[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 144 (Thursday, October 25, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1930-E1931]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            WORKING WITH REPRESSIVE REGIMES IN CENTRAL ASIA

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. ELIOT L. ENGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 25, 2001

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for United 
States policy in our war on terrorism. The President has my full 
backing in what will clearly be a long and arduous battle to track down 
and stamp out terrorist organizations. In the end, I am confident that 
we will prevail over these forces of evil and barbarism.
  At the same time, we must strike a balance between our need for 
allies in the region and our commitment to advancing the cause of 
freedom and human rights. In Central Asia, for example, I support our 
efforts to work closely with Uzbekistan and appreciate that the fact 
that we have received permission from that nation to use its military 
bases. However, Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state which has also 
reportedly imprisoned over 7,000 political prisoners in poor 
conditions. Next door, in Kazakhstan, the repressive and corrupt regime 
of Nursultan Nazarbayev has also offered to provide as yet unspecified 
assistance to the coalition.
  All of us welcome support from the nations of Central Asia and hope 
to welcome them someday into the family of democracies, but I am 
concerned that there may be an implicit quid pro quo in such 
assistance. I hope that these countries do not expect the U.S. to ease 
the pressure to end human rights abuses and to promote democratic 
reform. In this connection, both the Financial Times and the Washington 
Post have recently printed editorials warning about the pitfalls of 
cooperation with repressive regimes in Central Asia and elsewhere.
  The Financial Times, for example stated on September 17 that ``the US 
must be careful not to align itself too closely with authoritarian 
regimes that have dreadful records of suppressing minority groups. An 
anti-terrorist campaign must never be used as a convenient excuse for 
repressing political opponents . . .''
  Similarly, a Washington Post editorial of September 24 warned that 
``In forming tactical bonds with such nations, America must not forget 
what it is fighting for as well as what it is fighting against.'' The 
editorial goes on to say that ``in the long run, democracy will be the 
best antidote to religious extremism.'' In this connection, it is 
important for the U.S. to be seen as clearly promoting the freedoms 
that President Bush championed in his address to Congress on September 
20: ``our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to 
vote and assemble and disagree with each other.''
  I believe that as we work with the governments of Central Asia to 
destroy the al-Qaeda terrorist network, we should also caution that 
repression and corruption are creating ideal conditions for Islamic 
extremism to flourish within their borders. Islamic extremist groups 
will never run out of recruits as long as the Soviet era dictators in 
Central Asia continue their repressive and corrupt ways. In this 
regard, I am particularly concerned about Kazakhstan, which is the 
crown jewel of the region because of its oil, gas and mineral wealth. I 
shudder to think what an Islamic extremist government would do with 
that country's wealth.
  As we have done in other regions of importance to the United States, 
we must expand our efforts to promote pluralism, tolerance, and 
openness in Central Asia. The people of these nations deserve a 
political avenue to express their opinions and grievances. Extremist 
Islam must not be the only outlet for Uzbeks, Turkmen, Tajiks, and 
other Central Asians as it unfortunately has become for so many other 
people in the region.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the full texts of the 
Financial Times and Washington Post editorials be printed at this point 
in the Record.

            [From the Financial Times, Mon., Sept. 17, 2001]

                    Doubtful Allies in Central Asia

       Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, has said that the 
     terrorist attacks in New York and Washington create a new 
     benchmark by which the US will measure its allies. Just as 
     Washington's relations with other states during the cold war 
     were determined by their alignment towards the Soviet Union, 
     so the US will now judge nations by how fiercely they oppose 
     international terrorism. This tilt of the prism could lead to 
     some surprising--and potentially disturbing--new alignments.
       So far, the US has done an impressive job in marshalling 
     international support. It is now trying to court the 
     countries near Afghanistan, including Pakistan, Russia, and 
     China, which Washington has previously accused of giving 
     succour to rogue states. The US is also trying to win support 
     from the five former Soviet central Asian states. All these 
     countries realise that they have a common interest in pre-
     empting terrorism in a world in which every commercial 
     airliner has been turned into a potential bomb. But some may 
     also see domestic tactical advantages in backing any 
     forthcoming US offensive.
       In prosecuting its new war against terrorism the US must 
     therefore be careful not to align itself too closely with 
     authoritarian regimes that have dreadful records of 
     suppressing minority groups. An anti-terrorist campaign must 
     never be used as a convenient excuse for repressing political 
     opponents or turned into an anti-Muslim crusade.


                           Focus on Pakistan

       The immediate focus is on Pakistan, which is one of the few 
     countries to recognize the Taliban leadership in neighbouring 
     Afghanistan. As it shelters an estimated 2m Afghan refugees, 
     Pakistan well knows the tragedies of its troubled neighbour. 
     The US provided strong support to Pakistan during the Soviet 
     occupation of Afghanistan but has since distanced itself from 
     the military regime of General Pervez Musharraf. Washington 
     continues to uphold sanctions against Pakistan first imposed 
     after Islamabad exploded a nuclear bomb. It has also 
     expressed concern that Pakistan supports militants in 
     Kashmir.


                          Co-operation with US

       In spite of the presence of Muslim extremists within 
     Pakistan, Gen Musharraf can doubtless see the advantages of 
     co-operating with the US. But he will, in turn, surely expect 
     the US to legitimise his regime and help persuade the 
     International Monetary Fund to release fresh funds for 
     Pakistan. He may also want foreign powers to tone down their 
     criticisms of his military rule and quietly forget about his 
     promises to restore democracy by October 2002. Washington 
     should resist making such explicit trade-offs.

[[Page E1931]]

       The US may also see the Shanghai grouping of central Asian 
     states--including China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, 
     Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan--as natural allies in its war 
     against Muslim terrorists. This grouping is already swapping 
     intelligence and considering security arrangements to combat 
     extremism.
       China fears that Muslim extremism could infect its western 
     province of Xinjiang. Russia is fighting Muslim opponents in 
     Chechnya and Tajikistan. To varying degrees, the central 
     Asian states are all concerned that Muslim militants could 
     undermine their own regimes. But many of these countries are 
     characterised by blatant abuse of minority rights and 
     hostility towards the Muslim opposition.
       President George W. Bush has made a commendably forthright 
     defence of Arab Americans. He should be equally strong in 
     support of peacefully oriented Muslims throughout central 
     Asia. In a traditional war the enemies of your enemies may be 
     counted as your friends. But Mr. Bush has launched a new kind 
     of war for justice that ultimately can only succeed by 
     winning over hearts and minds.
       The US should be as steadfast in its defence of Muslim 
     moderates as it is ferocious in attacking terrorism. The 
     natural allies of the US in central Asia may be counted more 
     among its peoples rather than its regimes.

                                  ____
                                  

            [From the Washington Post, Mon., Sept. 24, 2001]

                           What To Fight For

       In explaining to Americans the war he would lead against 
     terrorism, President Bush on Thursday described the enemy as 
     heir to the ``murderous ideologies'' against which this 
     country fought for most of the last century: fascism, Nazism 
     and totalitarianism. As with those ideologies, he said, the 
     terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11 attack sacrifice 
     human life to their radical vision of the world and respect 
     no value but the ``will to power.''
       The analogy is powerful in many ways. It reinforces Mr. 
     Bush's message that the struggle will be long; the United 
     States fought communist totalitarianism for many decades. It 
     bolsters also the message that the struggle will be fought on 
     many fronts--not just military but, as in the Cold War, 
     economic, political, propaganda and more. Above all it 
     elevates the struggle to a seriousness that cannot be 
     slighted, by this or future administrations; if the enemy is 
     aiming for the destruction of civilization, no priority could 
     be more important than that enemy's destruction. As during 
     the Cold War, the United States might take on other tasks and 
     causes but most never forget the long-term ideological 
     struggle.
       But precisely for that reason--because Mr. Bush has put 
     this war at the very forefront of the nation's agenda--it is 
     important to be careful and precise in measuring the foe and 
     setting the goals. Is it the entire story, for example, that 
     the terrorists target America because they hate its open 
     society? Mr. Bush described a fight between freedom and fear, 
     and that is part of it. But then why do the terrorists also 
     target authoritarian regimes such as those of Uzbekistan or 
     Saudi Arabia? It's important to recognize distinctions where 
     they exist--among different terrorist organizations and among 
     varying goals even within organizations. And it's important 
     to think about the ways in which ``a fringe form of Islamic 
     extremism,'' as Mr. Bush described the ideology of the foe, 
     also might differ from the hostile ideologies of the past 
     century in tactics, goals and sweep.
       As in the Cold War, the new struggle will put the United 
     States in league with allies of convenience, unsavory ones at 
     times. Already, to root out the terrorists in Afghanistan, 
     the United States finds itself pondering cooperation with the 
     despotic regime of Central Asia's Uzbekistan. Saudi Arabia, 
     an intolerant monarchy, is sought as a partner. China, the 
     largest remaining outpost of communism, now is suggested as 
     an ally in the war against terrorism. Such regimes may work 
     with the United States because they also fear the Islamic 
     extremists, but not in defense of freedom. To the dictators 
     of China and Central Asia, the terrorists may represent 
     chaos, a challenge to state authority; but no one running 
     those countries views democracy as the alternative to Islamic 
     extremism.
       In forming tactical bonds with such nations America must 
     not forget what it is fighting for as well as what it is 
     fighting against. In the struggles against Nazism and 
     communism the United States allied with repressive regimes, 
     sometimes wisely, sometimes to its detriment. In the long 
     run, democracy will be the best antidote to religious 
     extremism. And just as in its past struggles, the U.S. fight 
     against this latest foe will succeed best if the country is 
     seen to be promoting the freedoms Mr. Bush championed 
     Thursday night: ``our freedom of religion, or freedom of 
     speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with 
     each other.''

     

                          ____________________