[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 14]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 19735-19736]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   KAZAKHSTAN AND THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. ZACH WAMP

                              of tennessee

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 12, 2001

  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, in the rugged region of Central Asia, two 
nations have been dealing with proposed changes to current religion 
laws. In both Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz Republic, new religion laws 
have emerged partially in response to real concerns about terrorism and 
state security. After the events of September 11, our whole country has 
a very clear understanding of the threat terrorists pose. Still, our 
commitment to democracy and religious freedom stands firm.
  Consequently, I want to highlight and praise both countries for 
seeking assistance from the OSCE Advisory Panel on Freedom of Religion 
or Belief. The choice to seek assistance and working to ensure the new 
legislation is in line with protecting human rights is a mark of wise 
governance. Even more, I want to encourage these governments to 
continue their close co-operation with this body of experts, and to 
continue to strive to uphold OSCE commitments and international norms 
for religious freedom.
  In Kazakhstan, there has been great discussion over a proposed 
amendment to its 1992 law ``On Freedom of Religion and Religious 
Associations.'' The Kazakh Government has been responsive to critiques 
of the law and removed it from consideration during this past summer. 
Furthermore, it has listened to the comments made by the OSCE Advisory 
Panel and modified some of the more troubling sections of the proposed 
law. However, concerns still exist in the area of registering Islamic 
religious groups by the Kazakhstan Moslem Spiritual Administration. It 
seems likely that with the various Islamic religious groups that are at 
odds over purely theological issues, registration could be denied for 
merely being out of favor with the Spiritual Administration. This is 
problematic; religious organizations should not be denied registration 
solely on the basis of their religious beliefs. Before the proposed law 
is reintroduced, I hope Kazakhstan will address these issues, so as to 
ensure its compliance with all OSCE commitments.
  The Kyrgyz Republic is currently considering a proposed law entitled 
``On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations,'' which would 
replace the 1991 Law on Freedom of Religion and Religious 
Organizations. In the Kyrgyzstan's short history of independence, it 
has consistently joined international human rights covenants. As one of 
the 55 participating States in the OSCE, the Kyrgyz Republic agreed to 
abide by the Helsinki Final Act and all subsequent agreements, in which 
clear language concerning religious freedom exists. This new 
legislation, made long before the events of September 11, was in 
response to real fears about terrorism. With religion often being used 
as a guise to legitimize criminal activities, I recognize the genuine 
concerns of Kyrgyz authorities about religious organizations existing 
in their country. However, while the United States has new 
understanding of the threat of terrorists, I want to encourage the 
Kyrgyz Republic from overreacting and unnecessarily limiting religious 
freedom.
  While the current law on religion is generally in line with its OSCE 
commitments, it is my concern that if the new law is enacted, 
Kyrgyzstan will no longer be in compliance with its international 
obligations. This is especially true concerning the provisions 
addressing registration of religious groups. In its current form, the 
draft law's use of registration requirements appears complex, confusing 
and

[[Page 19736]]

convoluted. The two step process of registering religious groups 
appears to be more an exercise for government involvement rather than a 
well outlined procedure for recognizing religious communities. The 
vague requirement of ``record-keeping'' registration is especially 
problematic, as it could serve as a major obstacle for successful 
registration that the government can utilize to block an application. 
Clear and transparent guidelines would be a superior way to prevent 
arbitrary tampering by government officials in the process of 
registration.
  In closing, I hope both the Kazakh and Kyrgyz Governments will be 
mindful of 1989 Vienna Concluding Document, (para 16.3), which states 
that governments are obligated to ``grant upon their request to 
communities of believers, practicing or prepared to practice their 
faith within the constitutional framework of their states, recognition 
of the status provided for them in their respective countries.''

                          ____________________