[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.''
____________________