EurasiaNet Civil Society - United States Skirts Human Rights Issues With New Aid to Uzbekistan

CIVIL SOCIETY

UNITED STATES SKIRTS HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES WITH NEW AID TO UZBEKISTAN
1/31/02

Although a delegation of United States Senators in Uzbekistan on January 9 suggested that repression in that country would force limits on American aid, specific requirements for human rights progress are unlikely to appear in new economic aid legislation. On January 30, State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher confirmed that Uzbekistan could expect $160 million in aid this year, a threefold increase over prior levels. This increase, after the Senators’ cautionary remarks, indicates that lawmakers’ fervor to secure current alliances will probably outweigh any insistence on short-term reform as long as Afghanistan remains unstable.

According to someone knowledgeable about Senate activity, lawmakers take it as given that Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan - states which border Afghanistan or will feel the effects of Afghan upheaval - will require increases in American aid. These countries have hosted troops in the American-led coalition or facilitated aid deliveries into Afghanistan, and economic payback of some form is a common expectation. But the strategy behind this payback, according to someone with knowledge of the Senate deliberation process, focuses on keeping the region as stable as possible in the immediate term. This will mean incorporating aid to Kazakhstan, which barely contributed to the Afghan campaign, in a supplemental Afghan aid bill. It will also mean encouraging outward-looking regimes in the more active countries. But it will probably not mean formal mandates on free speech or civil society progress, which some fear could antagonize leaders and destabilize the fragile peace.

Lawmakers in the Democratic-controlled Senate have managed to register their human rights concerns. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.), one of the most liberal Senators, added language to the Foreign Operations bill in October that requires the State Department to report on Uzbek human rights. But the Bush administration has clearly sought to address human rights questions through diplomacy rather than through withholding or restructuring aid. Uzbek authorities themselves have acknowledged some of their excesses in recent days.

The administration’s caution emphasizes the need for strategic clarity. The government is loath to alienate the ethnic Tajiks and Uzbeks who dominate Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance; it also worries about weakening presidents’ power when the alternatives are unclear. Moreover, says an expert, Congress does not want to get into the business of championing specific dissident groups. "We’ve given these [leaders] some rope because no one is going to clamor for infinite liberties of a group that we’re not sure is peaceful," he says.

In the case of Uzbekistan, the focus on security forces American diplomats to deflect charges of hypocrisy. The State Department announced its $160 million commitment while criticizing Uzbek President Islam Karimov for an orchestrated January 27 referendum that extended his term, possibly for life. [For more information, see the EurasiaNet archives.] When a reporter asked Boucher if the increase in funding amounted to "rewarding�human rights abuses," Boucher disputed the idea. The money, he said, would fortify Uzbekistan’s progress toward democracy "in the form of technical assistance, educational visits to the US, grants to non-governmental organizations and local communities, credits for small business, and humanitarian aid such as food and medicine."

Experts inside and outside Washington warn that unless aid is couched in these terms, it could actually have detrimental effects. For one thing, they say, it could persuade neighboring Tajikistan that intensified crackdowns, under an antiterrorist guise, could bring economic benefit. Tajikistan has received commitments for $3.2 million in aid from the United Kingdom in January, and French military representatives are working toward security agreements with the Tajik defense ministry. That leaves US aid to Tajikistan a relatively docile issue. "I think the Tajiks are happy with whatever they’re getting," says an expert.

American aid to Uzbekistan, strategically and philosophically, draws more attention. That seems to please Karimov - state-controlled media ran reports on January 31 of a new military alliance between Tashkent and Washington. The US’ gamble is that Karimov will understand that his good fortune depends on the US’ military needs and his own behavior. Elizabeth Jones, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, told a Senate panel on December 13 that Secretary of State Colin Powell had laid out his concerns in meetings with Karimov and Kazakhstan’s Nursultan Nazarbayev. "He was able to make the case that without the fundamental abilities of citizens to vote, to choose their leaders, to determine their fate, to have jobs, to work, to be prosperous, and to choose their work, that stability will always be out of reach," Jones told senators. The US figures to keep matching such warnings with aid as long as it does not know who or where its enemies are.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.