Andijon: What Incident?

“To be honest, they abandoned us.”

Unnamed Uzbek who fled the country in April, voicing his displeasure with the West's rapprochement with the Karimov regime.

The three year anniversary of the Andijon incident in Uzbekistan is upon us and I have found two interesting articles discussing its significance in the here and now, mainly regarding the West/US reengagement with the nation's government. The horrific incident involved a government security operation to put down what the Karimov regime called a ‘Islamic terrorist’ insurrection, and caused the deaths of around 700 Uzbek citizens.

This is where the debate begins, as like in nearly all things in life there are at least two stories concerning one event. The Uzbek government only acknowledges 187 deaths and as was mentioned, argues that it was a threat to its rule and the nation's stability. Human rights groups and the West/US maintain that the 700 death total is more accurate and that most of the protesters were peaceful and just asking for economic assistance.

This event has been widely reported in the West and much can be read about what happened, but what is most important today, is the ramifications for the Karimov regime and its diplomatic and strategic relations with the West/US. It has been reported on this site, that the EU, by means of energy cooperation and lessening of a visa ban, and the US, a visit from Admiral Fallon, the opening of the Termez base for US use, and a new railway link traversing Uzbek territory to be utilized by NATO, have made efforts to work with the Karimov regime, despite the Andijon incident and its continual denial of its human rights abuses. New York Times writer, Sabrina Tavernise, and Radio Free Europe's Farangis Najibullah discuss the West's recent rapprochement and debate whether this is a effective and moral policy choice. In other words, should the Western nations with strategic interests in Uzbek and CA, Afghanistan stability, energy supplies, ignore the regimes human rights abuses and just focus on promoting specific interests, or should they stand strong and not allow incidents like Andijon be swept under the rug? By examining the US/West relations with Uzbek, one would have to say it features a little bit of both worlds.

Each side has valid and respectable arguments; “By talking and working with them we can further our interests and bring them out of their shell” or “Only by getting tough with leaders like Karimov will any real progress come.”

This debate has been central to international relations for years and it has especially gained new relevance with the Bush administration's foreign policy doctrine of spreading democracy, ending totalitarianism, and isolating ‘enemy’ regimes such as Iran, North Korea, and Hezbollah. But as we have seen all policies may be rewritten and fudged (US reengagement with NK)

Some final questions; What does the Andijon incident mean to the Uzbek people (read Tavernise to hear some interesting views)? What does it mean to/for the Karimov government? What should it mean to US/West? What does it mean to you? To the Uzbek government the incident is ‘dead,’ with these news reports the West is obviously keeping it alive, what does this say?