She had to change her plea to guilty. Despite the many reasons given—including compassion over separating a mother from her two-year old son, I have the feeling (with zero actual proof, mind you) that the relentless pressure put on Uzbekistan by several international groups, including HRW and the EU, played at least a peripheral role in her release. Unfortunately, Ms. Niyazova had to renounce all association with human rights and in effect give up her right to think differently than Tashkent declares she should think.
What a mess. You can see a general accounting of the trial here. Uzbekistan seems an Orwellian nightmare at the moment.
(h/t Bonnie)
This post was written by...
Joshua Foust – author of 1801 posts on Registan.net.
Joshua Foust is a Fellow at the American Security Project and the author of Afghanistan Journal: Selections from Registan.net. His research focuses primarily on Central and South Asia. Joshua is a correspondent for The Atlantic and a columnist for PBS Need to Know. Joshua appears regularly on the BBC World News, Aljazeera, and international public radio. Joshua is also a regular contributor to Foreign Policy’s AfPak Channel, and his writing has appeared in the New York Times, Reuters, and the Christian Science Monitor. Follow him on twitter: @joshuafoust
For information on reproducing this article, see our Terms of Use
{ 6 comments }
haha…what a great NSS move! Can’t help loving their working styles! all before the EU takes decisions on its strategy. who is right in this situation? hrw and the west or uzbek government? confusion still reigns.
the EU already has an experience of excluding certain countries from its strategies(the ENP-belarus, Barcelona process-Libya). hmm..let’s wait and see if europeens will do that again.
Comment from Nathan
Time: 5/8/2007, 12:56 pm
Alisher, I’m skeptical that she was released as a result of sanctions. Isn’t it fairly common for female convicts to be released shortly after their convictions?
——–
FYI, Gulbahor Turayeva’s sentence has been just upgraded from 6 years to 11 years and 8 months, in spite she has confessed in all ‘sins’ referred to her by indictment.
But I also agree with David, that the tactics of combination of sanctions with the engagement in the field of education could be a workable solution.
You’re right about Turayeva’s sentence being upped. I don’t think the pattern is hard and fast, but I can recall other females who have had their sentences commuted. I think that the common link between those cases is diplomatic pressure on those particular cases, not the presence of sanctions.
Another common link is the lack of rule of law. One court says 7 years, another says none. Of course I am happy for Umida, but both decisions equally reveal the lack of a rules-based legal system.
Comment from Nathan
Time: 5/9/2007, 1:35 pm
I think that the common link between those cases is diplomatic pressure on those particular cases, not the presence of sanctions.
—–
Right, but this diplomatic pressure would be impotent without a whip of sanctions in one hand.
Its wonderful news, and clearly some diplomats have been working hard. But sadly its a one-off because Umida was well known to the international community. Turayeva – and of course countless others – can’t get the same level of coverage/influence. The tradition has been for Uzbekistan to use well known prisoners as a pawn for dealings with the US/EU. Expect to see this trumpeted by the Germans as a reason to relax sanctions. I think if they had had their way and sanctions had already been relaxed Umida would still be in prison. But I don’t like these games that diplomats get drawn into over individual cases – it skews policy completely.