New articls

Emile Zola used to read newspapers that criticised him every morning. He joked that these sallies against him were like frogs which he had to swallow for breakfast. Since 1985 I have got used to reading all kinds of sallies against myself but the "frogs" of evil have never been viler than under Karimov the dictator. As a result, I now rarely read "articles" written about my personality.

Muhammad Salih, the leader of the opposition Erk party

Truly, the Internet has become a global pond full of frogs. Many shortsighted people publish their articles on the Internet, supplying their names, addresses and telephones. This means that these "authors" have no inferiority complex.

One of them has described me as a Crimean Tatar because I am a dissident and there are no dissidents among the Uzbeks. Muhammad Salih must be a Crimean Tatar, representing the people who have dissidents among themselves. This is the conclusion his logic could draw.

Another author said that the reason for Uzbek people falling victims to slavery (no more, no less!) is friendship between Muhammad Salih and Karimov the dictator in the late 1980s, when Salih sold himself for two flats. Or worse: the reason for this national tragedy is that Muhammad Salih is calling himself Muhammad Salih, refusing to use his own name and surname as they were written in his Soviet passport.

Do not say this is absurd, it is a fact.

Of course, the press-uz.info and centrasia.ru websites carry more "serious" sallies. Judging by the writing style, only two or three people are writing these articles, but they are so productive that it seems that there are dozens of them.

Consultant from the Committee for the National Salvation of Uzbekistan Davron Sharipov has collected a whole tome of sallies against my personality written by these websites.

Hackers from Russia and Israel attacked the Erk party's website last week. Attacks were so fierce that even system administrators of the website started to worry about their website's future. This shows that the Uzbek dictator's antiterrorist cooperation with his friends from Tel Aviv and Russia has reached its apogee.

Karimov the dictator (so many times!) has decided to disinfect Uzbekistan's information field against viruses of opposition ideas. That is why he has decided to stay in power for another seven years, and maybe beyond.

In 2002 when he was extending his dictatorial powers, he did not think of 2007 and even said that he would not stand for his post anymore.

He must have been so pessimistic about his future. Nevertheless, 2007 caught him being still alive, although he was not quite ready to continue to live. It was so symbolic that Karimov's desire to stand again was expressed by the dullest enterprise called "a party of liberal businessmen".

This "party's" statement sounded like the announcement of a funeral: "We nominate Islam Karimov as a candidate..."

All this is disgusting. It is disgusting to think that the Uzbek people will continue to tolerate the tyrant. They will have to continue to pronounce his name together with the name of our country.

It is disgusting to know in advance that in two months' time the dictator will smirk in front of journalists that the people have elected him.

Finally, it is disgusting to be a rival of such person.

Under Karimov's rule over the past 18 years, there has not been a matching rival that reached the status of the regime's enemy other than the Erk party.

Of course, even if it is disgusting your obedient servant remains Karimov's foe. I repeat over the past 18 years, there appeared no new pool of politicians that are capable (at least symbolically) of rivalling Islam Karimov – the old bureaucrat who turned into a new dictator of Central Asia.

This is the climate of totalitarianism which is favourable for nothing but the tree of a dictator.

Karimov's totalitarianism is an exaggerated version of the former Soviet regime. However, the Soviet regime had at least realised that excessive repressions might lead to a collapse of a management mechanism, which is why they allowed some liberties to let off steam.

Karimov is now lacking imagination to allow such liberalism in his country. He can understand only the language of force and worship only force. His swinging from Washington to Moscow then to Beijing clearly shows the influence of great powers in the region.

Karimov does not have principles in not only foreign politics, but also domestic politics.

I remember the election campaign involving Islam Karimov and myself – people with diametrically opposed biographies. Karimov pledged the people in the Fergana valley several days before the election that he would not oppose the establishment of an Islamic state in the country if the people wished it. This promise was made at Namangan's Central Mosque.

Less than six months later, Karimov supported the Yanayev putsch in August 1991 and became no less nationalist than Muhammad Salih, whom he accused of nationalism a little earlier.

Usually, a person without principles is like a person without morals. In his fight against the opposition, Karimov employs all possible methods. He holds women, elderly people and even children hostage to break the spirit of disobedient opposition members.

Two my brothers have been sentenced to 15 years each and are serving their prison terms only because they are my brothers. My friend Mamadali Mahmud was also imprisoned only because he was my friend and did not agree to smear me.

I wanted to marry my son to a girl from Uzbekistan, but they seized her passport and banned her from leaving the country.

Not only she but none of my relatives either can go abroad – all of them have stamps in their passports banning them from travelling abroad.

I have recently been provided with "facts about the adventures and machinations of the dictator's daughters" so I could "revenge" on Karimov by writing about his family. However, I turned down this proposal, because I do not want to lower myself to the dictator's level; because I believe that it is immoral to wash dirty linen in public even if this linen belongs to my enemy.

Uzbekistan has never had a leader who is more unprincipled and immoral than Islam Karimov.

All his entourage is made up of people like him.

They say that his prime minister beats up his subordinates and swears them, as Karimov does.

Imam Gazzali compared a ruler to water flowing from mountains: if clean water flows from mountains, a dirty river in a valley can finally become clean too, but if water flowing from mountains is dirty, it will make the river dirty too. Dirty water has been flowing from the top in Uzbekistan for 18 years now.

All mud of the political, social and economic life of the country is coming from there.

Unfortunately, no-one can stop this flow now.

Moreover, plumbers from Beijing and Moscow want to fix the tap of this dirty source on 23 December 2007.

None of them realises that no-one needs this tap, except frogs.

Editor's note: Muhammad Salih is the chairman of the Erk democratic party of Uzbekistan

The campaign against the democratization of the former Soviet Union is now running at full speed. It was first launched in Russian press, and then later it was taken up by Russia’s new vassals, such as Uzbekistan. There were very few Russian newspapers which were at first took a relatively objective approach, but now even those are running articles that try to discredit the leaders of so called “Orange Revolutions.”

Criticism of the Orange Revolutions means criticism of the West and its values, first and foremost democracy. In this way, the new anti-Western campaign is reminiscent of the Cold War.

Karimov’s supporters criticize the West in a rather primitive way, saying, “Look at these so-called democrats, see what chaos and degradation they have brought into their countries. Be careful not to trust Soros, Freedom House, etc. Their slogans about freedom and democracy are just empty words. All they want is to get access to our natural resources.” They are saying this as if Uzbekistan's new allies are not also thinking about energy resources.

Unfortunately, some Western journalists are joining the league of Communist propaganda. They are doing this just for the sake of being different, or perhaps because they don’t know the true nature of these Stalinist regimes. The most intelligent of those types point out the slow speed of reforms and lack of positive results from the policies of the new leaders of Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. They are criticizing these leaders only becausee they have not yet delivered something that the previous leadersships did not manage to do over the course of the last 15 years.

This is happening amidst a total indifference of the West to the problems of Central Asia. I cannot find any other word rather then indifference. The government of Germany showed indifference when they let the person chiefly responsible for the Andijan massacre, Uzbekistan's former Minister of Interior Zahid Almatov to leave their country instead of arresting him. This indifference is shown by the European Parliament, which concentrates its efforts on moderate dictator Lukashenka; when it comes to Uzbekistan, it limits itself only to preventing travel to the EU for the the Uzbek officials responsible for the deaths of more then a thousand people in Andijan. The United Nations also could have been more proactive and responsive to the continuous repressions in Uzbekistan. Unfortunately, the US, which has proclaimed its support for “democracy all over the world” still has not said their final word about the dictator Karimov, and they have announced no new policy towards him and his regime.

Such a reaction of the international community creates skepticism among the readers, however, it is not relevant to those who know real situation in post-Andijan Uzbekistan. Uzbek people openly express their protest inside Uzbekistan. One of the main indicators of such protests occurs when the police are closing roads for the dictator Karimov to drives between work and home: People are openly threatening the policemen and special troops who guard the roads.

Karimov's fear has grown to enormous proportions. He is so scared that he has even issued a decree which bans all meetings between private persons. If two people are talking, especially in the center of the city, the police approach them and asks them to disperse. At the same time, policemen apologize for their actions, because they understand that these actions are absurd. This had never happened before Andijan. Before Andijan, the people of Uzbekistan didn’t dare to express their frustration and opposition to the regime. Before Andijan, it was not possible to find a policeman who would apologize for the absurd orders of his bosses. Most probably, their behaviour has been changed by the case of Almatov, who had to escape from Europe to avoid arrest for his responsibility in ordering the killing of the people of Andijan. A feeling of possible punishment is a good cure for criminalit.

The West must begin to realize this peculiar character of officials of totalitarian states. Understanding this will help Western governments to adopt the right decisions in its policy towards Central Asian states.

Do not believe those who say that sanctions don’t affect the dictator Karimov. Do not believe those fairy tales about Karimov’s hesitation to order the shooting of hundreds of peaceful demonstrators. He did so without hesitation, driven by his fear.

I would like to ask the governments of the Western countries: Were you not the strategic partners of Uzbekistan? Didn’t you have your military bases there and close your eyes to his behaviour? What stops you from judging him how? Are there any other reasons to close your eyes on the repressions carried out by the butcher of Andijan?

If the West used its leverage to stand up against the dictators of Central Asia, they would have died from fear a long time ago.

For example, Karimov still believes that Andijan uprising was set up by the Americans, that the opposition is funded by George Soros, that Islamic fundamentalists from Uzbekistan have been given refuge in the UK, and that if there were a coup in Tashkent, that it could only be organized by those actors. Nobody can persuade him otherwise.

If the Andijan uprising had really been organized by the US, then Karimov would not have been able to suppress it. If Soros had been funding the opposition, it would have emerged as a significant player in the Internal politics of Uzbekistan. If the UK were giving refuge to Islamic fundamentalists, Uzbek prisons wouldn’t be full of thousands of innocent believers.

The fact is that the involvement of the West was much smaller then has been perceived. It is not only fear whichh makes people exaggerate things: hope has the same effect. The democratically inclined part of the Uzbek population was far too optimistic and hopeful about the impact of the increasing Western presence in the region before Andijan.

What the West could do to support democracy in Central Asia? It could simply live up to its image -- an image which is so feared by the Central Asian dictators.

CULTURES DON’T CLASH. WHAT MAKES THEN CLAHS IS THE LACK OF CULTURE

Muhammed SALIH

Bloody 9/11 resurrected famous saying by R. Kipling: “East is East and West is West”. After the terrorist attacks on twin towers in New York, the events are virtually competing to prove or discard Kipling’s saying.

As if it was listening to Kipling, the whole world became divided into two parts. Statement of the Italian Prime-Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, that Christian morality is much better then eastern and comparison by President Bush of his mission with the mission of crusaders, showed that the divide, which was shown by Kipling, is becoming more obvious. However, speedy involvement of the US into military alliance with the tyrannical regimes of Central Asia seemed to become a beginning of the Western expansion to the East. It is to say that provoked by the global terror, two civilizations moved towards each other, starting at the same time. As if, so “Dead History”, told by Francis Fukuyama suddenly animated.

We, representatives of the East, fighting for democracy in Central Asia for many years, have always supported close cooperation with the West. Therefore, the agreement between Uzbekistan and the US on strategic partnership, has raised our hopes that dictatorial regime will soften under the influence of this alliance, as opposed to the tightening of the regime under the umbrella of this alliance. We openly declared, that at this stage of history, the presence of American military contingents of such democratic countries as the US and Germany serves our national interests. However, our hopes were not realized. Instead, our worst fears came true: the regime has used this alliance to strengthen the legitimacy of its internal policy. Naturally, when we ere offered a choice between democracy and presence of the alliance, we chose democracy. Democracy bears more importance for our national interests then military presence of the West and its economic help. Only democracy can provide long term stability in our region, which cannot be achieved neither via economic doping from outside nor by military cooperation with the Western countries. Democracy serves not only our national interests, but also in the interests of the West, which wants to have influence in our region.

Unfortunately, the main reason of West moving to the East was the fight against Taliban in Afghanistan, rather the strategic vision of the region. It is obvious, that active democratization of Central Asian can provide the West with long term and stable cooperation with Central Asian countries. I am sure hat the West can find its place in the region, something what Russia and China are trying to do now. West had a lots of opportunities to do so. People of Central Asia had positive attitude to the Western presence in the region. For them West symbolized free society, which didn’t have totalitarian history and more importantly, didn’t threaten with expansion to this newly independent states.

Some say that the West has lot this opportunity after the President of Uzbekistan has kicked out an American military base from Khanabad. I believe that the US didn’t loose anything, because they never achieved anything.

Yes, the position of the West became considerably weak in this region. But, again, it happened not because, the West was very strict to Karimov, rather because it wasn’t strict enough.

West made a mistake by putting stakes on dictator rather then on democracy. Now, the same mistake, in rather superficial shape is being repeated by Russia and China. They wholeheartedly support dictatorship, without living a single chance to democracy. I think that the end of chino-Russian presence in Central Asia will be more sorrow occasion for these states, rather the then end of an American base in Khanabad.

I believe in the fruitful coexistence of East and West. I don’t believe in the popular theory of Samuel Huntington about clash of civilizations.

I believe that cultures don’t clash. The lack of cultures makes them clash. We don’t see the West as a Wailing Wall, rather we come to the West as to a political partner with whom we share common values. We fight for human rights and democracy, which are the ideological basis of the Western states. Therefore, support of the democratic aspirations of the Central Asian states should mean for the West defense of their own principles.

Central Asian Project of the West could become not only geostrategic project, rather the Project of Civilization.

2006

DEMOCRACY OR ABYSS

It is with sadness to see some distinguished experts from the Hudson Institute in DC to drive and favour an attempt to reach out to President Karimov of Uzbekistan for purely strategic reasons. Such attempts to revive ties with the Uzbek dictator will discredit US’s policy of furthering democracy and utterly contradict President Bush’s speech at the last State of the Union address. There can be no room for misunderstanding, if the US administration decides to take baby steps to gain traction with a dictator whose hands have innocent Uzbek civilian blood, then we will see a tectonic shift of political plates in the US of the very meaning of democracy. To continue and or to revive a failed policy in Uzbekistan with Karimov will give some food for thought for the agents of destability in the region, as they will see that when the US is talking about democracy and its universal values, it actually means selective democracy, i.e. democracy for some but definitely not for all. This in turn will magnify US’s weakness rather than its strength. Baby steps in Uzbekistan will set a unprecedented benchmark for other dictators to follow suit in other regions of the world. Corner the US and it shall come back to you with more goodies than before….Such an attempt would be fatal for the overall credibility of the US as the bastion and guardian of global democracy and cause irrevocable damage to the very principals and supporting columns of democracy . Experts, academics, analysts, policy makers and politicians need to think twice before contemplating a rapproachment with President Karimov, as the US will have more to lose than gain in the eyes of the common man and woman and ultimately cause a catastrophic loss of international influence and degradation of its image. There is much work to be done in Uzbekistan and in the region together with our partners in free nations, the US, EU and others but democracy cannot succeed if US foreign policy is fragile and carries through with the destabilising dangerous mode of selective democracy.

Uzbek governments appalling human rights record, coupled with a ever-decaying economy, a product of complete mismanagement by the Karimov regime, and utter disregard by President Karimov for regional stability and good relations through commerce and trade with its neighbours will, we hope, put an element of rationality and common sense to some of the experts in Washington DC.

We applaud Sen. John McCain’s work, vision, position and support for the Uzbek people and strongly suggest other distinguished figures in politics, analysts and policy makers follow suit and take Sen. McCain as an example. We also warmly welcome the British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s position re Karimov and Andijan massacre and would further wish to see concrete steps from the British government. As the opposition we are grateful to the British Parliament and their interest and good work towards achieving a firm understanding of Central Asia and its problems, lead by the All Party Human Rights Group and the All Party Central Asia Group and thus wish to see their important work continue and gather pace and momentum.

We are happy to see and hear the glimmer of hope in the US by the exampalery standing of the US State Dept. and the comments from Mr. Richard Boucher, assistant sec. of state for South and Central Asia. The State Dept. has maintained its positions that Uzbek special forces controlled by Karimov killed “hundreds” of unarmed civilians.

It should not be forgotten that Russia’s objective was to ensure that Uzbekistan would not let its territory be a transit route for a planned gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to China. There is so much more than meets the eye in Central Asia, therefore we the Opposition and the West must embrace facts and work together to build a better future for the 27 million in Uzbekistan. Is it not the time to stop believing in the scare-mongering of Karimov re Islamists, is it not the time to push forward with a real election, where registered opposition parties could participate and canvass the public on an equal footing with the ruling regime. Is it not the time to ask for a free and fair election and let the people choose their leader and free them from repressive oppression. Is it not the time in realising who Karimov is and what he stands? Is it not the time for a peaceful change?

Is it not the time to stop misinforming each other and face the grinding realities in the ground? It is bewildering and rather bizarre to see a respected conservative think-tank such as The Hudson Institute, airing a video prepared by the Karimov government that sets out its untrue/censored version of what happened in Andijan. This propaganda is nothing short of a fiasco on part of The Hudson Institute. Such acts of misinformation inevitably leads to shallow planning and politiking which ends up in waste bin of failed policies.

It is wholly unappropriate and wrong of one to use the word ‘event’ when Andijan comes to mind, because it was no event, it was a massacre on a large scale. If the honourable academic Prof. Fred Starr of John Hopkins University is adamant about the innocence of dictatorial President Karimov, then would he care to answer the following questions on behalf of Karimov;

Why were the main gates of the Prison open?
Why wasn’t the Prison guarded and secure?
Where were the Prison guards and officers?
Why were the cell doors unlocked?
Why and who placed the weapons in the Prison hall?
Who gave the order for junior ranked prison officers to vacate their position?
Why is Karimov against allowing independent international investigation to take place in Uzbekistan re Andijan massacre, if Karimov has nothing to hide? Why has Karimov kicked out foreign media, NGOs?

It further puts into context and question the very motives of short-sighted and ill-informed analysts in DC, when their pro-Karimov argument and view point is completely shattered by President Karimov’s speech last week while meeting with President Putin in Black Sea coastal city of Sochi. The dictatorial President Karimov clearly indicated and said “My preference is for a friendly acquisition by Russia instead of a hostile takeover by the US”. This sentence by Karimov is open and does not require interpretation, Karimov sees the installation of democracy as a hostile take-over. Enough said.

I call upon all friends of democracy and freedom to hear our cry for a free and fair election where our coalition of Uzbek opposition is allowed to participate in the next Presidential election. There is a alternative and that is democracy, the West should stop believing in Karimov lies and the phantom options he presents, i.e. its either (Karimov) or the Islamic radicals.

It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that there is no alternative, ones who say this are the ones who cannot state and see the obvious need for a peaceful change. Uzbekistan is a time-bomb waiting to explode, while the West talks the talk but does not walk the walk. West must stop and words of support must translate into action;

The failure to punish Karimov discredits the West and provides ammunition to enemies of democracy.

Anyone defending revived ties with Karimov, should honour and remember the fallen civilians and soldiers of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and all in the name of furthering democracy for a region in need of freedom. Those who wish to take steps forward with Karimov should know that there is a heavy burden of being a new portrait in the hall of shame.

Mohammed Salih
23rd May 2006

Muhammed Salih’s speech in the European parliament

(May 11 2006, Brusseles)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As they say, if there is no evil, then there is good.

Though the Andijan genocide organised by Karimov’s regime in Andijan was the harshest lesson for us, it united all the streams of the people of Uzbekistan in thinking that it this regime is impossible to reform.

The people and opposition in Uzbekistan are now ready to act for one purpose – to free Uzbekistan from the totalitarian regime, which is the main indicator of radicalization, a source of regional conflicts and economic crisis. I am here to express hopes and aspirations of my people and to announce that we are ready to open a new era – the era of democracy.

As the whole civilized world, the people of Uzbekistan want to take part in free and fair elections in order to elect their leaders freely, to rule their state and to ensure the economic stability and prosperity.

We are sure that nothing, but only democracy can provide stability in our country and only civil freedoms and a liberal economy can stimulate the progress in the country.

We are sure that dictators like Karimov make our world more unstable and the people’s free wish could secure from such threat. The people of Uzbekistan have not voted in democratic elections for many years. The Uzbek president is afraid of free elections more than a coup de tat and revolts, because he knows how the regime is hated by the people.

According to the Constitution of Uzbekstan, the presidential elections are due to take place at the end of 2007.

I ask You all to raise your voice against Karimov’s obstacle to free elections and to free the will of the nation chains.

I ask You all to demand the president of Uzbekistan not to obstruct the return of opposition activists to the country and promote their participation in contending the leadership.

Let every candidate see what he or she or their opponents really mean for the electorate. And let the people see what they can do during the free elections. I am sure that all sides, except the enemies of freedom, will benefit from this opportunity.

After the Andijan massacre the West has no reason to turn a blind eye on the so called naughty deals of the Uzbek dictator. The world community must condemn the Andijan genocide and take real measures against Karimov, so he cannot continue his evil acts against his own people.

Now, with the support of China and Russia the Uzbek president stepped up repressions against dissidents and moderate believers. As a new vassal of his patrons Karimov is challenging the West and the Uzbek people are suffering suffering even more from his avanturism.

We call on the governments of Russia and China not to support the Uzbek tyrant. Our good relationship should not be sacrificed for the sake of opportunistic aims and temporary economic benefits as the tyrant is not eternal, but the people are. The regional leaders should understand that the best neighbour is the one well fed and free.

Karimov’s regime turned Uzbekistan into the country of desperate and radical people. To support such regime equals to the support of the instability and permanent threat of radicalism in the region.

Revolutions which took place in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan give an enormous moral support for the supporters of democracy in Central Asia. We perceive these revolutions first of all as a good way of peaceful change of the political regime.

Of course, this method is not perfect, but it would be naïve to expect perfect harmony from such global events. Unfortunately, these historic events have recently been targeted by ideologists of authoritarian regimes who did not wish to see democracy in the former Soviet countries.

It’s clear that every step forward cannot be called just as a positive or negative. The path of radical reforms is difficult, but not a chaos as the supporters of status quo are trying to show it.

I sincerely believe that revolutions will continue in our regions. Tyrants can oppress us, even take our lives, but they are not able take our wishes and aspirations for freedom away. This wish and this aspiration are the most powerful weapons against tyrants and we believe in our final victory over evil.

I would like to tell you that two political parties and 57 NGOs have recently put forward my candidacy to the next presidential elections of 2007. No doubt, there will be other candidates from other independent groups as well. That would be wonderful. The participation of opposition in elections is so important that it would be enough to change the situation in Uzbekistan to the better. Free elections in Uzbekistan is so important that if the West could help the Uzbek opposition to take part in the elections, we would say the West has accomplished all it can in its democratic mission in our region. We in Asia are struggling for the same values as you and your ancestors in Europe struggled in the past. In this struggle we hope for your active support.

Leader of Democratic ERK Party of Uzbekistan

Mohammed Salih

Exclusive interview of Muhammad Solikh to Arena: “Serious work with Karimov’s regime starts, watch the developments”

27.04.2006

Muhammad Solikh Muhammad Solikh, famous Uzbek opposition figure, who in early 1990s created Birlik movement and Erk party, lost presidential elections to Islam Karimov and was forced to leave Uzbekistan in 1993, gave an exclusive interview to Arena.

Arena: The experience of the past years has shown that the power, concentrated in the hands of one person, inevitably leads to a regime of open despotism. In this regard, what is your view on the need to abolish the presidential republic and establish a parliamentary republic in Uzbekistan?

Solikh: Our first task is to abolish the anti-people regime of Islam Karimjv, then hold free elections, where the people will elect their president according to the existing constitution, and only then the issue of changing the form of state management can be discussed and put to a referendum. At the current stage, it is too early and unrealistic to talk about the parliamentary republic in Uzbekistan.

Arena: The language issues are not brought up in Uzbekistan, although it is one of the most problematic ones. What do you think about giving the Russian language the official status? And the Tajik language, since there is a large Tajik community, which is virtually deprived of its cultural and national rights? Do you think it is sensible to give these languages an official status, and then ask for the same from the neighbors – in terms of the Uzbek language?

Solikh: I don’t quite understand what you mean by the fact of deprival of rights of ethnic communities. So far, I am concerned with violations of elementary human rights in Uzbekistan, independent of the nationality.

As for the status of the languages, I have a firm opinion on this. There are about 7% Russian-speaking and 4.5% Tajik-speaking people in Uzbekistan. All of them communicate perfectly well in Russian, both in their day-to-day and public lives. All of them speak Russian and can be easily understood by others. Before giving an official status to Russian or Tajik languages, the problem of Uzbek language as a state language should be solved. Does this language fulfill the function imposed onto it by the constitution? I don’t think so.

The law on state language, if I am not mistaken, was adopted in October 1989. According to that document, the term to learn the state language was set at eight years. This means that in eight-years’ time all officials in the state structures should know the state language. Seventeen years have passed, but all members of the Karimov’s government continue speaking Russian, as they used to. President Karimov himself, if he speaks Uzbek, makes one want to close ears with hands, his speech is so illiterate. The documents in Tashkent are run in Russian, officials make their speeches in Russian, they speak Russian at home and in the street. That is, Russian is virtually an official language in the country. At least on the top, in the capital city. By this, I mean that I don’t see any language discrimination of the ethnic groups.

Arena: What can you say to people accusing you of nationalism? In late 1980s and early 1990s, national slogans could be heard at Birlik meetings, and city educational department telephoned schools and warned teachers and parents of European nationalities so that they did not let children go out in the street alone. Some circles in Uzbekistan believe that this was an “achievement” of Muhammad Solikh, Abdurakhim Polat and others.

Solikh: This impression was created by the KGB, in order to sow antipathy to the policy of glasnost and perestroika in the society. Neither me, nor Polat, nor others called for actions against representatives of other nationalities. Neither then, nor after the independence was proclaimed. If there were separate cases of provocative actions, they were clearly inspired by the secret services, and I have always warned my associates about this, personally and publicly. Only separate individuals and organizations, interested in creating enmity to the opposition, can blame the Uzbek opposition in double nationalism. We stood against demonstration of chauvinism in relation to our native language and we tried to defend the national values, and this was our right.

Muhammad Solikh That was how I defended then. If Russians were not proud that they are Russian and didn’t speak about this everywhere, I would have forgotten that I am Uzbek long ago. Any national self-consciousness is based on an opposite factor, which stimulates and nurtures it. Our then nationalism was driven off the Russian chauvinism. This was our instinct of self-preservation, nothing more. One should not mix nationalism with racism. Racism is based on humiliation of other races, while nationalism is a reaction against racism and chauvinism. The nationalism may be positive only on the stage when the nation has to be preserved, not more than that.

For example, today Uzbeks don’t need nationalism, because there is no threat of assimilation with a larger nation, neither in cultural or demographic sense. This is why we, the politicians and idealists of the Gorbachev’s epoch, despise plebeian nationalism of Karimov’s regime, which tries to stand up at the expense of humiliation of its own compatriots, or neo-aborigines.

This issue is very important, and this is why I would like to cite a small paragraph from my address to the fifth congress of Erk party, which took place in 2003. “In the cities and regions of the country, most of our compatriots attribute themselves to the national minority (I don’t like this term, ‘national minority’). They should not be left aside of our party’s policy. They are our compatriots, who share our fate. Yes, during perestroika we put forward our national identity. This was needed to assert ourselves against the communist chauvinism. Now, when we say ‘people’ or ‘nation’, we mean our citizen, living in our country and considering this land their motherland, regardless of nationality. We categorically reject racism and chauvinism, no matter where it originates from.”

Arena: Who do you think Uzbekistan should support partner relations in the economic and political sense – liberal west, Islamic states or good old ally Russia?

Solikh: Of course, in the first place, with our closest neighbors – Central Asian states, Russia, China, Afghanistan. Then with all states that want to see our contry a democratic and economically developed states, EU states and the US. Surely, we have to strengthen ties with states calling themselves Islamic.

Arena: How do you evaluate rapprochement of Uzbekistan with Russia and almost full break of relations with the US?

Muhammad Solikh Solikh: I would sincerely welcome rapprochement of Uzbekistan and Russia, if this rapprochement did not take place on the bloody background of Andijan genocide, if this rapprochement did not take place at the expense of further distance from democratic reforms, if it did not assist increased crackdown of Karimov’s despotism. Some apologists of the Russian foreign policy are trying to portray Putin as a savior of Central Asia. But I don’t think such metaphor is appropriate, since Putin saved a hangman of its own people.

Break of relations with the US was inevitable, because their continuation after Andijan would mean denial by the Americans of their own principles. Presence of Americans, even military one, had a positive influence on our society. We had to choose between the honor of democracy and the US presence. We chose the honor of democracy. To the US’s honor, they also chose it. We lost it in the close perspective – the repressions strengthened, but we won in the long run – we didn’t betray our principles, and this increased the people’s trust in our fight.

Arena: Can you give a forecast of the forthcoming presidential elections in January 2007? Will Karimov remain in power? If not, who is the possible candidate to the president’s post?

Solikh: I don’t like forecasts, but our party is preparing to participate in the presidential elections of 2007 in all directions. Firstly, we are expecting to receive a legal evaluation of the verdict of the Uzbek court against me (1999) from the United Nations Committee for Human Rights. This will give me an international legitimacy to return to Uzbekistan, irrespective of whether Karimov’s regime accepts the UN decision or not.

Secondly, finally influential western political figures (not to say states) started showing interest to our region, in the search of a new Central Asian policy. Finally, our people have overcome the fear that had in the past helped to make the life of Karimov’s regime longer. What’s left now is to organize a protest energy of masses, in order to direct it into peaceful change of these authorities.

Arena: Do you link long-term imprisonment of the leader of opposition Sunshine Uzbekistan coalition Sanjar Umarov with the fact that he could become a competitor to the current president on the coming elections?

Solikh: Today, any smart person can become a competitor to Karimov and win the democratic elections – so much people hate the current president. Knowing this truth, Karimov will never allow free elections, until he is alive. Free elections for Uzbek president are equal to state turnover or popular uprising. Because once he saw a shadow of this freedom. Not the freedom itself, but its shadow, when he, following the fashion of the early 1990s, made a mistake by letting an oppositionist to participate in presidential elections.

Elections of 1991 for Karimov were a shock, and he still has not recovered from it. He then saw himself in the mirror of people’s will and shivered from fear – the reflections was so terrible, people turned away from him. The witnesses of presidential elections and then officials are still alive, and they can tell how they burnt bulletins of those who voted for me until the very morning in the regions of the country, and filled in the new bulletins for Karimov. Claims of opposition critics that Muhammad Solikh has not been in Uzbekistan for 13 years and people started forgetting him, etc. are not serious. Give me an open tribune in Tashkent for 13 minutes and I will become similarly possible in Uzbekistan, like I was 13 years ago. Karimov has isolated the country from the fear of losing power.

Karimov is afraid of anybody who even theoretically can compete with him. Sanjar Umarov was one of the many who the Uzbek president was systematically afraid of. I consider the verdict to Umarov similarly politically motivated, like hundreds of other verdicts announced by the Uzbek courts against the representatives of opposition in the past 15 years.

Arena: You said you intended to participate in the elections of the president of Uzbekistan in 2007. Do you know that the Uzbek laws prohibit registration of candidates to president of persons who have not lived on the territory of the country for the past 10 years?

Solikh: Issuing such a dictatorial law shows the level of fear of Karimov towards us. However, as people say, the fear will not prevent death, if it has already come. I think the death of Karimov’s regime is near and now Karimov laws will save it. Laws have no meaning for Karimov. So why should laws issued with the single purpose to prevent us from elections mean to us? If there were no prohibiting laws, would Karimov allow us to participate in elections? Poor Sanjar Umarov, he just softly criticized Karmov’s surrounding, never touching the dictator himself. Has this tactic helped him become a legal oppositionist? We intend to come to Uzbekistan, and Karimov should prepare to meet us. And the winner will be the one that the Almighty wants.

Arena: Do you count on the help of some foreign democratic institutes in implementing your goal?

Solikh: Yes, the west can support the Uzbek democracy in concrete ways. For example, the west may increase political pressure on the regime through the UN, OSCE, European parliament, NGOs and mass media. The US and the EU may demand from Uzbekistan to legalize democratic opposition parties of the country.

They may introduce political sanctions against the current regime, like debarring from voting in international organizations, limiting participation of government officials in events of international organizations, freezing bank accounts of Karimov, his daughters and close ones, etc.

Further. They can work with the government of neighboring states and Russia, organize forums to discuss problems of Uzbekistan and Central Asia, including reforms of market economy and democracy, limit financial aid to Uzbek public sector projects, simultaneously increasing support to private sector, etc.

Arena: Do you have concrete proposals for foreign and internal policy and economic development of the country? What would you tell people of Uzbekistan, if allowed to participate in the election campaign?

Solikh: Our top priority will be to provide the population with acceptable living standard in a very short term. On the first stage, it at least has to be comparable to the living level of Russia. For this, we have to solve a complex of interrelated priority tasks. These are introducing principles of market economy everywhere they are needed, reforming the agriculture and getting rid of the soviet system of kolkhozs, privatize land, create a center of investments to support small and medium business, and conduct an open energy policy developing the most needed oil and gas sectors.

We have to increase foreign direct investments and widen the flow of invested technologies, establish free trade relations in the region and conduct an open border trade, speed up convertibility of Uzbek national currency and close gaps created by shadow economy.

Bar the state control agency from the private sector and trade. Build a strong system of social protection, enter the WTO, reform the Development and Stabilization Fund, hold the tax reform, stimulate private trade and foreign investments.

We have to close holes in the budget and abandon the policy helping the shadow economy to dominate. Organize wide fight against corruption on all levels of the state, and create new legislation on this. We plan adopting a new social policy, based on rules of market economy. An efficient pension reform is needed to ensure target social support of the most vulnerable layers of the population.

All secular democratic political groups have to be rehabilitated, so that they could participate in the political process in the country. We have to ensure fundamental freedoms: of the speech, thought, assembly and demonstrations. We have to eliminate censorship in the media and reform the court system. Private sector, investments and FDI all depend on the correctly functioning legal system, which should comply with international laws.

We have to establish close partnership with neighboring Central Asian states, in order to jointly fight terrorism, religious extremism, drug traffic and organized crime. We have to participate in all processes in the region in close cooperation with Central Asian states, strengthen cooperation with the US, EU, Russia and China, increase trade volumes, transport links, energy routes and supplies, communications, etc. We have to participate in fighting terrorism, religious extremism and drug trade.

Erosion of social trust to state structures, if urgent measures are not taken, is one of the largest threats that Uzbekistan currently faces.

Arena: You are a political emigrant. What layers of the population, in your view, will support you? How strong is Erk party in Uzbekistan, what can it do?

Muhammad Solikh and Atanazar Arifov Solikh: We count on support of all layers of population because our party’s program has from the early beginning aimed at solving all problems on the national level in the political, economic and social spheres. The latest version of our political project is reflected in the short program of the Committee of National Recovery of Uzbekistan, which has been posted on our websites. But the problem is not about the program, which can be rewritten every month. President Karimov never had a program and still has none.

The problem of the Uzbek politicians has always been the same – absence of political will, fear to reform the old system, inability to keep one’s word, greediness, lie and lack of fidelity to principles. Erk party’s policy has always been opposite to this heritage of communist spirit, and this is why we are so sure about ourselves. The people, Inshallah, will support us because it knows that we will keep our word, we have a political will and courage in adopting needed decisions to develop our country.

In 1999, Muslims of Namangan (wahhabis, as they were called) promised voting for me at the presidential elections, if I agree to create a caliphate. I refused. Then they voted for Karimov because he told them: “If the people want to build a caliphate, how can I be against it?” I heard the recording of this case, Muslim jamaats have it. Such deliberate lie is a constant companion of the present regime. We have a problem, which is lack of means of communication with masses or electorate. But we are coming to solving this problems, which means we are starting serious work with Karimov’s regime. So watch the development of events.

Arena: Do you believe that to achieve democracy all means should be used, including armed revolt? Or will you continue waiting until you are invited in the country to head it?

Solikh: No, I don’t follow communists’ principles and will never kill people even for democracy. On the other hand, I am not going to sit and wait, I will fight will all strength against the anti-people regime. My main dream is not to become a president, but to see my people free from the yoke, no matter where it originates from. I wrote my first political manifesto in January 1985, protesting against cultural discrimination of the metropolis, the yoke of Moscow. I did’t write it because I wanted to be a president. I wrote it because I didn’t want to see my people humiliated. Now I am writing against our “own” “independent” dictator because I don’t want my people to continue being humiliated under the mask of independence.

That is, my main task as a policy has not changed over the past 20 years. I am sure that the regime of Karimov will be overthrown, and Allah will reward all martyrs of the regime and those who supported the oppressed.

Interviewed by Inera Safargaliyeva

http://www.freeuz.org/eng/analysis/?id1=1077

Extremism & Radicalism comes from places where laws and rights are violated. Lack of justice is more easily manipulated in situations of poverty and economic collapse as is the present case in Uzbekistan. The biggest threats to to Central Asia, defined by Central Asians themselves, are unemployment, low living standards, corruption and oppression.

If embryonic radicalism has indigenous potentail in Central Asia, it is to be found in a lack of JUSTICE that is characterised by poor, unresponsive and oppressive regimes like Karimov's Uzbekistan, economic dysfunction, social dislocation and a strong disappointment with dictatorial interpretation of democracy. Central Asians want real democracy that gives them the power to hold politicians accountable....This wish for real democracy is not just a need but

has become a urgent requirement, that is if we are serious about curbing radicalism.

The West has a huge opportunity to keep Central Asians (Uzbeks) on its side if it provides REAL backing for the building of democratic societies. Identifying with that goal would be the most effective way of building long term positive relations with the peoples of Central Asia.

Large majorities in Uzbekistan want and prefer a democratic secular system but we have to take into account that small minorities have emerged who are radically opposed to secular polities and seek an Islamic state, i.e. Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. Currently, we have the luxury of time to understand and change, after years of Western ignorance where one cannot have strategical alliances with dictatorial and oppressive regimes, but time is running out. Whatever the West does time will tell but it needs to decide and decide soon.

General anti-westernism is very low in Uzbekistan and around Central Asia but Western attitudes of looking the other way while Uzbeks suffer under Karimov fuels the ideas of those who believe that Western policies are aimed at supporting the corrupt cadres of Karimov and Karimov himself.

We also feel compelled to call for common sense and understanding from all who are involved in the present problem over the cartoon lampooning Prophet Hz. Mohammed. We firmly believe a true believer, whether Muslim, Jew, Christian or other is one who protests desecrations of all faiths. Those who do not are not civilised, modern and mature human beings but rather hypocrites. We should protest not only against the distasteful and disrespectful cartoon of Prophet Mohammed but also against pictures of Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung and TV series’s (Egyptian TV series ‘the protocols of the elders of zion’) showing rabbis slaughtering a gentile boy to ritually consume his blood. Such acts of so-called entertainment, satire or art is immature and tasteless and ends up stiring more trouble than they are worth.

President Bush's call for furthering freedom's cause and a stronger commitment to democracy should be fully embraced, despite Hamas's election victory. The current rush to condemnation is unfounded, ill-informed and nonsensical. Regardless of certain short comings and misplaced and illogical questions whether democracy is suited for the Islamic world, we should not abandon President Bush's push for democracy because radicals draw temporary advantage from it. We need to examine the very causes that provide radicals the platforms to advance under a democratic pretext. Absence of thorough analysis shall lead us all to dark avenues. It ignores the collapse in confidence and authority in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip before the elections due to rampant corruption that surrounded Fatah party. If we ignore facts and reasons, required to reach a well-informed decision, the end result may be even more terrible than we could contemplate. Action without thinking can have unwanted consequences and thinking without action is worthless in today’s complex political spectrum.

To oppose Bush administartions call for greater transparency and democracy is to invest in an untenable status quo of authoritarian and dictatorial regimes which breeds oppression, corruption, economic disinfranchisement and therefore raises the chances of the Radicals assuming power and ruling not by democracy but by violence and oppression, using religion as a tool of control and influence rather than what a religion like Islam stands for, Peace and tolerance for thy neighbour. The only way to take religion out of the hands of radicals is to advance democracy and freedom, without it we all face an uncertain future.

Uzbekistan, a land of cultures, posseses a very rich history. Mawarannahr (‘the land beyond river’) received Islam in the 8th century. At the same time there was fire-worship and other religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Buddhism.

Mawarannahr was one of the most advanced regions playing a significant role in social and cultural life. The Great Silk Road linked the West with the Orient and people from southern and northern countries passed through this land.

The House of Wisdom called ‘Bite ul-Khima’ engaged in the great task to translate the books of Aristotle, Archimedes, Plato and other ancient scientists and philosophers. The Mawarannahr’s brillant young scientists like Khorezmi, Fergani, Marvazi and others performed with distinction. The periods between 10th and 12th centuries gave way to extremely important cultural and scientific activity in the region. The establishment of politically independent and autonomous states gave a good start, opening up opportunities for regional economic and cultural growth. This time in history is known as the Oriental Renaissance and is noted for the unprecedented rise of ethical regulations. This enlightenment gave rise to bright philosophers like Ibn-Sina (Avicenna), Farabi, Kushchi, and outstanding poets like Rudaki and others.

Khorezm-Shakh became the first academy in Central Asia in 11th century. The towns of Mawarannahr were acknowledged worldwide, not only in the Muslim world but also in Europe. This was a time for building monuments and cultural facilities, for rapid growth of Uzbek art, mathematics, trade, art, astronomy, history and medicine.

Fast-forwarding to present time, Uzbekistan is in the midst of international isolation and worst of all economic abyss, ruled by a iron-fisted dictator called Islam Karimov. Today, Uzbekistan makes the headlines in a different way, i.e. Andijan massacre in May 2005 rather than its economic growth providing and leading the region in stability and security. Karimov’s regime which breeds despotism, nepotism can and must chnage, as we the Uzbek people deserve better. We know we can and must change because we are the children of Oriental Renaissance; we did it once and we can do it again.

How can we achieve to build a stronger and better Uzbekistan? Well, for one, we have a rich natural resource base, a sizeable and flexible consumer market, a highly educated labour force, a well developed transport infrastructure. Great changes are a feature of Uzbekistan. For more than a decade we, the democratic opposition of Uzbekistan have been advocating our principles of market economy, freedom and democracy, as these policies are the only logical way to ensure significant growth of political maturity.

I acknowledge the current sad state of affairs and its leader President Karimov but I refuse to accept his doctrine of installing fear, oppression, violence and corruption. Karimov’s regime is holding onto power , only by applying constant fear, social and political pressure and brutal force (evident in Andijan). This style of governing has no place in the 21st century. Let us take a brief look at what Karimov has achieved in the past 15 years;

• Uzbekistan is the 149th country in the world in economic freedom despite its rich natural resources?

• Uzbekistan has become one of the countries possessing the LEAST amount of political and civil liberties according to Freedom House Index.

What can we expect from a dictatorial Karimov regime, who embraces criminal gangs and lawlessness and refuses to register independent opposition parties and dialogue. Nowhere in Karimov’s Uzbekistan have parties been allowed to serve as a regular and open mechanism for participation and representation, for demanding accountability from public officials, or for pushing for governance reforms. There is a broad consensus that key elements of democracy and good governance are NOT present not in Uzbekistan after more than a decade of independence.

It is extremely dangerous to have a country like Uzbekistan and lets not forget to mention Uzbekistan’s importance in terms of geo-strategic value, not to possess adequate means for its population to express its voice or sufficient mechanisms for demanding government accountability. It is this crucial missing link that divorces the masses from the Grand State and pushes the economically disinfranchised to the very arms of radicalism and extremism. Civil society must have pressure relief points, discussion forums and all the other fruits in the garden of democracy and it is for this reason we need to embrace democracy and advance freedom’s cause.

Free speech on political, social and religion is a right but common sense is a DUTY. The 4 months old row over the publications of cartoon lampooning the Prophet Hz. Mohammed (s.a.v) is distasteful and disrespectful. This row urgently needs a huge infusion of common sense. (were it not for the faux-Arabic calligraphy, the cartoons can be likened to historical anti-Semitism, as Bill Clinton suggested).

Islam means PEACE and all muslims and non-muslims need to take stock of the very meaning of peace and act calmly and show tolerance. We all need to accept and acknowledge the imporatnce of peaceful protest and dialogue, as violence brings nothing but more violence and further misunderstandings.

Freedom of speech is among the most invaluable of our human liberties. But it is not absolute: it would not say, include the right to cry ‘Fire!’ in a crowded cinema.

In order to understand the current uproar and problems in the Islamic world, we need to analyse the very elements of governance in the absence of democracy. Many muslim leaders defer power in certain issues, like the present cartoon crisis, to reactionary clerical establishments, where in turn they rely on to legitimise their autocratic rule. That was for many, many centuries the way it used to be in Europe. The christian West won through to modernity in the teeth of reactionary clerics. We in Muslim societies return to that road where we SECULARISTS will collide with our religious establishments on the way to repossessing our religion.

Religion today is what Western societies have made of it...through countless little touches of the chisel. We should keep that chisel in mind in dealing with religion, and beware of the hammer, hence our policy of enacting a truly democratic, free and economically vibrant secular state in Uzbekistan.

It is unimaginable to achieve a stable and secure Central Asia without the active participation of a democratic and economically dynamic Uzbekistan.

In the post cold-war era, we are living in a world where the political kaleidoscope turns faster. Iran’s nuclear ambition (danger to regional stability), Hamas’s election victory, Afghanistan, Iraq and the horrendous terrorist attacks of 9/11 are clears signs that a landscape once drawn in straight lines has somehow turned into a maze. One could say that some diplomats yearn for the dangerous simplicities of the cold war.

The election victory of Hamas throws up more questions than answers, there are many reasons why Palestinians chose as a government a group committed to the destruction of Israel (such doctrine of hate and violence has no place in today’s world, Hamas must denounce all types of violence and seize this moment in time by entering a peaceful dialogue with Israel). Behind every one of those reasons lie the failure of the peace process. The politicians must bear their share of the blame for the public mood of impatience.

Globalisation has made all of us aware and more impatient. Ringing declarations about toppling tyrannies and rescuing broken states come easily enough, however the costs in action and treasure of commitments spanning decades are glossed over. Such policies of containment and looking the other way has inadvertantly given birth to the present disarray. Hence, the ever growing need of firmer commitment and actual assistance and it is for this reason we support Mr. Bush’s policy of spreading democracy as the new lodestar of America’s global engagement. To my mind, this is a worthy aspiration. But what is a wing without feathers, the West has sidestepped the difficult trade-offs between short term costs and long term gains. The result is an ambition without the necessary strategic framework.

The West must realise that its old policies of soft power that served it so well during the second half of the last century is unsuited to today’s hard challenges.

We should not romanticise the cold war. For much of the time it was an excuse to turn our heads away from the sort of conflicts that now preoccupy us. Who paid much attention to Afghanistan during the 1980s? Many of the excellent reconstruction work, humanitarian and peace-making interventions now undertaken would not have been contemplated 30 years ago.

President Bush began his second term, he delivered an inaugural speech making freedom the centrepiece of his foreign policy, ‘‘For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in the resentment and tyranny...violence will gather and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat’’ he declared. ‘‘It is the policy of the US to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture’’.

Not only justice, but also regional security, stability and economic growth mandates that Karimov regime be neutralised. We in the National Salvation Committee of Uzbekistan need to see more than warm-hearted speeches, the West has done little to advance freedom or liberty in Uzbekistan. Some Western state structures continue to debate for years how to allocate financial aid to groups advancing freedom in and around Central Asia, however the same Western governments fund millions in economically unfeasible projects. More aid and assistance is allocated to landscaping in Western capitals than on the much needed democracy programmes.

Freedom loving nations should think twice in accepting short term gains and end up sacrificing a long term strategic ally.

Political problems can be resolved through diplomacy, but the fear and oppresion loving, twisted, ideology of the incumbent and illegitimate President Karimov, has the underpinnings of a unstable regime. Karimov’s regime acts as the incubator of radicalism. Slobodan Milosevic ordered the killings of innocent civilians (ethnic cleansing) in the name of nationalism, Pol Pot could not be dissuaded from genocidal xenophobia, Saddam Hussein killed thousands in the name of unity, stability and power and still upholds principles of his rule, despite the clear evidence of gassing the Kurds and etc.. Karimov’s regime is no different. No amount of diplomacy will convince Karimov to abandon tenets and policies he sees rooted in his interpretation of governance, which is to master the use of fear, violence and oppression.

The US and Europe should and need to work together to empower the Uzbek people and Uzbek democratic opposition through the National Salvation Committee of Uzbekistan to create a truly representative government.

We call on all policy-makers and politicians in the free and democratic nations to pay overdue attention to our democratic movement in Uzbekistan. The present instbility and oppression in Karimov’s Uzbekistan is not just Uzbek peoples problem but also the dilema of all free nations. With this action and support for the National Salvation Committee of Uzbekistan, free nations of this world will avoid the ever-apparent and growing disjunction between the expectations generated by summit communiques and the grinding realities on the ground.

A Plan for Democracy and Freedom in Modern Uzbekistan

Uzbekistan is rich with natural resources, a prolific climate, powerful industrial potential, and hardworking and competent experts – yet it is on the verge of bankruptcy. Why does the government of Islam Karimov fail to reform the economy? Today, Uzbekistan is suffering the most difficult period of its history. While President Karimov seeks to consolidate power through concessions to Russia; industry, agriculture and most enterprises in the country are functioning irregularly or not at all. Working people do not receive their regular salaries, often waiting 4 to 12 months to receive a paycheck. Inflation is increasing. Unemployment, the shadow of economic instability, has reached catastrophic levels. The bulk of the population has been reduced to indigence. Ongoing economic stagnation and continued social problems have resulted in general hopelessness and depression. We, the citizens of Uzbekistan, are responsible for our country, for our future. Nobody will solve our problems, nobody is answerable for them. If the problems are not solved, but accumulate year in and year out, then it is time to think about their origin, their sources. If we intend to undertake serious steps toward positive change in the situation, we must start on that path with all solemnity and work diligently. What do we offer as an alternative to the existing regime? Our objective is to provide acceptable standards of living to the Uzbek people, comparable to the recent economic growth of Russia and Kazakhstan. We propose to advance strong reform policies and programs that include:

- Restore all democratic and secular political parties to encourage participation in a democratic political process; - Institute legal protection for basic freedoms of speech, assembly and religion; - Remove censorship on the media; - Establish a policy dialogue with citizen groups & support democratic institution- building; - Enact legislation to support and build capacity for fair and free elections; - Reform the judicial system by recognizing the rule of law and other international legal frameworks.

- Establish trade relations with the region and conduct open cross-border trade; - Bring convertibility to Uzbek currency and shrink the black market economy; - Eliminate over-regulation of trade and the private sector; - Increase FDI and the flow of technology based investments; - Reform agriculture by dismantling the Soviet-style collective farm system, and introducing land privatization; - Introduce energy policies to develop the much needed oil & gas sectors; - Work with multi-lateral institutions toward membership in the WTO; - Establish an Uzbekistan Development & Stabilization Fund; - Initiate tax reform creating incentives for private trade and foreign investment; - Enact poverty reduction policies; - Close budget loopholes to attack the currently dominant black market economy; - Fight corruption by introducing new legislation and investigating corruption cases on all levels of government structures; - Enact social policy compatible with a market economy that includes reform of the pension system and social security.

- Establish closer co-operation with neighboring Central Asian states to fight against terrorism, religious extremism, drug-trafficking and organized crime; - Engage closer co-operation with NATO and other western security organizations; - Establish closer bilateral relations with Central Asia and neighboring states, increasing trade, transportation links, energy routes, power supply & communication; - Engage in strategic co-operation with the US and the European Union; - Modernize the national military forces of Uzbekistan; - Develop relations with Russia and China. These policies and programs can set us on the road to creating a stable and democratic Uzbekistan, integrated into the global economy. Democracy, freedom and a market economy must be given a chance to flourish in Uzbekistan. The pro-reform forces of Uzbekistan ask for assistance from all democracy-loving nations and peoples to help us take our place in the global community where peaceful nations advance human liberty and prosperity through democratic participation.

Uzbekistan Has Entered Its Own Cold War

In the aftermath of the Andijan massacre, the increasingly repressive Êarimov regime has lost the support of the people of Uzbekistan. The silence in the streets does not comfort President Karimov. In fear, Karimov has turned to Beijing and Moscow for political support. Karimov has not only signed a military-political "Union Partnership" agreement with Russia, he has rushed to reorient the foreign and economic policy of Uzbekistan towards Russia and China. Russia is moving quickly towards monopolistic and profitable development of oil-and-gas deposits in Uzbekistan. Karimov has instructed his cabinet to significantly increase the supply of cotton, metals and energy resources to new patrons of his regime. China, in turn, also has pledged to increase capital investments in Uzbekistan. In the mean time, Êàrimov has found common cause with the Shanghai Group (SCO) in declaring "color revolutions" and "human rights advocacy" as threats akin to terrorism.

In response to the call of Western nations for more democratic reforms, the Karimov government has taken the opposite direction. Borders are closed, free press is restrained, and international NGOs are asked to leave the country. New legal restrictions on freedom of association for Uzbek organizations are clearly diminishing participation in civil society. Compromising national interests, Karimov is downsizing the staff abroad of the Foreign Ministry, Foreign Economic Relations Agency, Uzbek tourism national company and National Bank for Foreign Economic Activity to a minimum.

In October 2005, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ordered restricted contact with the diplomatic missions of the Western European states, the US, the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, western funded public and non-governmental organizations and the United Nations. Employees of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have signed the document, with the following requirements: to restrain from unauthorized meetings, telephone contacts with representatives of the western missions; to not respond to inquiries from the western missions without the permission of the senior officers; to determine the theme of negotiations in advance, only after agreed upon by the top officials. Employees of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are forbidden from attending events at the Western missions.

In contrast, Êàrimov is actively expanding the network of Soviet era style security service informants among the population. He has sanctioned the replacement of diplomats in Uzbek missions abroad during rotation by the officers of the National Security Service (NSS). The entire diplomatic staff of the Uzbekistan missions in the European Union will be made up of the officers of NSS or the General Intelligence Department of the Defense Ministry. Uzbekistan, in cooperation with Russia, is preparing itself for active intelligence activity in Europe.

The government of Uzbekistan has discredited itself both on the national and international stage. The Karimov regime does not possess the effective policy making mechanisms to address Uzbekistan’s true social and economic issues. Total corruption at all levels of power, compounded with inefficiency in agriculture and production has fatally undermined the country’s economy. The Karimov regime actively inhibits even partial liberalization of economy, concerned that any liberalization will lead to an independent business class that could potentially threaten President Karimov’s monopoly of power. Unemployment grows rapidly. The majority of the unemployed are youth, aged 18 -30 years. It is estimated that the population of Uzbekistan will reach 50 million by 2015.

The people of Uzbekistan continue their daily lives in the antiquated Soviet agrarian structure of collective farming, resembling the allocated lots of a feudal society rather than a modern economy. The entire production of collective farms is state run – the farmers receive no revenue, and the farms themselves remain without any means for further development. Sixty percent of the population resides in deep poverty and desperation in mostly rural areas of Uzbekistan.

Without active involvement of the democratic opposition in the political life of Uzbekistan, the anger of the population may grow into chaos. The silent erosion of public confidence in the structures of the State, if untouched and ignored, is one of the biggest threats the region faces today. International experience with Afghanistan, past and present, is a compelling example of the choices confronting the global community.

We call upon all civilized and democratic nations to lend their hand and support in our cause to end the current repression of the Uzbek people and in turn enable a democratic and free future. We call upon the West to take these actions to support the Uzbek people and Central Asia:

- Increase political pressure on the repressive Karimov regime via the United Nations, OSCE, European Parliament, NGO community and media;

- Clearly define and show that the West is not prepared to act in concert with the oppressive Karimov government;

- Pressure Karimov to establish dialogue with the democratic opposition; provide assistance and support for the development of Uzbek democratic forces;

- Actively engage intergovernmental and international bodies such as UNDP, UN Commission on Human Rights as well as major international NGOs such Human Rights Watch and others who could assist in democratizing and opening up Uzbekistan;

- Engage the governments of neighboring republics and Russia; initiate policy forums regarding Uzbekistan and greater Central Asia, including discussion of transparency, democratic participation and market economy reforms;

- Limit foreign aid to the state and government projects; instead work to revive the Uzbek private sector by providing foreign aid and assistance.

Speech of Muhammad Salih, the leader of ERK party, at the Institute Policy Exchange, London , January, 20th, 2006

Protecting an unfashionable word: "Revolution"

The post-Soviet elite is now gossiping about the failures of “color revolutions” in the former Soviet Union.

It’s been only a year since «color revolutions» have taken place in three post–Soviet countries, but critics have already started talking about their failures. People in these countries are still living in poverty, unemployment is still high and corruption is still rampant. All of these constitute failure, according to the critics. As if given a chance the former government might even have resolved these problems had they not been overthrown.

I disagree. In my view, the events which have taken place in these three countries have the same historical meaning as Gorbachev's program of perestroika and glasnost.

One has to be very honest to see the reality. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, our region returned to a geopolitical condition that was reminiscent of the beginning of 20th century. Central Asia is again becoming an important part of geopolitics. The Great Game is again underway, but this time Russia and England were joined by China and US. China has clearly started to compete for superpower status in this region.

The «Color revolutions», and the threat of more of them, have irritated and threatened Russia and China, two major players in Eurasia.

These revolutions have weakened the positions of these two giants by destroying what had been emerging dictatorships and giving these countries real freedom. They have given international legitimacy to the revolutionaries, forcing them to stand on their feet and to be the true owners of their countries.

The fear of revolutions caused Russia and China to stand by silently while the Uzbek regime murdered peaceful demonstrators in Andijan. Russia and China strongly object to any initiatives to promote democracy in the region. They pretend to be defenders of the Central Asian people against the West, referring to the "export of revolutions," a concept that is nonsensical. These revolutions were all driven first of all by the oppressed citizens of these countries.

Future development of the region depends on the willingness of the West (mainly the EU) to participate in the new Great Game and to judge what risks the EU is willing to take to exert influence in Central Asia.

Supposed American hegemony as a factor for stability has already become doubtful. However, what do Asia and Europe together have to offer in the place of this hegemony? Russia, China and India, who have hegemonic ambitions, can only offer their demographic supremacy. But they cannot offer military might, democracy and economic power like the US.

However, Moscow is desperate to conclude the Organization of Collective Defense.Treaty (OCDT), the main body responsible for regional contacts with NATO. OCDT consists of Russia, China and four Central Asian states

So far, NATO is cooperating with Central Asian states on bilateral basis. If OCDT approved by the NATO as a principal body between NATO and Central Asian states, it would increase Russia’s influence in the region. Moreover, had it happen, Russian would get a chance to control the relations between Central Asian countries and the EU.

In any case, people of Central Asia cannot afford being a backyard of those mighty countries anymore.

Despite all the shortcomings, the revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia and Kyrgyzstan showed that that status quo of corruption and undemocratic rule cannot be sustained. The only way out of totalitarianism is democracy. Idealists in Central Asia should not be distracted by the fight of the giants for energy resources and geopolitical supremacy in the region. Instead, they should focus on working with public to prepare them for democratic changes. Nobody takes the word «revolution» as seriously as we do. The reason is that nobody is so desperate for it as we, the children of Asia.

Muhammad SALIH

Speech of Muhammad Salih, the leader of ERK party at the Chatham House, Royal Institute of the Great Britain , London on January, 19th, 2006

Prospects for Political and Economic Change in Uzbekistan

Ladies and Gentlemen:

It is a privilege and honor for me to speak here today in such respected institution. I was asked to talk about the prospects for political and economic change in Uzbekistan in a light of last year’s events in the eastern Uzbek city of Andijan.

What factors triggered the Andijan events?

So far, 151 persons have been convicted by the Uzbek courts to jail sentences, which range from 12 to 20 years. Thousands of people came out to the streets of Andijan on May 13, 2005, which turned to an unorganized and unplanned demonstration. They protested against tyranny and economic hardship and that was the main reason for them to come out. The order to shoot them was given directly by the President of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov.

Not long ago, I received information from the secret services of one of the neighboring countries, which proves that the Andijan events were planned in advance by the dictator Islam Karimov. He planned and implemented genocide against citizens of his own nation. Let me quote the report of the secret service of the neighboring CIS country, which I mentioned earlier.

Mercenaries of the infamous former colonel in the Tajikistan armed forces, who was also Islam Karimov’s personal mercenary, Makhmud Khudoiberdiev, were among the executors of Andijan massacre. On May 12, 2005, Uzbek National Security Service agents spread the rumor that President Karimov would be coming to Andijan to listen to the complaints of the protesters personally. Residents of Andijan, hoping to see their President, as a result of this rumor came out to the streets.

On May 8, four days before the massacre, 50 fighters under the command of Makhmud Khudoiberdiev were relocated from Tyumen region of the Russian Federation to the Sokh enclave in the Ferghana Valley on a military jet. From Sokh, they moved to Shakhimardan and there they joined another group of 250 armed men.

It is reported, that since 1999, Makhmud Khodoiberdiev’s men, under direct order from the President Karimov, control the borders between Uzbekistan and its neighbors.

On May 10, 2005, 300 of Khudoiberdiev’s men entered Andijan region under the cover of the Uzbek National Security Service. On May 12, the UNSS agents gave them a so-called tour around Andijan, pointing out the places which they to attack few days later: Andijan prison, the military garrison., and the police station. The majority of Khudoiberdiev’s men lived in the Uzbek National Security Service building from May 10-12, 2005.

On May 13, from 1 am to 2 am they attacked the police station, the military garrison and Andijan prison. President Karimov instructed his Minister of Internal Affairs, Zahid Almatov, to give an order to all officers and armed personnel of the military and interior forces to lay down their weapons from 12am till 6 am on May 13.

Andijan prison is one of the most heavily guarded prisons in Uzbekistan. It is empowered by a sophisticated alarm system. When the supposed members of “Akromiya” group (actually Khudoiberdiev's men) attacked the prison, the alarm system did not function, nor did other security systems or even internal telephones work.

It was Khudoiberdiev’s mercenaries who killed many of the injured protesters on the streets of Andijan. They entered hospitals and massacred those who had been admitted from Babur Square earlier that day. Karimov chose professional killers, rather then Uzbek army, to deal with protesters. As you can see, he was not only personally involved in Andijan massacre; indeed he staged and directed it.

It’s been seventeen years since Karimov stays in power. How did he manage to survive for such a long time?

Karimov has succeeded in exiling almost all opposition leaders from the country. He continues to jail and intimidate that part of the political opposition which remains inside the country. His questionable legitimacy in power is based on illegal prolonging of his term twice by so called popular referenda and twice by presidential elections, which were widely criticized by the international community. His present term in power expires in 2007 and one cannot be sure that just before the elections some changes to the Uzbek constitution (not “constitutions”) won’t be introduced to allow him to stay longer. Since the Uzbek parliament is controlled by the President, one can soon expect other parliamentary initiatives to extend the presidential term for more then seven years, or to declare President Karimov Lifetime President of Uzbekistan.

The other reason is the repressive machine created by the state. Torture, kidnappings, manipulations and arrests of critics of the regime and opposition supporters are happening on a daily basis. The combination of these factors means that there is no realistic chance for the people to stand up and get rid of the hated regime. These affected the psychological state of the people. However, now, the nation has overcome the fear created by the totalitarian regime.

For a long time, the West was trying to accommodate the Uzbek regime and tried to push for economic and democratic reforms in Uzbekistan. However, all those efforts brought no fruits, but rather huge