Uzbekistan: EU to play nice with Karimov’s regime
The Andijon events of May 2005, when several hundred of demonstrating civilians were reportedly shot dead by the Uzbek government troops, made the whole world tremble. The results did take long to come. The United States made several statements on severe human rights violations in Uzbekistan, for which later were asked to call back the Karshi-Khanabad airbase, and EU has put several sanctions, including visa bans on high ranking Uzbek officials. However, today, after three years have passed, both US and EU seem to have forgotten Andijon.
As informed by Reuters, “a statement drafted by EU ambassadors on April 22… said the EU remained seriously concerned about the rights situation in Uzbekistan. However, it welcomed progress, including abolition of the death penalty and release of some human rights activists.” Therefore, “the EU Council decided that visa restrictions for individuals would not apply for another period of six months.”
Writing in The Guardian, Abdujalil Boymatov, an Uzbek human rights activists, who was recently granted a refugee status in Ireland, argues that “Uzbekistan now is even more repressive place than it was in the Soviet era…” and urges EU no to soften the sanctions imposed on Uzbekistan after the Andijon events.
The article immediately attracted attentions of many readers who left very interesting comments. Logos00 agrees with Mr. Boymatov saying that:
…Uzbekistan is a glaring testament to the hypocrisy of the war on terror. We will only believe that our [Western] leaders are committed to international humanitarian politics when we hear them speak out and act against all regimes that violate humanitarian ideals not just the ones that suit their own strategic interests.
Nick at neweurasia comments on Mr. Boymatov’s statement arguing that his “rap sheet on the Tashkent regime makes stark reading: harassment and torture of activists and opposition politicians, the internment of journalists in psychiatric hospitals, the Andijan massacre, and all sorts of other unpleasantness… [which is] well known to Uzbeks and others who follow Uzbekistan from afar. Nick asks:
Sanctions have a mixed record in international relations. Considering the current economic situation in Uzbekistan - not least hardships caused by poor infrastructure during the recent winter - will sanctions lead to the downfall of the regime or just pile on the misery for the population?
In another post Nick discussed that UK is backing the decision of EU to suspend visa bans on senior officials of Uzbek government, citing a ministerial statement (via TheyWorkForYou.com) written on 25 April by Jim Murphy, MP, Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that says:
“The Council is expected to consider whether there has been sufficient progress on human rights issues in Uzbekistan in the last six months to warrant continued suspension of the EU visa ban. The Government recognise the positive progress made by Uzbekistan in the last six months and welcome its commitment to hold a second round of the EU-Uzbekistan Human Rights Dialogue in May or June this year. In the light of this, and in order to encourage further positive progress from Uzbekistan, the Government are likely to join consensus in continuing the suspension”.
Also posted on GlobalVoicesOnline
on May 3rd, 2008 at 12:04 am
Andijan still looms large in the minds of many of us who study the region, but in the policy-making realm of electoral politics the memories of our nations’ leaders seem to be far more forgiving. Furthermore–and I think, Tolkun, that the quotations you provide demonstrate this very well–there is a debate bubbling over Central Asia (and specifically Uzbekistan) over how best to handle the current situation there.
Nick raises a very good point as to whether or not sanctions will have any real effect on government action, and the sad response has to be probably not. If that is the case, then some leaders seem to think that cozying up to the leaders who are perpetrating these grotesque offenses, and making it easier for citizens themselves to travel to more open societies is the best we can currently do. The problem is that the easing of visa restrictions really only applies to a certain class of peoples that is severely restricted.
I would agree that the government is even more restrictive now than it was during Soviet rule. The overtures that the they have made to please the world’s democratic powers (such as the “abolition of the death penalty”) simply pay lip service to democracy and human rights while, in practice, the government maintains its tyrannical strangle hold on the population through any means necessary.
In my opinion, a closer look should be taken at how the sanctions are impacting the many peoples of Uzbekistan (though given the limited access from outside, even this would have to be done carefully and probably by a non-western NGO). The sanctions may not be working, but I do not see rewarding the government through processes such as the liberalization of visa requirements is the correct path either. The lack of criticism of Uzbekistan’s human rights violations by the world’s great powers is reward enough. Sadly, it seems that the only action to be taken right now is to sit tight, hope that bloggers continue to foster some type of free speech, and apply soft power pressure on the country as best we can. However, as long as NGOs and aid missions are restricted like they currently hard, this final objective remains very difficult. Tragically, it will probably take another Andijan–or several more–before the world pays much more attention to this difficult situation.