McCain Addresses the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

MCCAIN ADDRESSES THE CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE

pork list pertaining to this legislation (pdf 28.4 KBs)

Washington D.C.. - Today, U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) addressed The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and delivered the following remarks entitled The Repression of Andijan- One Year Later :

Thank you, Ken, for that kind introduction. I'd like to express thanks to you and RFE/RL, and to the Carnegie Endowment for hosting this important conference. I'd also like to thank the National Endowment for Democracy, Human Rights Watch, and the other human rights groups who helped make this event possible.

One year has passed since the Government of Uzbekistan's brutal crackdown in the city of Andijan. On May 13, President Islam Karimov's security services fired on demonstrators after protestors stormed a prison and local government headquarters. The government still contends that less than 200 people were killed by the troops, all of them armed Islamic militants. Yet eyewitnesses, journalists, and independent groups told a darker, much different, story. They estimated the dead at somewhere between 500 and 1000, and said that the vast majority were unarmed men, women, and children protesting the government's corruption, lack of opportunity, and continued oppression. In addition to those killed, many others were wounded, and at least five hundred fled across the border into Kyrgyzstan.

In the wake of the massacre, I traveled to Tashkent with Senators Lindsey Graham and John Sununu. During our brief stop in that country, we saw photos and heard other evidence that was as compelling as it was shocking, and it was clear that the government's account of the events in Andijan simply did not add up. It was also apparent that the killings were just the most dramatic and violent example of government repression in Uzbekistan - but that they were in no way an isolated incident.

A year ago, there were no independent media or true opposition parties in Uzbekistan. The government's human rights record was appalling, and political rights were virtually unknown. Often in the name of battling Islamist terrorism, the government frequently rounded up those opposed to its rule, sometimes subjecting prisoners to torture.

Now, one year later, things have gotten even worse. Tashkent has categorically rejected calls by the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, and the OSCE to allow an independent, international investigation of the events at Andijan. Instead, it launched a brutal crackdown on peaceful dissent, arresting and torturing opposition and human rights activists, and staging show trials reminiscent of the Stalin era. The government has expelled from the country the Peace Corps, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the USAID-funded International Research and Exchanges Board, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, and numerous non-governmental organizations, including Freedom House and the Eurasia Foundation. And it has applied intense economic and political pressure on Kyrgyzstan and other Central Asian neighbors to return refugees fleeing political persecution.

In the wake of the Andjian massacre, there was much discussion of the "dilemma" that Uzbekistan supposedly posed to U.S. policymakers. The government there had provided genuine assistance to us in the war on terror, and was particularly helpful during the height of our operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan. But I argued one year ago that the regime had by then become part of the problem, not the solution. Its persecution of political dissent and suppression of religious freedom was fostering Islamic extremism, not blunting it. Its human rights record put at stake the credibility of the United States in Central Asia. And its brutal authoritarianism threatened stability, rather than ensuring it.

And so I argued that the question had become not whether to maintain our military relationship with Uzbekistan, but rather how far to scale it back, and how quickly. In the end, Uzbekistan answered this question for us. It expelled U.S. forces from the Karshi-Khanabad military base in southern Uzbekistan and unilaterally abrogated our 2002 agreement on counter-terrorism cooperation. Tashkent launched a campaign of anti-American propaganda after its massacre, staging rallies to denounce the United States, and accusing the U.S. of fomenting Islamist extremism in the guise of promoting democracy. President Karimov suggested that the U.S. was behind the "colored revolutions" in other countries, and the government even blamed the United States for Andijan, saying that rebels received money from our embassy in Tashkent. The evidence today is incontrovertible: Uzbekistan is no longer a country friendly to the America, nor is it a regional partner. Its government pursues policies profoundly contrary to our interests and our values.

In response to these outrageous actions, the United States should have acted to transform our relations with Uzbekistan. Instead, we hoped against hope that Karimov would change, or at least that he would remain friendly to us. The Department of Defense vigorously opposed an amendment that would stop a major, long-term military construction project at the K2 base in Uzbekistan. DOD maintained its opposition until the day that President Karimov unilaterally evicted our troops from the base and from the country. Even after our troops had been kicked out, the Pentagon announced its plans to transfer $23 million in "coalition support funds" to the Uzbek government. The Senate adopted legislation that would prohibit this payment until Tashkent had accepted an independent, international inquiry into the Andijan massacre. But later that week - and before the measure could be enacted into law - the Pentagon went forward and wired the $23 million cash payment. This act debased the very meaning of the term "coalition."

Uzbekistan is not part of our coalition, nor is it a partner of the United States, and our policy toward that country must recognize this reality. America has rightly put ever greater emphasis on the promotion of human rights abroad, and Andijan poses a clear test. Tashkent's actions are clearly inimical to our security interests, and they fly in the face of our efforts to promote freedom and democracy abroad. I believe that, as Americans, we cannot stand silent in face of such abuses as we have seen in Uzbekistan.

The European Union has not remained silent. Last October, the EU imposed sanctions, including an arms embargo on Uzbekistan and a ban on visas for officials responsible for the massacre. We should do at least as much.

That is why I am introducing today in the United States Senate the Andijan Accountability Act of 2006. This legislation would impose targeted sanctions against Uzbek officials who played a direct role in the repression of peaceful political dissent, and against those who provide substantial political and economic support for the present Uzbek leadership. These individuals would be subject to a visa ban and a ban on business dealings inside the United States or with U.S. persons.

Under this legislation, the U.S. President may terminate these sanctions once the Government of Uzbekistan formally accepts and begins cooperating with an independent, international inquiry into the massacre that took place one year ago.

I don't know if we can induce change in the current Uzbek government. But I do know that the world will expect us to distance the United States from this repressive government, a regime whose policies grow more draconian by the month. As Americans, we should expect no less of ourselves. History will remember the Andijan massacre of May 2005, and history will remember Uzbekistan's human rights abuses. It must also recall that America stands firmly and actively against them.

http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Newscenter.ViewSpeech&Content_id=1729