Events of 1993

Human Rights Developments

Patterns of abuse similar to those of the former communist regime and leveled at individuals critical of the government continued unabated in Turkmenistan during 1993. With its wealth of natural resources and small population, Turkmenistan was poised to become one of the wealthiest of the former Soviet republics. It boasted of stability to foreign investors when, in fact, such stability was maintained by a one-party system that restricted and punished critical voices in the media and alternative political circles with impunity.

The number of individuals openly critical of the government had dwindled from thousands in the late 1980s to several dozen in 1993, in large part due to persecution by law enforcement authorities. During the year government officials detained and interrogated dissenters, frequently without bringing charges; denied them the right to travel abroad; dismissed them, their relatives and associates from their places of work; stripped them of union membership; and maintained surveillance of them and their families.

Helsinki Watch was aware of one likely prisoner of conscience in Turkmenistan: Karadzha Karadzhaev, an accountant who had supported publication of an independent magazine, Daianch. He was arrested on August 12, reportedly on charges of embezzlement and slander. He remained incarcerated as of November although the charges against him did not warrant physical restraint, and he had not been afforded legal counsel of his choice, in violation of his rights under international law.

The ruling Democratic Party (formerly the Communist Party) was the only legal party in Turkmenistan. The government had consistently denied applications for registration submitted by the popular movement Agzybirlik (Unity), for example, a group which had been highly critical of President Saparmurad Niyazov, and had hounded its members. A provision in the1992 constitution banned ethnically and religiously based political parties, a clause which was invoked arbitrarily in some cases.

The Turkmenistan government detained dissidents during 1993 to prevent them from meeting with visiting foreign dignitaries. On April 20, several individuals who were thought to be on their way to a meeting with representatives of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) were rounded up by local law enforcement officials, interrogated and held without charges until the delegation left. The harassment was repeated on August 18 in connection with a scheduled meeting with U.S. Cong. Robert Torricelli: seven were detained for questioning before and after a meeting with the congressman at the home of a U.S. Embassy staff member.

Turkmenistan's four million residents were denied free access to information because of heavy censorship. Newspapers and television and radio stations tended to ran virtually identical stories, consisting almost exclusively of government statements; the stories expressed a uniformly positive attitude toward the state. Local correspondents for Radio Liberty, the U.S.-sponsored radio station that frequently broadcast critical opinions, reported being harassed and prevented from leaving the country. President Niyazov publicly stated in September that censorship would not be lifted.

The Right to Monitor

Although several individuals were active in human rights monitoring and at least one was affiliated with the Central Asian Human Rights Society, which is based abroad, there continued to be no formal independent human rights groups in Turkmenistan.

There was a slight improvement in the ability of foreigners to monitor human rights in Turkmenistan as compared with conditions in October 1992 when the government deported two representatives of Amnesty International, using improperly processed visas as an excuse. By contrast, Helsinki Watch representatives who visited in April 1993 were hosted officially by the Turkmenistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which largely kept its promise that no one with whom the delegation met would be harassed. However, during the Helsinki Watch visit, several of the individuals with whom we met were followed, and at least one reported having his telephone line cut during the period of our stay, preventing him from making contact with us. When a delegation from the CSCE, which is responsible for maintaining compliance with the human rights provisions of the CSCE documents, visited Turkmenistan in April, several local dissidents were detained by law enforcement officials and prevented from attending the scheduled meeting.

U.S. Policy

The State Department repeatedly protested human rights abuses in Turkmenistan. It issued numerous written protests, and reportedly raised human rights concerns at meetings with President Niyazov. Ambassador Joseph S. Hulings III reportedly advised top U.S. officials not to meet with President Niyazov, citing human rights grounds. In one particularly strong statement, Ambassador-at-Large Strobe Talbott declared in September that Washington would not provide economic aid if Turkmenistan did not enact democratic reforms. In at least one case (when the Turkmenistan government was proposing an educational exchange that discriminated on the basis of gender), protests from the U.S. side reversed the Turkmenistan government's practices.

The Clinton administration became particularly engaged in protesting violations when incidents affected U.S. diplomats. In the wake of Congressman Torricelli's ill-fated August visit to Turkmenistan, Ambassador Talbott refused to sign a bilateral assistance treat, to signify U.S. protest of the treatment of those detained in connection with Congressman Torricelli's visit. The gesture was more ceremonial than real, however, because the treaty – which provided a certainamount of protection for American organizations operating in Turkmenistan – had no monetary value.

The force of verbal protests was undermined, moreover, by the administration's lack of will to condition economic development aid on an improved human rights record. There was no evidence, for example, that the U.S. government had invoked the human rights provisions of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) agreement, signed in 1992, despite Turkmenistan's failure to comply with those provisions. In addition, on March 23 the U.S. signed a trade agreement preliminary to ratification of Most Favored Nation (MFN) status, but State Department officials later expressed to Helsinki Watch serious ambivalence about MFN on human rights grounds.

The U.S. government's reprimands, although necessary, did not in themselves carry sufficient weight to prevent Turkmenistan law enforcement officials from harassing dissidents with impunity. The Turkmenistan government's blatant disregard for the U.S. government's censure of its human rights practices called for stronger action from the U.S.

The Work of Helsinki Watch

Helsinki Watch sent its first fact-finding mission to Turkmenistan in April 1993 to learn about the government's human rights policies and to make personal contact with government officials and victims of human rights abuses. Subsequently, Helsinki Watch launched a campaign to criticize publicly violations of civil and political rights, issuing an article and a comprehensive report on human rights abuses.

Helsinki Watch also wrote to President Niyazov protesting the detention of the individuals who were invited to meet with Congressman Torricelli in August, and inquiring about the progress of investigations into the suspicious deaths of two leading opposition figures in 1991. In October Helsinki Watch raised concerns in a letter to the procurator general about the probably illegal imprisonment of dissident Karaja Karajaev and the continuing denial of his access to legal counsel in detention.

This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.