After that first thousands-strong protest in 1991, the Uzbek countryside fell silent--until about four years ago. In 1997, Karimov's regime finally found an obligingly uncompromising enemy: The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan began to murder police officers and bureaucrats. Or at least that's what they say in Tashkent. But a visit to the Fergana Valley finds that it's less clear-cut: Many locals say the government simply started pinning run-of-the-mill murders on "Islamic radicals." Either way, by 1999 the IMU was car-bombing Tashkent. Its militants are now sheltered by the Taliban, and occasionally launch military incursions on Uzbeki soil from Afghanistan.

Post-September 11, the IMU was one of the few terrorist organizations singled out for elimination by President Bush. Fair enough. But there are other underground groups, both secular and Muslim, that advocate political change in Uzbekistan through peaceful means. One group in particular the government has targeted is Hizb-u-Tahrir, a Jordanian-based organization with some ugly ideas and a minor following here. The government says it's a terrorist hive because it wants Uzbekistan to be an Islamic theocracy. Hizb-u-Tahrir leaflets criticize the regime's cruelty and corruption; they also deride Karimov as "a Jew" and say democracy is evil. But they don't advocate violence.

Nonetheless, possession of a single Hizb-u-Tahrir leaflet is now punishable by up to twenty years in jail (to say nothing of pretrial torture). Ardzinov's group says there are more than 7,000 Muslims in Uzbek jails for crimes like praying in private or going to the wrong mosque. New York-based Human Rights Watch--the only international group with a permanent office in Tashkent--agrees. It is in this context that Acacia Shields, a Human Rights Watch researcher, worries about vague new security guarantees.

"President Bush said we'd make the distinction that [America is pursuing] a war on terrorism, not a war on Islam," Shields says. "But the Uzbek government has proven time and again it's not able to make that distinction. So now we have security guarantees. Are we talking about protecting [Uzbekistan] from the Taliban or the IMU? If so, fine. But my fear is that the Uzbek government will turn to the United States and say: Help us in countering our 'internal threat.' And that means: Help us continue this horrific campaign against peaceful, independent Muslims."

More and more, the police are planting a few Hizb-u-Tahrir fliers on those they dislike and sending them off to hell. Among those to suffer such treatment are human rights workers, including Ismail Adilov, a slightly built graying man. During his two years in jail for possession of Hizb-u-Tahrir fliers he says the police planted on him, Adilov, 51, was forced to sing Uzbek patriotic songs and to compose poems to President Karimov, and he was beaten for any lapses of artistic inspiration. In July he was released, minus a few teeth, on Karimov's direct order. He credits his freedom to the US State Department. American pressure freed another prominent rights activist in 2000, and also won the Red Cross access to Uzbek prisons, all as part of a quid-pro-quo of the certification process to make Uzbekistan eligible for aid money under the "Cooperative Threat Reduction" program.

The US government is now divided, with State wanting better human rights in Uzbekistan and the Pentagon wanting bases and Tashkent's willing cooperation. Which raises the question: Why can't we have it all? We are doing a huge favor for Karimov's regime--we have arrived to seek out and destroy his enemies in Afghanistan--and we are paying him handsomely for the privilege. We already give Uzbekistan some $30 million in aid, according to the State Department, and that is set to soar now that we are "allies." We could demand that Uzbekistan take some minimal steps forward on human rights; instead, we have been hemming and hawing.

Given all this, there's no reason that the United States can't simply demand that Uzbekistan move toward a minimal threshold of human rights guarantees. The State Department has been delaying release of its annual list of countries that do not respect religious freedoms; it should release the list, with Uzbekistan near the top. Washington might also remind Tashkent (and itself) that US law does not allow us to fund any foreign intelligence agency that dabbles in torture. We could insist on Uzbekistan adopting habeas corpus. For that matter, the President or the Secretary of State could simply come out with a few strong public statements on Uzbekistan--remarks crafted so as neither to express contempt, nor to invite it.

Update: On October 30, the State Department issued its annual report on international religious freedoms. One glaring omissison that has infuriated human rights activists is Uzbekistan. Click here for more information.

• « Previous
• 1
• 2

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.