DATE=2/26/2000
TYPE=ON THE LINE
TITLE=ON THE LINE: HUMAN RIGHTS IN UZBEKISTAN
NUMBER=1-00825
EDITOR=OFFICE OF POLICY - 619-0037
CONTENT=
THEME: UP, HOLD UNDER AND FADE
Anncr: On the Line - a discussion of United
States policy and contemporary issues. This week,
"Human Rights in Uzbekistan." Here is your host,
Robert Reilly.
Host: Hello and welcome to On the Line. Since
achieving independence in 1991, the former Soviet
republics of Central Asia have made little
progress toward democracy. In Uzbekistan, rigged
presidential elections in January gave the
incumbent, Islam Karimov, nearly ninety-two
percent of the vote. His only opponent admitted to
voting for him. The Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe did not send observers to
the elections, saying that they offered no genuine
choice. Mr. Karimov's rule has perpetuated human
rights abuses, the abolition of political parties,
tight censorship on the press, and restrictions on
religion.
Joining me today to discuss human rights in
Uzbekistan are two experts. Bennett Freeman is
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor. He recently returned from
a trip to Central Asia. And Paul Goble is
communications director for Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty and an expert on the
nationalities of the former Soviet Union. Welcome
to the program.
Host: Mr. Freeman, could you give us a quick
summation of where you went and what your
principal observations were, and what were the
main concerns of U.S. policy that you were
expressing to these governments in Central Asia?
Freeman: I traveled in early February to four
countries: to Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Uzbekistan,
and Turkmenistan. And my goal was to reinforce the
focus in American policy towards each one of these
states on issues concerning democracy, human
rights and religious freedom. The United States
has important security and economic interests in
Central Asia, but we also care tremendously about
positive movement towards more democracy and
greater respect for human rights and religious
freedom. And I had the chance to meet with senior
government officials in Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan, and
in Turkmenistan. I also had the opportunity in my
very brief stop in Almaty, Kazakhstan, to meet
with a wide range of civil society groups, non-
governmental organizations. I also met with a
number of N-G-Os, women's groups,
environmentalists, human rights defenders in
particular. I met with a number of those
individuals doing that kind of work, as well in
both Kyrgystan and in Uzbekistan. In my ten days
or so in the region, I got a pretty good feel for
both current progress and current problems as
well, particularly on the human rights and
religious freedom side. Perhaps the main focus of
my trip was on Uzbekistan, where I met for many,
many hours with senior government officials,
including the foreign minister and deputy foreign
minister, to raise a series of very specific human
rights issues, such as prison conditions, access
to prisons for international observers, release of
political prisoners, religious freedom and others.
Host: Paul Goble, how realistic are concerns
about human rights and democracy in central Asia?
This is not an area of the world that has ever
experienced democratic government.
Goble: Well, that's true of a large part of the
world, and the values of democracy and the values
of human rights are worth promoting wherever
possible. I think we have to be somewhat
pessimistic about the chances of achieving great
things in a short period of time. But there's been
enormous progress in a variety of places, even the
most repressive places. One thing that has
happened and is very important -- and it happened
in the Soviet Union as well -- is that
governments, even as they repress people, are in
the business of articulating what they are doing
in democratic ways. Their acceptance of the use
this terminology gives some hope that things will
move forward. But there's a deeper problem in
Central Asia which I think we have to focus on,
and that is the question of how you change
historically Islamic societies that had much of
the content of Islam drained out by the Soviet
occupation for seventy-four years. These people
are not sure of who they are. They do not have
the tradition of a civic space, of a space between
government and the church that we think of as the
norm in the West. How that will be filled is
something we've got to be concerned about. How we
will create the basis for a civil society where
the pre-conditions for a civil society don't
appear to exist.
Host: Well, let's go back to Uzbekistan because I
know that was a special focus of yours and the
fact that the chairman of the Helsinki Commission,
[Congressman] Christopher Smith, makes the
statement that, of all of the former Soviet
Republics, Uzbekistan is one of the most
repressive. Uzbekistan, in its own defense, will
say that we have to have a very tight
authoritarian regime because there is an incipient
radical Islamic movement, which, if it succeeds,
will for sure preclude the possibility of
democratic development. Do you give credence to
that defense, or are they using that as an excuse
to exclude political opposition?
Freeman: Really, both. On the one hand, we do
give very serious credence to the very real
security threat that is faced by Uzbekistan.
Host: How would you describe that security
threat?
Goble: That security threat emanates in part
from outside Uzbekistan's borders to the south.
It's no secret that Afghanistan, for example, has
been a source of great instability in the region
for a number of years.
Host: The Taliban?
Goble: The Taliban, but what is really of greater
concern to the Uzbek government is the Islamic
extremism which they feel has manifested itself in
the terrorist attacks. For example, a year ago,
there were terrorist bombings right in the center
of Tashkent [the capital], and that has
justifiably alarmed the government of Uzbekistan.
On the other hand, it's our view that, in the name
of combating terrorism, the Uzbek government has
gone too far, particularly in terms of cracking
down on Muslims who are simply displaying their
religious faith by certain types of dress, wearing
beards, and certain other behaviors, which, on the
face of it, should not denote that they are
extremists, let alone terrorists.
Host: In fact, Paul Goble, the Keston Institute's
director, Lawrence Uzzell, came out and said that
the religion law in Uzbekistan, passed in 1998, is
the single most repressive law against religion in
the former Soviet Union.
Goble: I think that's terribly fair,
unfortunately.
Host: Can you tell us what makes it so?
Goble: It forces religious groups to get
registration. It restricts their operation even
when they have registration. It is openly
discriminatory to non-Sunni, officialized Islam.
It maintains, in many ways, the Soviet-era
administration of Islam. Islam doesn't have a
hierarchy. So it imposes a secular state
structure on Islam, and all of this has the effect
of driving those Muslims who want to recover their
faith into what some call the non-mosque or
underground Islam trend. Many political
opposition figures in Uzbekistan do not believe
that Muslims were responsible for the explosions
in Tashkent a year ago. Many of them are
absolutely convinced that the government staged
this to justify repression. And Uzbekistan has
another problem. You've pointed out quite
correctly about the danger from the south. It's
more dangerous for Uzbekistan than one might
think. The borders of Uzbekistan, which were
drawn by Stalin, leave a large number of people
who think they're Tajiks inside the borders of
Uzbekistan. The political difficulties in
Tajikistan over the last decade have spread
through that community into about a third of the
territory of Uzbekistan. The Uzbeks feel very
threatened about that. They're very concerned.
But they have, instead of trying to address the
problems of their society by opening up, by
including people in a political process, they've
justified repression in the name of security. And
it is an extremely helpful sign that the U.S.
government is now pushing them very hard to
reverse that course.
Host: Bennett Freeman, what reaction do you get
when you make those representations to the Uzbek
government?
Freeman: I am impressed with the willingness of
the Uzbek government to engage very seriously with
me and my colleagues, particularly our ambassador
in Tashkent. The Uzbek government's diplomats are
very serious and very focused. And we had a number
of great hours of substantive discussion.
Host: Have they said anything, for instance,
about the religion law, because I believe the
United States has said, this is something -- it's
not just the United States, it's the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe that says
this is out of bounds.
Freeman: That's exactly right. And to its credit,
the government of Uzbekistan is now about to hold
a round table, what they call a round table --
really an open discussion group on the 1998
religious law that Paul characterized quite
accurately in terms of its grave shortcomings. And
we are looking to this round table to be a forum
for open discussion, open criticism of the
specific provisions of the law. We're hoping that
this discussion will be an inclusive one, that all
issues concerning the law and its implementation
will be on the table. And we're also looking to
the government of Uzbekistan to take seriously
whatever recommendations are put forward.
Host: Now, President Karimov has also made a
purported opening on the political level saying,
opposition leaders, please return to Uzbekistan,
you're welcome to return home. One of those
leaders, who had been the presidential candidate
the election before last, Solih?
Freeman: Yes, Mohammad Solih [chairman of the
banned Erk Democratic Party of Uzbekistan].
Host: He broadcast from Iran that he was not such
a fool as to accept such an invitation until
certain conditions were met inside of Uzbekistan.
What would they be required to do, Paul Goble,
even as a member of O-S-C-E, to meet the minimal
requirements [and] insure that there is some sort
of safety for the political opposition?
Goble: Well, I think there are a number of things
they have to do. First off, there has to be
enough transparency and independence of the court
system so that someone could reasonably expect
that officials would not act against them.
Host: Is there any independence of the court
system?
Goble: Not any in political cases. In terms of
some criminal cases, there is some, or so it
appears. But the fact is that one of the reasons
that President Karimov wants people to go home is
so that they don't talk about Uzbekistan in the
West. He doesn't want the propaganda against him
that many of these people are carrying out. And I
do not use propaganda pejoratively, but just
simply telling what's going on. If they go home,
very few people in the West will pay any
attention.
Host: And what are they saying is going on?
Goble: They're saying that this is an extremely
repressive society, that people are at risk, that
political opposition has been compromised or
destroyed, [and] that Islam is being attacked.
All of those things work against Uzbekistan.
Getting those people to come home will reduce the
number of such stories. Second, if they're in
Uzbekistan, whatever the Uzbek government says,
whatever the constitution appears to allow, they
are not going to have the kind of attention from
the West that they have when they're in Western
countries. They aren't. There are not a lot of
foreign journalists in Tashkent. There's some
embassy presence of various Western countries, but
it's not so large that people can count on being
protected, looking to that for protection. So I
don't think very many of the opposition are going
to return anytime soon. I think they believe that
the struggle for democracy, human rights and
freedom in Uzbekistan is a very long-term thing,
and that they can do more good now staying in the
West and lodging their criticisms in the press and
with Western governments, than they could ever do,
even if they were to remain at-large, as it were,
in Tashkent.
Host: Let me ask Bennett Freeman this question.
The response from certain Uzbek officials is:
that's right, we're not really a democracy.
They're fairly candid about that. But they will
say, however, that the people of Uzbekistan are
freer now than they have ever been in their
history. Do you agree with that? And number two,
if this is a regime as repressive as Paul Goble
says, what kind of space is there for these civic
associations that you are encouraging to grow?
Freeman: They are freer now than they have been,
I think, only though in two respects -- at least
in terms of freer now than they've been in the
twentieth century. The first respect is in terms
of this civic space that Paul speaks of. The
degree of openness that civic groups, human rights
groups, women's groups, environmental or other
groups could operate.
Host: But not political groups?
Freeman: Not straight political groups, [but the
others] could operate [with a degree of openness
that] is far greater than anything during the
whole Soviet period. Also, I think it's important
to point out that despite all of the pressure on
religious freedom, particularly on Muslims, and to
a much lesser extent on Christians in Uzbekistan,
it needs to be remembered that religious life was
almost snuffed out during the almost seven decades
of Soviet rule. And there has been a rebirth of
religious observance in the country, despite all
the problems, all the pressure. Having said that,
what is really important, we believe, is that more
space be opened for this civic space to widen, for
there to be more oxygen, if you will, in the
system and for not just the human rights defenders
to go about their business, as critical as that is
and others, but also the political groups you've
mentioned. And we believe that this is a time now,
right now, in the wake of President Karimov's
overwhelming re-election victory, to open up the
political as well as civic space and to have a
reasonable dialogue with the exiled political
leaders about realistic conditions under which
they can and should return and operate freely and
safely. We would like to see movement in this
direction very soon.
Host: Let me just ask one other question that we
have time to answer and that is: you both have
talked about the opposition in neighboring states,
whether in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, or even
Afghanistan. Some of that opposition is armed.
And there are concerns with neighboring countries,
including Kazakhstan, that the Uzbekistan
government is getting a little too aggressive at
the border areas.
Goble: Absolutely.
Host: Could you address that Paul Goble?
Goble: Some of the people who are armed seem to
be working as agents of the Uzbek government, in
Kyrgyzstan certainly. And the Uzbek government
itself has sponsored shifting the border with
Kazakhstan some tens of kilometers beyond what
people think the border should be.
Host: Just unilaterally moving it?
Goble: Unilaterally. And there are talks going
on in Tashkent right now between the Kazakhs and
the Uzbeks about delimitation of that border. The
borders in Central Asia were drawn by Stalin.
They were drawn to institutionalize ethnic
hostility. The maintenance of those borders is a
real problem. And you can understand that there is
going to be tension here, especially given the
opposition to even negotiated border changes. So
trying to sort this out is going to take a long
time. But I think it's terribly important to
underline that, however much we're concerned about
the security interests of these countries,
security interests must not be allowed to trump
human rights issues.
Host: But some have said that, if these border
disputes get out of control, there's a potential
for a terrible Balkan kind of situation there. Is
that something that you addressed?
Freeman: It's something that my colleague, John
Beyrle, who is the deputy in charge of our
relations with the states of the former Soviet
Union, addressed in his discussions. It's of
great concern to the United States government that
these border disputes are looked at in a rational
and careful manner. I really focused on the
democracy and human rights and religious freedom
side of the ledger, and I could not agree more
with Paul's suggestion that those issues, those
interests of ours, remain front and center,
alongside the security and economic interests we
also have in the region.
Host: I'm afraid that's all the time we have
this week. I would like to thank our guests --
Bennett Freeman, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, and
Paul Goble from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty --
for joining me to discuss human rights in
Uzbekistan. This is Robert Reilly for On the Line.
Anncr: You've been listening to "On the Line" - a
discussion of United States policies and
contemporary issues. This is --------.
25-Feb-2000 14:26 PM EDT (25-Feb-2000 1926 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
