Our Man in Uzbekistan

"I am delighted to be back in Uzbekistan. I’ve just had a long and very interesting and helpful discussion with the President [Islam Karimov]... Uzbekistan is a key member of the coalition’s global war on terror. And I brought the President the good wishes of President Bush and our appreciation for their stalwart support in the war on terror… Today we discussed the excellent military-to- military relationship between Uzbekistan and the United States. Our relationship is strong and has been growing stronger... and also we look forward to strengthening our political and economic relationships... The relationship between our two countries is important to us, and we certainly value the friendship of Uzbekistan."

United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at a press conference in Uzbekistan.
Feb, 24-25 2004

“[Saddam] made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making mischief in the world ... It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in solving the Mideast problems.”

Ronald Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East Donald Rumsfeld after meeting personally with Saddam Hussein.
December 19-20, 1983[1]

The press lauds President Bush as a visionary, a man led by moral compass. He is a President whose “ambitious vision of global democratic reform” dominates his “foreign affairs agenda,” which pushes “aside urgent national issues” with “key nations.”[2] (In this case, the words of an LA Times article, other examples are easily found.) The President’s inauguration speech was widely hailed as his freedom speech. In it he spoke broadly of his vision of a democratic revolution throughout the tyrannies of the world. More recently on a tour through Asia Bush chastised Winston Churchill and Harry Truman for appeasing the Russians at Yalta in the post war period of the 1940s “in the unjust tradition of Munich.” He criticized their willingness to “sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability.” He continued, “We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations – appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability.” This president is a president who eschews cynical agreements with dictators. His policy is driven by a desire to see democracy spread, and a refusal to appease tyrants “in the vain pursuit of stability.” For these efforts Bush receives much praise and adulation in the Free Press. That could be the end of the discussion, but perhaps we should examine his policies to measure what he says against what he does.

There is a remarkable test case for Bush’s commitment to these lofty ideals in Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan borders Afghanistan to the north. Turkmenistan is sandwiched between it and Iran to the south. Kazakhstan borders it to the north. The dictator in power in Uzbekistan is Islam Karimov. His regime has been roundly criticized for several years by virtually every human rights group of note as well as the US State Department. It has roughly the same population as Iraq, but they have no political rights. Karimov’s police and intelligence forces torture prisoners and political protestors. The police forces have raped prisoners, used electric shocks to torture, used thumbscrews to the back, and on. A forensic report commissioned by the British embassy found that two prisoners were boiled to death in 2002. Islam Karimov has also been an ally of the Bush Administration in the war on terror. In return for American access to a military base in Uzbekistan Islam Karimov has enjoyed US diplomatic and financial support. The financial support has come in the form of hundreds of millions of dollars over the last several years. In 2002 they received $500 million ($79 million went directly to the police and intelligence services.) At the time the State Department’s website said the police use “torture as a routine investigation technique.” The diplomatic support has included several trips and statements of support from high American officials including Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush. The CIA extradites people to Uzbekistan to be detained and interrogated in a practice known as “extraordinary rendition”, or outsourcing torture.

Recently Uzbekistan has been in the news for a massacre that occurred during a political protest. Security forces tried to cover up the massacre by removing bodies of all victims except young men who could be blamed for the violence, and by intimidating eye witnesses, and by sealing off the city to journalists, but numerous independent observers have all reported virtually the same story; Uzbek police shot and killed several hundred unarmed protestors. The Christian Science Monitor reported,

“Eyewitnesses and rights workers say that Uzbek security forces went on a rampage against unarmed civilians in Andijon last Friday after the trial of 23 Muslims accused of being radicals sparked widespread protest and a jailbreak… Witnesses, including local doctors, insist at least 500 people died, mostly unarmed civilians, when security forces indiscriminately opened fire on the crowd with automatic weapons.

Human rights workers also report that at least 200 more protesters may have died at the hands of Uzbek forces in nearby Pakhtabad Saturday. The town remains sealed-off by the army, making independent verification impossible.”[3]

The Associated Press reports that Human Rights Watch “interviewed 50 victims and witnesses who testified that government troops fired repeatedly on demonstrators gathered in a square in the eastern Uzbek city of Andijan on May 13 and killed many others as they fled.”[4]

President Bush’s response has been to continue the marriage of convenience, with light verbal wrist slaps such as the following when questioned directly about the massacre. “We expect all our friends – as well as those who aren’t our friends, to honor human rights and protect minority rights.” He quickly corrected his verbal gaffe of referring to the dictator as “our friend” and there has been no change in policy. The US claims that the Uzbekistan alliance is necessary for the War on Terror because of a US military base. A glance at a map offers some insight. To the south is Afghanistan where the US has several military bases and is the de facto power. To the west Iraq, a country the US is occupying and also has several permanent “enduring bases” that are expected to last long after occupation. Turkey is also close by, an American ally. Saudi Arabia is nearby, home of many more American bases. Is the American base in Uzbekistan critical to the War on Terror? The loss of this base would not significantly alter America’s ability to defend the homeland from terrorists in the region; instead of making bombing runs from Uzbekistan into Afghanistan, the US could make bombing runs from one of its bases in Afghanistan. Or how about this question, is the massacre of civilians at a political protest anything but whole-sale state terrorism, and if so how can the US support terrorism in the name of a war on terrorism? That is a naked contradiction. The justification for continued support is absurd on the face of it. So unless we conclude that our political leaders are in fact irrational madmen there must be more plausible motives behind US support for Uzbekistan.

In the countries around and including Uzbekistan lie important pipelines and oil reserves. If American foreign policy is geared towards controlling and maintaining access to these pipelines then the continued support for Islam Karimov's regime in return for access to the base in Uzbekistan makes sense. We can rightly conclude that the rhetorical flourishes of the President are for the domestic US population rather than for his policies. The strategical alliance makes sense if the strategy is to secure access and position to the fossil fuels in the region. The loss of it would not be a critical blow but it remains nonetheless important in the overarching plan for “securing access to key regions, lines of communication, and the global commons [oil];” in the terminology used by the National Defense Strategy of The United States for 2005. Human rights abuses are not something that bother US planners except when the public finds out about them and agitates. In the real world separate from grand speeches, D.C. dinner parties and op-ed pages the facts do not square with President Bush’s criticism of the deal made at Yalta, or the laudatory words of the elite opinion makers who praise him for his visionary zeal and commitment to human freedom.

Perhaps with more public protest and outrage the situation in Uzbekistan will change. It is clear the USG is sensitive to criticism, it “suspended” $18 million in aid to Uzbekistan last year due to public protest. Although Human Rights Watch reported that “Uzbekistan will still receive the designated U.S. funds under a national interest waiver,” so they still received the full amount. Uzbekistan’s foreign ministry spokesman Ilkhom Zakirov said, "We understand that the full amount of the earmarked $18 million will not be lost” and “the military cooperation will continue." Indeed, the aid had been ear marked for a program meant to help secure nuclear weapons material. The money had been reallocated so the net package was the same, and no money had been cut from the military and intelligence budget – but nonetheless the US government felt compelled to respond to criticism. However light the wrist slap was, there is an important lesson for American citizens. Politicians listen. They react to resistance. In this case with enough outrage, protest and dissent perhaps then substantive reforms will take place. Americans are helping to pay for torture in Uzbekistan and therefore share responsibility for it. There are legal ways to protest such things; even an act as small as writing a letter to their Congressmen could help. And everyday citizens should not expect thanks for their efforts; if the policy does change then it will be treated as a testament to Bush’s staunch leadership and unwillingness to compromise with autocrats (after several years of close alliance, many public words of support, documented atrocities, extraordinary renditions, and millions of dollars in ‘aid’.) But in this case the willingness to face a deep moral responsibility and perhaps help end US support for torture and oppression in a far away land should be enough to impel one to act.

(Part II of this series is here.)

Notes
[1] The Saddam in Rumsfeld's Closet. Scahill, Jeremy.
[2] Bush’s Foreign Policy Shifting. Marshall, Tyler. LA Times, 5 June 2005 online edition
[3] Tales of atrocity emerge after Uzbek Clashes. Weir, Fred and Boehm, Peter. Christian Science Monitor, 19 May 2005. Online edition
[4] Rights Group: Uzbek Crackdown Was a “Massacre”. Isachenkov, Vladimir. Associated Press 7 June 2005. Online