The Justus Lipsius building, which houses the European Union Council of Ministers. Residents of Brussels often refer to this area of their city as the "European ghetto". Considering the Council's decision on Tuesday to lift the last sanctions on Uzbekistan, perhaps they're right! Photograph by Flickr user TPCOM (CC-usage).

On 27 October 2009, the Council of the European Union (EU) announced that it is lifting its last (and mostly symbolic) sanctions on the government of Uzbekistan which were imposed after the tragic Andijan event of May 2005.

Amazingly, the Council’s members made the decision without a preliminary discussion.  Afterward, they stated their reason:

Since the adoption of the EU Strategy for a New Partnership with Central Asia in May 2007, the dialogue and cooperation between the EU and Uzbekistan have acquired a new scope and quality…

And check this out: paragraph #6 of the Counci’ls decision says,

With a view to encourage the Uzbek authorities to take further substantive steps to improve the rule of law and the human rights situation on the ground, and taking into account their commitments, the Council decides not to renew the remaining restrictive measures set out in the Common Position 2008/843/CFSP.

Oh, but wait, the Council isn’t totally heartless to the plight of Uzbekistan’s oppressed population:

[A]t the same time, the EU remains seriously concerned about the human rights situation in Uzbekistan, and encourages the Uzbek authorities to implement fully its international obligations in this area.

Huh?

Okay, so it’s true that sanctions really have done little to improve the human rights situation in Uzbekistan.  Abuses are routine, especially against journalists, malcontents, and dissidents.  But there are reasons for this, which I’ll explain in a moment, and besides, at least the sanctions had symbolic value.

The international human rights community went ballistic on the EU.  Human Rights Watch, HRW, Memorial, and local human rights organizations all expressed their concern and opposed the removal of the sanctions.

Memorial in particular released a reaction, calling it an “unjustified friendly move towards one of the most offensive dictatorships”:

The decision of European Union to abolish sanctions on Uzbekistan, introduced after the Andijan events, proves that, unfortunately, European politicians are ready to ignore systematic and brutal violation of human rights in this republic for the sake of geopolitical interests.

When in October 2008 the Council lifted the first part of sanctions, they stipulated that they “expected improvements”.  Well, immediately afterward experts gave their own expectations: they predicted that the Uzbek government wouldn’t change one bit.  Take for example this letter from 14 October, 2008 to Europe’s Foreign Ministers from the HRW:

Although the EU visa ban for Uzbek officials was lifted last October, the human rights situation in Uzbekistan has not improved. HRW said, “[t]his profoundly negative trend speaks volumes about the Uzbek government’s lack of political will to improve its rights record, but also about failed EU policy toward Tashkent.

To remind everyone, the European Union originally imposed sanctions on Uzbekistan in November 2005 because the country refused to investigate the violent suppression of a protest of economic conditions in Andijan in which as many as 700 people may have died. The sanctions were pretty comprehensive: suspending a cooperation accord, imposing an arms embargo, cutting aid to the country, and banning some Uzbek officials from traveling to Western Europe.

How did Uzbekistan respond to the West’s sanctions?  By turning Eastward to Russia, China, and India, none of whom have especially good human rights records and all of whom declared their support of the Uzbek government.  It’s no surprise that they got natural resources in return.  Meanwhile the Uzbek government ordered the closing of the United States air base in Karshi-Khanabad, not to mention the UNHCR office and the offices of other international organizations.

How can the West get leverage on a country like Uzbekistan when it has alternative friends?  Okay, it’s a tough call, but the Europeans seem to have chosen the expedient over right and wrong.  I wonder what role, if any, the United States had behind the scenes, or if this was just the EU acting on its own.

By the way, Uzbekistan’s mass media was surprisingly silent despite this sort-of-diplomatic-victory.  It’s probably because they didn’t want to remind the population that the country has been living under four years of sanctions, not to mention the tragedy that caused the situation.

For more information

• ON Uzbekistan’s position in Reporters Sans Frontières (Reporters Without Borders) Press Freedom Index follow HERE.
• ON Uzbekistan’s position in Freedom House’s the “Worst of the Worst. The World’s Most Repressive Societies 2009″ report follow HERE.
• ON How Ministry of Foreign Affairs comments on internatinal organizations’ claims regarding Andijani events of May 13 2005 follow HERE.