that religious freedom is indispensable for building a just and good society.

This is why religious freedom remains such a high priority for President Bush, for Secretary Powell, and why advancing freedom worldwide continues to inspire this Administration's foreign policy. As mentioned, the International Religious Freedom Act created both the office which I lead and the requirement to report annually on religious freedom worldwide. The primary purpose of my office is to engage in vigorous diplomacy worldwide on behalf of those who are being imprisoned, tortured, beaten, or otherwise prevented from practicing their faith. But another important part of my office is overseeing the production of this annual report.

We regularly hear from religious believers around the world how much this report means to them, how it encourages them to know that they are not forgotten, and how they regard this report as a gold standard on the issue.

I would like to highlight briefly a few countries, and I have submitted my full statement and I am just going to summarize a few countries that I think have seen some measurable improvements and then turn to some that have not.

As noted in the executive summary, both Kazakhstan and Laos undertook efforts to demonstrate a greater respect for religious liberty this past year. In Kazakhstan, no further attempts have been made to pass restrictive legislation, and instances of harassment of religious organizations by local officials have decreased.

Just before I visited Laos in October, the last major group of long-term religious prisoners were released. In most provinces, incidents of arrest of religious leaders declined. There were few reports of church closings, and several undertook efforts to demonstrate a greater respect for religious liberty. In addition, several long-closed churches, especially in Vientiane Province, were allowed to reopen. Unjust restrictions still exist and violations continue to occur, such as two recent incidents in Savannakhet and Attapeu Provinces, and fortunately with the help of our good Ambassador and staff in Vientiane, these prisoners have been released.

Additionally, we have also seen measurable improvements in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the wake of each country's liberation from, respectively, the oppressions of the Taliban regime and the Saddam Hussein regime, what has been experienced by the peoples of new lands has been religious freedom. This progress may not always be noted by international commentary, but it is no doubt appreciated by many Afghan and Iraqi religious believers.

Unfortunately, in too many countries, religious freedom remains fragile, threatened, or hardly existent. In this regard, I would mention several nations which continue to draw our attention and concern. In Turkmenistan, the government continues to restrict almost all forms of religious expression, and we have been very disappointed at the government's issuance of a new law that rephrases religious activity even further.

I recently returned from my second visit to Vietnam. In addition to having many long and vigorous meetings with government officials, I also traveled to some areas where the report of persecution has been particularly severe. This has included attempts to force many ethnic minority Protestants to renounce their faith and hun

dreds of churches and religious gatherings have been forced to close or they had been pressured to stop meeting in those same areas. I also recently returned from Saudi Arabia and can report that freedom of religion still does not exist by any internationally recognized standard.

We are continuing to press the Saudis on the need for greater tolerance for those who do not follow the state-sanctioned interpretation of Islam, and we particularly seek to highlight the connections between religious intolerance and religious-based terrorism.

In conclusion, let me thank you, Members of the Committee, for helping to ensure that this issue which is so near and dear to the hearts of the American people, is also raised to its rightful place in the workings of the American government.

I look forward to continuing to work closely with you in the days ahead and I am happy, of course, to answer any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Hanford follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN V. HANFORD III, AMBASSADOR-ATLARGE FOR INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: let me begin by thanking you for holding this hearing on the 2003 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. I consider it a tremendous honor to be here today. This hearing represents another important stage in our government's advocacy on behalf of that most fundamental of rights, religious freedom. I am proud to represent the Department of State and President Bush in this regard. And I am grateful to Congress for the indispensable role that many Members continue to play on this issue, as our partners and supporters and as advocates in your own right.

At the outset, I would like to use this occasion to pay tribute to two groups of people. The first group is those dedicated and indefatigable officers in the State Department who devoted so much effort to producing this report. From human rights officers at our embassies and consulates, to the editors in the Country Reports office, to my own staff in the International Religious Freedom office, countless hours of toil, sweat, and even occasional tears went in to bringing together the report before us today.

The second group, whom we all work to pay tribute to, is the countless religious believers around the world who continue to believe, pray, gather, worship, and live their faith in the face of serious restrictions or even severe persecution. What for us may be somewhat of an abstraction in a report is for them a harsh, vivid, and inescapable reality. Many of us here have met with people who have experienced some of the persecution such as reported in this volume. And we know that it is almost impossible to articulate in words the toll that such suffering can exact on human lives.

From the house church Protestant, underground Catholic, Tibetan Buddhist, or Uighur Muslim in China, to the independent Buddhist, underground Protestant, or dissident Catholic in Vietnam, to the Bahai' in Iran, to an array of believers in Turkmenistan, to the Shi'ite or any non-Muslim in Saudi Arabia, to the evangelical Protestant or Jehovah's Witness in Eritrea, many-indeed, too many-religious believers must choose between their personal welfare or following the call of their faith. That they, or any believer, would be forced to confront such a choice, is wrong. This report seeks to reveal their plight to the world.

This report is also for all of those worldwide who yearn for liberty, who know that religious liberty is inseparable from human dignity, who understand that it includes many other freedoms, such as freedoms of speech, assembly, conscience, and association, and who appreciate that religious freedom is indispensable for building a just and good society. This is why religious freedom remains such a high priority for President Bush, and why advancing freedom worldwide continues to inspire this Administration's foreign policy. In our President's words, "Liberty is both the plan of Heaven for humanity, and the best hope for progress here on Earth." To that end, we modestly hope that this report and the work of our office will play a meaningful role in the progress of liberty.

As I have noted before, while the Office of International Religious Freedom is a relatively new office, concern for this issue is not new to the American government.

For example, last year marked the 100th anniversary of a watershed moment for such endeavors. It was in 1903 that President Theodore Roosevelt led an interfaith coalition of American Jews and Christians in sending a strong protest to Tsarist Russia condemning the Kishinev Pogrom against Russian Jews.

His advisors counseled Roosevelt to keep the U.S. out of such matters. But when he learned that members of the Russian Government had incited the murders of dozens of Jews, attacks on hundreds more, and the destruction of the homes of thousands, the President was unwilling that America stand by in silence. In fact, in addition to sending the Tsar a strong message of U.S. protest, Roosevelt pulled out his wallet and contributed his own money to the relief effort.

For a government to speak out in this way was almost unprecedented in that day, yet it heralded what, over time, has come to be a core American commitment to addressing this age-old problem of religious persecution.

A second President named Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, further enshrined this commitment as a national priority and international ideal. In January, 1941, as much of the world lay in chains or in peril and the war in Europe and Asia ominously approached our nation's door, he responded not just with economic and security assistance but also with the promise of the "Four Freedoms." One of these "essential human freedoms," he proclaimed, is the "freedom of every person to worship God in his own way-everywhere in the world."

In many ways, we find ourselves facing a similar challenge today. As we continue to wage a global war against terror, we remain as resolved as ever to respond to this challenge not only with our military and economic might, as formidable and necessary as that is, but also with the promise of freedom. And religious freedom is for us in America and for many around the world the "first freedom.'

The International Religious Freedom Report

The International Religious Freedom Act created both the office which I lead, and the requirement to report annually on religious freedom worldwide. The primary purpose of my office is to engage in sophisticated, vigorous diplomacy worldwide on behalf of those who are being imprisoned, tortured, beaten, or otherwise prevented from practicing their faith. My staff and I do this on many fronts around the world, and we count it a privilege to carry out this work in cooperation with many of you. As you are aware, a tool established by IRFA is the required designation of "countries of particular concern." These countries are those which meet the threshold of engaging in or tolerating "systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom." This designation process was established to ensure that the worst abusers of religious freedom would receive the scrutiny and action warranted by their abuses. Sadly, as in years past, there continue to be a number of contenders for this title. It has been the practice for the last few years for these considerations to take place following the Report's publication. While I can assure you the review process is already well underway, I also want to mention that the designations are not necessarily to be restricted to an annual event. When and if a designation is warranted, IRFA grants authority to make it at any time. Please be assured that I will make such a recommendation at any time it becomes necessary, to the Secretary and to the President. Additionally, we often seek to use the possibility of CPC designation as a tool for negotiating with different countries to secure measurable improvements in religious freedom and avoid designation. Some negotiations of this manner are ongoing as well.

Another important part of my office is overseeing the production of this annual report. We regularly hear from religious believers around the world how much this report means to them, how it encourages them to know that they are not forgotten, and how they regard this report as a gold standard on this issue.

We take this responsibility seriously, and my office actively monitors developments on the issue. This work includes seeking out government officials, religious leaders, human rights groups and NGOs, and believers from many religious traditions, both here and abroad. We draw on a massive volume of press and NGO reporting, as well as on the good work of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom. We rely significantly on the fact-gathering and investigation of abuses by our U.S. Embassies and Consulates around the world. And we do no small amount of firsthand investigating ourselves. My staff has traveled and will continue to travel to a number of the countries in which religious liberty is at risk. The IRF report is prepared initially by the men and women of our Embassies and Consulates around the world. Their drafts are then compiled and edited, in close consultation with my staff and the country desks, by the Office of Country Reports and Asylum Affairs in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. All of these individuals deserve great commendation for their work, which collectively shines the light of exposure into the dark recesses of religious persecution abroad.

This year's report covers over 190 countries during the period from July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003. The Introduction articulates the signal_importance of religious freedom not only to Americans but also for the world. The Executive Summary highlights categories, causes and trends in religious freedom issues and summarizes U.S. efforts to address abuses. In accordance with the IRF Act, it also identifies countries in which there have been significant or measurable improvements in religious freedom.

I would like to highlight briefly a few countries in which we have seen some measurable improvements this year. As noted in the Executive Summary, both Kazakhstan and Laos undertook efforts to demonstrate a greater respect for religious liberty. In Kazakhstan, President Nazarbayev began an initiative to promote dialogue among religions; an international conference drawing regional dignitaries and religious figures was held in February. Following the Constitutional Council's April 2002 determination that restrictive amendments to the National Religion Law were unconstitutional, no further attempts have been made to amend the legislation. Instances of harassment of religious organizations by local officials, including legal actions against the Jehovah's Witnesses and Baptists, decreased.

In Laos, although the Lao Government continued to inhibit religious practice overall, the Lao Government made some significant improvements. Just before I visited Laos in October, I was encouraged to learn that the last major group of longterm religious prisoners had been released. In most provinces incidents of arrests of religious leaders declined, there were no reports of new church closings, and other acts of abuse of Christian minorities, such as village expulsions, were limited to a small number of areas. In addition, several long-closed churches, especially in Vientiane Province, were allowed to reopen. In general, the Government appeared sincere in its efforts to promote conciliation between religious faiths and displayed greater tolerance for the Lao Evangelical Church. Government officials made frequent trips to provinces experiencing problems of religious intolerance towards Christians in order to instruct local officials on respecting the activities of Christian congregations under Lao law. Violations continue to occur, such as two incidents of arrests of Protestants in December in Savannakhet and Attapeu Provinces. And yet even these incidents illustrate the state of both problems and improvements in Laos. On learning of the arrests, Ambassador Doug Hartwick and his staff at Embassy Vientiane immediately intervened with the Lao Government and saw to it that the Christians were released. Such responsiveness on the part of the Lao Government, and willingness to resolve such incidents, mark a new and welcome spirit of cooperation that we had not seen in the past.

Additionally, we have also seen measurable improvements in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the wake of each country's liberation from, respectively, the oppressions of the Taliban regime and the Saddam Hussein regime, one benefit which has been certainly experienced by the peoples of each land has been significant new degrees of religious freedom. This progress may not always be noted by international commentary, but it is no doubt appreciated by many Afghan and Iraqi religious believ

ers.

In Afghanistan, we have seen the recent adoption by the Constitutional Loya Jirga of a new Constitution by and for the people of Afghanistan. The Constitution establishes that Afghanistan is an Islamic country, but guarantees that "followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites in accordance with the law." It also affirms "the state shall abide by the UN charter, international treaties, international conventions that Afghanistan has signed, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." This is no small commitment. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Afghanistan is a signatory, both contain robust and precise guarantees of religious freedom. With this Constitution, the people of Afghanistan enjoy more legal protection for their religious freedom than at any other point in their modern history.

However, many questions and challenges remain. Other provisions in the Constitution have the potential to be interpreted or abused in ways that could restrict religious freedom. And some voices of intolerance continue to resist the prospect of respecting other interpretations of Islam or other faiths. So while Afghanistan's religious freedom improvements are substantial, they are also fragile. We will continue to work closely with the new government in supporting its efforts to restore stability and protect freedom.

In Iraq, the Saddam Hussein regime was annually designated by the Secretary of State as one of the world's worst violators of religious freedom, and has been on the list of Countries of Particular Concern since the first designations were made in 1999. Iraqis suffered persecution under the Ba'athist regime regardless of their religion, but Saddam Hussein was particularly repressive of Shi'a Muslims and con

ducted a brutal campaign of killings, summary execution, arbitrary arrest, and protracted detention against the Shi'a. Today, all the people of Iraq are enjoying religious freedom. In April, over a million Shi'a publicly commemorated the Ashura for the first time in decades. We look forward to the creation of a new Iraqi government that recognizes the fundamental human rights of all the people of Iraq, including the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.

Unfortunately, in too many countries, religious freedom remains fragile, threatened, or hardly existent. In this regard, I would mention a few particular nations, which continue to draw our attention and concern.

In Turkmenistan, the Government continues to restrict almost all forms of religious expression. Governmental entities at all levels, including the courts, interpreted the laws in such a way as to discriminate against those practicing any faith other than Sunni Islam or Russian Orthodox Christianity, which are controlled by the Government. The Government used the law to prevent all other religious groups from registering, including some with the required 500 members, and severely limited the activities of unregistered religious congregations by prohibiting them from gathering publicly, proselytizing, and disseminating religious materials, and by restricting their freedom to meet and worship in private. Government harassment of nearly all unregistered religious groups lessened beginning in June 2002 but resumed in March 2003. Such harassment included detention, arrest, confiscation of religious literature and materials, pressure to abandon religious beliefs, and threats of eviction and loss of jobs. The Government restricted the number of Muslim mosques, controlled and restricted access to Islamic education, and limited the number of people allowed to participate in the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca. The enforced use of President Niyazov's spiritual guide, "Rukhnama," in educational institutions, mosques, and Russian Orthodox churches constituted a restriction of freedom of thought, conscience and belief, as did the replacement of imams who did not cooperate with the elevation of Rukhnama to a place beside the Koran.

More recently, we have been very disappointed at the Government's issuance of a new law that represses religious activity even further. The Government has been cautioned repeatedly that such restrictive laws and practices put it at great risk of being designated as a "Country of Particular Concern" (CPC).

In Uzbekistan, the Government permitted the existence of mainstream religions but invoked the Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations to restrict the religious freedom of other groups. The Government continued its harsh campaign against unauthorized Islamic groups it suspected of extremist sentiments or activities, arresting numerous alleged members of these groups and sentencing them to lengthy jail terms after unfair trials. The rate of detention and arrests of suspected extremists declined slightly but remains high, although 923 prisoners were released in the second large-scale amnesty in 2002, and another 700 were released in 2003. This repressive campaign led authorities to be highly suspicious of those who were among the most observant, including frequent mosque attendees, bearded men, and veiled women, creating a climate of intimidation and fear for some devout believers. Authorities harassed Christian groups with ethnic-Uzbek members. The Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations is not in keeping with international norms. The registration requirements for religious organizations are strict and burdensome, and a number of minority religious groups had difficulty satisfying them, thus forcing many groups to operate illegally and some clandestinely. Prohibited activities included organizing an illegal religious group, persuading others to join such a group, drawing minors into a religious organization without the permission of their parents, and even participating in a religious service conducted by an unregistered religious organization. The Government continued to prohibit proselytizing, ban almost all religious subjects in public schools, prohibit the private teaching of religious principles, and require religious groups to obtain a license to publish or distribute materials. There were stiff penalties for these activities.

I recently returned from my second visit to Vietnam. In addition to having many long and vigorous meetings with government officials, I also traveled to some areas where the reported persecution had been particularly severe. In Vietnam, the Government continued to place significant restrictions on publicly organized activities of religious groups not recognized by the Government, and on actions by recognized groups that it considered to be at variance with state interests. Religious groups faced difficulties in training and ordaining clergy and encountered some restrictions in conducting educational and charitable activities. Officials reportedly attempted to force many Hmong and other ethnic minority Protestants in several northwestern provinces as well as many Montagnards in several Central Highland provinces to renounce their faith. According to credible reports, the police harassed and sometimes detained and beat religious believers, particularly in mountainous areas large