C.J. Chivers and Ethan Wilensky-Lanford have a story on the extended version of the Andijon video at the NYT. (The story is an extended version of the one appearing in the paper.)
Drawn from tapes made by at least two men in the crowd and later seized by the Uzbek authorities, who then edited and partly subtitled them in Uzbek, Russian and English, the video is far from impartial, having been used as evidence to prosecute men charged in the uprising. Excerpts have also been shown on Uzbek television, and used in a propaganda video circulated by Uzbekistan’s embassies in foreign capitals.
But the video is remarkable as a document that can be read different ways – not just as propaganda but in places as a portrait of confusion and disorganization among the protesters and gunmen that undermines Uzbekistan’s claim that it resorted to violence to put down an armed uprising by highly trained international terrorists. The gunmen often appear inexperienced, bungling and poorly equipped.
Even allowing for the government’s editing, other scenes belie some survivors’ contentions that they were simply hoping to spark a nonviolent, national uprising like those that had recently toppled other corrupt post-Soviet governments. Serious crimes committed by the gunmen and poor judgment by the demonstrators are evident, as are the tactical difficulties faced by Uzbek security forces.
The video is the one discussed by Bakhtiyor Bobojonov at the Carnegie Endowment. There is a link to the video on the side of the story, but it appears that the Endowment’s website is getting hammered, so I have not obtained the video yet.
More later…
UPDATE: I’ve still not had a chance to watch the video and certainly will not today. Carnegie’s page about the video is up for those interested. Also, I forgot to mention that our earlier discussion about Bobojonov and the video were linked in one of the supplemental sections to the NYT story. Congrats to you all.
This post was written by...
Nathan Hamm – author of 2974 posts on Registan.net.
Nathan is the Founding Editor and Publisher of Registan.net, which he launched in 2003. He was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Uzbekistan 2000-2001 and received his MA in Central Asian Studies from the University of Washington in 2007. Since 2007, he has worked full-time as an analyst, consulting with private and government clients on Central Asian affairs, specializing in how socio-cultural and political factors shape risks and opportunities and how organizations can adjust their strategic and operational plans to account for these variables. Nathan is currently seeking research, analysis, and consulting opportunities. He can be contacted via Twitter or email.
For information on reproducing this article, see our Terms of Use
{ 1 comment }
I watched the whole thing, and broadly speaking I agree with the NYT’s assessment, and even (shudder) that of M.B. Olcott. Like the shorter version we saw before, this shows that the protests in Andijan began with a violent uprising, possibly (though not necessarily) religiously inspired. This longer video actually helps to undermine the weaker portions of the Uzbek Government’s case though. It clearly shows a crowd of hundreds, many women and children, almost all unarmed. There is no evidence to show that they were rounded up by force: the only hostages shown are militsiya being herded into the Hukumat building. That said, the militants must have had some idea that these people would be in danger – but it doesn’t sound as if they were given any chance to disperse by the troops before they opened fire. I just don’t understand why the Uzbek Government has released this video, in this form (I’m assuming that Babajanov was authorised to hand it over to Olcott). Had they published the footage in full, without editing or subtitles, but with a full transcript, in the immediate aftermath of the massacre, they might have received some plaudits for openness and taken the heat out of demands for an enquiry. Had they suppressed it altogether they could have kept us guessing, or at least reliant on the statements of eyewitnesses which they could deny, however unconvincingly. They could even have cut it a lot more drastically than they did. Instead they’ve sat on it for a year, in which time they could have doctored the footage in any manner they chose. They’ve edited it crudely, removed any footage of people actually being killed by Government troops, and provided subtitles for those bits of dialogue they want highlighted (every single cry of “Allahu Akbar”, in other words). But they’ve left the rest of the soundtrack in, without subtitles, but perfectly comprehensible to anyone who knows Uzbek (I can only pick up the odd word). Thus, as Chivers and Wilensky-Langford observ, you can hear the crowd quite clearly yelling “Azadlik” (freedom) as well as “Allahu Akbar”. People make speeches denouncing economic hardship and unjust imprisonment. For all their attempts to suggest that these are dangerous militants of the kind we see marching in Quetta burning US flags, the atmosphere, with its cheers, clapping and whistles, sounds more like a pop concert half the time, made all the more poignant because we know what follows. What is shocking in some ways is the normality of it all, people smiling, chatting, waving, lying on the grass, talking on their mobile phones, having a fag, looking excited or bewildered, iamongst the burning buildings, the slightly hysterical speeches and the appeals for calm. I suppose the intention of the film is to make foreigners feel scared of this crowd of people, hundreds of whom are about to die. In this it singularly fails.