[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 29, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E192]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             THE NEED FOR A NATIONAL DIALOGUE IN KAZAKHSTAN

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. DAN BURTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 29, 2000

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, last December President Nursultan 
Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan was in Washington, D.C. for the annual meeting 
of the U.S.-Kazakhstan Joint Commission. The purpose of these meetings, 
which are alternately held in the United States and Kazakhstan, is to 
promote economic and political cooperation between our two countries. 
Among other things, the U.S. side regularly presses the government of 
Kazakhstan to improve its human rights record and undertake economic 
and political reform.
  I understand that U.S. officials pressed the Kazakhstani side 
especially hard this year, because of the sham parliamentary elections 
held last October, heightened corruption, and an acceleration of 
abusive action taken against opponents of President Nazarbayev's 
increasingly repressive government. In an apparent move to blunt U.S. 
pressure during the upcoming Joint Commission meeting, President 
Nazarbayev issued a statement on November 4, 1999 indicating his 
willingness to cooperate with the opposition in Kazakhstan. He also 
stated he would welcome the return of former Prime Minister Akhezan 
Kazhegeldin, the exiled leader of the main opposition party.
  On November 19, Mr. Kazhegeldin responded to President Nazarbayev by 
calling for a ``national dialogue'' to examine ways to advance 
democracy, economic development and national reconciliation in 
Kazakhstan. Similar national dialogues have met with success in Poland, 
South Africa and Nicaragua. Mr. Kazhegeldin pointed out that convening 
a national dialogue would be an ideal way to initiate cooperation 
between the opposition and the government.
  However, President Nazarbayev has reacted with stony silence to Mr. 
Kazhegeldin's proposal. Moreover, Mr. Nazarbayev has reneged on a 
pledge he made in November to ship oil through the proposed Baku-Ceyhan 
pipeline, and continues to refuse to settle investment disputes with 
foreign companies that have lost millions of dollars because the 
government failed to honor its commitments. Mr. Nazarbayev also 
arranged to have a ``kangaroo court'' convict an opposition leader for 
having the temerity to criticize Nazarbayev's government. Finally, and 
this is very troubling, an investigation and trial have failed to find 
anyone to blame for the delivery last year of 40 MIG fighter aircraft 
from Kazakhstan to North Korea.
  Mr. Speaker, the Administration needs to stop turning the other cheek 
every time Mr. Nazarbayev commits an outrage. The cause of freedom and 
democracy will continue to backslide in Kazakhstan unless the 
Administration voices its strong support for a national dialogue 
similar to the one proposed by former Prime Minister Kazhegeldin. At 
the very least, the government of Kazakhstan should make one hour a 
week of state-controlled television available for use by the 
opposition. The U.S., for its part, should assist the democratic 
opposition by providing printing presses to replace those that have 
been confiscated by the government. It is time to stand up for 
democracy in Kazakhstan and to stop coddling dictators like Nazarbayev.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit an article into the Record from 
the Washington Times that speaks volumes about the situation in 
Kazakhstan today.

               [From the Washington Times, Dec. 20; 1999]

       Dining With Dictators--White House Fetes Kazakh President

                       (By Thomas B. Evans, Jr.)

       For some inexplicable reason the president of Kazakhstan, 
     Nursultan Nazarbayev, has been invited to visit Washington 
     this month by the Clinton-Gore administration.
       Mr. Nazarbayev is the same dictator who over the past eight 
     years has created a monopoly of riches for himself, his 
     family and carefully selected friends. He has also lured many 
     investors to his country and then pillaged their assets for 
     himself, his family and a few cronies. Knowledgeable sources 
     say that he is the eighth richest man in the world. This, in 
     a country where the per capita income is well below the 
     poverty level.
       Mr. Nazarbayev is the same person who promised Vice 
     President Gore a year ago that he would permit a fair and 
     free presidential election in January 1999 and then rigged 
     the disqualification of his main opponent, thereby 
     eliminating any chance of defeat and ensuring the 
     perpetuation of his corrupt regime. Mr. Nazarbayev is also 
     the same person who has had $85 million in ill-gotten gains 
     frozen by the judiciary in Switzerland. Mr. Nazarbayev is the 
     same individual who ordered the destruction of printing 
     presses used to print newspapers questioning his policies.
       And Mr. Nazarbayev's record on human rights is anything but 
     outstanding. There is, quite simply, no freedom of the press, 
     no independent judiciary and no freedom of assembly that 
     could threaten Mr. Nazarbayev's one-man one-family rule in 
     Kazakhstan.
       In spite of all the above, Kazakhstan still receives 
     millions of dollars in foreign assistance from U.S. taxpayers 
     and hundreds of millions more indirectly through the Export-
     Import Bank and international financial institutions in which 
     the United States is a major contributor. Is it not just 
     about time that we let dictators like Mr. Nazarbayev know 
     that we are not going to accept this type of behavior? Is it 
     not past time for us to be taken as fools who don't care 
     about how a country's ruler treats his people and foreign 
     investors? Is Kazakhstan's oil so important to us that we 
     would sacrifice basic principles by inviting
       Surely, this administration does not want to assist in the 
     perpetuation of a regime in Kazakhstan that is the antithesis 
     of all that we stand for as Americans. Both the president and 
     vice president should make it unmistakably clear that the 
     status quo in Kazakhstan is unacceptable.
       On Nov. 17, former Prime Minister Akhezan Kazhegeldin, who 
     was prevented from running against Mr. Nazarbayev last 
     January and now heads the leading opposition party (although 
     living in exile in Western Europe), proposed that a national 
     dialogue be launched with a view toward reforming the 
     political and economic system in Kazakhstan and holding free 
     and fair presidential and parliamentary elections. Similar 
     national dialogues were successful in Poland and South 
     Africa, and convening one for Kazakhstan could set the 
     pattern for reform throughout the former Soviet republics of 
     Central Asia. Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore should emphasize to 
     Mr. Nazarbayev that close cooperation between our two 
     countries depends on his agreement to participate in a 
     national dialogue. They should also insist that in order for 
     a national dialogue to be credible, it must be held outside 
     Kazakhstan and should be organized and monitored with the 
     assistance of respected organizations such as the Council of 
     Europe or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in 
     Europe. Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore should make support for 
     political and economic reform the centerpiece of their 
     discussions with Mr. Nazarbayev. That is the very least this 
     administration should do at this point, and that is not an 
     unreasonable expectation on the part of the United States.

     

                          ____________________