Uzbekistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has issued its response to the European Union’s decision to keep sanctions against Uzbekistan in place. The MFA is kind of angry:
…the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan believes that the conclusion by the EU Council of May 14, 2007 is of ungrounded, biased nature and under the guise of the human rights rhetoric aims at continuing the use of the so-called EU sanctions as a tool of systematic pressure on Uzbekistan. It is obvious that such decision is counterproductive and cannot promote the realization of cooperation programs, which equally meet the interests of both EU and Uzbekistan.
It almost seems like they were not expecting this decision. But that just goes to show that little has changed in Uzbek government attitudes over the past two years. The GoU considered a few sessions of human rights dialogue and a couple carefully managed tours of Andijon sufficient evidence that it was on the right path. It is awfully hard to make that case when human rights activists are being tossed in jail at the same time. The government seems neither to understand that the EU needs Uzbekistan less than it needs them, nor that the EU is charging an admissions fee for sanctions to be dropped.
The MFA informs readers right off the bat that the EU is highly misinformed about Andijon. They say that it has relied on human rights organizations and “the noisy antigovernment anti-Uzbek information campaign” launched by the media after Andijon. The MFA believes that the December 2006 visit acquainted EU officials with “irrefutable facts” proving that Andijon was a well-planned attempt by terrorists to overthrow the government of Uzbekistan. I guess they were not all that convinced…
Putting the message aside though, it looks as if Uzbekistan has placed its cards on the table and clearly stated it wants cooperation with the EU. Brussels just picked up a little bit of leverage. The EU ministers agreed to revisit the sanctions issue should future developments warrant doing so. If the EU is committed to building ties with Uzbekistan, it should respond to this message by reminding the Uzbek government that no final decisions have been made, and that vitriol certainly will not convince EU members that Uzbekistan is truly interested in cooperating with Europe.
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
{ 12 comments }
As much as I stand behind the EU decision morally–and as much as I take no small shaddenfreude in how angry and frustrated someone now is for having commuted Umida Niyazova’s seven years in hell and gotten “nothing out of it”– I can’t help but wish that this hadn’t happened the week my visa invitation for the summer was being evaluated in Tashkent right now…
Let’s just hope, as Nathan put it rather better, that this can be the point where real dialog begins.
“EU sanctions”-what is this for? Extending the arms embargo for another 12 months? Ridiculous!
Let’s see this from another side and analyze:
If you find out burglar terrorizing your family will you think about “human rights”? or what would you do?
The people with weapons who were in Andijan in 2005 are they “peaceful citizens”?, people who were trying to relive prisoners, criminals, are they “peaceful citizens”?.
At the moment there are many countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc) which face the similarly problems and they use another way to solve the problem, is there a PEACE? NO.
I think instead of making silly sanctions EU needs to help this country, to fight with this people, to remove that BLACK power which tries to break PEACE in this country just to get control in this country.
I think EU needs to respect president of Uzbekistan and those people who stopped incursion of those BLACK powers in to the country, more after that situation, because they are fighting not for them self; they are fighting for PEACE in their home, in their country.
Uzbekistan lives with EU sanctions 2 years and can live and prosper with this eternity.
This is written by ordinary person who is citizen of this peaceful country.
Well done, Mr. EU. It is a well calculated decision. For first time karimov is compelled to listen and obey (release of Umida, retreat from the last cout sentence in Gulbahor’s case). He understands perfectly that one needs to pay the admission fee, just didn’t want to pay. I hope EU won’t abandon the rest of imprisoned HR activists and be persistent in rescuing them. EU has played ‘bad’ and ‘good’ cop and it seems does work.
(At risk of getting flamed by Rustam, who I suspect is lying in wait…)
MG, if only the EU had heard your argument, they surely would have lifted the sanctions.
“Uzbekistan lives with EU sanctions 2 years and can live and prosper with this eternity.”
It’s not exactly like there’s a ban on baby formula. As has been pointed out, these sanctions are largely symbolic. However, symbolism isn’t a bad thing, and it allows the EU to make a statement that seems to have drawn pain from the MFA without really doing much of anything.
“The people with weapons who were in Andijan in 2005 are they “peaceful citizens”?, people who were trying to relive prisoners, criminals, are they “peaceful citizens”?.”
No they were not. And they don’t have to be. They had the full right to use violence against a thoroughly depraved, criminal regime that only understands the logics of violent oppression. I only hope that Karimov and his satraps had a good, long look at this:
http://www.africamasterweb.com/SaddamPhotos/SaddamHanging.jpg
For history has its own justice.
“I hope EU won’t abandon the rest of imprisoned HR activists and be persistent in rescuing them.”
The HR and NGO activists’ cases are popular in the West yet they are not the bulk of the people who suffer under the Karimovs’ tyranny. There are also thousands of Muslims in concentration camps like Jaslyk, for example, or child slavery on the cotton plantations.
It may be interesting to see if the relaxation of the visa ban on those 4 individuals creates tension with the other 8 people that were left on. It might create some lively conversation around the Tashkent water coolers about why some were given favor and some were not.
‘The HR and NGO activists’ cases are popular in the West yet they are not the bulk of the people who suffer under the Karimovs’ tyranny’.
—–
Right. But these HR activists have been the only ones in the country defending cases of religious dissidents oppressed by the regime. Mr. Zeinabeddinov is just one example. Civil society includes not only NGOs, but religious associations too, so they are destined to support each other.
Hmm, I have slightly mixed feelings about this, having just returned from a month-long research trip to Uzbekistan where I was refused access to the Archives (where I’ve worked before) by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A lot of the people I spoke to there (won’t name names) who are no friends of the regime feel that the EU’s stance is counter-productive as it simply drives Uzbekistan further into the arms of Russia and China, who really don’t give a toss about Human Rights. The effect of Craig Murray’s antics and the international protests after Andijan has been that the U.S. and European Governments have lost all the influence they once had in Tashkent, and the internal situation in Uzbekistan is not one whit better.
On the other hand, how could you let something like Andijan simply pass by? Particularly when the Government’s version of events was so utterly implausible. The money Uzbekistan got from the U.S. when it was an “ally in the war on terror” almost certainly helped fund the repressive apparatus of the State, and although it wasn’t his place to do so as a diplomat, everything Murray said about the Uzbek regime was true. Perhaps moral arguments are too much of a luxury in the world of diplomatic realpolitik, but for several years we were far too cosy with the Uzbek government without getting many real concessions on democratisation and Human Rights in return.
Frankly I don’t know the answer to this question, but I do know I get some moral satisfaction from knowing that some of the more thuggish members of the regime can’t go on shopping trips in Paris, and that our intelligence service is no longer using material from Uzbek torture chambers. Unfortunately they can still shop in Moscow or Peking, and people in Uzbekistan are still being tortured anyway.
Incidentally, you may find your site blocked by MID because, if any of them learnt their English in the UK they’ll think you’ve accused them of collective inebriation in response to the EU decision (in England we say “pissed off” to mean annoyed: “pissed” on its own means drunk. I love the variations of Transatlantic communication).
I considered the difference of meaning, but thought I’d rather have the ambiguity
A few years back, I remember hearing about pro-western Uzbek bureaucrats frustrated with alienation of the government. I sympathize with their frustration, but European and US policymakers don’t have an awful lot to work with. They can’t send the message that the GoU can get away with blackmail — that we are the ones who should do the impressing. And it’s also not as if differences of opinion within the ministries manifest themselves in factional disputes over policy divided along policy lines. Again, there’s not much to work with.
In fact, I suspect that the foreign ministry is somewhat anomalous. I’d suspect that it employs by far the largest number of bureaucrats with western leanings. Hell, I wouldn’t surprised if it had them all. And unfortunately, the interior ministry and Inoyatov’s boys are far more important.
“The MFA believes that the December 2006 visit acquainted EU officials with “irrefutable facts” proving that Andijon was a well-planned attempt by terrorists to overthrow the government of Uzbekistan. I guess they were not all that convinced…”
It’s anyhow a stain on an image that the Uzbek MFA tried to improve over the last few years (eg. the number of propagandistic events that the Uzbek embassy organised in Brussels when, Volodya Norov was ambassador there, since Andijan). And the sanction extension is an indicator that the regime’s smokescreen and cunning games are no longer effective–even among EUnuch apparachiks.
“This is written by ordinary person who is citizen of this peaceful country.”
MG, if repression and torture, keeping people into structural poverty, cotton slavery and overall social degradation are ‘peaceful’ for you, you can continue to fool yourself (and the likes of Akiner etc.) but not assume that others will buy into that.
Other than that, you are as much an ‘ordinary citizen’ of Uzbekistan as the radiator in my room is. For a start, ‘ordinary citizens’ of Uzb/CA do not have such good English and have no or hardly any access to the internet (though many do have sat TV) let alone forums like this one. If you are Uzbek then you are likely to come from a more privileged surrounding, which often means: connected to the regime.
…you are as much an ‘ordinary citizen’ of Uzbekistan as the…
Hell, I’d question whether Uzbekistan even has citizens as opposed to subjects.
It seems an archaic term, but sadly, it is an extremely useful one for describing relations between the state and individuals in many countries.