Seminar co-sponsored by the Norwegian Helsinki Committee and the Norwegian Institute on International Affairs (NUPI)

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am pleased to address this timely seminar. The tortuous relationship between the Central Asian states and the West has entered a new stage. This is largely, but not exclusively, attributable to 11 September and Central Asia’s increased importance from a security perspective in the aftermath of that terrible day.

There are at least two reasons for this. First, there is the geographical proximity to Afghanistan and the need to use the territory and air space of Central Asian states as a staging area for military and humanitarian operations in Afghanistan.

Second, there is the concern that - in the absence of sustained efforts on the part of the international community to promote democratic reform and economic development - the countries of the region could become breeding grounds for the same sort of frustration and extremism that nurtured the Taliban and Al Queda.

To this must be added growing concern as regards trafficking in drugs, weapons, and human beings emanating from the region. The inflow of drugs, in particular, is having a corrosive effect on individual Central Asian societies. But most of the heroin is of course only transitting the region. Much of it will eventually find its way to North American and Western European cities, including Oslo.

Military cooperation with the countries of the region is increasing. Even Norway has military personnel and aircraft deployed to the region. But so is economic cooperation and aid. The United States, the EU, and other G-8 members are stepping up their engagement in the region. Norway is doing the same. As some of you will know, I am personally just back from of a tour that took me to Kyrgysztan, Tadjikistan, and Uzbekistan.

I can understand that the NGO community is somewhat uneasy about these developments. We have noted concerns that the International Community is turning a blind eye on widespread repression and human rights violations in order not to alienate important partners in the fight against terrorism. In our view such concerns are not justified. But there is no denying that Central Asia remains a deeply troubled region from a human rights point of view.

The situation varies from country to country. Generally, however, it leaves much to be desired. Human rights activists and minorities are persecuted or harassed. Political oppositions are denied their rights. Freedom of expression is limited at best. Politically motivated court proceedings give cause for serious concern. Torture and ill-treatment of prisoners is widespread. There have been examples of extrajudicial killings. Capital punishment remains in use in parts of the region. There have also been steps in the right direction, of course. But that does not fundamentally change this very disturbing picture. Again, I can understand, and share, the concern.

Yet the question has to be what is the best response on the part of the international community. This is a debate that has been going on ever since the five Central Asian countries gained independence ten years ago, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, particularly in the context of the OSCE. The very decision to invite the Central Asian countries to join the OSCE was predicated on the idea that they should be engaged in a dialogue on the basis of western values and integrated in western frameworks for cooperation.

This was seen as the best basis for promoting political and economic reforms and fundamental rights and freedoms. Hence, the emphasis of the OSCE in the beginning was almost exclusively on the human dimension. But it soon became clear that this approach did not work. Where the OSCE offered human rights and the rule of law, the Central Asians asked for economic cooperation and aid. The relationship did not go anywhere.

Against this backdrop, the 1999 Norwegian chairmanship of the OSCE launched a debate on the organizations’s approach to Central Asia. A Special Representative was appointed and a report prepared. The key conclusions of the socalled Hõynck report were:

One, that the OSCE’s approach had to become more balanced. Not in the sense of doing less in the area of the human dimension. Far from it: Human rights and the rule of law remain at the core of the approach of the OSCE and the international community at large.

But the OSCE’s approach had to become more balanced in the sense of doing more in areas related to security, and above all in the area of economic and environmental cooperation. It was realized that if the relationship was to become a productive one, it was essential to create incentives for the Central Asian countries to carry out much-needed reforms. Those incentives remain essentially to be found in economic aid and contributing to resolving the enormous environmental challenges facing the region as a legacy of the Soviet past.

The second key conclusion of the OSCE report was that there needs to be much more regional cooperation in Central Asia. This is perhaps an obvious, but all the same a sensitive and difficult point. Many of the issues facing the region are transboundary in character, be it related to environmental issues, trafficking, water rights or energy. Regional cooperation would seem the obvious answer. Yet it has proven extremely difficult to launch meaningful cooperation between the countries of the region. Political rivalries and suspicions have mitigated against it in the past, and still do.

Here again there are of course significant differences between the five countries. While for example Kyrgyzstan is relatively open to regional cooperation, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are deeply wary. Fostering and building regional cooperation remains a crucial task, also with a view to promoting economic and social welfare. Economic developement obviously will be very difficult in a situation where borders are essentially closed, in some cases mined, and where air links are sketchy at best and in the case of Uzbekistan and Tadjikistan completely lacking.

This is essentially where we are at present. The idea is not to give the Central Asian countries a free ride on human dimension and human rights issues. Let me stress once more that such issues remain core items on the agenda. Hence, I raised human rights concerns very clearly and very specifically in all the three countries I visitied during my recent trip to the region.

And in the context of my visit I also very specifically made the point that the fight against terrorism cannot and must not be used as a pretext for trampling on human rights. Neither can real or alleged Islamic extremism be invoked as a justification for repressive policies. As one of the Uzbek participants at today’s meeting, Mr. Atanazar Aripov, noted when I saw him in Tashkent one week ago; "Religious extremism cannot be fought with political extremism".

Mr. Aripov is of course right. In any case, it is generally recognized that the threat of Islamic extremism has substantially subsided in recent months all over the region. There is in our view no significant threat facing any of the countries of the region. Hence, there is no call for draconian measures, which in any case violate international norms and commitments.

Once more, the idea of a more"balanced" approach to Central Asia does not mean reduced emphasis on human rights and rule of law issues or less insistence on democratic, political and economic reform. But in addition to making these fundamental points we are going to do more as regards economic cooperation, institution-building and environmental issues.

On the Norwegian side we support this balanced approach and will base our Central Asia policy on it. We wish to engage the Central Asian countries in a dialogue that at times will be direct and critical. We wish to assume our share of the responsibility for promoting stability, security, and necessary democratic and economic reforms in the region. And we must not lose sight of the fact that we have an enlightened self-interest attached to helping the Cental Asians stem the flow of drugs, weapons, and human beings transitting the region on the way to Western Europe and North America.

To that end we are endeavouring to strengthen our political ties with each individual country. We are also allocating additional funds for project cooperation with countries of the region. My recent trip to the region was essentially linked to both those objectives. We are in the process of putting together a package of projects in key areas that we hope will contribute to accelating the process of reform and incrementally opening up for much-needed regional cooperation.

In our view there is no alternative to constructive dialogue with the countries of the region. Isolation will serve no useful purpose. But the dialogue will have to be predicated on the necessity of reform and be critical and direct whenever necessary.

Thank you.