The Environmental Justice Foundation has released a new report on cotton production and its environmental and social costs in Uzbekistan.

White Gold – The True Cost of Cotton

From Hansards on 1st December

Mr. Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answers of 24 November 2005, Official Report, columns 2247’48W, on Uzbekistan, to the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands), when EU Ministers plan to review the exemption of Islam Karimov and his family from the list of Uzbek officials banned from travelling to the European Union; what discussions he has had with German authorities regarding the visit of Uzbek Interior Minister Almatov; and whether Mr. Almatov is still in Germany. [33768]

Mr. Douglas Alexander: The measures announced by the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 3 October in relation to Uzbekistan came into force on 14 November. They clearly demonstrate the profound concern of the European Union (EU) about the situation in Uzbekistan and the EU’s strong condemnation of the refusal of the Uzbek authorities’ to allow an independent international inquiry into the events in Andizhan in May.

The Council decided to implement these measures for an initial period of one year. In the meantime, the Council will keep under constant review the measures it has implemented in the light of any significant changes to the current situation, in particular any that demonstrate the willingness of the Uzbek authorities to adhere to the principles of respect for human rights, rule of law and fundamental freedoms.

The German authorities consulted us before Almatov’s visa was issued and we agreed with their assessment that Almatov qualified for an exemption as a case of urgent humanitarian need. Our embassy in Berlin remains in contact with the German authorities with regard to this case.

The details of Almatov’s presence are a matter for the Germans.

From Hansards on the 24th November.

Mr. Hands: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the exemption of Islam Karimov and his family from the list of Uzbek officials banned from travelling to the European Union. [30702]

Mr. Douglas Alexander: We have not ruled out adding further names to the list of those subject to the EU’s visa ban. When adopting the measures on 3 October, the EU recognised the need to maintain contacts with Uzbekistan. Inclusion of the President on

the list would reduce prospects of continued dialogue. The measures introduced by the EU will be reviewed in the light of developments in Uzbekistan.

Mr. Hands: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the EU travel ban on Uzbek officials; and what assessment he has made of the implications for the ban of Uzbek Interior Minister Almatov’s presence in Germany. [30869]

Mr. Douglas Alexander: The measures announced by the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 3 October in relation to Uzbekistan came into force on 14 November. They clearly demonstrate the profound concern of the European Union (EU) about the situation in Uzbekistan and the EU’s strong condemnation of the refusal of the Uzbek authorities to allow an independent international inquiry into the events in Andizhan in May.

The EU travel ban stands. Almatov’s visa was issued before the travel ban came into effect. The travel ban allows for exemptions in cases of urgent humanitarian need. The German authorities checked that the medical case for the visa was urgent before deciding to issue.

People victims of old-styled, superpower politics, former British ambassador says

By ESTANISLAO OZIEWICZ in Globe and Mail

With Uzbekistan’s expulsion of NATO, its break with the United States and its recent signing of a defence pact with Russia, the most populous and heavily armed country in Central Asia has now completely switched strategic horses.

“The disaster, of course, is for the poor people of Uzbekistan, who are living in grinding, worsening poverty and with no freedom,” said Craig Murray, the former British ambassador who was removed from his post a year ago after his internal criticism of human-rights abuses in the former Soviet republic became public. “They are the victims of classic, old-fashioned, superpower politics, with the United States, Russia and to a lesser extent China, competing for influence in the region, just like Cold War times.”

Uzbekistan this week told NATO allies that they must withdraw troops and stop using Uzbek airspace by Jan. 1. On Monday, the U.S. military flew its last plane out from an air base in Uzbekistan that had been an important hub for operations in Afghanistan.

All the while Tashkent was nudging closer to Moscow, where Russian President Vladmir Putin has accepted his Uzbekistan counterpart’s insistence that in his regime’s bloody crackdown in the eastern city of Andijan last May, he was merely putting down a revolt led by Islamic militants. Earlier this month, the two countries signed an agreement that allows for Russian military deployment in the Central Asian nation.

A glaring spotlight was put on the West’s relationship with President Islam Karimov during the Andijan crackdown. Earlier this week, the United Nations urged Uzbekistan to stop harassing eyewitnesses to the Andijan suppression and expressed regret that Tashkent has rejected repeated calls by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour for an independent inquiry.

Last week, the European Union banned 12 Uzbek officials from entering Europe because of their involvement in the Andijan crackdown. Earlier, the EU had imposed an arms embargo on Uzbekistan and suspended a co-operation pact.

Mr. Murray, who has since resigned from the foreign service, has kept up a barrage of criticism of Mr. Karimov’s harsh, dictatorial regime and of the policies that underlined Washington’s alliance with Tashkent after Sept. 11, 2001.

He said it was clear from the start that Mr. Karimov’s dalliance with Western economic liberalization would not last long under his totalitarian approach.

“The switching of alliance was an inevitable consequence of the decision not to go to capitalism. That’s what drives it all, rather than short-term events like Andijan or individual spats over UN resolutions.”

Mr. Murray acknowledges some satisfaction that his criticisms of Mr. Karimov and of the approach by Washington and London proved correct.

“The policies were so stupid, so obviously wrong and it seemed to be founded, to some extent, on self-delusion. I think that the Americans had managed to convince themselves – against all the evidence – that Karimov was a reformer.”

By Andrew Stroehlein in European Voice

Uzbekistan Interior Minister Zakirjon Almatov is currently on an extended visit to Germany. Nothing strange or particularly newsworthy about that, you might think – until you realise that Almatov has been declared persona non grata by the EU. He is officially prohibited from visiting the EU, and yet, he is here all the same.

On 14 November, the Council issued travel bans on 12 Uzbek officials “directly responsible for the indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force” in the massacre of hundreds of unarmed protesters in the east Uzbekistan city of Andijan on 13 May, 2005. The name Zakirjon Almatov tops the EU’s travel blacklist.

The German Foreign Ministry defends its decision to allow Almatov to stay in the country despite the visa ban against him, saying it is acting “on humanitarian grounds”, because he is receiving medical treatment at a clinic in Hanover. That must seem a cruel joke to the victims of the Andijan massacre. They know Almatov as “The Butcher of Andijan”, a man who showed little humanity as he told protesters there would be no negotiations just before government troops started firing into the crowd.

The Andijan massacre’s victims include not only those murdered in May but also witnesses and their families, who continue to face harassment from the Uzbek authorities anxious to silence them and, as documented in September reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, enforce their version of history. The Uzbek government would like the world to believe Andijan was the start of an attempted “Islamist insurgency” and they’ve been going through a lot of trouble trying to get that point across. Running propaganda films at their embassies worldwide has been the least of it.

The authorities have tortured confessions out of supposed insurgents as part of a completely choreographed Stalinist-style show trial that concluded last week with, to no one’s surprise, fifteen out of fifteen convictions and the government’s version of events fully upheld. In an apparent prelude to a second show-trial, they have also denounced a number of domestic and foreign journalists on national television for their part in the grand plot to overthrow the state.

The Uzbek security services have continued to pursue and harass refugees who were forced to leave the country after Andijan. A few hundred are now safe in camps in Romania, but as many as 2,000 more remain at risk just across the Uzbek border in Kyrgyzstan.

Perhaps the new German government will take into account some of these victims and consider dealing with them on humanitarian grounds rather than favouring their oppressors. The whole point of visa bans, after all, is to punish elites by denying them the sort of luxuries they enjoy. This sort of high-quality healthcare in particular is something they cannot get in their own countries and exempting it utterly defeats the point of sanctions.

The Council’s decree was an admirable move. Along with the visa ban, it declared an embargo on “arms, military equipment and other equipment that might be used for internal repression”. The travel and trade restrictions will be in place for one year, when the Council will look at Tashkent’s progress on several human rights issues, including the outcome of an independent, international inquiry into the events in Andijan – an idea Uzbekistan has consistently rejected. Yes, the EU decree came embarrassingly late and the list of twelve officials rather oddly omits the authoritarian regime’s ruler, President Islam Karimov, but generally it represented a positive step.

However, what good is Europe’s principled decree if it is openly flouted from the very day it is made?

Germany has a military base in Termez, Uzbekistan, but while that might have been an excuse to avoid agreement on European measures in the first place, surely it cannot be used to justify the hypocrisy of announcing restrictions and contravening them at the same time. If Germany has sacrificed its principles to maintain Termez, it hardly seems worth it: to support German troops in Afghanistan, they could easily operate through Manas, Kyrgyzstan, or indeed Bagram, Afghanistan.

A spokesperson for EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana has said of Germany’s decision to let Almatov stay: “We don’t see a problem.” If they truly fail to see the problem with breaking rules as they are making them, then Berlin and Brussels must be blind.

From Muslim Uzbekistan

General Z.Almatov was the key person along with Islam Karimov in Andijan bloodshed / The German Air Force will continue using Uzbek territory for providing support to operations in Afghanistan, the German Embassy in Tashkent was quoted by Interfax on Thursday.

“The German Air Force is using the airport of the Uzbek town of Termez on regular terms,” an embassy source said.

The embassy denied reports that the Uzbek authorities had officially banned Germany from using Uzbek airspace. “This information can be qualified as rumors,” the source said.

An Uzbek Foreign Ministry source also confirmed to Interfax that German servicemen are continuing to use the Termez airport, which is located close to the Afghan border, to support the antiterrorist coalition’s activity in southern Uzbekistan.

“No warnings were issued to Germany on this account. Such notes were sent to the embassies of Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden,” the ministry source said.

A high-ranking source from the NATO headquarters was cited on November 23 as saying that Uzbekistan had banned the NATO member-states to use its airspace. Furthermore, the source was reported to say that such notifications were sent particularly to Germany, Spain and Belgium.

On November 14 the European Union decided to impose a travel ban to the EU on 12 Uzbek officials and an arms embargo due to the refusal by Uzbek authorities to allow an international inquiry into the events in May in the city of Andijan. The list included the interior minister Zakirjan Almatov who is directly responsible along with Islam Karimov for the Andijan massacre.

However, nowadays Almatov receives treatment in Hanover, Germany.

According to Uzland.Info Almatov was granted a visa to Germany from the second attempt. At first Germany reportedly refused but after Uzbekistan threatened it with withdrawal of its military units in Termez they allowed massacre minister to get treatment.

By Simon Tisdall in The Guardian

It looks like Craig Murray was right all along. To the US’s annoyance, Britain’s former ambassador to Uzbekistan publicly criticised human rights abuses by President Islam Karimov’s government. Mr Murray lost his job last year. But even the most hard-nosed US strategists could not turn a blind eye to the massacre in the town of Andijan in May. The ensuing confrontation, all the more explosive for being delayed, has come at a high price to Washington’s interests in central Asia.

Rejecting western demands for an independent inquiry into Andijan, when hundreds died, the ostensibly pro-American Mr Karimov has switched sides. He ordered the US to close its military base in Uzbekistan, a key part of its Afghan operations. And he turned to China for consolation.

Beijing, keen to expand its regional clout and discourage indigenous Muslim “splittists”, unquestioningly accepted his claim to be battling an Islamist insurrection. Moscow, with Chechnya in mind, also sympathised. At a Kremlin ceremony last week Mr Karimov signed a mutual defence pact with Russia. Yesterday Nato was also kicked out. Washington’s Uzbek policy lay in tatters.

With its valuable oil, gas and mineral reserves and authoritarian political tradition, Uzbekistan is a typical battleground in what is fast becoming an epic, three-way struggle for power, influence and resources in post-Soviet central Asia. “Its the world’s last vacuum,” said Kalman Mizsei, regional director of the United Nations development programme. “The region has become a playground for rival geopolitical interests.” But increased cooperation rather than competition between countries should be the aim, he said.

Having “lost” Uzbekistan, the US, EU and Japan are nervously tracking unfavourable trends in two of its neighbours. As in Ukraine and Georgia, Kyrgyzstan’s “tulip revolution” last March has brought disappointment in its wake. The government of Kurmanbek Bakiyev has been beset by troubles, including the killing of three MPs.

Mr Bakiyev threatened to use troops to impose order earlier this month. “Those taking up arms and attempting to speak a language of force with the authorities will be terminated, full stop,” he warned in a manner reminiscent of his ousted predecessors.

Kyrgyzstan, meanwhile, wants the US to pay more for the use of its airbase there – or face an Uzbek-style eviction. The demand follows claims that the Pentagon connived in under-the-table payments worth millions of dollars to the family and friends of the deposed president, Askar Akayev.

The integrity of Kazakhstan’s presidential election on December 4 is also giving cause for concern. Visiting last month, Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, urged Nursultan Nazarbayev, the president, to ensure fair polls. She denied the US was soft-pedalling to safeguard its oil and security interests, an accusation also heard during Azerbaijan’s flawed elections last month. Since her departure a leading opposition figure, Zamanbek Nurkadilov, has mysteriously died of gunshot wounds amid claims of intimidation and media bias. But Mr Nazarbayev’s spokesman reassuringly said there was no need to rig the polls. “The president would win even if we sat around doing nothing,” he said.

Democracy’s trials in central Asia are of less concern for Russia and China, which may give them a short-term advantage. Ignoring the human rights issues highlighted by Mr Murray, both are building economic ties bilaterally and through the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, to which most central Asian states belong. But Mr Mizsei said Russia would resist China’s advances. “All these countries are more familiar with a Soviet big brother than a Chinese one,” he said. “There will definitely be a divergence of interests.”

If and when that happens, the west could win in the east.

From Reuters Alertnet

Uzbekistan has told European members of NATO they will not be able to use its airspace or territory for operations linked to peacekeeping in neighbouring Afghanistan, alliance officials said on Wednesday.

They said they understood the ban would take effect from Jan. 1 and that it was in response to a European Union decision to impose visa bans on 12 top Uzbek officials and an arms embargo on the central Asian state over the deaths of up to 500 people during a demonstration in May.

“NATO itself has not been notified of this but individual European nations have,” a NATO official told a briefing, speaking on a customary basis of anonymity.

A ban would primarily affect Germany, which has been using Uzbekistan for logistical and air support.

“Germany is the country most affected, but alternative arrangements are possible. There will be no diminishment of our capacity to support ISAF,” the official said, referring to the 9,000-strong NATO-led peacekeeping force in Afghanistan.

The Uzbek move comes as NATO is seeking to expand its Afghan presence from the north, west and capital Kabul into the more dangerous south.

Germany has supplied some of its 2,000-plus troops serving with ISAF in Afghanistan via the Uzbek air base of Termez close to Afghanistan’s northern border.

Witnesses say about 500 people were killed on May 13 when Uzbek troops fired into a crowd in the eastern town of Andizhan to put down a rebellion. Uzbek authorities put the number at 187 and said they were mostly “foreign-paid terrorists.”

Uzbekistan signed in 1994 a so-called “partnership for peace” agreement to nurture closer ties with NATO and has also signed an accord that allows alliance troops in principle to use its territory.

NATO has taken no action to downgrade the partnership for peace agreement since the violence, although it has cancelled some meetings with Uzbekistan to make the point that it was not business as usual.

From Radio Free Europe

An Uzbek journalist has been honored with an International Press Freedom Award for her coverage of the violence in the town of Andijon last May. Galima Bukharbaeva, a former correspondent for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, was honored at a ceremony in New York City on 22 November.

Galima Bukharbaeva worked as the Uzbekistan correspondent for the London-based Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) and she risked her life covering the events in Andijon.

Bukharbaeva spoke with RFE/RL from Andijon as the events were unfolding on 13 May.

“I was able to hide myself in a small canal, and from there I saw wounded people being carried away from of the crowd,” she said. “I saw five men completely covered in blood being carried away in front of me. The people carrying them were also covered in blood. They said those people [being carried] were dead. They were just bodies. They didn’t move. But I think some of them were wounded. There were five or maybe more people [were wounded]. People were saying, ‘Look, journalists, there are two or three dead bodies here.’ But we couldn’t look because the shooting continued.”

A Bullet In Her Press Card

Witnesses and human rights activists say around 700 people may have been killed after Uzbek troops fired into a crowd in Andijon to quell a revolt. Uzbek authorities say 187 people were killed, mostly foreign-paid terrorists.

Several hours later on 13 May, Bukharbaeva realized that she, too, had barely escaped death: She found that a bullet had pierced her backpack and press card.

On 22 November in New York, Bukharbaeva was awarded an International Press Freedom Award for her coverage from Andijon.

Never So Close

She recently spoke with RFE/RL from New York, where she now lives in exile.

“It was the first time in my life when I really faced the threat of death,” Bukharbaeva said. “The death was never so close to me as it was that day in Andijon.”

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), which sponsors the award, acknowledged that Bukharbaeva risked her life covering the Andijon.

“In those difficult conditions, Galima has done an extraordinary news reporting,” CPJ executive Alex Lupis told RFE/RL. “She focused on very difficult and politically sensitive issues like police torture, repression of Islamic activists and the government abuse against the media and human rights activists.”

An Award For All Uzbek Journalists

Bukharbaeva faces criminal prosecution in Uzbekistan for her reporting on Andijon and alleged police torture and repression of Islamic activists. The 31-year-old recently got married and received fellowship in Columbia University.

She says the award is recognition for the work of all courageous journalists in Uzbekistan.

“This award may also be a symbol of a really hard and terrible situation in Uzbekistan,” Bukharbaeva said. “It is like a recognition of a work of local journalists who work in Uzbekistan and recognition of those really serious and hard circumstances in which we have to operate in Uzbekistan.”

The CPJ’s Lupis says Bukharbaeva’s journalism stands as an example of independent journalism in Uzbekistan and Central Asia as a whole.

Others honored by the CPJ this year included a Brazilian publisher and editor, a Zimbabwean media lawyer and an imprisoned Chinese journalist.

From The Australian

MOSCOW: The man accused of leading the massacre of anti-government protesters in Uzbekistan in May is having cancer treatment in Germany, despite being barred last month from the EU.

German officials disclosed yesterday that Zakirjan Almatov, Uzbekistan’s Interior Minister, got a visa in October to undergo a lifesaving operation in Hanover.

Mr Almatov was in charge of security forces who fired on anti-government protesters in the eastern city of Andijan on May 13. The Government says that 187 people died, mostly Islamic militants, but witnesses say up to 500 unarmed civilians were killed.

The EU responded by announcing sanctions on Uzbekistan on October 3, including a visa ban on officials responsible for the bloodshed. It issued a list of 12 names, including Mr Almatov, this week.

EU and German officials said that he was granted a visa because the year-long ban was not in force at the time and allowed humanitarian exemptions.

But human rights activists expressed outrage that Germany, which has a military base in Uzbekistan, had made an exception for one of the ban’s main targets.

Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, said the decision was shameful and scandalous.

Mr Murray was recalled last year after accusing Britain and the US of toning down criticism of human rights abuses in Uzbekistan in exchange for the US military’s use of an airbase on its soil. He said he believed Germany was doing the same.

In July the US was asked to leave its base, a launchpad for its operations in Afghanistan, after joining EU calls for an inquiry into the violence.

From USINFO.State.Gov

Absence of countries on list of worst offenders in State’s report questioned

By Jeffrey Thomas

Washington File Staff Writer

Washington – A congressional hearing examined the State Department’s annual report on religious freedom November 15, questioning the absence of the Central Asian nations of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan from the list of the worst violators.

The State Department released its International Religious Freedom Report for 2005 November 8. The report ‘ the seventh in the annual series — examines religious freedom in 197 countries and what the United States is doing to improve the conditions for this central human right. The report is mandated by the U.S. Congress under the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA). (See related article.)

No country in Europe or Eurasia is listed in the report as a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) — the category reserved for the worst offenders that engage in or tolerate gross infringements of religious freedom.

The 2005 report lists eight countries as CPCs: Burma, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), Eritrea, Iran, the People’s Republic of China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Vietnam. The panel of witnesses at the hearing November 15 agreed these countries were gross violators of religious freedom and urged greater U.S. efforts on behalf of those who are suffering for their faith.

Although Uzbekistan was not on that list, it was cited in the report for ongoing serious abuses of religious freedom.

The report cited Turkmenistan as one of two Eurasian countries (along with Georgia) in which the conditions for religious freedom have continued to improve over the past year. (See related article.)

CONCERNS RAISED OVER REPORT’S TREATMENT OF UZBEKISTAN, TURKMENISTAN

At the hearing, Committee Chairman Christopher Smith said he considers Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to be among those countries ‘where the rights of believers are seriously threatened.’

John Hanford, the State Department’s ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, testified first at the hearing, providing the committee with a summary of the report.

The United States continues to engage a number of additional countries on serious violations of religious freedom, he said, citing Uzbekistan as an example. After recounting some of the mistreatment and abuses in Uzbekistan, he added: ‘We are continuing engagement with the government to encourage respect for religious freedom for all groups.’

Hanford also noted ‘positive developments’ in Turkmenistan, including the release of a number of political prisoners and the first-ever roundtable involving government officials with representatives of religious minorities. ‘Nevertheless, serious problems remain,’ he said.

Hanford said the report is ‘always going to miss things and we always welcome criticism ‘ and try to respond to those criticisms.’

‘We’re there to be a ‘gold standard’ on the facts,’ he said of the annual report.

He wanted to make clear, he said, ‘that we are in final CPC negotiations on one or two fronts. We anticipate making an additional CPC announcement in the near future.’

U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WEIGHS IN

Michael Cromartie, the chair of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, said the commission stands by its recent call for Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to be ranked among the worst offenders against religious freedom in the world. (See related article.)

The commission also was established by IRFA. The law charges the commission with monitoring the status of freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief globally and making recommendations to the president, the secretary of state and Congress as to how the U.S. government better can protect and promote religious freedom and related human rights in its relations with other countries.

‘The omission of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan from the CPC list is particularly troubling and a discredit to Congress’s intent in passing IRFA,’ said Cromartie.

‘Turkmenistan, among the most repressive states in the world today, allows virtually no independent religious activity,’ he continued. ‘The government of Uzbekistan places strict restrictions on religious practice and continues to crack down harshly on individuals and groups that operate outside of government-controlled religious organizations.’

‘The ambassador-at-large [John Hanford] and the State Department have for years attempted to engage the governments of these two countries in an effort to seek improvements. However, the response has been extremely limited. In the face of the severe religious freedom violations perpetrated by the Turkmen and Uzbek governments, the continued failure to name them as CPCs undermines the spirit and letter of IRFA.’

Cromartie took particular issue with the annual report on Turkmenistan containing the ‘startling claim that the status of religious freedom improved during the period covered by this report. Even more disturbing is that Turkmenistan is listed in the Executive Summary as one of the countries which has seen significant improvements in the promotion of religious freedom.’

‘This conclusion is regarded as erroneous not only by the commission but by most human rights organizations and other observers of Turkmenistan,’ he said.

A coalition of nine human-rights groups submitted a joint statement supporting Cromartie’s concerns, calling the evidence of severe and widespread violations of religious freedom in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan ‘overwhelming,’ and providing detailed criticism of the annual reports on the two countries.

Another witness, Lawrence Uzzell from the nongovernmental organization International Religious Freedom Watch, added his voice to the criticism of the sections on Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Uzzell suggested that U.S. diplomats ‘fall into the trap of paying too little attention to indigenous minorities, even if those minorities may be suffering harsher repression than American missions and missionaries.’

The problem is not, Uzzell said, that the report has too many references to such U.S.-based groups as the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. ‘The problem is that the report gives too little attention to other groups.’

The prepared statements of all the witnesses at the hearing as well as a webcast of the hearing itself are available at the Web site of the House International Relations Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights, and International Operations.

The full text of the 2005 report and previous reports are available on the State Department Web site.

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Brussels, 18 November 2005

The European Union has been closely following the trial in Uzbekistan of 15 individuals in relation to the events in Andijan on 12-13 May 2005, which concluded on 14 November.

The European Union shares many of the serious concerns about the conduct of the trial expressed on 26 October by the UN Special Rapporteurs and the Independent Expert on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, and those expressed by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The European Union looks forward to the early publication of the report of the ODIHR team which followed the trial.

The European Union has serious concerns about the credibility of the case presented by the prosecution and believes that defence procedures were inadequate to ensure a fair trial. The European Union would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns with the Uzbek government.

The trial focussed on the attacks on the army barracks, prison and SNB building, as well as the occupation of the Hokimyat. While recognising the criminal nature of these attacks, the European Union is concerned that the trial paid little attention to the substantial number of reports, including from eyewitnesses, alleging that the Uzbek military and security forces committed grave human rights violations while curbing the demonstrations.

The European Union continues to place primary importance on a credible and transparent independent international inquiry into the events of 12-13 May. The European Union stands ready to discuss all of these matters in its ongoing dialogue with Uzbekistan.

By Ian MacWilliam writing in BBC Online

Uzbekistan’s Supreme Court has jailed 15 men for between 14 and 20 years after they were convicted of organising unrest in the eastern town of Andijan.

Last May, a jail break in Andijan was followed by a massive anti-government demonstration. Protesters who escaped say government troops fired into the crowd, killing hundreds of people. The Uzbek authorities say only 187 people died, and that most were killed by the organisers of the unrest, who it calls Islamic insurgents.

“The court has found the accused guilty in particular of terrorism, attempts to overthrow the constitutional order, aggravated murder and the seizure of hostages,” Judge Bakhtyor Jamolov told the court on Monday.

Outside observers, however, say the trial was carefully stage-managed from the start. The defendants all confessed their guilt in the opening days of the trial in September, begging the forgiveness of the Uzbek people and President Islam Karimov.

Questionable standards

International human rights groups and the UN have called into question the trial’s validity. They say forced confessions are often obtained by the use of threats against family members, by physical torture, or by the use of psychotropic drugs. They say these methods, widely used in the Soviet period, are still routine in Uzbekistan today. The Uzbek government denies this.

Apart from concerns about the confessions, the trial fell far short of international standards in other respects. During the month-long proceedings there was no cross-questioning by independent lawyers and little attempt to verify the truth of witnesses’ accounts. The defendant’s government-appointed lawyers made little effort to defend them.

“It was hard to believe some pressure was not put on the defendants,” said Andrea Berg, of US-based Human Rights Watch. “We think this was a show trial. The defendants and their lawyers had no chance to speak to each other in private.”

Lone testimony

Of more than 200 witnesses called by the government, only one, a housewife from near Andijan, challenged the official account. Makhbuba Zakirova said soldiers had indeed fired at unarmed civilians in Andijan, and again as some protesters tried to escape across the border into neighbouring Kyrgyzstan. The judge denounced Ms Zakirova in his summing up speech.

“Makhbuba Zakirova gave evidence that does not agree with events,” he told the court. “The court has decided she intentionally gave false evidence because she sympathises with the Akramists.”

The government uses the term “Akramists” to refer to members of a group of pious Muslims in Andijan who were prominent in the anti-government protests. But members of this ill-defined group say they are simply believers, not terrorists, and they deny any desire to overthrow the government.

There has been concern about Ms Zakirova’s security since her testimony. She remains under close government observation.

Universal scepticism

Some observers had expected the death penalty for some of the accused. Analysts speculate they may have been promised to be spared capital punishment if they co-operated. But speculation aside, Mr Karimov has said the death penalty will be abolished in Uzbekistan in 2008 – and it may be that death was judged to be too harsh, given the widespread criticism the trial has aroused.

In Andijan itself, there appears to be almost universal scepticism about the trial. People are afraid to speak openly, but in private they say the Tashkent government is persecuting normal Muslim believers.

Most say people gathered in the town centre because they were concerned about widespread government corruption and the lack of jobs. Given the international criticism and widespread domestic scepticism, the propaganda value of the Andijan trial is unclear.

Reliable partner

Only Russia and China have come out unequivocally in support of the Uzbek government – both countries which are seeking greater influence in Central Asia. While the sentences were being pronounced in Tashkent, Mr Karimov was in Moscow receiving a warm welcome from President Vladimir Putin.

The two men signed an agreement promising much closer military co-operation and apparently opening the way for possible Russian military intervention in Uzbekistan in the event of further unrest, such as in Andijan.

“We have shown once more with whom we want to build our future,” said Mr Karimov in Moscow. “Russia is our most reliable partner and ally.”

By contrast, Brussels has issued a list of 12 top Uzbek officials who will be banned from visiting EU member states for a year. They include Interior minister Zakirjon Almatov, Defence minister Kadyr Gulyamov, and the head of the secret police, Rustam Inoyatov.

EU bans

An EU statement said the visa ban, and a ban on arms sales to Uzbekistan, had been adopted because of “the excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by Uzbek security forces during the Andijan events, and following refusal of the Uzbek authorities to allow an independent international inquiry”.

While this trial has come to an end, anger about Andijan is bound to continue to fester in Uzbekistan. Members of the small and beleaguered opposition say that disaffection with Mr Karimov is now widespread within the government and the security services. In Andijan, some people say cautiously they expect further unrest and possibly political change.

Historically the Uzbek people have usually been obedient to their rulers – but many analysts say growing poverty and authoritarianism are making Uzbekistan a dangerously unstable land in the heart of Central Asia.

From Human Rights Watch

Tashkent, November 11, 2005 ‘ An independent journalist in Uzbekistan was ambushed and assaulted on November 9 by a group of unidentified men, the latest attack in a worsening environment for government critics since the May 13 massacre in Andijan, Human Rights Watch said today.

The circumstances of the attack strongly suggest that Aleksei Volosevich, a correspondent for the independent website fergana.ru, was attacked in Tashkent on November 9 because of his extensive reporting critical of the government since the May 13 massacre.

‘Aleksei Volosevich is the latest independent journalist to be attacked in the wake of Andijan,’ said Holly Cartner, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. ‘The Uzbek authorities have done absolutely nothing to protect those who are uncovering important facts about the massacre.’

At 4 p.m. on November 9, Volosevich received a telephone call at home from an unidentified male caller. The caller claimed he had come from Andijan and said he had material of interest to Volosevich. Volosevich asked how the man knew his home telephone number, but the caller declined to answer, saying only that he would explain when they met. The two agreed to meet an hour later not far from Volosevich’s apartment.

As Volosevich walked toward the appointed meeting place, five men approached him. One man asked Volosevich if he had a cigarette. Just as Volosevich was answering, the men jumped him. One tripped him, knocking him to the ground. They threw paint in Volosevich’s face and poured several buckets of indelible paint on him. As the men ran away, one of them shouted, ‘You won’t sell out your country anymore!’

When Volosevich returned home, he saw a young man running away from the entrance to his building. Inside, he saw that the entryway and the door to his apartment were covered in paint. The walls were covered with graffiti, including curse words, the phrase ‘sell-out journalist,’ and the word ‘Jew.’ The graffiti said that Volosevich’who is an ethnic Russian’doesn’t understand Islam, the predominant religion in Uzbekistan.

Volosevich told Human Rights Watch that he understood the attack as retribution for his reporting, particularly his reporting on the Andijan events and their aftermath, including the trial of 15 defendants accused of organizing the Andijan events, which is ongoing in the Supreme Court.

Two weeks ago, an article appeared in a government-controlled newspaper that criticized Volosevich and his reporting on the Supreme Court trial. The article appeared only days after Volosevich had published the opinions of several commentators highly critical of the trial. Volosevich also told Human Rights Watch that for several days around that same time, he could not gain access to any material on the fergana.ru website on his home computer. Every time he clicked on a link, the same fergana.ru article appeared: one from several years ago about the journalist Ruslan Sharipov, an outspoken government critic who had then recently been arrested. The article also noted the severe difficulties journalists face if they are critical of the government. Volosevich took this as a warning organized by the authorities since only the government could interfere with his Internet provider in this way.

Volosevich also appeared in video footage of Andijan that the prosecution showed in the Supreme Court trial relating to the Andijan events. The footage shows Volosevich and other journalists entering the local government (hokimiat) building in Andijan that had been taken over by gunmen. During the trial, the prosecution has argued that foreign journalists and local journalists working for foreign media provided ‘informational support’ to the terrorists. Government-controlled television also broadcast the video.

‘Independent journalists are not safe in Uzbekistan,’ said Cartner. ‘The government has shown its hostility to the press. It has arrested and intimidated those who report independently and suggested that journalists bear responsibility for the atrocities in Andijan.’

The press service of the National Security Service reported that it has a mandate to investigate the crime against Volosevich because the incident involves anti-Semitism. The head of the press service denied that the security service had any involvement in the attack on Volosevich. Moreover, he stated that he doubted that the attack could have taken place because there is no anti-Semitism in Uzbekistan. He speculated that Volosevich could have set up the attack himself in order to give himself a basis for receiving political asylum abroad.

Since the Andijan events, the atmosphere for the press has worsened significantly in Uzbekistan. Journalists and others who have provided independent accounts of the events in Andijan and called for an investigation and accountability have faced harassment, arbitrary detention, criminal charges and physical assaults.

‘Suggesting that Volosevich organized an assault on himself is absurd,’ Cartner said. ‘Attacks on independent journalists are an all-too-real fact of life in Uzbekistan.’

‘Instead of blaming Volosevich, the Uzbek government should promptly investigate the attack and bring charges against those responsible, rather than denying it took place,’ Cartner added.

Background

On May 13, Uzbek government forces killed hundreds of unarmed protesters as they fled a demonstration in Andijan, a city in eastern Uzbekistan. The government has still taken no steps to investigate or hold accountable those responsible for this atrocity. Instead, it denies all responsibility and persecutes those who seek an independent and transparent investigation.

In the days following the Andijan massacre, the government detained journalists, forced them to leave the city and confiscated the notebooks and recording equipment from several of them. It has arrested locals who provided assistance to the foreign press and is holding them on criminal charges. Neighborhood (mahalla) committee members went house to house warning residents not to speak to journalists about the events.

After his accounts of the Andijan events appeared widely in the foreign press, the chairman of the Andijan human rights group Appeliatsia (‘Appeal’), Saidjahon Zainabitdinov, was arrested on May 21 and charged with slander, terrorism and preparation or distribution of information threatening to public security and the public order. He remains in custody and has had no contact with his lawyer or family.

On August 11, 2005, the government refused entry to Igor Rotar, an independent journalist who reports on religious freedom for Forum 18.

On August 26, a court sentenced Radio Liberty journalist Nosir Zokir to six months of imprisonment for insulting a security officer.

On October 26, 2005, the BBC announced that it was forced to close its Tashkent bureau because of the harassment and persecution of its staff by the authorities. At least seven BBC correspondents have fled or been forced to leave Uzbekistan, including foreign correspondent Monica Whitlock, and at least two Uzbek members of the BBC staff have received political asylum.

From the Kavkaz Centre

The reputation of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) has taken another knock after one of its lecturers was accused of being the “Western cheerleader” for the Uzbek brutal dictator Islam Karimov.

Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan also accused SOAS director of “arrogance”. The charge was leveled at SOAS director MR Colin Bundy by Mr Murray in a dispute over one of the school’s lecturers accused of producing a “propagandist” report on the Massacre of Andijan.

The person in question, Shirin Akiner, (pictured) was accused by Mr Murray as well as human rights and liberty campaigners, of producing a report which is neither independent nor academically sound. The findings of the report, written by the SOAS lecturer in Central Asian Studies, seem to completely indorse the Uzbek government line, putting the blame squarely on whom she calls “Islamist insurgents”.

Ms Akiner recently went on a US tour promoting the report as a counter to what is known to have taken place on that fateful day in May. She accuses the Western governments and, in particular, the media of false reporting and says the Uzbek government is right not to allow an independent international investigation into the events.

She has come under fierce attack from NGOs who questioned how she was allowed, by the Uzbek government, to conduct her own investigation at a time when no journalists or NGOs where given access. Ms Akiner refuted accusations that she was invited in by the Uzbek government to give support to their version of events.

The SOAS lecturer said she went to Uzbekistan to deal with the aftermath of the cancellation, due to the Andijan violence, of a NATO conference on religious extremism that she had organized. Once in Tashkent, Akiner said, “I squeezed out time for myself to go to Andijan.”

In his email to the SOAS director, Craig Murray stated that his qualm is not with Ms Akiner’s political views, but rather that an institute such as SOAS can have a lecturer in the affairs of such a volatile region, who admits to having ties to the Uzbek regime and actively acts as its “apologist”.

Mr Murray questioned the lecturer’s objectivity and called on the school’s ethics committee to investigate this case. “The idea that in a totalitarian state evidence of an alleged government atrocity can be gained by allowing the government to produce the witnesses, and interviewing them in the presence of government officials, is ludicrous, as any decent academic would recognise.” wrote Mr Murray.

In a responding email, Mr Bundy appeared to dismissed points raised by the ex-diplomat as “unsubstantiated” and ignored his calls for further investigate by the School. That prompted an angry response from Mr Murray who accused the director of being “arrogant” and of failing to realise the damage Ms Akiner is causing to the reputation of SOAS.

In a statement to The Muslim Weekly SOAS reiterated their stand and say they have not received further evidence from Mr Murray. “The allegations against Shirin Akiner contained in Craig Murray’s letter to Colin Bundy were unsubstantiated. Professor Bundy invited Mr Murray to supply verifiable evidence to support his assertions but none has been provided.”

They have also refuted other allegations that they have in the past been involved in sponsoring school text material including propaganda books by the regime.

“With regard to the mention of Islam Karimov’s publications in Mr Murray’s letter, SOAS has no financial or other involvement with these publications. (One of the books, published by Curzon Press in 1997 as a commercial venture, features comments by Dr Akiner on the dust jacket. The School understands that Dr Akiner was not paid for this contribution to the publication.)”

Highlighting what he sees as the double standards of the School he cites the case of Nasser Amin who was treated quite differently by the School. He sais “Professor Colin Bundy, head of SOAS, is extremely keen to defend Shirin Akiner, Karimov’s Western cheerleader and a SOAS lecturer. But it seems that his defence of academic freedom only applies to those on one side of the argument.

“Akiner is perfectly at liberty to defend Karimov’s right to massacre the opposition, but Bundy just three months ago censured an Islamic student (Nasser Amin) who argued that the Palestinians have the right to use force to resist occupation. You don’t have to agree with the student’s view to find Bundy’s different approach to the two cases interesting…

Any suggestions as to the explanation of Bundy’s contradictory attitude in the Amin and Akiner cases would be interesting to hear. ”

The student in question, Nasser Amin, also accused the School’s director of double standards and again called for his resignation.

Mr Amin said “Bundy is not a neutral, disinterested moderator defending all points of view at the School. He is someone who defends free speech when it comes to savagery against Muslims, in Andijan and Gaza, and silences those who oppose this savagery, particularly it seems Muslim students. Shame on him.”

Below is the House of Commons debate on Uzbekistan from 1 November. Greg Hands is to be congratulated on tabling the question, with very good follow up from David Drew and Alistair Carmichael.

The point on NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP)is an important one. Last Autumn one hundred and fifty British troops trained in Uzbekistan alongside Uzbek forces whose principle role is the suppression of their own people. To impose an arms embargo while retaining Uzbekistan as a member of NATO PfP is meaningless. I hope we can start a campaign to suspend Uzbekistan from NATO PfP. In the UK, please contact your MP and MEP to this effect using the fax your MP facility on the front of this website. In other NATO members please write to your own representatives, to urge the suspension of this tyrannical regime from NATO PfP.

4. Mr. Greg Hands (Hammersmith and Fulham) (Con): If he will make a statement on the steps that the United Kingdom has taken to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Andijan massacre in Uzbekistan on 13 May. [23244]

The Minister for Europe (Mr. Douglas Alexander): We have been at the forefront of efforts to establish what happened in Andijan on 13 May. Our ambassador and his embassy team have visited the area, spoken to eyewitnesses and met NGOs. Our ambassador has spoken repeatedly to the Uzbek Government. We remain as convinced as ever of the need for a credible, external inquiry. That is why, under our presidency, the European Union has adopted a series of new measures against the Uzbek Government, including an arms embargo and a targeted visa ban.

Mr. Hands: I appreciate what the Minister says about the arms embargo, but is it not incongruous that his Government should support the Uzbekistan’s continued membership of the NATO partnership for peace programme?

Mr. Alexander: The NATO partnership for peace process relies not just on the will of one country, the United Kingdom, but on a number of other members of NATO. I respect the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I think that we have taken what opportunities are available to us to register our profound concern at the failure to establish an independent inquiry and to take the practical measures that have been outlined through the European Union.

Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): It would appear from the various e-mails that the Uzbek embassy kindly sends me that it has already made up its mind about the relative guilt of those who were shot. Is it not about time that the international community took the Uzbek regime much more seriously and tried to do something about it, rather than showing it far too much leniency as it has done in the past?

Mr. Alexander: I assure my hon. Friend that we take extremely seriously both the monitoring of the trial and, more generally, the need for an independent inquiry into the events in Andijan. We have led the international efforts to co-ordinate monitoring of the trial on behalf of the European Union, and we expect verdicts on the 15 defendants in only a few days. I assure my hon. Friend that the matter will continue to be of concern to the British Government.

Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): Has there not already been a series of independent inquiries, organised by groups such as Human Rights

1 Nov 2005 : Column 713

Watch and the Institute for War & Peace Reporting? Have they not established that what happened in Andijan was at least as bad as what happened in Tiananmen square? Should we not now seek sanctions against the Uzbek Government, similar to those that were imposed on China after Tiananmen square?

Mr. Alexander: We believe that the Uzbek authorities did use excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate force, but we also believe that the case for an independent inquiry endures.

As for the specific efforts made by the British Government, I have already mentioned the imposition of an arms embargo under the British leadership and presidency, and the visa restrictions imposed on those deemed to have been responsible for the disproportionate use of force in Andijan. All technical meetings have been suspended under the European Union’s partnership and co-operation agreement. We will of course support the reorientation of the Commission’s funding programme for Uzbekistan to promote an increased focus on poverty reduction along with democracy, human rights and civil societies. We have taken action, but the Council of the European Union has not ruled out additional steps if they prove necessary.

From Human Rights Watch

Uzbek Authorities Must Ensure Immediate Medical Care

(Tashkent, November 1, 2005) ‘ The Uzbek government should ensure immediate medical attention for jailed opposition leader Sanjar Umarov, including an independent psychiatric examination, Human Rights Watch said today. Today marks a week since Umarov’s attorney found him naked and incoherent in his cell.

The latest incident in the Uzbek government’s ruthless crackdown on dissent, Umarov’s arrest and detention appear to be politically motivated.

‘Sanjar Umarov needs to receive immediate medical care,’ said Holly Cartner, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. ‘We are deeply concerned for his safety and well-being.’

The leader of the opposition political movement ‘Sunshine Coalition,’ Umarov was arrested on the night of October 22. When his attorney went to see him three days later in the detention facility of the Tashkent City Police Department, he found Umarov naked in his basement cell, covering his face with his hands and rocking back and forth. He did not react when the attorney called his name. Since this visit, his attorney has not been able to talk to his client or to the investigator on his case. The authorities have failed to act on his attorney’s requests for an urgent independent psychiatric evaluation.

Authorities have charged Umarov, a permanent resident of the United States, with embezzlement related to an oil company in which he formerly had an ownership interest. He apparently has no current business involvement in Uzbekistan. According to Uzbek law, since a formal arrest warrant had already been issued, Umarov should have been transferred to pre-trial detention rather than being held in the temporary detention cells of the police station, where detainees are most at risk of torture.

‘Umarov’s arrest appears to be politically motivated,’ said Cartner. ‘The authorities should release him pending an independent review of the charges against him.’

Established earlier this year, the ‘Sunshine Coalition’ is made up of businessmen and academics. It has close ties with the Ozod Dekhon (‘Free Peasants’) opposition party. The coalition openly criticizes what it terms ‘corrupt government bureaucracies’ in Uzbekistan on its website. Its Economic Advisory Council promotes a ‘Road Map for Prosperity,’ an action plan to implement liberal, free-market economic reforms. Umarov only recently returned to Uzbekistan from a visit to the United States and Russia, where he publicly discussed the coalition’s ideas for economic reform. On October 17, Umarov wrote an open letter to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in which he called for economic reforms in Uzbekistan and closer economic cooperation with Russia.

The Uzbek government has a longstanding record of suppressing any kind of independent opposition. The crackdown on political opponents, human rights defenders and journalists has reached crisis proportions in the aftermath of the massacre in Andijan on May 13, in which government forces killed hundreds of unarmed civilians.

By Farhod Inogambaev writing in The Moscow Times

The political situation in Uzbekistan is spinning out of control, with anger growing in society and even among some moderate members of the ruling elite against President Islam Karimov.

The arrest last week of Sanjar Umarov, chairman of the Sunshine Coalition and the last serious opposition figure willing to work with the dictatorial regime, is just the latest sad sign of the country’s deterioration into tyranny.

Karimov, who has ruled the Central Asian state of 25 million people for more than 15 years, has shut down opposition parties and conducted a relentless crackdown on political foes and practicing Muslims, jailing thousands. In May, Karimov’s trained militia suppressed a popular uprising in the eastern city of Andijan, killing several hundred civilians — in many cases shooting them in the back as they fled the city’s central square. The arrest of Umarov — and mounting evidence that he is being “treated” with psychotropic drugs, just as political opponents were “treated” under Stalin — should be the last straw in American and Russian cooperation with the regime.

Umarov’s arrest comes after a visit to the United States and Russia in September where he outlined his coalition’s economic reform program. Umarov sent an open letter in late October to Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who was visiting Uzbekistan at the time, expressing his intention to seek a solution to the political crisis in Uzbekistan by establishing a dialogue between the opposition and the government. Apparently this, along with his denunciation of the Andijan massacre, was enough for Karimov to consider him a threat.

The only good news surrounding Uzbekistan these days is that Western governments are finally starting to see the true face of Karimov’s regime. Immediately after Sept. 11, 2001, Uzbekistan began receiving large sums of money for hosting American troops at its Karshi-Khanabad Air Base, called K-2, a few hundred kilometers from the Afghan border. The base played a crucial role in the coalition’s success in Afghanistan, and Karimov was rewarded not just with American money, but also with legitimacy. In March 2002, he visited the White House at the invitation of President George W. Bush to sign a joint declaration on strategic relations. Karimov used his newfound friendship with Washington as cover to intensify human rights abuses throughout Uzbekistan.

The Andijan massacre caused the U.S. administration and EU governments finally to reconsider their policies toward Karimov’s Uzbekistan. In September, the European Union introduced limited sanctions, including an arms embargo and a travel ban for senior Uzbek officials. This doesn’t just mean no more shopping trips to Paris or London for Karimov’s family and their cronies; it also makes it difficult for them to access their European bank accounts and other property in Europe.

The United States also criticized Karimov’s response to the Andijan uprising and joined in the chorus of governments and rights groups calling for an independent international investigation. In response, the Uzbek Foreign Ministry sent an ultimatum letter to the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent calling for U.S. withdrawal from the K-2 base within 180 days.

Hopefully this will spell the end of American cooperation with the Karimov regime. According to a recent State Department report on foreign aid, U.S. assistance to Uzbekistan from October 2004 to September 2005 amounted to $91 million, with $63 million of that earmarked for security and law enforcement. The United States should cease all support, financial and otherwise, to Karimov and introduce targeted sanctions similar to those the EU has imposed. There is growing support for this in Congress.

But businesses with major operations in Uzbekistan and ties to the Karimov family — like Coca-Cola, the Newmont Gold Company, cotton trader Dunavant Enterprises and agricultural equipment manufacturer Case — have a strong interest in maintaining the status quo.

Coca-Cola is a good example of how business is done in Karimov’s Uzbekistan. In 2001, The Coca-Cola Company, which holds the franchise for bottling in Uzbekistan, allowed its joint venture with the Uzbek government to be taken over by Karimov’s older daughter, Gulnara Karimova. In a communist-style, gangster approach to a takeover, Karimova’s estranged husband, Mansur Maqsudi, who owned the majority of Coca-Cola Uzbekistan, found that his shares had been nationalized and his employees chased out of the country. With the approval, if not assistance, of The Coca-Cola Company, Karimova proceeded to loot millions of dollars from the Coca-Cola Bottlers Uzbekistan joint venture.

The American-Uzbekistan Chamber of Commerce, which represents Coca-Cola and others, is lobbying Washington to keep up good relations with Karimov. In an August letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Chamber president James Cornell said the recent downgrades in relations with Tashkent “threaten several vital interests of the United States, including long-established trade and investment relations between the two countries.” The United States should not bow to this corporate pressure, but rather maintain a consistent, principled foreign policy that promotes democracy and punishes gross violations of human rights. Nowhere is this more needed today than in Uzbekistan.

Russia, too, needs to come to grips with the fact that its partnership with Karimov is more of a liability than an asset. As Karimov has turned toward Russia and China in the wake of U.S. criticism, Moscow has acquiesced by endorsing Tashkent’s official version of the events at Andijan, calling the protesters Islamic terrorists and fundamentalists.

But the Kremlin must understand that it is not in its long-term interest to have a political basket case in its backyard, and that a democratic, economically liberal Uzbekistan is in everyone’s best interest.

Farhod Inogambaev, an Uzbek political exile and recent research fellow at Harvard’s Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, is a graduate student at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. He contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.

What Miers is to Bush, Akiner is to Karimov. Here his cheerleader introduces one of his execrable books in terms. These are compulsory study at all levels of Uzbek education, from primary school to PhD. I met a lady submitting her PhD work in Maths, who was worried because she had to sit a compulsory exam reproducing and praising Karimov’s work.

Craig

The review was written about ‘Uzbekistan on the Threshold of the Twenty-First Century: Challenges to Stability and Progress’ which was written by Karimov and published in 1998.

The text in its original context can be viewed here

The book is also still available from the Uzbek government web site

Today Sanjar Umarov lies, cold, unclothed, drugged and beaten, on the bare floor of a solitary confinement cell in Tashkent.

Last month I had dinner with Sanjar Umarov at Old Ebbitt Grill in Washington, just across from the White House. Sanjar leads Uzbekistan’s newest and best publicised opposition grouping, Sunshine Uzbekistan, which had largely taken over the Peasants and Entrepreneurs’ Party, itself a fairly recent addition to the opposition ranks.

There was a great deal of suspicion about Umarov from longer standing opposition figures. Umarov was an oligarch, from one of the leading regime families. He had made money in oil and cotton trading, both sectors which cannot be accessed without an inside political track. He had also been involved in the Uzdunrobita mobile telephone company, in which the major Uzbek partner was Gulnara Karimova, the President’s daughter. In March 2004 Karimova sold her shares in Uzdunrobita to a Russian company for 212 million dollars, a figure which places a much higher than realistic value on the company.

This transaction was an important stage in the peculiar business dealings between Russia and the Karimov family, which culminated in last November’s deal to allocate the bulk of Uzbekistan’s natural gas reserves to Gazprom. This deal was negotiated between Gulnara Karimova and Alisher Usmanov, the Uzbek born Russian oligarch who bought a substantial number of shares in Corus, the British steel company. Usmanov is also a Director of Gazprom responsible for their affairs in the former Soviet Union outside Russia.

Gulnara received a large cash payment – $88 million, according to my sources ‘ on completion of the Gazpron deal, with further payments to come as gas is exported. Alisher Usmanov gave Putin a sweetener of 40% of the shares in Mapo Bank, an important Russian business bank with a close relationship to several blue chip western firms operating in Russia. The shares were made over to Piotr Jastrejebski, Putin’s private secretary who was a college friend of Alisher Usmanov and shared a flat with him.

This web is closely associated with Karimov’s succession strategy. He is desperate for Gulnara to succeed him, and the cash and Russian support is building up her power base. Some sort of Alisher Usmanov/Gulnara Karimova alliance is Karimov’s first choice to take over, in six or seven years time. This is the background to the diplomatic revolution of the last six months, with Karimov abandoning the US and turning back to the embrace of Mother Russia.

It is worth recalling that the Karimov regime had been aggressively anti-Russian, in terms of both propaganda, and of practical measures of linguistic discrimination. Approximately two million ethnic Russians have fled Uzbekistan since independence in 1991; about 400,000 are left.

This reorientation towards Russia went along with fierce anti-enterprise measures designed to stifle any entrepreneurial activity not under direct control of the Karimov family. This explained the physical closures of borders and bazaars, the crackdown on crash transactions and the channelling of all commercial activity through the state banks.

These developments not only brought still greater economic hardship to the poor, they created losers among the wealthy elite. Sanjar Umarov is an archetypal example of such ‘New losers’.

Umarov had studied business administration in Tennessee on a US government scholarship. His trading interests had widened from their Uzbek base. He has a home in Memphis, and a green card. His children are US citizens. Among the Uzbek elite, a class had come into existence of people who could do business with the West. Their business was now being cut off by Karimov.

It would be wrong to credit Sanjar Umarov with purely selfish motives. Unlike so many of his countrymen, he has the education and experience to understand that Karimov’s policies are economically disastrous. Over dinner, we shared our frustration over this: Uzbekistan is not a naturally poor country. It is extremely well endowed with gas, gold, uranium, iron, coal and most rare minerals you can think of. It is historically fertile and could be so again once the government-dictated cotton monoculture is abandoned.

Uzbekistan’s plight is inflicted on it by appalling government. Umarov and I both believe it could recover surprisingly quickly once basic economic freedoms are established, of which the first must be to take the land from the state and give it to the peasant farmers. Over dinner we discussed other ideas, such as voucher privatisation schemes to enable the common people to benefit from Uzbekistan’s mineral wealth. I found Umarov attentive, interested and pro-active.

The outlawed Uzbek opposition has been fractured. There are genuine, historical differences between the Erk and Birlik parties, and those differences are vital to a democracy. But, until we achieve democracy, people need to work together against Karimov. The parties had moved to do that, to their great credit, but there was understandable resentment and suspicion from those who had suffered in opposition for years, towards a ‘Johnny Come Lately’ like Sanjar Umarov.

Well, he is certainly suffering now in his Tashkent cell. And, if Karimov is to be overthrown, in practice some reform-minded ‘insiders’ are going to be needed to build the necessary national unity for reconstruction. That has to be faced. There are several prominent Uzbek opposition leaders, and Umarov now joins such figures as Mohammed Salih, Abdurahim Polat and others. One day let us hope the Uzbek people will freely choose between their politicians. For now, personal ambition needs to be subordinated to the need to end Karimov’s reign of terror.

The urgent need now is for all the opposition parties, including the Sunshine Coalition, to agree a platform of basic reform in the economy, the constitution, the police and judiciary, agriculture, education and many other areas. The broad lines of change need to be ready to roll out once Karimov goes. The most useful thing donors and foreign NGOs could do now would be to set up a programme outside Uzbekistan working with all parties to agree a plan of basic reform.

I found Umarov engaging and enthusiastic. I urged him to be cautious about returning to Uzbekistan, and was rather puzzled by his apparent confidence that he could pursue his political aims inside Uzbekistan without personal danger. Plainly he had good contacts with US official circles ‘ since Karimov turned against the US, a pro-Western oligarch is a saleable commodity in Washington.

That Umarov was arrested at the time of the visit of Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov to Tashkent is a sign of the strength and ugliness of the current Uzbek/Russian relationship. Umarov is being kept in solitary confinement. Nodira Khidatoyova of his party claims to have been told by an inside source that the Prokurator’s office have been instructed to destroy his mind through psychotropic drugs.

That is certainly feasible. There have been many examples of prisoners being forcibly injected, and Elena Urlaeva, another dissident I know, is currently undergoing such ‘treatment’ in a psychiatric institution. Sanjar Umarov’s lawyer seems to provide some evidence for this. He found him naked, in solitary confinement, making repetitive movements and unable to communicate coherently.

The response of the international community to the brutal treatment of an opposition leader has been pathetic, as always with Uzbekistan. The UK, as EU Presidency, issued a pious statement hoping that ‘International norms of treatment would be respected’, when plainly they are not being.

Umarov is now being charged with ’embezzlement’, and the UK hopes these charges will be ‘properly investigated’. How stupidly, utterly, inadequate! There is no ‘proper’ investigation procedure in Uzbekistan, where 99% of those tried are convicted, and dissidents are framed literally every day, usually with narcotics or firearms offences. To pretend there is a shred of legitimacy to this treatment of Sanjar Umarov is a nonsense. Why is an alleged embezzler naked in solitary confinement?

If corruption is the real concern of the Uzbek authorities, Karimov and his daughter would be the first arrested. The international community, and the UK in particular, needs a much tougher response before Umarov dies in jail.

Craig Murray