PART I PUBLICATIONS of 1988-1999

FREEDOM of
UNARMED MAN
2013
1
Muhammad Salih,
1968, Czechoslovakia
2
PART I
PUBLICATIONS of 1988-1999
WILL CZAR COTTON STILL REIGN
ACROSS SOVIET CENTRAL ASIA?
06.11. 1988, The New York Times
By BILL KELLER, A Fantastic Dream
...I would not be surprised if in 10 or 15 years, there would be no
cotton in this region," Mr. Nurmetov mused to a visitor. "Just fruits,
grapes, tourism. Anyway, that is what I dream of..."
In Uzbekistan, which since Stalin's day has been pressed to make
the Soviet Union self sufficient in cotton and to provide a source of
foreign currency, Mr. Nurmetov's dream seems fantastic, even
blasphemous.
But it is no longer his alone. A small group of Uzbek writers,
economists and officials have begun to openly question the republic's
role as Moscow's cotton plantation, and also to question the basic
relationship between Moscow and the fastest-growing region of its
domain, Soviet Central Asia.
Uzbek intellectuals say that if anything is likely to provide a focal
point for a nationalist movement here, it is not Islamic fundamentalism Moscow and modernization seem largely to have tamed Islam in this
region - but the resentment of the cotton economy.
"Everything comes down to the Stalinist demand for selfsufficiency in cotton," said Mukhamed Salih, a poet and secretary of the
official writers union. "The country's independence has been
Uzbekistan's enslavement."
The authorities are taking steps to alleviate the harmful effects of
the cotton monoculture, as the crop's domination is called. The annual
quota was cut by about 10 percent this year, although critics point out
3
that this only eliminated the padding in previous harvest reports. A new
law has restricted the use of child labor in the fields. One of the most
toxic pesticides has been banned. There is a committee to save the Aral
Sea. Special medical teams will try to combat infant mortality.
But critics say these measures are far too little to remedy the
complex of problems connected with cotton...
...The unemployment problem is growing because of high birth
rates and because Uzbek villagers firmly resist Government entreaties to
relocate to other, labor-short areas of the country.
Critics say one solution is to create more jobs in Uzbekistan by
processing cotton here, instead of shipping it to mills in other republics.
"We sell our cotton as raw material," said Mr. Salih, voicing a
complaint widely heard. "Ninety-two percent of it leaves the republic.
And then we buy our shirts from Russia..."
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
28.06. 1989
By Peter Gumbel, Staff Reporter of The W.S.J.
TASHKENT, U.S.S.R. -- In a courtyard near the old bazaar,
sipping tea, Kakhar Uzmanov, a 45-year-old janitor, talks bluntly about
how the standard of living has deteriorated in Uzbekistan. "My
grandfather, who lived to be 101, used to say we have everything," he
says. But times have changed. Few people now have gardens in which
to grow their own fruit and vegetables. Prices in the bazaar have risen
sharply. And with four young children to feed, his monthly pay of $120
is barely enough to live on.
"If we don't solve our economic problems very quickly, I fear that
civil war might break out in Uzbekistan," says Muhammad Salih, a poet
who visited the valley of Fergana soon after the clashes there. "Ninety
Per cent of the people live very badly. They have nothing."
One sign of change is the recent formation of a mass movement
for reform named Birlik. Loosely based on the popular front
organizations that have become powerful voices for more home-rule in
the Soviet Baltic republics, it is campaigning to end Uzbekistan's
4
overreliance on cotton and to clean up the environment. "We need to
help the Party apparatus find a way out of this crisis," says Abdurakhim
Pulatov, himself a Communist Party member.
The argument is dismissed out of hand by both conservatives and
liberals in Tashkent, who point out that Uzbeks and Meskhetians
generally belong to the same Sunni branch of the Moslem faith. Mr.
Salih, the poet, says interest in Islam has increased, as have feelings
about national identity. "But these are just pretexts" for the deeper
disgruntlement over living standards, he says.
TURKIC REPUBLICS PRESS SOVIETS
TO LOOSEN REINS
03.09. 1989
By Bill KELLER, Special to The New York Times
In the republics that stretch from the Caucasus Mountains to the
central Asian Steppes, Turkic peoples are also beginning to channel
their grievances into mass political movements under the banners of
democracy and sovereignty.
"We want what the Baltics want, an end to colonialism and the
freedom to run our own affairs," said Ekhtibar Mamedov, a Baku
historian and a leader of the new Azerbaijani Popular Front, which has
shown unexpected public support by holding mass demonstrations and a
large-scale protest strike in the city's factories...
Although the republics of the south are predominantly Muslim,
the movements Leaders of the groups say their movements were
invigorated this spring and summer by televised proceedings of the new
Soviet Parliament, which gave Turkic peoples a chance to compare their
own, machine-elected deputies with the more aggressively independent
political figures elected from the Baltics, Moscow and other regions.
Rural Poverty and Degradation
"The Congress showed people who was who, and what was
possible," agreed Muhamed Salih, a poet who is active in Uzbekistan's
popular movement, called Birlik, or unity.
Although the southern Soviet Union has experienced bloody
outbreaks of ethnic conflict - most notably Azerbaijan's clash with
5
neighboring Armenia over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh,
murderous Uzbek assaults on the Meskhetian minority, and economic
riots in Kazakhstan - the Turkic republics have lagged far behind in the
formation of organized political movements.
Local leaders attribute that to a lack of political sophistication and
the feudal domination of local Communist Party bosses.
In Uzbekistan, the political movement has been stimulated by the
rural poverty and environmental degradation associated with the
republic's role as Russia's cotton-growing colony.
UPHEAVAL IN THE EAST
25.01.1990
By Bill KELLER (The New York Times)
Leaders of nationalist independence movements from the Baltic
Sea to the Ukraine to Soviet Central Asia say their campaigns for
greater liberty from Moscow will continue undeterred by upheavals in
Azerbaijan, where Soviet troops are struggling to contain an insurgency.
While the political independents said they were concerned about
the use of military force against domestic unrest, many expressed at
least a grudging sympathy for the sending of troops in that case. The
nationalists agreed that hard-liners in the Kremlin would try to use the
unrest in the south as an excuse to slow the decentralization of power.
But they also agreed the pressure for self-determination has now grown
to the point that it cannot be stopped.
Nationalist leaders were interviewed Tuesday and today by
telephone from Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Moldavia, the
Ukraine, Armenia and the Baltic republics of Latvia and Lithuania.
They stressed that they were speaking personally, not on behalf of their
organizations, and they said they were hampered by a shortage of
reliable information on events in Baku. The nationalist groups vary
widely in their aims and level of sophistication. Those in Georgia and
the Baltics advocate eventual secession from the Soviet Union, while
the Ukrainian and Moldavian popular fronts stop short of that. In
Lithuania, the popular front group Sajudis sets the pace of political
activity for the republican government. In Uzbekistan the aspiring
nationalist movement, called Birlyk, is just finding its legs.
6
Mukhamed Salih, a poet and member of the Birlyk movement in
Uzbekistan, said Uzbeks "to some extent" felt Moscow may have been
quicker to send troops against Azerbaijan because of an exaggerated
fear of Islamic fundamentalism. "At the beginning, I thought it was
necessary." Mr. Salih said of the military intervention. "But what
happened then - so much blood flowed - that, of course, puts one on
one's guard." But there was no sign of an organized solidarity campaign
in the other Islamic republics, where independent political groups have
not acquired nearly the commanding force of the Azerbaijani front.
DEFIANCE OF KREMLIN'S CONTROL IS
ACCELERATING IN SOVIET ASIA
01.07.1990, The New York Times
By Francis X. CLINES, Tashkent, U.S.S.R., June 28
While Moscow tries to find an accommodation with the
rebellious Baltic republics, the shift of political authority from the
Gorbachev Government to the provinces is accelerating here in the
Islamic heartland of Central Asia.
Searing summer heat is bringing along another crop of prime
Uzbek cotton, nurturing with it this republic's insurgent plan to pluck
economic sovereignty with the September harvest by keeping part of the
crop from Moscow to sell for itself in the world market. Uzbekistan is
demanding that it keep a third of its cotton this year and all of it in 1991.
Just as threatening to the central Government of President Mikhail
S. Gorbachev is a new economic alliance signed this week by the five
republics of Soviet Central Asia. It provides for circumventing the
decrepit Soviet economic-planning system by retaining and bartering
local consumer goods that planners in Moscow normally send
elsewhere. One example of the plan is for Uzbekistan henceforth to
trade from its cornucopia of melons and vegetables for a better deal in
grain from neighboring Kazakhstan instead of from the Russian
republic, as at present under Moscow's central planning.
Other deals are being planned within Soviet Central Asia, which
also includes Turkmenia, Tadzhikistan and Kirghizia. The new alliance
is of key regions of former Turkestan, which the czars and Bolsheviks
alike took care to keep fragmented, the better for colonizing.
7
No 'Pan-Turkic' Challenge
Uzbekis who led the move to an alliance say their strategy has
nothing to do with decades-old notions about a "pan-Turkic" challenge
to Moscow but rather with the far more realistic goal of a regional
economic federation rooted in true sovereignty. Juggling an agenda of
emergencies, Moscow has not yet reacted to these Central Asian plans.
The most likely time for confrontation will be the fall, when the cotton
is harvested. ''We are doing all this without dramatizing the process,
without playing to the crowds,'' said Muhammad Salih, a founder of the
New Democratic Party, part of the insurgent vanguard
The local Communist Party has cooperated in Parliament's
challenges to Moscow's rule.
The republic's new Prime Minister, Shukrulla R. Mirsaidov, an
adaptive party stalwart who drives around without the motorcades of his
predecessors, has been in the forefront of the recent tough oratory
directed at Moscow's traditional exploitation of the republic's resources.
His pronouncement of "economic independence" was followed
two weeks ago by Parliament's declaration of political sovereignty,
tailored to stop short of outright secession but focus on the cotton, gold,
farm produce and other Uzbek riches.
"We're in a much worse situation than the Baltics, which have
many defenders while we are our only defender," Mr. Salih said.
While Western attention has been riveted on Lithuania's rebellion,
he added, observers may be missing the point of how general the
nation's de facto decentralization is becoming.
The Uzbek Communist leadership has not openly split with the
national party, but the republic's party congress chose to recess and keep
its options open should the 28th Congress in Moscow next week result
in a split. Uzbek Communists have been politic lately in adjusting to the
fact that the republic's increasingly separatist agenda is driven by such
popular front movements as Birlik and the Erk group, which gave birth
to the New Democratic Party.
These movements, aiming for full independence and pluralism,
have seen such intellectuals as Mr. Salih and Erkin Wahidov, both
poets, elected to Parliament.
8
THE BALTIMORE SUN
30.09.1990
Scott Shane (Chief of The Sun's Moscow Bureau)
Nervousness infuses the politics of Uzbekistan today, as
unmistakable as the scent of lemon trees in the courtyards of the clay
houses in this capital's old quarter. The troubled giant of Soviet Central
Asia declared its political sovereignty in June, and people agree that it is
on the brink of dramatic change. But what kind of change?
Nationalist dictatorship or Western-style democracy? Islamic
revolution or ethnic civil war? Intellectuals debate the probabilities over
shish kebab in the private cafes that abound in the one-story
neighborhoods that survived the 1966 earthquake.
"There's a feeling of uneasiness, of uncertainty about what
tomorrow may bring," said Mirzaakhmed Alimov, Uzbekistan
correspondent for Komsomolskaya Pravda. "The genie of nationalism is
out of the bottle, and no one's going to get it back in."
Mr. Alimov, who is close to the Communist Party leadership,
scoffs at the idea of such a rapid transition to democracy.
"Our people were enslaved on the cotton plantation," said poet
Muhammad Salih, chairman of the new political party known as Erk "Will" in Uzbek. "That's what socialism has given us," he said....
That is precisely the point, says Mr. Salih.
"We say to the Russians, `Stay here, but on equal terms.' We have
to work on a percentage basis. Now, most of the good jobs are held by
Russians, while our national cadres (of Uzbeks) are unemployed," Mr.
Salih said...
FINAL
24.10.1990,
Michael Dobbs (The Washington Post)
...A few years ago, such religious fraternization would probably
have alarmed the Kremlin. But the Soviet authorities have encouraged
the Islamic revival in Central Asia, granting permits for the opening of
new mosques with little difficulty. At a time when Communist ideology
is rapidly breaking down, the party seems to see the mufti and other
9
Moslem leaders as important political allies in the fight against crime
and moral decay.
"The rise in crime is directly due to the lack of religion," said
Shukrullo Yusupov, a prominent Uzbek writer and member of the
republic's presidential council. "For years, we taught our people to
believe only in what they saw directly. People assume that it's all right
to steal something as long as the boss isn't looking. A religious person,
on the other hand, believes that God sees everything-and he will punish
you even if your boss doesn't."
"We are forced to rediscover our roots because we have been
betrayed by our political ideals," said Muhammad Salih, an Uzbek
playwright and opposition member of parliament. "Communism turned
out to be a mirage, but people must have faith in something. The moral
code by which we lived for all these years has suffered a collapse."
THE HIDDEN NATIONS
The People Challenge the Soviet Union
Nadia DIUK and Adrian KARATNYCKY
William Morrow and Comp, INC. New York, 1990, p. 174
"...Muhammad Salih, a secretary of the Uzbek Writers Union, has
emerged as a leading spokesman for the Uzbek people. He is concerned
about Uzbekistan's economic problems, and has spoken out on the
subject on many occasions, despite the Uzbek authorities' disapproval:
"There is a direct link between the deteriorating ecological situation in
Uzbekistan and the cotton monoculture", he tells us, "We have lost not
only our lands and waters, we have forfeited the health of our people.
The land is ailing and also the people who work on it. Around eighty
percent of Uzbeks live in kishlaks, traditional rural Uzbek settlements,
where they work the fields. This part of the population is basically in a
state of ill health".
Salih runs down the list of Uzbekistan's grievances in a matter-offact way. He is not pleading for special consideration for the Uzbeks,
merely stating facts and statistics that are well known among the
increasingly active Uzbek intelligents. Threatened with reprisals by the
authorities for his outspokenness, he was vigorously defended by
student demonstrators and all charges against him were dropped. He
was on the record as speaking out against corruption in the ranks of
10
Uzbekistan's Communist leaders, Rashidov and Usmankhodjayev, long
before glasnost made it fashionable to do so. Asked about Uzbekistan's
new first secretary, Islam Karimov, Salih adopts a tone of determined
resignation: "he is said to have very democratic views, so we have hope
for him. We'll see. We can only hope. Apart from hope, we have very
little else". Salih is also a member of the presidium of Birlik, the Uzbek
Popular Front, which has based its program on relieving the social and
economic injustices resulting from the imposition of the cotton
monoculture."
THE NATIONALITIES QUESTION
IN THE SOVIET UNION
Graham SMITH
Longman Publishing, London and New York, 1990, p. 223
...Birlik (Unity), the largest of the co Conntemporary political
movements in Central Asia, founded in Tashkent in November 1988 by
a group of Uzbek intellectuals, was closely modeled on popular front
movements in other parts of the Soviet Union, in particular, that of
Lithuania's Sajudis. The movementgrew rapidly,
...it succeeded in attracting supporters from all walks of life; at its
height it numbered some 500,000 members. It put forward a candidate,
the poet Muhammad Salih, in the elections of March 1989 for the
Congress of People's Deputies. Despite Birli'k'popularity, however, and
despite Salih''s own very considerable folloergs, hewas
unsuccessful,defeated by the underhand and highly unconstitutional
tactics of the Local Party and government representatives... (p.223)
RED ODYSSEY.
A JOURNEY THROUGH THE SOVIET REPUBLICS
Marat AKCHURIN. Haper Collins Publishers, New York,1992
...I was going to meet an old acquaintance of mine in Tashkent,
the poet MuhammadSalihSalih, who like many other intellectuals
preferred active involvement in politics to literary activities in the years
11
of perestroika.But unlike many others who do not go beyond idle talk,
he had founded a democratic party, called ERK (Freedom)." (p.231)
...The next day I called the Writers' Union of Uzbekistan and
arranged a meeting with Muhammad SalihSalih. He is young, tall, and
slim. But the expression of his intelligent eyes is always sullen, and his
face is stern. It has nothing to do with the fact of his being a very
important person, since he was the same before, about nine years ego,
when my close friend Yura Lassky, who was also a friend of
Muhammad Salih's, introduced us to each other. Yes, Muhammad
Solilkh had gone far in these years-both as a person and as a political
figure. In the first years of perestroika there was a coup in the Writers'
Union of Uzbekistan. Brezhnev's old guard faltered and retreated,
leaving the battlefield to the generation of thirty- and fourty-year-olds.
Then Salih became one of the secretaries of the nomenklatura for the
formation of the first legal political opposition in the Soviet period of
Uzbekistan's history. On the base of the popular front movement Birlik
(Unity), and with the help of political camrades-in-arms and allies, Salih
managed to organize the group Erk, which became the foundation of a
new democratic party of Uzbekistan." (p.232)
THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
19.02.1993
...This is the second in a series that examines the obstacles
hindering the transition to democracy in the former republics of Soviet
Central Asia. Uzbekistan declared its independence from the former
Soviet Union on August 31, 1991, but democracy remains stillborn in
this agricultural giant of Central Asia.
Police set the tone on the very day of independence by forcibly
dispersing a rally of democratic forces in Tashkent. More than 17
months later, things have gone from bad to worse, as opponents of the
governing regime of former communists try to weather an unrelenting
wave of persecution. Uzbekistan held a presidential election in late
December 1991. But the former communists took no chances, banning
the participation of the Birlik (Unity) People's Movement, one of two
important democratic organizations, allowing President Islam Karimov
to steamroller over Muhammad Salih, leader of the Erk (Freedom)
12
Democratic Party. Several months later, a civil war pitting Islamists and
democrats against a pro-communist establishment erupted in
neighboring Tajikistan. Mindful of similar conditions at home, the
Uzbek government intensified its panicky clampdown.
Many Uzbeks eager for a change had pinned their hopes on Salih,
a tall man of 43 who generated euphoria with his calls for free Islamic
worship and free enterprise.
Today, Karimov's regime has shut off the power at Erk
headquarters, banned its newspaper and imprisoned several leaders.
Members of opposition parties are forbidden to congregate in groups of
any significant size. Salih was not permitted to speak in parliament, and
security police placed him under house arrest to prevent him from
appearing at an international human rights conference. In January, thugs
in a screeching car without license plates tried to run him down on the
street. A haggard Salih said in a recent interview: "After an active start,
the democracy movement was stopped. Now it is a question of its life or
death. Our aim is just to survive."
...Salih attributes the intimidation to Erk's complaint that
Karimov's government is profiteering through payoffs for business
licenses and blocking economic recovery. "Ministries are getting rich on
bribes, and the people are getting poorer," he said.
Birlik chairman Abdul Rakhman Pulatov and colleague Miralim
Adylov were severely beaten by men with iron pipes outside the Interior
Ministry on June 29. Pulatov is now living in Moscow.
THE BALTIMORE SUN
28.02.1993
Will ENGLUND
Tashkent, Uzbekistan. -- The mindless pop music thumps away at
the "Istanbul" cellar restaurant here; the prostitutes conscientiously ply
their trade at the hard-currency hotel; the markets groan with melons,
carrots, spices and pistachios - all in all, it doesn't really look like a
police state. But the government is cracking down on its scattered
opposition here with a vengeance. Jailings, beatings and rigged trials are
giving Uzbekistan - the largest and most important of the new countries
of Central Asia - the worst human rights record of any former Soviet
republic not now engulfed in a shooting war. Uzbekistan's internal
13
crackdown has sharply intensified this month, driving even the moderate
opposition nearly to desperation.
"We are pressed to the wall. And we have only one way to carry
on," Mukhammad Salih, leader of the only legal opposition party, said
in a recent interview. "Now is the time of confrontation. The time of
dialogue is over. We kept silent for a year and a half because we feared
bloodshed. But now, even if our blood is spilled, we will go the streets.
It's our only course. We have no weapons, we have no regiments, no
squadrons, but we will come out with our bare hands."
The day after making that declaration in his office, Mr. Salih was
hauled in for a series of police interrogations, during which, he later
said, he was told he would be beaten or killed if he didn't keep quiet.
Since then he has gone into hiding. Uzbekistan's government casts
itself as a bulwark against religious extremism, prepared to use
whatever means are necessary to preserve a secular state. Incessantly, it
uses the example of war-torn Tajikistan as a hammer with which to
pound its opponents. Leaders of the opposition - most of whom are now
in jail or on the run - say they want a democratic state, not a religious
one. They portray the struggle in Uzbekistan as one that pits a
repressive, holdover regime against the inexorable rise of democracy
and freedom that is sweeping across the world. The government
dismisses that argument out of hand. This month, the government shut
down the only remaining independent newspaper. It drove the
leadership of the democratically oriented Erk ("Freedom") Party - the
only legal opposition party - underground. A member of parliament was
expelled from the legislature and put on trial on charges of
"hooliganism" and resisting arrest. Another, also expelled from
parliament, was beaten and forcibly evicted from his apartment, along
with his wife and three children, even though they own it.
...In fact, though, opposition leaders are floored by the crackdown.
Theirs has never been a strong movement. They are, for the most part,
intellectuals - many of whom studied in Russia. They concede that
among ordinary Uzbeks the government remains relatively popular.
Why, they ask, are they being hounded so relentlessly?
A foreign ministry official, Akhmadzhan Lukmanov, said that the
government was forced to take strict measures against its opponents
because their "uncivilized" protests and "lust for power."
14
And, inevitably, he raised the specter of Tajikistan. Uzbekistan, he
said, must not allow itself to slide into civil war. Only a strong hand can
prevent it. Mr. Salih has promised that the battered Erk Party would not
give up. Despite its reputation for cautious moderation, he said, it would
be taking to the streets with protests in the next several weeks.
...These past few weeks, though, the government's main focus has
been on its scattered domestic opponents. And it has been resolutely
unapologetic about its human rights record.
Central Asia's Political Crisis.
RUSSIA'S MUSLIM FRONTIERS
Martha Brill OLCOTT
Edited by Dale F.Eicelman,
Indiana Univ. Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 93, p. 57
"The weakening of the communist Party sparked the development
of several opposition groups.The first, ERK (Independence), is largely a
legislative caucus.Its head, well-known poet and former USSR Supreme
Soviet Deputy Muhammad Salih, ran against Uzbekistan's president,
Islam Karimov, in the December 1991 election. Birllik is viewed as a
more serious threat, and until October 1991 it was barred from the
republic.At that time it was registered as a "movement," not a political
party, and its cochair, Abdurahim Pulatov, was unable to get on the
presidential ballot." (p.57)
NEW NATIONS RISING
Nadia DIUK & Adrian KARATNYCKY
John Wiley & Sons, INC. New York, 1993, pp. 185-187
... Mukhammad Salih, formerly a secretary of the Uzbek Writers
Union and now president of the Democratic Party "Erk", has long been a
leading spokesman for the Uzbek people. He is concerned about
Uzbekistan's economic problems, and has spoken out on the subject on
many occasions, despite the Uzbek authorities' disapproval. He is
forthright in his assessment: "There is a direct link between the
15
deterriorating ecological situation in Uzbekistan and the cotton
monoculture", he told us.
...By February of 1990, Salih had become one of the founding
members of the Erk Party, whose objectives were to work toward
political objectives as far as possible within the legal framework of the
state. Meeting up with these authors again in September 1991, Salih
demonstrated how his thinking had evolved: "Without independence
[for Uzbekistan] there can be no other kind of independence, not
economic, cultural, or any other".
Erk's objective, he explained, was to pursue this goal as a
parliamentary political party, while spreading its views to the broad
masses of the population through the party newspaper and television"
(p.185-186).
...By the summer of 1992, the situation in independent Uzbekistan
looked little different from circumstances of three years earlier. The
defeated Muhammad Salih, previously in favor of working with the
existing regime, turned resolutely against such a path. After brutal
beatings and the arrest of members of the Birlik opposition movement,
he announced at a press conference that the Erk party would be joining
Birlik in the underground to oppose the rejime of Islam Karimov"
(p.187)
TASHKENT TAKES THE NO-CHANGE ROUTE TO REFORM
10.01.1993,
The Sunday Telegraph London, Ian MacWilliam in Tashkent
...While most of these multi-ethnic republics have a more liberal
air than in Soviet days, in Uzbekistan, most populous of the five Central
Asian republics, the government of President Islam Karimov is busily
building a strongly centralised state with all the necessary powers to
squash any criticism. Uzbekistan introduced a constitution last month
that promised freedom of thought and multi-party democracy in the best
20th-century fashion. This gesture was followed almost immediately by
a vote in parliament to investigate the Birlik (Unity) opposition
movement for alleged anti-government activities.
Birlik has never been allowed to register as a parliamentary party.
The only significant parliamentary opposition is the more moderate Erk
16
(Freedom) democratic party. Even Erk is concerned for its future now.
Muhammad Salih, its chairman, was sitting glumly in his office last
week. Telephones had been cut repeatedly for three weeks and he has
been told that Erk will have to leave its premises. The KGB, renamed
the SNB in Uzbekistan, needs to prove its continued usefulness by
watching such people as opposition leaders. "There are no secrets here,"
Mr Salih remarked, indicating the telephone and the walls, which he
assumes are bugged. For critics of the government, even the old option
of escape to Moscow is becoming more awkward. A new law forbids
Uzbeks from leaving the republic without permission.
With a new government of former communists installed in
Tajikistan last month, Uzbekistan may begin to relax about the threat of
instability spreading. So far, however, the indications are that this
republic has no intention of allowing the new world order to disturb
unduly its former communist calm.
EMPIRE'S EDGE
Scott Malcomson
Travels in South-Eastern Europe, Turkey and Central Asia
‘A powerful book about Europe’s mutable boundaries’
(Caryl Phillips)
Muhammad Salih is unusually tall, very handsome man around
forty, and when you meet him-he enter the room with the easy
confdence of a thoughtful businessman-he's dressed entirely in pristine
white. He smokes foreign cigarettes stuck in a holder. He has just quit
parliament. Muhammad Salih Ieads the Erk party, the only legal
opposition party of any size. Erk puts out a weekly newspaper which is
the only Iegal opposition newspaper of any size. He has Ieft parliament
because he was attempting to speak there about what the govemment
ought to do and his microphone was cut off. 50 he deposited his
parliamentarian's card on his desk.
''lt was the Iast way remaining to me to fght against the estabIished regime of dictatorship. Over the Iast two years, 1 have demanded,
on behalf of the opposition, that the govemment fulfll its promises of
radical reform. But they do nothing. On the contrary , they have begun
to work to strengthen the former system. All the same, this system won't
17
work. The totalitarian system worked for sev- enty or eighty years. But
now it won't work. Such a system has, historically, run out of time.
''We have emerged from this system, but we haven't gone to
anything. We are living in a system without a system.''
The government, he says, has used the militia to keep itself in
power; and indeed there have been regular arrests and beatings of Erk
members and other dissidents. ''But that government which survives by
force cannot survive long. People are becoming more opposed to the
government, mainly because of the economy, and it has wasted the
stability of the period that followed independence. We in the opposition
understand very we11 that stability is necessary for reform. For the last
three years we have tried to ensure stability, refraining from holding big
meetings.
But, as it turns out, this stability wasn't used to provide a space for
reform. On the contrary. 50 the government has lost its chance to use
stability.We are not at all sure now that stability will continue.''
Erk is working on a new constitution and an alternative economic
plan, as well as building its own party structures. Conditions are less
than ideal. The government printing house-the only printing housereduced Erk's newspaper's press run from one hundred thousand to
twelve thousand. And now Erk's leader has left parlia- ment, which most
people still call the supreme soviet. A majority voted to accept his
resignation.
''I won't go back until there's a new parliament. I didn't decide to
be leader of the opposition, but events take you to such places. I never
liked politics or politicians. I was just a poet. There are such periods in
each country, when poets become involved in politics. lndependence,
liberty, are among the ideas most dear to poets. A man should do
something in his life. This is a rule of life. Writing poems was once my
aim in life. Now this is my life-activity .''
Meanwhile, the government is creating its own opposition parties so that it can eliminate the exiting opposition while preserving the
appearance of democracy. And it is increasing repression. Salih looks
impressively calm in his crisp white clothes, gesturing with his cigarette
holder.
‘'If the government reforms, such a tightening of control won't be
needed. Such a repressive system will only increase instability. They're
18
doing their best to increase stability, but they are destroying
stability.The govemment should give the people economic and political
freedom. If it doesn't, its life will be very short. If it does, then perhaps
its life will be prolonged. This would be better for everyone. We don't
want to throw President Karimov away. I talk to him all the time. But
then, many people talk to him. Maybe their influence is greater than
mine. The national and provincial chiefs-of course, all ex-Communists,
Iike the president, only under a new party name they're making
obstacles to the new Iaws. The president can't enforce the Iaws by
himself. Maybe, yes, he knows this. But if he eliminates these people,
what will he have Ieft? He's afraid of the system he leads. The old
Communists still rule. I am very sympathetic to him.''
The govemment uses the fear of Islamic fundamentalism to make
itself more attractive to foreign govemments and the ex-communist
bureaucracy. Salih believes fundamentalism will become a problem
only if the govemment makes it one. ''The Islamic activists are not
aiming at political power now. But they certainly have such a potential.
If there aren't reforms, some Muslims may tum to politics. But as for
now there is no fundamentalist leader or program. Fundamentalism is
not politically important, not shaped or ripened. If a strong man appears
with a strong program, then his party could be come powerful.
''Islam is our holy religion. Of course its role is very great. This is
natural. In our opinion, Islam shouldn't be political. Islam is higher 1
than any party. To draw it down would mean to curse God.''
A few months after that, Muhammad Salih the handsome poet and
leader of the moderate opposition, who doesn't even want to get rid of
the president of a government that rejects him, wili fnd his party
crushed, his newspaper eliminated, his offces sealed. He will be jailed
twice, charged with crimes against the state. One day , his Erk
companions will inform him that he is due to be arrested again, this time
for good, and at three the next morning he will slip away, travel by car
to Kazakhstan, then to Baku, Turkey , the United States. His wife and
two small children will also flee, travelling for days around Uzbekistan
to confuse the authorities then dashing over the border into
Turkmenistan. Religious Ieaders will go underground, or be jailed.
People will begin simply to disappear ...
19
THE NEW GEOPOLITICS of CENTRAL ASIA
and its BORDERLANDS
Edited by Ali Banuazizi and Myron Weiner
Ind. Univ. Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis,94, pp. 49, 58
"...One of the main streets in Tashkent has been named 'Rashidov
Prospoct', and the 75th birth-day of the deceased leader was marked
throughout the republic. This is something which is making
Uzbekistan's 'democratic forces' nervous. To them Rashidov is not the
'Uzbek national hero' who is currently being depicted, but the
representative of a more corrupt and even less democratic political
administration than the one currently in power. Uzbekistan's political
opposition has objected to the ways in which Karimov is manipulating
nationalist themes. The leaders of ERK (whose leader, Muhammad
Salih, a prominent poet-turned-legislator, ran against Karimov in the
December 1991 elections) and Birlik (Unity) claim that Karimov's
policies are mere sloganeering. They argue that renaming streets after
previously suppressed historical figures does not constitute the
development of a national history, that eliminating Russian-language
announcements from public-address systems is not synonomous with
the advancement of the Uzbek language." (p.49)
...Muhammad Salih, leader of ERK, fled the republic in early
1993 after having been called in for questioning, and has gone from
being an establishment stalwart to an opposition figure." (p.58)
ISLAM AND POLITICS IN CENTRAL ASIA
Mehrdad HAGHAYEGHI
St.Martin Press, New York 1995., pp. 107, 123, 124, 125
"Birlik was established in February 1988 on the birthday of the
famous Uzbek poet, Mir Ali Shir Navoi, by a number of intellectuals
from the Uzbek writers Union and the Academy of Sciences, among
whom Muhammad Salih, Abdurahim Pulatov, Shokrat Ismatullayev...
gained considerable popularity.
Birlik began to gather followers in the summer of 1988 when its
leading members joined a protest rally organized in response to the
20
construction of a factory in the Bostonlik(ski) district, the site of which
had been set aside for recreational purposes. The protest strengthened
the resolve of the Uzbek population, paving the way for public
criticisms of the Communist government on a number of cultural and
socioeconomic issues that had not been expressed openly in recent
decades" (p.107)
"Due to differences in political strategy, some leading members of
Birlik, most notably, Muhammad Salih, left the party and created Erk in
1990. The main controversy revolved around two issues. First, some
Birlik leaders were of the opinion that public demonstrations should be
used as a method of political struggle against the government. Erk
leaders, on the other hand, preferred a purely parliamentary means to
realize their objectives. Second, Birlik was in favor of the dissolution of
the parliament altogether, while Erk proposed to reform the existing
parliament by replacing candidates who had Communist tendencies. The
tolerant attitude of Erk helped secure an official recognition in
September 1991, allowing Muhammad Salih to run as a presidential
candidate against Karimov in the December 1991 elections... In later
became apparent that Karimov's lenient attitude toward Erk was part of
a premeditated plan to create an image of a democratic election in order
to influence public opinion in the West in his favor."(p.123)
"In the absence of genuine democratic reforms, Muhammad Salih
began to intensify his criticism of the government and, in an unexpected
move,... joined for public demonstrations on July 2, 1992. Later that
day Salih resigned his post as a deputy to the parliament when his
request to speak to the floor was denied. In an interview with Interfax,
he pointed out: "The Erk party has maintained stability in the republic
by its silence for two years..."
In response to Salih's growing condemnation of government,
orders were sent out to confiscate printing equipment, freeze bank
accounts, and move the party offices to the suburbs of the Tashkent.
Thanks to Karimov's initial approval of Erk's activities, its membership
expanded from 5,000 to 40,000 by 1992. The activities of Erk were
severely curtailed as of September 1992, and later the organization was
in effect banned. Birlik, however, has been less successful in conducting
its affairs freely and its leadership has been more frequently subjected to
coercion than has the Erk leaders. Both Birlik and Erk are essentially
urban oriented and enjoy the support of the intelligentsia...
21
From an organizational point of view, Erk has been successful in
setting up nationwide network. Given its semi-legal status, Birlik,
however, has been less successful in developing an organizational
infrastructure. Both parties are essentially monoethnic, though Russians
and other ethnic minorities have been incorporated. From a financial
point of view, both parties have been experiencing difficulties,
particularly since Karimov banned the financing of public organizations
by sources outside the republic." (p.124)
"In August 1992, Erk lost 192,000 rubles claimed to have been by
party a Russian sponsor in Moscow.This, coupled with constant
government intervention, have prevented either party from publishing a
newspaper on a regular basis, thus limiting their capacity to use
propaganda to attract more followers. In addition to Erk and Birlik, a
host of other parties have been set up by individuals who support the
policies of the President Karimov. One such party, Vatan Taraqiaty, was
established on August 5, 1992, by Usman Azim, a politician and former
deputy chairman of the Birlik Movement. The party has been officially
recognized by the government and has so far attracted some 4,000 to
5,000 members, most of whom are scholars, writers, journalists, and
businessmen." (p.125)
"POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT IN UZBEKISTAN:
DEMOCRATIZATION?"
William Fierman
IN: Conflict, Cleavage and Change in Central Asia and the Caucasus.
The Emergence of Informal Organizations
... Some of the writers who contributed to the re-evaluation of
Uzbek history, culture, and Moscow's policies in the conditions of
glasnost became the initial core leadership of Uzbekistan's first
important informal group, "Birlik" ("Unity").Birlik was established at
the meeting of an initiative group on November 11, 1988. In addition to
the writers and other members of th creative intelligentsia, the new
organization's leadership also included such scientists as Abdurahim
Polatov and Shuhrat Ismatullaev.
One of Birlik's central goals was to improve the position of the
Uzbek language, in part by granting it the status of state language;
22
Birlik's program also called for an end to the "unjustified denigration"
of great Central Asian historical figures. Much of Birlik's program
concerned social, economic, ecological, and health issues. Many of
these related to reducing Uzbekistan's role as a producer of raw
materials, especially cotton. In addition, Birlik's agenda also had human
rights and other more immediately political dimensions. It called for
Uzbekistan to become an independent republic of the USSR
determining its fate "on the basis of a leninist nationality policy;" it also
proposed inviolability of private communications, individual rights to
see and dispute materials in dossiers collected by any organization, and
legal protection from slander. The Birlik program supported the CPSU's
efforts to "reform the USSR's political system," and noted that petitions,
demonstrations, and rallies were appropriate forms of participation.
From its very inception, Birlik had an especially close bond with
the Uzbekistan Writers Union. Muhammad Salih, besides being one of
Birlik's founders, was also a popular poet. A number of his colleagues in
the leadership, some of whom did not join until 1989, were also writers
and literary critics; they included Ahmad A’zam, Usman Azim, Zahir
A'lam, and Dilaram Ishaqova. Birlik members and sympathizers were
active in organizing demonstrations in Tashkent at the end of 1988 and
in 1989. Some of these demonstrations took place without official
permission from the authorities. The first one, in Tashkent's university
district on December 3, 1988, was in support of the Uzbek language.
Although the organization Birlik formally did not organize the
December demonstration, it did seek permission for a rally to be held in
early 1989. When over the course of at least two months the authorities
refused to grant permission for this gathering, Birlik leaders proceeded
without authorization; they called a meeting in support of the Uzbek
language which was held March 19 on Tashkent's Lenin Square. At this
meeting (which according to one source attracted 12,000 participants),
writers and other Birlik leaders were permitted to address a large crowd.
Probably recognizing that they could not prevent gatherings, authorities
granted Birlik permission to hold another meeting, on April 9, 1989.
This one, however, was not held on a central Tashkent square, but in
relatively remote Chuqursay raion. Along with changing directives from
Moscow, these demonstrations were likely a factor encouraging the
CPUz leadership to make modest concessions on language and other
issues on the Birlik agenda in the first half of 1989. While signalling
23
attention to the problems raised by Birlik, authorities continued to
condemn the informal organization's techniques, the character of its
leadership, and the chaos it was allegedly creating. For example, a
report of a Tashkent city party conference referred to "cliques and an
unhealthy moral-psychological climate" and efforts by "self-proclaimed
leaders" to create extremist formations and the informal association
"Birlik" and "Free Union of Uzbekistan Youth." At about the same time
the republic press carried an especially venomous attack on Muhammad
Salih, comparing him to Goebbels.
At the very end of the Nishanov era in the spring of 1989 the
CPUz began to show flexibility in admitting that informal organizations
could play a positive role in addressing social and political problems.
However, it is clear that the party did not consider Birlik a worthy
partner for cooperation. Thus, the report of an April 1989 CPUz buro
meeting specifically mentioned a high level of harmful activity by
"some organizers of the unregistered informal association calling itself
'Birlik'... " Moreover, it called upon party committees to assure "high
political vigilance" and to "assess in a principled fashion facts of
complacency, connivance, and unscrupulousness in relation to extremist
actions...
Karimov-Era Uzbekistan Prior to Independence
... The CPUz's policy toward the informal opposition forces in
Uzbekistan changed when Islam Karimov replaced Rafiq Nishanov as
republic party first secretary.
... With Karimov's ascension, the anti-corruption campaign of the
Usmankhojaev and Nishanov eras began to be publicly portrayed in
Uzbekistan as an action led by central party figures who unfairly singled
out Uzbekistan for punishment, Thus, Karimov's ascension also marked
the end of an assault on much of the old political guard.
However, like Karimov and former first secretary Sharaf
Rashidov many of the political forces whom the new first secretary
rehabilitated were members of the Samarkand-Jizzakh political
grouping. Karimov's appointment also marked a new policy concerning
"participation." Karimov opened up new opportunities for informal
groups to operate and began to distinguish between those individuals
(and wings of organizations) which sought to bring the masses into the
streets and those who were satisfied to press for reform through more
easily controlled activities. Beginning in the fall of 1989, the regime
24
granted the "law abiding" leaders positive recognition and permitted
them greater freedom to promote their ideas. In fact, the direction of
change in policy toward the opposition was becoming evident even
before Nishanov was formally removed. In early June, as riots were
rocking the Fergana Valley, Nishanov was formally elected chairman of
the USSR Supreme Soviet Council of Nationalities. (Thus, it was
already clear that a new CPUz first secretary would soon be elected.) At
this point-already in Moscow-Nishanov dispatched Abdurahim Polatov,
Muhammad Salih, and Mufti Muhammad Sadiq Muhammad Yusuf
(head of the Spiritual Directorate of the Muslims of Central Asia and
Kazakstan) to the Fergana Valley in order to attempt to quell the
violence. The disturbances in the republic at this time may help explain
why Karimov, once elected, was willing to try a new tack.
...As will be discussed in more detail below, the Birlik
organization was eventually to split. Although the Birlik leadership was
fairly united on eventual goals, they did not agree on questions of
strategy. Some leaders, such as M. Salih, apparently believed that
positive change could be stimulated without mass public meetings.
Others, perhaps inspired by the course of events in the Baltic republics,
were less inclined to eschew public demonstrations as an instrument of
pressure on the Communist Party.
...As of late 1989, none of the informal organizations besides
Birlik was very large or powerful. Nevertheless, as in other republics, in
Uzbekistan, too, a group named Intersoiuz arose to protect the interests
of the non-indigenous nationalities, especially the Slavs. Uzbekistan's
Intersoiuz was created at an "initiative group" meeting in August 1989.9
Some Birlik leaders asserted that Intersoiuz was itself an invention of
the KGB.
... Given the CPUz's persecution of the "bad" groups and the
genuine philosophical disagreement about utility of confrontational
tactics, it is not surprising that Salih's wing of Birlik decided to distance
itself from those led by Aburahim Polatov. Consequently, on February
20, 1990, Salih became head of a new smaller "Erk Public
Organization." ("Erk" translates into English as "Freedom" or "Will.")
A separate and smaller organization had the advantage of
permitting better control over membership. According to some sources
in Tashkent, the authorities had been infiltrating Birlik with provocateur
"extremists" in order to discredit it. In establishing this separate
25
organization, Salih criticized Birlik for having become carried away
with public demonstrations.
...Given the very poor personal relations between Abdurahim
Polatov and Muhammad Salih, it was very difficult for Birlik and Erk to
cooperate in Tashkent.
The Post-Coup "Thaw"
...The limits to Karimov's willingness to democratize were
evident in the election rules and the deadlines for registration. Although
the election was scheduled for December 29, 1991, the rules governing
its conduct were not published until November 23; even worse, the rules
for collecting signatures--which non-party organizations had to submit
to the Central Election Commission by December 3- was not
promulgated until November26. Due to weekends (i.e., non-working
days) and the three days required to call a nomination meeting, groups
other than registered parties were in effect given only one day to gather
the necessary signatures. Because registered political parties were not
subject to these regulations, differential treatment of Birlik and Erk
registration in the fall of 1991 was of critical importance. The political
party Erk received registration on September 4, 1991.
This was the very day of its application and less than a week after
Uzbekistan's declaration of independence. Birlik did not have such good
fortune. Over a year earlier it had created the "Uzbekistan Democratic
Party;" in October 1991, Birlik called another meeting at which it
replaced or renamed its older party with one called "Birlik." At about
the same time, the Birlik Popular Movement applied to the Ministry of
Justice for registration. This was granted on November 12, 1991...
Birlik Party's failure to achieve registration meant that it could not
nominate a presidential candidate without gathering signatures. Birlik
Popular Movement did attempt to do the impossible, to gather the
required 60,000 of signatures in the course of one day. Indeed, it claims
to have gathered more than the minimum, 63,000. However, because
25,000 of these were rejected by the authorities, the movement was not
permitted to register Abdurahim Polatov, its chosen representative, as a
candidate for president. Erk's candidate, Muhammad Salih, was not
required to gather signatures because he was nominated by a registered
party. Nevertheless, the presidential race was hardly plad on a level
field. One of the greatest advantages was that Karimov as president
could directly or indirectly mobilize resources--among them the press,
26
transportation, meeting space, and supplies--in his support. These
advantages frequently manifested themselves in subtle ways. For
example, the pictures which accompanied the notices of registration of
the two candidates for president were of very uneven quality: In contrast
to Karimov's, which was quite crisp, Salih's was somewhat blurred.
Moreover, Karimov was the candidate of a large political organization,
the People's Democratic Party (PDP). This party had emerged when in
September a CPUz extraordinary congress adopted a declaration calling
for the PDP's creation. Not all CPUz members joined its successor, but
as of December 1, 1991, the PDP had 351,000 members. In contrast,
Erk had 3,000 members, while Birlik claimed 500,000 supporters.
In accordance with the election law, all campaign financing for
both Salih and Karimov was paid by the government. Given that
Karimov was much better known than Salih, this naturally worked to the
president's advantage. Likewise, the election rules specified that
candidates should have equal access to the mass media. This was clearly
violated, as the press devoted much more attention to the incumbent.
Karimov's speeches were regularly broadcast on television. Salih was
granted only fifteen minutes of air time, and this only after Birlik and
Erk supporters demonstrated with demands that this time be provided; in
the end, however, two minutes of Salih's speech were cut by censors.
Erk alleged that there were numerous violations of the election law,
including the failure to include its representatives in electoral
commissions at all levels. Erk also charged that the official republic
media refused to print any information about the election law or
criticism of the government, that extra ballots were delivered to polling
stations, and that artificial obstacles were created to hinder Erk's
election observers.
...Before closing this section, a few words should be said about
the respective platforms of Muhammad Salih and Islam Karimov in the
presidential elections. Karimov's official campaign appeal was vague,
referring to such general themes as the importance of Uzbekistan's
independence, the spiritual rebirth of society, principles of relations with
foreign countries, and the destruction of Uzbekistan's economy under
Soviet power. He also spoke in very general terms about economic
reform, such as extending privileges and greater freedom to peasants,
and the need for a social safety net. Karimov's platform did not contain
any specifics about political reform or guarantees of political rights. In
27
contrast to Karimov, Salih's appeal stressed more economic change than
stability. He also emphasized changes in political structures, such as the
separation of legislative,executive, and judicial branches of power, and
guarantees of such freedoms as speech, press, and assembly. Salih also
placed an "absolute priority" on the protection of personal freedoms,
including the privacy of communication. In the economic sphere, Salih
expressed strong support for the introduction of a market economy and
privatization "on a priority basis" of the service and household sectors,
as well as the trade system, housing, and unprofitable and low-profit
enterprises and farms.
Official election results purported to show that 94 percent of
eligible voters took part in the election. In these same tallies, 86 percent
of the votes cast for president went to Karimov, and 12 percent to Salih.
Reassertion of Authoritarian Control The Crackdown of January-July
1992.It is impossible to determine with any certainty what factors
encouraged Karimov to allow a "thaw" at the end of 1991. In any case,
the early months of 1992 marked its end; indeed, the next three and a
half years would bring no significant relaxation of Uzbekistan's
authoritarian system. By July 1992, Karimov's regime had suppressed
even Erk to such an extent that M. Salih would withdraw from the
official political process and soon flee the country.
...As the regime was severely limiting the possibilities for
dissident voices to organize within the legislative and executive
branches, it also took measures to limit opportunities for foes to find
support in other quarters. On April 3, the Supreme Soviet presidium
adopted a resolution "On Measures to Prevent the Illegal Financing of
Public Associations of the Uzbekistan Republic." This measure
prohibited political parties and mass movements that pursued political
goals from financing their publications with funds from religious
organizations, or from foreign states, organizations or citizens. It also
entrusted the Ministry of Finance to review declarations on sources of
funding for all associations seeking registration in the republic, and to
"strictly adhere" to the relevant regulations in the February 15, 1991
Law on Public Associations...
The growing repression convinced a wide range of the oppositionincluding Muhammad Salih-that a change in the dynamics of republic
politics would come only with the election of a new Supreme Soviet.
Consequently, as the preparations were made for the early July
28
convening of the Supreme Soviet, leaders of Birlik and Erk held an
unprecedented joint news conference where they announced plans for a
demonstration on Tashkent's Independence (formerly Lenin) Square and
in other cities to demand dissolution of the Supreme Soviet and new
parliamentary elections.
...The Karimov regime's increasingly crude tactics made
Muhammad Salih lose any hope that change could be achieved from
within the system. In a journal article that went to press in May 1992 he
is quoted as saying that Erk favored "cooperation with the official
powers on the basis of mutual respect,pluralism of opinions, and
political freedom; in July, however, he walked out of the Supreme
Soviet session that his party claimed was illegal, and he resigned from
his seat. Karimov, for his part, justified the continuing crackdown. In his
speech on the day that Salih left the Supreme Soviet the president stated,
"It is necessary to straighten out the brains of one hundred people in
order to preserve the lives of thousands."
Consolidating and "Legalizing" the Crackdown
...Although beginning with the July 1992 session of the Supreme
Soviet both Erk and Birlik were marginalized, they would remain legal
forces into 1993. In the meantime, the Karimov regime intensified
repression against both organizations and created a new "opposition."
...In late July, just weeks after Salih's departure from the Supreme
Soviet, a new law took effect which provided a basis for that now even
more compliant body to remove independent members. According to
this law, in "exceptional cases" the parliament could "curtail the powers
of deputies prior to the expiration of their terms of office." Among the
conduct which qualified for such treatment was anything that
"besmirch[ed] or discredit[ed] the high calling of people's deputy" or
"unconstitutional acts directed... at destabilizing the sociopolitical
situation, or calling for such acts..." Against this background, in August,
another major figure opposition figure with a parliamentary seat, former
Vice President Mirsaidov, also resigned in protest. The regime had been
tightening censorship and other control of information ever since early
1992. This process intensified in the summer of that year. Erk
newspaper editors found it increasingly difficult to publish materials
critical of the regime and to distribute their publication. Paper, largely
under government control, was in critically short supply. This forced
Erk to cut its print run, which meant that it was no longer available
29
through kiosks, only through subscription. By January 1993, the paper
was shut down entirely.
Abbreviations of Parties Used in Text
CPUz: Communist Party of Uzbekistan (Russian:
Kommunisticheskaia partiia Uzbekistana).
IRP: Islamic Renaissance Party (Russian: Islamskaia partiia
vozrozhdeniia)
DMU: Democratic Movement of Uzbekistan (Russian:
Demokraticheskoe dvizhenie Uzbekistan)
PDP: People's Democratic Party
CENTRAL ASIA'S EMERGING FACES
31.08.1998, The Wall Street Journal
By James M. Dorsey and Matthew Kaminnski
From the cotton fields of Uzbekistan to the desert plains of
Turkmenistan, Central Asia is undergoing an economic transformation.
Today, nearly 53 million people inhabit its five countries -w-i-tfia c-omective gross billion. Total foreign investment from 1989 through
last 5 billion, but poverty remains the norm. Meet nine business and
Dolitical leaders helping to shape, the new Central Asia.
A soft-spoken, 49-year-old Uzbek poet and writer, Muhammad
Salih has spent the last five years in exile, shuttling between Turkey and
Western European countries -- a living testament to the authoritarian
rule of his president, Islam Karimov. Abroad, Mr. Salih heads up a
small opposition movement. "We represent the only alternative to
Karimov. That is why he is scared of us," Mr. Salih says, speaking on
the phone ftom Switzerland. Back home, Mr. Karimov keeps a lid on
opposition that reminds outside observers of the Soviet days. Not even
dissident publications get passed around. Oddly, Mr. Salih and Mr.
Karimov are old acquaintances. In the late days of Mikhail Gorbachev's
rule, Mr. Salih was a leading member of the Uzbek writers'union, a
proponent of pan-Turkic nationalism and an advocate of independence.
By contrast, Mr. Karimov was leader of the Uzbek Communist Party
and Moscow's satrap in the republic; as the Soviet Union began to
30
collapse, however, he adopted some of Mr. Salih's popular pro-Turkic
rhetoric. In 1991, when the two men faced each other in Uzbek
presidential elections, Mr. Karimov won easily -- though the rules
clearly favored the Communist leader. Two years later, amid a
crackdown on opposition activity, Mr. Salih fled the country, along with
the leader of the now-banned Birlik nationalist movement, Abdurahman
Pulatov. Today, Uzbek officials defend the hard line on political dissent.
They claim that Central Asia’s most populous and centrally located
country must put political stability above other concerns. The country,
they say, can't afford open democracy, given the threat of militant Islam
just across the border in war-torn Tajikistan and Afghanistan. The
government still censors the news, doesn't allow independent political
parties and, according to Human Rights Watch, subjected opposition
Muslims in the densely populated Fergana Valley region to "beatings,
show trials, and lengthy prison terms" earlier this year. From, the
outside, Mr. Salih can draw attention to such findings, exerting pressure
on the Uzbek government to change. What he can't really do, though, is
play a leadership role inside the country.
FIVE PARTIES TO CONTEST
UZBEK PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS
15.09.1999, RFE\RL NEWSLINE
A spokesman for Uzbekistan's Central Electoral Commission told
journalists in Tashkent on September 14 that five political parties have
received permission to contend the December 5 parliamentary elections,
Reuters reported (see "RFE/RL, Newsline," August 23, 1999). They are
the People's Democratic Party (the former Communist Party of
Uzbekistan), the Adolat (Justice) party, the National Revival Party, For
the Progress of the Motherland Party, and the Fidorkorlar (Selfless
Ones).
COMMENT FROM MUHAMMAD SALIH: PUPPET
THEATER OF THE UZBEK GOVERNMENT MUHAMMAD SALIH
CHAIRMAN ERK PARTY OF UZBEKISTAN Government of
Uzbekistan intends to install a political show at the end of this year. The
juncture is called "elections to Supreme Medzhlis", compiled by the
President of Uzbekistan it's producer, represents the roles to execute five
31
puppet parties. Therefore, in this vein it is possible to entitle it a
"puppet-show theater." "Theater" wants to introduce to the world, by
intending to invite the guests from different countries, and in
commonwealth opinion, these visitors can be present as observers. "The
Government of Uzbekistan is not afraid to have observers. Choices will
be democratic. Let observers see as much as they want." When asked
the reason for such boldness of the Uzbek government, the answer is
that all five parties belong to Karimov. Moreover, what about Uzbek
people, "whose sweat drops from their arms, into their boot-tops". Is
there any alternative to President Karimov? And who will lose? The
Uzbek people will lose. They are already used to losing, only what will
be the world's reaction by the observers on this juncture? In opinion of
Uzbekistan government, Uzbekistan as an independent state will
conduct elections as it needs, irrespective of reacting anyone's
observations, even globally. That is to say, Uzbek government, as
always, is hiding the democrats for independence. Trampling rights of
the person, terror against a political opposition and devotees,
persecution on dissidents, and other savageries were always done in this
country behind a screen by this demagogy. Everyone, who from the side
tried to prevent torture to the people, Uzbek authority here accused them
of interference in private business of sovereign state. Therefore, in such
situation democratic countries can send the observers on this farce of
Uzbek elections. One representative of the OBSE in region answered
this question shortly, but it is very clear, "If the opposition will not
participate in options, there is no also sense to observe these elections".
Everyone knows, that political opposition is present in Uzbekistan, two
entities: the party of ERK and the Birlik party. On whole, they will not
be represented on these elections. There wlll begin a new stage in the
sovereign reign of the tyrants.
AGENCE FRANCE PRESSE
TASHKENT, November 18, 2000
Leaders of a banned lslamic extremist movement in Uzbekistan,
Takhir Yuldash and the notorious Djuma Namangani, were sentenced to
death Friday by Tashkent's Supreme Court. Ten other members of the
banned Islamic fundamentalist group were sentenced from 12 to 20
years in prison in a trial that has been criticized by Human Rights Watch
32
representatives in Uzbekistan. Only three of the 12 defendants were
present in court. The rest were tried in absentia. Erk opposition party
leader Muhammad Salih, who stood against President Islam Karimov in
Uzbekistan's 1991 presidential elections, was given a 15 year and six
month prison sentence for organizing criminal acts. Observers fear that
opposition leader Salih has been tried as a member of the IMU so that
the Uzbek authorities could ask for his extradition from Norway where
he has received political asylum. Salih's daughter, Nigor, who was not
allowed in court to hear the sentence, said., "We don't believe he has
participated in these crimes." She said she fears that Norway will now
be compelled to hand over Salih to the Uzbek authorities.
UZBEK OPPOSITION BOSS SAYS
AFGHANS NEED BROAD-BASED GOVERNMENT
Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring July 29, 1999
Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Text of report by Iranian radio from Mashhad on 26th July The
chairman of the Uzbek opposition Erk Democratic Party, Muhammad
Salih, has told Iranian radio from Mashhad that the six-plus-two forum
on Afghanistan which was held in Tashkent on 19th July did ''not
achieve any success". He said such a forum should have been held five
to six years ago. Salih added that peace could only be established in
Afghanistan with the setting up of a government of ''national unity". The
following is the Now comments about an issue important for all the
Central Asian region -on a measure taken to settle the Afghan crisis -the
six-plus-two meeting in Tashkent. According to some political
observers, the holding of the six-plus-two meeting in Tashkent was a
convenient time for Uzbek foreign policy to pay serious attention to
regional issues and to show its diplomacy. After realizing this,
Uzbekistan carried out some work in that direction and in this respect
we can take, as an example, Uzbek Foreign Minister Abdulaziz
Komilov's visits to Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. But according to the
same political observers the Uzbek side's attention to the head of the
Taleban delegation, Mowlawi Amir Khan Motaqi –acting minister of
culture and information and head of Taleban delegation at six-plus-two
talks on the Iocation of Islamic groups opposed to the Uzbek
33
gevernment in those areas under Taleban control and a proposal on
changing this situation placed diplomatic efforts in second place. It
Iooked as if the Uzbek government was trying to use this meeting
against its own opposition. In other words, Uzbekistan tried to use this
meeting in its own interests. The Iranian radio's Uzbek service
correspondent questioned the Ieader of Uzbekistan's Erk Democratic
Party , Muhammad Salih, on the six-plus-two meeting in Tashkent and
its results. Let us Iisten to his answer together.
The six-plus-two forum, of course, was the most important event
in Uzbekistan last week 19th July. This forum was of great importance.
But the results of this forum and its public meaning showed that it did
not achieve any success. Nevertheless, such a forum has been carried
out very Iate. Such a forum should have been carried out five to six
years ago and this is not only the affair of the Central Asian or
neighbouring countries to bring peace to Afghanistan but peace in
Afghanistan is also an issue of great importance for Eurasia. Uzbekistan
was the initiator of this forum and it was a good factor. But it seems to
me that all the participants of the meeting did not have a single agenda
and proposal. They all had their own aims and they went there with
those aims. It is a pity to say that the issue of peace in Afghanistan was
not seen as the most important issue for the neighbours of Afghanistan.
It is my personal view. If the neighbouring countries had come with
such a proposal and said: God willing, we want peace in Afghanistan
and we will try to do our best for this. Then this forum would have
achieved something. But every delegate had its own words indistinct
peace in Afghanistan words indistinct .There is a kind of geopolitical
situation in Afghanistan. I think that the delegates started to think over
one issue: Who will overcome this situation and on the contrary, who
will fail in this situation? In my view they thought about it and,
therefore, the forum did not reach any agreement.
Of course, it is a good step. I want to state that if those
neighbouring states gather once again and really demonstrate political
courage to bring peace to Afghanistan, then they will probably achieve
some results. Meanwhile, however, I think they are mistaken. Those
neighbouring states, however, assessed the situation in Afghanistan
proceeding from the present day situation there and tried to bring
changes there. But there is only one way to bring changes there. And
only in this way a govemment word indistinct can be formed with the
34
participation of all ethnic groups in Afghanistan and it would have
brought peace to Afghanistan. It was the main issue and this important
issue was not raised there. There is no other way for Afghanistan to
achieve peace. Afghanistan has approximately 250 years history. All
this time only one ethnic group ruled there for those 250 years and other
ethnic groups were oppressed. Therefore, when Russians left the
country the situation changed there and other ethnic groups also wanted
equality, real friendship and real fraternity and began demanding the
truth. I think that probably they are right in their demands.
The only way to establish peace in Afghanistan, therefore, and
probably the only way is to form a government of word indistinct
national unity and there is no other way. And that government has to
word indistinct all the existing ethnic groups there. Only in this way will
it be possible to establish peace there. This issue should have been
raised as an important matter in Tashkent but it is a pity to say that it did
not happen.
Muhammad Salih, chairman of Erk Democratic Party
ERK SAYS UZBEK PRESIDENT BENEFITED
FROM BOMBINGS
02.08.1999, RFE\RL, Clark Troy ([email protected])
An article in the newspaper of the Erk Democratic Party, which
has been banned in Uzbekistan, says that Presdent Islam Karimov ''hit
the jackpot'' as a result of the February 16 bombings, Iran's Mashhad
radio in Uzbek reported on July 28. That is because the bombings gave
him the chance to introduce a ''terror movement'' of "unprecedented
oppresson, Erk said that "if it was not Karimov himself who organized
these bombings, then most Iikely he is currently handing out rewards to
those who did.
OPPOSITION SAYS UN WILL TAKE UP TORTURE CASE
08.08.1999, RFE/RL by Beatrice Hogan
The leader of Uzbekistan's banned opposition party Erk met Sept.
6 in Geneva with Mary Robinson - the UN's high commissioner for
35
human rights - to discuss the human rights situation in the Central Asian
nation. Our correspondent Beatrice Hogan looks at the role the UN
office plays in evaluating allegations of human rights abuses and in
making governments accountable for their actions.
Muhammad Salih, the leader of Uzbekistan's banned opposition
party Erk, said he presented Mary Robinson with documentation including letters from prisoners - to support allegations of torture in
Uzbek prisons. International human rights organizations - including the
U.S.-based Human Rights Watch - also accuse Uzbekistan of violating
the UN's international Convention Against Torture, to which it is a
signatory. A spokesman for Robinson, Jose Diaz, confirmed that the
Geneva meeting took place on September 6, but said UN policy is not to
comment on what is discussed at such meetings. Salih said the state of
human rights in his country has declined dramatically since the February
16 bombings in Tashkent, which killed 16 and wounded more than 100.
In his letter to RFE/RL, Salih said the current situation in Uzbekistan
has devolved from a police state into a medieval inquisition. Salih
alleges that thousands of innocent citizens have been arbitrarily arrested
and tortured for their suspected role in the bombings. Salih - who is now
in exile - has been named by the Uzbek government as one of the
masterminds of the bombing, which is widely believed to havebeen an
assassination attempt against President Islam Karimov. Two of Salih's
relatives were sentenced last month in connection with the incident.
Some Central Asian analysts suggest that Karimov may have used the
bombings, however, as a pretext to crack down on political opposition
in his country. Diaz said Robinson regularly meets with a wide array of
civil society groups, human rights non-governmental organizations and
government representatives. He said that only if the evidence of human
rights violations is compelling and reliable enough will the High
Commission for Human Rights conduct an official investigation. Diaz
explained the type of evidence that would be required in such a case:
"That kind of evidence is what they call evidence of systematic or gross
violations of human rights - reliable information. The commission
considers this information in private session and then decides whether
the situation is grave enough to start considering it publicly."
The UNHCHR cannot force governments to follow its
recommendations. Rather, Diaz says his organization relies on moral
force and on international public opinion to convince countries to abide
36
by their treaty obligations and to the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. But, despite its lack of enforcement mechanisms, Diaz explains
why countries take his organization's work seriously: "What it
[UNHCHR] can do, more concretely, is to name investigators and
working groups to look into particular situations. And countries do not
want to be singled out in this manner by having a UN investigator
named for them. So there is a certain amount of cooperation to try to
avoid this kind of scrutiny."
In his letter to RFE/RL, Salih said Robinson assured him that
Uzbekistan's case will be taken up in November by the UN High
Commission on Human Rights' Committee Against Torture. Diaz,
however, did not confirm what additional steps the UN might take.
OPPOSITION IEADER: "UZBEK ELECTIONS WILL BE
99 PERCENT FALSITIED... ''
Excerpts from report by Iranian radio from Mashhad on 25th
August, 1999
[Announcer) Mr. Muhammad Salih, the announcement of the date
of elections by the president [of the Republic) of Uzbekistan [Islam
Karimov) at Iast session of the Supreme Assembly [parliament) of
Uzbekistan was to some extent unexpected. What is your and the
opposition Erk Party's view on this?
Salih: I do not particularly like making predictions, nor do I like
people who do so, however it is possible to predict beforehand how
some famous people, groups and even states may act in certain
conditions. [passage omitted] in 1990 the opposition predicted that
Uzbekistan's government would quickly switch from the communist
platform; the opposition also correctly predicted that the 1991
presidential elections would be falsified, that the opposition would be
prevented from running in the parliamentary elections in 1994, and that
a referendum would be held to extend the president's term in office;
society should know that the 16th February bombings were the start of
Karimov's election campaign; the verdict issued by the Regional court in
Yangiyol on 18th August on six members of the opposition was the first
stage of the campaign; the best people of the Uzbek nation were
imprisoned during the 16th February-18th August stage; if the elections
37
were held today the people would not cast their votes in favour of
Karimov and his parliament.
[Announcer) Mr Muhammad Salih, you have said that if the
elections were held today the people and even those in the government
would not vote [for Karimov). A natural question arises: will the
government step down power if votes are not cast in their favour?
[Salih) Of course this regime will not abandon power even if the
people do not vote in its favour. President Karimov knows better than
we do that the people will not vote for him and he has made his
preparations in advance. There is no doubt that any elections held today
will result in a 99 per cent victory for the regime. Because there is no
doubt that the elections will be 99 per cent falsified. However there are
no elections today. One election is scheduled for December [5th
December 1999) and another for January next year [9th January 2000).
if God grants us and President Karimov Iife and if a silence Iike the
silence that reigns today continues in the country , in all probability the
aforementioned picture of the elections will be precisely repeated.
However, only God can predict what will happen between now
and December [this year) and January next year. One thing is certain: as
Iong as today's regime keeps ruling in such a way that the people's will
is always rejected, the free elections the people wish will remain just a
dream. Our duty , the duty of the opposition, is to tum the people's
dream into reality. [passage to end omitted]... Everone should know that
today Uzbekistan's opposition is at the centre of the politics. Uzbek
elections will be 99 per cent falsified.
38
PART II
LITERATURE AND POLITICS:
MUHAMMAD SALIH AND POLITICAL
CHANGE IN UZBEKISTAN
FROM 1979 TO 1995
Ruth Deibler
Indiana University
April, 1996
Introduction
In the late 1970s and the decade following, immense changes
occurred within the Soviet Union. The results of both a lack of
innovative advances in technology and a system which rewarded people
for work regardless of how well it was done began to show up in
economic decline. After Brezhnev's death in 1982, leaders Andropov
and Chernenko initiated a crackdown on corruption as a means to alter
the situation. When Gorbachev came to power in March 1985, he began
economic reform through restructuring and a new openness in society:
perestroika and glasnost. These changes affected all fifteen republics,
including Uzbekistan. When such changes have occurred, writers
throughout the Soviet Union, although not always able to publish their
works, have played an important role in expressing the desires and
opinions of the common people. This is also true in Uzbekistan. A
modern-day writer in this type of role (born in 1949), is Muhammad
Salih. Writing and politics are closely interwoven in the life of
Muhammad Salih. He transforms his thoughts regarding the events
around him into words that express his concerns and desire for change.
The development of Salih's prose directly coincides with the political
development of Uzbekistan from 1977 to the present. The style of
Salih's writing changed from that of imagery and symbolism to pure
political writing as the political atmosphere also changed from a closed
Soviet society, to glasnost, then to political independence for
Uzbekistan. The first of the four periods was 1977 to 1985, during
39
which little freedom existed. The second begins in the early Gorbachev
era, with the introduction of glasnost in 1986. The third period is from
1989 to 1992. Near the end of this period, in September 1989,
Uzbekistan adopted a language law; near the end, Uzbekistan declared
its independence and held its first presidential election. The final period
encompasses 1992 to 1995 when Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan,
firmly established his authoritarian rule.
The road to independence was a long one, and in order to fully
understand the events covered in this paper, a brief background of the
history of Uzbekistan is necessary. Before it became a republic of the
Soviet Union, much of the area of Uzbekistan was part of the larger
Turkestan, which began to he colonized by the Russian empire during
the nineteenth century, first through trading practices and then through
the establishment of military and administrative centers. Shortly after
the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, the Soviet government somewhat
arbitrarily carved up Turkestan and the territory of the recently
abolished Bukharan Amirate and the Khivan Khanate into five
republics. This was part of the strategy of ensuring Central Asian
weakness and continued central control by the Soviet government. The
policy created an Uzbekistan, an "Uzbek" people and a distinct "Uzbek
language."
Another scheme for keeping ethnic minorities in submission and
ensuring Russian dominance in language, culture, and history, was the
Stalinist purge of the 1930s which swept the whole Soviet Union. Stalin
ordered the executions of thousands of Central Asians, including
Uzbek's, many of whom were well educated: the elite, the writers, the
historians and the respected elders in society. In addition to destroyed
lives, Uzbek history for that period was distorted. The central
government forced Uzbek authors to write about and glorify only
Russian events and conquests, implying that Central Asians were less
cultured and less civilized.
Beginning in the 1930s, Moscow also promoted unification of
Soviet peoples by Russifying all minorities through the language policy
it promulgated. Moscow insisted that Uzbek's learn Russian and rely on
it for communication with the administration and within governing
bodies. Most education also stressed the use of Russian; in most
disciplines it was imposible to go beyond secondary school studying in
a language other than Russian. Thus, the entire elite had to speak, read
40
and write fluent Russian. This caused the use and knowledge of the
Uzbek language to decline.
All of the above affected the Uzbek's sense of culture and identity,
but the cotton monoculture affected their economy, their land, and their
health, essentially destroying all three. Before the Russian conquest,
people in what became Uzbekistan grew their own rice, grain, and
vegetable crops, as well *as cotton. Then the Russian tsars began to
increasingly rely on Turkestan's cotton, so the Turkic people increased
the amount of land under cotton cultivation. After the Bolshevik
revolution, Moscow continued to rely on Uzbekistan's cotton especially,
and pressured Uzbeks to increase their production and sell the raw
cotton to the Russian republic far below market cost. In Russia, factories
transformed the cotton fiber into fabric.
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the central government, through
the cotton plan, compelled Uzbeks to abandon their traditional system of
crop rotation and letting the land lie fallow to regain nutrients, and
forced them to increase the amount of land under cotton production at
the expense of grain and other edible crops. Therefore, Uzbeks had to
rely on Russian imports to feed their own people. The increased land
under cultivation, along with inefficient irrigation systems and increased
use of pesticides (to ensure a fuller cotton crop) brought about the
desiccation and poisoning of soils, water shortage, air pollution, and
overwhelming health problems. The cotton monoculture continued,
although, even as early as the 1960s, reports surfaced that the level of
the Aral Sea was dropping because no water was reaching it. This is the
Uzbekistan in which Muhammad Salih grew up, andthese are some of
the problems which he addressed.
Salih's background provides important insights into what made
him the person he is how he came to be a writer and why he felt more
freedom to express his thoughts than those of the older generation, even
in the days before glasnost. He was born 20 December 1949 in the
province of Khorezm in a small village named Yangibazar. After
finishing middle school in 1968, he served two years in the Soviet army.
From 1970 until 1975 he studied in the Faculty of Journalism at
Tashkent University, and later spent two years studying literature in
Moscow. Those years of study enabled him to further develop his
writing skills as well as to study the works of other writers. After
completing his education, Salih worked in the Writers Union of
41
Uzbekistan, and in 1988 he was elected to a secretary position.
Muhammad Salih has been a writer since his youth. His poetry began to
be published in 1966, and by the early 1990s twelve books of his poetry
and prose works had been published in Uzbekistan. He divorced his first
wife, an Uzbek woman, leaving her with three children. His second
wife, a Polish woman, bore him two more children. Simply because of
his date of birth, he is a part of a new era; he did not live through the
purges of the late 1930s or World War II and therefore did not fear
repression from Moscow as did those of the previous generation. He
grew up during a time when Khrushchev attempted to undo much of
Stalin's terror and build a better, freer society. Also, he was able to
achieve a high level of education which has made him part of the elite of
Uzbekistan who enjoy more privileges.
The printing of Salih's works on Uzbekistan presses depended
very much on the time period, the political atmosphere, and what he
wrote. Much of his early poetry was published in Uzbekistan, and some
has been translated into other languages and even published abroad. He
is mostly known for his poetry, but Salih also wrote short stories, and
more recently, articles, which discuss politics in Uzbekistan. His early
pieces, published in Uzbekistan, are all poems.
Many of his short stories and articles, written between 1977 and
1988 were not published in journals or anywhere else until 1990. The
fact that they were not published before then reflects Salih's boldness in
writing about sensitive issues and the censorship, which existed in
Uzbekistan. Most of the works discussed in this paper are Salih's short
stories and articles, some of which were not published for some time
after they were written. Whether a work was published at the time it was
written will be noted as each is discussed, as this plays an important role
in the development of the thesis.
The period of Salih's writing covered in this paper, from 1977 to
early 1995, correspond to the periods outlined above and coincide with
four distinct periods in the political development of Uzbekistan.
Throughout all four periods, his style of writing changed and parallels
the political developments of the time. To some extent his subjects vary,
although the common theme of the importance of the Uzbek language in
the republic/nation is seen throughout. In order to provide some
background for the rest of Salih's works, this paper will begin the
discussion of the relationship between Salih's writings and political
42
developments with a work written in 1977. At that time Uzbeks still
focused on fulfilling the cotton plan each year, and although the
resulting ecological and environmental problems began to stare them in
the face, the officials ignored them. Administrators and common
citizens alike did little to address these problems. Salih's works reflect
this closed society, as he writes using images and symbols.
Glasnost and perestroika began making changes in society during
the second period, which spanned the years 1985 to 1989. Gradually,
Moscow allowed problems to surface and is analyzed, the Communist
Party directed a campaign for the ousting of corrupt officials, and the
press had increased freedom to report these events. Salih's writing
reflects this openness; he became much more direct, and he specifically
addressed the economic, political and social problems he observed. He
even became so bold as to directly speak out against some of Moscow's
policies. This freedom was curtailed beginning in the middle of 1989.
And despite the fact that Uzbekistan gained independence following the
coup attempt in Moscow in August 1991, little changed for the better.
The small or even non-existent ideological foundation for independence
in Uzbekistan compelled authorities to attempt instantaneously to create
an economically and socially viable nation. By exercising strict control
over dissenting groups, Islam Karimov, the president established
stability and an independent republic. Salih, too, became politically
involved beginning in 1988. His writing at this time, at least that
available to the public, was strictly political in nature as he tried to work
within the political system for change. The final period, from the end of
1992 to early 1995, demonstrates the increased authoritarian rule by
Karimov, the control of the press, and economic and political disaster.
Coinciding with political developments, Salih's writing once again
reflected the total control of the media, as did his situation in which he
wrote the last piece discussed in this paper. Because of Uzbek
government policies, he fled the country in 1992, being no longer able
to publish as he did in the 1970s and early 1980s, should he even de ire
to do so. He continues to struggle for justice and democracy, although
his writing is somewhat disillusioned and bitter.
Chapter One – 1977-1985
In analyzing Salih's writings, the period from 1977 to 1985 is
important because it provides a foundation on which to build and a basis
for comparison with the later periods. It leads up to the beginnings of
43
glasnost and perestroika. Problems such as the desiccation of the Aral
Sea, the shortage of water, deterioration of health, unemployment, and a
high population growth rate existed in Uzbekistan during this period.
But, because of continued pressure by Moscow to fulfill the cotton plan
each year and a reluctance to address any issue which may be perceived
as a negative reaction to the governing administration, neither citizens
of the Soviet Union nor the press addressed such problems until after
1982. This period is indicative of control by Moscow; citizens did not
have the freedom to express any discontent openly.
Muhammad Salih reflected this lack of freedom and discontent in
his writing, using symbolism and imagery, because he was not free to
come out directly against the restricting forces of the Soviet regime. He
wrote on three major themes in this early period. The first, evident in
“Letter to My Younger Brother,”[1] appears to be a cry to his fellow
Uzbeks not to blindly follow Soviet ideology but to think for
themselves. The second theme, seen in the three statue tales, "The
Sculpture Who Lost His Way," "Those Who Stand Alone," and "The
Meeting," seems to be a cautious statement against the Russian presence
in Uzbekistan their authority, control and domination over Uzbeks. He
portrays Russians as stubborn, tough, deceitful and even a little stupid.
The final theme, which is a recurring one throughout all four periods, is
the importance of the Uzbek language. The language theme is presented
by two of Salih's poems: In an Alien land and "Speak in Turki." All
these themes reflect Salih's thoughts about politics in Uzbekistan at this
time. Salih was not able to publish any of these pieces until years after
they were written, a fact, which demonstrates both the sensitivity of the
material and government censorship. The "Letter to My Younger
Brother," written in 1977, and the three statue tales, written in 1979,
were published in 1990 in Kozi Tiyran Dard (The Watchful Eye of
Suffering). "Speak in Turki" written in 1982, was also not published
until 1990 in a book of Salih's poetry. 1n an Alien Land," written in
1981, was published in 1986 in yet another book of Salih's poetry. The
dates of publication indicate the delicate nature of the material and the
gradual openness, which occurred in society. It is interesting to note that
"In an Alien land was published in 1986, when, as will be shown,
Uzbeks began clamoring for Uzbek to be their state language. On the
other hand, "Speak in Turki" was not published until several years later,
after the state language law had been adopted and Uzbeks were on the
44
verge of declaring their sovereignty. Why this poem was also not
published in 1986 remains unclear.
The first work discussed in the period is entitled "Letter to My
Younger Brother." It demonstrates the first theme a cry to Uzbeks to
learn, study, and think for themselves. This piece serves as the preface
to Salih's book of short stories and articles, Kozi Tiyran Dard. It begins
the period from, 1977 to 1985 because it is the first story in the book
and because its message reflects Salih's underlying desire in all his early
writing to awaken the Uzbeks to understand what the central
government was doing to them, to think for them selves, and to study
and read on their own without undiscerningly accepting everything
Moscow fed them. The "Letter to My Younger Brother" is written to his
"uka" (younger brother), but more profoundly, it may be read as
referring to Uzbeks, especially those of the younger generation. It serves
as the preface to the book and was written in 1977, whereas all the other
stories and articles in the book were written in 1979 and later. Thus the
"letter" could be interpreted as Salih encouraging his readers to be his
"uka," to follow his advice, to become discerning and not unthinkingly
swallo Moscow's ideology. Then he provides them with the rest of his
book as resource material for them to do just that.
In "Letter to My Younger Brother," Salih advises his brother to
emulate the behavior of the child in the story Salih proceeds to relate.
The child learns to read by delivering letters during the war. These
letters to parents regarding their sons (soldiers serving in the war), were
of two types: black or white. Black referred to those sons who died, and
white to those who did not. This child is a 'lover of books" even though
few books are available and his father has no money to buy him reading
material. But the child manages to borrow and read whatever books he
can find. Salih thus stresses the importance of learning to read on one's
own. He also encourages his "uka" to love books and knowledge.
Illustrations in the books which the child reads become an
important issue in Salih's story. The illustrations appear to represent the
central government indicating a specific direction it wants the Uzbeks to
go, and the particular way it wants them to view things, without giving
them any room for their own imagination or to think for themselves:
Every illustration in the book is a hindrance to him- If the child's
imagination says, "A certain hero is in this shape," the illustration
stubbornly stands and says, "No, it is like! his," staring at his eyes. The
45
peculiarity of the illustration increases the child's nervousness. He used
to not look at the illustrations, but insteadtore them out and gave them to
his younger sister (6)* [2]
Salih seems to suggest that perhaps it is necessary for a reader to
"tear out the illustrations" so that he himself can form ideas on the
thoughts the book presents. The story continues as late one night the boy
falls asleep over his book, and his fur hat, standing near the fireplace,
catches fire and eventually the entire house nearly bums down. After
this, the child's parents forbid him to read in the evenings, and that
particular book is destroyed, whether in the fire or by the parents is
unclear in the story. The conclusion of the story, Salih states, is that one
should never doze ' while reading a book at night because, "a fire might
be set... The child loves the book, but weariness is betrayed in his body.
Weariness creates indifference, making one fall asleep" (6). Salih seems
to suggest that Uzbeks, who have tried to read and think for themselves
without paying attention to the "Illustrations" provided by the
Communist Party, have become weary in their striving and have fallen
asleep. And, in falling asleep they have lost control over the situation;
before they are able to do anything, a "fire" breaks out, and the book,
from which they were beginning to gain their own ideas, is destroyed.
Salih's final advice to his brother is that "not the books without
illustrations, but books without ideas make a reader fall asleep. Do not
read books without ideology,' your teacher truly explained. I advise you,
'Also, do not read books without ideas' " (6). He clearly states that it is
not the dullness of a book without pictures, that is, without an ideology
already provided, which makes a person apathetic, but a book without
any concrete ideas to think about in the first place which atrophies the
brain. Thus, in the first theme, Salih seems to want his readers to wake
up and think for themselves, not simply follow, like sheep, the ideology
put forth by Moscow.
The second theme in this period, following inferences made in
"Letter to My Younger Brother," is a description of Russian presence in
Central Asia: Salih notes Russians' ignorance of where they live and
their insensitivity to the environment and culture; he also notes Russian
presence as one that does not belong in Central Asia; and Russians'
unwillingness to change. Related to this is the theme that a great person
is one who studies and thinks for himself., i.e., not imitating Russian
dominance and ideology. The three pieces which express this theme are,
46
on the surface, about statues of famous figures which stand in
Uzbekistan. Written in 1979, they are three mini- vignettes about
Russian sculptures which are very much out of place in this Central
Asian setting.
In the first tale, "The Sculptures. Who Lost Their Way," Salih
begins by describing people standing in a bread line "holding their
hearts in their hands" (66). The difference between this particular line
and the stereotypical Russian bread lines comes out slowly. First, Salih
demonstrates that neither the old people, nor the war or labor heroes, nor
the religious leaders, are permitted to cut in front of the line, which is
the usual custom. Then he says those in line are statues; not people, and
they are "getting acquainted with one another." Salih writes:
Indeed, our many statues do not know why they are standing,
why and to where they have come. Someone leads them like a child
saying, "you continue standing here, I will come back," and they
disappear,...and never return. What concerns the statue is this: here he is
a stranger, wandering, not able to recognize the people standing at his
side, and he continues to stand. (67)
In the paragraph following, Salih makes an important comparison
between the statues standing together in a line and the one standing by
himself; "in its time therefore, I just say this: successful statues stand by
their lonely selves in an alley. Yes, a good philosophy which exists in
life is also a custom among statues: a great person is always a lonely
person" (67). And the last sentence which Salih writes is that in the
lonely statue's hand is the inevitable book which he spends his time
reading.
In the next statue tale, "Those Who Stand Alone," the statue
standing alone is Pushkin, a famous Russian writer. A fan of the writer
Byron (an English writer popular in Uzbekistan and whose works have
been translatednto Uzbek), passes Pushkin's statue and wonders why
Pushkin is there and not Byron. The answer jokingly given is that
Pushkin has fans in Uzbekistan, but not only that, Pushkin loved
Uzbekistan even to the point of putting his life on the line in a duel for
the republic. Salih sarcastically writes, "Do you know the reason
Pushkin dueled with Dante? The reason was Uzbekistan. If you pass by
his [Pushkin's] side, he moves you because you know very well, great
proletarian writer, how he loved ordinary people like you. Worship him
as a brothe? (68).
47
Salih continues: The weeping willow trees which surround the
great poet slowly sing songs.
Usually while listening to songs Eastern people involuntarily
move their heads with the music. Regretfully, sculptures cannot move
their heads.
Particularly Pushkin. Because in Europe they don't move their
heads. Europeans imitate any kind of melody by tapping their feet.
Every passerby who strolls through Pushkin Alley, standing tapping his
feet quietly and beautifully, will be a witness to Pushkin's standing
quiet, listening to the unknown nation's music with his whole bronze
body. (68)
Salih points out that statues of Pushkin are not found in the streets
of London or Paris, but, "in any case, he [Pushkin] stands in the most
beautiful crossroads of Tashkent” (68).
Pushkin, realizing then that a statue of Gorki is standing not too
far away, breaks in asking Gorki how he came to be in Uzbekistan. The
answer to Pushkin's question does not need to be stated for his readers,
and Salih does not bother. In fact, Salih writes that at this question the
statue of Gorki does not even turn to look since its neck is thick and
tough. Because, "in order to turn their heads, at least one hundred years
are needed. In the second place, your question is an extremely childish
one. The ordinary winds which are able to move you and us cannot
move the statues. It is very large social events, such as stormy
revolutions which can move them" (68).
In the last of the three statue tales, “The Meeting”, Salih begins by
saying that the character of the sculptor is evident in his creation. In
other words, a statue represents the sculptor himself. "If a sculptor is a
craftsman who is far-seeing, the statues which he created will also be
far-seeing. And, if a sculptor is energetic, if he is feisty, he will describe
his works in the manner he himself admires"(69). Salih goes on to
describe two Russian stautues, Pushkin and Gorki. Thus these, statues
represent Russian presence and Russian ideology in Uzbekistan.
Salih then tells how two statues, Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin
and Aleksei Maksimovich Gorki, jump down from their pedestals and
become live, moving figures. Like the statues in the first tale, they
express the desire to become acquainted with one another and do not
know where they are. Gorki has to inform Pushkin that he is somewhere
48
in Central Asia Pushkin says, "I am extremely pleased to become
acquainted with you. But excuse me, will you tell me: where am I?'
Gorki answers, "in a way, a to speak truthfully we are not in Russia: you
are in the country where I am standing" (69). They both long for Russia,
wondering when they will return Pushkin says, "I longed to pour out all
my words; not only birch trees, but the great river Volga, the city of
Nizhniny Novgorod and its dear friend V1adimir Illich, but the
solidarity of writers of realistic prose did not allow for this" (69).
Pushkin declares they must return to Russia, so the two of them catch a
flight to Moscow. Gorki, however, discovers he has left his walkingstick somewhere in Central Asia. Pushkin reassures him by saying they
will get his stick back, but Gorki counters by reminding Pushkin that
they do not know where they were in Central Asia. He states, “We do
not know the name of the city from which we flew" (70).
Salih finishes much as he began, referring to those who create the
statues, stating that they will one day fall because of their passion for
their own homeland and because they are strangers in Uzbekistan.
"Therefore, if the passion which is in the sculptures is not false, if they
did not deceive our eyes, having stood, they themselves will fall from
the pedestal where they are standing now, and one day, without a doubt,
they will make their way to any side they wish" (70). Salih sarcastically
concludes: "We, who are great fans of your people, will open a new
museum for the famous stick which they forgot” (70).
The first theme seen in "The Sculptures Who Lost Their Way" is
that "a great person is always a lonely person" and someone who studies
and think for himself. It is such individuals who are great people, not the
ones standing together in a line who do not even know where they are.
Perhaps these lonely statues are the great leaders---the ones with ideas
who lead, and thus occupy a place of prominence apart from the others.
Or perhaps Salih is referring to himself as a single statue alone with his
ideas. As will be shown, Salih later tried to work for change within the
political system rather than standing by himself outside. In this tale the
statue stands alone holding a book, instead of his heart, in his hands.
Thus, instead of being one who demonstrates his vulnerability to the
system by holding his heart in his hands like those statues standing in
line, he reads a book in order to gain knowledge. Salih says that those
who stand alone, off in an obscure alley, are the ones who have ideas
gained from reading books (books probably without illustrations, if one
49
remembers his "Letter to My Younger Brother”)- the ones who think for
themselves. These are the great people, not the ones standing in line
who do not even know where they are.
The ignorance of Russians living in Uzbekistan and their
insensitivity to Central Asian environment and culture is a feature of all
three statue tales. In "The Sculptures Who Lost Their Way," Salih writes
that the statues do not know the places to which they have come; they
are strangers, wandering around trying to recognize people. The statues
may be Slavs, transplanted in Central Asia, or they may even be
Uzbeks, also lost and confused in their own land as a result of following
Communist Party dictates. Those in line are trying to get acquainted
with each other so that they will at least have something in common.
The statues in "Those Who Stand Alone" do not understand the local
culture where people move their heads in time with music rather than
tapping their feet. And in the previous statue tale, when Gorki admits he
and Pushkin do not know the name of the city from which they came,
Salih seems to poke fun at the Russians because of their presence in
Uzbekistan in the first place, and their ignorance in not knowing exactly
where they were.
In the next discussion of Russian presence Salih suggests that
Russians do not even belong in Central Asia. In "Those Who Stand
Alone," Salih begins by placing Pushkin's statue alone, thus admitting,
because of his emphasis in "The Sculptures Who Lost Their Way," that
Pushkin is a great writer. But because of the sarcasm which follows,
describing how much Pushkin supposedly loved Uzbekistan, Salih
seems to imply that although Pushkin is great, his statue does not belong
in Central Asia. And when Salih points out that statues of Pushkin are
not in London or Paris, he appears to suggest they are not there because
those nations have no desire for a Russian sculpture of Pushkin. They
have their own heroes such as Byron to commemorate. Underlying these
statements is the thought that Uzbeks do not particularly want a statue of
Pushkin either, but the statue is there because of Moscow's domination.
In "The Meeting," Salih goes even further when he writes that Pushkin
and Gorki returned to Moscow, thus perhaps suggesting that Russians
ought to leave Central Asia, and maybe even expressing the hope that
someday they will. When Gorki discovers he has left his walking stick
somewhere in Central Asia, Salih says Uzbeks will open a museum just
for that infamous stick. In writing this, Salih seems to be hoping that
50
one day Uzbeks will immortalize the Soviet regime in a museum,
preserving the Russian presence only as something of the past, laughing
because they now possess that stupid stick which was so precious to
Gorki, but could not find his way back to retrieve it.
The final description of Russian presence seen in the three tales is
Russians' unwillingness to change. Salih implies in "Those Who Stand
Alone" that Russians are stubborn and not able to changee unless a
revolution occurs. Yet in a few years the "one hundred years" were up,
as glasnost and perestroika began to slowly move the "thick necks" of
the Soviet empire. They were no "ordinary winds," and the "stormy
revolution" really was no revolution at all but the internal collapse of the
Soviet Union in 1991.
The final theme of Salih's writing in this period concerns the value
of the Uzbek language. This theme is expressed in two poems-perhaps
in poetry and not prose because Salih is first of all a poet, and therefore
he expresses that which is most meaningful to him in this manner. “In
An Alien Land” written in 1981 (but not published until 1986), he never
mentions the Uzbek language, but the message is nevertheless clear: I
give my own greetings in another language, but the message is
nevertheless clear:
They invite me to breakfast in another language.
Like a blind man in the streets of the city
They lead me in only three or four words of another language.
They show me a star in another language.
They awaken me in the dawn in that language.
I am afraid not of my own language
But forgetting those three or four words
In this great city.
If my homeland is my dream,
The homeland is my dream because,
I speak in my own language
Only in my dream.
(Alis-tebessum saiasi 105)
Simply from the title, "Ozge Elda," one knows that the sentiment
expressed in this poem will be strong. The poem expresses Salih's
frustration at having to use a language that is not his own in all aspects
of life, from dawn until night. He feels like a stranger in his own
hometown because the language spoken in the streets is Russian. His
51
homeland does not exist. He can only dream of his own homeland,
although ironically, he does live in Uzbekistan. And although he is not
afraid of using his own language, he does fear it will soon become lost
in the expanse of Russian used in the city. He is now living "in an alien
land." But fortunately, he is still able to speak his mother tongue in his
dreams; this means there is still hope and the language has not been lost
forever. "Speak in Turki" written in 1982 but not published until 1990,
describes the paradox of speaking in Uzbek and how it should be used
to express one's deep emotions. Salih writes that on all occasions,
whatever the mood, one should speak in "Turki":
It is easy to speak in Turki,
It is not so very difficult to speak in Turki.
It is so very enjoyable to speak in this language, so very bitter.
If your mood is merry, if you awake on the right side of the bed.
If you have no regret from the day,
If your faith is in the future-speak in Turki.
If you love someone,
And love does not fit in your heart-speak in Turki
If you hate someone,
If your hatred catches in your throat-speak in Turki.
(Arzu Fuqarasi 121)
Together these two poems, although they express the love and
importance Salih feels in the language and his desire that Uzbek be
spoken more, do not demand its increased use as his later writing does.
All the pieces enumerated here reflect the political situation of the
time-control from the center-because none were published when Salih
wrote them. Muhammad Salih was concerned about Russian presence
and influence in Uzbekistan. He wanted Uzbeks to wake up, to think for
themselves about what was going on around them. He also felt that
Ianguage was an important issue. Yet he was not able to write in a
straightforward manner as he does later. Perhaps at this time. Salih
wrote in a flowing, flowery language, utilizing illusion and imagery, in
hopes of getting his message across by having his works published. He
uses Russian statues to represent Russian presence in Uzbekistan; the
"tough, thick necks" of the statues depict Russian stubbornness, and
book illustrations represent Soviet ideology. From 1986 onward, as is
demonstrated in the next period, his style became more candid as
political openness in society increased.
52
Chapter Two – 1986-1989
The period 1986 to 1989 was characterized by several political
developments in Uzbekistan. It continued the anti-corruption campaign
initiated by Moscow in 1983, and perestroika and glasnost began. These
addressed the cotton monoculture which had produced many problems:
the desiccation and salinization of soils; the drying of the Aral Sea; a
high infant mortality rate; an increase in cancer, tuberculosis, lung
disease, typhoid, hepatitis, gastro-intestinal disorders, and birth defects;
a contamination of mothers' milk; and an overall shorter life expectancy.
The new openness extended to areas beyond the cotton monoculture.
Uzbeks began discussing the rehabilitation of their writers (such as
Cholpan and Fitrat), nationalism, wages, Moscow's policy of imposed
family planning, unemployment and the importance and usage of the
Uzbek language. As will be demonstrated, in the later part of the period,
people felt free enough to express themselves through demonstrations in
which they demanded further rights and freedoms.
This period continued the anti-corruption campaigns. The five
works of Salih in this period to be discussed here, mention the campaign
only in passing, but a brief discussion of the anti-corruption policy is
necessary to provide a clearer background to the cotton monoculture and
the consequent problems faced by Uzbekistan. The campaign focused
on corrupt leaders throughout the Soviet Union who falsified reports,
received and gave bribes, promoted family members instead of more
able candidates, and various other forms of corruption. From 1983
through early 1989, Moscow systematically removed such corrupt
leaders, from top officials to lowly oblast leaders. Uzbekistan was one
of the republics most strongly hit by the campaign because of the
problems of the cotton monoculture. With the increased salinization of
soils and lack of water, it was impossible for Uzbeks to fulfill the cotton
quota given them by Moscow. The result was that Uzbeks were forced
to pad production figures or face Moscow's wrath. That did not leave
them much of a choice---they falsified the figures. So, thousands of tons
of cotton existed only on paper. Of course Uzbeks were paid (albeit at a
low rate) for this non-existent cotton. In June 1984, one report stated
that in the preceding eighteen months three officers were removed from
the Central Committee of Uzbekistan. They were reported in
newspapers as having retired or having been transferred, but in actuality
they were dismissed (Sheehy 1984). Later, however, newspaper
53
accounts openly named officials and listed the charges of corruption.[3]
In August 1984, one scholar wondered whether Rashidov (Uzbekistan's
first secretary from 1958 until his death October 31, 1983) would have
been brought under fire had he not died of a heart attack in 1983
(Sheehy 1984a).
The anti-corruption campaign continued until the beginning of
1989 in Uzbekistan. In August 1984 one Western analyst stated that
anti-corruption measures were unlikely to take root because one party
rule, chronic shortage and a system in which both material rewards and
career prospects are closely bound up with plan fulfillment inevitably
give rise to all kinds of abuses. On top of that, nepotism flourishes in
places where a high premium is placed on looking after one's kin
(Sheehy 1984). In 1989 the Uzbekistan administration, already feeling
for some time that Uzbekistan had been unjustly accused more than the
other republics, reversed some of the charges made against individuals.
In the writings discussed in this paper, Salih makes one reference
to the fact that he and other Uzbeks agreed that the anti-corruption
campaign had gone too far. In "A Difficult Way of Awakening," while
discussing the three main "eras" of Moscow's rule (under Stalin,
Khrushchev and Brezhnev), Salih implies that the population of
Uzbekistan was simply a puppet under each, without the freedom to
express themselves in a true way, but at least it was not singled out in a
negative way over the other republics. Salih felt discriminated against
because the anti-corruption campaign focused on Uzbekistan. He writes,
"sometimes we became tired of praising ourselves, raising ourselves to
the sky, and now we are tired of criticizing ourselves severely, putting
ourselves in the ground” (183).
The demonstrations at the end of this period show the political
development of the time and relate to the issues about which Salih
writes. As writing was Salih's way of expression, so demonstrations
were the only means available for some people to affirm their values
and beliefs. The largest, most enduring and costly demonstrations (in
terms of Eves and goods) occurred in the summer of 1989. The
demonstrations began, however, in 1987 with Tatars fighting for their
right to return to the Crimea ("5,000 Tatars" 1987), and the Tatars
repeatedly demonstrated throughout the following year.[4]
(Approximately 400,000 Tatars were deported to Central Asia from
their homeland under Stalin in 1944.) In January 1989, 300 Afghan
54
students studying in Tashkent rioted, and, although exactly what
happened is not clear from reports, several people were hospitalized and
some twenty cars were damaged (Alimov 1989). Then in February,
"hundreds" gathered in the streets of the capital demanding the removal
of Mufti Babakhan, the leading representative of official Islam in the
USSR. A puppet of the state, the Mufti was known for his womanizing,
immorality and total lack of knowledge of the Koran (Bohr 1989,). Calls
for the removal of the Mufti continued for a year.
The most intense demonstrations began in June 1989 and
continued through August of that year. Initial press reports declared that
the entire situation started when a Meshketian Turk overturned an
Uzbek woman's fruit stall at the market after stating that the price of her
strawberries was too high. Later Uzbek press reports admitted other
underlying causes and reported a few deaths and injuries and the
establishment of a curfew in the city. A 16 June Radio Liberty report
told of at least 87 dead, 974 injured, 748 homes burned and more than
50,000 "weapons" (some were simply rods and other common objects)
confiscated during the first two weeks of June. The riot also spread
outward to Kokand. Much of the rioting was directed at two targets:
Meshketian Turks and cotton prices. Because of threats to their lives and
destroyed housing, officials quickly evacuated 11,000 Meshketian Turks
to a refugee camp and on 13 June relocated 4,500 of them in Russia
(Bohr 1989).
The two main factors which sparked the riots in the summer of
1989 were the population explosion and the distorted development of
the economy. Gross unemployment, increased pressures on land and
water resources, lack of private plots for growing one's own food,
pressure to grow more cotton, increased use of pesticides, an increase in
infant mortality, low health standards, racial tension, low wages, and a
lack of industrial skills all contributed to the disturbances (Sheehy
1989). The tensions simply increased to a boiling point and erupted.
Years of being buffeted by Moscow left the power structure in
Uzbekistan in complete disarray; authorities had little control over the
situation. The corruption scandals resulted in thousands of leaders being
expelled from leadership positions, many of whom were innocent or
could have done nothing different under the circumstances. Their
absence left gaps and inexperienced persons in positions of leadership.
Most important was the Uzbek leaders' inability to think ahead: their
55
nearsightedness and lack of hope. One scholar wrote that hope for
Uzbekistan lay in "informal groups" such as Birlik (Unity) which Salih
helped to found in November 1988.(Critchlow 1989)
Birlik held its own demonstrations. The core of the group from its
outset consisted of the intelligentsia and youth, but later it attracted
people of all backgrounds and levels of education. Their demands to the
authorities concerned language laws, the reduction of cotton production,
Uzbek sovereignty, health care, social welfare, and personal freedoms
(Fierman 1991). On 19 March 1989, among other issues, they called for
the official recognition of Uzbek as the state language. They tried to
obtain permission to hold a demonstration, were refused, but held the
rally anyway. On March 20, 12,000 gathered as Abdurahim Pulatov, a
leader of Birlik, read their demands for a state language. Again on April
9, Birlik members appealed for official recognition and demanded to be
allowed to publish their own paper, and, supported by a crowd of
approximately 100,000, also demanded the use of Uzbek as the primary
language of the republic. Participants were also concerned with
environmental problems; one banner read, "There Won't be a Central
Asia Without the Aral Sea." Salih read an appeal at the demonstration
calling on leaders to stop discriminating against Uzbeks with unfounded
charges of corruption. His speech showed the increased nationalistic
attitude of Uzbek citizens when he said: "these people have not been
fighting for their rights. No one has yet said: Either you learn my
language or you leave Uzbekistan' " (Kocaoglu 1989). On May 21,
Birlik supporters staged their third demonstration with some 10,000
participants. They demanded the cotton quota be lowered and that
formal recognition for their organization (Bohr 1989). The authorities
accused Birlik of inciting the riots of the summer of 1989, but Birlik
leaders denied it, saying they could not possibly have organized such a
massive disturbance.
In his writing, Muhammad Salih discusses many of the same
problems Uzbeks voiced in. their demonstrations; his writings are
interrelated with political developments in Uzbekistan. His writings
throughout this period become more politically oriented as he addresses
issues he feels Moscow and Tashkent administrators needed to consider.
In this paper five of Salih's works in this period will be looked at - these
were written from 1986 to 1989. They are: "The Speech Read in the
October Plenum, 1986, of the Writer's Union of Uzbekistan," "Health to
56
Women," "Returning," "A Difficult Way of Awakening," and "Letter to
the Academic Erkin Yusupov." These compositions focus on four
themes: the reinterpretation of Uzbekistan's history and rehabilitation of
past Uzbek writers; ecological and health problems; family planning;
and Uzbek as a state language.
First, a word regarding the genre of these literary pieces and the
change in censorship from the first period. All five of these pieces are
articles or public addresses, not stories, and most were published shortly
after Salih wrote them. He does not use symbolism or imagery, but
boldly and clearly presents his concerns, his anger, and his views
regarding the problems in the social and environmental spheres. His
words become increasingly transparent, but his writing style still
demonstrates he ease and flow of a poet and accomplished author. "The
Speech" was a paper Salih read at the October 1986 Plenum of the
Writers Union of Uzbekistan. It was not officially published until 1990.
"Health to Women," written in 1988, was published in 1990 in Kozi
Tiyran Derd. (It is likely that it was also published elsewhere earlier, but
that information is not given in Kozi Tyran Derd.) Salih wrote
"Returning" in 1988 and Sovet Ozbekistan: and Prayda Vostoka
published it in January 1989. He wrote "A Difficult Way of Awakening
in early 1989 and it was published by the Moscow journal Druzhba
Narodov in June of the same year. Salih wrote the letter to Yusupov in
January 1989. All five works were published in Kozi Tiyran Derd in
1990. The first theme of the period is the reinterpretation of Uzbek
history and the rehabilitation of Uzbek writers. Under glasnost, some
Uzbek writers had come to demand a reassessment of Uzbek historical
figures. However, authorities did not always agree that Uzbek history
should be celebrated. In 1986, Usmankhojaev (who was appointed first
secretary after Rashidov's death) said that idealization of the past,
including Timur,[5][7] disoriented the national pride of the people and
damaged "internationalist education" (Sheehy 1986). But with the
advent of glasnost, leaders had to decide how to deal with works written
in the 1920s and 1930s which had previously been banned as
"nationalistic" works. In 1987, bowing to public pressure,
Usmankhojaev established a commission to study Fitrat and Cholpan's
literary legacy, and select their most "ideologically and Timur, born in
1336, ruled much of the known world until his death in 1405, including
India, Afghanistan, much of what later formed the Soviet Union,
57
Turkey, and much of the Middle East Uzbeks consider him one of their
great heroes.
24 artistically sound" works for publication. Finally, in 1988,
some of Fitrat and Cholpan's writings were republished but with notes
stating they had committed "nationalistic" errors and "mistakes" because
they had failed to acquire a Marxist-Leninist world view (Soper 1988).
As "nationalists," Cholpan, Fitrat and others had been labeled enemies
of the state and executed. Thus, from fear of encouraging "nationalist"
attitudes, the official assessment in the 1980s of such Uzbek writers of
the 1920s and 1930s remained basically negative. This is perhaps
because Usmankhoiaev was determined to tolerate no ideological laxity
in the literary sphere (Sheehy, 1985). One Uzbek professor noted that it
was not so important that works of Fitrat and Cholpan be publishedrather, current literary writers' works needed to be published and the
injustice to them rectified (Soper 1987). In addition to the rehabilitation
of writers, Uzbek history was reinterpreted during the latter 1980s. Salih
himself urged the study of the ancient Turkic script, stressing that the
cultural heritage of Uzbeks had its origins in Turkic as opposed to
Arabic or Persian culture. He also called for Western and Eastern
scholars to pay more attention to the historical achievements of the
Turkic people (Bohr 1988).
Three of Salih's articles address the first theme of the period, the
rehabilitation of Uzbek literature and authors and the reinterpretation of
history of the 1920s and 1930s. These three pieces are: "The Speech
Read in the October 1986 Plenum of the Writer's Union of Uzbekistan,"
"Returning" and "A Difficult Way of Awakening." In these, Salih
discusses the rehabilitation of Usman Nasir, Cholpan, Fitrat, and
Behbudiy, all important Uzbek writers killed in the 'Stalinist' purges of
the 1930s. He acquaints Uzbeks with both these writers and their works,
thereby encouraging Uzbeks to be better educated about their own
literary heritage. Salih specifically mentions that Fitrat's works were still
not published when Salih wrote "Awakening" in 1989, although he
states that the government had agreed to do so. He writes of Nasir more
than the others, placing him alongside Cholpan as a great poet, perhaps
because Nasir was only twenty-four years old when he was executed. In
"Awakening" Salih writes, 'It seems the reason for his [Nasir's] arrest
was the words,'the so-called leader usually is an ordinary person like
58
comrade Stalin; he very much resembles our neighbor, our boot maker.'
The poet paid for this joke with his own life" (181).
Salih addresses the issue of 'nationalism' as it pertains to the
rehabilitation of Uzbek writers of the 1920s and 1930s in "Returning."
He writes that a'feast'in Stalin's honor sacrificed "the intellectuals who
are considered to be our countries' flowers" (161). Sacrificed at this
"feast" were Cholpan, Qadiriy, and Fitrat, all 'nationalists' according to
Stalin. Salih asks if Nasir was also a nationalist. He writes that those in
the'department of repression' say a poet 1oves his own language, his
own culture. He is proud of the history of his nation. So, therefore such
a person cannot be a nationalist" (161). Yet Nasir and other Uzbek
writers were labeled "nationalists" and executed.
One portion of "Awakening" is devoted to the Stalinist period of
repression in the 1930s. Salih writes that in the late 1980s Uzbeks
praised the courage of writers of the 1930s who loved to write the truth
and hated the revering of dogmatism. Yet, there were few writers who
dared to write truth at that time; Salih says, "we were supposed to see
the courage of these few writers. In a country of many millions, there
were extremely few" (181). The reason there were so few is that,
"writing against Stalin's regime was equivalent to shooting a bullet
directly at Stalin. Those who dared to do this were few because those
who wrote against the regime were immediately shot, and those who
were able to write were left to rot in prison" (181). Those who 'remained
safe' from Stalin were probably those who did not write anything which
declared the truth, writes Salih. Stalin, he adds, was the worst of the
three Soviet leaders (Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev). He, "placed
ethical morals below political ideology. Flis ideology renamed one who
spied as a patriot, and the person who refused to be a spy was
denounced as a betrayer of the homeland" (183). Salih sums it up by
saying, "a society whose ethical standards are unsteady ... will influence
literature and the cultural front" (183).”
In "The Speech Read in the October Plenum," Salih discusses
Moscow's referring to the activities of Uzbek writers of the 1920s and
1930s revealing "guruhbazlik" (clannishness) and defines it as: "an
association of one group of 'dogmatic people' who attempt to cause you
to submit to the opinion of the majority for their own benefit” (131).
Salih writes that lie revolted against this 'clannishness' in an open letter
to the Writers' Union, in which he stated that Moscow was still keeping
59
the creative works of Uzbek writers of the 1920s and 1930s under a ban.
He describes the effect the ban had on literature in the open letter to the
Writers' Union, which he quotes in "The Speech Read in the October
Plenum".
Under the influence of this clannishness, the literary climate of
our republic sharply deteriorated. Pressure against language and the arts
strengthened. In the newspaper "Sovet Ozbekistan," a large article was
published concerning ideology. In this article there is not any word
about art. Therefore, any kind of literary work is dead without art. As if
this were lacking, a many literary storied censorship appeared.
Beginning with the junior literary worker of the newspaper up to the
instructions of the Central Committee--all became censors. Even
Shakespeare, who is translated into Uzbek, could not escape their
scissors. They even edited him. (132)
The result of this open letter, Salih writes, was that the tables were
turned; Moscow put the name "clannishness" on those who signed the
open letter along with him.
The result of this open letter, Salih writes, was that the tables were
turned; Moscow put the name "clannishness" on those who signed the
open letter along with him.
Yes, 'clannishness' which we struggled against put its own seal on
us. One must recognize that this was a beautiful punishment for us. Each
of the writers who put their signatures on the letter and afterwards did
not deny it, knew they would not receive any reward for their courage.
None of them put their signature to this letter for publishing more books
or for increasing their authority. . . . They in their own letters attracted
attention, demanding justice regarding the generation of the '20s of our
literature. They went against the violence toward our mother tongue
which our ancestors spoke, against our language spoken by us and our
children.(132) Such thinking, Salih writes, is not clannishness, but "the
voice against [emphasis not in original] clannishness" (132).
Again, in these articles, Salih challenges his fellow Uzbeks not
only to think for themselves, but to turn back to their history, language,
and traditions. He says that because of threats on their lives, many
earlier Uzbek writers wrote according to the dictates of the central
government. Their writing, Salih states, is "politicized literature." In
"Awakening" he writes, "mostly we accepted politicized literature as
'national patriotism'. In past years our literature went through the
60
process of politicization. This did not benefit us but damaged true
nationalistic peculiarities, and today we are tired of not resolving these
very damaging problems" (184).
Salih concludes by saying the same type of 'politicized literature'
was nevertheless being written in the 1980s. He judged that, in the
1980s "if writers turn their faces to the spiritual springs of their own
people's souls, to traditions, and to their mother tongues, this muddy
flow may stop" (184).
The second theme in the period focuses on the ecological, social
and health problems caused by the cotton monoculture. Moscow relied
heavily on Uzbekistan's cotton, so in order to fulfill Moscow's
requirements, Uzbeks terminated their practice of crop rotation and
increased the use of pesticides. But this caused the quality of cotton to
decline, and caused rivers and the Aral Sea to dry up. Education
suffered (children worked in the cotton fields instead of attending
school). People's diets lacked meat and milk because land was used
almost solely for growing cotton.[6]
Salih argues that the overemphasis on the cotton harvest was the
root of corruption and other ills, and that these would remain as long as
cotton dominated the economy (Sheehy 1988). He also complains about
the unfair low price Moscow pays for Uzbekistan's cotton. He states for
example that before the revolution a peasant could buy a cow with a bag
of cotton; in 1989 the same amount bought only matches (Sheehy 1989).
Salih says, "we have ceased to worship man and have begun
worshipping cotton.
For the sake of cotton, gardens and pastures have been razed,
villages have been destroyed, and people are suffering. That is what
monoculture means (Nazarov 1989).
Salih's work, "Health to Women," written in 1988, clearly and
boldly discusses the ecological and health problems related to the cotton
monoculture. After fiat stating that he and other Uzbeks are concerned
about these problems because Uzbekistan is their "vatan" (homeland),
Salih lists some of the problems and bluntly states who is to blame. The
border of our Aral Sea is in ruin, our males are being poisoned, our
women give birth to deformed children, our young men are unfit for
military service, children die, and poisonous enterprises which are
rejected in other republics are built in our rayons. The cause of all this
61
arises firstly from the moral decrepitness of the officials, ministers'
selfishness, and our own intellectual lack of courage. (136)
Salih continues with powerful, bitter words, slamming the
Communist Party for its hypocrisy, indifference, selfishness, and utter
heartlessness. Yet, alleges Salih, none of the leaders has even a mite of
guilt for his actions. Neither the central government nor those fired
possess the courage to face up to the atrocities taking place. Even when
leader's are fired, the reason given in the press for their leaving is that
their health is deteriorating. Salih states that Moscow forces Uzbeks to
fulfill the cotton plan even though doing, so results in the sacrificing of
public health, and women even set themselves on fire. Salih blames the
health problems and women's self-immolation on the government
officials who force Uzbeks to continue producing cotton, although doing
so is ruining the land and mentally and physically disabling the
inhabitants. Salih condemns the Committee set up to address the Aral
Sea problem; he states that writers could do a much better job. He also
complains about the newspaper articles on the Aral Sea problem which
have no independent direction and simply repeat one another.
The third overriding theme evident in this period is family
planning. This is also tied to health and the cotton monoculture.
Moscow tried to slow the tremendous growth of the Central Asian
Muslim population, possibly fearful of their growing influence and
power. They claimed that because the high infant mortality rate was
high, women should have fewer children. They also stated that the rate
was high because women had their children too close together.
Economics was also part of the problem. Moscow claimed that
Uzbekistan didn't produce enough to feed their large population, hence
the need for family planning. Part of the economic problem was that
children were often taken out of school during planting season and
especially during harvest season because their labor was cheap. A report
of May 1987 states that the previous fall 700,000 children went to the
cotton fields in Uzbekistan to work (Yet at the same time Uzbekistan
had a high unemployment rate) (Artemenko 1987). Another article of
the following year, also published in Pravda , states that child labor was
supposedly banned in 1987, but again the children were out in the fields.
The article condemns the action but does not give any hope for change
(Artemenko 1988). A later report, also in 1988, hints that children
helping parents in their work is a tradition in Central Asia, and
62
therefore, management has a hard time discouraging the activity
(Chernyayeva 1988).
Salih was one of the most vocal opponents of family planning in
Uzbekistan. He dismissed family planning and rejected all reasons
Moscow gave for it. He saw family planning as a deliberate attempt by
the majority (i.e. the Russians) to slow the birth rates of Central Asians
so that they remained the minority in society. He opposed the notion
that the high infant mortality rate is due to women having too many
children too close together rather than ecological and environmental
causes (Sheehy 1988).[7] He discussed the so called economic reasons
for family planning and the right of Uzbek families to make their own
decisions of how large their families should be.
Salih discusses family planning in "Health to Women" and "A
Difficult Way of Awakening." In "Awakening" he writes, "we blame
people who are lying to society and say the cause of the death of
children is the high birth rate; they are concealing [the fact] that the
cause of this tragedy is poisonous chemicals: herbicides, pesticides and
defoliants" (185).
Salih mostly discusses family planning in relation to economics.
He states that Uzbeks want several children because of the desperate
economic conditions Moscow has put them under; having more children
does not create further economic problems. The more children Uzbeks
have, the more cotton (or other crops) they can grow and harvest and the
more money they can make in order to survive. Salih and other writers
emphasize that a policy should be implemented to improve the
economic quality of life, not to decrease the birth rate (Carley 1989).
While Salih does not favor children working in cotton fields and thus
neglecting their education, he feels that addressing the child labor issue
is treating the symptoms of the cotton monoculture and economic
problems, rather than the disease. In "Health" he writes, "the family
planning campaign was raised to a new level: if originally it was said
that, 'the cause of death [of children] is a high birthrate,' then now the
opinion being expressed is 'a high birthrate will bring economic
difficulties' " (138). Salih says Moscow is changing its rationale and
"searching for new proofs for their own ideas" (138). Salih discounts
this latest thought that a high birthrate will cause economic difficulties,
citing a Pravda article from February 1988 which states that as a family
becomes larger its working power also increases, because the children
63
are also able to work. However, the writer of the Pravda article, Salih
states, is only concerned with freeing the child from family labor in
order to work in a private contract which Salih condemns as inhuman
because these private contracts are equivalent to slave labor for children.
Salih states that in these contracts, children are taken from their families
and forced to work long hours and receive next to nothing in pay.
Instead, Salih states that, "one must free the children from labor" (139),
referring to the children who work in the cotton fields instead of
attending school.
In "Awakening," Salih devotes a long paragraph to the financial
situation of the village population, at whom most of the family planning
is aimed. The majority of farmers live in poverty, he writes. But Salih
connects poverty to the cotton monoculture, saying that to produce one
'tsentner' (approximately 100 kg) of 'grain,' 1.6 hours of work are
needed, whereas for the same amount of cotton, one works 37 hours. A
grain farmer receives 62 kopecks for one hour of labor while a cotton
farmer receives only 16 kopecks (186). Salih feels that if Uzbekistan
were properly governed, the issue of population growth would not even
exist. In "Health to Women," Salih compares Uzbekistan to Japan,
which has less than half the area of Uzbekistan and not five percent of
Uzbekistan's mineral wealth. Yet 120 million reside in Japan, and have a
much higher standard of living than Uzbeks (139). Thus, the financial
difficulties of feeding such a large population are in large part due to the
fact that most people raise cotton under orders from Moscow and the
returns for that work are poor. If the cotton monoculture did not exist,
people would be free to raise varied, more lucrative crops, the economic
situation would improve, the soil would regain its fertility, use of
pesticides would decrease, and thus the ecological environment would
improve and so would health and the infant mortality rate.
More importantly, Salih sees large families as a fundamental fact
of Uzbek culture, and he chafes under the notion that the question of
whether or not a nation should grow is decided by others (Fierman
1989). In an interview he states, "we [Uzbeks] found the idea of
reducing the birth rate inhuman. And we spoke about the incorrectness
of this idea at meetings and at plenums of the Writers' Union. But so far
no attention has been paid to our opinion" (Sheehy 1988b). He feels
Uzbeks should be free to have as many children as they desire. When
64
asked in the 1980s many children they want, Uzbeks answered, "the
more the better. "(139)
The final theme of the period from 1983 to 1989, and one
continued from the previous period, is the importance of the Uzbek
language. Uzbek as a state language became for Salih the most
important issue as the 1980s draw to a close. Despite this, or perhaps
because of it throughout the eighties, Moscow still attempted to stress
the importance of the Russian language. Russian was seen as especially
important for military recruits and those not only in higher education but
in all levels of education (Sheehy 1983). Thus, for the elite, fluency in
Russian was required. In 1987, Soviets determined that there was a
shortage of Russian teachers in Uzbekistan, and arranged for 2,000
Slavs to be sent to the republic with more to be sent later (Tractice of
Sending . . ." 1987.
At the same time that the central government endeavored to
reinforce Russian language policy, the importance of Uzbek language
increased dramatically. In 1986, schools began sponsoring "native
language evenings" for the study of Uzbek and other minority languags.
This showed that all national languages were provided with equal legal
bases for their own free development (Seagram 1986). By 1988, Uzbek
government officials began discussing whether classical Uzbek
language could be taught in the Uzbek schools. They discovered that
few scholars could read the Arabic script of the ancient manuscripts, and
suddenly some began to wonder what value the old documents had
(Soper 1988). The importance of Uzbek increased even further in 1989
as officials discussed the adoption of Uzbek as a state language in the
legislature. However, they still emphasized Russian as the language of
interethnic communication (Uzbek Language 1989). Uzbeks fought not
only for the Uzbek language bu also against the imposition of Russian
tradition. By the end of 1988, Uzbeks demanded that Russian place
names be replaced by names which at least had a direct connection with
the person being commemorated. As someone pointed out, how many
hotels are there in Moscow and Leningrad named after Uzbekistan and
its heroes? Uzbeks also rebelled against using Russian names when a
native equivalent existed, calling it "False internationalism" (Critchlow
1989).
The theme of "Letter to the Academic Erkin Yusupov" is the need
for Uzbek to be the state language. Salih continues this theme in "A
65
Difficult Way of Awakening," and "Letter to the Academic Erkin
Yusupov," both written in 1989. In "Awakening," Salih writes that there
is hope for Uzbek as a state language. He states that although freedom to
speak and write Uzbek exists more than ever, people are still wary after
so many decades of fear. "Several years ago it was difficult to speak of a
state language. Now today, we are speaking of it. This is because of
democracy. But it seems that to get rid of the customs and habits is very
difficult; even today, before speaking, we look over our right and then
our left shoulder" (185). Despite this fear, Salih writes that 98% of the
letters written to the language commission (headed by Erkin Yusupov)
demand Uzbek as the state language.
Salih implies that the language issue is the most important of all
issues for Uzbeks. With Uzbek as the state language, Uzbekistan would
be for Uzbeks the homeland that it never was before, the homeland
which previously they could only dream about. Salih challenges
Yusupov and fellow Uzbeks to make the most of the present situation
and press for Uzbek state language adoption for the benefit of future
generations. He writes:
Our language must be the state language. This is not the wish of a
`handful of intellectuals' but perhaps all people's unfulfilled wish.
Maybe today we are standing on the eve of one event in history. The
position, authority and guidance will pass. But our people, our language,
our homeland will remain. But let not our children curse us. (165)
He cites statistics (as he does in "Awakening") that 72% of the
republic's inhabitants are Uzbeks, and only 13% are
Russian-speaking.[8] Therefore, "we cannot sacrifice our language for
that 13% who do not know the Uzbek language" (165). Salih condemns
the idea of "internationalism," which he sees as the need to use Russian
as an international language. He says Moscow always emphasizes
internationalism, but it does not have "the value of one yellow coin"
(165). Regarding the purpose of the language commission, Salih is even
so bold as to write to Yusupov, "and if the commission which you are
leading cannot fulfill its task, or if it does not wish to fulfill it, society is
ready for the defense of its language" (165).
All five of Salih's works of the period from 1986 to 1989
demonstrate a much more open and direct style than those of the
previous period which in turn reflect glasnost and perestroika evident in
society. In 'The Speech Read in the October Plenum,"Salih himself
66
mentions the dramatic change in attitude between that existing in 1986,
when he is writing 'The Speech," to that of seven or eight years earlier.
He relates that he had written an article seven to eight years earlier
dedicated to Cholpan's poetry. A co-worker then said to him' "Are you
crazy? They will devour you! " (130). This essentially was a warning to
Salih that the Communist Party would silence him for writing such
things. It is important to note that Salih wrote "Returning" and
"Awakening" in 1988 and 1989 respectively, both articles were
published in journals or newspapers in 1989, and both use stronger
language and more condemning, blatant words than those of "The
Speech Read in the October Plenum." This demonstrates that Salih then
felt freer to use clearer, more forceful words - indicative of the openness
in society. Although he was less creative in using imagery, Salih's
writing still flowed as does that of a poet.
For example, in “Health to Wome he writes, "so then, they love
the cool shadows more than the scorching heat of Saraton[9], and the
luxury of their houses more than smoke from plants and factories" (32).
Salih boldly addresses issues he considers important and which need
awakening in his people. His themes again are state language, family
planning, health and ecological problems, the rehabilitation of Uzbek
writers and reinterpretation of history; and these themes parallel
Uzbekistan's political development in these years.
The second period ends in the middle of 1989 at the height and
culmination of openness. The demonstrations at the end of the period
show that people of Uzbekistan had the freedom and courage to express
their concerns over issues which had long been festering. Salih's writing
also demonstrates the increased freedom of expression, and develops
along with the openness in political events; he writes about issues
present in the press and important for the time.
The period ends here because, although the Uzbek party
leadership adopted some changes proposed by supporters of Birlik and
other citizens, the years following were mostly a time of increased
suppression of the people and control of the media. The instigator of this
repression was Islam Karimov, who replaced Nishanov as first secretary
of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan at the end of June 1989.
(Nishanov, who had replaced Usmankhojaev in 1988, was removed
from his position during the riots.)
67
Chapter Three - 1989-1992
The third period was one characterized by the increased control
of society by Karimov's administration. The conflict between freedom
of expression of Uzbeks, voicing their concern over issues like the state
language and social welfare, and Karimov's continued control,
increased. Karimov adopted some of the opposition's demands, but after
the collapse of the Soviet Union in August 1991 and the war in
Tajikistan in 1992, freedom of expression decreased further. And after
Uzbekistan gained its independence in September 1991, Karimov
became more "democratic" in his rhetoric but more authoritarian in
reality, while Salih and the opposition went from working for change
with Karimov's administration to total alienation in mid 1992.
Against a background of high unemployment, worsening
ecological conditions, and virtually non-existent health services, the
government nevertheless managed to reestablish order in the Ferghana
valley in the summer of 1989 with the help of the militia and a curfew.
Before Nishanov left in June, he justified his intense use of force saying
that the scale of events made it necessary for all party, Soviet, and
administrative organs to take such necessary measures. He stated that
the clashes occurred because Communist Party officials did not have
command of the situation and were not able to exert their influence in
time (Nishanov, R.N. 1089). After Nishanoy's departure, Karimov
continued the heavy use of militiamen to maintain control. By the end of
August 1989 he was also making sweeping statements about problems
which he claimed he would solve: unemployment, the cotton
monoculture, distribution of production, and the unsatisfactory social
situation---no water and poor sanitary conditions. In order to solve them,
Karimov stated he would start with firm order and discipline (Karimov
1989).
Although no uncontrollable large scale disturbances occurred in
Uzbekistan after June 1989, sporadic and generally more peaceful
demonstrations continued for the next couple of years. Karimov also
cracked down on the demonstrations under the excuse of preventing
things from exploding. He was fearful of losing the political initiative,
and may have genuinely feared losing control (and his job---as
Nishanov had). In the middle of October, 20,000 demonstrators in
Tashkent marched through the streets demanding Uzbek be made the
state language ("Yeltsin Addresses" 1989). Perhaps in response to this
68
and because of fear of further disquieting events, on October 21,
Karimov issued a presidential decree for the "stabilization of the
sociopolitical situation in the republic" (Critchlow 1990). But in
February 1990, news of demonstrations and curfews in Samarkand
leaked out despite party officials denying any trouble and claiming
everything was "calm and businesslike" ("Party Official" 1990).
Karimov issued another decree on February 10 banning demonstrations
and setting fines for those who disobeyed the ruling (Critchlow 1990).
All rallies and meetings were banned except those in enclosed areas
("Ukase of the ..." 1990). Despite this, open opposition continued. In
April, thousands demonstrated in support of those convicted in the
cotton scandals ("Thousands Rally... " 1990). And, in May, another
massive demonstration of 20,000 demanded the removal of the Mufti
(the same one mentioned above) and the resignation of party leadership
(Makarov 1990). In December 1990, a Moscow paper reported a mob of
3,000 demonstrating in Namangan (Artemenko 1990). The fact that
Moscow, and not Uzbek news services, reported the demonstrations
from December 1990 onward, shows that Karimov completely
suppressed coverage of such events at that time. By late 1991,
demonstrations were few in number due to Karimovs effective control.
September 1991 is the last official report (given by Moscow TV) of
several thousand demonstrating in Kokand calling out the slogan, "down
with communism" ("Muslims Hold " 1991).
Ultimately Karimov was successful in eliminating public
demonstrations. However, in stopping them he also thoroughly crushed
opposition groups and thus consolidated his power. Shortly after
Uzbeldstan declared its independence on September 1, 1991, Birlik
members were unsuccessful in organizing a rally. On the eve of the
event, Karimov ordered Birlik leaders arrested and their apartments
searched. In the early morning, militia surrounded Lenin square where
the rally was to take place and blocked it off. They even arrested a
British television crew. Moscow radio reported that the event showed
Uzbekistan's leadership did not want any dialogue with the people. The
report also mentioned how hypocritical Karimov was (Usmanov 1991).
Karimov continued to reiterate, more strongly as time passed, that
stability and order were the keys to solving the problems in the republic.
In December 1989, Karimov stated that the solution to all problems lay
in the consolidation of all healthy forces of society and that
69
strengthening order and discipline was everyone's responsibility
(Karimov 1991). After the March 1990 events, Karimov again made the
statement that only discipline and order could help the situation and
remove the crisis (In the Communist, 1990).
Karimov became president of the republic in March 1990,
increasing his status from simply "first secretary." In his first
presidential address, immediately after the election, Karimov promised
personal freedoms for each individual, but added that democracy did not
mean anarchy and glasnost did not mean permissiveness. For that
reason, he would firmly carry out discipline, and ordered the "thwarting
of all anti-social manifestations that threaten the political
underpinnings" of society, life, and the dignity of citizens ("President
Karimov" 1990).
Another part of his stability campaign meant that he allowed other
parties to function, but within certain bounds---not as an effective
oppositiow.He also postponed economic reforms. At a Communist Party
roundtable discussion in May 1990, Karimov said he could conceive of
no force other than the Communist Party; this shows he thought that Erk
and Birlik and others did not constitute a force which could offer an
alternative (Through Dialog" 1990). By November 1990, Literaturnaya
Gazeta reported Uzbekistan the most stable republic in the region. It
showed "consistency, firmness and stability" with nationalism being the
only source of upheaval; however, Literatumaya Gazeta mentioned that
it was being handled through "strong-handed" government methods.
The price for this stability, they wrote, was the absence of parties
and platforms. Karimov was quoted as saying, “I don't consider this
price too exorbitant" (Kruzhilin 1990). In April 1991, Karimov stated
that the establishment of "the dictatorship of law" was needed. Order in
society came before anti-crisis economic measures, he said, and he
added that it was necessary to postpone measures that might cause
society to explode, such things as privatization and price liberation
(Yefimov 1992).
The outbreak of civil war in Tajikistan in the spring of 1992 was
another incentive for Karimov to increase his authoritarian rule over the
republic. Several opposition groups, a combination of Islamic,
democratic, and nationalistic forces in Tajikistan, banded together to
fight against the government-one essentially set up and operated by
Moscow. For months that nation was in upheaval. The opposition fought
70
for a more democratic rule, legalization of opposition parties, freedom
of religious expression, and other rights and privileges. They obtained
some arms from Afghanistan and many speculated that the conflict was
a move by Islamic fundamentalist groups to seize power and spread
their authority.[10] Seeing the chaos caused by the opposition in
Tajikistan, Karimov tightened his own control. He may have reasoned
that if he allowed groups such as Birlik and Erk to call for public
demonstrations, the same type of situation could erupt in
Uzbekistan.[11]
Throughout this period, another important political policy which
affected events concerned the Communist Party. Outwardly, Karimov
changed his opinion regarding the importance and function of
communism; although he stressed its value before the August coup in
Moscow, he obliterated the Communist Party in Uzbelkistan following
it---but only on paper. In December 1989, he declared his "unshakable
loyalty to Marxism-Leninism" "Basic Directions" 1989). He claimed the
Communist Party was the "political vanguard of society," and that the
tragic events of the summer riots in Fergana were the result of the
unsatisfactory state of the party in its political and ideological work
(Chizhenok 1989). In March 1990, Karimov proposed amendments to
the constitution that would strengthen commmunism and provide for
direct involvement of the masses in working out policy and
implementing it. He claimed that new political thinking did not mean
they could abandon the socialist ideal (Karimov 1990). Following the
initial clashes in Osh in June 1990, Karimov again reiterated the
importance of communist ideals. A published Communist Party
resolution stated that its most important task was to increase its political
and ideological influence among the masses and shape public
consciousness on the basis of the "creative interpretation and
development of Marxist - Leninist teaching" ("On the Uzbek" 1990). In
January 1991, Karimov called for further strengthening the party and
stressed the importance of improving party unity ("Addendum"1990).
Immediately following the Moscow coup, Karimov completely
changed his tone, not willing to be associated with the Communism
which was overthrown in Moscow. On August 26, 1991, Karimov
resigned from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Orlov 1991).
By October 1991, Karimov had disbanded the old Communist Party and
had created and joined the 'People's Democratic Party.' Immediately
71
after its inception, the People's Democratic Party already had 250,000
members from the former CPSU and an additional 55,000 applications
of citizens not previously belonging to any party (Grebenyuk 1991). The
goals, policy, and activity of the new party were virtually identical with
those of the old Communist Party. Simply the name changed. TASS
reported that the new party was the same Communist Party, with the
same people in power ("Uzbekistan Eyes. " 1992).
Despite his authoritarian rule, Karimov adopted some of the
opposition's demands and acknowledged some of their grievances.
Several of these were issues Salih wrote about in the previous period,
including family planning and Uzbek as a state language. Other
opposition issues Karimov addressed were the anti-corruption
campaign, the importance of Islam, and sovereignty. At the time of his
presidential election, Karimov stated that the issue of reducing the birth
rate no longer existed and that he would work on a program to improve
the health of women and children (Ata - Mirzayev 1989). Concerning
the anti - corruption campaign begun by Moscow in 1983, by December
1989, Karimov had granted clemency to 240 persons originally
convicted under the cotton scandals (Malikov 1989). In March 1990, he
set up an investigation of those previously convicted of corruption in
order to achieve full rehabilitation of those against whom criminal
charges had been brought without grounds. Karimov declared that as of
March 1990, an arrest warrant for anyone involved in bribery or
falsifying figures could be issued only after a personal interrogation of
the accused (Usatov 1990). Rashidov was also rehabilitated (Karimov
1990),[12] and by April 1991, some 1,600 persons involved in the
cotton scandal had their civil rights restored (Alimov 1991).
Karimov also conceded to the opposition on the issues of the
declaration of sovereignty and the importance of Islam. In June 1990,
Karimov declared Uzbeldstan to be a sovereign state based on a
program initially submitted by Erk (Fierman 1991).
Karimov also made a show of embracing Islam, recognizing that
in a Muslim republic he should at least show deference to that religion.
When elected president, he took his vow placing his hand on the Koran.
And in July 1991, he guaranteed citizens the right of freedom of belief
and the protection of believers' rights and interests. Religious
organizations had to be registered, but religious educational institutions
could be established, mosques were free to publish and circulate
72
religious literature, and Muslims could take pilgrimages, study abroad,
etc. (Grebenyuk 1991). Also in July, he removed the Mufti who had
been the focus of several demonstrations in previous years. The leaders
of Birlik took this last event as a victory of popular force in trying to
end state interference in religious affairs ("Mufti Removed" 1991).
The most important issue for Uzbeks to which Karimov acceded
on October 21, 1989, was the adoption of Uzbek as the state language.
The opposition was striving for autonomy from Moscow, and the use of
Uzbek to replace Russian especially in schools and government was a
momentous step in this direction. In the language law which was
adopted, officials wanted to ensure that making Uzbek the state
language did not infringe on the rights of other nationalities, but at the
same time they desired to develope the use of Uzbek language in
political, social and cultural life ("Decree of the Uzbek" 1989). This is
one reform which had broad grassroots appeal, one scholar writes,
because Uzbeks could readily see the positive changes (Critchlow
1991). By July 1990, authorities replaced Russian bulletin boards and
slogans with Uzbek ones, scholars compiled dictionaries of official
terms, television networks reduced Russian air time, and companies
developed courses for their employees to study Uzbek (Nishanov, S.
1990). Throughout the following year, the authorities continued to
enforce the state language law as best they could. Schools taught more
Uzbek, and official policy rulings, governmental applications and all
other governmental documents were encouraged to be in UzbekWhether they were also to be in Russian was neither mandated nor
prohibited.
From June 1989 until June 1992, not only Muhammad Salih's
writing but also the events in his life are closely tied to the political
realm. He was part of the leadership of Birlik, he formed his own
political party 'Erk' (Freedom), and he became a people's deputy of the
Supreme Soviet and even a presidential candidate, actively participating
in formulating changes in the government administrative structure.
Thus, he attempted to use his influence to work for progress within the
political system rather than just from the outside. During this time he
apparently wrote no poetry or other fictional works. When questioned in
1990 about being a poet or a politician, Salih replied that he did not take
up politics of his own accord. Rather, he said, life forced him to get
involved. He stated that when a real political fight is taking place it is
73
impossible to sit doing nothing and observe; "Circumstances tear you
out of your quiet life and throw you into the gulf of these passions"
(“Uzbek Communist” 1990). What Salih mostly writes in this period are
reactions to political achievements. This paper looks at one piece, "We
Reached These Auspicious Days," written after Uzbekistan gained its
independence in September 1991, and a few interviews published in
newspapers.
Muhammad Salih became increasingly active directly in the
political developments of late 1989 and the early 1990s. As a member of
the Birlik leadership, Salih hoped to fight for change within the political
system. Salih headed a less confrontational faction of Birlik which
shared goals with the other wing of the organization but shied away
from demonstrations, considering that it had more to lose than to gain
by direct confrontation. The two sides made some attempt to reconcile
their differences in November 1989, but in February 1990 Salih broke
from Birlik and created the Erk movement. Karimov permitted Erk to
become a political party on March 11,1990, after Salih, with the rest of
Erk membership, demonstrated their willingness to cooperate with the
Communist Party (and later the People's Democratic Party) (Fierman
1991). Salih, through Erk, called for Uzbekistan's economic and
political autonomy within the Soviet federation, for human rights, and
for ties between ethnic groups (Tukhvatullina 1990). He claimed to
want to turn the republic into a state where citizens had rights to express
their wishes and desires (Orlov 1990).
In the same month that he formed Erk, Muhammad Salih was
elected a deputy to the Supreme Soviet. He spearheaded the formation
of a parliamentary opposition which included nine other members of the
Supreme Soviet (Bohr 1990). He commented that Uzbekistan did not
have a genuine parliament; it consisted of incompetent people with a
poor understanding of policy, economics, and the law (Salih 1990).
His activity in politics continued, so that at the end of 1991, after
Uzbekistan had gained its independence, Salih, backed by Erk, was a
contender against Karimov for the presidency. He was nominated for
the presidency in November, and, as a candidate, said he would work
toward complete independence for Uzbekistan. He was in favor of a
market economy, free enterprise, and the strict observance of Uzbek as
the state language ("Presidential Candidate" 1991). However, despite his
repressive policies, Karimov won the election by a large margin: 86% of
74
the vote compared to Salih's 12.3%. Some local opposition groups
reported violations during voting, such as people voting without
presenting an identification, and multiple voting ("Violations Reported"
1991). Nevertheless, observers saw the results as a sign that the country
did not wish to make such drastic changes, and Karimov interpreted it as
approval for his authoritarian policies. One Western scholar noted that
Karimov's success was due to his control of the People's Democratic
Party, intellectuals, and the entire population (Brown 1992). It is
important to note that Erk had only a few thousand registered members
and Birlik, which had tens of thousands of supporters, was never
allowed to register a candidate, although it tried to do so ("Birlik
Movement" 1991). Clearly, Karimov used the split between Erk and
Birlik to his advantage.
Involved as he was with Birlik and then Erk, being a deputy and a
presidential candidate, Salih devoted his efforts directly to change from
within the political system with little time left for writing.[13] Two
interviews permit a glimpse of his ideas during this period. In an April
1990 interview with Timur Niyazav published in Komsomolets
Uzbekistana, Salih spoke on the differences between Birlik and his
breakaway party Erk. (It should be noted that the interview is not Salih's
published writing, only his thoughts expressed verbally.Also,
Komsomolets Uzbekistan was under some censorship by the authorities,
which made a difference in what was allowed to be printed.)Salih felt
Birlik was becoming too involved in rallies without its offering any
specific solutions in dealing with the socioeconomic situation or cultural
questions. He emphasized that Erk did not reject rallies but rather
concentrated on developing programs to improve Uzbekistan. With
regard to Erks role in the Supreme Soviet, he said that some Erk
members had been elected to the Supreme Soviet and, as part of their
program for change, had prepared a draft for a law on property and a
law governing diplomatic relations with other countries. He commented
that Erk was in favor of equal dialogue with other movements
(including Birlik) and the Communist Party (Salih 1990b).
In another interview, published in Report on the USSR in
September 1990 (and without censorship in the West), Salih's thoughts
on the policies and goals of Erk were discussed. The main goal of Erk
was Uzbekistan's complete independence from Moscow, which Salih
said Erk hoped to achieve by greater democratization through gaining a
75
majority in the parliament, as well as by working with the masses and in
particular with the youth.
Although not discounting peaceful demonstrations, Salih implied
that participating in violence exhibits one's political immaturity. His
thoughts concerning the strong conservatism in parliament were that if
parliament did not strive for independence it would be necessary to
dissolve it and call for new elections (Bohr 1990).
As a writer, Salih's impact during this period was much less than
earlier periods. His writing was solely connected to political events. One
politically important work during this period was "We Reached These
Auspicious Days" ("Shu Qutlugh Kun1arga Yetdik"), which was
published in the paper Uzbekistan San'ati. It was written in three parts:
the first on August 25, 1991, in reaction to the Moscow coup on the
nineteenth; the second on 31 August, a written statement prepared for
the Supreme Soviet; and the third on September 1, Uzbekistan's
Independence Day.
One theme presented in the paper is that sovereignty and complete
independence from Moscow are still a long way off. He implies that a
state can be fully independent only if it is independent politically and
economically. He states, "Today's independence remains on paper." He
writes that every so-called 'sovereign state' (the former republics of the
Soviet Union) must have its own armies to defend its subjects.
Otherwise their sovereignty is phony.
The second theme Salih presents is that he hopes democracy will
be established in Uzbekistan. But he understands that democracy cannot
grow Out Of totalitarianism. How, exactly, he expects the change to
democracy to occur, he does not specify. He simply Writes, "we intend
to cross over to a democratic system from a totalitarian and colonial
system. A new system cannot be created from an old structure."He
clearly see freedom as an important goal, because it seems, if a citizen is
not free, the nation1 cannot be free."
Finally, Salih expresses the intent that Erk will serve to facilitate
changes toward true independence and democracy. He does not trust or
rely on changes within Russia to affect necessary development in
Uzbekistan. He states, "people must only save themselves and their own
people." He considers it the opposition's duty to challenge the
government to further democracy when he states, "the opposition asks
76
this question: 'The nation is naked and open, criminality is increasing,
the economic crisis is deepening; what are you doing for democracy?'"
Salih concludes by celebrating Uzbekistan's independence day.
He recalls Uzbeks of the past, even as far back as the 1860s, who fought
and gave their lives struggling for such a day as September 1, 1991.
Thus, he gives credit for independence not just to the fall of communism
in Moscow, but to those in Uzbekistan's history who continued to think
independently and fight for their independent rights. To close, he quotes
one of his own poems written in 1984:
Allah created you to sing about roses,
All talents are seen in you
It fits you, looking at the sky
If you say, "This sky is mine!"
If it fits you, if you say the earth is "mine"
Because saying this you do not lie.
While writing the poem with the line---this land is mine
Never will you doubt like me.
If you say: "This homeland is mine"
No person will stand and say to you "It is a lie!"
Because you are telling the truth, again and again,
Saying this, you never weep like mebecause from my eyes blood, not tears flow.
In this poem Salih honors those who were able to claim
Uzbekistan as their homeland, calling it theirown. Salih himself seems
to have doubted that the land really was their Own, though he admits
that those who believed it were telling the truth. And Salih weeps
intensely from deep within, perhaps because he cannot really believe
that the land is yet their own. Or perhaps he weeps because those who
think the land is their own cannot see or experience the pain Salih does.
Salih recognizes that although Uzbekistan truly is the Uzbeks' homeland
and some can say "this land is mine," Uzbekistan is being ruled by
others. Salih does not consider this independence in 1991 as a final
achievement, but rather, only the beginning. He writes that Uzbekistan
has attained the beginnings of independence; "Today we say, 'this land
is mine,' and no one objects. Today we walk lifting up our heads, we are
a nation."
The period from mid 1989 to mid 1992 is one of intense political
change. Openness in demonstrations gradually gave way to increased
77
repression under Karimov's authoritarian rule. Although some positive
changes were made, such as the adoption of Uzbek as the state language
and independence, Uzbeks on the whole had much less freedom at the
end of the period than at the beginning. No advances were made for
bettering the economy, aiding the health care system, or dealing with the
other problems caused by the cotton monoculture. These fell by the
wayside, and Uzbeks' hope for any positive changes became dimmer
when the Soviet Union collapsed. Muhammad Salih, as ever involved
with political developments, immersed himself instead in the political
process as a founder of a political party, a Supreme Soviet deputy, and a
presidential candidate. What began with hopeful expectantations in the
independent Uzbekistan he had long dreamt of, and with participation in
the political process and working for democracy, ended in bitter
disillusionment when Karimov finally tightened all the screws on the
opposition and forced Salih underground in mid of 1992. His writings in
this period are few, reflecting his resignation from the Writer's Union,
his involvement in politics, but most importantly, Karimov's tight
censorship. But they, along with his political ideals expressed through
the political party Erk, in which he was heavily involved, parallel the
political development of the period.
Chapter Four - 1992-Early 1995
The final period, from the summer of 1992 to early 1995, is one
of continued intense repression by Karimov. His policy of "stability no
matter what the cost” meant beatings, arrests, control of the media and a
"new" KGB whose tactics are likened by Salih and others to those of
Stalin.' In late spring of 1992, after observing the chaos in Tajikistan,
Karimov solidified his authoritarian rule. In April, he forced the closing
of the Birlik headquarters. In June, a former leader of Birlik was
detained, arrested, and beaten; Salih resigned from his position as
deputy and Erk went underground (Mustafayev 1992). In August,
Karimov declared parliament had the power to curtail the power of any
deputy prior to the expiration of his term of office. Any utterance by a
deputy against a policy promoted by the country's leadership could be
interpreted as destabilizing and thus cause for a deputy to be "released"
from his duties (Novoprudskiy 1992). In September, the government
confiscated Erk's bank account (Brown 1993), and, in that same that
month, Nezavisimaya Gaze reported an escalation of violence in
78
Uzbekistan in the form of repression and persecution against democratic
forces (Rotar 1992).
As ever in his life and writing, Salih was caught up in political
events in this period-intensely so. As stated above, Salih resigned as a
deputy of the Supreme Soviet in June 1992 and he and his opposition
party Erk went underground. Shortly thereafter, Karimov put such
extreme pressure on him that Salih felt it necessary to flee for his life.
He made his way across the border to Turkmenistan, then to Iran, and
finally to Turkey, arriving before the end of the year. His dream of an
independent, democratic Uzbekistan lay shattered---at least for a time.
Thus, this period begins with Salih's flight from the country. Salih wrote
one major work in September 1993 while in Istanbul--- 'Toward Happier
Days," which members of the opposition in Uzbekistan published and
distributed underground in late 1993. Again demonstrating Karimov's
control, the press inside Uzbekistan would not publish it. 'Toward
Happier Days" speaks of Karimov's oppressive so administration,
calling it a 1 revision of the old Stalinist power. Salih also discusses
Uzbekistan's domestic and foreign policy as well as Erk's ideology and
proposed reforms.
Karimov continued his crackdown On all opposition groups, and
curtailment of freedom of the press and personal rights and freedoms,
under the guise of stability. Few reports of any opposition to Karimov
filtered out through official Uzbekistan papers because Karimov
controlled the press. Karimov even banned some Russian papers
previously distributed in Uzbekistan. An Izvestiya article, written in
November 1992 about censorship in Uzbekistan, undermined, in the
author's eyes, Karimov's credibility as a democratic ruler, and Karimov's
reaction to the article proves its validity. The article states, "laws in any
democratic country, and Uzbekistan says it is a democratic country,
envisage penalties for infringment on the freedom of information. They
outlaw censorship (Government Censors" 1992). Not surprisingly, but
ironically, this was an issue of Izvestiya which Karimov banned from
publication and distribution in Uzbekistan. Later, in response to
lzvestiya's protest over the ban, the government of Uzbekistan
responded by insisting the action was not censorship, but "worker
control" (Alimov 1992). A year later, another lzvestiy article entided."
Joumalists Taught What to Write" described how Uzbekistan reporters
were instructed to write articles supporting acts of the government
79
administration, rather than "stirring up" situations. Notably, Russian
journalists were not invited to these meetings ("Journalists Taught"
1993).
Despite increased control of the Uzbek press, some news filtered
out of arrests, beatings, and other violations of human rights. In
December 1992, some Birlik, Erk and other opposition members tried to
attend an International Human Rights Conference in the capital of
neighboring Kirghizstan, but were arrested by members of Uzbekistan's
militia (Brown 1993). One man, who after being released went to
Moscow and stayed there, said he could go back to Uzbekistan in
principle, but he would be killed or imprisoned if he did (Pulatov 1993).
In March 1993, a member of Birlik sent a letter to the House of
Representatives in Washington, DC giving the names of people who had
been arrested on false charges in recent months and pleaded for the
United States to put political pressure on Karimov (" Human Rights..."
1993). In May 1993, a Novoye Vremya article likened Karimov's
National Security Service to the KGB, and described hotel searches,
visitors in the middle of the night, and other events reminiscent of the
Stalinist regime. The article also stated that any person who distributed
Izvestiya in Uzbekistan was put in jail while, Novoye Vremya itself was
under a ban (Kalinkin 1993). Other reports, but not from the Uzbek
press, described arrests on trumped-up charges, torture methods,
harassment, intimidation, and detentions.[14]
Karimov's published statements regarding his rule were meant to
justify his repression and reiterate his concern over losing control of the
situation. In March 1993 statement, he charged the opposition with
trying to gain power through force and terror. Their goal, he stated, is to
take control of the activity of the legal state and public organizations,
yet they do not have "positive proposals" to make life easier for the
people (Karimov 1993). He ignored policies Salih proposed through Erk
about privatization, health care, and other issues, not to mention Birlik's
suggestions made both before and after being officially shut down. In
response to queries about his control of the press, Karimov stated that
international laws exist, and that is why some journalists are not allowed
entry visas. And as for the closing of newspapers, Karimov responded
saying he had nothing to do with that (Karimov 1993a). In May 1993,
he publicly reaffirmed that democratic processes were under way in the
republic (Karimov 1993). The "Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan,"
80
published in May 1994, actually gave citizens the "right to carry out
their own public actions in the form of rallies, meetings, and
demonstrations.("Law of the Republic" 1994). However, at this same
time other information filtered out such as that mentioned above.
Clearly, official statements did not reflect the reality of the situation.
In October 1993, Erk was required to re-register as a political
party, but its application was refused. All Birlik activity was completely
banned in February 1993 (Franklin 1994). Yet throughout this time,
opposition forces continued to do as much as they could to put pressure
on Karimov's regime for more freedom-for example, by taking part in
the Human Rights Conference in Kirghizstan. In its own paper, Erk
published an article in January 1994 which described possible steps to
ease the worsening economic situation: beginning the process of land
privatization; electing officials according to their qualifications;
evaluating officials'work periodically; and punishing anyone who
accepts a bribe. Furthermore, it advocated complete religious freedom
for citizens ("To Readers"1994). Erk also published discussions of their
fourth party congress (illegally held in January 1994) stating that the
basic function of the party is to ensure freedom of speech and freedom
of the press. Erk still expressed its willingness to compromise with the
government despite the fact that at the end of the congress Normumin,
who wrote the report, claimed he was about to be arrested and was
forced to flee (Normumin 1994).
Although in Turkey, Muhammad Salih continued to be informed
of the political process in Uzbekistan. His writing reflected his
disappointment over the entire situation and of dreams crushed. But he
still had hope. While in Istanbul, he wrote a thirty-five page pamphlet
entitled "Toward Happier Days" ("Aydinlik Seri"). This is a major work
which synthesizes his thoughts regarding the preceding four or more
years. The publication consists of two main parts: a brief introduction
written in November 1993, and a "Mektub" Letter) written in September
1993. In the mektub, he discusses some of the same themes he wrote
about in his earlier work, such as encouraging Uzbeks to think for
themselves, and he writes about Uzbekistan's new administration and
the role he envisions for Erk in the political process. More than ever,
"Toward Happier Days" demonstrates the interrelationship between
Salih and political developments in Uzbekistan.
81
'Free' to write as he wishes because he is in exile in another
country, Salih does so in "Toward Happier Days" as one who has tasted
liberty only for a short time, then been crushed and battered into the
ground as never before. Salih writes openly and bitterly, mourning a lost
opportunity in this appeal to his fellow Uzbeks, but he still expresses
hope for the future through the aid of Erk's ideology and programs.
The entire introduction discusses freedom with words and images
which are impressed in one's mind, beginning with a powerful first line:
"Free human beings often forget their own freedom, like forgetting their
own eyes or their own body." And he continues:
"A free human looks at his freedom as a natural part of his life...
If your country is free---this is a blessing; if your nation is free, if
every person in it is free---this is a blessing.
While a person comes into his own house and talks with his
family, if he will not lower his voice, if he will not think about listening
devices---this is a blessing.
If security workers will not threaten him, if they do not put him in
a car, and after severely beating him with a cane, if they do not dump
him in a garbage heap-this is a blessings. Today in Uzbekistan every
thinking human is dreaming about such ordinary blessings. As our
government writes, they want "only meat and bread" but perhaps they
can also wish for ordinary human rights. " (3)
Salih states that the Uzbekistan government promised simple
blessings such as meat, bread and rice; it promised to put the economy
above politics and to feed people. Then he adds, "but up to now people
have not eaten until their stomachs are full,on the contrary, people are
daily becoming poor? (4). Even the city population, which lived
comparatively wen for the first two years of Karimov's rule, is doubting
his attempts to make economics superior to politics, Salih writes.
Uzbekistan's citizens now say the government must answer why the
republic has not moved forward in the previous ten years, but rather
backward:
True, of course, the day of reckoning will come, but this “answer'
never will cover the replacing of the opportunity which was lost. We
must inquire of the answer today, not "in the future",(4)
That powerful introduction sets the tone for the mektub, in which
Salih continues his bitter words. He discusses some of the same themes
82
contained in his earlier writing. He also Criticizes the administrative
policies of Uzbekistan's government, in particular their domestic and
foreign policies. Throughout the entire work, Salih emphasizes Erk's
role in bringing the necessary changes for Uzbekistan to emerge as a
trully independent and more democratic state.
In "Toward Happier Days," Salih still encourages his fellow
Uzbeks to think for themselves, a theme seen in "Letter to My Younger
Brother." He hoped Erk would facilitate critical thinking among Uzbeks,
since Erk's ideological motto is "national awakening and an independent
state" (16). Salih writes “… no one can persuade anyone else something
which he does not believe himself” (16), but Salih feels that if he can
educate Uzbeks to think they will begin to change their beliefs. He
writes that although their independence was a gift from God, throughout
the past 135 years of Russian and Soviet rule, devoted martyrs gave
their lives for this gift, because in their hearts were feelings of
conviction, for a homeland, and for freedom. And firstly, they had
ordinary human pride" (21). Salih goes on to decry the lack of moral
conviction and pride in the lives of Uzbeks today, among those who
continue to endure the oppression of others.
According to Salih, a state cannot be built without an ideology.
Therefore, Salih wants Uzbeks to think, so that an ideology will be
created in Uzbekistan. The ideology Karimov 'built' was exactly the
same as the previous communist ideology, Salih states, but with one
difference: it follows the independence of Uzbekistan. He writes,
"Uzbek ideology says, 'one must love the homeland.' The communist
empire used to say this also. 'Independent ideology' says that one must
value the historical legacy; communist ideology also mumbled a lot
about this initiative" (15).
He continues: " 'Independent ideology' orders us saying 'love the
homeland,' but in order to love it, we must have a national
consciousness. Who will awaken this consciousness in us?" (16). And
thus, it is Erk's motto to get the people to think for themselves. Salih
says this can be done through Organizations in the form of "cultural
education, religious education, and historical, social, literary, language,
or newspaper societies" (16). Such organizations, Salih writes, were
beginning to be built in the early 1990s, but were “quickly closed out”
(16). These organizations must be reborn, and the state must build its
ideology on them.Only then can a new state acquire trust among the
83
people, writes Salih. But, before a nation has its own ideology, it must
be given political and economic freedom: "Firstly, if a person whose
ideas are chained cannot love his own nation, he cannot sacrifice
himself for the nation" (17).
Salih puts his finger on the main problem in Uzbekistan,that
Uzbeks have not been able to create an ideology for themselves because
they have no national consciousness. Essentially, Salih says that
freedom must come first, before any kind of ideology is in place.
Only in citizens' own independent thinking and choice can they
and their nation unite to create a productive political and economic
system. Once this is in place, citizens will be willing to work within the
system giving their loyalty to the established government. Clearly,
freedom does not exist under Karimov's present rule. So Salih's hope is
that Erk can awaken a national consciousness, getting the citizens to see
their situation as it really is and work for change.
Another theme in "Toward Happier Days," very similiar to one
stated previously in chapter one, is opposition to Uzbek government
control and domination, mostly because it appears to be simply a
continuation of Moscow's authoritarian rule. Salih makes it clear that no
political activity presently exists except that controlled by the state: in
Uzbekistan today the opportunity of demonstrating political activity
does not exist, in the street, at home, or at work.Every place there is a
spy, every day a new plot, a new investigation, a new punishment" (6).
Salih criticizes the Uzbek government's hypocritica rhetoric when it
declares Uztteldstan to be a democratic state. He describes a democratic
system as one in which the system throw out any strong racist or fascist,
should he come to power. But in Uzbekistan, if "Toshmut" is on the
"throne," the whole state will be "Toshmutls" policy, or "Yeshmat's"
policy, or whoever has power. Salih encourages his fellow Uzbeks to
fight for their democratic rights; "Now our nation must recognize itself
as a nation equal among the nations of the world, and according to this,
it must learn to demand from any kind of government its own fights"
(22).
Regarding economic and health problems, a theme of Salih's
addressed in chapter two, in "Toward Happier Days" Salih writes that
Uzbekistan's government is not concerned about people's hunger or their
poverty but only with their discontent as shown in demonstrations. Salih
continues, mentioning some Of the same points he does in "A Difficult
84
Way of Awakening." He states that while wages of officials increase ten
times, farmers' wages remain the same and they even go for several
months without receiving any salary. Not only do they not receive
wages; they are not even "allowed their own health" (30). He also cites
poor health statistics, including the high infant mortality rate and low
life expectancy (30). Salih's words demonstrate that, along with the rest
of the Uzbek population, he has not forgotten the issues which affect
people's everyday lives. None of the problems went away, but, with
Karimov's control of the press, they received no attention.
In contrast to Karimov, who appeared to conform to Islam in
order to present an image that would appeal to the Muslim population,
Salih discusses current aspects of Islam which affect believers. He
refutes the claim that k a man wears a neck tie or a woman does not
wear a veil, they are unbelievers; "Islamic educators have directed
education always into the inner life of humans. Islamic elements are a
belief in God and service of these beliefs; paranjis and turbans do not
[serve these beliefs]" (18).[15] He states that Islam is a courageous and
fearless faith. Only the Islamic religion instructs one not to bend one's
head to anyone except Allah. Only Islam calls one not to be afraid of
anyone except Allah" (19). In writing this, Salih appears to use Islam in
his own political way---calling on Uzbeks not to "bend" their heads,.or
"be afraid" Of Karimov and his oppressive tactics.
Besides reiterating the same themes seen in his earlier writings,
Salih presents his thoughts on the policies of the Uzbek administration,
given the new situation of Uzbekistan independence. Salih begins his
discussion with a familiar subject statues. Earlier, when Salih used
statues as imagery, here he simply mentions them in reference to the
past He writes that in 1982, while walking and conversing with a
Russian poet in Tashkent, they passed Lenin's statue and the Russian
wondered if they would live to see the end of Moscow's oppression.
Salih's answer at that time was, "of course this statue will fall down, but
I am afraid it seems that when this cast iron head will fall with a
thundering crash, it will break the foundation of the palace marble into a
million pieces"(20). Now Salih writes, 'I did not imagine that after ten
years this joke would turn into reality. Because the Soviet empire looked
so much like a durable “fortress” as if there was no power in the world
which could make it fall" (20).
85
Salih condemns Karimovs administration as one in which leaders
are chosen for their political connections and willingness to align
themselves totally with the dictates of the president. Salih bluntly
writes: “The government itself does not believe in the administrators; as
for the administrators, they do not believe in their own government.
Administrators who understand that their position is unstable are forced
to think, of course, not about the state but about their own pocket. They
use bribery, they do not try to do good work, because whether they do
good work or bad work, their labor is not valued. In this way they
unwillingly sabotage the work, and as a result the state structure does
not work, the rate of production is lowered, and this reflects, again, the
financial situation of the people.” (29)
Salih does not blame the administrators for their actions but
implies that because of the structure and policy of the system, they are
forced to do shoddy work and participate in corruption. In contrast, the
state Salih envisions would demand "absolute responsibility" from
qualified elected administrators, and anyone engaging in bribery would
be severely punished. He writes, "the state will have the right, not only
legally but morally for this, because the state will supply its own
administrators with privileges and salaries where they do, not need
bribery, and do not feel the need to destroy the law" (14). In this way,
administrators would also be encouraged to serve their state. Salih
understands that in a political system in which administrators are paid
according to their qualifications and work performed, no need exists for
bribery and the like.
Salih criticizes Karimov's domestic policy because it uses corrupt,
oppressive methods and it follows the old totalitarian system. When
Karimov came to power he stated that it was impossible to overthrow an
old political system without building a new one first. Salih admits going
along with that concept four years earlier and even closing his eyes "to
the vulgar political mistakes of the government (24), until he realized
that no new state was being built. (Many Uzbeks thought Salih's mistake
all along was trying to work within the system as it existed, to change it,
without first tearing it down so that a new one could be built.) Salih
does not say that what he tried was wrong, just that in the end it did not
work because Karimov was not willing to change. He writes that up
until the elections in December 1991, the government took into
consideration people's opinions to a certain degree, but, in 1992, the
86
government had "the outlook of an enemy" (25). He gives the examples
of how the administration banned Birlik, confiscated Erk's bank
account, closed five provincial newspapers and the Erk paper, beat the
former vice-President Mirsaidov as well as others, and imprisoned
several opposition members. He states, "to say it in a word, Uzbekistan
turned into a country of spies, investigators and procurers" (26).
Salih writes that much of the national budget is spent on
policemen and KGB workers. Policemen increase because the number
of people who dislike the system are increasing, and therefore, more
people must be arrested and persecuted. Salih states, "so the government
says it is controlling the dissatisfied, and that serves to increase the
dissatisfaction" (27). The reason this is happening, Salih explains, is that
Karimov is afraid. Salih quotes an Uzbek proverb: 'When a person's
trousers are torn he is afraid of sticks" (27), which means 'if you are
guilty, you are afraid of anyone and anything. "Today's regime's trousers
are tom," writes Salih. In other words, today's regime is afraid Of
anyone and anything, and that is why it feels compelled to control every
aspect of people's lives.
Uzbekistan's foreign policy, as Salih describes it, is hindered
because officials lack experience and training, and because it reflects
Karimov's domestic policies which are oppressive and corrupt. Salih
writes that money for foreign trade is going into individuals' pockets.
Not only that, but foreign companies are not even interested in investing
in Uzbekistan because the country has no firm economic policy and the
entire system is”rusted” with bribery, nepotism and corruption (28).
Salih gives several examples of how the Uzbek government is
completely incompetent in establishing foreign relations or taking stands
on world events. Salih writes that the government did not know whose
side to take when the United States bombed Iraq or when Armenia
occupied Azerbaijan. The government was not even sensitive enough to
Islamic customs (though outwardly Karimov made a show of embracing
the Muslim faith, Salih reminds his readers) to know not to have a
celebration with alcohol while in Saudi Arabia on a diplomatic mission
(33).
Despite the fact that Erk was not a legal party at this time, Salih
still hoped it would be able to bring about positive changes in
Uzbekistan. He defines and justifies the role of an opposition group
within any government when he writes that the primary reason for an
87
opposition, which is a group that comes into being only if it is freely
elected by the peoplethat is needed for controlling the rule of one group
or one party which comes into power" (8). He states that Erk's
fundamental purpose is transforming the Uzbekistan state into a
democratic state" (11). And to counter those who would tell him that
Uzbekistan is already democratic he writes, "in order to build a
democratic state it is not enough, in itself, to adapt a democratic
constitution. The people of Uzbekistan are the owners of a democratic
constitution, but this constitution does not bring any kind of goodness
into people's lives" (11). An additional purpose of Erk, he states, is to
transform hope for the future into actuality (8).
In his final words regarding the opposition, Salih reiterates that
Erk has never been a threat to the government, and that it worked within
the law. Erk supported movements directed toward the people's "peace
and tranquillity" and had as a motto, "national unity" (33). Erk sought
the path of reconciliation, but we could not find this path. Yes, the
government closed the path of reconciliation for us" (34). He writes that
Karimov promised Uzbeks freedom but instead gave them slavery. So,
Salih and Erk now struggle in order to prove that "the Uzbek people,
like other people, are worthy of freedom. We are struggling in order to
prove that this homeland. is a homeland of the Uzbeks, a great nation,
the history of which is full of honor and dignity" (34, 35). Salih
maintains that Erk is still struggling and expresses the hope that state
administrators, workers, farmers, even the KGB, policemen and
militia-all free thinking humans, are struggling against the regime (35).
Salih concludes by writing that Erk has three weapons against the
regime which the regime itself does not possess, and because of these
"weapons, " the regime is doomed. These three weapons are: faith, love
for the homeland, and the Uzbek nation itself (35).
Thus ends Salih's writing,at least for the present. "Toward
Happier Days" culminates and synthesizes Salih's hopes and dreams,
and in particular, describes the first four years of Uzbekistan's
sovereignty. The work does not mince words, but boldly describes the
situation. Salih utilizes no imagery or allusive words because he is 'free'
to write anything he wants since he is exiled in Turkey.
Whether because of the influence of living where Turkish is
spoken, or because he began to forget the Uzbek language, or simply
because of a typist's mistakes, the entire work is sprinkled with errors in
88
the use of Uzbek which even a non-native speaker can catch. Yet Salih
powerfully tells the facts in a coherent flowing, descriptive manner. He
presents his case so well one cannot help but wonder that Uzbeks, if
they could obtain a copy and readit, would be stirred to think of their
own freedom.
In the fall of 1994, Karimov put pressure on the Turkish
government to discontinue asylum for Salih. There have been reports
that Karimov stated it was not good for their mutual relations if Turkey
permitted someone opposed to the Uzbekistan government to remain in
their country.[16] So, Salih relocated in Germany, where, as of 1995, he
still lived. He has continued to be involved in Uzbek politics. In January
1995, the National Democratic Institute invited him to the United States
along with the leader of Birlik (who now lives in Turkey), to state their
case regarding Uzbekistan.
This latter period, like all the others, demonstrates how Salih's
writing reflects the political developments of the time. Karimov
tightened control even further, establishing stability at the price of
everything else-mostly citizens' freedom. He did not permit any kind of
opposition to his government (except in early 1993, when he created an;
opposition' party "Progress of the Homeland," also made up of his own
people), and those opposed to his administration he terrorized with
beatings and imprisonment. Salih, irrevocably tied to political changes,
forced first to flee to Turkey, and then to Germany, continues to struggle
for the freedom of his own people and homeland through his writing and
international appeals.
Conclusion
The Political development of Uzbekistan in the four periods from
1977 to early 1995 described in this paper is reflected in Muhammad
Salih's writings, and at times his actions. Interrelationship of his stories,
Poetry and political works with the developments in the political scene
throughout this time is clear. His writing changed in style and substance
depending on whether government Policies allowed freedom or not, and
whether he was in exile. In the early period, he had little freedom to
express his thoughts directly, but as glasnost appeared, he enjoyed
increased liberty. Because of this newfound liberty, Salih felt compelled
to direct his attention to the political process and become personally
involved. Not only did his writing style change, but his articulated views
89
of Russians, what role they should play, and how to work for change in
Uzbekistan evolved through the four periods.
In the first period, from 1977 to 1985, little freedom of expression
existed in the Soviet Union. Salih demonstrates this by using much
imagery and symbolism in his writing which is evident when he gives
advice in "Letter to My Younger Brother" and in the three statue tales.
Through this oblique style of writing, Salih makes it clear he is against
MOSCOW'S control and dominance in Uzbekistan; its presence comes
across as unwanted and ludicrous. He shows his disapproval of the
central government and expresses the desire and expectation that
Russian Presence will someday cease to exist in Uzbekistan. In the two
poems presented, Salih demonstrates his love for the Uzbek language
and how important he feels it is for Uzbeks to be able to speak their own
language.
With the advent of Perestroika and glasnost in the mid to late
1980s, citizens of Uzbekistan had increased freedom of expression. This
openness gave Salih the opportunity to express his thoughts through
writing in a much clearer, direct manner in the second period from 1986
to mid-1989. In his speech to the October plenum in 1996, he 63 calls
for the rehabilitation of Uzbek writers and history. He addresses
problems of economics, health, family planning and the cotton
monoculture in "Health To Women," "Returning" and "A Difficult Way
of Awakening," and continues to reiterate the importance of Uzbek and
calls for it to become the state language of the republic in his open letter
to Erkin Yusupov. These are all issues evident in society and mentioned
in the media. Uzbeks in this period also began openly to express the
desire to be free from Moscow's hand. The period ends with Karimov's
appointment as first secretary in the summer of 1989, when public
demonstrations, reflecting the citizens' means of expressing themselves
and the openness of the period, reached a peak.
Karimov tightened his control on freedom of expression,
especially of the press, throughout the third period, which spans from
mid-1989 until mid-1992, as Soviet domination lessened to the point of
the complete collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991 following
the August coup. Salih immersed himself in the political scene as part of
the Birlik movement, in forming his own political party Erk, in his
election as a Supreme Soviet deputy, and finally as a presidential
candidate. His writing, demonstrated in "We Pass To Happier Days," is
90
political in nature, reflecting the changes in his life and those in
Uzbekistan. Although finally independent, Uzbekistan was left to deal
with its tremendous economic, environmental, and ecological problems
on its own. The result was that, under the justification that it needed to
maintain stability, Karimovs government closed off any openings for
expression by the opposition.
In the final period, from mid- 1992 to early 1995, Salih went from
tying to work within the system for change, to being alienated and
exiled. Karimov maintained absolute control of the press and of all
organizations and denied personal freedoms, despite his pledge to the
contrary. The economic, environmental, and ecological situation
continued to worsen. Uzbeks had less freedom than in pre-glasnost days
and some even talked of the good old days" of the Soviet Union when
they at least had money, food, jobs, and health services. Banished first
to Turkey and then to Germany, Muhammad Salih's comprehensive
work "Toward Happier Days" still urges Uzbeks to think for themselves
and to have hope for a free, democratic Uzbekistan.
Once a lonely, obscure statue, standing by himself in an alley with
his ideas, Salih tasted the glory of prominence. But now, once again, he
stands alone-alienated. Perhaps Salih's own words need to be
remembered: "a great person is always a lonely person.”
***
1. Unless otherwise indicated, Salih's pieces discussed in this paper
come from a book entitled, Kozi Tiyran Dard (The Watchful Eye of
Suffering) published in Tashkent in 1990. Some of the individual
pieces within the book were published in earlier years in newspapers,
small journals, and other pamphlets.
2. These two poems come from Salih's books Arzu Fuqarasi (1990), and
Olis Tabassum Sayesi (1986) respectively. Both are collections of
poetry of earlier years. "Turk' refers in general to the Turkic language
written and spoken in Turkestan in previous centuries.
3. References in the text of this thesis to particular pages of works by M.
Salih will be indicated by pages in parentheses. The full list of works
by M.Salih can be found in the Bibliography under ~ Sources.
4. For example , in November 1986 Paris AFP announced that 13,000
Soviet economic officials were fired during the previous year for
91
abuse of power, and another 100,000 were found guilty of corruption
and doctoring figures ("13,000 Fired..." 1986). No doubt many of
these were in Uzbekistan, as that is where much of the focus of the
anti-corruption campaign was. In June 1987, Moscow Domestic
Service reported one individual who, using his high office,
systematically accepted bribes from numerous officials and gave
bribes to others. He was sentenced to death by a firing squad (Court
Sentences... "1987). RFERL Research Bulletin also devotes numerous
articles to the anti-corruption campaign. From 1984 to 1989 a total of
eleven reports discuss it: RL 254184, 457184, 403185, 81186, 90186,
297/86, 249/87, 28188, 492188, 65189 and 324189.
5. Bess Brown's analysis is that the cause of these demonstrations was
that Tatars insisted they needed more land in Uzbekistan to
accommodate their growing population. That sparked their nationalist
desire to return to the Crimea. The view given by the press was that
Tatars were simply "hooligans" making trouble. But the greatest
damage done, Brown writes, was the betrayal of trust by government
and Party officials (Brown 1988).
6. Its full name is “The Birlik Movement for the preservation of
Uzbekistan’s Natural, Material amd Spiritual Resources” (Brown
1990b)
7. Timur, born in 1336, ruled much of the known world until his death
in 1405, including India, Afghanistan, much of what later formed the
Soviet Union, Turkey, and much of the Middle East Uzbeks consider
him one of their great heroes.
8. Gregory Gleason discusses all the causes, effects and notions
involved in the monoculture in his article” The Pakhta Programme:
The Politics of Sowing Cotton in Uzbekistan” (Gleason 1983)
9. In another RFERL report Annette Bolir confirmed that family
planning experts still insisted that the high infant mortality rate was
due to women having too many children without 3-4 year intervals.
She also provided of the health hazards caused by ecological factors
(Bohr 1988a).
10. Fierman discusses many of the same points Salih does in his article,
"Glasnost in Practice: The Uzbek Experience" (Fierman 1989),
including wage differentials, the importance of Uzbek writers being
allowed to interpret history their own way, the importance of Uzbek
92
history, the lack of Uzbek books published since 1990, Uzbek as the
state language, family planning, and the need for water conservation.
11. Salih is manipulating statistics here. Much more than 13% of the
population speak Russian although not as their first language.
12. Saraton is the hottest time of the year in Uzbekistan, from 25 June to
beginning of August.
13. It is unlikely. Rather, that excuse was used by those seeking to
defame the opposition to the West
14. Bess Brown discusses this phenomenon in her article, "Tajik Civil
War Prompts Crackdown in Uzbekistan" (Brown 1993).
15. In January 1991, after some Birlik members wrote an "antiRashidov" article, they were berated for offending the "memory of the
deceased and through it trying to create chaos and anarchy ("What is
the Nostalgia..." 1991).
16. It should be noted, that once he became a people’s deputy in
February 1990 he no longer worked as a secretary of the Uzbekistan
Writer’'s Union.
17. See articles by Panfilov, Shatif and Tokgozoglu referred to in the
bibliography.
18. A “Paranji” is a veil women use to cover their faces.
19. Personal communication from Khairulla Ismatullaev.
93
PART III
Publications since 2000
''I do not call you to die for the homeland.
I call you to live for the homeland.
Living for the homeland is not to be afraid of dyning for it''
Muhammed SALIH
THE CREATION OF NATIONS
Oliver Roy
THE NEW CENTRAL ASIA, New York University Press
Washington Square, New York, 2000. pp 131,132, 133
...The Erk Party of Uzbekistan (Mohamed Saleh) and Popular
Front of Azerbaijan (Abulfaz Elchibey), on the other hand, were rather
secular and Pan-Turkist. Erk and the Azeri Popular Front called for
closer realtions with Turkey...
Karimov was elected president of the republic in December 1991
wiht 86 percent of the vote, against an opposition that was active but
limited to the intelligentsia: Mohamed Saleh, leader of the "Turkist" and
secular Erk party, took more than 12 percent of the vote. "The
democratic opposition was whipped into line from mid-1992 onwards.
The opposition members of the parliament were either forced from
office or forced to toe the line. The Erk Party was banned in the late
1993 and Saleh took refuge in Turkey, which produced a chill in
relations between the two countries. (pp 131,132,133)
"WE ARE READY TO SERVE OUR PEOPLE"
BBC. 04.02.2000
In an interview on Iranian radio the Uzbek opposition leader,
Muhammad Salih, said that the opposition were willing to respond to
the call of Uzbek President Islam Karimov to return to Uzbekistan in
order "to serve our people in the country." He said, however, that they
did not intend to throw themselves into the arms of the regime, they
94
merely wanted to get their rights back. The following are excerpts from
the interview broadcast by Iranian radio in Uzbek on 31st January 2000.
[Presenter] We have asked the chairman of the [banned] Erk
Democratic Party of Uzbekistan, Mr. Muhammad Salih, if the political
oppposition is ready to return to Uzbekistan, taking into consideration
the Uzbek government's call the opposition to talks, on the one hand,
and its strict policy against the religious opposition, on the other hand.
Please, listen to Mr. Muhammad Salih's opinion on this.
[Muhammad Salih] The Uzbek leader, [Islam] Karimov, speaking
at the Oliy Majlis [parliament] announced some kind of softening of the
policy towards the opposition. We started hoping that this softening of
policy applies not only towards the political opposition, but towards the
religious opposition as well. It is a pity but it shows that we had
misunderstood this. May be I do not know the real situation there [in
Uzbekistan]. If that domestic terror, that action against the people has
started again there, then I think that holding negotiations on the
opposition's return will not be the right thing now. As you know, we
spoke about the opposition's return on Radio Liberty yesterday [30th
January]. In this respect, we replied sincerely to Uzbek President
Karimov's calling upon the opposition.
But it does not mean that we fully believe in Karimov's call. We
do not know if this call is to be believed. Therefore, at the first stage we
have put forward small and easy conditions. The implementation of
those conditions will show that Karimov's intention to recall us to the
country is a true one. Otherwise, we have to regard this as the Uzbek
leader's next manoeuvre, because, knowing that a group of young people
were taken to a mosque [by the Uzbek police] and forced to take an oath
not to join the opposition, that part of the opposition are being kept in
prison or threatened, but at the sametime, recalling the other part [of the
opposition] to the country, this would undoubtly be hypocrisy. And,
after all this, we are not intending to return to the arms of the regime.
We are forcing ourselves merely to respond to this call. We say that the
conditions and situation in the country [in Uzbekistan] are difficult.
With the aim of serving the country, we are ready to forget the harm
done, having come to a compromise, and even we are ready to forget the
merciless brutality used against us by the [Uzbek] government. We have
announced our readinesss to negotiate with them [Uzbek gevernment]
now, only proceeding from the point of view that all this will help our
95
people and the nation. But it is not possible just to return to the country,
having seen all this. Such an action [returning] would not suit us. If we
return to the country, then it will be a betrayal of the goals on our part,
for which we had to leave the country before. This would be a betrayal
of our people. And it would be like a reconcliation with the regime,
which pardons one part of the people and puts the other part in prison.
Believe us, we will never do things that way.
If we do not respond, then Karimov will announce all over the
world: I have recalled the opposition to the country, But they did not
respond, did not believe me and they considered my call to be a trick.
They are to blame for this.
We are responding seriously to Karimov's call so that he does not
have the chance to say that. Some of our friends refer to the Tajik
government, saying that the government and the opposition had come to
an agreement, though there were clashes, there were many victims there,
but in spite of all that they had become reconciled and had started a new
life. I want to say this on behalf of the opposition: We did not leave for
the West because of the good life there. We had to leave the country
[Uzbekistan] only with the aim of protecting ourselves and our families
from the terror and mortal danger threatened by the regime.
We are responding to the Uzbek leader's suggestion to return the
opposition not because we like this regime, but we are responding to
this only to get our rights back. If we get our rights back, then we will
serve our people in the country. We have no other claims.
But we hope for the better and demand that the repressions be
stopped there. If the repressions do not stop, comrade Karimov should
not suggest that we return to our country.
[Presenter] You have listened to the chairman of the [banned]
Uzbek Democratic Party, Mr Muhammad Salih.
"U.S. OPPOSES UZBEK TERRORISM…”
09/25/2000, VOICE OF AMERICA
Anncr: The Voice of America presents differing points of view on
a wide variety of issues. Next, an editorial expressing the policies of the
United States Government:
96
Voice: The U.S. has added the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan,
or I-M-U, to its list of foreign terrorist organizations...
The I-M-U is not the only group that has voiced opposition to the
current regime in Uzbekistan. But it is the only one that uses violence
and terror to achieve its goals.
The U.S. makes a clear distinction between terrorists and the
legitimate political opposition in Uzbekistan, which includes the Erk
and Birlik parties. Erk was founded in 1990 and banned two years later.
Its leader, Muhammad Salih, opposed Karimov in the 1991 presidential
elections. Salih was later forced into exile. Several leading Erk officials,
including Salih's brother, have been detained, tortured, and imprisoned
by the regime on charges widely presumed to have been politically
motivated.
The IMU's activities, by contrast, have included terrorist attacks.
The United States recognizes that Uzbekistan has a right to defend its
sovereignty and to protect its citizens from IMU terrorism. But the U.S.
urges Uzbekistan, in addressing its security concerns, to respect the
rights of the Uzbek people.
UZBEK OPPOSITION LEADER MUHAMMAD SALIH
SAYS VERDICT ILLEGAL
BBC Monitoring
Text of report by Iranian radio from Mashhad, 20.11.2000
On the day when the [Uzbek] Supreme Court announced its
verdict [in opposition leaders' trial,17th November], we spoke by
telephone with the chairman of the Erk Democratic Party, Muhammad
Salih, for whom the prosecutor had asked the death penalty, but the
court sentenced him for 15 and half years in prison - most observers
assessed this as a surprise. Here is his opinion:
[Muhammad Salih] I expressed my opinion before the beginning
of the trial. But I kept silent during the trial because I was one of those
groundlessly accused. The verdict was announced today and I can
express some views. First, the prosecutor asked for the death penalty for
me as well as for Tohir Yoldosh and Juma Namangoniy [leaders of the
banned Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan] and others. According to the
sentence passed today, for some reasons that punishment was not given
97
to me, the sentence envisages 15 or 15 and half years in a strict regime
prison. This, first of all, somewhat surprised me, of course, because 15
years, given the present circumstances in Uzbekistan, for a person like
me, is really very little, because this regime, the totalitarian regime in
Uzbekistan considers me a major enemy.
Fifteen years are given to ordinary people, for example, to my
brother, he did nothing, he is innocent. Not only one, but all the three
my brothers were given 10-15 years, they have nothing to do with
politics. And Mamadali Mahmud, only because he is my friend and
because he went to Ukraine to see me, was sentenced to about 15 years.
This reminds me an anecdote from Stalin's period. This anecdote is not a
joke, because a joke is about some funny things, whereas an anecdote is
something containing the whole tragedy and drama of an event. To be
short, two prisoners in jail are talking. How many years are you
sentenced to, asks one. Twenty years, was the answer. What for? For
nothing, I have no guilt, answers the second. This is impossible. Those
not guilty are given here 15 years, so you must be guilty of something,
once you've got 20 years.
Similarly, I also have no guilt, and I have got 15 years. And this is
probably the logic and justice of a totalitarian state.
However, to comment on this without any anecdotes, I think, they
were preparing to give me the death penalty, but having thought they
decided that the death penalty was not convincing. First of all, it is an
exaggeration, second, they probably feared that the death penalty would
further increase the prestige of Muhammad Salih, third, this would have
made more difficult for Uzbekistan to demand Muhammad Salih's
extradition. They limited themselves to giving me 15 years in prison
proceeding from these three factors. In fact, a punishment I would have
accepted from such a totalitarian regime should have been tougher.
Today I am being asked by radio stations whether I am going to
appeal against the court ruling and I tell them that I will not. Because I
do not recognize the existence of either the court or justice in that state,
or any structures of that state. If I did recognize it I could have appealed
or hired a defence lawyer. Unfortunately, the ruling government in
Uzbekistan today is doing every injustice to our people.
My tragedy, the tragedy of my family and my brothers is only one
episode of that great tragedy. We do not expect any justice from this
government, we do not recognize its court and if we appealed to it to
98
reconsider [the case] or against any other procedure it would mean our
recognition of its legality. We consider that government and its courtan
illegal state and an illegal court.
Source: Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mashhad, in Uzbek
1500 gmt 20 Nov, 2000.
THE LAST ADVERSARY OF THE DICTATOR
By Mehmet Tütüncü
February 2002, Harlem
President Islam Karimov, a Central Asian dictator, extended his
office term through a fake referendum held in January 2002. Mr.
Karimov took good advantage of the fact that Uzbekistan has so far
been a close companion of the U.S. in fight against terrorism.
Muhammad Salih, the long-time adversary of Karimov was
arrested at the Prague airport of the Czech Republic on November 28,
2001. Police in Prague said Salih was wanted by the Uzbek state and
that he had to be extradited in accordance with the agreement.
USA recognizes M.Salih as the leader of a democratic fight in
Uzbekistan. The statement was made by a U.S.government official on
Voice of America on 25th September 2000. It also recognized his party,
ERK, as a legal and lawful opposition.
An assassination plan: Karimov has been struggling to defeat his
opposed Salih for as long as 10 years. In May 2001, 2 million USD was
paid to realize the assassination plan towards Salih. Mikhail Markelov
produced a documentary on the event in 2001. It was released on TV
Center (Russian Channel) last year. (Brief account of the documentary
would be proper for this article)
“OUR VERSION: TOP SECRET”
The first sequences - political life of post-Soviet countries. On the
screen - Michael Markelov. M. Markelov: - Good evening! Michael
Markelov is with you. The third part of the program "Our version:
Under the signature stamp - Secretly" is on the air. Recently President of
sunny Uzbekistan Islam Karimov paid Russia a goodwill visit. Before
collapsing of the Union, Uzbekistan was famous with its cotton, with its
best pilaf in Central Asia, soccer team "Pakhtakor", famous Bukharian
carpets as well as Asia hospitality. Generally speaking, it is an abundant
99
land. Besides, Uzbekistan was our strategic springboard in the
complicated Central Asian region. Because of the closeness of fighting
Afghanistan caused politicians all over the world to pay intently
attention to Central Asia.... All political oppositions to the President
Islam Karimov are in forced political exile, i.e. (that is to say) in foreign
countries. One of the most dangerous to Karimov and his closest
associates is the leader of the opposition Salay Madaminov, more
famous in Uzbekistan by his pen name as Muhammad Salih, lives and
works in Norway.
Muhammad Salih: "I left Uzbekistan in 1993 under pressure of
the Uzbekistan's authorities, to say the least of it. In reality, my life was
really in danger. I was warned by reliable sources from the Ministry of
Home affairs that Karimov, President of Uzbekistan wants seriously to
get rid of me - the leader of opposition. Because of this I had to leave
Uzbekistan on April of 1993".
+Shots of the political life of Uzbekistan in 80 and photos of
Muhammad Salih, speaking at the meeting.
+Shots from February 19th of 1999, Tashkent explosions.
M. Markelov's voice: "In 1999 in Tashkent it thundered
explosions. "Zaporodjetz" car filled with explosive and left in front of
the National Bank and National Security Service of Uzbekistan's
buildings was torn into pieces. The most powerful explosion thundered
near the Government building. In the result of the explosions innocent
people died, nobody from the authorities of the Republic did not suffer.
Before the investigation (of this event) Karimov accused Islamists, as
well as Muhammad Salih in this act of terrorism...
In 2000, an Uzbek businessman, a former worker of the Ministry
of Home affairs of Uzbekistan by the name of Bahram Muminakhunov,
who worked in Moscow and was engaged in a cotton business with
Chechen partners flew Tashkent. His former fellow workers invited him
to Tashkent. They invited him to a talk to the National Security Service
of Uzbekistan, and then to Interpol. ''
These representatives of the Chechen people by coincidence knew
Muhammad Salih too. Representatives of the National Security Service
of Uzbekistan asked our hero Bahram Muminakhunov to organize a
meeting with the group of Chechens. Muminakhunov didn't know in
what a complicated situation he will be. He fulfills the request of the
100
Uzbek security officers - Interpol workers. The witness is Bahram
Muminakhunov.
TV journalist's question: "What kind of friends they were whom
you brought to Tashkent?" B. Muminakhunov:
"These lads are Chechens. They are normal people who worked;
they had connections with Muhammad Salih. Well, in general, they told
me: ‘You know, they suggested us to eliminate him. For this they
offered (us) money. What do you think about this?’ I told them: ‘What
can I say? This is your decision, decide yourself. Generally speaking,
what's the question?’ Well, when they had gone, I was called by one of
the top authorities of the National Security Service and MVD
(=Ministry of Home affairs) and said: ‘Do you understand that there
exist such problems, that he (=Salih) is number one terrorist for
Uzbekistan, it is he who had organized explosions in the territory of
Uzbekistan, he is a real wahhabit, and he is going to disturb the situation
in Uzbekistan As far as you know these Chechens well, we entrust this
job to you as a citizen of Uzbekistan." "
TV journalist's question: "In what sense they 'entrust' this job to
you?"
B. Muminakhunov: "They entrust the problem of abolishment, the
problem of agreement between them, the problem of sum in cash, and
how these money will be paid for."
TV journalist: "I beg your pardon, did I understand you rightly,
they suggested you to be a mediator between Chechens and 'customers'
who ordered Salih?"
B. Muminakhunov: "Well, in general this 'job' continued for
several months; first they did not agree about the price. They
(=Chechens) said $ 2 millions, but these ones (=Uzbek authorities) said
$600 thousand; in general, towards the end they came to a &1 million,
and this money will be preserved in my own account, and they will
commit this action."
TV journalist: "I'm sorry, was the account personally your own,
should they transfer money to your name here in Moscow?"
B. Muminakhunov: "This was not necessary, in Moscow, in
(Arab) Emirates; the main point was the guarantee that our side, I mean
the Uzbek side, would pay this amount of money."
101
TV journalist: "Do you think that here is an interest, direct
command of the president of Uzbekistan?"
B. Muminakhunov: "Of course, I do, because neither the minister
of MVD (Ministry of Home affairs), nor the head of the National
Security Service cannot take the initiative by themselves in this case. Of
course, this is an order, because they have no right to go to him with
such an offer. They are not in a position to settle such problems."
TV journalist:
"So, the order was accepted. At last
Muminakhunov has understood where he was carried away; he was
frightened and did not know whom to address, to ask help. Russian
Security Service is not familiar to him. However, he did not know Salih
personally too. At that time he decided to tell the customers that their
order is fulfilled, i.e. Salih was killed. Thus, Muminakhunov wanted to
drop out of the game. He was sure that for a while they will leave him in
peace, and for the time being the customers examine, he will be able to
hide himself somewhere abroad. He was not able to leave Russia. And
he came to our editorial board to tell all this inconceivable story. By that
time the Chechens, having received an order to eliminate Salih, part of
the payment, and as a matter of fact, they threw away the customers National Security Service of Uzbekistan and Uzbek Interpol. They get
in touch with Salih and warn him about the danger.
TV journalist: "As I know, you pretended to be missing, didn't
you?"
M. Salih: "These Chechens asked me that I should be missing for
a short of time. Without this action it was impossible to unmask them.
Nobody knew, everybody considered that I really disappeared.
TV journalist: "Why did you act in this way? Did you need any
evidence?"
M. Salih: "Yes, I did act in this way in order to get any evidence,
proof, because I knew that to assassinate me is Karimov's oldest wish."
M. Markelov: "I would have never believe that the Interpol of
Uzbekistan is engaged in political assassination. It is beyond belief, but
it is fact. Now you will hear two telephone conversations between
Bahram Muminakhunov and the director of the Interpol of Uzbekistan
Mahmud Hayitov. In the first case the conversation turned to money - to
pay an order. In the second case the director of the Interpol demands
Muminakhunov the proof that Salih is dead. In the telephone
102
conversation director of the Interpol of Uzbekistan Mahmud Hayitov
speaks about the document. Under the word 'document' he means
'corpse'. The corpse of the leader of the opposition Muhammad Salih."
B. Muminakhunov is tackling through phone.
B. Muminakhunov: "They worry about the money. They say that
it should be near 350 ..." Hayitov's voice through the phone: "Well..."
Muminakhunov: "... it should be cash ... hello?"
Hayitov's voice: " in Moscow, yes?"
Muminakhunov: "Yes, in Moscow ... the rest to the account.."
Hayitov: "Good, no problem. You calm them, now I go to the
boss, at five o'clock ... at that time I will ... him... Everything is done,
have you found (him), haven't you? ... it means ... Is it possible to put
500 into their hands?.."
Muminakhunov: " $500 is into their hands".
Hayitov: "Yes, well, in principle, there is no difference for us..."
Muminakhunov: "Well, I understood..."
Hayitov: "Was the document found?"
Muminakhunov: "Yes!."
Hayitov: "It's good, the main thing is that (it) was found..."
Episode of another telephone call between Muminakhunov and
Hayitov.
Hayitov's voice through phone: "When I speak about the
document I mean a man, you understand it, don't you?"
Muminakhunov: "I understand, yes..."
Hayitov: "I don't say that any kind document should be sent to
us... when they go to that place... find... competent organs turn up for
this job, turn up for this job, it's correct..."
Muminakhunov: "Well..."
Hayitov: "Competent (organs) ... Identify (him)... There is police
there, here is militia...
Muminakhunov: "Well..."
Hayitov: "They will examine ... he... the document won't lie for
ever somewhere, is it true? They will give it... they will give it (=corpse)
to its owners ... in order its owners ... bury him in the safe..." Shots:
militiamen and militia motor-cyclists (from Karimov's cortege), which
103
are stand in front of the Hotel Radisson in Moscow. Then in the shots:
luxurious foyer ad corridors of the hotel.
Voice of the TV journalist: "At our disposal the exact dates and
names of the personal from the National Security Service and Interpol
of Uzbekistan who flew to Moscow on the eve of president Karimov's
official visit. All these so called agents stayed at the hotel RadissonSlavyanskaya, which is close to the Kievsk railway station of Moscow.
Here they met with an involuntary witness Bahram Muminakhunov and
discussed with him the problem how to give the Chechens money for an
order. They failed to conclude a bargain, because Muminakhunov has
no proof that Salih is dead. Although, it was stated by Uzbek-Interpol
workers, information about the assassination of the leader of the
opposition was given to the top, president Karimov. Guys were just a
little in a hurry..."
Muhammad Salih: "From the very beginning Islam Karimov was
informed about all activities. That's to say, it was an attempt upon
somebody's life, an action on the government level. It was very serious.
It means that all authorities - from the top authority till the head of the
(Uzbek) Interpol - all of them were involved in this game."
TV journalist: "Why did the Chechens come to you and roughly
speaking, they created this situation? Why didn't they fulfill the order?"
M. Salih: "Number one, these young men, i.e. that man who had
called and informed, knew me very well. When I had visited Moscow in
1998, he was one of my body-guards."
TV journalist: "It means that those men who had guarded you,
were offered to assassinate you?"
M. Salih: "It was an accident."
Michael Markelov: "I won't touch the theme here whether Salih is
good or bad, is he Islamist or secular poet-intellectual, who decided to
devote himself to the struggle for the power in Uzbekistan. Here the
point is that the Security Service (of Uzbekistan) took an active part in
preparing a political assassination. Several years ago in Byelorussia
president Alexander Lukashenko told me a very didactic story. For four
years this tape was preserved in our archive. We had our doubts that
such an event could really happen. Now there is no doubt about that."
President of Byelorussia Alexander Lukashenko conversing with
M. Markelov President of Byelorussia Alexander Lukashenko says:
104
"Karimov told me that some kind of journalist who worked there,
had criticized him. I don't remember whether he was local or Moscow
(journalist)... Well, he once criticized him; I don't know whether he was
there... He (=Karimov) says: "We caught him in Moscow, and sent to
Tashkent... and that's it..." (This secret video-tape was done in 1997, i.e.
a year later when Moscow journalist Sergey Grebenyuk was killed in
Tashkent (he was killed in 1996)."
Voice of the journalist: "When Salih was announced to be alive,
in Uzbekistan there began some changes in positions of the key
personnel. We know for certain that who suffered first was one of the
organizers of the special operation of Salih's elimination, director (now
former) of the Interpol Mahmud Hayitov. On May 10th he was fired
from his job. We called Interpol of Uzbekistan, and we were told that
they do not know such a person with such a name in this organization,
i.e. no man is a problem. The former director of Interpol of Uzbekistan
have disappeared, nobody knows his whereabouts. If this will be
continued, in this case we can give our version concerning future
changes in the positions of the key personnel in Uzbekistan. Most likely,
for the failed operation, for international scandal because of this, the
following officials will be punished: Director of the National Security
Service of Uzbekistan, Head of the Unti-terror Department and Minister
of Home affairs. We cannot finish this story here, because no one of the
authorities of Uzbekistan did agree to take part in our program. We
always are ready to let persons concerned in this ugly story have the
floor. We will continue our investigation. We will watch the situation
around the leader of the opposition Muhammad Salih in Uzbekistan
intently. Michael Markelov was with you. Good-bye, till Sunday!"
Karimov’s attempts to get rid of Salih have had a long history.
Before the 1991 presidential election he sent envoys to Salih asking him
not to be a candidate. Yet, Salih refused to obey the demand and
consequently received 12.7% of the votes in the elections in which
corruption was evident. Soon after the elections, the first thing Kerimov
needed to do was to eliminate his opposition, or precisely, his rival in
the elections, because he knew that had the elections been democratic
and fair, the opposition would have received the majority of the votes
and won the elections. So, Kerimov, as the very first step, aimed at
depriving the university youth of any political acts, as they were the
dynamos of the ERK party. 18 days after the 1992 elections, there was a
105
student strike in Tashkent. Two students were killed by the gunfire of
the regime and tens of others were wounded. This was the first act
carried out by the Kerimov regime. In order to intimidate the people of
Uzbekistan, who had supported Salih in the elections and to weary them
against his politics. The public reaction to the suppression was not so
massive, which encouraged Kerimov to act even more freely.
Publication of ERK newspaper was soon banned in three regions
in Uzbekistan and some of the ERK members were convicted with the
criminal charges. However, these precautions were far from weakening
the opposition; in March 1992 ERK assembled all opposition groups of
the country and formed a union under the name of Uzbek Forum of
Democratic Forces.
Panicked, the government now had to change its tactics. President
Karimov offered Salih any position he wanted in the present
government but Salih rejected the offer. Salih’s wish was to cooperate
for the benefit of their homeland and that the rights of the opposition be
recognized. Uzbek government then decided to remove Salih
completely from the parliament firstly. During the parliamentary session
on July 2, 1992, Salih was denied the right of speech. Refusing to put up
with such an attitude and standing up against the monopoly of the
government; Salih resigned from the parliament.
During 1992-1993 Salih and his family were under strict
surveillance. He was called for an open interrogation in accordance with
the "National Assembly" file. Meanwhile, publication of the ERK
newspaper was stopped. The newspaper editor Ibrahim Hakkul was sued
with the alleged charges. Professor Atanazar Arif, the party secretary,
was imprisoned. So was Unionist Hazratkul Hudayberdi. In spring 1993,
Salih was under arrest. Salih was released after three days with the
constant pressure from the international community. Salih soon after left
Uzbekistan. on 25th September 1993, ERK party congress was held on
25th of September and decided to keep the party whatever it took. The
anti-opposition campaign by the Uzbek government led by Karimov has
been going on for seven years now. Luydmila Alekseyeva, the
chairperson of the Helsinki Committee compares it to the campaigns
against Sakharov and Soljenitsin in Russia.
Chronology of 'Liberation Struggle'
In late 1993 and early 1994, ERK party publications were
circulated through out the country. Karimov requested the extradition of
106
Muhammad Salih to Uzbekistan from President Demirel of Turkey at
the Leaders Summit in Davos, Switzerland in January 1994. Upon
Demirel's question "Why do you need him?" Kerimov simply replied: "I
am going to kill him". In June 1994, some of ERK newspaper officials,
led by former deputy Murad Corayev, was arrested upon Karimov’s
return from Turkey. Six of the groups were sentenced to penal servitude
with charge of "an attempt to demolish the state". While the judgement
was in progress, Muhammad Salih was again regarded as one of the top
criminals and was declared 'a state criminal'. However, ERK carried on
with the propaganda.
In 1995, another group was arrested upon their return from
Turkey. The members of the group were made to confess on TV show
that "Salih prepared Uzbek youngsters in Istanbul in order to demolish
the Uzbek state". From 1995 on, the government newspapers began to
explicitly mention Salih as a "traitor". In late June 1994, Kerimov paid a
visit to Turkey. Among political and economic issues, the "opposition
problem" was once again on top of the agenda. For the first time, the
Turkish media informed the public of the Uzbek opposition. Engin
Ardiç of STAR TV criticized harshly the Turkish government for
condoning such dictators as Karimov. But, it was obvious that the
Turkish media was far from impressing the government's policy as
President Demirel ordered the state officials to "get Muhammad Salih
out of the country without offending him". And Salih left Turkey for
Germany "with no feelings of offence at all." Karimov was incapable of
daring to ask Germany extradition of Salih. However, he did not hesitate
to say "the German-Uzbek friendship is eternal. My grandfather Amir
Temur had saved Europe from the Turkish invasion" in his speech he
made at the German Parliament. Government changed in Turkey in
1995 and it did nothing to prevent Salih from returning to Turkey. Yet,
Salih , fearing not to deteriorate the Turkish-Uzbek relations, refrained
from performing any political activities. He lived illegally in Istanbul
until 1997. Before making his visit to Turkey in November, Karimov
warned the new Turkish government in an impolite and non-diplomatic
language against his presence in Turkey. Turkish Foreign Ministry had
to deport Salih for the second time. This exile did not last too long; he
soon returned to Turkey secretly. Karimov accused the Turkish state
again of helping the opposition leader of the Uzbek regime. Salih had to
leave Turkey this time.
107
Turkish scholar Şuayip Karakaş, who translated Muhammad
Salih's works into Turkish, states: "Muhammad Salih is a person who
trained himself in the notorious Socialist Soviet conditions, visited
Turkey, saw Europe and USA and studied the Islamic world. He is a
man of strong intellect and leader meditating and producing ideas not
only on Uzbekistan's but also on entire Turkestan's and the Turkic
world's future. He is the only leader to produce a project named "Turkic
Belt". Therefore, he is the second great philosopher after Ziya Gökalp,
who owns the programme that rests on a firm basis concerning the
world Turk-hood. Muhammad Salih, above all, seeks to rid his
homeland, Uzbekistan, of feudalism, a disgraceful form of government
in today's world. He is legend, whose name is forbidden to be
pronounced even in his own country. He is young and healthy, with
sound mental and physical capabilities. He has no such bad habits as
smoking, alcohol drinking or gambling. He is a genuine leader with firm
patience, responsibility and strong will, qualities that will never
disappoint those trusting him. Although Islam Karimov offered him
Prime Ministry of Uzbekistan, which he rejected, in return of giving up
opposition against him, Salih has never given up his ideals of freedom,
patriotism, justice and democracy."
Blasts in February 1999
This was the most loathsome provocation within the program
made to "defeat the adversary." It was evident that the blasts were an
excuse to be used against the opposition. Even before Salih was
officially declared guilty, his brothers Abdureshid Begcan and Kamil
Begcan were arrested. Surprisingly, the week before the blasts occurred,
all Salih's relatives had been taken under constant surveillance by KGB.
This means on the day blasts took place, those determined guilty by
KGB had already been taken under custody. The criminals were
determined with attached charges, and the case was even documented.
The only thing that remained to be done was the judgement. Before the
judgement, lengthy articles were published to accuse Salih of
committing the murders. In the meetings, in streets, schools and
factories people told the public what a blood- thirsty murderer Salih
was. In schools children were made to draw pictures illustrating the
extradition of Salih too the fair justice by the magnificent Uzbek police.
Compositions were written, too. Salih was accused by fake witnesses,
108
whom he had never seen. Eventually, Salih was found guilty as the
organizer of all those blasts.
Alparslan Turkeş in July 18, 1996, wishing to secure
reconciliation between Salih and Karimov, wrote a letter to Karimov.
Salih approved this initiative with some changes in the context of the
letter. The amended letter was sent to Kerimov on August 4, 1996
through the Uzbek embassy. The letter can be summarized as follows:
"Chairman of the Uzbek ERK party, his highness Muhammad Salih, has
been abroad for a few years. I have met him three times in Turkey and
Europe. First of all, I do not know what the occurrences are between
your highness and Muhammad Salih. However, he always uses a
respectful language when mentioning you. Great persons have great
spirits. They forgive the faults committed to them. You will, no doubt,
appreciate the significance of unity and togetherness for the Uzbek
nation. I request your highness to grant a friendly hand to Mr. Salih. I
hereby submit you a letter, in attachment, that he wrote to your
highness. I look forward to your generous reply. I sent to your highness
my deepest respects and greetings."
Karimov replied to Turkes letter three and half month later. "We
have gone through very hard phase in our very-short-timeindependence. There have been some men who fought for the same
purpose we chose, some others did not trust us, and still others made
mistakes; however, we have never seen them as enemies of our nation.
Once they realize their mistakes, no one will be capable of preventing
them working for the future of Uzbekistan. As for Muhammad Salih, he
might as well follow the same route as the others, we reckon setting
preconditions is not right to do this. Everything should be realized
regardless of conditions and with no deals concerning obtaining high
positions in the state. Mr. Alparslan Turkeş, you too know very well that
everything should take place in accordance with the Uzbek Law of
Constitution and regulations". It is understood from these remarks,
under signed by him, Karimov thought about nothing but defeating his
political opponent.
The Prague Story
On November 28, 2001, Muhammad Salih was taken under arrest
while going through passport control at Prague Airport. He had joined
International Crisis group meeting in Brussels and delivered a briefing
at the European Parliament's Central Asian Commission on Uzbekistan.
109
The next day he had arrived in Prague by an Amsterdam-Prague plane,
having been invited by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Uzbek State
TV was immediately on the streets in Tashkent asking people: "What
penalty do you consider for traitors?" President Karimov must have
wished Czechs would not take long to send his opponent to Tashkent.
But the human rights organizations raised protesting voice. If the
operation resulted in success, it would not be necessary to spend
millions of dollars to exterminate Salih. In 2001, Karimov had hired a
group of Chechens to kill Salih, and the money had been provide by one
of Karimov's collaborators, a mafia leader. Only by chance, Salih had
had a narrow escape. But now Salih himself had walked into the trap.
The Czech police announced that Salih had been sought by the Uzbek
state and would be extradited to Uzbekistan to a mutual agreement.
Therefore, Salih's life was now in real jeopardy. Muhammad Salih later
reports the situation with a bit of humor: "I too caught glimpse of my
name appearing in red background on the computer at the passport
control at Ruzine Airport of Prague and thought that was the end. I ask
myself "Why on earth did I never think I could be arrested here in
Czech Republic?" Somewhere deep in my mind I had an idea that the
land of Czechs is a European state and so Uzbekistan may have no word
on them to get me arrested. Not only did I bear in mind such a worry,
but the ones at home, even Mehmet Tütüncü, who had driven me to
Amsterdam Airport, had no idea such a thing could happen to me."
I came to realize some of the things when I talked to Salih's
lawyer, Ms. Kohoutova. I assume, the officers of the Czech Interpol,
who had arrested Salih, had no idea that their country had signed the
1951 Geneva Convention, as regards political immigrants status, and
they had no right to arrest him. The reason was that Salih had a passport,
given to him by the Norwegian state, which was approved by the UN
according to this agreement. The Czech police, who managed to realize
this nuance only after a while, were unable to make any announcement
during the following 3 days. And, 3 days later, they announced that
"Salih could only move freely within the Schengen states with this
passport." In the end, they had to prove they were not mistaken and
therefore stated that they had to arrest Salih in accordance with an
international agreement made with Interpol. Of course, all these
happened well after the arrest was echoed throughout the world.
Muhammad Salih speaks of the day he was arrested: "The police officer
110
who told me 'You are under arrest!' asked me all of a sudden, while
filling in the forms, 'Where is Uzbekistan now; is it an independent state
or within the Russian Federation?' I thought people with such
knowledge would no doubt send you to Uzbekistan. Yet, I did not utter
a word for it seemed useless to do so as I was a 'terrorist' for them. The
same officer said 'This lady will be your lawyer' pointing to an
acquaintance to his. I said 'OK.' There was no other way; only in this
way could I communicate with the outside world through this lawyer."
The first message that lawyer Kohoutova conveyed was a bit
frightening: "If Uzbekistan does not send us the files of charged within
40 days, Salih will be let free; otherwise, they will be examined and he
will be extradited to Uzbekistan. Such cases do not take long to settle
with us." Uzbekistan would take no longer than 4 days to send the files.
And, so it happened. Tashkent sent the files 2 days later. Czech Interior
Ministry officials were stunned by pressure imposed by the Uzbek side.
It is certain that they thought Muhammad Salih was a lot more than a
"common terrorist".
(re-write) The news caused a huge wave of ecstasy in Tashkent.
Uzbekistan TV channels began interviewing the so-called Uzbek public
and emphasized traitors should be penalized in the most suitable way
they deserved. On website ‘www.uzbekistanerk.org’ the case was
mentioned in detail. Of course, Karimov's rival, whom he had been
chasing for years but failed to capture, was by great coincidence trapped
now and would most probably be handed in to him in a cage. On
December 3, 2001 Karimov told the media that they expected his
adversary, Muhammad Salih, to be extradited and mentioned Salih as
leader of the Uzbek Islamic Movement. No one raised a voice against
this. Journalists were now used to hearing such silly remarks from
Karimov. One of those days I received a phone call. It was the voice of
someone who was disturbed by the activities of Turkistan Newsletter, a
journal I used to manage. In fact, I knew the owner of the voice. He was
once a supporter of Salih, and managed his own dealing, pretending to
be pro-democracy in Turkistan. But, Karimov’s wealth dazzled him and
now he is making a living by spying Salih for Karimov. On the phone,
he told me USA had long ago presented Salih to Karimov and,
therefore, his Newsletter struggled in vain. I replied him in due manner.
The Prague incident, interestingly, revealed not only personal but also
political manipulation over Uzbekistan. We know today that, at first,
111
some states ignored the Salih issue and advised their institutions not to
exaggerate it. Until 3 September, a period during which Salih’s fate was
vague in Prague Pancrac prison, none of the embassies except that of
Norway- paid any attention to him. However, after the case was made a
matter of interest by the mass media, the situation reversed.
Media all over the world reacted in different ways. The US media
began messaging that Salih was a fighter of democracy and one of the
most serious opponents of the Karimov regime. The Russian media, not
surprisingly, displayed a pro-Karimov position and went on publishing
misleading news about Muhammad Salih. The German media
mentioned the case, even if not in detail. One of the newspapers,
however, published a letter in full that Salih had written while in jail.
The Anatolian News Agency, the Turkish state’s official news agency,
only reflected the Uzbek regime’s views, short and illegitimate.
Nonetheless, journalists like Taha Akyol, Cengiz Çandar, Altemur Kilic,
Ahmet Arslan and Rahim Er gave full support to Uzbek democracy. I,
hereby, would like to thank them for their sincere effort. We would also
like to emphasize the utter support extended by Radio Free Europe, who
invited Salih to Prague. This is the radio by which we were informed of
the incident hour by hour.
To those who know what the Uzbek regime is like, Salih’s
extradition would mean nothing but his death. In the same evening that
Salih was arrested, the highly urgent declarations of the Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch warned the world about the
critical situation that had emerged. Pen Club, whose headquarters is in
London, and the Moscow writers took an immediate action.
International Group and the chairman of European Parliamentary
Commission, Bart States, made a press release, demanding Salih to be
freed. The western media began making elaborate comments on the
issue.
Salih as a democrat
Aften Posten, Norway’s leading daily, read on full page: Salih
was the best-known politician in his homeland, and he still is today. In
order to degrade his popularity, Karimov has been exerting efforts to
label him as "Islamist." Karimov ordered physical extermination of his
opponent, Salih. (Uzbekisk opposisjoner arrestet i Tsjekkia, Aften
Posten, 30.11.01).
112
RFE/RL's political commentator Bruce Pannier says: "Salih is still
the chairman of the banned Erk Democratic Party. Though he lost in his
presidential bid against Karimov in 1991. Salih still gathered some 12
percent of the vote - a remarkable feat for an opponent in an election
that many regarded as rigged." (RFE\RL,4.12.01).
Professor Mark N.Katz of George Mason University writes: "I
met with Salih in October 1992, when he was still in Tashkent. He is no
Islamic fundamentalist, but a democrat. Salih described to me how
Karimov sought to discredit the democratic opposition in the West by
portraying it as Islamic fundamentalist. He hoped the West would not be
fooled, but feared it would be. He predicted that while Karimov could
quickly eliminate his democratic opponents, he would not be able to get
rid of his Islamic fundamentalist ones so easily. With the democratic
opposition gone, the Islamic fundamentalist opposition would just get
stronger. This prediction has come true. (The Moscow Times, 3.12.01)
Peter Green, New York Times' commentator in Prague, starts his
article titled ''Voice of Prague Prison-The Uzbek Poet.'' "In a
whitewashed cell in the Pankrac prison here, the man generally
recognized as one of his nation's greatest poets sits behind a scarred
formic table, wearing the prison uniform of faded purple sweat-suit and
slip-on shoes. High up, a slit of wet sky is visible through the bars of a
small window. His crime: to challenge the one- party rule of a onceCommunist country, Uzbekistan. His fate: to sit in the same jail where
the writer Vaclav Havel was once detained by the Communist police, a
political prisoner in the country Mr. Havel now rules. (NYT, 9.12.01)
Los Angeles Times' (7.12.01) columnist Robyn Dixson evaluates
the events: "Karimov's move to extend his rule comes as authorities here
seek the extradition from the Czech Republic of Muhammad Salih, the
last strong opposition figure to challenge Karimov in an election. Salih
ran against the president a decade ago."
Head of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Thomas Dine, in his
open letter written to the prosecutor of the Prague city articulates: "We
know Mr. Salih to be a fair, honest, and brave person promoting human
rights and democratic institutions and processes in his homeland.
Persistence of the Norwegian Government
Norwegian Foreign Minister Jan Petersen today asked his Czech
counterpart, Jan Kavan, that the Czech Republic extradites detained
113
Uzbek dissident Muhammad Salih back to Norway. Meanwhile, TV
channels in Norway had been broadcasting programs about Muhammad
Salih's being a true democrat. However, Czech authorities called him to
the ordeal on November 30, 2001 and prolonged his custody to 40 days.
Upon this development, Norwegian government, which expected Salih's
immediate release by the Prague City, sharpened its attitude giving the
Czech Foreign Ministry a diplomatic note.
Norway tried hard and seemed to be certain that Salih would be
freed before 40-day detention period. It assumed that the Czech
Republic, which is one of the closest candidates to the EU entry, cannot
risk the support of a country such as Norway, which is highly influential
in European political affairs. Yet, the Czechs had been quite stubborn
and did not release Salih despite of Norway's diplomatic note. At those
days, the Norwegian ambassador to Prague visited Muhammad Salih at
the Pancras prison and comforted him. During a long conversation, the
ambassador told Muhammad Salih that his country had been seeking to
get him out of the prison before the trial. Thanking the ambassador for
all his efforts, Salih insisted that the 'trial' was necessary. He also
declared that he would oppose to any decision of cancellation of the
'trial' and stay in the prison until the day of ordeal. Shocked with this
reply, the Norwegian ambassador asked Muhammad Salih "Why?"
Muhammad Salih answered: "This is a golden opportunity to prove that
all the accusations of Karimov against me are void. I will stay in this
prison as long as it takes until the truth is proven." A summary of this
conversation was immediately broadcasted by Radio Liberty.
Consequently, his arrest stirred strong controversy in the world
public opinion increasing every hour and reaching to the residence of
the Czech President by numerous Internet mails, phone calls, fax
messages and protesting letters. President Vaclav Havel, himself a
writer who spent five years in Communist jails for advocating
democracy, was said by his spokesman to be taking a strong interest in
the case. Havel spoke about Salih's detention at the Czech television and
said that "I've been intensively dealing with the affair and I am certain
that Salih is innocent. I have taken steps and I will take further steps
within my powers to release him."
In those days, an anonymous person called saying that The US
had already given Salih to Karimov as a present and Turkistan
Newsletter's efforts would fail. Meanwhile, Uzbek TV channels were
114
heralding "capture of the people's enemy" and his "near ordeal to bring
to justice."
Some even commented that as a result of cooperation between the
US and Uzbekistan on the war against terrorism, Salih will be extradited
to Uzbekistan. This issue was asked to Muhammad Salih by journalists
during the press conference after his release. Salih answered calmly the
questions about whether the US bargained on his detention in Prague: "I
don't think a super power such as the US would deal with such trivial
issues!" Thus, Salih defended both the Czech government as well as the
Super Power.
On December 11, 2001 at 11 am, the Czech court has decided
that Uzbek opposition leader Muhammad Salih should be released from
extradition custody on President Vaclav Havel's guarantee. Czech
politicians commented that Salih's case had set a precedent for the
Czech legal system.
Within 3 hours after leaving the Pancras prison, Salih gave a press
conference and met with around 80 journalists from all over the world.
On President Vaclav Havel's request, Muhammad Salih met with
him at the Prajski Palace on December 12 at 5.30 pm. During this
meeting, Salih informed the President about the political situation in
Uzbekistan and gave him the essay that he wrote in prison as a present.
After their meeting, Salih told the journalists that Czech President
promised to support Uzbek democrats in international arena.
Thus, the Prague city court trial of 14th of December, had been an
ordeal of Uzbekistan's repressive regime rather than Muhammad Salih's.
In the court's decision, there were passages that would prove Uzbek
government's terrorist activities.
Judge Veronika Bohackova said that the Czech Republic was
bound by international conventions, which ban extraditing people to
territories where they would be faced with serious human rights and
freedoms violation. "We had enough groundwork not to comply with
the demand by Uzbek authorities for extradition of Mr. Salih," she said.
Though the Prague incident has been quite dramatic for
Muhammad Salih, it has also been a very good experience for him to
inform the world about undemocratic developments and human rights
violations in Uzbekistan as well as his struggle. In his own words: "I
115
hope that my experience in Prague has in a way cast light on the human
rights situation in Uzbekistan," Salih said.
Nevertheless, though the Prague trial is over, Muhammad Salih's
adventure carries on. The dictator is and will be after him. While
Kerimov is in power in Uzbekistan, life of Muhammad Salih remains
under treat. Why Karimov has been following Muhammad Salih for 9
years? Galima Buharbaeva, researcher at the Institute of as a present
War and Peace, Department of Central Asia, answers this question:
"There is no mystery behind Tashkent's determination to see Salih
behind bars. In spite of the fact that he has been out of the country for
eight years, he remains a symbol of the secular opposition to Karimov's
autocratic style of government and is still a potential rival."
(IWPR'S REPORTING CENTRAL ASIA, No. 89 Institute for
War & Peace Reporting [email protected]
UZBEK OPPOSITION LEADER ARRESTED IN PRAGUE
29.11.2001
Karel JANICEK, Associated Press, Ankara
PRAGUE, Czech Republic (AP) - Acting on an international warranter
police have tamed an Uzbek opposition leader who came to Prague on
invitation of Radio Free Erope/Radio Liberty, his lawyer said Thursday.
Miroslava Kohoutova said that Muhammad Salih was ordered
held on arrival ednesday at Pragues Ruzyne airport on the 1993 warrant,
issued on request of uzbekistan, and that a court was to rule on his
extradition to his home country ater Thursday or on Friday.
Police spokeswoman Eva Srozova confirmed Salih was detained
Wednesday. She aid he was being held in a police cell but offered no
further details.
Salih, head of the opposition Erk Party, was sentenced in absentia
last yeaf o 15 1/2 years in prison for alleged involvement in a bombing
that killed 16 people (in the Uzbek capital, Tashkent, in 1999).
He is currently living in Norway where he was granted political
asylum after uthorities ruled that he was in danger of persecution in his
home country. Ohoutova said Norwegian authorities had already turned
down an extradition reques from Uzbekistan. Uzbek President Islam
116
Karimov has received Western praise for opening his airspace and a key
air base to U.S. aircraft to help America pursue its campaign in
neighboring Afghanistan. But Uzbekistan’shuman rights record has
been under criticism, with Western ouritries complaining that the
governments broad crackdown against Islamic ctivists is so sweeping
that moderate opponents of the regime may be turning to radicalism.
New York-based Human Rights Watch has accused authorities of
torturing 15 eople in custody to death during the past three years.
Diplomats based in Uzbekistan estimate that 5, 000 to 10,000 Uzbeks
are in jail for crimes related to political activities. In a telephone call to
the Ankara office of The Associated Press, his daughter, Umida Salih,
said the family fears for his life if he is returned to Uzbekistan.
“If he is extradited he will be killed, we have no doubt about
that,” she said.
Brozova said that Salih is wanted for in connection with several
serious criminal offenses in Uzbekistan, but refused to elaborate.
Kohoutova too refused to go into details, citing rules of privacy.
RFE spokeswoman Sonia Winter confirmed the station had
invited Salih, but said that to firm date had been set for his visit.
“His arrival was a surprise for us” Winter said.
She said the radio was in frequent contact with Salih, describing
him as a human rights advocate.
“We interviewed him several times on our programs as a person
who has been persecuted and a person who spoke out against violation
of human rights in Uzbekistan”, Winter said.
CZECH REPUBLIC/UZBEKISTAN:
FEAR OF FORCIBLE DEPORTATION/FEAR OF
TORTURE, MUHAMMAD SALIH
29.11.2001AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL,
Fear of forcible deportation-fear of torture
Exiled Uzbek opposition leader Muhammad Salih was arrested by
Czech police when he arrived at Prague airport on 28 November,
reportedly at the request of the Uzbek authorities. He may now be
forcibly returned to Uzbekistan, where he would be at grave risk of
117
torture. Muhammad Salih has had refugee status in Norway since 1999,
and the Czech authorities should allow him to return to Norway, for the
Norwegian authorities to decide on any request for extradition.
Muhammad Salih is the leader of the banned Erk Democratic
Party of Uzbekistan. He had travelled to Prague at the invitation of the
Uzbek Service of Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe. He was detained at
passport control at 10am, and the police reportedly did not allow him to
use a telephone until 7pm.
He called his son and told him that he had been detained at the
request of Uzbekistan. A court hearing will take place on 30 November
to decide on possible deportation to Uzbekistan.
The Czech Republic is a state party to the 1951 Convention
relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugee Convention) and the
United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Both of these prohibit the return of a person to a country or
territory where they may face serious human rights violations. There are
similar provisions in the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In February 1999, 16 people died in bomb explosions in the centre
of the Uzbek capital, Tashkent. The Uzbek authorities have used the
bomb explosions and other violent incidents to justify a clampdown on
individuals and groups they perceive as a threat to their authority and
the country's stability.
President Karimov blamed Muhammad Salih for the bombings,
and state-owned newspapers, radio and TV stations described him as a
traitor, a murderer and a terrorist. The Uzbek authorities have accused
him of being one of the leaders of an international conspiracy aiming to
overthrow the government. In November 2000 the Supreme Court of
Uzbekistan sentenced Muhammad Salih in absentia to 15 and a half year
imprisonment on charges of terrorism and treason in connection with the
bombings. Muhammad Salih has always denied the charges and has
insisted that they were fabricated by the authorities to punish him for his
non-violent opposition activities.
Hundreds of people have reportedly been arrested during the
clampdown that followed the explosions, and allegedly ill-treated and
118
tortured. They range from members and suspected supporters of the
banned secular political opposition parties and movements Erk and
Birlik, to alleged supporters of banned Islamic opposition movements or
parties, such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and their relatives, as well as
independent human rights monitors. Thousands of devout Muslims and
dozens of members or supporters of Erk and Birlik are now serving long
prison sentences, convicted after unfair trials of membership of an
illegal party, distribution of illegal religious literature and anti-state
activities.
Muhammad Salih founded Erk in 1990. It was officially registered
as Uzbekistan's first opposition political party the following year, and
Salih ran for president. Following a clampdown against government
opponents Erk was effectively banned in 1993, and Muhammad Salih
went into exile soon afterwards.
Amnesty International is particularly concerned that Uzbekistan
may use the "international fight against terrorism" as an opportunity to
further clamp down on the country's internal opposition, with greater
impunity than ever before. Uzbekistan, which borders Afghanistan, is
one of the main allies of the US-led coalition in the region.
At least 1,000 US ground troops are based at the Khanabad
military base in the south of the country.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible, in Czech,
English or your own language:
-- urging the Czech authorities not to forcibly return Muhammad
Salih to Uzbekistan, where he would be in grave danger of torture and
cruel and inhuman treatment;
-- reminding the authorities that the Czech Republic is a party to
the UN Refugee Convention; the United Nations Convention against
Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment; and the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
-- reminding the Czech government that Muhammad Salih has
been recognized as a refugee in Norway and that he should be returned
to Norway for the Norwegian authorities to deal with the extradition
request.
119
Exiled Uzbek opposition leader Muhammad Salih was remanded
in custody for 40 days by Prague City Court today, while the extradition
request from Uzbekistan is being examined.
FURTHER RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Please continue appeals as before, in Czech, English or your own
language:
-- urging the Czech authorities not to forcibly return Muhammad
Salih to Uzbekistan, where he would be in grave danger of torture and
cruel and inhuman treatment;
-- reminding the authorities that the Czech Republic is a party to
the UN Refugee Convention; the United Nations Convention against
Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment; and the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
-- reminding them that Muhammad Salih has been recognized as a
refugee in Norway and that he should be released and returned to
Norway for the Norwegian authorities to deal with the extradition
request.
APPEALS TO:
President Václav Havel
President of the Czech Republic
Prazsky Hrad, Praha 1, 11908
CZECH REPUBLIC
THE POET MUHAMMAD SALIH, CHAIRMAN OF ERK,
THE OPPOSITION DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF UZBEKISTAN,
HAS BEEN DETAINED IN PRAGUE
29.11.2001
Vitaly Ponomarev, Memorial Human Rights Centre, Moscow
Czech Republic/Uzbekistan - The foreign press service of Erk, the
Democratic Party of Uzbekistan, reports that the party's leader, the poet
Salay Madaminov (better known by his nom-de-plume, Muhammad
Salih), was detained in Prague at about 1000 on 28th November 2001.
His detention only became publicly known at about 1900, when Czech
police allowed the Uzbek dissident to contact his son by telephone.
120
Salih said that he had been detained at the request of Uzbekistan and
that the question of whether he would be extradited would be decided at
a court hearing which would be held in three days' time.
Sources in Prague today confirmed that Muhammad Salih had
been detained after he arrived in the Czech republic from the
Netherlands at the invitation of the Uzbek Service of Radio Liberty. It is
reported that Salih was detained at passport control as a person wanted
by Interpol. Fifty-two year old Muhammad Salih is one of the central
figures in the Uzbek political opposition. In 1991 he was the only rival
candidate standing in a presidential election against the present head of
state, Islam Karimov. As a result of persecution by the security services,
Salih was forced to emigrate in 1994. In the years since then he has
continued to be politically active abroad. The Uzbek authorities have
previously accused Salih of preparing a coup d'etat, of having links to
Islamic insurgent groups based in Afghanistan, and of complicity in the
acts of terrorism which took place in Tashkent on 16th February 2000.
On 17th November 2000 the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan found him
guilty (in absentia) under thirteen articles of the Criminal Code, and
sentenced him to fifteen and a half years' imprisonment, to be served in
a harsh-regime prison camp. Salih himself denies all these accusations.
Human rights organisations consider that criminal cases arising
out of investigations into cases of terrorism in Uzbekistan are in the
main fabricated. Despite this, more than 7,000 people have been given
court sentences for anti-state activity in Uzbekistan in the last three
years alone. Confessions, which form the basis for prosecution, are
frequently obtained through horrific torture. If Salih is extradited to his
home country, it is impossible to count on him having a fair trial. Three
of his brothers are already in prison on various trumped-up charges.
The Memorial Human Rights Centre calls on the Czech
authorities to release Salih from detention immediately, and to turn
down Uzbekistan's request for his extradition.
UZBEK MILITANT DETAINED IN PRAGUE
29.11.2001, By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
PRAGUE, Czech Republic (AP) -- Acting on an international
warrant, police have detained an Uzbek opposition leader who came to
Prague at the invitation of Radio Free Europe, his lawyer said Thursday.
121
Muhammad Salih was held shortly after arriving in the Czech
capital on Wednesday, according to his lawyer, Miroslava Kohoutova,
who said a court would rule on extradition by the end of the week.
Police spokeswoman Eva Brozova confirmed Salih was being
held in a police cell but offered no further details.
Brozova said Salih is wanted by the Uzbeks in connection with
several serious criminal offenses there, but refused to elaborate.
Uzbekistan accuses him of being an Islamic militant.
Salih, head of the opposition Erk Party, which means Freedom,
was sentenced in absentia last year to 15 1/2 years in prison for alleged
involvement in a bombing that killed 16 people in the Uzbek capital,
Tashkent in 1999. He currently lives in Norway where he was granted
political asylum after authorities ruled that he risked persecution if
returned to his home country. Kohoutova said Norwegian authorities
had already turned down an extradition request from Uzbekistan.
Uzbek President Islam Karimov has received Western praise for
opening his airspace and a key air base to U.S. aircraft for the war in
Afghanistan. But Uzbekistan's human rights record has been under
criticism with Western countries complaining that the government's
broad crackdown against Islamic activists is so sweeping that moderate
opponents of the regime may be turning to radicalism.
New York-based Human Rights Watch has accused authorities of
torturing 15 people in custody to death during the past three years.
Diplomats based in Uzbekistan estimate that 5,000 to 10,000 Uzbeks are
in jail for crimes related to political activities.
Sonia Winter, a spokeswoman for Radio Free Europe, confirmed
the station had invited Salih, but said that no firm date had been set for
his visit. She said the radio was in frequent contact with Salih, whom
she described as a human rights advocate.
“We interviewed him several times on our programs as a person
who has been persecuted and a person who spoke out against violation
of human rights in Uzbekistan,'' Winter said.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is a private nonprofit
corporation funded by the U.S. Congress and established in 1949 to
spread uncensored news to Soviet- controlled countries and to promote
democratic values and institutions.
122
Programs are translated into 27 languages in 25 countries,
including Uzbekistan
--- from indymedia web posting --Salih was invited to Prague by the US nongovernmental
broadcasting bureau `Radio Liberty'. Now, he is at the custodial of
Interpol in Prague. Muhammad Salih is going to be deported to
Uzbekistan under the convoy. Organizations of Human Rights try to
have Muhammad Salih free. We please everybody struggling for the
democracy in the world to cooperate in getting the leader of
democratic opposition of Uzbekistan and poet Muhammad Salih free.
UZBEK OPPOSITION LEADER ARRESTED IN PRAGUE
29.11.2001
Dear President Havel,
The International League for Human Rights, an international, nongovernmental human rights organization with consultative status at the
United Nations ECOSOC, is extremely concerned by the arrest of
Muhammad Salih, leader of the banned Erk Democratic Party of
Uzbekistan. Salih was arrested by Czech police upon his arrival at
Prague airport on November 28, 2001, reportedly at the request of the
Uzbek authorities. He had traveled to Prague at the invitation of the
Uzbek Service of Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe. The trial which will
decide whether or not to extradite Salih to Uzbekistan is said to begin
within days.
After the Erk Party was registered in 1990, it became one of the
leading political forces in Uzbekistan, leading to the decision of its
leader, Muhammad Salih, to participate in the presidential elections in
1992. Mindful of the increasing political weight of the party, the Uzbek
government banned Erk in 1993, forcing Salih into exile.
In February 1999, following the bomb explosions in the center of
Tashkent which killed 16 people, the Uzbek authorities unleashed a
campaign to clamp down on various groups and individuals allegedly
presenting a threat to the country’s stability. In November 2000, the
Supreme Court of Uzbekistan sentenced Muhammad Salih in absentia to
15 and a half years’ imprisonment on charges of organizing the
bombings. Since no conclusive evidence of his guilt was presented, it is
123
highly likely that these charges were politically motivated and designed
to discredit Salih as a political opponent in the eyes of the Uzbek
people.
The League fears that Muhammad Salih faces a prospect of bodily
harm or even death if extradited to Uzbekistan, the known violator of
human rights and freedoms.
We call upon you to abide by the UN Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment, to
which your country is a party and which states that “No State Party shall
expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are
substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being
subjected to torture,” and release Muhammad Salih to his country of
residence, Norway, which has recognized him as a refugee.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We await your
response.
Sincerely,
Catherine Fitzpatrick, Executive Director
UZBEK DISSIDENT ARRESTED
IN PRAGUE, THREATENED WITH EXTRADITION
29.11.2001
Human Rights Watch
(New York, November 29, 2001) - A prominent Uzbek dissident,
Muhammad Salih, was arrested in Prague yesterday for a politically
motivated conviction in Uzbekistan and faces extradition, Human
Rights Watch said today. Salih had traveled to Prague on an invitation
from U.S. Radio Free Europe.
Human Rights Watch today called on Czech authorities to refuse
Uzbekistan's extradition request, release Salih immediately, and
guarantee his security while in the Czech Republic.
"This is a matter of life and death for Mr. Salih," said Elizabeth
Andersen, executive director of Human Rights Watch's Europe and
Central Asia division. "The Czech government has got to act now to
refuse the extradition request and release him."
124
Salih is chairman of the Erk Democratic Party, a political
opposition group now banned in Uzbekistan. He was the only genuinely
independent candidate to challenge Uzbek President Islam Karimov in
the 1991 presidential elections. Following the elections, Uzbek
authorities harassed and repeatedly detained him. Fearing arrest on
dubious charges, he fled the country. On November 28, Czech police
detained Salih at passport control, on an Interpol extradition request
placed by Uzbek authorities. He is currently in preliminary custody.
Tomorrow the Prague City Court will hold a hearing to determine
whether to go forward with extradition proceedings. In November 2000,
the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan sentenced Salih in absentia to a 15year prison term on charges of terrorism and anti-state activities. Human
Rights Watch monitored the trial, and found it reminiscent in all
respects of Soviet-era show trials. No material evidence of Salih's guilt
was presented. Nine of Salih's co-defendants also received lengthy terms
in prison, and two other men, sentenced in absentia in the same trial,
were sentenced to death. Uzbekistan continues to execute condemned
prisoners. Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty in all
circumstances. Three of Mr. Salih's brothers-Komil, Muhammad, and
Rashid Bekjonov-are currently serving sentences ranging from 10 to 15
years on politically motivated charges, reflecting the Uzbek
government's program to arrest relatives of those labeled "enemies of
the people." According to a human rights activist who served time in
prison along with Rashid and Muhammad Bekjonov, the brothers have
been subjected to particularly harsh treatment, including repeated
torture, by prison authorities.
Elizabeth Andersen
Executive Director, Europe and Central
Asia Division Human Rights Watch
CZECH POLICE ARREST UZBEK
OPPOSITION LEADER WANTED BY INTERPOL
29.11.2001
PRAGUE, Nov 29 (CTK) - The Czech police arrested Salai
Madaminov, also known as Muhammad Salih, the leader of
Uzbekistan's main opposition democratic Party Erk, at Prague Ruzyne
125
airport on Wednesday, police spokeswoman Iva Knolova told CTK
today.
According to Knolova, Salih, who arrived in Prague on the
invitation of the Radio Free Europe radio station, is wanted by Interpol.
Salih is currently being held in a police cell in Prague 6.
According to agency AP, Salih was sentenced in absentia last year
to 15.5 years in prison for an alleged involvement in a bombing that
killed 16 people in Tashkent in 1999.
Salih now lives in Norway where he gained a political asylum.
The RFE invited him to take part in a discussion programme on
the situation in Uzbekistan.
RFE spokeswoman Sonia Winter said the radio was in frequent
contact with Salih, describing him as a human rights advocate.
"We interviewed him several times on our programmes as a
person who has been persecuted and a person who spoke out against
violation of human rights in Uzbekistan," AP quoted Winter as saying.
Winter nevertheless admitted that Salih's arrival in Prague was a
surprise as the RFE had not set any firm date for his visit.
As soon as RFE learned about Salih's arrest, it contacted his
family and the Norwegian Embassy, Winter said.
"We were told that it would be dealt with on the highest level and
that the Norwegian Ambassador immediately charged himself with the
task," Winter said.
The embassy secretary told CTK that the office would provide no
information. He only said that the embassy did not know the reason for
Salih's arrest. He nevertheless added that he believed that the Czech
police were acting in harmony with law.
He added that the Norwegian ministry wanted to acquire all
available information on the case and only after that it would consider
developing some diplomatic activities.
Erk was established in 1990 as an opposition to Uzbek President
Islam Karimov. It was banned in 1993.
Its founders originally were members of the opposition group
Nationalist Islamic Movement Birlik, whose aim is, among other things,
the promotion of Islam. In 1990 some of its members left the group as
they wanted democratic reforms and established Erk.
126
UZBEK DISSIDENT ARRESTED IN PRAGUE
FACES EXTRADITION TO UZBEKISTAN
30.11.2001,
Eurasia Insight
Acting on a warrant issued by Interpol, authorities in the Czech
Republic have detained one of Uzbekistan's leading political opposition
figures, Muhammad Salih. A court hearing is scheduled for November
30 to determine whether Salih will be extradited to Uzbekistan.
Czech police arrested Salih on November 28 as soon as he passed
through passport control at Prague Airport. He was visiting the Czech
Republic at the invitation of the US-sponsored Radio Free EuropeRadio Liberty. An associate of Salih's Czech defense lawyer, Miroslava
Kohoutova, told EurasiaNet in a telephone interview that the Uzbek
government was responsible for the Interpol arrest warrant.
Human Rights Watch, in a statement, called for the immediate
release of Salih, who is chairman of the Erk Democratic Party. "This is a
matter of life and death for Mr. Salih," said Elizabeth Andersen, the
executive director of Human Rights Watch's Europe and Central Asia
Division. Salih was convicted in abstentia on terrorism-related charges
on November 17, 2000, receiving a 15-year prison sentence. He has
vigorously denied any connection to terrorist organizations and
characterized the verdict as illegal. "We do not expect any justice from
this government (of Uzbek President Islam Karimov)," Salih told
Iranian radio at the time of his conviction.
Salih's trial was connected to a 1999 series of bombings in the
Uzbek capital Tashkent. The Uzbek government has portrayed the
bombings as an assassination attempt against Karimov, organized by the
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU). IMU leaders Juma Namangani
and Tahir Yuldashev were sentenced to death in abstentia at the same
November 2000 trial. Namangani was recently reported killed in
fighting in Afghanistan. Salih was the only challenger to Karimov
during Uzbekistan's 1991 presidential election. Erk was banned in 1992,
and Salih went into exile. Since fleeing Uzbekistan, Salih has lived in
Turkey and Germany, while continuing to denounce Karimov's
administration. "I can only say that Karimov is not in an enviable
position because, among Central Asian nations, Uzbekistan is in the
127
worst position [in terms of economic development]," Salih said during a
January 2001 interview broadcast by Iranian radio. "I am surprised that
people … are not tired of believing in Karimov's lies."
Since the 1999 Tashkent bombings, the Uzbek government has
carried out a ruthless crackdown against freedom of speech and
religious expression. Officials have justified their actions as necessary to
maintain stability in Uzbekistan in the face of an insurgent campaign
conducted by the IMU. International human rights groups and
governments have criticized Uzbekistan's human rights practices.
However, such criticism by governments, including the United
States, has become muted since Uzbekistan emerged as a key strategic
partner in the anti-terrorism campaign in Afghanistan. Human rights
advocates suggested that Karimov is taking advantage of his new
international status to make a move to crush old domestic opponents.
According to Human Rights Watch's Acacia Shields, who
attended the November 2000 trial, Uzbekistan urged Interpol to detain
Salih shortly after his conviction. In recent weeks, Tashkent appears to
have repeated its request, Shields told EurasiaNet. "That Interpol acted
now … does appear to be very much linked with the international
community's interest in anti-terrorism measures," Shields said. "I am
appalled that Interpol would act as the henchman of a government that is
known to convict people without grounds."
Three of Salih's brothers are currently imprisoned in Uzbekistan,
serving sentences that range from 10 to 15 years. Salih insists that the
charges against his brothers were fabricated and intended to punish him
for his political opposition to Karimov's government. "My tragedy, the
tragedy of my family and my brothers is only one episode of a greater
tragedy (in Uzbekistan)," Salih said in his 2000 radio interview.
KARIMOV CRITIC ARRESTED IN PRAGUE
30.11.2001
IWPR'S REPORTING CENTRAL ASIA, No. 89
By Galima Bukharbaeva in Tashkent
Human rights activists fear the arrest of a prominent Uzbek
opposition leader will be ignored by the international community
128
The arrest of a key opposition leader from Uzbekistan in Prague
this week has removed one of the biggest thorns in the side of the
country's authoritarian president, Islam Karimov.
Czech police working with Interpol pounced on Muhammad Salih
on November 28 at the city's airport, where he had arrived to take part in
an interview with the Prague-based station Radio Liberty.
According to Navfar Kholmatov, Interpol's representative in
Tashkent, the agency forwarded Uzbek demands for his deportation. A
number of human rights organisations, meanwhile, have called for Salih
to be freed. Salih, exiled leader of the Uzbek Erk (Freedom) People's
Democratic party, was sentenced to 15 and a half years' imprisonment in
absentia in November 2000 for a range of heinous offences, including
subverting Uzbekistan's constitutional order, plotting the death of the
president, terrorism and establishing and taking part in a criminal
society.
The Uzbek high court said Salih was behind a series of bomb
attacks that rocked Tashkent in February 1999 - in which 16 were killed
120 injured – and had organised an incursion of armed insurgents from
Tajikistan from 1999 to 2000 in league with the outlawed Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan, IMU.
Erk party supporters and human rights campaigners say Salihwas
the victim of a judicial farce aimed at discrediting President Islam
Karimov's only serious political rival. After competing against Karimov
in the presidential elections of 1991, Salih was forced to leave
Uzbekistan two years later to escape criminal charges. Before his
detention in Prague he had been living in Norway where he had sought
political asylum.
Mikhail Ardzinov, head of the Independent Human Rights
Organisation in Uzbekistan, said the arrest raised suspicions that
Interpol in Prague had acted at the behest of the Tashkent authorities.
He said that if the agency had really been interested in arresting
Salih, they could have done so in Norway, where he lived openly.
Human rights organisations say the Uzbek courts never
established Salih's role in the explosions in Tashkent or his participation
in any of the other serious crimes he was accused of.
They said Salih, and the leaders of the IMU tried alongside him,
Takhir Yuldash and Juma Namangani, were brought before the courts
129
with one aim in mind - to be found guilty so that Tashkent could
demand their extradition from the countries where they had sought
asylum. Ardzinov said the Uzbek high court was the tool of the
government, and that its rulings had never before enjoyed independent
or international credibility. "It was clear to everybody that this was just
a show trial, which is why in the year since it ended no one even tried to
detain Muhammad Salih," he said.
There is no mystery behind Tashkent's determination to see Salih
behind bars. In spite of the fact that he has been out of the country for
eight years, he remains a symbol of the secular opposition to Karimov's
autocratic style of government and is still a potential rival.
At home, the absence of political freedom, of any real opposition
or freedom of speech, have prevented the appearance over the last 10
years of any single politician capable of presenting a political platform
to the public.
Opposition supporters in Uzbekistan fear that the government is
using its increasingly close ties with the US to crush political dissent
under the guise of prosecuting Islamic terrorists.
According to the Moscow-based human rights centre, Memorial,
there are more than 7000 political prisoners in Uzbekistan accused of
links with illegal religious groups.
This year two prominent Uzbeks - human rights activist Shovruk
Ruzimuradov and the writer Emin Usman - died in custody.
As Tashkent assumes a key position in the American-led
campaign against the Taleban in neighbouring Afghanistan by providing
bases for US ground troops on the Afghan border, opposition activists
worry that Salih’s arrest will be virtually ignored by the outside world.
THE MUNICIPAL COURT (OF PRAGUE)
ORDERED DETENTION FOR EXTRADITION PURPOSES
AGAINST UZBEK DISSIDENT SOLICH (SALIH)
30.11.2001
PRAGUE/LONDON/OSLO 30. November (CTK) - Today, the
Municipal Court of Prague ordered detention for extradition purposes
against the Uzbek opposition leader Muhammad Solich (=Salih),
according to the court's speaker Lubos Vlasák.
130
The decision to order detention for extradition purposes, however,
does not mean, that Solich will be delivered to Uzbekistan, which has
requested his delivery. Usbekistan made him search by Interpol for
alleged murder and crimes against property.
The procurator's office of Prague now will examine in preliminary
proceedings, whether Solich's extradition to Uzbekistan is admissible. If
it comes to the conclusion, that it is admissible, the Court will decide
about his extradition in a public hearing. The Czech police detained
Solich, who is searched by Interpol, at the airport in Prague-Ruzyne on
Wednesday. Solich fled from Uzbekistan from the dictatorial regime of
president Islam Karimov. He now lives in Norway, where he received
political asylum two years ago. If Solich is extradited, he might be even
in danger of death. The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs drew the
attention of the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the fact that
Norway has already rejected his extradition to Uzbekistan three times.
Today, the speaker of the Norwegian Ministry, Karsten Klepsvik, told in
a telephone conversation from Oslo to CTK: "We follow up the case
closely." He added however that the case was completely within the
competence of the Czech courts, his office could only supply the
necessary documents. The speaker of the Czech Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Ales Pospísil confirmed that he was in contact with his
Norwegian counterparts. The humanitarian organisation Amnesty
International (AI) in London released an urgent appeal today, asking
Solich to be delivered to Norway. According to AI, he is in danger of
being tortured in his home country. The organisation reminded the
Czech authorities that the Czech Republic is a part to UN conventions
which prohibit their signitaries from returning individuals to countries
where they face torture or degrading treatment. The organisation asked
the public to send urgent appeals on behalf of Solich to the Czech
government as quick as possible. The Russian organisation Memorial,
which monitors the observation of human rights, joined the appeal. It
called upon the Czech authorities to immediately release Solich and to
reject the extradition request. In a declaration sent by Memorial to CTK
in Moscow, it was mentioned that the charges brought up by the Uzbek
authorities against Salih, are completely unfounded and fabricated.
The human rights organisationen Human Rights Watch (HRW),
too, called upon the Czech authorities this Thursday to reject
131
Uzbekistan's request to extradite Solich. HRW asked the Czech state to
grant for Solich's security during his stay in the Czech Republic.
Last year, Solich was sentenced in Uzbekistan in absentia to 15,5
years of imprisonment in a case related to the bomb attack in Tashkent
in 1999, when 16 people were killed. Prezident Karimov accused
Solich's party Erk and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) of
carrying out that attack. IMU is considered to be an ally of Usama bin
Ladin's terrorist organisation Al-Kaida, and according to some source,
IMU figures on an American list of terrorist organisations. Experts on
Uzbekistan consider that Solich as a representative of an organisation
banned by Karimov's regime was put on Interpol's list of wanted people
under the influence of Karimov himself.
Translation from Czech Georg Warning, Konstanz, 30.11.01
CITY COURT IMPOSES EXTRADITION
CUSTODY ON UZBEK DISSIDENT SALIH
30.11.2001
Zpravodajstvi CTK, Daily News-vseobecné, anglicky: TAM
PRAGUE, Nov 30 (CTK) - The Prague City Court imposed
extradition custody on Uzbek opposition party Erk leader Mukhammed
Salih today, court spokesman Lubos Vlasak has told CTK. The deeision
however does not mean yet that Salih will be extradited to Uzbekistan
which has asked for it. Uzbekistan has had Salih sought by Interpol
accusing him of a murder and property crime. The Prague State
Attomey's Office will now examine in a preliminary procedure whether
Salih's extradition to Uzbekistan is admissible. lf it finds it admissible,
the court will decide on his extradition. The Czech police arrested Salih
at Prague Ruzyne airport upon his arrival from Norway on Wednesday.
STATE ATTORNEY WANTS SALIH
TO BE TAKEN INTO EXTRADITION CUSTODY
30.11.2001
PRAGUE. Nov 30 (CTK) - The Prague State Attorney's Office
proposed to the Prague City Court today to take Uzbek opposition
132
politician Muhammad Salih into extradition eustody, but this does not
yet mean that he would be extradited, court spokesman Lubos Viasak
has told CTK. Salih will be interrogated at 1:00 a.m. and the
investigator is expected to issue his verdict around noon. Salih, who has
been sought by Interpol for murder and property erime according to
Marcela Kratochvilova, deputy city state attomey, was detained by
Czech police at Ruzyne airport. Vlasak said that Czech authorities are
obliged to detain any international wanted person. "The extradition
custody is imposed to ensure that the person is available to interrogators
and the judge. At the moment the eustody is imposed, 'extradition
procedure' starts in which it is examined whether extradition to a foreign
state is admissible," Vlasak said. lf the state attomey preliminarily
concludes that the foreign citizen can be extradited, the final deeision is
made by court in a public meeting. The court verdict can be appealed
and the Justice Minister can submit the case to the Supreme Court if he
doubts the verdict is correct. -More Interiror Minister Stanisalv Gross
told CTK today that the police only did their duty when they arrested
Salih. "The police could do nothing else because it would violate the
law," Gross said. He added he believed that if the court found out that
Salih's life would be threatened with any danger, "it is possible the court
will conclude that the person will not be extradited." lf Salih, whose true
name is Salai Madaminov, chairman of the banned Democratic Party
Erk (Freedom), is extradited, his life may be j eporadised. Salih fled
from the dietatorial regime of President Islam Karimov and now lives
in Norway where he was granted political asylum. Salih was senteneed
in absentia to 15.5 years in prison in connection with a terrorist attack in
Tashkent in 1999 in which 16 people were killed. Karimov accused Erk
and the Islamie Movement of Uzbekistan (IDU) of preparation of the
attack. IDU is considered an ally of the terrorist organisation Al Qaeada
of the world's terrorist number one Osama bin Laden and according to
some infonnation it is on the U.S. list of terrorist organisations. Uzbek
specialists believe that Salih, a representative of an organisation
outlawed by Karimov's regime, has got on the Interpol wanted persons
by doing of Karimov himself Human Rights Watch (HRW) called on
Czech authorities yesterday to reject Uzbekistan's Salih extradition
request. HRW also asked Czech authorities to ensure Salih's security
during his stay in the Czech Republic. It is a death and life matter for
Salih, Elisabeth Andersen from HRW for Europe and central Asia, said.
133
Salih arrived in Prague at the invitation of Radio Frce Europe (RFE) and
was to take part in its discussion programme on human rights in
Uzbekistan.
SALIH WANTS TO ASK FOR
ASYLUM IN CZECH REPUBHC RFE/ RL
30.11.2001
Zpravodajstvi CTK, Daily News-vseobecné, anglicky: PVR
PRAGUE, Nov 30 (CTK) - Uzbek opposition leader Muhammad
Salih wants to ask for political asylum in the Czech Republie, Sona
Winter, the spokeswoman for Radio Free Europe, told CTK today. Salih
was arrested by the Czech police at the instigation of Interpol on
Wednesday. Today an extradition custody was imposed on him and he
might be extradited to Uzbekistan.
"Winter said, referring to Salih's lawyer Miroslava Kohoutova.
According to unofficial infonnation the request for asylum might be a
legal method with which Salih's extradition to Uzbekistan might be
prevented. Salih, arrived in Prague on the invitation of the Radio Frce
Europe (RFE) radio station with whose Uzbek section he has cooperated
for many years. "I can say that we know Mr Salih for years and he has
often featured in our programmes and he is an advocate of human rights.
We hope the situation will be resolved soon," she added. -More
Uzbekistan has asked for Salih's extradition. The court decision made
today docs not mean that this will really happen. The case is yet to be
reexamined by the state attorney's office and a final decision would be
made by a court. The Czech Centre of the International PEN club has
asked for Salih's immediate release, apology from the relevant
authorities and his protection against possible attacks. "Salih is an
important and renowned poet and writer. He is equally, if not more
known, as a human rights advocate," PEN club's chainnan Jiri Stransky
said. The whole affair is "disgusting, humiliating and harmful," PEN
club wrote in its statement. Salih heads Uzbekistan's main opposition
democratic Party Erk which was outlawed as extremist by Uzbek
President Islam Karimov some time ago. Karimov accused Erk of coassisting to a terrorist bombing in Tashkent in 1999. However, neither
Salih nor his Erk party figure on the list of terrorists which is available
on the U.S. government Intemet site. Salih arrived in Prague on the
134
invitation of the Radio Free Europe (RFE) station with whose Uzbek
section he has cooperated for many years. Many international human
rights watehdog organisations have already called on the Czech
Republic to refuse Tashkent's request for Salih's extradition. lf
extradited, Salih might face death penalty.
SALIH ASKS FOR POLITICAL
ASYLUM IN CZECH REPUBLIC – LAWYER
30.11.2001, Zpravodajstvi CTK, anglicky: TAM PRAGUE
Uzbek dissident Muhammad Salih, currently detained in Prague
on Interpol's initiativet has asked for political asylum in the Czech
Republic, Salih's lawyer Miroslava Kohoutova told CTK today. She
however deelined to diselose the reason for the applieation, saying that
it was a part of Salih's defenec in court. Salih, arrested by Czech police
inprague Ruzyne airport on Wednesday, was taken to custody in Prague
Pankrac Prison today. According to Kohoutova, original documents on
Salih's alleged criminal activities in Uzbekistan must arrive
from Uzbekistan within 40 days.
“Unless they come by that time, Salih will be released on the 41st
day. lf they come, the state attomey will decide on whether Salih's
extradition to Uzbekistan is admissible,” Kohoutova said. The possible
extradition wouid be deeided on by a court. The Norwegian Foreign
Ministry spokesman told CTK that Salih had been granted political asylum
in Norway two years ago. Kohoutova confirmed this information quoting a
letter sent to her by deputy director for relations with the Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS) at the Norwegian Foreign Ministry. According to
the letter, Salih arrived in Norway from Turkey in April 1999. At the
request of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees in Norway he
obtained political asylum and Norwegian travel documents. He has been
living in Norway since then, the letter says. “However, according to
Interpol, which had amounced an international search for Salih on the basis
of a request from Uzbekistan, Salih is just waiting for asylum in Norway.
Salih heads Uzbekistan's main opposition democratic Party Erk which was
outlawed as extremist by Uzbek President Islam Karimov some time ago.
Karimov accused Erk of co-assisting to a terrorist bombing in Tashkent in
1999. However, neither Salih nor his Erk party figure on the list of terrorists
135
which is available on the U.S. government Intemet site. Salih anived in
Prague on the invitation of the Radio Free Europe (RFE) station with whose
Uzbek section he has cooperated for many years. Many international
human rights watchdog organisations have already called on the Czech
Republic to refuse Tashkent's request for Salih's extradition. lf extradited,
Salih might face death penalty.
HAVEL MONITORS UZBEK'S CASE,
NOT TO INTERVENE FOR THE TIME BEING
30.11.2001, RTJ PRAGUE, (CTK)
President Vaclav Havel is interested in the case of Uzbek
dissident Muhammad Salih who was arrested on his arrival in Prague by
the Czech police at Interpol's initiativet Havel's spokesman Ladislav
Spacek told CTK today. "We're in contact with the relevant bodies and
the president has been very thoroughly infonned about the case," Spacek
said. He said it was not necessary for the president to interfere in the
case in its current stase. "As soon as he feels that he couid play an
important role in this respect, he will definitely make it elear," Spacek
said. Salih, whose real name is Salay Madaminov, heads Uzbekistan's
main opposition democratic Party Erk. He arrived in Prague on the
invitation of the Radio Frce Europe (RFE) radio station with whose
Uzbek section he has cooperated for many years. Havel, too, used to
cooperate with the RFE, then seated in Munich, as anti-communist
dissident in the foriner Czechoslovakia.
Salih is wanted by Interpol. According to agency AP, he was
sentenced in absentia last year to 15.5 years in prison for an alleged
involvement in a bombing that killed 16 people in Tashkent in 1999.
Salih now lives in Norway where he obtained political asylum. Experts
believe that Salih, whose party Erk has been outlawed by Uzbek
President Islam Karimov, has been pushed through onto the Interpol list
of wanted persons by Karimov himself. Many international human
rights watchdog organisations have already called on the Czech
Republic to refuse Uzbekistan's request for Salih's extradition. The RFE
invited Salih to take part in a discussion programme on the situation in
Uzbekistan. RFE spokeswoman Sonia Winter deseribed him as a human
rights advocate. The Prague City Court today imposed extradition
136
custody on Salih which, however, does not mean that he would be
extradited to Uzbekistan. The Prague State Attomey's Office will inquire
into whether his extradition is admissible.
Salih fled from the dictatorial regime of President Islam Karimov
and now lives in Norway where he was granted political asylum. The
Norwegian Foreign Ministry told the Czeeh Foreign Ministry on
Thursday that Norway had already refused to extradite Salih to
Uzbekistan three times. The Norgewian ministry also said it was
monitoring case closely. The Amnesty International humanitarian
organis
made an urgent request in London today that Salih be
extradited to Norway. According to Amnesty, Salih faces torture in his
homeland. The organisation reminded to Czech authorities that the
Czech Republie was a member of U.N. conventions which ban to
extradite people to countries where they could face torture or bad
treatment. Amnestry asked the public to send urgent petitions for Salihh
to the Czech government immediately. The Russian organisation
Memorial, which monitors the observation of human rights, has joined
Amnesty, calling on Czech authorities to imrnediately release Salih and
reject the Uzbek demand to extradite him. A statement Memorial sent to
CTK in Moscow says that the accusations of Salih by Uzbek authorities
are unjustified and fabricated. Human Rights Watch (HRW), too, called
on Czech authorities yesterday to rejeet Uzbekistan's Salih extradition
request. HRW also asked Czech authorities to ensure Salih's seeurity
during his stay in the Czeeh Republie. Salih was sentenced in absentia
to 15.5 years in prison in connection with a terrorist attack in Tashkent
in 1999 in which 16 people were killed. Karimov accused Salih's Erk
and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IDU) of preparation of the
attack. IDU is considered an ally of the terrorist organisation Al Qaeada
of the world's terrorist number one Osatna bin Laden and according to
some infomlation it is on the U.S. list of terrorist organisations. Uzbek
specialists believe that Salih, a representative of an organisation
outlawed by Karimov's regime, has got on the Interpol wanted persons
by doing of Karimov himself. Salih arrived in Prague at the invitation of
Radio Free Europe (RFE) and was to take part in its discussion
programme on human rights in Uzbekistan. RFE warned yesterday that
if Salih was extradited to Uzbekistan, he would face death there.
137
INTERPOL SAYS SALIH SEEKING
ASYLUM, OSLO SAYS HE HAS OBTAINED IT
30.12.2001, PRAGUE, Nov 30 (CTK)
Interpol insists that the Uzbek dissident Muhammad Salih,
currently detained in Prague on Interpol's initiative, is seeking
Norwegian asylum, but the Oslo Foreign Ministry asserts he obtained
the asylum two years ago. According to Interpol, Salih is only waiting
for whether Norway will decide on his asylum request, Danica
Hrabalova from the Czech Police Presidium told CTK today.
The Norwegian Foreign Ministry's spokesman Karsten Klepsvik,
however, told CTK today that Norway had granted asylum to Salih two
years ago.
Hrabalova said this information discrepancy did not crucially
affect the current situation of Salih.
"The police are not interested in what Salih is like. We find it
important that a warrant for his arrest has been issued," she said.
Asked to explain why Salih had been arrested by the Prague
police on his arrival at Prague's Ruzyne aiport on Wednesday and not by
the Dutch police on his departure from Amsterdam, Hrabalova pointed
to the Schengen Treaty.
"The countries bound by the Schengen Treaty must not extradite a
person who is registered as an asylum seeker. The international arrest
warrant becomes effective as soon as he/she crosses the [Schengen]
border," Hrabalova said.
Deputy Prague State Attorney Marcela Kratochvilova said her
office had obtained the City Court's decision to impose an extradition
custody on Salih. The state attorney is to inquire into whether Salih's
extradition is admissible. Among others he will check whether Salih has
applied for asylum in any country or whether he already enjoys a
refugee status. The inquiry can take two to three months, Kratochvilova
said.
The extradition of Salih, whose real name is Salay Madaminov,
has been requested by Uzbekistan.
Salih heads Uzbekistan's main opposition democratic Party Erk
which was outlawed as extremist by Uzbek President Islam Karimov
some time ago. Karimov accused Erk of co-assisting to a terrorist
138
bombing in Tashkent in 1999. However, neither Salih nor his Erk party
figure on the list of terrorists which is available on the U.S. government
Internet site.
Salih arrived in Prague on the invitation of the Radio Free Europe
(RFE) station with whose Uzbek section he has cooperated for many
years.Many international human rights watchdog organisations have
already called on the Czech Republic to refuse Tashkent's request for
Salih's extradition.
If extradited, Salih might face death penalty.
CITY COURT IMPOSES EXTRADITION CUSTODY
ON UZBEK DISSIDENT SALIH
30.11.2001, PRAGUE, Nov 30 (CTK)
The Prague City Court imposed extradition custody on Uzbek
opposition party Erk leader Muhammad Salih today, court spokesman
Lubos Vlasak has told CTK.
The decision however does not mean yet that Salih will be
extradited to Uzbekistan which has asked for it.
Uzbekistan has had Salih sought by Interpol accusing him of a
murder and property crime.
The Prague State Attorney's Office will now examine in a
preliminary procedure whether Salih's extradition to Uzbekistan is
admissible. If it finds it admissible, the court will decide on his
extradition. The Czech police arrested Salih at Prague Ruzyne airport
upon his arrival from Norway on Wednesday. Salih fled from the
dictatorial regime of President Islam Karimov and now lives in Norway
where he was granted political asylum. The Norwegian Foreign
Ministry told the Czech Foreign Ministry on Thursday that Norway had
already refused to extradite Salih to Uzbekistan three times. The
Norgewian ministry also said it was monitoring the case closely.
The Amnesty International humanitarian organisation made an
urgent request in London today that Salih be extradited to Norway.
According to Amnesty, Salih faces torture in his homeland.
The organisation reminded to Czech authorities that the Czech
Republic was a member of U.N. conventions which ban to extradite
139
people to countries where they could face torture or bad treatment.
Amnestry asked the public to send urgent petitions for Salih to the
Czech government immediately.
The Russian organisation Memorial, which monitors the
observation of human rights, has joined Amnesty, calling on Czech
authorities to immediately release Salih and reject the Uzbek demand to
extradite him. A statement Memorial sent to CTK in Moscow says that
the accusations of Salih by Uzbek authorities are unjustified and
fabricated.
Human Rights Watch (HRW), too, called on Czech authorities
yesterday to reject Uzbekistan's Salih extradition request. HRW also
asked Czech authorities to ensure Salih's security during his stay in the
Czech Republic. Salih was sentenced in absentia to 15.5 years in prison
in connection with a terrorist attack in Tashkent in 1999 in which 16
people were killed. Karimov accused Salih's Erk and the Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan (IDU) of preparation of the attack. IDU is
considered an ally of the terrorist organisation Al Qaeada of the world's
terrorist number one Osama bin Laden and according to some
information it is on the U.S. list of terrorist organisations. Uzbek
specialists believe that Salih, a representative of an organisation
outlawed by Karimov's regime, has got on the Interpol wanted persons
by doing of Karimov himself. Salih arrived in Prague at the invitation of
Radio Free Europe (RFE) and was to take part in its discussion
programme on human rights in Uzbekistan. RFE warned yesterday that
if Salih was extradited to Uzbekistan, he would face death there.
PRESS COMMUNICATION
30.11.2001
Bureau of Bart Staes Bart, Member of European Paliament and
President of European Parlement delegation for Central-Asia
Democratic Uzbek opposition LEADER arrested in Prague
(Brussels - 30/11/01) Member of European Parliament Bart Staes
(spirit) resisted firmly against the arrest of Muhammad Salih.
Wednesday afternoon Mr. Muhammad Salih, Chairman of the
Uzbekistan ERK (Democratic freedom party ) apprehended on the
airport of Prague.
140
Two days before (November 26, Monday last.) mr. Bart Staes,
President of Ep-delegation for Central-Asia, had a meeting with Salih.
Salih is a Recognised refugee in Norway, during this conversation
Salih attacked , the authoritarian regime in his homeland Uzbekistan.
The regime of president Karimov eliminates each form of opposition.
Not only violent opposition, but also hundreds of memners of
democratic opposition parties are in the jail. Under them also three
brothers of Salih.
Salih was arrested Wednesday in Prague on the basis of an
adjournment command of the Uzbek authorities.His Return to
Uzbekistan means a long stay in the jail for him with a particular risk on
torment. Staes ask thus that cadidate-EU-member Czechia, refuses
Uzbek claims. Today Salihs business come for the court.
If those decides that future research is necessary, than Salih will at
least remain 40 days in detention.
Salihs release is in more than a respect urgent. In the first place
because he is an acknowledged political refugee But less important that
is that regime of president Karimov by its support to the international
coalition against terreur has de facto a permit to do in his own country
and to leave what it wants. So there is a real danger for his life.
CZECHS URGED NOT TO RETURN OPPOSITION
LEADER TO UZBEKISTAN
01.12.2001
By Peter S. GREEN, New York Times
PRAGUE, Nov. 30 - International human rights advocates urged
Czech authorities today not to extradite the leader of Uzbekistan's
democratic opposition, saying he could be killed if he was forced to
return to his homeland.
Muhammad Salih, leader of the Erk, or Freedom, Party in
Uzbekistan, was arrested Wednesday evening on an international
warrant when he arrived at the Prague airport intending to visit the
headquarters of Radio Free Europe. Today a court ordered him held for
40 days while it considered an extradition request from Uzbekistan.
Mr. Salih fled his homeland in 1993 after losing the first postCommunist presidential election to the former Communist party chief
and current president, Islam Karimov. Mr. Salih, who is also considered
141
his country's foremost poet, was convicted in November of last year and
sentenced to 15, 5years in prison on charges of being involved in a
bombing that killed 16 people the preceding February in the Uzbek
capital, Tashkent.
His arrest has stirred strong controversy in Prague, where memory
of Communist repression remains strong. President Vaclav Havel,
himself a writer who spent five years in Communist jails for advocating
democracy, was said by his spokesman to be taking a strong interest in
the case.
Elizabeth Anderson, executive director for Europe and Central
Asia for Human Rights Watch in the United States, denounced the 1999
trial of Mr. Salih as "a show trial of the kind we remember from the old
Soviet days" and said his life now "hangs in the balance."
"If he returns to Uzbekistan, he risks detention and death by
torture," she said.
"Muhammad Salih is the only real opposition leader in Uzbek
politics. That is why the regime has been hunting for him since 1993,"
said Zamira Echanova, a journalist with Radio Free Europe's Uzbek
service in Prague.
The Czech interior minister, Stanislav Gross, said the police had
no choice but to act on the international arrest warrant. If Mr. Salih's life
or health would be threatened by returning to Uzbekistan, the courts
would "probably not" extradite him, Mr. Gross said.
Mr. Salih had been living in Norway, which granted him political
asylum and thus ignored the international arrest warrant.
Jean-Claude Concolato, the Prague representative of the United
Nations high commissioner for refugees, said that under the 1951
Geneva Convention, Mr. Salih could not be deported if he was likely to
face torture or imprisonment for his beliefs.
In this year's edition of the State Department's annual human
rights report, Uzbekistan is called "an authoritarian state with limited
civil rights." Mr. Karimov stole the 1991 election, it adds, which "most
observers considered neither free nor fair."
Since the United States began its offensive against Osama bin
Laden and the Taliban, Uzbekistan, which borders Afghanistan, has
become a new strategic ally of the United States.
142
There is virtually no legal opposition to Mr. Karimov's
government. But it faces a threat from the armed Islamic Movement of
Uzbekistan, which was based in Afghanistan and with which President
Karimov has tried to link Mr. Salih. Mr. Salih's supporters say he has
been living in exile, and deny any connection to the Afghanistan-based
insurgents.
“DEAR PRESIDENT HAVEL…”
01.12.2001
Dear President Havel
I am a US citizen and an independent journalist working for the
Independent Media Center of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (USA). I
recently wrote an article about human rights abuses in Uzbekistan.
Muhammad Salih is the exiled leader of the Erk Democratic Party of
Uzbekistan and was once offered the position as vice president by
current president Karimov who has not relinquished power since the
Soviet Union fell more than a decade ago.
Karimov, hungry to keep his hold on power, has wrongly accused
Erk Party members and Salih of Islamic extremism and terrorism. After
Muhammad Salih fled the country, Karimov had his children and
brothers arrested and sent to prison camps where they remain to this
day, after years of imprisonment. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty
International have issued reports of the torture inflicted on prisoners in
Uzbek detention. If you allow Muhammad Salih to be deported to
Uzbekistan, he will surely also face torture or possibly death. President
Karimov himself reportedly tried to hire an assasin to murder Salih
while he was in exile (the assassin went public with the story). This
because Salih enjoyed the popular support of the people and because in
the one election that was almost free in the country, Salih was leading
for election as president (before Karimov changed the results watchdog agencies agree that the election turned out unfairly in
Karimov's favor). Repression of political opposition and religious
freedom is exactly what fuels terrorism and extremism. Salih and Erk
are Uzbekistan's hope for a free, democratic, market-economy future.
President Karimov and his nomenklatura will only keep Uzbekistan in
the grip of poverty and repression like was once the plight of
143
Czechoslovakia. Please order the release of Muhammad Salih
immediately so he can return to Norway.
Yours respectfully, Maria Danielson
Philadelphia Independent Media Center (www.phillyimc.org)
“DEAR PRESIDENT VACLAV HAVEL...”
01.12.2001
Vaclav Havel, President of the Czech Republic Stanislav Gross
Minister of the Interior
Cc: Jan Jarab, Government Commissioner for Human Rights
Ron Noble, Secretary General of Interpol
December 1, 2001
Dear President Vaclav Havel,
The Kyrgyz-American Bureau on Human Rights and Rule of Law
is deeply concerned with the fate of the arrested Muhammad Salih,
leader of the Erk Democratic Party of Uzbekistan, the trial on whom is
reportedly today December 1, 2001. Salih was in Prague by the
invitation of the Uzbek Service of Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe and
was arrested by Czech police on November 28, 2001 at the request of
Uzbek prosecution office. We urgently call for your personal
intervention onto this matter to guarantee the integrity of Muhammad
Salih and in hopes that he will not be subjected to an extradition. We
hope that in given circumstances the Czech authorities will take the only
wise solution and release him immediately. The Kyrgyz American
Bureau on Human Rights and Rule of Law believes that charges of
Uzbek authorities and harassment of Muhammad Salih are politically
motivated. The Erk Party registered in 1990 was one of the leading
political forces in Uzbekistan. In 1991 he was the only challenger
contesting the current president Islam Karimov. In 1993 Uzbek
government banned Erk party and in 1994 Salih had to flee his country.
He got a status of refugee in Norway.
In six years he fled the country, in November 2000 the Supreme
Court of Uzbekistan sentenced Muhammad Salih in absentia to 15 and a
half years' imprisonment on charges of organizing the bomb explosions
in center of Tashkent of February 1999. No conclusive evidence of his
guilt was presented.
144
Uzbekistan for the past several years has been framing the cases
on charges of terrorism, causing instability accompanied by huge human
rights violations and freedoms. Uzbek authorities tolerate no any
opposition parties or free media. No objective and just trials are
practiced towards opposition, Salih's three brothers have been already
serving long-term sentences prior subjected to tortures and harsh
treatment. The Kyrgyz-American Bureau on Human Rights and Rule of
Law calls you to take measures in conformity with the international
treaties including the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment, the Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees and International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights as well as the European Convention against Torture
to which your country is a party and which abides the Czech Republic
not to extradite a person to the country where there are substantial
grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to
torture. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Awaiting your
response and just decision. The Kyrgyz-American Bureau on Human
Rights and Rule of Law
Natalia Ablova, Zilfia Marat, Gulhan Borubaeva, Anna
Muratova, Viktor Albitski, Jamilya Tokmambetova
NORWEGIAN FOREIGN MINISTER
ASKS KAVAN THAT PRAGUE RELEASE SALIH
03.12.2001
PRAGUE/BUCHAREST, Dec 3 (CTK)
Norwegian Foreign Minister Jan Petersen today asked his Czech
counterpart, Jan Kavan, that the Czech Republic extradite detained
Uzbek dissident Mukhammed Salih back to Norway, from where he had
arrived in Prague last week. An official Norwegian request is reportedly
on its way to Prague. Kavan supports Petersen's request, Czech Foreign
Ministry senior official Karel Boruvka told CTK. Petersen and Kavan
met during the OSCE ministerial summit in Bueharest today.
Salih, who enjoys refugee status in Norway, was detained in
Prague last Wednesday on the basis of a warrant issued for his arrest by
Interpol at Tashkent's release or extradition abroad can be decided by a
court only. Salih's lawyer Miroslava Kohoutova today applied for Czech
145
asylum on behalf of her client. Salih has come to Prague at the invitation
of the Prague- seated Radio Frec Europe (RFE) with which he has
cooperated for a long time. On Friday, the Prague City Court took him
into extradition custody until a decision is made on Uzbekistan's request
for his extradition. In Uzbekistan he could face even death penalty,
according to observers. -more The detention of Salih has raised a wave
of protests from international human right watchdog organisations. The
idea of Salih being extradited to Uzbekistan has also disquicted the U.S.
Congress's committee for seeurity and cooperation in Europe.
Kohoutova confinned that there was huge pressure from abroad in
support of Salih's release. "People from Norway and the whole world
have contacted me. Some are planning demonstrations in support of Mr
Salih's liberation," she told CTK. She said she had enough evidence at
the moment to prevent her elient's extradition to Uzbekistan.
Czech bodies are waiting for official doeuments on Salih's alleged
eriminal activities reaching the Czech Republic from Uzbekistan. lf the
documents do not arrive, Salih will be released on the 41st day
following the start of his custody. Otherwise the state Will inciuire into
whether his extradition to Uzbekistan is admissible. lf it is found
admissible, a court will deside on the extradition in a public session. The
verdict could be the justice minister if he doubted its correectness.
Salih fled Karimov-controlled regime in Uzbekistan, where he
was in early 1999 sentensed in absentia to 15,5 years prison for his
participation in a terrorist attack in Tashkent in which 16 people were
killed.
“I FEAR THAT MY FATHER WILL BE KILLED...”
Jan Gunnar Furuly, Aftenposten, 03.12.2001
“My father will be killed if he is sent to Uzbekistan,” says Timur
Salih (21) to Aftenposten. Muhammad Salih's wife Aidin and son Timur
lives in a basement apartment in Oslo. They now fear for the safety of
the family head. Two days ago they got the message that he was arrested
in Prague. “We were shocked,” says the wife. She is visible taken by the
situation, and does not want us to take pictures of her..
The family has been used to live under uncertain conditions, since
they fled from Uzbekistan in 1993. Salih was the strongest oponent to
146
Islam Karimov during the Uzbekistan's first president elections, after the
breakup of Soviet Union. Salihs party got close to 20 percent of the
votes. Salih has since then been afraid that Karimov and Uzbekistan's
security service will take his life. Salih was, and is, a very popular
politician in his home country, and Karimov is said to have felt Salihs
popularity as a threat. The Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet earlier this
year told in an article that the uzbek security service tried to recruit an
Uzbek and to chechens to kill Salih under one of his many travels to
Germany. Radio Free Europe has told about several plans to kill Salih
while he has been travelling in Europe, where he has met the Uzbek
oposition in exile. Aidin Salih and Timur Salih was more relieved in
their minds when Aftenposten visited them Friday evening, just after
they got the message about the arrest.
Friends had called from Prague, telling them that the Czech
president and writer Vaclav Havel had said on Czech tv that it was
doubtly if Czech Republic was going to send Salih to Uzbekistan.
“We hope we can trust on Havel. But it was scary that he was not
released after the court hearing in Prague,” says Timur Salih.
He tells that three of his fathers brothers are jailed in Uzbekistan
as "hostages" for Muhammad Salih, and that they are tortured. Also the
brothers are central figures in the Erk party.
“One of them got both his feets crushed. He cannot walk
anymore. Another has problems with his eyes, but I do not know what
has happened to him,” says Timur Salih.
A fourth uncle, Maksud Begjan, who now is visiting the family in
Oslo says: “President Karimov has no scruples faced to political
oponents. He does everything to protect his dictatorship.”
Jan Gunnar Furuly,Oslo, Aftenposten, http://www.aftenposten.no
CZECH REPUBLIC: A SUDDEN ARREST
03.12.2001
by Michael Cavanagh, Week in Review, 27 November 2001
Czech police have arrested an Uzbek opposition leader on an
Interpol warrant issued by Uzbekistan, but human rights groups say they
should let him go.
147
PRAGUE, Czech Republic--Exiled Uzbek dissident Muhammad
Salih began serving 40 days of detention after being remanded in
custody by Prague City Court on 30 November while Czech officials
decide whether they should honor a request from Uzbekistan to extradite
him. At the same time, Salih, who has been convicted in absentia by an
Uzbek court on charges of terrorism, asked for political asylum in the
Czech Republic, according to his Czech lawyer.
The Uzbek opposition leader, who said he came to the Czech
capital to visit Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, was arrested at
Prague's Ruzyne Airport on November 28 on an Interpol extradition
request submitted by Uzbekistan.
The Czech legal authorities have asked Uzbekistan for documents
related to his conviction. Any decision to extradite Salih back to
Uzbekistan must be approved by a Czech court in a public hearing. One
year ago, the Uzbek Supreme Court sentenced Salih in absentia to a 15,5
year prison term on charges of terrorism and "anti-state activities" in
connection with a bomb blast that killed 16 people and injured 150
others in the Uzbek capital Tashkent in 1999.
Salih denied the charges and any involvement in the bombing
from his exile in Norway, and various human rights groups, such as
Human Rights Watch, have said the conviction was politically
motivated.
Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross has said that the Czech
authorities were just doing their job when they arrested Salih as he
arrived on a flight from Amsterdam. Gross has also said that the Czech
Republic would "probably not" extradite Salih if it had reason to believe
that doing so could threaten his life or health, according to The New
York Times.
Following Salih's arrest, activists and human rights organizations
quickly circulated a flurry of e-mails seeking a letter-writing and
telegram campaign on his behalf. Many said the Uzbek dissident would
face possible torture or death if extradited to Uzbekistan.
Human Rights Watch noted that the Czech Republic is a signatory
to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and the United
Nations Convention against Torture. Both conventions prohibit the
return of a person to a country or territory where it is feared they may
face serious human rights violations.
148
Salih said that he came to Prague last week at the invitation of
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which has interviewed him
periodically in the past for its news programs. A spokeswoman for the
international broadcaster, Sonia Winter, confirmed that the station had
issued an open invitation to Salih, but she said the station did not know
exactly when he would be arriving.
Salih, also known as Salay Madaminov, is the chairman of the Erk
(Freedom) Democratic Party, a political opposition party banned by the
Uzbek government since 1993. He was the only independent candidate
to challenge Uzbek President Islam Karimov in the 1991 presidential
elections, in which he won about 10 percent of the vote. After being
repeatedly arrested and harassed following the elections, he fled the
country - first to Turkey and later to Norway.
Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and
Human Right Watch assert that Salih's trial and conviction were
politically motivated. Human Rights Watch, which monitored the trial,
stated at the time that it was reminiscent of Soviet-era show trials and
that no material evidence of Salih's guilt was presented. Nine of Salih's
co-defendants received lengthy terms in prison, and two other men,
sentenced in absentia at the same trial, were sentenced to death.
Complicating matters is apparent confusion regarding whether
Salih has been granted asylum by Norway. According to the Czech
news agency CTK, Interpol claims Salih is currently seeking asylum in
Norway. But Norwegian Foreign Ministry spokesman Karsten Klepsvik
told CTK on 3 December that Norway had granted him asylum two
years ago. Meanwhile, Danica Hrabalova from the Czech Police
Presidium told CTK that Salih is waiting for Norway to decide his
asylum request.
Hrabalova told CTK that Salih had not been arrested by Dutch
police in Amsterdam because of the Schengen Treaty, which most
Western European countries have signed. The Czech Republic is not a
signatory.
"The countries bound by the Schengen Treaty must not extradite a
person who is registered as an asylum seeker (in another Schengen
signatory). The international arrest warrant becomes effective as soon as
he or she crosses the (Schengen) border," CTK quoted Hrabalova as
saying.
149
PROTECT DEMOCRACY, NOT DICTATORS
03.12.2001
By Mark N. Katz, Russia/CIS/Eastern Europe, Moscow Times
Pandering to a dictator in the name of fighting Islamic terrorism
threatens to reach a new low. Uzbek dissident leader Muhammad Salih
was arrested on an Interpol warrant initiated by the Uzbek government
just after arriving in the Czech Republic last week.
Uzbek President Islam Karimov had one of his courts convict
Salih in abstentia last year of involvement in a series of bombings that
took place in Tashkent in 1999. Salih faces a 15-year prison term if he is
deported back to Uzbekistan.
The Karimov government accused the Islamic Movement of
Uzbekistan – an Islamic fundamentalist movement allied to the Taliban
- of masterminding these bombings. It also accuses Salih, and all its
opponents, of being Islamic fundamentalists.
I met with Salih in October 1992, when he was still in Tashkent.
He is no Islamic fundamentalist, but a democrat. He had run against
Karimov for president in December 1991. Even by the rigged vote
count, Salih garnered an eighth of the votes. Other observers believe he
won far more – perhaps even a majority. He had a seat in parliament
until he resigned in July 1992 to protest the government's increasing
repression. He fled into exile shortly after I met him.
Salih described to me how Karimov sought to discredit the
democratic opposition in the West by portraying it as Islamic
fundamentalist. He hoped the West would not be fooled, but feared it
would be. He predicted that while Karimov could quickly eliminate his
democratic opponents, he would not be able to get rid of his Islamic
fundamentalist ones so easily. With the democratic opposition gone, the
Islamic fundamentalist opposition would just get stronger. This
prediction has come true.
The United States and the West have basically allied with the
Karimov dictatorship for fear that its downfall would lead to the rise of
an Islamic fundamentalist regime. We have become especially
dependent on Karimov now for allowing us to use his country as a
military staging ground.
150
Karimov is clearly hoping to take advantage of this dependence
on him to silence Salih's criticism of his regime. It would be a profound
betrayal of Western values if we allowed this to happen.
Much more is at stake here than just the fate of Salih. Many are
already questioning whether we have gone in to Afghanistan to advance
democracy or to protect dictatorships allied to us in that part of the
world. What happens to Salih could reveal much about how that
question will be answered.
THE WEST SHOULD CONTINUE TO PRESSURE
REPRESSIVE REGIMES SUCH AS THE ONE IN UZBEKISTAN
03.12.2001
Jeremy Druker, Transitions Online
PRAGUE--The arrest of a prominent Uzbek opposition activist in
Prague last week has once again shone the spotlight on the pitfalls and
dangers of the U.S. - led war on terrorism in Central Asia.
Czech police arrested Muhammad Salih--who heads the banned
Uzbek opposition party Erk (Freedom) - on 28 November on an Interpol
warrant requested by Uzbekistan. The arrest came as a surprise, since
Salih has been granted political asylum by Norway and has recently
traveled freely to other European countries.
While details remain sketchy, the decision to arrest Salih may
have resulted from an automatic response to an Interpol warrant. Czech
legal authorities must now decide whether to extradite Salih to
Uzbekistan or not. The Czech interior minister has already gone on
record as saying that Salih would "probably not" be sent to Uzbekistan
to face charges if it would mean a threat to his life or health.
In a broad sense, the case calls to mind some dangers associated
with the war on terrorism. The Uzbek authorities have been hounding
Salih for the best part of a decade, ever since he unsuccessfully ran for
president in the country's first post-Soviet elections back in 1991. Since
then, the Uzbek authorities have sought to quash the Erk party by
outlawing it, arresting and torturing its activists, and forcing Salih
himself into exile. In 1999, a bomb exploded in the capital, Tashkent,
killing 16 people. The Uzbek authorities blamed the blast on the Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) but also charged that Salih had been
151
involved in organizing the attack. A year later, Salih was sentenced in
absentia to 15 and a half years in prison on charges of helping to
organize the attack. Monitors from Human Rights Watch said no
compelling evidence was presented at the trial against Salih.
Then came the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States
- an event that immediately placed terrorism at the top of the world
agenda. In its efforts to strike back at the terrorists responsible for
bringing down the World Trade Center and attacking the Pentagon as
well as at "those who harbor terrorists," the United States has sought out
the help of countries around the world, including some states with
unsavory leaders like Uzbekistan's President Islam Karimov. The move
was naturally governed by expedience more than anything else.
Uzbekistan is a neighbor of Afghanistan and, what is more, Uzbek
authorities are also engaged in a fight against Islamist terrorist networks.
But how effective an ally can Uzbekistan possibly be? Karimov
himself recently aired his own views on the fight against terrorism and
those who harbor terrorists: "Indifference to, and tolerance of, those
with evil intentions who are spreading various fabrications, handing out
leaflets, committing theft and sedition in some neighborhoods, and
spreading propaganda on behalf of religion should be recognized as
being supportive of these evil-doers."
In other words, those who hand out "leaflets" or spread
"propaganda" about a religion can and will be treated as though they
support terrorism. Thousands of Uzbeks are in prison at the moment,
with or without having been charged, on suspicion of being involved in
Islamist groups. Even growing a beard can be enough to raise the
suspicions of Uzbek police. A group of Erk activists who were arrested
in connection with the Tashkent bombing were brutally tortured in
prison and convicted in trials that fell far short of international
standards, according to human rights organizations.
It is obvious that such an approach has little to do with respect for
basic human rights. But it could also prove to be a dangerously
ineffective way of dealing with terrorism. By lumping any form of
opposition to the regime - Islamic or not - into the same category as
fundamentalist terrorism, the Karimov regime provides no outlet for
people's legitimate frustrations.
And by treating the Uzbek regime as an ally in the fight against
terrorism, Western countries become targets for those frustrations as
152
well. In recent decades, Central Asia has been crippled by violence some of it fueled by Islamist ideology - notably in Afghanistan and
during the Tajik civil war of the early 1990s. Because of that, postwar
reconciliation efforts - across the region - must include Islamic forces.
Exclusion can be nothing but counterproductive.
The United States and other Western countries should be very
careful not to be lured into Karimov's paranoid world. They must keep
such regimes at arm's length and keep the pressure on Tashkent over its
human rights violations. If the Uzbek authorities are convinced that
Salih is a terrorist, let them provide the compelling evidence. Judging
from Salih's trial, there is little.
But even if there were some evidence, countries that respect the
rule of law - among which the Czech Republic certainly counts itself should be wary of sending someone like Salih back for trial to
Uzbekistan. He is not likely to get a fair trial there. Nor is he likely to
live to tell his side of the story to the world.
MUHAMMAD SALIH’S LETTER FROM PRAGUE PRISON
04.12.2001
Imprisoned In Prague, Dissident Salih Issues Statement
Muhammad Salih, the leading Uzbek opposition leader who was
arrested in Prague last week on a warrant issued by Interpol at the
behest of Uzbek authorities, wrote this "Letter to the People of Prague"
from his jail cell at Pankrac prison, where he is awaiting a decision by
Czech authorities on whether he will be extradited to Uzbekistan or
released from custody. The letter was given exclusively to RFE/RL, the
organization that invited him to Prague to take part in roundtable
discussions on the situation in Uzbekistan. Here is the letter in its
entirety:
Prague, December 3, 2001 (RFE/RL) -- Of all the political
leaders of the 20th century I have the most respect for President Nelson
Mandela of South Africa and President Vaclav Havel of the Czech
Republic. In a way, they have both always reconciled things that are
impossible to reconcile; they have always been symbols of high moral
values in politics.
153
These two politicians valued the freedom of their peoples more
than their own freedom while never advertising this quality, never
taking advantage of their images; they never became populists. When I
came to Prague, invited by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, I did not
expect for a minute that it would be here, in the free country of Vaclav
Havel, that I would be arrested.
I do not have the strength to describe the level of lawlessness in
my country. Imagine that every citizen of the country lives in constant
fear of the state; that he or she can be arrested now, in one hour, or
tomorrow. And nobody even knows what he or she can be arrested for.
They feel guilty even without having committed a crime. Just like a
Kafka character. There are 25 million people living in Uzbekistan. It is a
gigantic gallery of Kafka characters. It is my beloved people.
Bertolt Brecht once said: "I will tell you about my disgrace, then
you tell me about yours." So let me tell you about mine, if you will excuse
me. All those people who stood up against the repression, against the
state, have been immediately crushed or made to leave their country.
I left my country. I loved it just like Vaclav Havel loves his Czech
Republic. However, I left it to save my life; I thought that it would be
needed for the work in the name of our ideals that we have been
cherishing even during Soviet times, in the name of human freedom,
human thought, and our nation.
Alas, I did not succeed. I was not able to use the saved life as well
as I had hoped to. It has been eight years since I left Uzbekistan and
there has not been one day that I was not persecuted by the Uzbek
authorities. No matter what country I stayed in, I was immediately
"identified" and "declassified" and the country that had accepted me was
bombarded with notes of protest by the Uzbek Foreign Ministry. I was
deported from Turkey four times in three years. I was deported every
time before [Uzbek President Islam Karimov's] visit to Ankara and
before the president of a Mediterranean country's visit to Tashkent. In
other words, for both leaders your humble servant was the subject of a
fine gesture, good manners. For five years my family and I were
knocking around the world and finally, in 1998, we addressed the
United Nations seeking political asylum and were accepted by Norway.
Norway, incidentally, did not have any "geopolitical interests" in
Uzbekistan and did not buy Uzbek cotton. I thanked God when we
moved to Oslo in 1999. Uzbekistan did not overlook that and Norway
154
received a note of protest too. Moreover, the Uzbek authorities
demanded my extradition as "terrorist number one," to which the
Norwegian government replied with due dignity: "No!" The paperwork
sent by the Uzbek branch of Interpol did not convince the Norwegian
authorities that I was a terrorist, but on the contrary, that I was a victim
of terror, a victim of state terror, of the state that has destroyed the best
sons of my nation in the last eight years and is still continuing to do that.
Some 8,000 political prisoners are tortured in the prisons of Uzbekistan
now. This number comes from official statistics, while human rights
activists suppose that the real number of political prisoners doubles that.
Among those prisoners are my three brothers. They were sentenced to
15 years of hard labor only because they were my family. They are now
being tortured and humiliated by the local law enforcement authorities.
The famous Uzbek writer Mamadali Makhmudov also got a 15year term of hard labor. Those butchers have mutilated him beyond
recognition to make him foully slander me. During his trial, Mamadali
Makhmudov confessed that he had testified against [me] while being
tortured. Mamadali Makhmudov is my friend; he was punished because
he had been to Ukraine in 1998 to see me. They called him "a terrorist"
because he knows me. I am called "a terrorist" because four years ago in
Istanbul I met with Tahir Yuldashev, an Uzbek emigre who is now the
leader of an armed Uzbek opposition group. In 1997, when I first met
him, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan did not exist and Yuldashev
was of no significance to anybody. As many other emigres did, he often
visited all the Uzbek families who lived in Istanbul. But the February
1999 explosions in Tashkent brought this unknown man to the front
pages of the world's newspapers. The Uzbek president considered those
explosions murderous assaults aimed at assassinating him. Three days
later the president announced to the rest of the world that Muhammad
Salih was one of the instigators of the explosions.
It was 1999, and the parliamentary and presidential elections were
coming up. Representatives of Erk, the party headed by me and the
OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe), discussed
the upcoming elections and the possibility of the return of the opposition
leaders to Uzbekistan. That worried the Uzbek government - something
had to be done. It has been quite common to discredit the political
opposition to prevent it from taking part in elections, to make sure there
is no competition. Thus, before the 1995 elections I was accused of
155
stealing an antique coin from a museum and preparing 19 people for a
coup d'etat. We were not allowed to participate in the elections. Then I
spoke on Radio Liberty and asked the president of Uzbekistan: "What
kind of a state is it that one can turn it upside down with the help of 19
young men?" The president, of course, didn't answer this question but
was pleased with the result of the elections with no opposition involved.
The president elected himself and those obedient to him. In the
meantime the authorities brought up that antique coin again. The trial
was quite a success, the opposition was seemingly disgraced. Why
would I have hidden the coin.[Illegible, a line from the original fax
missing here.]
This is how I have become a "terrorist." I was arrested at the
passport control of the Prague airport. I came to this beautiful city on the
invitation of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. The day before my
arrival to Prague I took part in a seminar of the International Crisis
Group in Brussels and also visited the Central Asia Commission of the
European Parliament, where we actually discussed the problems of
terrorism. I hate terror. No matter where it comes from, no matter what
goal is behind it, I hate terror. I hate it because it nurses fear. It
cultivates fear in people's hearts, in their minds. And fear is the most
abominable, the most humiliating feeling for a human being.
Our party Erk was the first party to condemn the terrorist act of
February 16 in Tashkent.
When I was accused of a coup attempt in 1995 I was shocked, but
when I was accused of being one of the organizers of this bloody act I
was infuriated by this blatant insult, because it is only people of no
principles, cynical and godless people, who commit acts of terror, only
those who think their goal justifies their means. Terror is the method of
the Soviet communists, whom I have hated all my conscious life. That is
why I feel so insulted by this accusation.
The Uzbek government has brought eight lawsuits against me up
to now – all of them having been completely fabricated - all of them
nothing but slander. But why have only two of them been sent to the
Czech Republic? Did they think that these two cases were more
believable than the others? Even if so, they are out of luck, because all
of the so-called witnesses withdrew their testimony against me, having
said that they had given their statements under torture of Uzbek
investigators.
156
I am writing this now feeling slightly irritated. I do not like being
my own advocate. I will let people think and make their own
conclusions. I do not want to influence the way the trial will go, because
I know that the Czech Republic is a jural state that respects [the rule of]
law. I hope that I will not be sent back to the jaws of the totalitarian
monster. Maybe it is even good that my misfortune will let the legal
elite of Prague see the face of this monster.
I am an optimist but I do not rule out the worst possibility. They
still can send me back. It would be the worst thing that could happen to
me. Then I would have to prepare myself for death, I can say that with
100-percent certainty. In April this year they tried to kill me but by
God's will I remained alive. They put $2 million on stake, of which
135,000 were paid in advance to the killers they hired, but God messed
up their cards once again. This operation was led by Colonel Mahmud
Khaitov, director of the Uzbek branch of Interpol on the order of the
Uzbek Interior Minister Zakir Almatov. They reported on the progress
of the plan to the president of the Republic of Uzbekistan. This case,
like a detective story, stirred up interest in the Russian media.
The famous "Our Version: Classified Confidential" TV show host
Mikhail Markelov made a 30-minute documentary about it, and it was
shown on Russian television on May 27 of this year. As soon as the
documentary was shown on TV, Khaitov, the Uzbek Interpol director,
was dismissed from his position because his voice was heard in the
report talking on the telephone about the rest of the money for the
assassination. The voices that were not heard in the film kept their
positions. I showed the film to Norwegian journalists and they asked
me: "How can the Interpol director be involved in organizing an
assassination?" Yes, he can, in our country. In our country ministers can
be involved in these kind of activities, and not only ministers - but those
who issues orders to ministers too.
Do people at Interpol headquarters in Lyon know about it? Do
they know who is who? I suppose they don't, otherwise I would not
have been arrested at the Prague airport. I never wanted to, but now I do
want to get into a "Who is Who?" book. It does not have to be as a
"poet" or a "party leader." [Such a thing would not] work for the police,
I know it. I just need a caption under my photo saying: "Such and such
is not a terrorist." These are the values of the new era. Is it a privilege
now to be considered a terrorist? Has terror occupied so much territory
157
in our lives? Are we doomed to look at every stranger or any foreigner
like we would at a potential terrorist? Last year I published my book of
memoirs and as the epigraph I chose these words by Andre Malraux:
"The 21st century will either be spiritual or it will not be." Now I'm
afraid that Malraux's prophecy will not come true. The 21st century is
starting with the globalization of terror and the fight against it. It is not
only the globalization of terror but the globalization of the fight against
it that also frightens me, because the dictators like ours, in the shade of
this slogan, legitimize terror against their people, humiliate human
rights and free thought, more freely dispose of their opponents with only
one excuse - the fight against terrorism.
When President Bush said that he was going to eradicate
terrorism, to tear it up by its roots, we were happy, because we thought
we would show him where those roots were. I even wrote a special
article on this topic. The roots of terrorism are in the political regime
currently existing in our country. The so-called Wahhabi Movement
emerged in Uzbekistan as a reaction to brutal repression against the
religious part of the population.
Juma Namangani's armed group [the Islamic Movement of
Uzbekistan is the mirror of the totalitarian rule of the president of
Uzbekistan. Terror can only be born of terror, just like a man can be
born of man. If the Uzbek president had not been busy destroying the
democratic opposition for years, the political life of the country would
not have the vacuum that it has and is now being filled with such radical
groups.
So the "roots of terrorism" are quite transparent. When these roots
are torn out is only a matter of a political situation and current
conditions. We'll wait, we'll see. Despite the grim tone, I am hoping for
better times, making plans for better days. However, I did remove the
epigraph from Malraux from the Turkish translation of my book. I don't
know why, it just happened that way. Maybe the epigraph sounded a bit
too optimistic. Or maybe too categorical: "The 21st century will either
be spiritual or it will not be."
Muhammad Salih
(signed)
158
UZBEKISTAN: OPPOSITION LEADER
AWAITS DECISION ON POSSIBLE EXTRADITION
04.12.2001
By Bruce Pannier
Uzbek opposition leader Muhammad Salih was detained in
Prague last week on an Interpol warrant. Salih, whom the Uzbek
government has accused of Islamic extremism and involvement in
terrorist acts, remains in custody pending an official extradition request
from the Uzbek government and documents concerning his case. Salih's
lawyer has said he will ask for political refugee status for his client in
the Czech Republic. As RFE/RL correspondent Bruce Pannier reports,
there has been a flurry of activity in the meantime to have Salih freed.
Prague, December 4, 2001 (RFE/RL) - The leader of Uzbekistan's
banned opposition party, Erk (Freedom), remains in a holding facility in
the Czech capital, Prague, today. Muhammad Salih was taken into
custody last week ( November 28), when he arrived at Prague's Ruzyne
airport from Amsterdam. The Uzbek government has accused him of
working with Islamic terrorists to plant bombs in Tashkent in February
1999 in an attempt to assassinate the country's president, Islam
Karimov. Some 16 people were killed and another 150 injured in the
blasts. Salih - who was the only independent candidate to challenge
Karimov in 1991 presidential elections, and whose Erk party was
banned in 1993 – has repeatedly denied involvement in the bombings.
But the Uzbek government - which last year sentenced Salih in
absentia to a 15,5 year prison term - put out a warrant for his arrest with
Interpol, which Czech authorities used to detain Salih after his arrival in
the country. Concerted efforts by human rights groups to free Salih have
so far been complicated by the number of interested parties in the affair.
Members of RFE/RL's Uzbek Service visited Salih in detention
today and said he is in good health and good spirits. Salih says he
traveled to Prague to grant an interview to Radio Liberty.
Salih can be held for up to 40 days while Czech authorities wait
for Uzbekistan to send a formal extradition request for Salih and
documents concerning the charges against him.
Maisy Weicherding works on Central Asian issues for Amnesty
International in London. She said her organization has already asked the
159
Czech government to turn Salih over to Norway, which granted him
political asylum two years ago.
"We have asked for the Czech government to actually release
Muhammad Salih and to return him to Norway so that the Norwegian
government can deal with the extradition request from Uzbekistan,
because he is a refugee in Norway and it [is incumbent for] the
Norwegian authorities to deal with any extradition requests that the
Uzbek authorities put forward."
Salih was visited yesterday by the Norwegian ambassador to the
Czech Republic, Lasse Seim. Last night, Norwegian Foreign Minister
Jan Petersen asked his Czech counterpart, Jan Kavan, to have Salih sent
back to Norway. Salih's supporters argue that if he is extradited to
Uzbekistan, he may face torture or death. Uzbekistan's poor human
rights record includes instances of police torture, sometimes resulting in
death. The Uzbek government has repeatedly cracked down on nonmainstream Islamic groups in efforts it defends as attempts to fight
terrorism in the region. Salih describes himself not as a terrorist but
rather as a victim of terror dispensed by the Uzbek government. Salih
admits that, after fleeing the country in the early 1990s, he met briefly
with a man who went on to lead the extremist Islamic Movement of
Uzbekistan (IMU) organization, which has nbeen held responsible for
several terrorist acts in Uzbekistan. But Salih says the IMU had not yet
been formed at the time of their meeting, and adds that it is common for
Uzbek opposition figures of all stripes to meet once they have left the
country. The Uzbek government has always tried to control or eliminate
opposition to the government. Weicherding described the situation in
Uzbekistan in the early 1990s: "Muhammad Salih founded Erk, the
opposition party, in 1990. And it was basically allowed to operate for
about a year, and he ran as a presidential candidate, as well. But from
1992 onwards, there was a real clampdown on all opposition parties and
Erk, and later Birlik, were banned and a lot of members of the parties
were arrested and Muhammad Salih had to go into exile."
Salih is still the chairman of the banned Erk Democratic Party.
Though he lost in his presidential bid against Karimov in 1991, Salih
still gathered some 12 percent of the vote - a remarkable feat for an
opponent in an election that many regarded as rigged.
Salih's lawyer, Miroslava Kohoutova, told RFE/RL last week that
Salih may have to seek political refugee status in the Czech Republic to
160
prevent any possibility of him being sent back to Uzbekistan.
Kohoutova said she is optimistic about Salih's chances to be freed.
A number of governments and organizations have appealed for
Salih's release. Besides Amnesty International, the New York-based
Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group in Brussels - as
well as the U.S. government - have made requests for Salih's release and
return to Norway.
Uzbekistan is a key regional player in the United States' coalition
against terror and has agreed to allow the U.S. use of its airspace and
military bases for its campaign in Afghanistan. Many human rights
observers have worried that the West, in return for Uzbekistan's
participation, would soften its stance on the country's human rights
record.
EXILED DISSIDENT'S DETENTION RAISES ALARM AMONG
RIGHTS ADVOCATES IN UZBEKISTAN AND ELSEWHERE
04.12.2001
Alec Appelbaum
Uzbek dissident and writer Muhammad Salih remains in a Czech
jail as Uzbekistan's government assembles documentation for an
extradition request based on a terrorism conviction. Salih has repeatedly
denied his involvement in any terrorist activity, and has condemned
Uzbek President Islam Karimov's crackdown on human rights.
Salih has lived in exile since 1992, when the party that he leads,
Erk, was banned. At the time of his November 28 arrest, he was
traveling to Prague to speak at the invitation of Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty. His detention has stirred rights advocates in
Uzbekistan and elsewhere. On November 30, Hazratqul Khudojberdi of
the Uzbek pro-democracy Birlik movement circulated an open letter to
Czech president Vaclav Havel urging the Czech courts against
extradition. Khudojberdi swore that Salih "would be in grave danger of
torture and cruel and inhuman treatment" upon his return to Uzbekistan.
A Czech judge on November 30 ordered Salih held for 40 days in
order to provide Uzbekistan with time to present evidence that would
support his return to Tashkent. The Erk party, which he heads in
absentia, reported on December 3 that he intends to apply for Czech
161
asylum. He has asylum in Oslo, and the Norwegian government
appealed for his release on December 3.
Salih was convicted by the Uzbek government of conspiring to
assassinate Karimov in 1999. Salih has always categorically denied the
charges, which triggered a period of intense crackdowns on free speech
in Uzbekistan. A Human Rights Watch observer at the trial said it was
conducted in a Soviet-style atmosphere, in which Salih's guilt was
predetermined. Czech Foreign Minister Jan Kavan reportedly supports
the idea of releasing Salih, but Rachel Denber of Human Rights Watch
says such sympathy will not necessarily protect the Uzbek opposition
leader. "We want the government of Norway and the government of the
United States to say that he should be released and not extradited,"
Denber told EurasiaNet. Denber declined to speculate on what would
happen next. She did note that Salih stood a better chance of airing his
grievances in the Czech system, under which extradition requests
receive hearings. In Russia, extradition requests are an administrative
matter. While the Uzbek government assembles its case, it may draw on
its current alliance with the United States. Uzbekistan has become a key
ally in the American campaign in Afghanistan, providing a crucial
bridge for American and allied soldiers into the Afghan capital. The
United States has not made a formal statement regarding Salih.
But rights advocates around the world, using email campaigns like
Khudojberdi's, may continue filling any silence from American
diplomats. In his open letter to Havel, Khudojberdi invoked the Czech
Republic's multilateral commitments to UN conventions- implying that
a conviction of Salih on antiterrorist grounds would not wash. "He is
never involved in undemocratic action, he hates terror and always fights
against government's violence and terror against citizens," the letter
said.
RFE/RL URGES RELEASE OF SALIH
05.12.2001,
President Thomas A. Dine sent a letter today to the Public
Prague, Czech Republic - Prosecutor of the City of Prague and the
Municipal Court of Prague, calling for the release from detention in a
Czech prison of Uzbek human rights activist Muhammad Salih while
162
vouching for his character and guaranteeing that Salih would remain
"within the Czech Republic until a decision is entered by the court."
Salih was detained on arrival at Prague's Ruzyne Airport on
November 28, on the basis of an Interpol warrant. Since that time, the
Norwegian government -- where Salih was granted political asylum –
and many non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch and the International Helsinki
Federation have called for Salih's release. Salih was invited to visit the
Prague Broadcast Center of RFE/RL. RFE/RL has worked closely with
Czech, Norwegian and American authorities and Salih's family
throughout his ordeal.
The text of Dine's letter is attached (below).
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is a private, international
communications service to Eastern Europe and Southeastern Europe,
Russia, the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Middle East funded by the
US Congress through the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
December 5, 2001, Prague, Czech Republic
Dear Ms. Public Prosecutor:
I write to attest to the good character of and high principles held
by Mr. Muhammad Salih (Salay Madaminov) who was born on
December 20, 1949. Mr. Salih currently is in the preliminary custody of
the Prague-Pankrac jail on the basis of the Municipal Court of Prague.
Fully aware that the Czech Republic is a law abiding country and
cooperatively lives up to international agreements, I ask respectfully that
Mr. Salih be released from detention as soon as possible. A former
political leader in Uzbekistan, Mr. Salih ran for theoffice of the
presidency as a credible independent candidate in 1991. Following the
election in which he lost to Islam Karimov, Uzbek authorities began a
campaign of harassment against him, arresting him several times. In
order to avoid further harassment, he fled the country and found legal
residency in Norway. Since then, Mr. Salih has become an
internationally recognized human rights activist and political authority
on Uzbek affairs. In turn, the Uzbek Supreme Court convicted him in
absentia to 15 years and six months of imprisonment for alleged
terrorism and activities against the Uzbek State. Such globally respected
non-governmental organizations as Human Rights Watch observed this
process and declared it unfair and unconvincing.
163
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty invited Mr. Salih to visit the
Czech Republic last week to be interviewed by its Uzbek Service on
matters pertaining to present-day Uzbekistan. We know Mr. Salih to be
a fair, honest, and brave person promoting human rights and democratic
institutions and processes in his homeland. Because my colleagues and I
vouch for his good character, I urge that he be released from detention
in accord with Czech law and regulations. In this regard, we will work
closely with him, guaranteeing that he stay within the Czech Republic
until a decision is entered by the court.
Thank you and best regards.
Sincerely, /signed/
Thomas A. Dine
PRAGUE FACES DILEMMA OVER SALIH
(5-11)12.2001, The Prague Post
Opposition Uzbek leader jailed, but his fate is unclear
By James Pitkin, Staff Writer
Czech authorities face a diplomatic and human rights quandary
after detaining the head of Uzbekistan's exiled opposition.
Muhammad Salih, the leader of Uzbekistan's largest opposition
party, was arrested on an Interpol warrant after arriving at Ruzyne
airport from Amsterdam on November 28. The 52-year-old Salih had
been invited to Prague by Radio Free Europe (RFE) to speak on human
rights violations in Uzbekistan, a former Soviet republic that borders
Afghanistan. He is being held in Pankrac prison while authorities decide
whether to extradite him to Uzbekistan. Norway, where Salih has been
based since gaining political asylum there in 1999, has aksed the Czech
Republic allow him to return. The Foreign Ministry has said the request
will likely be honored. Salih was tried in absentia and sentenced to 15
and a half years by an Uzbek court in connection with a 1999 bombing
in the capital of Tashkent that left 16 dead. "If he is sent to Uzbekistan,
there's no doubt in my mind that Mr. Salih faces certain death," said
RFE spokeswoman Sonia Winter. Rights groups say Salih's trial was
part of crackdown by Uzbek President Islam Karimov against domestic
opposition. Karimov is a secular figure in a predominantly Muslim state.
164
Salih, a prominent poet, unsuccessfully ran against Karimov in a
1991 presidential election. Organizations including Amnesty
International called on President Vaclav Havel to intervene to free Salih.
Havel was following the case closely, said spokesman Ladislav Spacek.
The U.S. Congress' Committee for Security and Cooperation in
Europe said that it was unlikely Salih could receive a fair trial in
Uzbekistan. The 1951 Refugee Convention and other UN pacts to which
the Czech Republic adheres forbid sending refugees into territory where
they face human rights violations. The European Union, which this
country hopes to join in 2004, bars extradition to nations with the death
penalty. Until his detention in Prague, Salih, based in Norway, had
traveled freely in the West. But Czech authorities defended their actions.
"The police are not interested in what kind of man Mr. Salih may
be," said police spokeswoman Danica Hrabalova. "What we find
important is that there is a warrant out for his arrest."
UZBEKISTAN CRITICIZED OVER
TREATMENT OF POLITICAL OPPOSITIONISTS
06.12.2001,
By Vladimir Socor, A daily briefing on the former Soviet states.
Uzbek emigre opposition leader Muhammad Salih has been
detained in Prague, pending hearings on an extradition request initiated
by Uzbekistan. He is wanted on an international arrest mandate issued
by Uzbekistan through the Interpol. He was arrested by Czech police on
November 28 at Prague airport on arrival from Norway where he has
lived since 1999, reportedly with political asylum. Salih arrived in
Prague on an invitation from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty to
participate in some programs.
Muhammad Salih (the literary pseudonym of Salai Madaminov),
52, once a nationally known writer, is the leader of the banned Erk
[Freedom] Democratic Party. He was the sole opponent to Islam
Karimov in the 1992 presidential election. Erk's and Salih's program
was secular, nationalist, Turkic-oriented, nonviolent, and basically proWestern. The Erk party--legally registered in 1991--was banned in
1993, and the following year Salih went into exile in Turkey, whence he
continued political activities against the Uzbek authorities. When
165
Turkey, in a gesture to Karimov, asked Salih to leave, he moved to
Norway.
In November 2000, Salih was sentenced in absentia to fifteen
years and six months in prison by the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan on
charges of terrorism and conspiracy to assassinate state leaders and
overthrow the lawful order. He was tried with eleven others, including
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) leaders Tahir Yuldash and
Juma Namangani, who were sentenced to death in absentia. Nine other
defendants received prison terms ranging from twelve to twenty years.
The charges against all of them, including Salih, were related to the
February 1999 bomb attacks in Tashkent, which killed at least sixteen
people and injured more than 100, and the 1999 and 2000 IMU guerrilla
incursions into Uzbekistan.
The expatriate IMU had in fact assumed responsibility for most of
those acts, and was added last year to the list of international terrorist
organizations by the United States government. As regards Salih,
however, the Tashkent trial did not produce any material evidence of
nvolvement with IMU or terrorism. One witness in that trial--who was
already then serving a prison term for his involvement in the February
1999 bomb attacks--testified that he had earlier arranged for Yuldash
and Namangani a total of seventeen meetings with Salih in Turkey and
elsewhere. According to this witness, the three had agreed on the shortterm goal of deposing Karimov and setting up a coalition government in
place of the existing system. But--according to the same testimony they disagreed over long-term goals, because IMU's leaders envisaged
an Islamic state whereas Salih stood for secular Turkic nationalism.
That testimony may well have been obtained through coercion, as
is often the case in Uzbek trials. Yet there were indications in 19982000 that Salih did make some contacts with IMU leaders. In 1999 he
sought to use those contacts in attempting to mediate the peaceful
release of hostages, seized by the IMU in Kyrgyzstan. He also shared
with IMU the airwaves of Iranian state radio. All that gave the Uzbek
authorities the opportunity to portray the IMU and Salih as components
of a united opposition, blurring the great distinctions and differences
between them. Amalgamating him with IMU leaders and militants in
last year's trial was a move to discredit Salih internally as a political
opponent and to prepare justifications for seeking his extradition.
Norway has turned down that request from Tashkent. Meanwhile,
166
Salih's three brothers are imprisoned in Uzbekistan on sentences ranging
from ten to fifteen years on politically motivated charges.
All the major human rights organizations in the United States and
Western Europe have written to the Czech government demanding
Salih's release. Czech President Vaclav Havel has announced that he is
monitoring the situation, but so far has decided not to interfere with the
legal procedure. Uzbekistan has forty days, from the date of the arrest,
to present the charges with supporting evidence against Salih.
Meanwhile, Uzbek law enforcement authorities are preparing the
trial of Yusuf Juma [Jumaev], 58, a poet and supporter since 1989 of the
banned movement Birlik [Unity]. Juma was arrested six weeks ago in
his native Karakul district, Buhara Region, on the basis of information
supplied by some villagers to the police. The charges against him
include incitement to the overthrow of the lawful order and seditious
calls to Jihad. According to a letter from the prosecution to the Human
Rights Society of Uzbekistan, Juma made those calls in talking to
villagers, in his written notes and in a poem titled "Jihad."
One of Birlik's founding leaders, Abdumannob Polat - currently
the director of the Central Asian Human Rights Information Network in
Washington--has released full, annotated English and Russian
translations of Juma's poem "Jihad," from which it appears that the term
is being used metaphorically, rather than as an incitement to violence.
An accompanying poem denounced incompetent and brutal officials.
Juma's political reputation in Uzbekistan dates back to 1988 when a
poem of his decried the economic bondage of the republic to the central
government of the Soviet Union.
Uzbek authorities are currently also facing questions on two
unresolved cases of death in detention: that of Shovruk Ruzimuradov,
one of the leaders of Birlik and of the Human Rights Society, and that of
the Uzbek writer of Uighur origin Emin Usman. (CTK, November 29December 4; Institute for War and Peace Reporting (London), no. 89,
November 30; Human Rights Watch, International League for Human
Rights, Amnesty International, Moscow Memorial, Central Asian
Human Rights Information Network press releases, November 29December 4; see The Monitor, November 20, 2000; September 11,
2001).
167
SALIH ARRESTED FOR HIS POLITICS,
JUMAEV FOR HIS POETRY
06.12.2001, Compiled by Adam Albio
RFE/RL Central Asia Report - Uzbek poet and politician
Muhammad Salih - head of the banned Erk ("Freedom") party and
President Karimov's challenger in the 1991 elections -- was arrested in
Prague on 28 November on an Interpol warrant issued by Uzbekistan,
and remains in custody pending the arrival of documentation demanding
his extradition. Salih fled Uzbekistan in 1994 to escape criminal
charges, which he maintains were politically motivated, and was
sentenced in absentia to 15 and a halfyears in jail as a terrorist and
Islamist extremist for alleged involvement in a series of explosions in
the Uzbek capital Tashkent in 1999 that killed 16 people in an apparent
assassination attempt on Karimov. The New York-based organization
Human Rights Watch said in a statement on 29 November that it had
monitored his trial in Uzbekistan and judged that no "material evidence
of Salih's guilt was presented." Salih was traveling from his home in
Norway, where he was granted political asylum two years ago, to the
Czech Republic to give an interview to RFE/RL when he was detained
at Prague airport.
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Russian human
rights organization Memorial, the U.S. Congress' Helsinki Commission,
the Norwegian government, and RFE/RL are among the groups that
have called on the Czech Republic to release Salih, who they warn
could be tortured or executed if returned to Uzbekistan. On October 30,
a Prague court decided after a closed-door hearing to continue to hold
Salih until it reviewed the extradition documentation from Tashkent,
which by Czech law must arrive in 40 days or the prisoner will be freed
automatically (see "RFE/RL Newsline," December 3 2001). Meanwhile
Salih might ask for political asylum in the Czech Republic, CTK news
agency reported on November 30. Some observers have expressed
worries that Western governments, perhaps in recognition of President
Karimov's help in conducting the campaign in Afghanistan, will do little
to assist his gravest political rival and thus ignore Salih's plight.
Nonetheless, Salih's Czech lawyer said last week that she felt Salih's
chances to be released were good (see "Uzbekistan: Opposition Leader
Awaits Decision On Possible Extradition," December 4, 2001).
168
In a parallel case, 43-year-old Uzbek poet and member of the
banned Birlik ("Unity") movement Yusuf Jumaev was arrested in his
native Bukhara Province on October 23 and accused of religious
extremism, according to the latest briefing on his situation from the
Central Asian Human Rights Information Network onDecember 4.
Jumaev was charged with spreading sedition in conversations with
people in his village and calling for the "forcible overthrow of the
constitutional government" in poems and notes discovered in his house
by the police, the Information Network reported. There is concern that
signatures from his neighbors on documents testifying to Jumaev's
radical view are being coerced by the police. As for the allegedly
seditious tenor of his poetry, such lines as "How long will a stupid
person remain at the head of the country?/ Until the day of resurrection
and Islamic judgment!" do not suggest the rabid rantings of a religious
revolutionary, the briefing notes. They may hint, however, at why
President Karimov's regime is intent on painting him as one.
HAVEL SADDENED, FRUSTRATED BY SALIH DETENTION
07.12.2001, Jolyon Naegele, RFE/RL
Uzbekistan's exiled poet, human rights activist and political
opposition leader, Muhammad Salih, is spending his ninth day in a
Prague prison today as he waits for a Czech court to decide whether to
comply with an Interpol arrest warrant and extradite him to Uzbekistan.
Human rights organizations in the West say Salih faces years of
imprisonment or even death if he returns to Uzbekistan under the
current regime of President Islam Karimov. RFE/RL's Jolyon Naegele
spoke with the Czech Republic's dissident playwright turned president,
Vaclav Havel, about the case and why Havel has been unable to
intervene. LANY, Czech Republic; December 7 (NCA/Jolyon Naegele)
-- Earlier this week, exiled Uzbek opposition leader Muhammad Salih
wrote from a Prague jail that he wouid not have expected to be jailed in
a country headed by Vaclav Havel. Havel was imprisoned for some five
years in the 1970s and '80s by the Kommunist authorities in
Czechoslovakia for his human rights activities.
Nevertheless, Salih wrote in an open letter from prison that he is
convinced the Czech Republie is a state of law. Salih, who leads the
169
main Uzbek opposition party, Erk, lives in exile in Norway, where he
has been granted asylum. An Uzbek court convicted him in absentia to
15.5 years in prison for a series of explosions in Tashkent two years ago
for which the authorities blamed a wide variety of opposition groups.
Uzbekistan then issued, through Interpol, a worldwide arrest warrant for
Salih. The Uzbek activist received asyium in Norway three years ago
and has a refugee travel document valid for all countries of the world
except Uzbekistan. Czech police detained Salih on November 29 on his
arrival in Prague, where he had flown to be interviewed by the Uzbek
Service of RFEIRL. He remains in jail pending a decision by a Czech
court on whether to extradite him to Uzbekistan or return him to
Norway. Havel says he is watching the case closely, but in contrast to
his numerous and often controversial amnesties, the Czech president has
not intervened direetly in the Salih case. "I am certain that he will not be
extradited to the totalitarian leaders but will be returned to Norway. In
my opinion, this shouid never have happened, and if it did, he shoud be
returned [to Norway] very soon. lt's been needlessly long, but in the end
it will turn out well. Let's hope it's just bureaueratic red tape, some sort
of cautiousness and once again fear perhaps of the'Muslim element.'God
knows what that is. But the people who decide, like the minister of
justice, have let it be known that he will be returned to Norway. l find it
very sad. It harms our republic." As Havel put it, "Surely a terrorist,
which is what he is accused of being, would not receive asylum in
Norway." Havel says he has done all he can for Salih, that he is
powerless to intervene in a case involving an international arrest
warrant. But he says he will lobby on Salih's behalf: "First of all, we had
to get hold of all the facts. One can't just say Interpol is foolish.
Secondly, one has to check things out. This has been done, and now l
know he is a campaigner for human rights and that he is an innocent
person. So now l can start expressing myself [about Salihl. l'11 tell it to
the justice minister, the interior minister, to all news media that ask me.
l can't do any more than that. l don't have the keys to his cell, and in this
case, l can't grant a pardon." Havel is less sure than Salih that the Czech
Republie -- 12 years after the collapse of communist rule -- is a state
where the rule of law applies.
Havel Saddened, Frustrated by Salih Detention "Institutionally,
formally, technically speaking, we are a demoeratie state of law. But
little of it is applied in real life the way many people wouid like it to be.
170
That means legal recourse and thousands of other things, such as the
way politicians behave toward each other."
KARIMOV MOVES TO BOLSTER AUTHORITARIAN RULE IN
UZBEKISTAN
07.12.2001, www.eurasianet.org
On December 6, a day before United States Secretary of State
Colin Powell was due to arrive in Uzbekistan's capital city of Tashkent,
the Central Asian nation's parliament endorsed a proposal to make Islam
Karimov president for life. The move offers confirmation that Karimov
is taking advantage of Tashkent's key position in the anti-terrorism
campaign being waged against Afghanistan to reinforce Uzbekistan's
authoritarian system.
One Washington, DC-based Central Asian expert suggested the
timing of Karimov's move, on the eve of the Secretary of State's visit,
was designed to embarrass the United States. "Even if he did need a
referendum or face an [organized] opposition, why announce this two
days before Powell is showing up in your country? It is the most
remarkably deliberate provocation I've seen in a long time."
Reports that the United States is helping to prop up Karimov's
regime with economic assistance could prove an additional source of
embarrassment for Washington. On December 5, the Uzbek newspaper
Narodnoye Slovo carried what it claimed was a memo dated November
30 in which the United States pledged $100 million in aid and $50
million in credits to Uzbekistan. The Export-Import Bank, announcing
the credit on November 30, characterized it as a way of helping small
and midsize Uzbek businesses buy American goods. The State
Department did not immediately return a phone call asking for
confirmation of the $100 million pledge, but recent press reports have
bandied about that number.
The parliamentary endorsement of the lifetime extension of
Karimov's power came suddenly, when Uzbek television carried footage
of Parliament Speaker Erkin Khalilov defending the idea of leaving
Karimov in office permanently. In calling for parliament to endorse the
measure, Khalilov claimed to have seen numerous letters from Uzbek
citizens in support of the president-for-life concept.
171
Since terrorists attacked the United States on September 11,
Karimov has sought to seize political advantage from the tragedy. He
made speeches in mid-September claiming early leadership on the
antiterrorist issue, and negotiated American aid commitments in
exchange for supporting the military campaign in Afghanistan.
Uzbekistan has proven useful to American war aims, providing key
support bases for both the military and the humanitarian aid efforts in
Afghanistan. The war also has proven useful to Karimov. Allied soldiers
reportedly killed Juma Namangani, the notorious leader of the Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan, which has waged a three-year insurgency
aimed at ousting Karimov.
Powell, who has spoken of the need for Central Asian countries to
become more open and transparent, will have an uncomfortable time
dealing with questions about Karimov's recent moves, says one
observer. Yet Karimov seems relatively unlikely to back down. The
discussion of a life presidency "may be his way of showing that even
though the terrorist threat has been severely weakened, that doesn't
mean he's going to do anything to give up his power," an expert said.
The urgency associated with the anti-terrorism campaign may
have encouraged Karimov to extend his presidential term, says the
expert. "They [Central Asian leaders] think the United States now sees
the world differently than it used to," the observer said.
RESPONSE TO TERROR
07.12.2001, Robyn DIXON, Los Angeles Times
Uzbek President Seeks to Again Extend His Term Politics:
Despite his poor record on rights, watchdog groups worry that his role
in the terror war may compel U.S. to overlook abuses
MOSCOW -- Uzbek President Islam Karimov, one of America's
strategic Central Asian partners in the war against terrorism, plans to
extend his term to 2007 by referendum. Karimov, who was Uzbekistan's
Communist-era leader and retained power after the Soviet Union
collapsed in 1991, has been criticized frequently by international
watchdog groups for his government's poor record on democracy and
human rights.
172
Despite these concerns, the U.S. and Uzbekistan have forged a
close military partnership in recent years. Karimov cemented those ties
by becoming the first Central Asian leader to give the U.S. military
access to facilities for the war in Afghanistan. Organizations such as
New York-based Human Rights Watch are alarmed that Uzbekistan's
military cooperation may lead the United States to overlook the electoral
abuses, torture and false imprisonment that the group says have been
routine under Karimov. The referendum is to be held next month. It will
mark the second time Karimov has used the tactic to extend his rule.
The first was in 1995, when he extended his term to 2000. Last year he
was elected to another five-year term. "In Uzbekistan's current political
conditions, there is no possibility for any free or fair vote or for an
informed choice to be made at the ballot box," Rachel Denber of Human
Rights Watch's New York office said Thursday. "When Karimov was
reelected in 2000, there were no genuine opposition parties," she said.
"The media are heavily censored." As with previous balloting in
Uzbekistan, last year's vote was widely criticized for electoral
violations. The sole opposition candidate announced that he would vote
for Karimov. Using referendums to extend presidential terms became
common among the more authoritarian of the ex-Soviet leaders in the
mid-1990s: Alexander G. Lukashenko of Belarus was strongly criticized
by the U.S. when he used the tactic in 1996. Although the State
Department has been consistent in its condemnation of Lukashenko for
his authoritarian leadership, U.S. criticism of Karimov's rule has been
less strident. Belarus lacks the strategic importance of Uzbekistan.
Other leaders who have extended their terms by referendum
include Presidents Nursultan A. Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan, Emamali
Rakhmonov of Tajikistan and Saparmurad A. Niyazov of Turkmenistan.
Niyazov declared himself president for life in 1999 then announced this
year that he might retire in 2010. Karimov calls his nation of 24 million
people a "democracy, Uzbek style." Critics note that there are no
genuine opposition parties, no free and fair elections, and more than
7,000 political or religious prisoners in Uzbek jails.
Karimov's move to extend his rule comes as authorities here seek
the extradition from the Czech Republic of Mukhammat Salih, the last
strong opposition figure to challenge Karimov in an election. Salih ran
against the president a decade ago.
173
Salih, who was granted political asylum in Norway two years ago,
was detained Nov. 28 at the airport in Prague, the Czech capital, on an
international arrest warrant. The Karimov government accuses him of
being an Islamic militant. Supporters say that the charges are politically
motivated and that Salih's life would be in danger if he were returned to
Uzbekistan. A recent Human Rights Watch background paper on
Uzbekistan says authorities harassed, jailed and beat local human rights
activists, one of whom died in custody in July as a result of torture.
"Torture is systemic in Uzbekistan," the report says. "Police
torture has resulted in at least 15 deaths in custody in the past two years
alone." Karimov's government closed 900 mosques and required
religious organizations to register. The Human Rights Watch report says
that more than 7,000 Muslims were jailed, including many peaceful
citizens who have been forced to practice their faith in secret.
"In a throwback to the darkest days of the Soviet Union, local
authorities regularly organize public hate rallies to mobilize community
pressure against and to intimidate detainees' families," the paper says.
Karimov justifies his crackdown on Islam, saying his targets are
extremists and warning that the country faces the threat of a
fundamentalist Taliban-style rebellion. Denber said it is too early to
judge whether the Bush administration has shelved human rights
concerns to appease Karimov and retain Uzbekistan's military
cooperation. Much will depend on the approach taken by Secretary of
State Colin L. Powell, who is due to visit the region in coming days.
The U.S. "is not doing as much as it could do," Denber said. "The
biggest lost opportunity was in October, when the Bush administration
did not name Uzbekistan as a country of concern on religious freedom
when it had every reason to do so. That was clearly for political
reasons."
VACLAV HAVEL: “I AM FIGHTING FOR SALIH’S
HUMAN RIGHTS, AND I HAVE RECORDNISED THAT HE
INNOCENT”
07.12.2001, RFE/RL
As we have already reported, on 6th December Czech President
Vaclav Havel said in an interview with a Radio Liberty correspondent
that the detention of Muhammad Salih harms the international image of
174
his country. During the Communist period Vaclav Havel was
imprisoned because of his liberal ideals and served his sentence in
Pankrac Prison, the same one where Muhammad Salih is now being
held. According to news reports on the main Czech TV channels, the
view taken by the Czech public on the Muhammad Salih case looks
similar to that of President Havel. A report prepared by Adolat Malik
highlights the views taken by President Havel and the Czech public on
the detention of Muhammad Salih.
Adolat Malik: The detention of Muhammad Salih, chairman of
the Erk Democratic Party of Uzbekistan has caused concern among the
normally calm Czech public. The Czechs are discussing the significance
of the Muhammad Salih case in the context of the extent to which the
democratic foundations and the operation of international laws are
effective in their ostensibly free and democratic country. As the Czech
Republic seeks accession to the European Union, there are a number of
issues including continued failure to reform the justice ministry which
will certainly present a major obstacle to EU membership.
The detention of Muhammad Salih at Prague airport even though
he holds UN documents issued under Geneva Convention rules
demonstrates that the Czech police do not have a good knowledge of
international legislation. In an interview with RFE/RL radio
correspondents, President Vaclav Havel himself characterised the
seizure of Muhammad Salih as a "bureaucratic error, and fear of the
Islamic factor". President Havel affirmed that Muhammad Salih cannot
be handed over to a totalitarian state, and that he must be returned to
Norway. Asked why he had not expressed a view on the Salih case up to
this point, the Czech president replied: "Before making my views
known I needed to familiarise myself with all the information. I would
not go so far as to describe Interpol's actions as senseless, but I am now
fighting for Salih's human rights, and I have recognised that he innocent.
I have put my views to the Czech justice and foreign ministries, " said
the Czech president, who was imprisoned for his dissident views.
It is worth noting that Muhammad Salih's case has been widely
covered by the Czech media and by foreign-language newspapers
published in the country. "Lubova Novini", a newspaper affiliated to
the right-wing Social Democratic Party, published an article called
"Serving the dictator?" by Petrusko Shuhrova, a former deputy interior
minister. The author noted the detention of the Uzbek poet and
175
opposition leader by Czech police at Prague airport. He said that if the
Czech Republic returned Mr. Salih to Tashkent it could be helping the
Central Asian dictator to get rid of a serious political opponent, and that
this would be something painful for his countrymen. He called on the
Czech public not to let this happen. He stated that Stanislav Grun, the
present minister in charge of the Interior Ministry, where he, Shuhrova,
used to work, should release Muhammad Salih and apologise for the
incident. Meanwhile, "Nota-Fronte News", the newspaper of the centreright parties, published an article in which Tomas Boyar, a
representative of the People in Need NGO, expressed his thoughts on
the Muhammad Salih case. The author said that while co-operation on
the international anti-terrorist campaign was praiseworthy, the people of
Uzbekistan had become entirely subservient to the country's president in
the past ten years. He stressed that countries which wanted to develop
ties with Uzbekistan must always take into account that their
relationship is with the harshest government in the world. The author of
the article pointed to the Muhammad Salih case as an example of the
kind of incidents that the democratic world can allow to happen, and
said that it indicated that the effects of actions pursued under the guise
of the war on terrorism were now beginning to be felt in Prague, too.
A member of the Czech intelligentsia made it clear he shared the
views which the president had voiced on the Muhammad Salih affair. "I
share President Havel's view that a bureaucratic error has been made in
the Salih affair, because he arrived here with UN documents. I have
always thought of our country as a democracy, but the incident that
happened with Muhammad Salih showed that the opposite is true," a
said Vasko, a Prague resident. He considers that the Czech Republic can
demonstrate that it is a truly democratic state by resolving this problem
as rapidly as possible.
UZBEK POET AND DISSIDENT IS NOW A VOICE IN
PRAGUE JAIL
09.12.2001, By Peter S. GREEN, New York Times
PRAGUE, December 7 - In a whitewashed cell in the Pankrac
prison here, the man generally recognized as one of his nation's greatest
poets sits behind a scarred formica table, wearing the prison uniform of
faded purple sweatsuit and slip-on shoes. High up, a slit of wet sky is
visible through the bars of a small window.
176
His crime: to challenge the one- party rule of a once-Communist
country, Uzbekistan. His fate: to sit in the same jail where the writer
Vaclav Havel was once detained by the Communist police, a political
prisoner in the country Mr. Havel now rules. Muhammad Salih, leader
of the democratic opposition in his Central Asian republic, came to
Prague last week at the invitation of Radio Free Europe expecting to
speak to journalists at its headquarters. Instead, he was detained at
Prague's airport on an international warrant circulated by Interpol and
issued by the police of Uzbekistan's authoritarian president, Islam A.
Karimov. Uzbekistan wants Mr. Salih extradited to serve a prison term
of 15 1/2 years for his alleged involvement in a series of bombings in
the Uzbek capital, Tashkent, in 1999 - six years after he was forced into
exile. Human rights advocates say the trial was a farce, and that Mr.
Salih will be imprisoned, tortured and probably killed if he returns.
He remains the chairman of the Uzbek opposition party Erk, or
Liberty, even in exile. He has been quietly ousted from Turkey and
Germany because his activism brought pressure on the governments
there. Now he lives in Norway, which refused three times to arrest him
on the Uzbek warrant. Mr. Salih said he thought he would be safe in the
Czech Republic, but he apparently did not reckon with the Czech
bureaucracy. The police simply accepted the Uzbek warrant from
Interpol and entered it in their database. When Mr. Salih went through a
passport check, his name flashed red on a police computer and he was
led away in handcuffs. "Today I sit here instead of Vaclav Havel," Mr.
Salih said with a light laugh. A passing guard whispered: "This is
madness. It's a throwback to the days when we had the Charter 77
signers in here," a reference to Mr. Havel and other signers of the
Charter 77 human rights petition under the Communists.
While Mr. Salih sits in his cell, a Czech court is examining
documents from Uzbekistan before deciding whether to extradite him to
Tashkent. Czech leaders, former political prisoners and even human
rights activists dismiss the notion that Mr. Salih will actually be
expelled. Leif Hallberg, Interpol's spokesman in Prague, said that
countries were effectively free to ignore warrants sent from other states.
President Havel, who spent five years in Communist prisons,
seems certain that Mr. Salih will gain freedom and avoid deportation
But under the Constitution, President Havel can only request that the
government free Mr. Salih. "I don't have the keys to his cell - and in this
177
case I can't grant a pardon," he said. Mr. Salih takes little comfort. If he
is sent back to Uzbekistan, he said: "I will be killed. Definitely."
There is virtually no legal opposition to Mr. Karimov's
government. But it faces a threat from the armed Islamic Movement of
Uzbekistan, which was based in Afghanistan and with which President
Karimov has tried to link Mr. Salih. Mr. Salih has denied any
connection to the insurgents and the bombing. Mr. Salih said President
Karimov fears his presence. Mr. Salih contested the1991 postCommunist presidential election in which he ran against Mr. Karimov,
the Soviet-era Communist party boss who has held power ever since and
is planning a referendum in February to extend his term from five to
seven years. "He knows that even if I go to Uzbekistan and am held
under house arrest, that would be too much for him," Mr. Salih said.
"Uzbekistan needs a new leader, and I would be that leader."
Mr. Salih, who peppers his speech with references to Proust,
Joyce and Kafka as much as Central Asian nationalism, had called for
Uzbek independence even under Soviet rule. Now he is writing an
article reiterating his view that a moderate Islamic state like Uzbekistan
can find its democratic salvation in Western ideals. "Shariah fled to the
West, because dictators humiliated it in the East," he said, referring to
the legal code of Islam based on the Koran. "Now we can find the
justice and democracy we seek in the West." In his Prague jail cell,
meanwhile, Mr. Salih finds himself caught between a new democracy
and an ingrained bureaucracy that stretches back beyond Communism,
between the absurdity given voice by Kafka and the obtuse,
irresponsible, bumbling if ultimately lovable Good Soldier Schwejk, the
other great Czech literary classic.
“DEAR VACLAC HAVEL, PRESIDENT OF CZECH
REPUBLIC”
09.12.2001
Dear Vaclac Havel, President of Czech Republic
I am 50 years old Turkish Nationality holder.
I am informed, through our media, well known opposition leader
and poet Muhammad Salih of Uzbekistan had been detained in Praha.
According to the sources He is also facing extradition to his country
where he had been harassed for years by oppressive administration by
178
which he will be prosecuted because of his political view just like
Alexander Dubcek had been subjected many years ago.
Mr. President, we remember very well that a well known poet of
Czecholovakia, Mr. Vavlac Havel risked his life by satanding against
similar oppressive sistem. People of Czecholovakia appreciated this
man's courage and granted him as their President. It is evident that
under your successful guidance Czech republic now on the verge of
embarking full E.U.membership
Mr. President for me it is inconceivable to think that a man of
your caliber will permit extradition of Muhamed Salih. I am sure that
you are aware of the fact that when he is send back to his country he
will not receive just trial most probably his life will be terminated.
Please Mr. President do not act against your very best reputation
recognized world-wide. I would like very much to hope that verdict of
Czech Justice will be on his immidiate release.
Yours Faithfully.
Muammer Berge, Mech. Engr. BSc.
CZECH REPUBLIC: HAVEL SADDENED, FRUSTRATED
BY SALIH DETENTION
09.12.2001, (RFE/RL)
By Jolyon Naegele
Uzbekistan's exiled poet, human rights activist, and political
opposition leader, Muhammad Salih, is spending his ninth day in a
Prague prison today as he waits for a Czech court to decide whether to
comply with an Interpol arrest warrant and extradite him to Uzbekistan.
Human rights organizations in the West say Salih faces years of
imprisonment or even death if he returns to Uzbekistan under the
current regime of President Islam Karimov. RFE/RL's Jolyon Naegele
spoke with the Czech Republic's dissident playwright turned president,
Vaclav Havel, about the case and why Havel has been unable to
intervene.
Lany, Czech Republic;December 7, 2001 (RFE/RL) -- Exiled
Uzbek opposition leader Muhammad Salih wrote from a Prague jail on
December 3 that he would not have expected to be jailed in a country
headed by Vaclav Havel.
179
Havel was imprisoned for some five years in the 1970s and '80s
by the communist authorities in Czechoslovakia for his human rights
activities.
Nevertheless, Salih wrote in an open letter from prison that he is
convinced the Czech Republic is a state of law.
Salih, who leads the main Uzbek opposition party, Erk, lives in
exile in Norway, where he has been granted asylum. An Uzbek court
convicted him in absentia to 15.5 years in prison for a series of
explosions in Tashkent two years ago for which the authorities blamed a
wide variety of opposition groups. Uzbekistan then issued, through
Interpol, a worldwide arrest warrant for Salih.
The Uzbek activist received asylum in Norway three years ago
and has a refugee travel document valid for all countries of the world
except Uzbekistan.
Czech police detained Salih on November 29 on his arrival in
Prague, where he had flown to be interviewed by the Uzbek Service of
RFE/RL. He remains in jail pending a decision by a Czech court on
whether to extradite him to Uzbekistan or return him to Norway. Havel
says he is watching the case closely, but in contrast to his numerous and
often controversial amnesties, the Czech president has not intervened
directly in the Salih case.
"I am certain that he will not be extradited to the totalitarian
leaders but will be returned to Norway. In my opinion, this should never
have happened, and if it did, he should be returned [to Norway] very
soon," Havel told RFE/RL. "It's been needlessly long, but in the end it
will turn out well. Let's hope it's just bureaucratic red tape, some sort of
cautiousness and once again fear perhaps of the 'Muslim element.' God
knows what that is. But the people who decide, like the minister of
justice, have let it be known that he will be returned to Norway. I find it
very sad. It harms our republic."
As Havel put it, "Surely a terrorist, which is what he is accused of
being, would not receive asylum in Norway."
Havel says he has done all he can for Salih, that he is powerless to
intervene in a case involving an international arrest warrant. But he says
he will lobby on Salih's behalf: "First of all, we had to get hold of all the
facts. One can't just say Interpol is foolish. Secondly, one has to check
things out. This has been done, and now I know he is a campaigner for
180
human rights and that he is an innocent person. So now I can start
expressing myself [about Salih]. I'll tell it to the justice minister, the
interior minister, to all news media that ask me. I can't do any more than
that. I don't have the keys to his cell, and in this case, I can't grant a
pardon."
Havel is less sure than Salih that the Czech Republic -- 12 years
after the collapse of communist rule -- is a state where the rule of law
applies: "Institutionally, formally, technically speaking, we are a
democratic state of law. But little of it is applied in real life the way
many people would like it to be. That means legal recourse and
thousands of other things, such as the way politicians behave toward
each other."
Havel was asked about differences in perception about the current
war on terrorism in Afghanistan compared with NATO's bombing
campaign of Slobodan Milosevic's Yugoslavia in 1999.
He said: "There is a significant difference between the action
against Milosevic [in 1999] and this one [in Afghanistan]. It is a very
peculiar thing, which I realized that to a considerable extent involves
our region. I've noticed that some people - politicians or publicly active
people - somehow differentiate between two evils, two terrorisms: one
that is evil and one that is somewhat worse. Always, without a doubt,
the Slavic one was less evil and the Muslim one was worse. Look at
how much clearer the support has been from our political elite in this
war in comparison to that war [in 1999]."
Havel says that it is as if Czechs still share the habits and
stereotypes imposed in the communist era - as if, he says, "they've
adopted a certain collectivism, the need to be a member of some sort of
consolidated society."
In his words, "Now, since they don't have the ideological banner,
they still lean toward the ethnic banner [believing], of course, that Slavs
are a lot closer to us than Muslims."
"I often get a cold shudder down my spine when I hear certain
politicians or reporters mouthing totally anti-Muslim invectives and
arguments."
Nevertheless, Havel says he is optimistic the situation in
Afghanistan will turn out well. He says the optimism expressed by the
leaders of the anti-Taliban forces that the Taliban would collapse like a
181
house of cards reminded him of the dissident era in the 1970s and '80s
in Czechoslovakia, when foreign correspondents were skeptical of any
real change for the better in a country where - as he quotes them - "there
were a few crazy intellectuals behind whom the working class was not
standing." "But I told the [foreign correspondents], 'Watch it. You don't
understand the interrelationships in a totalitarian regime in which any
small snowball can set off an avalanche, and you won't know where it
will happen and you may be quite surprised.' I was reminded of this [by
the situation in Afghanistan], even though it is in another world, another
environment. They are not fighting with manifestos or imprisonment but
with real armaments."
Havel granted the interview late yesterday to Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty and its Czech affiliate, Radio Svobodna Evropa,
at the presidential country residence at Lany just west of Prague, where
he is recuperating from a respiratory ailment.
“DEAR PRESIDENT LORD RUSSELL JOHNSTON...”
10.12.2001
Lord Russell-Johnston, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe, Strasbourg –France
Dear President Lord Russell-Johnston,
I would like to bring to your attention the arrest in Prag of
Uzbekistan’s opposition leader Mr. Muhammad Salih. You should be
well aware of this unfortunate event which might lead to severe
consequences and might even risk the life of Mr. Salih. May I recall that
he is well known in my country and in all Central Asian republics not
only as a politician but even more as a poet, writer and intellectual. He
has been in exile for almost ten years and actually living in Norway.
Being the leader of Erk Democratic Party his political efforts aim at
bringing democracy in Uzbekistan. He’s well known for his liberal
democratic ideas, work for democracy and his qualities as an
intellectual. In brief it is evident that he has nothing to do with
terrorism. I believe it is, therefore, urgent for the Council of Europe to
intervene with a view to releasing Mr. Salih who has been arrested by
Czech authorities on the accusation of terrorism and as a follow up to a
request by Karimov regime of Uzbekistan to that end.
182
Knowing well Council of Europe work on the promotion and
protection of human rights and democracy and your interest as the
President of the Parliamentary Assembly in these values I am confident
that you will take the necessary action to free him and make sure that he
will not be delivered to Karimov regime in which case he will certainly
be executed.
Sincerely yours,
Engin Güner, Liberal Democratic Party of Turkey, Deputy President
HAVEL WANTS TO MEET SALIH
10.12.2001
PRAGUE, Dec 10 (CTK) - President Vaclav Havel is taking
interest in the case of Uzbek dissident Mukhammed Salih, who was
detained on his arrival at the Prague airport on the basis of a warrant
issued for his arrest by Interpol, and Havel spoke about Salih's detention
with Interior Minister Stanislav Gross today.
"I've been intensively dealing with the affair for two days, I have
taken steps and I will take further steps within my powers," Havel told
journalists today. He said that he consulted the affair with various
people. "Maybe I can do something more such as joining some
guarantees," Havel said.
Havel said he believed that Salih would be soon released. He
voiced the hope that the "red-tape process" leading to the release, would
work fast. "I am ready to meet him after his release if it is technically
possible," he added. Salih was detained nearly two weeks ago. The
Prague City Court has taken Salih into extradition custody. Salih fled
President Islam Karimov's regime in Uzbekistan, where in early 1999 he
was sentenced in absentia to 15.5 years in prison for his alleged
participation in a terrorist attack in Tashkent in which 16 people were
killed. In Uzbekistan he could face even death penalty, according to
observers. Human rights organisations and Norway have asked the
Czech Republic to release Salih. On Tuesday the Norwegian
government sent a diplomatic note to the Czech Republic demanding
that Salih be allowed to return back to Norway where he had lived
before he arrived in Prague.
183
CZECHS FREE EXILED UZBEK LEADER AWAITING
HEARING
11.12.2001
PRAGUE, Dec 11—A Czech court on Tuesday freed from jail the
exiled leader of one of Uzbekistan's main opposition parties as he awaits
an extradition hearing to the former Soviet republic, where he faces a
long jail sentence.
A lawr for Mukhamed Salih, who unsuccessfully challenged
Uzbekistan's veteran President Islam Karimov in a 1991 election, said
he was seeking a return to Norway where he lives in asylum.
Salih was arrested on an Interpol warrant on November 28 as he
flew into Prague on an invitation by U.S.-funded Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty.
"The court has allowed him to be free while his case is pending.
They were convinced he was not going to flee (the country)," his lawyer
Miroslava Kohoutova told Reuters.
Norway, where Salih has lived since leaving Central Asia in 1993,
has already given him asylum status and refused to extradite him.
Last week Oslo asked the Czechs in a diplomatic note to return
Salih to Norway, a move the foreign ministry said was likely to be
accepted. Human rights groups say Salih could face death if sent back to
Uzbekistan, which has now become an ally of the United States in its
military campaign in Afghanistan. Karimov, who has run the country
since Soviet times, accuses Salih's banned Erk (Freedom) party of
fostering a "terrorist" campaign aimed at creating a fundamentalist
Islamic republic. Norway granted Salih asylum in 1999 at the request of
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and has rejected
three Uzbek extradition requests since then. Salih was sentenced in
absentia last year to 15,5 years in jail on charges of involvement in a
series of bombings in 1999 which left at least 16 people dead in
Tashkent and which officials said nearly succeeded in killing Karimov
himself. Erk, which says it wants multi-party democracy for ex-Soviet
Central Asia's most populous nation, denies the charges and says Salih
would have won the 1991 presidential ballot following independence
from Moscow had Karimov not fixed the results.
184
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL WELCOMES RELEASE OF
MUHAMMAD SALIH
Further information on 305/01 (EUR 71/004/2001, 29 November
2001) and follow-up (EUR 71/006/2001, 30.11.2001) - fear of forcible
deportation-fear of torture CZECH REPUBLIC-UZBEKISTAN.
Muhammad Salih (m), aged 52
Exiled Uzbek opposition leader Muhammad Salih was today
released from custody by Prague City Court. The court reportedly
decided that there was no danger that he would leave the country before
Uzbekistan's request for his extradition is heard next week. He is to be
questioned at the Prague City State Attorney's Office tomorrow.
At a news conference given at Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe's
Prague office after his release, Muhammad Salih said that the Czech
Republic, as a Western nation, had a responsibility to show Uzbek
leader Islam Karimov that he could not hide behind the slogan of
antiterrorism in order to crush dissent.
The Czech news agency CTK reported that President Vaclav
Havel had told journalists that he would meet Muhammad Salih on 12
December at Prague Castle. He said that the Presidential Office had
been flooded with appeals for Muhammad Salih from all over the world.
The Czech interior minister has been quoted as saying that
Muhammad Salih is "certainly not threatened with extradition to
Uzbekistan".
Many thanks to all who took action on this case. If possible,
please send a final appeal, in Czech, English or your own language: welcoming the release of Muhammad Salih and urging that he be
returned to Norway;
- pointing out that Muhammad Salih would be in grave danger of
torture and cruel and inhuman treatment if he were returned to
Uzbekistan;
- reminding the authorities that the Czech Republic is a party to
the UN Refugee Convention; the United Nations Convention against
Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment; and the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, all of which prohibit the forcible
185
return of anyone to countries where they would be at risk of serious
human rights violations.
APPEALS TO: President Václav Havel President of the Czech
Republic. 11.12.2001
SALIH SEES HIS ARREST AS BUREAUCRATIC MISTAKE
11.12.2001
PRAGUE, Dec 11 (CTK) - Uzbek dissident Mukhammed Salih
regards his arrest in Prague as a sort of bureaucratic mistake or
confusion and he told journalists today at a press conference after his
release that he is not angry at anyone. "Everything proceeded in keeping
with law, everyone was doing his job," Salih said, adding that the Czech
Republic was undergoing a reform process and some changes were yet
to be completed. Salih will wait in Prague for a court decision on
whether he will be extradited to Uzbekistan where he might face a long
prison sentence or even death. On Wednesday afternoon he will meet
President Vaclav Havel. Salih said he would like to visit the Franz
Kafka house. Salih was arrested upon arrival in Prague at Interpol's
initiative on November 28. Uzbekistan has asked for his extradition for
his alleged involvement in terrorism.
Salih has ascribed the affair to the dictatorial regime of Islam
Karimov. "He persecutes me because he is afraid of my ideas," Salih
said. Salih said that the decision of Czech authorities about his
extradition to Uzbekistan would set a precedent. It would show whether
the West preferred dictatorial regimes in Central Asia or whether it
sided with democracy. "For democracy in Central Asia it will be more
than my life, it will be their life," he added. The U.S. struggle against
terrorism has fulfilled Karimov's long-standing wish to become a U.S.
friend, Salih said. Now the USA and Uzbekistan are cooperating in the
struggle against terrorists in Afghanistan. However, if U.S. President
George Bush wants to destroy terrorism with its roots, he has to do away
with dictatorial regimes as well, Salih said. "We can show him where
the roots are lying. They are lying in dictatorial governments," he
added.
186
HAVEL WOULD LIKE TO MEET SALIH
ON WEDNESDAY
11.12.2001
BRNO, South Moravia, December 11 (CTK) - President Vaclav
Havel, on a visit to Brno, told journalists that he would like to meet
Uzbek dissident Muhammad Salih after he returns from his Brno visit
on Wednesday.
This morning, Salih was released from extradition custody where
he had been kept since his detention on the basis of an Interpol arrest
warrant in Prague on November 28. The court is yet to decide whether a
request from Tashkent that Salih be extradited to Uzbekistan as a
suspected terrorist was admissible or not.
Havel told journalists that he had inquired into the Salih case in
the past days for the sake of its complex evaluation.
"I have had a huge number of phone conversations and meetings.
I've read Salih's declaration to the Czech nation which he wrote in the
custody prison," Havel said.
He said the Presidential Office had been flooded with
interventions [in favour of Salih] from all over the world.
"I've come to the conclusion that he is really a human rights
fighter, a democrat and an unjustly accused man," Havel said.
He said he was satisfied with the relevant Czech bodies having
started to handle the Salih case promptly in the past days.
"I'm looking forward to receiving him at Prague Castle
tomorrow," Havel said.
Havel spoke about Salih's case with Justice Minister Jaroslav
Bures on Monday. He wanted to meet him personally by the end of the
week. Havel called Salih innocent in an interview with Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty at whose invitation Salih had come to the Czech
Republic. Salih was detained on his arrival in Prague on November 28,
on the basis of a warrant for his arrest issued by Interpol at the initiative
of Uzbekistan which accuses him of having participated in a terrorist
bomb attack in Tashkent the 1990s. Uzbekistan wants Salih to be
extradited.
187
In Uzbekistan he could face even death penalty, according to
observers. Human rights organisations and Norway have asked the
Czech Republic to release Salih. On Tuesday the Norwegian
government sent a diplomatic note to the Czech Republic demanding
that Salih be allowed to return back to Norway where he had lived
before he arrived in Prague.
SALIH TO BE RELEASED FROM CUSTODY...
11.12.2001
PRAGUE, Czech Republie December 11(AP) - A court ruled
Tuesday to allow an Uzbek dissident to be released from custody while
it decides whether to extradite him to his home country. Immediately
after the deeision, Mukhammat Salih left the prison where he had spent
nearly two weeks. Authorities ordered him to remain in the country
while they decide whether to honor an Uzbek extradition request, said
his lawyer, Miroslava Kohoutova.
Salih was arrested on November 28 on an Interpol warrant after
arriving at Prague's international airport. He had been invited by Radio
Free Europe, which had planned to interview him on the political
situation in Uzbekistan. He was subsequently ordered to reniain in
eustody while Czech prosecutors investigated whether there are grounds
to extradite him to Uzbekistan, where he is wanted on terrorism charges.
Salih was senteneed in absentia last year to 15,5 years in prison by
an Uzbek court for alleged involvement in bombings that killed 16
people in the Uzbek capital, Tashkent, in 1999. Salih has denied his
involvement in the bombings and wamed that Uzbek authorities would
kill him if he is forced to return to his home country. Several human
rights organizations have denounced Salih's arrest.
They say the Uzbek charges against him are politically motivated
and describe him as a human rights activist. Salih, as head of the
opposition Erk Party, ran against Uzbek President Islam Karimov in
1991 elections. After his defeat, Salih suffered harassment at the hands
of the govenunent, said RFE President Thomas A. Dine.
After being arrested several times, Salih - who is also a wellknown poet in Uzbekistan - fled the country. He now lives in Norway,
which granted him asylum and has ignored Uzbek extradition requests.
188
It was not immediately elear why the court released Salih. However,
Justice Ministry spokesman Vladimir Voracek said authorities believed
Salih wouid not attempt to flee the country before the court decides
whether to extradite him.
Last week, Dine wrote to the prosecutor and the Prague municipal
court, requesting Salih's release from prison. In the letter, Dine
deseribed Salih as lia fair, honest and brave person" who has promoted
"human rights and democratic institutions and processes in his
homeland." Dine also said he would guarantee that Salih wouid reniain
in the Czech Republie until the court issues its decision.
"We're very happy that Mr. Salih will not be forced to spend
another night in his cell," RFE spokeswoman Sonia Winter said
Tuesday. Voracek said that a proseeutor would interview Salih
Wednesday and that Prague's municipal court would decide next week
whether to extradite him.
ON TUESDAY RELEASED A LEADING UZBEK DISSIDENT...
11.12.2001
PRAGUE, December 11 (AFP) - Czech authorities on Tuesday
released a leading Uzbek dissident who was arrested in Prague last
month on an international arrest warrant, the justice ministry said.
Mukhammad Salih, leader of the unregistered Uzbek opposition party
Erk, was almost immediately invited to meet Wednesday with President
Vaelav Havel, who has expressed strong support for him in recent days.
Salih, who has political asylum rights in Norway, was detained on
November 28 at Prague airport. He was travelling to the Czech capital at
the invitation of the US-funded broadcaster Radio Free Europe (RFE).
He was released Tuesday, although a court is due to rule next week on
whether he shouid be extradited, said ministry spokesman Vladiniir
Voracek. Czech Interiør Minister Stanislav Gross has said that Salih "is
certainly not threatened with extradition to Uzbekistan." Human rights
groups had called on Prague to release Salih, warning that he wouid be
in danger of torture if extradited to Uzbekistan.
Havel, a former dissident playwright, has had "many consultations
and phone conversations" in recent days about Salih's case, a
presidential spokesman said. Havel had "come to the conclusion that
189
Mr. Salih is a defender of human rights, a democrat and an unfairly
accused man," said the spokesman, adding that Salih would be received
at Havel's Prague Castle residence Wednesday. Salih was the ønly
independent candidate to challenge autocratic Uzbek President Islam
Karimov in the 1991 presidential elections, but fled the country in the
early 1990s, fearing arrest.
The Uzbek authorities blame Salih for a series of bomb blasts in
Tashkent in 1999 that killed 16 people and injured more than 100, white
state-owned media described him as a traitor, terrorist and murderer.
In November last year, Uzbekistan's Supreme Court sentenced
the opposition figure in absentia to 15 years and six months in prison on
charges of terrorism and anti-state activities.
JAILED UZBEK DISSIDENT RELEASED
11.12.2001, BBC
A court has freed a dissident Uzbek politician and poet jailed in
the Czech Republic while the country's authorities consider whether to
extradite him. Mukhammat Salih, the leader of the main party opposed
to the rule of Uzbek President Islam Karimov, is wanted in Uzbekistan
on terrorism charges. But human rights groups say the accusations, that
Mr. Salih was involved in bombings that killed 16 people in Tashkent in
1999, are politically motivated. Mr. Salih has already been granted
political asylum in Norway and has been living in Oslo since 1993. But
he was arrested two weeks ago on an Interpol warrant when he flew to
Prague for an interview on Radio Free Europe (RFE).
'Brave person'
Mr. Salih, who stood against Karimov in Uzbek elections in
1991, has been sentenced in absentia to 15 years in prison in
Uzbekistan. And he has warned that he would be killed if he was forced
to go back. No reason was given for the release, although Justice
Ministry spokesman Vladimir Voracek said the Czech authorities
believed Mr. Salih would not try to leave the country before the court
had ruled on his extradition.
RFE President Thomas Dine had called for Mr. Salih to be freed,
describing the dissident as "a fair, honest and brave person".
190
He said Mr. Salih had worked for "human rights and democratic
institutions and processes in his homeland".
President's defence
The release comes as Mr. Karimov defended his own human
rights record during a visit to Vienna. He rejected suggestions that his
regime was repressive and undemocratic, saying the problems in his
country were not what they seemed.
He also said that the reopening of the 'Friendship Bridge' between
Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, which he has kept closed for four years,
had increased the aid flow to the war torn neighbouring country.
CZECH COURT BARS EXTRADITION OF UZBEK
OPPOSITION LEADER RULINGS: THE LIKELIHOOD
THAT MUHAMMAD SALIH WOULD FACE THE DEATH
PENALTY WAS A KEY FACTOR
12.15.2001, Los Angeles Times
David HOLLEY; Iva DRAPALOVA
PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- A Czech court ruled Friday that an
exiled Uzbek opposition leader, accused of terrorism by his government
but regarded by human rights groups as a democracy activist, will not be
extradited to Uzbekistan. "Justice has won," Muhammad Salih told
reporters at a Prague municipal court after the ruling, which leaves him
free to return to Norway, where he received political asylum two years
ago. The court cited possible risk to Salih's life as a key reason for
denying the extradition request. The Czech Republic is bound by
international agreements not to extradite suspects to countries where
their lives would be in danger, Judge Veronika Bohacova said. Salih ran
against President Islam Karimov in 1991 but lost, then fled the Central
Asian country in 1993. In exile he has continued to head the banned
Freedom Democratic Party. Last year, he was sentenced in absentia to
15,5 years in prison for alleged involvement in a 1999 bombing that
killed 16 people in Tashkent, the Uzbek capital.
Salih was detained at the airport on an international arrest warrant
when he came to the Czech capital last month at the invitation of Radio
Free Europe, which has frequently interviewed him about democracy
and human rights in Uzbekistan. His supporters, including the U.S.191
funded station and many high-profile international human rights groups,
argued that he probably faced death if sent back to Uzbekistan, one of
the successor states to the Soviet Union. Human rights organizations say
that no material evidence was introduced against him at his terrorism
trial in Uzbekistan and that allegations of his involvement made by
other defendants were obtained through torture. Salih and his backers
said Friday that his arrest ended up benefiting the cause of democracy in
Uzbekistan by drawing international attention to problems there.
"Thousands of people in Uzbekistan are suffering and are
persecuted, tortured and imprisoned because of their ideas and political
views," Salih told reporters at the courthouse. Despite its authoritarian
government, Uzbekistan, which is just north of Afghanistan, is now a
key U.S. ally in the war against terrorism. Radio Free Europe
spokeswoman Sonia Winter said Friday that "it looked in the beginning
as if they really were going to send him back to Uzbekistan."
"Then I think it became clear to the court that he wasn't a terrorist,
but they didn't know what to do with him legally," she said.
Winter released a letter sent to the court last week by Radio Free
Europe / Radio Liberty President Thomas A. Dine in which he appealed
for Salih's release and said, "We know Mr. Salih to be a fair, honest and
brave person promoting human rights and democratic institutions in his
homeland." The court had ordered Salih released Tuesday, but he was
still prevented from leaving the country pending the court date Friday.
He was invited to Prague Castle on Wednesday to meet with
President Vaclav Havel, who as an anti-communist dissident had been
detained at the same prison where Salih was held. Havel explained the
invitation by saying, "I arrived at the opinion that he is a true fighter for
human rights, a democrat, a man falsely accused."
"Salih said it was almost a privilege that he was in the same
prison," said Winter, who also attended the meeting. Salih also told
Havel that the Czech leader had been one of his role models as a youth
and that he "had never imagined he would meet him," she added. As a
result of his extended stay in Prague, Salih ended up giving more and
longer interviews than originally planned at Radio Free Europe, which
broadcasts to Uzbekistan, Winter said. "He paid for this with two weeks
in prison . . . but good came of it," she said.
192
CRACKDOWN IMPERILS MIDEAST EXILES
12.16.2001, Boston Globe
By Brian Whitmore, Globe Correspondent
PRAGUE - A scary thing happened to Muhammad Salih on his
way to a meeting in Prague last month to discuss human rights in his
native Uzbekistan. He wound up in prison fighting for his life.
After fleeing persecution in Iraq, Majed Majid thought he was
finally a free man. But denied political asylum in the Czech Republic,
he is a man without a country facing an uncertain future.
Neither Salih nor Majid had it easy before September 11. But their
plights since then, like those of thousands of other Central Asian and
Middle Eastern immigrants, have become even more precarious.
As Western democracies try to address security concerns with
their immigration and asylum policies, Muslim and Arab exiles fleeing
persecution in their homelands face more suspicion and scrutiny than
ever before. Authoritarian states, meanwhile, are using the US-led war
on terrorism as an excuse to crush political opponents.
''A lot of authoritarian governments see 9/11 as a wonderful
opportunity to justify and intensify preexisting crackdowns on dissent,''
Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch said. ''There are a lot of
innocent people potentially hurt by immigration restrictions, who are not
guilty of anything other than belonging to an ethnic or religious group.''
Salih found this out the hard way. A human rights activist and
opposition leader, he faced constant harassmentafter running for
president in 1991 against Uzbekistan's authoritarian leader, Islam
Karimov. Salih fled Uzbekistan in 1993 and settled in Norway, which
granted him political asylum. Uzbek authorities, however, branded him
a terrorist. Last year, an Uzbek court sentenced him, in absentia, to 15,5
years in prison for a 1999 bombing that killed 16 people. Uzbek police
put out a warrant for Salih's arrest through Interpol.
New York-based Human Rights Watch monitored Salih's trial and
called it ''reminiscent in all respects of Soviet-era show trials'' and said
that ''no material evidence of Salih's guilt was presented.''
Norway and other European governments apparently agreed and
ignored the warrant. But when Salih arrived in Prague on November 28
to participate in a Radio Free Europe broadcast, Czech police arrested
193
him at the airport. He spent 12 days in prison and was released Tuesday.
On Friday, a Prague court refused Uzbekistan's extradition request.
''Justice has won,'' Salih said after the ruling, adding that he hoped
his case helped highlight the human rights problems in his country.
''Thousands of people in Uzbekistan are suffering and are persecuted,
tortured, and imprisoned because of their ideas and political views.''
The Czech president, Vaclav Havel, a former anti-Communist
dissident, spoke out forcefully on Salih's behalf.
''It should not have happened,'' Havel told Radio Free Europe
about Salih's arrest. ''It was a question of caution and fear of the Islamic
element. It's a sad case and it damages our reputation.''
Uzbekistan became a new ally of Washington when it provided
access to its military bases. But the former Soviet nation, which is still
ruled by its Soviet-era leader, has long been accused of human rights
abuses. Human rights groups estimate that 5,000 to 10,000 Uzbeks are
in jail for political reasons and accuse authorities of torturing to death 15
people during the past three years. Salih is one of the lucky ones. Majid
is not so fortunate. A native of Baghdad and a member of Iraq's tiny
Christian minority, Majid fled war and persecution with his parents,
sister, and two brothers eight years ago, and settled in Prague. They
since have faced death threats and harassment from Saddam Hussein's
secret agents and suspicion and hostility from Czech police and
immigration authorities. The family nevertheless did well and appeared
to be an immigrant success story. Majid, 22, learned Czech and English,
became an honor student, and got a job writing for a local magazine. His
parents opened a small Arabic restaurant. But as they built a new life in
their adopted country, the family's old homeland kept coming back to
torment them. A group of Iraqi diplomats constantly visited their
restaurant to try to persuade them to return to Baghdad. They also
demanded free food and drinks, and even coerced Majid's mother into
catering for the Iraqi Embassy - threatening her with death if she
refused.
The group's leader, Majid said, was Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir
al-Ani – the diplomat who was later identified by Czech authorities as
the Iraqi agent who met hijack suspect Mohamed Atta in Prague. Majid
said he was often tailed by menacing Iraqis he believed to be working
for Hussein's intelligence agency, the Mukhabarat.
194
In June, Majid told his story on a nationally televised current
affairs program about the Mukhabarat's activities in Prague. Since then,
the family restaurant was vandalized and one of the intruders left a knife
sitting conspicuously on the bar. Despite all this, Czech immigration
authorities have refused Majid and his family political asylum, although
they have granted them long-term visas. Lacking citizenship - their Iraqi
passports expired this summer – the family is stateless and helpless in an
environment that is increasingly suspicious of Arabs.
''All we want is what everybody else has,'' Majid said. ''A
government that represents us and protects our rights.''
Since the attacks on the United States, this looks increasingly
unlikely. Czech immigration officials recently told Majid that to get
political asylum he needed ''documentation'' from Iraq that he was not
welcome there.
''What am I supposed to do?'' Majid said. ''Go to the Iraqi
Embassy and say, `Please give me a document that says I am a dissident
and oppose the Iraqi government.''
Czech immigration officials did not respond to numerous requests
about the case. A week after the September terrorists attacks, Majid said
police came to his Prague apartment to question the family and search
their home.
''When I asked them why they were doing this they said: `You
have to ask? Isn't it obvious?'''
SALIH RELEASED
(12-18) 12.2001,
By James Pitkin, The Prague Post
The case of prominent Uzbek dissident Muhammad Salih has
divided Czech and international observers into two camps: the
embarrassed and the perplexed.
"Those of us interested in human rights simply can't believe that
the Czech government would arrest this man and are truly baffled that it
would hold him," said Mark Katz, a political scientist and an expert on
Islamic fundamentalism at George Mason University in the Washington,
D.C., suburbs.
195
Salih, who was detained and jailed by Czech authorities at Ruzyne
airport November 28, is now free as he awaits a court decision on
whether he will be extradited to Uzbekistan, where he was convicted for
terrorist acts. Rights groups say Salih faces torture and death at the
hands of the Uzbek regime, headed by President Islam Karimov, if he is
extradited. He had traveled to Prague to participate in a broadcast by
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL).
Czech police acted on an international arrest warrant issued after
an Uzbek court found Salih guilty in absentia of a 1999 bombing in
Tashkent that left 16 people dead. Uzbekistan is a former Soviet
republic bordering embattled Afghanistan.
Released from Pankrac prison December 11, Salih refused to
blame the Czech government for his predicament, saying he hoped his
case was "just a mistake." He said he was determined to turn the
incident into a political litmus test for Europe's policy toward Central
Asia. "If I am extradited," he said, "it will mean the West accepts these
dictatorships. The question is very simple: Which does the West
support: dictatorship or democracy?"
Organizations such as Human Rights Watch, which observed
Salih's 1999 trial in Tashkent, call the trial a farce. The organization said
no material evidence had been presented against Salih, a 52-year-old
poet and the leader-in-exile of the opposition Erk (Freedom) party.
According to Matilda Bogner, director of Human Rights Watch's
Tashkent office, such trials are common in Uzbekistan, where Karimov
opponents are often considered extremists or terrorists.
"The government uses the threat of terrorism to crack down on
peaceful independent Muslims within the country," Bogner said. "When
people are arrested, they're taken into custody and commonly tortured
for confessions."
Salih, who has resided in Norway since winning UN-supported
political asylum there in 1999, has also received backing from the
Scandinavian nation, which demanded he be permitted to leave the
country. Although the Czech Republic signed the 1951 UN Refugee
Convention forbidding the return of exiles to the nation that persecuted
them, authorities here decided to hold Salih while processing an
extradition request from Uzbekistan.
196
The decision dismayed President Vaclav Havel. "This should
never have happened," Havel said, adding that he partly blamed "fear of
a Muslim element" for Salih's detention. Following the U.S. lead in the
wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, European authorities have
been circumspect in their handling of cases involving Muslim figures.
England and Germany are two EU nations that have increased
police surveillance on their strong Muslim communities.
In an open letter from Pankrac prison before his release, Salih said
he was especially surprised he was detained here. "I had no idea that in
Vaclav Havel's free country I would be taken into custody. I thought the
Czech Republic was one of the candidate countries for European Union
membership, with legal norms equivalent to the EU's."
The European Union, which this country hopes to join in 2004,
bars extradition to nations with the death penalty.
"The longer Prague detains Salih, the more doubts arise about the
Czech Republic's commitment to democracy and human rights," George
Mason's Katz said. Katz met Salih twice in Tashkent in 1992 -- the year
after Salih's failed run again Karimov, widely considered an autocratic
figure. Katz recalls Salih as "more a scholar than a politician" and a man
with a gentle sense of humor.
Salih fled Uzbekistan soon after Karimov outlawed opposition
parties, also in 1992. But he continued to attack Karimov in his writings.
Bogner of Human Rights Watch said thousands of Uzbek citizens
have been unjustly jailed since 1997 under a law banning
"unconstitutional acts," which include studying the Koran and learning
Arabic. She said prisoners are regularly beaten and tortured and often
die in custody. She has no doubt that a similar fate awaits Salih if he is
extradited. Another international rights group, Amnesty International,
said it fears Karimov is exploiting Uzbekistan's new role as a strategic
ally in the U.S.-led war against terrorism as an opportunity to eliminate
dissent. Salih agrees. "I don't want to sound cynical," he said, "but
September 11 was a big piece of luck for our president. The friendship
with America that he was always trying to strike up finally came to pass.
Now, he can easily fight not only Islamic fundamentalism but also
political opposition in his country." Katz believes the waning of the war
in Afghanistan may spark new urgency in Karimov's efforts to root out
his enemies.
197
"I think [Karimov] feels some urgency about doing this since the
war in Afghanistan looks like it may be coming to a close," Katz said.
"Salih in particular is someone he wants to get a hold of. Whatever the
results of the 1991 elections, if free elections were held now, Salih
stands a very good chance of winning them."
But Bogner thinks Salih has been largely forgotten in Uzbekistan.
"For people who have been involved with the opposition, Salih is
one of the most important figures," she said. "But now that opposition
has been so destroyed, for the ordinary person on the street he's not
going to mean a lot."
But in his letter from prison, Salih minimized this.
"I don't care about having the title 'poet' or 'party leader,'" he
wrote. "I've learned this has no effect on the police. It would suffice if
there were just a few words under my picture saying, 'He is not a
terrorist.' It's a privilege, not being a terrorist."
SALIH WILL NOT BE EXTRADITED TO UZBEKISTAN
14.12.2001
PRAGUE, (CTK) - Uzbek dissident and writer Mukhammed
Salih will not be extradited to Uzbekistan, the Prague City Court ruled
today. Judge Veronika Bohackova said the Czech Republic was bound
by international conventions which ban extraditing people to territories
where they would be faced with serious human rights and freedoms
violation.
"We had enough groundwork not to comply with the demand by
Uzbek authorities for extradition of Mr Salih," she said.
Salih was detained by Czech police more than two weeks ago on
the basis of an Interpol arrest warrant since he had been convicted in
absentia to 15.5 years for an alleged share in a terrorist attack.
He fled the regime of Uzbek President Islam Karimov and now
lives in Norway where he has been granted political asylum. Experts say
he might face death if extradited to Uzbekistan. Neither the state
attorney nor Salih used the right to appeal the court decision and so the
verdict has become valid today.
198
"Justice was done today and I am standing here before you a free
man," Salih said on leaving the court room.
He said he would like to return back to Norway soon. He thanked
all who had supported his release, that is international organisations,
President Vaclav Havel and the media.
"I hope that my experience in Prague has in a way cast light on
the human rights situation in Uzbekistan," Salih said.
Asked whether he would ever return to the Czech Republic, he
said "When it is warmer I will return to the Czech Republic. Politically
it is warm here already, but the whether is cold."
Temperatures fell down to 13 degrees Centigrade below zero in
Prague yesterday, today it is slightly warmer.
Sonia Winterova, spokeswoman of Radio Free Europe (RFE),
which had invited Salih to arrive in Prague, said that RFE would invited
Salih to Prague again.
"He stayed here longer than we expected, but it has benefited all,"
she added.
RFE/RL PRESIDENT WELCOMES PRAGUE COURT
DECISION
14.12.2001
(Prague, 14,2001) RFE/RL President Thomas A. Dine today
applauded the decision of the Prague Municipal Court not to extradite
Uzbek human rights activist Muhammad Salih to Uzbekistan.
Dine said "this is a victory for justice and the rule of law," noting
that Salih's case has set a precedent for the Czech legal system. "The
process of reform and democratization in post-communist states will
accelerate if the voices of people like Mr. Salih can be heard loud and
clear," he said. Salih has been interviewed many times on RFE/RL
programs transmitted to Central Asia and was invited to visit RFE/RL's
Prague Broadcast Center. But he was detained on arrival at Prague's
Ruzyne Airport on November 28 on the basis of an Interpol warrant.
His detention attracted international attention with calls for his release
by the Norwegian government -- where Salih was granted political
asylum -- and many non-governmental organizations, including
199
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International
Helsinki Federation. Dine also wrote to the Prague Court vouching for
Salih's character and urging that he not be returned to Uzbekistan.
Salih, speaking to reporters outside the courtroom, said the two
weeks he spent in extradition custody in a Czech prison served a good
cause. "The world now knows a little bit more about the human rights
abuses in Uzbekistan," he said. A former political leader in Uzbekistan,
Salih was an independent candidate in Uzbekistan's 1991 presidential
election which was won by Islam Karimov. Uzbek authorities began a
campaign of harassment against Salih, arresting him several times and
he was forced to flee the country in 1993. Since then, Salih has in exile
headed the ERK opposition party and become an internationally
recognized human rights activist and political authority on Uzbek
affairs. In 2000, the Uzbek Supreme Court convicted him in absentia to
15 years and six months of imprisonment for alleged terrorism and
activities against the Uzbek State at a trial declared unfair and
unconvincing by Human Rights Watch and other international monitors.
Salih was granted political asylum in Norway and has been living there
since 1999. The Uzbek government requested his extradition four times
and was denied each time by the Norwegian government. Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty is a private, international communications service
to Eastern Europe and Southeastern Europe, Russia, the Caucasus,
Central Asia and the Middle East funded by the US Congress through
the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
CZECH COURT CONSIDERS UZBEK PRISONER
14.12.2002
By Nadia Rybarova, Associated Press
PRAGUE, Czech Republic – Human rights groups hail him as a
poet and a champion of the downtrodden. Authorities in his native
Uzbekistan say he's a terrorist masquerading as an exiled dissident.
On Friday, a court will decide whether Uzbek opposition leader
Mukhammat Salih – arrested last month as he arrived in Prague to
discuss human rights abuses in his homeland – will be extradited to the
former Soviet republic or allowed to return to Norway, which gave him
asylum. Salih, released earlier this week from the prison where he was
200
held since his November 28 arrest on an Interpol warrant, expressed
bewilderment over his ordeal.
An 18-year-old Soviet soldier when he first arrived here in a tank
in 1968 to defend Czechoslovakia's communist regime against a
democratic uprising, Salih said he never expected his trip to give an
interview to Czech-based Radio Free Europe would land him behind
bars. "When I came to Prague, invited by Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty, I did not expect for a minute that it would be here in the free
country of (Czech President) Vaclav Havel that I would be arrested," he
said. Czech authorities grabbed Salih at Prague's international airport
after computers flashed red during a routine check of his passport.
Salih was subsequently ordered to remain in custody while Czech
prosecutors investigated whether there are grounds to extradite him to
Uzbekistan, where he is wanted on terrorism charges. He was sentenced
in absentia last year to 15,5 years in prison for alleged involvement in
bombings that killed 16 people in the Uzbek capital, Tashkent, in 1999.
Salih, who repeatedly has denied involvement in the bombings,
fears that Uzbek authorities would kill him if he is forced to return. He
accuses Uzbek President Islam Karimov – whom he challenged in 1991
elections – of using the war on terrorism as a cover to go after his
adversaries.
"I was happy when President Bush said he wants to eradicate
terrorism, to tear it up by its roots," Salih said. "We democrats in
Central Asia can show President Bush where the roots are: in the
totalitarian regimes of Uzbekistan and other Central Asian countries."
The United States has not publicly intervened in Salih's situation –
perhaps not surprisingly, considering Uzbekistan has offered key help to
U.S. forces trying to smoke Osama bin Laden out of Afghanistan.
But shortly after Salih's arrest, New York-based Human Rights
Watch – which has accused Uzbek authorities of an overly harsh
crackdown on Islamic activists – urged Czech authorities not to
extradite him, calling his plight a "matter of life and death."
Havel, himself a writer and former dissident who had his own
bitter experience with persecution under a totalitarian regime, believes
Salih will not be extradited to Uzbekistan but instead will be allowed to
return to Norway, which granted him political asylum in 1999.
201
"Surely a terrorist, which is what he is accused of being, would
not receive asylum in Norway," Havel said in a recent interview with
Radio Free Europe.
Salih, meanwhile, said his detention had brought back
embarrassing memories of his participation in the 1968 Soviet-led
invasion that crushed democratic reforms in what was then
Czechoslovakia.
"I'm still ashamed that I arrived here as a soldier of the Soviet
army," Salih said. "But I was not yet 19, and I had to go where they sent
me."
UZBEK DISSIDENT AVOIDING JAIL
Jail With Help From Czech Soulmate
14.12. 2001, By Peter S. GREEN, New York Times
PRAGUE, December. 13 - Two weeks in a jail cell may have
been a step up for the leader of Uzbekistan's opposition.
At least, said Muhammad Salih with a hint of a grin, it won him a
meeting with the Czech president, Vaclav Havel, and therefore brought
fresh attention to the beleaguered cause of campaigning for democracy
in one of the authoritarian states of Central Asia.
Following his release and a brief meeting this week with Mr.
Havel, who like Mr. Salih is a writer who knows the cost of fighting for
freedom against Communist oppressors, Mr. Salih expects a Czech
court to reject on Friday an Uzbek request to extradite him.
In Uzbekistan, a land he fled in 1993, he faces a 15,5-year jail
sentence imposed in absentia last year on terrorism charges connected to
bombings that killed 16 people in the capital, Tashkent, in 1999.
"The question is very simple," Mr. Salih said after his release.
"Who is the West supporting - dictators or democrats? If the Czech
Republic refuses to extradite me, it means the governments of Central
Asia cannot fool the world."
Mr. Salih was arrested last month on an international warrant
issued at Uzbekistan's request after he traveled to Prague to visit the
headquarters of Radio Free Europe. Norway, where he had been living,
had refused to execute the warrant, and Mr. Salih assumed that the
Czechs would take the same attitude.
202
Mr. Salih, who lost the 1991 presidential election to the former
Communist party boss and current incumbent, Islam Karimov, is
battling Mr. Karimov's message that Uzbekistan is under threat from
Islamic extremists. Northern Alliance troops capturing territory from the
former Taliban rulers of Afghanistan have found in at least one house
items suggesting that the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan was, as Mr.
Karimov says, determined to fashion an Islamic republic and fight a
violent struggle to do so. But Mr. Karimov has also jailed thousands of
Muslims who say they are merely moderate practitioners of their faith
and have nothing in common with the Taliban.
The United States has counted on support from Mr. Karimov in
the war against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, using a base in
Uzbekistan and reaching an agreement on cooperation in defense
matters. Mr. Salih said he is more interested in seeing the West help
genuine democracy take root in his country, arguing that it will then be
more stable than Mr. Karimov's authoritarian rule. Mr. Karimov recently
announced plans to hold a referendum in February to extend his second
five-year term to seven years.
"Human rights, freedom of thought, freedom of the individual, all
the freedoms that Western civilization is calling for are present in
Islam," said Mr. Salih.
"Something must change" in his country, Mr. Salih said, pointing
to the instability threatened by the armed Islamic guerrillas, the spread
of repression and reports of people threatened by famine in the oncefertile Fergana Valley. Analysts say that, for now, the odds are against
Mr. Salih.
"Karimov has taken advantage of the new strategic alignment to
stamp down very hard on internal dissent as he sees it," said Roy
Allison, director of the Russia and Eurasia program at the Royal
Institute for International Affairs in London.
UZBEK DISSIDENT WON'T BE EXTRADITED
19.12.2001, Eurasia Insight
Prague's Municipal Court ruled December 14 that Uzbek
dissident Muhammad Salih will not be extradited to Uzebkistan from
the Czech Republic.
203
Salih - who has asylum status in Norway - was detained in Prague
last month on an Interpol warrant, at the request of the Uzbek
authorities, who accuse him of complicity in a 1999 bombing in
Tashkent.
Salih says the charges are fabricated. Prague's Municipal Court
ruled that Salih will not be extradited because of the support expressed
on his behalf by the international community and also because
Uzbekistan -- which has already sentenced him to 15 and a half years in
prison in absentia -- has not proven it would give him a fair hearing.
In addition, the court noted that Uzbekistan and the Czech
Republic have not signed an extradition treaty.
CZECH REPUBLIC/USA: RFE NOT SURE WHY
UZBEKISTAN DOES NOT PERMIT ITS BROADCASTS
07.02.2002, BBC
Source: CTK news agency, Prague
Prague, 7 February: Sonia Winterova, the spokeswoman for the
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), said she did not know
whether Uzbekistan's decision not to allow broadcasts from there was
connected with the activities of Uzbek dissident Muhammad Salih.
RFE/RL head Thomas Dine wanted to get the permit because RFE's
signal is weak in Uzbekistan and only strong radio sets can accept it.
However, the Uzbek authorities did not grant the permit.
Last November Salih was detained on his arrival at the Prague
airport on the basis of a warrant issued for his arrest by Interpol at
Tashkent's initiative. Salih fled President Islam Karimov's regime in
Uzbekistan, where he was in early 1999 sentenced in absentia to 15.5
years in prison for his alleged participation in a terrorist attack in
Tashkent in which 16 people were killed. In Uzbekistan he could face
even death penalty, according to observers. Salih was eventually
released and returned to Norway...
Winterova said she did not know to what extent the attitude of
Uzbek authorities could have been influenced by Salih.
"I don't know if there is any connection," Winterova said. She said
that the Uzbek government had known that Salih had cooperated with
RFE/RL.
204
PART IV
PERFOPRMANCES
''I HAVE NOT REFUSED STRUGGLE...''
10.04.2003
Interview to the "OZOD OVOZ" organization (Uzbekistan)
As is known, in November of this year in capital Norway city of
Oslo the seminar on a theme "Regional development in the Central Asia
was held: an Islam, safety and human rights" on which political
scientists and experts from the West have taken part, leaders of political
opposition, human rights activists and journalists from Central Asia
republics. The leader who has taken part at this seminar of the Uzbek
political opposition, the chairman of democratic party "ÝÐÊ" ("WILL")
Muhammad Salih has given interview of the organization on protection
of a freedom of speech "OZOD OVOZ"("FREE VOICE"), recently
created in Uzbekistan. Talked the director "OZOD OVOZ" Bobomurod
Abdullaev also taken part on the given seminar. We give your attention
this conversation.
- "OZOD OVOZ": Today, making with speech at a seminar, you
once again have criticized a policy of the government of Uzbekistan,
have named it dictatorial. After such criticism of authority of
Uzbekistan and even some experts living and working in republic,
usually accuse you, that you and your party are engaged only in
faultfinding and any constructive offer on improvement of position in
the country do not give. What you can tell in reply to such accusations?
- MUHAMMAD SALIH: Both authorities, and the governmental
experts who accuse me and party "ERK" of faultfinding, perfectly
know, that party "ERK" gave to the government of the country the
offers. They also perfectly know, that today these offers of a party take
root into life and are used by authorities of the country. I shall bring to
you examples.
205
In the beginning of 1992, right after presidential elections, despite
of the begun prosecutions, "ERK" has offered to parliament alternative
variant of the Constitution of independent Uzbekistan. I have told Islam
Karimov, that I would want, this variant would as governmental variant,
that we are ready to refuse authorship. Only acceptance of this variant of
the Constitution in parliament was important for us.
But Karimov has not accepted our offer: he has not liked two
cameral parliament that was stipulated in our variant of the Constitution.
Apparently, now, in 10 years, mister Karimov has overcome this
"barrier", has guessed, that all the same the two-chamber parliament is
better offered then him unicameral. Or other example. In same 1992
"ERK" has collected the Forum of economists and has charged them to
prepare the Economic program of Uzbekistan. It should be the program
not party "ERK", and the program of our state. Instead of supporting
this initiative, president Karimov at once began unhealthy rivalry: has
created same "a forum of economists" which "sessions" began to be
broadcast on republican TV. As you can see, regarding ideas and offers
Karimov went for us, repeated our initiatives, however repeated in own
way and in the direction.
Despite of it, we continued to search for constructive forms of cooperation with the government. In March, 1992 we have created the
Forum of democratic forces of Uzbekistan where have come almost
more and more or less appreciable public organizations. It has
frightened the government. In the beginning of May of the same year
president Karimov has invited me to itself and has offered me enter the
government in an exchange of dissolution of the Democratic forum. I
have not accepted his offer not only on political, but also for the moral
reasons. Then many criticized me and have named my act "romantic",
but the next years have shown, that I have acted correctly. I have told
Karimov, that we as opposition are ready to cooperate with the
government for a way of democratization of the country. I have told:
"But we shall cooperate as OPPOSITION, instead of as a part of the
coalition government. We shall criticize you and your government if
such criticism will be necessary". I then have told him, that it will be
his authority as this act of his tolerance, he will show himself as the
leader-democrat will raise not only authority of opposition, but also it,
maybe, most of all. Such beginning would excite hope for the prompt
improvement of life in people, would inspire foreign investors, would
206
add friends on international scene. But also here Karimov you have
acted by a principle "or you are with me, or you are my enemy". So,
accusations that I and party "ERK", ostensibly, are engaged only in
criticism of authorities, naked.
- "OZOD OVOZ": You have told, that the president Islam
Karimov has not wanted be tolerant to opposition. However, Karimov
some times during sessions of parliament of the country invited
opposition to return to the country, spoke, that he is ready to work with
it. May be, the Uzbek opposition really should return to the country and
to begin work?
MUHAMMAD SALIH: Personally I do not believe these words.
May be, there will be a nursery boy who will believe such promises of
president Karimov. Yes, he not once invited leaders of national
movement "BIRLIK"("UNITY") Pulatovs to return, but they have not
returned and not going to return. May be, they too do not trust these
promises. Karimov calls to home not members of «ERK», but only
“Birlik” members, probably, because them does not count dangerous to
the mode.
"OZOD OVOZ": Why your way such offer is not provided to
party "ERK"?
MUHAMMAD SALIH: Because Karimov mode does not want
registration "ERK" as always saw in his , and in particular, in me, its
chairman, the main enemy. If to register "ERK" it is necessary to
authorize and for my returning in republic as the chairman of this party.
Present authorities of Uzbekistan never will want, that I have returned to
home. Look, how many they have made against me. For ten years of my
absence on the native land of authority of Uzbekistan have thought up
against me about ten criminal charges. On in absentia court of 2000 the
public prosecutor of republic demanded for me the fivefold death
sentence, but the court has taken out more "soft", having sentenced me
on 15 and a half of years of prison of a strict mode.
However, authorities were not limited to it: they have put in
prison my three brothers only that my brothers. Also have put in prison
of my friends, even my schoolmates who sympathized with me. And all
of them tortured to receive indications against me but "to show" them
there is nothing was. This litigation was observed by representatives of
the international human rights organizations and foreign embassies in
Tashkent. They witness that the court could not result the uniform fact
207
in the proof of accusations against me. Besides for these years the
president of Uzbekistan through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
continuously conducted a policy of pressure upon those countries where
I was. In current almost ten years were not any day that the presidential
device has overlooked about us, some times tried even to kill me. Also
the propaganda machine of authorities actively worked: to discredit me
and party(set) "ERK", on struggle all news media of republic were
thrown. Propagandists carried out assemblies in areas, schools and high
schools to finish up to people, that Muhammad Salih is a traitor of the
native land, and party "ERK" is a danger to light future Uzbekistan.
Also it would be absurd, if after all it authorities would propose party
"ERK" officially to begin work in Uzbekistan.
- "OZOD OVOZ": You have told, that Karimov mode pursued
you for ten years of independence, has put in prison your native, close
and friends. Today, after all this, do you not regret what in the beginning
of 90th years on one of sessions of parliament of the country you have
protected Islam Karimov from the then prime minister of country
Shukrullah Mirsaidov who has left with the offer to send Karimova in
resignation from a post of the president?
MUHAMMAD SALIH: No, I do not regret, because, having acted
against Mirsaidov's offer, I have acted against clans in our policy:
behind this offer there were certain clans which wanted to grasp
political authority in the country. I always hated clans in a policy as
clans are illness ruining our people, strongly braking formation of our
nation. I did not protect Karimov, I have simply acted against hypocrisy
and lie of mister Mirsaidov. It occured any way, I not knew about
preparing plot against Karimov. I, as always, intended to criticize
Karimova. On a tribune the person who at each session stamped legs
suddenly rises, protesting against my criticism to address of the
president, and starts to criticize... the president! I was struck. I have
acted against this metamorphosis, against this hypocrisy. And my
statement appeared strong impact on antikarimov coalitions, it has
helped Karimov to remain with authority.
- "OZOD OVOZ": At the end of 80th and the beginning of 90th
years when you and party "ERK" struggled for independence of
Uzbekistan, leaders of national movement "BIRLIK" asserted, all over
again it is need establish positions of democracy in republic and then
positions of independence. If you remember, they explained it that
208
without democracy independence "will present" Uzbekistan a dictatorial
mode. Whether it seems to you, what then “Birlik” leaders were right?
MUHAMMAD SALIH: No, I so do not think, though today in
Uzbekistan really dictatorial mode. Never regretted and now I do not
regret, that I was the supporter first of all independence, then already
democracies. For us, for those who struggled for freedom in Soviet
Union at the end of 80-years, freedom meant not only freedom of our
peoples from the Soviet empire, it meant as freedom of each person in a
society, a personal freedom. I think, that it is impossible to strengthen
positions of democracy when this state is politically dependent on not
democratic empire in any state. In a today's dictatorial mode isn't result
of independence, on the contrary, it's result of our passivity in struggle
preservation of this independence. In the proof of the ideas I can result
and that fact, that three Baltic countries which today by way of political
arrangement, democracies and observance of human rights have far
gone forward from Uzbekistan and the others Central Asia republics,
then, to Soviet time, as well as we, struggled first of all for
independence, instead of for democracy in structure of former Soviet
Union.
- "OZOD OVOZ": What is a place occupies Uzbekistan among
other republics of the Central Asia by way of democracy, observance of
human rights, a freedom of speech?
MUHAMMAD SALIH: Penultimate. You know, that last place
confidently occupies Turkmenistan. However, today in work of
authorities of Uzbekistan it is possible to see much more absurd things,
than in work Turkmen authorities. For example, attempt of authorities of
Uzbekistan is ridiculous to criticize former Soviet Union and all failures
to dump on it. Even more comically, when newly appeared Uzbek
"nationalists" warn us of Russian danger. This antinational mode and its
worthless officials, not seeing an output from impasse, foredoomed
itself on constant inventing "enemies of independence, the country with
the great future". The probability of sudden falling of this mode today as
is high, as was, say, five years back. It is paradoxical, but is explained:
the mode keeps exclusively on power structures, somehow it is
necessary to explain to people why the impoverishment of people
proceeds. And, when the basic part of broad masses of the beginning to
test nostalgia on the Soviet empire when by it was guaranteed even
daily bread, this number with the former USSR is started up.
209
- "OZOD OVOZ": However, today Uzbekistan has also
achievements: political stability, new buildings. In particular, today the
city of Tashkent much more has changed in comparison with the
beginning of 90th years. Unless is it not achievements?
MUHAMMAD SALIH: As to stability about which you speak, in
the beginning of 90th years I was against burial-ground stability which
is achieved by force, dictatorship, arbitrariness and infringement of
rights of people. It is artificial stability which can fail any minute. The
genuine stability happens natural, it is achieved by observance of human
rights, true democracy.
Concerning new buildings, I shall tell, that authorities of
Uzbekistan have got used to declare any new building achievement of
independence. Usually, such applications are done by chiefs of any
building trusts, but not presidents of the states, especially "the countries
with the great future". And Tashkent has changed the shape, does not
mean, that all country has changed the shape. The set of buildings, type
of Tashkent city municipality building is under construction, however to
people of the country from it at all it is better. By the way, about a
building Tashkent city municipality. Simple people hate this building
with its inhabitants because it the luxury symbolizes authority of the
vampire which sucks blood of simple people.
- "OZOD OVOZ": What have made you today for improvement
of life in Uzbekistan if you were the president of republic?
MUHAMMAD SALIH: First, I such have not made anything for
deterioration of life of my country. Certainly, I suffer, looking where
our state is gradually rolled. But I feel strange simplification because,
that I do not carry the responsibility for the tragical position created in
the country. If I was the president, I have returned to my people freedom
which has been taken away by a totalitarian mode. Freedom original,
instead of paper. Freedom both in political, and in economic life. The
state would serve people, rather the reverse. Rights of the person would
have a priority above rights of the state, and the Law, only the Law
accepted by people, decrees and decisions of the dictator, not ambitions
of one person would be the main rudder in government, instead of.
- "OZOD OVOZ": The last year, it is remembered, the presssecretary of the president of Uzbekistan Rustam Dzhumaev spoke, that
you are of political strike of nothing do, has named you even a political
corpse. What do you can tell in a refutation of such applications?
210
MUHAMMAD SALIH: Well know, similar applications are small
stepping-stones of small peoples. I do not pay to them at all attention. If
something similar would be told by president Karimov, I has proved the
opposite. Let's think, if authorities of Uzbekistan count me a political
corpse, why they do not stop the attempts to arrest or simply to kill me.
What for to hunt on "a political corpse"?! By the way, unsuccessful and
ridiculous attempt of the Uzbek authorities to arrest in Prague through
the Interpol and to deliver me to Uzbekistan has happened after that
applications. In the beginning of our conversation I spoke you, that till
now authorities of republic have not overlooked about me, at the
slightest opportunity want or to arrest and deliver to Uzbekistan or to
kill. These actions Karimov mode are also the answer to his
applications, Muhammad Salih, ostensibly, has turned in a political
corpse. Such applications mode of Karimov wants to spread to people
an idea that Muhammad Salih as the political figure, ostensibly, does
not exist any more that for ten years of persecutions he has refused
political strike. I have not refused political strike, struggle for freedom.
Inshaallah (the God will give), I shall not refuse, while my people be not
unyoked. I have refused only blasphemous idea, that I unique, who has
right on authorities in Uzbekistan. Today in this question I am more
modest, than ten years back: my task is to work, the result is will of
Allah.
- "OZOD OVOZ": In political strike it is necessary to lean on any
force. On whom you lean in the struggle?
MUHAMMAD SALIH: I shall lean on force on which in
totalitarian modes it is not accepted to lean, namely - on people.
"OZOD OVOZ": Thank you for conversation!
Oslo, Norway
UZBEK OPPOSITION LEADER SAYS ISLAMIC
FUNDAMENTALISTS NO THREAT TO TAKE OVER
By GEORGE GEDDA, AP, 29.06.2005
WASHINGTON (AP) - An Uzbek opposition leader on
Wednesday brushed aside concerns that Islamic fundamentalists would
take over Uzbekistan if the government of President Islam Karimov
collapses.
211
Muhammad Salih, who lives in exile in Europe, testified before a
joint congressional panel that specializes in human rights issues in
Europe and the former Soviet Union.
Salih is visiting the United States to speak out against the
"horrible injustices" that he says have been committed by the Karimov
government.
In prepared remarks, Salih said the May 13 massacre of antigovernment protesters in the Uzbek city of Andijan could be compared
to the one in Tiananmen Square in China in 1989. He regretted that the
"response of the world community to the events in Andijan is many
times smaller."
Uzbek authorities said 176 people died in the May 13 uprising and
deny they opened fire on unarmed civilians. Rights advocates say up to
750 people, mostly unarmed civilians, were killed when troops opened
fire on protesters. Karimov has blamed the violence on Islamic militants
and rejected U.S. and other Western calls for an independent
international inquiry.
Salih predicted the ouster of the Karimov government and said
"America and the rest of the world must understand that estimates that
Islamic fundamentalists would come to take over" are not true. He said
the fundamentalist religious groups lack popular support among Uzbeks.
Salih said the United States could promote a peaceful transition by
taking steps to encourage the legalization of the democratic opposition
in Uzbekistan and the safe return of exiled opposition leaders.
He said the United States also could be instrumental in facilitating
free and fair parliamentary and presidential elections, with opposition
participation.
Other witnesses at the hearing, including Uzbek journalist Galima
Bukharbaeva, also condemned the May 13 killings. Bukharbaeva, who
was in Andijan on that date, said she saw "the merciless authorities of
Uzbekistan open fire on their own people." The official title of the panel
is the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Rep. Christopher Smith, a New Jersey Republican and the
commission co-chair, said he is introducing this week the Central Asia
Democracy and Human Rights Act, which will set conditions for all
non-humanitarian U.S. assistance to individual governments the region.
212
Such assistance would be conditioned on whether each
government is making "substantial, sustained and demonstrable
progress" toward democratization and full respect of human rights.
06/29/05 18:47 EDT
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. The information contained
in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The
Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050629185009
990005
STATEMENT OF MUHAMMAD SALIH ANSWERING
UZBEK GOVERNMENT'S SMEAR CAMPAIGN
WASHINGTON, June 29 /PRNewswire/
- The following is a statement of Muhammad Salih answering
Uzbek government's smear campaign:
After being exiled from Uzbekistan in the early '90s, I sought
many avenues to bring democratic reforms to Uzbekistan. From 19941996, I met with many groups offering assistance in liberating
Uzbekistan. I do not deny meeting with some of these people, however I
do deny supporting them.
The Karimov regime in order to discredit me as its opponent, for
many years blamed me for the contacts with Islamic radicals. The only
witness who has testified against me during the trial of 1999 bombing in
Tashkent, Zainiddin Askarov, a member of the Islamic Movement of
Uzbekistan, on 26 November 2003 during an interview to Radio Liberty
and BBC from the Tashkent prison, publicly denied his previous
testimony, which he gave during 1999 trial. During his interview with
Radio Liberty and BBC, Zainiddin Askarov said that, Muhammad Salih
has never had any connections with their group or any other religious
groups, and that his previous statement accusing Salih in connections
with IMU and other groups were given under extreme pressure at the
direct order of Zakir Almatov, Uzbekistan Interior Minister. He publicly
apologized for the lie that he had to tell during the 1999 Tashkent trial.
Furthermore, in 1999 after the bombings in Tashkent, President
Karimov stated during the press conference that Muhammad Salih's son
213
Temur at that time was in one of Afghanistan's terrorist training camps.
Ironically, at that time my son Temur and I were in Istanbul, and gave
an interview to BBC Radio Uzbek Service. That interview is available
in BBC Radio archives. I state with full responsibility that my son
Temur Salih has never been in Afghanistan.
As for the so called evidence, i.e. photographs of my links to
terrorists, that have been circulating, the picture of me and IMU leader
Takhir Yuldash was made in 1996. At that time, the IMU did not exist
as a terrorist organization. Furthermore, Takhir Yuldash, now a well
known terrorist, met with many other politicians in his capacity as the
member of the United Tajik Opposition, which later joined the Tajik
Coalition Government. Once I realized his radical stance on issues, I
quickly distanced myself from him. I have no link and never supported
the IMU ideology, which is based on violence, as I have always been a
dedicated democrat. I condemn violence in any form.
The photograph with then President of Chechnya Zelimkhan
Yandarbiev, my former classmate at the Moscow Institute of Literature,
was made during Zelimkhan Yandarrbiev's official visit to Turkey in
1996, after he was received by the Kremlin, in Moscow, where he
signed a peace accord with President Yeltsin. I do not and never will
support the use of terrorism by any group, the 1998 bombing on the
embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, the
attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, all of these acts are
deplorable. The use of terrorism is a disdainful practice and does not
bring about true reform. I urge the world community not to believe in
the lies and old Soviet style disinformation of the Karimov regime.
SOURCE United Uzbek Democratic Coalition
06/29/2005 10:00 ET
OPPOSITION LEADERS UNITE BEHIND SALIH
WASHINGTON, June 29 /PRNewswire/ -- The key Uzbek
opposition leaders to the brutal Karmoiv regime have all united in a new
opposition group -- the United Uzbek Democratic Coalition, naming
ERK (Freedom) Party Leader, Muhammad Salih as their President.
The United Uzbek Democratic Coalition (Coalition) is comprised
of several democratic parties including, the ERK and the Democratic
214
Party of Uzbekistan. Numerous key Uzbek advocacy groups including,
the Mulk (property), the Mazlum, the Ozod Ayol (Free Women), the
Andijan, the Yosh Kuch (Youth's Power), the Organization to Defend
the Rights and Freedom of Journalists of Uzbekistan, the Organization
to Protect the Freedom of Speech in Uzbekistan, the Rights Advocacy
Group to protect the rights of prisoners, the Advocacy group to defend
the rights of Andijan refugees, the Advocacy group for Ecology
Protection, are apart of this new Coalition. Other key former
government officials, turned democratic supporters, have joined this
Coalition, such as, former Uzbek Ambassador to the Turkmenistan -Abdurashid Kadyrov; former Member of Parliament -- Adbuvahid
Pattayev; former Governor to Ferghana -- Avazhan Mukhtarov; and
former Advisor and Aid to Karimov's family -- Farhod Inogambaev.
"This is a chance for all of Uzbekistan to unite with one voice,
and declare that we will no longer live in fear. We will no longer be
oppressed. We will no longer be labeled radical fundamentalists. The
Karimov regime may act as they will but we will not be silent anymore - Uzbekistan will be free," said Farhod Inogambaev.
Muhammad Salih is in Washington, to meet with key
Congressional leaders, Administration officials, academic institutes, and
think tanks, to raise support for free and fair democratic elections in
Uzbekistan and discuss the oppressive measures being placed on the
Uzbek people.
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/business/article.adp?id=200506290953
09990010
UZBEK OPPOSITION LEADER
URGES CONTINUED US MILITARY TIES
Voice of America, 06.29.2005
An Uzbek opposition leader is calling on the United States not to
cut its military ties to Uzbekistan despite a bloody government
crackdown in that Central Asian republic last month. VOA's Deborah
Tate reports from Capitol Hill.
Muhammad Salih is an Uzbek opposition leader living in exile in
Germany. He is on his first trip to the United States in a decade to meet
with U.S. lawmakers and Bush administration officials in the wake of
the violence in Uzbekistan.
215
Mr. Salih is urging Washington to use its influence in the region
and to support opposition efforts to promote change in the former Soviet
republic, which human rights groups have condemned for its repressive
policies. He says the United States and its Western allies have done little
to respond to last month's incident in Andizhan, where he says
government troops opened fire on peaceful protests against President
Islam Karimov's authoritarian rule.
The Uzbek government says 173 people were killed when troops
put down the unrest, but opposition groups say hundreds died.
At a Helsinki Commission hearing on Capitol Hill, Mr. Salih
compared the situation to the bloody crackdown on pro-democracy
demonstrators in China's Tiananmen Square in 1989. He spoke through
an interpreter: The Andizhan massacre could be compared to
Tiananmen Square crisis, but the response from the world community to
the events in Andizhan is many times smaller.
President Bush has joined international calls for an independent
inquiry into the Andizhan crackdown, a proposal rejected by President
Karimov. The Uzbek government has since limited U.S. military use of
its Karshi-Khanabad airbase, which supports operations in neighboring
Afghanistan. That has forced the United States to temporarily shift some
flights to Kabul.
The Bush administration is reassessing its ties to the government
of President Karimov, which has been the U.S. partner in the war on
terrorism. US officials are likely asking the same questions posed
rhetorically by Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican and
chairman of the Helsinki Commission,:
How long can we work with such a leader without damaging our
own interests? Are we risking long-term losses for short-term gains?
Are we strengthening terrorism or fighting it by aligning ourselves with
President Karimov?
Human rights advocates, including Holly Cartner, executive
director of the Europe and Central Asia Division of Human Rights
Watch, say the United States should seriously consider cutting military
ties with Uzbekistan: As a first step, the administration should publicly
announce that it is suspending discussions on a long-term military base
and explore alternative basing arrangement until the Uzbek government
agrees to an international investigation. Should the Uzbek government
216
persist in its refusal to accept an international investigation, the United
States should bring to an end its post-September 11 strategic partnership
with the country, and discontinue its military presence. Some U.S.
lawmakers agree.
In a recent letter to London's Financial Times newspaper, Senator
John McCain, an Arizona Republican, said while the Bush
administration reviews its policy toward Uzbekistan, it should reassess
the U.S. presence at the Karshi-Khanabad air base and suspend any talk
of long-term basing arrangements.
But Uzbek opposition leader Salih argues otherwise, saying the
U.S. military presence has been beneficial to Uzbekistan, providing a
check on Chinese and Russian efforts to expand their influence in the
region. The presence of the U.S. military bases in Uzbekistan actually
have made a positive psychological effect in Uzbekistan because our
situation where our country is squeezed between two other great powers
with expansionist policies, China and Russia, it provided us with
security guarantees.
Mr. Salih has been denounced by Uzbek officials for having ties
to terrorism -- allegations he strongly denied:
The use of terrorism is a disdainful practice and does not bring
about true reform. I urge the world community not to believe in the lies
and old Soviet-style disinformation of the Karimov regime.
Besides Mr. Salih and a number of human rights advocates, U.S.
officials were invited to testify at the hearing but did not show up. In
addition, officials from the Uzbek embassy declined invitations to
appear before the panel.
UZBEK DISSIDENT MUHAMMAD SALİH
AT A 30 JUNE RFE/RL BRIEFING (RFE/RL)
A leading Uzbek opposition figure, Muhammad Salih, is urging
the United States and the European Union to expand their support for
democracy activists in Uzbekistan. Salih says the events in Andijon in
May demonstrate that democratization is the only way to ensure a
peaceful transition in power from the regime of President Islam
Karimov. But a U.S. State Department official says Washington does
217
not want to be seen as an agent for revolutionary change in the region
and is working with all parties to bring about gradual reforms.
Washington, 1 July 2005 (RFE/RL) -- Muhammad Salih is
seeking to use his visit to Washington to build broad-based support for
embattled democracy activists in his country.
Salih, the exiled leader of the Erk party, told a briefing at RFE/RL
on 30 June that the violent events in Andijon last month underscore the
erosion in patience of the Uzbek people toward the government.
Hundreds of mostly unarmed people are believed to have been
killed after an uprising triggered by a trial of businessmen in Andijon.
Salih said he hoped those events will move the West closer to
embracing the democracy movement in Uzbekistan as the only path
toward a stable transition of power.
"We do not ask for a lot from the West," Salih said. "We want the
West to aid the legalization of political parties in Uzbekistan. We would
like the West to aid the leaders of the opposition to function in
Uzbekistan, to ensure the conduct of fair elections in Uzbekistan and the
participation of the opposition in those elections and to ensure the
existence of a free press. This in and of itself is enough to ensure the
peaceful removal of this anti-democratic regime."
Salih announced that some key Uzbek opposition leaders have
united and formed a new group - the United Uzbek Democratic
Coalition - to press their cause. Salih was named their head.
Salih, who will be in the United States for several weeks, has held
meetings with influential members of Congress such as Ileana RosLehtinen (Republican, Florida) of the House of Representatives'
International Relations Committee. He has also met representatives of
key nongovernmental organizations that receive funding from the
United States, such as the National Democracy Institute, the
International Republican Institute, and IFES, a Washington-based
election-assistance organization. He was also due to meet with officials
of the Bush administration's National Security Council.
The State Department's deputy assistant secretary for Europe,
Eurasia, Central Asia, and the Caucasus is Matthew Bryza. He told
RFE/RL on 30 June that the United States remains intent on guiding
democratic reforms in Uzbekistan. But he made clear that Washington is
not planning to focus its interests on opposition activists despite
218
concerns over the actions of the Karimov government. Bryza said
Salih's visit to Washington was coincidental and did not reflect new ties
with the Uzbek opposition.
"We work across the board with all Uzbek people - with the
government, with the political opposition, with people in the middle.
We want to work with the entire society, as we do in the neighboring
broader Middle East," Bryza said. "And that's an enduring interest of
ours, so we haven't grown any more active in our engagement with all
Uzbekistan society. Maybe the world is paying more attention to our
engagement now."
The Bush administration has repeatedly called for an independent
international inquiry into the events in Andijon. It has also talked of
possible diplomatic measures, including action at the United Nations,
but has not made any specific threats.
Salih said in testimony on 29 June before the U.S. Helsinki
Commission, a human rights monitoring agency, that Karimov's
departure would not result in a takeover of power by fundamentalist
Muslims - an argument Karimov himself has made."We will not bring
the people out into the streets until we are sure that the Andijon events
will not be repeated."
Salih later added that his movement is dedicated to peaceful
change and will not condone acts by violent extremist organizations.
And he told the RFE/RL briefing on 29 June that he has made contacts
with Uzbeks linked to government security agencies to try to ensure that
any future demonstrations are not met with violence.
"We will not bring the people out into the streets until we are sure
that the Andijon events will not be repeated," Salih said.
Meanwhile, a co-chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission,
Congressman Christopher Smith (Republican, New Jersey), says he is
introducing this week the Central Asia Democracy and Human Rights
Act. It will aim to set conditions for all non-humanitarian U.S.
assistance, both economic and military, to individual governments in the
region. Such assistance would be conditioned on whether each
government is making "substantial, sustained and demonstrable
progress" toward democratization and full respect of human rights.
(RFE/RL's Uzbek Service Director Adolat Najimova contributed
to this report.)
219
OPPOSITION ASKS U.S. TO PUSH FOR INQUIRY
By Seth Rosen
THE WASHINGTON TIMES, July 2, 2005
The United States should end its use of a military base in
Uzbekistan if the country's authoritarian president does not agree to an
international inquiry into the mid-May shooting of hundreds of unarmed
protesters, the leading Uzbek opposition figure said during a visit to
Washington. "It is in the best interests of the United States to establish a
true democracy in Uzbekistan, even at the expense of abandoning the
military base," said Muhammad Salih, president of the newly formed
United Uzbek Democratic Coalition.
"We expect to see more pressure from the administration," Mr.
Salih said in an interview after a briefing at Radio Free Europe on
Thursday. The U.S. government has called for an independent
investigation into the violent suppression of demonstrators in the eastern
city of Andijan. Thus far, Uzbek President Islam Karimov has refused.
Uzbek authorities have said that 176 persons were killed, most of
whom were armed "terrorists," while eyewitness accounts and reports
by human rights organizations assert that 500 to 1,000 unarmed
protesters were gunned down by security forces.
Mr. Salih said he hopes that the government "massacre" and
subsequent crackdown on journalists and aid workers will encourage the
White House to more forcefully support democratization efforts.
American insistence on an outside inquiry and a greater push for
the legalization of opposition parties would help ensure the peaceful
removal of the regime and lead to a democratic revolution as in Ukraine,
Georgia and neighboring Kyrgyzstan, said Mr. Salih, who ran for
president in 1991 and has been living in exile in Europe for more than a
decade. In recent weeks Mr. Karimov has restricted U.S. access to the
Karshi-Khanabad air base, a facility near the Afghanistan border that
has been critical to combating Taliban and al Qaeda forces and
providing humanitarian assistance in the region, Pentagon officials said.
This has led to a fissure in Washington between those who would
like President Bush to take a stronger stand against the human rights
abuses of the Karimov regime and those who do not want to offend a
key ally in the war on terrorism.
220
"We feel that continued engagement is an important element of
supporting American values such as respect for human rights and
support for democracy," said Pentagon spokesman Joe Carpenter.
He added that by training Uzbek forces the United States military
is providing an avenue to promote reforms.
Though the Bush administration has called for an investigation
into the Andijan incident, it has been less vociferous in its criticism of
the Uzbek government than European Union leaders, who will suspend
a cooperation agreement with the country if Mr. Karimov does not
reconsider his position.
"How long can we support such a leader without damaging our
own interest," asked Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, during a
hearing by the Helsinki Commission human rights panel on Wednesday.
"Are we risking long-term loses for short-term gains? Are we
strengthening terrorism or fighting it by aligning ourselves with
Karimov?"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20050702-120220-4984r.htm
UZBEK OPPOSITION LEADER HOPES ANDIJAN
TRAGEDY WILL AWAKEN THE WEST
(Washington DC--July 20, 2005) Muhammad Salih, the founder
of the Democratic ERK Party of Uzbekistan, hopes that the tragic events
in Andijon will awaken the West to the need for democratization in
Uzbekistan. Salih told a recent RFE/RL audience that "Democratization
is the only way out of post-Soviet problems" for Uzbekistan and other
countries in Central Asia.
"We don't ask a lot from the West. We want the West to aid party
formation and leaders of the opposition, to ensure the conduct of fair
elections and to ensure the existence of a free press," said Salih. "This in
it of itself is enough to ensure the peaceful removal of this antidemocratic regime." According to Salih, over 1,000 people were killed
in the May 13 clash between government troops and protesters in the
city of Andijon in eastern Uzbekistan. The government's account of
events differs widely from that of witnesses and human rights monitors.
Salih maintains that some of the approximately 1,000 killed were buried
in mass graves, each containing 15 to 20 people, as well as thrown into
221
the Karasu River. Approximately 18 flights left Andijon between May
13 and 14, carrying at least 35 bodies, he said. President Karimov
contends that the chaos was sparked by armed "bandits and terrorists"
who attacked and seized a prison, releasing hundreds of inmates, and
that less than 200 people were killed.
As a leader of the democratic opposition, Salih characterized
"Andijan is a litmus test for countries who want influence in the region."
The events have turned Uzbekistan into a complex international issue.
According to Salih, Russia and China are unconditionally on the side of
Karimov, based on each country's fears -- "Russia sees Central Asia as
the source for religious extremism, while China fears a growth of
internal separatists." Salih also noted, however, that "Neither wants to
recognize that Karimov gives strength to what they fear."
Karimov, supported by Russia and China, will not agree to an
international investigation, said Salih. But neither Russia nor China can
save the regime, according to Salih, although they will do everything
within their power to do so. Salih said he believes that the people of
Uzbekistan have already turned against Karimov: "It is not comfortable
to sit on bayonets."
This, Salih said, was the reason he was in the United States,
urging the U.S. to expand its support for democracy activists in
Uzbekistan. "There is a fear that if America left, the 'dragon next door'
will put a base there." Since the U.S.-led war on terror began, according
to Salih, Karimov has been able to turn terrorism into a "natural
resource just like cotton and gold." Salih said that Karimov is
disappointed that U.S. aid levels have been low, compared to assistance
for the war on terrorism. Salih has never supported the arming of the
political opposition and believes that those who use violence and arms
in the struggle should be punished. "Our methods will be the method of
Gandhi, of peaceful resistance," said Salih. "If we were to arm
ourselves, we would be acting just like Karimov."
Karimov has continually linked the events with terrorism, a move
Salih considers baseless, claiming that Islamic radicalism has no roots in
Uzbekistan. Salih said, "For Karimov it is not religious extremism, it is
free elections he is afraid of."
If his party was to come to power or even be allowed to
participate in the Uzbek government, something he sees as dependent on
U.S. involvement, Salih believes it would know how to deal with this
222
issue through the legalization of all non-violent Islamic groups, in order
to prevent them from going underground. "I disagree with the term
'Islamic terrorism,' because Islam is based in morality and terrorism is,
by its nature, immoral," he said.
"The West must ensure that the fall of this regime is a soft one
and does not crush everything beneath it," Salih concluded.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is a private, international
communications service to Eastern and Southeastern Europe, Russia, the
Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia, funded by
the U.S. Congress through the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
http://www.rferl.org/releases/2005/07/352-200705.asp
UZBEKISTAN’S WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY
26.07.2005 Anora Mahmudova
Islam Karimov’s regime is using every weapon – guns, lies,
diplomacy – to maintain its dictatorial power, but Uzbekistan’s secular
opposition leader Muhammad Salih tells Anora Mahmudova that change
is coming.
The massacre of peaceful demonstrators in the city of Andijan,
Uzbekistan on 13 May is a tragedy without end. No closure is possible:
for the bereaved, who are still denied the truth of their loved ones’
deaths; for the survivors, many of whom have fled across the border into
Kyrgyzstan; for the Uzbek people as a whole, repressed and confined by
a government that refuses to tell them what happened; and the
democratic members of the international community, unable to establish
normal relations with a state operating by rules of violence and lies.
With each passing day it becomes more difficult to reach the truth
about the brutal Andijan killings. There are still no exact, reliable
figures of how many people died and exactly what happened. The
Uzbek government in Tashkent has rejected multiple requests for an
independent investigation; support from its strong Russian and Chinese
neighbours has even emboldened it to accuse western governments of
inciting revolts against Islam Karimov’s regime.
The “attempt to overthrow the constitutional regime” – embodied
in article 159 of Uzbekistan’s criminal code – is used as the prime legal
weapon against Uzbek dissidents; they are routinely also charged with
223
“extremist, terrorist activities” or with membership of the Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) or Hizb-u-Tahrir opposition groups.
The Uzbek government regards being a dissident as evidence of
the intention to overthrow the government, install a Taliban-like
theocracy, and breed terrorism. The circle around Islam Karimov –
helped by western-educated children of the ruling elite and expensive
PR companies – portrays any opposition as Islamist. As a result, perhaps
6-7,000 people (according to United States state department or Human
Rights Watch figures) are in jail in Uzbekistan for being dangerous
subversives, extremists, terrorists and Islamists.
An argument based on a choice between Karimov and the Taliban
can count on more than Russia’s and China’s support. The excuses
offered by some analysts after Andijan – that Karimov “needed to use
force to clamp down on terrorists” – echo persistent views of influential
westerners like Henry Kissinger, who in 2002 praised Karimov for “his
great contribution to the struggle with international terrorism”.
Karimov was at the time also an honoured guest at George W
Bush’s White House. His visit was organised by members of the
Bukharan Jewish community, most of whom had long ago left the
collapsed economy of their ancient city for Israel and the United States.
Rafael Nektalov, a native of Samarkand who edits the Bukharian Times,
confirmed to me that Bukhara’s Jews stand firmly with Karimov. When
I asked him if he considered killing 173 civilians (the figure the Uzbek
government admits to) a crime, he said the numbers do not matter:
Andijan was done in the name of “greater stability.”
Who are the Uzbek opposition?
Those who think like Rafael Nektalov believe Karimov’s claim
that the only alternative to his regime is fundamentalist Islamic rule. The
enemies named by the Uzbek regime in connection with the Andijan
uprising – the IMU and Hizb-ut-Tahrir – do not offer clear evidence to
support this argument. The IMU in the early 1990s did carry out armed
attacks on the government, but later merged with the Taliban and shared
the latter’s defeat and dispersal in November 2001.
Hizb-ut-Tahrir have never been convincingly associated with
military action. Its London headquarters deny any participation in the
Andijan uprising, and told me that they advocate creating an Islamic
caliphate solely by peaceful means.
224
Members of Hizb-ut-Tahrir arrested in Uzbekistan are almost
always charged under article 159 and tried in groups. They are routinely
accused of distributing flyers (written in Arabic) calling for a central
Asian caliphate while in possession of bullets (very rarely actual guns).
The clumsiness of many such charges is apparent: Ismail Odilov, a
human-rights activist, reported a case where the police planted leaflets
and a bullet on a blind man.
It is likely that severe economic hardship and high unemployment
in Uzbekistan may have radicalised some young men and persuaded
them to accept money to distribute leaflets. But to argue that Hizb-utTahrir in Uzbekistan has any real political following is stretching things
too far. They seem to lack any political strategy for establishing a
caliphate, and behave more like a Christian sect expecting the second
coming than a coherent organisation.
It is unclear whether the Uzbek government believes its own
propaganda about Hizb-ut-Tahrir; but the movement’s underground
status gives Karimov’s tame media the freedom to accuse at will, and
tarnish every dissident voice in Uzbekistan in the process.
Islamists and secularists
In any case, after seventy years of Soviet rule the people of
Uzbekistan are thoroughly secular in their daily lives. Men drink vodka,
women only start wearing headscarves when they marry, and few young
people attend mosques. True, many Uzbeks revere imams and the holy
Qur’an (even if they cannot read it. But there is no evidence to suggest
that, given a real choice, they would follow the “Islamists” and their
agenda against a secular democratic alternative.
Meanwhile, the secular opposition that developed in the postSoviet era has been gradually marginalised by Karimov’s severe
repression, tolerated by the “democratic” west. Its main opposition party
is Erk (Freedom), whose leader Muhammad Salih has lived in exile for
thirteen years since he lost the staged 1992 election. A few diehard
members of Erk, Birlik (Unity) and Ozod Dehkonlar (Free Farmers) are
routinely harassed, beaten, imprisoned or kept under house arrest. With
no free media it is difficult for them to communicate with people or
engage in public debate. To fill the space where public dialogue should
be, the government has created fictive “opposition” parties with legal
registration, five of whom have won parliament seats. The “antiKarimov” candidate in the most recent presidential “election” exposed
225
the farce himself by announcing on his exit from the polling station that
he had voted for … Islam Karimov.
When I met him recently, Muhammad Salih was still defiant and
hopeful; he retains some of the charisma that made him appear a
possible leader of a democratic Uzbekistan in the early 1990s. After
Andijan, a coalition of the genuine opposition parties in Uzbekistan
elected him to represent them. He told me that Erk is still strong enough
to oppose the Uzbek government:
“Our members continue to press for freedom, even when they and
their families face harsh treatment from the Karimov regime. But who is
to say whether Hizb-ut-Tahrir or the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan is
stronger than us? They are underground. They have no political
programme that would find followers in Uzbekistan. The Hizb-ut-Tahrir
programme is a pan-Arabic doctrine – a caliphate with the sharia as a
way of life and the Arabic language as a lingua franca.”
Another source of Salih’s confidence is the post-Andijan chill
between Tashkent and Washington, as the US administration begins to
realise the real nature of its Uzbek ally. Salih himself has been granted a
US visa after a decade-long refusal, and has used the opportunity to tour
the country, talking to think-tanks, meeting with US senators and some
government officials. On all occasions he has urged the US
administration to support democratic forces inside Uzbekistan.
The United States and Uzbekistan
Muhammad Salih’s request might prove difficult to implement,
for US policy is split – between the Pentagon (which wants to continue
the US’s extensive military cooperation with Uzbekistan) and the state
department (which is aware of the contradiction between promoting
“democracy” in the Muslim world and supporting Karimov).
The Karimov regime has its own cards to play. It has long
cultivated Moscow and Beijing even as it posed as the US’s firmest ally
in the region. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which includes
Russia and China as well as Uzbekistan and two other central Asian
states, has issued a statement demanding the US set a deadline for
withdrawal of its troops from Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.
The Uzbek foreign ministry has indicated that the KarshiKhanabad base, which US forces use to support operations and supply
humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, was intended only for anti-Taliban
226
combat operations. “Any other prospects for a United States military
presence in Uzbekistan were not considered by the Uzbek side'', a
ministry statement said.
The delicacy of the US’s strategic position in central Asia as it
pursues its “war on terror” is intensified by renewed fighting in
Afghanistan and evidence that the pivotal state of Uzbekistan cannot be
bent to its will.
But Islam Karimov’s political future is even more difficult. His
economic policies are a disaster, offering his people no long-term
future; his domestic strategy may lead to the creation of the very
Islamist phantom that his cynical imagination has conjured; there is
evidence that dissent is growing, most importantly inside the regime
itself. In this post-Andijan flux, the Uzbek people deserve to be offered
the option of a democratic secular government committed to their
freedom and prosperity.
www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-protest/uzbekistan_2703.jsp
227
PART V
Articles by MUHAMMAD SALIH
WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT AFGHANISTAN
2000
Now Uzbekistan is the closest American ally in the Central Asia,
where Afghanistan will be controlled from. This is an honourable status
for Karimov's regime. But, before going to the main topic, in order the
historians do not think wrong about us, we have to put correct
punctuation where it is necessary.
It is already forgotten that the tragedy in America was hidden
from Uzbek people by the official government in Tashkent. On the day
of the tragedy, Uzbek television and radio kept showing and
broadcasting petty films and joyful dancing music, only on the second
day, after the permission was “granted” from the “up”, the Uzbek
television finally gave some fragments taken from the Moscow
television. Uzbek government did not know what to do, either cry or be
glad about this terrible tragedy in America. For guidance, the
government looked at Russians and, after having seen Putin's reaction to
the tragedy, as well as the whole world's, Uzbek government decided
then to send their condolences to the American President. But this
message reached Washington even later than Iran's one, the country,
which is considered as the ferocious enemy of America.
Yes, the foreign policy in Uzbekistan was so “clear”, their targets
were so “exact”, and they “knew definitely” who were their friends.
Therefore, they lost themselves not knowing how to behave towards
America, either friendly or like an enemy. But after a while, Uzbek
government understood that overflowing anger of this Super Power was
the great means and opportunity to use this power against their enemies.
The authority might not have cried for the tragedy itself, but for
the happiness to be close to this great power. In fact, saying without an
irony, the tragedy of September 11 has become a good fortune for
228
dictators in Central Asia. For instance, the impracticable for years dream
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs came true due to this tragic event.
Everybody knows that this dream was to win America's indulgence.
Even in their most optimistic dreams, the Uzbek government could
never have expected that one day America would offer its collaboration
to Uzbekistan. One other miracle thing of this is that America would, at
its own cost, take the responsibility for destroying the armed forces of
Uzbek Islamic militants in Afghanistan. In addition, it would not be a
surprise, if the Uzbek government could consider this chaos as another
“good excuse” to increase their repression on the political opposition
and announce them the “ terrorists”. One more guess: in order to please
critics, Uzbekistan made a reverence toward the Western countries,
having included, before September 11 events, some members of
political and religious oppositions in the list of prisoners who were to be
released from jail under the president's amnesty. But after becoming an
ally of the U.S., Uzbek authorities have dropped these poor people out
of the list, and now these prisoners might be mentioning America in
their prayers.
Probably, now America isn't anymore concerned with any of the
previous problems, such as human rights violation and persecution of
the political opposition in Uzbekistan. The evidence of the said came up
in the recent court hearing in the country. This time the accused are
charged not as members of Hizbut Tahrir but as supporters of Bin
Laden. We should not forget that so far American cooperation is only in
the military field. However, after America overthrows the Taliban in
this war affair, it would be natural if America will try to stay longer in
the region, and thus, challenge the growing influence of China in the
region. One more thing: as some people may think, as there is an
American military base, there will be a flow of investments and
American investors will come to Uzbekistan. That's a delusion. No
investor will come to Uzbekistan unless the legislature is liberalised,
because everyone knows that investments must be guaranteed not by the
American but by the Uzbek laws.
There are many laws in Uzbekistan, but the investors do not trust
them. These laws do not protect American investors. But Uzbekistan got
lucky now, as it is known from Russian media, America committed
itself to paying about $ 8 billion for the rent of a military base and for
229
other support. This is a huge amount of money. In any case, this amount
is enough for Uzbekistan to be one more step away from Russia.
As for democratisation, I do not think that American military
bases will bring in democracy. If there had been such an ability of
military bases, an American ally, Saudi Arabia, would already have
been a democratic country. Every nation itself is responsible for its
destiny.
Let's now turn to the main topic – Afghanistan. Russia is seriously
concerned about possible American presence in the post-war
Afghanistan. In the war against Taliban, the main opposing groups are
becoming clear in Afghanistan. Russia supports ethnic Tajiks, while
America and Uzbekistan support an Uzbek, Abdurashid Dostim. It will
not be wrong, if we say that the competition between these two groups
has already begun. Russians insist Tajiks to conquer as much territory as
they can within a short period of time. Russian generals convince Putin
that it is important to give a help to Tajiks.
Russians do not hide their desire to set their sovereignty on as
large territory as it is possible and hand much important strategic
regions to Tajiks. For example, it is as clear as a day that Russians do
their best to have not ethnic Uzbeks, but Tajik population to be
important in Northern Afghanistan. In fact, even though Taliban is still
over there, the war has already started for the future Afghanistan.
Nobody can predict which Afghanistan will be stabile, either the postTaliban Afghanistan or Afghanistan of the further future.
European countries and America have found Zakhir Shakh for the
further future Afghanistan.
I guess that Zakhir Shakh cannot be of any help to Afghanistan.
Taking precedence, he has not any political platform in Afghanistan,
and has less chance to take under the control many of the social groups
as a leader. Of course, the help of America and other countries might
enthrone him, but after America leaves the country, Zakhir Shakh will
not be able to get down a tumult, as he has not any political authority.
The fact is that not only Zakhir Shakh can union people, but also
nobody in today Afghanistan can gather them as the whole one.
Twenty years of unceasing war disturbed peace of not only the
country but factions, and not only parties but leaders too. People will
trust any more none of the parties and their leaders. Especially if those
230
parties are formed by other nations, and that leader belongs to another
nation. Moreover, people cannot be treated (ruled by) with Government
of National Coalition. Uzbek, Hazara, Turkman and Beluj, world-known
as “ethnical minorities”, will ever be yoked neither by Pashtun nor by
somebody else. Because neither Pashtuns nor anybody else is able to
give people desired rights. And these minorities will never be disarmed
until they get their own rights. The very talk was said seven years
before; unfortunately there is a need to repeat it one more time.
Somebody says pointing to their past that these people lived
happily many years ago, and furthermore they will live such a way. But
this is a very weak argument. With such logic the first half part of
modern world should be handled to Turkey (the old Ottoman Empire)
and the second half to Russia (Former Soviet Union). Because on the
territory of these two empires more than hundred nations lived happily
for more than hundred years as well as on the territory of Afghanistan,
maybe they lived more happily. The world is changing now, not only in
“civilised” part of the world but in “non civilised” part too. 1989
became a turning point for Afghanistan at the time of changing.
That year the Russian army left Afghanistan. And that year all
Afghan people understood the reality at once. This reality was news for
Afghan people themselves. They understood at once that none of them
could live anymore under somebody's control. This people fought for
their freedom with Russians for ten years with such enthusiasm that now
they are ready to fight for even with their relatives if those try to prevent
to their freedom.
Of course, both Pashtun who governed the country and those
countries that tried to make Afghanistan an approach for their political
purposes didn't like an evolution for the people in Afghanistan. By the
time of Russian army leaving the territory, the interior war had already
started over there. This war was gorier, crueller and even less
honourable than the war with Russians.
Now, there is a time to acknowledge the truth. The reason of the
12-year bloody war in Afghanistan is an ethnic problem. The other
small problems came from this the main one. The war will continue
until this main problem is solved. Pashtuns and Pakistani government
are the first ones who refuse this truth.
They think that Afghan people must live happily under Pashtuns
and Pakistani artificial protection. Pashtuns say that there is no “ethnic
231
minority “in Afghanistan, and they are all Muslims, they belong to the
same religion, and the enemies of Afghanistan make up the ethnic
problem themselves. But if they got the government into their hands
they will never approach to the governmental post somebody of their
religion but of their nation. And those who propagate themselves as
“truly Muslims” turn into real nationalists at once.
They refuse the mother language and culture of their brothers of
the same religion, they force them to forget their native language and
learn to write and read in the language that governs in the country. All
of these have been done in the name of Islam and the Prophet
Muhammad. The truth is that both Islam and the Prophet Muhammad
forbade such force. Those who are against to this under Islam radicalism
are blamed in being Muslim and radical. Unfortunately, this system of
control not only in Afghanistan but also in other Muslim countries
continues for many years.
Let's see, will the situation be changed if not Pashtuns but Tadjiks
come to the government? Of course, it will not. Tadjiks came to the
government too but it didn't change anything. They did the same what
Pashtuns had done before, i.e. they fulfil (filled) government positions
with those of their nation. Maybe, if Uzbeks had come to the
government, it would have been the same. I do not want to say that one
nation is worth than other, quite the reverse, I want to say that the war
will never stop until there is a value for one nation than for another one.
Should it prevent, that Afghan people want to live in freedom and do not
be dependent even to their brothers? Imagine, at the end of 19 century as
European people got their national identity at once so Afghan people are
getting their identity now. What is the shame in this comparison? At
last, all governments have their destinies as well as people have. They
also have their certain period of life written onto the pages of the
history. They will not exist a day or an hour more than it is determined.
And if their existing is ended, there is nothing can hold them back. The
whole world could see this example in collapse of the Soviet Union. It
seems that once written life in the destiny of created Afghanistan by the
Great Britain and Russian Empire is to be ended. Somebody cannot like
it, but I have to say that Afghanistan is “a sick man” of the Central Asia.
If you want to help to this illness, do not try to keep it standing by
the military and economic doping. It is clear that it cannot exist as a
state in this unitary system. Once again I have to repeat my words that I
232
had said 7 years ago, even though somebody may dislike it: there is time
to build new state in these regions, it will be either Federative or a
Confederative state. Of course, the Western governments think to get
oil, gas, and other energetic approaches to the sea easily, as Afghanistan
is unitary state. But is it the reason to worry, if Afghanistan is
Federative or Confederative it will lose its transit property? It is more
reasonable to think that if there is a peace and stability in this country,
there will be no transit problems at all. Moreover, will not it be right to
look for the solutions at first, and then, to talk about benefits of other
countries if it is true that we want peace in Afghanistan? We should do
like this way, this is the true way of common sense, otherwise, we are
worried that there will be a fight between Pashtuns, Tadjiks, Uzbeks,
Hazara groups after America left the country as it was after Soviet
Army's leaving Kabul.
THEY BUILT RADIKALISM UP THEMSELVES
2001
There is no doubt that the tragedy of the twin-towers in New York
is the tragedy of the entire humanity. Those who were involved in this
crime must pay and will pay for their actions. There is a must to settle
once and for all the root of terror. I liked this expression " to settle once
and for all". Recently this expression has become a popular one. That is
true, the terrorism must be exterminated to prevent innocent people fall
a victim. But every one understands " the roots of terrorism" by his/ her
own. For instance, the president Islam Karimov, the head of Uzbeks,
understands this expression as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. But
every one, who has common sense, knows that this is not the root but its
product. The root of terrorism in Uzbekistan is the political regime. The
gardener, who takes care of those roots, waters and raises them, is Islam
Abduganievich Karimov himself. It won't be wrong, if we say that
people died and are killed in the prisons from his terror are not less than
people died in the twin-towers in New York. The difference is that there
is nobody to count those victims, to ask for responsibility and there is
nobody who is interested in to find out.
In the opinions of today's world society, the cost of the Uzbeks'
lives is cheaper; the Uzbeks' tears are more valueless. There was nothing
233
about Islamic Radicalism in 1991. Unlucky and poor man Karimov
spent 5 restless years on creation of radicalism. Could you imagine - 5
years! During five years he patriotically destroyed nongovernmental
mosques in people's eyes. During five years he arrested, made them
suffer in prisons, killed and banished those people who prayed.
He used governmental power to fight against people's religion for
five years. Muslims, especially young people, after 5-year repression
began to leave Uzbekistan and one part of them joining Tajikistan
oppositions moved into Afghanistan.
Consequently, the basis of so-called the Islamic Movement of
Uzbekistan and a list of the armed groups of the US President George
Bush consists of those young people. Therefore, I addressed the
following to the US while speaking on the BBC last night Oct.7, 2001.
"Dear American friends, while you are looking for the basis of
terrorism in Central Asia do ask people of that region too. Ask people
where the root of terrorism is, what will they say? Of course, Karimov
will point to his enemies saying " here is the root of terrorism you are
looking for". But, the basis of terrorism in Central Asia is the totalitarian
regime itself. Do not think, American friends, that you will end this by
bombing Afghanistan. You cannot come to end by disarming " The
Green Taliban", because there is another one " The Red Taliban". "The
Red Taliban" is the rest people of the former Politburo. Do not forget
them, please! " You have promised to settle once and for all the roots of
the terrorism, let it be so.
We hope that we will cut the main root of terrorism out and never
let it appear again.
WHERE IS THE SHARIAT? AND WHAT ABOUT
DEMOCRACY?
23.12. 2001
There is no need to repeat the truism that both the East and West
possess forces that have interests in maintaining a certain level of
antagonistic tension between the two sides.
Some western statesmen's with a Kipling mentality found Samuel
Huntington's theory about the “Clash of Civilizations” very much to
their liking. Those radicals of the Orient who fight for justice clutching
234
weapons in hand also liked Huntington. Especially after September 11,
when they seemed to find confirmation of their idol's prediction, and
when even one Western political leader (politician?) openly declared the
superiority of “Western over Oriental civilization.”
I don't think that his declaration really offended anyone, since it
was seemed forced/stilted and lumpen , and many people understood it
in just the way it deserved to be received. But it was disturbing that it
reflected the very mood of the majority of common people of the West.
Perhaps Huntington really is right and we really stand at the threshold of
a global war of civilizations?
I am an incorrigible optimist, but even I became disturbed by this
question. I once took as the epigraph for my book the words of Andre
Malraux which predicted the XXI Century would be one of high
morality and spirituality. But the events that unfolded in the world after
September 11 forced me to remove that epigraph from the Turkish
translation of my book. It seemed Malraux had made a mistake. Instead,
Huntington seemed to have won the competition of oracles. Now,
though, I see that things are not so bad after all.
They talk about the globalization of the world (?), globalization of
terrorism, gobalization of the struggle against terrorism, globalization of
whatever. OK, that's fine. Why, then, in this world where we are all
doomed to globalize, is there not a globalization of mutual
understanding among peoples and races? Is there not a globalization
through rapprochement of cultures and religions? Why [can't there be a
globalization of the struggle against tyranny, oppression, and injustice in
the Orient and the West?
In the West they consider that Western civilization is the best of
all civilizations, and in the East they think that the best in Western
civilization was borrowed from the East. The Orient considers that
Democracy cannot serve as the justification of man's existence on earth,
while the West is convinced that all of the Orient's misfortunes are
rooted in the Shariat, which forbids the individual's free choice.
Meanwhile, the Orient does not hold to the Shariat to the degree
that Allah commands; nor does the West observe the rules of
Democracy as demanded by democratic principles. If the two sides were
honest with each other, they would have long ago admitted that neither
of them is at all the way it wishes to appear in the other's eyes. If they
really wanted peace with each other, they would long ago have
235
“discovered” an amazing similarity between Democracy and the Shariat.
They would have delightfully discovered similarity between the
Declaration of Human Rights and the rights of the individual in Islam.
They would have seen that at the foundation of Democracy is nothing
other than Christianity, i.e., the Shariat itself, only slightly distorted by
the prejudices of scribes who came later. (??)
Not long ago, on the initiative of the American NGO “Common
Ground,” (a group of) intellectuals began to seek ways of non-violent
resolution of the conflicts in the Middle East. The method of resolving
problems in non-violent fashion was also a priority in Islam. In this
context, “Jihad” did not always mean an armed battle. The struggle
against injustice is a natural (zakonnoe) right of every individual, group,
or people. The question was merely a matter of how to use that right and
cause the least harm to those living in that place?.
When I think about the so-called “Islamic terrorists,” I recall the
words of one of the Prophet Muhammad's Sahabs (disciples). As is
known, after the Prophet's death, arguments broke out over the
Caliphate throne between Ali and Muaviya, both of whom were
disciples of the Prophet. Someone came to another one of the sahabs
who refused to take part in this argument and called on him to join the
“jihad” of one side. And in this situation each side called the other a
“criminal.” So the sahab responded, “I will not join your side or the
other because my sword has no eyes capable of determining who in this
war is a ‘criminal,' and who is not; I am afraid to kill an innocent person
before Allah.”
So here you have that very Shariat that the West fears, and which
the “Islamic terrorists” cite to their advantage or ignore. So I'm afraid
that there is little Shariat remaining in the Orient. If there were, would
they be crying out about the “need to reestablish the Shariat?” If there
were, war, poverty, and hunger would not keep befalling the people of
the Orient. There is no justice in the Orient, and where there is no justice
the Shariat cannot exist. Violence reigns in the Orient, and there is no
role for the Shariat where violence reigns.
In the Orient, bread is stolen from orphans, neighbors rob one
another, and innocent people are killed; all of this is evidence that the
Shariat has abandoned the Orient. It flees far away from your sins (and
mine) in order to be further away from the evil deeds of our dictators
who declare that they are the shadows of Allah on the earth, but govern
236
the state with the methods of Satan. The Shariat cannot exist where the
state encourages bribe-taking, graft, perjury, prostitution, drug
addiction, violence and murder of the innocent.
In turn, the West must also look in both, so that its highly praised
Democracy not run far away. From the duplicity of a policy of
“developed” powers, from double standards and brutality to the weak in
order to please “national interests,” and from the passion to be the
richest, the very first, the greatest…
It's necessary to stop creating enemies in order to blame the
enemy for all one's misfortunes, and always to see oneself as the victim.
After all, your enemy also sees himself as the victim. So who is
right? It's possible to simplify this very complex life. One can live as a
human being .
Do you know how I make my life a bit easier in exile? With
maxims that I made up for myself. For example, when I begin to rebel
against my fate, I crush my rebellion with the help of a thought like this:
“Evil against you will end only when you cease entirely to resemble the
villain who is committing evil against you.”
This really is true: Destroy all the destructive evil qualities of your
enemy inside you and you will make yourself secure from that evil.
AFTER ANNOUNCED IN ADVANCE TRIUMPH OF THE
DICTATOR
The United States of America didn't send their representatives to
Tashkent to observe the Referendum of prolonging President Karimov's
authority. Most of supporters of democracy accepted this decision of the
parliament with satisfaction, however all did understand that at other
time the reaction of America would have been rather abruptly to this
next show of the Dictator of Uzbekistan. Even here we can find the
answer to the question why did Karimov decide to make this farce this
year but not in a year or two? Uzbek President considered this year most
suitable for Referendum because nobody would guarantee him
friendship with America in a year or two. America cannot send its
observers to Referendum, but it is not impossible not to send its senators
to thank Karimov for his corporation in antiterroristic company.
Karimov wasn't offended at all; on the contrary, he accepted this with
the same satisfaction as the supporters.
237
I know Karimov very well not because I was his opponent at the
President's election, I know him as a character of a communistic leader.
This character has very strong sense of precaution. We have a saying
about a person like him: " He scratches in advance that place which is
not itching yet."
Fear before general elections
President Karimov touching upon the theme of the Referendum
acknowledged, "Elections in every five years can result the
destabilization of society while the elections in seven years can decrease
this risk." Exactly, general elections were always dangerous for
Karimov. Having all control over electors and over the process of
voting, having all opportunities to fake results of election - Karimov is
still afraid of them. Within 13 years of his governing he held the only
general election for the presidential position in 1991. This election was
the first and the last mistake of Karimov and after that he didn't permit
Opposition either to the Presidential or Parliament elections. Because he
saw clearly, that even though during elections that were under the
control of the government the Opposition could penetrate into the
authority, and this presented serious threat to his monopolistic
dictatorship. In 1992 there were only 5 percents of the Opposition in the
Parliament and this number of people made such propaganda among
deputies that in fall session the Parliament was about overthrowing
Karimov in a kind way. Karimov did not forget this cruel lesson and still
he is alive he will never allow a secular Opposition to participate in
elections. He will deliberately promote drifting of Islamic Opposition in
order to have constant help of the USA , and to justify his repressive
policy against secular opposition.
At general elections the Islamic Opposition doesn't threaten his
governing, the only Democratic Opposition can threaten his power, he
could see it in 1991. That's way, Karimov is panicky afraid of any
election - so much he doesn't believe in his power, so much the potential
of The Democratic Opposition frightens him.
What is there under the cover of " two dates of seven years"?
Another question that appears because of Karimov's Referendum
is a question about the continuing the date of presidential position.
People are wondering and asking, why does Karimov need at once so
many dates which each of them is seven years total? Can anybody
prevent Karimov under such monopolistic governing to change any law,
238
and Parliament, and even Constitution at any time he wants? Was it
worth hurrying? The only answer to this question can be the following:
Karimov had to hurry so that nobody could manage to prosecute him
while he is alive for crimes committed by him. These " two dates of
seven years each" will be enough even for his hypothetic "successor" in
a case of his obliged resignation. Not to understand this situation is
impossible. That's way, questions asked for this case sound like sly.
Both America and European Union know very well what is covered
under this Referendum.
WHY IS IT TOO HARD TO ESTABLISH THE
CALIPHATE IN CENTRAL ASIA ?
2001
The following goals are in the program of ERK party: to abolish a
dictatorship of one person, to place constitutional order in the country,
to make changes in current constitution, to provide a division of
government branches, to start creating democratic institutions, i.e. to
start creating a new government, that will be called - State of Law . In
economy, we have objectives in our program such as to establish a basis
for creating middle class in a society without which there is no
democracy, to encourage middle and small business, to send the
economical recourses into this channel, and finally to pursue agricultural
reform which includes partial denationalization of the land.
Regional policy of the party "ERK" foresees the future of the
Central Asian Republics ' integration as in economical so in cultural
meaning. Necessity of integration does not mean either political or
ideological purpose, yet it dictates by the history of the region, which
exists within the ethnical-cultural-economical similarity of people living
here. Under the entire propaganda of atheism, the Soviet Union ,
nevertheless, was trying to present to the world as if Soviet citizens
were free to choose either atheism or religion. That is why this so-called
pursuit gave people of Soviets minimum possibilities to have their
religious needs come true, i.e., to go to the churches and mosques.
Needless to say, it was impossible for highly religious soviet people to
realize their religious practices. Accordingly, the repressions against
people were on the political basis, not on the religious grounds. After
239
"Khrushchev's less oppressive times (thaw) (end of 60s and beginning
of 70s), the religious understanding was increased noticeably in the
Central Asia , especially in the small towns of Uzbekistan where the
religions were historically strong.
Dozens of young men who were studied Koran and rules of
Shariat (Knowledge of Islamic Law) at home secretly (by their parents)
began to organize their own secret mini- schools - " cells", where they
started to teach their knowledge to their children, to the children of their
relatives and friends. They only taught to the children that they know
their families were known because they were afraid of the possibility of
outflow of information about secret activities of religious movement.
Even though they attempted to keep things under control and secretive "
the outflow " took place. In particular, many young teachers of Koran
found themselves in dead weight of a quite repression " stagnation era"
in the end of 70s. These people leaving the prison and not young
anymore found out Perestroika and Glasnost in their neighborhood,
which were giving a noticeable freedom to the religious activity.
The process of Perestroika and Glasnost bought out these socalled underground people in-charge of religious groups. Thus, the
repressions against them were started again after 1992 and they were
more dreadful than repressions during the Soviet period.
At the second half of 20 th century, we can see the noticeable
growth of Islam as a religion all over the world. The influence of this
global social process could not help apparent influence on Muslim
regions of Soviet Union. On the other hand, long lasting suppression of
people's religious needs furthered the growth of religious movements
and interest to religion in a certain way. In addition, the political
independence of Central Asian republics increased the hopes of
religious freedom for the believers of the region.
But Karimov's regime started destruction of all Muslims without
any exceptions. Moreover, Karimov today wages a war against them
with a strong support from the West. Karimov intensifying the
repression against peaceful Muslims turned them into the aggressive
radicals, and now " shouts up" to the world about the danger which is
created by him: radicalism. We call it not ‘ Islamic radicalism ' but "
IslamKarimov's fundamentalism ".
At the beginning of 90s, there was a possibility to start gradual
integration of these religious groups into the democratic channels of
240
political life in the country. Yet, regime did not use its chances; all
further events proved that the root causes for non-stability in the Central
Asia were the tyrannical regimes themselves.
There will be no real stability in the Central Asia until all these
despotic regimes leave the political arena. Recently, " Karimov's
stability " is like an analogy to the stability in cemetery, where the life is
stagnated. Repressions can only increase the hatred of the society to
these regimes, and force people convulsively to look for other
alternatives of brutal regimes.
Sometimes not good ones: if only not this regime, if only not this
merciless, let Caliphate take place, let Taliban govern, if only we can
rescue from this Tyrant. This simple logic is in the minds of common
Muslims. This is a dangerous symptom for Uzbekistan , and not only for
Uzbekistan but all countries in the Region..
So-called Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), I repeat, is a
product of a policy of Karimov's regime. Such movement did not exist
until 1996. Mass repressions increased a number of radical groups.
In 1992, in Uzbekistan , all national-democratic oppositions,
appeared on political arena after Gorbachev's Perestroika and Glasnost,
were petrified under cruel repressions of government. Groups such as
IMU and " Hizbut - Tahrir" started claiming to replace legal political
parties in public life. (Here I have to say my negative attitude to
inhuman repressions realized by dictators of Central Asia against
members of " Hizbut- Tahrir". Members of this movement who are in
the prisons as well as members of other political organizations should be
recognized as " political prisoners" but not as religious.)
The main idea of " Hizbut Tahrir" is to create Islamic-Caliphate
Government. Actually, this group follows pan Arabic ideas. (Although,
take into consideration the thesis that the governmental language of
future Caliphate is going to be Arabian.) If our Turkestani Muslims had
gone deep into the program's thesis they would have seen this
peculiarity at once. But idea of creation "Lawful government" is so
persuasive for our tired from brutality of post-communistic regime
Muslims, that they have no time to see peculiarities of "Hizbut Tahrir".
Yes, a government maybe either democratic or theocratic. It is
impossible to blame people for their dreams to establish any of these
governments. But we must discuss the reality of such dream.
241
I am asking: Do the followers of Caliphate know about destiny of
three caliphs from four of them existing in epoch of " Caliph Rashidin"
that after Abu Bakr Siddik's (r.a.) leadership all other three caliphs Umar (r.a), and Usmon (r.a.), and Ali (r.a.) were killed by the Muslims
themselves and this occurred in the Golden Century of Islam?
In one of the conversations with Abu Zar (r.a.) the Prophet
Muhammad tells about exciting and future provocations against Islam.
He names such kinds of provocations as "dekhma", "vakhma",
"summun", "bukmun", and "umyun". The provocation "dekhma"
happened between Ali (r.a.) and Muaviya (r.a.). The other provocations,
in the Prophet's opinion, will happen in the future.
I want to say, that the aspirations to found the unity of Muslims
under the only banner or to establish the only state is a product of
illusion or swindle. I call for sensibility those who persuade the idea of
Caliphate in our region without knowing the point of Caliphate. I object
them. My objections are based on the documents and the Hadithes of the
Prophet Muhammad.
Of course, the congealed people in the swamp of the moral apathy
and injustice see that 12 years old girls become prostitutions, and boys
from 10 years old become drug addicts, aspiring to change this situation
are ready to follow any idea. If this mercenary propagandist has taken
up arms with the name of Allah, yet this action still more attracts
people. The slogan seems logical to people: "You wanted to build
democratic government but you could not; we will change a society by
the help of Allah's rules, it has happened that rules written by people are
not perfect, but rules of Allah are perfect". It is difficult for Muslims to
resist such propaganda. Such appeal tells upon people's heart waking up
their feelings that were hidden for a long time. Because the Moral
Factor in this historical situation where our people found themselves in
is more important than political, even more than economical factors. But
the slogan of "Caliphate government " does not have anything common
with aspiration of people to the Moral Source, but it does carry the
political purpose.
Who speaks about creation of "Caliphate" definitely knows about
impossibility to realize this idea. They talk about that publicly: "None of
those governments built before were not Islamic ones, but the only
Caliphate which we are going to build will be Islamic government". It
means that during 1400 years none of Muslims governors, none of the
242
people could found Islamic government, but "Hizbut Tahrir" will found
such easily. How can such statement be taken seriously?!
The Hadithes evidence that Allah foreseen the division of
Muslims into 73 groups. There is a Hadith where the Prophet prayed
Allah to give the unity to his further Muslims; and not to divide them as
He did with Jews and Christians, but Allah did not accept his request.
He says: "He has the power that he should send on you chastisement
from above you or beneath of your feet, or that He should throw you
into confusion, making you of different parties; and make some of you
taste the fighting of others." (Koran, Surah VI: 65).
One example form life: in 1998 I found myself in Switzerland and
met friends from Turkish Diaspora. I became acquainted with their
mode of life, visited some cultural centers, and some mosques. I got
acquainted with four Muslims communities of one Diaspora in one
small town. However, all of them were from one sect - "Ekhli Sunnah ",
each of them had their separate mosques, own rules, they talked about
their own problems. People gather in the community maximally close
by the level of their knowledge and by the belief understanding. If to
unite these four communities into one and to make them pray in one
mosque so it would be impossible to avoid the conflict. It is evident that
one thing which is acceptable in one community is impossible and
unbelievable in another community. Let's say, that smoking in not
considered as a sin in one community, it is quite possible for them "makruh", but for other community smoking is considered "haram" forbidden pleasure, and they treat those who smoke with animosity. If to
unite them, there would be a serious war just because of this nonsense
reason. Thus, the autonomy of Muslims communities is not a factor of "
Islam Division", vise versa; it serves to harmonious existing of Muslims
and their unity. Only by this way, they can have possibility to realize
their duties maximally in the face of Allah.
Everything that I told you is a panorama of a life within one sect
of Islam, i.e. within Sunnis. Yet, if you try to unite other sects in one, so
the situation will be complicated and bring serious problems. I deeply
believe, that all sects of Islam are the different ways leading to one
purpose - closeness to Allah.
At the end I want to say some words about terror. None of ideas,
either national or more religious can force Muslim to terror or to
accompany him, even though, the fight against governmental terror
243
which pursue totalitarian regimes like Karimov's. Because a terror is
amoral. A believer cannot be amoral. The terror is not acceptable in
Islam.
THE MOST EXPENSIVE STABILITY IN THE WORLD
When big countries start some movements in their "strategic
regions", a string of propaganda guides these countries to which as
shells stick to the body of the ship so propagandist expenses stick to it.
These expenses more prevent to this propaganda than do help. There are
a lot of such expenses in partnership between America and Uzbekistan .
For example, recently during one of the broadcasts on the radio "
Liberty " two " public figures" - one is Moscow and another is Uzbek after certain dose of " intellectual ecstasy" came to the point that
Referendum recently held in Uzbekistan was exactly what Uzbekistani
people is worth. This people is worth the regime of Karimov, because
people has such mentality and there is no need to worry about abuse of
human rights, Uzbekistan is not the last hole on the democratic map and
so on. There is no doubt that Karimov after had heard these
"conclusions" satisfied in his own wisdom, because this is exactly what
he has been talking about since 1989. " Mentality" of Uzbek people does
not stand such things as democracy and human rights, people hates
western nonsense such as speech freedom and opposition. Karimov, as
he said himself, told "directly, like a gentleman" about above to
representatives of the States who are antiterroristic partners of Karimov.
Karimov is so much sure in stable and forgivable friendship of the
States that during the day of Referendum before leaving an electoral
district he told openly: "The process of transition of Uzbekistan from
totalitarian, administrative-commanding system to democracy will be
lasting long, it is unknown how long it will take and, in general, if this
process will finish at all."
Karimov knew what he was talking about. Very soon after a week
after his statement the sources of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
America reported to the press that the USA was not going to support
dissidents. However, nobody asked the USA for support of dissidents.
The only discussed thing was the conditions of economical support. The
public was worried about possible double standards in Central Asian
policy of the USA . In Balkans the economical and the political pressure
244
of West gave is immediate results and democratic process became its
developing very quickly. Well, but there was a war and the situation was
much worse than in Central Asia . Why is it impossible to use this
policy of the pressure to the dictatorial regime in Central Asia ?
Didn't Uzbekistan sign document of the Organization for Security
and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) as it did Serbia and Croatia ? Or
does West also think that "mentality "of Uzbek is not ready to admit a
Democratic reform? If it is so, why then Uzbekistan was given to sign
international documents that require exactly " democratic mentality"?
It is not logical, gentlemen. It is double standards applied to us,
and it deeply hurts us. I assume you that the "mentality " of Uzbek
people is ready to democracy, the "mentality" of Karimov and his
supporters are not ready for that.
Aphorisms such as " every people are worth its governor" must
not determine governmental policy of West in Central Asia . Are people
responsible for all crimes of tyrant against people? It sounds originally,
but not justice. All tyrants in the world, even Saddam, can be justified
by this excuse. In 1993 Adolph Hitler became a governor in Germany .
Tell me, lovers of "mentality", did Hitler become a governor just
because the mentality of German people was ready to fascism? Or did
German people have not as enough traditions as Uzbek people? And
were not they "ready to democracy"? Well, what do you say about
Mussolini, then? Were Italian people ready for this dictator? Did Italian
people have not democratic traditions to prevent coming this dictator?
Intellectual bootlickers (from Russia and Western countries) of
Karimov happily describe how Uzbeks friendly elected their Dictator.
However, according to the true sources, at referendum only one
person from the whole family voted for, yet there are at least three
voters in each Uzbek family. It means that from 90 percent of votes only
30 percent are valid. It is true, of course, if does not take into
consideration a garbled version of counted votes.
Without exaggeration we can say that Uzbek Referendum was an
exam not only for Karimov but also for the democratic West. The time
will show us whether the West passed this exam successfully or did it
fail. One thing is clear, the aspiration of the USA will be limited in the
Central Asia only within military-economical limits, not require
political reforms from local dictators that will lead to a good possibility
245
of strengthening authorial regimes. Moreover, it will lead to a greatest
hatred of people to these regimes, therefore, it will result the
destabilization in regions.
Of course, this stability can be suppressed by force as it has been
doing by now in our country. But this stability in Uzbekistan is very
expensive, more expensive than ever in the world. I don't know how
much of national budget is used for keeping social stability; let's say in
America . But it is known that Uzbekistan spends for that almost half of
its budget. During last ten years Karimov has increased regular staff of
military. This military staff is considered as the most comfortably off,
the most satisfied class in our society. Besides that, in big cities every
fifth person gets certain amount of money for denunciation against a
neighbor or even neighbors. Nobody without consent of local
community can come to " mahalla" (neighborhood) to visit someone. If
even one comes, after his/her leaving people who meet him/her are
asked for summons. Telling in one word, the enormous resources are
spent for keeping cemetery like silent in the society.
I am asking: wouldn't it be better to spend these resources for
welfare of country - for nongovernmental section of economy, for
radical rebuilding of agriculture, industry and for building democratic
institutes? We need this so that the real stability finally will be placed in
our country. The stability, which Uzbek people has been missing for a
long time. The stability of the life but not of a cemetery. I am asking my
western friends: why are you afraid to frighten away Karimov and you
are not afraid of being a reason for a deepening social-economical and
political crisis in our region? Why do think that Karimov in Uzbekistan
is everything , and nothing is all the rest ? Don't you see that these
dictators need you more than you need them?
I am sure that everything will be changed only than when the
West considers these totalitarian leaders as everything.
2002
AMERICA'S SHADY ALLY AGAINST TERROR
New York Times, 11.03.2002
By MUHAMMAD SALIH / OSLO
When the Soviet Union fell apart, most of its provincial
Communist dictators did not. Instead, they jumped to join those who
246
had been, moments before, their "nationalist enemies" - and adopted
nationalist slogans as their own.
These former first secretaries of their regional Communist parties
became presidents and set about denigrating their once dear party. I
watched this happen in Uzbekistan with Islam Karimov, who is still,
remarkably, the Uzbek president, and will be visiting Washington this
week. He just secured an extra two years on his term - it will now
stretch to 2007. Initially, the Western powers must have been a bit
astonished by the transformation of first secretaries into presidents. But
they supported these "newly independent states," as they were called,
and the dictators who ruled in them. Twelve years have passed, but the
undemocratic, human-rights-abusing, one-party states have not changed
much at all, and neither has Western support for them. Something has
always happened - worries over the security of ex-Soviet nuclear
materials, a desire to avoid antagonizing Russia, China or another power
- that somehow justifies this situation. Western politicians have always
had convenient excuses for supporting these governments. The dictators
of the independent states have been lucky. Their last case of luck came
on Sept. 11. On that day, in an instant, something happened that the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Uzbekistan had been unable to
accomplish in over a decade. Just 15 days before this tragedy, Mr.
Karimov had promised that he would grant an amnesty that would have
released thousands of citizens who had been convicted of various
crimes. Among those eligible were at least 1,000 political prisoners,
promised amnesty in exchange for repentance. This was an effort by Mr.
Karimov to win the good will of the United States, which otherwise
tended to issue reports condemning his government's repression.
America did not appear to notice this gesture of mercy.
But by late September such promises of freedom became
unnecessary. The superpower had arrived in Tashkent with good will
and much else. This last case of luck was so reat that Mr. Karimov,
being singled out by the United States as an ally in the war against
terrorism, began to feel that he was the leader not only of Uzbekistan
but of all Central Asia. Today the Kazakh, Kyrgyz and Tajik leaders
look at him with envy.
The Russian political elite is watching the Uzbek leader with
alarm, warning Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, that Mr. Karimov,
always somewhat querulous in his dealings with Moscow, is drifting
247
toward a pro-American stance. perhaps even the Americans think this is
true. But in fact, the opposite is occurring. Uzbekistan is drifting toward
an anti-American stance, if one understands"American" as implying
democracy, human rights and the struggle against state-sponsored terror.
After Sept. 11, Mr. Karimov reversed his amnesty for some
political prisoners who had originally been scheduled for release.
(About 800 members of a Muslim organization, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, were
freed, only to be put under constant surveillance. Secular dissidents
remain in prison.) He understood that the political impetus for amnesty
had diminished greatly. America's warm relations with Karimov have,
in a way, increased repression in Uzbekistan, there being no need now
to conform to international human rights standards. The authorities in
Uzbekistan have essentially untied the militia's hands. If militiamen kill
citizens, they can simply fill out documents claiming the victim was a
terrorist, or even a follower of Osama bin Laden. No civilian has any
ability to question this characterization. As for Uzbekistan's efforts on
the democracy front, Mr. Karimov held a referendum, in 1995, to avoid
an election. According to official results 99.8 percent of voters endorsed
this nonelection idea wholeheartedly. Mr. Karimov on re-election in
2000 with a 92 percent favorable vote. (Even his leading opponent voted
for him, and said so.) Now he has secured by referendum an extra two
years after his term ends in 2005, just for asking. The positive vote was
91.8 percent. The State Department wisely decided not to monitor this
last referendum, because the mere act of monitoring might confer on it
some legitimacy. More than once, America has had to tear down what it
has helped create. That was recently the case, to a degree, in
Afghanistan - America helped sustain a Muslim insurgency, and now
has crushed a Muslim insurgency, the Taliban, that turned into a
government. It may prove to be the case in Uzbekistan, which has been
raised by its antiterror alliance with America into the pre-eminent
Central Asian power. Uzbekistan is located in the very center of a
highly explosive and densely populated region where almost 60 million
people live, more than a third of them in Uzbekistan itself. The Karimov
government's example of repression is likely to be infectious in a
neighborhood of states that have little tradition of democracy or human
rights. Mr. Karimov shows them that it is possible to gain prestige and
money and extend your rule on a whim - and still gain American
support in the post-terrorism world.
248
1.Muhammad Salih is the leader of the Erk (Freedom) Party of
Uzbekistan. He lives in exile.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/11/opinion/11SALI.html
LETTER FROM MAMADALI MAKHMUDOV
Letter from Mamadali Makhmudov, written from Chirchik prison,
to Mukhammad Salih, Unofficial translation by Human Rights Watch
Dear Friend,
You know the main events, so I will be brief: in the Navoi city
prison I saw Rashid [Rashid Begzhan, M. Salih's brother and
Makhmudov's codefendant], and we met several times in secret. He was
tortured all the time. All the time. I tried to help him, although I myself
needed help. I could have been killed on the slightest of pretexts. So I
had to be careful. They endlessly, constantly tortured those prisoners
who had been convicted on Article 159 – that is, us. [Article 159:
Infringement of the Constitutional Order of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
Part I refers to public appeals to unconstitutionally change the existing
governmental system, to seize power or remove from office legally
elected or appointed representatives, or to unconstitutionally disrupt the
territorial unity of the Republic of Uzbekistan, as well as distribution of
material with such content. Part II refers to violent actions aimed at
impeding the legal functioning of the constitutional authorities or
replacing them with parallel structures not provided for in the
Constitution, as well as failure to dissolve structures of power
established outside the order established by the Constitution.]
From early morning to evening they made us crawl, run, sing the
national anthem; they threw us into the psych ward, etc. There were
serial murderers [at the Navoi prison] who had killed six people apiece,
but they were barely mistreated.
Rashid’s arms, legs and face were chapped. He withered and
shrank in front of my eyes. I lost consciousness twice in the courtyard
and later the doctors said, “It’s rare that anyone in that condition
survives.” But God apparently did not want my death, because I am still
breathing. I wrote a series of poems… I wrote a novel, unfinished,
which was smuggled to the outside… I am now writing a novel in verse.
249
On the night of 23 April 2001 they dragged me, like wild beasts,
to the attendant’s room.
There, sitting sadly in the corner, a ghost of his former self, was
Mukhammad [Mukhammad Begzhan, M. Salih's brother and another of
Makhmudov's codefendants]. When I saw him, I wanted to cry. We
weren’t allowed to greet each other. We nodded by way of greeting. Our
escorts began to shout and scold us [for acknowledging each other].
Mukhammad alone was brought over from Kiziltepa. On purpose.
Then the two of us, yes, just the two of us, were transported to the
train by a huge number of cops, armed to the teeth, complete with guard
dogs. As I got on the train, I was hit on the head by a truncheon.
Everything went dark.
There were 80 prisoners arrested on Article 159 on the train. All
of them were young men. There was nowhere to sit. There was no
water. Our clothes became wet. There was no toilet, we defecated into
polyethylene bags. Stench. It was impossible to breathe.
And still they hit us. And yelled, “Enemies of the people! Traitors
of the homeland!” And so, under a rain of truncheon-beatings and
insults, we arrived at the Jaslyk death camp on 24 April.
Jaslyk is located 380 kilometers away from Nukus, on Barsa
Kelmes island. Although they call it a “Zone” [camp], it’s a closed
colony, there are enclosed prison cells there.
I lost all my writings, my glasses, pen, soap, toothbrush, clothing
there… As we entered the “zone”, the cops fell upon us. They had
truncheons, steel pipes… they began to hammer us. We lay scattered,
everywhere blood, blood. Some had their legs broken, some had their
skulls fractured, some were just outright killed. A constant wailing
surrounded us. I was hit with a steel pipe and lost consciousness.
When I came to, I saw that I was lying naked on the second floor
[of the prison]. And I thought of Mukhammad, of whether he was alive?
Then they dragged us to the cells, still naked. I didn’t see
Mukhammad. I kept worrying about him.
The cell doors were 30-40 cm thick, and inside the cell was a
three-layer steel grate. You had to get permission to go to the toilet.
We weren’t allowed to lift our heads. If we did, we’d be beaten to
a pulp. They beat us anyway. They beat us for no reason. They kicked
us and yelled, “Traitor to the homeland, Enemy of the people!”
250
They used force to make us adopt the 13 positions. (It’s said that
they’re based on Mossad techniques).
The first position is: The prisoners must declaim in a chorus,
“Assalomu alaiku, citizen chief, we love the President of Uzbekistan
and the Uzbek people from the bottom of our hearts, we ask forgiveness
of the President of Uzbekistan and the Uzbek people. Thank you to the
Chief, food is good, health is good, everything is great!
We had to repeat this refrain 500 times a day. Then we had to sing
anthems in Uzbek and Karakalpak, hundreds of times!
Then we were forced to crawl naked under the couches, it was
dusty and noisy in the cells.
Boys fell like flies, some fainted. I myself almost died there
several times. Dilmurod Umarov died in my cell, a college-educated boy
who spoke English well. His young wife in Ferghana is now a widow
and his daughter an orphan.
Kamilzhan Makhmud from Margelan died, he was also young.
His young wife is now a widow in Margelan.
The food we were given was leftovers, one loaf of bread for six
people. And we were fed under the truncheon, as well.
In my opinion, 80-90 percent of the prisoners there suffered from
tuberculosis. And I think that everyone’s insides were rotting.
I only know the situation in one cell. Cries and the thwacking of
the truncheon emanated from other cells as well. You can’t fit all of this
into one book.
Two days after our arrival in Jaslyk, the deputy director of the
prison, Ravshan Sarikov, called for me. They dragged me to him,
kicking me all the way. I was forced onto my knees to greet him.
He asked me who “organized the bombings of 16 February.”
I said that Mukhammad Salih didn’t have anything to do with the
bombings. He asked about Russian intelligence, I said I didn’t know
anything about that. I said that the time would come when the main
perpetrator of the bombings would be found, but many innocent people
had already died in the meantime.
He softened his interrogation a bit. He asked a lot about MS
[Mukhammad Salih]. I said that he was a true patriot. I told him, “Either
you shoot me or I kill myself.” My interlocutor fell silent. After that I
251
was transferred to “strict regime” [the third most severe type of
imprisonment; less severe only than “prison regime”]. It is possible that
I was eased up on slightly.
The cops said, “This is the Titanic, no one escapes from here
alive,” and beat us constantly. Nothing, not even a sliver, penetrated into
the cells. In two months, I lost 24 kilograms. Then, apparently under
pressure from the international community and my relatives’ rallying to
my cause, I was transported to Navoi . In the train on the way to Navoi,
a young boy named Abdulkarim died, and I held him/supported him .
We traveled from Jaslyk to Navoi in a Black Maria, a closed car. With
people suffering from tuberculosis. Many fell down. They drank water
from one cup, it was hot, June, I would wring out my shirt and it would
become wet again.
I thought, who are these people, who gave birth to them? A dog or
a wolf? A snake or a fox? I can’t believe that anyone could be capable
of such brutality. No one knows how many people have died in Jaslyk.
Many die every day at the sanitarium…
The Russian/Chechen, Afghan, Israeli/Palestinian or Bosnian wars
are child’s play compared to Jaslyk.
“Stability”, “Peace”, all of that is a lie. When will this mob
become human? The police, the Federal Security Service, and other
power structures are holding [onto control].
Everyone had it up to here long ago. The people are hungry and
naked. Science, agriculture have died out. There are no salaries.
Depravity is everywhere. Everything – riches, the press, radio and
television, publications – everything serves one person only.
In Navoi I saw Rashid [M. Salih's brother]. I cried. In the toilet I
gave him rolling tobacco, gave him bread.
The attitude toward me changed here. I was put in the medical
unit. Rashid and Samandar Kokanov [ERK party member] secretly
visited me. When they were discovered, they were forbidden from
further visits. Then Rashid was shipped off to Kiziltepe. It might be
easier there, I thought.
I lay in the hospital for 16 days. They put me on an IV, once I lost
consciousness and fell down, they thought I was dying, but God gave
me life and I opened my eyes again.
There, before my eyes, five prisoners died in six days.
252
Before departing for Jaslyk, 120 prisoners with tuberculosis were
transferred from the 36 th zone to the 46 th zone and “broken,” there
was blood everywhere. People with broken arms and legs slithered like
snakes along the ground. And 11 prisoners were beaten to death in front
of my eyes. Five were raped. One boy from Urchensk, Botir Kozokov,
had his face, mouth, and ears ripped off, his teeth pulled out, his arms
and legs broken. The boy turned out to be strong. And all of this
happened in front of me. All the prisoners from the 46 th zone were
witnesses to this. [Botir] died after I left Jaslyk.
Sixteen days later, I was sent to the Sangorod [sanitarium]. I was
in bad shape. But I still thought about he who had been left behind in
Jaslyk, that is, Mukhammad…
I was put onto the train with a prisoner named Zhalaliddin, who
had AIDS. People drank from the same cup as him. I wasn’t told that he
had AIDS, and he himself most likely didn’t know it. He was later
placed with the 100 [prisoners] who had AIDS.
In Sangorod they treated me a bit better. I thought perhaps this
was due to the influence of foreign friends.
Then I was again sent to the 46 th zone, to Navoi.
In Navoi, Mukhammad (Salih’s brother) and I were in the same
zone. Never in my life had I seen such a wonderful person. We talked
non-stop. I helped Mukhammad as best I could.
395 prisoners lived in one barracks. A prisoner arrested on Article
159 was on the second level of a three-level bunk bed.
I was on relatively good terms with the “Chief” and so was able to
make Mukhammad’s life a bit easier, lessen the humiliation and
beatings he faced. Mukhammad withered in front of my eyes. We
supported each other.
Then he was thrown into another division. He crushed stones from
morning to night. I sometimes secretly sent him food. His leg was
broken during a beating. He suffered horribly from the pain in his leg. I
told the “Chief” that the “rats” [informers] broke his leg, and asked that
he be freed from working; the “Chief” called him in and promised to
ease his workload, but didn’t want to release him from working all
together. We heard rumors that people from the Red Cross would be
visiting. Suddenly everything was under renovation. Each prisoner
253
arrested under 159 was warned that if he said anything he’d be punished
severely, killed, etc.
One scoundrel from Tashkent wanted to frighten me, I said that I
wasn’t afraid to die and that I would tell everyone the truth.
2,000 prisoners were hurriedly removed to other zones. The threelevel bunk beds disappeared, everyone was given new sheets and
towels. In short, a total put-up job!
Suddenly, on 11 April 2001, I alone was sent to Sangorod.
Before my departure, I told the “Chief” that Mukhammad had
been beaten up again. As I was leaving, he was being brought in to the
chief, we saw each other in the corridor, but the cop in charge – a Tajik
named Ali – didn’t allow us to say goodbye. Mukhammad’s new boots
stayed with me. I haven’t seen my Mukhammad, my brother, since then.
What a genuinely wonderful person! I was treated well in Sangorod.
There were two police colonels in my tent. One of them was an
agent, but I railed against it all anyway, my voice came ripping out of
my throat. I received a lot of shots, they found an ulcer and a polyps in
my intestine. They found asthma and bronchitis. Hypertension and three
heart attacks! Hemorrhoids and many other different illnesses. They
wanted to operate on my stomach, but decided that my heart couldn’t
bear the strain and got an official refusal from the head doctor and chief.
In actual fact I should have received Invalid, First Category status, even
the agent-colonel said so. But an order came down from above not to
give me invalid status. All they did was write on my hospital card that I
be freed from all work. I found out that much can be done here for
money. I needed a lot of money. But where could I get it? My son could
barely feed me. They were asking for a lot of money… At that moment,
because of something published on the Internet, they decided to deport
me. I was once again met by Ravshan Sarikov. The chief of Sangorod
was at a meeting at the time. I wrote an official request asking to be sent
to Chirchik. After discussing the matter, on 16 June 2001 I was sent
here. Chirchik is relatively better. If you have money, you can do
something. I work with all my strength. Five or six days ago Khamid
Ismailov came to me, you can listen to the BBC and hear everything he
has to say for yourself. He couldn’t speak freely, he said he was being
held by the throat [constrained]. He is carefully and constantly watching
over our Friend [M. Salih] in Prague. He asked God for help. Our Friend
is behaving courageously, his voice is still strong. Here all the cops are
254
spreading rumors that MS [M. Salih] has been brought here [back to
Uzbekistan] and dumped off at the State Security Service basement, the
Tashkent prison. The head of the Czech Republic turns out to be very
noble. Norway also. And then I heard his voice. Good. I’m following
world affairs.
The oppression increased when The Vile One [Karimov] returned
from America. Although Chirchik is relatively better, an order came
from on high to torture the 159-ers [those imprisoned on Article 159].
Each day ten people are taken away. I was on yesterday’s list. Olim
Nurov, Olim Khasanov, Muktor, Ikrom, Iadgar also… I refused [to go].
Today is a bit quieter.
I will inform Otash aka and Arzu aka of this separately. The 159ers will not receive amnesty. This is being guarded against strictly.
Each has 15 warnings and isolations and reprimands. They say it’s
the “year of the elderly”… Here sits a close friend of your father,
Akhmat Iuldashev, he is 74. From Gurlen. His four sons are also in
prison. The prisons are overflowing, 99 percent of the prisoners are
young. There are hundreds of thousands of them. They could beget
hundreds of thousands of children!
This is a severe blow to the future of our people… Their children
will fall into a moral abyss from poverty. Not all of them, of course…
Dear friend! I wrote this letter to you in one sitting, in a hurry, I
was very tired. I didn’t have time to read it over again, having asked one
of my trustworthy friends to stand guard. I have described only one of
the thousand thoughts swirling about in my soul. I apologize for my
mistakes. I greet you, miss you, and embrace you, wish you the greatest
from God.
22 April, 2002
WAR AGAINST DIFFERENT "PERSPECTIVES":
NEXT MOVE BY KARIMOV
Recently American general Tommy Franks reported that Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan totally lost its effectiveness after the death of
Uzbek leader Juma Namangany. It is very important report. It is very
important not only for the problem researchers in the Central Asia , but
for the peaceful religious societies too. This statement takes the
255
important card of Karimov in the war on this part of the population who
are turn against of Karimov's policy.
Within last ten years Karimov has justified his repressive policy
against different viewers and Opposition as " a danger of Islamic
Extremism". Almost non rhetorical question comes up in this new
situation: What tactic will Karimov choose in the war on Democratic
opposition? It is clear, that tactic should be changed, but how? Here is a
dilemma over which Uzbek Dictator racks his brains.
Before to force people to admit their participation in the Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) they were put narcotics secretly in their
pockets, or proclamations, or any weapon in their houses. Now, when
IMU is not exist any more government will have to refuse this primitive
method of prosecuting people. But Karimov has one more card - card of
"Hizbut Tahrir". To tell the truth, this card is not so strong as President
of Uzbekistan would like it to be. At first, "Hizbut Tahrir" openly
reported about its peaceful intention. It will not be easy for Karimov to
improve to the West that " new enemy" is as dangerous as IMU. Yet,
because almost all members of this group are already arrested, it can be
said that this group is totally liquidated as non-able structure. And, the
leaflets signed "Hizbut Tahrir" appearing here and there, are spread by
the people of special organizations in order to keep a heat of " antiterrorist company " on a desired level.
However, there is one privilege in "Hizbut Tahrir" that gives
Karimov the manifest advantage in the war on Opposition. This is antiAmericanism and anti-democratizm of "Hizbut Tahrir".
Yes, human rights organizations and democratic Opposition of
Uzbekistan strongly blame repressions against religious groups
including "Hizbut Tahrir". But when Hizbut Tahrir puts Democracy and
totalitarian regime of Karimov together on one table, and begins clearly
to discuss necessity of building "Islamic government in the Central
Asia"everybody but Karimov looses his heart. Karimov is only glad for
this, because he knows that even though Americans are" democrats and
adherents of human rights", they are not able to tolerate such frantic
anti-Americanism.
It should be mentioned that anti-Americanism is not local at all,
but it is exported from Arabic Peninsula as the party "Hizbut Tahrir"
itself. It is a product of ARABIC NASIONALISM, but not the "reaction
of ISLAMIC WORLD on the injustice of world imperialism", as Pan256
Arabs want to represent it. Such anti-Americanism doesn't meet long
lasting interests of Central Asian people. It is not only cannot serve to
strengthen Islam as religious in our country, but on the contrary, it can
further strengthening the totalitarian regime - of enemies not only
religious but of any freedom. Unfortunately, those simple-hearted young
people, who go against to this regime under the exported slogan "
Hizbut Tahrir", are not able to understand this truth yet.
Karimov's regime uses this fact very skillfully. He deliberately
strengthens antagonism between Democratic Opposition and religious
groups as "Hizbut Tahrir". The agents of Uzbek Service of National
Security (SNS) poke about in websites of Opposition groups sending
provocative letters to one group on behalf of other group. There is no
doubt, that Karimov has no more cards except one " Hizbut Tahrir", and
for now, he is going to play only with this card only. Yet, he will
depress the different points of view using this card. But the fact that
"Hizbut Tahrir" is almost liquidated, as it was mentioned above, can put
Karimov in an awkward situation in front of Americans. They simply
can require weighty arguments of danger of Hizbut Tahrir or, generally,
danger of radicalism in Uzbekistan.
We will see, how easy it will be from the US to require such
arguments from Karimov, and if they can require these arguments, will
it effect a change of course in the internal political regime?!
2002
THAT BITTER WORD “FREEDOM”
(Problems of the Opposition and the Government)
Freedom is a severe test.
Freedom is a test which elevates the nobility and debases the
slave. The nobleman understands that it is a test and acts appropriately:
he does not overstep a strict line beyond which another person's freedom
begins. A slave, however, feeling a bit dizzy from the sense of open
space, begins to turn impudent and disregards all boundaries, thus
threatening the freedom of others. This is how the tragedy of mankind
always begins. When a slave does not recognize his place, when a slave
receives freedom. When a dictator rejoices that he and no one else is
worthy of this blessing (freedom). The dictator points his finger to the
slave to justify his actions. It is as if the slave becomes the object
257
legitimizing the dictator's usurpation of power. The dictator says: “If it
were not for my firm hand, you would be taken over by the Slave, who
would be a hundred times worse than I am. He would destroy you in a
more brutal way than I do. He would burn you over a slow flame of
chaos, whereas I treat your death with great respect.
For the most part dictators are created from slaves in the same
way that idealists are created out of nobility. Despite the immeasurably
smaller number of noblemen, their influence on society is approximately
the same as slaves. These two forces, unequal in number, preserve a
balance in society that keeps society from falling into some ravine of
anarchy. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and Uzbekistan
received its freedom, the balance of influence of the nobility and slaves
was standard for the Soviet Union. But over time the proportion has
shifted in favor of the slaves. Slaves turned up everywhere, from the
government through to the opposition. That middle class, those who
embodied the link between slaves and idealists, has disappeared. Most
of this class has now also joined the slaves. Meanwhile, a small part of
this class has entered the circle of the nobility, and in so doing has
suffered the great humiliation that befits such a transformation.
And in this debased position they have begun to tear freedom
apart. The former Slave, who has become the dictator, humiliates his
fellow slaves. And the latter, instead of coming to their senses, have
begun to gnaw and bite at one and other, thus benefiting the Primary
Slave. And the balance has been destroyed. There remain a handful of
gloomy hermits and hordes of slaves bewitched by the whizzing sound
of the dictator's whip. Freedom, a severe test.
Once again, as in former times, no one except the nobility has
passed it. Once again - as so many times over the millennia! - everyone
has seen that only the nobility merit freedom.
23.07.2002
“TURKISH DAILY NEWS”
26. 12. 2002 “Turkish Daily News”
There is no need to repeat the truism that both the East and West
possess forces that have interests in maintaining a certain level of
antagonistic tension between the two sides. Some western statesmen
258
with a Kipling mentality found Samuel Huntington’s theory about the
“Clash of Civilizations” very much to their liking. Those radicals of the
Orient who fight for justice clutching weapons in hand also liked
Huntington.
Especially after Sept. 11, when they seemed to find confirmation
of their idol’s prediction, and when one Western political leader
(politician?) even openly declared the superiority of “Western over
Oriental civilization.”
I don’t think that his declaration really offended anyone, since it
was seemed forced/stilted and lumpen), and many people understood it
in just the way it deserved to be received. But it was disturbing that it
reflected the very mood of the majority of common people of the West.
Perhaps Huntington really is right and we really stand at the threshold of
a global war of civilizations?
I am an incorrigible optimist, but even I became disturbed by this
question. I once took as the epigraph for my book the words of Andre
Malraux, which predicted that the 21st Century would be one of high
morality and spirituality. But the events that unfolded in the world after
Sept. 11 forced me to remove that epigraph from the Turkish translation
of my book. It seemed Malraux had made a mistake. Instead,
Huntington seemed to have won the competition of oracles. Now,
though, I see that things are not so bad after all.
They talk about the globalization of terrorism, globalization of the
struggle against terrorism, globalization of whatever. OK, that’s fine.
Why, then, in this world where we are all doomed to globalize, is there
not a globalization of mutual understanding among peoples and races?
Is there not a globalization through a rapprochement of cultures and
religions? Why can’t there be a globalization of the struggle against
tyranny, oppression, and injustice in the Orient and the West?
In the West they consider that Western civilization is the best of
all civilizations, and in the East they think that the best in Western
civilization was borrowed from the East. The Orient considers that
democracy cannot serve as the justification of man’s existence on earth,
while the West is convinced that all of the Orient’s misfortunes are
rooted in the Shariah, which forbids the individual’s free choice.
Meanwhile, the Orient does not hold to the Shariah to the degree
that Allah commands; nor does the West observe the rules of democracy
259
as demanded by democratic principles. If the two sides were honest with
each other, they would have long ago admitted that neither of them is at
all the way it wishes to appear in the other’s eyes. If they really wanted
peace with each other, they would long ago have “discovered” an
amazing similarity between democracy and the Shariah. They would
have delightfully discovered a similarity between the Declaration of
Human Rights and the rights of the individual in Islam. They would
have seen that at the foundation of democracy is nothing other than
Christianity, i.e., the Shariah itself, only slightly distorted by the
prejudices of scribes who came later.
On the initiative of the American NGO “Common Ground,” a
group of intellectuals began to seek ways of non-violent resolution of
the conflicts in the Middle East….
When I think about the so-called “Islamic terrorists,” I recall the
words of one of the Prophet Muhammad’s Sahabs (disciples). As is
known, after the Prophet’s death, arguments broke out over the
Caliphate throne between Ali and Muaviya, both of whom were
disciples of the Prophet. Someone came to another one of the sahabs
who refused to take part in this argument and called on him to join the
“jihad” of one side. And in this situation each side called the other a
“criminal.” So the sahab responded, “I will not join your side or the
other because my sword has no eyes capable of determining who in this
war is a ‘criminal,’ and who is not; I am afraid to kill an innocent person
before Allah.”
So here you have that very Shariah that the West fears, and which
the”Islamic terrorists” cite to their advantage or ignore. So I’m afraid
that there is little Shariah remaining in the Orient. If there were, would
they be crying out about the “need to reestablish the Shariah?” If there
were, war, poverty, and hunger would not keep befalling the people of
the Orient. There is no justice in the Orient, and where there is no justice
the Shariah cannot exist. Violence reigns in the Orient, and there is no
role for the Shariah where violence reigns.
In the Orient, bread is stolen from orphans, neighbors rob one
another, and innocent people are killed; all of this is evidence that the
Shariah has abandoned the Orient. It flees far away from your sins (and
mine) in order to be further away from the evil deeds of our dictators
who declare that they are the shadows of Allah on the earth, but govern
the state with the methods of Satan. The Shariah cannot exist where the
260
state encourages bribe-taking, graft, perjury, prostitution, drug
addiction, violence and murder of the innocent.
In turn, the West must also look in both directions, so that its
highly praised democracy does not run far away. From the duplicity of a
policy of”developed” powers, from double standards and brutality, to
the weak in order to appease “national interests,” and from the passion
to be the richest, the very first, the greatest…
It’s necessary to stop creating enemies in order to blame the
enemy for all one’s misfortunes, and always to see oneself as the victim.
After all, your enemy also sees himself as the victim. So who is
right? It’s possible to simplify this very complex life. One can live as a
human being.
Do you know how I make my life a bit easier in exile? With
maxims that I made up for myself. For example, when I begin to rebel
against my fate, I crush my rebellion with the help of a thought like this:
“Evil against you will end only when you cease entirely to resemble the
villain who is committing evil against you.”
This really is true: Destroy all the destructive qualities of your
enemy inside you, and you will make yourself secure from that evil.
IT IS NOT A METAPHORE BUT REALITY
(Speech at briefing - the 12th Annual Meeting of Parliament at
OSCE in Rotterdam)
07.07.2003
When human rights activists compare Uzbekistan to a big prison
foreigners think that it is a metaphor. But having visited this country
they get convinced that it is a reality. Huge army of punishing
organizations keeps vaunted stability, and yet, each citizen of this
country actually is the potential prisoner. You may go out and get
arrested. And if you are afraid to go out, do not leave your home;
anyway you will be arrested at your house. Do not ask "why", otherwise
you will get extra prison term.
Karimov constantly keeps saying that there is rest and peace in
Uzbekistan, and there is no war. It is the truth. There are no wars in
prisons, but of course there is dead silence in there. The only things that
break this silence are groans of tortured prisoners. Karimov has been
ruling Uzbekistan for more than 13 years. The new generation 261
generation of prison already has appeared. With this generation
Karimov is going to build the great future. We constantly keep saying
that it should not go on. However it is going on and on. The state terror
against people is still continuing.
The Uzbek poets have been not writing poems for 13 years, they
have been writing appeals to Bush, then to Clinton and again to Bush
"to affect a course of events ". Nobody knows yet who has affected
whom. But, Clinton has left, Daddy Bush has left, and it is obvious that
son Bush will leave too, but not Karimov. In May of this year the
European Bank had the annual forum in Tashkent. This forum was
organized in spite of objections of human rights organizations and
democratic principles. We were not shocked with it; the similar double
standard in relations to our countries for us is not a new. We were
shocked by another picture: when Jacque Lemmer's criticism addressed
to the president of Uzbekistan sounded from a tribune of a forum; the
president ripped off his headphones and hurled it aside as if it was a
snake. He did it demonstratively and with confidence; with the
confidence of the partner of the great power.
Then, the president of European Bank Lemmer who publicly
criticized Karimov in Tashkent sent thank you letter to the dictator after
the forum. Jacque Lemmer thanked him for his patience, as though
apologizing for excesses in game of democracy. This fact is very
symbolical; it shows impartial true, reproaches us optimists, who are
restless to trust loyalties of the western democracy in relations to our
countries. The west, especially the USA, criticizes the Central Asian
regimes more to calm down the public than to have a desire to change
position in the countries where they have their national interests. Here
raises a question: does the policy of United States lead to the
preservation of a totalitarian regime in Uzbekistan, and is it in national
interests of USA?
United States of America, in the justification of its politics of dual
nature in Uzbekistan, specify absence of democratic institutions,
dissociation of opposition groups and “alternativeness” of the leader. In
fact, the situation is so tragic, that absence of the leader in our country
would be a minimum damage for people than a presence of today's
president; and, the same situation with parliament. If parliament were
replaced with a herd of horses it would be less harmful to people than
today's one.
262
I want to tell, “Alternativeness of the leader” it is no more than
demagogy of supporters to preserve this status in Uzbekistan. All help
of the West provided till today in Uzbekistan has been used to
strengthen the bases of the regime, but not democracy. Everything has
been doing in this way to defer occurrence of alternatives to Karimov.
And it is obvious, that for the sake of prolongation of his tyranny, he
obeys everything that his patrons demand from him. In a word, Karimov
got lucky. But fortune of dictators is unfortunate for peoples who are
under the power of these lucky dictators.
Till September 11, 1999 Karimov was lonely in the world of
politics and it was expected that he eventually would be compelled to
concede the requirements of opposition forces of the country and would
start democratic transformations. But there was a tragedy on September
11. It became the tragedy not only for Americans, but also for Uzbeks.
September 11 provided Karimov with support of the USA, the greatest
power of the world. In a shadow of this greatness it is possible to do
anything you have in your mind. Anyhow, it seems so to our dictators.
Muhammad Salih's ADRESS TO ERK PARTY CONGRESS
22.10.2003
Dear Comrades-at-arms, Honored comrades,
Thanks to the Creator for giving us the opportunity to meet again.
In these ten years, the world is aware that a great deal of difficult
conditions has been given for the opposition's liberty. It is not easy to be
opposing totthe regime. Had it been easy, 90% of the population would
have crossed to the opposition side. This 90% on the disagreeing part
exists on strength. But disagreeing is one thing. Enduring suffering for
lack of expression is another. Nobody wants to endure suffering.
Political narrow-mindedness is very harmful for societies such as
ours. In this crisis, for the society's illumination, the masses' political
activity is the way out. In the shortest time, we are waiting for the
masses' political activation. Today, in Uzbekistan, we need urgent help
for a wide public platform and assistance for the democratic side.
Unfortunately, in the most needed moments, the opposition remains
without help. We have not been able to receive the necessary help from
the outside world. After the September 11 tragedy, we had hoped that
the increased relations between The USA and Central Asian states
263
would accelerate the democratic process. But this awaited process has
still not come. There were certain natural shifts.
For example, for several months, the opposition's regional
meetings began to take place. If not for support from the West, it would
have been next to impossible for these meetings to be carried out. This
should be sufficient to recognize injustice.
Essentially, there is no talk of curbing violence. Torture continues
for the religious groups as well as political members of ERK party. On
May 22 this year, Tanlov Organization member, Hasan Qambarov, who
was one of Erk's youth leader, was taken away on the street by Uzbek
police. He is now in Chirchiq prison under tight and terrible clutches. I
hope that those Foreign diplomats and medical workers who are
participating in releasing this Young man from torture do not spare their
efforts. The West needs to Understand that the democratic process in
Uzbekistan cannot be hastened with half-finished measures. Unfinished
measure may tentatively freeze the terror of the state, but it will never be
overcome. If the West had put the needed pressure on Uzbek
government in the democracy process, this pressure would have been
more effective, thereby increasing higher possibility of success.
Only this pressure was not shown. Government bans against
opposition Groups continue. For the government, "constructive
opposition" seems necessary. To satisfy the demand, the Uzbek
president organized five puppet parties in Five years. The
"constructiveness" of these parties is inconsequential.
In The presidential elections, the leaders of these puppet parties
are not Electors of themselves. They call to the president for giving
voice. If these Parties want to criticize, they criticize, not the President,
but themselves, Because they are part of the administration. If we saywhat needs to be done for the government to take a constructive
opposition's status? Their response - it is necessary to sit in silence in a
corner and learn the praise of the government. Is this possible for us?
ERK party disagreed with this, and was labeled the "Enemy of the
People". The accuser is truthful, because the government does not
represent the people. The government is the people, as it is known.
Perhaps, for this reason, on television, the President, in his sincere
voice, had stated, "We are prepared to do everything for the 'people'". In
this situation, for the opposition's position in the country, there is no
possibility of exerting influence. ERK Party and Birlik Movement were
264
penalized for being in manner of conflict with the Constitution. They
were penalized with decree by the Internal Affairs Ministry, not with a
Constitutional decree by the legal court. If the government desires, it Is
possible to correct this gross error. There is no legal basis for either Of
these political organizations to be taken into government's hands,
because in accordance with the Principal Law, these organizations are
legal. The law has merely been downtrodden. For erecting the Internal
Affair Ministry's anti constitution decree, abrogating this law is
sufficient. For 12 years, the proving of its own constructiveness is
burning. The government began to hold dialogues with the opposition
when it is tired of the jailing and punishing of the opposition groups. As
a matter of fact, these are not dialogues, but monologues. It has one
cunning stipulation: The opposition does not know about state
governance. It seems that until now, the government still does not
understand the function of the opposition in society. This function, if
explained in a metaphor, would perhaps be understood:
When the turk sultan goes out, there is always one person with
him on the side, with a loud voice, saying: Don't be conceited, my
podishah. God is greater than you". In this same period, there were
constructive oppositions.
It is also necessary to realize that the reasons for our tragedy is not
just from the president's monopoly, but attained from characteristics
from a servility climate. In normal conditions, microbes are not
dangerous. But this immune system for organisms that have been
destroyed is extremely threatened.
In contemporary states, for government, the opposition's sequence
of opinions as well as ideas is a society's immune system. Whether this
system is not working or non-existent, societies will always, in stagnant
condition, live on. This is the most shining example of our society.
Dear Comrades! From the capacity of these problems, it is
possible to get out with faith, intention and courage. Military force is not
needed for one historical initiative, one auspicious attack. For that, it is
enough in absolute faith in one small group. When we initially founded
Birlik, we were 3 people. When Erk was founded, we were also a small
group. In a short time, Erk was accepted to the communist parliament's
Uzbekistan Independent Declaration.
In a short time, Erk prepared the Uzbekistan Constitution. In a
very short time, Erk prepared its own candidate for presidential
265
elections, participated in elections and according to official indicators, it
obtained 12.7% of the election. 1 million 200 thousand persons gave
their votes to Erk. This is the official figure. As a matter of fact, Erk had
won more than 4 times this figure, and there is information on the
falsification of the results. In such a short time, Erk had enriched an
entire country with its ideas, and raised the people's awareness of truths
and laws.
What does "in a short time" mean? In all of its 4 and a half
months of activity as a legal party, Erk showed: for official census, the
party was taken on September 5, 1991. On January 16, 1992, the
government opened fire at students. Starting from January 17, complete
persecution against Erk began, and for ten years, it has entered a tunnel
without seeing a ray of light. But during this very same comparatively
free period of 4 and a half months, this young organization stamped
Erk's name into our nation's awareness.
Honored comrades! You are this nation's flowers, its intellectuals
- you are its enlightenment. It enlightenment and thought standards are
so high, its degree of danger of its fate will be higher. They live in
maximum risks within their own activities. Their lives experience risky
limits. Our beginning in Rebuilding Year began with exceptional people
such as people's movement. You were these exceptional people, my dear
comrades. You are not the majority, but you are a small community that
is regarded with absolute and unconditional respect. As always, the
majority is always on the watch of which strong side is coming. For this,
do not be aggravated. This is normal. In war, those who stand behind the
frontlines are few.
My dear and exceptional friends- With this strength in your
hearts, come into the same hesitating majority. Be close to them and
show concern. With Allah's permission, the spell of fear will be
dispelled from them.
One more significant problem is the youth. This is our
organization's weakest point. Whereas, in our national movement of the
Rebuilding years, this was our strongest point. For movement, it is
necessary to not delay their attraction. Free them from financial
conscience's claws for the attainment of money and wealth. Benefit
from their pure ideals.
I want to draw your attention to another point. In cities and
provinces, we should not forget the national minorities in the frontiers
266
who form societal representatives in our policies. They are also our
comrades. We brought our national identity out to the forefront from
Soviet colonialism. This impulse ended its own historical task. Today,
"people" and "nation" does not mean one ethnic group, but rather, one
entire population that lives in Uzbekistan, our motherland. Let us
remain, in a sense, an entire people which will embrace. We, as a
political movement, will be the principal enemy to any kind of racism
and chauvinism. I want to separately emphasize in our Program for our
future acceptance for this principle.
Honored Comrade-in-arms! I do not like to speak so much, but
apparently, this trip deserves more speech. I am counting for 11 years.
As a matter of fact, this is not a count, but distress. For 45 minutes of
speech, it is hard to accommodate these 10 years. It is like fitting a giant
into a small glass. That is why, I ask you to please be patient.
Well, when will democracy come to Uzbekistan? In the past
century, this question was loudly raised during the period of
Perestroyka. But not after independence. The regime did not like to hear
the question. This word, when sounded, brought threats that began.
Then some were thrown into jail, then they were tortured. They learned
to kill in silence. The hunt for democrats began. According to the
Eastern Calendar, this oppression is exactly the length of the "muchal" 12 year cycle, that is why 12 years continued. You are assembled here
today so as to not allow the new cycle of this oppression to take place.
You assembled for the word democracy to be said with a loud voice.
Uzbek democrats believe in the things that nobody else believes.
They believe in the possibility of chances with democratic paths for
Uzbekistan. Faith for the future and for results is worthy. In discussions
on democratic changes in Uzbekistan, American congressman Kurt
Weldon advised that stated that country's situation is similar to the
situation when the American Constitution was being accepted in 18th
century. We are pleased with this optimism. Because, those who believe
that changes in Uzbekistan towards democratic path are few.
Western diplomats in interviews with "Financial Times" or
"Washington Post" state that the regime's only possibility of change is
state overthrowing or other radical ways. At the end of their interviews,
they ask to remain anonymous. After all, when they return to
Uzbekistan, they must socialize with smiles to the regime
representatives at cocktails.
267
One factor for changes is always forgotten. The leader is the
factor. This factor of most significance is not the owner in Europe, such
as in the frontier of the Soviet Union. In Central Asia, as you see from
the administration methods, the five leaders are unlike each other, but
rather specific and suitable to oneself. In the time of separation from the
Soviet Union, these countries' administration and management methods
were entirely the same. As now, despite the constitutions being almost
the same, these states operate under absolutely different legal
conditions. These five types of administration portray the five leaders'
differences from each other. They have albeit one similarity: their
personalities are inclined to monopoly. But they differ in degrees of
substitute on uninterrupted continuation of governance. For example, if
it were requested that blood shedding is absolutely necessary for
prolonging Askar Akaev's presidency, he would not agree to it. He
would prefer to leave from the presidency. But if the same situation
arose for the presidents of Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan, we worry that
the request would not be sufficient for rejection of their power.
In the West, it is difficult to meet this kind of leader. There, the
model of the state system will not maintain these leaders. It is possible
for a leader who remains more distant in upper state matters, makes
necessary reforms to benefit the state accordingly. But this kind of
leaders is very rare.
This kind of leader is created by the world's political conjunktura.
There is a second type of leader - he operates like the first type, within
the created political conjunktura. His courage is not sufficient for
leaving his own limits. This kind of leader will form the majority of
leaders. There is a third kind of leader, but he is, not in Europe, in Asia.
We described this leader in the aforementioned. This Asian kind of
leadership factor is taking process with negative aspects in Uzbekistan.
Does he have any positive aspects?
Yes. We see these positive aspects in the case of Kirghizstan and
Kazakhstan. Let us introduce, and at least once, to have the chance for a
democratic election. We will bring democracy to our beloved homeland
in not 200 years, but 200 days, with God's permission. Even though if it
is not Tony Blair's democracy, it will be better than Askar Akaev's
democracy. Preferably, a democracy to come to Uzbekistan in 200 days.
In this difficult situation, nothing is able to free us. We need to
resolve our own problems. Otherwise, even Allah cannot help us. Tne
268
Koran ordered this: To be precise, until some kinsmen themselves
change, Allah will not change their situation." Also, our prophet said:
"you will be governed by your leaders as you see suitable", as stated in
the hadiths. For this reason, the current President's remaining period on
the throne will be of least torment.
Despite the entire oppression to my family and personal lineage, I
have no enmity or contempt to Prezident of Uzbekistan. Because as the
above expressed - the leader, if he does not fit your or my needs, he will
not be able to govern one minute. I am not asking you not to battle
against injustice. On the contrary, I ask you to fight. I want to say this:
the sooner we arise to fight against injustice, in the shortest time, we
shall have a just leader.
My dear Comrades, honored Comrades-in-arms! You know better
than I of the essence of current events taking place in the native land.
But it appears that certain things are far from clear. For example,
mountains. Or country. This country's place in the world, its political
and economic weight, its greatness and grandness. It appears that they
are far from clear. Our dear motherland Uzbekistan is a country,
historically revered with ancient civilization, blessed with natural
wealth, geographical prestige . Even during the era of Russian
colonialism, our land was also the heart of Turkistan - politically,
economically significant in these blessed soils. This country has never
fallen into a disgraceful situation like today. Once a cradle of
civilization, today, there is no trace of this famous country's early
grandeur. The internal impoverishment for our state's external image is
also flawed. In these past 12 years, we are not able to remember cetrain
successful matters that the Ministry of External Affairs has done for the
defense of national interests in the outside world. Because, with tongues
tied, there are no moral laws or rights. Because when the government
vulgarly violated its own international agreement that it signed, it
trampled on its own people's laws in the country. In 12 years, 5 Foreign
Affairs Ministry changed, but public external politics did not
change. Yet internally, anti national, aggressive and repressive politics
have not changed. After September 11, the world began to recognize
Uzbekistan. After Uzbekistan entered the coalition for anti-terrorism,
westerners found.
Uzbekistan on a map. With the exception of Mr Bush, nobody
else in the world accounts for us. Even Turkmenbashi Niyazov scrapes
269
his nose in regards to Uzbekistan, and insults Uzbek President with
irony. Believe me, i am perturbed for the Uzbek prezident. Because,
after all that is absolutely being considered, this is our country's leader.
But our land's surroundings have thorny wires, hungry officers
wandering like predators at the borders. I am perturbed for the elderly
who crosses the borders to the neighboring village to see his grandchild.
Yesterday's relatives, kinsmen suddenly become foreigners. I am
perturbed for the Turkmen, Tajik, Kazak, Kirghiz. What crimes have
these people committed? Why this inconsideration and downright
narrow-mindedness? Why this hostility among blood ties and kinsmen?
Alas, in the spreading of this enmity, Uzbek government played the
decisive role. From afar, we saw the reality: if a small country's leader is
great, this country will appear great to the world. If a great country's
Leader has a small personality, the great country will also appear small
to the world, its grandness will seem to diminish.
How can we escape from this impoverishment? Many journalists
repeated: if you have the strength and capability, you can do the work
regardless. 12 years ago, we started with haste from the economy
because the people were desperate and hungry. Not only I, but basically,
many political scientists said so. To be precise, the former communists
brought it together from the populism's foundation stone. Our people's
stone, that the populism had given the leaders, is still rolling. Only this
stone has not become a bread . The earlier people were impoverished.
But it is a rolling stone, exactly like legendary hero Sizif.
That is why, journalists today ask me "What is your priority?", to
which I become tongue tied. I am afraid to say, "Let's not forget the
popular stone for our people". And I will restrain my tongue. Even to
say 'political' is not possible. Fear from prudence, disgrace from
prudence. For our land, the most tragic part is the economy. All who
started work for economic and political reforms were convicted. If it
were written that Allah is coming for us, we will not be the exception
from this. These reforms are tactical aims for us. We contended the
tactical problems until today. We criticized the government on this
subject. But, apart from saving the economy, nobody has any agenda or
priority combined to address these problems. To overcome the factors
that are causing our economic and political crisis, we need to focus on
an area called "Reform area of Human materialism".
270
For 75 years, we were soaked in atheism and atheistic
communism ideologies. Yet, despite 12 years of independence, we still
do not have our own consciousness and ideals. In state affairs, there is
no difference between legal and sinful matters. Dishonesty, injustice and
bribery are encouraged. These are lack of ethics, or immorality. Of
course, there are conscientious people, but these are few, unfortunately.
Those who are ethical on the bottom are also few. This is the post-soviet
states' national tragedy. Economic decline is the result of total lack of
ethics. Until we make the factor disappear, it is unlikely to overcome the
outcome. We are not composed of parasites, but rather, lawful, dignified
and hardworking people for society's establishment. Bribery is the most
terrible crime - the plundering of state property is worse and more
disgraceful than death, and we need cadres who understand this. We
want bureaucrats who give more respect to the law. We see in our home
ethical and idealist youths. We see youths who would wish to perish in
battle for motherland, give their service to the mafiozi for monetary
rewards. We do not want to see people who fears opressive ruler, we
want a society that fears God. We want to see a humanity of dignity and
honor. Only such a humanity will can be the rung of our society's
vertebrae. Only this type of people can be the guarantee of our safety,
abundance and life. We will only be able to invest our state in this. In
this area, not only complete reforms of upbringing rebuilding of state
safekeeping, but rather, it is necessary to fortify the institute of family
with wide platforms.
You see economic development in the example of western states.
In the west, the family is an institute that has encountered decline. The
western intellectuals know this bitter reality, but nothing is able to be
done to rescue this important piece in humanity's social existence.
The educational upbringing that Eastern dictatorships utilize is in
the ideology of slavery to an individual's personal self. They define that
for monopoly is the suitable administration for eastern mentality. The
liberal egimes of the West respect humanity. Every member of society
will be regarded sacred. Youths are raised in the ideology of total
freedom. This is one of the sources of "lack of ethics" in the West.
By depriving absolute rights to the family and granting absolute
freedom for individuality is totalitarianism of freedom. "Complete and
total freedom" is freedom's totalitarianism.
271
Only savage animals can be totally free. As for man, he is capable
of self-supervision, with will-power to restrict himself if needed, with
sovereign hand - this is the difference with animals.
Thus, every two society has members brought up in slavery-like
upbringing, and total freedom. But of these two regimes, which of them
that you were to prefer, for me, I choose the liberal regime.
In the aspect of social upbringing in eastern regimes, western
intellectuals have analyzed and concluded the cause of a passive
humanity: "there is no basis for democracy in the Islamic world".(this
perspective is similar to that of our leaders). That is to say, the problem
is placed against religion. Western scholars had profoundly researched
on this. For example, in regards to Islam and democracy, American
researcher Graham Fuller has said: "the problem, Islam and democracy
must not be put together. The problem, Muslims and democracy should
be put together." That is to say, Muslims also can want to live in
democracy. The best example is Turkey. With the exception of its
education system , Turkey is a comparatively suitable example for us as
a state model. In this model, the relevant needs attained in religion and
state affairs are incomparable in the Islamic world. For this reason,
Uzbekistan is in great need for this custom- fit model.
Going back to our subject, I want to summarize my thoughts on
ethics/morality. Of course, ethics cannot be established in one or two
years. As said aforementioned: Erk Party is designated, in strategic
standards, to conformed upbringing of ethical criterion for the young
generation. For unraveling this problem:
1. Complete reformation of educational systems
2. Strengthening the institute of family
3. Overcoming poverty, which is the source of moral degradation
(increasing in practice - political and economic reforms)
Edcational upbringing reforms are important, and those such as
political reforms are also important. Rescuing the young generation
from the darkness of immorality, extracting the economy from the crisis
is important. Impoverishment is the most terrible factor of immorality.
Today Uzbekistan is one of the most impoverished countries in the
world. This impoverishment has caused the once sacred cities of faith Buxoro, Samarqand, Xorazm and Toshkent - become the crossroads of
narcotic traffic and lair of human trafficking. As a result of impoverty,
272
our innocent women are selling themselves for a slice of bread - they
throw themselves into the embrace of men (such as Arab sheikhs) in
Taiwan and Korea. Despite natural wealth, the potential for huge
domestic production, highly skilled specialists and hard workers,
Uzbekistan's economy has fallen and remained down. The majority of
factories and plants have stopped operations or halved their production
capability. The number of unemployed is rising every day. Prices and
inflation are sky-rocketing. All governmental attempts to correct the
economy are useless and wasted. The average monthly wage is 18 euros
- this is lower than minimum to sustain a living.
The economic recession will destroy the people's belief in
changing for the positive. It will strengthen the enmity and contempt
among the social layers.
There are other factors in this tragic picture: corruption, clanship
and mafia. That is to say, the 3 columns of the shadow economy.
There are separate statistics produced for Uzbek government's
own administration and for the outside world. For the president and
ministers, "Dlya Slujebnogo Polzovaiya" - once every 3 years, in
"Statsbornik"'s 2001 figures, it showed the shadow economy's share of
Common National Products 37-40 %. But today, this percentage,
according to inofficial sources, it has risen from 40-60 %.
The clans and their own representatives are found in the ranks of
state. These terrible representatives are everywhere - in the president's
apparatus, in the ministries, in the organs of the courts, the militsia, the
national security defense, finance ministry, taxation agencies, customs,
joint-ventures, and state's strategic reserves. In short, they are
everywhere. They reside in these places, ensuring that millions of
dollars firmly flow into the pool of the clan. They strive that not one
penny from this magnanimous amount falls into the country's economy.
The mafia is a part of the clan. Today, the mafia steps into the political
entrance hall, unrestrained and unhindered. And it is beating the
country's economy.
Today, mafia patriarchs and ministers embrace each other and
take pictures together, while speakers dedicate songs to them. In the
past, those who acquaint with mafias become red with shame. Today,
they become red with pride. In 12 years, the criterion for ethics has
changed so much.
273
It cannot be exaggerated that bribery has ill effects. Even the
president has stated anecdotes about bribery. This amount has become
"nationalized". This illness is again devastating the weak foundation of
the state.
Today, the Russian economy is one of the most dynamic
economies in the world. And Kazakhstan is also on its feet.
On the other hand, Uzbeks in the region, who once were the most
developed people in market economy, have fallen behind. What can
they say if the government does not permit the opportunity for those
who want to work hard? Now, I want to make a statement about my
thoughts on our relations to religion and terror. On February 16, 1999,
several bombings happened in Tashkent. The government showed that
this event was caused by Uzbekistan Islamic movement. Before
appraising this incident, I want to remind one thing: the Uzbek
government, for the removal of democratic opponents from political
process, always played games before elections. In 1993, for parliament
elections, when a year was remaining, it accused us for organizing
national assembly. Several Erk and Birlik leaders were thrown into jail.
The government attained its goal - a parliament election without
opposition was carried out. But despite pressure and persecution,
imprisonment and torture, the opposition continued its path. Presidential
elections came in 1996. This time, the government accused Erk Party's
19 young men in Turkey of preparing for state revolution. This was not
a presidential election without opposition, it created the chance for its
continuation through a referendum. Finally, towards the end of 1999, in
early 2000 that is, the presidential elections were back the agenda. The
opposition was still alive. If it was weak, it still had a voice.
International organizations began discussion with Erk and Birlik
representatives about the possibility of their participation in the
elections. This made the fearful government increase practise its next
act of precaution. And, on February 16, the bombs exploded. Take a
look at the incidents, these explosions thundered at the moment when
Erk and Birlik representatives conducted their discussions about future
elections with leaders of OSCE in Hotel Intercontinental. Once more,
the coincidence of these two incidents demonstrate what has never
happened in history. The defense legal office of the accused has said
this fact: Uzbek government knew about the intention/preparation of
explosion beforehand. This is a very important factor. If they knew
274
beforehand, why were precautions/measures not taken? - this is the
inevitable question. Having not taken measures, on the contrary, the
National Security officers and Internal Affairs ministers observed the
steps until February 16, making arrest one after another when the bombs
exploded. According to known unofficial sources: in April 1998, Uzbek
government arrested two people Nazarbek Umarov and Abdunabi
Nishonboev, members of a radical group. Under instructions, this group
clarifies internal and external active members, establishing supervision
from above. Then in November 1998, in Turkmenistan, the group's
leader, Bahrom Abdullayev, well-informed of the organization's plans,
was taken. From Abdullayev, the organization's plans and potential were
learned and recorded.
This notion will be delivered to the outside with consultation from
Umarov, Nishonboev and Abdullaev, who were placed in a basement.
A register of names was arranged for those to be arrested, and
political opposition member are on the top of this list. In Tashkent,
beginning on February 3, observation officers were placed outside of
my daughter's home. Everyday, the militsia came to check documents.
A day after the explosions, my brother Rashid Bekjon was seized and
taken away. That same day, the same observation officers were placed
around the homes of Mamadali Mahmud, Otanazar Orif and Mutabar
Axmedova.
Likewise, opposition members who were in the border areas were
taken under control, and MXX agents were sent to all those town and
border areas that opposition members came and went. An example
manifested in Istanbul. In the beginning of February 1999, when Birlik
People Movement's member Aliboy Yo'lyashiyev and his family were
on their way to leave for Canada from Istanbul airport, Turk and Uzbek
police detained them and wanted to deport them to Uzbekistan. With
their refugee status from the United Nations, they were ultimately
released.
On February 13, National Security Service chairman
polkovnik Anvar Solibboev, a committee leadership member, came to
Ankara to request help from Turkey Secret Service for ending terrorism
in the borders. On February 14, he went from Ankara to Moscow, and
repeatedly sought the same help from the Russians.
After February 16, the majority of the culprits related to the
bombings were seized without any difficulty from Kazakhstan and
Kirghizstan. Certain "retired" officers from the Internal Affairs Ministry
275
who participated in this operation left for Russia - many things can be
learned from them.
There is one thing that can be said about me: the certain thing that
I was accused of, was not confirmed in legal courts.
No slander is permanent, the truth will inevitably surface in the
future. The original performer of this murder will ultimately sit in the
black chair. As a party, we have always said that we sharply denounce
any kind of terrorism. Nothing can justify terrorism - not with any
notion, neither national nor religious, because terrorism is antihumanity. Terrorism has no relations to the religion of Islam. Because
terrorism is anti-morality, Islam on the other hand is morality, high
morality. For this reason, it is wrong to say that "Islam" is the postscript to terrorism.
My honored friends, Our country is standing at a crossroad.
Nothing has come out of this crossroad today. It chose the path two
years earlier, yet it has not taken the step. Uzbekistan has not been able
to designate its own future like a state. Its progress cannot be found or
measures, it is still standing at this crossroad - without plans, without
hopes or dreams. The shortcoming of our leaders, their imaginations and
their insights is apparent - as can be seen in their exaggerated
discussions of "Turkish model", "Korean model", even "Pinochet"
model. This demonstrates their lack of courage and resolution. In that,
there is no "illness" in the opposition's model. Our aim has always been
open and transparent in the political arena.
Our aim is to build a democratic and lawful state in Uzbekistan.
There will be no place for dictatorship or any kind of monopoly. Certain
aspects may need to be disputed and contended for the future state, but
we will not contend the principles.
The people's basic rights and liberties and the state's silhouette
placed by columns of justice were already drawn. We are prepared to
cooperate with every group and organization, free the people from
oppression and we hope to serve our people with impartiality. Enough
of that, let our intentions be pure.
In a resolute state, there are no police officers who stand above
the citizen, documents are not checked at every pace, streets are not
sealed with "blokpost", soldiers do not wander and search around the
streets with "kalashnikovs" over their shoulders. This particular situation
276
is possible. In Uzbekistan, 12 years unofficial particular conditions have
been published. For real resolution, national consensus needs National
Reconciliation. The first step in this job is the need for PUBLIC
REHABILITATION (reablitatsiya) of political detainees. This is not
amnesty. This rehabilitation (reablitatsiya) should pursue the freedom of
ideas and opinions - political or religious - and embrace those citizens
who have been arrested and sentenced.
In this reabilitatsiya, the future people who form a large part of
the population are intellectuals and moderate religious groups. In the
aspect of politics, this is the most active part and dynamic part of our
society.
If the National Reconciliation implements a little of its authority
in practice, victory is possible. With your permission, I am inviting the
acceptance of appeal to all political groups and government towards
establishing "National Reconciliation Committee" as the day's agenda of
our Congress.
My honored comrades, dear brothers and sisters!
Like your comrades in exile, please accept my sentiments of
longing and missing for my motherland and to be with you all. May
Allah and fate allow us to see each other in the near future on the
mother soil.
"WHO BOMBED TASHKENT?"
THE PRESS CONFERENCE ON THE TASHKENT
INCIDENTS
09.12.2003
The panel discussion held by Radio ‘Liberty’ (Uzbek Service) and
BBC regarding the press conference dated 26th November.
(Broadcasted at 7am. On 28th November 2003)
Presenter: Azizullah Aral
Dear listeners, before moving on to the next news, we must go
back to the history for a while. You will probably remember from TV
broadcastings the testimonials of the witnesses at the court in Tashkent
that it was Muhammad Salih, Chairman of the ERK Democratic Party
and leader of Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), who realized the
explosions of 16 February. One of the those witnesses was Zaynettin
Askarov, born in Namangan in 1971. Askarov, who has been serving his
277
10-year sentence since 1999, has repeated his testimony on several
occasions. However, it has been discovered that his testimony was a
false one. Jamsheed Shamuratov (Cemshid Shamuratov), who witnessed
this confession tells:
Jamsheed Shamuratov: On 26th October, the MHH (Uzbek
National Inteliigence Servive), former KGB, called the radios ‘Liberty’,
‘BBC’ and ‘VOA’ to interview Zaynettin Askarov, who was convicted
for the 16th February bombings. The press conference took place in the
well-known Tashturma (1) in presence of a MHH official. Zaynettin
Askarov started out with a briefing about IMU and the opposition in the
first hour. The KGB official must have felt so bored that he left the hall
seemingly for a cigarette break. It was during this period of time that
Zaynettin Askarov declared that the entire statement he made against
Muhammad Salih at the court in 2000 was false. He said: "It was
warranted by the government that 6 people would be spared from capital
punishment, among them being Bahram Abdulayev(2). Relying on their
warranty, I accepted to give a false testimony against Muhammad Salih.
I played my role by crying and saying that Muhammad Salih was
connected with the 16th February incidents and that he had given 1,6
million US dollars to Tahir (3). My aim was to secure the release of the
imprisoned molla brothers. Zakir Ahmatov, Uzbek interior minister,
called me and offered that I made false statements against Muhammad
Salih in return of the release of my friends. Therefore, God is my
witness, I had to do so just because my friends would be freed, not
because I would be better off. Nevertheless, my friends were not freed
but killed, because they knew some secrets. Still, they had been able to
tell us everything beforehand. Through this radio station I apologize to
Salih, leader of ERK party, whom we had tormented. Also, we made
false statements that Tahir Yoldashev had committed such and such
crimes. I swear in the name of Allah that Muhammad Salih has nothing
whatsoever to do with terrorism and terrorists. That is for certain. I am
not a democrat myself. Neither do I have any intentions to adopt his
ideas or to deny them. I am only expressing my very genuine views. All
this is a consequence of our being our politically blind, our having
intimate relations and our being deceived by the pledges made by Zakir
Ahmatov. I will feel no remorse at all even if they hang me after this
very revelation of mine; I will only become a martyr. If Amnesty
278
International extends concern, that will be fine; we will survive. Yet, no
one can stop us from telling these truths.
Azizullah Aral: Respected listeners, you are listening to the
confession of Zaynettin Askarov in Tashturma.
Over to Jamsheed Shamuratov again.
Zaynettin Askarov: Bahram Abdulllayev, who was executed as
the person in charge of bombings, was in the basement of the SNB
(National Intelligence Service). Bahram Abdulllayev warned the state
crying out that there would be an explosion soon which had to be
prevented. He said he had come to stop it but was arrested.
Aral: Was all this before the bombings?
Zaynettin Askarov: Yes, the government knows everything before
they break out.
Jamsheed Shamuratov: You mean, the government itself follows
all that happens?
Zaynettin Askarov: Sure, the state follows everything step by step.
Vehicles loaded with explosives are being put right in front of the Bank
and teh Ministries. The aim is not to capture the activists, or to prevent
to bombings. I will tell you the actual purpose. Just 5 minutes after the
explosions,
Islam Kerimov, Rustem Inayatov and Zakir Ahmatov turned up in
the government square saying they knew who the terrorists were and
taht they would soon be captured. However, the terrorists were already
gone. If they had been captured, this would have proven the innocence
of Muhammad Salih, Tahir and Joma (6). That’s why their escape was
condoned. Meanwhile, they picked up each and every person they
considered.
Jamsheed Shamuratov: Zaynettin Askarov also pointed at some
other issues.
Zaynettin Askarov: I hereby repeat my genuine view in the name
of Allah, that Muhammad Salih has been convicted unrightously. He
had nothing to do with terrorism. All that was attributed to him was a
scenario created by the Uzbek General Attorney. This is the truth! I will
never abandon my statement. I do not want all this to be carried along to
the doomsday. We only played a role in the 26th February incidents.
Muhammad Salih has no connection with the incidents. Neither do we.
Apart from these, we would like to be tried at an international court,
279
provided we are considered humans. For instance, Oleg Yakubov, an
Uzbek author published two books, ‘Flock of Wolves" and ‘Last
Struggle’ in which he jotted down the allegedly trikcs and parts that we
played and he delivered them to everyone. He himself knows that all
these are just a scenario. Everything in his books is a lie, a slander. He
put us down in such a position that we cannot walk around anywhere in
Uzbekistan and elsewhere. If Allah permits, we will see, or if he does
not, our descendents will see, that all these are nothing but a conspiracy,
independent courts. After all, independent courts have to sort this out.
Jamsheed Shamuratov: We consulted the Uzbek Intelligence
Organization (MHH) to clarify the unexpected statement made by
Zaynettin Askarov. A clarification was made by lieutenant-colonel
Ravshan Abdallahanov, a MHH official: "Esselamu-Aleykum respected
listeners. My name is Ravshan Abdallahanov, a MHH member. I am a
lieutenant-colonel. Here is what I want to comment on the interview
made with Zaynettin Askarov. This man, as he admits, is
psychologically disturbed. I hope the listeners will get him correctly. I
didn’t listen to him to the end of his interview. There are evidences
obtained at the MHH interrogation. This cassette is an example, which
bears the phone conversation between Muhammad Salih and Islamic
Movement representatives Zubayr and Tahir Yoldashev.
Jamsheed Shamuratov: Now, a question inevitably arises here, for
instance, the press conference of Zaynettin Askarov last night was your
idea or Zaynettin Askarov’s.
Ravshan Abdullahanov: Zaynettin Askarov was the initiator. Yet,
he didn’t mention these in his talks with the journalists. That is, he had
told us before that his life was under jeopardy and that he was
threatened by Tahir Yoldashev and by Muhammad Salih. He said he
would make public all these.
Jamsheed Shamuratov: Then how they secure his safety in prison?
Particularly afer the press conference yesterday? Is any life-danger in
question? After all, Askarov made statements contrary to the official
statements of the government on 16th February incidents Muhammmed
Salih?
Ravshan Abdullahanov: All those in prison, including Askarov,
are under life guarantee, just like those out of prison, which is secured
by the MHH, a mission which will be carried out forever.
280
Jamsheed Shamuratov: A question: as Askarov puts forward, 16
February incidents were carried out neither by Muhammad Salih nor by
Tahir Yoldash.
Ravshan Abdullahanov: I do not agree to that, as the investigation
process was of a diverse and meticulous one, during which everything
was proven. After all, the court never convicts anyone for nothing.
There is no proo in Askarov’ speech that neither Muhammad Salih nor
Tahir Yoldash did it, and I am against his view.
Azizullah Aral: Dear listeners, you have listened to Zaynettin
Askarov briefing in presence of foreign press members on 26th
November in Tashturma, and lieutenant-colonel Ravshan Abdullahanov,
a MHH representative, commenting on it. To remind you, Zaynettin
Askarov, one of the IMU leaders, has been sentenced to 10 years prison
sentence for his part in the February 1999 bombings in Tashkent and he
is presently in the prison.
Dear listeners, as you understand the name of Muhammad Salih,
the ERK Democratic Party founder and its leader, has come to the
agenda once again. The question here is that why on earth the Uzbek
government carries on accusing Muhammad Salih , who has been living
abroad as a refugee for 11 years, of several crimes? This question is to
be responded by Muhammad Salih himself, who has to reside in
Norway now.
Muhammad Salih: First of all, the fact that Uzbek National
Intelligence Service needs to take precautions against ERK Party means
that we have a good and rising reputation among people. That also
means that Uzbek people have not yet forgotten our party. It is evident
that our struggle in the midst of all incapabilities and deprivations has
not been in vain. It is a routine procedure in Uzbekistan that 1-1,5
month prior to every general elections, the government takes such
precautions against ERK party. Thus, this incident is only a preliminary
step to deprive us of participating in the elections to be held next year.
My opinion is that the rationale behind this press conference under
MHH (Uzbek National Intelligence Service) is to deprive the ERK Party
of taking part in the elections. Behold it was only counterproductive.
Azizullah Aral: Mr. Salih, why do you think that the Uzbek
government is bringing your name up to the agenda once again? Do you
think that there is a linkage between your name and the opposition
takeover in Georgia?
281
Muhammad Salih: Yes, I think there is. Dictators in Central Asia
fear seriously that such could be their destiny and therefore they feel
restless about it. Terrified the Uzbek government is trying to take
measures to prevent such an end by taking every precaution such as
making sure that ERK stays away from political arena.
Azizullah Aral: We all have heard the latest testimony of
Zaynettin Askarov in prison. As you know in his previous testimony
Mr. Askarov had accused you of committing terrorist acts and spoke to
the court in this way, and he is not the only one. However, Askarov
apologizes to you now. Let us hear again his confession.
Zaynettin Askarov: I swear to God that Muhammad Salih has
nothing to do with the terror or the terrorists. And he has never had!.
Azizullah Aral: Do you have anything to say to those who have
given false testimonies against you?
Muhammad Salih: The Uzbek Court, when indicting, could not
denote any evidence against me. It still cannot! Because there is none!
And there cannot be! I have always been sure that Askarov would one
day tell the truth. But to tell the truth, I was surprised that he has done in
such a short time. May God forgive their sins of those who confessed
the truth! May God bless them!
Zaynettin Askarov was not the first who testified against me.
There have been others time to time. But they stated later on in the court
that their testimony against me was extracted under duress. Zaynettin
Askarov had not said it. Now he also confesses that his testimony
against me was a false one.
As today there is not even false testimonies at government’s hand.
Even fear has started to being not a worry any more in Uzbekistan for
the opponents as well as for non-opponents. We are not any more
frightened of telling the truth. Courage is slowly conquering our hearts.
Azizullah Aral: Mr. Muhammad Salih, thank you very much
indeed.
NOTES:
Tashturma - It is the prison notorious with its cruelty, where the
prisoners are exposed to inhuman treatments.
Bahram Abdullayev - He is one of leading figures of the Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and was executed just after February
1999 bombings in Tashkent.
282
The leader of the IMU.
Abduveli karil Mirzayev - A moderate religious leader who was
very much respected by the public was detained in 1995 at the Tashkent
airport by some civilian people on his way to attend “The World Muslim
Scientists Symposium” with his aid and never heard of him since then.
SNB-MHH: abbreviation of Uzbek National Intelligence Service
(previously known as KGB)
Cuma Namangani - One of the leaders of IMU.
LOVE CAN NOT BE COMPELLED
November, 2004
Recently Britain has called back its ambassador to Uzbekistan.
The British ambassador has been an open critique of the Uzbek
authorities over the past two years for inhumanly torturing the
opponents and relentlessly oppressing their civil rights. The ambassador
met with people, who were tormented by of the regime butchers, and
with those who called for help. As an honest person he could not be
calm while these horrors where continuing and kept telling the truth at
the price of his own carrier. I have no doubt that the person masked with
the anti-terror alliance is staying behind the recall of the British
ambassador, Greig Murrey.
The Foreign Office of Great Britain has announced that
Uzbekistan ambassador Craig Murray has been withdrawn not because
of he criticized Karimov's regime, but of his personal flaws. Well it
could be. Although in a case he wouldn't have criticized Karimov's
regime it would be doubtful he was recalled only because of such
"flaws". For the supporters of democracy in Uzbekistan Craig Murray
was more than just a regular ambassador. Since his was fired Uzbekistan
democracy has lost a witnesser of crimes of the political regime in this
country. Unfortunately, in war against terror there are much losses than
successes. In the example of the post-Soviet republics the latest
socioeconomic changes can be gathered under the conventional
headlines ‘Because of Terror' or ‘Thanks to Terror'.
Because of terror the dynamism of democracy (it began with the
collapse of the Soviet Union) was decreased and the huge material and
intellectual resources were attracted into the global war against terror.
283
It deepens the crisis in such countries with weak economies as
Uzbekistan. The number of punitive agencies there have
catastrophically increased since then. The movements of people and
goods were limited and the media were isolated. All these tendencies
produce the atmosphere of threat and mutual hatred and jeopardise the
social stability. By supporting Karimov's regime the western states have
inflicted serious casualties on their prestige of democracy and human
rights. Thanks to terror the totalitarian regimes of Central Asia became
powerful. The pressure on the opposition and the freedom of speech
intensified. The regime managed to establish the full control over the
elections. In December this year, Uzbekistan will once again be
extending the terms of ITS illegal Parliament. It will be holding its third
"elections" without the opposition. All these are being done under the
umbrella of anti-terrorist psychos.
At the beginning of 90-th Karimov's regime had not have any
strong support from the democratic countries as we see it today. By
observing the first presidential election in 1991 the West openly called
the legality of Karimov's government in question.
At the beginning of 90-th Karimov has not even dreamed that he
would be received, for instance, by the German parliament. After the
collapse of the USSR, the Western states, wishing to gain the
confidence of the new Central Asian rulers, thoroughly supported their
initiatives in the establishing of "independent states".
This is why even a tiny opposition activity in these states caused
concerns among the well-wishers of new regimes. Thus they simply
echoed new dictators of this region. Supported by the western countries
the regimes there driven the secular opposition into underground and
established grounds for more radical groups, which are now called
"Islamic". The first amateur dictator of Central Asia is undoubtedly the
Secretary of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov. He is
the grave-digger of democracy of the "peristroyka" period. His
experience as a totalitarian ruler is now successfully being used in the
former Soviet republics, including in Belarus. He constantly inspires the
regional leaders to be heroic against the views of international
community. He has several times proved that "love can be compelled".
Because of him, even Askar Akayev - once the angel of democracy –
might now extend his presidential term through a referendum or might
even just ignore the elections.
284
How has Karimov managed to hang on power for such a long time
despite the permanent failures in the internal policy and the deepening
economic crisis? What has been happening in reality?
The inside values is turning out. Karimov's cowardice as a leader
in front of democracy is presented as a resoluteness to keep stability.
His ruinous economic policy is painted as "a smooth transformation into
the reforms ". His encouragement of corruption is briefed as "a gradual
eradication of the remnants of Socialism ". Karimov announced "the war
against Mafia", but in fact Mafia joined the government. Karimov
legalized it. Mafia openly takes part in the social life of the country
now. The national television propagandizes the life of "new
businessmen" – the ex-gangs on various pretexts. Every year mafia
holds several international sport tournaments and covers all the
expenses. Mafia acts along with Interior and Security heads as the third
power. Karimov annihilates his opponents by the nands of mafia. Mafia
makes monthly reports of its works to Karimov through the interior
minister, Zakirjon Almatov.
Karimov's supporters represent him as the factor of country's
stability ". I would call this stability as "the grave stability". I remember,
some of my friends in the west didn't like this compare. But, none of
them would like to live in the such stability. They would prefer a
military coup-de-tat or even a civil war to get rid of the stability which
is kept by the total fear and repressions.
Over fifteen years quite few things have changed in Uzbekistan.
Events followed each other very slowly and with difficulties. It's a
nightmare. It's time to wake up from this nightmare.
It's time to tell the truth: President of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov
is the factor of stagnation in Central Asia
INTERVIEW: BEHIND THE BOYCOTT
23.12.2004, RFE/RL recently interviewed Muhammad Salih
RFE/RL: If the Erk Democratic Party were able to take part in 26
December parliamentary elections, what would the party's platform be
in light of the current social and political situation?
Muhammad Salih: Our platform is available on the Erk Internet
site, but I'll summarize it again. The first item in our platform is to put
285
the existing dictatorial regime into a constitutional framework. Today,
this doesn't seem possible to us, and even if we were to take part in
elections, we wouldn't be able to do this because the regime has put
itself above the constitution. Second, the market economy has to be
fully implemented and we need to finish what has been left undone in
this regard. Third, we need to end the oppression of dissidents, ensure
freedom of speech, and free and rehabilitate political prisoners. The
election system needs to be reformed and opposition figures in political
exile need to be brought home and integrated into the political process.
RFE/RL: Erk is calling for a boycott of 26 December
parliamentary elections. The party sees no other way to conduct its
activities under current political conditions?
SALİH: A boycott is the only thing we can do in the current
situation because taking part in a government election without
opposition is tantamount to legitimizing it. This would be a betrayal of
democracy and the opposition's function. It would contradict the
principles we have held for 15 years. That's why we decided to call for
an election boycott.
"A boycott is the only thing we can do in the current situation
because taking part in a government election without opposition is
tantamount to legitimizing it."
RFE/RL: The opposition Birlik Party has a different approach to
this issue. Rather than boycotting the elections, they've decided it's
better to ask people to take part in the election but cast their votes
against all candidates.
SALİH: The people who are doing this are themselves well aware
of the election law and regulations, and whether or not they vote for or
against, they know that those in charge of the elections will just change
the results to suit their wishes. But they think that one can set narrow
political goals instead of pursuing large political goals.
RFE/RL: International organizations are in a difficult position
when it comes to establishing their approach to parliamentary elections
in Uzbekistan. Recently, the OSCE announced that it's sending a limited
observer mission. What is Erk's position on this issue?
SALİH: I think that the OSCE limited observer mission is going
in order to observe that this election is not an election at all. Even if they
didn't go, it would be clear that the election is not an election. But if
286
they see it with their own eyes, it will provide further confirmation that
this is another game the government is playing against the people, a
spectacle for the outside world. The government itself senses that it can't
fool the outside world with this spectacle. The limited mission that's
going isn't there to evaluate the election, but rather to record this fact.
RFE/RL: At the same time, we've seen Europe and the West
display an entirely different attitude, for example, toward the Ukrainian
elections. As soon as the first reports of falsification emerged, they
announced that they would not recognize the election results and the
candidate they put in power. But the situation is different with elections
in Uzbekistan. As you've noted, international organizations can say that
these are not elections, but they'll continue to work with the parliament
that takes shape after the elections. One example of this is Germany's
Bundestag.
SALİH: Germany's stance on this issue has suffered from double
standards from the outset. The British parliament's position on this is
more democratic, and the same was of the United States until recently.
Now that Uzbekistan is a close ally of the West in the struggle against
Islamic fundamentalism, unfortunately, instead of offering harsh
criticism, they continue to tread gently. In this respect, you can't
compare the attitude toward us and the attitude toward Ukraine. But we
hope that there will be harsher and more decisive statements on the
Uzbek regime after the election.
RFE/RL: During the previous elections five years ago, we asked
you the same questions in the same spirit, and you spoke about the fact
that these are not real elections. How long do you think this situation
will continue?
SALİH: You're right. Over the last 10 years, unfortunately,
neither your questions nor my answers have changed. The old saw has it
that each country gets the government it deserves. Bitter as it is to say,
there is a lot of truth in this, unfortunately. Until the people take to the
streets to demand their rights, neither America nor Great Britain will
help us. The people need to wake up and demand their rights. We think
that that day is coming. The point is not to complain about the people;
we're not reproaching our people. The news coming from Uzbekistan
indicates that our people, like the Ukrainians, will take to the streets
soon enough.
287
Get RFE/RL news, analysis, and background on the Uzbek
elections at Uzbekistan Votes 2004
UZBEKISTAN'S DANGEROUS ELECTION SHAM
Thursday, December 30, 2004. Page 7, The Moscow Times
Uzbek voters knew absolutely nothing. They did not know who to
vote for because they did not have any information about the candidates
running for parliament. Everything was shrouded in mystery, except the
fact that all parties in the race had been founded by state authorities.
Another curious aspect of the Dec. 26 elections was that they were
held under an artificial state of emergency. Particular attention was paid
to the Ferghana Valley, Bukhara and Samarkand. Ten days before the
elections, troops from the Interior Ministry, the Defense Ministry and
the National Security Service began regular patrols of these regions.
Security forces took full control of all city mosques and public places,
supposed potential sites for terrorist attacks. Operations to detain
"extremist elements" also took place. So-called suspicious persons were
brought into local police stations and booked, or were simply arrested
on the spot. These included political activists calling for a boycott of the
elections. Arrests occurred across Uzbekistan, and human rights
activists and opposition party members were followed, put under house
arrest and not allowed to register at the polls, even though the main
opposition parties, Erk and Birlik, had been excluded from the race.
There was one person, however, who seemed happy with the
elections, namely Vladimir Rushailo, who led the observer mission from
the Commonwealth of Independent States. He was so pleased with
things that he flew off to Kiev before the polls had even closed. For
once, everything went off just as Russia had hoped.
After these farcical elections, Uzbekistan faces yet another period
of social and political tension. The regime of Islam Karimov will
continue to turn moderate believers into fanatics in whatever quantities
needed to keep the regime safe and to scare the West into handing over
anti-terrorist aid.
At the same time, Karimov will cozy up with Russia out of fear of
the recent revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine. Russia has promised it
will try to guarantee that there will be no such revolution in Uzbekistan.
288
However, the situation in the country is growing more and more
explosive by the day. People who once feared prison have discovered
that a life of freedom in Uzbekistan is not all that different from life
behind bars. They no longer fear taking extreme measures.
Yet the Karimov regime's real enemy is not extremism, but the
extreme poverty of the population at large. Real democratic elections
could save Uzbekistan from this impending social explosion, but the
regime refuses to risk losing power. The West may ignore Uzbekistan's
human rights abuses and Russia may long for a manageable Uzbekistan,
but only time will tell how long Karimov can withstand the increasing
public discontent and desperation in Uzbekistan.
Muhammad Salih is the head of the Erk Democratic Party of
Uzbekistan. He contributed this comment to The Moscow Times from
exile in Europe.
This article was taken from The Moscow Times
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/12/30/009.html
ARE WE LOSING OUR SENSE OF HUMOR?
December, 2004
The dictator of the Middle East Saddam Hussein will soon be
appeared before the court. Islam Karimov, the Cenral Asia dictator
himself, calls Saddam Hussein's regime as "antihuman", and acclaims
the punishment of poor Saddam. Poor Saddam.
He is poor, because he wasn't lucky. If he would have been a
dictator in Uzbekistan, no one would have judged him for his crimes.
Russia, who regards the democracy as a luxury in the post-Soviet
countries, would stand for Saddam-in-Uzbekistan as a mountain. China
would cordially embraced with him, supporting the steady course on
totalitarianism in Uzbekistan.
And, of course, Saddam would have become a key ally in the antiterrorist campaign, and he would have been accepted with honor, and
assumed as a respected person in White House and the Chamber of
Lords of the United Kingdom.
Moreover, no one would have called him "dictator", but the
"President of Republic of Uzbekistan". He quietly would prolong his
289
"presidential authorities" by the referendums, in which with the help of
the "invincible majority of voices" he would conquer himself as a single
rival against himself. Poor Saddam wasn't just so lucky!
Moreover, Saddam likewise Karimov could be ascended at the top
of parliament, but not be sent to a scaffold. At the end of December
Karimov will conduct parliamentary elections where marionette parties
will be involved. The result is obvious: The parties will declare in one
voice that they will not fight for the authority, but they want to serve for
the homeland headed by dear Islam Abduganiyevich". Karimov ,
promising total transparency of the elections, calls the OSCE
representatives from all of the democratic countries to supervise voting
process during the elections.
Actually, we can believe in his words because all the summoned
parties are his own parties. The winner will be a man of Karimov.
Opposition meanwhile is tightly folded. Karimov doesn't permit the real
opposition to take part at the elections at this time either. The
representatives of opposition are arrested, the so-called "forbidden
literature" has been secretly foisted on them among drugs or the like
compromised means. Forbidden literature can be anything: it can be a
newspaper or a book which mentions the names of the leaders of
opposition or oppositional parties.
Persecution of the opposition and its decedents is an unalienable
part of the investigation practice of Uzbek law-enforcement agencies.
Hundreds of prisoners were killed in the basement of the ministry of
security service of Uzbekistan. Kidnapping of a person for objecting to
the regime is an usual issue. Last month 9 people have been detected by
the organs of special services just because there were religious
believers. According to official data, about 8 thousand prisoners of
conscience are languishing in the dungeons of Uzbekistan, while
unofficially there are three times more. Amnesty doesn't not spread over
the political opponents.
Even though the period of punishment has expired, people are not
released and continue to stay in prison. Thus happened recently to
Murad Zhurayevym, former member of parliament and representative of
oppositional party ERK.
After he spent over 10 years in prison, they did not let him go out,
charged him for additional crimes and the period of confinement.
Uzbeks dub Karimov as "our Saddam". True, Karimov didn't shoot his
290
sons-in-law as Saddam did. But, accusing his American son-in-law,
Mansur Maksudi, of stealing of a state treasure, he asked Interpol to
open a case about him. Nonetheless, Mansur Maksudi proved to be not
of such simpleton as Saddam's sons-in-law. He managed to prove
opposite, i.e. that the enormous collection of the diamonds of Karimov's
daughter Gulnary was exactly the stolen property of Uzbekistan state.
The question is why political figures who are so similar to each
other get completely different attitude from the "world community"?
Why Saddam Hussein is prepared to go up at scaffold, while Uzbek
dictator intends to ascend to parliament? And why both cases are seen as
completely normal phenomenon by the "civilized" world? Why this
picture does not cause at least a smile, at least a smirk among people?
I do not speak about the protest against the dual standard with
respect to the dictators. I'm speaking quite about irony of the common
sense! Or the world did lose a feeling of humor?
TWO COMPONENTS OF GLOBAL TERROR
December, 2004
In 2002 Uzbekistan signed a declaration on strategic partnership
with the United States. But it has implemented none of the articles of the
declaration in the areas of democracy and human rights, while the US
has kept its word and continued to help Uzbekistan in the international
arena both financially and politically.
But in August last year, under public pressure the White House
cancelled its help worth 17 bln dollars to Uzbekistan.
In his turn President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan immediately
flew to Moscow and signed an agreement on strategic partnership for
the second time. This time with Russia.
Islam Karimov assured his Russian counterpart that "Uzbekistan
can not manage without such a natural ally as Russia". Meanwhile he
did not forget to snap at the known opponent (i.e. the US) who, as
Karimov put it, ‘had thrust on him something harmful, but which he
managed to rumble in time".
It’s true that they thrust things on Islam Karimov which are not so
pleasant for him. They thrust democracy, human rights, freedom of
291
speech, the registration of opposition parties, democratic elections, a
liberal economy and so on.
Before leaving for Moscow President Karimov banned the
SOROS Fund as he considered it one of the effective centres for
spreading the "virus of democracy" in the heart of a totalitarian state.
The essence of the Fund has been explained personally by Eduard
Shevarnadze, who lost his throne at the end of last year during "the
velvet revolution" in Tbilisi. Islam Karimov was deeply inspired by
Putin’s critical attitude towards "various kinds of international
organisations within the CIS states". The Uzbek president immediately
stopped the activity of "another axe of wreckage" – Inter-News - as soon
as he returned to Tashkent.
What does all this mean? The partnership with the West - even if
the West is its ally in the war on terror – has not ensured Islam Karimov
will remain president for his whole life. But Russia could. The Uzbek
ruler has always known this peculiarity. But it was not necessary to rush
things. One could "shear more wool off a sheep" while the noisy antiterror campaign is still under way. By signing the declaration with
America, the Uzbek leader knew that he would not implement one
single article regarding democratic reforms. He waited for his moment
to turn his back on the USA and face Russia instead. And his moment
came when the State Department announced its decision to stop the aid
worth 17 bln.
Now there is no need for Islam Karimov to play on democracy.
The parliamentary elections scheduled for December, will take place
again (for the forth time!) without an Opposition. He can forget his
promises to register the Opposition. He can simply book seats in the socalled "Uzbek Parliament" and representatives of the puppet parties can
occupy them. Both the banning of international organisations and the
strengthening of persecution of the Opposition are the beginning of big
"cleansing". Similar acts will increase on the eve of "elections".
They say that the OSCE will monitor these "elections". Were that
to happen, Karimov’s regime would be celebrating its most infamous
victory over Western Democracy in the forthcoming year. This would
mean that the West at last agreed with the concept of the Central Asian
tyrants on "special mentality of the Central Asian people, who are not
able to accept democracy". This would mean that the dictator had forced
the world to accept his rules of the game and henceforth he will dictate
292
in the region his own method of democracy – as the dictators put it ‘SO
CALLED DEMOCRACY’.
After this victory Islam Karimov will hold his Fifth Referendum
to extend his Presidential term for the fifth time for seven (not five)
years. And then northing will remain for the West but to celebrate the
25th anniversary of the happy rule of the Uzbek Patriarch sometime in
2013. Of course, if there will be no social explosion in Uzbekistan
within the intervening period. Now there are only a few explosions.
They occur under the full control of authorities. The names of the
perpetrators of these "acts" are known beforehand and, as a rule, they
arrest the "attackers" within three days and put them on trial. And all the
"attackers", as a rule, "sincerely" confess to a crime before being
executed. But sometimes there are exceptions, when the arrested person
risks everything and speaks about the games of the intelligence
agencies.
Last year the political prisoner, Zayniddin Askarov, told the
BBC’s correspondent about how the National Security Service of
Uzbekistan prepared the explosions of 1999 and then disappeared
without leaving a trace. Now no one knows whether the eyewitness of
the regime’s crimes is alive or not.
But bombings are still occurring. The wind of global terror is
blowing for the joy of dictators excusing their repressions against
different-minded people and the opposition. The logic of our rulers is
simple: if America does not support, Russia does, and if Russia doesn’t,
then China does. It would be even better if Russia united with China
against America, the country that asks Uzbekistan to move forward
towards democracy. The geopolitical location of Uzbekistan allows it to
manoeuvre among the shark-states, digging up their gears to support the
life of a rotten regime. It’s important to be supported no matter who the
supporter is. This is why, when they say Karimov turned his face from
the West or Moscow, one should consider it a symbolic act. The school
siege in Beslan has undoubtedly strengthened the totalitarian regimes in
the former Soviet states. Terror strengthens terror. Terror unties tyrants’
hands, gives them unlimited rights to oppress all opposition without any
resistance, especially in such anti-democratic societies as Uzbekistan.
In Uzbekistan all accusations against all the political prisoners, I
repeat against all the political prisoners, were baseless. All the political
prisoners were forced to confess through torture and threats. According
293
to official figures, the number of prisoners who passed through these
tortures is around 8,000. And they are three times more according to
non-official figures.
Uzbekistan - the key state in the region left by the world to the
desire of mentally unbalanced ruler – is waiting for its fate. Despite
countless natural resources and comparatively good economic
achievements at the beginning, the favourite infrastructure and
homogenous population with enough intellectual potential, Uzbekistan
has turned into the most undeveloped country in the world over the past
fifteen years. Uzbekistan is the most instable state in Central Asia. This
instability threatens the whole region. The terror in Uzbekistan is the
direct result of the state terror by Karimov’s regime. Over the 15 years
of his rule this leader has done everything to create die-hard fighters
from ordinary citizens, and zombie bombers from peaceful believers.
Suicide bombers commit double crime – the kill themselves and
innocent people. But there is another type of zombies: they are dictators.
They are created by the world’s carelessness and double standards in the
policy. They kill more people than any suicide bomber. The only
difference is dictators will be extolled for the killings as strugglers
against terror, but suicide bombers will be consigned to perdition.
Usually the nature of these types of zombies is simple, though
experts try to give it religious or national colours. Their cruelty is equal
both in Jerusalem and Tashkent.
They are twins. They are two components of the Global Terror.
One can not survive without another. One creates or eats another up. By
killing innocent people around they move alive in the entire world.
AN INTERVIEW WITH MUHAMMAD SALIH
Ferghana.Ru, Alisher Saipov, 20.01.2005
From the editorial office: Results of the online-poll organized by
Ferghana.Ru indicates that 30% visitors to our website do not think that
there is opposition in Uzbekistan. Almost every third visitor is
convinced that the opposition exists but is compelled to operate from
abroad.
President of Uzbekistan Islam Karimov does not think that there is
any serious opposition in the country nowadays. He therefore does not
294
advise foreign organizations "to artificially create what does not even
exists in Uzbekistan." "If you want opposition, look for it among the
youth and not among the officials rejected by the people," Karimov was
quoted as saying. As far as Karimov is concerned, Muhammad Salih
who has lived this last decade abroad is among the "rejected".
Salih, leader of Erk, poet, and writer, was the only person to
challenge Karimov in the presidential race in 1991. Salih left
Uzbekistan in 1993, when criminal charges were pressed against him.
The human rights community calls the charges fabricated.
The Supreme Court of Uzbekistan convicted Salih under articles
"Encroachment on the constitutional regime" and "Encroachment on the
president" in November 2000 and sentenced him (in absentia) to 15.5
years imprisonment. Uzbek justice claims that Salih organized the first
terrorist acts in Tashkent - the 5 explosions that rocked the capital of
Uzbekistan in February 1999, killing 16 and wounding over 120.
Investigation established that the opposition leader together with
gunmen of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan organized raids from
Tajikistan to Uzbekistan in 1999 and 2000.
Salih lives in Germany. He has the official status of a political
immigrant. Independent journalist Alisher Saipov met with the
opposition leader on behalf of Ferghana.Ru news agency. This
conversation with Salih begins a series of interviews with opposition
leaders in post-Soviet Central Asian countries.
Question: A parliament of two houses was elected in Uzbekistan
on December 26, 2004. As far as the president and state officials are
concerned, the election was free and fair. Foreign observers in their turn
cite gross violations. The opposition - Erk [Freedom] and Birlik [Unity]
- was not permitted to participate in the election. Can we say that the
Uzbek opposition missed its chance to participate in political life of the
country again?
Muhammad Salih: No, it did not miss the chance. We could not
miss it. I had written it two years before the election. It was clear from
the very beginning that Karimov would not permit the opposition to run
for the parliament. Stalling for time, he flirted with the West permitting
it to hope that he might let the opposition participate. At least
selectively, at least the organizations more or less loyal to the regime.
Like Birlik. The Americans swallowed it. The US Department of State
announced that "some parties of the opposition may get official
295
registration." Justice Ministry denied Birlik registration, and
functionaries of the movement decided to enlist the services of
"initiative groups" to participate in the election anyway. Their attempt
failed. Not a single Birlik candidate was registered. We were not
surprised. When he signed the strategic partnership treaty with
Washington, the president immediately became "an improving son of a
bitch". It ensured a steady flow of financial assistance from the world
power. He played this role so convincingly that the US Department of
State began hoping for some improvement in the situation with human
rights and democratization in all earnest. We all know that these two
problems are the thorn in the hide of America's policy with regard to
Uzbekistan. Democratic institutions in America regularly remind the
Administration of Karimov's dictatorial habits and condemn it for the
alliance with him. Well, all hopes for any improvement were vain.
Moreover, Karimov executed half a turn from his ally to Russia, making
it clear that any pressure and he will complete it. That's typical of the
president of Uzbekistan. It's his usual blackmail trick. The president
always uses it to extricate himself from difficult situations. Strange as it
may seem, it usually works.
Question: Do you think it will be possible for the Uzbek
opposition to participate in the presidential election in 2007?
Muhammad Salih: There is always a chance, but what kind of
participation will it be? Like in 1991 when the authorities tampered with
the results or like in 2002 when Karimov's "opponent" voted for
Karimov? Karimov's regime will never permit a free and fair election.
When his presidency is over, Karimov will not step down. Moreover, he
will never permit a candidate of the opposition to run for president - not
even under his control. He permitted the opposition to participate in the
presidential election in 1991 and I think he was defeated by the Erk
candidate. I say "I think" because only Karimov and chairman of the
Central Election Commission know the truth. Chairman of a district
executive committee in the Zhizzakh region told me that they had spent
the whole night destroying bulletins for the candidate of the opposition,
i.e. the votes cast for me. It was a sham on the nationwide scale. Even
foreign observers saw it but they were glad that we had participated in
the election in the first place. They did not know anything about how
officials of the presidential administration had tried to persuade me not
to run against Karimov. They did not know that Karimov feared us even
296
though we lacked finances or foreign support. He even ordered
suspension of transaction of the sums Erk was to receive from the state
for its campaign.
It was announced the morning after the election that the candidate
of the opposition had polled about 33% votes. One of the functionaries
who released this information was sacked four hours later. It was
announced that Salih had polled about 15%. The following day even
that figure was "corrected" to 12.7%. That was the last official
announcement. Karimov probably retained this fear. He would not have
strained his ingenuity to prevent the opposition from participation in the
election otherwise. On the contrary, he'd have permitted it to run for the
parliament so as to enable the people to see who is who. Karimov
announced on the day of the election that Uzbek opposition had been
rejected by the people and lacked any support in society. Great! What's
the problem then? Let these outcasts run for the parliament and
president! Let them see with their own eyes that they are rejected, let
them be defeated by your own parties if they insist! No, Karimov would
not permit it because he himself does not believe what he is telling the
people. Because he knows who the people really rejects.
Question: Uzbekistan elected a parliament of two houses on the
13th year of its sovereignty. Kyrgyzstan in its turn will elect a
parliament of one house this February. Do you think the number of
houses is important for development of the country?
Muhammad Salih: It may be important for Kyrgyzstan but not for
Uzbekistan. The difference is that the Uzbek opposition did not
participate in the election. All 5 parties that ran for the parliament are
parties of President Karimov. It does not really matter which one of
them came in first. Karimov won in any case. That was how everything
was fixed. This time the president banded corrupt bankers and grafters
into what he called Liberal Party several months before the election. The
rest of the puppet parties were ordered to follow in its wake and not to
grumble about violations. Old puppet parties did as they were told.
There was dissatisfaction of course but it was never vented. Absolutely
nothing changed after the election. Lawmakers of a single house of the
parliament voted for Karimov until now. Both houses will vote for him
from now on.
Question: What do you think of the "velvet" revolution in Georgia
and "orange" in Ukraine? Are peoples of Central Asian countries
297
capable of that too? Some observers comment on Central Asian
presidents' fear of sudden changes...
Muhammad Salih: Fear will not deter death if death has come.
When their time comes, nothing will save Central Asian regimes. They
will collapse. Some shortsighted analysts began talking about "objective
and subjective reasons behind the fall of the Soviet empire" when the
Soviet Union disintegrated. As a matter of fact, its time was up and that
was that. Countries are like men, they are born and eventually they die. I
reckon that dictatorial regimes in the post-Soviet zone are living on
borrowed time now. The Georgian regime was the first to expire, and
the Ukrainian followed it. This is what awaits the rest of the regimes
too. This is just a matter of time.
Question: Some observers perceive a collision of interests of
Russia and the West in the latest political developments in the
Commonwealth. Refusal to extend licenses and registration of foreign
organizations in Uzbekistan, criticism of Western politicians (Akayev)
are viewed as an attempt to please Russia. What do you think the
political bearing points should be like - pro-Russian, pro-Western, or
pro-American?
Muhammad Salih: Neither pro-Russian nor pro-Western. They
should be democratic, that's all. It is very important in this period of our
history. It is important that we stand on our own feet economically and
politically, as befits truly independent states. That we become friends
with a stronger neighbor but not lackeys. Turkish states located between
two colossi - Russia and China - have always had to maneuver. We only
have to make sure that this maneuvering does not betray the interests of
our peoples. From this point of view, I'm worried that our lands are sold
to powerful neighbors for money. Land does not belong to the president.
It belongs to the people. Nobody must be permitted to sell it to foreign
countries.
Question: Observers predict a revolution in Kyrgyzstan. Do you
think the tendencies existing in Kyrgyzstan may set an example for
other Central Asian countries? Is there a chance that these events may
continue on the regional level?
Muhammad Salih: Some so called analysts treat this possibility
with undisguised suspicion. They think that this activeness of the
population in Central Asia may lead to violence. Regardless of what
these "analysts" may be saying on the subject, I regard opposition in
298
Central Asia as sufficiently mature and prepared to prevent chaos in the
region. I believe that revolutions that may take place in Tashkent and
Bishkek will as peaceful as they were in Tbilisi and Kiev. Unlike the
Ukrainian and Georgian opposition, ours has a weak point. I'm talking
about passiveness of international support. It is not something to blame
us for, it depends on the situation in international affairs. In other words,
we should continue without looking at who is saying what about us. We
have to work with the masses and organize them. All the rest will come
in its own time.
Question: The impression is that the Uzbek opposition respects
President of Kyrgyzstan Askar Akayev. Probably because Akayev is not
like Karimov since he tolerates opposition in his country. On the other
hand, the phrase "Kyrgyzstan is an island of democracy" is uttered with
irony these days. Your opinion of the Kyrgyz regime and President
Akayev?
Muhammad Salih: A comparison with Karimov certainly puts
Akayev in a better light, hence our attitude. Viewed against the
background of the Uzbek dictator who would not balk at listening to
stories about how political prisoners are tortured, Akayev is a democrat.
Political opposition in Kyrgyzstan participates in elections. There are
repressions in this country too, but not on the scale they take place in
Uzbekistan. The opposition even has its own newspapers - not
underground ones like we have in Uzbekistan. They are freely
distributed in the capital of Kyrgyzstan. In Uzbekistan, carrying a
newspaper of the opposition or a book written by opposition leaders is
like carrying drugs or cold steel. Having an opposition activist in the
family or just being a classmate of one is enough in Uzbekistan for
becoming a criminal in the eyes of the authorities. So, we can and do
compare the two presidents, and our Kyrgyzstan brothers should praise
Allah they have Akayev. You can compare Akayev and Havel of course
and criticize your president condemning him as a tyrant. You will be as
correct as I'm correct in praising your president. I do not intend to
idealize Akayev or his policy but he is the best among authoritarian
Central Asian leaders as things stand.
Question: Do you support the methods the opposition is using in
power struggle in Kyrgyzstan: political alliances, etc?
Muhammad Salih: I do. Depending on the situation, it is all right
for the opposition to form coalitions and alliances as long as its
299
activities remain within the framework of the Constitution. There is
nothing surprising in the opposition's aspirations for power. Striving for
power (our dictators use a different term, you know) is the first priority
of every opposition.
Question: Voters' thumbs were marked in Kyrgyzstan to prevent
violation of the law. It was done with the help from the US Embassy
and Ambassador Stephen Young. State officials called it an affront
humiliating the people but the opposition supported the idea
wholeheartedly. What's your opinion of the innovation?
Muhammad Salih: This procedure is used in many democracies. I
consider it certainly helpful. It helps with prevention of tampering with
the outcome, you know.
Question: What activists of the Kyrgyz opposition do you know
personally and know well? What activists of the opposition and state
officials in Kyrgyzstan command your respect?
Muhammad Salih: I respect everybody. I know Roza Otynbayeva.
We met at an international conference in Brussels. She is smart and
strong-willed. I also know Tursunbai Bakir uulu. As the ombudsman, he
is not in active politics nowadays. He is a worthy politician with good
intentions. I know others only by articles in the media and I respect
many of them. I try to keep track of their activities. I'm happy when they
succeed and sad when they are not.
Question: You wishes to the people of Kyrgyzstan on the eve of
the parliamentary (February 27) and presidential (October 30) elections?
Muhammad Salih: I pray to Allah for these elections will be truly
the choice of our Kyrgyz brothers and not of their dictators. I want this
election to bring peace and prosperity to the ancient land of Turkestan,
not unrest.
Alisher Saipov, exclusive for Ferghana.Ru
THE WAY TO GLOBAL DEMOCRATISATION
It’s been only a year since «color revolutions» have take place in
three post –soviet countries, but critics have already started talking
about their failure. People are still living in poverty, unemploeyment is
still high and corruption is still rampant. All of these constitutes failure,
according to the critics. As if given a chance the former government
300
would have resolved these problems had they not been overthrown.
Still, events which have taken place in these three countries have the
same historical meaning as Gorbachev's perestroika. And even more so.
Perestroika was the revolution from above, when «colored
revolutions» were the revolutions from below. Unlike, perestroika, these
revolutions happened in the minds of people. One shouldn'd be afraid of
calling them revolutions, because they were real revolutions. One also
shouldn't speculate about the word «evolution», because revolution is
the last phase of evolution and it's logical conclusion.
One has to be very honest to see the reality. After the collapse of
the Soviet Union, our region went back into the same geopolitical shape
as in the beginning of 20th centuary. Central Asia is again becoming an
important part of the world geopolitics. Control over this region mean
control over the whole of Eurasia. In the beginning of the 20th centuary,
Great Britain and Russian tried to get access to the region as far as
Afghanistan and even further. The great powers divided their sphers of
incluence by creating a buffer zone between them-Afghanistan. Great
Britain has lost this game to Bolshevik Russia.
It looked like as if the Bolsheviks and later the Soviet Union has
almost fulfilled the dream of the Peter the Great to «wash his boots in
the water of the Indian ocean». However, it didn't bound to happen.
Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and ten years later was
forced to leave it. Two years later, the Soviet Union collapsed. So, the
great game started again. But this time, the players changed and instead
the Great Britain came China. China started to compete for the
superpower status in the region.
«Color revolutions» irritate Russia and China, the two main
players in Eurasia.
Revolutions weaken the position of two giants, revolutions are the
obstacle to restore totalitarian regimes. They give international
legitimacy to the revolutionaries, they teach them to stand on their feet
and to be the true owners of their countries.
The fear of revolutions has forced Russia and China to stand by
the shooting of peaceful demonstrators in Andijan. Russia and China
stronly object to any initiatives to promote democracy in the region.
They pretend to be defenders of the Central Asian people against the
West, they talk about «export of revolutions, which doesn't make any
301
sense. There is no export of revolutions. West has never went beyond
the role of passive observer of the revolutionary situations in the former
Soviet Union. West has only interfered when revolution became
inevitable and when the end of the regimes became obvioius. That
happened in Georgia and Ukraine. In Kyrgyzstan, West even didn't
bother to voice its support to the popular uprising against Akaev's
regime. Future development of the region depends on the willingness of
the West (mainly the EU) to participate in the new great game and if so,
how high is the risk the EU is willing and going to take to have its
influence in Central Asia.
American hegemony as a stability factor has already become
doubtful. However, what Asia and Europe together can offer instead 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. In
any case, people of Central Asia cannot afford being a backyard of those
mighty countries anymore.
Revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, despite all
their shortcomings. Showed that nothing can be the same anymore. The
only way out of totalitarianism is democracy. Idealists in Central Asia
should not be distracted by the fight of the gians for energy resources
and geopolitical supremacy in the region. Instead, they should focus on
working with public to prepare them to democratic changes. Nobody
takes the word «revolution» as seriously as we do. The reason is that
nobody is so desperate for is as we, the children of Asia, do. Long live
revolution!
2005
THE KILLER OF THE SQUARES
Tyrants have very difficult lifes. They don’t sleep in their house,
they constantly change their places of residence, they rarely leave the
capital, being afraid of palace coups. Saddam Hussein used to live this
life, Presidents of Lybia and Uzbekistan still lives this life.
When Uzbek tyrant drives through Tashkent streets, nobody
knows, whether he is definitely in one of the cars in cortege, which is
passing by. The reason for this is that windows of all three protected
cars are blackened. Tyrant can be in any of those cars and may be not in
302
any. Tyrants have a difficult life to live. They have troubles living in
their own countries, among their own servants and employees. They live
a life of a state offender who is at large and wanted in every single
corner. They organise public holidays with lots of celebrations and
festivities, but the only invited guests there are their boduguards and
national, or rather anti-national guard.
However, Uzbek tyrant is afraid not only of people. Often, his fear
spread to things which don’t have anything to do with his security. For
example, he is paranoid of squares. During sixteen years in power,
President Karimov got rid of almost all squares in the capital, Tashkent.
Student’s square was the first one subject to distruction in 1992. It
happened after students uprising. I still hear trembling voice of the
dictator, speaking to me on a phone: “Your guys went on strike in
campus. If you don’t calm them down, you’d suffer consequences”.
I didn’t know by then, that by the time he called, two of the
students were already shot dead. Those days, Karimov just started to
kill. His voice trembled that time, not only because he gave an order to
shot at unarmed people, but because he was going through his first
experience of a killer. After shooting at students’s rally, Karimov gave
an order to surround campus with an barbed wire. It might seem
unbelievable but the campus was really surrounded with barbed wire
and the square, where young people use o get together, was totally build
over. Every single square makes the dictator paranoid. Square is the
place where crowd’s energy is being concentrated. This is not a positive
energy, it is rather negative and aggressive. Energy is going up, and like
a cloud accumulates rain, Dictator chose barbaric, but the only true way
to get rid of the cloud-to shoot. He fires from real guns. In Andijan he
showed this method to the whole world. The square in Andijan was the
last to escape from square paranoia of the dictator. Now, he started to
get rid of the markets. Market is also a potentially dangereous place
where, like in the square, crowd accumulates energy. But, market is not
a new invention, market is our historical heritage. For centuaries,
almost none of the rulers had guts to touch markets. To shut the market
meant to insult the honor and dignity of the citizens. However,
Karimov’s fear is so big that he started destroying markets.
“Hyppodrome” was the main market square in Tashkent. It was
shut few years ago. Then the authorities tried to shut down market in the
303
old city of Tashkent. But people’s resistance was so immense and the
market was left untouched.
After the revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan,
Karimov came to conclusion that his strategy towards squares is the
right one. Nobody, but the Uzbek dictator, came up with the idea to get
rid of the squares to prevent mass protests. Nobody elase, but Karimov
could come up with such a simple, yet right way, to destroy squares. No
squares-no crowds. If there are no crowds then everyone in the country
is happy. When the West was the ally of Uzbekistan, it seemed that
everyone in the country is happy. Now, it is not the case. The strategy of
Uzbek tyrant didn’t prove sustainable. Uzbeksitan is turning into a huge
square, the biggest one in history. The killer energy is accumulating in
Uzbekistan with the enormous speed and this energy is fatal for tyrants
Karimov cannot execute this square. He cannot do it even with the help
of Russia or china.
The only way is to recognise this square as Independent, Free
from any tyranny and any outside interference.
2005
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.
304
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
305
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.
A Call to Pro-Democratic Nations
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;
- Impose political and economic sanctions against the current
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
306
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.
Muhammad Salih
2/1/2006
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?
307
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:
Democracy-Building & Modernization of the Political System
- 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.
Economic & Social Modernization
- Establish trade relations with the region and conduct open crossborder 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.
National Security & Foreign Policy
- 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; 308
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.
Muhammad Salih
2/1/2006
SPEECH OF MUHAMMAD SALIH
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.
309
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
310
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
disappointment and eventually massacre of more then a thousand
innocent people. I believe that the example of Karimov shows that
regimes like this cannot be reformed, rather they should be changed. It
is pointless to play diplomatic games and punish such regimes with half
measures. In a democratic society, when there is a murder case, the
murderer won’t be punished only half way. The same legal standards
should be applied to those who murder on behalf of a dictatorial state.
The current regime can be defeated only if the power is changed,
which will require first and foremost the resignation of President
Karimov. It is difficult to imagine the Karimov will resign voluntarily.
International pressure is absolutely essential to make Karimov step
311
down peacefully. It is important to persuade Russia and neighboring
Central Asian states, which unfortunately remain the only hope for
Karimov’s survival, that he should leave. In Andijan, the only way that
the dictatorial regime of Karimov knew how to react was to shoot
peaceful protestors, his own citizens.
However, although he could this in Andijan, tomorrow, he won’t
have such chance. There is an increasing tendency among the officers of
the Uzbek army and Ministry of Internal Affairs to defy the inhumane
orders of their commanders. This tendency will grow.
An interim government could be set up as soon as Karimov steps
down. It should consist of members of democratic opposition and we
envision that it would function for three months. Upon completion of
this term, presidential and parliamentary elections should be held in the
country. It is absolutely important to avoid any period of power vacuum
in the country.
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
312
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.
313
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
«BALSAM FOR THE DICTATOR»: MUHAMMAD SALİH
RESPONDS TO RUSSIAN EXPERTS' CRITICISM
Ferghana.Ru news agency, Staff correspondent, 31.01.2006
The article "Muhammad Salih urges the West to aid a "peaceful
revolution" in Uzbekistan" and Russian experts' comments it included
certainly drew the attention of general public. Ferghana.Ru appreciates
all comments and opinions on the subject mailed to it. Many of them
cannot be published as being too emotional but comments by Salih
himself follow below (unabridged). We invite other activists of the
Uzbek opposition, scientists, specialists, and representatives of the
authorities to participate in the debates on Ferghana.Ru web site.
Balsam for the dictator
Critics condemn the Uzbek opposition for "painting it rosy" and
calling the situation in Uzbekistan pre-revolutionary. Prominent experts
(that's how Ferghana.Ru web site introduced them) do not think that the
population of Central Asia and particularly of Uzbekistan is ready for
democratic changes and call Karimov's regime sturdy and "capable of
reforms". Karimov owes this moral support to the allegedly liberal
general public in Russia. These statements could have been dismissed
without second thought were it not for a certain nuance: they are made
at the moment when Russia i.e. Putin all but took over Uzbekistan, one
of the Central Asian countries. The president of Russia used the moment
of "Karimov's fear of a revolution" to promote "national interests". The
Uzbek president is all but inane with worry. Viewed from this context,
Russia's initiative amounts to abuse of a mentally handicapped. Putin
314
was not alone to fail to condemn the massacre in Andizhan. We see now
that neither does general public in Russia condemn it. Neither the
democratic opposition not the liberal intelligentsia have raised their
voice against the crime committed by Karimov. Moreover, strategic
centers' analysts encourage Karimov's regime. Their analysis of the
"situation" becomes a balsam that slows down erosion of legitimacy of
Karimov's regime and its policy of state terror.
Following in the steps of the Uzbek president, Russian analysts
scare the world with the threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Predicting
the future of Uzbekistan, [they] view Islamic radicals as the only
possible alternative to Karimov's regime. Even more surprising, [they]
do not offer a single proof that precisely Islamic radicals and nobody
else will ascend to state power when Karimov is gone.
Once truly magnificent, the Russian intelligentsia has fallen
victim of imperial daydreaming. Idealistic dissenters of the 1960's and
1970's who promoted human rights and universal values in the
totalitarian state passed away or are no longer active.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, attitude of the Russian
general public towards democratic changes in Central Asia was
practically always indifferent, sometimes more interested, but never
compassionate and democratic - like in the late USSR.
I remember a meeting of the Moscow "underground" in the
apartment of my friend Natalia Zimyanina, a critic and the daughter of
Mikhail Zimyanin (Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU for
Ideology). It was a period when poets and artists (my friends Dmitry
Prigov, Alexander Yeremenko, Ivan Zhdanov, Aleksei Parschikov, and
others) were more interested in the events in Central Asia than experts
in Central Asian affairs are nowadays. We shared a longing for freedom
and nobody cared about his or her own native language, culture, or
ethnic origins. Much less did anyone care about differences in social
status. We all belonged to intelligentsia, we all thought along the same
lines, and we were not afraid of condemning Gorbachev's regime in the
apartment of Gorbachev's own assistant.
It was 1986, the year when the Perestroika was but in our thoughts
and speeches. The Russian intelligentsia was the leader of the public and
cultural life of the Soviet empire, and we - right in the center of this
empire - enjoyed direct assess to the most advanced ideas of the period.
315
As befits representatives of intelligentsia, we were oppositionists.
We could not be anything else because we wanted to be free and we
were free. The regime could ban our publications, it could eavesdrop on
us and put us under pressure but it could not force us to praise ideals of
communism we did not believe in.
What happened to this zeal of thought in Moscow and, wider,
Russia? Not only in Russia, unfortunately, because neither do I perceive
it in Uzbekistan. I never succeeded in becoming a realist in politics either then or now - because "realistic politics" means the necessity to
put up with the status quo. And the status quo boils down to
establishment of a dictatorship that reminds me of Josef Stalin's.
Some of these so called experts sneer at romanticism of the Uzbek
opposition. As a matter of fact, romanticists are those who perceives
Karimov's regime as capable of democratic reforms.
We of the Uzbek opposition have never tried to underestimate the
strength and capacity of Karimov's regime. On the contrary, we've
always strived for objectivity in evaluation of the aggressive regime so
as to avoid poorly prepared actions that may result in bloodshed.
We maintain that it is wrong to embellish the Karimov's regime
sturdiness and capacity for survival. It's just that the regime has never
yet encountered an organized and mass reaction to its reactionary
actions. Proper organization of the protest potential of the masses will
expose the regime for what it really is - a paper tiger that lacks the
support even in its own security structures.
Along with everything else, regimes like that are lonesome and
particularly so in the new 21st century. World powers use these regimes
every now and then when it suits them, but the regimes in question will
never be taken seriously, as partners or allies all treaties
notwithstanding. World powers will not hesitate to denounce these
treaties when the political situation warrants it or when their own image
in the eyes of the international community is jeopardized. These regimes
are lonesome even among the likes of them. Put all tyrants together.
How many will they number, all these Karimovs and Saddams?
The Parade claims that they number only a dozen nowadays.
Uzbek dictator Karimov rates the fifth. The late Martin Luther King was
certainly right to say, "The evil in the world is done by a minority with
the majority being criminally silent and tolerant."
316
Uzbek President Karimov's policy of genocide against his own
people earned the silence from world leaders and tolerance on the part
of the international community. Indifference with regard to what he did
is a crime as despicable as his actions themselves. Unfortunately, this
criminal tolerance is not a crime. It is but break of ethics that in our
"realistic world" earns but an ironic sneer. Even after the massacre in
Andizhan Karimov attends international forums and summits and
inaugurations in nearby countries.
Watching inauguration of the president of Kazakhstan, I saw
Putin's look of absolute placidity and content directed at Karimov.
It upset me. Putin's placidity and content symbolized mental
equanimity of the political establishment of the post-Soviet territory.
Most leaders of the post-Soviet zone are openly tolerant with regard to
Karimov's crime in Andizhan. The president of Russia even spoke up in
the criminal's defense. It was not what I call ethical. We know, however,
that states and their leaders need economic and political platforms much
more than they need codes of ethics.
Do you know in the meantime that the Crimean War of 1853 was
sparked by ethnic motives (along with everything else, of course)? In
the modern political language, it was a war caused by the problem of
human rights. Here is what I mean. Russia demanded from the Ottoman
Empire extradition of the Hungarian insurgents who had escaped death
at the hands of Russian and Austrian armies. The sultan decided that it
was wrong to send them to their deaths and refused. The Russians then
attacked the Ottoman ships in Sinop, and that was how the Crimean War
began. Is there a country anywhere in the world nowadays that attaches
this importance to ethic values? There is no such country.
There are neither friends nor foes, there are but national interests.
A lot of politicians agree that this is how things stand. The ghost of
Macchiavelli, this eternal prompter, stipulates the rules of the game in
"realistic politics".
A state needs a strong economy, not ethics. It needs
modernization of military hardware and not "outmoded" morals.
Not accustomed to humanism in politics, the international
community is stunned by every humane deed on a politician's part. Very
many were touched when President Clinton offered his bunk to
President Bush Sr. on the plane carrying them to the victims of the
317
tsunami in Indonesia. If you ask me, it was the most important deed any
North American politician has ever done in his private life.
I attentively listened to President Bush's speech at the
inauguration ceremony before his second term of office. His rhetorics
that cold day was earnest. The president spoke of freedom and the
broadcast added weight to the truth of every word. Or was it an acoustic
illusion? In any case, when Senators John McCain and Joseph
Lieberman and two members of the House of Representatives Tom
Lantos and Fred Wolf promoted the bill "Advance Democratic Values,
Address Nondemocratic Countries, and Enhance Democracy Act" at the
US Congress, I knew at once that democracy all over the world could
not have been an acoustic illusion.
The US Congress could pass a resolution on "restriction of
Central Asian dictators' movement", and the European Union [should
have] passed a resolution on restriction of movements of Karimov
himself and on arrest of his bank accounts and bank accounts of his
closest associates. Nobody demands gallows for Karimov. In the
meantime, it is important to prevent him from feeling triumphant after
Andizhan, from believing he has bested the international community,
from dreaming of a problem-free old age. It is important that he is made
afraid of being brought to answer for the crime he committed. Complete
isolation of the dictator will rearrange the forces within the government
in favor of the progressive forces. There are these forces in the
government. Even the look of complacency and placidity would have
been erased from the face of the Russian president. What really counts
is that it would have restored the belief in the possibility of triumph of
democracy on the continent.
http://enews.ferghana.ru/detail.php?id=69680628743.401,1320,13
135150 )
FURTHERING FREEDOM’S CAUSE IN UZBEKISTAN
8th February 2006
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.
318
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 ironfisted 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,
319
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?
• Systematic corruption and economic decay
• Black economy 3x the size of real economy
• High unemployment rate and poverty
• Economic decay
• 65% of population living on less than a US$ 1 a day
• 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 geostrategic 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
320
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. Muhammad (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
321
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.
322
‘‘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.
323
DEMOCRACY IN UZBEKISTAN
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.
International credibility is very much at stake in Uzbekistan.
We also feel compelled to call for common sense and
understanding from all who are involved in the present problem over the
324
cartoon lampooning Prophet Hz. Muhammad. 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
Muhammad 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, illinformed 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.
Muhammad Salih
325
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW OF MUHAMMAD SALİH TO
ARENA: “SERIOUS WORK WITH KARIMOV’S REGIME
STARTS, WATCH THE DEVELOPMENTS”
27.04.2006
Muhammad Salih, 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?
Salih: 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?
Salih: 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
326
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 Salih,
Abdurakhim Polat and others.
Salih: 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.
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
327
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?
Salih: 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?
Salih: 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
328
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?
Salih: 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?
Salih: 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
329
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 Salih 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?
Salih: 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?
330
Salih: 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?
Salih: 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
331
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?
Salih: 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
332
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?
Salih: 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
M.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.
333
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
334
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
Muhammad Salih
335
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.
336
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 scaremongering 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.
337
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 shortsighted 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;
338
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.
Muhammad Salih
23rd May 2006
CULTURES DON’T CLASH. WHAT MAKES THEM
CLAHS IS THE LACK OF CULTURE
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
339
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.
340
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
LIVING UP TO THE IMAGE
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 antiWestern 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
341
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.
342
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.
KARIMOV'S FROGS
Emile Zola used to read newspapers that criticised him every
morning. He joked that these sallies against him were like frogs which
343
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.
344
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
345
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.
16.10.2007
346
EVERYTHING WE HAVE IS OUR LIVES,
AND WE ARE PUTTING THEM AT RISK
The murder of journalist Alisher Saipov makes the fight against
Islam Karimov's regime even greater urgency, Uzbek opposition leader
Muhammad Salih believes.
Muhammad Salih, the chairman of the Erk democratic party who
has been opposing the dictatorship of Uzbek President Islam Karimov
for almost two decades, made a statement in which he accused his
omnipotent rival of killing the journalist from Osh and the publisher of
the Uzbek-language Siyosat newspaper, Alisher Saipov.
Islam Karimov has demonstrated many times over the years of his
rule his ability to kill, giving orders to murder his opponents in streets,
homes and prisons, Salih said. He massacred a whole town in May 2005
– Andijan. Salih believes that no state borders are an obstacle for
President Karimov, and this is proven, the opposition leader said, by the
murder of the imam of the As-Sarahsiy mosque in the town of Karasuu
in southern Kyrgyzstan, Muhammadrafik-kori Kamalov, in August
2006. Salih said that the imam provided shelter to Uzbek exiles in
southern Kyrgyzstan – both secular and religious refugees. He helped
them all, openly showing his discontent with Islam Karimov's policies.
I know that he was killed by Uzbek security services after they
saw how the imam's influence was growing and how he was increasing
his support to opponents of the Karimov regime," Salih said.
The murder of Alisher Saipov also leads to Tashkent, Salih
believes. He said that in order to see who was the real enemy of the
journalist it was suffice to read articles published about Alisher on
Uzbek government-sponsored websites, which accused Saipov of
preparing a coup in Uzbekistan, involvement in terrorism, espionage
and many other crimes. In the person of Alisher Saipov, Salih said,
Uzbekistan's democratic movement lost a bright, kind and selfless
person, who was brave and honest.
"Another victim of Uzbek President Islam Karimov, journalist
Alisher Saipov, was one of millions of young ethnic Uzbeks who
wanted to see Uzbekistan free of tyranny. At the same time, Alisher was
one of few young idealists who wanted to see their homeland free and
tried to do something about it," Salih wrote in Alisher's obituary.
347
The murder of Alisher Saipov shows the vulnerability of
Uzbekistan's democratic movement, Salih said. Uzbek democrats can
confront the dictatorship armed to the teeth by nothing but their lives.
"Everything we have is our lives, and we are putting them at risk,
as did Alisher," Salih said. The leader of Erk said he and his party had
been taught a lesson by the horrible tragedy that the Karimov regime
should be fought regardless of anything.
"We are strong in spirit, and we are continuing to fight," Salih
said.
Uznews.net, 26.10.2007
DISCOVERING THE FREEDOM OF AN UNARMED MAN
August 20, 2008
In April 1968, I was drafted into the Soviet Army. I ended up in
Hungary, in the Southern Group of Forces, a member of my division's
reconnaissance battalion, stationed in the city of Szekesfehervar.
At the end of May, my division was moved to a town on the
border with Czechoslovakia. We were told the move was made in
connection with a upcoming exercises involving the Southern Group of
Forces. We remained in that town until August 20. There were no
exercises. But we guessed that we were poised to cross into a country
that was rising up against the socialist system. On August 19, my entire
battalion was reequipped. Our old Kalashnikovs were replaced by
modernized ones. Each soldier was given a silencer, two F-1 grenades,
and three full magazines of cartridges. We were told to be prepared to
kill and to be killed. We were told were going to save our Czech and
Slovak brothers from the intrigues of the Western bourgeoisie.
We were young and in our hearts we were glad to be going to war.
Not because we thought we were carrying out the noble mission of
saviors, but because going to war made us significant. War made us
powerful against our direct oppressors -- our sergeants and officers. On
August 19, our officers stopped pretending in front of us and the
sergeants began speaking to us in polite tones.
I was 18 1/2 years old when I first experienced the strange
freedom of a man carrying a gun.
348
Czechs In Their Nightshirts
We left town at 9 p.m. and crossed the border into Czechoslovakia
about midnight. We passed two Hungarian soldiers standing at the
border crossing. As our column of APCs entered Slovakia, the
Hungarian soldiers waved and shouted. They were the same age as us.
That day, it seems, they forgot how the machine guns of Soviet tanks
had mowed down their older brothers on the streets of Budapest in
1956. At 4 a.m. we entered Bratislava. People in their nightshirts came
out into the streets and couldn't figure out who we were. We approached
the bridge across the Danube and a rumor ran through our APC that the
Slovaks had mined it. I naively thought I could jump from the vehicle
into the river if the bridge blew. It didn't.
We drove into the luxurious Bratislava Castle. Someone said that
Napoleon Bonaparte had once stopped there. Now, on August 21, 1968,
the headquarters of our division and the soldiers of the recon battalion
were stationed there. Within minutes, we had destroyed the green lawns
of the castle grounds.
We slept in that castle -- on the floor, on long, antique tables, on
pianos. And we awoke to the sound of machine-gun fire. The "rebels"
were firing from a clock tower near the castle. We all grabbed our
weapons, but the firing soon stopped.
The order to eat breakfast came soon after and we ate on the
ground outside. We heard a local broadcast say that Bratislava had been
"occupied" by "Bondarenko's band." That is, us -- our division
commander was named Bondarenko.
Helmets On, Weapons Ready
My unit commander, Lieutenant Malyshev, was summoned
urgently to battalion headquarters, where he was ordered to "capture"
the television-broadcasting center.
When we emerged from our APCs in front of the building -- our
helmets on and our weapons ready -- not one of us doubted that we
would fulfill our duty. But we were dismayed to find that the only
person there to meet us was an elderly cleaning lady, trembling with
fright. The lieutenant ordered me to secure the second floor of the
building. I made my way up the stairs, but there were no signs of
resistance. The building was empty. No one had come to work.
We spent the whole day wandering around the building. Bored.
349
The next day we were sent out to patrol the city. This was more
interesting. We were supposed to warn people who gathered on the
streets downtown and disperse spontaneous demonstrations that sprang
up. At one point someone in a crowd threw a Molotov cocktail at our
vehicle and one of us opened fire in response. A girl was killed and for
quite a while afterward her body was paraded through the streets of
Bratislava as a symbol of the bloodlust of the Soviet soldier.
People had written in huge letters on the streets, "It is XXX
kilometers to Moscow! Bon voyage!" But there was no open aggression
from the Slovaks. Some cadets from a local artillery school approached
us and handed out leaflets asking us to end the occupation of sovereign
Czechoslovakia. Young men and women walked up to us and asked,
"What have you done with our Dubcek?"
We didn't know what to say. Of course, we had no idea that
Czechoslovak leader Alexander Dubcek was already in Moscow at that
moment, a guest of the Soviet KGB.
Young, Sentimental Soldiers
Long-legged girls in miniskirts gave us leaflets that said we had
been deceived by our commanders, that we were not liberators but
occupiers. They called on us to go home to our families and friends.
They appealed to our consciences, urging us not to take up arms against
unarmed people. They were really unarmed.
And this disarmed us -- young, sentimental soldiers who had
come from afar, leaving behind our families just like they said in the
leaflets. Our daily encounters and arguments in broken Russian brought
us closer to the Slovaks. They started bringing us beer. Our officers
warned us that the beer might be poisoned, but we drank it all the same.
And that is how the Soviet propaganda about the "rebels" slowly
lost its force. What we had heard did not match what we could see with
our own eyes. At the time, we did not know about the handful of
Russian intellectuals who demonstrated on Red Square against the
Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia. But we shared with them the
same view of Soviet propaganda -- we didn't believe it.
Different Kind Of Freedom
My unit remained in Czechoslovakia for three months, during
which I made quite a few friends and gained vast experience for a 19year-old. We returned to Hungary in November 1968.
350
The suppression of the "counterrevolution" in Czechoslovakia has
passed through my mind in many ways.
I learned that an unarmed person can stand against an armed one.
I felt a kind of freedom that is different from the one felt by a man with
a gun. It was the freedom of an unarmed man.
It was an ancient feeling, one coming straight from Adam himself,
who was driven from Paradise. Adam was released on this Earth with a
feeling of guilt before God and before endless freedom. And this feeling
reeducated me. The feeling of guilt and freedom -- this is the
combination that has been the source of my indomitable optimism in the
face of the world's hypocrisy. And it remains that source to this day.
Muhammad Salih is a longtime dissident from Uzbekistan and the
leader of the Uzbek opposition party Erk (Freedom). He is the author of
more than 20 books and the founder of the National Salvation
Committee, an umbrella organization of Uzbek opposition groups. The
views expressed in this commentary are the author's own and do not
necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL
http://www.rferl.org/Content/Discovering_The_Freedom_Of_An_
Unarmed_Man/1192424.html
RED ATTRACTION FOR RADICALISM
Muhammad Salih`s speech at “13 May Union” international
conference in Brussels 27.10.2009
In the early 90s, along with other political parties, a wave of
religious organizations appeared which have nurtured ideas of devotion
to the God that appealed particularly to young men.
Those groups had not embraced radicalism.
For example the Renaissance Party headed by Abdulla Utaev,
could have been easily integrated into political landscape of our country.
No doubt that there were marginal groups with radical
components such as Tovba, who set the route in founding IMU
eventually. But even those groups could have been brought into
constitutional frame if the right policies were deployed. Repressive
policies forced them out of the system making them rogue from the
mainstream.
351
After the fall of Communism, US and the West have created a
new ideological enemy – Islamic Fundamentalism. Such new ideology
aligned with the policies of new Central Asian dictators. They had no
hesitation to use this ideology in their repressions against opposition and
religious people.
The most reckless among those dictators was Islam Karimov,
who, following Bolshevic methods, launched red terror against everyone
who expressed independent opinion or argued with him. The “red
terror” began to serve as an attraction and breeding ground for ever
growing radicalism.
Islam Karimov has achieved success in the past 20 years in such
dangerous game. He has managed to convince the United States, the
Bush Administration that he is the “shield against Islamic extremism”.
And now he is negotiating with the Obama Administration in an attempt
to preserve his status.
Meanwhile the syndrome of Islamic fundamentalism has
exacerbated in a way that now the entire Uzbek opposition is being
suspected with this syndrome. We had to respond in order to eliminate
this. Thus we have founded “Union of May 13” together with groups
that are branded as religious radicals by the Uzbek authorities.
Today they are sitting with us in this forum, they speak the same
language, the language of democracy. They could be sitting in the death
camp of Jaslik (prison camp in Uzbekistan) too, and speak the language
of violence and abuse with Karimov’s prison torturers, right?
I believe integration is possible, that means one cannot be born as
democrat. He or she should become one. Give the people choice, give
them freedom of expression, let them breath free air, the one that you
breath. Don’t make them to defend themselves against you’re your
wring policies, don’t force them to take arms. An article in the
Declaration of Human Rights clearly elaborates this: “Whereas it is
essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort ,
to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be
protected by the rule of law. The current social political situation in
Uzbekistan is catastrophic. Iit has dramatically deteriorated in a way
that even ordinary people are ready to take arms against Karimov
regime. Those are not religious radicals, nor opposition members, they
are businessmen, workers, teachers, even journalists.
352
While European Union is considering possible revoking of
symbolic sanctions imposed on Uzbekistan, dictator Karimov continues
to build up his repressive machine, breeding his “child” – radicalism.
Prosecutors in this country are openly executing authorities’
orders who give them what number of religious or political activists to
arrest. They torture and kill in a more innovative ways than 5 years ago.
Besides political repressions there are other things that contribute
to strengthening of radicalism such as economic failures. For example
two years ago Karimov quietly banned farmers to move and sell their
produce outside the country. This means that small and medium farms
growing agriculture products will go bankrupt.
This will serve also as another way of enrichment for corrupt law
enforcement and will flourish contraband. The authorities explain this
by saying that this policy would help stabilize prices in the domestic
markets. But the truth is that the regime fears people who are materially
independent from the government. This process only exacerbates
people’s anger towards the government and increases the number of
desperate people who could resort to resolve their problems in a radical
way. In the past the Western governments were more reluctant to
express concerns over the repressive policies of the Uzbek regime, but
now it seems like they surrendered their stance to Karimov and turned
blind eye. Today when the EU is about to revoke the sanctions it
introduced against Uzbekistan 5 years ago, the number of political
prisoners in Uzbekistan has doubled since the time those sanctions were
imposed. Uzbekistan did not comply with a single demand declared in
the sanction terms.
Furthermore, Uzbek Foreign Minister, while embracing Xavier
Solana in Brussels, rigorously warned the EU to do not interfere in
domestic affairs of the “country with great future”.
Apparently, Foreign Minister of “the country with great future”
does not have ability of appreciation for such a generous gesture.
Though Karimov’s regime is much worse than, for example, the
military-junta of Burma, EU sanctions imposed on Uzbekistan are not
even tenth of what Burma got. Instead, the West has been providing
financial and political aid to Uzbekistan for many years in its war
“against extremism”.
353
The West cannot and does not want to acknowledge the fact that
as long as the regime of Karimov exists, the extremism will remain in
the region inevitably, because the main sponsor of this evil is the Uzbek
dictator himself.
Karimov needs extremism to scare OSCE, EU and US, so that
they could regard him as the main shield against “Islmaic
fundamentalism” on the Southern borders of post-soviet landscape.
This is half a problem. The other half relates to its neighbors:
albeit the leaders of neighboring republics do not regard Karimov
friendly, they embrace his style of ruling. The strong-fist and
authoritarian style of ruling in the example of Uzbekistan has proven
itself as effective, in the views of those leaders.
According to press, in Kazakhstan, for example, some Sura’s from
Koran have been added to the list of banned extremist literature. The
city court of Astana has ruled on banning several Sura’s from Koran
under the pretext that they promote ideologies of radical wahabbism.
Perhaps, those courts are not aware that such verdicts only fuel the
spread of radicalism. In other words, the court of Astana simply acted in
Tashkent style.
Karimov is the main cause of hostile policies between the Central
Asian neighbors. He has initiated the establishment of wire- barbed
borders between neighbors. He has always sparked tensions between
leaders during summits in order to create hostility between brotherly
nations.
Radicalization in any society could be stopped by eliminating the
roots that caused it. This means that in our situation only political and
economic freedoms could save us from this dangerous labyrinth.
Are Uzbek authorities ready for reforms?
I don’t think they are or will be ready in the near future?
As Uzbek opposition, what do we have to do?
1. First we have to abandon the illusion that the Uzbek people and
the World view Karimov equally.
2. We need to once again emphasize the fact and let the world
know that one of the main factors of destabilization in Central Asia is
the regime of Islam Karimov. We need to convince the world that the
collapse of the regime will be the liberation not only for Uzbekistan but
for the entire region.
354
3. We need to acknowledge that our method of struggle –
petitions, complaints, monitoring, conferences -against the regime has
proven vulnerable. We need to take ultimate decision on our method of
struggle for our values, and work out an action plan. The program needs
to focus on our core actions within the country.
4. We need to breakthrough the information blockade set by the
regime. We need to let our people know the real situation in the country.
We need to let them know our plans about the future of Uzbekistan.
5. We need to call on boycotting any elections held by the
authorities. Do not fall into illusion of “democracy in slavery” by
registering for participation in the filibuster organized by the regime.
Any elections without people’s participation are fraud.
Our group – Union of May 13th, includes religious societies too,
which denounce terror and are committed to peaceful development of
our country. We are convinced that without integrating religious groups
into the democratic process we cannot establish a genuine stability in
our country. What is the main purpose of our conference today? We are
gathered here to eliminate Karimov’s myth of “Islamic
fundamentalism”, used by the dictator who continues to deceive the
whole world for the past 20 years. We came here to prove that the root
causes of radicalization of Uzbek society need to be searched in the
nature of totalitarian regime of Islam Karimov, and not in the Islam
religion. “Union of May 13” is a perfect example that in the struggle
with the regime, consolidation of different groups is possible. What
bonds these groups in our union is their adherence and commitment to
freedom, justice and denouncing of terrorism, including state terrorism.
We would like to call on uniting all freedom-loving people of
Uzbekistan to join us. I particularly appeal to millions of our
countrymen who suffer from terror of Uzbek authorities: your patience
has limits, your patience starts resembling slavery. Pull your heads up
and stand up from your knees. Do not be afraid of losing your job, or
even your home – your human dignity is above everything.
I appeal to that majority who quietly monitor for the past 20years
how the executioners of the regime torture and neutralize opposition,
religious and independently thinking people. Very soon, the Day of
Shame will arrive. The day when you will realize that your inability to
speak up had served as approval for the crimes committed by the
regime. Wake up while it’s not too late.
355
I appeal to that minority, to that small crowd, which defends this
criminal regime: Abandon that ship of evil, while you have time. Come
to your people, maybe they will forgive your betrayal.
Finally, I appeal to those who, for the past 20 years talked about
uniting opposition, but in reality did everything to destroy it. Your evil
intentions just like of Badr, Yehud, Haibar and Hudaibial are useless
before the unity of supporters of Almighty’s Justice. You failed then,
you will undoubtedly fail this time also.
THE FREEDOM OF UNARMED MAN
(a script for documentary)
Abdumalik Qazaqbay
In the newest history of Turks in Central Asia, which is also
known by its old name Turkistan, two most important movements
against colonizers took place in the end of the 19th century: an uprising
under Dukchi Eshon and the Jadeedism movement, which established
the Kokand Autonomy in 1917.
Temur Khoja, professor: In 1910, they – Munavvar Qori,
Bekhbudi, Abdurauf Fitrat and Usman Khojayev – returned to Tashkent
and opened “jadeed” schools throughout the Bukhara Emirate.
The Jadeedism transformed into a political movement; parties
were established one after another. Today’s Erk party under Muhammad
Salih’s leadership was established in Gorbachev’s times. However, a
party with the same name has already existed back in those days.
Their unifying goal was to establish the state of Turkistan. They
spoke out against dismembering Turkistan by the Soviets into today’s
Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan.
They rejected notions of “Uzbekhood,” “Kazakhhood,” and/or
“Turkmenhood”. They fought with the claim “We are natives of
Turkistan, and we want freedom and independence for Turkistan.”
Professor Temur Khoja’s words are supported by the fact that
Mukhamedzhan Tinishbayev, a Kyrgyz Turk, was appointed as the
prime minister and Mustafa Shokay, a Kazakh Turk, was appointed as
the minister of defense in the government established by Jadeedism
supporters in the Republic of Turkistan.
356
But professor says that Jadeesm movement and the Dukchi Eshon
movement were suppressed by the Russians. A popular movement
tagged “basmatchi” (anti-Bolshevik movement in Turkistan in 1917-26)
in Soviet history books was then launched, however, it had also failed.
Seventy years of silence of the Soviet empire’s rule had befallen
upon Turkistan after these three failures. We see sparks of national
revival only by the end of 1980′s in the heartland of Turkistan –
Uzbekistan.
Ruth Diebler, an American scientist, says the following in this
regard: “When Perestroyka changes have occurred, writers throughout
the Soviet Union, including Uzbek writers, have played an important
role in expressing the desires and opinions of people. A modern-day
writer of this kind is Muhammad Salih…
Poet Rauf Parfi’s words are noteworthy in this context: “The first
strong shock Muhammad Salih inflicted was his poetry which praised
the idea of Turkistan, reviving Turkistan; the poetical art in his poetry is
the art of feeling Turkistan.”
Poet and writer Abdulkhamid Ismail says: “Muhammad Salih was
a poet who fully realized his ideals, the idea of his people, the idea of
Uzbekistan and the idea of Turkistan already in late 1970s and early
1980s.”
Rauf Parfi discusses Muhammad Salih’s ideological platform:
“Muhammad Salih started leading a new generation in Uzbek literature
in 1960s-70s. Our literary heritage was neglected for half a century. The
primary goal Fitrat, Chulpan, Kadyri and many other poets pursued was
Turkistan. And the very idea of Turkistan seemed hostile to the
colonizers. Muhammad Salih was able to revive this idea after Chulpan
and Fitrat, which was literally torn away from our souls.”
Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit descbires Muhammad
Salih: “There are very few poets among politicians in the West. But in
the East, in Turkic states particularly, a big number of poets served as
politicians, statesmen and rulers. Muhammad Salih is one of the
brightest examples of modern Turkic poet-politicians. He is a notable
poet of Uzbek Turks and the leader of the Erk party of Uzbekistan. He
wrote his poems even during harshest repression times. Although the
Soviet Union had collapsed and Uzbekistan was declared independent,
repressions still rage on. Only true masters are able to keep the torch of
357
freedom up high in such times. Muhammad Salih continues to keep the
torch up even facing pressure from one of the most repressive regimes.
He and his supporters are still “smashed against the ground” by the
regime’s propaganda machines. And Salih responds with a poem:
‘If none smashed me against the ground, Who’d give me strength
to jump to skies?!.’
“As a poet, Muhammad Salih jumped to skies long time ago, and I
believe that Erk party under his ruling will soon be victorious too.”
Turkish Prime Minister Necmittin Erbakan: “We have had many
conversations with Muhammad Salih during international meetings and
discussed global issues. As one concerned with the national idea,
Muhammad Salih is our brother who is fighting for independent and
prosperous Uzbekistan. I hope this fighter’s activities progress. I also
hope the Muslim world will be able to embrace a fraternal country –
Uzbekistan – with his assistance. Uzbekistan is a country with a greatest
culture which was home to our pride – globally renowned Muslim
scholars. We are very proud of Uzbekistan.
“Uzbekistan is a country that deserves a good leader both from
historical and strategic points of view. The issue of Uzbekistan is the
issue of saving the whole humankind. For reaching this goal, it is
necessary for Muhammad Salih and his supporters to come to power in
Uzbekistan. Muhammad Salih is a politician who had reached great
achievements in Uzbekistan. He is our brother who is just the right
person to help Uzbekistan be a great historical country. We always
remember Muhammad Salih with respect and wish him success in his
work.”
CHILDHOOD
Muhammad Salih was born in Khorezm on 20 December 1949.
His father, Madaminbek the son of Bekzhanbek, became an orphan
when he was 10. Soviet authorities confiscated Bekzhanbek’s
possessions and property in 1924 and later executed him. In 1942, his
son Madaminbek volunteered to join the army to fight in the World War
II. In 1943, he came home badly unjured during the war but rejoined the
army following his recovery in 1944 and returned home decorated with
medals in 1946.
358
Muhammad Salih writes about those days in “Yo’lnoma” (Course
of life): “I used to ask my dad: ‘Why did you join the army and fought
for these authorities who had executed our forefathers?’ And he would
respond: ‘There were only women left in the village and there was
nobody I could talk to.’ My mother, Kalandar Saryk-kyzy Akila hanum,
used to strictly observe religious rites although she did not have any
religious education.”
Muhammad Salih graduated from high school in 1966 when a
local newspaper, “Pakhtakorlar Ovozi”, was already printing some of
his poems.
In 1967, Salih came to Tashkent and applied to the faculty of
belles-lettres at Tashkent State University but failed to collect enough
points and was admitted to the evening course. But Salih did not want to
do the evening course and returned to Khorezm.
He was conscripted to serve in the army in 1968 and was initially
deployed in the Hungarian town of Székesfehérvár. We see Salih in the
avant-garde of the Soviet military contingent which entered Prague to
suppress the “Prague Spring” uprising in August, 1968.
According to Salih, Czechoslovakia was the turning point in his
spiritual life. People’s fight for freedom, even sacrificing lives, had
changed Muhammad Salih’s view point on life.
“Young men, apparently students of an artillery college,
approached us and gave leaflets urging us to stop occupying sovereign
Czechoslovakia. Men and women approached us and would ask us
‘What did you do with our Dubcek ?’
“We did not know what to say and did not know that their Dubcek
was in Moscow ‘paying a visit’ to the USSR KGB by that time.
“Young ladies with long legs in short dresses would distribute
leaflets which read that we were lied to by our commanders; the leaflets
said we were occupies, not liberators.
“They urged us to leave for home where our next of kin and loved
ones were waiting. They called on our consciences and urged not to
raise arms against unarmed people. The people were indeed unarmed
and this fact disarmed us, since we were young and sentimental soldiers
from far and away countries where our loved ones were and those
leaflets reminded us about them.”
359
The Soviet propaganda against “contras” had thus subsided and
Muhammad Salih no longer believed it.
“The ‘counterrevolution’ suppressed in Czechoslovakia had
unnoticeably got to my head,” says Muhammad Salih.
“I realized that one can resist army while being unarmed. I could
feel the freedom which was different from that of a man with arms. It
was the freedom of an urmed man,” he says.
POETRY
The incomparable Equality exists – we call it a Foot,
Frienship exists – we call it a Rhyme
Boundlessness exists – we call it a Table,
There is Freedom in this world – we call it Poetry.
Upon completing military service in 1970, Muhammad Salih
entered the school of journalism at Tashkent State University. Although
Salih was only 20 years old at the time, he felt himself like a veteran
who had borne all hardships of military service. His experience in
dealing with literature was quite rich as well and he already had studied
works of Remark, London and Hemingway.
The first poetry collection by Muhammad Salih was called “The
fifth season of the year” and was published in 1977. Although this little
book did not bring much fame to its author, it was encountered with an
extraordinary interest of literary critics and intellectuals. The book bore
an absolute novelty both in form and content. This had alerted the
wardens of social realism and they were quick to label Muhammad
Salih an imitator of Western styles.
Rauf Parfi supported Salih and wrote in the foreword to the
“Moon in the well”, the second book by Muhammad Salih, that:
“It would be wrong to say that Muhammad Salih’s search is a result of
Europeanism’s impact on him. Sources of this impact are to be searched
in the historical legacy, the millennial history of the Uzbek literature.”
Poet and writer Abdulkhamid Ismail: “Let me recite a poem by
Muhammad Salih.”
A branch in winter
No leaves. Bare. Bitter.
What other words does one need to describe its loneliness? What
else do you need?
360
Did you lose in your life what which this branch lost?
But you stubbornly strip the word, and strip the branch.
Mercilessly.
And here it is,
More of an orphan than the word “loneliness”,
Thinner than the word “hunger”,
It is a lash shakingly hanging on the tree!..
“Muhammad Salih uses poetical symbols in these poems. The
Uzbek poetry is based not only on words, but also on phrases and word
combinations.
“Words sometimes lose their main goal in the mist of beauties of
phrases. And this is exactly where Muhammad Salih proved to be a poet
who cleared, maintained and “removed” the Uzbek poetry away from
lies and unnatural anomalies. He is one of those poets who returned to
words their true meaning.”
Poetess Gulchekhra Nurallayeva: “In the late 1970’s, a new
generation of talented youth joined ranks of Uzbek men of letters.
Muhammad Salih was their leader. Salih’s poems are unique, they do
not imitate anyone else’s style and bear something absolutely new. He
was both understood and not understood. Those who understood his
poetry welcomed him; those who did not would ironically asked to
explain his poems”.
Vyacheslav Akhunov, a famous artist-conceptualist and the author
of the portrait of Chulpan, which he was brave enough to paint in the
years of stagnation: “In the second half of 1970s, I have suddenly
discovered a wonderful poet. His poems were very metaphorical which
was not characteristic to Uzbek poetry. It was something new. Later I
was introduced to the poet–that was Muhammad Salih.”
Arif Ocal, a former advisor to the president of Azerbaijan and a
docent at the Bilgi University in Istanbul: “Muhammad Salih was very
young in those days. But despite his youth, he still was one of those very
few Uzbek men of letters who enjoyed fame outside of Uzbekistan –
among men of letters and arts in Moscow, Ukraine and Baltic states. He
was renowned not only as a poet but also he was respected as a poet, his
knowledge of history and philosophy, his social position and personal
qualities. Literature was undergoing some kind of a crisis in those years,
and Muhammad Salih appeared on the stage as a leader of a new
361
generation after Rauf Parfi. Muhammad Salih is a representative of
intellectual poetry in the Uzbek literature. There are a number of young
poets who grew up reading Muhammad Salih’s poetry who now want to
follow his poetic path.”
Back in 1985, Muhammad Salih wrote in his “My mother says”
poem, which were dedicated to Chulpan:
You, too, took the same path
I said “Come back”, but you did not. Too late.
The charming chant (of poetry) enticed you
The outcast (poet’s) spirit enticed you
You still took your own path,
Which led you not towards flowers but thorns.
And you shall wonder in the world like that spirit
And will forget your language in those foreign lands.
You, too, took the same path
Bravely looked into the dark cave.
Alas, you, too, will find your fate there
Where the spirit found its destiny…
The poem was written in 1985 and became a reality for Salih
himself in 1993 – he became an outcast and his poems were banned in
his homeland, just like those by Chulpan.
(Ozodlik Radio broadcast on 15 December 2004) “I think books
by Muhammad Salih are not sold in Uzbekistan any more and they are
taken off bookshelves. Personally I have not seen them in bookshops or
libraries.”
Anorkhon Khamdamova shares a case she witnessed when books
by Muhammad Salih were removed in a provincial library: “There are
no [books by Muhammad Salih] in libraries nowadays. I have
personally witnessed one case: I saw these books in a dire condition in
the building of the provincial education department. My brother saw
they were being sorted out and even thrown away. He asked for 20
copies of the “A citizen of dreams” and brought them to us, we took 10
of them.”
Poet Rauf Parfi is joining us: “The history of the Uzbek literature
in the 20th century cannot be considered a history of the Uzbek
literature if Muhammad Salih is not mentioned. He is not mentioned,
although everyone realizes this fact.”
362
Muhammad Salih became famous as a poet after an article entitled
“Explain your poems” by a literary critic Ibrahim Gafurov was printed
in the Uzbekiston Adabiyoti and San’ati newspaper in 1983.
The critic compared Salih’s literary hero to Hamlet: “What does
he actually want? He is always sad and depressed. What else does he
want from this wonderful life we are living?” One such article was
enough to display Muhammad Salih as someone discontented with the
Soviet regime. Publication of this article was the beginning of a
dissident life for Muhammad Salih.
POLITICS
In 1984, policies employed by the Central Committee of the
Communist Party of Uzbekistan became a test of national unity for
Uzbeks. The Central Committee policy of discrimination against
national, cultural and religious values of the Uzbek people. A letter
appeared in these uneasy times and was labeled “The letter of 53”. It
was addressed to the political bureau of the party by 56 young poets and
writers. The letter spoke of the anti-popular policies imposed by the
Uzbek Central Committee of the party. It was sent to the Kremlin in
early 1985 and the administration of the new Secretary-General Mikhail
Gorbachev responded in May. But the issued response was not
addressed to those who complained, rather to the secretary of the Uzbek
Central Committee. The Committee summoned the young mutineers
and urged them “to take the right path”. But the urge had no effect and
only three co-authors retreated, whereas the rest 53 remained steadfast.
These very 53 people would later become the core of the national
liberation movement. The Uzbek opposition was established in the
Writers’ Union under the leadership of Muhammad Salih although it
was yet to be called an opposition.
Muhammad Salih, the author of “The letter of 53” and was
therefore put on top of the “black list” of the Uzbek Central Committee
secretary. But that did not stop Salih and he became more outspoken
about problems of the Aral Sea and health of Uzbek women along with
other writers like Emin Usman.
Abdulkhamid Ismail: “Muhammad Salih also contributed to the
Uzbek literature with his social and political journalism and he had done
363
this work at highest quality levels. His articles in the genre of polemics
in 1980s and 1990s were written at a new quality level.”
Gulchekhra Nurullayeva: “We can now see new aspects of
Muhammad Salih’s talent – he is now speaking out as a respected and
talented publicist. He is touching upon many issues and problems in the
Uzbek society both in his speeches and articles where he uses logical
and well-grounded arguments. This is what brought him closer to his
people.”
Even his poems in western style were unable to bring him that
much fame.
Literature expert Bakhtiyar Isabek: “What is the peculiarity about
Muhammad Salih’s poetry? It is the metaphorical thinking that is
characteristic to real poets. It was said back in those days that it was
difficult to understand Salih’s works. But those who said it were people
who couldn’t think metaphorically.”
Professor Temur Khoja: “I was always excited to read his poems.
His metaphors are among strongest metaphors used in Uzbek literature.
Chulpan used metaphor more than anyone else. Others also resorted to
it, but the metaphor in Muhammad Salih’s poems is the strongest among
all.”
An attentive reader could see the pain for the nation and rejection
of the current regime behind these poetic maneuvers. Muhammad Salih
wrote the following poem back in the years of stagnation:
These fields are so dull
Without cotton!
Empty cotton boxes are staring at skies
Just like the peasant’s empty palms!
Anyone with poetic perception is able to understand that these
verses mean cotton did not belong to farmers despite the fact they
cultivated it.
In 1988, the Writers’ Union elected its first non-communist
secretary in its history – Muhammad Salih. This was the beginning of a
crisis to befall the Writers’ Union as an ideological centre of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The Writers’ Union now had a
different task – leading a popular movement. The Birlik popular
movement was established on 11 November 1988.
364
Gulchekhra Nurullayeva: “Uzbek authorities were not happy with
such developments. They used their henchmen, like Khisamov and
Kruzhilin, to write a series of slanderous articles about Muhammad
Salin in the Uzbek press.”
For a long time, the KGB was at a secret war against
intelligentsia, which wanted to break away from Moscow. The secret
war acquired characteristics of an open one following an article called
“Honest Muhammad’s double standards”. Muhammad Salih was tagged
as “a traitor of Motherland” for his interview with the New York Times
on growing cotton only and colonization by Moscow.
“A small group of Uzbek writers and economists have begun to
openly question the republic’s role as Moscow’s cotton plantation.
‘Everything comes down to the Stalinist demand for self-sufficiency in
cotton’, said Muhammad Salih, a poet and secretary of the oficial
writers union. ‘That has been Uzbekistan’s enslavement’.”
Human rights activist Vitaliy Ponomaryov: “I have met
Muhammad Salih for the first time in December 1988. Of course, he had
left a strong impression; it was clear that this man had a bright political
future in Uzbekistan and that he was a strong political figure.
Muhammad Salih was among that small number of people who
considered themselves an opposition already in the times of the Soviet
Union. I have always had a great respect for such people. They were
like a breath f fresh air, a light in a dark road.
Gulchekhra Nurullayeva: “These attacks did not discredit
Muhammad Salih in people’s eyes as the initiators expected; on
contrary, they only strengthened people’s respect for him.”
The political turmoil in Fergana, which was staged against local
Meskhetian Turks in 1989, presented a real political challenge
Muhammad Salih had to face.
(TV) “The situation in the Uzbek part of the Fergana Valley
remains extremely tense.”
The aggression against local Meskhetian Turks was one of first
fruits that the cooperation between the KGB and local mafia yielded.
Local authorities accused Birlik of staging the atrocities, but
Muhammad Salih arrived there and uncovered the slander in the
Literaturnaya Rossiya newspaper the same day.
365
Muhammad Salih: “We landed in Fergana at around 1130 hours
and traveled to one of the hotbeds – the village of Tashlak. The situation
was indeed tragic when we arrived there. Authorities didn’t command
any respect there.”
Troops were in every street in Margilan and Tashlak, since major
forces of the interior ministry in the Fergana Valley were deployed here.
When trouble shifted onto Kokand and Namangan, authorities proved to
be weak to deal with such disaster.
“Rafik Nishanov arrived from Moscow on the second day and
General Rakhimov, the minister of internal affairs, was with him. There
was a crowd of about 2,000 men on the square in front of the bus station
in Margilan. They demanded to see local authorities. Nishanov asked
me to go there and said ‘General will join you, and you need to calm the
crowd down’. The crowd was aggressive indeed. I said ‘Write your
demands and we will try to meet them.’ Somebody in the crowd shouted
out: ‘Why is the general silent? Let him speak too!’ The poor general
didn’t speak Uzbek. He whispered: ‘Please tell them something.’ The
same provocateur shouted out again: ‘Let him say something now! Why
is he running away?’ And the crowd started closing in on us.”
The people did not know what they were doing. Their dissent was
unleashed after years of constraint. There was bitterness, anger in the air
and these people did not know where to channel this emotions.
The Soviet ruling elite and its most significant source of support,
the KGB, realized they were doomed, and staged these vents in Fergana
in order to remove Gorbachev.
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
Muhammad Salih left Birlik in early 1990 and established Erk
Democratic Party.
Lyudmila Alekseyeva shares her memories about the ideological
differences between ERK and Birlik: “I was in Uzbekistan in 1990. […]
So I’ve arranged to Muhammad Salih. We had a very interesting
conversation. This is what he told me. He said ‘we and Birlik have the
same roots: we established Birlik together but we are having some
differences now. And the major difference is that they are saying ‘first
democracy and then sovereignty’. Whereas I believe there should be
366
sovereignty in a state before it becomes a democratic one, because only
sovereign nation can establish a democratic state.’
“He believed Uzbekistan had the potential to become a member of
the civilized world, democracy etc. And I think he remembers this with
sadness. I mean you can see sufferings he bore because of his views. He
was an outcast and people who were close to him were put in prison.
“He also said: ‘We do not pursue the goal of being in power. Let
the people choose who they want. I only wish that Uzbekistan gains
independence.’ Here, they did! His fight for independence backfired.
There is a saying: idealists make revolutions, but rascals enjoy the
fruits.”
In March, Muhammad Salih was elected as a member of
parliament – Oliy Kengash – of Uzbekistan. The Erk party summoned
its first assembly on 30 April 1990. Authorities were hopeful this party
would become an ally in the opposition ranks. But Muhammad Salih’s
speech at the assembly brought these hopes to naught. It became clear
that thisparty had new programme and its mission was nothing less than
leading a movement towards total independence of Uzbekistan.
Immediately after Muhamamad Salih’s speech, all local and Moscowbased journalists have left the assembly as if ordered to do so. There
was no information on the establishment of a new political party in
Uzbekistan.
Artist Vyacheslav Akhunov: “I saw him talking to other people,
taking them to streets, his manners in dealing with crowds, his ability to
convince that Uzbekistan needs independence. Yes, Muhammad Salih
had made a great, great contribution to this movement.”
Sociologist Bakhadyr Musayev: “To my mind, Muhammad Salih
is not only a herald of freedom and independence in Uzbekistan, but
also he is the one who established the secular opposition.”
Nadya Duke and Adrian Karatnitski, American analysts, describe
the situation in the Writers’ Union of Uzbekistan in 1989: “Muhammad
Salih, the secretary of the Writers’ Union of Uzbekistan, has emerged as
a leading spokesman for the Uzbek people: “There is a direct link
between the deteriorating ecological situation in Uzbekistan and the
cotton monoculture. We have lost not only our lands and waters, we
have forfeited the health of our people”. Asked about Uzbekistan’s new
first secretary Islam Karimov, Salih said: “He is said to have very
367
democratic views, so we have hopes for him. We’ll see. We can only
hope. Apart from hope we have nothing else.
Muhammad Salih spent whole of 1989 working with grassroots.
The new leader of the Communist party of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist
Republic, Islam Karimov, summoned all famous people in the country
and took a solemn oath to cooperate with them until the end of his days
for the prosperity of Uzbek nation.
“I would like to once again take an oath in front of you that I will
do for you whatever is needed; I shall not spare myself and I am ready
to sacrifice my life if needed.”
Karimov has always used his ability to appear genuine to the
maximum of its efficiency. He never wrote “unique and distinctive
programme”; he would use his opponents’ ideas and would impudently
claim they were his. Reporters of the Wall Street Journal wrote on 31
August 1998:“Mr. Salih and Mr. Karimov are old acquaintances. In the
period of Mikhail Gorbachev’s rule, Mr. Salih was a leading member of
the Uzbek writers’ union, a proponent of pan-Turkic ideas and an
advocate of independence. By contrast, Mr.Karimov was a leader of the
Uzbek Communist Party and Moscow’s satrap in the republic; as the
Soviet Union began to collapse, however, he adopted some of Mr.
Salih’s popular pro-Turkic ideas.”
For instance, Karimov’s slogan “Turkistan is our common home”
was literally copied from a speech delivered by Muhammad Salih in late
1980s. However, unlike Muhammad Salih, Karimov did not believe in
the viability of the idea. Aggressive actions against neighbours showed
that Turkistan was a home for Karimov only. Karimov wanted to bring
the Salih-led party to his own side. But after becoming an MP, Salih
started openly speaking about separating Uzbekistan from the USSR.
The new party, Erk, as it name suggests, was established with the idea
of achieving complete political independence. By summer of 1990, Erk
members moved from speeches to real action: they presented a
declaration of independence prepared by Atanazar Aripov at a session of
the Oliy Kengash on 20 June. Panic befalled upon communists. As soon
as discussions of the declaration started, Karimov disappeared behind
presidium curtain. But despite his resistance, Uzbek parliament voted
for the declaration.
This photo was taken in Muhammad Salih’s home several days
before the session. Centre: Muhammad Salih, a Turkish guest to his
368
right, poet Miraziz A’zam next to him, another Turkish guest to his left,
writer Rejabboy Ataturk, Rauf Parfi and Azeri President Elchibey’s
advisor, Arif Ocal.
Arif Ocal: “I will never forget the discussion of the new flag of
Uzbekistan. There were several models presented. Muhammad Salih
said there was no need in coming up with a new flag, since the flag of
Turkistan could be adopted instead. This speech was one of most
important and startling ones among those I have seen in political
literature and political life.”
But the flag was rejected at Karimov’s order.
After the declaration of independence of Uzbekistan, the
Baltimore Sun wrote: “The giant of Soviet Central Asia declared its
political sovereignty in June, and people agree that it is on the brink of
dramatic change. But what kind of change? Nationalist dictatorship or
Western-style democracy? Revolution or ethnic civil war?
“Intellectuals debate the probabilities over shish kebab in the
private cafes that abound in the one-story neighborhoods that survived
the 1966 earthquake. ‘There’s a feeling of uneasiness, of uncertainty
about what tomorrow may bring. The genie of nationalism is out of the
bottle, and no one’s going to get it back in’ said Mirzaakhmed Alimov,
Uzbekistan correspondent for “Komsomolskaya Pravda”. Alimov is
close to the Communist Party leadership. ‘Our people were enslaved on
the cotton plantation,’ said poet Muhammad Salih. We say to the
Russians, “Stay here, but on equal terms. We have to work on a
percentage basis”. Now, most of the good jobs are held by Russians,
while ethnic Uzbeks are unemployed”.
Declaration of independence has put Karimov in a state of panic.
He immediately left for Andijan. He decided to watch Moscow’s
reaction from there. Karimov was not alone in his concerns about
Moscow’s reaction to the independence. Muhammad Salih told an
interview with the New York Times: “We’re in a much worse situation
than the Baltics, which have many defenders while we are our only
defender”.
Everyone in Tashkent was anxiously waiting for the declaration of
independence. But neither TV nor radio said anything about it that day.
Residents only heard a few words in the Moscow-hosted Vremya news
bulletin. Muhammad Salih contacted Prime Minister Mirsaidov and
369
warned him that mass rallies would be launched in Tashkent if they
failed to announce independence immediately.
Karimov telephoned Muhammad Salih straight away and
promised to promptly declare independence of Uzbekistan. But the
announcement came only the next day and in a distorted form. This was
a treachery of the historical document which was signed by people’s
representatives; it was a betrayal of people.
ELECTIONS
Moscow was concerned about the further deterioration of the
political crisis and started to attempt to save the USSR via granting the
republics more autonomy. “For reformed Union” referendum was
announced in March.
The Erk party was going to vote against the USSR preservation.
In this regard Muhammad Salih said: “We live between two tyrannies:
Moscow and local authorities. We should first get rid of the bigger
tyrant – Moscow; then we will rid ourselves of the local one.”
Communists understood they were unable to save the USSR and
attempted to preserve the empire via coup d’etat. But the State
Committee for the Extraordinary Situation (GKChP) junta’s power
lasted only for three days.
Karimov was in India in those days and sent a congratulatory
telegramme to the head of the GKChP Yanayev off the board of the
plane. He declared that he fully supported all of the decisions adopted
by the GKChP. Prime Minister Mirsaidov ordered all mass media to
print the GKChP decisions. Communists, speaking on TV, assured
Moscow that seeds sown in Tashkent were yielding fruits. The Erk party
was the only political organization in Uzbekistan to speak out against
the GKChP on 19 August 1991. Leading global mass media outlets
published and aired the party’s appeals and statements. Erk summoned a
special assembly and demanded local authorities to restore declared
independence which was revoked after referendum in March.
Muhammad Salih: “Uzbekistan must make its own choice. Either
complete independence, or…”
Erk’s assembly brought Karimov back to his senses; the dynamics
of events took him by surprise. Five days after the Erk assembly,
370
Karimov had to summon members of parliament and declare
Uzbekistan’s independence.
In September 1991, Erk and Birlik were officially registered with
the ministry of justice of Uzbekistan. Erk newspaper was launched and
soon reached the circulation of over 100,000 copies which was was an
unprecedented event in Uzbekistan. But Karimov’s fate as a president
still depended on the parliament. A group of several MPs attempted to
relieve Karimov of the post at a session in October 1991. But lack of
organization and indecisiveness led to failure and Karimov survived.
Uzbeks enjoyed a brief life of political independence between the
Yanayev-staged putch in August and the presidential elections in
December; the euphoria lasted for four months. The parliament
announced the presidential elections would be held at the end of
December. Erk nominated Muhammad Salih as a candidate. But
Karimov was worried about alternative candidates. Twice he sent people
to Muhammad Salih requesting him to withdraw from the presidential
race. But Muhammad Salih was determined to fight til the end.
The international community’s interest in the elections was very
high. The USA sent a group of observers headed by Senator De Consini.
Karimov prohibited central electoral committee to allocate funds for
Salih’s campaign, even though it was envisaged in the law. Meetings
with Salih would take place either under an immense pressure or would
be cancelled at all.
Mass media outlets would praise only one candidate – Islam
Karimov. Muhammad Salih was able to speak on TV only once
following a rally near tTashkent TV which was organized by those who
disagreed with the current state of affairs. Ten days before the Election
Day, authorities announced early break and sent university students
back to their respective native towns and villages because they
supported Salih. Despite that foreign observers were pleased with the
status quo in the country.
“Thank God that there are no people with Kalashnikov’s in hands
wandering in streets and killing each other. Although unfair, but did not
elections still take place!” they said. This is how the Western policy of
double standards started in Central Asia. Elections took place on 29
December 1991. Uzbek radio announced preliminary results of the
elections on 30 December. According to it, Muhammad Salih received
33% of votes. However, several hours later, the same radio station
371
announced that there was a mistake and Muhammad Salih received 15%
of the popular support, not 33%. The next day, it was announced
Karimov received 86% of votes and Muhammad Salih received 12.7%
of the popular support. Karimov was so excited on the day of his first
inauguration that he had to repeat the text of the oath two times making
mistakes and in different attire.
Karimov: “I take an oath to strictly respect the constitution of the
Republic of Uzbekistan.” “I would like to once again take an oath!”
RESIGNATION
Students staged a rally in Tashkent on 16 January 1992. More
rallies rook place in small town and protesters were shot at. Many were
wounded, two young men died. This was the first bloody retaliation
against young opposition during the first three years of Karimov’s rule.
By shooting at students he hinted that he would do the same with
anyone who would disagree with his policies. Killing of students alerted
the opposition. There was a need in uniting and eliminating spontaneity
in ranks. Muhammad Salih was first to take the initial step: the Forum of
Democratic Forces of Uzbekistan was established in March 1992. It
consisted of Erk, Birlik, Movement for Democratic Reforms, Turkistan
movement, Tomaris, Young Teachers of Uzbekistan and other
organizations. The first assembly was chaired by Muhammad Salih.
Several activists raised the issue of Milliy Majlis [The National
Council] in the summer of 1992. Erk Party Secretary Atanazar Aripov,
Salavat Umurzakov, a member of the presidium, and Khazratkul
Khudoyberdiyev, Birlik member, were arrested for participating in the
Forum for Democratic Change. Although Muhammad Salih did not
participate in these activities, charges were pressed against him. He has
written an undertaking not to leave the town in the autumn of 1992. But
he did not stay at home: he traveled to Kazakhstan and wrote the “State
Secrets” book in two months. The book was a bitter pamphlet against
the authorities. Muhammad Salih published it in Almaty with a
circulation of 20,000 copies and managed to distribute it around in
Uzbekistan.
Following the elections, Karimov issued an order to finish with
the opposition. There were two reasons for that. First, despite all
falsifications, the opposition candidate still received 12.7% of votes.
372
This meant over 1.115.000 people voted for opposition. If not yet
properly formed opposition gains that much support in semi-fair
elections, what will be the number of votes for them in fully fair
elections? This question stirred many concerns among authorities.
Secondly, there was a threat of a unified opposition. Karimov invited
Muhammad Salih for lunch on 5 May 1992, and offered him one of the
two top positions in the country and several ministerial positions for the
Erk party.
Muhammad Salih: “Karimov asked me to dismiss the Forum of
Democratic Forces of Uzbekistan in exchange for these positions. I told
him its dismissal was not in my hands. I said ‘On the contrary, you
should come to the Forum and announce that you are ready to cooperate
in the name of prosperity of our people. Let us be a constructive
opposition and you will be a constructive government.’ But Karimov
did not heed. He said ‘I prepared two decrees with your name, choose
one of them and I will sign it right here.’ I did not accept his offer. After
this conversation, Karimov launched a war on different fronts and
destroyed all our achievements.”
During Olii Kengash session on 2 July 1992, Salih asked for the
floor – he wanted to criticize the repressive policies iof the government,
but he was not given the chance. Salih announced he was withdrawing
his status of an MP.
Gulchekhra Nurullayeva: “During the process of dealing with the
government of Uzbekistan, Muhammad Salih has learned the nature of
these authorities and therefore refused to maintain his status of an MP.”
Muhammad Salih: “Of course, it was a radical decision, but I had
to say ‘no’ once and for all to the growing violence. I thought that if I
were not given the floor then, it would never be given again. If I submit
to their will, I will become mute and submissive just like communists
sitting next to me.
“I inclined towards the microphone and asked for the floor for the
third time. But the microphone was already turned off.
“Suddenly the Council Chairman Yuldashev shouted out:
‘Comrads, a break!’ Although, there were another 40 minutes until the
recess. Islam Karimov had immediately directed himself towards
curtains. He almost ran away. And when I was at the rostrum, there was
no one on the presidium, of course. I addressed my colleagues and said
373
‘Comrade Members of Parliament, as you can see, dictatorship is
established in Uzbekistan as of today. I protest and declare my
resignation.
“I then turned around and threw my MP identification and badge
on the empty table of the presidium.”
REPRESSIONS
This is made Salih realize that his dream to build a constitutional
state with people’s participation was unrealistic as long as communists
were there. He no longer hoped to have a dialogue with authorities.
American journalist Scott Malcolmson wrote about those
times: “Erk is working on a new constitution and an alternative
economic plan, as well as building its own party structures. Conditions
are less than ideal. The government printing house – the only printing
house – reduced Erk’s newspaper’s press run from 100 000 to 12 000.
And now Erk’s leader has left the parliament, which most people still
call the Supreme Soviet.”
The major publication of the party, the Erk newspaper, was closed
by the end of 1992. Difficult days were near. Most “clever” ones have
“changed minds” on time. Akhmad Azam, one of the party secretaries,
was among those first ones. Muhammad Salih was summoned to the
KGB in December and interrogated regarding Olii Kengash.
Muhammad Bekjan, a newspaper employee, was also interrogated by
the KGB.
The Sunday Telegraph wrote on 10 January 1993: “Muhammad
Salih was sitting glumly in his office last week. Telephone lines had
been cut off repeatedly for three weeks and he has been told that ERK
will have to leave its premises. The KGB renamed into the SNB in
Uzbekistan, needs to prove they they are needed by watching such
people as opposition leaders.”
The Baltimore Sun wrote: “Uzbekistan’s internal crackdown has
sharply intensified this month, driving even the moderate opposition
nearly to desperation. ‘We are pressed to the wall. And we have only
one way to carry on’ said Muhammad Salih, ‘Now it is time of
confrontation. The time of dialogue is over.’ After making that
declaration, Mr.Salih was hauled in for a series of police interrogations,
during which he was told he would be killed.”
374
Thus, the circle around Salih was closing in on him.
“I am Dilorom Iskhakova, the press service of the Erk party.
Using this opportunity I would like to touch upon several persecutions
against the Erk party. The government is applying every effort to
completely stall Erk’s activities. Professor Atanazar Aripov, the party
secretary, is imprisoned based on charges of “Attempting a coup d’etat”.
What kind of a coup can we be possibly talking about when copies of all
documents concerning Milliy Majlis are submitted to the presidential
administration and the Oliy Kengash? Aripov’s office was searched on
22 December, and Milliy Majlis-related documents were found. If one
can be imprisoned for retaining documents on the Milliy Majlis, then
one can easily confine everyone in the presidential apparatus and the
Oliy Kengash [the parliament], since they also have copies of all those
documents. [What we see] today is repressions, prisons, exiles and
persecutions but all this will pass. And Erk will continue to live on!”
Western researchers described those days: “Many Uzbeks are
eager for change had pinned their hopes on Salih, a tall man of 43 who
generated euphoria with his calls for free Islamic worship and free
enterprise. Today Karimov’s regime has shut off the power at ERK
headquarters, banned its newspaper and imprisoned several leaders.
Members of opposition parties are forbidden to congregate in groups of
any significant size. Salih was not permitted to speak in parliament, and
security police placed him under house arrest to prevent him from
appearing at the international human rights conference. In January,
thugs in a screeching car without licence plates tried to run him down on
the street. Salih said in a recent interview: ‘After an active start, the
democracy movement was stopped. Now it is a question of its life and
death. Our aim is just to survive.’ Salih attributes persecution of ERK
to Karimov’s government blackmail of businesses and blocade of
economic recovery. Ministers are getting rich on bribes, and the people
are getting poorer,’ he said.”
“Dear friends! I want to address you. I am not asking you to help
the Erk party because you need help. I do not wish to complain to you,
since you have too many reasons to complain. On the contrary, I urge
you to stop complaining and shedding tears, because our fate is only in
our own hands. Neither America nor Europe can help us and they will
not save us. We are the only helpers we have.
375
“I want to urge you not to put up with tyranny. Do not worship
anyone but Allah. We are born free. We were granted human rights not
by the constitution, but the Almighty Lord.
“In order for us to understand ourselves as a nation, every single
one of us must understand himself. It is now time to understand that a
human being is not a worm. How can one value a nation’s freedom if he
does not value his own freedom and dignity? It became fashionable to
speak about order and stability. We also talk about them. But talking
about order, I do not mean an order like in prison; when I am told about
stability, I do not wish to understand it in the context of stability in
graveyards. And when somebody speaks of tranquility, I refuse to
understand it as silence of a crowd which swalled tongues out of fear to
tell to the truth.
“I understand stability as harmony in hearts instilled by the
Supreme justice. That is equality of rights of each individual and social
group, their concordance with each other. This is my understanding of
order and stability.”
Muhammad Salih was arrested and taken to the basement of the
ministry of internal affairs in early April. The goal authorities pursued
was distancing Muhammad Salih from the population for some time
because the population’s level of poverty was increasing rapidly and
they were ready to rise. But authorities were not able to keep Salih away
for too long. The global community had applied an immense pressure
and authorities had to release him.
Several friends visited Salih in his home following these events
and asked him to leave Uzbekistan for some time. Salih remembers
them in this Yo’lnoma: “I did not want to leave Uzbekistan. I was
woken up again closer to dawn. Again those friends. Mamadali
Makhmud said ‘You will not be able to do anything in prison. But it is
possible to do something abroad. If you are convicted other guys will be
discouraged. The party will die.’ Can you imagine that the person who
told me these words is imprisoned now? Mamadali’s sincerity was
stronger than me. I left Uzbekistan.”
FAILED REVENGE
“I spent two days in Kazakhstan. Then bought a ticket for Baku
and met with Abulfaiz Elchibey there. He said: ‘The most optimal way
376
in your case is acting from abroad. I will provide any assistance to your
activities as a president’.”
Arif Ocal: “Elchibey was very familiar with Muhammad Salih’s
works. I had translated his poems from Uzbek into Azeri one time and
gave Elchibey the manuscript of the Turkcha Gapir (Speak Turkic)
poem’s translation. He would often recite verses of these poems saying
‘This is how close should a poet be to his language, to his people’.”
Muhammad Salih: “I spent a week as Elchibey’s guest. After that,
I traveled to Turkey at the invitation of Turkish President Turgut Ozal.
A friend of mine, the Azeri council and poet Abbas Abdulla, came to
meet me in Istanbul.”
Authorities started to act after Muhammad Salih’s departure.
Sadykzhan Yigitaliyev was formally leading the party and he was
summoned to the presidential palace. He was told “if you summon an
assembly and remove Muhammad Salih from the party leadership, all of
the party’s property will be returned and you will receive a position in
the presidential palace.”
Some other party leaders supported the authorities’ games but the
majority opposed it. However, a party assembly was still summoned.
The National Security Service (NSS) understood perfectly well that
although Muhammad Salih was not present physically, it still had been
difficult to remove him from leadership; so they started to discredit him.
They contacted someone who had once given a coin from a museum to
an Erk member, Safar Bekzhan; the person’s testimony resulted in
Bekzhan’s arrest in July 1993.
Yigitaliyev visited Bekzhan in basement cells of the interior
ministry and asked him to sign a testimony reading “Muhammad Salih
asked me to buy the coin”. Bekzhan was promised an immediate release
in exchange. He refused to sign the false testimony and was convicted to
3.5 years of imprisonment. Authorities launched a campaign of
slandering Muhammad Salih called “Muhammad Salih is a coin thief”.
The campaign lasted for a month. The last article entitled “Who is the
thief?” was printed in the Uzbekiston Ovozi newspaper three days
before the party assembly. The assembly’s sessions started in the Palace
of Textile Workers on 25 September 1993. But delegates have again
unanimously voted for re-election of Muhammad Salih as the Erk party
leader. It was a total failure of authorities who now started retaliating
against Erk supporters and members. Criminal investigations were
377
launched against two members of parliament who participated in the
assembly, Nasrullo Saidov and Imam Fayziyev, and their MP mandates
were withdrawn. Elomon Shukur who spoke at the assembly was
arrested and later killed in prison.
DEPORTATION IN EXILE
A famous poet and a Turkish prime-minister, Bulent Ecevit, and
Alparslan Turkesh, a well-known politician and a supporter of the
Turkic nations’ unification, had a great respect for Salih.
Once settled in Istanbul, Muhammad Salih started publishing Erk
and Forum newspapers. He also published his Oydinlik Sari (Towards
Brighter Days) book. He expressed his political vision and ideas in these
publications.
Karimov was horrified by these actions and blackmailed the
Turkish government for a year to force them to deport Salih from
Turkey. In May 1994, Karimov recalled the Uzbek Ambassador in
Ankara Ubay Abdurazzakov. Then he ordered 2,500 Uzbek students in
Turkey to return home. Turkish President Suleiman Demirel
recommended Salih leave for Germany and so he did.
Karimov was trying to improve his relations with the USA after
banishing opposition from the country. The US National Democracy
Institute hosted a seminar in early 1995 to achieve a compromise
between the government and opposition of Uzbekistan. Muhammad
Salih and Abdurahim Pulat were invited from Frankfurt and Istanbul
respectively to participate in the seminar. Minister of Justice Alisher
Mardiyev represented the Karimov administration at the event. Karimov
also sent another separate delegation under the leadership of a
presidential advisor, Murad Muhammad Dost. Another friend of Salih,
Erkin Azam, was also in the delegation. The negotiations were held in
famous academician Sagdeyev’s villa in outskirts of Washington – the
antique mansion of his father-in-law, President Eisenhower.
But this unofficial diplomacy failed as well. Karimov only wanted
to demonstrate to the West he was ready to negotiate with the
opposition. Following these unsuccessful attempts, Karimov’s
surrounding advanced another charge against the Erk party – “Scheming
a coup d’etat in collusion with the Turkish intelligence service.”
378
The ground for such an accusation rested on the fact that 11 young
men in groups of 3-4 people brought copies of the Erk party newspaper
into Uzbekistan. Atkham Rozikov, an agent of the Department 7 of the
internal affairs directorate infiltrated into the Erk, reported on young
men and they were arrested later, tortured and forced to testify against
Salih.
In 1996, the leader of the Turkish party for national movement,
Alparslan Turkesh, wrote a letter to Karimov with the goal of
reconciling him with Muhammad Salih.
The letter was written in a very fine diplomatic language and
Turkesh underlined that the ability to forgive was characteristic of
strong and great personalities. Turkesh wrote that he would like to see
Karimov among strong leaders. In the end of the letter, Turkesh asked
Karimov to appoint Muhammad Salih to the position of a state advisor
and sent a copy of the letter to Muhammad Salih with an accompanying
note:
Dear Mr Muhammad Salih!
I am enclosing a copy of the letter addressed to President
Karimov. I hope you will share your thoughts after you read it.
Best regards,
Alparslan Turkesh.
Muhammad Salih writes his response on margins and sends it
back to Turkesh:
Dear Mr Chairman!
It would better if you omit the part reading “request to appoint
Muhammad Salih as a state advisor”. I do not want anything from this
dictator.
Muhammad Salih.
Karimov’s response was the following:
“Dear Alparslan Turkesh!
I have read your letter full of wise words dated 4 August 1996
with great interest and attention. The letter was received via the
ambassador of Uzbekistan in Turkey.
The fifth anniversary of our independence an d the popular
support of our unique and distinctive way once again prove the
379
correctness of our policies to strengthen Uzbekistan’s position on the
global arena and consolidate our society.
“There were some people who fought for the path we have
chosen. Whereas some others did not believe us and some even made
mistakes. If they have realized their mistakes by now, no one is
depriving them of the right to dedicate their life to Uzbekistan’s future.
As far as Mr Muhammad Salih is concerned, he can too choose
this path. But it is wrong to advance conditions before anything.
Highly esteemed Alparslan Turkesh, as you understand, every
action should be in line with the constitution and laws of Uzbekistan.
With deep respect,
Islam Karimov
President, the Republic of Uzbekistan”.
Muhammad Salih arrived in Istanbul from Frankfurt in the
autumn of 1997. The Uzbek embassy in Ankara started complaining that
Karimov’s enemy arrived in Turkey. In November 1997, Ankara evicted
Muhammad Salih to Bulgaria ahead of Karimov’s visit to Turkey. The
Turkish society’s reaction was full of anger. Salih spent a month in
Sofia and then secretly returned to Istanbul.
He was sent to Romania in March 1998 where he spent a little less
than a month. He arrived in Kiev in early April and met Vyacheslav
Chernovil, the leader of the Rukha popular movement of Ukraine. The
Ukrainian oppositioner promised all kinds of support to Salih.
Salih arrived in Moscow after Ukraine. In May, Salih was
interviewed by the Literaturnaya Rossiya and Lyudi I Vlast
publications. He arrived in Switzerland for three months at the invitation
of the mayor of Basle. Here he wrote his memories
called “Yo’lnoma” (Travel Notes). He arrived in Baku in November
1998, then Moscow where he met General Aleksandr Lebed. He
returned to Istanbul in December.
EXPLOSIONS
A group of the Uzbek KGB officers led by Colonel Anvar
Salihbayev arrived in Ankara on 13 February 1999. Salihbayev
requested Turkish authorities permission to locate his agents in Turkish
airports in order to prevent extremists from traveling to Uzbekistan.
380
Similar events took place in Tashkent the same day. From 13 to 15
February, Uzbek special services stepped up the surveillance of houses
belonging to Erk Secretary Atanazar Aripov, human rights activist
Mutabar Akhmedova, writer Mamadali Makhmud, Salih’s daughter
Nigor and three of his brothers – Kamil, Jumanazar and Rashid
Bekzhanovs in Khorezm. Owners of these houses were arrested
immediately after the explosions. Authorities did not arrest even one
culprit, but were quick to announce that Muhammad Salih and religious
fanatics organized the explosions. The political hidden motives were
apparent from the very beginning of this staged show.
Muhammad Salih: “It is an undisputable fact that Karimov’s
regime organized those explosions on 16 February; it can be proved by
such people as a political prisoner Zayniddin Askarov.”
Zayniddin Askarov: “My name is Askarov Zayniddin Rasulovich.
I am charged for carrying out explosions on 16 February and I am
convicted for 11 years of imprisonment. [...] Now, the trial. I was
promised that the six people, including Bakhrom Abdullayev, convicted
to capital punishment would be not executed. The president would
pardon them. I agreed. I promised and said ‘OK, I will play this role and
testify against Muhammad Salih.’
“He [Salih] told us before ‘If you end up in the tyrant’s hands,
insult me if you have to, since people know the truth, they know it well’.
I hoped that Muhammad Salih would not be hurt and slandered him: ‘He
has connection with [events] on 16 February! He gave 1,600,000! He
sponsored Takhir Yuldash!’
“I played the role in tears and wailing. Personally I had a goal of
saving Bakhrom Abdullayev, Abduvali Qori Mirzayea and all of other
religious scholars. Interior Minister Zakirjan Almatov had personally
talked to me and promised ‘If you testify against Muhammad Salih, if
you play this role, these [people] will not be shot. It will be a relief for
yourself as well – you will be released in the court hall.’ Therefore, and
Allah is my witness, I had to do what I did to save others, not myself.
But they did not release them and they did face the capital punishment
because they knew the secret and they were killed exactly because of
that – they knew the secret. But they told us those secrets, so and so.
Therefore, I would like to offer my apologies via your radio station
primarily to the leader of the Erk party, Muhammad Salih, for
slandering him. We are guilty before the nation of Uzbekistan for lying
381
because we believed the tyrant dictator’s promises and played a role and
discredited Muslims. We ask the Uzbek nation to forgive us. I swear to
Allah, Muhammad Salih has absolutely no connection whatsoever to
terror and terrorists. It was only our political blindness, naiveness and
trustfulness in false promises of [the interior minister] Zakirjan
Almatov. If they kill us after these words, then we will die as martyrs. If
human rights organizations will be able to defend us, then we will
continue living. But whether one defends us or not, we are not retreating
from our words.”
Muhammad Salih: “The very claim that the explosions were
reportedly carried out to kill the president of Uzbekistan proves that this
is a lie. Because how can it be possible to kill one person with
explosions in five different locations in the city; no-one could explain
it.” The first strike in the aftermath of the events on 16 February
targeted members of Erk, whereas the next target was opposition-prone
and loyal population. Arrests took place throughout the CIS.
Muhammad Bekzhan and Yusuf Ruzimuradov, an Erk activist, were
arrested in Kiev on 15 March. According to some information, the
Karimov regime arrested about 2,000 people after the events on 16
February. A question then arises: “What should have had a president
done to his people if he suspects this many people want to kill him?” An
information campaign against Muhammad Salih was launched since the
very first day after the explosions.
The following words were published in the Protecting Human
Rights and Liberties journal in an appeal by famous Russian writers,
politicians and public activists: “A flow of mendacious charges against
Muhammad Salih is pouring off newspapers, magazines,
redevelopments remind of the gloomy days of Soviet totalitarianism and
harassment against Academic Sakharov and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.”
The opposition in Azerbaijan, including Abulfeyz Echibey, Isa
Gambarov and others well-known activists, issued a similar statement in
protection of Muhammad Salih. Thirty six MPs of Ukraine’s
Verkhovnaya Rada also issued a statement in protection of the Uzbek
opposition. Mustafa Jamil and Rufat Chubarogly, leaders of Krimean
Turks, were among those who signed the letter. The United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees granted Muhammad Salih and his
family the status of political refugees and the Salihs traveled to Norway
in April 1999.
382
A SCANDAL IN ISTANBUL
The scandal took place before the summit of the OSCE in
Istanbul. Muhammad Salih was among those invited. Karimov started
breaking telephones and plates in the palace once he learned about it. In
order to calm the President down, Uzbek Foreign Minister Kamilov
notified the Turkish ministry of foreign affairs that Muhammad Salih’s
participation in the conference can lead to further deterioration of
bilateral relations. He then sent an official protest to the OSCE head
quarters against the invitation of Karimov’s enemy to such an important
meeting.
The Cumhuriyet newspaper wrote about the scandal on 11
November 2001: “Upon learning about the invitation to the OSCE
[conference], Uzbekistan forced the OSCE and Turkey to prevent
Salih’s arrival. Consequently, the OSCE revoked the invitation sent to
Salih at the request of official Ankara.”
The Radikal newspaper: “Uzbek President Islam Karimov’s antidemocratic policies cast shadow on the OSCE summit in Istanbul.
Karimov threatened Turkey that he would not participate if Salih attends
the meeting. Ankara canceled arrival of Muhammad Salih. Because of
Karimov’s threats, the Turkish ministry of foreign affairs contacted
Norway and warned Turkish authorities would have to deport Salih if he
arrives.”
Salih was stopped from participating in the summit, and Karimov
arrived in Istanbul. But he did not stay until the end of the summit: he
took umbrage at Prime Minister Ecevit and flew back to Tashkent.
Karimov, still resentful after Istanbul, called up the chairperson of
the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan and ordered him to sentence
Muhammad Salih. On 30 October 2000, the Supreme Court of
Uzbekistan sentenced Muhammad Salih to 15,5 years of imprisonment
along with some religious opponents of the regime. But even that
seemed insufficient; Karimov ordered to physically eliminate Salih.
ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT AT PRESIDENT’S ORDER
Please watch fragments of the “Our version, top
secret” programme on TV Centre.
383
Mikhaih Markelov: “I am your host Mikhail Markelov. The
3rd issue of the the “Our version, top secret” programme is on air.
“The story which we want to tell you today could seem
improbable at first glance. Nonetheless, I want to warn that characters
and events are real.
“Today, we will tell about methods used in Uzbekistan to fight
opposition. In 2000, an Uzbek businessman and a former officer of the
Uzbek ministry of interior, Bakhrom Muminakhunov, who works in
Moscow and has a cotton-related business, traveled to Tashkent with his
Chechen partners.
“He was summoned there by his former colleagues who invited
him to the office of the National Security Service and later to the
Interpol office in Tashkent.
“Chechens also knew Muhammad Salih personally. The Uzbek
NSS officers asked our hero B.Muminakhunov to organize a meeting
with a group of Chechens. He fulfills Uzbek security officers’ and
Interpol officers’ request.
“Who were these people whom you took to Uzbekistan?”
“They were Chechens and, apparently, had connections with
Muhammad Salih. In the end, they told me at the airport: ‘You know,
they offered us to physically eliminate Muhammad Salih. They are
offering money for that’.”
(Two million US dollars were collected from Uzbek criminal
leaders for this affair. Half of the amount was meant for the Chechens
whereas the other half was to be divided between Makhmud Haitov, the
director of Interpol in Uzbekistan, and Botir Tursunov, the head of the
department for combating terrorism under the interior ministry.)
B.Muminakhunov: “After their departure, I was summoned by
some of those initial people and officers of the NSS and interior
ministry. They told me: ‘Well, you understand, there are problems. He
is terrorist number one for Uzbekistan which organized all those
explosions in Uzbekistan. We are offering you, as a citizen of
Uzbekistan, to tackle the problem…’
“What does ‘tackle the problem’ mean?”
“The liquidation…”
384
“You mean, excuse me, you were offered to be a broker between
Chechen executors and customers who ordered to kill Salih? Do you see
direct interest of or commands issued by the Uzbek president?”
“Of course; because the minister of interior or the NSS chairman
cannot adopt such a decision on their own. This could not have been
their initiative. And they did not try to conceal that it was an order of the
Top Person which had to be fulfilled and in a timely manner.”
(The chief of the group of Chechens, Hasan Chergizov, informed
Muhammad Salih of the offer. Salih told Chergizov to “continue the
game”. He was planning to unmask the regime’s crime this way.)
Safar Bekzhan: “This man, i.e. the hired assassin, arrived here in
Switzerland. I went to meet him. He spent about a month here. He learnt
all the details. We asked him to record all of his conversations with the
Uzbek ministry of internal affairs and the NSS and provide us with that
evidence. And it was done so.”
Thus, the executors agreed to fulfill the order.
Mikhail Markelov: “I would never believe that Interpol in
Uzbekistan is involved in coordinating political assassinations. It is an
unbelievable.
“You will now hear two conversations over the phone between
B.Muminakhunov and Uzbek Interpol Director Mahmut Khaitov. In the
first conversation, the talk is about the money, i.e. payment for the job.
In the second conversation, Khaitov demands Muminakhunov proves
and confirms Salih’s death. The Interpol director mentions “a
document” in the conversation. “The document” means a dead body, i.e.
the dead body of the opposition leader Muhammad Salih.
B.Muminakhunov: “They are worried about the money. They are
saying it will be about three hundred and fifty…
M.Khaitov: “OK…”
B.Muminakhunov: “… they want cash… hello…”
M.Khaitov: “In Moscow, right?..”
B.Muminakhunov: “Yes, in Moscow… the rest should be wired to
the account…”
M.Khaitov: “OK, no problems. Calm them down. I will go now to
visit the boss at 5 o’clock. I will tell him there… It is already found,
right? So… we can give five hundred in cash?..”
385
B.Muminakhunov: “Five hundred in cash?..”
M.Khaitov: “Yes… actually, it makes no difference for us…”
B.Muminakhunov: “OK, I understood.”
Махмудом Хаитов: “Is the document found?..”
B.Muminakhunov: “Yes…”
M.Khaitov: “Good, that’s very important…”
M.Khaitov: “When I say a document, I mean a human, you
understand that, right?”
B.Muminakhunov: “Yes, I understand…”
M.Khaitov: “I do not mean that we are receiving some paper…
when they go to the scene… they find… competent bodies get
engaged… right…”
B.Muminakhunov: “Yes…”
M.Khaitov: “Competent bodies… they learn the identity… you
know, like we have militia here, they have police…”
B.Muminakhunov: “Yes…”
M.Khaitov: “They check the area… It… The document will not
just lie around somewhere for ever, right?.. It should be returned… to
the owners… so the owners… would lock it in the safe…”
Mikhail Markelov: “We have exact dates and names of officers of
National Security Service and Interpol in Uzbekistan who flew to
Moscow on the eve of President Karimov’s official visit. All of these
agents, so to speak, stayed at Radisson Slavyanskaya Hotel. They all
met with the forced broker B.Muminakhunov to discuss ways of
transferring money to the Chechens. The deal was not made because
Muminakhunov failed to produce proof of Salih’s death. Although,
according to Uzbek Interpol officers’ words, President Karimov was
already notified of the elimination of the opposition leader. They guys
were just a little a hasty…
“I am talking about the Uzbek special services participating in
organising a political assassination. Karimov’s entourage has
eliminated disliked ones several times already. Several years ago,
Belorussian President Aleksandr Lukashenko told me a rather hortative
story. The recording remained in our archives for 4 years. We doubted
that such an occurrence could have really happened. But there can be
almost no doubt in it now.”
386
President Aleksandr Lukashenko: “Karimov told me that some
journalist criticized him. He worked for an agency, or he was most
probably Moscow-based… I don’t remember. So, he either lunged him
or what… That he was not here… He [Karimov] says: ‘We got hold of
him in Moscow and poured [some earth on him] in Tashkent…’ That is
horrible…”
The journalist in whose killing Karimov confessed to Lukashenko
was Sergey Grebenyuk. Uzbek secret service officers abducted him in
Moscow and killed in Tashkent.
TEST IN PRAGUE
On 28 November 2001, Muhammad Salih flew from Amsterdam
to Prague at the invitation of the Radio Liberty. He was arrested at the
Prague airport at the demand of Uzbek authorities. He was taken to the
Pankras prison, the place where Julius Fucik and later Czech President
Vaclav Havel were imprisoned.
The New York Times wrote on 1 December 2001:
(quote) “Norway is very concerned about Salih’s fate and launched
negotiations at the level of ministries of foreign affairs.”
The Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten wrote on 3 December
2001 (quote): “On the fifth day following the arrest, Norwegian
Ambassador Lasse Saym meets Salih. The ambassador assures Salih
Norway will apply every effort to release him from prison and not
bringing the case to court. ‘The threat of extradition still exists’ the
ambassador said. But Salih refused to leave the prison and decided to
wait for the court to rule. The ambassador had once again tried to
convince Salih about the situation’s precariousness, but Salih was
unshakeable. He said a court ruling was the only opportunity to plead
non-guilty of the Uzbek regime’s libel.
“I am ready to wait as long as it is necessary. Let the Uzbek side
provide proofs of my guilt and let court adopt a ruling based on
them,” said Salih.
The international community’s pressure on the Czech Republic
was growing. President Havel was forced to speak on the Radio
Liberty: “I am certain he will not be returned to totalitarian leaders. I
find this situation as a very sad one. This is damaging the image of our
country.”
387
But there was no hope Muhammad Salih would be released.
The New York Times’ own correspondent, Peter Green, wrote
about his meeting with Salih in the Pankras prison (quote): “A wellrecognized poet was sitting behind a shaky table in the meeting room of
the Pankras prison, wearing threadbare prison uniform of purple color.
A piece of a cloudy sky was seen through the fence over his head. His
crime was challenging the communist regime in Uzbekistan; his fate is
serving term in a prison where Czech President Vaclav Havel once
served term.”
Finally, on 10 December, President Havel informed press of his
conversation about Salih with Interior Minister Stanislav Gross and said
Salih would soon be released from prison. On 11 December, the Reuters
agency reported (quote): Muhammad Salih hosted a news conference in
the hall of the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Salih stated that any
decision the court adopts will have an impact on democracy which will
be greater than his own life.
“President Bush wants to uproot terrorism and we can show where
its roots are. That is dictators’ regimes,” he said.
President Havel said he would meet Salih in the Prague Palace on
12 December. During the conversation with Salih, Czech President
asked about the situation in Uzbekistan and Salih’s plans. Salih
presented the president with the essay he wrote in prison. Salih
answered journalists’ questions in the end of the meeting. On 14
December, the city court found all the documents presented by
Uzbekistan as politically motivated accusations and acquitted Salih.
David Holley of The Los Angeles Times wrote on 15 December
2001: “Justice prevails” said Muhammad Salih as he leaves the court
room, “there are thousands of people tortured and persecuted for their
beliefs.”
Vaclav Havel invited him to meet on Wednesday. “Authorities
charged Salih with crimes he did not commit. In fact, he is a real
democract and a fighter for human rights,” said President Havel.
HOMESICK ABOUT TURKISTAN…
Muhammad Salih likes to spend his leisure time, when he is free
from political life, reading religious literature. He has completed a very
388
important work lately – he published a four volume The History of
Prophets book series in the Uzbek language.
The leader of the opposition is a supporter of upbringing
youngsters based on pure sources which are not distorted by religious
sects. Muhammad Salih believes the situation in which believers find
themselves in Uzbeksitan is very upsetting.
Muhammad Salih: “The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon
him) said: ‘A day shall come when you will have to keep your religion
as a burning piece of coal in your hands.’ Uzbek Muslims’ condition
today is exactly how the Prophet foretold. Muslims’ belief is undergoing
a great examination.”
Despite repressions and persecutions, Erk can still be considered
the only political organization which has a clear ideology that capable of
uniting the nation. There are farmers, workers and religious activists in
its ranks along with intellectuals.
These qualities are a reflection of Erk leader’s personality.
Muhammad Salih is an intellectual and a deeply religious person who is
well aware of agricultural life.
It is possible that religious radicals would not exist in Uzbekistan
today, should the Erk party govern in Uzbekistan. They [radicals etc]
would have had integrated into the socio-political life before even
shaping as a movement and would thus adapt to the society’s life. And
stability would reign in Uzbekistan resorting not to bayonet like today
but resorting to an authentic and geniune national unity.
Gulchekhra Nurullayeva: “The only goal Muhammad Salih
pursues is being able to see the Uzbek nation happy and rid of tyranny.
He continues to maintain a persistent and uncompromising fight to reach
this goal. It is the Uzbek nation’s happiness that there are such sons as
Muhammad Salih.”
Temur Khoja: “Chulpan wrote in a poem:
‘Cry not, my people, for spring is not here today.
Your star shall rize in the days to come.’
Muhammad Salih is one of such stars.”
Muhammad Salih had always spoken of his pain for his nation
wherever he spoke either at rostrums or meetings throughout all these
years of test both in homeland and in exile. He did not become
discouraged even in most worrysome days and never complained but
389
only thanked the Creator for his fate. Even today he and his family are
fully thankful to the Almighty.
Muhammad Salih is a politician and poet who dedicated his life to
Turkistan.
I write not tourists’ poems
Like others in trips.
For rhyme and rhythm leave me at once
As I step beyond my homeland.
To water my eyes,
And to fill my heart with inspiration,
I need the piercing sun
And the sharply continental climate.
So, tell me not about azure seas,
Lure me not with odoriferous forests,
For I am a strange tree that can grow
Only on the lands of Turkistan.
© turkiston.tv 2009
TOWARDS THE DAY OF AWAKENING
Recent events in the Muslim world are inspiring optimism. As the
Muslim world comes close to its enlightened age, its features are
softened, its sight becomes clearer.
The so-called ‘revolutions’ occuring – though soiled by blood and
accompanied by pain – represent some kind of catharsis, some kind of
cleansing. The means for these global changes may have been different
factors, sometimes unexpected, even alien to Muslims. In this great
turmoil, Allah grant us to not overlook of the essence of this process.
The essence, it seems to us, doesn’t lay on a plane of benefits –
geopolitic, ideological or economic. Although they seem to be the main
motive force, the program behind them is much more deeper, more
strategic, which does not belong to ordinary human being.
Look, how tyrannies under the guise of Islam start to fall one after
another and each of them have an earthly justification, a religious “alibi”
to justify the long-term crimes against their populations – against the
ummah as a whole.
390
Tyrants accuse the Western imperialists and dark forces of
conspiring and organizing the “revolutions”. But they do not realise who
and why these forces were sent against them at all.
They held their peoples in the most severe oppression for decades,
but now we can see that they are not ready to live oppressed even an
hour. These men on the run from their peoples finally remembered
about Allah, Whom they had completely forgotten during the days of
unchallenged rule. The level of their catastrophic fall is equal to the
severity of their crimes. The higher there were in arrogance, the more
strongly they hit the bottom of humiliation. None of them is able to say
a word about the injustice of their fate, because all HERE is fair unlike
their imaginary empire.
The so-called “The Arabian spring” for the Muslim world has
great importance, first of all from the point of view of morals.
Certainly, such interpretation of these great events can seem to the
machiavellists of modern policy insufficiently pragmatic. But it does not
reduce the importance of subject matter at all. We should study this
lesson with all the seriousness of a student subjected to unexpected test.
This test is not only for oppressors – tyrants, who have not fallen as yet
but who will inevitably fall. It is also a test for the oppressed, who have
not risen yet, but wait for their hour of revolt.
If the oppressed rise to change places with their oppressors, both
will fail the test. In the states of the Central Asia, ruled by despotic
regimes for long years, such dangers do exist. The embitterment of all –
that’s the most dangerous feature of the oppressed mass of people.
Besides, during twenty years of so-called independence, a whole
generation which does not know halal and haram has grown up. This is
a generation whose idols are mafia bosses and public fund embezzlers.
In this situation reform of minds of our society is the question not less
actual than political and economic reforms.
Anyway, in spite of all this, Central Asia is coming close to its
Day of Enlightenment. Perhaps, more slowly than we desire, but it is
coming. The closer this day comes, the stronger is the feeling of
responsibility, even anxiety. Because we know, that not all struggles for
Justice will lead to Justice. Not all revolutions lead to the Enlightenment
of people. The beam of impetuous freedom can blind people with weak
faith and in their enthusiasm, in their blindness, they can start fratricide
for imaginary national interests. For such developments in our region
391
there are enough examples. Our wounds still are fresh. The wounds
received from uncontrolled freedom of Kirghizia.
The Central Asian tyrants are proud of the silence established by
means of bayonets. But in the depths of this silence a hurricane forms.
When it suddenly appears, we should not miss the essence of occurring
process. We should not let lose from hands the string of a proper way. It
is a string of Justice.
When the USSR failed, we were happy believing that on the ruins
of Soviet Union we would build the new states. It was great mistake.
Very soon we saw that on ruins it was impossible to build anything,
especially, the state. Those republics of the former Union, which have
once and for all refused the methods of rule of totalitarian regimes,
reached a new level of the statehood and have rather easily gone through
cataclysms of a so-called transition period.
The states, formally referring to the Muslim states, are ruled by
people with no attitude to Islam neither mentally, nor ideologically.
These peoples also did not belong to the Western democracy. They
belonged to Homo sovieticus type, to a sort on which was buried in
Bialowieza Forest in the end of 1991. I do not join the rhetoric that our
people do not deserve rule of these despots. If we have not deserved,
they would not sit above us. Our prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon
him) in hadith says: “You will be operated by those governors whom
you deserve”. (Daylami, Ibn Hajar Asqalani). But it does not mean at all
that we should be idle. Because in the Koran it is told: “Indeed, Allah
will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in
themselves.” (13/11)
We should move forward and we do. And that’s all we can do.
Because Koran also in the fifth ayah of the 15-th sura says: “No nation
will precede its term, nor will they remain thereafter” (5/15).
The tragedy of tyrants is that they think differently. They collect
billions (OF DOLLARS?) to delay the end. So did Saddam so did
Mubarak so did Kaddafi. So does the Uzbek tyrant, although external
and internal signs of life of his state indicate that day is near that God
promised. Each of the tyrants, looking at the falling crown from the
heads of their friends, thinks “it was his own fault, I’m not so foolish,
I’ll get rid of any possibilities for such an end”. At the same time he is
reminded of Andijan, which he easily drowned in blood, without
causing any disturbance either West or East. Moreover, superpowers
392
around assent to it, offering the help to prevent revolts by oppressed
people. Such a policy of double standards is now in a fashion as never
before. The Western Machiavellists call this policy “real policy”.
In this situation the Muslim states should support their oppressed
brothers. Support everywhere on the planet. Support their struggle for
restoration of freedom and justice in their countries.
Muslims should not have double standards. Because our prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him) bequeathed to us only one standard –
the standard of Koran.
For Muslims, it is time to refuse the demagogy that Koran is a
book, and life is life. They should remember that such demagogy will
pull them together with the hypocrites of the East and the machiavellists
of the West, which are people of the same breed. As long as the Koran
remains for us only a book and does not become a life in a flesh, we
shall remain villains, oppressors even being oppressed.
May Allah we comprehend this truth more quickly that we manage to
change ourselves by day of the Enlightenment.
WHY HAVEN’T I ENTERED INTO POLEMICS
WITH A WOMAN?
The reason why I had to come back to this topic was a reckless,
unsubstantiated, and picaresque statement about “The threat to
democracy posed by People’s Movement of Uzbekistan (PMU)” made
by G. Buharbaeva, a journalist from “uznews.net”.
Two weeks ago, the “uznews.net” site angrily “blew up” against
my humble person and can’t stop since then. This explosion continues
like in a slow motion, throwing out new lava of compromising material
against PMU. The last attack by this site was a published article with an
intended-to-scary title “PMU is a threat to democracy inUzbekistan”.
What caused this sudden activity of G. Buharbaeva’s libido? It
was my refusal to debate with her. All articles (a dozen of them!)
devoted to M. Salih’s refusal to debate with Mrs. G. Buharbaeva ask a
single question. How could he dare to REFUSE?
Even “the public” participating in the Buharbaeva’ forum is “not
jokingly” angered.
393
The theme of refusal is being widely discussed by both writers
headed by a certain Mr. Mamarasulov and political scientists headed by
Mr. Tashpulatov, a former employee of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Even the farmers headed by the journalist Nasyr Zakir “are discussing”
this topic. All of them are discussing my “shameful and blatant denial”
to debate with Mrs. Buharbaeva.
How I dared to do this “great act”, even I don’t know now. I feel
like a monster, a negative movie character created by the artists of
socialist realism. The absurdity of the situation also lies in the fact that
in this Lynch crowd there is not a single person who asked himself: so
what if a person refused? Doesn’t a person have such a right?
Buharbaeva believes that a person doesn’t have such a right. And,
based on that, she decides that “PMU is a threat to democracy
inUzbekistan”. That’s how the unconsidered refusal to debate with Mrs.
G.B. may lead to this kind of a “conceptual globalization”.
Buharbaeva fervently laments: “Persecution, deployed against Mr.
Salih and his family by the President Karimov and also the lack of the
freedom preventing the appearance of new politicians in the country,
have provided an opportunity for Mr. Salih to remain in politics with a
minimum of efforts on his part”.
It’s not clear who G. B. pouts at: at Karimov, for not making his
persecution against Mr. Salih correctly or at Mr. Salih himself, for the
fact that he was provided with an opportunity to remain in politics?
I agree with Buharbaeva on one thing: sacred cows shouldn’t be
in politics. I can only add: such cows shouldn’t be in journalism ether.
But G. Buharbaeva behaves as the sacred cow – touching it is
perceived as a crime. PMU has made only one statement against a
slanderous propaganda of the “uznews.net” site and it received in reply
around ten – again, slanderous – articles supported by the outside selfmade “political scientists” and inhabitants of a barrack of vagabonds,
whom this site calls an electorate. The ambition is huge.
Everything is subordinated to this ambition; even the comments.
Only those comments that are in agreement with the site’s ambitions can
be passed. Here is how a certain “thinker” nicknamed “Eldar” thinks:
“Dear Galima (G. Buharbaeva), it is very difficult for me to watch your
efforts to do something for this people [I did not know that Ms. G. B.
had such a historical mission – a comment by М.S.]. It’s the Sisyphean
394
labor, believe me … the people are sick! There is the one remedy for
this illness – the reliable and durable borders! The borders that are for
not letting in, but for not letting out; for preventing against the spread of
this illness all over the world!” The Illness is the people. The Uzbek
people, of course. This is a very constructive and a very fascist proposal
from admirers of the “uznews.net”.
There is an Uzbek saying that reads as follows: “Well, it’s good
that God never gave the horns to a camel”.
Buharbaeva who is completely devoid of a false modesty states:
“Now I must make a gap in the minds of the leaders!” Madame, please
be kind and let them to make such a gap to themselves. Otherwise, it
will be like in the experimental camps of the Third Reich.
I carefully read all the criticism aimed against my person on this
site and didn’t find even one thought worthy of respect. If I can’t respect
the opinion of each of you separately; then, how can I respect your
collective opinion? If this “child-like” site defines the public opinion,
what can be said about the society itself?
Why I refused to “debate” (what a word!) with her? As a matter of
fact, I responded to all questions by telephone three days prior to these
discussions about a “debate” and explained why I refused to talk to her.
First, because she a slanderer. Having slandered, she apologizes.
Then, she slanders again. This trick is repeatedly used again and again.
Secondly, she manipulates the facts. For example, the editor asked
me a question: “Has E. Urlaeva adopted Islam inTurkey?” I answered:
“Yes, she has”. In the media, she transformed her question into my
answer and used it as the title of the article: “M. Salih: Elena has
adopted Islam inTurkey”.
It looked like I called for a press conference to declare that a
human rights activist has adopted an Islam religion. That is, the event
was so vital for me and even more precisely M. Salih is the Islamist
(one of the so-called “political scientists” associated with the
“uznews.net” uses this word “Islamists” when writes about us).
Another example: one of the PMU activists told to the
“uznews.net” that young men – with permission from God – have
distributed the leaflets. Any Uzbek speaks this way in the usual
conversation; it’s just a phrase. However, this phrase on the
“uznews.net” site was transformed into the cynical title: “The leaflets in
395
Tashkent are being spread with Allah’s help”. (30.03.12) Again – Islam!
All articles about the Uzbek opposition, from under the veil of the
“freedom of speech”, are demonstrating hostility towards Islam and the
traditions of the Uzbek people.
Another feature that makes us to stay away from the sites like
“uznews.net” is a blatant disinformation, which they use without any
shame. Here is an example: this is the title of the article by G.
Buharbaeva: “Salih’s refusal to debate is being discussed in city
ofNamangan”. “Journalist Nosir Zokir writes that he is disappointed by
Muhammad Salih’s denial to debate. Muhammad Salih, the leader of
“Erk” party and People’s Movement of Uzbekistan refused to debate
with G. Buharbaeva, the head editor of the “uznews.net” and that caused
a resonance among many Uzbek activists”.
In fact, Nasir Zakir was talking about Salih’s refusal to debate
with Bahodir Choriev, the leader of “Birdamlik”, considering him as the
leader of a lower level. He talked about it a few months prior to
Buharbaeva’s case!
The same situation happened with Mutabar Tadjibaeva. She called
my wife and with apologies told her that G. Buharbava has interviewed
her about us and has published that interview, but she has changed the
essence of what I had said during the interview.
This sort of Goebbels propaganda against Muslim believers, the
“uznews.net” has been carrying on for a long time.
In the past, this site systematically “was unmasking” Muslims
living in western countries as they do not stop practicing their religion.
Remember the writings about some “hidden camps of Abidkhan
Nazarov” in northernSweden.
Mrs. Buharbaeva wrote: “Last time I saw Salih in October of 2009
at the meeting of the opposition parties inBrusselswhen they formed
“theUnionof May13”. He was discussing my article about Obid-KoriNazarov’s life inSwedenand he said that the Imam was not supposed to
get angry at: “whatever that woman wrote “. On the same day, noticing
my 44 year old colleague Kudrat Babadjanov and me having some beer,
Salih made a remark to him”. All my sins are being brought in,
apparently, as a base for a “threat to democracy inUzbekistan”.
I say “apparently” because I didn’t find other more serious
arguments demonstrating these threats in this article.
396
Unfortunately, an absolute information insulation created by
Karimov’s dictatorship makes our society infantile, dependant, and
prone to lightweight influences originating from more or less free, but
totally irresponsible online media like the “uznews.net”. In the
environment of the true freedom of speech, no one would have paid any
attention to the artificial yelling of these Islamophobes and the shouting
of pseudo democrats.
At the end, I want briefly to respond to the questions raised, in
one way or another, in the process of this scandalous case:
1. We call for the establishment of the state functioning in
accordance with law. In any case, the state system will be chosen in
accordance to people’s votes at the National Referendum.
2. I am the least concerned about an electorate and I can openly
express my vision on all issues. I’m not one of those people who, for the
sake of getting more votes, are prepared to support for example, samesex marriage. I am a supporter of civilized forms of exclusion of gays
and other sick people from society to prevent the spread of disease to
healthy individuals.
3. I am an advocate of preserving the traditions of our ancestors,
where a junior respects a senior and a senior is required to take care of a
junior; where there is a duty to both family and country.
4. I am a supporter of studying in schools not only the history of a
state but also a religion.
5. I am not a supporter of an absolute freedom of speech or
actions because such a freedom will lead to slavery because of the ego
of a man.
6. Awoman should be free like a man in her choice of a lifestyle,
but also must not violate the boundaries of conduct that are prohibited
for men as well. I believe that the main mission of women on the Earth
is the raising of children and this mission should be classified as a
public service. I regard a woman as a weak gender not in a figurative
sense, but literally: God has created her like that and it’s wonderful that
she was created exactly in this way. Without this peculiarity, women are
unnatural and therefore, are disgusting.
7. The weakness of a woman is the greatest strength, before
which, all real men tremble.
28.04.2012
397
THE CRASH OF DEMAGOGIES
“The Arab spring” has destroyed two most popular demagogies
of the democratic world. The first demagogy is the necessity of struggle
against tyranny only by peaceful methods. The second is that democracy
and Islam are incompatible.
We spoke about the first demagogy in the previous articles. We
can add here only the following: the preachers of a peaceful transition to
democracy rely on the leaders known for the sermon of nonviolent
struggle. One of them, of course, is Mahatma Gandhi.
But other leaders can’t be included into this category as they were
not the supporters of nonviolent struggle against the tyranny at all or
were the supporters for a very short period. The most vivid example of
such leaders is Nelson Mandela.
Nelson Mandela was under Gandhi’s influence only in his youth,
but soon he realized an absolute inefficiency of this method in existing
political trend. The irony of it is that when he was the supporter of
nonviolent struggle (December, 1956), Mandela and more than 150
people were arrested by the authorities and were charged with the
treason and the preparation of a violent overthrow of the existing power.
In 1959, the new group of black people has torn its ties with the
African National Congress (ANC), demanding the acceptance of more
drastic actions against the regime of the National Party.
In 1961, Nelson Mandela has at last become the leader of «The
Spear of the Nation», the armed wing of the ANC. As a result, he
initiated a policy of sabotage against the government and the military
and which allowed the support of a guerrilla war in case of failure in
struggle against the apartheid regime. Thus, Nelson Mandela has
managed to get a financial support from abroad and to organize a
military training for the wing’s members.
According to Mandela, the armed struggle has become the last
instance. The years of growing reprisal and violence from the state
convinced him that nonviolent struggle against the apartheid’s regime
has not brought and could not bring the expected results.
Now, think of 22 years of peaceful activity of the Uzbek
opposition despite the growing reprisal and violence from the Uzbek
398
authorities. From the beginning, the Uzbek opposition was accused of
preparation of a violent overthrow of the existing regime in Uzbekistan!
This is the irony of our destiny. We could not prove that we don’t
want to dethrone this regime in such a way. How is it possible to prove
something that doesn’t exist?
None of us has said that Karimov’s regime is a 100 times worse
than the apartheid regime and God ordered us to answer with violence
against violence of this bloody regime.
When, in 2005, after the massacre of peaceful demonstrators in
Andizhan, the mayor of London – the center of democracy – has
declared that it’s necessary to struggle only with weapons in arms
against such regimes as Karimov’s, the liberals of the West froze in
deep silence. It was the first public blow to demagogy of nonviolent
struggle against tyranny. But almost nobody has felt it, especially the
dictators. The noticeable, tremendous blow has been delivered by “the
Arab spring”. This blow has legitimized the armed struggle against the
world’s monsters. Now, here are some thoughts about the
incompatibility of democracy and Islam.
In the beginning of the revolutionary process in the Arab world,
nobody has dared to predict the future of these countries, which have
suddenly entered into political turbulence. The West was not ready to
comprehend quickly this event and to offer any strategy on a new
arrangement of political regimes, which mostly suited it in the past.
Most likely, the radical decision (the military intrusion) of the NATO
regarding Libya was based on the hope of emerging of even more
compliant regime than the Gaddafi’ regime.
Alexander Rar, a German political scientist of a Russian origin
has expressed a “wreck of this hope” by saying: “It’s necessary to
recognize that “the Arab spring” didn’t take place. In the East, the
Islamization is going on instead of the democratization; we see who
wins the elections, we see how it occurs. Our idea of freedom runs
across alternatives and it’s impossible not to see it”.
The alternative, on which the West runs across, is a new type of
political regimes where democracy and Islam could co-exist.
Apparently, according to Mr. Rar, such type of a political regime is
perceived with difficultly not only by the Islamic radicals, but also by
the radicals from democracy.
399
The statement “In the East, the Islamization is going on” shows a
lack of knowledge of the East and a wrong perception of its history and
reality. Over there, the Islamization has been going on for 1500 years.
It’s time to understand that Muslims will never give up their
religion for the sake of any other ideology, even for the sake of
democracy. Post-revolutionary events in the Arab world have destroyed
demagogy about a natural hostility between Islam and democracy,
which some politicians have been using for many years.
The first statements about a possibility of coexistence of Islam
and democracy have been made in the mid-nineties of the last century. It
was the obvious discord in the general chorus of enemies of Islam in the
democratic world. It’s remembered how Gram Fuller, an analyst from
“Rand Corporation”, citing as an example Islamic parties of Turkey, has
advised the researchers of political Islam to approach this problem not
as “Islam and democracy”, but as “Muslims and democracy”.
Such a foreshortening of the question would help to see a
flexibility of Islam as a part of political perception of the world.
However, the critics of such a method have accused the liberals
similar to Mr. Fuller that they promoted the strengthening of Islamic
fundamentalism, preventing its extermination on time. They cited as an
example Afghan mujahedeen that didn’t become democrats in spite of
many years of cooperation with Americans during a joint struggle in
Afghanistan against the Soviet occupation.
Now, after the Egypt people have elected the President by the
universal voting as it’s done on the West and the “Brothers Muslims”
(that were the symbol of the anti-western movement and by whom used
to threaten with until recently) won majority of seats in Parliament, new
arguments are required to prove the incompatibility of Islam and
democracy. The fall of demagogy is present.
How will it be reflected on a political life of the Muslim countries
of the Central Asia?
During the last year, dictatorial regimes similar to Karimov’s
didn’t feel comfortable even under a wing of the West that was
compelled to “close its eyes” on their crimes for the sake of “corridor”
from Afghanistan. Law enforcement bodies of Uzbekistan continue to
arrest and send “unreliable” religious believers to the camp of death
“Zhaslyk” without any investigation and trial. (Indeed, in Uzbekistan,
400
Islam (Karimov) and democracy are incompatible!). Shadowing after
the members of opposition has increased. Control over Internet users in
big cities is even more toughened. It’s because a year of 2011 was not
the best year for Central Asia’s dictators. The Arab spring has delivered
the strong psychological blow. They have not recovered from this shock
yet. The shock was so strong that it’s even reflected in documents of the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization where the countries of Central Asia
have membership. According to the analysts, the fear of the dictators
rests in the heart of these long, boring documents. But the aim is
expressed quite clear. According to the newspaper “Commersant”, in
these resolutions the accurate list of the actions is provided, which are
directed against a hypothetical “spring” similar to the “Arab spring”.
Nevertheless, if after the elections, Muslims in Egypt will manage
to establish a true stability and show to the world that they are capable
to rule the country in a way of a lawful state it will make a huge impact
on the subsequent course of events not only in the Arab world but also
in all East, including Central Asia. Everyone will see a wreck of myths
about Islam and Muslims, the defeat of the world Islamophobia.
Islam, since its emergence, has lived side by side with heresy;
why it would not be able to live side by side with democracy? Islam is
able and does live alongside with democracy.
It cuts the ground from under feet of our dictators that still live
embracing a scarecrow of Islamic fundamentalism; it will deprive them
of their status of the outpost against “the invasion of Islamic radicalism
from the South”.
In turn, it will give the strong impulse to still hesitating liberal
Muslim groups to enter into a political spectrum and join the struggle
for political power in a legitimate environment, which “the Arab spring”
has created.
Muhammad SALIH
2012
401
MUHAMMAD SALIH’S BIOGRAPHY
Muhammad Salih was born in the Khorezm Region of north-west
Uzbekistan on 20th December, 1949. He served in the Soviet Army from 1968
to 1970. He was among the contingent of the Soviet Army which was deployed
to Czechoslovakia in the Spring of 1968. The occupation of Czechoslovakia by
the Soviets and the resistance of Czech people changed Muhammad Salih’s
vision of the Soviet Union in general and the Communist system in particular.
After leaving the army, Muhammad Salih became a student of the
Faculty of Journalism at Tashkent State University.
In the 1970s, he was recognised by literary critics as a leader of the
stream of young metaphorists – which was a new tendency in Soviet
literature. Metaphorists rejected the theory of socialist realism, which
declared Communist ideology as the main source of art. Soviet literary critics
denounced Muhammad Salih and his followers as anti -communists. At the
beginning of the 1980s, Muhammad Salih attended High Literature Courses in
Moscow. After completing of the Courses, he worked as a screenwriter in
Uzbekistan. He was the screenwriter of the historical movie ‘The Golden Head
of the Avenger’ based on the true story of a national hero who fights against
Russian colonialism.
In 1984, Muhammad Salih wrote an open letter to the Political Bureau
of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In this
letter (‘Letter To The Politbureau’), he called the policy of Communist Party as
anti-Uzbek and demanded a halt to discrimination against Uzbek culture and
to the harassment of Uzbek intelligentsia protecting national identity. The
letter was signed by 56 poets and writers. In fact, this was the first open action
by the Uzbek political dissidents. The Politibureau responded angrily to the
letter, banning all publications of Muhammad Salih and his followers.
In 1985 and 1986, Muhammad Salih published in the central
newspapers of the Soviet Union a series of articles against the demographic
policy of the Communist Party, which was directed towards reducing the birth rate in Uzbekistan.
On 6th November 1988, ‘The New York Times’ published an interview
with Muhammad Salih, during which he called Moscow’s policy a colonialist
one. Following the interview, the Communist Party’s leaders began a hate
campaign against Muhammad Salih, threatening him with arrest and
prosecution. But series of student demonstrations in support of Muhammad
Salih organised in Tashkent forced the authorities to change their mind.
402
In 1988, Muhammad Salih was elected by the poets and writers as
Chairman of the Union of Writers of Uzbekistan. Muhammad Salih was the
first anti-communist official to hold office at such a high level.
Later the same year, Muhammad Salih founded ‘Birlik’ (Unity), the first
opposition movement in Uzbekistan. The movement soon organised a series
of mass demonstrations against discrimina tion of Uzbek language, cotton
monoculture and environmental policy.
During this period Muhammad Salih became extremely popular among
young people and the intelligentsia.
In 1990, Muhammad Salih set up ‘Erk’, the first political party in
Uzbekistan, which declared independence from the Soviet Union to be its first
political goal. In March 1990 he was elected to the Uzbek Supreme Assembly
(Parliament).
His first initiative as a Member of Parliament was the project for the
Declaration of Independence.
Islam Karimov (then the First Secretary of the Communist Party of
Uzbekistan) attempted to prevent this Declaration from being passed, but
Parliament adopted it with a majority. It was the first real step towards the
independence of Uzbekistan.
With many independent MPs on its side, Erk became the main
challenger to the Communist Party [in Uzbekistan].
During the coup d’etat attempt in Moscow in August 1991, Muhammad
Salih (despite being under house arrest) sent a telegram to Boris Yeltsin
condemning the coup d’etat and expressing his full support against the coup
leaders.
The Communist leader of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, who initially
supported the coup attempt, later changed sides and announced the
independence of Uzbekistan.
Muhammad Salih stood as a candidate in the first presidential elections
in independent Uzbekistan, which took place in December 1990. They were
neither free nor democratic.
According to the official results, Muhammad Salih gained 12.7% of
votes. But the state radio in its news bulleti n announced that 33 per cent of
voters supported Muhammad Salih. Later the editor of the radio was sacked.
On 16th January 1992, tens of thousands of students demonstrated to
demand the cancellation of the election results and the holding of a new
election. On the orders of President Karimov, the government troops opened
fire on the demonstrators, killing at least two students. Soon after the
403
incident, Karimov’s regime launched a campaign against the Uzbek opposition.
In protest at the government’s repressi ve policy towards the opposition and
democracy, Muhammad Salih left Parliament. In May 1992, Muhammad Salih
set up the Democratic Forum, consisting of all the democratic forces.
President Karimov offered Muhammad Salih the post of Prime Minister
in return for the dissolution of the Democratic Forum. Muhammad Salih
rejected the offer. In June 1992, Muhammad Salih was arrested by order of
President Karimov and put in an Interior Ministry jail. After three days, the
government was forced to release him under strong pressure from the
international community, including the US and British governments. But
Muhammad Salih was then placed under house arrest. Soon after,
Muhammad Salih left Uzbekistan in order to continue his political activity. He
has been living in exile since then. After several explosions in Tashkent in
Feburary 1999, the Karimov government accused him of organising an attempt
on the President’s life and arrested many members of the Erk Party, including
Salih’s three brothers. Salih himself was sentenced in absentia to 15½ years
imprisonment. However, international observers say that the court failed to
present any evidence of the involvement of Muhammad Salih.
In December 2001, while Muhammad Salih was in Prague at the
invitation of US-funded radio station Radio Liberty, the Czech authorities
arrested him on an Interpol warrant issued by the Uzbek authorities. The
Uzbek government requested his extradition, but the court in Prague threw
out the request and released Muhammad Salih. After his relea se, Muhammad
Salih was received by the then President of Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel.
During the meeting, the Czech President promised his full support for the
democratic movement of Uzbekistan.
In August 2005, Muhammad Salih has set up the National Salvation
Committee which united almost all the democratic forces and groups in
Uzbekistan and outside.
Muhammad Salih is the father of five children. He is the author of more
than 20 books and his works have been translated into more than 50
languages.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
404
CONTENT
PART I. PUBLICATIONS OF 1988-1999
WILL CZAR COTTON STILL REIGN ACROSS SOVIET CENTRAL ASIA? .................. 4
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL .............................................................................. 5
TURKIC REPUBLICS PRESS SOVIETS TO LOOSEN REINS ...................................... 6
UPHEAVAL IN THE EAST ..................................................................................... 7
“DEFIANCE OF KREMLIN'S CONTROL IS ACCELERATING IN SOVIET ASIA…….... 8
THE BALTIMORE SUN ........................................................................................ 9
FINAL ................................................................................................................. 9
THE HIDDEN NATIONS .................................................................................... 10
THE NATIONALITIES QUESTION IN THE SOVIET UNION .................................. 11
RED ODYSSEY. A JOURNEY THROUGH THE SOVIET REPUBLICS........................ 11
THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE .................................................................... 12
THE BALTIMORE SUN ...................................................................................... 13
CENTRAL ASIA'S POLITICAL CRISIS.................................................................... 15
NEW NATIONS RISING ..................................................................................... 15
TASHKENT TAKES THE NO-CHANGE ROUTE TO REFORM ................................ 16
EMPIRE'S EDGE ................................................................................................ 17
THE NEW GEOPOLITICS OF CENTRAL ASIA ...................................................... 20
ISLAM AND POLITICS IN CENTRAL ASIA ........................................................... 20
“POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT IN UZBEKISTAN “................................................ 22
CENTRAL ASIA'S EMERGING FACES ................................................................. 30
FIVE PARTIES TO CONTEST UZBEK PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS.................... 31
AGENCE FRANCE PRESSE ................................................................................ 32
UZBEK OPPOSITION BOSS SAYS AFGHANS NEED
BROAD-BASED GOVERNMENT ........................................................................ 33
ERK SAYS UZBEK PRESIDENT BENEFITED FROM BOMBINGS …………………........ 35
UZBEKISTAN: OPPOSITION SAYS UN WILL
TAKE UP TORTURE CASE ................................................................................. 35
OPPOSITION LEADER: “UZBEK ELECTIONS WILL BE 99% FALSITIED ............. 37
405
PART II. LITERATURE AND POLITICS: MUHAMMED SALIH
AND POLITICAL CHANGE IN UZBEKISTAN 1979-1995
Introduction.....................................................................................................
Chapter one – 1977-1985 ................................................................................
Chapter two – 1986-1989 ................................................................................
Chapter three – 1989-1992 ............................................................................
39
43
53
68
Chapter four – 1992 early 1995 ......................................................... 78
Conclusion........................................................................................................ 89
PART III. PUBLICATIONS SINCE 2000 THE CREATION OF NATIONS
“WE ARE READY TO SERVE OUR PEOPLE” ....................................................... 94
US OPPOSES UZBEK TERRORISM ................................................................... 96
UZBEK OPPOSITION LEADER SALIH SAYS VERDICT ILLEGAL……………………….... 97
THE LAST ADVERSARY OF THE DICTATOR........................................................ 99
UZBEK OPPOSITION LEADER ARRESTED IN PRAGUE..................................... 116
CZECH REPUBLIC/UZBEKISTAN: FEAR OF FORCIBLE DEPORTATION /
FEAR OF TORTURE, MUHAMMAD SALIH ...................................................... 117
THE POET MUHAMMAD SALIH, CHAIRMAN OF ERK PARTY
HAS BEEN DETAINED IN PRAGUE .................................................................. 120
UZBEK MILITANT DETAINED IN PRAGUE ....................................................... 121
UZBEK OPPOSITION LEADER ARRESTED IN PRAGUE ..................................... 123
UZBEK DISSIDENT ARRESTED IN PRAGUE,
THREATENED WITH EXTRADITION................................................................. 124
CZECH POLICE ARREST UZBEK OPPOSITION LEADER
WANTED BY INTERPOL………………………………………………………………………………..125
UZBEK DISSIDENT ARRESTED IN PRAGUE,
FACES EXTRADITION TO UZBEKISTAN ……………………………………………………….. 127
KARIMOV CRITIC ARRESTED IN PRAGUE ....................................................... 128
THE MUNICIPAL COURT (OF PRAGUE) ORDERED DETENTION
EXTRADITION PURPOSES AGAINST UZBEK DISSIDENT SOLICH (SALIH) …......
CITY COURT IMPOSES EXTRADITION CUSTODY ON SALIH ………………………...
STATE ATTORNEY WANTS SALIH TO BE TAKEN
INTO EXTRADITION CUSTODY ……….…………………………………………………………..
SALIH WANTS TO ASK FOR ASYLUM IN CZECH REPUBHC ..............................
406
FOR
130
132
132
134
SALIH ASKS FOR POLITICAL ASYLUM IN CZECH REPUBLIC – LAWYER ........... 135
HAVEL MONITORS UZBEK'S CASE,
NOT TO INTERVENE FOR THE TIME BEING .................................................... 136
INTERPOL SAYS SALIH SEEKING ASYLUM,
OSLO SAYS HE HAS OBTAINED IT .................................................................. 138
CITY COURT IMPOSES EXTRADITION CUSTODY ON SALIH............................. 139
PRESS COMMUNICATION .............................................................................. 140
CZECHS URGED NOT TO RETURN SALIH TO UZBEKISTAN ............................. 141
“DEAR PRESIDENT HAVEL”............................................................................. 143
“DEAR PRESIDENT VACLAV HAVEL...”........................................................... 144
NORWEGIAN FOREIGN MINISTER ASKS KAVAN
THAT PRAGUE RELEASE SALIH ....................................................................... 145
“I FEAR THAT MY FATHER WILL BE KILLED...”................................................ 146
CZECH REPUBLIC: A SUDDEN ARREST .......................................................... 147
PROTECT DEMOCRACY, NOT DICTATORS .................................................... 150
THE WEST SHOULD CONTINUE TO PRESSURE
REPRESSIVE REGIMES SUCH AS THE ONE IN UZBEKISTAN............................ 151
MUHAMMED SALIH’S LETTER FROM PRAGUE PRISON ............................... 153
UZBEKISTAN: OPPOSITION LEADER AWAITS
DECISION ON POSSIBLE EXTRADITION ......................................................... 159
EXILED DISSIDENT'S DETENTION RAISES ALARM
AMONG RIGHTS ADVOCATES IN UZBEKISTAN AND ELSEWHERE ................. 161
RFE/RL URGES RELEASE OF SALIH ................................................................. 162
PRAGUE FACES DILEMMA OVER SALIH ......................................................... 164
UZBEKISTAN CRITICIZED OVER TREATMENT
OF POLITICAL OPPOSITIONISTS ..................................................................... 165
SALIH ARRESTED FOR HIS POLITICS, JUMAEV FOR HIS POETRY ................. 168
HAVEL SADDENED, FRUSTRATED BY SALIH DETENTION............................... 169
KARIMOV MOVES TO BOLSTER AUTHORITARIAN RULE IN UZBEKISTAN …... 171
RESPONSE TO TERROR .................................................................................. 172
VACLAV HAVEL: “I AM FIGHTING FOR SALIH’S HUMAN RIGHTS,
AND I HAVE RECORDNISED THAT HE INNOCENT”......................................... 174
UZBEK DISSIDENT IS NOW A VOICE IN PRAGUE JAIL ................................... 176
“DEAR VACLAC HAVEL, PRESIDENT OF CZECH REPUBLIC”............................. 178
407
CZECH REPUBLIC: HAVEL SADDENED,
FRUSTRATED BY SALIH DETENTION ..............................................................
“DEAR PRESIDENT LORD RUSSELL-JOHNSTON.” ..........................................
HAVEL WANTS TO MEET SALIH .....................................................................
CZECHS FREE EXILED UZBEK LEADER AWAITING HEARING .........................
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL WELCOMES RELEASE OF SALIH........................
SALIH SEES HIS ARREST AS BUREAUCRATIC MISTAKE ...................................
HAVEL WOULD LIKE TO MEET SALIH ON WEDNESDAY .................................
SALIH TO BE RELEASED FROM CUSTODYU ....................................................
ON TUESDAY RELEASED A LEADING UZBEK DISSIDENT ................................
JAILED UZBEK DISSIDENT RELEASED ..............................................................
179
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
CZECH COURT BARS EXTRADITION OF UZBEK OPPOSITION LEADER RULINGS:
THE
LIKELIHOOD THAT MUHAMMED SALIH WOULD FACE THE DEATH
PENALTY WAS A KEY FACTOR ........................................................................ 191
CRACKDOWN IMPERILS MIDEAST EXILES ...................................................... 193
SALIH RELEASED ............................................................................................ 195
SALIH WILL NOT BE EXTRADITED TO UZBEKISTAN – COURT ......................... 198
RFE/RL PRESIDENT WELCOMES PRAGUE COURT DECISION .......................... 199
CZECH COURT CONSIDERS UZBEK PRISONER ................................................ 200
UZBEK DISSIDENT AVOIDING JAIL .................................................................. 202
UZBEK DISSIDENT WON'T BE EXTRADITED .................................................... 203
CZECH REPUBLIC/USA: RFE NOT SURE WHY UZBEKISTAN
DOES NOT PERMIT ITS BROADCASTS ............................................................ 204
PART IV. PERFORMANCES
''I HAVE NOT REFUSED STRUGGLE.'' ..............................................................
UZBEK OPPOSITION LEADER SAYS ISLAMIC
FUNDAMENTALISTS NO THREAT TO TAKE OVER ..........................................
STATEMENT OF M.SALIH ANSWERING UZBEK
GOVERNMENT'S SMEAR CAMPAIGN ............................................................
OPPOSITION LEADERS UNITE BEHIND SALIH .................................................
UZBEK OPPOSITION LEADER URGES
CONTINUED US MILITARY TIES ......................................................................
UZBEK DISSIDENT MUHAMMAD SALIH (RFE/RL BRIEFING) ..........................
408
205
211
213
214
215
217
OPPOSITION ASKS US TO PUSH FOR INQUIRY ............................................... 220
UZBEK OPPOSITION LEADER HOPES
ANDIJAN TRAGEDY WILL AWAKEN THE WEST .............................................. 221
UZBEKISTAN’S WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY ................................................. 223
PART V. ARTICLES BY MUHAMMAD SALIH
WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT AFGHANISTAN ................................................ 228
THEY BUILT RADIKALISM UP THEMSELVES ................................................... 233
WHERE IS THE SHARIAT? AND WHAT ABOUT DEMOCRACY? …………..…....... 234
AFTER ANNOUNCED IN ADVANCE TRIUMPH OF THE DICTATOR ………….…… 237
WHY IS IT TOO HARD TO ESTABLISH THE CALIPHATE IN CENTRASIA ? ........ 239
THE MOST EXPENSIVE STABILITY IN THE WORLD ....................................... 244
AMERICA'S SHADY ALLY AGAINST TERROR ................................................. 246
LETTER FROM MAMADALI MAKHMUDOV ................................................... 249
WAR AGAINST DIFFERENT "PERSPECTIVES": NEXT MOVE BY KARIMOV .... 255
THAT BITTER WORD “FREEDOM” ................................................................. 257
“TURKISH DAILY NEWS”................................................................................ 258
IT IS NOT A METAPHORE BUT REALITY ........................................................ 261
MUHAMMAD SALIH'S ADRESS TO ERK PARTY CONGRESS ........................... 263
THE PRESS CONFERENCE ON THE TASHKENT INCIDENTS:
"WHO BOMBED TASHKENT?" ....................................................................... 277
LOVE CAN NOT BE COMPELLED .................................................................... 283
INTERVIEW: BEHIND THE BOYCOTT .............................................................. 285
UZBEKISTAN'S DANGEROUS ELECTION SHAM .............................................. 288
ARE WE LOSING OUR SENSE OF HUMOR? .................................................... 289
TWO COMPONENTS OF GLOBAL TERROR .................................................... 291
AN INTERVIEW WITH MUHAMMAD SALIH FERGHANA.RU .......................... 294
THE WAY TO GLOBAL DEMOCRATISATION ................................................... 300
THE KILLER OF THE SQUARES .................................................... .................... 302
UZBEKISTAN HAS ENTERED ITS OWN COLD WAR ......................................... 304
A PLAN FOR DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM IN MODERN UZBEKISTAN .......... 307
SPEECH OF SALIH AT THE CHATHAM HOUSE (JANUARY, 19, 2006) ……......... 309
SPEECH OF M.SALIH AT THE INSTITUTE POLICY EXCHANGE, LONDON.......... 312
409
«BALSAM FOR THE DICTATOR»……………………………………………………….……...... 314
FURTHERING FREEDOM’S CAUSE IN UZBEKISTAN ........................................ 318
DEMOCRACY IN UZBEKISTAN ........................................................................ 324
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW OF M.SALIH TO ARENA ............................................. 326
MUHAMMED SALIH’S SPEECH IN THE EUROPARLIAMENT............................ 333
DEMOCRACY OR ABYSS ......................................................... ........................ 336
CULTURES DON’T CLASH.
WHAT MAKES THEM CLAHS IS THE LACK OF CULTUR………………………………….339
LIVING UP TO THE IMAGE ............................................................................. 341
KARIMOV'S FROGS ........................................................................................ 343
EVERYTHING WE HAVE IS OUR LIVES,
AND WE ARE PUTTING THEM AT RISK …………............................................... 347
DISCOVERING THE FREEDOM OF AN UNARMED MAN ................................. 348
RED ATTRACTION FOR RADICALISM .............................................................. 349
THE FREEDOM OF UNARMED MAN (A SCRIPT FOR DOCUMENTARY) …....... 356
TOWARDS THE DAY OF AWAKENING ............................................................ 390
WHY HAVEN’T I ENTERED INTO POLEMICS WITH A WOMAN? ..................... 393
THE CRASH OF DEMAGOGIES. ....................................................................... 398
MUHAMMAD SALIH’S BIOGRAPHY ............................................................... 402
410
FREEDOM of UNARMED MAN
SİLAHSIZ KİŞİNİN ÖZGÜRLÜĞÜ
Тўпловчи: Пирмуҳаммад Холмуҳаммад
Hazırlayan: Pirmuhammed Halmuhammed
Муҳаррир: Камолиддин Йўлдош
Muharrir: Kemaleddin Yoldaş
Тираж: 1000 дона
Tiraj: 1000 adet
ISBN: 978-605-62880-3-6
Baskı: Ihlas Gazetecilik A.Ş.
Merkez Mahallesi, 29 Ekim Caddesi, İhlas Plaza No: 11A/41
Yenibosna – Bahçelievler / İstanbul
Tel: +90 212 454 3000
411