[JPRT 107-77]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


107th Congress 
 2d Session              JOINT COMMITTEE PRINT                  S. Prt.
                                                                 107-77
_______________________________________________________________________
 
                            ANNUAL REPORT ON
                        INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS
                              FREEDOM 2002

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                            SUBMITTED TO THE

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

                                 OF THE

                              U.S. SENATE

                                AND THE

                              COMMITTEE ON

                        INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

                                 OF THE

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                 BY THE

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

 IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 102 OF THE INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 
                              ACT OF 1998

                                     




                                NOVEMBER 2002



Printed for the use of the Committees on Foreign Relations of the U.S. Senate and International Relations of the U.S. House of Representatives, respectively.



                          U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-501                             WASHINGTON : 2002
_____________________________________________________________________________
For the sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet:  bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800 fax: (202) 512-2250. Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001





                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

                JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware, Chairman
PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland           JESSE HELMS, North Carolina
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut     RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts         CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin       GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota         BILL FRIST, Tennessee
BARBARA BOXER, California            LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey     GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
BILL NELSON, Florida                 SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West         MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
    Virginia
                   Antony J. Blinken, Staff Director
            Patricia A. McNerney, Republican Staff Director



                  COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

                   HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York         TOM LANTOS, California
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa                 HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska              GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 
DAN BURTON, Indiana                      Samoa
ELTON GALLEGLY, California           DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina       SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
DANA ROHRABACHER, California         CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California          EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
PETER T. KING, New York              BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
AMO HOUGHTON, New York               JIM DAVIS, Florida
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana              WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado         GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
RON PAUL, Texas                      BARBARA LEE, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan                 JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
DARRELL E. ISSA, California          EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia                SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  GRACE NAPOLITANO, California
BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana              ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia               DIANE E. WATSON, California
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
         Thomas E. Mooney, Sr., Staff Director/General Counsel
               Robert R. King, Democratic Staff Director

                                  (ii)

  


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Foreword.........................................................   vii

Letter of Transmittal............................................    ix

Preface..........................................................    xi

Introduction.....................................................  xiii

Executive Summary................................................  xvii

             REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 2002
                             COUNTRY INDEX

Africa:

    Angola.......................................................     1
    Benin........................................................     2
    Botswana.....................................................     4
    Burkina Faso.................................................     5
    Burundi......................................................     7
    Cameroon.....................................................     9
    Cape Verde...................................................    11
    Central African Republic.....................................    13
    Chad.........................................................    15
    Comoros......................................................    17
    Congo, Democratic Republic of The............................    19
    Congo, Republic of The.......................................    22
    Cote d'Ivoire................................................    23
    Djibouti.....................................................    29
    Equatorial Guinea............................................    30
    Eritrea......................................................    32
    Ethiopia.....................................................    35
    Gabon........................................................    39
    Gambia, The..................................................    41
    Ghana........................................................    42
    Guinea.......................................................    47
    Guinea-Bissau................................................    49
    Kenya........................................................    50
    Lesotho......................................................    55
    Liberia......................................................    56
    Madagascar...................................................    58
    Malawi.......................................................    60
    Mali.........................................................    62
    Mauritania...................................................    64
    Mauritius....................................................    66
    Mozambique...................................................    67
    Namibia......................................................    70
    Niger........................................................    71
    Nigeria......................................................    73
    Rwanda.......................................................    81
    Sao Tome and Principe........................................    84
    Senegal......................................................    85
    Seychelles...................................................    88
    Sierra Leone.................................................    89
    Somalia......................................................    90
    South Africa.................................................    92
    Sudan........................................................    94
    Swaziland....................................................    99
    Tanzania.....................................................   101
    Togo.........................................................   105
    Uganda.......................................................   106
    Zambia.......................................................   109
    Zimbabwe.....................................................   111

Latin America and the Caribbean:

    Antigua and Barbuda..........................................   117
    Argentina....................................................   118
    Bahamas......................................................   122
    Barbados.....................................................   123
    Belize.......................................................   124
    Bolivia......................................................   126
    Brazil.......................................................   128
    Chile........................................................   129
    Colombia.....................................................   132
    Costa Rica...................................................   136
    Cuba.........................................................   138
    Dominica.....................................................   142
    Dominican Republic...........................................   143
    Ecuador......................................................   144
    El Salvador..................................................   146
    Grenada......................................................   147
    Guatemala....................................................   148
    Guyana.......................................................   151
    Haiti........................................................   153
    Honduras.....................................................   155
    Jamaica......................................................   156
    Mexico.......................................................   158
    Nicaragua....................................................   165
    Panama.......................................................   167
    Paraguay.....................................................   169
    Peru.........................................................   170
    St. Kitts and Nevis..........................................   172
    Saint Lucia..................................................   173
    Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.............................   174
    Suriname.....................................................   175
    Trinidad and Tobago..........................................   177
    Uruguay......................................................   178
    Venezuela....................................................   180

East Asia and the Pacific:

    Australia....................................................   183
    Brunei.......................................................   185
    Burma........................................................   187
    Cambodia.....................................................   196
    China (includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet).................   197
    China (Taiwan only)..........................................   219
    Fiji.........................................................   221
    Indonesia....................................................   222
    Japan........................................................   239
    Kiribati.....................................................   241
    Korea, Democratic People's Republic of.......................   242
    Korea, Republic of...........................................   246
    Laos.........................................................   247
    Malaysia.....................................................   255
    Marshall Islands.............................................   258
    Micronesia, Federated States of..............................   259
    Mongolia.....................................................   260
    Nauru........................................................   261
    New Zealand..................................................   263
    Palau........................................................   265
    Papua New Guinea.............................................   267
    Philippines..................................................   269
    Samoa........................................................   274
    Singapore....................................................   276
    Solomon Islands..............................................   279
    Thailand.....................................................   280
    Tonga........................................................   284
    Tuvalu.......................................................   285
    Vanuatu......................................................   286
    Vietnam......................................................   288

Europe and Canada:

    Albania......................................................   305
    Andorra......................................................   307
    Armenia......................................................   309
    Austria......................................................   313
    Azerbaijan...................................................   317
    Belarus......................................................   322
    Belgium......................................................   331
    Bosnia and Herzegovina.......................................   335
    Bulgaria.....................................................   341
    Canada.......................................................   347
    Croatia......................................................   349
    Cyprus.......................................................   352
    Czech Republic...............................................   356
    Denmark......................................................   359
    Estonia......................................................   361
    Finland......................................................   363
    France.......................................................   365
    Georgia......................................................   369
    Germany......................................................   376
    Greece.......................................................   382
    Hungary......................................................   388
    Iceland......................................................   391
    Ireland......................................................   394
    Italy........................................................   395
    Kazakhstan...................................................   398
    Kyrgyz Republic..............................................   404
    Latvia.......................................................   408
    Liechtenstein................................................   410
    Lithuania....................................................   411
    Luxembourg...................................................   416
    Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia........................   417
    Malta........................................................   420
    Moldova......................................................   422
    Monaco.......................................................   426
    Netherlands, The.............................................   427
    Norway.......................................................   430
    Poland.......................................................   432
    Portugal.....................................................   436
    Romania......................................................   438
    Russia.......................................................   449
    San Marino...................................................   464
    Slovak Republic..............................................   465
    Slovenia.....................................................   469
    Spain........................................................   471
    Sweden.......................................................   474
    Switzerland..................................................   476
    Tajikistan...................................................   480
    Turkey.......................................................   483
    Turkmenistan.................................................   489
    Ukraine......................................................   494
    United Kingdom...............................................   502
    Uzbekistan...................................................   506

Near East and North Africa:

    Algeria......................................................   517
    Bahrain......................................................   519
    Egypt........................................................   523
    Iran.........................................................   531
    Iraq.........................................................   539
    Israel and the Occupied Territories..........................   546
    Jordan.......................................................   557
    Kuwait.......................................................   562
    Lebanon......................................................   566
    Libya........................................................   569
    Morocco......................................................   571
    Oman.........................................................   575
    Qatar........................................................   577
    Saudi Arabia.................................................   579
    Syria........................................................   585
    Tunisia......................................................   588
    United Arab Emirates.........................................   592
    Western Sahara...............................................   596
    Yemen........................................................   596

South Asia:

    Afghanistan..................................................   601
    Bangladesh...................................................   607
    Bhutan.......................................................   612
    India........................................................   614
    Maldives.....................................................   626
    Nepal........................................................   628
    Pakistan.....................................................   630
    Sri Lanka....................................................   643

Appendixes:

    A. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.................   649
    B. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 
      and The Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of 
      Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.   653
    C. Training at the Foreign Service Institute Related to the 
      International Religious Freedom Act........................   667
    D. INS and The International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA)....   671
    E. Overview of U.S. Refugee Policy...........................   673




                                FOREWORD

                              ----------                              

    The report on international religious freedom contained 
herein was prepared by the Department of State in accordance 
with Section 102 of the International Religious Freedom Act of 
1998.
    The report is printed to assist Members of Congress in the 
consideration of legislation, particularly foreign assistance 
legislation.

                                      Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,
                          Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations.

                                                Henry Hyde,
                    Chairman, Committee on International Relations.


                                 (vii)

                                     




                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                                  U.S. Department of State,
                                   Washington, DC, October 7, 2002.
Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate.

    Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of Secretary of State Colin Powell, I am very 
pleased to transmit to Congress the Annual Report on Religious 
Freedom 2002. This report is prepared in compliance with 
Section 102 of the International Religious Freedom Act. It 
covers events from July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002.
    We sincerely hope that this report is helpful. Please let 
us know if we can be of further assistance.
            Sincerely,
                                             Paul V. Kelly,
                          Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.
Enclosure.


                                  (ix)

                                     
                                PREFACE

                              ----------                              


         ANNUAL REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 2002

                      Why The Reports Are Prepared

    This report is submitted to the Congress by the Department of State 
in compliance with Section 102(b) of the International Religious 
Freedom Act (IRFA) of 1998. The law provides that the Secretary of 
State, with the assistance of the Ambassador at Large for International 
Religious Freedom, shall transmit to Congress ``an Annual Report on 
International Religious Freedom supplementing the most recent Human 
Rights Reports by providing additional detailed information with 
respect to matters involving international religious freedom.'' This 
Annual Report includes 195 reports on countries worldwide.

                      How The Reports Are Prepared

    In August 1993, the Secretary of State moved to strengthen the 
human rights efforts of our embassies. All sections in each embassy 
were asked to contribute information and to corroborate reports of 
human rights violations, and new efforts were made to link mission 
programming to the advancement of human rights and democracy. In 1994 
the Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs was reorganized and 
renamed as the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, reflecting 
both a broader sweep and a more focused approach to the interlocking 
issues of human rights, worker rights, and democracy. In 1998 the 
Secretary of State established the Office of International Religious 
Freedom. In May 2002, John V. Hanford, III was sworn in as the second 
Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom.
    The 2002 Report covers the period from July 1, 2001, to June 30, 
2002, and reflects a year of dedicated effort by hundreds of State 
Department, Foreign Service, and other U.S. Government employees. Our 
embassies, which prepared the initial drafts of the reports, gathered 
information throughout this period from a variety of sources, including 
government and religious officials, nongovernmental organizations, 
journalists, human rights monitors, religious groups, and academics. 
This information-gathering can be hazardous, and U.S. Foreign Service 
Officers regularly go to great lengths, under trying and sometimes 
dangerous conditions, to investigate reports of human rights abuse, 
monitor elections, and come to the aid of individuals at risk because 
of their religious beliefs.
    After the embassies completed their drafts, the texts were sent to 
Washington for careful review by the Office of Country Reports and 
Asylum Affairs in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 
working closely with other State Department Offices and the Office of 
the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, who has 
ultimate responsibility for the Report on behalf of the Secretary of 
State. As they worked to corroborate, analyze, and edit the reports, 
the Department officers drew on their own sources of information. These 
included reports provided by U.S. and other human rights groups, 
foreign government officials, representatives from the United Nations 
and other international and regional organizations and institutions, 
and experts from academia and the media. Officers also consulted with 
experts on issues of religious discrimination and persecution, 
religious leaders from all faiths, and experts on legal matters. The 
guiding principle was to ensure that all relevant information was 
assessed as objectively, thoroughly, and fairly as possible.
    The Report will be used as a resource for shaping policy, 
conducting diplomacy, and making assistance, training, and other 
resource allocations. As mandated by the IRFA, it also will be used as 
a basis for decisions on determining countries that have engaged in or 
tolerated ``particularly severe violations'' of religious freedom. 
Countries involved in these and other violations according to the IRFA 
are not identified as such in this report, but have been and will be 
engaged independently by the U.S. Government. The Report also will 
serve as a basis for the U.S. Government's cooperation with private 
groups to promote the observance of the internationally recognized 
right to religious freedom.

                            A Word On Usage

    In many cases, the International Religious Freedom Report states 
that a country ``generally respects'' the right of religious freedom. 
The phrase ``generally respects'' is used because the protection and 
promotion of human rights is a dynamic endeavor; it cannot accurately 
be stated that any Government fully respects these rights, without 
qualification, in even the best of circumstances. Accordingly, 
``generally respects'' is the standard phrase used to describe all 
countries that attempt to protect religious freedom in the fullest 
sense. ``Generally respects'' is thus the highest level of respect for 
religious freedom assigned by this report.
                              INTRODUCTION

                              ----------                              

    Religious freedom, one of the most fundamental of human rights, is 
a liberty long championed by the United States and cherished by the 
American people. It is the policy of the United States Government to 
promote religious freedom worldwide, for every human being, regardless 
of religion, race, culture or nationality. Our policy is designed to 
encourage other nations to adhere to international standards of human 
rights and to promote fundamental U.S. concerns and values. While 
historically part of our overall human rights policy, the promotion of 
religious liberty as a foreign policy goal was given increased emphasis 
with the passage of the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act, which 
mandated this Annual Report.

                The U.S. Commitment to Religious Freedom

    There are several reasons why the United States promotes religious 
freedom. First, the quest for religious liberty has played an integral 
part in American history. Early in our nation's founding, the view that 
every human being has a fundamental right to believe, worship and 
practice according to his or her own conscience became a core 
conviction of the American people. Religious liberty is the first of 
the enumerated rights in our Constitution, and is known as ``the first 
freedom,'' because the founders believed it to be a lynchpin of 
democracy and the other fundamental human rights.
    Its realization was not easily achieved. Today Americans enjoy 
religious freedom, but it was not always so. Our history is not 
perfect, and yet that very history makes us all the more determined to 
protect what has been won. It makes us doubly determined to help those 
millions of people beyond our borders who suffer because of their 
faith. Indeed, as in past centuries, many of those who champion this 
liberty most passionately are new Americans who arrived as refugees 
fleeing religious persecution in their native lands.
    Second, religious freedom is universal in its importance and 
applicability. It is one of those ``unalienable rights'' acknowledged 
in our own Declaration of Independence--a right not granted by 
governments, but rather the birthright of every human being, in every 
nation and every culture. This truth is acknowledged in the most 
important of all the international human rights instruments, the 1948 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which notes that ``all human 
beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.'' Accordingly, 
all are endowed with the right to ``freedom of thought, conscience and 
religion.''
    Implicit in this language is a concept vital to the acceptance of 
human rights, including religious liberty. It is the belief in a common 
human nature that transcends cultural, racial, religious and other 
distinctions. The United Nations representatives of 1948 had witnessed 
in Nazism, and to a lesser extent in colonial regimes, a malevolent 
focus on racial and cultural differences. They were determined to 
articulate the existence of a human family comprised of persons equally 
endowed with dignity and worth irrespective of race, culture, religion, 
income or any other distinction.
    Third, the promotion of religious freedom is intimately connected 
to the promotion of other fundamental human and civil rights, as well 
as to the growth of democracy. A government that acknowledges and 
protects freedom of religion and conscience is one that understands the 
inherent and inviolable dignity of the human person. Such a government 
is far more likely to protect, through rule of law, the other rights 
fundamental to human dignity, such as freedom from arbitrary arrest or 
seizure, or freedom from torture and murder.
    Such a government is also more likely to protect the rights most 
closely associated with religious freedom, such as freedom of 
expression, freedom of association and assembly, and the rights of 
parents to raise their children in their faith. Together, these rights 
constitute the seedbed of democratic development. They encourage not 
only the institutions and procedures of democracy, such as 
representative government and free elections, but also the virtues of 
democracy, including a government and citizenry that value and nurture 
human dignity. When the United States promotes religious freedom, it is 
promoting the spread of democracy. More democracy means greater 
stability and economic prosperity.
    Finally, U.S. religious freedom policy is a means of fighting the 
war on terrorism. The events of September 11, 2001 have had significant 
implications for that policy. The attacks by Al Qaeda highlighted the 
reality that people can and do exploit religion for terrible purposes, 
in some cases manipulating and destroying other human beings as mere 
instruments in the process. This is, unfortunately, not a new 
phenomenon in human affairs. In the post Cold War world, some scholars 
are predicting that religious differences are likely to be a cause of 
major conflicts between civilizations.
    Whether such theories are borne out or not, 9/11 has raised the 
stakes for U.S. religious freedom policy. To the extent that policy 
succeeds, it will provide one of the most effective and sustainable 
antidotes, not only to religious persecution and discrimination, but 
also to religion-based violence and a potential ``clash of 
civilizations.''
    The reason is straightforward: where governments protect religious 
freedom, and citizens value it as a social good, religious persecution 
and religion-based violence find no warrant. Such societies not only 
tolerate religious differences, but many of its members see the 
exercise of religious devotion as constitutive of human freedom and 
dignity. They understand, as President Bush has stressed both here and 
abroad, that religious faith at its best yields productive, charitable 
citizens and stable societies. They also understand that to deprive 
persons of the right to religious liberty is to deny them their 
humanity in the most profound sense. At the heart of liberty is the 
right to ask the fundamental questions about the origins, nature, value 
and destiny of human life, and to worship and live in accord with the 
obligations that ensue.

             The Office of International Religious Freedom

    The Office of the Ambassador at Large for International Religious 
Freedom has now completed its fourth year. Formed in the summer of 
1998, the Office has the mission of promoting religious freedom 
worldwide. The Ambassador is charged with the responsibility of serving 
as the Principal Advisor to the President and the Secretary of State on 
matters of international religious freedom.
    The Ambassador and his staff monitor the worldwide status of 
religious persecution and discrimination and devise strategies to 
reduce the abuses. Just as importantly, they develop strategies to 
promote religious freedom, both to attack the root causes of 
persecution and as a means of promoting other fundamental U.S. 
interests, such as protecting other core human rights, encouraging the 
development of mature democracies, and fighting the war against 
terrorism.
    These strategies are carried out in a variety of ways, using the 
range of diplomatic tools available, including both formal and informal 
bilateral negotiations with foreign government authorities; 
participation in multilateral fora such as the United Nations and the 
Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe; cooperation with 
human rights and faith-based NGO's; and meetings with victims of 
persecution. Often the Ambassador and staff, along with other U.S. 
officials, engage in direct intervention in a particular crisis to 
remove people of faith from harm's way or to forestall further 
persecution.
    In all cases, the Office, which is staffed with experienced Foreign 
Service and Civil Service officers, works closely with its counterparts 
elsewhere in the State Department, the U.S. Government, and in U.S. 
missions overseas. U.S. Foreign Service officers abroad form the front 
line of our religious freedom policy. Many of their activities, and 
those of the Office of International Religious Freedom, are discussed 
in Part III of the Executive Summary. Some of their actions, however, 
must necessarily remain out of the spotlight in order to protect those 
involved.

                           The Annual Report

    The mission of the Ambassador at Large was framed by the 
International Religious Freedom (IRF) Act of 1998, which also 
prescribed the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, of 
which this is the fourth edition. The purpose of the Annual Report is 
to establish a baseline of fact about the status of religious freedom 
worldwide, both to illuminate the problems that exist and to provide a 
primary source for U.S. religious freedom policy. The first three 
editions have generally been criticized by violator governments, but 
hailed by human rights NGO's as the standard worldwide reference on 
religious persecution.
    As I begin my term as the second U.S. Ambassador at Large for 
International Religious Freedom, I wish to thank all the employees of 
the Department of State here and abroad who have made this report 
possible. In particular, I want to acknowledge the dedicated work of 
our human rights officers throughout the world, as well as the members 
of the Office of Country Reports and Asylum Affairs at the State 
Department, who have worked long and hard to craft this report. I also 
want to express appreciation for the bipartisan and deep support that 
Congress has demonstrated on this issue. Finally, I wish to thank my 
own staff in the Office of International Religious Freedom, whose 
commitment to religious freedom for all people is exemplary.
    This fourth Annual Report on International Religious Freedom is 
submitted in furtherance of our goal of promoting and protecting 
religious freedom for all.
                                       John V. Hanford III,
           Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom.
                           EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

                              ----------                              

    In 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which declared ``the 
inherent dignity and--the equal and inalienable rights of all members 
of the human family.'' The Declaration noted that ``disregard and 
contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have 
outraged the conscience of mankind.'' It proclaimed as one of mankind's 
highest aspirations the advent of a world in which people enjoyed 
freedom of belief. In Article 18, the UDHR declared that ``everyone has 
the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right 
includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either 
alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest 
his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.'' 
(See Appendix A.)
    Today there are several international agreements obligating nations 
to respect religious freedom. (See Appendix B.) The vast majority of 
the world's governments have committed themselves through these 
agreements to protect the right of religious freedom for everyone who 
lives within their respective borders.
    And yet, despite these widely accepted international instruments 
protecting religious freedom, there remains in some countries a 
substantial difference between commitment and practice. Much of the 
world's population lives in countries in which the right to religious 
freedom is restricted or prohibited. This unacceptable gap between word 
and deed is explainable at several levels.
    The most troubling explanation is the continued existence of 
totalitarian or authoritarian regimes that are determined to control 
religious belief and practice. The result is persecution. Some regimes 
are hostile to minority or ``unapproved'' religions, while others 
tolerate, and thereby encourage, persecution or discrimination. 
Although acts of violence against religious minorities may have several 
causes--for example, ethnicity or a perceived security threat--
multicausality does not necessarily diminish the significance of 
religion. Some governments--often either democratic or aspiring to 
democracy--have adopted discriminatory legislation or policies that 
give preference to favored religions while disadvantaging others.
    Some democratic states in Western Europe have undertaken policies 
resulting in the stigmatization of minority religions, the result of 
identifying them indiscriminately and often inaccurately with dangerous 
``sects'' or ``cults.'' These practices are particularly troubling in 
that other nations struggling toward democracy, as well as certain non-
democratic states, are adopting ``anti-cult'' laws and policies that 
are based in part on those of Western Europe. In non-democratic 
nations, lacking a tradition of commitment to human rights and rule of 
law, ``anti-cult'' laws could easily be implemented in ways that result 
in the persecution of people of faith.
    The practice of requiring religious groups to register before they 
can engage in activities such as worship is, by its nature, subject to 
abuse by local jurisdictions, even in cases where it is designed by 
central authorities to be applied in a nondiscriminatory fashion. Nor 
should a legitimate concern over the destructive and unlawful behavior 
by a small number of groups be employed so indiscriminately that 
religions are wrongfully stigmatized.
    This report does not neglect the effect of history, culture, and 
tradition on religious freedom policies. A particular religion may have 
dominated the life of a nation for centuries, making more difficult the 
acceptance of new faiths that offer challenges in both cultural and 
theological terms. However, tradition and culture should not be used as 
a pretext for laws or policies that restrict genuine religious belief 
or its legitimate manifestation. International covenants allow legal 
restrictions on religious practice, but they must be applied 
scrupulously and fairly, in as limited a way as possible, without 
discriminating among religions.
    Ultimately, each nation's policies and practices regarding 
religious freedom must be measured against international norms. The 
United States acknowledges its own responsibility with respect to these 
norms in the safeguarding and protection of religious liberty.
    The Executive Summary consists of three parts. Part I identifies 
many of the countries where religious freedom is restricted and 
classifies their actions and policies into five categories. Part II 
provides examples of nations whose governments have taken steps to 
promote or protect religious freedom, even though in most cases serious 
problems remain in those countries. Part III illustrates actions the 
U.S. Government has taken to encourage other nations to promote 
religious freedom.
    Readers should note that some countries are mentioned in more than 
one part of the summary, according to the type of action or situation 
being reported. Within Part I, several of the countries could be listed 
in more than one of the five categories; however, in the interest of 
brevity, a given country is listed only once, in the category that best 
characterizes the fundamental barriers to religious freedom in that 
country.

          Part I: Barriers to International Religious Freedom

               totalitarian or authoritarian attempts to
                  control religious belief or practice
    Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes are defined by the high 
degree to which they seek to control thought and expression, especially 
dissent. Such regimes tend to regard some or all religious groups as 
enemies of the state because of the religion's content, the fact that 
the very practice of religion threatens the dominant ideology (often by 
diverting the loyalties of adherents toward an authority beyond the 
state), the ethnic character of the religious group or groups, or a 
mixture of all three. When one or more of these elements is present, 
the result often is the suppression of religion by the regime.

    Burma. The Government continued to view religious freedom in the 
context of threats to national unity. Through its pervasive internal 
security apparatus, the Government generally infiltrated or monitored 
the meetings and activities of virtually all organizations, including 
religious organizations. The Government subjected all publications, 
including religious publications, to control and censorship and 
sometimes prohibited outdoor meetings. Government authorities continued 
to show preference for Theravada Buddhism, the majority religion, while 
at the same time controlling the organization and restricting the 
activities and expression of its clergy. The Government systematically 
restricted efforts by Buddhist clergy to promote human rights and 
political freedom, discouraged and sometimes prohibited minority 
religions from constructing new places of worship, and in some areas 
coercively promoted Buddhism over other religions. There were credible 
reports that the country's armed forces forcibly converted hundreds of 
Christian tribal Nagas to Buddhism. Anti-Muslim violence continued, and 
there were reports that restrictions on Muslim travel and worship 
increased.

    China. Unapproved religious and spiritual groups remained under 
scrutiny and, in some cases, harsh repression. The Government continued 
to restrict religious practice to government-sanctioned organizations 
and registered places of worship, and to control the growth and scope 
of the activity of religious groups to prevent the rise of possible 
sources of authority outside of the control of the Government. The 
Government continued, and in some places intensified, a national 
campaign to enforce regulations that require all places of religious 
activity to register with government religious affairs bureaus and come 
under the supervision of official, ``patriotic'' religious 
organizations. As in past years, the Government moved against houses of 
worship outside its control that grew too large or espoused beliefs 
that it considered threatening to state security. Police closed 
``underground'' mosques, temples, and seminaries, as well as large 
numbers of Catholic churches, and Protestant ``house churches,'' many 
with significant memberships, properties, financial resources, and 
networks, and banned groups that it considered to be ``cults.'' Leaders 
of unauthorized groups, in particular, are often the targets of 
harassment, interrogation, detention, and physical abuse, including 
torture. Members of these groups also may be subject to such treatment. 
The Government continued its harsh repression of Falun Gong and other 
groups that it considered ``heretical cults.'' Various sources report 
that thousands of Falun Gong adherents have been arrested, detained, 
and imprisoned, and that several hundred Falun Gong adherents have died 
in detention since 1999. In Tibet, the level of religious repression 
remained high, and the Government's record of respect for religious 
freedom remained poor. Religious practice faced ongoing restrictions, 
but overall these restrictions were less harshly enforced than during 
the previous year. Police continued their crackdown on Muslim religious 
activity and places of worship accused of supporting separatism in the 
Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. Some Uighurs and other Muslims 
accused the Government of using the ongoing war against terrorism as an 
excuse to intensify the repression of religious activity in Xinjiang.

    Cuba. The Government continued its efforts to maintain a strong 
degree of control over religion. Citizens worshiping in officially 
sanctioned churches often were subject to surveillance by state 
security forces. The Government refused to register most new 
denominations, and unregistered religious groups continued to 
experience varying degrees of official interference, harassment, and 
repression. Although it is legal to construct new churches, the 
Government rarely authorized such construction, forcing many churches 
to seek permits to meet in private homes. The ability of churches to 
run schools, train religious workers, and print religious material was 
either prohibited or severely restricted.

    Laos. In spite of some limited improvements, religious freedom 
continued to be restricted. The Lao People's Revolutionary Party (LPRP) 
and the Government maintained their narrow interpretation of the 
constitutional provision for religious freedom, thus inhibiting 
religious practice by all persons, especially those belonging to 
minority religions, particularly Christianity, that fall outside of the 
mainstream Buddhism. Although official pronouncements accept the 
existence of different religions, they emphasize the potential to 
divide, distract, or destabilize. All religious groups, including 
Buddhists, practiced their faith in an atmosphere in which the 
application of the law was arbitrary. Many officials appeared to 
interpret the constitution to prohibit any religious activities 
involving proselytizing or conversion, and to view Christianity in 
particular, as creating societal divisions. Officials in some 
localities continued to attempt to force believers to renounce their 
faith. Government authorities closed several dozen churches, but a 
small number of other churches that had been closed in recent years 
were allowed to reopen. There were 19 known religious prisoners or 
detainees, all Christians, at the end of the period covered by this 
report. (Note: Nine of these prisoners were released in July, soon 
after the end of the reporting period.)

    North Korea. The Government continued to suppress organized 
religious activity except that of officially recognized groups linked 
to the Government. Faith-based and human rights groups outside the 
country provided numerous reports that members of underground churches 
have been beaten, arrested, or killed. Witnesses have testified that 
prisoners held on the basis of their religious beliefs generally 
received harsher treatment than that of other inmates. Those who 
proselytize or who have ties to overseas evangelical groups operating 
across the border with China appear to have been arrested and subjected 
to harsh penalties, including death, according to several reports. 
While difficult to confirm, the collective weight of anecdotal evidence 
of harsh treatment of unauthorized religious activity lends credence to 
such reports.

    Vietnam. The Government continued to restrict activities of 
religious groups that it declared to be at variance with state laws and 
policies. Restrictions on the hierarchies and clergy of such groups 
remained in place, and the Government maintained supervisory control of 
the recognized religions. Groups faced difficulties in training and 
ordaining clergy, and in conducting educational and humanitarian 
activities. There were credible reports that in past years Hmong 
Protestant Christians in several northwestern villages were forced by 
local authorities to recant their faith. Hmong Protestants were also 
charged with practicing religion illegally and jailed for up to 3 years 
for ``abusing freedom of speech, press, or religion.'' There were 
reports that officials fabricated evidence, and that some of the 
provisions of the law used to convict religious prisoners contradicted 
international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights. According to credible reports, the police arbitrarily detained 
persons based on their religious beliefs and practice, particularly in 
the mountainous, ethnic minority areas.
        state hostility toward minority or nonapproved religions
    Some governments, while not necessarily determined to implement a 
program of control over minority religions, nevertheless are hostile to 
certain ones or to factions of religious groups identified as 
``security threats.'' These governments implement policies designed to 
intimidate certain groups, cause their adherents to convert to another 
faith, or cause their members to flee.

    Iran. Government actions continued to create a threatening 
atmosphere for some religious minorities. All such groups suffered 
varying degrees of officially sanctioned discrimination, particularly 
in the areas of employment, education, and housing. The Government 
fueled anti-Baha'i and anti-Jewish sentiment for political purposes. 
Baha'is, Jews, Christians, Mandaeans, and Sufi Muslims reported 
imprisonment, harassment, or intimidation based on their religious 
beliefs. At least four Baha'is were among those still imprisoned for 
reasons related to their faith, while eight Jews remained in prison 
after being convicted for cooperating with a hostile government, 
belonging to an illegal organization, and recruiting members in an 
illegal organization. The property rights of Baha'is generally were 
disregarded. Laws based on religion were used to stifle freedom of 
expression. Independent newspapers and magazines were closed and 
leading publishers and journalists imprisoned on vague charges of 
``insulting Islam'' or ``calling into question the Islamic foundation 
of the Republic.''

    Iraq. The Government continued its systematic and vicious policies 
against Shi'as. It severely restricted or banned many Shi'a religious 
practices and conducted--as it has for decades--a brutal campaign of 
murder, summary execution, arbitrary arrest, and protracted detention 
against Shi'a religious leaders and adherents. The regime has 
desecrated Shi'a mosques and holy sites, disrupted Shi'a religious 
ceremonies, and interfered with Shi'a religious education. It has 
banned the broadcast of Shi'a programs on government-controlled radio 
or television and the publication of Shi'a books. There were also 
reports that the Government engaged in various abuses against the 
country's Assyrian and Chaldean Christians, especially in terms of 
forced movements from northern areas and repression of political 
rights.

    Pakistan. The Government failed to protect the rights of religious 
minorities, due both to public policy and to its unwillingness to take 
action against societal forces hostile to those that practice a 
different faith. Acts of sectarian and religious violence continued 
during the period covered by this report. The worst religious violence 
was directed against the country's Shi'a minority, who continued to be 
disproportionately victimized in individual and mass killings. The 
practice of the Ahmadi faith continued to be restricted severely by 
law, and Ahmadi individuals and institutions were frequent victims of 
religious violence, much of which was instigated by organized religious 
extremists. A number of massacres in mosques and churches, including an 
attack on a church in Islamabad that left five persons dead, two of 
them foreign nationals, brought into question the Government's ability 
to prevent sectarian and religious violence. The Government continued 
the use of the ``Hudood'' Ordinances, which apply different standards 
of evidence to Muslims and non-Muslims and to men and women for alleged 
violations of Islamic law. The Government also kept blasphemy laws in 
force, which personal rivals and the authorities used to threaten, 
punish, or imprison Ahmadis, Christians, and orthodox Muslims.

    Saudi Arabia. Freedom of religion does not exist in Saudi Arabia. 
The Government requires all citizens to be Muslim and prohibits all 
public manifestations of non-Muslim religions. Islamic practice 
generally is limited to that of a school of the Sunni branch of Islam 
as interpreted by Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, an 18th-century Arab 
religious reformer, and practices contrary to this interpretation are 
suppressed. Members of the Shi'a minority continued to face 
institutionalized political and economic discrimination, including 
restrictions on the practice of their faith, and many Shi'a sheikhs 
remained in detention.
    The Government has stated publicly that it recognizes the right of 
non-Muslims to worship in private; however, the distinction between 
public and private worship is not defined clearly, in effect forcing 
most non-Muslims to worship in a manner such as to avoid discovery. 
Several Christians were detained for non-Muslim worship and almost 
always deported after sometimes lengthy periods of arrest, during which 
some received lashings. The Government refused to permit clergy members 
to enter the country to conduct non-Muslim religious services, placing 
groups such as Catholics and Orthodox Christians who must have a priest 
on a regular basis to practice their faith at a particular 
disadvantage. Customs officials confiscated or censored materials 
considered offensive, including Bibles and religious videotapes. In 
certain areas, both the Mutawwa'in (religious police) and religious 
vigilantes harassed, assaulted, and detained citizens and foreigners.

    Sudan. The Government's conduct of the 19-year civil war was 
largely responsible for abuses in violation of humanitarian norms: the 
burning and looting of villages, the starving of thousands of 
southerners, and the killings, rapes, and arbitrary arrests and 
detentions of civilians, most of whom were Christians or practitioners 
of traditional indigenous religions. The Government also continued the 
intentional bombings of civilian targets. The forced abduction of women 
and children and the taking of slaves by slave raiders supported by the 
Government in war zones continued. The victims in the villages largely 
were Christians or practitioners of traditional indigenous religions. 
Some of these victims from Christian and other non-Muslim families were 
converted forcibly to Islam. There were reports that Islamic NGO's in 
war zones withheld other services, such as medical and food aid, from 
the needy unless they converted to Islam. There also were reports that 
Christian NGO's used their services to pressure persons to convert to 
Christianity.
    The Government's recognition of Islam as the state religion 
contributed to an atmosphere in which non-Muslims were treated as 
second-class citizens throughout the country. In government-controlled 
areas of the south, there continued to be credible evidence of 
favoritism towards Muslims and an unwritten policy of Islamization of 
public institutions, despite an official policy of local autonomy and 
federalism. Registration, obligatory for all religious groups, 
reportedly was very difficult to obtain, particularly for evangelical 
Christian groups. The Government continued to deny permission for the 
construction of Roman Catholic churches.

    Turkmenistan. The Government continues to place restrictions on 
religious expression. A law on religious organizations requires that 
religious groups must have at least 500 members in each locality in 
which they wish to register in order to gain legal status with the 
government. The only religions that have successfully registered under 
the law are Sunni Islam and Russian Orthodox Christianity, which are 
controlled by the Government. The Government severely limits the 
activities of nonregistered religious congregations by prohibiting them 
from gathering publicly, proselytizing, and disseminating religious 
materials. The Government's interpretation of the law severely 
restricts the freedom to meet and worship in private. Several members 
of minority faiths were deported.
    Some observers have speculated that official restrictions on 
religious freedom, a holdover from the Soviet era, reflect the 
Government's concern that liberal religious policies could lead to 
political dissent, including in particular the introduction of Islamic 
extremist movements into the country. The Government appears to view 
participation in or sponsorship of nontraditional religions as a threat 
to the stability and the neutrality of the State.

    Uzbekistan. The Government permits the existence of mainstream 
religions; however, it continued its harsh campaign against 
unauthorized Islamic groups it suspected of anti-State sentiments or 
activities. Christian churches generally are tolerated as long as they 
do not attempt to win converts among ethnic Uzbeks. A number of 
minority religious groups, including congregations of a variety of 
Christian confessions, the Baha'i faith, and Hare Krishna, had 
difficulty satisfying the strict registration requirements set out by 
the law. The law, which is among the most restrictive in Central Asia, 
prohibits or severely restricts activities such as proselytizing, 
importing and disseminating religious literature, and offering 
religious instruction. Other prohibited activities include organizing 
an illegal religious group and persuading others to join such a group. 
Any religious service conducted by an unregistered religious 
organization is illegal. The law prohibits groups that do not have a 
registered religious center from training religious personnel. In 
practice, these restrictions override almost all freedoms recognized by 
international norms. The criminal and civil codes contain stiff 
penalties for violating the religion law and other statutes on 
religious activities.
state neglect of the problem of discrimination against, or persecution 
                 of, minority or nonapproved religions
    In some countries, governments have laws or policies to discourage 
religious discrimination and persecution but fail to act with 
sufficient consistency and vigor against violations of religious 
freedom by nongovernmental entities or local law enforcement officials.

    Bangladesh. Despite the fact that the Constitution guarantees 
citizens the right to practice the religion of their choice, police 
often were slow to assist members of religious minorities who were 
victims of crimes, thereby contributing to an atmosphere of impunity. 
An increase in crime and violence after the October 2001 elections 
exacerbated this situation and increased perceptions of the 
vulnerability of religious minorities. The number of Hindus, 
Christians, and Buddhists who perceived discrimination increased.

    Belarus. Head of State Alexander Lukashenko continued to pursue a 
policy of favoring the Russian Orthodox Church, the country's majority 
religion, and authorities increased harassment of other denominations 
and religions. The regime denied registration to some religious groups 
on the grounds that they were ``nontraditional'' and also to all 
religious groups considered to be ``sects.'' Protestant denominations 
continued to come under attack in the government-run media. On June 27, 
the lower house of Parliament gave its final approval to a new law on 
religion that if implemented would impose further restrictions on 
religious freedom. The bill awaits consideration by the upper house in 
the fall. Restitution of religious property seized during the Soviet 
and Nazi occupations remained limited.

    Egypt. There was a trend toward improvement in the Government's 
respect for and protection of religious freedom. However, the 
Government continued to prosecute persons, including Muslims, for 
unorthodox religious beliefs and practices under the charge of 
``insulting heavenly religions.'' The approval process for church 
construction continued to be time-consuming and insufficiently 
responsive to the wishes of the Christian community. Christian 
representatives maintained that security forces have blocked them from 
utilizing permits that have been issued, and that local security 
officials at times blocked or delayed permits for repairs to church 
buildings. The 1960 decree that banned Baha'i institutions and 
community activities and confiscated all Baha'i community properties 
was still in force. Government discrimination against non-Muslims 
exists in the public sector.

    Georgia. The status of religious freedom deteriorated during the 
period covered by this report. Local police and security officials at 
times harassed nontraditional religious minority groups. Police failed 
to respond to continued attacks by Orthodox extremists, largely 
followers of Basil Mkalavishvili and members of the Jvari organization, 
against Jehovah's Witnesses and other nontraditional religious 
minorities. In most cases local law enforcement agents actually 
participated in or facilitated the attacks, which increased in 
frequency and violence, with impunity. On the few occasions in which 
investigations into such attacks have been opened, they have proceeded 
very slowly. No one has been convicted or sent to prison for 
participating in these violent attacks.

    Guatemala. The Government has made little progress towards 
implementing the 1995 Agreement on the Identity and Rights of 
Indigenous Peoples, which provides for the respect of spiritual rights 
of indigenous people. The Agreement calls for Congress to pass 
legislation to amend the Constitution in order to ``recognize, respect, 
and protect the distinct forms of spirituality practiced by the Maya, 
Garifuna, and Xinca'' groups. While there is no government policy of 
discrimination, a lack of resources and political will to enforce 
existing laws and to implement the Peace Accords continued to limit the 
free expression of indigenous religious practice.

    India. Muslims were the victims of sustained communal violence in 
the state of Gujarat in March and April 2002. Ostensibly sparked by 
communal violence directed against Hindus, the violence highlighted the 
continuing difficulties faced by religious minorities. On February 27, 
2002, Muslim mobs attacked a train in Godhra, Gujarat, carrying Hindu 
activists returning from Ayodhya, the site of a 500-year-old mosque 
demolished by a Hindu mob in 1992; 2 train cars were set on fire and 58 
passengers were killed. In response, Hindu mobs in Gujarat and 
Maharashtra destroyed Muslim businesses, raped Muslim women, and killed 
at least 950 Muslims; the unofficial death toll was significantly 
higher. According to credible observers, the Gujarat fighting was 
aggravated by official inaction and, in some cases, involvement. The 
hostility against Muslims in Gujarat reflected tensions within the 
governing coalition, which is led by the Bharatiya Janata Party, a 
Hindu nationalist party with links to Hindu chauvinist groups 
implicated in the past to attacks against religious minorities. The 
growing aggressiveness of Hindu extremists also seems to be the major 
contributing factor to societal discrimination and occasional acts of 
violence against Christians by Hindus in Gujarat and elsewhere in 
India.

    Indonesia. Religious violence and the lack of an effective 
government response to punish perpetrators and prevent further attacks 
continued to lead to allegations that officials were complicit in some 
of the violence or, at a minimum, allowed it to occur with impunity. 
The Government at times tolerated the abuse of freedom of religion, 
claiming that it did not have the capacity or authority to deal with 
the ``emotions'' of private individuals or groups who target others 
because of their beliefs. In both Central Sulawesi and the Moluccas, 
lax law enforcement and the limited nature of efforts to disarm Muslim 
fighters allowed conflicts, caused in part by religious motives, to 
continue despite peace agreements. Some members of military and police 
units were accused of siding with their coreligionists, both Muslim and 
Christian, and supporting combatants, either directly or indirectly. 
Religiously motivated violence elsewhere, mainly on the island of Java, 
also included threats and occasional attacks on entertainment 
establishments such as restaurants, bars, and nightclubs by radical 
Muslim groups that deemed such businesses to be immoral. The Government 
took no action against the perpetrators of such attacks and some 
observers linked the police to the radical groups.

    Nigeria. The implementation of an expanded version of Shari'a 
(Islamic law) in several northern states challenged constitutional 
protections of religious freedom. In March 2002, Justice Minister Kanu 
Agabi made public a letter to northern governors in which he stated 
that sentences given under Shari'a law should not be harsher than those 
imposed by general secular law; however, no action resulted from this 
letter. Interreligious tension between Christians and Muslims remained 
high, and there were several violent ethno-religious conflicts, 
including in September 2001 in Plateau State, which resulted in the 
deaths of more than 2,300 persons. Many northern states continued to 
ban or limit public proselytizing, although it is permitted by the 
Constitution. In addition, in many states government officials 
sometimes discriminated against adherents of minority religions in 
hiring practices, awarding of state contracts, and granting of permits 
and licenses.
discriminatory legislation or policies disadvantaging certain religions
    Some governments have implemented laws or regulations that favor 
certain religions and place others at a disadvantage. Often this 
circumstance results from the historical predominance of one religion 
in a country and may reflect broad social skepticism about new or 
minority religions. At times it stems from the emergence of a country 
from a long period of Communist rule, in which all religion was 
prohibited or, at best, out of favor. In such countries, skepticism or 
even the fear of certain religions or all religions lingers within 
segments of society. In some cases, this circumstance has led to a 
curtailment of religious freedom.

    Brunei. Despite constitutional provisions providing for the 
exercise of religious freedom, the Government continued to restrict the 
practice of non-Muslim religions. Non-Muslims were not allowed to 
proselytize. The Government also occasionally denied entry to foreign 
clergy or particular priests, bishops, or ministers, and refused 
permission to expand, repair, or build new churches, temples, or 
shrines. The Government banned the importation of religious teaching 
materials or scriptures. In government schools, Muslim and non-Muslim 
female students were required to wear Muslim attire, including a head 
covering.

    Eritrea. In May 2002, the Government notified all religious groups 
that they must register or cease all religious activities. The notice 
further advised that applications received for registration would be 
reviewed by a Government committee and approved if the committee deemed 
them to be compatible with Eritrean culture. At the end of June 2002, a 
final determination on which groups would be approved had not been 
made, but comments from senior government officials indicated that only 
groups with significant historical ties to Eritrea would be licensed to 
operate. The Government also continued its discrimination against 
Jehovah's Witnesses.

    Israel and the Occupied Territories. Most Israeli non-Jewish 
citizens, chiefly Muslims, Druze, and Christians, continued to be 
subject to various forms of discrimination, some of which has a strong 
religious dimension. Government funding to various religious sectors 
tended to favor Jewish citizens. Many Jewish citizens objected to the 
fact that, as a result of Israeli law and policy, Orthodox Jewish 
religious authorities have exclusive control over Jewish marriages, 
divorces, and burials. Societal tensions between Jews and non-Jews 
increased significantly, primarily as a result of the Arab-Israeli 
conflict and ongoing violence and terrorism. In the occupied 
territories, the violence and the Israeli Government's closure policy 
prevented a number of Palestinians and Israelis, including Palestinian 
religious leaders, from reaching their places of worship in Jerusalem 
and the West Bank.

    Jordan. The Government continued to deny the Druze and Baha'i 
faiths recognition as official religions but did not prohibit the 
practice of these faiths. Druze faced official discrimination but did 
not complain of social discrimination. Baha'is faced both official and 
social discrimination. Moreover, there reportedly were at least 39 
cases of U.S. citizen children residing in Jordan against the will of 
their U.S. citizen mothers. According to the law, these children are 
considered Muslim if their fathers are Muslim, and the Muslim father of 
the child may restrict the child's travel.

    Malaysia. Islam is the official religion, and the practice of 
Islamic beliefs other than Sunni Islam was restricted significantly. 
The Government continued to monitor the activities of the Shi'a 
minority and periodically detained members of what it considers Islamic 
``deviant sects'' without trial or charge. The Government generally 
respected non-Muslims' right of worship; however, state governments 
carefully controlled the building of non-Muslim places of worship and 
the allocation of land for non-Muslim cemeteries. After the November 
1999 national elections, the Government significantly expanded efforts 
to restrict the activities of the Islamic opposition party at mosques. 
Several states announced measures including banning opposition-
affiliated imams from speaking at mosques, more vigorously enforcing 
existing restrictions on the content of sermons, replacing mosque 
leaders and governing committees thought to be sympathetic to the 
opposition, and threatening to close down unauthorized mosques with 
ties to the opposition. For Muslims, particularly ethnic Malays, the 
right to leave the Islamic faith and adhere to another religion 
remained a controversial question, and in practice it was very 
difficult to change religions.

    Moldova. The Government continued to uphold its earlier decisions 
to deny certain groups registration. It cited Article 15 of the Law on 
Religion, which prohibits registration of what it calls ``schismatic 
movements'' of a particular religion, as the basis for its decision not 
to recognize these groups. A number of minority religious groups in the 
separatist region of Transnistria continued to be denied registration 
and subjected to official harassment.

    Russia. The Government continued to use several aspects of the 1997 
Law on Freedom of Conscience to restrict religious freedom, in 
particular the provision allowing the state to ban religious 
organizations, the re-registration requirement, the liquidation 
procedure, and the 15-year rule. Although the federal government 
generally attempted to apply the 1997 law liberally, the Government 
denied visas and visa renewals to a number of clergy and religious 
workers, especially Roman Catholics and evangelical Christians. The 
declaration of one of only four Roman Catholic Bishops in Russia as 
persona non grata placed serious restrictions on the ability of Russian 
Catholics to practice their religion. Many allegations of restrictive 
practices and harassment were directed at local officials and the 
Federal Security Service. Muslims, the largest religious minority, 
continued to encounter societal discrimination and antagonism in some 
areas. Anti-Semitic leaflets, graffiti, and articles continued to 
appear in some regions, such as St. Petersburg, Ryazan, and Krasnodar. 
Hostility toward ``nontraditional'' religious groups reportedly sparked 
occasional harassment and even physical attacks.

    Turkey. Despite constitutional guarantees of religious freedom, the 
Government continued to impose some restrictions on religious groups, 
particularly through other constitutional provisions regarding the 
integrity and existence of the secular State. In addition, the 
Government maintained some restrictions for the stated reason of 
combating religious fundamentalism. An intense debate continued over 
the government ban on wearing Muslim religious dress in state 
facilities, including universities, schools, and workplaces. Some 
Muslims, Christians, and Baha'is faced government harassment for 
alleged proselytizing or unauthorized meetings.
stigmatization of certain religions by wrongfully associating them with 
                    dangerous ``cults'' or ``sects''
    There continues to be a trend in Western Europe regarding 
discriminatory legislation or policies that stigmatize certain 
expressions of religious faith by wrongfully associating them with 
dangerous ``sects'' or ``cults.'' Other nations are adopting similar 
laws and policies that are based in part on those of Western Europe. In 
countries that lack a tradition of commitment to human rights and rule 
of law, such ``anti-cult'' laws are prone to be implemented in ways 
that result in the persecution of people of faith.

    Belgium. Policies regarding religious ``sects'' in Belgium have 
created government-mandated agencies providing information on 
``harmful'' organizations. The existence of these agencies strongly 
suggests an official judgment by the government that the groups on 
which it maintains data are in fact ``harmful.''

    France. The government continues to monitor ``sects'' through the 
Interministerial Mission in the Fight against Sects/Cults (MILS). 
Members of some of the 173 groups identified as cults in a 1996 
parliamentary commission report have alleged instances of intolerance 
due to the ensuing publicity. The June 2001 ``About-Picard'' law 
tightens restrictions on organizations and lists criminal activities 
for which a religious association could be subject to dissolution. 
Leaders of the four major religions raised concerns about the 
legislation. There is also concern that countries with weaker 
protections for human rights, including some in eastern Europe and 
Asia, may look to the French legislation as a model for dealing with 
minority religions, a perception heightened by the interest shown in 
the French approach during travel by MILS officials to these countries.

    Germany. ``Sect Filters'' focused on Scientology are used by some 
localities and private firms in hiring and/or contracting. These 
practices give rise to a climate of discrimination and may cause 
financial losses for individuals and companies.

   Part II: Significant Improvement in the Area of Religious Freedom

    The International Religious Freedom Act prescribes a section of the 
Executive Summary that identifies countries in which there has been a 
``significant improvement in the protection and promotion'' of 
religious freedom and includes a description of the nature of the 
improvement as well as an analysis of the factors contributing to it.

    Afghanistan. The fall of the Taliban and the subsequent 
establishment of the interim governments resulted in a major 
improvement in religious freedom. The ultra-conservative, Islamic state 
system created by the Taliban collapsed following the onset of 
Operation Enduring Freedom in October 2001. In its place, an interim 
governing body now administers a far more tolerant regime. Under the 
Taliban, a repressive government system based on an extremist 
interpretation of Islam unremittingly persecuted anyone of different 
faiths and those who were not deemed to be sufficiently ``good 
Muslims.'' The new interim government has publicly stated a policy of 
religious tolerance. In the post-Taliban environment, religious 
minorities such as Shi'a, Hindus and Sikhs have all reported tolerance 
of their presence and practice. All were represented at the Loya Jirga. 
The Shi'a are represented in the Government by a Vice President and 
several Ministers. A constitutional commission will soon construct a 
new constitution for Afghanistan, and guarantees for religious freedom 
as well as the role of Islam in the state remain contentious questions 
for the commission and for the people of Afghanistan.
    Other countries have taken positive steps in the area of religious 
freedom, but none have risen to the standard of ``significant 
improvement'' as stipulated in the International Religious Freedom Act. 
The reader may find a discussion of positive steps, where warranted, in 
the respective country chapters.

   Part III: U.S. Actions to Promote International Religious Freedom

    In general the best public method of promoting religious freedom is 
to advocate the universal principles--in particular the inviolable 
dignity of the human person--that are nourished when religious freedom 
is valued and protected. Throughout the world, our overseas diplomatic 
missions are our front line in promoting the right of religious freedom 
and opposing violations of that right. No less important is the tone 
and context set by senior U.S. officials when they speak publicly on 
the subject of religious freedom, or privately with foreign heads of 
government and other policy makers.
                           the year in review
    This section summarizes some of the many efforts undertaken by the 
President and various other representatives of the U.S. Government to 
promote religious freedom. Most of the actions included here are 
indicative of the constant endeavor of the U.S. Government to engage 
foreign governments and peoples on the issue of religious freedom. 
Rarely is a single action sufficient to produce a significant change in 
a particular government's repressive or discriminatory policy; yet 
through its steadfast promotion of religious freedom, the U.S. 
Government pursues the goal of universal respect for and observance of 
the freedom of belief.
    President Bush has made it clear that he views religious freedom as 
a fundamental and inviolate human right, and in his discussions with 
foreign leaders has repeatedly emphasized the importance the United 
States places on protecting this fundamental freedom. In February 2002, 
the President gave a speech in Beijing that was broadcast nationwide, 
during which he declared, ``Freedom of religion is not something to be 
feared, it's to be welcomed.''
    The Secretary of State and many senior State Department officials 
have addressed the issue in venues throughout the world. U.S. 
Government representatives raised religious freedom issues at the 
highest levels of government and in multilateral fora, such as the 58th 
Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in April 2002, 
where the U.S. supported resolutions on Iran and religious freedom, 
including the mandate of the special rapporteur for religious freedom. 
The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights 
and Labor made a strong intervention at the OSCE Implementation Meeting 
in September 2001, during which he urged OSCE states to respect 
religious freedom. The Assistant Secretary of State for European and 
Eurasian Affairs reinforced U.S. defense of religious freedom with the 
President of Azerbaijan in January 2002.
    Members of the Department of State's Office of International 
Religious Freedom traveled to several countries during the period 
covered by this report to discuss religious freedom issues--Azerbaijan, 
Bangladesh, Bosnia, Bulgaria, China and Tibet, Croatia, Georgia, the 
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, and 
Vietnam. The Director of the Office of International Religious Freedom 
co-headed the U.S. delegation to a United Nations conference on 
religious freedom and secondary school education in Madrid in November 
2001.
    The 1998 International Religious Freedom Act mandates Presidential 
action in cases of particularly egregious violations of religious 
freedom. Thus in October 2001, the Secretary of State, acting under the 
authority of the President, re-designated five countries--Burma, China, 
Iran, Iraq, and Sudan--as ``countries of particular concern'' under the 
Act for having engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations. 
In addition, the Secretary designated North Korea a ``country of 
particular concern'' and again identified the Taliban regime of 
Afghanistan as having committed particularly severe violations of 
religious freedom.
    This section is by no means exhaustive; rather, it is intended to 
provide by way of illustrative examples a portrait of U.S. actions. 
Further details may be found in the individual country chapters.

    Afghanistan. In October 2001, the U.S. Government and international 
coalition forces combined with Northern Alliance forces to overthrow 
the Taliban regime. The U.S. and the international community worked 
together with Afghan opposition officials to create the Bonn Agreement 
in December 2001. The U.S. has worked steadily with interim governments 
in the months since to promote human rights and religious and ethnic 
tolerance, from the inclusion of minority groups in the Government and 
military, to assistance in the reconstruction of the country and its 
legal and political processes.
    The Secretary of State identified the Taliban regime, which 
controlled most of Afghanistan until October 2001, as a ``particularly 
severe violator'' of religious freedom in 2001, for the third 
consecutive year.

    Azerbaijan. The Ambassador repeatedly conveyed U.S. concerns about 
the registration process with the Chairman of the State Committee for 
Work with Religious Associations and expressed strong concerns about 
Azerbaijan's commitment to religious freedom with others in the 
Government and publicly in the press. Embassy officials also frequently 
expressed objections to media campaigns against the Adventist 
Development and Relief Agency and other U.S.-funded NGO's accused of 
religious proselytizing. The Assistant Secretary of State for European 
and Eurasian Affairs reinforced U.S. defense of religious freedom with 
President Heydar Aliyev in January 2002. A representative from the 
State Department's Office of International Religious Freedom traveled 
to Azerbaijan in April 2002 to convey the Department's concerns about 
the reregistration process and the media campaigns against minority 
religions. She also met with members of Muslim, Jewish and Christian 
faiths to hear their concerns.

    Bangladesh. The Embassy encouraged the Government through the 
Ministry for Religious Affairs to develop and expand its training 
program for Islamic religious leaders, which provides course work for 
religious leaders on human rights, HIV/AIDS, and gender equality 
issues. A representative from the State Department's Office of 
International Religious Freedom traveled to Bangladesh in May 2002 to 
interview representatives of religious minorities regarding their 
perception that violence against them had increased during the 
reporting year.

    Belarus. Embassy representatives had frequent contacts with leaders 
and members of religious groups and worked with representatives of the 
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to promote 
religious freedom. Officials of the Department of State met on a number 
of occasions with representatives of the Government of Belarus in 
Washington, D.C. to advocate respect for religious freedom and to 
address other human rights concerns.

    Burma. The United States has discontinued bilateral aid to the 
Government, suspended issuance of licenses to export arms to the 
country, and suspended the generalized system of preferences and 
Export-Import Bank financial services in support of U.S. exports to the 
country. The U.S. Government also has suspended all Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation (OPIC) financial services in support of U.S. 
investment in the country, ended active promotion of trade with the 
country, and halted issuance of visas to high government officials and 
their immediate family members. It also has banned new investment in 
the country by U.S. firms, opposed all assistance to the Government by 
international financial institutions, and urged the governments of 
other countries to take similar actions.
    The Secretary of State identified Burma as a ``country of 
particular concern'' in 2001, for the third consecutive year.

    China. The U.S. Government made a concerted effort to encourage 
greater religious freedom in the country, using both focused advocacy 
against abuses and support for positive trends within the country. In 
February 2002, President Bush gave a speech at Tsinghua University in 
Beijing that was broadcast nationwide, during which he called upon the 
Government to show more religious tolerance. Embassy and Consulate 
officials collected information about abuses and maintained contacts 
with a wide spectrum of religious leaders within in the country's 
religious communities, including with bishops, priests, ministers of 
the official Christian churches, and Taoist, Muslim, and Buddhist 
leaders. U.S. Government officials also met with leaders and members of 
the unofficial Christian churches. The U.S. Government brought a number 
of Chinese religious leaders and scholars to the United States on 
international visitor programs to see firsthand the role that religion 
plays in U. S. society, and sent experts on religion from the United 
States to speak about the role of religion in American life and public 
policy.
    The Secretary of State identified China as a ``country of 
particular concern'' in 2001, for the third consecutive year.

    Georgia. Senior U.S. Government officials, including the 
Ambassador, met with President Shevardnadze and other senior government 
officials, such as the Parliament Speaker and the Ministers of Internal 
Affairs and Justice, to raise U.S. Government concerns regarding 
harassment of and attacks against nontraditional religious minorities. 
In April 2002, Senator Gordon Smith, a member of the U.S. Commission on 
Security and Cooperation in Europe, harshly criticized unpunished 
religious persecution in Georgia and called upon the Government to 
vigorously prosecute extremists who attacked nontraditional religious 
minorities. The Commission followed up with a letter signed by 15 
Senators calling on Shevardnadze to end violence against groups of 
religious minorities in Georgia. A visiting representative from the 
State Department's Office of International Religious Freedom met in 
April 2002 with members of the Government, various religious 
confessions, and NGO's to underscore the need for the Government of 
Georgia to put an end to religious violence.

    India. Reacting to the communal violence in Gujarat, the Ambassador 
and other senior Administration officials publicly expressed regret, 
extended condolences to the victims, and urged all parties to resolve 
their differences peacefully. In addition, the U.S. Agency for 
International Development (USAID) mission in New Delhi provided funding 
to assist internally displaced persons in Gujarat. Mumbai's Consul 
General traveled regularly to Ahmedabad, Gujarat's largest city, to 
meet with officials and private citizens about the causes and effects 
of the violence. As rioting continued, other officers from the 
Consulate General in Mumbai traveled to the state to assess the 
situation and to look into accusations of human rights abuses. 
Consulate officers also met in Mumbai with a range of NGO, business, 
media and other contacts, including Muslim leaders, to monitor the 
aftermath of the violence in Gujarat.

    Indonesia. U.S. Embassy and Consulate General officials identified 
and assisted several Indonesians to testify on religious freedom before 
the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) and 
advised the USCIRF of potential issues. The U.S. Embassy and the U.S.-
Indonesian Fulbright Foundation have been helping to establish the 
country's first graduate-level program on comparative religion to 
foster competence in religious studies among educators and to increase 
inter-religious understanding on college and university campuses. USAID 
also continued its support to dozens of religiously affiliated NGO's in 
an effort to assist the democracy movement within the Muslim community.

    Iran. From 1982 to 2001, the U.S. Government cosponsored a 
resolution each year regarding the human rights situation in Iran 
offered by the European Union at the annual meeting of the UN 
Commission on Human Rights. The United States has supported a similar 
resolution offered each of those years during the UN General Assembly. 
The U.S. Government has supported the work of the UN Special 
Representative on Human Rights for Iran and called on the Iranian 
Government to grant him admission and allow him to conduct his 
research.
    The Secretary of State identified Iran as a ``country of particular 
concern'' in 2001, for the third consecutive year.

    Iraq. It is the policy of the United States to encourage a change 
of regime in Iraq. The U.S. Government has made its position clear in 
public statements and in diplomatic contacts with other states. The 
President discussed the problems experienced by Shi'a, Christian, and 
other religious groups in his periodic reports to Congress on Iraq. The 
Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, in testimony 
before Congress on Iraq, highlighted the situation of persons in the 
south.
    The Secretary of State identified Iraq as a ``country of particular 
concern'' in 2001, for the third consecutive year.

    Kenya. U.S. Government officials made a concerted effort to bridge 
the gaps that exist between Muslims and Christians. The Ambassador 
hosted regular meetings with religious leaders to discuss issues 
affecting their communities. In April 2002, the Ambassador and senior 
Embassy officers traveled to Mombasa to meet with civil society, 
religious, and government leaders of the predominantly Muslim coast to 
promote a better understanding of U.S. policy and to reassure those 
with whom he met that the global fight against terrorism was not 
directed against Islam.

    Laos. The Ambassador spoke directly with the President and other 
high officials about the state of religious freedom in Laos. Other 
Embassy officers raised the issue of religious freedom with a range of 
central and provincial officials. The Embassy supported and encouraged 
the January 2002 visit of the President of the Institute for Global 
Engagement (IGE) to survey the status of religious freedom. During this 
visit, the IGE President traveled to the Lao Evangelical Church 
communities in northern Vientiane province. The visit led to the 
reopening of several churches in the area that had been closed by local 
authorities. In June 2002, at the invitation of the IGE, a delegation 
from the Lao Front for National Construction, the LPRP organization 
responsible for oversight of religious practice, traveled to the U.S. 
to discuss religious freedom in Laos with U.S. government officials, 
members of Congress, and others interested in the issue.

    Mexico. U.S. Government officials encouraged the Government to 
continue its policy of promoting religious freedom. Embassy staff 
participated in the Secretariat of Government's celebration of the 
International Day of Tolerance in November 2001, and met with officials 
in the Subsecretariat for Religious Affairs within the Secretariat of 
Government to discuss religious freedom. In April 2002, a 
representative from the Office of International Religious Freedom, 
accompanied by Embassy officials, met with several religious leaders 
and government officials in Mexico City and the state of Chiapas, 
including the current and past Bishops of San Cristobal de las Casas 
and Chiapas state authorities.

    Nigeria. The U.S. Government, through the U.S. Embassy and in 
statements by officials in Washington, continued to encourage a 
peaceful resolution to the Shari'a issue and urged that human rights 
and religious freedom be respected in any resolution. The Office of 
Transition Initiatives and the USAID also created programs for conflict 
resolution training. The Embassy sponsored the visit of the Executive 
Director of the American Muslim Council to discuss religious freedom in 
the United States with Muslim and Christian audiences in Abuja, Lagos, 
and several northern cities.

    North Korea. U.S. Government policy is to encourage improvements in 
religious freedom. However, the United States does not have diplomatic 
relations with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and has no 
official presence there. U.S. policy allows U.S. citizens to travel to 
the country, and a number of churches and religious groups have 
organized efforts to alleviate suffering caused by shortages of food 
and medicine.
    The Secretary of State designated North Korea a ``country of 
particular concern'' in 2001, the first year for the country to be 
placed in this category.

    Russia. In May 2002, President Bush, First Lady Laura Bush, and 
Secretary of State Colin Powell met with religious leaders from 
numerous faiths in both Moscow and St. Petersburg. The Ambassador 
addressed the theme of religious freedom in talks with the Jewish 
community on a number of occasions, including Rosh Hashanah, as well as 
in remarks to members of the Muslim community at the end of Ramadan, at 
an event sponsored by the Council of Muftis. In addition, the 
Ambassador spoke of the importance of religious freedom at a Sakharov 
Center conference in April 2002. The 1997 Law on Freedom of Conscience 
has been the subject of numerous high-level communications between 
members of the executive branch of the U.S. Government and the Russian 
Government, involving various senior U.S. officials. In April 2002, an 
official of the Office of International Religious Freedom visited 
numerous government officials and representatives of major faiths, to 
whom she stressed the importance of respecting the rights of minority 
religions.

    Sudan. The U.S. Government has made it clear to the Government that 
the problem of religious freedom is one of the key impediments to 
developing a more positive relationship between the country and the 
United States. The Embassy and the Department of State forcefully 
raised religious freedom issues publicly in press statements and at 
international forums, including the UN Human Rights Commission. The 
Special Envoy for Peace in Sudan, John Danforth, pressed for religious 
freedom and met with religious leaders in his visits to Sudan. The U.S. 
Government supported the peace talks held under the auspices of the 
Inter-Governmental Authority on Development. (In July 2002, shortly 
after the end of the period covered by this report, the peace talks 
resulted in the Machakos protocol, in which the parties agreed that 
legislation passed by the national government that applies to the south 
would not have Shari'a as a source.) The U.S. Government also led an 
International Eminent Persons Group to investigate slavery, abductions, 
and forced servitude in the country.
    The Secretary of State identified Sudan as a ``country of 
particular concern'' in 2001, for the third consecutive year.

    Tajikistan. Through public diplomacy, the U.S. Embassy has 
supported programs designed to create a better understanding of how 
democracies address the issue of secularism and religious freedom. 
Several participants in these programs reported that they came away 
with a better understanding of the role that religion could play in an 
open society. In Washington, the Office of International Religious 
Freedom and U.S. Government officials met to discuss religious freedom 
with groups of participants in U.S. Government-sponsored visitors 
programs, including journalists, religious figures and scholars, and 
government officials.

    Turkey. In December 2001, the Secretary of State met with high-
ranking government officials to discuss several issues, including 
freedom of religion. In April and May 2002, visiting representatives 
from the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor 
met with members of various religious groups to hear their concerns. 
The Ambassador and other Embassy officers remain in close contact with 
local non-governmental organizations that monitor freedom of religion. 
The U.S. Embassy continues to urge the Government to re-open the Halki 
seminary on Heybeli Island.

    Vietnam. The U.S. Ambassador and other Embassy officers frequently 
raised religious freedom issues with Government officials, including 
the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and other senior Government 
and Communist Party officials, explaining that progress on religious 
problems and human rights has an impact on the degree of full 
normalization of bilateral relations. U.S. Mission officials called on 
the Government to release Thich Quang Do from administrative probation 
and to allow Thich Huyen Quang to relocate to Ho Chi Minh City on 
humanitarian grounds. They also expressed concern for Father Nguyen Van 
Ly during his detention, noted the harshness of his sentence, and 
called for his early release. A delegation led by the Assistant 
Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor held a Human 
Rights Dialog in August 2001 with the Government in which the status of 
Thich Quang Do, Thich Huyen Quang, the United Buddhist Church, Hmong 
Protestants, Protestants in the Central Highlands, Le Quang Liem, and 
the Catholic Church were discussed. Some religious sources have cited 
diplomatic intervention, primarily from the U.S., as a reason why the 
Government is seeking to legalize more religious groups and allow 
already legalized groups more freedom.
