[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 20]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 29645-29646]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



            DEMOCRATIZATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN CENTRAL ASIA

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 10, 1999

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the 
House schedule did not permit consideration of my resolution, H. Con. 
Res. 204, which has been co-sponsored by Representative Hoyer, 
Representative Forbes and Representative McKinney. The resolution 
voices concern about serious violations of human rights and fundamental 
freedoms in most states of Central Asia, in particular, substantial 
noncompliance with OSCE commitments on democratization and the holding 
of free and fair elections.
  Among the countries of the former Soviet Union, only in Ukraine and 
Moldova have sitting presidents lost an election and peacefully left 
office. We will yet see what happens in Russia, where President Yeltsin 
has launched another war in Chechnya. It may be too much, given the 
historical differences between our respective societies, to hope the 
post-Soviet states could find among their political leaders a George 
Washington, who could have been king but chose not to be, and who chose 
to leave office after two terms. But it is not too much to hope that 
other post-Soviet leaders might emulate Ukraine's former President 
Leonid Kravchuk or Moldova's former President Mircea Snegur, not to 
mention Lithuania's Algirdas Brazauskas, who all allowed a peaceful 
transfer of power.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Central Asian leaders give every 
indication of intending to remain in office for life. Their desire for 
unlimited and permanent power means that they cannot implement all OSCE 
commitments on democracy, the rule of law and human rights, as doing so 
would create a level playing field for challengers and allow the media 
to shine the light on presidential misdeeds and high-level corruption. 
The result has been an entire region in the OSCE space where 
fundamental OSCE freedoms are ignored while leaders entrench themselves 
and their families in power and wealth.
  To give credit where it is due, the situation is least bad in 
Kyrgyzstan. President Akaev, a physicist, is the only Central Asian 
leader who was not previously the head of his republic's Communist 
Party. One can actually meet members of parliament who strongly 
criticize President Akaev and the legislature itself is not a rubber 
stamp body. Moreover, print media--though under serious pressure from 
the executive branch--exhibit diversity of views and opposition parties 
function. Still, in 1995, two contenders in the presidential election 
were disqualified before the vote. Parliamentary and presidential 
elections are approaching in 2000. Kyrgyzstan's OSCE partners will be 
watching carefully to see whether they are free and fair.
  Until the mid-1990s, Kazakstan seemed a relatively reformist country, 
where various political parties could function and the media enjoyed 
some freedom. But President Nazarbaev dissolved two parliaments and 
singlemindedly sought to accumulate sole power. In the last few years, 
the regime has become ever more authoritarian. President Nazarbaev has 
concentrated all power in his hands, subordinating to himself all other 
branches and institutions of government. A constitutional amendment 
passed in October 1999 conveniently removed the age limit of 65 to be 
president. The OSCE judged last January's presidential elections, from 
which a leading opposition contender was barred as far short of OSCE 
standards. Last month's parliamentary election, according to the OSCE, 
was ``severely marred by widespread, pervasive and illegal interference 
by executive authorities in the electoral process.'' In response, 
President Nazarbaev has attacked the OSCE, comparing it to the Soviet 
Communist Party's Politburo for trying to ``tell Kazakstan what to 
do.''
  Tajikistan has suffered the saddest fate of all the Central Asian 
countries; a civil war that killed scores of thousands. In 1997, the 
warring sides finally ceased hostilities and reached agreement about 
power-sharing, which permitted a bit of hopefulness about prospects for 
normal development and democratization. It seems, however, that the 
accord will not ensure stability. Tajikistan's Central Election 
Commission refused to register two opposition candidates for the 
November 6 presidential election. The sole alternative candidate 
registered has refused to accept the results of the election, which, 
according to official figures, current President Emomaly Rakhmonov won 
with 97 percent of the vote, in a 98 percent turnout. Those numbers, 
Mr. Speaker, say it all. The OSCE properly declined to send observers.
  Benighted Turkmenistan practically beggars description. This country, 
which as been blessed with large quantities of natural gas, has a 
political system that combines the worst traits of Soviet communism 
with a personality cult seen today in countries like Iraq or North 
Korea. No dissidence of any kind is permitted and the population enjoys 
no human rights. While his impoverished people barely manage to get by, 
President Niyazov builds garish presidential palaces and monuments to 
himself. The only registered political party in Turkmenistan is the 
Democratic Party--headed by President Niyazov. In late October he said 
the people of his country would not be ready for the stresses and 
choices of a democratic society until 2010, adding that independent 
media are ``disruptive.'' On December 12, Turkmenistan is holding 
parliamentary ``elections,'' which the OSCE will not bother to observe.
  Finally, we come to Uzbekistan. The Helsinki Commission, which I 
chair, held hearings on democratization and human rights in Uzbekistan 
on October 18. Despite the best efforts of Uzbekistan's Ambassador 
Safaev to convince us that democratization is proceeding apace in his 
country, the testimony of all the other witnesses confirmed the widely 
held view that after Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan is the most repressive 
country in Central Asia. No opposition political activity is allowed 
and media present only the government's point of view. Christian 
denominations have faced official harassment. Since 1997, a massive 
government campaign has been underway against independent Muslim 
believers. In February of this year, explosions rocked Tashkent, which 
the government described as an assassination attempt by Islamic 
radicals allied with an exiled opposition leader.
  Apart from elections, a key indicator of progress towards 
democratization is the state of media freedom. On October 25-27, an 
International Conference on Mass Media in Central Asia took place in 
Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. Not surprisingly, Turkmenistan did not allow 
anyone to attend. The other participants adopted a declaration noting 
that democratization has slowed in almost all Central Asian states, 
while authoritarian regimes have grown stronger, limiting the scope for 
genuine media freedom as governments influence the media through 
economic means.

[[Page 29646]]

  I strongly agree with these sentiments. The concentration of media 
outlets in pro-regime hands, the ongoing assault on independent and 
opposition media and the circumscription of the media's legally-
sanctioned subject matter pose a great danger to the development of 
democracy in Central Asia. Official statistics about how many media 
outlets have been privatized cover up an alarming tendency towards 
government monopolization of information sources. This effectively 
makes it impossible for citizens to receive unbiased information, which 
is vital if people are to hold their governments accountable.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that in Central Asia, the overall level of 
democratization and human rights observance is poor. Central Asian 
leaders make decisions in a region far from Western Europe, close to 
China, Iran and Afghanistan, and they often assert that ``human rights 
are only for the West'' or the building democracy ``takes time.'' But 
delaying steps towards democracy is very risky in the multi-ethnic, 
multi-religious region of Central Asia, where many people are highly 
educated and have expectations of faster change. If it does not come, 
tensions and conflicts could emerge that could endanger security for 
everyone.
  To lessen these risks, continuous pressure will be needed on these 
countries to move faster on democracy. Even as the United States 
pursues other interests, we should give top priority to democracy and 
respect for human rights, or we may live to regret not doing so.

                          ____________________