[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 15605-15607]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        HUMAN RIGHTS IN CENTRAL ASIA A DECADE AFTER INDEPENDENCE

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 31, 2001

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as we head into our August 
recess, we should recall that almost ten years have passed since a 
group of conspirators attempted to topple Soviet President Gorbachev. 
The failure of that putsch precipitated declarations of independence by 
numerous Soviet republics, including those in Central Asia, and led 
several months later to the formal dissolution of the USSR. Today, 
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan remain 
independent, a definite plus. But in other respects, we have witnessed 
regression from levels reached at the end of the Soviet era, when 
Gorbachev's programs of glasnost and perestroika mandated a certain 
level of tolerance for opposing viewpoints and organized opposition 
activity.
  Specifically, with respect to democratization, human rights and the 
rule of law, overall trends in the region are extremely discouraging. 
In 1992, these countries unreservedly accepted the commitments of the 
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). But despite 
the carefully crafted claims of Central Asian leaders and their 
spokesmen, in the region and in Washington, the trend is toward 
consolidation of authoritarian control and increased repression, not 
gradual democratization. The Helsinki Commission, which I have chaired 
and now co-chair, has held three hearings on Central Asia since 1999. 
Partly on the basis of testimony during those hearings, I introduced H. 
Con. Res. 397, which expressed the Congress' concern about the lack of 
democratization and violations of fundamental human rights throughout 
Central Asia. The measure was passed last November by an overwhelming 
majority (362-3) of the House.
  In floor statements introducing the resolution, I argued that the 
main cause of authoritarian government and repression in Central Asia 
was the determination of the region's leaders to perpetuate themselves 
in power by any means necessary. This desire, in turn, is fueled by 
their corruption, which they strive to conceal from their impoverished 
publics. The pattern is infuriating: rulers enrich themselves, their 
families and favored few, while the rest of the population struggles to 
eke out a miserable existence. In turn, the authoritarian leaders 
suppress freedom of the press and the right to engage in political 
activity. Dissidents are harassed and jailed. Human rights defenders
  Indeed, one of the greatest challenges facing the Organization for 
Security and Cooperation in Europe is the emergence in Central

[[Page 15606]]

Asia of an entire region where basic OSCE principles and commitments 
are ignored--in fact, flouted, with increasing brazenness. 
Turkmenistan's President Niyazov made himself virtual president for 
life in December 1999. Kazakhstan's President Nazarbaev--who has 
extended his tenure in office through referenda, canceling elections, 
and staging deeply flawed elections--last summer arranged to receive 
lifelong privileges and perks. In Kyrgyzstan, President Akaev, who was 
once considered democracy's best hope, has already rigged two elections 
in order to keep serious contenders from running against him. He is now 
reportedly planning to stage a referendum on extending his tenure in 
office from five years to seven. Welcome to the club, President Akaev. 
I continue to suspect that some of these leaders who already head what 
are, for all intents and purposes, royal families are planning to 
establish family dynasties.
  The latest developments in the region provide even more cause for 
alarm. Kyrgyz authorities have just brought new charges against 
opposition leader Felix Kulov, who is already serving a seven-year jail 
sentence. Kyrgyz Foreign Minister Imanaliev told me on a recent visit 
to Washington he thought Kulov would be freed--the Minister must have 
misread President Akaev's intentions.
  Truly appalling is the situation in Uzbekistan, where literally 
thousands of people have been arrested, allegedly for belonging to 
radical Islamic groups or for involvement in terrorist activity. 
According to international human rights organizations, police planting 
of evidence is routine, as is torture in detention and in prison. I was 
horrified to learn of the death--or should I say the murder--of human 
rights activist Shovrug Ruzimuradov. After being detained on June 15, 
he was held incommunicado by the Ministry of Internal Affairs until 
July 7, when his severely bruised, lifeless body was delivered to his 
family, including seven children. Some internal organs had been 
removed, probably to conceal internal lesions from the torture. But 
that did not stop the Uzbek authorities from claiming he had committed 
suicide. The ensuing international uproar surrounding this case has 
apparently forced even the Uzbek authorities to take heed and change 
tactics. Former Ambassador to Washington, Sadyk Safaev, now 
Uzbekistan's First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, said last week 
that those who killed Mr. Ruzimuradov would be held legally 
accountable.
  Maybe in this case, some policemen will actually be charged. But even 
more important, this pattern of brutality must stop. At the OSCE 
Parliamentary Assembly in Paris earlier this month, I introduced an 
anti-torture resolution which calls on participating States to exclude 
in courts of law or legal proceedings evidence obtained through the use 
of torture, or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It 
also calls for a complete ban, in law and in practice, on incommunicado 
detention.
  In Kazakhstan, the nexus between corruption and control of the media 
has come to the fore with particular force, considering the recent 
publication in the New Yorker of an article about alleged high-level 
malfeasance. Independent and opposition media in that country have been 
intimidated practically out of existence, with editors of opposition 
publications risking charges of ``insulting the honor and dignity of 
the president.'' Kazakhstan's authorities prevented two oppositionists 
from traveling to Washington to testify July 18 at congressional 
hearings on Central Asia, a violation of the right to freedom of 
movement that further damaged the government's already tarnished 
reputation. To make matters even worse, at the July 18 hearing, 
Kazakhstani officials attempted to serve papers to former Prime 
Minister and opposition leader in exile, Akezhan Kazhegeldin, who had 
come to Washington for the hearing. The Deputy Chief of Mission at 
Kazakhstan's Embassy had to come to the Hill to explain this public 
relations blunder to offended Members. One can only conclude that 
Kazakhstan's leaders are either getting poor counsel from their 
expensive imagemakers or they're not clever enough to take good advice.
  Words fail us when speaking about Turkmenistan, a nightmare kingdom 
run by a world-class megalomaniac, Saparmurat Niyazov. He has carefully 
isolated his country from the outside world and proceeded to violate 
every human right imaginable, including freedom of conscience. Along 
with fellow Helsinki Commissioners Congressman Pitts and Congressman 
Aderholt, I have twice met with Turkmenistan's Ambassador, seeking to 
facilitate the release from prison of Shageldy Atakov, a Baptist pastor 
who has been in jail since 1999 on trumped-up charges. We also sent 
Turkmen President Niyazov a letter about this case but we have never 
received any response. Even the international financial institutions 
have had enough: the head of the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
Development (EBRD)--which has a mandate to promote both economic reform 
and multiparty democracy--recently warned Niyazov that he faces a 
possible cutoff of business with
  In fact, only in Tajikistan have the authorities and opposition 
parties come to an arrangement of sorts--but only after a military 
stalemate ended an armed conflict that left scores of thousands dead. 
Though a coalition government has been established, clashes continue 
and the government does not control all of the country's territory.
  Mr. Speaker, the last ten years have stripped Western optimists of 
their illusions about the nature of Central Asian regimes. Almost 
nobody today will speak out on behalf of Turkmenistan's regime, despite 
that country's vast energy resources. Mercurial, bombastic President-
for-life Niyazov has irritated Western capitals and companies too 
deeply, and made doing business too difficult. True, some analysts 
defend Uzbekistan's iron fist, claiming to see a genuine threat of 
Islamic fundamentalism. But even the U.S. Government and the OSCE 
maintain President Karimov's domestic policies have greatly exacerbated 
the danger posed by radicals who fill their ranks with embittered 
relatives of the unjustly arrested or tortured.
  Most often, we hear arguments defending Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan--
especially the former, which boasts huge oil supplies. Backers claim, 
first, that they are more democratic than their neighbors. True enough: 
it would be difficult to be less democratic than Uzbekistan and 
Turkmenistan, which literally do not allow opposition or dissent in any 
form. But more insidious is the contention that things in Kazakhstan 
and Kyrgyzstan are slowly getting better. This is simply not true, as 
anyone familiar with those countries ten and five years ago knows. In 
the past, political activity was far freer and a wide range of 
viewpoints were represented in the press, before Kazakhstan's 
parliament was dismissed and both presidents made clear their resolve 
to remain in power indefinitely, while silencing critical voices. One 
need only read the reports of the OSCE's Missions to these countries 
today, or the reports of OSCE's Representative on Freedom of the Media, 
to see how the possibilities for freedom of expression have narrowed, 
almost to the point of disappearance in Kazakhstan. That is clearly the 
trend in Kyrgyzstan, where the Ministry of Justice intends to require 
re-registration of the media--an old, obvious ploy, with equally 
obvious intent.
  Throughout the region, this intensified repression has evoked growing 
desperation and we are already witnessing the consequences: armed 
insurgents of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan invaded Uzbekistan and 
Kyrgyzstan in 1999 and 2000. Though they have not yet launched any 
major assault this year, there were reports of clashes last week and in 
any case, we should not expect them to go away. Impoverishment of the 
populace will provide new recruits, threatening to create a chronic 
problem. The Central Asian leaders' marriage of corruption and 
repression has created an explosive brew. Indeed, in Uzbekistan, in 
late June and early July, there were political protests remarkable 
events for such a tightly run police state--with important implications 
for future stability in that country and in the region.
  Should we infer from Tajikistan's unhappy experience that only 
violence can bring governments and opposition in Central Asia to the 
bargaining table? I hope not. But ten years after independence, I see 
precious little evidence anywhere in the region of leaders' desire for 
a peaceful accommodation of interests or a willingness to allow normal 
politics. And as leaders become even more entrenched and wealthier, why 
should anyone expect matters to improve?
  As delineated in H. Con. Res. 397, passed by the House last year, I 
urge the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, 
and other United States officials to raise consistently with the 
leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and 
Uzbekistan, our concern about serious violations of human rights and 
the rule of law. Central Asian leaders, like the heads of every other 
OSCE State, are accountable to their citizens to establish conditions 
for independent and opposition media to function without constraint, 
limitation, or fear of harassment, and to repeal criminal laws which 
impose prison sentences for alleged defamation of the state or public 
officials. The United States must continue to call upon political 
leaders to condemn and take effective steps to cease the systematic use 
of torture and other inhuman treatment by authorities against political 
opponents and others, and to allow the registration of independent 
human rights monitoring organizations. Those governments

[[Page 15607]]

of Central Asia which are engaged in military campaigns against violent 
insurgents must observe international law regulating such actions, keep 
civilians and other noncombatants from harm, and should not to use such 
campaigns to justify further crackdowns on political opposition or 
violations of human rights commitments.
  Mr. Speaker, all OSCE countries agreed, as part of the 1999 OSCE 
Istanbul Charter, to be accountable to our citizens and responsible to 
each other for our implementation of OSCE commitments, which are 
matters of immediate and legitimate concern to all participating 
States. The OSCE Council of Ministers meeting in Prague, in fact, 
agreed by consensus that appropriate actions--including political 
declarations and other political steps--should be undertaken in cases 
of ``clear, gross and uncorrected violations of relevant [OSCE] 
commitments.'' Nine years have passed since the Prague document was 
signed by the OSCE countries. With the trend of clear, gross and 
uncorrected violations which have been described above, all 
participating States are obliged to respond.

                          ____________________