UZBEK OPPOSITION FIGURES URGE CAUTION ON US SUPPORT FOR KARIMOV
3/27/02

During his recent visit to Washington, Uzbek President Islam Karimov insisted his administration would take steps to accelerate economic and democratic reforms, clearing the way for increased US assistance. Government opponents and human rights experts caution that while Karimov certainly now possesses both motives and means to implement reforms, the Uzbek leader is prone to institute changes that are not likely to be consistent with democratic ideals, and therefore fuel instability.

US officials praised Karimov’s performance on his March 11-14 visit to Washington and New York, expressing the belief that Uzbek leader was sincere in his desire to improve the country’s economic performance and human rights records. Improvement in both those spheres was seen as a precondition for continued US assistance for Uzbekistan. Leading a US Senate delegation on a visit to Tashkent, Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, indicated March 25 that Congress was inclined to approve a potential Bush Administration request for additional aid for Uzbekistan.

That same day at an Open Forum in New York, sponsored by the Central Eurasia Project of the Open Society Institute, exiled Uzbek politicians and human rights experts expressed the belief that the United States was courting danger by supporting Karimov. US-Uzbek ties have grown rapidly since September 11, driven by US strategic considerations connected with the anti-terrorism campaign. However, by aligning itself so closely with an authoritarian-minded regime such as Karimov’s, the United States could abet instability over the medium term.

“The combination of bad policy and a poor economy [in Uzbekistan] can lead to unpredictable consequences quite soon,” said Vitaly Ponomarev of the Memorial human rights organization in Moscow.

Pulatzhan Akhunov, an activist of the banned opposition party Birlik, said the United States should continue to exert pressure on Karimov, conditioning aid on Uzbekistan’s ability to meet a detailed reform timetable. Akhunov, who since 1995 lived in exile in Sweden, also said that Karimov should provide explicit guarantees to prevent Uzbek security forces from engaging in systematic torture and other rights abuses.

Ponomarev, Akhunov and Atanzar Arifov, general secretary of the banned Erk political party in Uzbekistan, indicated that by accepting Karimov’s reform promises essentially at face value, US officials could be setting themselves up for disappointment. They suggested that while Karimov had compelling reasons to initiate economic reforms, it was unlikely that the political system would become more open any time soon.

Akhunov told EurasiaNet that Karimov would pursue economic reforms out of his own self-interest. “You must understand that for the last 10 years, Uzbekistan has largely lived off the capital that it accumulated during the Soviet era,” he said. “Now, more and more people are having a hard time feeding their families. This creates a real dilemma for Karimov. He knows things must change otherwise it could mean the end [of his tenure as Uzbekistan’s president].”

Arifov, who is a former political prisoner, warned that the government’s “attitude” toward democratic values remained contemptuous, and that American aid still risked “strengthening a system of oppression.”

Ponomarev reported that Memorial’s list of political prisoners in Uzbekistan had more than doubled during the past four months. And even as four Uzbek police officers recently received jail sentences in connection with the beating deaths of two detainees, Ponomarev said, torture remains common in Uzbek law enforcement. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Another speaker at the Open Forum, Abdusalom Ergashev, who runs the Independent Human Rights Organization of Uzbekistan in the densely populated Ferghana Valley, detailed 39 trumped-up convictions in Uzbek courts between February 15 and March 15. All convictions came after police beat suspects into confessions, Ergashev said. “All defendants testified that they had had their nails and hair pulled out, and some were raped,” he reported. But, he claimed, judges routinely ignore such claims, even when they come from foreign observers.

Akhunov said that Karimov has an acute awareness of the history surrounding the collapse of the Soviet Union. He knows from the experience of former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that any attempt to open up a closed society is fraught with peril for the political leadership. “He [Karimov] feels that Gorbachev’s mistake was to attempt political and economic reforms at the same time,” Akhunov said. “Karimov is not intending to follow Gorbachev’s path.”

Akhunov said that Karimov was apt to adopt the “Chinese model” of development, featuring economic liberalization combined with strict control over political life. However, other Open Forum speakers suggested that even if he launched reforms immediately, such action might be too late to prevent popular frustration from fueling more political violence in Uzbekistan, which has faced an insurgent campaign conducted by Islamic radicals in recent years.

Ponomarev noted that the radical Islamic group Hizb-ut-Tahrir has widened its popular support base since Uzbek security forces stepped up its crackdown on the movement. Arifov said more and more citizens are flouting the government’s ban on protest, and predicted that “a small percentage of those will take up arms.”

To avoid violence, the Open Forum speakers urged the United States to require immediate registration of political parties and expansions of free speech. Such steps, they said, would preserve peace. “We are not our government’s enemies,” said Akhunov. “All we are trying to do is come up with ways of helping to ensure a better future.”

Email this article
Posted March 27, 2002 © 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, politcal 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.