View previous stories
	Thousands flee Uzbek Violence by ICG / AP / Reuters & agencies Uzbekistan   June 20, 2005   "Bush Administration support for Repression in Uzbekistan belies Pro-Democracy Rhetoric", by Stephen Zunes. (Foreign Policy in Focus)   Recent revelations that the United States successfully blocked a call by NATO for an international investigation of the May 13 massacre of hundreds of civilians by the government of the former Soviet Republic of Uzbekistan serves as yet another reminder of the insincerity of the Bush administration’s claims for supporting freedom and democracy in the Islamic world and the former Soviet Union.   A recent report from Human Rights Watch, based on interviews with scores of eyewitnesses, determined that government troops in the city of Andijan used ''''indiscriminate use of lethal force against unarmed people,'''' killing more than 500 people. And, while HRW noted that a small number of armed men were apparently present among the demonstrators, the report asserted that the Uzbek government''s use of force against the crowd was ''''neither proportionate nor appropriate to the danger they posed.''''   By contrast, rather than condemning the massacre, the Bush White House called for “restraint’ from both sides in an apparent effort to convince Americans that unarmed pro-democracy demonstrators were somehow just as guilty as the those who shot at them. A Bush administration spokesman also claimed that Islamic “terrorist groups” may have been behind the protests that prompted the shootings.   Such claims are contradicted by those familiar with the political situation in the eastern Uzbek city as well as by the Human Rights Watch report, which noted that there was “no evidence that any of the speakers at the protest promoted an Islamist agenda. According to numerous witnesses, their grievances were overwhelmingly about poverty, corruption, and government repression.” Similarly, Amnesty International reported that ''''The vast majority of the thousands of protestors gathered in the town''s main square calling for justice and an end to poverty were unarmed and peaceful.”   Uzbek troops reportedly killed an additional 200 demonstrators the following day in the nearby city of Pakhtabad and still more civilians were shot while attempting to flee into neighboring Kyrgyzstan. The British newspaper The Independent reported that Uzbek dictator Islam Karimov had flown from the capital or Tashkent into the area Friday morning “and almost certainly personally authorized the use of...deadly force.”   Dictators and Double Standards   The massacres took place not long after an overseas trip in which President George W. Bush extolled the democratic revolutions in the former Soviet republics of Ukraine and Georgia. American NGOs which supported these pro-democracy movements, such as Freedom House and George Soros’ Open Society Institute, have been threatened and expelled by Uzbek authorities. The ongoing U.S. support for the repressive Karimov regime, then, stands as yet another example of the crass double-standards in U.S. policy.   Such double-standards are not new. During the Cold War, both Republican and Democratic administrations would bewail the human rights abuses of Communist and other leftist governments while sending arms and economic assistance to even more repressive right-wing allies. In Central Asia during the 1980s, the U.S. government was even willing to back extremist Islamist groups as part of its anti-Communist crusade.   Now, however, the United States is using Communists to fight Islamists.   Karimov became leader of the Uzbek Communist Party in 1989 and backed the unsuccessful coup by Communist Party hard liners against reformist Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991. Soon after Uzbekistan became independent later that year, he banned leading opposition parties and has since held onto power through a series of rigged elections and plebiscites. Though acknowledging such votes “offered Uzbekistan voters no true choice,” the Bush administration has yet to called for free and fair elections. And while supporting “human rights training,” the U.S. government has refused to give the kind of support to pro-democracy groups challenging the pro-American dictatorship in Uzbekistan as it did for similar opposition groups challenging less compliant regimes in Ukraine and Georgia.   The Karimov dictatorship has received over one billion dollars in U.S. aid, the vast majority of that coming under President Bush, who has justified the U.S. invasion, occupation, and ongoing counter-insurgency wars in nearby Iraq because of the need to promote democracy in the Islamic world. An estimated 1000 American troops are currently stationed in Uzbekistan and U.S. forces have engaged in military training exercises with Uzbek forces as far back as 1995.   Karimov was invited to the White House in March 2002, where he and President Bush signed a strategic partnership agreement, which included an additional $120 million in U.S. military aid. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has praised Karimov for his “wonderful cooperation” with the U.S. military. President Bush’s former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O''Neill spoke admirably of the dictator’s “very keen intellect and deep passion” for improving the lives of his people.   George Bush’s “Man in Central Asia”   The largest country in Central Asian in population and its capital Tashkent is the region’s largest city, with a subway system and an international airport built during the Soviet era. As an independent state under Karimov’s rule, Uzbekistan remains one of the poorest of the former Soviet republics despite its generous natural resources, including one of the world’s largest sources of natural gas and sizable but largely untapped oil reserves. Karimov, however, pockets virtually all of the revenue generated by the country’s natural endowments. Corruption is rampant and his brutal militia routinely engage in robbery and extortion. Businessmen who refuse to pay bribes are frequently labeled as Islamic extremists and then jailed, tortured and murdered.   Uzbekistan’s jails hold more than 7000 political prisoners, where torture is widespread and systematic. Not long after the Bush administration provided Uzbek police with $79 million worth in assistance in 2002, two prominent political prisoners were found to have been boiled to death. The elderly mother of one of the victims was sentenced six years of hard labor when she protested.   Despite this, Craig Murray, who served as the British ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 until last year, observed how “Karimov is very much George Bush’s man in Central Asia” and that no Bush administration official has ever said a negative word about him.   As a result of growing criticism for its support for such repression, the Bush administration reduced its support for “security and law enforcement” last year to $10 million, though much larger amounts of indirect funding from the American taxpayer continues to flow. The State Department has emphasized that, despite the reduction in U.S. aid, Uzbekistan remains “an important partner” and has pledged to “continued cooperation.”   Indeed, U.S. intelligence officials have privately confirmed widespread reports that the Bush administration has been sending suspected Islamic radicals arrested in third countries to Uzbekistan for detention and interrogation.   As a result of the Karimov regime’s imprisonment and torture of nonviolent Muslims who dared to worship outside of state controls, a radical armed group known as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan has emerged to challenge the regime. The Bush administration blamed a series of IMU suicide bombings in the capital of Tashkent last year on Al-Qaeda, though British and other intelligence sources report no direct links between the IMU and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network.   Attacks by the dictatorship’s armed forces have resulted in widespread civilian casualties, not just within Uzbekistan, but also in neighboring Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Amnesty International documented widespread human rights violations during a 2001 counter-insurgency campaign, where “villages were set on fire and bombed, livestock were killed, houses and fields destroyed.” By contrast, the Bush administration went on record supporting what it called “the right of Uzbekistan to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity” and praised the army’s measures “to minimize casualties and ensure the protection of innocent civilians.”   Since even this spring’s massacres have not led to a lessening in the Bush administration’s support for the Karimov regime, it is unlikely that there will be a change in policy until the American people demand it. Campaigns in recent decades against U.S. support for repressive regimes in Latin America and Southeast Asia were often successful in limiting or cutting off aid to dictators. Similar campaigns could emerge to challenge the Bush administration’s support for dictators like Karimov. Indeed, given that the U.S.-led counter-insurgency wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and U.S. support for the Israeli occupation of the West Bank have been justified in the name of advancing the cause of freedom and democracy, the Bush administration is perhaps more vulnerable to criticism than previous administrations for its support of autocratic regimes in the Middle East and Central Asia. The question is whether the American people care enough to make it an issue.   (Stephen Zunes, Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in Focus, is a professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco)   Bishkek/Brussels, 25 May 2005.   Uzbekistan: The Andijon Uprising. (International Crisis Group)   Western governments and international bodies must press much harder for fundamental changes in Tashkent to avoid further mass violence, and even state failure, in Uzbekistan.   Uzbekistan: The Andijon Uprising,* the latest briefing from the International Crisis Group, examines the events surrounding the 13-14 May popular uprising in the eastern Uzbekistan city and its brutal suppression by the government of President Islam Karimov. For too long, the international community has ignored Karimov''s abuses and the clear signs the country was headed for serious trouble. It is time to abandon failed policies of muted criticism and tacit support of this murderous regime.   "Some world capitals seem almost surprised by the events in Andijon, but the uprising and the massacre that followed did not just appear out of nowhere", says Michael Hall, Director of Crisis Group''s Central Asia Project. "Public anger and extreme frustration with the regime have been mounting everywhere in Uzbekistan for months, if not years".   Following half a year of increasingly strident demonstrations across the country, the Andijon uprising began with protests over the trial of 23 local businessmen accused of involvement in Islamic extremism and acts against the state. There is no credible evidence for the involvement of jihadists in these protests, and the businessmen in question had shown no inclination to violence.   That an armed crowd broke into Andijon prison on 12 May 2005, freeing as many as 2,000 prisoners, was certainly a crime, but there can be no justification for the government''s response: firing indiscriminately into unarmed, peaceful civilians, killing perhaps as many as 750 people, including many children.   Protests over the past six months have been mostly driven by the regime''s ruinous economic policies. Government decrees have levied high tariffs on imports and restricted the activities of bazaar traders in a country where shuttle trading across borders is sometimes the only way people have of making a living. Worsening corruption and bureaucracy have also prompted rising anger against the government, as have shortages of gas and electricity throughout a very cold winter.   Russia and China have strongly backed Karimov''s approach, ignoring the reality that his policies have fuelled the potential for a serious Islamist opposition. The U.S. has focused almost entirely on maintaining a strong security relationship, with far less attention to improving human rights, encouraging political reforms or opening the economy, thus inevitably adding to the very risks Washington says it is engaged in the region to prevent.   "The massacre at Andijon is unlikely to be the last serious bloodshed this regime unleashes on its own citizens", says Robert Templer, Director of Crisis Group''s Asia Program. "The international community must push for deep economic and political reforms if it wants to avoid further violence and ensuing state failure in Uzbekistan. Chaos in Uzbekistan would only benefit the region''s militant Islamist groups, as do the regime''s brutal policies".   London. May 20, 2005   "Former diplomat slams US and Britain", by Beth Gardiner. (Associated Press)   A weak response from America and Britain to Uzbekistan''s violence is making it easier for the Uzbek Government to crack down viciously on protesters, a former British ambassador to the central Asian country says.   "I''m deeply unimpressed by the Washington reaction, which consists of a few pious words and no action," said Craig Murray, who was withdrawn from his post in Uzbekistan last year after criticising its human rights record. British officials, he said in an interview yesterday, were offering "pious hypocrisies to placate public opinion".   Mr Murray said United States President George Bush had failed to live up to his promises to press for the spread of freedom and democracy around the world. "It was a vision you couldn''t disagree with" when Mr Bush set it out in his inauguration speech, Mr Murray said. "Except you knew he didn''t mean it." He said America''s support for Uzbek President Islam Karimov "reveals them as completely hypocritical".   Hundreds of civilians have reportedly been killed by government troops in Uzbekistan since Friday, when protesters stormed a prison in Andijan, the fourth-largest city, freeing inmates and seizing government offices. Thousands of demonstrators filled the city''s square, mostly complaining about poverty and unemployment.   The Government said 169 died in Andijan, but activists say the tally was more than 500 and about 200 in Pakhtabad, most of them civilians.   Amnesty International says more than 6000 political prisoners have been jailed and dozens of people have reportedly died of torture in recent years.   Uzbekistan emerged as a key US ally after the September 11 attacks and hosts hundreds of American troops supporting operations in Afghanistan.   May 19, 2005   "Rights Group Urges Uzbek Government to Show Restraint", by Abid Aslam. (OneWorld.net)   Human rights watchdogs are urging government restraint and independent probes of the bloodshed in Uzbekistan, a key ally in what the administration of President George W. Bush calls its ''''war on terror.''''   Amnesty International, in a statement, said it ''''strongly condemns the reported use of excessive force against civilians in Andijan and calls on the authorities of Uzbekistan to allow a prompt and independent investigation into the events with the results made public and those responsible brought to justice.''''   ''''The vast majority of the thousands of protestors gathered in the town''s main square calling for justice and an end to poverty were unarmed and peaceful. Nevertheless troops are said to have opened fire on the crowd from armored personnel carriers without warning, shooting indiscriminately at men, women and children as they fled from the main square in panic,'''' Amnesty said.   The organization said Monday that it remained ''''greatly concerned that the Uzbekistani authorities will use the events in Andijan to justify a further clampdown on dissent and freedom of expression in Uzbekistan and that this will lead to waves of arbitrary arrests nationwide in the name of ''national security'' and the ''war against terror''.''''   Amnesty called on the authorities to use only proportionate force as necessary to protect life in keeping with the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. Visit the related web page
	Muslim scholar seeks connections between East and West by Eleanor Hall ABC News   July , 2005   Muslim scholar seeks connections between East and West", by Eleanor Hall. (ABC News)   A leading Muslim scholar in the United States is working to heal the divide between the Muslim world and the West by trying to focus international attention on the similarities between Muslim and Western values.   Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf calls on all Muslims to condemn violent acts that are carried out in the name of Islam. But he says being both a devout Muslim leader and a proud citizen of the United States is not a difficult identity to straddle because of the way he views the US.   In his book, What''s Right with Islam, Imam Feisal sets out why he regards the United States, which is seen as the Great Satan in much of the Muslim world, as instead an almost ideal Islamic society.   The Imam was in Adelaide last week for the Festival of Ideas and when I spoke to him I asked him about the role the moderate Muslim community in London could play in assisting with the investigation into the bombings.   IMAM FEISAL: There are increasing attempts from within the British Muslim community to cooperate with the law enforcement agencies to root out such elements. They have made pronouncements that these actions are completely in violation of Islamic law, Islamic ethics and Islamic jurisprudence and that anybody who does this is actually a non-Muslim, is outside, beyond the pale so to speak, of Islam.   ELEANOR HALL: So what are the ways then, that people can root out these elements within the Muslim community there?   IMAM FEISAL: The consensus of British Muslim organisational leadership and opinion states that those who perform these actions are non-Muslim. This is a very powerful statement. That''s one part of it, or one leg so to speak. And the other is to cooperate with the law enforcement agencies to ensure that any information they have on incidents like this, do not happen.   ELEANOR HALL: Now, you''re right that Islam is not a religion that encourages violence and yet, so much violence has been done in the name of Islam. How has that happened?   IMAM FEISAL: It is a function of the history of what''s happened in the Muslim world of the last century. The rise in particular, of anti-religious, authoritarian regimes in the region, which has seeded and fuelled the rise of a militant antipathy towards those regimes – that is certainly one factor.   And the lack of social justice and participation in both the power structure, the governmental structure and economic structure in a number of the major Muslim population countries.   ELEANOR HALL: And one of the things that you say in your book is that in Islam suicide is expressly forbidden and yet of course there are suicide bombings carried out in the name of Islam.   IMAM FEISAL: Yes, suicide is completely forbidden. There is not a single instance where the prophet condoned it. There''s a difference between going into battle and being killed as between that and going into battle with the intention of killing oneself.   ELEANOR HALL: Now one of the most interesting arguments you make in your book is that America is substantially an Islamic society. Can you explain a little bit more what you mean by this?   IMAM FEISAL: Well, I mean, it comes as a surprise to many but I think it''s an important point for them to understand and this is not something that I was the first one to come up with.   A century ago or more than a century ago the Chief Mufti in Egypt made a statement which was very well known in the Muslim world and among scholars of Islam even in the West.   On a visit to Paris and to France he returned and said that in France I saw Islam but no Muslims and in Egypt I see Muslims with no Islam. It''s a very important point for people to understand, both Muslims and non-Muslims.   The reason why Muslims are fleeing many of their societies to countries like Australia, western Europe, United States and Canada is because the societal mandates of an Islamic society and Islamic State is in fact the kind of structure of society that we see in Western societies – the ability of people to participate in issues of governance, issues of the economic wellbeing and economic pie are fundamental to Islamic principles of governance.   ELEANOR HALL: So you''re saying in contrast to the position we find ourselves in now there is no long historical tradition of opposition to the US and the West in the Muslim world?   IMAM FEISAL: No. In fact their position to the United States in the Muslim world only happened after World War II, when the United States became… first with the United States overthrow of the popularly elected Prime Minister of Iran and in supporting regimes that were willing to push back against communism.   ELEANOR HALL: Now, you mentioned that many Muslims have fled the Arab world, essentially, to countries like Australia and the United States and Britain. Is there a particular role to be played by Muslims living in the West in healing the rift between the West and the Islamic world?   IMAM FEISAL: Very much so. One of my constant points is that the Muslim communities in the West are under-utilised because they''re the ones who can best mediate and be effective interlocutors between the West and the Islamic world.
	View more stories