The recent events in Belarus and the reactions from Western nations (here and here) made me think about possible developments a presidential election in Uzbekistan scheduled for December 2007 is to bring. Unlike Belorussians though, who had a choice between incumbent president Lukoshenko and a unified opposition leader Aleksandr Milinkevich et al, Uzbeks will not get to see any opposition candidates on their ballots. The sad truth is that there is no opposition in Uzbekistan at this point. Moreover, were there any potential candidates emerging in the scene in the two years left before the vote they would not be allowed into the race anyway.

Another widely discussed issue in this respect is whether Karimov will remain in office or let go of power in favour of one of his assignees which could in effect be either his daughter or one of the ministers professed to succeed him. The former seems to be more probable as rumours have it. However, there is little doubt as to the ability of our laws to be customised to whatever preferences and wishes the president has, e.g. the 2002 referendum to extend presidential term. What can be stated with confidence at this point though is that Karimov has prepared a solid foundation for a comfortable retirement, especially when it comes to legislative guarantees of ex-president’s privileges and perks. The Law “On the basic guarantees of the activity of the President” passed in 2003 grants inter alia full (absolute) immunity to acting and former presidents against lawsuits in the territory of the country. On top of that, family members also benefit from the immunities under the law. One of the students I talked to even went as far as suggesting that Karimov will turn Uzbekistan into a parliamentary republic once he retires and takes his permanent seat in Oliy Majlis’s Senate - all for the sake of exercising indeterminate control over the country’s decision-making. Other absurd alternatives are also being discussed though one can never know what will happen next in a country like Uzbekistan.

It is also worth noting Russia’s celebratory stance on the Belorussian election. The New York Times article mentioned above says:

The crackdown creates a fresh strain on relations between the West and Russia, which has congratulated Mr. Lukashenko for his official victory, and said the election, seen in the West as a farce, signified “the development of democratic institutions and the strengthening of the foundations of civic society in Belarus.”

The nature of this statement and Russian criticism of the OSCE’s election monitoring practices leave no place for uncertainty that international observers will be denied access to the Uzbek polls. Russia seems to be fully in support of Karimov’s policies aimed at blotting out all memories of Andijon and threatening the international community with a similar scenario unless Uzbekistan’s decent image in the international arena is left untouched.

Thus, on the eve of the 1st anniversary of the Andijon crisis and the forthcoming presidential election it appears improbable that Karimov will ever face responsibility for the numerous crimes he and his administration have perpetrated. Unfortunately, there is no way that Karimov could be brought before the International Criminal Court. For that ratification of the Rome Statute is needed, contrary to what some commentators contend. To paraphrase Kofi Annan, there can be no end to impunity of nation states and their leaders culpable of gross human rights violations in international law.