One country at a time...

Uzbekistan has abolished the death penalty. I'm not sure how much its worth, given that this is a regime which has been known to boil people alive in oil, but the fact that courts will no longer be handing out death sentences is at least a nominal improvement.

Whack-A-Mole

Craig Murray is the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, who was removed from his post after complaining too loudly about human rights abuses and torture in a country that was, at the time, considered a vital ally in the "war on terror". He's recently written a book, Murder in Samarkand, detailing his experiences there and the dirty deals done by the UK. As part of this, he has also published several documents released under the UK's Freedom of Information and Data Protection Acts on his website, so that people can read the documentary record for themselves.

Or at least, that was the plan. Shortly after publication, he was contacted by a lawyer for the Foreign Office demanding that the documents be removed. The reason? While they've been released under the FOIA, they are still covered by Crown copyright, and the FCO sees any publication of embarassing documents as being unauthorised use.

Clearly, this makes a mockery of Britain's freedom of information law, whose entire point is to allow people to hold the government to account by gaining access to information and publicising it. But the authoritarian Blair government doesn't seem to care about that where there are dissenters to squash. Of course, this is the 21st century, and now we have the internet, and so the usual game of online whack-a-mole has begun.

I don't have space to host the documents myself, but they're up at Dahr Jamail, and at Blairwatch, and at Many Angry Gerbils. Or you can get a zip archive (12.8 MB) from Politics in the Zeros. There's even a Torrent available, for those who prefer to help distribute as well as downloading. Of course, all of this is illegal under British law - but when the government uses the law solely to silence its critics, that law deserves to be ignored.

Remembering Andijan

Tomorrow will be the first anniversary of the Andijan massacre, in which Uzbek soldiers murdered an estimated 700 protestors. Things began on May 10th, 2005, with a protest against the trial of 23 businessmen accused of being "Islamic extremists". The protests grew the next day, then on the night of May 12th a mob stormed the prison and a military garrison, seizing weapons and freeing the prisoners. Government troops sealed off the city, then on May 13th moved in to suppress the demonstrations. They did this by surrounding the town square, then firing indiscriminately into the crowd with automatic weapons.

In the wake of the massacre, the Uzbek government launched a crackdown on journalists, human rights activists, and political opponents. Independent media was censored or shut down, and international media driven from the country. Witnesses to the massacre were accused of "terrorism" and subjected to secret trials. Over 230 people have now been convicted in such trials, and it has been the massacre's victims, rather than its perpetrators, who have been punished. Internationally, the world's condemnation of the massacre does not seem to have been backed by firm action; in December the Uzbek Interior Minister Zokirjon Almatov was permitted to visit Germany for medical treatment, despite being subjected to a travel ban. Germany also continues to make use of the Termez air force base in Uzbekistan to support its operations in Afghanistan. The United States has not taken any action whatsoever, after initial mild criticism saw it summarily evicted from the country. This can only be described as a gross failure by the international community.

Of course, we can hardly talk; the New Zealand government hasn't uttered a word of criticism, let alone called for sanctions or prosecutions by the ICC. So much for being "a strong voice for human rights"...

The dead of Andijan are crying out for justice - and we have failed them. A year on, we should take the opportunity to correct that, by imposing sanctions on the Uzbek regime and making it clear that either they hold the perpetrators of this massacre to account - or we will.

[Hat tip: Matt Nippert]

Punishing the witnesses

Nine months ago, Uzbek human rights activist Saidjahan Zainabiddinov was an eyewitness to the Uzbek regime's brutal massacre of protestors at Andijan. During the massacre, he stayed near Andijan's central square, feeding information to journalists and western embassies, and afterwards he was widely quoted as saying that up to 500 people had died. In the aftermath of the trial, he was arrested, and now he is facing a secret trial, reportedly on charges of "undermining the constitutional system" and "assisting terrorism". Thus does the Uzbek regime punish those who dare to speak out about its crimes...

The UK was complicit in torture in Uzbekistan

Craig Murray is the UK's former ambassador to Uzbekistan, who was removed from his post after complaining too loudly about human rights abuses and torture in a country that was, at the time, considered a vital ally in the "war on terror". He's since written a book about those abuses, and the UK and US's complicity in and toleration of them; unfortunately the British government is trying to use their draconian Official Secrets Act to prevent the revelation of embarrassing information, demanding that he

remove all references to two especially damning British government documents, indicating that our government was knowingly receiving information extracted by the Uzbeks through torture, and return every copy that he has in his possession.

So, he's gone around them. The Blairwatch blog has coordinated a massive leak of the documents to the internet, publishing them themselves and urging other blogs to do the same. As they said in their email, it's not the Al-Jazera memo, but these documents need publishing.

The first document [PDF] is a series of telegrams sent by Murray to the Foreign Office, detailing the Uzbek regime's use of torture and protesting the British government's decision to ignore it and continue using (and treating as reliable) information from the Uzbek security services.

1. We receive intelligence obtained under torture from the Uzbek intelligence services, via the US. We should stop. It is bad information anyway. Tortured dupes are forced to sign up to confessions showing what the Uzbek government wants the US and UK to believe, that they and we are fighting the same war against terror.

2. I gather a recent London interdepartmental meeting considered the question and decided to continue to receive the material. This is morally, legally and practically wrong. It exposes as hypocritical our post Abu Ghraib pronouncements and fatally undermines our moral standing. It obviates my efforts to get the Uzbek government to stop torture they are fully aware our intelligence community laps up the results.

3. We should cease all co-operation with the Uzbek Security Services they are beyond the pale. We indeed need to establish an SIS presence here, but not as in a friendly state.

And as an example:

15. At the Khuderbegainov trial I met an old man from Andizhan. Two of his children had been tortured in front of him until he signed a confession on the family's links with Bin Laden. Tears were streaming down his face. I have no doubt they had as much connection with Bin Laden as I do. This is the standard of the Uzbek intelligence services.

The second document [JPG] is a scan of a short memo from Michael Wood, the Foreign Office's chief legal advisor, giving the UK government's position on information derived from torture: that it's OK, provided it doesn't make it into court. This makes a lovely contrast with Tony Blair's public position that the UK does not condone torture and "would not be involved in any process" which resulted in its use. It also shows exactly why the British government is attempting to censor these documents: to prevent the embarrassment of being publicly shown to have been lying to the British public (again).

There are HTML versions of both documents here (thanks to Kos).

If you are outside the UK, I urge you to republish these documents, and help show the UK government that this sort of censorship simply does not work.

Cowardly in the extreme

In May this year, the Uzbek government massacred 700 demonstrators in the town of Andijan. Following the massacre, the EU imposed "smart sanctions" on the Uzbek regime, barring arms sales and denying visas to key members of the Uzbek regime. You can imagine the fury then when it was learned that Uzbek Interior Minister Zokirjon Almatov, the man responsible for Uzbekistan's policy of systematic torture, as well as for the murderers at Andijan, was in a German hospital being treated for cancer.

Human Rights Watch immediately laid a complaint with Germany's federal prosecutor on behalf of a group of Uzbek torture victims, calling for Almatov to be prosecuted under Germany's universal jurisdiction law for torture and crimes against humanity. And the prosecutor did... nothing. According to The Independent,

as of last [Sunday] night not a finger had been lifted. It was reported moreover, that the man known as the "Butcher of Tashkent" was safely back in Uzbekistan.

This is cowardly in the extreme. Up until this week, Germany had taken a leading role in establishing international accountability for crimes against humanity. Now, they've deliberately looked the other way and let one of the great criminals of our age escape justice, because they didn't want to cause an international incident.

Coincidentally, Germany has a military base in Uzbekistan, which it uses to support operations in Afghanistan. And the Uzbeks have withdrawn their threat to close it down. But I'm sure that that has nothing to do with it, and there was no sordid quid pro quo...

When show trials go bad

For the last few weeks, Uzbekistan has been running show trials for fifteen "militants" who led the protests in Andijan - the participants of which were subsequently ruthlessly slaughtered by government troops in the worst massacre since Tiananmen Square. Yesterday, though, thinks went wrong, when a witness refused to stick to the government's script:

Makhbuba Zakirova told the court that she saw soldiers shooting at people waving a white flag.

"Even Hitler did not do such things," she said.

[...]

Mrs Zakirova, 33, said she mingled with anti-government protesters in the city square while walking with her children.

She said she stayed out of curiosity when she heard Uzbek President Islam Karimov was supposed to talk with the protesters.

"There were people in helmets everywhere. I twice saw soldiers shooting from military vehicles. The shooting was intense," she said, the Reuters news agency reported.

She also seemed fully aware of what this entailed:

Mrs Zakirova was interrupted by the prosecutor, who asked: "Do you realise what you are saying? Are you sure?"

She replied: "Are you going to arrest me now? I was telling only the truth, and you yourself asked me to give a truthful testimony... I am only saying what I saw."

I salute her bravery in standing up to tell the true story of what happened at Andijan - but given the nature of the Uzbek regime, she'll probably soon be joining the others in the dock.

Soviet-era repression in Uzbekistan

One of the most appalling things about the Soviet Union was their equation of dissent with mental illness. Communism was the rational solution to the problems of mankind, and so anyone disagreeing with the government must therefore be irrational or deluded. Dissent was therefore a sickness, and dissidents were frequently involuntarily confined to mental institutions for "treatment".

It's still going on in Uzbekistan. Below is a cartoon distributed at a protest in Uzbekistan. It mocks government corruption by depicting well-known members of the Uzbek regime "sucking at the teat of the state".

The author, Yelena Urlayeva, was arrested. She is now being held in a mental hospital, and claims to have been beaten for refusing to declare she is mentally ill.

Uzbekistan doesn't have an embassy here, so there's nowhere to protest at, but if you'd like to voice your disquiet, Human Rights First has an online form here.

Evicted

The US military is being evicted from Uzbekistan in retaliation for American criticism (however muted) of that country's brutal massacre of protestors in Andijan in May. Which kindof makes the question of whether the US should cooperate with such a regime a moot-point. Though I am wondering - will they still be flying suspected terrorists to Tashkent to be tortured, or will that little arrangement be ending as well?

Uzbekistan: simply laughable

If ever we needed a graphic illustration of the way in which the war on terror can be used to provide a blank cheque for atrocity and oppression, now we have one: the Karimov regime has claimed that "only terrorists were liquidated by government forces" last week. But the accounts of eyewitnesses, not to mention the bodies of civilian demonstrators who have been killed execution-style, show that this claim is simply laughable. What next? They all committed suicide by shooting themselves in the back of the head?

Uzbekistan update II

The death toll from the weekend's massacre of protestors in Andijan is now estimated at 700, and the massacre is now being compared to Tiananmen Square. The chief difference of course being that the US didn't beat around the bush in condemning that particular atrocity.

The US has hardened its stance, with Condoleezza Rice calling for political reform and saying that Uzbekistan needed "pressure valves that come from a more open political system" - but it's a long way short of the criticism coming from the Europeans. And it's a long way short of the rhetoric spouted by her boss. Remember this?

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."

The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.

That was Bush's 2005 inauguration address. It would be nice if the US actually acted on those ideals, rather than treating them as pretty words for the children.

Plus ca change

December 1983: Donald Rumsfeld shakes hands with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, during a visit to Baghdad. At the time, Iraq was fighting America's enemies in Iran. The US government ignored Saddam's human-rights abuses, including the gassing of Kurds, until Saddam turned against them in 1991 (when he suddenly became "the next Hitler")

October 2001: Donald Rumsfeld shakes hands with Uzbekistan's President Karimov during a visit to Tashkent. The visit successfully secured Uzbekistan's assistance in the "war on terror". The US not only ignores Karimov's human rights abuses, but actively exploits them - notably by rendering suspected terrorists to Uzbekistan to be tortured.

(More photos of US officials cozying up to this regime of torturers can be found here).

Uzbekistan update

Registan is the site to check out if you want to track what is happening in Uzbekistan at the moment. From there and other sources, the death toll has risen to 200, and there are more protests, with huge crowds back on the streets chanting "killers, murderers" and demanding that President Karimov step down. Large numbers of refugees have tried to cross the border to Kyrgzstan. The EU has issued a strong statement condemning the massacre and blaming the Uzbek government's lack of respect for human rights for the protests. The UK foreign secretary has followed suit. Meanwhile, the US seems more concerned by the fact that those demanding their freedom are Muslims (and therefore "extremists" and "terrorists") than the fact that innocent people were mowed down in the streets by a tyrannical government which systematicly uses torture...

Repeating the same mistakes

Last week, in Latvia, President Bush denounced the WWII-allies' allowing the Soviet Union to occupy Eastern Europe as one of "the greatest wrongs of history", and promised that

"We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations - appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability"

Yesterday, in Uzbekistan, the government brutally suppressed demonstrations in the town of Andijan, killing dozens of people in the process. The demonstrations started after 23 people were imprisoned for "Islamic extremism"; an armed mob later stormed the jail where they were held and released them. They were then joined in the city's central square by up to 5000 protestors demanding better living conditions, "justice", and "freedom". The government responded by sending in troops:

Armoured vehicles carrying Uzbek troops arrived in the square, where protesters had seized the mayor's office, and opened fire.

Men, women and children fled the square in panic as protesters occupying the mayor's office reportedly returned fire.

News of casualty figures was slow to emerge, but Uzbek officials did say that nine people died and at least 34 were injured in clashes early in the day.

Eyewitnesses in the square told how protesters lay flat on the ground as troops fired into the crowds. One spoke of "indiscriminate firing", and said she saw "bloody corpses" lying in a ditch.

Hospital officials told the BBC that dozens had died and many more were wounded throughout the day.

A government which indiscriminately massacres protesters is not exactly supportive of freedom - but the White House's response was a relatively mild call for both sides to exercise restraint. Why? Because Uzbekistan is a US ally and provides some useful services in the "war on terror"... Despite his promise, Bush is making exactly the same mistake as his predecessors, excusing tyranny for stability.

Outsourcing torture: Uzbekistan

The New York Times has an article today on America's practice of sending suspected terrorists to Uzbekistan to be tortured. Uzbekistan has a terrible human rights record. It has been criticised by the US State Department for using systematic torture, including "beating, often with blunt weapons, and asphyxiation with a gas mask", but that's not the half of it. In one case, they boiled a man alive [WARNING: graphic photos] - and then sentenced his mother to six years hard labour because she dared to complain about it.

Despite this, the US regularly sends suspected terrorists to Uzbekistan. The torture plane regularly visits Tashkent to make deliveries, and intelligence sources estimate the number of prisoners rendered up for torture to be "in the dozens". While it claims to seek assurances that suspects will not be tortured, and to not knowingly use information derived from torture, as Human Rights Watch points out, the Uzbek regime's use of torture is so widespread and well known that you would have to be willfully ignorant to even pretend to believe that rendered prisoners were not being subjected to the same treatment.

More on Uzbekistan's sham election

How much of a sham were Uzbekistan's elections? The OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) says that they require major improvements. The most significant problem was government limitation of the field which prevented Uzbeks from exercising any real choice:

Although candidates from five registered political parties and 55 candidates from initiative groups participated in the elections, the similarity of the political platforms of the registered political parties appeared to deprive voters of a genuine choice.

Three aspirant political parties were refused registration in the past twelve months by the authorities, and almost two-thirds of nominated candidates from initiative groups were not able to participate in the elections.

Muhammad Salih of the Erk Democratic Party talks of pre-election suppression of the opposition:

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.

These reports are confirmed by other opposition figures and human rights activists:

The three main opposition parties - Erk (Freedom), Birlik (Unity), and Ozod Dehqonlar (Free Peasants) - were excluded from elections. Erk and Ozod Dehqonlar boycotted the vote. Birlik decided to monitor the elections. However, party leader Vasila Inoyatova said she was not able to leave her house. "For the last two days, I have been blocked by some 'observers,'" Inoyatova charged. "There are some 'observers' in their cars [around my house]. I have no doubt that as soon as I leave my house, the government officials are going to pretend that I interfered in the election process or broke some laws. It happened before. Once we were going by car, the police stopped us and claimed we ran over someone. They can easily organize any provocation again.” Independent human rights activist Surat Ikramov said he also was carefully watched on Sunday. "I wanted to go to the polling station, but my house was blocked by several cars and observed during the last week," Ikramov said. "I telephoned some officials in the Interior Ministry. Soon, the cars disappeared. Then, I left my house to go to the polling station. They reappeared again and were watching me going to my polling station and to some others to monitor the situation. They were watching me all along the way." Uzbek officials were not available to comment.

Despite this, the Russians are happy, calling them "legitimate, free and transparent". Perhaps for Russia, but not for real democracies.

A tale of two elections

Viktor Yushchenko has won the Ukranian re-election. As for what this means, I'll leave it to Yushchenko himself:

"I want to say this is a victory of the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian nation," he declared. "We were independent for 14 years, today we became free.

"Today, in Ukraine, a new political year has begun. This is the beginning of a new epoch, the beginning of a new great democracy."

(My emphasis)

Standing up for real democracy has hopefully laid a good groundwork for that project. I wish them luck for the rest of the journey.

Meanwhile, in Uzbekistan, it's business as usual. They had an "election", in which no opposition parties were allowed to run. Not formally, you understand, but their applications were all mysteriously found wanting on technical grounds. As a result, Uzbeks faced an electoral choice which was no choice at all - exactly like Iraqis under Saddam.

Uzbekistan is a vital ally of the US in the "war on terror", so criticism of this fraud has been muted. I do not expect to see Colin Powell standing up to say that the election was a lie, that the Uzbekistani government is illegitimate and threatening "consequences for our relationship" unless there are real and transparent elections. The US gets everything out it wants out of the present regime (including possibly a little torture by proxy) and sees no real reason for change. After all, if boiling people alive isn't a deal-breaker, then a little fixed election certainly isn't. And besides, they have a good excuse: all this manipulation is justified by the necessity of keeping Islamic candidates out of office.

Everything said about Ukraine is equally applicable to Uzbekistan. Uzbeks too deserve free, fair and transparent elections - regardless of their religion. The world - and the US - should stand up for that, just as we did for Ukraine. Otherwise, we are not on the side of democracy, but of tyranny and realpolitik.