EBRD MEETING IN TASHKENT PROVES TO BE PR NIGHTMARE FOR KARIMOV
Esmer Islamov: 5/06/03

Far from providing a boost to Uzbekistan’s economic prospects, the just-completed annual meeting of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) proved to be a public relations nightmare for President Islam Karimov’s administration. During the gathering, the Uzbek government was repeatedly subjected to harsh criticism over its poor human rights record and its reluctance to implement reforms. One analyst says the meeting’s outcome indicates that the Uzbek government is "unable to adequately understand" international displeasure with its authoritarian ways.

Officials in Tashkent had been preparing for months to host the EBRD, which they had hoped to use as a vehicle to attract foreign investment. The downtown area of the capital received an overhaul, with new hotels constructed especially for the gathering. However, many participants at the May 4-5 meeting treated Tashkent as if it were a Potemkin village. Speaker after speaker at the EBRD meeting delivered a blunt message to Karimov: either promote reforms or suffer a reduced international commitment to Uzbekistan’s economic development.

EBRD President Jean Lemierre, speaking at a May 5 news conference, said the annual meeting succeeded in placing "civil society at the core of the [development] process. It’s a major achievement." Lemierre went on to stress that the future level of EBRD cooperation with Uzbekistan would depend on Tashkent’s fulfillment its reform commitments. "We have a range of options – between moving forward and investing, and reducing our activity as we have done in other countries." Uzbekistan has repeatedly promised to implement reforms, including currency liberalization, but has yet to follow through. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Perhaps the harshest criticism of Karimov’s policies came at the outset of the meeting, during a session examining Uzbekistan’s human rights climate. Kenneth Roth, the acting director of Human Rights Watch, said that Uzbekistan was home to about 6,500 political prisoners, adding that the deaths of eight inmates could be directly attributed to torture. Many prison sentences "are based on people’s beliefs, not crime," Roth said. At the same session, Harvard University professor Michael Ignatieff assailed the government, saying it fostered a confrontational mood in Uzbekistan. "If you deny political and religious freedoms … there is only one way for the opposition to get their voice heard – it is violence," Ignatieff said.

Throughout the two-day meeting, Uzbek government representatives were peppered during question-and-answer periods with confrontational queries and comments. During one presentation, for example, Uzbek Finance Minister Mamarizo Nurmuradov and State Property Committee chief Mahmudjon Askarov extolled the country’s investment climate. When the floor was opened up for questions, however, one panelist demanded an explanation as to why the Uzbek economy was contracting. Another speaker produced documents that, he said, could substantiate his claim that a state-controlled Uzbek bank had reneged on paying his company an almost $1 million debt.

Such criticism in a public forum was unprecedented for Uzbekistan, and undoubtedly humiliating for Karimov personally. "One can hardly imagine a course of events that would have put the government of Uzbekistan in a worse light," said John Schoeberlein, director of Harvard’s Program on Central Asia and the Caucasus.

During the meeting, Karimov admitted that reform progress has been slow, blaming the delays on "old stereotypes and thinking." At the same time, Karimov in his welcoming address pointedly declined to condemn the practice of torture in the Uzbek judicial and prison systems. Schoeberlein and other observers suggested that Karimov’s refusal to recognize the problem of torture greatly exacerbated Uzbekistan’s image problem among EBRD meeting participants.

"Since the much-vaunted condemnation [of torture] was not forthcoming, it put the problem in maximal relief," Schoeberlein said. "Not only is the country not able or willing to prevent torture, but it is unable to find the political will to declare that it will try [to eliminate the practice]."

Many political observers say they were not especially surprised by the all the criticism of Uzbek policies during the EBRD event. At the same time, some admitted to being somewhat taken aback by the intransigence of Uzbek officials. Schoeberlein characterized the meeting as "a spectacular clash between the way countries are generally meant to interact with organizations like the EBRD, and the way that Uzbekistan was hoping to use the organization."

Despite the volume of criticism, many observers wonder whether Karimov comprehends that international assistance can no longer be taken for granted. "Uzbekistan still has not come to terms with the fact that engagement entails real commitments, with consequences if you fail to meet them," Schoeberlein said. "One has the impression of a leadership that is unable to adequately understand the now-familiar dynamics that surround being an authoritarian in the post-Cold War world."

Some analysts say they would not be surprised if Karimov makes personnel changes in the upper echelons of Uzbekistan’s government, seeking to punish those deemed responsible for the EBRD embarrassment. At the same time, few expect the Uzbek government to make sudden improvements in the human rights and economic spheres.

"The diplomatic failures will not be acknowledged," Schoeberlein said. "The effort will be focused on hiding the problems until the next moment when they [Uzbek leaders] are forced to confront them."

Uzbek media coverage of the EBRD meeting appeared to support Schoeberlein’s prediction. State-controlled television had live coverage of the proceedings, but did not provide Uzbek translation for remarks containing criticism of the government. Uzbek media reports likewise seemed selective in their presentation of developments. An Uzbek radio report of Lemierre’s news conference, for example, carried comments in which the EBRD chief praised the Tashkent summit for being "well-organized," while omitting references to the need for the Uzbek government to implement reforms or to meet international benchmarks to ensure continued cooperation.

Editor’s Note: Esmer Islamov is the pseudonym of a freelance journalist specializing in Uzbek political affairs.

Email this article | Printer-Friendly Version
Posted May 6, 2003 © 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.