On Tuesday, May 9, a conference was held at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace entitled “One Year After Andijon: What’s Next For Uzbekistan and the U.S.” The highlight and most reported event of the conference was the outlining of new legislation for sanctions against Uzbekistan presented by Senator John McCain and Representative Christopher Smith.

For discussion (especially on the proposed legislation and US Senator John McCain’s speech) as well as links to the various mainstream media articles on this event, head over to Registan. Registan also has an interesting discussion of another recent Carnegie event that emphasized the opposing viewpoint of the Andijon tragedy.

It is first worth noting that the appearance of Senator McCain and Representative Christopher Smith was part of a half day event to commemorate the Andijon insurrection and massacre. The Carnegie Endowment was packed, mostly with Uzbek dissidents, human rights activists, and scholars.

Most articles have focused on the proposed legislation and the remarks of McCain and Smith. I will therefore first try and fill in a few of the gaps not covered extensively by said news reports, and then summarize some interesting remarks during the rest of the conference.

John McCain’s Speech

When McCain was introduced, a reference was made to his time as a POW in Vietnam in connection and how that experience has reinforced his stance against Uzbekistan. Directly addressing the Uzbek people, the person introducing him said, “Listen to John McCain because he represents the values of this country.”

McCain opened by telling the audience about his experience visiting Uzbekistan immediately following the massacre. “As you can imagine, we were warmly welcomed,” he quipped. Tom Malinowski, Human Rights Watch Washington Advocacy Director, later joked, “I think they messed with the wrong senator.”

Senator McCain said that the facts presented to him by the Uzbek government about the events in Andijon simply didn’t add up. He continued that abuses such as Andijon are not isolated incidents, things have gotten worse, and Uzbekistan is having a very negative effect on the region as a whole.

Regarding the war on terror, McCain said, “The regime by then [one year ago] had become part of the problem, not the solution.” Following Andijon, Tashkent proceeded to launch “a campaign of anti-American propaganda,” even going so far as to blame the insurrection at Andijon on the United States.

A point McCain repeatedly emphasized that does not show up in the news reports as much was that he had unsuccessfully tried to block the Pentagon from paying Uzbekistan $23 million dollars following the events of Andijon. McCain said that he led an effort in the Senate to block the payment, and that the United States should “stand firmly and actively against them [Uzbekistan].”

Speaking more broadly during Q&A, McCain said that if one looks at history, every time the United States has supported an oppressive regime it has paid a heavy price. He even went so far as to reference the US propping of the Shah of Iran as a mistake. He did, however, note that a certain amount of pragmatism is unfortunately necessary, specifying Pakistan as such an example.

McCain also faulted Russia for its role in the region, and said that Bush should boycott the G8 summit in St. Petersburg.


Representative Smith

As Nathan points out, a transcript of Rep. Smith’s remarks can be found here. I will summarize some of the comments he made that do not seem to be captured (for whatever reason) in the transcript.

A point that Smith repeatedly drove home was that regimes like that in Uzbekistan depend on the “forgetfulness” of the outside world. He said that sadly this has been a trend throughout US history, and faulted both presidents Bush I and Clinton for ignoring the Tiananmen Square massacre, noting that the “butcher of Beijing” got a nineteen gun salute.

Smith noted that he has met with President Karimov, and all he does is talk about the war on terror, when really he is waging a war on Muslims who want to practice their beliefs outside of state institutions. He further noted that while the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan is a terrorist organization, Karimov’s policies only make the situation worse.

Q&A with McCain and Smith

During Q&A, an Uzbek dissident devoted to nonviolent civil disobedience (whose name I did not catch) was repeatedly asking why Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty would not air his program. McCain responded that airing such information is a “balancing act,” and it is important to avoid unnecessary bloodshed, implying that the man’s show could result in the persecution of his group. Smith more pointedly responded that unlike some governments, the US government does not control its media, and RFE/RL is not controlled by Congress, only funded by it.

Another attendee pointed out the hypocrisy of the fact that in 2002 Karimov was greeted with open arms by the US government even though atrocities had been committed prior to Andijon as well. The always combative McCain replied, “I regret deeply that there is not an administration representative to address these issues,” and that the United States should never deal with oppressive regimes.

Before McCain arrived, a USG representative had remarked that an official representative very much wished to attend, but was unable to because of the high profile nature of the event.

As McCain prepared to leave, he closed by saying, “It’s hard to do the Lord’s work in the city of Satan,” joking about the difficulties encountered in the Washington political scene when trying to punish rogue regimes like Uzbekistan.

Other Notable Comments

There were many other prominent speakers in the conference as well, including RFE/RL’s Daniel Kimmage and Donald Jensen, Mark Schneider (Senior Vice-President, International Crisis Group), Galima Bukharbayeva (Andijon eyewitness), Jennifer Windsor (Executive Director, Freedom house), and many others.

Nozima Kamalova (Reagan-Fascell Fellow, National Endowment for Democracy) spoke mainly on a law recently passed in Uzbekistan designed to portray NGOs as enemies of the people. According to Kamalova, what makes the law so nefarious is that it is inconsistent, impossible to navigate, and open to interpretation. The law stipulates that providing space for any non-sanctioned meeting, private or public, is now illegal, but the law does not specify what “non-sanctioned” means.

Olga Oliker (Senior International Policy Analyst, RAND Corporation) summarized the recent history of Uzbekistan’s relationship with the United States. She said that Uzbekistan sided with the US following 9/11 because it agreed with the goal of removing the Taliban, but did not get that which it desired out of the relationship that developed. She elaborated that the falling out between the two countries began in 2004, not the Andijon event, when it became clear that Uzbekistan was failing to make significant reforms, and the State Department began to withhold funds.

Daniel Kimmage emphasized how little can be said for sure with so little real news coming out of the increasingly closed society. He noted that at the recent show trials, all pled guilty and spoke of a vast conspiracy of the West against Uzbekistan. Kimmage said the show trials were designed to send a clear message to the Uzbek people: there were violent rebels, but now we are in control.

Kimmage also warned that it is important not to see Uzbekistan as a satellite of Russia or China. He emphasized that it is very much an independent country still wary of Russia, and if Putin tries to exert too much influence he could easily still alienate Karimov.

Mark Schneider said that the conference was a call to action, not a memorial. He emphasized the importance of supporting reforming countries like Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan and help develop civil society outside of Uzbekistan.

There was some disagreement between Schneider and Oliker over how much the US should pursue engagement with Uzbekistan. Schneider said, “Where should the line be? Ask the dissidents,” and said that all of the dissidents were advocating the isolation of Uzbekistan.

When asked about Germany, which still has relatively close ties with Uzbekistan, Schneider called the relationship a “big shame,” and that while they are abiding by EU standards, there is much room for improvement.

Robert Cronin of IREX asked about the stability of the Uzbek regime. Kimmage responded, “It will be perfectly stable until it is not.” Elaborating, he said that when the end does come, it will happen very quickly, and that the fallout will be catastrophic.

As noted in the Herald Tribune article, an Uzbek embassy representative was present. He said that the embassy was not invited to participate, and encouraged everyone to look at the footage shot by the militants and decide for themselves where the truth lies. The official emphasized that there is another side to this tragedy, one ignored by the conference.

At the end of the conference, Freedom House’s Jennifer Windsor asked that everyone in the room who had been kicked out of Uzbekistan stand up. Impressively, nearly a fourth of the room rose.

She emphasized that Freedom House had tried to work with the Uzbek government, but they were entirely against any kind of reform. Windsor also said that USAID had failed to do anything about the forcible removal of NGOs, a failure she called unconscionable.