comments_image -

In Uzbekistan: Repression Gets a Green Light

Among the Central Asian states on the front line of Washington's war on terrorism, Uzbekistan occupies a special place. It has gotten aid for military bases -- as well as carte blanche to supress political dissent.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

The war in Afghanistan may have removed the Taliban there, but it has thwarted hopes for democracy in Uzbekistan. With a population of 25 million and an abundance of natural resources, including cotton, gold, uranium and natural gas, Uzbekistan should be a Central Asian success story. But, like its neighbor Afghanistan, it is not.

Last fall President Islam Karimov handed over Uzbek military bases to the Pentagon, as launchings pad for the U.S.'s Afghan operation. In return, the U.S. promised $160 million in aid and sent back the International Monetary Fund representatives who last year left in a fit of frustration. IMF representatives are now back at work, positioning Uzbekistan as a regional hub for pipelines, transportation and communications projects that U.S. firms seek to lead.

The only problem is that such negotiations will do nothing to diminish Uzbekistan's human rights atrocities. In fact, it may simply legitimize them.

According to the State Department, Uzbekistan is a totalitarian state with a dismally poor human rights record, an unfree press and one of the lowest per capita incomes in the former Soviet Union. The Pentagon, however, sees Uzbekistan differently. General Tommy Franks at a press conference in Tashkent on Nov. 22, 2001 expressed many thanks to the leadership of Uzbekistan and praised its efforts in support of the war against terrorism.

Then in January a joint Pentagon-State Department delegation went to parley with Karimov's regime. Karimov took that opportunity to hold another referendum to prolong his presidential term from five to seven years, effectively keeping himself in power until 2007. Interestingly enough, the State Department refused to send election observers, arguing there had to be a "free and fair" presidential election before a referendum was valid. This implies that the State Department does not recognize the legitimacy of previous presidential elections. But that has not prevented the Bush administration from courting Tashkent on the basis that "our enemy's enemy is our friend."

The Karimov regime understands this logic, and can play the same game of doublethink. After reports that Tashkent leased its airbase in Khanabad to the U.S. for 25 years last January, for example, Uzbek authorities vehemently denied it. Meanwhile, General Franks said that the U.S. presence would continue "indefinitely," or until they root out all terrorist groups, including the homebred Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. The presence of U.S. military may guarantee Karimov a presidency for life.

Uzbekistan's decade of independence from the Soviet Union has been scarred by devastating poverty, deteriorating health, worsening education, lack of safe drinking water, a drying Aral Sea and -- abetting this downward spiral -- a regressive police regime.

Political life is as bleak as the economy. Karimov's one-man regime, in place since 1989, has eliminated all legal opposition. Today anyone who disagrees with the government is automatically charged with unconstitutional activities or being a member of the outlawed fundamentalist groups Hizb-ut-Tahrir or Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU). Since Sept. 11, accusations of fundamentalist collusion include being linked to Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization. Human Rights Watch estimates that 7,000 political prisoners and prisoners of conscience are currently detained in Uzbekistan, with false evidence or none at all. They are kept without trial, tortured and in some cases arbitrarily executed. The Pentagon's blessing lets the regime glorify such behavior as part of the war against terrorism.

After the fall of the Soviet Union in August 1991, Uzbekistan's transition from a Soviet communist republic to non-communist tyranny was extraordinarily smooth. The Communist Party became the Democratic Party of Uzbekistan. A Politburo member in Moscow and already President of the Uzbek Soviet Republic, Karomiv decided to run for the presidency of the newly independent state. At the time, Karimov had a strong opponent, Muhammad Solih. Karimov let him run, but allowed him no access to the media, and totally controlled the count. Once "elected," Karimov accused Solih of anti-constitutional activities and drove him into exile, banning his Erk (Freedom) Party. Since then, all opposition has become seditious, described as an attempt at overthrowing the government. To be on the safe side in 1995, Karimov extended his own term until 2000 in a phony "referendum," after which he safely ran with no significant opposition. This January he held yet another "referendum," and received 92 percent of the "yes" votes.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Alternet Special Coverage - Occupy Wall Street
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
White House Announces Birth Control "Accommodations" for Religious Groups: Insurance Companies Will Pay, So Women Will Still be Covered

By Jodi Jacobson | RH Reality Check

 
 
Is the Catholic Church Just a Super PAC in Robes?

By Steve M. | No More Mister Nice Blog

 
 
Amid General Strike, 7,000 Protest Austerity in Greece, And Violence Erupts Between Demonstrators and Police

By AFP

 
 
Must-See Video: WA Republican Debates Gay Marriage with Profound, Personal Speech for Equality

By Kristen Gwynne | AlterNet

 
 
"Emotions": Santorum's Sexist Explanation for Why Women Shouldn't be on the Front Lines

By Kristen Gwynne | AlterNet

 
 
Taibbi: Mortgage Fraud Settlement is More Like a Bailout Than Justice

By Kristen Gwynne | AlterNet

 
 
Obama Will Announce "Accommodation" for Religious Groups' Contraception Coverage

By Kristen Gwynne | AlterNet

 
 
Go Hungry! Fat Cat New Hampshire Republicans Aim to Ban Lunch Breaks

By Steven D | Booman Tribune

 
 
Employers Have Had to Provide Birth Control Coverage Since 2000

By Joan McCarter | Daily Kos

 
 
Who Cares What The Bishops Think? Old Catholic Guys Do.

By Sara Robinson | Alternet

 
 
 
Reverend Billy Talen
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 1 ]