EURASIA INSIGHT
Marat Mamadshoyev
6/15/00
Print this article
Email this article
Tajikistan basked in the international spotlight this week as host of the Central Asian Economic Association. But it had had to work to polish its image, which had been tarnished recently by the arrest of its ambassador to Kazakhstan on drug-related charges and by allegations of widespread Tajikistan government involvement in drug smuggling. The facts and timing of the case suggest, however, that Kazakhstan -- one of the four governments attending the meeting – may have moved deliberately to discredit the Tajikistan government.
On May 21, officials of the Kazakhstan National Security Committee seized some 62 kilograms of heroin, $54,000 in cash, and a money order for 1,261,000 pounds sterling from two cars, one of which belonged to the Tajik ambassador, Sadullojon Nematov, not far from Almaty. Five Tajiks were arrested, including the ambassador. Two days later, Kazakh security officials arrested Tajikistan’s trade representative after 10 kilograms of heroin were found in his garage and 14 kilograms in an apartment where he had previously lived. Kazakhstan security officials alleged that the heroin was going to be delivered to the head of the Tajikistan trade mission in Almaty and that it was part of a broader Tajik-run drug ring.
The Tajikistan Foreign Ministry denied any knowledge of the incidents. But the Procurator General of Tajikistan stated recently what was already an open secret: that there is evidence that almost all levels of the Tajik government are involved in illegal drug trafficking.
Previous foreign arrests of Tajik officials have been solved without the sensationalism that has surrounded this case. In other incidents, arresting authorities have simply extradited the suspects to Tajikistan and initiated criminal investigations.
Indeed, some Tajiks question the Kazakh prosecutor’s interpretation of events. For example, in an interview with the TV and Radio Company "Mir," Ambassador Nematov protested being questioned only a full day after his car was searched. Tajik diplomats have also balked at the allegations of diplomatic complicity, noting that under international law a trade representative is not considered part of a diplomatic mission and that the driver had been dismissed some two months before the drug bust.
Even so, the Tajik side seems disgruntled less by the fact of the arrest than by the undiplomatically aggressive position of Astana and the anti-Tajik campaign that was unleashed in the Kazakh media.
Tajik Ministry of Foregn Affairs sources believe that the aggressive prosecution of this case, which they feel reveals barely concealed enmity toward the citizens of Tajikistan – Kazakhstan’s closest ally in the CIS – might be sanctioned by the highest levels of the Kazakhstan government. As if confirming that version, on May 29, President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan personally commented on the case. "I consider that our special services have done godly work, and we will encourage it," he stated.
Moreover, the call to prosecute this ring vigorously came from the chief of the Almaty City and Oblast National Security Committee, who is, perhaps not coincidentally, President Nazarbayev’s son-in-law. Chief Aliev declared, "To make our city free and safe, we will break all these "roofs"… whether it will be a diplomatic "roof" or the "roof" of the customs office or of tax police."
Critics of the arrests in Tajikistan suspect that the goal of the scandal was to subvert Tajikistan’s hosting of the summit of member countries of the Shanghai G-5 in July. According to one Tajik diplomat, who requested anonymity, Kazakhstan already scuttled a summit which was scheduled to have been held in Dushanbe in May. That meeting was to have discussed establishment of an anti-terrorist center in Dushanbe. It is possible that Astana had tried to discredit Tajikistan as an uncontrollable and corrupt country in order to torpedo that proposal.
At first blush, these accusations appear weak and defensive. After all, the culprits are not the Kazakh special services but, apparently, light-fingered Tajik officials who have shamed their government. The fact that the diplomatic service is apparently not formally involved in the drug smuggling is small consolation.
But some details of the incident give these suspicions of intrigue credibility. First of all, the sums of money and the quantity of drugs look impressive, but only for those who are not aware of the real scale of drug trafficking in and out of Kazakhstan.
Second, customs officials allowed the vehicles to traverse dozens of kilometers on Kazakhstani territory before detaining them, instead of foiling a crime before it happened. Finally, Kazakhstan National Security Committee gained brief political capital on June 2 by accusing Ambassador Nematov of having fled Kazakhstan. In fact, he had simply been recalled to Dushanbe to conduct consultations – a fact of which the Kazakakh Foreign Ministry had been informed four days previously.
Perhaps the best indication of how seriously either government takes the drug bust is how the Shanghai G-5 Summit will proceed in Dushanbe next month – and what its outcome will be.
Editor’s Note: Marat Mamadshoyev is a correspondent for the newspaper Asia-Plus. He is an attorney and has an advanced degree in higher education. He is based in Dushanbe.
Posted June 15, 2000 © Eurasianet
http://www.eurasianet.org
|
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.
|
|
