Different take on Uzbekistan

[CBL4]

From the Economist:

In fact the unrest, which has been building up for some months, seems to have been triggered by the trials of 23 local businessmen in Andizhan. The men are accused of belonging to Akramiya, another illegal armed group, which is a splinter from Hizb ut-Tahrir. However, locals believe the charges were trumped up by officials, with the aim of seizing the businessmen’s property.

What began as peaceful demonstrations in support of the defendants early last week turned violent when, on Thursday night, armed men stormed the jail where the 23 businessmen were being held, letting out all the prisoners. Clashes then flared up between the security forces and the demonstrators, in which government buildings were seized and officials taken hostage. The army then moved into the town to crush the revolt.

There have been a number of violent incidents in Uzbekistan in recent years, and Mr Karimov has usually held Islamist groups responsible. In 1999, bombs in the capital, Tashkent, killed at least 12 people. Last year, troops stormed a suspected militant hideout, killing up to 23 people. Islamist radicals are indeed active in the country, especially in the Ferghana Valley—the volatile region in which Andizhan is situated. But not all the unrest can be blamed on them. Last year, there were big protests over draconian new laws to regulate market traders. In March, hundreds of farmers whose land had been confiscated stormed government buildings in Jizzakh province. Earlier this month, another group of farmers who had lost their land, from Kashkadarya province, set up a “tent city” near the American embassy in Tashkent.

While playing up the Islamist threat, Mr Karimov has ignored the fact that much of the country’s unrest is due to poor living standards. The government says its confiscation of farm land is justified by the farmers’ failure to pay their debts. But this is due to the regime’s agriculture policies, under which farmers have to buy all their supplies from the state and receive well below market prices for their produce. Economic conditions across the country seem to have deteriorated to the extent that people are now willing to risk defying the notoriously brutal Uzbek security services.
...
Uzbekistan’s protesters would seem to stand little chance against Mr Karimov’s security forces, who have shown they will stop at nothing to crush dissent. Furthermore, no popular, reformist figure like Georgia’s Mikhail Saakashvili or Ukraine’s Victor Yushchenko has yet emerged for the Uzbek opposition to rally around. Nevertheless, the anti-government protests in Georgia, Ukraine and then Kirgizstan all eventually prevailed, despite initial expectations that regime change was unlikely.

So will Mr Karimov be the next strongman in the region to fall? Certainly it is notable that protesters are increasingly focusing their discontent on the president himself, and demanding his resignation, instead of blaming local officials. Pressure within the regime for a change of leader is likely to grow, particularly if vested interests in the political hierarchy start doubting Mr Karimov’s ability to guarantee their privileges.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/newthread.php

 

[Kopji]

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uz.html

Yeah, the tensions are mostly explained by economics, rather than religious fervor. Calling everyone terrorists simplifies things though.

The US policy seems to be to support the (gradual or not so gradual) attrition of ex-soviet states from Russia's circle of influence. This will piss Russia off but otherwise seems like a good policy. (and what are ex-enemies for?)

My concern is how we see things at the very top: Are we helping create new Iraq's and Iran's?

 

[Hutch]

Nice article, CBL.

It's something to watch, revolutions may start over economic and repressive government issues but they are most often sustained by either nationalistic (libery! equality! fraternity! in France) or religious (God is with us! in Poland and Iran). So what begins as a protest against arbitrary arrest and poor economics could quite easily become fodder for an "Islamic" revolution. If, and that is a big unknown if at the moment, there is another Khomeni out there to rally the troops.

And if it looks like a brutal and not-so-savory ruler is about to be overthrown, but by an Islamist-led rebellion, and we have bases there that are important to our logistics for Afghanistan, then what do we do? Overstretch an already overstretched Military?

No proof whatsoever, but I wonder about the Rus..are they still playing "The Great Game" from the 19th Century? I do wonder.

The above IMHO, as always.

 

[CBL4]

I think it shows the inherent problems of dealing with a tyrant.

The tyrant will fall (eventually). If you support him, the enemies of the tyrant will hate you. If you oppose the tyrant, the enemies will like you. Also, you can influence the fall better if you are allied with the tyrants enemies. You can even help democratic forces in their desire for freedom.

As it is, we are rightly hated in Uzbekistan. Virtually all rebels will be funded and armed by Islamic extremists. Bad situation.

CBL

 

[Mycroft]

I think it shows the inherent problems of dealing with a tyrant.

The tyrant will fall (eventually). If you support him, the enemies of the tyrant will hate you. If you oppose the tyrant, the enemies will like you. Also, you can influence the fall better if you are allied with the tyrants enemies. You can even help democratic forces in their desire for freedom.

As it is, we are rightly hated in Uzbekistan. Virtually all rebels will be funded and armed by Islamic extremists. Bad situation.

CBL

But if we support them, don't we just run the risk of having supported another Bin Laden? If we don't support them, aren't we just leaving them to the influences of people who may be worse?

This looks like a classic no-win scenario. Nobody here can be said to be fighting for freedom, so there is no right side to pick and even just staying out of it has a down side.

 

[CBL4]

But if we support them, don't we just run the risk of having supported another Bin Laden? If we don't support them, aren't we just leaving them to the influences of people who may be worse?

This looks like a classic no-win scenario. Nobody here can be said to be fighting for freedom, so there is no right side to pick and even just staying out of it has a down side.

I totally agree. This is the problem with supporting a tyrant. Eventually you get into a no-win situation.

However, we supported this tyrant to overthrow another tyranny in Afghanistan. It may have been worth it especially since the Taliban and Bin Laden were a real threat to the US.

One other note, we did cut aid to Uzbekistan - (this quote is from July 2004):

This week's decision by the U.S. State Department to cut up to $18 million [CBL - from approximately $100 million] in aid to its staunchest anti-terrorism ally in Central Asia is being welcomed by human rights activists, who called the move long overdue.

The slap at the government of President Islam Karimov, who has ruled Uzbekistan with an iron hand since even before it became independent of the Soviet Union in 1991, should add at least some credibility to the Bush administration's claims that it is serious about supporting democratization in the Islamic world.

But at the same time, the move, which was expected since Washington issued a warning about Karimov's human-rights performance last December, is unlikely to prompt any major downgrading of bilateral relations, at least for the moment, and even rights groups say Washington should continue to be engaged with Tashkent to encourage reform.

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=3043

Also, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development has also provided aid to Uzbekistan but I believe they stopped in 2004.

CBL