EurasiaNet Recaps - On Eve of Karimov Visit, Expert Calls on Bush to Address Uzbek Human Rights

RECAPS

ON EVE OF KARIMOV VISIT, EXPERT CALLS ON BUSH TO ADDRESS UZBEK HUMAN RIGHTS

3/11/02
Q&A with Human Rights Watch's Tashkent Representative, Marie Struthers

Print this article Email this article

Uzbek President Islam Karimov’s visit to Washington highlights the ongoing US-Uzbek cooperation in the War on Terror - cooperation that has raised concerns about Uzbekistan’s troubled human rights record. In a written statement, watchdog group Human Rights Watch (HRW) calls Karimov "an unreconstructed Soviet leader," and asks "whether this kind of record makes for a trusted ally or a foreign policy burden."

The US-based HRW has worked in Uzbekistan since 1996, monitoring the human rights situation with the goal of bringing violations to the attention of the government, the people of Uzbekistan and governments and international organizations that have relationships with Uzbekistan. The group attempts to publicize abuses as widely as possible in the hopes of curbing them via pressure through the media, discussions and advocacy. HRW’s representative in Tashkent, Marie Struthers, spoke with EurasiaNet about the country’s human rights environment in the aftermath of September 11.

EurasiaNet: What are the issues that HRW is focusing on in Uzbekistan?
Struthers: We’ve focused very heavily in the past 2-3 years on the government’s campaign against independent Muslims - independent Muslims in Uzbekistan being those persons who study the Koran at home, belong to illegal religious organizations and disseminate unsanctioned religious literature. The state has what is called a Muslim directorate which sanctions and controls and oversees state approved and built and run mosques and also is responsible for approving and monitoring religious organizations and activities of those organizations. Therefore anybody who worships Islam, to be specific, outside of the state controls is often considered to be involved in illegal activities.

The government started, close to five years ago, a campaign of arrests, imprisonment and torture against hundreds if not thousands of these independent Muslims, and local human rights groups estimate that today there are close to 7000-7500 independent Muslims incarcerated in jails where they are subjected to systemic torture. So that is one of the main areas we’ve focused on and we continue to focus on it today. We’ve focused on violence against women. We’ve focused on and written reports on attacks on and harassment against local human rights defenders. We’ve published a report on media in Uzbekistan.

EurasiaNet: Have you seen a change in US attitudes or rhetoric on the Uzbek human rights situation since September 11 and the subsequent intensification of US-Uzbekistan cooperation?
Struthers: Obviously the region has taken on a strategic importance - and Uzbekistan in particular - that it never enjoyed prior to September 11th. Because Uzbekistan, out of the blue, became strategic, a very strategically important partner for the US. It granted the US use of one of its military bases in the south and also opened the bridge crossing from Termez to Khayraton, which has been closed for several years since the ascent of the Taliban into Northern Afghanistan in ’97-’98.

In return for this cooperation and collaboration, the US has granted at least 160 million dollars in security credits ranging from health care to education to civic society building. We can say at this time that the US has thankfully not changed its rhetoric on the very poor human rights situation in Uzbekistan, and this is belied and supported by the critical language contained in the [State Department’s 2001 Human Rights] report; however, we cannot say that there has been a significant sea change in the human rights situation in Uzbekistan - in fact it’s remained by and large the same. [For background see the EurasiaNet Human Rights archive.]

Although we see and have seen since the end of last summer - post-September 11 - a decrease in the number of prominent religious and political trials, local human rights activists last year - that is up until September 11 - estimated that there were up to 30 members of illegal religious organizations, in particular Hizb ut-Tahrir, being arrested and tried per week. We have not seen that post-September 11.

There are trials ongoing, for example in Tashkent this very month, and in Ferghana. We continue to see arrests and arbitrary detention of political suspects and those who are deemed to belong to illegal religious activities. But, again, not on the same scope and scale as we saw prior to September 11th. The US as well has thankfully upped its pressure and its discussions with the Uzbek government on necessary changes in the human rights situation, one of those being the necessity to register local human rights groups. Up until Monday there was not one independent human rights organization registered in the country. On Monday, March 4th, the Independent Human Rights Organization of Uzbekistan, led by Mikhail Ardzinov, was granted registration by the Ministry of Justice. [For background see the EurasiaNet Human Rights archive.]

His group had been applying regularly for registration since 1997, when the group was founded. We see this as a positive step, because the government had been obstructing that for close to five years. And now that we’ve seen that positive step, and see it almost as a direct result of increased US discussions with the Uzbek authorities and pressure on the Uzbek authorities to register human rights groups, we’re expecting more.

EurasiaNet: What more exactly are you expecting?
Struthers: We’re expecting the US to make clear publicly during president Karimov’s visit to Washington on March 12th what that "more" is. It’s the release of political and religious prisoners, which local human rights groups estimate to be in the thousands. It’s genuine legal reform, including the repeal of provisions in the criminal code that make certain religious literature and religious affiliations illegal. It is cooperation with the UN through the invitation of special rapperteurs on torture, arbitrary detention, and the special representative on human rights defenders; and it is the registration of independent political parties.

Going back to the registration of IHROU, which happened last Monday, March 4th, it’s a step that we view as positive and as almost due directly to increased US dialogue with and pressure on the Uzbek government - however, it’s but one isolated step. It will mean very little, if members of that group, post-registration, are not allowed to function freely and without harassment, illegal detention and torture from the authorities, which they have suffered the whole of the past five years, when they were an illegal organization. It will not mean very much if information about their activities, which are monitoring and reporting on human rights violations, are not made available to the public at large through the media. And it will not mean very much if their information exchange with the government doesn’t improve. By information exchange I mean delivery of information to the government and access of information from the government by them. So the registration hinges on those criteria.

Obviously we can’t speak about a global security and human rights environment if we don’t speak about the release of political and religious prisoners - a free, independent political party system. There are no independent functioning political parties in the country right now. Now major leaders of two independent political parties, which were founded in the early 1990’s, remain in exile as we speak. At least one criminal case stands against one of them who was charged with participating in the February 1999 bombings, although he was not present for the trial and there was no material evidence of concrete intent to violently overthrow the state presented at the trial.

So, we’re expecting and hoping that the US will make these concerns very public and known during President Karimov’s visit to the states in order that President Karimov is not able to, during or after the trip, stamp it with a seal of approval, acknowledging that the US brands Uzbekistan as a cooperative and fully responsible partner in the international coalition against terror.

EurasiaNet: What is the difference between the human rights groups that are official and the ones that have worked here illegally?
Struthers: For one, there’s only one prominent officially registered human rights organization which is run by Marat Zahidov and largely, on most issues in the human rights realm, is pro-governmental. It refutes the allegations and reports of local human rights groups about the numbers of religious and political prisoners. And not only about the numbers, but also about the charges that have been laid against them and the way those charges have been proved against them in court trials.

One of the reasons we label the crackdown against independent Muslims a campaign of repression and harassment, is that the criminal justice system has been used to incarcerate them. They are most frequently charged with terrorism and intent to violently overthrow the state. However, only in a handful of these, perhaps thousands, of cases that we’re talking about, has convincing material or other substantial evidence been brought against them in the court systems.

The official human rights group registered by the government of Uzbekistan doesn’t agree with this point of view, which in our view, has been borne our and has been solidly supported by the local human rights organizations. Also, we have next to no evidence that citizens of this country, in applying to this one prominent human rights organization, have had success in having their complaints resolved. So it’s pro-governmental in its views, in its activities, and it is largely ineffective when it comes to resolving citizen’s claims and issues.

There is also an ombudsman’s office. Uzbekistan does possess all of the human rights mechanisms that it should possess under domestic and international law; however, up until this day, most of those mechanisms, law enforcement agencies, ombudsman’s offices [and] the prominent legally registered organization have proved ineffective in resolving citizens’ complaints.

EurasiaNet: In the lead-up to Karimov’s visit, we’ve seen some actions that struck us as steps towards progress, including the sentencing of the policemen who tortured the two Haitov brothers who were suspected of Hizb ut-Tahrir activities, one of whom died in detention, as well as the registration of IHROU. How much of this do you see as genuine and how much as purely token diplomacy - the Uzbek government saying ’let’s clean up our act before we meet with our potentially major partner?’
Struthers: I think there’s no doubt about the significance of the registration. I think that it was clearly an act designed to satisfy the demands being made by the American government on the eve of Karimov’s visit to America. That said, I wish to underline that it is a positive development. We and other international bodies and governments have been asking for the registration of local human rights groups for years. We hope to see the continued registration of other human rights groups that are seeking registration.

But it’s very clearly a result of increased and sustained pressure by the US over the last few weeks and months. It is an isolated event. It will not mean a lot unless the criteria I outlined previously are afforded to members of the group, and it will not mean a lot unless other human rights groups are registered.

Whether there have been any other changes that signify a sea change in the internal Uzbek policy on human rights, I would say no. We haven’t seen any significant or dramatic changes in the human rights scene since September 11. I mean by that we have not seen political and religious trials against dissidents or illegal religious organizations cease. We continue to see systemic torture in post-conviction facilities and pre-trial facilities, detention facilities across Uzbekistan including horrific torture of women and children.

Even though the amnesty is seen by some parties as a positive development on the human rights scene, we have received quite a lot of testimony in the weeks since the late fall and up until this day about those religious prisoners who refused to sign confessions renouncing their religious affiliation and activities being subjected to either increased or retaliatory treatment. We have also received testimony about some of those having been released, of having to report regularly to the police and signing statements that they do not participate in unsanctioned religious activities.

The conviction of the police officers at the end of January, those that were responsible of torturing to death in custody one of the Haitov brothers and severely torturing the other, whom by the way, is at home and is still suffering from severe internal ailments and pain and illness, is a significant and welcome development; however it is but one isolated development. There are scores, if not hundreds of other police officers that should be brought to account through the criminal justice system for torture and other forms of mistreatment of prisoners. I must say that even though the four police officers were given 20 years each for torture, there is a significant fear that because of the articles that they were charged under, they will become eligible under the amnesty and will only be incarcerated for 2-3 years, rather than the 20 years that they were given.

Also, there is a criminal case still standing against the remaining Haitov brother. Charges of membership in the Hizb ut-Tahrir party and distribution of illegal Islamic leaflets still stand against him. The case has been suspended against him, as we speak, because of his ill health. But I certainly can’t say that I see the fact that the case has not been retracted as a sign of good will from the Uzbek authorities. As also as we speak, there is an ongoing trial against 2 or three other young men who were rounded up on the same evening as the Haitov brothers also on grounds of suspected membership in Hizb ut-Tahrir and distribution of illegal religious literature.

In our view, there has not been one single significant, overriding positive development on the human rights scene. There have been a couple of isolated incidents, which include the registration of this group, which include the conviction of these police officers for torture, but otherwise, the situation remains largely the same and that’s why we’re counting on the US, which has so much leverage and influence in the region at this moment, to make very public and make very strong its concerns about the very severe abuses that are ongoing here.

EurasiaNet: Has US leverage in the area been used effectively, from the last visit of Karimov to meet President Clinton to the upcoming visit with President Bush?
Struthers: I think US leverage has been used effectively post-September 11. Before that we saw very little real attention from the US - as from other international governments - to the region as a whole, first, and to Uzbekistan, second. Human rights abuses were paid lip service, but in concrete terms, the US - as with other governments minimally - used its moral influences and its leverage to positively affect the human rights situation here. Now is the time for them to use that leverage and influence, and we’ve seen that through the registration of IHROU. Now is the time to continue to use that leverage because that leverage and influence may not be here in months and years hence.

EurasiaNet: How would you characterize the human rights movement that exists in Uzbekistan today? What have been the obstacles to making this a strong effective movement? Where is it going?
Struthers: I have deep admiration up until now for the men and women that are part of unregistered human rights groups here. They’ve done a tremendous job of documenting, in particular, the campaign against independent Muslims, by attending court trials, by collecting verdicts, by reporting on court trials, by visiting family members, by documenting conditions of arrests of detention in prison.

There has in Uzbekistan been, unfortunately, since the early 90’s, certainly exacerbated in the mid-1990’s, repeated instances of internal friction and factionalization in and between the different human rights groups, which has not provided a united critical front against the government - which we consider to be a sign of a healthy, functioning democracy, when there is a critical voice that is allowed to stand up and freely express its opinion and is allowed to interact and exchange with the government. I hope that now that at least one, and perhaps several other groups will be granted legal status that this factionalization and bickering will subside somewhat, but that is a feature of the local human rights scene here.

That said, I come back to my praise of them. If we speak of Mikhail Ardzinov’s group, several members of his group - including Makhbuba Kasimova and Ismail Adylov - themselves were sentenced on trumped up charges, to several years in prison; both of them spent a minimum of 2 years in prison. Ismail was systematically beaten and Makhbuba herself was ill treated. They were both released last year and the end of the year before. So I think we really have to take our hats off to them and say that they’ve been steadfast and persevering.

EurasiaNet: Now that IHROU has been registered, what are its next priorities?
Struthers: Their first priority is to continue to monitor the conditions of the thousands they deem illegally imprisoned on the basis of their belief and to lobby for their release. I know that the human rights society of Uzbekistan, "Ezgulik" - which means "good deed" - recently founded, holds as a top priority continuing work on those who have been illegally sentenced and convicted on the basis of their belief and as well lobbying significantly for their release, as well as continuing to work on continuing harassment and arrest and conviction of others who have not been sentenced to prison terms - because they see that as the first and most glaring human rights abuse in the country. That is their priority.

And I know that after that, they will be lobbying for the establishment of independent political parties, access of information from and to the press, the publicization of their activities, information exchange with the government, issues across the whole board, religious freedom, women’s rights, educational rights. But the first one will be the release of political and religious prisoners.

Editor�s Note: This interview was conducted by Josh Machleder. Machleder is a Tashkent-based contributor to EurasiaNet.

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.