About the site
Oasis online magazine
news
Analytical journalism
Guest book
Magazine       "Oasis"
Year
No. 20 (20) December 2005
No. 19 (19) December 2005
No. 18 (18) November 2005
№ 17 (17) November 2005
No. 16 (16) October 2005
№ 15 (15) October 2005
No. 14 (14) September 2005
No. 13 (13) September 2005
12 (12) August 2005
11 (11) August 2005
No. 10 (10) July 2005
No. 9 (9) July 2005
No. 8 (8) June 2005
No. 7 (7) June 2005
No 6 (6) May 2005
No 5 (5) May 2005
No. 4 (4) April 2005
No. 3 (3) April 2005
No 2 (2) March 2005
No 1 (1) March 2005
THE AUTHORS
Subscribe
on       journal [PDF]:
Oleg Panfilov,
project Manager,
panfilov[at]cjes.ru

Dmitry Alyaev,
chief editor,
alyaev[at]cjes.ru

Roman Zyuzin,
webmaster,
webmaster [at] cjes.ru

Adil Dzhalilov,
Kazakhstan,
adild[at]list.ru

a diamond stylus,
Kyrgyzstan,
citizen2005[at]yandex.ru

Nargis Zokirova,
Tajikistan
zokirova77 [at] mail.ru

Representative Names
in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan
not disclosed

Lyudmila Burenkova,
technical editor,
lyuda [at] cjes.ru

Elena Dorokhova,
design,
inwork[at]frw.ru
Tashkent is inaccessible
Dmitry Alyaev
Almost a month has passed since the famous Andijan events. On Tuesday, the discordant choir of the Russian and foreign media with their assessments of this shooting was suddenly silenced by the release of the report by the authoritative international human rights organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) “Lead rain: the Andijan massacre on May 13”, which once again spurred public interest in the Uzbek situation. HRW employees interviewed about 50 witnesses of that tragedy and concluded that "The May shooting of unarmed demonstrators was so massive and unjustified that it could be called a slaughterhouse." This was openly stated by the executive director of HRW, Kenneth Ross. Moreover, employees of the organization are now fully confident that the number of dead is several times higher than the number claimed by the Uzbek leadership and amounts to several hundred people.

Did it somehow affect the attitude of the world powers to the regime of Islam Karimov? By no means. For example, according to the IWPR’s Institute for War and Peace Reporting (Institute for War & Peace Reporting) in London, the nearest neighbors of Uzbekistan in the region continue to explicitly or not explicitly support Islam Karimov. IWPR employees explain this by the fact that, for example, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are currently dependent on Uzbekistan in one way or another. Moreover, if Bishkek is tied with Tashkent to import gas, then Dushanbe has even more economic interests, and besides, the Tajiks have not forgotten their own civil war. As for Kazakhstan, despite the restraint of their attitude to the tragedy, Kazakhstan’s leaders are also afraid of playing the “Islamic card” in the region and do not call the Andijan events a crime.

Russia. Her position also, as before, remains unambiguously Prokarimov. Moreover, the head of the foreign ministry of this country, probably based on some of his data, said who could be involved in the organization of the Andijan revolt. They were the Taliban, and a number of Islamic extremists, and Chechen militants, and even the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (which, by the way, according to the former head of the Uzbek Foreign Ministry Abdulaziz Komilov, has long ceased to exist). In general, it turned out to be guilty, just in case, everyone who has become fashionable to write off any troubles in recent years. Militants of European, Latin American and other organizations were not mentioned, perhaps due to the fact that at that moment they simply did not recall the main Russian diplomat.

USA. Congress and the State Department are already beginning to show concern, but, in general, this does not affect US policy so far. George Bush continues to consider Karimov as his strategic partner and is ready to shut his eyes to very many human rights violations if they are committed against the background of his favorite fight against international terrorism.

Only European countries take a tough stance against Uzbekistan, perhaps for two main reasons: Uzbekistan is not valuable to them either as a springboard for the war in Afghanistan (as for the United States), or as a testing ground for working out a scenario of pacifying discontent in their own country (as for Russia), nor as a stronger economic partner (as for Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan).

As for the situation in Uzbekistan, while there is a lull there. But some embassies evacuate their employees, and many foreign and international organizations are winding down their security activities.
DISCUSSION
LEAVE A MESSAGE:
All messages are moderated by the webmaster.
* FIO
* Email
Country
City
* Message
[fields marked with * are required]