home > by publication type > backgrounder > Severing of U.S.-Uzbek Ties Over Counterterrorism
Email
| Author: | Lionel Beehner |
|---|
September 30, 2005
Uzbekistan has officially announced it would end its cooperation with the United States on counterterrorism operations in Central Asia. Situated on Afghanistan’s northern border with 24 million people, Uzbekistan is the most populous of the former Soviet Central Asian republics. After the events of September 11, 2001, the country emerged as Washington’s main ally in the region and agreed to lease the United States its military base near the Afghan-Uzbek border to assist in the war against Afghanistan. The two countries ratcheted up their counterterrorism-training exercises and the Bush administration nearly tripled its economic aid to Uzbekistan to some $300 million. Uzbekistan benefited from U.S. military assistance in rooting out its own Islamic extremist groups in the region, including the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), a radical Islamist opposition group with links to al-Qaeda.
U.S.-Uzbek relations took a turn for the worse after a May 12-13, 2005, prison uprising and riot in Andijan, a city in eastern Uzbekistan. According to human-rights groups and eye-witness accounts, Uzbek security forces opened fire on a crowd of unarmed Uzbeks, killing hundreds. Tashkent denied any wrongdoing and rejected demands by the United States and European Union for an international investigation into the massacre. Earlier this month, the first trial of fifteen suspects accused of inciting and orchestrating the uprising was held in Tashken, and all fifteen pled guilty. The trial was accompanied by two widely publicized reports put out by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International that charged the Uzbek government with covering up the Andijan massacre, forcing confessions from suspects, and silencing witnesses.
Uzbek President Islam Karimov, one of the region’s most authoritarian leaders, took offence at the human-rights abuse allegations by Western officials. Adding to his fears was the recent string of political revolutions in Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, and Ukraine. Government officials in Tashkent have accused U.S. nongovernmental organizations, as well as the Central Intelligence Agency, of orchestrating these revolutions, feeding suspicions that Uzbekistan may be next. “Watching three governments fall in the near vicinity certainly doesn’t help promote any democratic agenda [in Uzbekistan],” says Nancy Lubin in a CFR interview, senior fellow for Eurasia at the American Foreign Policy Council. “There’s always been a real tension between control and democratization, and maintaining control has always won.”
In July, Tashkent demanded that the United States pull its military forces out of Uzbekistan. The move came on the heels of a July 5 joint declaration by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a regional security body of which Uzbekistan is a member, that called on the United States to set a timeline for the complete withdrawal of its military forces from the region. Then, on September 29, Uzbekistan announced it would terminate all joint counterterrorism efforts with the United States. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Daniel Fried called the decision “very disappointing,” while two U.S. congressmen, William D. Delahunt (D-MA) and Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), are petitioning the Pentagon to cease its payments to Tashkent—the United States owes $23 million for past use of its military base.
Since the late 1990s, several U.S. agencies have provided military training, nonlethal equipment, and intelligence to Uzbekistan for security reasons, including sending Navy SEAL teams to Tashkent to train Uzbek police, military, and special-forces units on markmanship as well as the laws of war. Some human-rights groups have accused the United States of having trained some of the security forces involved in suppressing the Andijan uprising.The Pentagon told the New York Times in June it could not confirm or deny this charge. The United States has also been involved in stemming the flow of drugs, illicit nuclear material, and small arms illegally crossing through Uzbekistan’s porous borders.
The European Commission has prepared legislation to impose an arms embargo against Uzbekistan for its refusal to allow an international investigation of the events in Andijan, which would include visa restrictions against Uzbek officials. Russia, which supported Karimov’s handling of the Andijan events, said it would not impose an arms embargo and has cozied up to Uzbekistan in recent months. On September 23, the first Russian-Uzbek joint counterterrorism exercises were held in Uzbekistan. China also came to Karimov’s side after the May uprising, and experts say Beijing engineered the SCO resolution to push the United States out of Central Asia.
Military experts say the United States may be handing Uzbekistan over to the Russians and Chinese. “The problem is we’re in a war that requires access to and through Central Asia,” says Stephen J. Blank, an expert on Central Asia at the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute, dismissing claims by some experts that the bases in the region are unneeded because the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan is over. He calls Uzbekistan “another one of those cases where the State Department and Defense Department are going their own way and nobody is willing to knock heads and say, ‘This is the president’s policy.’” In other words, there is disagreement between the U.S. government’s democratization and defense agendas, Blank says. Other experts fear the United States may pull out from the region. S. Frederick Starr, chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, favors more U.S. engagement in Central Asia, as well as a more coherent strategy by Washington. “It may make sense to leave some kind of footprint in the region, but this requires a regional conception that the [ U.S.] State Department has so far been incapable of generating,” he says.
Despite international pressure and possible arms sanctions, experts do not expect the Uzbek government to agree to an international investigation of the Andijan killings. “The government [in Tashkent] has very little to gain and a great deal to lose from such an investigation,” Lubin says. “Were there to be some kind of investigation, it would be very much controlled.”
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
Global Economy in Crisis
Expert Conversations on World Events
In The Closing of the American Border, Edward Alden goes behind the scenes to tell the story of the Bush administration’s struggle to balance security and openness in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
In Termites in the Trading System, Jagdish Bhagwati reveals how the rapid spread of preferential trade agreements endangers the world trading system.
America Between the Wars explores how the decisions and debates of the years between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Twin Towers shaped the events, arguments, and politics of the world we live in today.
Complete list of CFR Books.
This report lays out a thoughtful agenda for U.S. policy toward the Democratic Republic of Congo, arguing that what happens there should matter to the United States--for humanitarian reasons as well as economic and strategic ones.
In this report, CFR Senior Fellow Michael A. Levi analyzes the potential use of deterrence in preventing terrorist groups from acquiring nuclear weapons and recommends a new approach to U.S. declaratory policy, as well as ways to improve U.S. capabilities to determine the sources of terrorist attacks.
Complete list of Council Special Reports.
This report argues that the United States must lead with domestic action on climate change and proposes a U.S. negotiating strategy for a global UN climate agreement that includes commitments from all major economies, while also promoting a less formal Partnership for Climate Cooperation that would focus the world's largest emitters on implementing aggressive emissions reductions.
This Task Force report examines changes in Latin America and in U.S. influence there, while taking account of the region's enduring importance to the United States. The Task Force offers an agenda for U.S. policy toward Latin America and identifies four critical areas that should provide the basis of a new U.S. approach.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR.
“ The Logic of Zero:” Ivo Daalder and Jan Lodal say Washington must lead the way to a world without nuclear weapons. The first step will be dramatically limiting the U.S. nuclear arsenal's declared size and purpose.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1-212-434-9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
To request permission to reuse Council materials, please email publications@cfr.org or fax +1.212.434.9859.
Please include the complete information of the requested work—author, title, sections/pages to be copied or reprinted, and number of copies to be made—along with a brief description of where and how you would like to reuse the work.
You may also request permission for Council material through Copyright Clearance Center. For more information, please click on the link below.
Copyright 2008 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.
