Gesturing to the West
The other day, Ferghana.ru ran a story on the closure of Nirvana stores in Tashkent. The story suggests that the reason for the tax police raids is that Nirvana peddles pirated goods, and of course, they do. While I was in Uzbekistan, Nirvana got shut down for a short period of time, and then, as now, many suspected that someone in power was trying to carve out a piece of a profitable business. (Maybe it’s the new deputy foreign minister for cultural affairs this time… This is her kind of business tactic.)
In a seemingly unrelated set of stories, a number of Uzbek human rights activists are receiving amnesties. (Reuters has a report on this story as well.) Among those released and/or amnestied recently include:
- Umida Niyazova (background)
- Karim Bazarbaev, an Ezgulik activist who has been in custody for three months
- Ihtiyar Khamraev, son of Jizzakh activist Bakhtiyor Khamraev
- Saidjahon Zainabitdinov, an activist from Andijon who was arrested in 2005 after giving information to foreign journalists reporting on the Andijon massacre
Ferghana.ru connects the amnesties with Karimov’s desire for closer ties relations with the US and EU. That sounds about right. Perhaps it’s going out on a limb, but it’s possible that cracking down on a well-known merchant of pirated goods is a small gesture for State Department consumption. The US does, after all, often make a big deal of copyright law. Maybe Karimov is trying to signal that Uzbekistan is willing to make itself a more palatable partner.
Stumble it! |
Tags: Uzbekistan, Diplomacy, Human Rights, Business.
Posted by Nathan on February 5th, 2008
Permalink | Trackback | Comments: 45
Comments
Time: 2/6/2008, 1:21 pm
Yet, I have a feeling that all those confiscated dvds and cds won’t just be destroyed. It’d be interesting to see if/when they pop up on the shelves of some other store.
Time: 2/6/2008, 5:09 pm
… some other store owned by the (drum roll please)
deputy foreign minister of cultural affairs, no doubt…
;)
Time: 2/6/2008, 8:37 pm
no one’s connecting this with the admiral’s recent visit yet?
Time: 2/6/2008, 9:33 pm
In defense of Uzbekistan, I say progress is happening:
1. Copyright laws are ignored even in some neighborhoods of Detroit, LA and NY today where you can purchase the latest music disks for $5 cash from a street vendor.
2. Last year Uzbekistan outlawed capitol punishment, while it is still legal and proudly and vengfully administered in some US states.
3. Uzbekistan has not slipped into an Islamic fundamentalist grip, like the US fell into a Christian fundamentalist grip recently causing all the wars.
I say let’s stop criticizing President Karimov and let’s start supporting him, before he falls into Russia’s lap again.
Time: 2/7/2008, 6:43 am
Correct. Uzbekistan has not fallen into an Islamic fundamentalist grip …
… It has fallen into a totalitarian grip. Some progress.
I say, Uzbek or non-Uzbek, let’s not stop criticizing president Karimov because, believe it or not, his regime has caused as many problems as it has solved (if any). Of course, it is de facto illegal for Uzbeks to publicly criticize Karimov for fear of harassment and imprisonment. Some progress.
Time: 2/7/2008, 6:23 pm
Nick I don’t think it’s just de facto illegal, I think it’s probably also de jure illegal. I’m not an expert on the Uzbek legal code by any means, but I think the “anti-extremism” legislation passed last year was broad enough to categorize just about anything the regime didn’t like as “hate” speech or “extremism.”
Anyway, just breathing or certainly talking to the wrong people is enough to get you put away for life for “attempting to overthrow the constitutional order of Uzbekistan.”
Shohmurod, I don’t know if you’re an embassy employee or what–and I’m not going to tell anybody that I don’t respect their right to hold their opinions–but don’t expect many of us to share them if they support Karimov. He’s not very popular around here, especially among those of us who have actually lived in the country for any extended length of time (or who care deeply about anyone else who has!).
Time: 2/7/2008, 6:55 pm
Shohmurod, I think your first statement “in defense of Uzbekistan” is a bit off the mark in the sense that most of us who dislike Karimov aren’t attacking Uzbekistan itself, rather the government that controls it - the same way that those of us Americans who dislike Bush aren’t attacking the country itself.
In any case, while you can argue that Karimov has kept Uzbekistan stable, I believe two things work against him:
There is no freedom of speech or political freedom & the economy is tightly controlled in such a way that it benefits a few powerful elites. From this I think one can conclude that although Uzbekistan may be somewhat stable (at _this_ time) the motivation of Karimov and the Uzbek government is very self-serving and does not provide much (or any) benefit for the Uzbek people.
Time: 2/7/2008, 7:33 pm
The raid and confiscation on the Nirvana stores was clearly a move to eliminate competition against another favored marketer. There are scores, if not hundreds, of shops that sell pirated CDs and DVDs in Tashkent. Nirvana was somewhat unique in the sense it was something of a “chain”, in the sense they had multiple locations.
Someone didn’t like that. If Uzbekistan is truly interested in supporting intellectual property rights and stamping out the sale of pirated music, games, software and movies, the move wouldn’t have been against only one set of shops.
The fact of the matter is, it is virtually impossible to buy licensed movies, music, games and software in Uzbekistan. And for locals, even if it was possible, why would they do it? A pirated movie in Uzbekistan costs between 2-4 Euro equivalent. Software, in the same range.
This was a strong-arm move (much like the takeover of the tea market by Googoosha), and everyone in Tashkent (those who pay attention to these things), recognized this immediately. The Nirvana stores have been raided and their stock confiscated - and then portrayed as enforcement of intellectual rights.
Horsepucky.
If the Uzbek government really wanted to demonstrate they were enforcing intellectual property agreements - which they have signed - they would close all these shops down and confiscate ALL the pirated software.
Trust me, that’s not going to happen. The regime-defenders who post on this site need to find a better issue than intellectual property, and including not trumpeting the end of the death penalty in Uzbekistan.
In reality, Uzbekistan has officially ended the death penalty, but they have done absolutely nothing to abolish the TOTURE penalty. They have done NOTHING to eliminate the imprisonment of dissidents on false charges, which continues to happen all the time.
Let’s talk about progressiveness when these things are done - when the judiciary is actually independent, let’s talk about it. When there is actual rule of law, let’s talk about it.
Until then, trying to make something positive about the “enforcement” of intellectual property laws - which is in reality simply another move by the Uzbek mafia (which includes the regime) - is a total joke.
The amazing thing is that the regime doesn’t understand that the tolerance of the populace for these sorts of shenanigans - as well as increased prices for basic needs, and a record-setting cold winter without gas or electicity - is near its end. One can only push the serfs so far, especially when radical groups are recruiting, training and arming people in Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan - Uzbeks who want to strike at the current government, and who think they may be able to exacerbate the current discontent in the population.
This is a bad business the Uzbek government is pursuing, and there will be a price to pay. Those who truly care about Uzbekistan truly wish stability for the country. Unfortunately, the regime is pursuing a course that can only lead to instability.
The recent appointment of Googoosha (Karimov’s elder daughter) to a newly-created post as deputy foreign minister foreign minister for cultural affairs is another slap. It’s all about giving her diplomatic immunity since there is an international arrest warrant against her.
Readers of this blog should remain focused on the real issues, and who and what is behind them.
Time: 2/7/2008, 11:21 pm
I see you guys want to defend civil liberties of Uzbek people. What about the civil liberties of Americans since 9/11?
Do you realize the challenge of keeping law and order in a country that is neighbors to Taliban war mongers, largest drug producer in the world, Iranian mullahs, Arab fundamentalists, Pakistani con-artists, ruthless Chinese and Russian supremacists as well as a good mix of former Communist mafioso and a majority infant-Muslim population looking for a new identity? Do you think an open society democracy would thrive in such a neighborhood overnight?
Karimov or his government may not be doing some things right in the eyes of Western media and scholars such as yourselves, but I don’t believe Karimov is the president just for enjoyment of power. I think he means well and is learning a lot on the job.
What is important is Uzbekistan is making progress slowly but surely.
It is too bad though they kicked out the Western NGOs and none of us can go over there and have fun with Russian girls in the discos. We will have to find another poor country where the women like our civil society line and dig our glasses.
Time: 2/8/2008, 6:32 am
‘What about the civil liberties of Americans since 9/11?’
To this non-American, it’s not a perfect situation (Gitmo, wiretaps etc), but it’s still pretty damn good - certainly compared to Uzbekistan. However, ‘whataboutism’ is a fairly asinine form of debate.
‘Do you realize the challenge of keeping law and order in a country that is neighbors to Taliban war mongers, largest drug producer in the world, Iranian mullahs, Arab fundamentalists, Pakistani con-artists, ruthless Chinese and Russian supremacists as well as a good mix of former Communist mafioso and a majority infant-Muslim population looking for a new identity? Do you think an open society democracy would thrive in such a neighborhood overnight?’
Yes - it’s everyone else’s fault, isn’t it? this is a classic case of Realist fearmongering to justify repressive policies. Oh, and there’s also a faint whiff of racism. I’m surprised you didn’t start muttering about Jews, Zionists, and ‘cosmopolitans’ …
‘Karimov or his government may not be doing some things right in the eyes of Western media and scholars such as yourselves …’
I would suggest that there are plenty of Uzbeks who aren’t happy with President Karimov’s rule, but they don’t get the opportunity to say so.
Time: 2/8/2008, 7:20 am
“Do you realize the challenge of keeping law and order in a country that is neighbors…”
The other Central Asian countries are in the same neighborhood. But none of those governments has been nearly as brutal and oppresive as Karimov’s. Heck, even the Turkmens were better off under that nutty Niazov than the Uzbeks just across the border. Here’s a quote from someone who is equally critical of all the regimes in Central Asia:
“What is really amazing is that there is no feeling of fear in the atmosphere. When one comes to Uzbekistan, for example, he cannot help sensing fear that is ever present and all-permeating. It is different in Turkmenistan.” Full text:http://enews.ferghana.ru/article.php?id=2295
If these other governments can address “the challenge” in a much softer fashion, why can’t Karimov’s?
Time: 2/8/2008, 12:30 pm
It’s not just the repression. For instance, there is no real reason that the Central Asian nations cannot fully cooperate economically and politically. Clearly, as landlocked countries, getting access to markets is one of the tougher challenges these countries will face. Karimov has been by far one of the most uncooperative leaders in the region and this does nothing to help his own people. Closing borders, restricting travel (no flights to Tajikistan, and only 1 flight a week to Ashgabat?) shutting off gas and electricity to the smaller neighbors and imposing ridiculously harsh trade rules and taxes hurts everyone including fellow Uzbeks.
Now I’m not blaming all of that on Karimov, but over the past decades he has clearly been part of problem.
Time: 2/8/2008, 2:30 pm
Brian, good point.
More on economics.
Pinochet ruled Chile with an iron fist. He also implemented free market reforms, ending that country’s isolation and setting up the stage for the “Miracle of Chile.”
Read Suharto’s obituary in this week’s Economist. This Indonesian dictator stole a massive amount of $$$ from his country. He was also responsible for massive human rights abuses. And he also “modernised this sprawling mass of archipelagoes and islands, paved it, brought foreign investors in and promoted an economic boom.”
Other dictators, such as Taiwan’s Chiang Kai-shek and South Korea’s Park Chung-hee, have also left their countries highly developed economically.
Karimov matches them only in the abuse department. He’s been inept where economics are concerned. He inherited a relatively well to-do country. His successor will inherit a ruined one. Uzbekistan was the most developed part of Central Asia by 1989. Today it’s fast going down the path of self-destruction. There is no economic growth. A growing economy creates jobs and people stay put and don’t leave for jobs in other countries. Russian and Kazakh economies have been growing; that’s why you don’t hear of “Kazakh migrant workers” or “Russian migrant workers.” The Uzbek economy stopped growing long time ago; that’s why there has been a growing flow of Uzbek migrants, numbering 1-5 million.
Time: 2/8/2008, 2:30 pm
Brian, good point.
More on economics.
Pinochet ruled Chile with an iron fist. He also implemented free market reforms, ending that country’s isolation and setting up the stage for the “Miracle of Chile.”
Read Suharto’s obituary in this week’s Economist. This Indonesian dictator stole a massive amount of $$$ from his country. He was also responsible for massive human rights abuses. And he also “modernised this sprawling mass of archipelagoes and islands, paved it, brought foreign investors in and promoted an economic boom.”
Other dictators, such as Taiwan’s Chiang Kai-shek and South Korea’s Park Chung-hee, have also left their countries highly developed economically.
Karimov matches them only in the abuse department. He’s been inept where economics are concerned. He inherited a relatively well to-do country. His successor will inherit a ruined one. Uzbekistan was the most developed part of Central Asia by 1989. Today it’s fast going down the path of self-destruction. There is no economic growth. A growing economy creates jobs and people stay put and don’t leave for jobs in other countries. Russian and Kazakh economies have been growing; that’s why you don’t hear of “Kazakh migrant workers” or “Russian migrant workers.” The Uzbek economy stopped growing long time ago; that’s why there has been a growing flow of Uzbek migrants, numbering 1-5 million.
Time: 2/8/2008, 3:23 pm
Sveta, I think your strongest point made was that Karimov started with a massive head-start in the Central Asian region. 10 years ago, 15 years ago, very few people would have imagined that Uzbekistan would lose to Kazakhstan economically. Kazakhstan has begun to invest its natural resources [oil, coal, uranium] in other industries [manufacturing, service and civil engineering] that are still largely absent from Uzbekistan.
I think it was Karimov’s race to lose, quite frankly. A work-force at least twice as large as his neighbors, a history of strong development in the region, originally the only major international air transportation hub, his own supply of natural resources [gold, natural gas, amu darya and syr darya rivers] that he has done nothing to improve.
Shohmurod, I think I understand your anger, though. It can be INCREDIBLY difficult to separate our criticism of the system from our support for the Uzbek people and Uzbekistan. Many of the people connected to this blog have studied Uzbekistan, even lived their for long periods of time, and elsewhere in Kazakhstan. I myself lived with an Uzbek family for two years. They had no love for Karimov, but they were smart enough not to talk about it. I respected them for that, but I will complain twice as loud now for those people I love that cannot say anything out of fear.
Karimov is not the only problem, but he’s the head of the snake. The whole snake is the problem, of course — but it’s a lot easier for the head to improve the snake than for us to expect to improve a headless snake. The only thing possibly scarier than Karimov’s Uzbekistan is what comes next.
I think I speak for everyone that rapprochement with the United States and the West can only be good for Uzbekistan. Even if Karimov is only going through the motions for his own benefit, some benefits of civil society and Western education will trickle down to the people Karimov stands above.
Time: 2/8/2008, 3:52 pm
Nick, is that called hypocrisy or double standards when the West can torture people but they criticize Uzbekistan on Human Rights violations? Yes, we can and should look at our own behavior before judging others.
Sveta, you should consider studying Uzbekistan on its own rather than bundling it together with other post-Soviet republics. They are independent now. All republics are very different from each other in their demographics, history, religiosity, etc. The Uzbek population is highly homogeneous, highly religious, highly conservative and I would say more than other republics. Their history with Islamic identification and current economic woes puts them in a higher vulnerability to fundamentalist influences. That is the reason the Karimov Administration rules with such an iron hand. They are afraid of the spread of Wahhabism and for good reason.
Reporters often report what they see and hear from those who have a run-in with the law or corrupt officials. What they don’t report is how the Uzbek institutions such as technology companies, colleges, constitutional law, etc. is being built. These are the foundations of a civil society and they will remain long after the current administration.
Had Karimov been a nice guy he would have ended up in an apartment in Moscow like Kyrgyzstan’s Akayev and Uzbekistan’s stability would end up in the hands of the Akromiy fundamentalists. Do any of us want to see that?
Time: 2/8/2008, 5:22 pm
Akromiya fundamentalists? Now I’m confused. I hope you are not suggesting that Andijan was the proper response to an “Islamic fundamentalist terrorist” threat. To my knowledge, the only violence involving fundamentalists in Uzbekistan is the death of people that are called fundamentalists by the government, who are only identified as fundamentalists after they are dead.
Shohmurod, I would like to know why you think the Akromiya are fundamentalists. You said yourself that Uzbeks are highly religious - I don’t understand how the Akromiya are different from other active Muslims. My understanding was that they were merely trying to follow Islamic economic practices that happened to jar with the local collective and hokimiyat, wherein their lands and property were seized and the “guilty” were imprisoned. They didn’t seem evangelical or violent — it’s not like they ordered the Special Forces to attack Andijon.
Time: 2/8/2008, 6:28 pm
Shohmurod, you’re sounding less and less like a concerned citizen and more and more like a press representative for the Uzbek government.
If you’re going to bring Kyrgyzstan into this, you should note that while their revolution was disorganized and has not thus far led to that much economic improvement, it certainly has not lead to an Islamic state or even a powerful Islamic political or militant front that might have easily capitalized on the chaos after the revolution.
I think if Karimov had brought some kind of substantial economic reform to the country you’d have a lot more people on his side, despite the oppression and abuses. But unfortunately, the situation that Uzbekistan is in now doesn’t really give that much for pro-Karimov people to brag about.
Time: 2/8/2008, 6:44 pm
I was hoping not to have to have to get into the Andijon story. It is undoubtedly the most tragic event in Uzbeks lives since the Stalin era. But here we go.
The Akromiys did indeed start the events of May 2005 in Andijon. They carried out an armed attack on a jail. They took over the city hall killing officials and policemen in the process. They burned down a movie theatre … who burns down a movie theatre as an act of riot unless if … they like living like Taliban? I am not making this up, look it up, it is all on the net, compliments of American scholar Martha Brill-Olcott at the Carnegie Endowment.
All the same, too many innocent people died in Andijon who were there for various reasons - economics, curiosity, herd-mentality, hatred, ignorance, wrong-place-wrong-time! I feel very badly for them. The Uzbek military showed ruthlessness and inexperience. They followed orders and I don’t think any of the shooters are feeling happy about that day ever since. The people responsible for the shooting are somewhere at the top and they will not be around forever. But Akromiya is also equally responsible for starting the chaos. In my opinion you cannot bring peace to a country with a violent start…
Time: 2/8/2008, 6:59 pm
Shohmurod, the problem is that you claim knowledge I see no proof of. How do you know the Akromiys carried out an “armed” attack on the jail and killed innocent people? I have only heard rumors, and going both ways: some saying that the Akromiys in jail were actually let out to start their demonstration and be made into an example for other “fundamentalists.”
My point isn’t that you’re wrong, only that I would like to know the information that you are using. I agree that if someone’s first act was to burn down a movie theater, I might wonder at their motives. But there are many reasons to burn down a movie theater, and they don’t all sound like the Taliban. Granted, the Saudis don’t allow movie theaters, but I doubt if even Wahhabis think that priority one would be to torch the cinema.
You sound very intelligent, and I agree that the people responsible for that day are high up, and those “following orders” will never forgive themselves. I hate how Uzbeks separate themselves into groups — desert Uzbeks, mountain Uzbeks, Bukhara and Samarkand Uzbeks, Tashkent Uzbeks. National unity is the first step to peace — all Uzbeks need to realize that as long as anyone is slaughtered by the government, it’s like your own brother is being killed. Whether or not the government thought they were killing “fundamentalists,” they were shooting Uzbeks.
Ignorant, powerless Uzbeks killing other ignorant, powerless Uzbeks is not the path to peace. It’s the path of control by central government. But I truly wish that there was better documentation about this incident — I have a hard time believing every “eye-witness” story that has been told. They themselves may have been doctored by someone else’s agenda.
Time: 2/8/2008, 7:17 pm
Michael, I agree, rapprochement is good for the common man. There is a risk though. The Uzbeks might come to see the US as supporting the oppressive regime. If they do, the US will be distrusted and even disliked. That has happened before. In Central and South America where the US supported, rightly or wrongly, right-wing dictatorships. In the Middle East where the US has supported, rightly or wrongly, feudal rulers. To a degree, it has happened in Russia thanks to America’s unquestioning support of Yeltsin and his corrupt governments. In Central Asia, the US does enjoy goodwill with the common people. It has built it by providing aid that brought benefits to the common people. For example, work done by Eurasia Foundation, Soros foundation, etc., etc. Done right, the goodwill can be sustained and increased. Like it has happened in Eastern Europe, the Baltics and Georgia.
Shohmurod, several points:
Why shouldn’t Uzbek government’s performance compared to that of its peers in the region? Yes, they are independent but they one thing in common. They all have one mandate: to achieve prosperity, do you agree?
You should be consistent. When Brian cites lack of liberties in Uzbekistan, you cite loss of liberties in the US post 9/11. But when I cite other countries that have done better than Uzbekistan, you say “you should consider studying Uzbekistan on its own.” Should we stick to one rule or the other? Or are you going to keep changing the terms of the discussion whenever it suits you?
OK, fine, I’ll study “Uzbekistan on its own.” Moreover, I will stick just to economics. As before, I won’t touch politics. A couple of questions to you:
What has the Uzbek gov’t achieved economically since independence? Are people living better lives than pre-independence?
Uzbeks are told “Uzbekistan has a great future.” How is the country going to get from here to there? Is there a plan? What is it? What are the intermediate steps? How long are they going to take? 5 years? 20 years? A generation?
You say that, if Karimov is not there, “Uzbekistan’s stability would end up in the hands of the Akromiy fundamentalists.” Well, Karimov, like all of us, is mortal. What happens when he passes away? That could happen anytime with people of his age. What happens when that happens? Does that mean the Akromiy/Wahabbi/etc/ rule is inevitable then?
You say the Uzbeks are “majority infant-Muslim population looking for a new identity.” Has the Uzbek gov’t offered an alternative identity? The Soviets had to address the same issue. They invested massively into education, health care. They succeeded: people saw the benefits of a secular society and largely turned away from religion. You yourself and probably everyone you know are good examples. Are people seeing the benefits of whatever identity and policies the Uzbek gov’t might have to offer?
You say that journalists don’t report “how the Uzbek institutions such as technology companies, colleges, constitutional law is being built.” Can you give specific examples of those technology companies? Do you agree that bribe taking is endemic at colleges and students spend one-third of the academic year picking cotton and that is bad for their education? Even the worst dictatorships have excellent constitutional law. On paper. Where they differ from the non-dictatorships is in the enforcement. Can you give specific examples of how enforcement of the constitutional law has improved?
Time: 2/8/2008, 9:03 pm
Shohmurod :‘Nick, is that called hypocrisy or double standards when the West can torture people but they criticize Uzbekistan on Human Rights violations? Yes, we can and should look at our own behavior before judging others.’
Shohmurod, is that called hypocrisy or double standards when Uzbekistan can torture people but they criticize the West on Human Rights violations? Yes, we can and should look at our own behavior before judging others.
Hmmmm?
Time: 2/9/2008, 12:05 am
To answer Sveta’s questions:
It is possible but extremely difficult to compare economies of different nations. Unlike political gains or losses economic output is nicely quantifiable, but the variables surrounding the comparison make the comparison flawed. Can we compare Turkmenistan’s oil output with Uzbekistan’s and say Kazakhs are doing better? No, because Turkmenistan’s geographical position influences its output to Caspian Sea and beyond. This is an advantage that does not show up on the GDP figures. That was just one example.
By the way, I was not COMPARING Uzbekistan’s Human Rights situation with the West’s. I was only saying it is hypocritical for one nation to blame another for everything it does wrong itself. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I don’t think it is right for Uzbek police to harass people and torture political dissidents, but it is also not right for Westerners to see only others’ fault and not their own. Progressive and enlightened people such as yourselves should not fall into the supercritical mode all the time and miss out the positives.
What has Uzbekistan achieved since independence? National Bank of Uzbekistan recently was rated by Standard and Poor’s. Uzbekistan will soon be making Chevrolet automobiles with a nation most media believes it has no political relations with. Uzbekistan is building a technical college in just about every rayon. Uzbekistan is creating a national curriculum and publishing textbooks for every subject for schools in Uzbek language with latin alphabet. Uzbekistan is opening technology centers in every town library. Uzbekistan airways is flying to more countries than ever before. Uzbekistan is assembling tractors. Uzbekistan has juice making plants, water bottling and confectionery plants. Uzbekistan has the largest phone company in the area and one of its cell companies is co-owned by an American investor…what else…
Uzbekistan does have a great future if you and I believe in it. The changes that have come about listed above are just a few. I believe the institutional capacity of a nation such as Nehru’s plan for India is the key to a sustainable future. People are too quick to criticize what they see in front of them right now. We need to look at the nation’s institutions and the government’s efforts at building them and be able to tell where it is headed. The current government is facing poor economic times, the great game II, and a religious slippery slide. What will save Uzbekistan is not just free and fair elections yesterday, but a strong leader like Ataturk who will build the institutions.
Yes, I believe fundamentalist rule is inevitable if Karimov falls.
I hope I covered everything. Now a bathroom break.
Time: 2/9/2008, 3:32 am
“Yes, I believe fundamentalist rule is inevitable if Karimov falls.”
So… you never answered Sveta’s question on what happens tomorrow if Karimov has a heart attack and dies today? Fundamentalist rule? Boy, that’s some gamble that’s being taken on behalf of the Uzbek people.
Time: 2/9/2008, 4:04 am
Oh, and I honestly don’t think NBU’s E+ junk rating by S&P is really worth boasting about too much, no offense.
You know I certainly appreciate an honest debate, but I have a strong feeling from your responses that you personally have a vested interest in the current Uzbek regime. Whether you’re working for a government agency, a company, an industry or as an advocate for one of those I don’t know, but some thing’s a bit fishy.
Time: 2/9/2008, 10:15 am
Shohmurod, but didn’t we agree not to cite other countries and to “study Uzbekistan on its own?” Why are you bringing up Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan? OK, if you’ve changed the rules of the discussion once again then now we can cite other countries? Then I, too, shall cite other countries.
You are avoiding answering questions. You engage in generalizations. But you don’t give any specifics. Name one Uzbek technology company that is coming up. Name one improvement in the enforcement of constitutional law. You don’t mean the recent, fiercely contested elections won in a landslide by the incumbent? Is the quality of education affected by “the white gold?”
You also sound like the Pravda newspaper of the bygone era. You make a long list of things without answering the central question. Has the standard of living improved? Returned to the 1989 level? If not, when might it start improving?
Under Mao’s Great Leap Forward, China overtook Great Britain in steel production. With disastrous effect on people’s lives. Similarly, the Soviet Union produced tons of stuff, was always building tons of factories, launching spacecraft, etc, etc. But people lived unhappy lives. That is why they walked away from that promise of “a bright future.” There is quantity and there is quality. As Brian points out, the NBU might, indeed, have gained an S&P rating but that rating is E+. Junk rating. That’s the level of trust the gov’t has attained.
If Uzbekistan is really such a dynamic, busy economic beehive, how come worker bees are migrating abroad by the million? And it’s not just blue collar workers. Remember the bright, young students who studied abroad on the Umid scholarships? The vast majority of them have left the country and don’t plan to return. Why is that? They have their own forum. You can read their opinions for yourself: http://forum.arbuz.com
All Western companies have left Uzbekistan. Why is that? The Chevrolet project is not a new investment. GM bought Daewoo. Therefore it is stuck with a part of UzDaewoo. It will be assembling Chevrolets instead of Ticos. That’s the only news. And “assembling tractors” is not news either. Uzbekistan has been making tractors since the 1940s.
This promise of “a great future” sounds suspiciously similar to the promise of “a bright future” that the Soviet communists made. Don’t ask how we are going attain that future. It’s complicated. We are surrounded by enemies. Don’t ask questions. You just work hard. The wise man on the top will take care of everything. So, is there a plan?
Putin has a plan. Russia shall achieve Portugal’s standard of living in twenty years. For that it will need to keep the GDP growth at 7%-9% over that period. Nazarbaev has a plan. Kazakhstan shall become one of the top 50 competitive countries by 2015. Both leaders have outlined the intermediate steps and benchmarks.
I don’t know if those plans are good or bad. But at least they are known and can be discussed. What is the plan behind the idea of “a great future?” What will “the great future” look like? Share it with us.
I think it would make sense to expect that any idea of a better future would envision the majority of the Uzbeks feeling content with their lives in the economic sense. I assume, that would mean the basics would be there. People would have an uninterrupted supply of gas, for example.
Uzbekistan extracts plenty of gas to make that aspect of “the great future” a reality today. The gov’t knows how to: an interrupted gas supply was a reality in the pre-independence times. And the gas pipelines leading virtually to every home have been in place for decades. Why is that not happening? How long do people need to wait for that to happen?
“The great future” can be brought just a touch closer in other ways, too. For example, by paying the farmers a tad more for the cotton they grow. It can be done now. By making lives of shuttle traders and market stall owners a tiny bit easier. They get shaken down by every kind of gov’t officials, precisely the people who are supposedly hard at work on bringing “the great future” to the masses.
One thing you said that really taxes one’s imagination is this. That Karimov “is learning a lot on the job.” I’m sure tons of people would die to find out what he has learned. Neither you or I are privy to his inner thoughts. Therefore that learning must have shown itself through some outward signs. What are they?
Shohmurod, It’s clear by now that you are on this blog because it’s a part of your job’s requirements. You have a tough job. I can only think of another job that would come close. Marketing cigarettes. Equally indefensible. That also makes further discussion meaningless.
Time: 2/9/2008, 1:03 pm
Sveta, your passion is evident and appreciated, but it is skewing your analysis. You asked “Why shouldn’t Uzbek government’s performance compared to that of its peers in the region?” So I reluctantly did compare “It is possible but extremely difficult to compare economies of different nations. Unlike political gains or losses economic output is nicely quantifiable, but the variables surrounding the comparison make the comparison flawed.”
Bye the way, I said Kazakhs where I should have said Turkmen.
Yes, I do engage in generalizations, because I work with a bigger scope. Where necessary I give examples.
Your personal attacks “You also sound like the Pravda newspaper of the bygone era” are not called for, by the way. It is distracting.
You asked “What has the Uzbek gov’t achieved economically since independence?” So I gave those examples, but you say “You make a long list of things…”
Your central question, how has Uzbeks lives improved so far can be answered this way. Not nearly to the level of Westerners, but not much less than their neighbors. Okay the urban Kazakhs probably make more money per month than the urban Tashkent folks, but are they happier or just drunker and fatter? If you look at the Oblasts, all former Soviet people including Russians live the same way, no different than the Soviet period. I know this because I have seen it with my own eyes. So the change in people’s lives you are looking for will not come with a few dollars more per month in my opinion. It will come with education, security and independence from foreign powers. And that is a hard variable to measure because it is qualitative not quantitative.
It is now clear only in your mind that I may be an Uzbekistan government guy. And that is not true. I am an Uzbek American. I have no personal interest in defending Karimov just love for my former country and a view on its development that obviously seems to disagree with all the people on this blog.
Think institutions not income!
Time: 2/9/2008, 1:50 pm
Regarding your Akromiya argument, Shohmurod, you may find this article useful:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3996/is_200610/ai_n17194604
Time: 2/9/2008, 2:16 pm
That’s beautiful. You think now that the “improved lives” of Kazakhstan’s new middle class can be disregarded because they are “drunker and fatter?”
One could also say, “more able to have leisure time and less malnourished.”
And if people lived in the same way they did during Soviet time, why is everyone in Uzbekistan talking about the “golden times” when you could buy enough oil to make good plov every Thursday night, and you weren’t forced to grow cotton even in your personal farm plots?
That article was very enlightening. Propaganda created for the people being repackaged to persuade the West not to compare Uzbekistan’s Andijon Massacre with China’s Tianamen Square? That’s quite insulting to our “sensitive Western” intelligence.
Shohmurod, if you are an Uzbek American, why do you make the same grammatical mistakes of every other Uzbekistani Uzbek I have met? I’m sorry, if you want to prove you’re American, you’ll need to master English to a little higher level. What I Am Saying is that you seem to have trouble [as all Uzbeks, Russians, etc] with the use of Articles [A, An, The] — but, I guess you could be an Uzbek American that didn’t grow up speaking English.
I don’t mean that as a personal attack. Just that your writing does not sound like an American’s. The tragedy is that even Americans that don’t graduate High School know how to use articles better than you do, simply because they are native speakers. It’s not fair, I know. But it makes me doubt the veracity of your statement that you are an “Uzbek-American.”
Or did you just move here recently? I don’t suppose you’re the ambassador’s son?
My main argument is that only comparing urban Tashkent with urban Almaty is beyond stupid. The moment you cross the border from Uzbekistan into Kazakhstan you can see the difference. Even rural Kazakhstan looks better than suburban Uzbekistan. In the words of one Uzbekistani I took to Shymkent for a weekend, “Well, yes, anyone can see that Kazakhstan is a wealthy country.” That’s in SHYMKENT - the city that most Kazakhs love to hate for its association with Uzbekistan, the drug trade, dirty industry, and a bazaar-like atmosphere. Of course, it’s my favorite city in Kazakhstan, but I can’t deny that the same things might be factoring into my opinion.
Kazakhstan might not be up to Western standards, but it has surpassed Uzbekistan, and isn’t even looking back. I can’t say that the trend will continue indefinitely - Uzbekistan still has one important resource Kazakhstan lacks: population growth. When it comes down to it, though, Uzbeks are more than happy to travel north and be the driving force in Kazakhstan’s success. It takes more than rich Western oil-men to make Kazakhstan, and the Uzbeks are the migrant labor to do the jobs their “rich” northern cousins no-longer want to do.
Time: 2/9/2008, 2:37 pm
Michael, I have very, very good reason to believe Shohmurod when he says that he’s a US citizen originally from Uzbekistan.
Time: 2/9/2008, 4:44 pm
Michael, an imperfect grammar doesn’t necessarily disprove his claim. There are plenty of foreign born US citizens who misuse the articles. A visit to any Chinatown in the nation would show that.
Nathan, what are your good reasons? Just curious, you don’t have to reveal them if you don’t want to.
Shohmurod, I hurry to assure you that comparison to Pravda wasn’t intended as a personal attack. The sense of deja vu was palpable. At the risk of being verbose, I offer you an example.
Here are some facts from the bygone era that, I’m sure, Pravda reported. Soviet Aeroflot flew to more destinations than any other airlines. 193 cities, to be exact. Vneshekonombank had a rock solid credit rating for decades. The USSR had more technical schools than anyone else. And it kept investing into technical education. It purchased thousands of IBM PCs and Bugarian-made Apple clones to put in secondary schools.
Compare that with what you wrote:”Uzbekistan airways is flying to more countries than ever before,” “Uzbekistan is building a technical college in just about every rayon,” “Uzbekistan is opening technology centers in every town library.”
Do you see what I see?
Some of the achievements you tout are non-achievements. We’ve talked about NBU’s junk rating and “assembling of tractors” that has been going on since the 1940s. A couple more:
“Uzbekistan has the largest phone company in the area”
That’s been true since the 1950s when the Soviets began to deploy the telephone on a meaningful scale. The reason is simple. Half of the Central Asians live in Uzbekistan. That is why Uzbekistan ended up with the largest telephone network. For that to cease to be true, each Kazakh would have to use 2 phones and Turkmenistan and others would have to install 4-5 phones per capita. With its birth rate, Uzbekistan is doomed to have the largest telephone operator in the region.
“Uzbekistan is creating a national curriculum and publishing textbooks for every subject for schools in Uzbek language with latin alphabet.”
Uzbekistan had had the curriculum and textbooks for every subjects since around 1928-1931 when a near universal literacy had been achieved. If the gov’t has created a replacement, that’s fine. But we’d have to wait for the replacement to prove its quality. Only then can you tout it as an achievement.
The gov’t may well be doing all those things. But it’s easy to tell if people think that’s improving their lives. When they don’t like the way things are going, they vote with their feet. That’s why South Americans leave their homes for the US. And that’s why you don’t see Canadian and American migrant workers working illegally in Mexico.
Uzbeks have been leaving the country en masse. A clear sign they don’t think the economic policy has much of a promise. One aspect of that migration is especially telling.
Thousands of young women work as prostitutes in South Asia and the Middle East. As you said, the Uzbek society is very conservative. Life must be really tough if so many Uzbek women are going into prostitution.
And with this statement you may have lost your credibility:”If you look at the Oblasts, all former Soviet people including Russians live the same way, no different than the Soviet period.”
There is no single Oblast across the former USSR where “all people live the same way, no different than the Soviet period.” There those who are doing much better. They have foreign cars, foreign clothes, foreign travel. Unthinkable in 1989. And there are those who lost their shirts.
The real issue is this. Is the economic growth lifting people out of poverty and if so, then at what rate? Kazakhstan has reduced poverty rate to 19%-25%. The Kazakhs say they will be back to the 1989 level in 4-5 years if they sustain the current growth rate. The Russians have similarly specific but different figures. But what are the relevant numbers for the Uzbek oblasts?
You say:”I have no personal interest in defending Karimov just love for my former country.”
Wonderful. Are you concerned about what happens to the country once Karimov passes away which could happen whenever, given his age? So that the country is not taken over by the bad guys?
Do you think the country should be able to use its own gas? At least, in the winter so people can survive?
Do you think the country has a development model or a policy? What is it?
Do you think the country should trade with its neighbors so that people can earn a living?
By the way, why is it the only country in the region whose gov’t has had poor and even hostile relations with all of its neighbors whilst all those neighbors get along just fine?
A note on you insistence that “I believe fundamentalist rule is inevitable if Karimov falls.”
You know, Tajikistan has had a legal religious opposition for over a decade. It has been represented at all levels of the government. To be frank, I don’t know if that’s a good idea. But what is relevant to our discussion is this. We never hear Tajiks saying “If Rakhmon goes, the religious types will take over.” That is especially surprising since the religious types wouldn’t have to scale mountains and cross treacherous rivers. They are already there. Across the hallway from the corner office.
I find it interesting that you’ve ignored repeated questions on the specifics of “the great future” thing. A private individual would at some point either respond or just say:”Look, I don’t know.” Someone who has to toe the party line wouldn’t feel free to say:”I don’t know the specifics.” Unless, of course, the admission has been approved. Hence what Brian described as “a strong feeling from your responses that you personally have a vested interest in the current Uzbek regime.”
Like Brian and others on this blog, I welcome an honest debate. Especially if it is intellectually rigorous.
Time: 2/9/2008, 5:17 pm
Apologies to everyone for flooding but just couldn’t help but respond to this.
Shohmurod, you say:”We need to look at the nation’s institutions and the government’s efforts at building them and be able to tell where it is headed.”
Exactly. We are all for that. Tell us, please. About the gov’t’s efforts to build institutions. We are able to discern one. To build the SNB and MVD. Those institutions’ capacity now matches the NKVD’s under Yezhov in 1937. What other institutions are being built? Please elaborate. So that we are “able to tell where it is headed.”
Time: 2/9/2008, 5:20 pm
The comment system captures IP addresses.
Time: 2/9/2008, 8:18 pm
I’m surprised noone shares my views. Perhaps you guys are right. I will have to take some time out thinking about our discussion. I appreciate your input.
Time: 2/10/2008, 2:56 am
Nathan, I have to say that I feel pretty shitty about calling Shohmurod out on the articles thing.
Shohmurod, whether or not you’re American or Uzbek [by American, I mean Uzbek-American, but I don’t like adding those phrases, because then I would be a Polish-French-English-German-Scottish-Irish-American]. Men juda ham xursandman-ki siz biz bilan buyerda yozasiz, Shohmurodbek. I apologize for my bad Uzbek! I pray that my Uzbek will be like your English one day. I’m an English teacher at an ESL school, and if English didn’t have articles, our students would finish their courses in half the time, I swear it.
Shohmurod, I have to agree that Sveta’s reasoning is very solid. Not just on the Uzbekistan statistics, but also in that it’s silly for me to assume you aren’t a countrymen of mine. Your English vocabulary is clearly bigger than my grandparents’!
I recall you noting other peoples’ IP addresses, Nathan. I love it when you scare people into thinking you are a spy, when anyone using the internet well can see what kind of traffic their site gets. I mean, my blog tells me what machine they are running, what OS or Internet Browser, and of course their country of origin. And yet so many people that having access to such information smacks of the SNB and KGB. Maybe it does — but that’s the price of freedom of info.
We’re gonna know more about you than you know about us. [I hope] Definitely the way I prefer it!
Time: 2/10/2008, 3:26 pm
I haven’t read all the preceding discussion in detail, and this may have been covered somewhere in the back and forth (and kudos to all of you for keeping it as polite as you did and showing some open-mindedness to one another’s opinions), but I want to add one more thing from my own perspective as far as the discussions of “human rights hypocrisy” go… while we do have something like a democratic system in the US, it’s a pointless arguement to accuse EVERY American of hypocrisy when one of us is criticizing the human rights record of other countries…
It would only be hypocritical of me, for personal example, to criticize Karimov of human rights violations if I did not ALSO criticize my own president for the human rights violations… it would only be hypocritical of me to criticize Uzbekistani authorities for torturing prisoners if I did not also criticize my own government. In this criticism in general, I would only be a hypocrite (I can speak only for myself, but I am generally voicing what I think many of the Americans here would agree with) if I somehow supported a behavior by my own government and opposed it when it was employed by another one.
This, however, is not the case–there are all sorts of things I hate about my own government and my own society, all kinds of
behaviors of my own elected officials that I loathe–and, as it happens, these are elected officials that I didn’t vote for, so in a sense I myself am under a kind of siege, living under a government imposed on me by by a slim majority of my peers (or however it is that people become presidents).
The key difference here is obvious–I can, and do, talk, think, and write freely about this and nobody comes to my house to question me, nobody knocks on my door in the middle of the day and says, “we need to speak with Mr. Tucker, we’ve got some questions,” and seizes my passport or other identification. When I teach a class here in the US where I have a chance to possibly share my political views with my students, as I did a couple years ago when I was teaching, parents may write to the schoolboard (this happened–somebody complained that I had assigned students to read OP-EDs from the NYT, which is apparently a liberal anathema in Indiana), but the secret police don’t come and interview my students, demand to see all my teaching materials, and, threaten me, arrest me, and close down the school where I am teaching.
This, however, is exactly what happened to me in Tashkent last summer, and to boot the Russian citizen who ran the school was run out of the country for having (legally!) employed an American . If anybody believes that this was necessary to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from taking over Uzbekistan, they are entitled to their opinion–after all, my two year old son could… what the hell, why finish that sentence?
My experience was not important. What happened to me was totally insignificant, and it’s also irrelevant to why I feel the way I do about human rights in Uzbekistan or anywhere else, for that matter. But it does inform a larger discussion about what exactly is “necessary” to keep “Islamic fundamentalists” from taking over Uzbekistan… To bring the discussion back to where it started, I double checked and Zaynabiddinov (I also double checked the spelling of his name, sorry about that) was convicted in a secret trial for “sparking panic among the public” and “terrorism,” for writing articles that simply said that the Akromiya group was not a group of violent fundamentalists linked to the Taliban and al-Qayda. If, by the way, you ever want to see what all the fuss is about, read “Imonga Yo’l” for yourself and form your own opinion about who Yo’dashev was and what he preached. If you’re outside Uzbekistan, beyond the firewall, there are still copies available in Uzbek and Russian, and if you need it in English there is (finally) a translation published in a book edited by Allison Frank last year.
Anyway, while I’m still not expert on Uzbekistani legal code, as it turns out publishing something the government doesn’t like on the internet is prosecutable as “spreading panic among the public,” so it can be, literally, de jure illegal.
Time: 2/11/2008, 8:50 am
Noah, good point. Consistency, indeed, is a proof there is no hypocrisy. And those who accuse of double standards can easily be accused of the same themselves. Some in Russia and Central Asia question the veracity of Western media’s reports on problems in their country. But they don’t question the veracity of Western media’s reports on problems in the West. Sounds like a case of double standards to me.
Time: 2/11/2008, 3:43 pm
I feel like we’re piling on Shohmurod. Come back Shohmurod!
I welcome a debate, but I think the only think that irks me about your arguments Shohmurod, is that they seem a bit uncritical and press-release-ish. Your main point, I think is that Karimov brings stability and stability is very important right now - a valid argument that I think many Uzbeks would agree with, and one worth debating.
Time: 2/11/2008, 7:20 pm
Thank you for the olive branch, Brian. You have understood my main point very well and I appreciate that to no end.
I am very impressed with the depth of knowledge displayed by people on this blog. I enjoy a spirited debate now and then; it stimulates critical thinking and introduces new information to participants. And, I think we have talked this subject to death.
How was my syntax, sentence structure, punctutation and composition? 
Time: 2/11/2008, 10:04 pm
Your riting is definately improving, Shokmorod. May be you’d kinda like to give lessons 2 peepul?
Again, I feel stupid for bringing up someone else’s English ability, especially as someone employed as an ESL English teacher!
Anyway, stability is one thing that Karimov brings with gusto. He’s not always so successful, though, as quelling the unrest his administration causes.
Time: 2/11/2008, 10:49 pm
Anyway, back to the subject… I think few on here would welcome an Islamic state in Uzbekistan. But wouldn’t you agree, Shohmurod, that there should be a better way of transitioning Uzbekistan from a Soviet Republic to a more modern country? Again, I think Karimov would get a lot more support (internationally and from his own people) if at least one of these applied after nearly 20 years of his rule:
A) He successfully reformed the economy
B) He gradually opened up Uzbek society
C) He successfully reduced corruption
D) He has paved the way for some kind of democratic transition
E) He has paved the way for ANY kind of successor
F) He reformed the (rather abusive) police and court system
G) He showed a shrewed foreign policy that has benefited the country
I think it’s fair to say that although a lot of Uzbeks are frightened to death of an Islamic state or a civil war, I think it’s also fair to say that most of them want a lot more from their government than they’re now getting. More than just stability; I’ve heard “there’s no future in Uzbekistan” from a lot of Uzbek people. I think it’s fair to want more from your government (think of the movement for change that’s even sweeping America right now)… what’s not fair, and what gets a lot of Westerners REALLY mad at the Uzbek government, is locking people up in prison for expressing it.
Time: 2/11/2008, 11:22 pm
Michael, sizning blogingizni qarab-chiqdim. Otangizni tafsiyalari menga yoqdi. exile.ru degan blogni ham korganmisiz?
Time: 2/11/2008, 11:28 pm
Brian, I’m afraid if I say anything more, someone might trace my home address and come after me…
Time: 2/12/2008, 1:27 pm
I’m glad you liked my father’s advice, Shohmurod - he taught me everything I know, and he tried to teach me a lot of things that I still haven’t learned.
Exile.ru is completely new to me, but very funny, now that I have read it. Some good writing, and the Al-Dilbert comics are very funny.
Time: 2/6/2008, 12:47 am
wow nathan, thanks for the big news!
the release of zaynabitdinov is huge. i’m really glad to see that niyazova’s sentence was apparently canceled too (she’d been on house arrest, as I recall, when the Germans put pressure on them after her original sentence). but i never expected to see zaynabitdinov released before karimov was out of office–for those who don’t follow these things, he was not only an activist in Andijon, he was, if i’m remembering my notes right, a legal representative for a couple of the original 23 “Akromiya” defendants (at some point in their process).
he wrote several of the most detailed and influential articles about the “Akromiya” movement, and talked not only to journalists but activists from human rights organizations too.
i think, nathan, you may have hit the nail right on the head with the nirvana closures–the thing is, about two years ago nirvana invented for themselves some kind of “certification” label that they put on all their new discs and dvds that claimed that they were literally legal copies. they probably were legal under Uzbek law, but clearly not under international copyright agreements (since they still sold for about $3). while i seriously doubt the embassy is spending their time in Tashkent complaining about pirated Taylor Hicks cds, it may well have been a “good faith gesture” that means Karimov is actually serious about wanting rapprochement with the US.
while closing nirvana may very well be local politics (it’s all local, after all, as the senator from Massachusetts said) they certainly didn’t release zaynatbitdinov in response to local protests. what i’d be ever interested to learn (just like i’d “be very interested to play for the red sox”) someday is what they told him, or which member of his immediate family they imprisoned as leverage, before they let him go. although given his courage in the past, hearing that directly from him (safe in exile, perhaps) is actually possible…