Moral darkness is settling upon Brussels. Photograph of Congresstraat by Flickr user Wave Cult (CC-usage).

Editor’s note: neweurasia reported last week on the decision of EU Council to lift its last sanctions on the government of Uzbekistan.  These sanctions were imposed after the tragic events in Andijan in May 2005. neweurasia’s Musafirbek presents a round-up of reactions from prominent media organizations both online and off.  For an alternative view, check out Pravdin’s post on reactions from international organizations on the ground in Uzbekistan.

As you can imagine, the international human rights community went ballistic on the EU when news  broke about Brussels’ decision to lift the Andijan sanctions. Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International, Russia-based Memorial, and local human rights organizations all expressed their concern and opposed the removal of the sanctions, calling it an “unjustified friendly move towards one of the most offensive dictatorships”.  But they were not alone.  The global press, both online and off, were also furious.

Independent mass media, both Western and Asian, has rocked the world with articles like ‘Europe Ends Its Attempt to Penalize Uzbekistan‘ by America’s New York Times, ‘Uzbek rights activists discouraged by EU move to lift sanctions‘ by Uznews.net, ‘Questions arise over German role in ending Uzbek sanctions‘ by Germany’s Deutsch Welle, ‘EU lifts weapons embargo on supplying military equipment to Uzbekistan‘ by Russia’s Vremya Novostey, ‘Lifting Uzbekistan arms embargo ‘unconscionable’‘ by Pakistan’s Daily Times, ‘European Union dropped last sanctions against Uzbekistan‘ by Ferghana.ru, and many, many more.

All of these editorials have the same conclusion: the EU lifted sanctions to win Tashkent’s support for military operations in Afghanistan and protect economic ties with the autocratic Central Asian regime.

The Twitterverse has always weighed in on the subject; one user even called it a “silly decision”.  The blogosphere has also been active.  For example, the official blog of the University of Pittsburgh, the Jurist, has posted an interview with Veronika Szente Goldston, HRW’s Advocacy Director for Europe and Central Asia.  She points out that the EU has set clear criteria for lifting the sanctions, none of which the Uzbek government has met.  She remarks,

[T]he EU has effectively abandoned any credible effort to achieve human rights improvements through its Uzbekistan policy.  Moreover, in the twelve months since the EU last reviewed its sanctions policy toward Uzbekistan, Tashkent’s rights record only deteriorated further.

Germany was the main force behind the decision; evidently, Angela Merkel’s foreign policy is an ethics free one. The Registan’s Dafydd remarks ruefully,

Seems that [the] supply of the German Afghan contingent via Uzbekistan had absolutely NOTHING to do with it (honestly).

A major theme running throughout the online and offline press has been sympathy for the suffering of Uzbekistan’s people.  For example, BlogAnarchist writes,

Europe uses human rights as a baseball bat with which to bludgeon and patronise poorer nations. The truth is that few nations have been as bloodthirsty and murdereous as those of Europe.

The online edition of the British newspaper The Guardian has published an editorial by David Cronin entitled, “EU cosies up to the torturer of Tashkent“. I think this editorial crystallizes the independent media industry’s disappointment with the EU.

Cronin compares Uzbek President Islam Karimov with Indonesia’s former dictator Muhammad Suharto, who ruled the country for more than 30 years.  He remarks,

Strategic interests apparently make the ruthless ruler of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, ‘our kind of guy’. [...] Before long, the EU will have its own foreign minister and a beefed-up diplomatic service. I’m sure the union’s new representatives will frequently speak of how attached they are to human rights and democracy. No matter how sincere they try to sound, this week’s decision will ensure that their words will have a hollow ring.’

It’s interesting to read the comments of the editorial’s readers.  For example, FelixKrull, recalls the nature of international relations between the West and Uzbekistan since the start of the new millennium:

We’ve been cosy with Karimov since before 9/11. As I remember it, he booted us out at some point after we mildly protested the massacre of Andijan, but copious licking of said boot got us back in favour again, I guess.

Another reader, JoshRogan, asks rhetorically:

[I]f Israel can have footy teams playing in European Cup tournaments, if Hawaii can be a US state, if Tahiti can be as French as Paris, if Turkey can be in NATO and simultaneously kill Kurds, then why not let Uzbekistan join the EU?

Finally, Sabraguy points out a larger scope of hypocrisy in the West with biting sarcasm:

This reader posts a link to a 2007 RFE/RL article detailing criticism from several human rights organizations and the United States of the UN Human Rights Council to end “scrutiny” of Iran and Uzbekistan.   It seems moral myopia for Uzbekistan’s human rights situation is a chronic condition.