CRITERIA FOR U.S. ASSISTANCE
UNDER SECTION 498A(a) OF THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961
UZBEKISTAN
Section 201 of the FREEDOM Support Act amended Section 498A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require that the President "take into account not only relative need but also the extent to which that independent state is acting to:"
Section 498A(a)(1): "make significant progress toward, and is committed to the comprehensive implementation of, a democratic system based on principles of the rule of law, individual freedoms, and representative government determined by free and fair elections."
While Uzbekistan has expressed a commitment to the protection of individual freedoms, democracy and the rule of law, it has done little, if anything, to implement such protections. The Constitution of Uzbekistan provides for the separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. However, President Karimov and the centralized executive branch that serves his authoritarian regime dominate political life. The Government has not permitted the existence of a registered opposition party since 1993. Parliamentary and presidential elections held in December 1999 and January 2000, respectively, failed to meet Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) standards for being free, fair, transparent or accountable. On December 26, 2004 Uzbekistan held elections for the lower chamber of parliament. The OSCE chose to send only long-term observers, noting that legal and other conditions were not sufficient to provide for a free and fair election. In a press release issued the day after the election, the OSCE stated that "Although minor improvements since the 1999 elections were identified... the elections did fall significantly short of OSCE commitments and other international standards for democratic elections." No opposition parties were registered to participate in these elections, and none of the non-party affiliated candidates permitted to run represented opposition views. The OSCE statement noted that there appeared to be only "marginalized opportunities for genuine political competition."
Four opposition parties, Birlik, Erk, the Free Farmers Party, and the Party of Farmers and Entrepreneurs (PAPU) were able to operate more freely in 2002 and 2003 than they had been previously. Birlik convened national organizing congresses in 2003. PAPU also held its second organizing congress in August 2003. After some government interference, the opposition party Erk, which continues to insist that its 1991 registration remains valid, was able to hold a national congress in October 2003. Developments in 2004 marked an end to the brief improvements in the political climate for opposition parties. The laws that govern the conduct of parliamentary and presidential elections and the Law on Political Parties make it extremely difficult for opposition parties to develop, nominate candidates, and campaign. An amendment to the 1996 Law on Political Parties, published on February 18, 2004, increased the required number of signatures for party registration from 5,000 to 20,000, making it even more difficult for independent political parties to register. An amendment to the parliamentary election law increased the required number of members of a candidate's initiative group from 100 to 300, also making it more difficult for independent candidates to run. On March 1, 2004, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) rejected the registration papers of the Birlik; the MOJ's decision followed unsuccessful attempts by Birlik to register in September and November 2003. In June 2004, the Supreme Court upheld the MOJ's decision not to register Birlik. The party also faced renewed harassment, in contrast to 2003, when its members were able to hold regional and national congresses and to gather signatures without substantial interference. At the same time as Birlik received word of its registration denial, the MOJ informed the opposition Free Farmers Party that its application had also been rejected. Members of Erk and Birlik reported continued harassment throughout the year, as did some independent politicians associated with opposition groups. The Party of Agrarians and Entrepreneurs became largely inactive after its application was rejected. No opposition candidates were allowed to register for the December 2004 parliamentary elections. Following the May, 2005 events in Andijon, political opposition has come under even closer scrutiny, with several activists being harassed and detained by the government.
In May 2002, the Government removed the requirement that the press seek the approval of the office of the censor to publish articles. While prior censorship has been abolished, self-censorship is still practiced and most editors and journalists continue to express concerns about potential consequences of conducting serious investigative journalism. Particularly since May 2005, the few remaining independent journalists have faced intense harassment and attack, with many fleeing abroad. In August, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) Namangan reporter Nosir Zakir was sentenced to six months in prison. RFE/RL and the Voice of America are not permitted to broadcast from within the country, despite the Government's 1992 contractual agreement to allow this activity. In June 2005, BBC World Service correspondent Monica Whitlock was expelled from the country, and in October the BBC World Service announced a six-month suspension of its Tashkent office, due to harassment of its staff. Limited numbers of foreign periodicals can be found in Tashkent, and authorized groups can obtain foreign periodicals through subscription. There are no private publishing houses, and government approval is required for all publications.
A mass media law, which came into effect in January 1998, guarantees freedom of expression, protects the rights of journalists and reiterates the ban on censorship. Nonetheless, several articles of the law are worded in such a way that they could be used to punish government critics. One provision makes journalists responsible for the truth of the information contained in their news stories, potentially subjecting journalists to prosecution if a government official disagrees with a news report. Another permits authorities to close media outlets without a court judgment. Finally, the law prohibits registration of organizations whose purposes include subverting or overthrowing the constitutional order. On November 21, the government issued a presidential decree to strengthen media in the country. In reality, this decree further strengthens the government's control over the media through consolidation and nationalization.
Section 498A(a)(2): "make significant progress in, and is committed to the comprehensive implementation of, economic reform based on market principles, private ownership, and integration into the world economy, including implementation of the legal and policy frameworks necessary for such reform (including protection of intellectual property and respect for contracts)."
Since Uzbekistan became independent in September 1991, only limited progress has been made in the transition to a market economy. The Uzbek authorities have pursued an economic strategy based on import-substitution and extensive state control over the economy. In early 2003, Uzbekistan effectively closed its borders to the shuttle traders bringing in goods from Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. This step severely restricted people's access to foreign goods and has caused macroeconomic stagnation and a decline in real purchasing power, in addition to impeding regional economic integration. In 2005, the government reopened several border posts, including at Kara Suv in the Fergana Valley to trade. However, the Government of Uzbekistan continues to closely monitor and tax imports.
On October 15, 2003, Uzbekistan made the soum convertible for current account transactions and removed all remaining exchange restrictions and multiple currency practices. The exchange system liberalization was an important step in the right direction, but trade restrictions remained in place, sharply reducing the demand for foreign currency and thereby severely limiting the potential economic impact of the reform. Though imports grew in 2005, growth was much slower than that of exports due to pervasive trade restrictions and slowed economic activity. The first nine months of 2005, the country was plagued by created cash shortages resulting from an overly tight monetary policy. This shortage, as well as government wage and pension arrears, depressed economic activity. During the last three months of 2005, the government began to restrict current account convertibility, which led to an increase in the black market exchange rate. The Central Bank was at least two months behind on currency requests for imports at the close of 2005.
Major weaknesses in economic data caused by technical deficiencies in data compilation and political interference hinder the analysis of economic developments in Uzbekistan. Official figures often do not track with actual movement in the economy. 2004 official figures report inflation at 3.2 percent. Actual inflation, as tracked by international financial institutions, stood at closer to 15 percent. Though official inflation numbers have yet to be released for 2005, they are expected to be near eight percent. Actual inflation, however, is closer to 20 percent for 2005. For both 2004 and 2005, official GDP growth is listed at over seven percent. Many economists report actual GDP growth to be between two and four percent.
Business confidence is low and has discouraged re-investment of earnings and new investment. Corruption remains widespread. Large-scale privatizations are not taking place. In fact, in early 2005, Uzbek authorities announced a plan to re-nationalize wheat processing enterprises. Much remains to be done to improve the business climate and achieve the Government's objective of creating a market economy. Uzbekistan's large balance of payments surplus (in this case, a sign of a moribund economy) and comfortable external reserves position provide ample room for taking decisive steps to liberalize the trade regime, including the re-opening of borders with neighboring countries, and to introduce other reforms.
Uzbekistan is a member of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). In 1998, it submitted its Memorandum of Foreign Trade Regime to the World Trade Organization (WTO) secretariat. In 2005, the GOU submitted offers on goods and services, as well as its legislative plan, to the WTO. These documents are currently under discussion. Under current economic policies, no stand-by arrangement with the IMF is possible.
The Government signed an OPIC agreement in October 1992. A bilateral trade agreement (BTA) with the United States that includes intellectual property rights provisions entered into force in January 1994. However, Uzbekistan remained on the U.S. Special 301 "Watch List" in 2005 due to failure to remedy deficiencies in its intellectual property rights and shortcomings in enforcement of existing laws. Uzbekistan has yet to accede to any [SK comment: Uzbekistan is a member of Paris and Berne. Therefore it is not accurate to say that it has not acceded to ANY of the key WIPO treaties. This needs to be corrected] of the key World Intellectual Property Organization treaties, as required by the BTA. Uzbekistan has been determined to be compliant with the freedom of emigration provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment for Normal Trade Relations (subject to a semi-annual reporting requirement on its continued compliance with these provisions). The Senate gave advice and consent to ratification of the U.S.-Uzbekistan Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) in October 2000, but raised concerns about the investment climate. The Administration gave assurances to the Senate at that time that entry into force would not be initiated until the investment climate improved. The Administration is in the process of evaluating the current investment climate in Uzbekistan. Preliminary discussions on a treaty to avoid double taxation began in 1993, but major tax reform in Uzbekistan continues to be necessary before negotiations can move forward. Uzbekistan enthusiastically joined its Central Asian neighbors in signing a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) with the United States in 2004 to start a forum where the states could discuss impediments to trade and possible liberalization steps.
Section 498A(a)(3): "respect internationally recognized human rights, including the rights of minorities and the rights to freedom of religion and emigration."
The Government's human rights record, already very poor, worsened considerably following the violent events at Andijon in May 2005. While the Government took some important steps to address torture and to establish police accountability in 2004, it made no further progress on those reforms in 2005. It made no progress on democratic reform and placed further restrictions on the activities of nongovernmental organizations and the press. The 1992 law on citizenship and the constitution prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, language, or social status, and officially sanctioned discrimination does not occur. The election, religion and media laws all contain statements of principle that, if adhered to in practice, would substantially improve the Government's human rights record.
Uzbek authorities continued to commit numerous serious abuses, such as torture of detainees. Arbitrary arrests and detentions of those suspected of being security threats are common. (Abuses such as these are detailed in the 2005 Human Rights Country Reports for Uzbekistan.) Although police and security service personnel continue in many cases to act with impunity, in 2003 and 2004 the government began to take serious steps to hold those guilty of abuse to account. In August 2003, Parliament revised its law on torture, making more explicit the types of crimes covered and the penalties that would ensue. A December 2003 Supreme Court Decree further clarified the law, explicitly adopting the definition of torture provided in the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. According to official sources 57 officers were convicted of abuse of authority, several for torture, in 2003. Figures for 2004 and 2005 are not available. The Supreme Court also passed resolutions in late 2003 and 2004 establishing that suspects have a right to an attorney from the moment of detention and barring evidence and testimony gained through coercion, though these rights are not always upheld. In 2004 and 2005, the Government allowed independent international investigations of deaths in custody. In May 13, 2005, the Government used deadly force to suppress a large demonstration in the city of Andijon. This protest followed the May 12-13 storming of the city prison, and release of prison inmates by unknown armed persons. Several eyewitnesses reported indiscriminate shooting of unarmed protestors by Government forces. Following the violence, the Government repeatedly refused to allow an independent international investigation of the events. During the Government's investigation, authorities arrested dozens of suspects, including human rights activists and journalists. Some of those arrested were held incommunicado without access to legal assistance.
Uzbekistan's citizens are still prevented from exercising their right to change their Government peacefully. Freedom of expression remains severely constrained. The expression of religious beliefs is still limited by a restrictive law on religion. The government uses the justification of anti-terrorism as a means to expand the powers of the law enforcement community and thus infringe upon activities of various individuals and groups, specifically Hizb ut-Tahrir, an extremist Islamic group which seeks to replace secular states with a borderless, theocratic, worldwide Caliphate.
Uzbekistan's constitution provides for an independent judiciary. However, the judicial branch takes its direction from the executive branch and has little independence in practice. As a result, trials often amount to little more than a confirmation of the prosecutor's original indictment. There continued to be reports that investigators, prosecutors, and judges relied on planted evidence and coerced statements.
The Government of Uzbekistan has made it difficult for non-governmental organizations working in the field of democratization or civil society to effectively continue their work. Responsibility for registration of international NGOs was transferred from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Ministry of Justice in early 2004. During that year, the Institute for War and Peace Reporting and the Open Society Institute were denied registration and the opportunity to continue working in Uzbekistan. In 2005, an Uzbek court ordered Internews Network closed. As part of the process, two local Internews employees were convicted of criminal charges. They were later amnestied. In September, 2005, the GOU suspended International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX) activities for six months. The Ministry of Justice also recommended that criminal charges be brought against the organization. The ensuing government investigation is ongoing. Other international NGOs have been officially warned that their activities, in particular work with unregistered political parties, could lead to the revocation of their registration. Decrees passed by the Cabinet of Ministers prevented many domestic NGOs active in human rights and political reform from receiving outside support and impeded the operations of women's rights NGOs. In 2005, government pressure forced over 200 local NGOs to close. Some NGOs, such as the Open Dialogue Project of Eastern Kentucky University, continue to encourage dialogue between human rights activists and parts of the Government.
An intensive and continuing dialogue concerning between the U.S. government and Uzbek government officials concerning the need to address human rights abuses has achieved some important, but limited results. Officials from the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD), Office of Forensic Pathology, General Procuracy, and Supreme Court have, for example, taken steps to adopt a common protocol for investigating custodial deaths. However, following events in Andijon, the Government has become more insular.
The Government of Uzbekistan has begun to implement some of the recommendations from the 2004 report of the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment orpunishment. Important work in limiting the use of torture has occurred at the level of individual Ministries of the Government of Uzbekistan, particularly the MVD's Investigations and Prisons Directorates. In March 2004, the Chief of the MVD's Investigations Directorate issued an order requiring all police chiefs under his jurisdiction to begin a dialogue with local human rights workers. The Directorate has also worked to improve access to defense counsel. In cooperation with foreign diplomatic missions and the American Bar Association's Central and Eastern European Law Initiative (ABA/CEELI), the MVD also took steps to distribute pamphlets explaining suspects' rights under detention. The MVD's Prison Directorate clarified procedures for allowing independent monitoring of its prisons and invited local human rights groups, in cooperation with the OSCE and Freedom House, to form monitoring groups. The Prison Directorate also demonstrated a willingness to listen to complaints from families of inmates and from human rights activists. However, in 2005, and particularly following the Andijon events, there was no further report of progress by the Government on these initiatives. Anecdotal evidence suggested that the incidence of torture in prisons and other places of detention still occurred frequently. In 2005, unlike in previous years, the Government denied all access by the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) to places of detention.
Prisoners continue to report poor conditions, abuses, and particularly harsh treatment of those suspected of extremism. These reports include beatings, torture, and restrictions on freedom of religion, such as not being allowed to pray or possess a Koran. In 2004, there were reports of limited improvements in some prisons, particularly Tavok-Soi Prison in Tashkent Region and Korgan Prison in Bukhara. However, in 2005, there were no reports on conditions in those prisons. Conditions reportedly remain notably poor in prisons in Navoi and Karshi; however, conditions in Jaslyk Prison, long regarded as Uzbekistan's worst, have reportedly improved somewhat, largely as a result of visits from foreign observers. In 2004, it was reported that, as a part of a series of prison restructuring initiatives, the Government created a new category of facility in which prisoners are allowed to live near their families and to work outside the camp during the day. The Government reserves these facilities, called "settlement colonies," for first-time offenders convicted of non-violent offenses.
In 2005, there was at least one credible report, in September, of a death in custody as a result of torture. Negligence on the part of police and security forces likely resulted in the deaths of at least one other citizen in January. The Government invited international forensics experts to observe its investigations of the January death in custody case. International experts had also observed a May 2004 death in custody investigation at the behest of the Government. In both cases, the experts concurred with government experts that these deaths were not the result of torture. Local human rights activists were allowed to observe the official inquiry into another 2004 death in custody. The activists concurred with the official finding that the inmate had not been tortured; however, there were found to be serious procedural violations, including denying him access to an attorney and holding him as a witness rather than as a suspect. As a result of the investigation, the MVD disciplined several police officials, including the district police chief, who was dismissed from his post. According to information from the General Procuracy, the local investigator responsible for the individual's detention has been charged with criminal negligence. In April 2004, a court sentenced the post inspector charged with overseeing the custody of another inmate who hanged himself in custody in December 2003 to a three-year prison sentence for official negligence.
Based on limited and dated information from the GOU, post believes that between 5,000 and 5,500 political prisoners remain imprisoned. In late 2002 and early 2003, the Government of Uzbekistan released 923 political prisoners as part of a broader amnesty of 5000 prisoners. In late 2003 and early 2004, 705 political prisoners were released. President Karimov announced an amnesty for 2004-2005, but the Government has not provided information as to how many political prisoners were released as a result. The requests by the Embassy in Tashkent for information on those amnestied and newly convicted have gone unanswered. Despite Government claims to the contrary, the ICRC has been unable to visit prisons to verify this information.
In 2002 and 2003, the Government of Uzbekistan registered two local human rights groups. Since then, other groups have faced problems registering. Human rights activists across the country have faced intense government pressure in the months following the Andijon events. Activists are monitored and followed by police, arbitrarily arrested, detained, threatened with arrest and prosecution, evicted form their homes, and in one case, subjected to forced psychiatric treatment. Several were victims of physical attacks and beatings by unidentified assailants. Despite these obstacles, several human rights groups continue to function. Opposition parties have not been registered, and none were allowed to participate in the December 2004 parliamentary elections.
The Constitution provides for freedom of religion and for the principle of separation of church and state; however, in practice the Government restricted this right for many groups by enforcing a law on religion that prohibits or severely restricts activities such as proselytizing, importing and disseminating religious literature, and offering private religious instruction and worship by unregistered religious groups. Uzbekistan's 1998 Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations includes restrictive requirements for registration, which make it extremely difficult for many religious groups to function. Private teaching of religion is outlawed. The government also limits the ability of Muslims to practice their religion outside the state-sponsored Islamic system, administered by the Muftiate. The Government continued its harsh campaign against unauthorized Islamic groups it suspected of extremist sentiments or activities, particularly observant Muslims who wear beards and are accustomed to public prayer, but unofficial mosques that had once been closed are now being re-opened in increasing numbers under the watchful eyes of the security services and approved imams. A number of minority religious groups, including congregations of a variety of Christian confessions, especially those with ethnic-Uzbek members, continued to have difficulty satisfying the strict registration requirements set out by the law; in several regions, congregations were "de-registered." Many of those congregations also reported harassment, including by government officials.
Intensive U.S. Government dialogue with Uzbekistan's leadership on the need to address human rights abuses has achieved some modest results, and despite its generally poor record, the Government of Uzbekistan responded favorably to U.S. engagement on some issues. However, in 2004, the Secretary of State refused to make the determination required to provide assistance from the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act to programs involving the central government of Uzbekistan because of a lack of progress by Uzbekistan in the area of democratization and respect for human rights. As a result of this decision, $8.5 million in Foreign Military Financing, International Military Education and Training, and Export Control and Border Security Assistance was reprogrammed from Uzbekistan to other countries; $2.4 million was reprogrammed from government assistance to non-government assistance programs within Uzbekistan; and appropriators approved the use of $7 million in assistance to the government for continuing counterterrorism training, counter-WMD training, anti-torture programs, and health programs. These programs remained on hold in 2005.
Though Uzbekistan has made public commitments to observe human rights, the follow-through on these commitments has been lacking. The Administration will continue to monitor Uzbekistan's observance of human rights commitments closely, and will continue to press the issue of human rights with the Government of Uzbekistan.
Section 498A(a)(4): "respect international law and obligations and adhere to the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Charter of Paris, including the obligations to refrain from the threat or use of force and to settle disputes peacefully."
Uzbekistan joined the OSCE in January 1992. An OSCE regional office opened in Tashkent in September 1995, and the OSCE has held numerous national or regional seminars in Uzbekistan on human rights and other subjects. In 2003, Tashkent hosted an OSCE training course for border guards and customs officials, which included Tajik as well as Afghan participants. A pilot training and monitoring program for prison staff was also begun in December 2003. The Government encouraged the OSCE to send monitors to its December 2004 parliamentary elections. The OSCE also sent monitors to observe the September-November 2005 trial of 15 persons accused in connection with the May 12-13 violent events in Andijon; the monitors received only limited cooperation form the Government.
In response to the summer 2000 incursions into Uzbek territory from the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan by militants of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Uzbek military laid anti-personnel mines in some border areas. Several dozen people have reportedly been killed or injured by these mines.
Section 498A(a)(5): "cooperate in seeking peaceful resolution of ethnic and regional conflicts."
The Government of Uzbekistan is a guarantor of the 1998 Tajik peace accords and has allowed UNHCR to repatriate Tajik refugees from northern Afghanistan through Uzbekistan. It has continued to support the Tajik peace accords while criticizing Tajikistan for harboring forces of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. On September 9, 2003, it concluded an agreement that completely delimited the border between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. It has held similar discussions with Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic. Uzbekistan has begun demining its borders with Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan and has sought international assistance to expand its efforts.
Section 498A(a)(6): "implement responsible security policies, including--
(A) adhering to arms control obligations derived from agreements signed by the former Soviet Union;
(B) reducing military forces and expenditures to a level consistent with legitimate defense requirements;
(C) not proliferating nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, their delivery systems, or related technologies; and
(D) restraining conventional weapons transfers."
The Government of Uzbekistan supports international efforts to eliminate nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and has consistently reiterated its acceptance of relevant arms control obligations of the Former Soviet Union. Uzbekistan became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as a non-nuclear-weapons state in May 1992. Its safeguard agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency entered into force on October 8, 1994, and it signed the Additional Protocol, which entered into force December 21, 1998. Uzbekistan also participated in both the 2000 and 2005 NPT Review Conferences. Additionally, Uzbekistan has acknowledged it is a successor to the former Soviet Union's obligations under the Intermediate and Shorter Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Although it does not actively participate in the Special Verification Commission, it continues to observe the Treaty's obligations. Uzbekistan also was an original subscribing state to the Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation, which was brought into effect on November 25, 2002.
We are not aware that the Government of Uzbekistan has engaged in the proliferation of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Uzbekistan is a State Party to the 1993 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (CWC). It has filed a declaration with the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Uzbekistan acceded to the 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (BWC), and has submitted annual voluntary BWC related CBM Data Declarations four out of the past seven years, including in 2004. To our knowledge, the Government of Uzbekistan has not engaged in any significant level of conventional arms transfers. It has taken steps to develop its own export control system, and it has positively engaged with U.S. cooperative programs to counter proliferation and develop export controls. Under the terms of the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) agreement with DOD of May 1999, the Uzbek Government worked alongside U.S. Defense Department experts to dismantle, remove and destroy the specialized equipment and infrastructure of the Soviet-era chemical weapons-associated facility in Nukus. As of May 2002, a CTR team completed its demilitarization project at Nukus. Under the 2001 Agreement on Cooperation in the Area of Demilitarization of Biological Weapons Associated Facilities and the Prevention of Proliferation of Biological Weapons Technology, the U.S. Defense Department and the Uzbek Ministry of Defense have decontaminated the test facility on Vozrozhdeniye Island, eliminated the infrastructure of the test facility, and are working to improve the security of dangerous pathogen collections stored at scientific institutes throughout Uzbekistan so as to prevent their possible proliferation. The Uzbek Government has twice in the past few years intercepted radioactive materials shipped through Uzbekistan from elsewhere in Central Asia. U.S.-Uzbek cooperation in the area of proliferation threat reduction is active and ongoing.
The Government of Uzbekistan has some 65,000 troops in its armed forces. The Government had previously allowed the basing of U.S. forces on its territory, in support of operations in Afghanistan. On July 29, 2005, the GOU gave notice to the United States government that, under the terms of the bilateral basing agreement, it was suspending the agreement giving access to the U.S. military to Karshi-Khanabad (K2) airbase. U.S. troops completed their withdrawal from the base November 21, 2005. At the end of 2005, Uzbekistan continued to grant the U.S over flight rights over its territory. Other coalition forces have been allowed to temporarily stage in Uzbekistan, but the GOU cancelled overflight permission for many NATO countries.
Uzbekistan has submitted Confidence- and Security-Building Measures (CSBM) annual data declarations for 1995-2003 as provided for in the OSCE convention. During the last several years Uzbekistan has repeatedly refused Vienna Document inspections, citing force majeure in a context that raised questions among other participating states.
Section 498A(a)(7): "take constructive actions to protect the international environment, prevent significant trans-border pollution, and promote sustainable use of natural resources."
Several agencies and committees of the Parliament deal with environmental and ecological issues. The Government, bilaterally and through regional organizations, has sought and used international assistance to deal with these issues. Uzbekistan and its neighbors continue to negotiate on problems of the Aral Sea watershed, although they struggle to find a mutually satisfactory mode for long-term cooperation. Current mechanisms for cooperation include work under organs of the International Fund for the Aral Sea (IFAS), and implementation of the 1998 multi-year agreement on water-and power-sharing among the four countries of the Syr Darya river basin (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Tajikistan).
The Uzbek Government has made some effort to increase public consciousness and understanding of environmental problems, although discussion of problems created by government policies is limited. Uzbekistan joined the other Central Asian states in supporting the establishment of a regional environmental center (CAREC) in Almaty, Kazakhstan, and in early 2002 signed an MOU with the CAREC to establish a branch office in Tashkent. This independent, non-profit, and non-political organization is working to strengthen civil society and support sustainable development and promotes public awareness and participation in regional environmental decision-making. In addition, Uzbekistan has signed and ratified many treaties and conventions on the environment and sustainable development. It has, for example, ratified the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, the Montreal Protocol on ozone depletion, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The Government of Uzbekistan recognizes that implementation of some of these agreements could be strengthened. The State Department is providing technical assistance to implement CITES, and consults regularly with the Government of Uzbekistan on implementation of other agreements.
Uzbekistan has suffered severe environmental damage, including from lingering agrochemical pollution, as a result of the cotton monoculture imposed during the Soviet era. The Government continues to rely on a state order system for cotton, grain, and rice. This forces farmers to grow set amounts of these crops, thus exacerbating water shortages, land degradation, and the inexorable decline of the Aral Sea.
Section 498A(a)(8): "deny support for acts of international terrorism."
The Government of Uzbekistan does not grant sanctuary from prosecution to individuals or groups that have committed acts of international terrorism or otherwise support international terrorism. Uzbekistan is a party to twelve UN counter-terrorism conventions, but it has not signed the recent International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. Uzbekistan actively works to increase international cooperation aimed at defeating terrorist organizations. The Government has been supportive of U.S.-led efforts to eradicate terrorism and to remove the Taliban and Al-Qaeda from power in Afghanistan. The Government provided the United States with access to an air force base at Karshi-Khanabad in support of Operation Enduring Freedom from 2001-2005. However, as detailed above, the Government of Uzbekistan in July 2005 unilaterally ended the basing agreement, although it has permitted the U.S. continued over flight of Uzbekistan territory to date.
Section 498A(a)(9): "accept responsibility for paying an equitable portion of the indebtedness to United States firms incurred by the former Soviet Union."
In October 1991, shortly before the Soviet Union dissolved, Russia and nine other Soviet republics, including Uzbekistan, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) declaring themselves jointly and severally liable for the foreign debts of the former Soviet Union (FSU). In December 1991, Russia and seven other former republics signed an agreement that assigned to each of the Newly Independent States a share of all the external assets and foreign debt of the former Soviet Union (FSU). Uzbekistan did not sign the December 1991 agreement.
Beginning in 1992, Russia sought to replace the joint and several liability principles by seeking full liability for the debt of the FSU in return for all the external assets of the FSU. In November 1992, Uzbekistan signed a "double-zero option" agreement with Russia under which Russia agreed to assume Uzbekistan's share of the foreign debt of the FSU in return for Uzbekistan's share of the FSU's external assets.
Please see section 498A(a)(9) of the Russia assessment regarding indebtedness to the United States incurred by the former Soviet Union.
Section 498A(a)(10): "cooperate with the United States Government in uncovering all evidence regarding Americans listed as prisoners-of-war, or otherwise missing during American operations, who were detained in the former Soviet Union during the Cold War."
The U.S. effort to uncover evidence of American POWs and MIAs in the former Soviet Union is being conducted through the U.S.-Russian Joint Commission on POWs/MIAs that was established in March 1992. The Government of Uzbekistan has been cooperative with all related interviews conducted in Uzbekistan and in February 1996 hosted a successful visit by the Commission.
Section 498A(a)(11): "terminate support for the communist regime in Cuba, including removal of troops, closing military and intelligence facilities, including the military and intelligence facilities at Lourdes and Cienfuegos, and ceasing trade subsidies and economic, nuclear, and other assistance."
We have no evidence that the Government of Uzbekistan is providing military, intelligence, economic, nuclear, or other assistance to the Government of Cuba.
CHECKLIST FOR GROUNDS OF INELIGIBILITY
UNDER SECTION 498A(b) OF THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961
UZBEKISTAN
Section 498A(b)(1): Has the President determined that the Government of Uzbekistan has "engaged in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights or of international law"?
No. The President has not made such a determination at this time. However, the U.S. Government remains concerned by the human rights situation in Uzbekistan. Lack of the freedoms of association, assembly, and press make real democracy impossible, while police planting of evidence, unfair trials, and torture raise serious concerns regarding the credibility of the system of justice in Uzbekistan. The law on religion continues to restrict freedom of conscience.
We will continue to monitor the Uzbekistan Government's human rights performance and maintain this issue as a key part of our bilateral relationship. We will also continue working to address Uzbekistan's human rights problems not only through our diplomatic efforts but also through our assistance programs.
Section 498A(b)(2): Has the President determined that the Government of Uzbekistan "has failed to take constructive actions to facilitate the effective implementation of applicable arms control obligations derived from agreements signed by the former Soviet Union"?
No. The President has not made such a determination at this time.
Section 498A(b)(3): Has the President determined that, after October 24, 1992, the Government of Uzbekistan "knowingly transferred to another country -
(A) missiles or missile technology inconsistent with the guidelines and parameters of the Missile Technology Control Regime; or
(B) any material, equipment, or technology that would contribute significantly to the ability of such country to manufacture any weapon of mass destruction (including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons) if the President determine[d] that the material, equipment, or technology was to be used by such country in the manufacture of such weapon"?
No. The President has not made such a determination at this time.
Section 498A(b)(4): Is the Government of Uzbekistan "prohibited from receiving such assistance by section 101 or 102 of the Arms Export Control Act or sections 306(a)(1) and 307 of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991?"
No. The Government of Uzbekistan is not prohibited from receiving assistance under these statutes.
Section 498A(b)(5): Has the President determined and certified to the appropriate congressional committees that the Government of Uzbekistan "is providing assistance for, or engaging in non-market-based trade (as defined in section 498B(k)(3)) with the Cuban Government? If so, has the President taken action to withhold assistance from Uzbekistan under the Foreign Assistance Act within 30 days of such a determination, or has Congress enacted legislation disapproving the determination within that 30-day period?"
No. The President has not determined that the Government of Uzbekistan is providing assistance for, or engaging in any non-market-based trade with, the Cuban Government.
