manzullo. Ms. Lee.
REP. LEE:
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Let me just ask you very quickly a question with regard to our foreign policy and the relationship between religious discrimination and the treatment of minorities and government policies, such as we have toward a country which we believe is engaged in religious repression such as Cuba. When do you think that should kick in, if it should kick in, in terms of sanctions and embargoes? When should the mistreatment of religious minorities be the basis for us looking at other countries to sanction or embargo, such as we have, like I said, for 40 years against Cuba?
MR. SEIPLE:
I'm in agreement with many of the comments that have just been made, in terms of when we kick in on the discrimination of minority faiths. I think as soon as you hear it for the first time, as soon as it's intimated, as soon as there's any sense that we have a situation that could go further South, so to speak, we better yell loud and long. I think we've learned this from our Jewish colleagues in terms of anti-Semitic remarks that are made and examples of that throughout the world.
To sit back and to wait or to assume that someone is going to take it up for you. We are the strongest nation in the world; we are the last remaining super-power. And we now have legislation, to the point of sanctions. There are very specific sanctions that are pointed out in the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act. And that's the guideline. That's a high bar, it's a very high bar. We're not talking about that bar relative to these four countries.
I think it's very fair to talk about the various avenues that we have either from jaw boning, the role of diplomacy, to things like the WTO, as was just mentioned. I'm a Marine; I believe when in doubt you attack simultaneously on all fronts. I think that yes, you pull out the stops. And you make sure that this kind of religious discrimination that we have historical evidence where it has started in places in times past when all kinds of really terrible things took place because no one stood up at the outset.
REP. LEE:
But when should the high bar kick in?
MR. SEIPLE:
The high bar in the International Religious Freedom Act is when a country either engages in or tolerates specific language -- engages in or tolerates in an ongoing systematic and egregious way. So there has to be intentionality, there has to be pattern, and there has to be egregious behavior, which is further defined under the heading of persecution. It's very high, and it's kidnapping, it's rape, it's general mayhem, it's long term imprisonments and tortures without charges. And again, we don't have that situation here. So this is not the bar that we would use to go after and make our point, and put teeth into it with the Germans or the French.
REP. LEE:
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
REP. GILMAN:
Thank you Ms. Lee. Mr. Smith.
REP. CHRISTOPHER SMITH (R-NJ):
Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome Ambassador Seiple and commend him on the extraordinarily good job he is doing on behalf of religious freedom, and speaking out as he has and traveling as extensively as he has been. He and his staff are doing an extraordinarily good job, and I want to recognize that and thank you for that great work.
Mr. Ambassador, you probably saw or may have seen on today's wire the importance of the law committee of the French parliament is considering a bill sponsored by the socialist party that would create a new crime of what they call mental manipulation, and establish civil and criminal penalties for activities by religious or philosophical groups that the government officials deem to be unacceptable. As you know, this is the latest French parliamentary action that threatened religious liberties of French citizens. And our commission, in its ongoing dialogue with the French, is urging that they reject this legislation. And I know you might want to comment on that and other developments that you have in your written testimony as well in regards to France.
I also, again, want to highlight for the record the case which I believe illustrates our concerns. The great evangelical church in Neimes (sp), which is affiliated with the Southern Baptists, was lifted by the French Parliament as a dangerous group in 1997. Since then, they have experienced continued harassment and discrimination, such as the church being refused commercial bank loans, members losing their jobs, and cars being torched in the parking lot of the church. Clearly, the French parliament's lifting of a church in Neimes and a continuation of the policies of intolerance have a negative effect on religious liberty in France. And similar stories, as you've pointed out in your testimony, can be told, as we've heard, in ongoing hearings in out Helsinki Commission.
I want to point out, I've talked to the ambassadors and visiting delegations frequently from Western European countries, Eastern European Countries, and Central European Countries. But further east where the rule of law is not as well established, they continually site the examples of countries like Austria as justification for their laws -- Russia, Romania, the Ukraine, and Belarus have restrictive laws. And I was wondering if you might tell the committee if there is a model law in any of the countries of Europe that is positive. Because again, I think the zeitgeist, the mood is towards a tightening rather than a relaxation towards religious freedom.
I plan on bringing it up and our delegation will bring it up at the OSCE parliamentary assembly in Bucharest in July. We plan on being very vigorous in that. But is there any examples of countries where, rather than saying look at Austria -- because I can't tell you how many times I've heard that, I'm sure you have heard that as well - we're just following in Austria's footsteps or France's. Is there a country that's a model that they might look at, and of course the United States shouldn't be exempt from your answer.
MR. SEIPLE:
Well, we're all working on this and we all have laws, and maybe even enough laws on the books, not only our own laws but the international covenants that we've signed. The question is not so much the laws; it's how they're being implemented. We have the same laws, in many respects, in Sweden as we have in Germany, but Sweden does it differently. At the point of implementations they have taken the gentler, kinder route that also corresponds to what they have signed up for on the international side.
And I think that's what we have to hold them to account for. Inherent in the international instruments is the concept of mutual accountability. That's why I feel emboldened to go into Paris and say you've got this wrong, and by the way, if you want to come into the states and pick on us that's okay too. But that's what it means to be a part of the international community as it relates to human rights. And you're absolutely right on the examples.
When something like this goes wrong in an established democracy, especially democracies that take great pride in their history of tolerance, we have a number of the rogue states, or semi-rogue states, who point to that and say you know they do it, why can't we do it; you have one relationship there another relationship here. In human rights, inconsistency is the Achilles heal. And if we're not fair and right about all of these countries and our approach to them, as it relates to human rights, we will get in trouble.
The new French law, or the new French proposal -- I should say at the outset that this kind of legislation has floundered in the past. Obviously, we hope that this flounders as well. We just heard about it yesterday; we talked about it in the State Department yesterday; we're on this thing. The downside potential could be nasty. We're optimistic: we think that this may only be a proposal and will not see the ultimate light of day.
In terms of Pastor DeMeau and the work that he does down in Neimes, we have been extremely close to him, as you have been. I've met with he and his wife on a number of occasions. They're coming in at the end of this month, we'll meet again. He has been a great person to converse with in terms of the specifics, because he's at the end of the food chain; he's on the sect list, never should have been there. So, he's a good example for us to use.
What we would like, just as a starting point, would be for the French government officials who are most interested in this battle against sects to sit down with Pastor DeMeau and tell him why he's on this list. I think that would bring a lot of these things to a head. To date, unfortunately, the French have not done that.
REP. SMITH:
This is just a very quick follow up if I could. Mr. Chairman, in one of the hearings we had Willy Fotray (ph), the director of Human Rights Without Frontiers from Belgium. And he went into great explanation of the impact of European Freemasonry on this movement. It kind of startled me because I have not done all that much research about what Freemasons are doing in Europe. But he talked about many of their people being behind some of these laws. What is your take on that? Do you have any information on that?
MR. SEIPLE:
I would not venture that at all; it might be, it may not be, but it would be very unprofessional for them to suggest that. These are mature governments; they can push back, whether it's the Freemasons or some other interest group, they can push back if they want. I do think, and I've said this before, I do think that there's a change in climate in France. And I do think given their history and their proud history of tolerance, and the growing understanding that they're into something that doesn't portray them in their best light to the rest of the world.
I think we're going to see changes. I think we've started to see changes. Again, that doesn't stop us from monitoring, and this potential for new legislation makes that point.
REP. SMITH:
Again, getting to what may be sources, if you or your staff could at least look into that to see if there's any validity.
MR. SEIPLE:
We'd be happy to.
REP. SMITH:
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
REP. GILMAN:
Mr. Ambassador, we thank you for being here. But before you go, I know one of our members has an additional question. And I'm going to ask Dr. Cooksey to preside; I have to attend another meeting for just a few minutes and I will return. Dr. Cooksey.
