Human Rights:
UZBEK CRACKDOWN DEEPENS DIPLOMATIC DILEMMA FOR UNITED STATES
Ted Weihman: 9/10/03

The latest government crackdown in Uzbekistan is the harshest since that carried out in the aftermath of the 1999 Tashkent bombings, international observers say. In recent months, human rights advocates, independent journalists and opposition political activists have endured arrests, beatings and other forms of intimidation. The Uzbek government campaign is placing the United States in a delicate diplomatic position.

The latest wave of Uzbek government repression traces its origins to the late May arrest of human rights advocate Ruslan Sharipov on homosexuality charges. An Uzbek court sentenced Sharipov to a 5 ½-year jail term on August 13. Up to a few days prior to his sentencing, Sharipov maintained his innocence, but then suddenly fired his defense attorney and admitted his guilt. He reportedly did so under duress, citing concerns for the safety of his mother and legal defenders.

In recent weeks, the most notorious incident connected with the crackdown was the kidnapping and beating of human rights defender Surat Ikramov. On August 28, Ikramov, an outspoken defender of Sharipov, was abducted from his car in Tashkent by four masked men, according to a statement issued by the New York-based Human Rights Watch. He was subsequently beaten, sustaining a concussion and two broken ribs.

Acacia Shields, who monitors Central Asian developments for Human Rights Watch, characterized the recent government action as “the most dramatic increase in attacks on human rights defenders since 1999.” The trigger for the 1999 crackdown was an assassination attempt against Uzbek President Islam Karimov. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Since then, the government, citing the security threat posed by Islamic radicalism, has moved to restrict individual liberties, especially freedom of speech and of religious expression.

“The causes for targeted attacks now are similar to those then in that the government is sensitive about its international reputation and is struggling to maintain prestige in the face of strong criticism,” Shields said. “At sensitive moments, like the critical EBRD meeting in Tashkent back in May, [for background see the Eurasia Insight archive] the government strikes out against critical voices, and human rights defenders are the first and hardest hit.”

Uzbekistan’s human rights practices have been subjected to growing international criticism. At the same time, Tashkent has been facing increasing pressure from global financial institutions to implement badly needed reforms. Uzbek officials have made repeated promises to introduce currency convertibility and take other steps to liberalize economic activity. However, authorities, much to the consternation of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, have yet to follow through on such pledges. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Rather than respond to the criticism with reforms, the reflexive Uzbek government preference appears to be to tighten its control over the country’s civic life. “The Uzbek government has always been sensitive to criticism and has lashed out at critics. The increase in international pressure has made Uzbekistan more sensitive and rather than make things better and relieve problems, they remove the critics,” Shields said.

Shields suggested that Tashkent’s current actions are designed to eliminate completely domestic criticism of its policies. “With a few very high profile attacks you spread fear among the human rights community and that achieves the larger goal of silencing critics,” she said.

In recent months, independent journalists and opposition political activists have also reported experiencing government harassment. For example, journalist Shahnazar Yormatov alleged in a widely distributed email appeal August 13 that he had been beaten and arrested after heroin was planted in his car. According to the appeal, local authorities asked him to provide false testimony against four suspects in a criminal case, but he refused to comply. Although the regional prosecutor ordered Yormatov released from custody, the criminal case against him remains open.

“My life is in danger. I am just now beginning to understand that, having written about the truth in the press, I have made many enemies,” Yormatov wrote in his appeal.

Another incident occurred August 20, when a group of roughly 40 women attacked both Mutabar Tajibaeva, the leader of a human rights group called Ot Yuraklar, and Matluba Azamatova, a reporter for the British Broadcasting Corp. The two women were attending a rally against the conduct of local law-enforcement officials in the Ferghana Valley. Tajibaeva reportedly suffered a concussion. Police witnessed the incident, but did not intervene, according to news accounts.

Uzbek rights activists have also called attention to a case involving Hasan Qambarov, a 25-year-old member of the opposition Erk Party’s youth organization, called Tanlov. Qambarov, according to an appeal distributed September 6, has been held incommunicado since late May, and is believed to be held in a prison in Chirlik. Relatives have expressed concern that Qambarov, who was reportedly arrested for his political activities, has been subjected to torture and might possibly be dead.

The crackdown has created a dilemma for US diplomats, given that Uzbekistan is Washington’s most important strategic partner in Central Asia. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The Bush Administration maintains that Uzbekistan is a key player in the regional effort to contain Islamic radicalism and is keen to continue strategic partnership programs. But Uzbekistan’s tough treatment of its domestic critics runs contrary to Washington’s democratizing mission, and thus complicates US efforts to strengthen security ties.

Observers say that the US pressure has been instrumental in limiting oppression in the past. Usually such pressure has been exerted through quiet diplomacy. But now international rights advocates say the severity of the Uzbek action requires the United States to voice a stronger public position.

“The American government should go to next stage,” said Margarita Assenova, a regional director of the RIGHTS coalition from Freedom House. “Because of the strategic partnership, they [US diplomats] usually work through inside channels, through the ambassador, through the foreign minister, through the state department. But if it continues the US government may go public.”

Editor’s Note: Ted Weihman is editorial assistant at EurasiaNet. He is a graduate of Columbia University’s School of Journalism.