The Foreign Service Journal, April 2003

organizations; programs in civic advocacy, the judicial sector, and the rule of law; and political party develop- ment. The U.S. encouraged Central Asian regimes to cooperate with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and U.N. human rights bureaucracies. The U.S. also pressed for registration of opposition parties and improved treatment of prisoners, and made public and private appeals on behalf of specif- ic victims of brutality and repression. “Engagement” on Rights and Democracy While the invigorated U.S. democracy/human rights agenda appeared ambitious, its results have been disap- pointing. Echoing the foreboding from Congress and others a year earlier, respected human rights observers, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, are increasingly critical of the approach, seeing it as more form than substance. A Jan. 15, 2003, HRW report contends that the administration’s “rhetorical embrace of human rights has translated only inconsistently into U.S. policy” and that “the Bush Administration is fighting terrorism as if human rights were not a constraint. … [It] made repres- sive governments in the former Soviet Union allies in the global campaign against terrorism, without a consistent policy of checking their proclivity for human rights viola- tions. … The U.S. failed to take full advantage of many opportunities to use its influence with Central Asian gov- ernments.” While on occasion raising concerns diplo- matically, the report notes, “the U.S. did not make clear that there would be consequences for failure to make real improvements.” Indeed, a doubling of aid to the region in 2002 sent a contrary message. In a 2002 report, HRW had zeroed in on the military component of U.S. assistance, observing: “Modification in the U.S. foreign military policy assistance program makes it easier for known violators to acquire the tools of abuse, thus implicating the United States in that result.” More broadly, it noted, “the loosening of restrictions on military assistance sets a dangerous example for arms- exporting nations around the world.” Moreover, the great imbalance in resources available to the Defense Department and to the State Department led to an emphasis on security-related assistance relative to that available for human rights and democratic development. A December 2002 review by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reached a similar conclusion, describing human rights in Central Asia as “in decline.” The review stated: “U.S. officials have pledged to put human rights at the top of their Central Asian agendas. But if anything, closer relations with the West seem to have emboldened Central Asian leaders to continue a region-wide crackdown on human rights in the name of fighting terrorism and religious extremism.” That report concluded that because of “grim” conditions and a con- tinued isolation from the “democratic part of the world … there is growing distrust and anti-Western feelings in Central Asia.” That anti-Western mood contrasts sharply with the popular attitude of a decade earlier, when U.S. diplomat- ic pioneers were warmly welcomed by local populations hopeful that their arrival would usher in democratic reform. The RFE/RL report quotes Aaron Rhodes, executive director of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, as observing that “the United States and other Western countries have lost much of the moral authority they once enjoyed in Central Asia and elsewhere. … The danger of the situation is that, in the framework of this so-called war on terror, there is a sense of accepting the policies of repressive governments. And that puts the U.S. and its allies really on the wrong side of things.” The RFE/RL report concludes with an assessment of the costs of a strategy that deprioritizes democratic reform and human rights: “The growing frustration of the region’s peoples, combined with the authorities’ unwillingness to introduce reforms and to liberalize soci- ety, might prove a recipe for unrest rather than for true stability and prosperity.” Instability, in turn, will discour- age private investment, which the last three administra- tions have stressed are important to improving macro- economic conditions in the region. Deterioration Across the Board In Tajikistan, President Emomali Rahmonov’s one- party rule represses dissent, free media and peaceful Islamic religious activity. Regime authorities brutalize detainees, and Amnesty International notes that capital crime trials have been held in secret. In its 2003 annual report on Tajikistan, HRW observes that senior visitors from Washington “referred to Tajikistan’s new political F O C U S 28 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / A P R I L 2 0 0 3