[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 144 (Thursday, October 21, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2161-E2162]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            CENTRAL ASIA: THE ``BLACK HOLE'' OF HUMAN RIGHTS

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 21, 1999

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a 
resolution on the disturbing state of democratization and human rights 
in Central Asia. As is evident from many sources, including the State 
Department's annual reports on human rights, non-governmental 
organizations, both in the region and the West, and the work of the 
Helsinki Commission, which I chair, Central Asia has become the ``black 
hole'' of human rights in the OSCE space.
  True, not all Central Asia countries are equal offenders. Kyrgyzstan 
has not joined its neighbors in eliminating all opposition, tightly 
censoring the media and concentrating all power in the hands of the 
president, though there are tendencies in that direction, and upcoming 
elections in 2000 may bring out the worst in President Akaev. But 
elsewhere, the promise of the early 1990's, when the five Central Asian 
countries along with all former Soviet republics were admitted to the 
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, has not been 
realized. Throughout the region, super-presidents pay lip service to 
OSCE commitments and to their own constitutional provisions on 
separation of powers, while dominating the legislative and judicial 
branches, crushing or thwarting any opposition challenges to their 
factual monopoly of power, and along with their families and favored 
few, enjoying the benefits of their countries' wealth.
  Indeed, though some see the main problem of Central Asia through the 
prism of real or alleged Islamic fundamentalism, the Soviet legacy, or 
poverty, I am convinced that the essence of the problem is more simple 
and depressing: presidents determined to remain in office for life must 
necessarily develop repressive political systems. To justify their 
campaign to control society, Central Asian leaders constantly point to 
their own national traditions and argue that democracy must be built 
slowly. Some Western analysts, I am sorry to say, have bought this 
idea--in some cases, quite literally, by acting as highly paid 
consultants to oil companies and other business concerns. But, Mr. 
Speaker, building democracy is an act of political will above all. You 
have to want to do it. If you don't, all the excuses in the world and 
all the state institutions formed in Central Asia ostensibly to promote 
human rights will remain simply window dressing.
  Moreover, the much-vaunted stability offered by such systems is 
shaky. The refusal of leaders to allow turnover at the top or newcomers 
to enter the game means that outsiders have no stake in the political 
process and can imagine coming to power or merely sharing in the wealth 
only be extra-constitutional methods. For some of those facing the 
prospect of permanent exclusion, especially as living standards 
continue to fall, the temptation to resort to any means possible to 
change the rules of the game, may be overwhelming. Most people, 
however, will simply opt out of the political system in disillusionment 
and despair.
  Against this general context, without doubt, the most repressive 
countries are Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Turkmenistan's President 
Niyazov, in particular, has created a virtual North Korea in post-
Soviet space, complete with his own bizarre cult of personality. 
Turkmenistan is the only country in the former Soviet bloc that remains 
a one-party state. Uzbekistan, on the other hand, has five parties but 
all of them are government-created and controlled. Under President 
Islam Karimov, no opposition parties or movements have been allowed to 
function since 1992. In both countries, communist-era controls on the 
media remain in place. The state, like its Soviet predecessor, prevents 
society from influencing policy or expressing its views and keeps the 
population intimidated through omnipresent secret police forces. 
Neither country observes the most fundamental human rights, including 
freedom of religion, or permits any electoral challenges to its all-
powerful president.

  Kazakstan's President Nursultan Nazarbaev has played a more clever 
game. Pressed by the OSCE and Western capitals, he has formally 
permitted opposition parties to function,

[[Page E2162]]

and they did take part in the October 10 parliamentary election. But 
once again, a major opposition figure was not able to participate, and 
OSCE/ODIHR monitors, citing many shortcomings, have criticized the 
election as flawed. In general, the ability of opposition and society 
to influence policymaking is marginal at best. At the same time, 
independent and opposition media have been bought, coopted or 
intimidated out of existence or into cooperation with the authorities, 
and those few that remain are under severe pressure.
  Tajikistan suffered a devastating civil war in the early 1990's. In 
1997, war-weariness and a military stalemate led the disputants to a 
peace accord and a power-sharing agreement. But though the arrangement 
had promise, it now seems to be falling apart, as opposition contenders 
for the presidency have been excluded from the race and the major 
opposition organization has decided to suspend participation in the 
work of the National Reconciliation Commission.
  Mr. Speaker, along with large-scale ethnic conflicts like Kosovo or 
Bosnia, and unresolved low-level conflicts like Nagorno-Karabakh and 
Abkhazia, I believe the systemic flouting of OSCE commitments on 
democratization and human rights in Central Asia is the single greatest 
problem facing the OSCE. For that reason, I am introducing this 
resolution expressing concern about the general trends in the region, 
to show Central Asian presidents that we are not taken in by their 
facade, and to encourage the disheartened people of Central Asia that 
the United States stands for democracy. The resolution calls on Central 
Asian countries to come into compliance with OSCE commitments on 
democracy and human rights, and encourages the Administration to raise 
with other OSCE states the implications for OSCE participation of 
countries that engage in gross and uncorrected violation of freely 
accepted commitments on human rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me, Mr. Hoyer, and Mr. 
Forbes in this effort and we welcome their support.

                          ____________________