WELCOME TO IWPR'S REPORTING CENTRAL ASIA, No. 492, May 12, 2007
SHOULD EU END SANCTIONS AGAINST UZBEKISTAN?
Reports from Uzbekistan suggest there is little evidence of human rights
improvements that would warrant the removal of sanctions.
By Caroline Tosh in London and IWPR staff in Central Asia
**** NEW AT IWPR
NEW PODCAST: THIS WEEK ON IWPR A regular audio programme produced by IWPR US,
highlighting IWPR news and analysis on issues of conflict, human rights and
international justice, written by our contributors around the world. To listen
to the programme or for details on how to subscribe see
IRAQ PHOTO DIARIES, NIGHT RAIDS: Peter van Agtmael documents the late-night
raids carried out by American and Iraqi troops against the homes of suspected
insurgents. This series of photographs was awarded a 2nd place in the General
News Stories category at the World Press Photo Awards in 2007.
2007 KURT SCHORK AWARDS: IWPR has launched the call for this years entries for
the Kurt Schork Awards in International Journalism. The awards honour fearless
freelance news reporting and local journalists who cannot leave their country
when the story becomes secondary to survival.
Full details of the 2007 awards and how to enter may be found on the Kurt
Schork Award pages on IWPRs website www.iwpr.net
NEWS BRIEFING CENTRAL ASIA is a new concept in regional reporting, comprising
analysis and news behind the news in Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Available at: www.NBCentralAsia.net
REPORTING CENTRAL ASIA RSS: http://www.iwpr.net/en/rca/rss.xml
TURKMEN RADIO: INSIDE VIEW is an IWPR radio training and broadcast project for
Turkmenistan. View at: http://www.iwpr.net/?p=trk&s=p&o=-&apc_state=henh
RECEIVE FROM IWPR: Readers are urged to subscribe to IWPR's full range of free
electronic publications at:
GIVE TO IWPR: IWPR is wholly dependent upon grants and donations. For more
information about how you can support IWPR go to:
SHOULD EU END SANCTIONS AGAINST UZBEKISTAN?
Reports from Uzbekistan suggest there is little evidence of human rights
improvements that would warrant the removal of sanctions.
By Caroline Tosh in London and IWPR staff in Central Asia
As the European Union prepares to vote on whether to lift the sanctions it
imposed on Uzbekistan in the wake of the Andijan violence two years ago, human
rights activists and journalists in the country as well as international
experts warn that any relaxation of the measures will send the wrong message to
Germany, which currently holds the EU presidency, appears to be pushing for
awkward human rights concerns to be quietly dropped from the agenda in pursuit
of a new EU strategy for engaging with Central Asia. Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty, RFE/RL, reported on May 11 that EU ambassadors were deadlocked on
whether sanctions should be renewed, softened or dropped.
Uzbek officials have sensed the new mood over recent months, and have in turn
sought a rapprochement with Europe on their terms.
If Tashkent gets a clean bill of health when EU foreign ministers meet on May
14, it will have achieved this without addressing fundamental human rights
concerns, and specifically without instituting the international inquiry
requested by the EU, the United Nations, and countries such as the United
Government soldiers opened fire on unarmed civilians in the eastern town almost
exactly two years ago, on May 13, as people gathered in protest over the trial
of 23 local businessmen accused of Islamic extremism said by their families
to be innocent.
The massacre is widely thought to be the worst atrocity committed by a
government against demonstrators since the Chinese army killed several hundred
protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989.
The Uzbek authorities say 187 were killed, but human rights organisations put
the figure closer to 800, and argue that a determined effort by the Uzbek
authorities to shut down non-government organisations, NGOs, and independent
media has meant the truth behind events has never emerged.
Human rights groups are urging the EU to maintain the sanctions, and are
calling for them to press for an international inquiry into Andijan and raise
other human rights concerns.
EU SANCTIONS CENTRE ON DEMAND FOR INQUIRY
Sanctions were imposed because of the Uzbek governments continued refusal to
allow an independent international inquiry into the massacre, which was
requested first by UN human rights commissioner Louise Arbour and then by the
In November 2005, the EU announced a series of measures against the Uzbek
government. These were:
A partial suspension of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement which
governs EU-Uzbek relations.
An embargo on EU sales of weapons to Uzbekistan
A year-long visa ban on 12 senior officials believed to have played a part in
the use of force against demonstrators.
President Islam Karimovs government has shown little sign of bowing to the
demand for an inquiry, maintaining its position that Andijan happened as a
result of an uprising mounted by Islamic radical groups.
When the sanctions came up for renewal in November 2006, the Uzbek authorities
did some intensive lobbying in Brussels and agreed at least to discuss the
Andijan events with EU representatives. In response, Brussels agreed not to
widen the scope of the sanctions, although they were extended for another six
The gulf between the official EU position on what had to happen for relations
to improve and Tashkents take on the matter was evident when Uzbek foreign
minister Vladimir Norov told reporters that the purpose of inviting EU experts
to a meeting on Andijan was to set them right and tell them that the violence
involved a premeditated terrorist act by Islamists.
When EU foreign ministers reviewed the matter again in March 2007, Germanys
Frank-Walter Steinmeier who has led the effort to re-engage with Tashkent
assured his colleagues that there were openings that must be developed in the
dialogue. Ministers left the sanctions in place pending a further review on May
14, one day after the anniversary.
UZBEK SEND MIXED MESSAGES AHEAD OF EU REVIEW
Considering the importance of the May 14 meeting, the Uzbek government has made
a number of apparently quixotic decisions that are not calculated to help its
Two civil society activists were given long jail sentences within days of each
other. Gulbahor Turaeva, a member of Anima-Kor, an NGO which works to protect
the rights of doctors and patients, got six years on April 24, and Umida
Niazova, a journalist and human rights activist, was handed a seven year term
on May 1 both after trials that appeared deeply flawed.
The EU presidency issued a statement on May 4 expressing great concern about
the harsh sentences and urging an immediate review of both cases.
The two sentences send a worrying signal by Uzbekistan in the perspective of a
EU decision on whether to renew specific sanctions adopted in 2005 in relation
to the Andijan tragedy, and while Uzbekistan has agreed to hold a dialogue with
the EU on human rights, said the statement.
Earlier, Tashkent had told Arbour that officials were too busy to meet her on
her tour of Central Asia in late April and early May. As a result, she missed
Uzbekistan out from her tour of the region - which, considering she visited
Turkmenistan, seen by many as an even worse offender on human rights in recent
years, was something of a snub.
It was Arbour who issued the original UN report calling for an investigation
On April 3, the authorities refused to extend the accreditation of Andrea Berg,
director of Human Rights Watchs office in Tashkent. The decision was not
surprising - most foreign non-government groups have been squeezed out of the
country since Andijan but the timing was poor in view of the forthcoming EU
The authorities tried to repair the damage done by these decisions, which
arguably only raised more questions about them and highlighted underlying
concerns about human rights even closer to the date of the EUs deliberations.
Berg was summoned to meet Foreign Minister Norov on April 21, and he granted
her accreditation after all - but only for three months.
Niazova was released on May 8, her jail term reduced to a suspended sentence
with severe restrictions on her movements. This decision mirrored the timing of
the release of journalist Ulugbek Haidarov, whom the authorities freed ahead of
the EU sanctions in November.
But Turaeva was not released for good measure, she received an additional
sentence, lengthening the time she will spend in prison to 11 years. The
authorities have made a particular point of removing from circulation anyone
who was an eyewitness to events in Andijan. Turaeva had reported seeing
hundreds of corpses heaped together by the authorities after the shootings.
Human Rights Watch pointed out the unfortunate timing, as news of the verdict
came out on May 9, just as a high-level EU delegation was in Tashkent for a
talks that formed part of the EU-Uzbek human rights dialogue part of the
EUs apparent strategy of talking about the subject rather than demanding
Turaevas first sentencing was bad enough, said Holly Cartner, Europe and
Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. This second verdict is
outrageous, and underscores why the EU should focus its dialogue with Tashkent
on the need to release Turaeva and the other rights defenders.
REPORT CARD SINCE 2005 SHOWS POOR MARKS
Aside from gestures, have the Uzbeks done enough to merit the lifting of
sanctions? Does even the most liberal interpretation of progress on human
rights stand up?
On the principal question - an impartial investigation carried out by
international experts - the answer is no. The government has shown no sign of
entering into a debate on the preconditions for such an investigation, although
it is happy to engage in the dialogue proposed by the EU since this does not
presuppose an inquiry.
Although the EU document setting out sanctions does not list improvements in
other areas as a condition for ending the restrictions, it is more than likely
that general improvements - or the lack of them - will be cited as reasons for
the decision taken by European foreign ministers.
If sanctions are dropped, it will underline the difference between the
approaches of the EU and the US.
Until Andijan, the Americans were allies of Uzbekistan, which had provided them
with the use of a military airbase for operations in Afghanistan following the
9/11 attacks on the US.
The relationship broke down when the US administration joined international
calls for an investigation into the Andijan violence, and the Uzbeks demanded
they leave the airbase.
In March, US ambassador Jon Purnell presented the Uzbek government with the
State Departments annual report on human rights for 2006. The report is
damning, saying the human rights situation continued to deteriorate and citing
such violations such as the torture of detainees by law-enforcement officers,
the incarceration of regime critics and human rights activists in mental
hospitals, the persecution of independent journalists, and appalling prison
The day before it was formally presented, Uzbekistans foreign ministry
denounced the report as prejudiced and unfair. The ministry said the State
Departments monitoring was tendentious and counterproductive.
It is difficult to get access to information in Uzbekistan thanks to the
governments determined effort to silence journalists and close off both
information sources and media outlets.
However, IWPR interviews with people in Uzbekistan as well as experts outside
the country suggest there has been a distinct lack of progress since 2005 with
regard to arbitrary detention and trial, political rights, and media freedom.
NGOS UNDER SEVERE PRESSURE
Including Turaeva, Human Rights Watch says at least 14 human rights defenders
are currently detained on politically motivated charges, including the serious
offence of anti-state activities.
Local groups are under great pressure, Elena Urlaeva, a member of the Uzbek
Human Rights Alliance who was imprisoned for four months in a psychiatric
hospital after being arrested at a rally in Tashkent in 2002, says she fears
the organisation will soon be closed down.
Her colleagues are constantly harassed, followed and photographed, and the
office is under 24-hour surveillance by police, she said.
Urlaeva says the persecution of activists is severely hampering their ability
to work both in the country and outside it too - with some banned from
travelling altogether, and others detained or given rigorous checks at border
She was arrested in March on the border with Kyrgyzstan while coming back from
a UN meeting in Bishkek. She and her elderly mother were detained for eight
The human rights situation in Uzbekistan has worsened compared with last year.
We [activists] cannot travel to other countries. Many of our members are under
virtual house arrest, she said.
In the last two years, the government has closed down many international NGOs
on a number of pretexts, including failure to register with the authorities or
to provide information on their activities.
The scope for even discussing sensitive subjects such as human rights has
narrowed, according to people interviewed for this report.
In the past, there was a possibility that human rights might improve. You
could talk about violations of human rights, said one local journalist. Now
thats out of the question. If a human rights activist acts to help someone
may end up in prison himself. You can see that by the number of cases in which
activists have been pressured, assaulted, arrested, or accused of extorting
INDEPENDENT MEDIA CLOSE TO EXTINCTION
The position of independent journalists is also becoming increasingly
The authorities attitude to the media hasnt changed. Its the same as ever,
said a political analyst based in Tashkent. All media outlets are under the
authorities control, and the very idea that they might stand up to them is
ridiculous they dont even discuss what the authorities are doing.
As far as access to information was concerned, the analyst said, The
authorities provide the public with whatever information deem necessary.
Anything that doesnt fit their criteria is blocked - even information about
whats happening inside the country
. Most information remains secret.
According to Urlaeva, changes to media law now mean harsh measures can be taken
against those who distribute foreign reports on human rights that criticise
Uzbekistan. Previously, we would print out reports by international
organisations such as Human Rights Watch and interesting articles about
Uzbekistan, copy them and hand them to others. Now writing for an internet
publication may be deemed anti-constitutional propaganda, she said.
In Andijan, a local reporter said the information blockade meant that the media
situation is dead, and its inconceivable that it will revive.
The local press write about incredible achievements that the average person
wouldnt recognise, he said. They write about the high standard of living,
when people havent seen anything of the sort in the last 14 years.
Theres no media freedom to speak of. One might put it this way - the media in
Andijan are free to fantasise as much as they want. Other than that, theres
nothing that can be written about.
Foreign media are no longer able to operate inside Uzbekistan and their
reporters - both local and international - are not granted the accreditation
they need to work legally. Germanys Deutsche Welle has had to close down,
joining the BBC and RFE/RL, which closed their Tashkent offices earlier.
Journalists in Uzbekistan say the amended media regulations which came into
force on January 15 have given the government more control over media and led
to increased self-censorship. The new law defines websites as media outlets
which means they must register with government, provide information on their
employees, and give the authorities copies of all publications.
In spite of a constitutional ban on censorship, an RFE/RL report in April said
the authorities were further restricting access to independent media by
In its annual report for 2007, press freedom organisation Reporters Without
Borders said that arrests, internment and blocked websites were routine for
journalists in 2006.
It also noted that the Uzbek government warned last year that journalists
working for foreign media that criticised government policy risked losing their
Craig Murray, formerly Britains ambassador to Tashkent, said the Uzbek
governments crackdown on independent media has had the desired effect.
Uzbekistan is off the radar to almost everyone. There is no public opinion on
the subject because international media organisations have been successfully
banned, he told IWPR.
This stifling of media means that human rights abuses go largely unreported, he
POLITICAL PLURALISM A DISTANT PROSPECT
When he found himself head of state of an independent Uzbekistan in 1991, Islam
Karimov moved quickly to neutralise potential sources of opposition. As a
result, there is no legal political opposition.
Constitutional amendments and a new law governing political parties which come
into force from January next year appear at first sight to be a move towards
The new party law introduces the concept of a parliamentary opposition for the
first time. It also gives the parliamentary majority a say in the appointment
of the prime minister.
President Karimov proposed the changes in November, and they were duly passed
by parliament in March this year. In a speech in December, Karimov made remarks
that suggested there will be little real change.
He spoke of further expanding the rights and powers of political parties,
giving them more influence over the elected bodies and the state
administration, but indicated that the parliamentary opposition would be
made up of the five legal parties, some [of which] will opt to become the
The five officially registered parties in the country all back the president.
They are virtually invisible between elections, and do not offer alternative
political visions. Karimov, however, suggested that they had gained in
political prestige and maturity, that they ran competitive campaigns in
recent elections, and that they were now ready to take on the vigorous new role
the law would assign them.
Analysts say it is highly unlikely that a real multi-party system will develop
in the foreseeable future.
True opposition parties - such as Birlik and Erk - are banned, cannot stand for
election, and their leaders remain in exile. As a local commentator told IWPRs
News Briefing CentralAsia agency in March, Erk and Birlik have not been
granted registration for many years. These two parties will never be able to
take part in parliamentary elections or nominate candidates.
Another area where there has been little demonstrable improvement is the use of
physical abuse including torture, particularly to extract confessions as a way
of securing an automatic conviction.
In December 2005, Theo van Boven, former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, said
torture was an endemic problem in Uzbekistan.
Maisy Weicherding of Amnesty International told IWPR that torture was a
serious, ongoing problem. Amnesty receives widespread reports of people who say
they were tortured - including independent journalists, human rights activists,
devout Muslims, secular oppositionists, and even some former government
Weicherding says the EU needs to raise individual cases where there is evidence
of serious abuse such as torture, It's very important for them to take a
principled stand in order to raise human rights standards.
Shahida Yakub of the Uzbekistan InitiativeLondon group is particularly
concerned at the treatment of Muslim believers, who are often detained and
accused of links with extremism. These people, she said, form the most
persecuted group in Uzbekistan, with at least four people disappearing in the
last year. Unlike the persecution of human rights defenders, such cases are
rarely reported in the media.
IMPLICATIONS OF ENDING SANCTIONS
Most of the people interviewed for this report were concerned at the
implications of the EU giving Uzbekistan a clean sheet - an end to sanctions in
exchange for vague promises to talk about human rights.
Murray, who was recalled from Tashkent after criticising the use of torture,
said he would be pleasantly surprised if the EU maintained the sanctions in
the face of German pressure.
The recent jailings of human rights activists, the closing down of
international media organisations, and Tashkents total failure to address
the EU demand for an Andijan inquiry make the German position totally
indefensible, he said.
The astonishing thing is that, beyond any shadow of a doubt, there is no
argument [to be made] that the human rights situation has got better, he said.
Yakub said that if sanctions were lifted it would come as a bitter
disappointment for Uzbeks, who feel their rights are being traded for economic
gain, People in Uzbekistan feel that no one cares about what is happening in
the country. There is a feeling that the EU is putting its energy interests
over its support for democracy.
An Uzbek who fled to Kyrgyzstan after the Andijan violence echoed this view,
saying, I think it is too early to drop the EU sanctions on Uzbekistan. They
[Uzbek authorities] should first improve matters regarding human rights, and
create some space for opposition.
For now, she concluded, Uzbekistan has turned into a police state.
Berg of Human Rights Watch is deeply concerned at what she sees as a weakened
EU stance in recent months, and says "the international community has sent too
many positive signals to Uzbekistan - in spite of the worsening situation
"EU human rights officials say they can see some progress and give statements
that things are going the right way - but I'm living here, and working here and
dealing with human rights violations every day," she said.
If the EU drops the sanctions, Weicherding is similarly concerned about the
message this would send out. That would signal that theyve improved [human
rights] and have done well, so don't have to do anything any more. The state in
Uzbekistan has not really improved, despite what the authorities would like to
assert, she said.
While she says the EU has not disclosed what benchmarks it will use to measure
the human rights situation as it reviews sanctions, she warns that recent
expert talks held by the EU and Uzbekistan are no substitute for a proper
independent enquiry into Andijan.
She added that EU officials must not be swayed by political considerations,
such a fear of losing influence in Central Asia, in particular in the energy
The EU has drafted a new engagement strategy which it hopes will help Europe
gain a stronger hold in the Central Asian republics. The oil and gas sectors in
Kazakstan and potentially Turkmenistan could be important energy sources for
Europe, but Uzbekistan exports only limited amounts of gas, which is bought by
Sanobar Shermatova, a Moscow-based Central Asian expert, argues that the
sanctions are important as they give a clear message that breaches of human
rights mean that Uzbekistan is not considered an equal partner in the eyes of
But she says that the EUs attempts to woo the wider region in order to access
energy resources weaken its censure of the human rights situation.
Uzbekistan well understands that it is not about democracy, but energy
cooperation. I think that the US and EU no longer believe democracy is possible
in Central Asia, she said.
It is Germany that has done most of the pushing for sanctions against the
country to be relaxed. To date, the German view seems to be that suspending
relations with Uzbekistan has done little to improve human rights in any case.
Critics of the German approach argue the country has undermined the sanctions
from the start, by allowing former interior minister Zokir Almatov - who was on
the EUs visa-ban list - into Germany for medical treatment.
DOES TASHKENT CARE?
James Nixey, an expert on Central Asia and Russia at the Royal Institute of
International Affairs in London, does not think the Uzbek leadership will
comply with the EUs demands.
The authorities there dont like to be lectured and are too proud to bow to EU
demands, so taking this approach of imposing sanctions may put them on the
defensive, he said.
Like many analysts, he questions how effective the minimal sanctions have been.
Several of the Uzbek leadership travelled to the EU for medical reasons, so
they were pretty leaky form the start, he said.
Nixey thinks it will take another event on a scale similar to Andijan before
the international community takes more decisive action against Uzbekistan.
Murray does not believe the EU can exercise much power over Uzbekistan.
Karimovs attitude towards the EU is amused and contemptuous. He has no
interest whatsoever in forging links with it. Hes not interested in having a
market economy, he said.
Central Asian expert Nick Megoran says improving the human rights situation is
not a priority for the Uzbek authorities. As the country moves away from the
West into a closer alliance with Russia and China, it has becomes less
concerned with the image it conveys to the rest of the world.
Megoran said the EU packs little weight in Central Asia.
The EU has been critical of Uzbekistan's human rights record and it would like
to trade with Central Asia more, but the EU isn't particularly important to
Uzbekistan, he said.
Islam Karimov is a very independent character - he's no one's puppet. The
ability of states such as the US, Britain, France of Germany to do anything is
very limited, he said.
EU URGED TO SHOULDER ITS RESPONSIBILITY
Others argue that the EU should not abdicate its responsibility by allowing
Tashkent to believe it can do nothing and still be rewarded.
In a letter to EU foreign ministers urging them to keep the sanctions in place,
Human Rights Watch said the worsening human rights situation in Uzbekistan is
directly linked to the EUs soft-pedalling on this record. The Uzbek government
not only failed to take any positive steps to address abuses, but obviously
felt no compulsion to refrain from further abuse despite the looming sanctions
review, no doubt because of the positive signals it received from the EU.
This startling fact should alone prompt the EU to immediately recognise the
utter failure of its policy.
At a meeting of the European parliaments human rights subcommittee on May 3 -
ahead of the sanctions review - German foreign ministry official Rolf Schulze
said that isolation of Uzbekistan is not an option.
Rolf Timans, head of the Unit for Human Rights and Democratisation at the
European Commission, suggested holding talks was more realistic than expecting
substantive action from the Uzbeks.
One has to be realistic, he said. One should not expect that the Uzbek
authorities will release such [political] prisoners overnight. We have to start
discussing human rights first. Lets not expect that the results will be
Helene Flautre, a French Green member of parliament, delivered a stinging
response at the meeting. I hope that there are no Uzbek officials in the
room, she told Timans. Your words suggest that they hardly need to make an
Caroline Tosh is an IWPR reporter in London. IWPR and News Briefing CentralAsia
staff and contributors provided additional reporting and interviews.
The names of interviewees in Uzbekistan have been withheld in the interests of
REPORTING CENTRAL ASIA provides the international community with a unique
insiders' perspective on the region. Using our network of local journalists,
the service publishes news and analysis from across Central Asia on a weekly
The service forms part of IWPR's Central Asia Project based in Almaty, Bishkek,
Tashkent and London, which supports media development and encourages better
local and international understanding of the region.
IWPR's Reporting Central Asia is supported by the UK Community Fund. The
service is published online in English and Russian.
The opinions expressed in Reporting Central Asia are those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent those of the publication or of IWPR.
REPORTING CENTRAL ASIA: Editor-in-Chief: Anthony Borden; Managing Editor: Yigal
Chazan; Senior Editor: John MacLeod; Central Asia Programme Manager: Saule
Mukhametrakhimova; Editor in Bishkek: Kumar Bekbolotov.
IWPR Project Development and Support: Executive Director: Anthony Borden;
Strategy & Assessment Director: Alan Davis; Managing Director: Tim Williams.
IWPR builds democracy at the frontlines of conflict and change through the
power of professional journalism. IWPR programs provide intensive hands-on
training, extensive reporting and publishing, and ambitious initiatives to
build the capacity of local media. Supporting peace-building, development and
the rule of law, IWPR gives responsible local media a voice.
Institute for War & Peace Reporting
48 Grays Inn Road, London WC1X 8LT, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7831 1030 Fax: +44 (0)20 7831 1050
For further details on this project and other information services and media
programmes, go to: www.iwpr.net
ISSN: 1477-7924 Copyright © 2007 The Institute for War & Peace Reporting
If you wish to change your subscription details or unsubscribe please go to: