Uzbekistan

On May 13, 2005 Uzbekistan had it's Tiananmen Square Massacre. Sadly no one but the Economist has even mentioned this. A week later the Economist explained the terror:

The fact that Uzbekistan sits on large gas reserves was also of some significance—though getting the stuff from Central Asia to world markets is far from easy. In 2003, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development went so far as to honour Mr Karimov [Uzbek President] by holding its annual meeting in his capital, Tashkent.

On May 13th, Mr Karimov showed the world his true colours (see article). It may be months, if ever, before a full account of what went on in Andijan is available, but it seems clear that the authorities there put down a popular uprising with extreme brutality. Hundreds of people appear to have died: witnesses say that soldiers were still shooting at the wounded three hours after the first shots were fired. This was probably the worst atrocity conducted by a government against protesters since Tiananmen Square in 1989.

Hard-headed realists should now be appalled. Even on the most self-interested calculus, the reality is that Mr Karimov is an ally the West is better off without. His help in the war against terror is outweighed by the encouragement he has given to radicals of every stripe in Central Asia and beyond, and by the damage that association with him does to the West's reputation. This was true even before Andijan: by far the best recruiter for the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (the main organisation that has been trying to destabilise Central Asia since the 1990s) has been Mr Karimov himself. Anyway, the movement was largely destroyed in 2001 when the Afghan war toppled the Taliban, which had protected it. Nor is Uzbekistan of real strategic importance any more. With bases in Kirgizstan and Afghanistan, America hardly needs Khanabad, the base for which it pays Mr Karimov handsomely. He should now be made a pariah, his regime stripped of all forms of aid, and all military assistance withdrawn. When he is overthrown, as sooner or later he will be, whoever succeeds him will have little reason to love the West. But encouraging regime change would be a way to start providing one.

Sadly the response that the Economist demanded fell on deaf ears. Quite simply it just seemed that the issue did not have the neccesary popular outrage to prompt any sort of response (there were no pictures or recordings--no man standing in front of tanks). But the Economist has not taken this laying down, in a move similar to Nicholas Kristof's constant columns on the Darfur Genocide, the Economist has published a second leader on the matter, mocking Western democracies for their lack of any type of action:

On May 13th, the authorities in Uzbekistan opened fire on a peaceful demonstration of close to 10,000 people in the eastern city of Andijan, probably killing several hundred of them and possibly as many as 1,000. According to survivors, tanks rolled through the main square, firing indiscriminately, snipers picked off their victims from convenient buildings, and, later on, soldiers shot some of the wounded dead. That was three months ago. Since then, the European Union and America have expressed their horror at the worst massacre of demonstrators since Tiananmen Square by imposing the following sanctions on Uzbekistan:

1.

2.

3.

...At least China was thrown into the diplomatic ice-box for a few years after Tiananmen, and the arms embargo imposed on it is largely intact 16 years on. Myanmar remains a pariah even among pariahs—in both cases for misdeeds on about the same scale as Andijan. America claims that it is indeed pondering sanctions, but awaiting Europe's lead.

...the European Union has risen to the occasion as grandly as it did over Bosnia, Iraq and on so many other occasions: with a display of spinelessness worthy of a sea full of jellyfish. First, in June, it demanded that Uzbekistan submit to an international investigation to determine precisely what happened in Andijan. Failure to comply by July 1st, it terrifyingly threatened, might lead to a “partial suspension” of the PCA. Some countries wanted to go so far as to threaten a visa ban for (some) Uzbek officials and possibly even an arms embargo—but that was reckoned to be a bit too tough.

July 1st came and went, as did August 1st. Still the EU has done nothing. It has tried to send a ranking bureaucrat, one Jan Kubis, to take a look: but Uzbekistan has refused to let him go to Andijan. Fortunately, outfits such as Human Rights Watch, the Institute for War and Peace Reporting and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe have proved more enterprising than Mr Kubis—so there is no excuse to be made that the EU does not have a pretty good idea of what happened. The latest word is that the issue of Uzbekistan may be looked at when the EU's foreign ministers meet in Wales on September 1st. But it is not even certain that the massacre of about 500 people by one of Europe's associates will merit a discussion there. Meanwhile, the Uzbek government is pressing ahead with its own investigation of what happened on May 13th. This involves beating “confessions” out of demonstrators who are made to say that they carried weapons to the square, and forcing neighbouring Kirgizstan to send Uzbek refugees back before they can tell any more tales to journalists, NGO workers, or even Mr Kubis.

But doesn't the West ignore equally grisly abuses in Chechnya? Yes, but there it can at least be argued that friendship with Russia is in its vital interest. Friendship with Uzbekistan is not. Uzbekistan has gas, but it is not very accessible to westerners. And until now America has had an airbase, but others in the region will do just as well. The failure to punish Mr Karimov discredits the West, and provides ammunition to its enemies. It has gone on for far too long.

Kudos to the Economist, they seem to cover the news that no one else does. Get out the word on this, it deserves some sort of nominal action (especially given that gas prices and Hurrican Katrina will swallow up any neccesary attention on this matter).

-Mr. Alec