Remarks by Ambassador Richard B. Norland to Uzbek-American Forum: “Law Enforcement, Human Rights and Security”

03/05/2008

Conference:  “Death Penalty Abolition & Transfer of Arrest Warrants to Courts – an Important Stage in Liberalizing the Judicial System”

I am honored to be here this evening.  Congratulations to the Institute for New Democracies and to the Foundation for Regional Policy for their co-sponsorship of this important conference.  Many thanks to Mjusa Sever of Open Dialogue, and to Sayfiddin Juraev of the Foundation, for your hard work and that of your colleagues in organizing this successful gathering.  And thank you to participants who came from near and far, including fellow Americans, for taking part in these events.

This conference, which is looking at the interplay of issues involving national security and human rights, is one that could be taking place in any country in the world.  For these are issues that affect us all, and societies around the world are grappling with them.  No country has a monopoly on perfect behavior in the sphere of human rights.  And every country is struggling today to reconcile individual liberties with the challenges posed by extremists willing to use terrorist tactics to achieve their aims.

I would like to use this occasion to discuss some theoretical questions on this topic, and also to look at some practical realities.

First, the theory.  Is there a single, accepted definition of human rights?  Well, the answer to that is simple: yes.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948, spells out “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations” with respect to human rights.  In the wake of the atrocities of World War II, the Declaration stated in its preamble that “the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.”  The Declaration, in its 30 articles, lists the rights and freedoms to which every individual on Earth is entitled, including: life, liberty and security of person; equality before the law; freedom of movement and residence within a state and freedom to leave any country; the right to own property; the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; the right to freedom of opinion and expression and peaceful assembly; and many more.

The United States and Uzbekistan are both signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Both are bound to live up to its high standards.  Where sometimes we fail to do so, it is important to apply maximum transparency as quickly as possible.  When the details surrounding the deaths of American citizens in Waco, Texas a few years ago were revealed, they were quickly investigated, Congress was informed, and the guilty were punished. 

Let me add something:  people abroad sometimes hear so much bad news about America and human rights that I feel it is important to remind them we offer good news too.  Where our history began with the enslavement of black people, and women could not vote, an African-American and a woman are now strong candidates for the U.S. Presidency.  The issues of torture, detention of enemy combatants, and the death penalty are the subject of open scrutiny and debate in our Congress, in the Supreme Court and in state legislatures across the land. 

Now, back to theory.  Turning to national security, is there a single, accepted definition of national security?  Here the question is a little more complicated.  Perceptions of threat will vary from one country to another.  Still, all countries need to feel that their borders are secure – that they are safe from invasion from outside and instability from within.  Every country acts to ensure that no outside power or group of powers is able to threaten its economic or political survival.  All countries tend to outlaw behavior that would genuinely threaten internal law and order.  Some even see climate change as a threat to national security.

So, the question for us now is:  are these understandings of human rights and national security inherently in contradiction with each other?  Some people would say yes.  For example, they might say that our interest in national security is in direct contradiction with the freedom of speech that allows law enforcement methods and practices to be circulated on the Internet.  Or they might say our interest in treating people humanely is challenged when we have a person in custody who has knowledge of an upcoming attack yet is unwilling to provide information that would save innocent lives.

However, I do not see a fundamental contradiction between human rights and national security.  There will always be difficult judgment calls, but I believe it is a false choice to suggest that we must abandon fundamental principles in the name of national security.  Quite the opposite, the two reinforce each other:  where individuals feel able to express themselves freely, the strength and authentic, long-term legitimacy of the state is reinforced; and where states feel safe from external or internal threat, citizens feel empowered to expand the horizons of human achievement. 

In deciding what to do when faced with difficult choices, we must all be guided by the realization that genuine security, as well as law and order, rests on a foundation of respect for individual human beings and their basic rights.  The international community has agreed that discrimination and violation of human rights is not only wrong, which is by itself a reason to prohibit it, but also that it just does not work.  In fact, it hampers our internal and international security efforts.  If we arrest people only because they are part of a certain category or group, we are not only discriminating against them, but we are violating our own principles and commitments and missing the opportunity to find those who pose a real threat. 

In Uzbekistan, the discussion on how to balance national security and human rights is intensifying.  As this conference reflects, there is growing transparency regarding these issues, and growing interest in hearing about how other countries have addressed similar problems.  Transparency is the best way to dispel myths and bring the real facts to the attention of wider audiences.  In my six months as U.S. Ambassador, I have been made aware of serious cases of human rights abuse – but I have also been made aware of growing interest to put in place credible systems to prevent abuse.  We have seen a willingness to share information, including about the roots of the tragedy at Andijon, and my government continues to believe that an independent inquiry would help resolve lingering questions.  We are seeing signs that some NGOs may soon resume their work in monitoring human rights and building civil society, despite previous suspicions about the activities of NGOs.  Some websites have been unblocked.  Some human rights defenders have been released from prison.  We would like to see these encouraging signs continue and accelerate.

Critics rightly point out that more progress is essential, but they sometimes fail to acknowledge the signs of progress that have been manifested.  More importantly, they sometimes underestimate the role of engagement in achieving that progress.  While it may be convenient, even with the best of intentions, to call for isolation in our foreign policy, the consistent message we have heard from human rights activists and others here on the ground is a desire to expand, not reduce, their contact with the outside world as well as the contact of the outside world with Uzbekistan.  They have told me they believe the signs of progress we have seen lately are a result of such engagement.  And I believe that deeper engagement can lead to more progress that is in our mutual interest.

Our engagement with Uzbekistan covers a broad range of mutual interests.  We are consulting on how to stabilize Afghanistan, how to attract foreign investment, and how to expand cultural and scientific exchanges.  Contrary to the assertion that our pursuit of these goals is at the expense of human rights, our engagement and success on these fronts goes hand-in-hand with our progress on the human rights front.  Our goal is to work together with Uzbekistan in pursuit of a common vision.  That vision is of a Central Asia comprised of sovereign, self-confident states tightly linked to the rest of the world, states which have successfully overcome the difficult legacy of the Soviet era to lay the foundations of modern economies and vibrant societies. 

We hope that the signs we see will gather momentum.  National security issues are being addressed through international negotiation and internal dialogue.  Meanwhile, the human creativity manifested so dramatically in the architecture of Samarkand, the science of Ulug Beg and the poetry of Novoi, we hope will once again have the opportunity to flourish.  As an American, I am happy to be here at this historic time and eager to continue our work together on these important issues. 

In closing, let me recall that last week a monument was dedicated here in Tashkent to the poetess Zulfiya Olimjan, who along with her husband, Hamid, deserve recognition as one of the most inspiring poetic couples of the 20th Century.  So many of their poems were about Spring, and it is appropriate, as this especially harsh winter finally comes to an end, that we quote from one of Zulfiya’s poems: 

Spring makes one younger
Indeed, Spring fills the spirit
Our future as well --
is boundless Spring.