Release of the 2002 Annual Report to Congress on International Religious Freedom

2:13 P.M. (EDT)

Real Audio of Briefing

Copyright (c)2002 by Federal News Service, Inc., 620 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045, USA.   For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service, please email Jack Graeme at info@fnsg.com or call (202) 824-0520.

       MODERATOR: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Foreign Press Center. This morning Secretary of State Colin Powell sent up to the Congress this year's report on international religious freedom. And this afternoon we are delighted to have with us to brief us here at the Foreign Press Center Ambassador John Hanford, our ambassador at large for religious freedom. He'll have an initial statement to make, and then after that he will be very delighted to take your questions. Ambassador Hanford.

       AMB. HANFORD: Thank you, Paul. I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to present the fourth annual report on international religious freedom. It's currently available on CD. And this year we have become very high-tech, and we have some of the mini CDs. This was about the first time I've ever seen one of these. Maybe you all are more sophisticated than I am.

       This report reflects in tangible form our compassion as a nation for religious believers abroad who suffer for their faith, and our determination as a people to confront and alleviate that suffering. Why do we concern ourselves with the problem of religious persecution in other nations? In the words of President Bush, religious freedom is the first freedom of the human soul: the right to speak the words that God places in our mouths. We must stand for that freedom in our country. We must speak for that freedom in the world.

       Religious freedom is at the very heart of our identity as Americans, and many of our forbearers came here to find a haven from religious persecution. At the same time, Americans know that our record on religious freedom has been far from perfect. This is an issue on which we have had to struggle and progress over the years. We also understand that the ideal of religious freedom, while revered by our nation's founders, was not and is not an American invention or possession. It is a universal right enshrined in numerous international instruments and declarations. When we advance religious freedom, we are simply urging other nations to join with us in upholding a high but universal standard.

       In promoting religious freedom, we also further other fundamental liberties, such as the freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, and the freedom to raise one's children in the faith of one's choice. Where these freedoms flourish, both government and citizenry learn to value and nurture human dignity.

       Finally, advancing religious freedom promotes democracy. As the founders of our nation understood, religious liberty is a cornerstone of democracy, and where there is democracy there is peace.

       The annual report on international religious freedom was mandated by the 1998 religious International Religious Freedom Act. The report promotes religious freedom by establishing a factual baseline in more than 190 countries, thus exposing violations and at the same time giving hope to victims. The report serves U.S. policymakers, foreign government officials, NGOs and the press, and is generally acknowledged as the most comprehensive reference available on the subject.

       As we release the report today, I want to take the opportunity to recognize the hundreds of Foreign Service officers and others here and abroad who contributed to this final product. In particular, I want to thank the dedicated men and women of the Office of Country Reports and Asylum Affairs who compiled and edited the report; a special thanks as well to my own staff in the Office of International Religious Freedom, whose work on behalf of the persecuted is truly a labor of love.

       I am glad to say that this year's report reflects good news in many countries, where governments protect religious freedom and their citizenry value it as a social and political good. Such countries tend to be democracies, in which all fundamental rights are respected. Unfortunately, that still leaves millions of religious believers in other countries who suffer restrictions and outright persecution at the hands of their own governments. There are a number of reasons for this grim reality. Let me touch on six general categories of religious freedom abuses.

       First, totalitarian or authoritarian regimes often perceive religious expression as a threat to their control. North Korea, Burma, China, Vietnam fall into this category.

       Secondly, governments that build their legitimacy on a dominant religion often suppress minority religions. Here we find Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran.

       Third, there is a strong association -- where there is a strong association between a national identity and a dominant religion, governments may engage in or tolerate repression of other religions. In India this dynamic led to the deaths of upwards of 1,000 Muslims who were killed in reprisal for an earlier massacre of some 60 Hindu pilgrims. In Pakistan, blasphemy laws have led to the persecution of Christians and Amadis. And just days ago the parliament of Belarus passed what is now one of the most repressive religious laws in Eurasia.

       Fourth, some governments target members of certain religious groups because they are perceived to represent opposition to governmental authority or threat to stability. Such are Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan; in Iraq the Shiia are persecuted because some do not support Saddam Hussein.

       Fifth, a new reform of religious discrimination has arisen across Europe, where a concern over violent cults has led to laws and governmental commissions affecting a wide spectrum of religious believers. Such actions are particularly troubling because they have become models for nations lacking Europe's rule of law.

       Finally, religious-based terrorism by non-governmental actors, often with support from rogue regimes, is emerging as a new cause of religious persecution. Terrorist organizations, such as al Qaeda, who define themselves and their goals in religious terms, are growing in number. They destroyed not only adherence of other religions, but also their own co-religionists who reject their methods or goals.

       As you can see, religious freedom is under siege in many parts of the world. This report, by exposing the problem, is a first step in countering that assault. If we succeed in advancing religious freedom, we will not only bring relief to untold numbers of victims, but we will also help establish democracy and promote other fundamental human rights.

       I have quoted from our current president, reflecting his own personal concern for this issue. Now let me close with some words from America's first president, which gives an indication of how long this issue has been on the hearts of Americans. George Washington said, "I beg you will be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny in every species of religious persecution." These were inspiring words that set a standard we seek to emulate in producing this report and in promoting religious freedom wherever in the world it is threatened.

       Thank you, and I will be happy now to take questions. Yes, sir?

       MODERATOR: If you will use the microphones, and introduce yourself and your news organization.

       Q Yeah, I'm Richard Finney (ph) with Radio Free Asia. I noticed that Laos and Vietnam both came in for some criticism again this year. In the case of Laos, is their record going to affect, or should it affect whether or not the U.S. grants them NTR status? And in the case of Vietnam, what more can the U.S. be doing to drive some sort of improvement there?

       AMB. HANFORD: In the case of Laos -- this has been a country that we have been watching closely for several years. The trends and some of the practices have been particularly troubling in areas of the country where certain states, where local officials have tried to force recantations of faith, and it has become pretty brutal at times; people have been arrested.

       The good news is that in recent weeks there has been a large release of prisoners, of religious prisoners. And I want to give some of the credit here to my predecessor, Ambassador Bob Seiple, who felt a particular concern for this country, and has maintained relationships and has traveled there a number of times, and has just poured his heart out for the people of that country, and has made a lot of progress. MORE

       In the case of Vietnam, in terms of is there hope for progress there, or what might we be able to accomplish. I just got back from Vietnam. That was part of my first trip. There perhaps is progress in Vietnam in the way that the state-registered religious institutions are being treated. They are being given a greater degree of freedom right now. This is evidenced for example in the fact that in the last couple of years a major group, the evangelical group in the south, has been recognized. And in other cases there are efforts which should be commended to work with the established government-approved groups to build an additional seminary or to allow for additional clergy. But there are still a number of problems there. There are a number of prisoners, which I raised while I was there -- some who have received some pretty serious sentences. Father Lee (sp) is one of those, who has a rather long sentence right now. He had met, for example, with the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom when they traveled there. It appears that his most recent imprisonment was significantly a result of that. We are hopeful that -- and I am still awaiting word. There were some amnesties granted the first week in September. I've called back a couple of times. Often it takes a very long time to learn who are on -- who are benefiting from those amnesties. But we are hopeful that he will at least receive a significant reduction in his sentence.

       In the case of other denominations, there are -- the worst problems, the cases where there is the most suffering, are occurring in the central highlands with the Montagnards and among the Hmong. And here there is a history of the government suppressing these groups, and there is a history of some resistance by those groups. And so we want to be clear that we understand that part of the problem here is political dissidence.

       However, the tactics that are being used are very oppressive. In the case of the Montagnards in the central highlands, you have what is arguably the largest protestant group in the country, maybe 500,000, there are five approved congregations for that many people. The rest are illegal and therefore can run afoul of the law, and some of the treatment has been terrible. There are quite a few prisoners. There have been forced renunciations of faith. There have been -- there has been an unusual ritual of drinking goat's blood to try to force some Montagnards to return to more traditional animist religions in that part of the country. And so we have -- I have expressed very strongly, and others have too, the need for this to end -- and the problem this creates for Vietnam's image. Some of the Hmong have run into similar problems. Even some of the state-approved denominations have a lot of complaints. The Catholics wish that they would have complete freedom to choose their clergy. They are slightly better than China in this regard, and I chuckle to think that I actually used Vietnam as a positive example when I was visiting China. They do allow the Vatican to be involved in the choice of leadership, but they maintain a veto power. And of course that does not go along with the Catholic process. I was surprised at how few congregations are allowed to exist among so many millions of people. So I could go on and on, but that's just some of the more serious problems.

       Q (Off mike) -- with the Middle East News Agency of Egypt. Well, actually this comprehensive report comes at a time when some religious figures in the country back here -- and I am sure you are updated on that -- made some offensive remarks about Muslims and about Islam and about the prophet of Islam. Mr. Jerry Falwell I guess and Mr. Pat Robertson. So my question is what the U.S. government -- I guess one of them called the prophet a killer, and the other called the prophet a terrorist. So my question is what the U.S. government is doing about that, or what the U.S. government is even saying about that. What do you think of such remarks and such inaction of the U.S. government might impact on the U.S. credibility as a defender of religious freedoms? And what do you think is possible, the belief on some parts in the Middle East and the Arab world that might say the U.S. is preaching something and is not doing the same thing back here. Thank you.

       AMB. HANFORD: Right. Well, those are very good questions. I think here one should turn to the remarks of the president of the United States. And he has made it very clear how Islam is being viewed, and he has been very careful to try to guide public opinion on this. He has made it clear that what we are doing in Afghanistan as a result of the attacks of 9/11, that this is not a war against Islam. He and we and our office make a great effort to reach out to Muslims who view their religion as a religion of peace and compassion, and seek to work with them. In our own office we have quite a bit of dialogue with Muslims that share this perspective. And we of course encourage them to condemn what has happened to our country and elsewhere in the world. But our hope is that Muslim teachings of tolerance and compassion will be reflected in other governments as well.

       Now, in answer to how we could defend ourselves in some of these countries, a point I always like to make is how balanced the approach of the State Department and our government is in advocating religious freedom. And we find ourselves regularly pushing for religious freedom for Muslims. And this has happened for years in the United States. And I wish this was better understood and better projected by the press in the Muslim world.

       In Afghanistan, the primary beneficiaries of what has happened there are Muslims. In China, while I was just there, I was intervening on behalf of the Uighur Muslims, who have experienced in some cases brutal suppression. In India some recent incidents there have just been heart-wrenching to see what has happened at the hands of angry mobs. And so I was just on the phone a few days ago with the ambassador of India raising my concerns, especially with the more recent attack on a Hindu temple that the government would protect against reprisals. We can't have a repeat of what happened in the Gudjarat state a few months ago. And in other cases -- in Iraq of course our concern is for the Shiia who are in some cases brutally persecuted. And I could go on and on and on. But we attempt to be very even-handed.

       Q But I believe that my question was not answered, what the U.S. government is doing or saying about the offensive remarks of Mr. Pat Robertson and Mr. Jerry Falwell. I understand that Mr. Pat Robertson is receiving $500,000 from the U.S. government on the U.S. faith-based programs. So I am not sure this is a reply to him -- so what the U.S. government is doing or saying about these remarks.

       AMB. HANFORD: Well, I can't remember precisely if there has been a statement in direct reaction to those remarks. The problem is there are so many remarks constantly being made, it is not possible for government officials to hold press conferences an respond to these. Instead what one needs to look at is what are the statements that our government is making. We don't have laws here similar to some of the laws that you find in the Muslim world that are called anti-blasphemy laws. And so there is no legal recourse, just as there is no legal recourse against someone who would insult Jesus Christ. We have no laws here that would lock up those people, and there is a freedom here for people of all faiths to speak out and give their opinions honestly, shall we say, in a theological way, about what their beliefs are. When those beliefs become insulting, rather than simply a theological position, which you would expect from one religion, then we have a problem. And I know sometimes leaders are concerned to try to clarify the record there.

       Q Hi, I'm Julia Sable (ph) from Radio Free Asia. I was just wondering if you could elaborate a little more in what happened in your dialogue about the Oighurs in China. I thought it was specifically because of the concern that the Chinese government was cracking down on the Oighurs in the guise of tracking down on terrorists. And if you could also make a remark about Tibet and whether -- what the State Department thinks about the apparent dialogue. And if you have any news on two particular political prisoners, the Panchen Lama and then Chadrel Rinpoche, Who was apparently released but no one has seen him. We don't know if he has been released or has disappeared.

       AMB. HANFORD: Right. Well, in terms of the Oighur Muslims, as you know our government has recently acknowledged that there are terrorist activities occurring in that part of China. At the same time, we have been very careful to also state that we realize that the way the government of China has handled this has been to in some cases indiscriminately arrest and harm persons that have nothing but peaceful intents to practice their faith. And it was for this reason that I raised the issue and pressed it very strongly while I was there. Obviously as you have I think implied, some Oighur Muslims are accusing the government of using this war on terrorism as an excuse for suppressing that people group as a whole.

       Your second question was -- oh, Tibet. We raised this issue obviously when I was there, and specifically asked for access to the Panchen Lama, the one who has been designated by the Dalai Lama. We have yet to get a response to that. The excuse of the government of China is that the family of this young boy wishes that he not be bothered. We have asked that perhaps an international representative, such as someone from the United Nations, be allowed access -- someone who would not be carrying really any political baggage --or maybe someone from the ICRC -- simply be able to verify hat this boy is safe.

       We are encouraged by some of the signs just in the last few weeks that representatives of the Dalai Lama have been allowed to come to China. We are hopeful that something good may come out of this dialogue.

       Q (Off mike) -- Chardel Rinpochce -- the lama who was put in prison I think for designating the Panchen Lama as a different Panchen Lama than the Chinese had approved?

       AMB. HANFORD: No, I did not. We did talk about prisoners. We have encouraged the release of some of the prisoners, as well as several other tangible evidences of progress in religious freedom prior to Jiang Zemin's visit here, to Crawford, Texas. And we are waiting to see whether the government will honor any of these requests. MORE

       Q My name is Khalid Hesam (ph), Daily Times -- (inaudible) -- I have two questions. One really flows from the question which my colleague from Middle East News Agency asked. You referred to statements when he asked what actions the U.S. government might take against such incendiary and highly provocative statements on Islam and the prophet of Islam. You referred to statements, positions taken by President Bush. I wonder if you had the opportunity to read an editorial in the Washington Post yesterday which said that people like Falwell and the others, they are close political allies of President Bush, and it is time that he distance himself publicly from them. But as far as I know there has been no reaction from the White House so far. So the assurance that you have extended, it doesn't really -- it doesn't have much credibility. That's one.

       Number two, in your section on Israel and the occupied territories, you list the discrimination to which non-Jews are subjected, including Christians. But in the section on I think a section which relates to -- which describes the actions which the U.S. government has taken with regard to some of these situations, I notice that Israel doesn't figure. I mean, considering the gravity of the discrimination and the violations which taken place in Israel by the day, every day, all the time, the silence of the report on anything, any steps taken, any effort made by the U.S. government with the Israelis is significant, wouldn't you say? Thank you.

       AMB. HANFORD: Well, let me just say that there are regular meetings on this subject, and U.S. Embassy officials have consistently raised these issues with the government of Israel, with the Foreign Ministry, the police, the prime minister's office and the Ministry of the Interior.

       Q But why does the report not list those meetings? Why is there no mention in the report?

       AMB. HANFORD: Doesn't it refer in general to those meetings having occurred? I think it does.

       Q No.

       AMB. HANFORD: No? Well, someone is nodding their head in the back. Have you looked at this year's report on that? I don't have a computer here, so I can't pop in the CD. Do you have it printed out?

       Q (Off mike.)

       AMB. HANFORD: Oh, that's -- oh, I see, you are looking at the executive summary. Yeah, that's required by law when we prepare the report, which is actually this thick when it gets printed out - - (off mike) -- there is a section on each country, and you see in there a section. (Off mike.)

       MODERATOR: The gentleman over here.

       Q Thank you. Bashir (ph) from Sudan. I have two points. I would like to distinguish from the American point of view between religious freedom and religious tolerance, because it seems like there is a fine line. And the other thing is that people like me, who are fighting to separate religion and state -- and I am from Sudan -- and we are fighting it, and we are the majority anyway -- we are troubled by the American government being a Christian in supporting the minorities -- sometimes this encourages minorities to subversion, and sometimes even some other groups meddling and interfering. So, again, this will bring me back to the tolerance. So, yes, governments have no right to suppress the religious minorities, but the religious minorities should not use religion to subvert and create problems with agitators from outside. I wish you can focus on these two points. Thank you.

       AMB. HANFORD: Well, in our dialogues with foreign governments we emphasize that what we are trying to protect are people's peaceful practice of their beliefs. If people have intentions of using religion in a subversive way, that becomes something difficult for us to defend. So I think that message is conveyed very clearly.

       And in terms of tolerance versus religious freedom, sometimes a problem with a government is that while on record its Constitution or its policies may honor religious freedom, they turn a blind eye when local religious leaders are intolerant. They tolerate persecution -- perhaps not directly implemented by the government, but by others. And in that case we feel we have to bring it to their attention and ask them to intervene.

       Q Thank you. I am Nicolai Ionescu (ph) from the Romanian Public Television. Looking at the resume of your report, I see that Romania doesn't fall in any of the two categories, either good or bad countries, and yet my country has rather interesting experiences in religious terms, because the government is trying to return property stolen and taken away by Communists under their rule. And, on the other hand, there is a growing process of getting closer to the Catholic Church. Romania is a majority Christian Orthodox country. So why is such an experience left over?

       AMB. HANFORD: If you find -- if any of you find holes in our report, we want to hear from you -- if there are things we have neglected. Obviously the reports are not so long that we can cover every problem, but we really value getting good information. And some of you are close to problems that may not have been brought to our attention. Our embassies try to do a very careful job of meeting with religious groups, with human rights groups, various people in different countries, and getting to the bottom of these situations. But there may be problems in the Romanian report.

       My wife actually would take that very seriously. She is fluent in Romanian. She served in our embassy there. And it's because of the person that she shared an office with, who encouraged her to meet me when she moved back to Washington, that I have a wife. (Laughs.) So I have fond feelings for that.

       Generally the way we look at Romania right now is that there has been no effort recently to adopt a new law regulating religions. For a while there over the past few years there were rumors that a law was going to be coming forward, and we were concerned about that. So - and we acknowledge that progress on restitution of church properties has been very slow during the past year. We are aware of that program, and that is cited in the report this year.

       MODERATOR: The gentleman in the middle here.

       Q Hello, my name is Robert Bluey (ph). I am with Cybercast News Service. I'm -- I haven't been able to see the full report on CD, but I noticed in the executive summary that Afghanistan was changed from the classification that it had been listed as last year. I was wondering if you could speak to some of the changes you have seen in the past year since the fall of the Taliban.

       AMB. HANFORD: The -- Afghanistan was designated as, quote, "a country of particular concern," which under the act which requires this report means a severe violator of religious freedom. That designation was done outside of the act, because we did not recognize the Taliban regime as a legitimate government. Nevertheless, we felt the problems were serious enough that we needed to designate them.

       This is a case where we feel there has been marked improvement. Some of the harsh ways in which the Taliban forced conformity to their rather radical approach to Islam -- some of these problems have been addressed -- and across the board. Now, that doesn't mean that we are confident that everything is going to work out beautifully. Just in the last few days there's been an announcement that the Ministry of Vice and Virtue has been reinstated. This was the source of some of the problems under the previous regime. And so we are watching this very closely.

       But I think I am safe in predicting that this year Afghanistan will be taken off the list of countries of particular concern.

       Q Chris Lokell (ph) of the China Post from Taiwan. President Bush spoke to students at Tsinghua University on religious freedom when he visited China earlier this year. Do you know if this is something that he will be raising with President Jiang Zemin when they meet later this month? And also, can you touch on some of your general concerns with China's record? And, finally, can you indicate whether the situation in China is improving or deteriorating? Thank you.

       AMB. HANFORD: I think it's a safe bet -- in fact, I am virtually certain that religious freedom will be prominent on the agenda when President Bush and Jiang Zemin meet. It was remarkably front and center when President Bush was in China. As you mentioned, there was a speech that he gave before the nation in which he emphasized the importance of religious freedom, and this was a topic that came up in the private discussions of the two men. And I am told that Jiang Zemin has been very sensitized to this priority on the part of the president.

       I heard someone laughing about it in saying that religious freedom is not a talking point for President Bush -- it's a breathing point. "Talking point," in case some of you don't know, is jargon for bullet points put in preparation for meetings. In his case it's considered a breathing point: it's something really near to his heart. MORE

       The situation in China I think from my recent visit there I would say that there is a growing readiness on the part of the government to talk about the problems there. My predecessor was denied a visa a couple of years ago, even to travel and meet. In my case they were willing to meet, and meet at length. And we covered the whole range of issues. There are some cases still where there are -- where people are treated very severely -- physically -- arrested, beaten. There are cases, which I raised, where people have received long prison sentences, where there have been trumped-up charges, where there has been torture.

       The government would say that there is a need for us to get the word out to the provinces that this needs to stop. And we would agree with that, and we are urging the government to adopt a national law that makes very clear what the freedoms are for religious believers in that country. We think that will make it easier for them to impose those standards throughout the country.

       I can answer more specific questions, but there's lots and lots of issues there where the registration laws are a problem. There are so many communities of believers that are having to meet clandestinely and out of the law, and it's very inconsistent from province to province how local governments address this. In some cases people meet at great danger to themselves. In other cases it's almost as if they are meeting in government-approved churches.

       One thing that came out of our trip that was encouraging -- of course we raised a panoply of issues -- but one was our concern for the allowance of religious training for minors. And this is something that I have heard for years has been against the law -- frowned upon. We have been assured that this is not the case at this point, that young people are free to attend churches and mosques and to be trained in the belief of their parents. And so we will be encouraging the implementation of that.

       Q Hi, this is -- (inaudible) -- again. In the section about Egypt, the report after having improved -- after having praised some improvements in the government's actions, it says, and I am quoting, "However, the government continues to prosecute persons, including Muslims, for unorthodox religious beliefs and practices under the charge of insulting -- (inaudible) -- religions," unquote. My question is, you know, if a country like the U.S. has laws which do not prosecute people if they describe other prophets as killers or terrorists. What if another country has laws which ban people from doing that? Does the U.S. have a problem with that? I mean, do you have a problem when a country has laws banning people from insulting other people's religions or prophets? Do you believe that's some sort of a problem? Thank you.

       AMB. HANFORD: You know, one of the problems we have run into is the indiscriminate way in which these sorts of laws had been applied. For example, to use Pakistan, some believe that the majority of the cases in which people have been arrested and imprisoned for great lengths of time, that have been facing the death penalty under the anti-blasphemy law, that these people have never uttered a negative word, but a rival shopkeeper next door has made a false accusation, and then the person's life is in danger, because Muslims who understandably feel offended want to kill this person. And so while one can understand the sentiments behind these laws, they raise a danger, and they can be used as an excuse when laws are so general and vague to arrest people, irregardless of whether they are even guilty of what the law addressees.

       Let me follow up on the China thing one more time, because I would really be neglectful if I didn't mention our raising the Falun Gong issues. That's a tough category, because the Falun Gong make it clear that they are not a religion. They are an exercise movement with spiritual overtones. But because of the number of people who have died in custody in this last year, and the thousands that have been arrested, this is certainly a very serious problem, and one that we also will continue to raise.

       Q This is Julia Sabel (ph) again. I was wondering if I could ask about two countries who are designated as particular concern. The first is North Korea. I was wondering if that was raised on James Kelly's visit to North Korea recently, or has it been brought up by other officials or in other ways with North Korea. And the second is about Burma. We have been receiving reports of the ethnics Chins and Kachins on the Burma-India border have been facing persecution because of their religious beliefs. And I am wondering if you have heard those reports and have any comments on them.

       AMB. HANFORD: I have heard those reports. First, on North Korea, North Korea was just designated last year as a country of particular concern. It probably should have been designated much sooner. The problem over the years has been getting accurate information out of North Korea. More people have been sneaking out. Some of the stories we have heard have been atrocious. It appears that there may be a large number of people who are in prison for their religious beliefs. And sometimes -- we have even been told that it is religious believers in North Korean prisons who often receive the harshest treatment. We felt like finally that the weight of evidence was so clear that we needed to designate. I do not know whether Mr. Kelly raised that issue. My suspicion would be that he did. But I cannot verify on that.

       In the case of Burma, we are aware of these most recent incidents. Burma has made some -- sent some signals, just in the last couple of weeks, that they are considering moving back from their policy of discrimination and intolerance toward some of these religious groups. A directive has gone out that religious persecution needs to be backed off. We are waiting to see how that will be implemented. But we welcome this and if this were lived out and fulfilled, perhaps Burma would be a candidate for graduating from the list of CPCs.

       MODERATOR: Any further questions?

       Q How about Sudan? What do you have? (Laughter.)

       AMB. HANFORD: Well, we are concerned about the peace process -- having ceased for a while. We put a great deal of hope in the EGAD process. You know, we are very pleased with agreements that have already been reached in terms of a referendum, six and a half years, in terms of the degree of religious freedom that would be allowed in the south. We are hopeful that the parties will return to the peace table -- maybe in two or three weeks.

       Q Yeah, Richard Finney (ph) again. Concerning Cambodia, the section on that country in this year's report was very small. Has the situation been improving there? Has it been kind of holding steady? Do you have any particular concerns that that country is not addressing?

       AMB. HANFORD: I was just discussing this with a Cambodian taxi driver today. (Laughs.) It seems to be holding steady. The problem is not as serious as what we find in Laos or Vietnam, some of the neighboring countries. I have not traveled there, so I am not able to comment too specifically on Cambodia.

       MODERATOR: Thank you very much.

       AMB. HANFORD: Thank you. My pleasure.

Copyright (c)2002 by Federal News Service, Inc., 620 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service, please email Jack Graeme at info@fnsg.com or call (202)824-0520.