Uzbekistan allows US to use its airbase in Termez
Recently, we have observed a significant shift in Uzbekistan’s foreign policy, as Uzbek officials started showing their sympathy to the West by making moves that were welcomed by EU and US. The recent amnesties of prominent human rights activists and receiving EU and US high ranking officials in Tashkent are proofs to my words. The relationship between Uzbekistan and western world that was heavily shaken after the Andijan events in 2005, when the government troops opened fire at demonstrators in the main city square, now seems to gain strength again.
The latest move of Uzbekistan that pleased the West very much was allowing US to use the airbase in its territory. Several sources have already reported that Uzbekistan is going to allow US to use the airbase in Termez, currently being used by Germany, only as part of wider NATO operations in Afghanistan. Meaning that “individual Americans attached to the NATO International Staff can use the German air-bridge from Termez to Afghanistan on a case-by-case basis”, Reuters quotes US Embassy in Tashkent.
Due to its geographical location, Uzbekistan plays a very crucial role in the region. And therefore, it has the best conditions for NATO and US troops to use Uzbek airbase for their operations in Afghanistan. The United States originally set up a camp, known as K2, in Uzbekistan back in 2001 (right after the 9/11 attacks) to fight against Taliban forces in Afghanistan. However, after the Andijan events, when the West condemned the Uzbek government for suppressing the demonstration by violent means leaving several hundred civilians dead, the US troops were ordered by Uzbek government to leave the country. It was only Germany that was allowed to stay in the country and use the airbase.
After the Andijan events, when the Uzbek officials blamed the radical Islamic Groups (Akramiya) for being the causes for the conflict, the Uzbek government actually looked for a help from western world. However, instead of support in “fighting against terrorism” Uzbekistan got several harsh international sanctions for violating the human rights. Now, after almost three years, people started forgetting about the past (or at least pretending to), and the Uzbek government is successfully re-building a bridge between west and Uzbekistan that existed before.
Today, Uzbekistan very much needs the West in its territory. First, having western bases in its territory, Uzbekistan will secure itself from emergence of any kind of “religious ideologies” in its territory, or at least importing it from outside (Taliban). Second, supporting the fight against Taliban the Uzbek government also fights back its opposition IMU that is now mainly centralized in Afghanistan supporting Taliban. Third, close ally and friend of Islam Karimov Vladimir Putin is not “officially” in high position any more, and therefore Uzbekistan may need backup from the West. Fourth, Uzbekistan will gain more authority in Central Asian region, as the Kyrgyz government has verbally and non-systematically been trying to withdraw US troops from Manas International Airport – if Kyrgyzstan withdraws US troops, Uzbekistan will be the only country with German and US airbases in its territory.
on March 8th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
I’m not surprised. There’s not reason why Western realpolitik (US and EU) gone awry when supporting Saddam against Iran or propping up numerous African dictatorships at the time are not to be repeated in Uzbekistan. But then the West should don’t expect anyone among the population in Uzb to still like ‘the West’ in a number of years. Be ready to be hated.
For this is seriously undermining the West’s overall credibility in the region. People started to wonder already a couple of years ago after the US first came into Uzb: the West comes up with all those roaring principles, democracy, human rights and what all, … But then either they are not capable of pushing them through (cf. the slimy and even outrightly submissive attitude towards Karimov, Israël, etc.) or else don’t even live up to them (cf. Abu Graib).
“Uzbekistan will secure itself from emergence of any kind of “religious ideologies” in its territory, or at least importing it from outside (Taliban).”
No on the contrary. Karimov’s regime is doomed anyway. Only Islam can save Uzbekistan.
on March 9th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
“Only Islam can save Uzbekistan”
Really interesting. First, people in Uzbekistan must realize what Islam is. In Uzbekistan there are very few people who know what true Islam is. Majority of people just consider themselves as Muslim, but in reality they are not. You can see people drinking in cafes and pubs today, and tomorrow you can see the same people going to the central mosque to pray Friday’s prayer. And exactly these people are becoming victims of those who are using Islam to attain their own goals, thus blackmailing true values of Muslim people in the world.
on March 9th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
In fact people realize what Islam is. There is no other nation who may respect Islam more than ubeks. How they respect? Uzbeks preffer Islam religion to be as religion and keep it as a religion, as Islam is a religion, as any other religions…. Uzbeks, in deed, also want cooperation with the West, which is what nation want…. Uzbeks are ready to protect themselves, as long as they have stable jobs and system in the country. The issue for uzbeks is whether West will cooperate with us with social and economical problems….. Investment and all such things…. Do not interfere peoples believes, whether it islam or christianity, with your politic idiologies…. uzbeks hate anyone who tries to agetate and propogade anything by using religion… that’s the most important…. no matter uzbeks drink or smoke… its their choice… and shut up…..
on March 9th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Well, if we are talking about Islam, you cant say “no matter uzbeks drink…”. In Islam, drinking does matter. It is haram, a deed that Muslim must avoid. It seems that you have never been in Arab countries, where you can observe true Muslims living according to rules of Islam. Islam that we have in Uzbekistan today (not Karimov obviously) has lost some of its necessary features. And if we are talking about a true Islam saving Uzbekistan (Ataman Rakin), we must admit it is not a state controlled Islam that we have in the country today.
on March 10th, 2008 at 4:51 am
Akmal is correct in observinmg that most people in Uzbekistan don’t really know what Islam is. However, you must realize that it is due to the Soviet legacy. It doesn’t matter if people in Uzbekistan are Muslim, Christian, or whatever. Most of them are hypocrites anyway, claiming to be pious one day and committing all kinds of sins another. Yet, I don’t think that people in Uzbekistan are ready for a religious state. in fact, establishing one would be exchanging one evil for another because most people would not want a theocracy either.
on March 10th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
“uzbeks hate anyone who tries to agetate and propogade anything by using religion… that’s the most important….”
Obviously, W.u.w., you don’t see that the main one who is “trying to propagate anything by using religion” is dear yurtboshi I.A. Karimov himself. For his rotten, criminal regime has created this whole hysteria about ‘Islamic extremism’ to justify itself internationally and to persecute Uzbek Muslims and Islam in the country.
“Do not interfere peoples believes, whether it islam or christianity, with your politic idiologies…”
OK. Then go and tell that to Karimov.
“no matter uzbeks drink or smoke…”
It does matter, because the promotion of alcohol(ism) and narcotics is a technique to keep the people subdued. And I, among many, am most sad to see how a great people like the Uzbeks have been degraded under (the) Karimov(s).
“And if we are talking about a true Islam saving Uzbekistan (Ataman Rakin), we must admit it is not a state controlled Islam that we have in the country today.”
Of course not! What is called ‘official’ or ’state-controlled’ Islam is basically a castrated travesty led by a bunch a gaga sycophantic aksakals and Disney Sufis. Moreover, it is totally discredited among many Uzbeks for its association with the regime. Besides, there can be no ’state Islam’ just like there can not be an ‘Islamic state’.
“Akmal is correct in observing that most people in Uzbekistan don’t really know what Islam is. However, you must realize that it is due to the Soviet legacy.”
Yes, though I think the Soviet legacy is one part of the story. The other has been the systematic suppression/repression of anything Islamic by the kafir Karimov regime–not because it cares about ’secularism’, ‘European values’, ‘civilisation’ and what all (as they pretend, and as many of these UO Western diplomats believe).
But because they know very well that Islam would (and will) eventually become a new identity, a soucre of social action and social responsibility for the Uzbek people, entrepreneurs etc… And, thus, undermine the regime’s legitimacy and business empire.
On top of that, let’s face it: all ‘imported’ ‘alternatives’ –Soviet Communism, secular nationalism, liberal democracy– have totally failed in Uzb and the region.
“First, people in Uzbekistan must realize what Islam is. In Uzbekistan there are very few people who know what true Islam is. Majority of people just consider themselves as Muslim, but in reality they are not. You can see people drinking in cafes and pubs today,”
Yes Akmal, I know that. Yet one does not excludes the other. ‘Secularism’ is not a one-way process. I can bring yo to places in Turkey, Indonesia and to neighborhoods in European cities with many Muslims immigrants, where twenty years ago the situtaion was like that too. Yet today, more and more people there realise that there is no future in cafés, alcohol, etc. and started to live more and more Muslim.
OK, reg. drinking and dancing in cafés… How many Uzbeks or other CA Muslims are actually forced to do that by regime thugs? Many. It’s even that bad that people are being accused of being ‘Wahhabis’ if they do not drink or dance (and then harrassed, have their jobs or houses taken away or much worse). I have seen things like that happen myself.
on March 14th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Only Islam can save Uzbekistan? That doesn’t sounds like a recipe for a content and succesful society… and it sounds as silly to me as saying only Christianity can save some country. I mean, give me of an example of another successful theocracy today? The Taliban tried it and failed miserably, the Saudis say they are one but are both corrupt and oppressive, the Israelis are oppressive and brutal, non-secular Christian nations don’t exist anymore (save Vatican City).
I have no problem, from an intellectual standpoint, of having a society more in touch with their spirituality. But you seem to imply that all Uzbeks want to be more pious Muslims. Many don’t, some of my Muslim relatives included. I guess the point is that there’s a big difference between someone who chooses to be pious and person who must act or behave pious because of official or unofficial pressure.
Plus, you got to remember that there are both Jews, Christians and Shia Muslims in Uzbekistan, all of whom are citizens. Who’s to say that they want Sunni Islam being the guiding path to a better country?
on March 14th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
No-one is talking about turning Uzbekistan in a theocracy, Brian. Re-read above and previous comments. We are talking about identity and social cohesion.
“Plus, you got to remember that there are both Jews, Christians and Shia Muslims in Uzbekistan, all of whom are citizens.”
I don’t see why Shiites should be excluded but you’re probaly thinking about Iraq. That does not play here. Both Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Uzbekistan suffer under the Kafirov regime.
As for Jews and Christians: first, they’re not so numerous and dwindling (so why should the agenda be set in function of them in the first place); second, they are Ahl’-al-Kitap, people of the book. They are indeed citizens, they and their skills are welcome and there is a place and role for them in the new, post-Kafirov Uzbekistan PROVIDED they have not collaborated with the regime against the Muslims and that they are not stooges of neocon evangelist sects from the US and South Korea.
on March 14th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n02V5a3CLek&feature=related
on March 14th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
I guess I’m just confused on what your proposal is. But it just seems to me that focusing on religion is going about it backwards-like. That instead of focusing on real economic and political institutions that could help bring about a society that has the freedom and resources to get closer to their spiritual roots - at each persons own pace - you seem to be proposing that the society is going to get to a content place foremost by focusing on its spirituality. I just don’t think that’s going to work.
I also think it could be dangerous for Islam, depending on how far you’d wish to take it. For instance, if you have a revolution guided by Islam it could severely tarnish the faith. Revolutions are almost always messy, and more often than not people on both sides end up doing horrible things. Someone goes to far, get too zealous, and sometimes ends up killing a bunch of people that they shouldn’t have. Now if the revolution is guided by religion, then those horrible acts end up making the whole faith look bad.
I understand that many Central Asians are searching for and identity that was suppressed under Soviet and then Karimov rule, but also keep in mind that there’s much in their own cultural identity that they should be proud of - their extreme hospitality for one.
Lastly, I understand that drinking alcohol is haram (although great Sufi poets such as Omar Khayyam and Rumi discuss it, and alcohol was part of Central Asian culture even before the Soviets). However, a person who abstains from drinking alcohol when it is available has shown their devotion to their faith, while a person who cannot drink alcohol simply because it is unavailable or prohibited has shown nothing.
on March 19th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
“For instance, if you have a revolution guided by Islam it could severely tarnish the faith. Revolutions are almost always messy, and more often than not people on both sides end up doing horrible things. Someone goes to far, get too zealous, and sometimes ends up killing a bunch of people that they shouldn’t have. Now if the revolution is guided by religion, then those horrible acts end up making the whole faith look bad.”
Yes. This is why I was always opposed to an Islamic *state* but do advocate a *social Islam*.
The overthrow of the Karimovites will be violent. There will be fighting, lootings, score settlings. People will be killed. It will be something like Romania in late 1989. There is no way that they will go peacefully. The violence will have nothing to do with Islam or Wahhabi/Salafi agitation. First, objectively, justice must be done. There is no way that the Karimovites can get off scott-free for their crimes.
Second, among the Uzbek people there is too much cropped-up hatred and frustration which were not caused by Islam but by the regime and its external supporters. Third, the Karimovites (who are cowards when push comes to shove) will certainly use the “scorched-earth tactic”, shoot civilian demonstrators (as they already did in Andijan) or/and take civilians as human shields once they see that their end is near.
“However, a person who abstains from drinking alcohol when it is available has shown their devotion to their faith, while a person who cannot drink alcohol simply because it is unavailable or prohibited has shown nothing.”
That latter is true. Then what about people who are forced to drink (a common practice in Uzb and other parts of Turkestan) otherwise they are branded as ‘Wahhabis’ and what all? Have they shown their devotion to “secularism”.
Nawruz mobarak, btw! May the coming year insha’Allah bring the end of the dark Kafirov regime.
on March 23rd, 2008 at 11:53 am
That is absurd.
on March 23rd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
The reality in Uzbekistan?
Yes it is.
on March 23rd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Rakin:
There are several things which are absurd here:
1. Telling that the US is using Uzbek airbases is absurd.
2. “Only Islam can save Uzbekistan” is another absurd.
on March 23rd, 2008 at 9:23 pm
BTW:
If you are a true Muslim you should not celebrate Navroz because it is a pagan holiday.
Spelling advices: Navroz is spelled as Navro’z and transliterated as Navroz into English when talking about Uzbekistan, “Nawruz” is absolutely wrong and doesn’t reflect upon our phonetics. There is no soft “w” in Uzbek phonetics we use solid and clear “v”.
Uzbeks don’t say “insha’Allah”, Uzbeks say “Ishoolloh” or “Inshaalloh” and “kofir” not “kafir”.
on March 25th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
“If you are a true Muslim you should not celebrate Navroz because it is a pagan holiday.”
That depends on what you call a “true Muslim”. Nawruz is indeed haram in Wahhabism, Salafism and similar currents but these do not have the monopoly over Islam.
One of Hanafi Sunnism’s characteristics is, that pre-Islamic elements can be integrated in Islam if they support the propagation of Islam. In that respect, I find Nawruz to be much more meaningful than the Western/Soviet new year which is merely a technical/calendar day with no further meaning than a pretext for boozing and gluttony.
Nawruz is the beginning of spring, of new life in nature, Allah’s creation. Only too bad that it has been sanitised by kafir and munafiq regimes.
“Spelling advices: etc…”
Thanks for the advice but I use Nawruz anyway. It is not an exclusively Uzbek celebration and the name’s origins are Farsi (as you know naw=new, ruz=day) where the ’soft w’ definitely exists.
“insha’Allah”, “kafir” etc. are transscriptions from international Islamic parlance, whereas “inshoolloh”, “kofir”, “Islom”, “Alloh” are ‘ubekifications’ of it. Using them in comments that are not written in the Uzbek language is artifical, even ludicrous.