[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CENTRAL ASIA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 18, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-151
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,
or http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
30-801 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
PAUL COOK, California LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
RON DeSANTIS, Florida JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
TED S. YOHO, Florida BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois DINA TITUS, Nevada
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York NORMA J. TORRES, California
DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
Wisconsin ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
ANN WAGNER, Missouri TED LIEU, California
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
TED POE, Texas BRAD SHERMAN, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
Wisconsin DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
S. Frederick Starr, Ph.D., chairman, Central Asia Caucasus
Institute...................................................... 4
Mr. Steve Swerdlow, researcher, Central Asia, Human Rights Watch. 20
Ms. Spaska Gatzinska, associate director, Eurasia, National
Endowment for Democracy........................................ 28
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
S. Frederick Starr, Ph.D.: Prepared statement.................... 7
Mr. Steve Swerdlow: Prepared statement........................... 23
Ms. Spaska Gatzinska: Prepared statement......................... 30
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 52
Hearing minutes.................................................. 53
CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CENTRAL ASIA
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:00 p.m., in
room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana Rohrabacher
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Rohrabacher. The subcommittee is now not adjourned--we
now are in session. So Mr. Meeks will have an opening
statement. I will have an opening statement.
If we have any other colleagues join us they will have
opening statements. So I will begin with mine.
So observers of Central Asia over the past 2 years have
seen many reasons for optimism. The reformist-minded
president--a reformist-minded president now leads Uzbekistan.
The region's most populate country thus has, basically, an
open-minded reformist new president.
Kazakhstan is completing a rotation on the United National
Security Council and last year Kyrgyzstan held competitive
elections which resulted in a peaceful transfer of political
power.
Each of these are encouraging steps for the individual
countries but also for the region. They suggest that we
continue our positive engagement in collaborative partnership
with those countries in the region.
I welcome our witnesses to this afternoon's hearing on
current developments in Central Asia, which should help us
determine the most effective foreign policy for the United
States.
Problems with economic diversification, infrastructure, and
rule of law clearly remain. But the trend lines provide much
hope that Central Asia is becoming ever more interconnected,
ever more prosperous and, yes, at peace with itself and with
its neighbors.
With the continuation of the United States and NATO mission
in Afghanistan, Central Asian governments have been supportive
and expressed a willingness to play a positive role in security
cooperation, to secure borders, to stop smugglers, and to fight
terrorist organizations.
Through our bilateral and regional assistance programs, the
U.S. Government is helping the governments of the five Central
Asian states to increase security while expanding private
enterprise, cross-border trade, and, of course, respect
peaceful democratic dissent.
I welcome the news and I've welcomed the news earlier this
year but especially what's been happening in that the Uzbek
government has not accredited a Voice of America journalist for
the first time ever. I find that a major step forward and we
appreciate that.
We can hope that this is a trend which continues, of
course, and, of course, it remains frustrating, however, that
today Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty is only able to operate
in three of the five Central Asian nations, and then usually
only with difficulty.
While we applaud the increasing trade, economic contact,
and economic exchanges as positive accomplishments, we must not
turn a blind eye to politically motivated prosecutions,
arbitrary detentions, corruption, and restrictions on freedom
of expression. As we have our conversation about these issues
today, it must be with the realization that we cannot take
Central Asia for granted.
It is a region of secular governments and enterprising
peoples. It is a pivot to the Eurasian land mass and a
balancing point for the entire globe.
I would be or it would a historic setback for human kind if
that part of the world were to be dominated by radical Islam or
controlled through subterfuge or bribery by countries such as
China.
It is better for the region and better for the West if
Central Asia continues to make progress and remains on a
pathway to openness, prosperity, and peace.
And before I yield to my ranking member, Mr. Meeks, let me
just note that I have been fortunate enough to visit Central
Asia and know them--know those people. They are to be welcoming
and gracious people who I dearly respect.
While we may be separated and great geographical
differences--they are literally on the other side of the
world--I think there is a kinship between our peoples. We share
a frontier spirit and sweeping landscapes that spread out to
the horizon.
We can play a pivotal role in the development of Central
Asia, for example, and different developments that they are
doing and there are efforts--I'll give you an example--of the
Central Asian Regional Electricity Market, which will help
bring that region together and in better contact with the world
and each other.
We have laid a foundation for cooperation through economic
interaction and I hope through increased American attention
that we will continue to make progress together and in a
partnership and a friendship we will build a better world for
them and for all of us.
Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great that we are
having this hearing today.
I think of often when I think of Central Asia I think of
one great Member of Congress who was my predecessor who was the
chair and then subcommittee--chair of the subcommittee and then
ranking member, Eni Faleomavaega, who was--always told me that
Central Asia did not get the attention that it should get and I
couldn't agree with him more, now being the ranking member on
this committee. It needs to get much more attention.
I've had the opportunity to travel to the region many times
and when I leave I leave with the deepest appreciation for the
beauty of the culture of each nation, the spirit of the people,
and the mutual interests and cooperation between the United
States and our regional partners.
In many ways, although too often hidden from view on our
national stage, Central Asia nations are global leaders with
extensive international reach--economic, political, and
security that extend way beyond the region.
So this hearing is extremely important. I want to thank our
witnesses for agreeing to meet with us today and I reviewed
your testimonies, and as a former board member, I know
firsthand how important NED's work is and how substantial it is
within Central Asia.
I especially appreciate NED being represented here this
afternoon. There has been progress in the region on democracy-
related issues.
But, of course, there are still many concerns and I am
looking forward to hearing from our witnesses so that we might
get a better understanding of the challenges and the
opportunities that exist in Central Asia.
I know our witnesses will provide expert insight regarding
human rights, security, and more. I hope we can also discuss
efforts to diversify economically and geopolitically and how
some see this diversification as a threat.
I am interested in hearing how effective Russia's Eurasian
economic union has been at integrating Russian markets with
Central Asia's and to what end? Military exercises with Russia
also seem to be increasing within the region and I would
welcome your thoughts on that.
Similarly, China's influence in the region is increasing at
a steady clip. I'd like to know our witnesses' thoughts about
the Belt and Road initiative and the impact China's investments
will have in the near and short term, particularly with respect
to debt increases in the region.
As mentioned, progress has indeed been made. Yet,
democratization and the respect for human rights will require
our attention for years to come in order to achieve further
advancement of these ideals.
For those reasons, I am disappointed that the United States
foreign assistance to the region has been cut by 35 percent in
this fiscal year 2018's budget.
The United States has an important role to play in
partnering with regional stakeholders. I hope we can get a
better understanding of how U.S. assistance is helping.
Over the years, I've been keenly focused on the
opportunities the United States has to increase bilateral
cooperation in the region.
For example, I've been a strong supporter of Kazakhstan's
economic development efforts, the push for WTO's accession, and
authorization to extend PNTR status to Kazakhstan.
Both the U.S. and Kazakhstan has much to gain from greater
economic engagement and ties, especially in non-oil energy
business sectors such as high tech and aerospace as a way of
creating jobs, accelerating economic growth, and security in
both countries.
The same is true to varying degrees throughout all of
Central Asia and it is clear to me that there are current
partnerships that we should maintain and there are many
opportunities ahead.
Engagement is the key, in my estimation. I thank you for
being here and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Meeks.
We have three witnesses today and let me just note that if
you could try to keep your spoken testimony down to about 5
minutes and then we can have a dialogue, which is what the
purpose is, but you can put anything else into the record. You
can put your oral statement into the record.
So I will introduce the three of you and we will have the
testimony. Dr. Fred Starr is the founding chairman of the
Central Asia Caucus Institute and the Silk Road Studies
Program, a joint research center affiliated with American
foreign policy--the American Foreign Policy Institute.
He has been a well-regarded expert in this region for a
number of decades and he's past president of the Aspen
Institute.
Next, we have Steve Swerdlow. He is a Central Asia
researcher and he does that for the Human Rights Watch and he
is an attorney with over 15 years of scholarly and human rights
experience.
He has worked on the region and about the region for many
years and I understand he has just returned from a working trip
to Uzbekistan.
And I'll ask did you get to Samarkand while you were there?
I've never been to Samarkand yet so I understand it's a
beautiful, beautiful city.
Last, we have Spaska--let me make sure I get this right--
Gatzinska--I got it right, thank you--associate director of the
Eurasia at the National Endowment for Democracy and in that
role she oversees programs in Central Asia and the broader
Eurasian region.
So I'd like to welcome all of you and we may proceed with
Dr. Starr.
STATEMENT OF S. FREDERICK STARR, PH.D., CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL ASIA
CAUCASUS INSTITUTE
Mr. Starr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
salute and add to your remarks and those of Mr. Meeks regarding
engagement. Hat's off.
Now, why? Because we are at a moment today in which the
opportunities in this region and the prospects for the region
are at a higher pitch than they've been in 25 years. This is a
remarkable moment.
There are a lot of causes for this. There are also factors
holding it back, which I am sure we will hear about. However,
among those causes, one that has earned particular attention,
are the reform project going forward in Uzbekistan.
My colleagues will speak on several aspects of it but I
want to just take note that our Central Asia Caucuses Institute
undertook a year ago a systematic review of all the reforms
going on there, trying simply to catalog them and follow their
status, and we have covered economics, foreign relations, law,
governance, religion, and so forth, and which will be in a
forthcoming book entitled, ``Uzbekistan's New Face.''
Now, these--suffice it to say now that these are really
fundamental reforms. We shouldn't expect all of them to be
fully implemented. It won't happen. It doesn't ever happen. We
can expect resistance to some.
But this is as fundamental a reform program as taking place
in any predominantly Muslim society on Earth today. It deserves
our attention, deserves our support.
Now, let me just touch on a couple of aspects of it. First,
on the foreign relations, this is transformative. They,
basically, moved from, as everyone in the region is moving,
from a period of exclusive focus on preserving their own
sovereignty individually to one in which they are talking about
the sovereignty and integrity of a region, and this is really a
very fundamental change.
The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution
recognizing this just a month ago. The United States supported
it as, by the way, did China and Russia. We will see if they
follow through. But it's an important shift.
In the area of governance, we are talking of very
interesting developments with regard to empowering political
parties and the Parliament itself to initiate legislation, not
just to approve laws that are handing down from above--in the
economics sphere, the convertibility of currency, the opening
of contacts with the ability to invest abroad and receive
investments from abroad. These and many other changes will
bring about very basic shifts.
Now, with regard to religion, this is a Muslim majority
society. What I want to stress is--and we will hear more about
this--I am not going to dwell on the 23,000 people who've been
taken off prescribed lists in that area. My colleagues will get
into those questions.
I want, rather, to stress that this is a Muslim society
with at the same time has a secular government and secular
systems of laws and secular courts.
This is common throughout the region and it's a prime
factor that should be at the front of our foreign policy. It's
a very imperfect system but it's something we should be working
with them to develop and perfect. It's something in which we
have a common interest and common concerns.
Now, what should the U.S. do about all this? Let me simply
say, first of all, I think we have to embrace the region as
such. They really have shifted from, if you will, navel
watching--each watching out for its own exclusive fate--to
drawing--grasping hands on a regional basis.
This is really important. We cannot appear to be engaged in
divide and conquer policies, handing out rewards and
punishments to good guys and bad guys. We have to think
regionally. We have not been used to doing that.
And the region itself has changed. When Kazakhstan proposed
to Secretary of State Kerry to establish what became the C5+1
consultative format, we responded as they proposed. If that
were to be proposed today, all residents of the region would
favor including Afghanistan not as a neighbor of Central Asia
but as part of the region. So I would add that.
Now, in addition to embracing the region and stressing the
idea of these as secular states with secular systems of laws
and courts and education in predominantly Muslim societies,
secular in order to protect religious freedom, not unlike our
own system--that we want to work with them, it seems to be, to
perfect that.
Then, finally, that we--there are problems aplenty and Mr.
Meeks rightly touched on some of them. Of course there
problems. The question that we have to decide--and I think it's
fundamental--is are we going to work with them or on them.
Working on them, naming and shaming, hasn't worked--won't
work. Working with them does work. I could give very specific
examples if you'd like on how it has worked. I think that's the
way to go for the future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Starr follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Mr. Swerdlow.
STATEMENT OF MR. STEVE SWERDLOW, RESEARCHER, CENTRAL ASIA,
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
Mr. Swerdlow. Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking Member Meeks,
it's an honor to be here today.
My remarks focus on the remarkable changes that we are
witnessing in Uzbekistan's human rights situation and also
recommendations for how U.S. foreign policy can best promote
lasting and meaningful improvements on the ground, and the key
recommendation really is this--that in this time of, as has
been noted, hope in Uzbekistan and political transition, it's
really vitally important that United States continue to promote
human rights--and the word engagement has been used here--but
to engage in a principled fashion.
I think one of the lessons for U.S. foreign policy of the
last 2 years in Uzbekistan, the releases of political
prisoners, the remarkable progress on combatting child labor
and forced labor in the cotton fields, is that pressure
actually works, even in hard authoritarian cases like
Uzbekistan.
So while some of the recommendations are that the U.S.
continue to encourage positive change, expand educational
exchanges like the Muskie program that's now no longer with us,
it's also important not to lose sight of the fact that
Uzbekistan remains deeply authoritarian with ongoing egregious
human rights abuses such as torture and that it's important the
U.S. not pull punches and keep speaking out and using public
pressure where necessary.
In these past 2 years, we have seen some remarkable things,
as my colleague Dr. Starr just mentioned.
We've seen about 30 political prisoners released. We've
seen some restrictions being lifted on free speech and free
expression.
We have seen about 16,000 people coming off the notorious
black list that the security services keep, which mean that a
person has to go in for police interrogations on a regular
basis.
We've seen the president commit publicly at the U.N. to
combat forced labor and child labor, and we have seen a
rhetoric or a discourse of government officials being
accountable to their citizens in Uzbekistan.
So it's a time of remarkable optimism in Uzbekistan, the
likes which I've never seen. But I think it's important, again,
to dwell here on the political prisoners.
Why are these 30 political prisoners--why are they the ones
that have been released? They've been released because they
were the specific individuals that the U.S. Government had been
raising, along with the European Union and human rights groups,
for many, many years.
I think it shows, again, the value of pressure, the value
of speaking out, and it's also important to note another thing
about these releases, which are so significant, and one--just
to put it in context--one of the individuals I met recently
that was released is a man named Samandar Kukanov.
He was the vice chairman of Uzbekistan's first independent
Parliament. He was in jail for 24 years, which, next to Nelson
Mandela I think makes him the longest imprisoned political
activist in history.
It's important to note that none of these people have been
rehabilitated--that many of them have suffered torture and that
is a discussion that's not really yet on the table in
Uzbekistan.
I think how Uzbekistan deals with political prisoners opens
this national dialogue, you know, the last 25 years of Karimov
and the abuses that occurred will actually determine a lot
about the general direction of democratization and human
rights.
And it's also important to remember that there are still
thousands of people imprisoned on politically motivated
charges.
I just met the wife of one of them, a professor of Turkish
studies named Andrei Kubatin. I met his wife about 2 weeks ago.
He was tortured for no other reason, in fact, than he had
shared publicly available documents about--historical documents
with a Turkish diplomat and he was tortured. So it's important
to keep in mind that this is ongoing.
On free speech, I talked to journalists in Uzbekistan and
they tell me that now they're able to report about corruption,
forced labor, and that is remarkable.
But, as you said, Chairman Rohrabacher, Radio Free Europe
is still not operational. The BBC, which was promised
accreditation about a year ago, has still not been able to get
their local correspondent accredited and that is something that
could be changed, I think, very quickly if it was raised in the
right way.
On torture, we continue to see--continue to get information
of really horrific torture. In one case, a journalist named
Bobomurod Abdullayev, who was stripped naked in a freezing
cell.
I met with him not long ago as well, and these are things
where the president has spoken out on the need to combat
torture. But the follow up--the implementation is lacking.
On freedom of religion I should mention that because we
have a visit coming up by the U.S. ambassador for international
religious freedom--Sam Brownback--which I think is expected in
September.
We have seen a desire expressed in Tashkent to promote a
more enlightened view of Islam, to have Uzbekistan be
associated not with torture but be associated with Islamic
enlightenment, education. That, of course, is very important.
But we still see the same restrictive regulations,
especially on Christian communities, Jehovah's witnesses unable
to register, Protestants unable to register, and Christians
often being vulnerable to constant harassment, home raids and,
of course, as I mentioned, thousands of independent Muslims
still languishing in jail on politically motivated charges.
That leads me to sort of the key recommendations which I
mentioned in the beginning, which is that we have seen a
significant number of political prisoners released--30 in 2
years.
Child labor has really been--that's been a very successful
effort on the part of the government now that focusses on
forced labor. We still saw 300,000 people forced to pick cotton
in the last harvest, according to the International Labor
Organization, not according to human rights groups' findings.
And so it's important that Washington use the tools it
has--use the International Religious Freedom reports,
communicating that the country of particular concern
designation is not going to be going anywhere as long as
registration is so hard to acquire for Christian communities,
as long as there are so many religious prisoners in jail.
It needs to use the Trafficking in Persons report. We saw
an upgrade from Tier 3 to Tier 2 watch list for Uzbekistan but
it's still important to communicate that there should be an end
to forced labor.
And, of course, the U.S. shouldn't be afraid to use tools
like Global Magnitsky for officials that have been responsible
for a policy and practice of torture.
And finally, I would say the U.S. is a leader on these
issues and it is important for Uzbekistan--I think hard to
imagine that Uzbekistan can really democratize and move forward
unless there will be a sober and difficult conversation about
the past--some conversation about the past 25 years and some
process that allows Uzbek citizens a real voice to discuss what
has occurred and strategies for moving forward.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Swerdlow follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF MS. SPASKA GATZINSKA, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, EURASIA,
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY
Ms. Gatzinska. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Meeks, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for
holding this timely and important hearing on current
developments in Central Asia.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Could you please put the mic up a little
bit closer?
Ms. Gatzinska. Sure. Is this better? There we go.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. Thank you.
Ms. Gatzinska. On behalf of the National Endowment for
Democracy and our partners in the field, I would like to thank
you for your ongoing support and commitment to Central Asia and
we very much welcome your remarks on the importance of
continued engagement.
With congressional support, the Endowment has promoted the
democratic development of the region since the early 1990s.
Currently, NED supports over 50 domestic, civil society, and
media organizations in their steadfast efforts to advance
democracy in Central Asia.
For the record, I would like to point out that the
endowment is a grant-making organization and does not take
positions on U.S. policy.
Despite sharing a common Soviet heritage, these five
countries all facing unique sets of challenges as they continue
to reform their political systems and economic structures. I
will focus my remarks primarily on Uzbekistan because of lack
of time. But I think we all look forward to addressing
questions about the other four countries in Central Asia.
The single most important event, as has been pointed out,
is the sudden death of Islam Karimov in September 2016, who had
ruled Uzbekistan with an iron fist since before the dissolution
of the Soviet Union.
It is well known that President Karimov created a
kleptocratic dictatorship where the chosen few held absolute
political and economic power while relentlessly persecuting and
silencing independent, civic, and political voices.
Under Karimov's rule, independent civil society, media, and
political opposition were all decimated and the ability of
international organizations and donors to operate in the
country was severely restricted.
Given this context, it is not surprising that observers
watched with trepidation the first 6 months of President
Mirziyoyev's ascent to power.
What has followed since then is a serious of official
statements promising a broad range of much needed reforms. I
want to repeat much of what my colleague at Human Rights Watch
has already mentioned in terms of developments and positive and
negative events that have occurred since then.
Instead, I will go into more detail on the reform process
that has been unfolding over the past 2 years.
A cornerstone of the reform process is improving the rule
of law as the new government understands it urgently needs to
attract foreign investment in order to rescue its ailing
economy.
Although no comprehensive reform map has been issued, it is
clear that the government's priorities are fighting corruption,
liberalizing the economy, and promoting the rule of law.
Uzbekistan has already secured Russian investments and
trade agreements, which only have reinforced Russia's
extraordinarily influential, political, and economic role in
the region.
Similarly, China's impact has grown over the years and it
is currently Uzbekistan's largest trading partner. Uzbekistan
has already opened its borders with neighboring countries,
rekindled trade agreements, and is showing signs of asserting
itself as a leading regional power.
While still working to improve its longstanding
relationships with China, Russia, and its neighbors, President
Mirziyoyev has taken deliberate steps to reach out to the U.S.
and to the West.
The May 2018 visit to Washington was the culmination of
President Mirziyoyev's overtures to the U.S. In addition to
promising continued economic reforms, Uzbekistan has requested
technical assistance from the U.S. for implementing rule of law
reforms, which could result in opening markets to more U.S.
businesses and technologies.
The Center for International Private Enterprise, for
example, has started a program to support the development of
nascent businesses associations and to foster their ability to
advocate on economic and policy issues.
These developments offer a unique opportunity. Although
undeniable progress has already been made, it is best
characterized as an ad hoc approach to individual opportunities
rather than a well thought out reform agenda.
A much more systematic approach is needed and there are
many ways in which independent domestic civil society can
contribute meaningfully and constructively to the reform agenda
such as providing expert policy recommendations and holding the
government accountable to its promises and to international
norms and standards.
In order for that to happen, the government of Uzbekistan
could take specific steps that would significantly improve the
operating environments for civil society and media.
Items on the agenda of domestic partners include easing
cumbersome administrative procedures for NGOs, removing
restrictions on freedom of movement and association, providing
accreditation to independent, domestic, and international
media, allowing international donors and organizations to
return to their country and to operate freely, and finally,
removing the outdated exit visa model which has already been
suggested by President Mirziyoyev.
These tests will be a welcome sign to domestic and
international audiences to Uzbekistan is truly dedicated to
working toward the success of the reform process.
Thank you again for this opportunity and I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gatzinska follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you all very much for joining us
today and trying to give us some direction on what type of
policies will achieve the positive goals that we all have.
But can I--I would like to ask the panel how many political
prisoners are there in this region and what countries are they
in?
Mr. Swerdlow. Well, Uzbekistan leads the pack and, in fact,
in all the former Soviet space, Uzbekistan has more political
prisoners than all former states--for former Soviet states
combined and the estimates are really hard to--it's hard to be
exact because the country was closed for so long.
But I think on the more conservative side we are talking
about thousands of people. We are talking about perhaps 70,000.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Uzbekistan----
Mr. Swerdlow. Uzbekistan.
Mr. Rohrabacher. There are--in Uzbekistan there are
thousands of political prisoners now.
Mr. Swerdlow. Right. And to be precise, what I mean by that
are mostly--the vast majority of these are individuals that
have been convicted on the extremism charges, which are vague,
over broad, extremely broad charges that have been used against
mainly independent Muslims in Uzbekistan.
So we term those political because those statutes are often
used for political purposes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. What about in the other countries in the
region?
Mr. Swerdlow. In Kyrgyzstan the one very notable political
prisoner now is Azimjan Askarov, the human rights defender--
ethnic Uzbek human rights defender who's been in prison now
since the June 2010 Osh events.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Could you repeat that? How many people?
Where did you say?
Mr. Swerdlow. I am referring to Kyrgyzstan and we don't
compare figures that often, but Kyrgyzstan the notable case of
Azimjan Askarov is really high on the agenda of Human Rights
Watch.
In Tajikistan, there we've seen a rapid increase in arrests
over the past, I would say, 4 years and we estimate something
between 150 to 200 political activists mainly from the now
banned opposition party.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So there are 200 or 250 people you'd
consider political prisoners and that is in Tajikistan?
Mr. Swerdlow. That's Tajikistan. That includes a few--one
journalist just last week convicted on a 12-year charge, about
three lawyers, and the rest political activists, and then----
Mr. Rohrabacher. So thousands in Uzbekistan and 60 in
Tajikistan. What about the rest?
Mr. Swerdlow. Well, about 200 in Tajikistan.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Kazakhstan is----
Mr. Swerdlow. Maybe you want to speak to----
Ms. Gatzinska. I would like to add that we don't often hear
about Turkmenistan, which has been very closed off and the
number of disappeared political prisoners is very large.
There is a project that is run by a consortium of
organizations called Prove They're Alive, which is trying to
force the government of Turkmenistan to acknowledge how many
political prisoners there are, how many of them are still
alive, and so forth.
In Kazakhstan, I would say that it is difficult to put a
number to the number of political prisoners for two reasons.
One, there's no agreement on what constitutes a political
prisoner. There's a lot of trade union activists who have been
imprisoned because of their trade union activities.
There is also a journalist in media who have been
imprisoned for their freedom of speech activities. But in terms
of political prisoners, I would highlight the fate of the now-
banned political movement Alga, which was heavily financed and
related to Ablyazov and among those there's upwards of 200
political activists who remain in prison over the past 3 years.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So we are talking about people being held
now that are in the hundreds?
Ms. Gatzinska. Yes, and----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. What about Kyrgyzstan?
Ms. Gatzinska. So for Kyrgyzstan, there has been an
increase in high profile political prisoners. I would mention
too one is Omurbek Tekebaev who used to be one of the leaders
of Ata-Meken, one of the most prominent political pro-
democratic parties in Kyrgyzstan.
He was sentenced on corruption charges right before the
presidential election last year, and this was largely seen as a
political move to prevent him to run for president.
There have been other cases where political opposition
figures who came afoul of the former president----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Do you have a number for me?
Ms. Gatzinska. I would imagine probably less than 20.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Less than 20?
Ms. Gatzinska. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. I am just trying to get a sense
about it.
Dr. Starr.
Mr. Starr. Well, first of all, these are impressive
figures. I wish there was some way of checking them rigorously.
There really isn't, which is assumed to be the case, and I
mean, there isn't a means of checking them because of the
closed nature of these data.
But let us--let us, for a moment, take these figures at
face value. They seem to me decisively to disprove Mr.
Swerdlow's assertion that pressure actually works.
I agree with him that pressure can work and at times does
work. But we've used it as our sole tool and the large numbers
that have just been cited are proof to me that we should have
another tool and that other tool is working with rather than on
these people.
And let me give as an example an organization that might
have been mentioned earlier under civil society groups and that
is an organization called Regional Forum that was set up by a
Slovenian--remarkable Slovenian woman named Mjusa Sever.
She has been working in Uzbekistan for 10 years with some
American support and European support. She has worked with
rather than on the ministry of justice with the ministry of
internal affairs.
She has brought members of their supreme court here to sit
down with American lawyers for weeks on end and discuss exactly
the problems that my colleagues have raised.
These are important issues, it seems to me. She--through
her decade-long work, she actually participated in the drafting
of many of the laws which are now being implemented and offer
some signs of hope for the future.
So my strong urging here is that we shift the balance from
yes, pressure should continue, but from pressure to working
with rather than on these people. That will produce results and
numbers that are more credible than what we've had.
Mr. Swerdlow. Can I just add to that, very quickly, and say
that I think the case of Human Rights Watch right now in
Uzbekistan is--supports what you say in the sense that now
there's actually a period politically where we can sit across
the table from the Uzbek government, many Uzbek officials from
a number of ministries, and it's understood that we have a
critical independent role to play and that there's nothing--
criticism doesn't have to be toxic.
I actually--I see a dialogue now between our organization--
you know, I was actually deported from Uzbekistan 7 years ago
or 8 years ago, like many people from the NGO community and the
journalistic community, and now I've been able to have these
really difficult conversations and we talk about yes, we
understand that this is a painful conversation to talk about
this number of political prisoners--let me explain why we call
them political prisoners--let us talk about all these issues,
and that conversation is taking place.
I would say I agree with you that you do have to work with,
not on. But I think, again, I don't think those approaches are
mutually exclusive and I think shining light on these issues is
really important.
And finally, I will say that we asked the Uzbek government
recently, very recently, to give us a list of all the prisoners
under--imprisoned under these charges and we are still waiting
for that data.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Do we have an American ambassador in each
of these countries or is--are there vacancies?
Ms. Gatzinska. There's currently a vacancy in Tajikistan
and there is a vacancy in Kyrgyzstan that, if I am not
mistaken, is considered to be filled.
We have a very strong and excellent ambassador in
Uzbekistan, Ambassador Spratlen.
Mr. Rohrabacher. You have him--is he an ambassador now?
Ms. Gatzinska. She's about to be.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right now--so right now there is a vacancy
in Tajikistan. Are there other vacancies?
Ms. Gatzinska. In Kyrgyzstan as well.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Kyrgyzstan. Okay.
Ms. Gatzinska. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And what are the other countries we have
American ambassadors present?
Mr. Starr. The problem goes beyond representation. Do they
meet as a group--do they consider their mission a regional one
or rather----
Mr. Rohrabacher. I understand. I am just trying to get an
understanding right now some of the----
Mr. Starr. I think we have them everywhere now.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Are there vacancies in all of these
countries? No.
Mr. Starr. No. I think there are none today.
Ms. Gatzinska. No. So Dan Rosenblum has been nominated as
ambassador to Uzbekistan.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Uzbekistan.
Mr. Swerdlow. You have to be confirmed.
Ms. Gatzinska. Yes. Yes. You have to be confirmed.
Mr. Rohrabacher. We do not--okay. Okay. So in these five
countries we are talking about here, where is the--is there an
active ambassador in one of them? Where?
Mr. Swerdlow. Well, as I understand it, Ambassador Spratlen
is still in her position and still active, and----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Is there someone now who's been appointed
by this administration who is now currently there as an
ambassador, right?
Mr. Swerdlow. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And one--and then the other countries of
the region, what--which country is it who has the ambassador?
Is that--who are we talking about.
Mr. Swerdlow. Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. Ambassador Krol is
there. Oh, he's leaving. So there's a number of people getting
ready to leave but they're still in their positions.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. I am just trying to find out--you
know, I went to Belarus. I remember I went there a couple years
ago and I was very surprised when we landed and there was no
ambassador in Belarus, and I asked why there wasn't an
ambassador in Belarus.
I mean, the embassy had a small staff and they came to see
us at the airplane and he--it was described well, we had the
political prisoners--we are protesting the political prisoners
and thus we don't have our--have an ambassador and later on
when we talked about political prisoners I said, okay, I want
to get a briefing on who these political prisoners are.
And, apparently, there were six of them and yes, there was
a couple--one guy who had been arrested who was--had run for
president against the current leader and he got arrested
immediately after the election and he was certainly a political
prisoner but two of them were in the young anarchist movement
and they had been arrested for throwing a Molotov cocktail at
some embassy.
And it didn't seem to me to be--justify not having an
ambassador because there were two political prisoners in the
country, and Uzbekistan, if they have thousands of political
prisoners, here's the follow-up question: Should we then have a
U.S. ambassador in Uzbekistan if they have thousands of
political prisoners?
Mr. Swerdlow. Absolutely. I mean, I think, as we've been
discussing, we all agree on engagement. I think the point I am
trying to make is principal engagement, shining light.
The more information we have--I think it actually even
benefits the Uzbek side and, again, I want to stress, as I
mentioned in my remarks, there have been--there has been a new
discourse about religion, as Dr. Starr said, about changing the
approach.
But the problem is that these habits dies hard and the
government has certainly legitimate security concerns. We
recognize that.
But thousands of people, I think, mostly in the late '90s,
beginning with--after the passage of the 1997 law on religion,
which was really one of the most restrictive in the world, you
had thousands of people landing in prison following trials
without due process.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I am going to--I've got to let my
colleagues have some time here, too. But there will be a second
round, and Mr. Meeks, Dr. Starr really has something he wants
to say. Go right ahead. Then Mr. Meeks can take over.
Mr. Starr. Yes. This is--this is a vexing problem on
representation. But just having people there isn't enough.
Twenty-five years ago, these were all former Soviet states
so they entirely still spoke Russian. Russian is not the
national language of any of the countries we are talking about.
It is an official language for intercultural communication
within Kazakhstan along with Kazakh.
We have had ambassadors in this region who actually made a
serious effort to learn local languages. But not--but to have
someone in these countries who doesn't know the local language
and is not making a good faith effort to learn it is basically
to say as clearly as a big power can to a small power that we
really don't take you seriously. That doesn't lead to the kind
of dialogue you're talking about.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you.
And speaking of Russia, Russia has maintained strong
security ties to the region by leading the Collective Security
Treaty Organization security bloc and by deploying missile
defense systems within the region.
Now, Uzbekistan is not a member of the treaty but in 2017
it conducted military exercises with Russia within its
territory.
Following Russia's actions in Crimea, Kazakhstan, from--you
know, in talking to some of them, has become increasingly
concerned about its northern neighbor, particularly since about
what we just talked about--23 percent of its citizens are
ethnic Russians.
So my question is do you think Russia will try to stir up
ethno-nationalist sentiments in Central Asia, given the region
has a sizeable ethnic Russian population? Because that's
something that was happening in Ukraine and Eastern Ukraine.
And when I've talked to some Kazakhstanians it's what
they're telling me their concern is.
Dr. Starr.
Mr. Starr. Russia, which is a great and noble European
civilization that's made great contributions to our common
culture, is suffering from what might be called a hangover.
It is an imperial hangover. It's what France went through
after World War II. The North Africans were actually citizens
of France.
Then they decided that they wanted to be independent and
the 4,000-some Frenchmen died in the ensuing battles and,
finally, Charles de Gaulle came along and said, enough. He
said, let's--there's a better France without these colonial
territories.
Putin is exactly an anti-de Gaulle. He said, no, we are--we
are not us until we have our space recreated. And so it's a
problem. It will remain so for a while. Not permanently,
because the generation that thought that way will eventually
pass on.
It is a problem for Central Asians. Their combined response
is very clever. They've said, look, we want good relations with
Russia. It's close by. We must have good relations there. We
don't want them bothering us. We will use China to balance
Russia.
Then, a few years later around 2001, they said, well, you
know, these are two great neighbors of ours--let's use the
United States and Europe to balance China and Russia.
And now, because for the last years before--until very
recently we basically--were basically saying what we were not
doing in Central Asia, they basically couldn't do the balance.
We were not playing the role they assigned in this balance,
which is, it seems to me, good for everyone.
So this is--this is the challenge. It is absence of serious
discussion of security, which both of you mentioned in your
presentations. It's the absence of that, as we discuss these
other issues, that has led to this situation and opened the
door for misbehavior from the north.
Mr. Meeks. Most of you basically agree with that? Anything
to add?
Ms. Gatzinska. What I would like to add is that at least
from what we've seen from our partners on the ground there's a
very pragmatic approach toward Russia. There's an understanding
that Russia's influence in Central Asia is strong and it's not
going to decrease.
So in a way, Russia doesn't necessarily need to stir up
ethnic concerns because their extraordinary influence in the
region is not threatened.
Kazakhstan is a little bit different and we have heard the
same things that you mentioned, Congressman Meeks, where they
are concerned particularly about the northern regions. But
those may be a little bit overplayed, from what we hear on our
partners on the ground.
Mr. Swerdlow. I might just add that I think in some ways
the human rights crisis in Russia, which is probably the worst
it's been, you know, since the early '90s, mimics and repeats
some of the worst human rights practices that were pioneered in
Central Asia in terms of the restrictions on the internet, a
really restrictive approach to freedom of religion, and a lot
of other issues that seemed to really--you know, the revenge of
the past, in a way, with Putin coming back to the presidency in
2012.
I would say an interesting observation about Uzbekistan,
though, is I think if, you know, Islam Karimov bequeathed a
sort of healthy skepticism toward Russian domination I think
that's one of the legacies of his foreign policy was to sort of
try to ensure Uzbekistan maybe having more of a maverick and
independent stance than, let's say, Kyrgyzstan, which is much
more pro-Russian and I think--so I don't worry as much that
despite the sort of oversized footprint in the media landscape
that Russia occupies in a place like Uzbekistan I don't see
Uzbekistan necessarily being--I think it maintains its own
course and will continue to do so and that's one of the lasting
imprints, in a way, I think, of Karimov's governance.
Mr. Meeks. So let me just add on that. With the sanctions
that we currently have on Russia, is that affecting the Central
Asian countries? Is there any spillover to the Central Asian
economies?
Mr. Swerdlow. It affects the economy in the sense that you
had hundreds of thousands of Central Asian migrants, mostly in
the construction sector in Russia, that had to leave and many
of them returned, for example, to Tajikistan without places to
work and that's caused a lot of panic at times--that you could
have a lot of unrest in Central Asia--and you also have the
cooperation ongoing between the Russian FSB and the security
services of all the Central Asian governments. We've seen
extraditions, kidnappings, abductions of Tajik dissidents in
Russia.
So that continues to go on and it's a very intractable
problem.
Ms. Gatzinska. And if I can just add quickly a little bit
about that is that the sanctions are impacting the Central Asia
in a way that, as part of the Eurasian economic union, Russia
has not been able to deliver on a lot of the promises that were
made when, for example, Kyrgyzstan joined the union and a lot
of the investments that were expected were not--they have not
materialized as time went through, which has led to some
disillusionment with the Eurasian economic union.
Mr. Meeks. My last question, and then I want to turn it
over is, you know, I think economies have to diversify, and I
know in talking to some they have been talking about they want
to diversify their economies. Do you think they are serious
about diversifying their economies and if so, do you think that
that will then have some sort of political impact on the
regimes?
Mr. Starr. Yes and yes. [Laughter.]
I am a trustee of Nazarbayev University. It is working like
mad and pouring huge amounts of money to train people in fields
needed to diversify the economy and the Uzbeks are doing the
same thing. Everyone is now. They realize that the old energy
economy isn't forever.
But if I can just add a note with regard to Russia because
it came up on the economics side. Russia--the easiest way for
them to misbehave in Central Asia is the old divide and conquer
formula--play one against the other.
The Central Asians are, I believe, naturally very tactful
people. Maybe it's because they've been--they've had to be for
so many millennia with so many neighbors in every direction.
But as such tactful people, they are promoting their
regional cooperation--the regional organization that they're
seeking to make.
The regular meetings of presidents with Afghanistan--
they're promoting that not just as a solution to their
diversification and development in many ways but also as a way
to balance outside pressures.
They say to the Russians, look, you're concerned--you claim
to be concerned about security, about drugs, extremism. Let us
handle these things. We can provide our own security. Stay out.
Let us do our job.
This is what they've been proposing and we should be
strongly backing that. It's not against anyone. It's not
against Russia. It's not against China. It's not against
America or Europe.
The only--everyone benefits if this region is stabilized,
diversified, from within rather than through pressures from
without.
Ms. Gatzinska. If I can just--I don't--I agree with that.
But I would add that economic diversification can only succeed
if it's coupled with rule of law reforms, transparency, and
accountability in order to fully feel the positive impact of
economic diversification.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you.
Mr. Swerdlow. Just to add one final point on the economy, I
think it's interesting to see that the World Bank and the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development are really
active in Uzbekistan.
And so Human Rights Watch is calling on them to condition
their investments and their loans on concrete demonstrable
human rights progress and, as Spaska has said, on transparency,
anti-corruption efforts, and then I think another piece of this
is educational exchanges.
As we said in the beginning, a lot of Uzbeks are talking
about returning even from the U.S. to build the country and I
think if the U.S. can invest more in educational exchanges for
Uzbeks students and for all Central Asian students that can
only be a really powerful and good thing for the region.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, and we now have
Congresswoman Kelly. Would you like to come down here and take
over for Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks, she's taking over for you now. Remember that.
Ms. Kelly. For 5 minutes. [Laughter.]
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to the witnesses.
From listening to the three of you, it sounds like you feel
the region is moving in the right direction and becoming more
open, especially following the 2016 change of rule in
Uzbekistan, and since then, the president has taken reforms to
improve the rule of law and release political prisoners, even
though, in listening to you, there's many, many, many, many
more to be released.
Ms.--am I saying your name right--Gatzinska?
Ms. Gatzinska. Perfect.
Ms. Kelly. All right.
You said in your written testimony that Uzbekistan reforms
have been more ad hoc as opposed to a part of a larger reform
agenda, and in speaking with us you mentioned a host of areas
that should be tackled as part of the reform agenda.
What would you suggest be first and would produce the most
progress?
Ms. Gatzinska. If I can make two suggestions rather than
one.
Ms. Kelly. Sure. Two is fine.
Ms. Gatzinska. One is what the Uzbek government has already
requested is technical assistance from the U.S. and from
others. They're not necessarily looking for funding but they
realize that they lack the professional knowledge, the
technical knowledge, to make the reforms that they need to do.
Whether it's within creating a working legislature or
whether it's structuring their economic ministry or other
government agencies, they really are hungry for that knowledge.
So more exchanges, more expertise, more experts going to
Uzbekistan or bringing them here would be a huge benefit as
they reform their legislative acts or administrative procedures
or restructure their various government agencies. So I think
that, since they're eagerly awaiting it, would be a huge
benefit for them.
The other--the other side of that is I think civil
society--an active vibrant independent civil society who can
provide policy recommendations and who can hold the government
accountable as they reform the process, as they fight
corruption, would be incredibly beneficial and it does not have
to be necessarily an adversarial relationship.
It can be the two of them working together toward the same
goal--a more open diversified economically and a more--I
hesitate to say more democratic but certainly more open
Uzbekistan and I think lifting the restrictions on civil
society and allowing them to more freely operate is absolutely
crucial.
Ms. Kelly. And beside the technical assistance that you
talked about how can the U.S. assist more in what you want to
do or what you want to see done?
Ms. Gatzinska. I think--give me 1 second to look at my
notes--I would throw in two things. One is, overall, removing
the exit visa model that Uzbekistan still remains. They've made
statements that they're looking into it. It will take some
time.
Allowing international donors and organizations to return
to their country is incredibly important, and what we've heard
from various sources is that the administrative and legislative
acts do not exist for international organizations who are
forced out to return.
So that's something that needs to be done. So that's
something that we can absolutely engage with them on.
Ms. Kelly. Thanks.
And Dr. Starr, you advocated for the U.S. to promote
security by strengthening their internal capacities and their
capabilities as a group rather than by subordinating either of
them to some externally imposed order.
How do you envision this being done and how can the U.S.
improve the conditions of all nations and provoke any
insecurities?
Mr. Starr. Well, as you approach this question, the first
step would be to review very carefully what was done under
NATO's Partnership for Peace program, which flourished in
Central Asia for many years.
Even to this day, NATO is bringing officers from these
countries to its campus in Germany for very valuable sessions
of various sorts.
I would review that first. But the answer to your question
is to ask rather than tell, and I think if we were to sit down
and begin the dialogue that we've never really had on
security--we haven't for 15 years--we need it. We need it
urgently, and have--and it should be very candid and nothing
should be off the table.
Then, having had that dialogue on security, we could then
ask how do we integrate our security interests with our
interests in economic development or our interest in education,
our interest in rights and democratization.
I think that's the only way we'll end up with a strategy
and when we wrote this book, ``The Long Game,'' it is a long
game. We need to sit down and think this through from scratch.
It's time to do it and, as both of our Members of Congress
who addressed us at the beginning said, it is--this is the
right time to do it, through a new form of engagement, not just
adding more of this or adding more of that.
Ms. Kelly. Did you want to--did you want to say anything,
add a comment?
Mr. Swerdlow. Sure. Well, just on this overall question of
what can be done, I mean, I think--I agree it's a long game. I
agree that the approach has to be noncondescending, of course.
But at the same time, many of these concerns are
longstanding, obvious, they're out there, and it's clear to me
that the Uzbek government has been listening these past, let's
say, 13 years since the Andijan Massacre when you had hundreds
of peaceful civilians--largely, peaceful civilians--that were
killed in a massacre. After that, the government sort of shut
down.
But what's interesting is these past 13 years the
government heard these longstanding demands and so reinstating
the rights of journalists to report, that's, in a way, low-
hanging fruit that can be done quickly and it's--and I think it
just takes some more prodding--a combination of private and
public diplomacy.
I did want to mention also the legal profession. In order
for this to work, we are going to need to see a bar association
that is genuinely independent and we have a visit coming up
from the special rapporteur of the U.N. for the independence of
the judiciary coming in the fall.
So one of those concrete things that can happen would be
that the bar association be allowed to become genuinely
independent of the government.
So there are a number of these things that actually I don't
think they're that difficult and they can happen. It just
requires, I think, sustained pressure and also ongoing--these
forums that allow for this discussion to take place like the
annual bilateral consultations and the C5+1.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you
Mr. Starr. Can I come back to the sustained pressure issue?
I don't disagree with that. There's a value to it.
On the other hand, I want to stress that the remarkable
development in Uzbekistan of a defendant's bar--you know,
lawyers who are qualified and up to world--Western standards on
defending the accused, this is moving forward very quickly.
When was this all developed? It was developed during the 10
years that we spent a lot of effort just berating them for
their flaws.
But during--quietly, working under the radar, this Mjusa
Sever who I referred to from Slovenia with some American money
and European money managed to get the members of the supreme
court of Uzbekistan here and to sit down for weeks on end for
serious discussions of exactly the sort we are talking.
We could do this. We are beyond the need to berate them. We
have to come up with concrete, okay, what do we do about it.
Now, again, we've talked a lot about Uzbekistan. However,
we--henceforth, we have to think of all these issues that you
rightly are raising in a regional context and we should hold
out this if we are willing to do something in one country let's
hold it out for the others as well and if we are not we should
say so and say we are not really on board with your new
regionalism.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, and Ms. Kelly, I am
going to have--we are going to have a second round, which means
I will be able to ask some more questions and if you would like
a second round you will be able to ask more questions as well.
How many--when we talk about the political prisoners that
are in these countries like Uzbekistan, how many of them are
Christians who have been in some way prevented from trying to
express their Christianity?
Mr. Swerdlow. Well, talking about Uzbekistan, in the case
of Christians usually these are short-term what are called
administrative detentions, sometimes for 15 days.
For the most part, organizations like Forum 18 that look at
religious freedom in the region have not catalogued long-term.
There have been, in the past several--in the past, let's
say, 10 years there have been cases of 1-year, 2-year
imprisonment terms for Baptists, Protestants.
But at the moment, at present, I am talking about there are
only short-term administrative detentions. The vast majority of
abuses that we see----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, so the actual----
Mr. Swerdlow [continuing]. Towards those communities are
arrests, home raids, confiscation of Bibles, and, you know,
inability to register.
Mr. Rohrabacher. This is--this is a Muslim population
country but we actually have relatively light, let's put it,
persecution--I wouldn't say that--that there's been--there's no
overall repression of Christianity, even in these Muslim-
dominated countries. Sounds like----
Mr. Swerdlow. There's a total ban on proselytism--absolute,
complete, and total ban. So if were to join hands at this table
right now we would be arrested for engaging in malicious
activity.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And is that true for the Muslim population
of those countries as well?
Mr. Swerdlow. It's also strictly regulated. All forms of
worship, yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. And which leads us to radical Islam.
Having visited Uzbekistan, I can--and having driven between
Mazar-i-Sharif and Tashkent, I know that territory and it is
definitely within the range of Afghanistan, which is, of
course, as we know, for the last three decades, been absolutely
in the middle of a bloodbath and of repression and of radical
Islam.
So when you look at that and you understand that right
across the river is being controlled by the Taliban at
different times and what we've just heard is that many of the
prisoners that we are talking about are Islamic prisoners and
not Christian prisoners, doesn't that indicate that perhaps
that these--their government is trying to keep from what was
happening in Afghanistan from happening in Uzbekistan and isn't
that a good thing?
Mr. Swerdlow. I would say this. Human Rights Watch
completely recognizes that there are very legitimate security
concerns and one of the things that we've been recommending in
terms of dealing with this issue of thousands of people in
prison is that there should be a commission, a body, a
mechanism--some body that looks at case by case all of these
cases and where there are--where there's credible evidence of a
connection to violence in the case of an individual, certainly,
they shouldn't be released and they should be tried in a
credible way.
But what is often the case--and I keep uncovering these
cases--I mean, for example, Aramais Avakian, a fisherman from
Jizzakh, who's actually a Christian and an Armenian, was
convicted on charge 159, the extremism statute, as an Islamic
jihadist.
But he's actually Christian and he's Armenian, and we was
sentenced for no other reason than the fact that he was an
entrepreneur and there was some local competition in his area
of Uzbekistan. So we see the misuse and abuse of these charges.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Okay. Let's get to this then because
you can anecdotally--you can talk about anecdotal information.
The Saudis have pumped billions--billions of dollars in the
last 30 years into promoting a Wahhabi concept of their faith,
which is a type of Islam that will result in governments like
the Taliban and social institutions controlled like the
Taliban.
And when I have travelled through those areas and different
places, you see these mosques that are built by the Saudis.
Doesn't that seem to suggest that the Saudis during this
time period have targeted countries like Uzbekistan for a
radical--for radicalization of their faith?
Mr. Starr. There's absolutely no question about that. It's
not just the Saudis. It's some Kuwaitis. It's many others, and
this has been a very seriously pursued campaign with lots of
money, which is channelled through private foundations of very
wealthy people in the Gulf. They get the money out there to
Central Asia and the rest follows.
Now, I think the beginning of your question is--we should
return to it, and that is, look, these are neighbors of
Afghanistan and they know Afghanistan in many cases better than
we do.
You can speak Uzbek in Mazar-i-Sharif. You can speak Tajik
all over the place because it's the same national language--
government language--and so forth.
The fact is the Central Asians themselves have asked--have
invited Afghanistan to join Central Asia. They want to invest
in Afghanistan. They are actually doing it. They want to play a
role in the pacification of Afghanistan. We should be welcoming
this.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, let me put it this way. I don't
believe that they--people of that area, at least the ones I've
talked to, and I don't think it's rational that, unless you are
yourself, someone who believes in this radical form of Islam
that wants to relegate women to having to wear burqas and have
the type of brutality against people to enforce their faith,
which is part of that radical part of Islam, I don't think the
people--people don't want that, and you want to invite
Afghanistan into your midst, you're going to have to be facing
that type of radical Islam.
Mr. Starr. From abroad, largely. Let me stress something
that hasn't been mentioned here and that is everyone in Central
Asia overwhelmingly they belong to the--adhere to the--of the
four legal schools in Islam, the Hanafi, who are the most
nearly open to reason, most nearly open to business, to trade,
to normal activity of the four schools.
They are not generically Muslim in the sense that the--that
the Saudis are or, for that matter, the Pakistanis.
The Afghans are part of this. Now, within that, there is
another current going back 1,000 years that's associated with a
guy from Samarkand.
When you eventually visit there, you can visit his tomb,
and that is Maturidi, who, again, was the great champion of
reason as opposed to just blind faith or dogma to conduct human
affairs.
So they really come from a different corner than the Gulf
and this actually holds great prospects, especially because
they are increasingly, as the Uzbeks have done expertly,
embracing this and saying, look, we favor moderate and
enlightened Islam, not this other stuff.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, let's--let me put it this way. When
you have--you're right, it's not just the Saudis--but you have
had this major investment of billions of dollars in madrassas
schools, for example, where they're teaching kids how that
they're--how not to read and write and do arithmetic but how to
read the--their Koran and that's about it.
And people coming out of the madrassas schools has served--
frankly, served the cause of a radical revolutionary repressive
form of Islam and that has been financed.
And when I remember when I went to Uzbekistan that that was
one of the things that was pointed out to me is that they have
had to stop that type of Islam from moving forward, which it
sounds to me, considering many of the people you're talking
about who are political prisoners are not Christians but
instead are Muslims.
So it would indicate to me perhaps this isn't just a sign
of a repressive government but perhaps it's the sign of people
who are fighting against an incursion of the worst kind of
anti-freedom Islam that is--that was--is, clearly, available,
to see in Afghanistan.
Mr. Starr. There's a very interesting reality. We devised,
in the West, a hypothesis 20 years ago that the reason
extremism arose in Central Asia was because of repressive
governments.
There's no doubt there were repressive governments and that
under them were some of the people you're talking about. But
then it turned out that Kyrgyzstan, which had by far the most
open and permissive laws on religion and practice and faith and
so on and the large Christian population--by the way, under--
heavily influenced by Korean Protestants--that Kyrgyzstan, with
its very mild back then laws, was in fact a hotbed of extremism
and it turns out that Kazakhstan, which also had very tolerant
laws, was being--was facing exactly the people you're talking
about brought in from the Gulf.
So yes, this is a serious problem and until we address it,
ultimately, these people will be in its thrall.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I would hope that we do not, which
is unfortunate, many times when people are trying to come to
grips with an authoritarian government that is involved with
some type of repressive system, look, we have to make sure that
we are not acting in a way which will result in a totalitarian
type of government, which is 10 times more repressive.
I remember when--right now, I see General--this is another
area--but General Sisi of Egypt under attack. Well, fine. When
the Muslim Brotherhood takes over, what kind of government will
Egypt have? That's a whole other area.
But when you compare that to Uzbekistan, it seems to me
that perhaps that effort coming out of Afghanistan and the
money coming out of radical Islamic countries like Saudi
Arabia--and by the way, we should celebrate the fact that the
new--the changes going on in Saudi Arabia may reflect that
they're pulling away from that type of activity. But we know
they've been doing that for decades.
One last thing about this. I just thought I would leave
this with a story about my excursion into that region. I went--
this was shortly after they had the liberation of Afghanistan
from the Taliban and I was in Mazar-i-Sharif, which is a
beautiful city and has a beautiful Blue Mosque there and they
have the doves that fly around.
It's a beautiful place--very inspirational--and but to get
back I had to get to Tashkent. There were some meetings in
Tashkent I had to go to as well, and anyway it's quite a drive
between Tashkent and Mazar-i-Sharif and it was dark.
So I was in a car that was--and I will have to tell you we
just had one pistol in the car and that was our only method of
defending ourselves should anything happen, and the car--as we
drove, it got darker and it was snowing.
It started to snow, and here we are in the mountains and
it's beginning to snow and it's dark and we are driving through
and all of a sudden I noticed there were a large number of
young men coming from the roadside and this was--I was going,
uh-oh--you know, do we want a U.S. congressman to be kidnapped
by some radical group in the mountains in Uzbekistan.
And so we are watching these young men come up to the car
and surround the car, and we're--as I say, it's dark. We are in
the middle of nowhere. It's up in the mountains. It's snowing
and so the driver starts talking to them and I assume the
worst.
But I will tell you what happened was the driver turned
around and said, now look, these young men are offering to help
escort us down the hill because the road is so slippery they're
afraid the car might fall off the cliff.
And here I was, looking at these young men with this uh-oh,
my goodness, there must be something bad about to happen
because I had all that stereotype in my mind.
But instead, these young people had been taught very good
values. They were going to help someone to escort--they were
going to, hopefully, earn a little money because they would
hope for a tip, I am sure.
But they were doing something wonderful to help prevent
some people they didn't know from having an accident and
perhaps losing their lives by sliding off a cliff in the middle
of a snowstorm.
And so I think that that shows, I think, all of us--it
showed me--that we have to not just always assume the worst and
that we can try to actually work with people and find out who
they are and they--and find out that there are some very
positive elements to these cultures.
And so anyway we appreciate--I am going to give each one of
you 1 minute to summarize and then we are going to adjourn.
So, Ms. Gatzinska, we'll start with you because you have
been wanting to say something for a few minutes and I haven't
been able to get you. So make it 2 minutes for you.
Ms. Gatzinska. Thank you. I appreciate that.
I just wanted to make a quick comment in response to
religious extremism in Central Asia and I would go back to rule
of law and the ability of citizens to seek redress for
injustices in a lot of ways, whether it's Tajikistan or
Kyrgyzstan when there is a sense among the population that
there is a repression and they're not being heard.
They are looking for outlets. Whether those be religious
outlets or within the legal system, they will find one, and
when the legal system or their government is failing them, they
will keep searching until they find something that may not be
the ideal solution.
And when it comes to Tajikistan, which has been incredibly
repressive toward expressions of Muslim attire or Muslims in
general, I think the danger is that they're going over toward
being too repressive and forcing people into hiding where
they're more likely to encounter those extremist views that we
are afraid of.
Ultimately, just in summary of what I will say, I would
like to, again, thank you for the commitment to Central Asia
and echo both what Steve and Dr. Starr have said is that
continued engagement is crucial.
Whether it be with carrots or sticks, it needs to happen
and it needs to happen now because now is where we have the
opening in all five countries.
Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
Mr. Swerdlow. On religious extremism as well, it's a
hornet's nest. Very complicated, but by all means, I completely
agree with you and with Dr. Starr that the moderate form of
Islam in Central Asia that's traditionally existed has to be
celebrated, promoted, studied, examined.
But by all means, these are not mutually exclusive ideas.
You can--you can respect human rights and you can also ensure
security at the same time, and I want to dispel the notion that
anything I've said about religious prisoners is based on
anecdotal evidence.
It's based on facts collected over, you know, 15 or 20
years. When you scratch the surface of these cases, what you
start to understand is very often people are imprisoned because
scores are being settled in the local communities--people being
labelled extremist when they have absolutely no connection to
anything like that.
The government does have the right to ensure security. But
it should do so while respecting due process. I also want to
say I think when you're looking at Afghanistan and Uzbekistan,
remember that this is a totally and entirely different legacy.
This is a Soviet legacy, different legal and socio-
political context where literacy was extremely high--is and has
been extremely high educational levels.
So it's--I think it's a little bit dangerous to try to hold
those examples up to one another. I agree with Spaska, it's
about this overbearing approach can often tilt the balance the
other way.
We saw a campaign in Tajikistan to forcibly shave beards
off of 13,000 men. Two years ago, we saw a campaign where the
women's state committee stood on the street corners and ripped
hijabs off of women.
That often pushes people in the wrong--the other way, and
we saw the number two commander of ISIS was a Tajik who, when
he made his video to join ISIS, he referred to these sorts of
practices of offending the religious sensibilities of Muslims
in this sort of--his very self-serving propagandistic video.
So that balance has to be struck. I think it can be, and
the guide should be international human rights and the
constitutions which very much recognize this balance of freedom
of religion and due process and human rights.
So thank you very much for holding this hearing.
Mr. Starr. Mr. Rohrabacher and Mr. Meeks in, again, their
statements by indicating this is a period of unusual
opportunity and I think that just--we can't stress that too
strongly. This is a rare moment. We've got to seize it.
Now, what does that mean? First, it means understanding
that this is now not just six countries--not five countries,
not six.
It is a region. We are not organized in any way to deal
with it as a region. We need to be. Ten, 15 years ago, I
suggested that the State Department should move Central Asia
out from under the same bureau that Russia--that covered Russia
because I said you will never--you will never see--recognize
its distinctiveness if it's always treated as a sort of
subordinate part to Russia. That was done. They established the
Central South Asia bureau.
Now, that needs to be adjusted so there is a real Central
Asia unit somehow. I don't know how but it needs to be done.
And, finally, we have to coordinate much better than we do
these three or four stools of our policy--Pentagon, the State
Department, the Commerce Department, and others.
They need to work together. There has to be a single
strategy. One has to reinforce the other and that isn't the
case today.
We leave our friends in the region wondering if they're
dealing with three different governments. We should enable them
to deal with one--the United States.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you all for your insights and
advice. When you visualize--and I was very interested in your
concepts of visualizing a region rather than focus on one
country at a time--I think there's some very valid strategy
there on how to have an impact.
When we look at this part of the world, this is a huge
chunk--I like to say that I believe that's the center of the
world, and whatever is going to dominate that part of the world
will have an influence on the rest of the world--a major
influence--and if we--if it becomes a radical Islamic situation
where that becomes a major force in that region, it will be a
disaster for the things that we believe in the United States or
in the Western civilization as promoted or a moderate Islam as
promoted. What a disaster for that.
But if it became an area of where the economy is thriving
and people are able to communicate and we are able to have some
respect for the rule of law, that could stabilize the entire
world as well. It could serve as a very positive role.
And so what the witnesses are saying now is we have that
opportunity to perhaps succeed in moving toward that positive
end as compared to what maybe even 5 years ago and 10 years ago
looked like this would--there wouldn't be this type of opening
and opportunity.
So I appreciate you helping draw the attention of those of
us in Washington and, hopefully, people who will read the
transcript will--around the world will be a little more
enlightened so--and we are more enlightened by your testimony.
So thank you, and I declare this hearing adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:59 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]