Stay in Uzbekistan
Svante Cornell

Svenska Dagbladet, 15 June 2005

The odious dictator Islam Karimov carried out a massacre on hundreds of civilians, who were simply protesting against their living conditions. If Islamic extremists were involved, this was also Karimov's fault as his repressive rule had forced the opposition into the arms of Islamists. This is a simplistic summary of how the May events in eastern Uzbekistan were described by western media and policymakers. As a result, Amnesty International and members of the Swedish Parliament have tried to bring about the removal of Swedish peacekeeping troops based in Termez, Uzbekistan. In response, defense minister Leni Björklund asked the Swedish military to find an alternative base.

The problem is that this analysis is incorrect. Media and politicians have drawn far-reaching conclusions based on utterly limited information.

A number of western researchers' works have proven that the picture given by media is largely simplified and somewhat incorrect. There are presently hardly any doubts that the insurgency was a serious and well-planned action initiated by Islamic militants with established international connections. Demonstrations against the imprisonment of 23 businessmen accused for Islamic extremism had been in progress for weeks without any intervention from security forces.

Early on May 13, extremists equipped themselves with arms after attacking a police station and a military base. They then attacked a high-security prison in Andijon and released 600 prisoners. Subsequently, government buildings were attacked and hostages taken, of which several were killed. At this point, the Uzbek government sent forces into Andijon, resulting in bloodshed with at least 170 people killed (according to unconfirmed information, up to 500).

The fact that everything started with an attack caused by extremist groups do not excuse the actions taken by the Uzbek government. Clearly, something went extremely wrong when the Uzbek government intervened wit the purpose of recapturing control of the situation. But too many questions remain unanswered. Did the militants use human shields? How many soldiers, militants, demonstrators and civilians were killed? The lack of reliable information is a big problem. A main reason is the Karimov government's refusal to allow an international investigation. However, the prominent researcher Shirin Akiner from of the University of London, describes media reporting as "greatly exaggerated" after visiting the area.

The western world, including Sweden, fails to understand the serious threat posed by Islamic extremism to Central Asia. For over 20 years groups have tried to plant a militant, violent interpretation of Islam in historically tolerant Central Asia.

The terrorist Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMO), with close connections to al-Qaeda, threatened the entire region's security through attacks during 1999-2004. The global organization Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HT) strives to create a Caliphate in the area in a self-declared peaceful way. But the group supports suicide bombers and is strongly anti-Semitic. It is in fact comparable to what Sinn Feinn is to the IRA - a political division for terrorist groups. The Akromiya group, which was behind the actions in Andijon, has also split from HT since they advocate the immediate use of violence. As long as the western world underestimates or ignores the very real threat these groups pose, the western criticism will not be taken seriously in the region.

Discussing the withdrawal of Swedish troops from the military base in Termez is irresponsible. For a foreseeable period of time, a logistical base in Central Asia will be required for operations by the coalition in Afghanistan. Today there is no real alternative from where Swedish, and international, troops can work safely in order to fulfill their historic mission in Afghanistan.

Before the defense minister gave the armed forces commission the task to find a base outside Uzbekistan, a decision which could adventure the security of Swedish troops, she should have performed a thorough investigation of the situation.

Svante Cornell
Director, Silk Road Studies Program, Uppsala University

"Sweden Flies in Afghanistan"

Leni Björklund
Svenska Dagbladet, June 18

In SvD's op-ed page on 6/15, Svante Cornell says that it is irresponsible to discuss a withdrawal of Swedish troops from the airport in Termez, Uzbekistan. Sweden is going to support the UN-mandated peacekeeping force from August to November with air transportations. The reason is that ISAF has an increasing need of transportations during the parliamentary election which will be held in September. I would also like to point out that Sweden is not involved in the US-led coalition.

So far, the starting point has been that a Swedish Hercules airplane will be based in Termez, Uzbekistan. Against the background of the recent developments in Uzbekistan, the government wants to investigate if there are any possibilities of an alternative base. The defense ministry has therefore requested the national defense to begin an appraisal.

The starting point of the mission is, as always, that the security for the Swedish staff is set at first and that the requirements which we have undertaken in Afghanistan will be fulfilled.

Leni Björklund
Minister of Defense, Sweden

Cornell ignores arbitrary punishments

Carl Söderbergh
Svenska Dagbladet, 22 June

In SvD's op-ed page on June 15, Svante Cornell directs criticism, among others, against Amnesty's analysis of the situation in Uzbekistan. He thereby dismisses our criticism against Sweden's use of a military base in the country. Cornell does this based only on the massacre in Andijon on May 13, when hundreds of people were killed.

Most of the thousands of demonstrators that had gathered to claim justice and protest against poverty were unarmed and carried out a peaceful demonstration. In spite of this, the security forces without any warning began firing against the crowd. Men, women and children flew in panic. Irrespective of who caused the disturbances in May, it is important to point out that these severe excesses were not a specific incident. The Human Rights situation has for a long time been a serious problem in Uzbekistan. What Svante Cornell neglects is that the Uzbek regime is using the "war against terrorism" and "national security" as an excuse for imprisoning hundreds of men and women. "Confessions" forced through torture are regularly used as evidence in trials and many have been sentenced to long imprisonment.

According to president Karimov, 50 to 60 people were sentenced to death during 2004. The exact number of people sentenced to death, or actually executed, is nevertheless not possible to confirm since the exact circumstances concerning death penalty are veiled in obscurity. However, probably hundreds of people have been executed after faulty trials. Many of them had been severely tortured. Neither the sentenced nor the relatives are informed when the execution is to take place. The family is not even told were the executed is buried. As a result many people search for years for a grave.

Amnesty condemns all forms of indiscriminate violence including that committed by armed groups. At the same time we insist that governments are not to use violence caused by armed groups as an excuse for committing abuses on human rights.

The Uzbek government may interpret the presence of Swedish and international forces in the country as an approval of the strict policies that are carried out against dissidents.

Carl Söderbergh
Secretary-General
Amnesty International, Sweden

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amnesty shoots itself in the foot

Svenska Dagbladet, 7 July 2005

On SvD's op-ed page on June 22, Carl Söderbergh of Amnesty accuses me of ignoring the Uzbek government's abuses. But this criticism is misguided. The human rights situation in Uzbekistan was well known when Sweden decided to station troops in Termez for the peacekeeping operation in Afghanistan. What I show is that the events in Andizhan have been misinterpreted by the media, which has systematically reported the highest imaginable death toll without a factual basis and neither sought to reconstruct the course of events nor to identify the group behind the attack.

Independent experts have now, after these events, shown a much more nuanced picture of the events. This does not change the fact that significant human rights problems exist in Uzbekistan. But the situation has not deteriorated in a way that would justify the withdrawal of Swedish troops.

Amnesy argues that Uzbekistan is a totalitarian country, that it should be isolated and criticized, and that all aid to or cooperation with Uzbekistan should be stopped. This attitude is extremely counterproductive. President Karimov is not a totalitarian ruler. Quite to the contrary, he presides over various forces in society, including reformist liberals, anti-reform conservatives, and former communists.

Western assistance to Central Asia has invested almost exclusively in building civil society, and almost nothing on security sector institutions. These have been seen as too difficult, too corrupt, and too recalcitrant to work with. For ten years, they have been allowed to crumble, and they remain controlled by soviet-style power structures. The consequence is the lack of competence and training that was so clearly visible in the tragic events in Andizhan.

Precisely for this reason, the west including Sweden must increase its relations with Uzbekistan rather than the opposite. Development cooperation must prioritize security sector reform. If the police and court systems are not reformed, no progress can be expected, neither can civil society and reformist forces gain influence.

Isolating Uzbekistan, as Amnesty would like, would isolate the reformist forces that exist in the Uzbek state and strengthen the very forces that Amnesty wants to fight. Therefore, Amnesty once again shoots itself in the foot.

Svante Cornell