Uzbekistan Alliance Highlights
US Human Rights Hypocrisy
by Matthew Riemer
Dissident Voice
January 7, 2003
The United States
often cites human rights as its primary motive for action and policy, while
always being sure to pay great lip service to the concept whenever it can be
used as a secondary justification. After all, human rights are the cornerstone
of democratic society, which the U.S. and U.K. claim to be the apotheosis, so
its rhetorical inclusion is virtually obligatory in the vacuous canons of the
Ari Fleischers of the world.
When the bombing
of Afghanistan began, U.S. officials tugged at the heart strings by mentioning
the horrible human rights abuses of the Taliban: women forced to live horribly
as second class citizens, a destitute to non-existent education system, weekly
public executions, and the list went on.
Now, similar
songs are being sung of one time ally Saudi Arabia as the merits of "open
societies" are expounded upon at great length by editorialists and public
officials alike. Amidst the noise, human rights are always conveniently
employed as the icing on any argument for "regime change" or
"pre-emption." ("Saddam gassed his own people" or
"They don't even let women drive.")
However, when a
given regime is needed by the U.S. as a dutiful client, human rights are the
last thing on the mind of anyone in Washington. Such is the case with
Uzbekistan following September 11, 2001.
Almost one year
ago, soon after the U.S. opportunistically embraced Uzbek President Islam
Karimov for the purpose of securing military facilities in his country, Karimov
held a highly suspect referendum installing himself as president for six more
years. It should be noted that he had already been the autocratic leader for
the previous ten.
Human Rights
Watch reported that "On January 27, President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan
will hold a referendum to amend the constitution to extend his term of office
to 2007. Conditions for the vote fall below basic international standards. The
Karimov government allows no free press or independent political opposition to
operate in the country. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) and the United States government have declined to send observers to
Uzbekistan for the referendum."
This means that,
unless the power structure shifts suddenly in Uzbekistan, Karimov will reign
for at least 16 years.
Author Ahmed
Rashid in his book Jihad: Militant Islam in Central Asia describes the
situation in Uzbekistan: "In a series of crackdowns in 1992, 1993, and
after 1997, Karimov arrested hundreds of ordinary pious Muslims for alleged
links with Islamic fundamentalists, accusing them of being Wahabis, closing
down mosques and madrassahs, and forcing mullahs into jail or exile. In 1998,
the government passed the infamous Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious
Organization, which established new modes of repression against Muslims. (Other
religious organizations were unaffected by the law.) The Independent Human
Rights Organization of Uzbekistan has published the most authoritative figures
for political prisoners, which shows that there were 7,600 political prisoners
in the summer 2001."
Rashid then includes
several extended quotes from testimonials to a U.S. congressional panel from
September 2000 in which witnesses expand upon the various methods of repression
employed by Karimov's secret services: indiscriminate arrest, beatings, and
torture; denial of medical treatment and legal counsel; extended incarceration
in inhospitable conditions; and coerced confessions followed by extrajudicial
executions.
Much of this is
reflected in a recent United Nations inquiry into the matter. U.N. Special
Rapporteur Theo van Boven traveled to Uzbekistan in early December to
investigate incidences of torture carried out by the Karimov regime, following
a visit by Kofi Annan several weeks previous. His conclusion after two weeks of
fairly fettered investigations and interviews was that the Karimov regime is
engaging in systematic torture that is resulting in considerable death.
Yet, despite all
this, while visiting Uzbekistan in July of 2002, U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul
O'Neill praised Karimov: "I expressed to the President [Karimov] our
admiration for the leadership that he has provided during the economic
transition giving a very high priority to education and the important human
needs of the people of Uzbekistan. It's a great pleasure to have an opportunity
to spend time with someone with both a very keen intellect and a deep passion
about the improvement of the life of the people of this country."
One might wonder
if O'Neill was speaking of the same Karimov. However, should we really be
surprised?
To understand
why the U.S. chooses whom it does as allies, one must consider the actual
intentions of Washington's foreign policy. If intentions are preventing the
deaths of innocents, respecting human rights for all no matter what race or
religion, and working towards a sustainable global community where peace is
more than an expression of one's naiveté, then an alliance with Uzbekistan is
hypocritical and regressive. If slowly exerting a savage global dominance both
militarily and economically is one's goal, then the repressive Karimov regime
makes one of the coziest bedfellows around.
Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of
topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He
studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former
Soviet Union in 1990. He is a columnist and editor with Yellow Times.org, where this article first appeared.
Matthew lives in the United States, and he encourages your comments: mriemer@YellowTimes.org