Uzbekistan
June 15, 2004
Guest Editorial: Courting Disaster in Uzbekistan
By Dan Lefkovitz, author, The Kimchi Matters (www.kimchimatters.com)
[printer-friendly version]
Uzbekistan is distant – though strategically located – and a loyal ally. It has been fairly stable for years now. It hardly seems a threat to global security. But that is what people thought of Saudi Arabia a decade ago. In courting Uzbekistan’s dictatorial leader, the US is potentially courting disaster.
On the surface Central Asia gives little cause for concern. Not one country in the region is on the list of state sponsors of terror. All are US allies with ties strengthening daily.
But the reality is far more alarming. With the exception of Georgia and its recent flowering, Central Asia and the Caucuses are a virtual wasteland of democracy. Across the region, opposition parties are banned, journalists harassed, and elections won with 99 percent of the popular vote.
Such countries, with strong and authoritarian leaders who tolerate no dissent, may appear stable. Far more so than factionalized India or strife-prone Bolivia. But the lesson of history is that stability dependent on one-man rule is both ephemeral and prone to quick and brutal reversal. Yugoslavia collapsed into violence with the death of President Tito; likewise Indonesia when President Suharto was forced out. Somalia was an island of stability until its dictator, Muhammad Siad Barre, was deposed.
Disturbingly similar politics are the norm throughout Central Asia today. Azerbaijan recently established a precedent of dynastic succession – handing power from father to son – that the region’s strongmen are likely to attempt to emulate. Turkmenistan’s dictator has renamed months of the year after his family and appointed himself “president-for-life.”
Perhaps the most worrying case is Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan is part of the Coalition of the Willing, a frontline state bordering Afghanistan, and home to thousands of US troops.
Uzbekistan’s president, Islam Karimov, has held power since the country’s independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Uzbekistan’s bureaucracy is stifling and its corruption epic. Its progress on economic reforms has been so meager that the International Monetary Fund closed its Tashkent office. Under Karimov’s stewardship, Uzbeks have actually grown poorer. On average, they now earn just $300 per year. Meanwhile, Karimov spends extravagantly and frivolously. The capital of Tashkent boasts a tennis complex said to rival the US National Tennis Center in Flushing Meadows.
Karimov has shown no interest in democracy. Secular parties that arose after communism were crushed and their leaders imprisoned. The Uzbek press is muzzled. In the last presidential “election,” Karimov’s handpicked opponent, an obscure college professor, admitted later that he had himself voted for the president. Meanwhile, Karimov is frequently berated by Amnesty International for his human rights violations.
Before September 11th, Karimov was persona non grata in Washington, given his human rights abuses. After September 11th, the Bush administration has given Karimov red carpet treatment and generous dollops of aid. Donald Rumsfeld recently stated that ties between the US and Uzbekistan are “growing stronger every month.”
But in Uzbekistan – underneath the superficial stability – one finds a mix of repression, oil and political Islam similar to that which has made the Middle East the globe’s most dangerous region.
The combined oil and gas deposits of the five Central Asian “stans,” plus Azerbaijan, are estimated to rival the remaining reserves of Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Over 80 percent of Uzbekistan’s citizens are Muslim. And the political repression of the Karimov regime is unquestioned – America’s own state department has written of how Uzbekistan’s prison system turns out inmates with “extensive bruises and burns, the latter reportedly caused by immersion in boiling water.”
Just as has happened in the Middle East, the combination of economic stagnation and political repression has spawned religious radicalism. The Hizb ut-Tahrir Islamist movement has found adherents among Uzbeks who lack other means of expressing their discontent. The Al Qaeda-linked Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan has recruited successfully among unemployed youth. These militants fought a mountain insurgency against the Uzbek army for several years and terrorized Tashkent in 1999.
When terrorists once again struck Tashkent in March of this year, the US administration rushed to Uzbekistan’s assistance, offering military help and millions of dollars in aid. But such measures – while understandable – reflect a basic misunderstanding. Uzbekistan may be a nominal ally in the War on Terror, but the country’s politics are actually part of the problem – helping to create the conditions that increase the risk of terrorism in the region and around the world.
US President Bush has rightly noted the connection between the lack of democracy and the rise of terrorism in the Middle East. “Stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty,” he said. One lesson of September 11th is that while Islamist terror has global impacts – relying on cross-border flows of information, people and cash – it often has profoundly local causes, born of domestic resentments and inept government policies in distant regions of the world.
So although Uzbekistan is far from the headlines, and even seems superficially stable, the US would do well to pay its politics careful attention. America is rapidly becoming the guarantor of the security of yet another repressive and corrupt regime. The US learned at great cost in Saudi Arabia that such policies may soon lead to disaster.
[printer-friendly version]
Uzbekistan is distant – though strategically located – and a loyal ally. It has been fairly stable for years now. It hardly seems a threat to global security. But that is what people thought of Saudi Arabia a decade ago. In courting Uzbekistan’s dictatorial leader, the US is potentially courting disaster.
On the surface Central Asia gives little cause for concern. Not one country in the region is on the list of state sponsors of terror. All are US allies with ties strengthening daily.
But the reality is far more alarming. With the exception of Georgia and its recent flowering, Central Asia and the Caucuses are a virtual wasteland of democracy. Across the region, opposition parties are banned, journalists harassed, and elections won with 99 percent of the popular vote.
Such countries, with strong and authoritarian leaders who tolerate no dissent, may appear stable. Far more so than factionalized India or strife-prone Bolivia. But the lesson of history is that stability dependent on one-man rule is both ephemeral and prone to quick and brutal reversal. Yugoslavia collapsed into violence with the death of President Tito; likewise Indonesia when President Suharto was forced out. Somalia was an island of stability until its dictator, Muhammad Siad Barre, was deposed.
Disturbingly similar politics are the norm throughout Central Asia today. Azerbaijan recently established a precedent of dynastic succession – handing power from father to son – that the region’s strongmen are likely to attempt to emulate. Turkmenistan’s dictator has renamed months of the year after his family and appointed himself “president-for-life.”
Perhaps the most worrying case is Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan is part of the Coalition of the Willing, a frontline state bordering Afghanistan, and home to thousands of US troops.
Uzbekistan’s president, Islam Karimov, has held power since the country’s independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Uzbekistan’s bureaucracy is stifling and its corruption epic. Its progress on economic reforms has been so meager that the International Monetary Fund closed its Tashkent office. Under Karimov’s stewardship, Uzbeks have actually grown poorer. On average, they now earn just $300 per year. Meanwhile, Karimov spends extravagantly and frivolously. The capital of Tashkent boasts a tennis complex said to rival the US National Tennis Center in Flushing Meadows.
Karimov has shown no interest in democracy. Secular parties that arose after communism were crushed and their leaders imprisoned. The Uzbek press is muzzled. In the last presidential “election,” Karimov’s handpicked opponent, an obscure college professor, admitted later that he had himself voted for the president. Meanwhile, Karimov is frequently berated by Amnesty International for his human rights violations.
Before September 11th, Karimov was persona non grata in Washington, given his human rights abuses. After September 11th, the Bush administration has given Karimov red carpet treatment and generous dollops of aid. Donald Rumsfeld recently stated that ties between the US and Uzbekistan are “growing stronger every month.”
But in Uzbekistan – underneath the superficial stability – one finds a mix of repression, oil and political Islam similar to that which has made the Middle East the globe’s most dangerous region.
The combined oil and gas deposits of the five Central Asian “stans,” plus Azerbaijan, are estimated to rival the remaining reserves of Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Over 80 percent of Uzbekistan’s citizens are Muslim. And the political repression of the Karimov regime is unquestioned – America’s own state department has written of how Uzbekistan’s prison system turns out inmates with “extensive bruises and burns, the latter reportedly caused by immersion in boiling water.”
Just as has happened in the Middle East, the combination of economic stagnation and political repression has spawned religious radicalism. The Hizb ut-Tahrir Islamist movement has found adherents among Uzbeks who lack other means of expressing their discontent. The Al Qaeda-linked Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan has recruited successfully among unemployed youth. These militants fought a mountain insurgency against the Uzbek army for several years and terrorized Tashkent in 1999.
When terrorists once again struck Tashkent in March of this year, the US administration rushed to Uzbekistan’s assistance, offering military help and millions of dollars in aid. But such measures – while understandable – reflect a basic misunderstanding. Uzbekistan may be a nominal ally in the War on Terror, but the country’s politics are actually part of the problem – helping to create the conditions that increase the risk of terrorism in the region and around the world.
US President Bush has rightly noted the connection between the lack of democracy and the rise of terrorism in the Middle East. “Stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty,” he said. One lesson of September 11th is that while Islamist terror has global impacts – relying on cross-border flows of information, people and cash – it often has profoundly local causes, born of domestic resentments and inept government policies in distant regions of the world.
So although Uzbekistan is far from the headlines, and even seems superficially stable, the US would do well to pay its politics careful attention. America is rapidly becoming the guarantor of the security of yet another repressive and corrupt regime. The US learned at great cost in Saudi Arabia that such policies may soon lead to disaster.