Uzbekistan: HRW granted 6-month extension
An event that has implications for EU position on Uzbekistan’s “softening” of human rights violations;
An event which may aid Umida Niyazova in her ongoing trial for border violations and accepting money from foreign news agencies;
Human Rights Watch has had their residency re-affirmed for another six months.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:34 am
I’m surprises HRW has lasted this long in Uzbekistan at all. Any insight as to why HRW - an org actively critical of the regime - has been allowed to stay while orgs like IREX have been thrown out?
April 26th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Dear James,
I am so glad you asked that question, because it is also a mystery to me. It could be that IREX, which was largely funded by USAID, became persona non grata as part of a big anti-U.S. drive. As soon as the U.S. left-military from K-2, Peace Corps, IREX, etc- then Russia and China spoke out against U.S. hegemony via SCO meetings and then moved in to fill the gap. Therefore, it could be less about Uzbekistan’s human rights stance than a kind of changing of the guard for this client state.
For this argument: the strategic primacy of Uzbekistan in location and population numbers has always made Uzbekistan a goal for the major powers. If Russia and China do not press Uzbekistan on domestic change, it is more comfortable for Karimov’s regime. Since HRW does not have government affiliations, it could be that they are somewhat underestimated.
Against this argument: no one could say that HRW is in the least conciliatory, in fact the article I linked in post makes both Uzbekistan and HRW sound like two porcupines sitting in the same chair. So your question still stands . . .
April 26th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Thanks! Your argument at leasts puts some logic on the decision not to boot HRW; I didn’t see any method to the madness at all before, but when framed as a geopolitical question, there does seem to be some odd calculation at work.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Dear James,
You are very welcome. However, honesty also propels me to mention that we may never know if it was strategic or if it really had something to do with indigestion, a misfiled stack of papers, or something equally as random and contingent. For now, though, I guess I will also go with the logic.
Thanks for checking back! It was, and is still, a great question.
Bonnie
May 5th, 2007 at 8:40 am
The thinking as of last year was that HRW was less of a threat than other organizations because they were not actually supporting local organizations, passing around money, etc.
May 5th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Dear Mr. Holiday,
Thank you for writing in to explain. I suppose this fits in economically with the bans on proselytization, religious or political.
Any further elaboration you would like to make on your comment would also be appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Bonnie