PARIS (by columnist Angela Charlton for RIA Novosti) - As much as Uzbekistan could use a dose of fair governance, talk of a democratic revolution there sounds premature, even dangerous, after the unrest that has left the Fergana Valley bloodied and terrified in recent days.
Even Washington sees little room for optimism in the harsh and clumsy conflict in Andijan. Despite conspiracy theories that one or all of them are behind the turmoil, George Bush, Vladimir Putin and Islam Karimov have all lost face since Friday's protests, and should be praying that the storm dies down soon. Each leader, in his own way, is to blame for allowing public discontent and lawlessness in Uzbekistan to reach such a volatile level.
Karimov, the Uzbek president, is the clearest culprit. A decade and a half of nurturing his cult of personality left him little time to heed the poverty and desperation of his compatriots. Islamic groups that tried to address those problems were labeled terrorist cells, yet many of them only turned to extremism in frustration at Karimov's authoritarianism. Karimov's reputation as a strongman concealed his core weakness and failure to unify his country.
Moscow, meanwhile, sees in Karimov a familiar, Soviet-bred face. Even when his policies aggravate the Kremlin, he's ultimately a Russian ally. Putin has been so eager to maintain Russia's unthreatened influence in an authoritarian but stable Central Asia that he encouraged Karimov's crackdown on Islamic groups. Yet neither president seems ready to admit that the policy hasn't dented terrorist activity.
The U.S. government has flip-flopped its Uzbekistan policies to fit American security strategies. It has committed then halted aid to Uzbekistan several times since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. Its efforts to punish the Uzbek government for human rights abuses are too inconsistent to have any impact, and seem aimed more at appeasing western critics of Karimov than at changing his ways. Despite all the U.S. money spent on supporting Uzbek democracy activists, the strongest opposition to Karimov that has survived is Arab-funded and proudly Islamist.
Bush's decision in 2001 to base U.S. troops in Uzbekistan for the war in Afghanistan, and the ongoing war against terrorism, boosted Karimov's credibility and did little to calm tensions in the Fergana Valley. The U.S. money and expertise that went to guarding the base at Khanabad could have served a greater good had some of it been funneled to training and monitoring underpaid local Uzbek police, especially those in volatile cities like Andijan.
Now Bush is trapped. Karimov blames the latest violence on a group associated with the Islamist Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which the CIA has been tracking and worrying about for years. Bush will look soft on terrorism if he dismisses this charge lightly. But he has staked so much of his foreign policy on spreading "liberty" that he can't ignore the protesters' claims that they're fighting for justice and rule of law, not for Islamic fundamentalists.
Uzbekistan is likely to see more bloodshed, though it's unlikely to end in a democratic revolution anything like those seen in Ukraine and Georgia. Kyrgyzstan's experience, however, could provide lessons for Uzbekistan, and that has Karimov rattled.
Kyrgyz opposition groups, like those in Uzbekistan, lacked a single, unifying leader but ousted Askar Akayev from the presidency in March nonetheless. Kyrgyzstan also saw bloodshed between protesters and police - not far from the site of Uzbekistan's clashes - before the president was pushed out of office.
And remarkably, Kyrgyzstan's opposition came to power without the unconditional support of the United States. Washington was limp and late in its backing of the protesters, out of concern for the safety and future of the U.S. air base on Kyrgyz soil and in response to Akayev's claims that the protesters were funded by terrorists.
Still, Uzbekistan seems even less prepared for a democratic makeover than Kyrgyzstan was. Akayev was corrupt and power-hungry, but in his early days as president he allowed democracy to flourish and even in his later days was not violent or despotic. Karimov, on the other hand, has never tolerated opposition and doesn't flinch from using force.
Russia seems committed to defending Karimov, in contrast to the Kremlin's careful diplomatic maneuvering between Akayev and the opposition in Kyrgyzstan. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is echoing Karimov's line that the Uzbek protesters are Taliban-backed. Even Georgian officials are distancing themselves from the Uzbek events, calling them Islamist-based instead of democracy-driven.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke of the need for political reform in Uzbekistan after the Andijan uprising. Karimov said Saturday that corruption was dogging the Uzbek bureaucracy, an overdue admission that all is not golden in his empire. But any political compromises now would need the backing of Washington, Moscow, Tashkent and the outraged Fergana residents. It may be too late - or too early - for revolution in Uzbekistan.
