ChuckF, et al: What the Hell is Going on in Uzbekistan?

[livius drusus]

I swear I read the news daily, but I had no idea Uzbekistan was in so much turmoil. Now there are protestors storming prisons and hundreds of people allegedly shot dead by government troops. The stories are confused and contradictory and I'm utterly perplexed.

Does anybody here have a decent grasp on the issues here? Just what the hell is going on?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I swear I read the news daily, but I had no idea Uzbekistan was in so much turmoil. Now there are protestors storming prisons and hundreds of people allegedly shot dead by government troops. The stories are confused and contradictory and I'm utterly perplexed.

Does anybody here have a decent grasp on the issues here? Just what the hell is going on?

I don't have a decent grasp on the situation, but I might be able to offer up some idle speculation based upon my week in Uzbekistan last year.....

First, Uzbekistan is ruled by an Uzbeki despot who came to power following the crumbling of the Soviet empire. I think that the current despot is the same despot who was a Soviet tool prior to their departure....just an old Commie with a new coat of paint, so to speak.

Second, Uzbekistan is not some kind of ethnically pure zone...quite the opposite. Many of the residents in Samarqand and Bukhara are ethnic Tadjiks. Large portions of the Fergana Valley, which abutts Kyrgyzstan, is peopled with Kyrgyz, just as the city of Osh (Osj) in Kyrgyzstan is primarily Uzbek in ethnicity. Uzbekistan also has Turkmen ethnics and Kazakh ethnics. This was purposely done by the Soviets to allow them to play one ethnic group off another. There is a lot of resentment that the minority populations are effectively disenfranchised from participation in governance.

Third, the government is corrupt. Being made of former Soviet bureaucrats and their friends and family, if one is not part of the tight little circle, then one is stuck without any kind of advancement, while a select few cash in on the new power structure. A great deal of money is flowing into the country in the form of rental payments by both the United States and Russia (for military bases located there), but nobody outside the charmed circle of power have seen any benefit from that.

Fourth, because of all the prior issues, corrupt and despotic government has turned to the usual tools of minority suppression. One cannot travel internally in Uzbekistan without going through checkpoints between each and every subdistrict (it'd be like having vehicle searches each time we crossed a state line in the US).

All of this is, of course, exacerbated by the military presence of non-native and non-Islamic military forces in the country. I'd bet that the Islamic extremists are making hay with this, too, given the current government is more western-oriented and Soviet-style than Islamic.

That's just my guess. Disenfranchisement, disaffectation and internal suppression.

[ChuckF]

Bingo on all counts, godfry.

I'm about to bed down for a much-needed nap, so I'll hit the high points. Karimov is one of those lingering apparatchiki that made it to where is he during the Soviet period. There aren't many of them left, thankfully. He was general secretary of the Uzbek Communist Party back in the day. He became President of the Republic in 1990, and held on to it after independence in 1991.

Though the Soviet Union was dead, Karimov retained a lot of its pizzazz in his banning of political parties, strict censorship, and use of the security forces to ensure his own grip on power.

As godfry mentioned, Uzbekistan is not ethnically homogenous. Somewhere, I briefly discussed how the government of the Tsar carved up the newly conquered central Asian nations. The idea was to create nationalities out of the diverse tribes and linguistic groups. First, impose a strong sense of national identity on their new subjects in all of the -stans. Then, let it slide that x-stan is plotting against y-stan, call it a regional issue, and let them fight it out amongst themselves while Moscow consolidates its hold on the region.

Karimov seized upon the idea of preserving national unity to justify his strongarm tactics. His is one of the few remaining personal regimes in the world. His regime is highly corrupt, and most of the power lies with his cronies and relatives that he’s placed in highly sensitive and lucrative positions in government and business.

But, I’m not yet ready to characterize this trouble as the kind of people power that toppled similar regimes in Ukraine and Georgia, as some in the media are anxious to do. It isn’t yet clear what has happened. One major problem is that these Central Asian republics are often large, with poor communication and transportation infrastructures. Revolts don’t always spread easily from one city to another.

The political circumstances in the country have been worsening, especially since Karimov outlawed some aspects of the practice of Islam. Like, you can’t go to certain mosques etc. The result is that he’s turned regular Muslims into criminals. His original goal was to weaken the hand of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan – serious al Qaeda quality folks in that. But as a result, he’s polarized the population and given the Islamists some momentum.
Uzbekistan is also a really thorny problem for the US, since Bush has been so buddy-buddy with everyone’s favorite dictator. No, not Musharraf. Karimov! The US stages a lot of its operations in Afghanistan from Uzbekistan. There’s really no point in complaining too loudly about whatever human rights abuses he may engage in. In for a dime, in for a dollar. Short of invading, there’s not a whole lot the international community can do, since Russia would never agree to sanctions against Uzbekistan. It has its own military interests there, and it’s also just guarding its own back yard, which the US has been encroaching upon for some time now.

For the moment, it looks like the rebellion (if it is a rebellion) is limited to Andizhan, in the northeastern part of the country. Tashkent isn’t far as the crow flies, but given the inhospitable terrain, the poor infrastructure, and the hold that the security forces appear to have on the city, I’m going to hold my breath. It’s entirely possible that we know more from reading the scattered media reports than the Uzbek on the street knows. I can’t imagine that this is getting a lot of play in the state run media.

[Gurdur]

It's mostly been said already, but it's worthwhile emphasizing some things:
- the current regime in Uzbekiszan is one of the worst on this planet as far as repression and use of torture goes.
- the struggle is being portrayed by some as between a secular regime and a Moslem opposition; it's far truer to say it's a struggle between a deeply corrupt, repressive (and old-style-Soviet-secular-style) regime against everyone else in the country, including Moslem factions
- because of the massive poverty there
- howver, the current regime will continue to get support from both Russia and the USA.

This was a long time in the making, and the widespread torture, as also the endemic poverty and corruption, has long been known. BTW, Uzbekistan is not the only former Soviet Central Asian republic to face growing insurrection; another two and possibly 3 are also either already there or going to be there very soon.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

BTW, Uzbekistan is not the only former Soviet Central Asian republic to face growing insurrection; another two and possibly 3 are also either already there or going to be there very soon.

As I understand it, there is an ongoing civil war in Takjikistan, and has been for several years. Just a couple weeks back, Kyrgyzstan had an uprising that forced their president to flee the country. I haven't heard what has happened since then.

I'm just surprised that Turkmenistan didn't blow first, as my perception is that the despot there is worse than in any other central Asian nation. Even the Kyrgyz of my acquaintance (a single teenager) thought of the Turkmeni leader as "mentally instable".

Note: It was only in Uzbekistan that I had any real difficulties accessing email out of the country. The infrastructure is not particularly well developed, and Uzbekistan is visibly more advanced in such things than either of the two neighboring states I saw. Uzbekis have made some kind of deal with South Korean automotive manufacturers for assembly plant(s) in Uzbekistan and the number of new vehicles of that name (Daewoo?) on the streets and roads is impressive (Uzbekistan even has an entire line of national postage stamps with the various models of Korean vehicle on them). Uzbekistan is the site of one the the most striking environmental disasters in the world presently, the disappearance of the Aral Sea. Uzbekistan, you see, produces astounding amounts of raw cotton. I'd bet that most of the cotton in the Russian sphere of influence comes from Uzbekistan. To grow all that cotton, they have diverted most of the rivers into irrigation. The shore of the Aral Sea is more than 50 miles from where it used to be and still receding.

[Gurdur]

And they're all getting toxic poisoning and resultant cancers (from the arsenic et al) around the Aral Sea as a result. Highest rate in world, IIRC, now.

[godfry n. glad]

Gurdur -

Are you an epidemiologist? Just curious, mind you.

Also, the currency in Uzbekistan is a joke. I suspect a hyperinflation. All the prettyboys 'round Tashkent had to carry their own separate cashbag, as the bundles were too big to stuff in (tight, warrented) jeans pockets.

[Petra]

Just quickly while I'm on my lunch break...


Uzbekistan is also a US ally.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5E2703,00.html


Which I find rather interesting given that whole Saddam thing, don't you?



ETA: More...

...and more

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Gurdur -
Are you an epidemiologist?

No, though I did some epidemology in uni. Just a morbid hobby of mine.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by lunachick

Just quickly while I'm on my lunch break...


Uzbekistan is also a US ally.

Let me put it this way:

Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan are both staging areas for US forces in Afghanistan.

The US has at least one air base in each country, possibly more. I'm not sure about Turkmenistan. Maybe it's the US presence which is adding to the instability of the two "more stable" of the central Asian "republics".

My impression is that clan and familial patronage plays a huge part in what passes for "government", but I don't know that for sure.

I'd certainly like to have a better understanding of how the people of central Asia deal with authority within their social structures. Has it historically been charismatic strongman type authority structures? Are there other models? Other than the imams?


godfry

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Let me put it this way:

Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan are both staging areas for US forces in Afghanistan.

The US has at least one air base in each country, possibly more. I'm not sure about Turkmenistan. Maybe it's the US presence which is adding to the instability of the two "more stable" of the central Asian "republics".

It may not be the root cause of the political instability, but it can't help things. If anything, it gives the Islamists currency among the impoverished popuation, and most especially unemployed young men.

My impression is that clan and familial patronage plays a huge part in what passes for "government", but I don't know that for sure.

That's consistent with what I know about Uzbekistan (Central Asia isn't my specialty - the Balkans are). The Soviets encouraged nepotism, especially in Central Asia, as soon as they found a proper strongman to install as leader. They could fill sensitive positions with their children, and reduce the likelihood of a palace coup. Also, when the whole family is in the pay of the Kremlin, it's much easier for Moscow to keep a hold on every aspect of the leadership.

I'd certainly like to have a better understanding of how the people of central Asia deal with authority within their social structures. Has it historically been charismatic strongman type authority structures? Are there other models? Other than the imams?

I'm not sure about this. Historically, there was no Uzbekistan, and the social unit was much smaller than nation or ethnic group. (There are still a buttload of undocumented languages in the Caucasus. Sorry for the jargon. Hehehe. buttload). Whatever their traditional leadership structures were, they have long been replaced by the ones imposed on them by Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union valued a strong Tashkent more than Imperial Russia did, and built up the authority that Karimov possesses today.

On another note, this has been a fairly hot topic on a listserv that I'm on. They're predicting a coup from inside the interior ministry.

[godfry n. glad]

Keep it comin', Luna!

I'd say George and Islam could hit it right off. Sounds like they have a lot in common. Islam should extend George an invitation to stop by and oversee a few executions, maybe some torture? Y'know, exchange pointers.

Oh... Keep your eye on the oil, too. That's important. Ask yourself, "Why is the US embroiled in Afghanistan, anyway?"

[viscousmemories]

In case anyone didn't notice, Chuck wrote a great piece for our article section that touches on some of these issues. It's called Some Thoughts on the Past and Future of Russia, and I think it's a great intro.