EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Uzbekistan: German Delegation Visit Fans Debate over Democratization Strategy

EURASIA INSIGHT

UZBEKISTAN: GERMAN DELEGATION VISIT FANS DEBATE OVER DEMOCRATIZATION STRATEGY
2/29/08

The recent visit to Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan by a large German trade delegation is fanning a long-standing debate over the best strategy to promote civil society in repressive states. While activists for Human Rights Watch and other rights groups have criticized the visit for placing profits above principle, many Western-oriented Uzbeks in Tashkent have applauded the mission, arguing that engagement tends to produce better results than ostracism.

Over the past year, the European Union, of which Germany is a leading member, and the United States have been persistently strived to repair their fractured relationship with Uzbekistan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. They have also aggressively courted Turkmenistan’s leader, Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Human rights abuses have constituted the main stumbling bloc in the EU-US efforts to build better relations with Ashgabat and Tashkent. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

The German mission, which visited Ashgabat and Tashkent from February 25-27, is just the latest of several recent indicators that the EU and United States have decided to surmount the human rights obstacle by simply setting it aside. The main factor guiding EU and US policy decisions is geopolitical considerations -- namely the fact that Turkmenistan (and to a far lesser extent Uzbekistan) possesses abundant reserves of energy.

German Economics Minister Michael Glos, the leader of the 100-member trade mission, stated that human rights issues, as well as the overall democratization process, were part of his discussions with Uzbek officials, including Prime Minister Shavkat Mirziyayev and Minister for Foreign Economic Relations, Investment and Trade Elyor Ganiyev. But Glos left a clear impression that his main objective was deal-making.

"I met with [Uzbekistan’s] prime minister � and we share the opinion that the rule of law and human rights are the areas that both the German and European public watch closely," Gloss said.

"We welcome [Europe’s softening of sanctions against Uzbekistan], but we hope that Uzbekistan will use this opportunity to promote dialogue and progress in these areas," Glos continued, adding, that "we do not intend to play the role of a mentor."

While members of the delegation urged the Uzbek government to undertake reforms, they seemed primarily interested in easing trade barriers, including customs tariffs and the non-convertibility of the Uzbek currency.

Rights organizations have lamented the German delegation visit, contending that it served to reinforce Karimov’s authoritarian ways. In an early February statement on the release of five Uzbek dissidents, Human Rights Watch argued that the amnesties were brought about through sustained pressure on Tashkent, mostly in the form of sanctions and reduced diplomatic contacts.

"EU member states are split as to whether to maintain sanctions against Uzbekistan, and countries like Germany and Spain have claimed that the sanctions have not proven effective and should therefore be dropped altogether," said the HRW statement issued February 5. "Fortunately, however, a group of EU members including the Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom have taken a principled position that the sanctions should be extended further until the Uzbek government had met the EU’s clearly stated benchmarks for easing sanctions. To do otherwise, these countries argued, would be to squander the EU’s leverage and undermine its credibility in other human rights crises. "

"Human Rights Watch stressed that the release and amnesty of a number of human rights defenders proves that a principled stand by the EU can affect human rights positively, even in countries like Uzbekistan," the statement continued.

Westernized Uzbeks in Tashkent, many of whom formally worked in the non-governmental sector prior to a government crackdown that began in 2004, do not necessarily share the view of rights groups that seek to keep Uzbekistan isolated until Tashkent reforms. They assert that engagement could bring about the desired effect faster.

"International organizations have been criticizing Tashkent vehemently, but at a distance, and no good has come out of it. What have they achieved?" said one Tashkent-based analyst and a former Western NGO executive, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Germany may have a point trying to engage Uzbekistan in a dialogue, and take it from there. Back in 2002-2004, when there was active dialogue between the West and Tashkent, the civil society situation was much better."

Entangled in the debate over the best strategy for promoting democratization is the question of whether or not Brussels and Washington are likely to achieve their geopolitical goals concerning Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, in particular getting Ashgabat to export energy via routes that circumvent Russia. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The answer remains unclear.

When it comes to energy exports, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are presently firmly under Russian control. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Glos tried to get Berdymukhamedov interested in the EU-sponsored Nabucco pipeline project, but the always cagey Turkmen leader declined to make a firm commitment. "Turkmenistan is an economically developed state and it has tremendous hydrocarbon resources. We find it important to promote our foreign economic relations," is all that he would say.

However, he did make a vague offer that could set off alarm bells in the Kremlin: he reportedly offered German firms an opportunity to explore and develop several Turkmen gas fields. Also sure to arouse concern in Moscow, Berdymukhamedov met with the American diplomat in charge of Washington’s Eurasian energy strategy, Steven Mann, on February 28 in Ashgabat.

The EU-US initiative would seem to have a slightly better chance of success with Uzbekistan. Karimov has sent numerous signals over the past couple of weeks that he wants to restore relations that were severed amid the fallout surrounding the 2005 Andijan events. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

A conference involving US and EU experts, titled Law Enforcement, Human Rights and Global Security: Experiences in Uzbekistan and Other Countries, is scheduled to convene in Tashkent on March 5-6. Political analysts say the conference, which will probe for ways to find a balancing point between human rights and security concerns, could possibly become a catalyst for further contacts and the easing of existing tensions among Brussels, Washington and Tashkent.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.