[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 22]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 30999-31000]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     THE NIGHTMARE IN TURKMENISTAN

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, November 21, 2003

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, November 25 will mark the one-
year anniversary of events in Turkmenistan that turned that already 
bizarre autocracy into an even more nightmarish kingdom. According to 
the official version, opposition groups led by former high-ranking 
officials tried to assassinate Saparmurat Niyazov, the country's 
President-for-Life. The attempt failed, the plotters were found, tried 
and imprisoned, and in the eyes of Niyazov's regime, justice has been 
done.
  What actually happened that day is unclear. There may well have been 
a coup attempt against Niyazov, who has turned himself into virtually a 
living god. Or, as some opposition activists in exile maintain, the 
whole affair may have been staged by Niyazov to crack down even harder. 
Since no outsider has had access to those arrested in connection with 
the events, the truth may never be known.
  Whatever happened, it is easy to understand the desperate frustration 
among Turkmen. Niyazov has made Turkmenistan the only one-party state 
in the former Soviet space, where one man decides everything, no 
opposition is permitted, all media are totally censored and the 
populace is forced to study the ``rukhnama''--a dictator's rantings 
that purport to be a one-stop religion, national history and morality 
lesson.
  What is clear is that Niyazov's response to November 25 has trampled 
on civilized norms, even if his allegations are true. In the wake of 
the arrests, all opposition--real or imagined--has been crushed. Quick 
show trials of the accused were broadcast on television, after which 
they received long prison sentences with no access to relatives or 
international organizations. Some of the opposition leaders have 
already died in prison. One individual who was arrested, an American 
citizen named Leonid Komarovsky of Massachusetts was eventually 
released, as a result of pressure from Washington. Upon gaining his 
freedom, he told the world of the horrible tortures people suffered at 
the hands of Turkmen security forces. The stories rival any we used to 
hear from the Soviet Union or Saddam Hussein's Iraq. In addition, 
relatives of those deemed ``enemies of the people'' have been targeted 
for persecution. The luckier ones merely are fired and thrown out of 
their apartments onto the streets; others have been arrested and 
tortured in prison or forced to watch their loved ones being tortured.
  In response to this crisis, the OSCE invoked the Moscow Mechanism, a 
rarely-used tool to investigate particularly appalling human rights 
violations. But Niyazov refused to cooperate with the OSCE, whose 
officially designated rapporteur was denied a visa. Nevertheless, he 
was able to compile a comprehensive dossier of horror, which documents 
as well as possible without access to prisons, the mistreatment and 
abuse of those arrested and the persecution of their relatives. The 
rapporteur also forwarded to the Government of

[[Page 31000]]

Turkmenistan recommendations to move towards reform. Niyazov has 
dismissed them as ``offensive'' and ``interference in internal 
affairs.''
  Niyazov has also refused U.S. officials entry to his jails. Recently, 
Ambassador Stephen Minikes, head of the U.S. Delegation to OSCE visited 
Ashgabat, but despite his explicit request, was not allowed to check on 
the health of one of those arrested: former Turkmen Foreign Minister 
and OSCE Ambassador Batyr Berdiev. There are persistent rumors he has 
died in prison.
  One year after the events of November 25, Saparmurat Niyazov remains 
in power. He continues his crackdown, and the country's downward spiral 
accelerates. Niyazov has reintroduced exit visas, a legacy of the 
Soviet past we thought had been definitively overcome. Just last week, 
he instituted new laws harshly restricting freedom of religion, which 
is trampled upon daily in Turkmenistan; groups brave enough to meet 
risk home raids, imprisonment, deportation, internal exile, house 
eviction and even torture. The new provisions further empower regime 
agents to squash religious practice. Now, individuals caught more than 
once in a year acting on the behalf of an unregistered community can be 
fined between ten and thirty months of wages, or be sent to hard labor 
for up to one year. Of course, registration is in effect impossible to 
obtain, leaving religious communities and their members in a highly 
vulnerable position.
  A recent Niyazov decree on NGO activity makes it punishable for most 
Turkmen to interact with foreigners. Representatives of non-Turkmen 
ethnic groups, such as Uzbeks or Russians, face discrimination in 
education and employment. Niyazov has not only reestablished and 
strengthened the environment of fear, he has deliberately isolated his 
country from outside influences. Under his rule, Turkmenistan has no 
chance of developing normally.
  As November 25 approaches, we recall that when a political system 
centralizes all power in the hands one man, offering no possibilities 
for participation to anyone else, people may be tempted to change that 
system by any means. And we have occasion to consider the eternal 
validity of Lord Acton's dictum: ``Power tends to corrupt; absolute 
power corrupts absolutely.''
  Unfortunately, the U.S. response to Turkmenistan's blatant disregard 
for human rights has been shamefully weak. In August, although 
Turkmenistan violates freedom of emigration by requiring exit visas, 
the Administration made the astonishing decision to exempt Turkmenistan 
from Jackson-Vanik requirements on the free movement of citizens.
  Our leverage on this particular dictator may be weak but we have 
opportunities to express our outrage about these ongoing abuses and to 
align ourselves with the forces of freedom and democracy. In addition 
to ending the Jackson-Vanik waiver, the State Department should 
designate Turkmenistan a ``Country of Particular Concern'' under the 
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. The regime's well-
documented record of ``particularly severe violations of religious 
freedom'' unquestionably meets the statutory threshold envisioned when 
we passed the Act of ``systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of 
religious freedom.''
  The United States and the international community must condemn the 
actions of Niyazov's regime and continue working to bring Turkmenistan 
back towards civilized and democratic norms. Any other approach betrays 
our own principles.

                          ____________________