In an article for Ferghana.ru, Galima Bukharbayeva (known to those interested in Uzbekistan through her Andijon coverage for the IWPR) voices sharp criticism towards Germany’s Uzbekistan policy.

As this blog has covered the German-Uzbek relations before (here, here, here and here), I thought it was only right to add my two cents to her points. All in all, there is a lot to agree with in her article, but as Bukharbayeva is no expert in German internal politics, she might overestimate certain points.

This episode [Andijon] smears the rosy picture of Germany’s cooperation with Uzbekistan that enables Berlin to promote its interests in the region. One of these interests includes existence of a military base in Termez in south Uzbekistan.

It is true: Germany needs Termez to maintain the ISAF mission in neighbouring Afghanistan. This is mainly due to the antiquated state of the military equipment, especially the long-haul carriers. The main transport plane, the Transall, while approaching its 40th birthday, is no longer suitable for the character of Germany’s international military engagement. Its operation radius is limited to only 2,000 km - which is why Germany needs a military base outside of Afghanistan acting as a bridge base to maintain steady supplies. Also, new and advanced defence technology cannot be easily added-on to the ageing plane and… it can’t fly over the Hindu Kush, which is unfortunately right in the way.

The Bundeswehr needs the base in Termez for the peacekeeping operation in Afghanistan. The base is apparently more important to Berlin than the lives of innocent residents of Andijan, human rights, or even Germany’s own democratic image.

This is a matter of interpretation. It is by no means guaranteed that by vacating the military base could future incidents à la Andijon be avoided. Germany is paying Uzbekistan a good deal of money for renting out the base. However, it shouldn’t be assumed that the cash flow is anywhere near American rates in the region. Previously, neweurasia translated a Spiegel article that gave some idea of what we’re talking about. I am still looking for a new lease deal that was set to be negotiated in February, but as of the beginning of 2006:

Germany has already spent 12 million euros for base extentions, pay the Uzbek government 240,000 euros monthly for the hotel accomodation of the around 300 German soldiers and have to disburse 600 euros for each landing of an airforce Airbus.

The more interesting points in Bukharbayeva’s article follow in the second half.

Hedi Wegener of the Social Democratic Party and Wolf Bauer of the Christian Democratic Party are enthusiastic supporters of the dialogue with the government of Uzbekistan. Wegener and Bauer belong to the parliamentary team for interaction with Central Asia.

Bukharbayeva’s take on Germany’s Uzbekistan policy struck me as a little familiar. When reading about German reactions to the Belarussian elections, it became quite clear that different German politicians came up with very different ideas about how to deal with Lukashenko who ostensibly rigged last week’s elections. However, it is by no means acceptable to speak of Germany as being an apologist for dictators around the world.

Who are these people Bukharbayeva met in Berlin? Hedi Wegener is the chair of the Parliamentary Friendship Group for Relations with the States of Central Asia (Deutsch-Zentralasiatische Parlamentariergruppe) and says that she has built up a special relationship with Central Asia through numerous visits to the region. She told journalists on May 15th that:

“I cannot shake my head and tell them “Naughty, naughty” like a teacher. Uzbek officials may take offense and that will be the end of all and any cooperation.”

Can this sum up in short Germany’s stance on Uzbekistan and present in a nutshell what German ‘engagement’ stands for? I doubt it, not only because the influence of her parliamentary ‘friendship’ group should not be overestimated. As far as Bauer is concerned, a commentator on Ferghana.ru might have the answer:

He of course visited all the touristic sites in Samarkand and Buchara and had some Plov, but he doesn’t know anything about the problems Uzbek people suffer, and I’d even say he doesn’t know much about Uzbekistan, even though he is the head of the parliamentiary group concerning CA. It is in his personal interest to keep good relations with the Uzbek government in order to be able to go on all those nice trips to CA, if you ask me. Might be the same with Wegener.

The Greens, whose Joschka Fischer had been Foreign Minister for two terms, have put forward a enquiry to the German parliament. Now being part of the small opposition to the Grand Coalition (CDU and SPD), they want to know the government’s position on Uzbekistan and whether there are alternatives to the use of Termez as a supply base for the ISAF mission. Also, while still in power, Fischer together with most other EU foreign ministers sharply criticised the crackdown in Andijon and called for an independent enquiry.

Also, the German media is quite bold in its criticism towards the German-Uzbek deal over Termez, and that is across the board from the conservative Die Welt, center-left Der Spiegel, to the left-leaning TAZ (mainly through journalist Marcus Bensmann).

Many more politicians, also from the coalition parties SPD and CDU, are uneasy with such people like Bauer and Wegener, and I am sure that there will be a healthy discourse in parliament over Termez later this year. Maybe even before that will happen, Germany might have found a new supply base near Afghanistan or will have finally introducmed the new Airbus A400 transporters that would render Termez quite redundant.

Until then, maybe Hedi Wegener can read over her own website and find that her inability to criticise the Uzbek government should make her change this passage of text:

We members of the parliamentary friendship groups are, as a rule, less bound by diplomatic constraints, and can clearly state our position even in difficult contexts and on subjects which are less suited to official and public contacts (e.g. human rights). Furthermore, in such cases we usually have a broader spectrum of interlocutors available to us. The parliamentary friendship groups´ contacts and exchanges of opinions are therefore characterised by their open and frank atmosphere.