[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 140 (Monday, October 30, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H11576-H11580]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     VOICING CONCERN ABOUT SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND 
          FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS IN MOST STATES OF CENTRAL ASIA

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 397) voicing concern about 
serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in most 
states of Central Asia, including substantial noncompliance with their 
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) commitments 
on democratization and the holding of free and fair elections, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 397

       Whereas the states of Central Asia--Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, 
     Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan--have been 
     participating states of the Organization for Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) since 1992 and have freely 
     accepted all OSCE commitments, including those concerning 
     human rights, democracy, and the rule of law;
       Whereas the Central Asian states, as OSCE participating 
     states, have affirmed that every individual has the right to 
     freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, 
     expression, association, peaceful assembly and movement, 
     freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention, torture, or other 
     cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, and if 
     charged with an offense the right to a fair and public trial;
       Whereas the Central Asian states, as OSCE participating 
     states, have committed themselves to build, consolidate, and 
     strengthen democracy as the only system of government, and 
     are obligated to hold free elections at reasonable intervals, 
     to respect the right of citizens to seek political or public 
     office without discrimination, to respect the right of 
     individuals and groups to establish in full freedom their own 
     political parties, and to allow parties and individuals 
     wishing to participate in the electoral process access to the 
     media on a nondiscriminatory basis;
       Whereas the general trend of political development in 
     Central Asia has been the emergence of presidents far more 
     powerful than other branches of government, all of whom have 
     refused to allow genuine electoral challenges, postponed or 
     canceled elections, excluded serious rivals from 
     participating in elections, or otherwise contrived to control 
     the outcome of elections;
       Whereas several leaders and governments in Central Asia 
     have crushed nascent political parties, or refused to 
     register opposition parties, and have imprisoned and used 
     violence against, or exiled, opposition figures;
       Whereas in recent weeks fighting has erupted between 
     government troops of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and members of 
     the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan;
       Whereas Central Asian governments have the right to defend 
     themselves from internal and external threats posed by 
     insurgents, radical religious groups, and other anti-
     democratic elements which employ violence as a means of 
     political struggle;
       Whereas the actions of the Central Asian governments have 
     tended to exacerbate these internal and external threats by 
     domestic repression, which has left few outlets for 
     individuals and groups to vent grievances or otherwise 
     participate legally in the political process;
       Whereas in Kazakhstan, President Nursultan Nazarbaev 
     dissolved parliament in 1993 and again in 1995, when he also 
     annulled

[[Page H11577]]

     scheduled Presidential elections, and extended his tenure in 
     office until 2000 by a deeply flawed referendum;
       Whereas on January 10, 1999, President Nazarbaev was 
     reelected in snap Presidential elections from which a leading 
     challenger was excluded for having addressed an unregistered 
     organization, ``For Free Elections,'' and the OSCE assessed 
     the election as falling far short of international standards;
       Whereas Kazakhstan's October 1999 parliamentary election, 
     which featured widespread interference in the process by the 
     authorities, fell short of OSCE standards, according to the 
     OSCE's Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights 
     (ODIHR);
       Whereas Kazakhstan's parliament on June 22, 2000, approved 
     draft legislation designed to give President Nazarbaev 
     various powers and privileges for the rest of his life;
       Whereas independent media in Kazakhstan, which used to be 
     fairly free, have been pressured, co-opted, or crushed, 
     leaving few outlets for the expression of independent or 
     opposition views, thus limiting the press's ability to 
     criticize or comment on the President's campaign to remain in 
     office indefinitely or on high-level corruption;
       Whereas the Government of Kazakhstan has initiated, under 
     OSCE auspices, roundtable discussions with representatives of 
     some opposition parties and public organizations designed to 
     remedy the defects of electoral legislation and now should 
     increase the input in those discussions from opposition 
     parties and public organizations that favor a more 
     comprehensive national dialogue;
       Whereas opposition parties can function in Kyrgyzstan and 
     parliament has in the past demonstrated some independence 
     from President Askar Akaev and his government;
       Whereas 3 opposition parties in Kyrgyzstan were excluded 
     from fielding party lists and serious opposition candidates 
     were not allowed to contest the second round of the February-
     March 2000 parliamentary election, or were prevented from 
     winning their races by official interference, as cited by the 
     OSCE's Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights 
     (ODIHR);
       Whereas a series of flagrantly politicized criminal cases 
     after the election against opposition leaders and the recent 
     exclusion on questionable linguistic grounds of other would-
     be candidates have raised grave concerns about the fairness 
     of the election process and the prospects for holding a fair 
     Presidential election on October 29, 2000;
       Whereas independent and opposition-oriented media in 
     Kyrgyzstan have faced serious constraints, including criminal 
     lawsuits by government officials for alleged defamation;
       Whereas in Tajikistan, a civil war in the early 1900s 
     caused an estimated 50,000 people to perish, and a military 
     stalemate forced President Imomaly Rakhmonov in 1997 to come 
     to terms with Islamic and democratic opposition groups and 
     agree to a coalition government;
       Whereas free and fair elections and other democratic steps 
     in Tajikistan offer the best hope of reconciling government 
     and opposition forces, overcoming the legacy of the civil 
     war, and establishing the basis for civil society;
       Whereas President Rakhmonov was reelected in November 1999 
     with 96 percent of the vote in an election the OSCE did not 
     observe because of the absence of conditions that would 
     permit a fair contest;
       Whereas the first multiparty election in the history of 
     Tajikistan was held in February-March 2000, with the 
     participation of former warring parties, but the election 
     fell short of OSCE commitments and 11 people, including a 
     prominent candidate, were killed;
       Whereas in Turkmenistan under the rule of President 
     Saparmurat Niyazov, no internationally recognized human 
     rights are observed, including freedom of speech, assembly, 
     association, religion, and movement, and attempts to exercise 
     these rights are brutally suppressed;
       Whereas Turkmenistan has committed political dissidents to 
     psychiatric institutions;
       Whereas in Turkmenistan President Niyazov is the object of 
     a cult of personality, all political opposition is banned, 
     all media are tightly censored, and only one political party, 
     the Democratic Party, headed by President Niyazov, has been 
     registered;
       Whereas the OSCE's Office of Democratic Institutions and 
     Human Rights (ODIHR), citing the absence of conditions for a 
     free and fair election, refused to send any representatives 
     to the December 1999 parliamentary elections;
       Whereas President Niyazov subsequently orchestrated a vote 
     of the People's Council in December 1999 that essentially 
     makes him President for life;
       Whereas in Uzbekistan under President Islam Karimov, no 
     opposition parties are registered, and only pro-government 
     parties are represented in parliament;
       Whereas in Uzbekistan all opposition political parties and 
     leaders have been forced underground or into exile, all media 
     are censored, and attempts to disseminate opposition 
     newspapers can lead to jail terms;
       Whereas Uzbekistan's authorities have laid the primary 
     blame for explosions that took place in Tashkent in February 
     1999 on an opposition leader and have tried and convicted 
     some of his relatives and others deemed his supporters in 
     court proceedings that did not correspond to OSCE standards 
     and in other trials closed to the public and the 
     international community;
       Whereas in Uzbekistan police and security forces routinely 
     plant narcotics and other evidence on political opposition 
     figures as well as religious activists, according to Uzbek 
     and international human rights organizations; and
       Whereas the OSCE's Office of Democratic Institutions and 
     Human Rights (ODIHR), citing the absence of conditions for a 
     free and fair election, sent no observers except a small 
     group of experts to the December 1999 parliamentary election 
     and refused any involvement in the January 2000 Presidential 
     election: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That the Congress--
       (1) expresses deep concern about the tendency of Central 
     Asian leaders to seek to remain in power indefinitely and 
     their willingness to manipulate constitutions, elections, and 
     legislative and judicial systems, to do so;
       (2) urges the President, the Secretary of State, the 
     Secretary of Defense, and other United States officials to 
     raise with Central Asian leaders, at every opportunity, the 
     concern about serious violations of human rights, including 
     noncompliance with Organization for Security and Cooperation 
     in Europe (OSCE) commitments on democracy and rule of law;
       (3) urges Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, 
     and Uzbekistan to come into compliance with OSCE commitments 
     on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, specifically 
     the holding of free and fair elections that do not exclude 
     genuine challengers, to permit independent and opposition 
     parties and candidates to participate on an equal basis with 
     representation in election commissions at all levels, and to 
     allow domestic nongovernmental and political party observers, 
     as well as international observers;
       (4) calls on Central Asian leaders to establish conditions 
     for independent and opposition media to function without 
     constraint, limitation, or fear of harassment, to repeal 
     criminal laws which impose prison sentences for alleged 
     defamation of the state or public officials, and to provide 
     access to state media on an equal basis during election 
     campaigns to independent and opposition parties and 
     candidates;
       (5) reminds the leaders of Central Asian states that 
     elections cannot be free and fair unless all citizens can 
     take part in the political process on an equal basis, without 
     intimidation or fear of reprisal, and with confidence that 
     their human rights and fundamental freedoms will be fully 
     respected;
       (6) calls on Central Asian governments that have begun 
     roundtable discussions with opposition and independent forces 
     to engage in a serious and comprehensive national dialogue, 
     on an equal footing, on institutionalizing measures to hold 
     free and fair elections, and urges those governments which 
     have not launched such roundtables to do so;
       (7) calls on the leaders of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to 
     condemn and take effective steps to cease the systematic use 
     of torture and other inhuman treatment by authorities against 
     political opponents and others, to permit the registration of 
     independent and opposition parties and candidates, and to 
     register independent human rights monitoring organizations;
       (8) urges the governments of Central Asia which are engaged 
     in military campaigns against violent insurgents to observe 
     international law regulating such actions, to keep civilians 
     and other noncombatants from harm, and not to use such 
     campaigns to justify further crackdowns on political 
     opposition or violations of human rights commitments under 
     OSCE;
       (9) encourages the Administration to raise with the 
     governments of other OSCE participating states the possible 
     implications for OSCE participation of any participating 
     state in the region that engages in clear, gross, and 
     uncorrected violations of its OSCE commitments on human 
     rights, democracy, and the rule of law; and
       (10) urges the Voice of America and Radio Liberty to expand 
     broadcasting to Central Asia, as needed, with a focus on 
     assuring that the peoples of the region have access to 
     unbiased news and programs that support respect for human 
     rights and the establishment of democracy and the rule of 
     law.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).


                             General Leave

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on this measure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Nebraska?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the author of this resolution 
with whom I have worked. I appreciate his great effort.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for yielding

[[Page H11578]]

me this time, and I want to thank him for his work in shepherding this 
resolution through his Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, and for 
all of those Members who have co-signed and cosponsored this 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution expresses the sense of Congress that the 
state of democratization and human rights in the countries of Central 
Asia, Kazahkstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, 
is a source of very, very serious concern. In 1992, these States freely 
pledged to observe the provisions of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and 
subsequent OSCE documents. The provisions contained in the 1990 
Copenhagen Document commit the participating states to foster 
democratization through, among other things, the holding of free and 
fair elections, to promote freedom of the media, and to observe the 
human rights of their citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, 8 years have passed since then, but in much of Central 
Asia the commitments they promised to observe remain a dead letter. In 
fact, in some countries the situation has deteriorated substantially.
  For instance, opposition political activity was permitted in 
Uzbekistan in the late 1980s. An opposition leader even ran for 
president in the December 1991 election. In mid-1992, however, 
President Karimov decided to ban any manifestation of dissidence. Since 
then, no opposition movements have been allowed to function openly and 
the state controls the society as tightly as during the Soviet era.
  An even more disappointing example is Kyrgyzstan. Once one of the 
most democratic Central Asian states, Kyrgyzstan has gone the way of 
neighboring dictatorships. President Akaev has followed his regional 
counterparts in manipulating the legal, judicial, and law enforcement 
apparatus in a way to stay in office, despite domestic protest and 
international censure. On October 29, he will run for a third term; and 
he will win it, in a pseudo-election from which all serious candidates 
have been excluded.
  Throughout the region, authoritarian leaders have contrived to remain 
in office by whatever means necessary and give every sign of intending 
to remain in office as long as they live. Indeed, Turkmenistan's 
President Niyazov has made himself President for Life last December, 
and Kazakhstan's President Nazarbaev, who has extended his tenure in 
office through referenda, canceling elections, and staging deeply 
flawed elections, this summer arranged to have lifelong privileges and 
perks go his way.
  It may sound bizarre, but it may not be out of the realm of 
possibility that some of these leaders who already head what are, for 
all intents and purposes, royal families, are planning to establish 
what can only be described as family dynasties.
  Certainly the worst offender is Turkmenistan. Under the tyrannical 
misrule of Niyazov, President Niyazov, his country is the only one-
party state in the entire OSCE region. Niyazov's cult of personality 
has reached such proportions that state media refer to him as a sort of 
divine being, while anyone who whispers a word of opposition or protest 
is dragged off to jail and tortured.
  Corruption is also rampant in Central Asia. Rulers enrich themselves 
and their families and a favored few, while the rest of the population 
struggles to eke out a miserable existence and drifts towards 
desperation. We are, indeed, already witnessing the consequences. For 
the second consecutive year, armed insurgents of the Islamic Movement 
of Uzbekistan invaded Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. While they have been 
less successful than last year in seizing territory, they will not go 
away. Impoverishment of the populace fills their ranks with people, 
threatening to create a chronic problem. While the most radical groups 
in Central Asia might have sought to create theocracies regardless of 
the domestic policies pursued by Central Asian leaders, the latter's 
marriage of corruption and repression has created an explosive brew.
  Mr. Speaker, finally let me say the leaders of Kazakhstan, 
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan seem to believe 
that U.S. strategic interest in the region, and the fear of Islamic 
fundamentalism, will keep the West and Washington from pressing them 
too hard on human rights while they consolidate power. Let us show them 
that they are wrong.
  America's long-term and short-term interests lie with democracy, the 
rule of law, and respect for human rights. So I hope that my friends 
and colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join in backing this 
important resolution.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. The post-Soviet 
independence of the Central Asian states has not panned out in the way 
that benefited the population of these countries. Instead, it created 
wealthy and often corrupt elites and impoverished the population.
  Although all of these newly-independent states have joined the OSCE 
and appear, at least on paper, to be committed to OSCE principles, in 
reality the leaders of these countries have consistently fallen back on 
their OSCE commitments.
  The political development reinforced the Office of the President at 
the expense other branches of government. Parliaments are weak and the 
courts are not free. Presidents of some countries, such as 
Turkmenistan, have pushed laws through their rubber-stamp legislatures 
that extend their presidential powers for life. Other governments, like 
the government of Uzbekistan, have been using the justification of 
fighting terrorism and insurgency as a means to imprison and/or exile 
the opposition, censor the press, and control civic and religious 
activities.
  On the other hand, some countries such as Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan 
have demonstrated varying degrees of progress. Until recently, 
opposition parties could function freely in Kyrgyzstan, while the OSCE 
agreed to Kazakhstan's 1999 parliamentary election, which they found 
falling short of international standards but, nevertheless, an 
improvement over the past.
  The stability of Central Asia is key to the stability of this region 
which borders on Afghanistan, Iran, China, and Pakistan. The 
governments of Central Asia cite the destabilizing influence of drugs 
and arms-trafficking from outside of their borders and the need to 
fight Islamic fundamentalism as justifications for their authoritarian 
regimes.
  The government of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan have already been 
battling with the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, a United States-
recognized terrorist group. However, some have charged that the 
oppressive measures of these regimes may have driven their impoverished 
and marginalized population into the arms of terrorists.
  Although the Central Asian states do not have a strong tradition of 
democracy, free press, and free and fair elections, it is, however, 
important that our government and Congress continue to press for 
greater democratic reforms in these countries within the OSCE framework 
and on a bilateral basis.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Resolution 397.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lee) on her comments, as well as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith), chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and 
Human Rights, for his comments and his work on this legislation.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Speaker, with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, five 
independent States in Central Asia came into being, we have heard about 
them here today, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and 
Uzbekistan. The deserts, the mountains, the steppes and the river 
valleys in this region are home to 50 million people. State borders, 
which were imposed by Stalin, artificially partition and breed 
resentments among various large ethnic groups, principally Russians, 
Uzbeks and Tajiks.
  Since achieving their independence, the Central Asian Republics have 
operated with little or no international

[[Page H11579]]

scrutiny. In effect, Central Asia has been relegated to an 
international policy backwater. However, given the geo-strategic 
significance of the region, and given the region's vast wealth of 
natural resources, such an oversight is risky. This body ignores the 
region at its peril, as does our country.
  Regrettably, the nations of Central Asia appear to be moving along 
the path of authoritarianism. In recent months, each of the five 
countries has conducted general elections. These elections varied in 
the degree of electoral freedom; however, in no case did any of these 
elections meet internationally accepted norms. Indeed, most remain 
reminiscent of Soviet-style elections.
  There has been decertification of opposition parties and, in some 
cases, the apprehension of opposition leaders.
  The State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 
1999 concludes that presidential power in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan 
overshadows legislative and judicial power, and that Uzbekistan, 
Turkmenistan and Tajikistan have lost ground in democratization and 
respect for human rights. This continual decline is very disturbing and 
raises questions about the ability of the United States to successfully 
encourage true democratic institutions and the rule of law.
  In some ways, this is a difficult resolution. There are five 
countries in Central Asia. Each has unique characteristics. Some enjoy 
certain socioeconomic advantages over the others. Kyrgyzstan and 
Kazakhstan allow a relatively greater, but still limited, degree of 
political participation.
  The ruler in Turkmenistan has developed a cult of personality so deep 
that he has changed his name so that he is, quite literally, ``Father 
of the Turkmen''; in other words, Turkmen-bashi.
  Tajikistan has suffered from a severe civil war throughout the 1990s. 
But the common theme throughout Central Asia is governmental abuse of 
human rights, basic human rights. Opposition leaders who appear to be 
gaining influence are dealt within a decisive, antidemocratic manner.
  Now, it is certainly true that most, if not all of these countries, 
face armed insurgencies. There are all-powerful tribal warlords in 
Tajikistan. In Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, there are armed religious 
extremists. Indeed, as we meet, there are Taliban-backed insurgents 
fighting Uzbek military forces. I think we are going to hear about that 
in a few minutes from the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher). 
These Islamic militants are decidedly antidemocratic.
  In Kazakhstan, there have been efforts by pro-Moscow elements to 
overthrow the government. It is entirely appropriate that the 
governments of the region deal with such threats. However, it is one 
thing to campaign against armed insurgents. It is quite another to use 
the insurgency as an excuse to suspend international law and crack down 
on the legal political opposition. Unfortunately, in some instances, 
that is what has been done.
  H. Con. Res. 397 speaks to the very real abuses that have occurred in 
each of the Central Asian Republics, and puts these nations on alert 
that the House of Representatives is deeply concerned about the ongoing 
abuses of power. The resolution urges the Nations to come into 
compliance with their OSCE commitments and calls upon the President and 
the Secretary of State to raise human rights concerns when meeting with 
representatives of these governments.
  Again, this Member congratulates the resolution's author, the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), for holding 
hearings on this subject as a part of his efforts and introducing the 
resolution. The language he has crafted accurately reflects the serious 
democratic shortcomings throughout the region.
  This Member appreciates the willingness of his staff to work with the 
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific to craft a resolution that all in 
this body can support.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for H. Con. Res. 397.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the distinguished member 
of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 347. 
Let me just say that it is sad that we must recognize today the chaos 
and turmoil that is found in Central Asia, the chaos, the turmoil, the 
repression, the dictatorship, the heartache, the torture, the things 
that could have been avoided, in a part of a world that showed such 
promise, such promise 10 years ago.
  Upon the fall of the Soviet Union, everyone expected Central Asia to 
emerge as a shining light of commerce and progress. Instead, what we 
see is Central Asia falling into a pit, a dark pit of repression and 
despair.
  I believe one of the primary reasons for this huge part of the world 
falling into despair has something to do with the policies right here 
in Washington, D.C. The Clinton administration has, more than any other 
administration in the history of this country, lowered the priority for 
human rights as an international goal.
  During the Ronald Reagan years, when we were in the middle of a Cold 
War, Ronald Reagan made human rights a priority. We established the 
National endowment for Democracy. We talked about it. We negotiated 
about it. It became preeminent among our demands when we were talking 
to the governments like that of the Soviet union.
  It worked. Because we stressed human rights and democracy, the world 
has a much greater chance for freedom and democracy but also a much 
greater chance for peace.
  Unfortunately, that great gift to mankind was squandered by this 
administration which, as I say, not only made human rights not a 
priority, but just took it off the list of which we were negotiating, 
especially with the Communist Chinese.
  What has this lack of priority, what has this lack of concern for 
human rights done in Central Asia? We have seen these regimes in 
Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and others 
which had such promise turn into a cesspool of repression and torture.
  We have seen election fraud in countries like Uzbekistan where they 
had such a great chance, a great opportunity to have free elections. In 
Azerbaijan, military takeovers of a democratically elected regime. In 
Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan and Tajikistan, countries that had a 
chance, the ruling elite there just turned their back on this 
opportunity. Why? Because this administration did not place any 
priority or value on the discussion of human rights or democracy when 
they met with the leaders of these countries.
  Well, there can be no peace without freedom and human rights. That is 
what we are finding today. Because what has happened now in Central 
Asia is there has been a new cycle of violence that has been set on its 
way, a cycle of violence that we do not know where it will stop. A 
cycle of violence in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and Tajikistan and, 
yes, in Azerbaijan as well where they have been unable to settle their 
problems there and which will probably reach Kazakhstan with their 
corrupt government.
  What is that cycle of violence? What we have is people who are 
demoralized by the fact that there is no democratic alternative in 
these Central Asian republics turning to radicalism. This year and at 
this time the face of radicalism is Muslim extremism, the 
fundamentalist movement, what they call it in that part of the world.
  Well, of course, decent, honest, people will turn to these radical 
alternatives if they are given no alternative at the ballot box, if 
their friends and relatives or their sons and daughters are arrested 
and brutally tortured for simply complaining about the government. Of 
course, Islamic fundamentalists are going to find that their ranks are 
bolstered with volunteers when they have governments like this.
  On top of that, there is one other factor that needs to be looked at 
about what is creating the cycle of violence which will lead to such 
turmoil. That is what? American policy towards Afghanistan.

[[Page H11580]]

  This Member, and anyone who is in the Committee on International 
Relations will testify, for years I have been warning what the results 
of this administration's policy towards Afghanistan would be. Years, I 
predicted over and over again that, unless we did something in 
Afghanistan to change the situation, that we would end up with 
Afghanistan as a center of, number one, terrorism, a base for terrorism 
for the Central Asia but also for the world; that it would be 
repressive and have one of the most repressive and fanatic regimes and 
anti-Western regimes on the planet; and, number three, it would be the 
center for the growth of heroin and that it would put all of the 
resources that, the billions of dollars one receives from the growth of 
one-third of the world's heroin in the hands of these religious 
fanatics. That is exactly what has happened.
  Yes, it is heroin money in the hands of the Taliban leaders that are 
fanning this, the flame of discontent and violence in Central Asia that 
takes advantage of the dictatorships. The dictators should not just 
focus, however, on trying to wipe out their opponents and wipe out 
these fundamentalist movements. They should focus on trying to create a 
democratic alternative so that people in those countries once be 
attracted to this type of fanaticism.
  Even the people of Afghanistan are not attracted to the fanaticism of 
the Taliban. The Taliban have an iron-fisted control there and have 
steadily refused to have democratic elections.
  It is my sad, sad duty to, again, repeat the charge on the floor of 
the House of Representatives, as I have on numerous occasions in the 
Committee on International Relations, that this administration, not 
only has discarded human rights and democracy as a priority but has a 
covert police of supporting one of the worst governments and oppressive 
governments in the world; and I am talking about the Taliban regime in 
Afghanistan.
  I have tried to investigate this for years, and I have been 
repeatedly cut off by the State Department from receiving the documents 
that would disprove, and I would like to disprove this charge, because 
it is a shame for any American to think that our government would be 
supporting this regime.
  But I can testify here today that, every time the opposition to the 
Taliban has had a chance of dislodging the Taliban from power in 
Afghanistan, this administration has run to their rescue time and time 
again.
  Now, people do not know, even in this body, do not know the details, 
much less the American people. But those are the facts, and I can 
verify that over and over again.
  We must have a policy that champions human rights and democracy in 
Afghanistan and Central Asia. This is what will bring peace to the 
world. Otherwise, there will be conflict, there will be bloodshed, 
there will be tyranny. It is a result of a lack of commitment here on 
our part in the United States to the ideals that our Founding Fathers 
thought we would support.
  So today I support H. Con. Res. 347 because it states very clearly 
that we in Congress believe that the ideals of democracy and human 
rights should be brought to bear in Central Asia, including 
Afghanistan, but especially the Central Asian republics, and that that 
should be the policy of the United States Government.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) 
for his eloquent statement. I do urge support, again, for H. Con. Res. 
397.
  As I close my comments, I want to recognize the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Barrett), who is presiding, who has been presiding over 
so many sessions and Suspension Calendars over the years. He has given 
10 years of distinguished service to this body and to our State. I will 
have a chance to say more about that later this week. But in the course 
of doing that, he has presided over many suspensions from the House 
Committee on International Relations. So we thank him for his patience 
and his evenhandedness in that capacity and the many hours he has spent 
in presiding over this body.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 
397, a resolution voicing concern about serious violations of human 
rights and fundamental freedoms in most states of Central Asia, 
including substantial con-compliance with their Organization for 
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) commitments on 
democratization and the holding of free and fair elections.
  I would like especially to draw the attention of my colleagues to the 
section of the resolution dealing with Kazakhstan. This oil rich 
country is riddled with corruption, and its dictator, President 
Nursultan Nazarbayev, has become increasingly repressive and appears 
determined to leave no stone unturned in his quest to silence the 
press, eliminate the opposition parties, and plunder every dime of 
profit that the country has earned from its oil and mineral wealth.
  Mr. Nazarbayev is reportedly the eighth richest person in the world; 
yet more than one-third of the population of Kazakhstan are below the 
poverty line as defined by the World Bank. The German-based 
organization, Transparency International, recently surveyed corruption 
in 96 countries and rated Kazakhstan as the 12th most corrupt country 
in that group. Moreover, the U.S. Department of Justice recently 
launched an investigation into bribes allegedly paid by U.S. oil 
companies to President Nazarbayev and his cronies.
  But even worse than the corruption is the attempt by Nazarbayev to 
snuff out every vestige of democracy and freedom of expression in 
Kazakhstan. In January 1999, he called a snap presidential election and 
ensured his own re-election by having his main opponent, former Prime 
Minister Akezhan Kazhegeldin, disqualified and driven into exile. Both 
this election and the parliamentary elections that followed in October 
1999 were denounced as unfair by the OSCE. To make sure that these and 
other anti-democratic actions are not criticized, the Nazarbayev regime 
has virtually silenced the independent media by intimidation, arrests 
and seizure of presses.
  In an effort to reverse the repressive trend in Kazakhstan, H. Con. 
Res. 397 calls upon the government of Kazakhstan and other governments 
in Central Asia to engage in a serious and comprehensive ``national 
dialogue'' with opposition and independent forces, ``on an equal 
footing, on institutionalizing measures to hold free and fair 
elections,'' Last December, former Prime Minister Kazhedgeldin of 
Kazakhstan proposed a detailed vision of what a ``national dialogue'' 
should entail, and its serves as a model for all of Central Asia.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H. Con. Res. 397 and urge its 
adoption. The resolution forthrightly exposes the trends of increasing 
repression in Central Asia and proposes a solution in the form of a 
genuine ``national dialogue'' between the governments of the region and 
the opposition political parties and independent organizations that 
speak for the peoples of Central Asia. This is a wonderful message of 
hope and support for this House to send as it winds up its work in the 
106th Congress.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The question is on 
the motion offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) that 
the House suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. 
Con. Res. 397, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds have 
voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________