One year ago today, a series of events went down in Andijon, Uzbekistan. The details of the story vary widely depending on who you ask, but things boil down to two versions. The first is offered by the Uzbek Government: A group of radical Islamic militants, wishing to overthrow the Uzbek regime and establish a caliphate, took police and governmental officials hostage. During this protest, many people, including innocent civilians, were killed. The second version, offered by human rights organizations and most journalistic outfits, speaks of a popular protest against the government lead by a group of businessmen who had been singled out for spurious prosecution by the Uzbek state. In this scenario, it is claimed that the Uzbek authorities (police and military,) were guilty of killing hundreds of civilians in order to regain authority.
Recently, the Uzbek Embassy in Belgium released a video regarding these events. View the video by clicking here. What you will see is the first point articulated. My opinion of this video is that what you are seeing is the false confessions of otherwise innocent civilians garnered under duress (read, torture.) It is chilling. Also, near the end of the video, the logic of the “Western Expert Uzbek” is so flawed, it could be considered laughable were the situation not so grave. To see the other side of the story, the one which I am more inclined to believe, please view the BBC News article here.
This video must be understood within context. The Uzbek regime is a closed Soviet style system. Public dissent, though not non-existent, is rare. The few protests that have occurred within the country in recent years are related to economic grievances. Therefore, the unofficial version, in which the violent chain of events began with peaceful protests against unfair crackdowns on businessmen by the state, is believable. Since the Uzbek government is unwilling to entertain such protests, it is therefore given the task of spinning any such events in its favor. And, taking a cue from our dear leader (see top right of this website,) it uses the specter of terrorism. That is, any individuals with complaints against the state are accused of being radical Islamic terrorists, therefore justifying severe retribution by the government.
This position is troublesome for a number of reasons. The first is that the Uzbek government is able to take a fear which has some basis of truth and exaggerate it for its own means. From all accounts there are some movements which would like to establish an Islamic state in the region; such theocrats would view the secular (and morally corrupt) Karimov regime as a target. So to dismiss the fact that there exist some terrorists is naïve. The same is true regarding those who would wish to destroy the United States, and so on… Like he who shall not be named, Karimov has taken this fear, which is grounded in some measure of truth, and used it to his political advantage. Therefore, while claiming to protect the Uzbeks from Islamic terrorists, he is also stifling any form of protest directed against the state. However, with Andijon, things got out of hand, and the damage control has been extensive: expulsion of international civil society NGOs, expulsion of US forces from the Karshi-Khanabad air force base in the south of the country, an anti-Western media blitz in state run media, and the strengthening of ties with Russia and China.
And this brings me to my second point which is that Karimov’s playbook was, until this boiling point, supported by the US government. Although his regime was guilty of gross violations of basic human rights, the US provided Uzbekistan with economic and humanitarian aid. Since we needed the Karshi base for operations in the region post 9/11, we were willing to look the other way. Karimov understandably took this and ran with it; as long as we had our base he would be able to maintain, indeed intensify his crackdown against all dissent.
Such was the situation when I, and over 60 other volunteers, touched down in Tashkent one cold morning in January 2005. My time in Uzbekistan revealed that these troubles were far from the daily worries of average citizens. Although they all knew that something was not right, and lamented that their formerly eminent culture had become a mere shadow of what it once was, their main concerns were providing for their families and getting by. The tragedy of this drama is poignant, representing yet another failure of moral leadership by our government with far reaching consequences. And although Andijon may be out of mind for most Americans, as Uzbeks in the area today mourn in silence, it couldn’t be closer to home.