What journalists often refer to as "unrest" still simmers in remote Uzbekistan.
KARASUV, Uzbekistan (AFP) - Tensions remained high in this town on the Uzbek-Kyrgyz border as Tashkent struggled to quell unrest in the wake of a deadly crackdown that has sparked unprecedented Western criticism of the authoritarian Uzbek regime.Some 200 demonstrators, mostly women, paraded banners demanding freedom for a self-proclaimed Islamist leader as well as a popular local wrestler in the town of Karasuv, which straddles the border between the Central Asian former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.
Several hundred soldiers and riot police stood by as the protestors blocked the road leading to a bridge to the Kyrgyz side of the town, over the Sharikh Khansai canal.
Two journalists working for the Associated Press were briefly detained by security forces as they tried to photograph and film the demonstration. The pair was let go after soldiers confiscated their camera, film and portable computer.
In the same dispatch, we see that the diplomats are as sharp and decisive as ever.
Western officials, led by the United Nations and the European Union, have stepped up the pressure on Uzbekistan's hardline regime for a thorough inquiry into the Andijan events.On Friday, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reaffirmed US calls for a transparent, international inquiry, warning Tashkent, a US ally in the war on terror, could face international isolation should it fail to comply.
The Western-led Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) also called for an inquiry and said that Uzbekistan was not responding to OSCE efforts to mediate.
Top OSCE officials are "ready to go to Uzbekistan and assist with the dialogue and look at the deeper reasons for the unrest... the problem is that there is no communication with Uzbekistan," said OSCE spokesman Keith Jinks.
Uzbekistan is a very tough neighborhood and has a ruthless leader. "Inquiries" probably aren't going to get very far.
There aren't really too many good options, at least in the short run, other than try to uphold our principles without causing even more problems. Here's how area expert Charles William Maynes tries to explain what's happening.
[President Islam Karimov ] runs a very, very tough regime. His argument is that he is facing a very severe threat--and there is a threat. But the question raised on the outside is whether the oppression of religion in the country, or certainly the crackdown on people who tend to be religious, is fueling much of the unrest and poverty.The path forward seems very difficult for his government. I think if he lifted the lid entirely, he would be overthrown. If he keeps it clamped down totally, there is going to be a lot of bloodshed.
[The U.S. has] about 1,000 troops there. We have an airbase at Khanabad, which is near the Afghan border. It is important to our efforts in Afghanistan, although how important now, in light of the overthrow of the Taliban, is a legitimate question. For the time being, the United States government takes the position that this base is absolutely critical to our role in Afghanistan.
I think the airbase to this point has been the dominant factor in American policy. There is no question about that. However, what happened in Uzbekistan throws a dark cloud on some more optimistic views of political change in that part of the world. Basically, we've had two bloodless revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, and one that caused some bloodshed in Kyrgyzstan, but not much. So, the inference that a lot of people were drawing was that this process can be pushed forward and that doors will be opened with relatively little pain. Obviously, there are lots of problems after you "succeed," as we've seen in Georgia and Ukraine. In Uzbekistan, there is going to be a change, but the question is, how much violence will accompany it?
There's more at InstaPundit.
Posted by Alan at May 21, 2005 01:16 PM