[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 140 (Friday, October 28, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2208-E2209]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               TESTIMONY ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN CENTRAL ASIA

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 28, 2005

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the 
following testimony for the Record.

       Good morning. It's a pleasure for me to speak before you 
     today, the Middle East and Central Asia subcommittee. I want 
     to commend the subcommittee for organizing this important 
     hearing and for your work concerning the ongoing problems in 
     Central Asia.
       The peoples of Central Asia are largely Muslim, with a 
     history of living under Russian rule for centuries. Despite 
     our hopes and modest expectations that these nations would 
     matriculate from dictatorships to democracies, from my 
     vantage point as Co-Chairman of the U.S. Commission on 
     Security and Cooperation in Europe, the disappointing reality 
     over the last fifteen years is that most are moving in the 
     wrong direction. Moreover, in all countries of the region 
     ``super-presidents'' dominate the political arena while their 
     families, friends and favored few exploit the country's 
     natural resources. Corruption among the elite is pervasive, 
     as is cynicism among the populace. Legislatures and 
     judiciaries have languished while the authorities maintain 
     tight control of the most important media outlets.
       Yet despite these similarities, the five countries of 
     Central Asia run the gamut from the standpoint of 
     democratization and human rights observance; I would like to 
     offer quick character sketches of each and then suggest some 
     policy options.
       Kyrgyzstan represents one positive advance, as the only 
     country in Central Asia where the head of state won his job 
     in a fair contest. In last March's Tulip Revolution, 
     opposition leaders mobilized popular resistance to yet 
     another rigged election and

[[Page E2209]]

     ousted Askar Akaev. He was replaced by President Kurmanbek 
     Bakiev, who won in a genuine landslide. Media outlets which 
     were under pressure can now report freely on events. All this 
     proves that Central Asians are ready for democracy. But 
     Kyrgyzstan faces many problems. Parliament was elected in a 
     rigged vote, and criminal elements are increasingly 
     influential. A series of assassinations of parliamentarians 
     has unsettled the Kyrgyz and their friends abroad. Moreover, 
     leaders in nearby states have been disturbed by the precedent 
     of ``people power'' in their neighborhood.
       On the other hand, under the megalomaniac ``president for 
     life'' Saparmurat Niyazov, gas-rich Turkmenistan is the last 
     one-party state in the former Soviet bloc. No dissent or 
     religious freedoms are allowed and all media glorify the 
     ``great'' leader. Citizens must study Niyazov's Rukhnama--a 
     pseudo bible-mishmash of history, folklore and anthropology 
     which seeks to supplant traditional Turkmen sources of 
     spirituality. No other institutions or individuals have been 
     allowed to emerge. Not only are all human rights violated, 
     none of the bases of modem statehood have been fostered, 
     leaving Turkmenistan's people ill-prepared for the day when 
     Niyazov inevitably leaves the scene.
       Tajikistan is the only state in Central Asia where Muslim 
     political parties are legal, an outcome of the bloody civil 
     war fought between 1992 and 1997. The agreement ending those 
     hostilities brought opposition parties into government, a 
     major step forward for Central Asia. But lately President 
     Imomali Rakhmonov has been concentrating power. In 2004, he 
     orchestrated a referendum that will allow him to remain in 
     office until 2020, if he wins next year's presidential 
     election--he is preparing by clamping down on potential 
     rivals. Two weeks ago an opposition figure was sentenced to 
     23 years in prison on charges many see as politically 
     motivated. At the same time, Rakhmonov has been muzzling the 
     media, with various independent newspapers closed down or 
     under constant pressure.
       In oil-rich Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbaev has been 
     President since the late 1980s and is running for re-election 
     in December. Opposition parties are registered but have no 
     representatives in parliament. Independent and opposition 
     newspapers are harassed or fined for libel. The new and 
     regressive national security amendments limit religious 
     freedoms by increasing registration requirements, banning 
     unregistered religious groups, greatly curtailing missionary 
     activity, and permitting the suspension of registration of a 
     religious organization. Nevertheless, Kazakhstan wants to be 
     Chairman of the OSCE in 2009, a consensus decision that will 
     have to be made in 2006. While I would like to see a Central 
     Asian country in that position, chairmanship of the OSCE must 
     be earned. A grade of ``excellent'' from OSCE election 
     monitors on the presidential contest in December is the 
     minimum requirement. Many more improvements in human rights 
     performance will be needed before U.S. backing for 
     Kazakhstan's candidacy could be given in good conscience.
       Uzbekistan's President Islam Karimov has banned all 
     opposition. Censorship remains in effect, torture is 
     pervasive and thousands of people are in jail on political or 
     religious grounds--Islamic observance is permitted only 
     within state structures. Lagging economic reform has crimped 
     business development and aggravated widespread poverty, all 
     of which was recently documented by a very thorough Human 
     Rights First report. Demonstrating the lows the regime will 
     take to squash dissent, Uzbek authorities last week subjected 
     one of the country's most prominent human rights defenders, 
     Elena Urlaeva, to forcible psychiatric treatment, 
     injecting her against her will with powerful psychotropic 
     drugs.
       Her troubles began when she was put under house arrest in 
     May to prevent her protesting the violence in Andijon. Last 
     May, armed men assaulted a prison in Andijon where local 
     businessmen were being held for alleged Islamic radicalism. 
     Troops responded the next day by shooting indiscriminately at 
     large crowds. According to eyewitnesses, hundreds, perhaps 
     thousands were killed. The U.S. Government, along with the 
     OSCE, UN and European Union, has called for an independent 
     investigation into Andijon. President Karimov has refused and 
     state-run Uzbek media outlets have accused the U.S. of 
     assisting with Islamic terrorists. The allegation would be 
     funny if it weren't so chilling.
       Andijon has been a watershed in Uzbekistan's post-
     independence history and in U.S.-Uzbek relations. As of 
     today, our bilateral ties are in a deep freeze and Tashkent 
     has demanded that our military base at K-2, which was 
     supplying coalition forces in neighboring Afghanistan, be 
     shut down.
       As you can see, the countries of Central Asia have much in 
     common but have different prospects of future development. I 
     believe the United States can help move them in a positive 
     direction, while balancing the priorities of security 
     cooperation, energy supplies and democratization.
       It is worth recalling President Bush's 2003 Whitehall 
     Palace speech during his trip to the United Kingdom in which 
     he acknowledged past mistakes in U.S. foreign policy: ``in 
     the past, [we] have been willing to make a bargain; to 
     tolerate oppression for the sake of stability . . . yet this 
     bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely 
     bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of 
     violence took hold.''
       Considering this, U.S. policy must support those Central 
     Asian governments which have made progress towards 
     democratization, especially Kyrgyzstan. We must also use our 
     influence to urge those in the middle to improve their 
     performance and those on the extremes to begin moderating 
     their behavior. If we are to defeat terrorism and instill 
     democracy and human rights in this region, we must do more.
       That is why I've introduced H.R. 3189, the Central Asia 
     Democracy and Human Rights Act of 2005. If there is to be 
     lasting success in fighting terrorism, the U.S. must break 
     away from policies that back dictators who suppress and 
     terrorize their own people, as repression will mostly likely 
     breed future terrorism. The United States Government should 
     therefore use every means at its disposal to move the 
     countries of Central Asia to greater respect for democracy 
     and human rights. U.S. engagement should support American 
     values, promote long-term stability and security in the 
     region, and ensure that all assistance programs support and 
     reinforce these goals. In short, the bill facilitates 
     engagement with those countries that want to engage.
       In President Bush's second inaugural speech, he declared 
     ``it is the policy of the United States to seek and support 
     the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every 
     nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny 
     in our world.'' My bill fulfills this policy directive by 
     providing constructive foreign assistance to support 
     democratization and human rights, while conditioning all non-
     humanitarian U.S. assistance to the individual governments of 
     Central Asia, both economic and military, on whether each is 
     making ``substantial, sustained and demonstrable progress'' 
     towards democratization and full respect of human rights in 
     keeping with their OSCE commitments.
       The legislation would require that the President make an 
     annual determination whether such progress is being made by 
     examining five categories: democratization; free speech; 
     freedom of religion; torture; and rule of law/trafficking in 
     persons. If a country is not certified, economic and military 
     assistance would be withheld in a graduated format. My bill 
     provides greater flexibility to the President, as it allows 
     the U.S. to express dissatisfaction in a significant way 
     while not immediately ending all aid programs to the central 
     governments in this strategic region of the world. The 
     President is also provided with a national security waiver.
       Notably, withheld money is not lost. The President is 
     authorized to reallocate withheld funds to provide financial 
     assistance (including the awarding of grants) to foreign and 
     domestic individuals, NGOs, and entities that support 
     democracy, the promotion of democracy and/or full respect of 
     human rights.
       The United States should use every means at its disposal to 
     encourage democratization in Central Asia. Democracy in that 
     part of the world will ultimately promote long-term stability 
     and security in the region. That's the objective of my 
     legislation. I hope the Members of the Middle East and 
     Central Asia subcommittee will join me and cosponsor H.R. 
     3189.

                          ____________________