Pocket of Tyranny: Modern Uzbekistan, Research Paper Example

Introduction

In an age when globalization is encouraging, if not mandating, international cooperation at all levels, the Asian nation of Uzbekistan remains an extraordinary throwback to eras when a single state could exercise internal authority however it chooses.  The country’s geographic position and extensive resources certainly remove it from any classification as Third World, or a relatively unimportant presence in modern affairs.  Uzbekistan has interacted in critical ways with powers both to the west and east, and often in ways clearly indicating an awareness of modern, and global, concerns.  At the same time, and ruled by President Islam Karimov since 1991, this is a nation that is known to violently oppress its own people, commit acts of barbarism upon them, and insist on its absolute authority to monitor its own human rights issues in an age when such issues are viewed as universally relevant.  Sovereignty remains, even today, a reality that must be respected, but Uzbekistan blatantly defies the basic frameworks of governmental conduct accepted by virtually all civilized nations, and that these nations continue to do business with the country is unconscionable.  Modern Uzbekistan is failing as a pocket of antiquated tyranny in today’s world, and it is incumbent upon the world’s great powers to intervene.

Background

The entire history of what is today Uzbekistan is largely based, as is true of most nations, upon its geographic situation.  In the ancient past as well as today, the country enjoys an unparalleled position as central.  Set just above the Middle East, Uzbekistan is wedged between Europe to the west, China to the east, and Russia to its north.  This placement was invaluable in the ancient eras when trade was beginning between the continents, and the territory was known as the “silk road.”  More to the point, there has been no period in history wherein this unique position has not rendered the nation a valuable, and occasionally contested, land.  Agriculture, not unexpectedly, dominated for long centuries, and it would be the 1917 revolution and the rise of the Soviet state that would shape Uzbekistan, and even bestow on it its identity as the nation of Uzbek.  The USSR literally created a national “persona” and wrote a history for the republic, even as it sought to industrialize it to serve the larger Soviet interests.

The results in the 20^th century were mixed.  On one level, Uzbekistan significantly moved into the modern era, and improvements in health, education, and commerce were consistent through till the 1980s.  On another, there were marked and increasing divisions within the country.  Industry entered Uzbekistan during and after World War II, to protect Soviet interests threatened by Germany.  At the same time, the vast majority of the people continued to live in rural communities, and without modern advantages.  Infant mortality rates were high and, as the more urban areas began to enjoy some prosperity, the larger farming arenas were proportionately deprived.  This in turn reinforced a kind of caste system; European and Slav immigrants dominated the cities, while the natives farmed (Melvin 23).  Interestingly, then, with increased modernization came a more divided republic.

On a cultural level, the schisms were wider.  Until the 1980s and the dissolution of the USSR, there had been consistent Soviet efforts to repress the Muslim traditions of the natives, and replace them with Soviet ideologies.  An overt “Russification” was attempted, but this served only to encourage cultural resistance and, ironically, the Uzbek identity partially created by the Soviets defied the larger efforts.  When Sharaf Rashidov became First Secretary of the Uzbekistan Communist Party in 1959, a course was established that simultaneously linked Uzbekistan interests with the USSR and engendered a separate, and powerful, independent entity (Melvin  24).  A republican elite, one possessing considerable autonomy and power, was being forged under the shadow of the USSR.  Yuri Andropov’s rise to authority in 1983 led to a breakdown of Rashidov’s framework, but the essentially autonomous nature of them remained.  Throughout the 1980s, and as the USSR faced its own demise, there was an inevitable clash between the Soviets and Uzbekistan, but the Soviets were ultimately reduced to powerlessness.  It would be the presidency of Islam Karimov in 1991, however, which would create and maintain the conditions, political and social, that mark Uzbekistan today.  In a very real sense, Karimov and his regime had – and have – the opportunity to reshape Uzbekistan to accommodate modern circumstances and make the most advantageous use of its geographic position.  The nation has always stood as a pivotal point between dominant empires, and few nations have enjoyed this extraordinary potential.  Unfortunately, the course of Uzbekistan has been marked since 1991 by shifting policies in place to placate temporary interests, and a more regrettable and consistent disregard for the basic human rights of its people.

Uzbekistan Today

No assessment of Uzbekistan may be presented without acknowledging a significant fact: what we know about it relies largely on what the government is willing to share (U.S. Department of State).   What is generally accepted, however, indicates a situation strikingly similar to that of North Korea, and particularly in terms of a decline in living standards arising from the end of support from a powerful ally.  With this, there is as well the similarity of a totalitarian government in place, both intent on protecting its identity and unconcerned with the welfare of its citizens.   To begin with, and despite the overt attempts made by Uzbekistan to assert itself as an independent nation, the collapse of the USSR brought with it diminished resources going to the well-being of the society itself.  Literacy is, for example, reported as extremely high in Uzbekistan, at a rate of 99 percent.  At the same time, schools, texts, and all educational resources are extremely outdated. Similarly, health care has declined because no new medical practices or technologies have been available to the people (U.S. Department of State).

As far as may be ascertained, Uzbekistan still has a population generally healthy, with long life expectancy, and with high skill levels.  As the nation continues to disregard the influences of its former allies and interested world powers, however, this cannot likely endure.   Reinforcing this descent into a failed state is the nation’s policy on child labor, which is blatantly and completely out of step with international policy.  In Uzbekistan, children are routinely taken from school for periods of three months to pick cotton by hand, and lobbyists from other nations are seeking to persuade the government to at least begin to address this issue of human rights (Wright, Newman).  The eventual compliance of Uzbekistan as prompted by vital commercial interests, however, cannot alter the reality that any state which must be compelled to observe child labor laws is, by any measure of national standards, inherently a failure.

Whatever the exact circumstances of Uzbekistan’s economy and prospects, in fact, it is notable in a way unlike any other nation known today, in that human rights abuses are an ongoing and extreme circumstance within the country, and fully sanctioned by Karimov’s regime.  If precise information regarding commerce, health, and education is difficult to obtain, there has been no lack of credible reporting of these abuses, and they go to extremes rendering it incomprehensible that international sanctions are not set in place.  International human rights organizations, in fact, have denounced what they maintain is a deliberate ignoring of these conditions by the world powers (BBC).  There have been incidents both widely covered in the media and somewhat set aside, but all point to a government exercising a brutal authoritarianism.  In May of 2005, for example, government soldiers in Andijan opened fire on civilian protesters objecting to the unlawful imprisonment of people accused of Islamic extremism.   Witnesses claim that many hundreds were shot down, while Karimov’s stance was that the action was necessary to thwart an Islamic coup (BBC).   The U.S. government asserts, in no equivocating terms, that the Uzbekistan regime routinely kidnaps and tortures citizens, seizing them with absolutely no regard for its own laws or basic human decency, and a 2011 report concluded that: “Methods of torture included severe beatings, denial of food, sexual abuse, tying and hanging by the hands, and electric shock”  (U.S. Department of State).   Case after case is presented in which law enforcement officials are charged with specific acts of brutality, including frequent rape, as those making the accusations typically suffer from the physical consequences of the abuse. In case after case, as documented by the U.S. Department of State, the Uzbekistan courts go through the motions of “investigating” the charges and dismiss them as unfounded.

Assessment and Conclusion

As time goes on, evidence of gross human rights abuses mounts, yet the nation is still permitted to carry on as it chooses.  There are, of course, objections raised from powerful factions:  “The UN Human Rights Committee…expressed concerns….that the country’s definition of torture in the criminal code is not in conformity with Article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to which the country is a party” (U.S. Department of State).  At the same time, and given the duration and extremity of the criminality occurring, such statements appear weak and meaningless.  Moreover, they hint at motivations disgraceful if in any way influencing a lack of interventionist policies from leading nations.  It is known that, despite its issues in maintaining itself, Uzbekistan is a country very rich in natural resources.

Then, there is that important factor of its position, which has certainly swayed the U.S. to perhaps overlook its brutal policies: “Following the 11 September attacks on the US, Uzbekistan won favour with Washington by allowing its forces a base in Uzbekistan” (BBC).  It seems likely that, for the sake of the advantage of military strategy, the U.S. is not as inclined to look after human rights in Uzbekistan as it might otherwise be, as it is likely U.S. allies share similar agendas.  Certainly, the U.S. and other nations are entitled to enact international strategies serving their own interests, and the interests of maintaining international peace.  What is extraordinary here, however, is how quickly the lessons of World War II may be forgotten, in that no regime must be allowed to brutalize any segment of its population with the rest of the world standing by.  Nations warrant respect, in determining how they govern, yet there is also an international understanding in place, generated by the wars following gross national abuses of power, that certain aspects of humanity are universal.  Human rights is not a vague concept, subject to interpretation; it is the ideology agreed upon by all civilized nations to resist and eradicate abuses wherever they are occurring, as no nation has the authority to disregard these fundamental elements of human life.  If anything may be safely known regarding Uzbekistan, it is that its government consistently and savagely abuses its people, and this demands a response beyond “concerns expressed.”  Modern Uzbekistan is a failed nation due to policies of antiquated and barbaric tyranny in the modern world, and it is incumbent upon the world’s great powers to end this.

Works Cited

BBC.  Uzbekistan Profile.  News: Asia.  2012. Web.  Retrieved from  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16218112

Melvin, N.  Uzbekistan: Transition to Authoritarianism on the Silk Road.  New York: Psychology Press, 2000.  Print.

U.S. Department of State.  Republic of Uzbekistan.  2012. Web.  Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2924.htm

Wright, O., & Newman, M. “Exposed: How Lobbyists Put Positive Spin on Child Labour.”  The Independent.  2011.  Web.  Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exposed-how-lobbyists-put-positive-spin-on-child-labour-video-6273822.html