[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 7149-7150]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   AUTOCRATIC LEADERS IN CENTRAL ASIA

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. DAN BURTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 3, 2001

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this 
recent Washington Post editorial regarding autocratic leaders in 
Central Asia. The editorial draws particular attention to President 
Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan and his intolerance of free speech 
and rigid control of independent expression. For those Members of 
Congress who are interested in the true nature of Nazarbayev regime, I 
highly commend this editorial.

                 [From the Washington Post, May 1, 2001]

                         A Choice for Democracy

       Russian President Vladimir Putin is not alone in the post-
     Soviet world in his assault on a free press, environmental 
     organizations and other independent voices. In the five 
     republics of Central Asia, autocratic leaders also are 
     cracking down. Because their countries did not benefit from 
     the years of relative freedom that Russia enjoyed under 
     former president Boris Yeltsin, Central Asia's potentates 
     tend to meet with less resistance, though everywhere some 
     brave people resist. A case in point, both sad and inspiring, 
     is Kazakhstan, after Russia the largest republic of the 
     former Soviet Union.
       President Nursultan Nazarbayev, who made an effortless 
     transition from Communist boss, was seen in the early years 
     of independence as a potential moderate. Over the years, 
     though, he has grown less tolerant of dissent or pluralism, 
     even as stories of corruption at the highest levels multiply 
     in his oil-rich republic. His decade in power has been marked 
     ``by rigid control of independent expression,'' the nonprofit 
     Committee to Protect Journalists noted recently. Prosecutors 
     routinely harass and investigate newspapers that dare a 
     smidgen of independent reporting. ``Infringement of the honor 
     and dignity of the president'' is a crime. Only the biggest 
     television stations are not bothered, but this is small 
     comfort because, as the Committee to Protect Journalists 
     noted, ``the most influential stations are under the direct 
     or indirect control of the president's family.''
       This spring the official crackdown has extended to many 
     nongovernmental organizations in addition to the press. These 
     groups helped organize opposition to a new law on the media 
     that will further tighten government control over Internet 
     sites and small broadcast outlets. Grass-roots opposition 
     managed to delay, though not prevent, adoption of the law, 
     mustering an impressive number of petitions and public 
     meetings. In

[[Page 7150]]

     retribution, prosecutors and tax police have raided groups, 
     forced them to shut down and seized documents and equipment, 
     according to Eric Kessler, a staffer with the U.S.-based 
     National Democratic Institute.
       The institute, like other pro-democracy organizations, has 
     helped Kazakhstan's small civic groups, often with small 
     grants from the U.S. government. Resistance to the media law 
     shows that their work is not in vain. But overall the fight 
     for democracy is not succeeding, and America's split 
     personality on the subject may be one reason. While backing 
     democracy in a small way, the Clinton administration was more 
     than willing to welcome and forgive Mr. Nazarbayev, because 
     he controls substantial oil and gas wealth, and because his 
     country's independence is seen as a check to potential 
     Russian expansionism from the north or Chinese pushiness from 
     the east.
       Mr. Nazarbayev may expect the Bush administration, with its 
     concern for expanding sources of oil and gas, to be even 
     friendlier. But President Bush and his team also have 
     stressed the importance of values in foreign policy, 
     particularly the values of freedom and free markets--neither 
     of which is embraced in Kazakhstan. Mr. Nazarbayev's strategy 
     of hoarding power and oil wealth for a small elite is not a 
     recipe for long-term stability. The Bush administration ought 
     to help those inside Kazakhstan who continue to struggle for 
     a different kind of future.

     

                          ____________________