Date: Thursday 12 April 2007
Subj: UN Human Rights Council: Protecting Religion
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal
---------------------------------------------
UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL: PROTECTING RELIGION
---------------------------------------------
On Friday 30 March, the UN Human Rights Council passed a non-binding resolution urging a global prohibition on the public "defamation" of religion, "particularly" (specifically) Islam.
The resolution was presented by Pakistan on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC). On 12 April 2005 the UN Commission on Human Rights passed the OIC-sponsored resolution entitled "Combating Defamation of Religions" (Link 1). According to that resolution the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance was to continue examining the situation of Muslims and Arab peoples in various parts of the world, monitor defamation of Islam, and report back to the Commission at its 62nd session (April 2006) and make recommendations to improve the situation.
It was phenomenally convenient that the violent "Cartoon Intifadas" of February 2006, which erupted some five months after the controversial Danish cartoons were originally published, occurred only weeks before the UNCHR was due to reconsider the OIC's resolution on "Combating Defamation of Religion". You don't have to be too cynical to wonder if the OIC and Arab league sponsored not only the resolution but the Cartoon Intifadas as well.
On 15 March 2006 the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to replace the discredited UNCHR with a restructured, reformed, new and improved UN Human Rights Council. The OIC resolution was presented to UN Human Rights Council on 30 March 2007. The fact that the Council is supposed to be promoting the protection of humans and their fundamental rights, not religions, was simply a non-issue with the majority of the Council.
The Council has no power beyond drawing attention to rights issues, and the non-binding resolution passed by 24 votes to 14, with 9 abstentions.
SUMMARY OF RESOLUTION
The following is an excerpt from the media release of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). It would be fair to say that "defamation" in this context seems to mean any negative critique, as opposed to the dictionary definition: "To damage the reputation, character, or good name of by slander or libel". (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action on Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions
http://www.ohchr.org/english/press/hrc/index.htm
In a resolution (A/HRC/4/L.12) on Combating defamation of religions, adopted by a vote of 24 in favour, 14 against, and nine abstentions, as orally amended, the Council expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations; notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions, and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities, in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001; urges States to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination including through political institutions and organizations of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence; also urges States to provide adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance; further urges all States to ensure that all public officials, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect different religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or belief, and that any necessary and appropriate education or training is provided; invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to regularly report on all manifestations of defamation of religions and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia on the enjoyment of all rights; and requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Human Rights Council on the implementation of this resolution at its sixth session.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (24): Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Tunisia.
Against (14): Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdom.
Abstentions (9): Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Ghana, India, Nigeria, Peru, Uruguay and Zambia.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The media release from the OHCHR also provides summaries of the debate surrounding the presentation of the resolution.
Tehmina Janjua of Pakistan presented the resolution on behalf of the OIC, making it clear that it was Islam that was in particular need of protection. She asserted that profiling of Muslims constitutes racism. But this is false. "Muslim" is not a race. A "Muslim" is a person who adheres to Islam, which is religious and political but not racial. She complained that Muslims suffered from discrimination, but this is a totally different subject and has nothing to do with "defamation" of Islam. Even when Islam is "defamed" or criticised, that does not automatically lead to discrimination or persecution of Muslims. These human rights abuses arise primarily from poor governance and weak rule of law. In a robust liberal democracy with rule of law and a solid, moral, human rights base, ideas and religions can be criticised, scrutinised, publicly debated and even insensitively ridiculed without it inciting hatred of individuals, discrimination, persecution or backlash.
Birkitta Maria Siefker-Eberle of Germany, representing the European Union (EU), expressed the EU position that dialogue is the best way forward in the ongoing struggle to end intolerance and discrimination without limiting freedom of religion and expression. She noted that adherents of religions other Islam were also suffering, notably Jews and Christians. She noted that it was problematic to reconcile defamation with discrimination as the two are of a different nature. She noted that various international covenants and declarations already forbid discrimination on the grounds of religious belief and she recommended that the Council remain focused on the rights of individuals.
Several other representatives also objected that the resolution was against defamation of religion rather than discrimination or persecution of individuals on the grounds of religious belief. Another objection was that there was no role envisaged for the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of opinion and expression. Paul Meyer of Canada reiterated Canada's strong belief in freedom of expression and expressed concern that freedom of expression was not included in the text. He also expressed concern that it was a religion, rather then the adherents of a religion, that was to receive protection. There were also objections to the inappropriateness of equating "defamation" of religion with a manifestation of racism.
Various other state representatives objected to the "unbalanced" and "selective" nature of the resolution. Several states complained that their requests for the resolution to be amended so it could be more balanced and inclusive of religions other than Islam were not taken into consideration. Still most of these objectors failed to even consider the inappropriateness of the Council on Human Rights advocating the protection of a religion rather than human rights.
Japan voted against the resolution on the grounds that the resolution was not inclusive and did not insist that all religions should be fully respected and not subjected to negative labelling. Presumably Japan would not extend the privilege of respect and positive affirmation to Aum Shinri Kyo (Aum Supreme Truth), a religion that through its violence and terrorism has demonstrated that it is unworthy of respect, and fully worthy of negative labelling.
Links
1) Human Rights Resolution 2005/3 "Combating Defamation of Religions" (2005)
http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/CHR/resolutions/E-CN_4-RES-2005-3.doc
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
Uzbekistan: why Andijan changed everything
Date: Friday 23 March 2007
Subj: Uzbekistan: a new wave of serious persecution may be just beginning
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UZBEKISTAN: A NEW WAVE OF SERIOUS PERSECUTION MAY BE JUST BEGINNING
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The religious liberty situation for Protestant Christians in Uzbekistan has deteriorated markedly since May 2005. There are two reasons for this and while one is well understood, the other is not.
Reason One: HOLDING ON TO POWER
As is well understood, the era of the Soviet-era dictators running post-Soviet states is coming to an end. Uzbekistan's President Karimov has been watching as post-Soviet states have turned West-ward and embraced democracy and liberty; and as corrupt, repressive pro-Russian, Soviet-era Communist dictators have been driven from power in "colour revolutions": Georgia (Rose, 2003), Ukraine (Orange, 2004) and Kyrzygstan (Tulip, 2005). Then in December 2006 the Soviet-era strongman Saparmurat Niyazov, President of Turkmenistan, died aged 66yrs.
Karimov is keen to hold on to power and so he is quick to repress anything that could threaten the status quo, including threatening non-traditional religions. Radical Islam (largely foreign influenced) is clearly a serious threat to Central Asia. However, because Protestant Christianity is perceived as being essentially Western, anti-corruption and pro-democracy, Karimov regards it as equally threatening.
While Karimov's repression and violence have hurt the Church, they have enabled the Islamist revolutionary and militant groups that feed off social anger to grow. Karimov has been perpetuating a vicious reactionary cycle and Christians are caught up in the slipstream.
Reason Two: LETTING GO OF THE WEST
The other reason why the religious liberty situation for Protestants has deteriorated over recent years is actually more important but less understood.
In 1998 when the US State Department passed its Freedom from Religious Persecution Act (HR 2431), Uzbekistan had several Protestant pastors serving long prison sentences with hard labour on bogus drugs charges. To avoid incurring US sanctions as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC), Uzbek leaders negotiated with the US and then released their religious prisoners. In November 2006, after two years of escalating religious repression, the US State Department added Uzbekistan to its list of Countries of Particular Concern (CPC). On 9 March 2007 Uzbekistan sentenced one of its leading registered Protestant pastors to four years in a penal colony after a sham trial. Clearly Uzbekistan doesn't care about the US or CPC status any more. (Link 1)
There is no doubt that the critical turning point was the May 2005 uprising in Andjian.
After the May 2005 Andjian incident WEA RLC News & Analysis wrote (19 July 2005) that Karimov was fighting a war for the status quo against radical Islam, and it was anticipated that "non-traditional" Protestant Christians would doubtless be caught up in the ensuing crackdown. (Link 2)
However, immediately after the May 2005 Andijan uprising, another factor entered the equation and it is this factor that has caused the most serious damage to the religious liberty and human rights situation in Uzbekistan.
In May 2005, the West was in the midst of a "War on Terror" and Uzbekistan, a key ally in the War on Terror, was struggling with serious issues regarding Islamic revolutionary and al-Qaeda linked terrorist organisations. (Forty-seven people were killed in March and July 2004 in a series of well planned and well facilitated terrorist attacks that targeted Uzbek police, private and commercial facilities, and the US and Israeli Embassies.)
Despite this, after the May 2005 incident in Andijan, Western media, human rights monitors and governments were exceedingly quick to reject the Uzbek government's assertion that Islamic radicals and militants had attempted a coup d'etat. Western groups preferred rather to accept (even passionately embrace) narrative coming from Andijan that alleged that a repressive and violent government had, for no reason at all, massacred hundreds of innocent peaceful protesters as they gathered to decry their poverty and the lack of justice, liberty and democracy under the Karimov regime.
The US, too quick to pass judgment, enacted reactionary policies including sanctions. From this point onwards, President Karimov no longer viewed the US as a partner and ally in the "War on Terror". Two months later, in July 2005, President Karimov officially evicted the US military base from Uzbekistan. The Karshi-Kanabad (K2) Airbase had been established in the wake of 9/11 to serve as a hub for combat and humanitarian missions into Afghanistan.
Along with this, Karimov turned increasingly towards Russia, China and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO, which Uzbekistan joined in 2001) which is committed security and "non-interference" and to reducing US influence in Central Asia.
US influence in Uzbekistan has been dealt a serious blow. Not only has the US lost its ability to exert positive influence over Uzbekistan in terms of religious liberty, but due to the souring of relations the West has lost its ability to influence Uzbekistan's secular government towards reform and openness.
SO WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN ANDJIAN?
A most comprehensive and useful piece on the May 2005 Andijan incident comes from the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program, a Joint Transatlantic Research and Policy Center based in Johns Hopkins University-SAIS, Washington, DC, and Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Their paper (herein referred to as the Silk Road paper) entitled: "Islamic Radicalism in Central Asia and the Caucasus: implications for the EU" by Zeyno Baran, S. Frederick Starr, Svante E. Cornell, published in July 2006, is extremely helpful in many ways. (Link 3)
This paper examines the nature, in terms of history and evolution, of both Islam and secularism in Central Asia and the Caucasus. It looks at how the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have affected the region, and how a proliferation of foreign Islamic missionaries (mostly of the "Wahhabi" brand), who have arrived during and since perestroika, has radicalised elements over recent decades. It also examines the ideology and methodology of the main radical Islamic groups of the region.
One particularly interesting thing in this paper is that it shows how Islamist groups use, adopt or exploit other causes (ie poverty, or nationalism), and how they have become extremely sophisticated in manipulating (and sacrificing) people and employing propaganda and Western slogans, all for their own political ends. The same patterns of exploitation, manipulation (of people and media), lies and propaganda are seen in all conflicts where militant and revolutionary Islamists are present and seeking to co-opt Western support for their agenda (for example, in the Middle East and the Balkans).
The Silk Road paper devotes pages 33-40 to the re-emergence of terrorism in Uzbekistan. Pages 35-50 deal with the May 2005 Andijan incident.
According to the authors, Baran, Starr and Cornell, radical Islamist and terrorist activity in Central Asia increased markedly from early 2004. After the March and July 2004 terror attacks in Uzbekistan the US criticised Uzbekistan's human rights while doing little to assist it in its investigations or response to the terror attacks. According to the authors, "Overall, the terrorists were greatly emboldened, concluding that Western opinion would allow them literally to get away with murder." (p 34)
The Silk Road paper claims that the Islamist organisations had also been watching the "colour revolutions". They too knew the days of corrupt Soviet-era (secular) dictators were coming to an end, and they were determined to be the ones to take power in the event of any regime change. The event that most impacted them was the November 2004 "Tulip Revolution" in Kyrgyzstan. This was different to the previous "colour revolutions" as it was violent - yet the West accepted it anyway. The Tulip Revolution (see link 4) gave the Uzbek Islamists their precedent.
One of the most difficult things for human rights groups has been the fact that the overwhelming majority of protestors in Babur Square in Andijan on 13 May 2005 were not armed militant Islamist ideologues. Rather they were family people, women and children, humble citizens just wanting a better life. As Human Rights Watch reported: "The Uzbek government has stated that
the Andijan protests were organized by 'religious fundamentalists.' 'Protesters grievances, however, appeared to focus on a wide range of issues, including poverty and corruption."
The fact is both are true. The rally that brought several thousand citizens into Babur Square in Andijan was organised by Islamist groups. They promoted the event as Uzbekistan's chance for a "colour revolution". The repressed, poor and fearful of Andijan came out in their thousands to protest repression and stage their people's revolution. They were unarmed and unaware that their peaceful people's revolution was going to be used as a cover for a violent Islamic coup d'etat. The citizens of Andijan were also unaware that those who organised the rally would eventually exploit them as human shields.
As a little bit of background: in the section entitled, "Radical Groups: A Survey" (commences on page 19) the Silk Road paper reports (p24-25) that "Akramiya" (the group that organised the uprising - an Andijan based off-shoot of Hizb ut-Tahrir) has been committed to establishing "Islamic socialism" in Andijan. One strategy has been for wealthier followers to set up small business and employ young men who then must attend ideological study-groups after work. Around one-fifth of the profits of those businesses go into a fund for Akramiya, which is committed (like Hizb ut-Tahrir) to the overthrow of the secular government and the enactment of Sharia law and Islamic rule through the re-establishment of the Caliphate. Their work has won hearts as it has helped alleviate poverty in the region.
This is how the Silk Road paper describes what happened in Andijan in May 2005 (page 36).
"In June, 2004, 23 businessmen, followers of Akramiya, were arrested and in February 2005 they were put on trial. Peaceful demonstrations in support of the defendants went on for several weeks. According to reports from the region, Akramiya organized the uprising in a carefully planned way: the accused businessmen promised to pay their staff a full day's salary if they attended the protests. Moreover, their relatives organized transport for others to come from more distant regions. The protesters were orderly and asking merely for 'justice' for their relatives and friends. By May 12th, the presumed final week of the trial, there were already several thousand peaceful demonstrators.
"That night, the Uzbek government arrested some demonstrators. This arrest marked the start of the uprising. On the morning of May 13, armed militants first seized a police station, then a military post, and then a high-security prison, collecting weaponry in each place and killing officials and others along the way. Negotiations between the government and the militants broke down, in part because the release of Akram Yuldashev [founder of Akramiya, in prison for involvement in terrorist bombings in 1999] was the main demand of the insurgents. Expecting a harsh reaction from the government, the insurgents then formed human shields with women and children." [This point is backed up by footnotes that include a Forum 18 release that reports that the insurgents took hostages and abused them: ". . several hostages received severe beatings. The hostages had wire tied round their necks and were placed at the perimeter of the square as human shields. Therefore the first to die from the shots fired by Uzbek government forces were the hostages." Link 5]
The Silk Road paper continues: "While it is yet to be determined who shot first, by the end of the day, some two hundred persons were dead, most killed by government troops but a large number killed by the armed insurgents."
This picture is confirmed by other investigating groups, such as the Council on Foreign Relations (see report: "Documenting Andijan", link 5), and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (see report: "The Andijan Uprising, Akramiya and Akram Yuldashev", link 6, which includes a 69 minute video of the 13 May 2005 Andijan incident filmed by two locals who believed they were filming a historic event - a people's revolution in Uzbekistan). This film, which is also referred to in the CFR report "Documenting Andijan", shows buildings in flames and thousands of peaceful protesters listening to speeches, encircled by armed Islamic militants, some of whom are making Molotov cocktails. The militants are clearly preparing for armed conflict - for a violent Islamic coup d'etat.
The Silk Road paper comments: "Radical Islamist groups have won the information war. While the insurgency was an attempted coup d'etat, international media framed the story as the massacre of innocent civilians comparable to the Tiananmen Square incident". (page 38)
"The end result of Andijan is that the U.S. military lost its base in Uzbekistan, a major setback for essential intelligence and counterterrorism work. No less significant, the West lost whatever possibility it previously had to influence the Uzbek government to reform or open up the system. Its precipitous condemnation of the government's actions, without corresponding attention to the insurgents, effectively discredited whatever reformist currents had existed earlier within the Uzbek government. Instead, Uzbekistan now leans on Russian and Chinese guidance, which gives carte blanche to the most repressive forces within the Uzbek government. Indeed, the pro-Western liberal forces that had slowly strengthened their positions within the Uzbek elite over that past decade have now been almost completely purged and marginalized." (page 39)
A NEW WAVE OF PERSECUTION MAY BE JUST BEGINING
There is no doubt that persecution against Uzbekistan's Protestant Church has escalated since the May 2005 Andijan incident. And it is clear that the US can no longer influence Uzbek policy concerning religious liberty, as the US, a former ally, is now an enemy.
Furthermore, the Islamists are emboldened by the fact that the West is more interested in the prison conditions and civil liberties of radical Islamists (HRW calls this "independent Islam") than in the terror they inflict and the repression and persecution they intend. And the Uzbek government is emboldened by SCO support to repress anything it wants to repress in any way it wants to repress it.
A new wave of serious persecution may be just beginning.
-------------------------------------------
The Silk Road paper gives recommendations for a European response. These include gaining an improved understanding the ideological framework of radical and terrorist Islamic groups; engaging with reform-minded officials within governments (not just within opposition groups); support the counter-narcotics efforts that can cut the main source of funding to extremist and terrorist Islamic groups; engage in the region and shatter the isolation that only benefits extremists; foster educational and cultural exchanges - and more.
The future of Uzbekistan hangs in the balance.
Elizabeth Kendal WEA RLC
Links
1) Religious Liberty Prayer Bulletin | No. 421 | Wed 21 Mar 2007
UZBEKISTAN: PASTOR SENTENCED TO FOUR YEARS
http://www.worldevangelicalalliance.com/news/view.htm?id=977
Uzbekistan: Internal exile for Protestant Pastor.
By Felix Corley, Forum 18 News Service. 9 March 2007
http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=928
See also http://compassdirect.org
For the Russian version:
Leader of illegal religious organization convicted in Uzbekistan
5 March 2007 http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=2739
2) Uzbekistan: Karimov's war for the status quo.
WEA RLC News & Analysis. 19 July 2005
WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal.
3) Silk Road Paper. July 2006
Islamic Radicalism in Central Asia and the Caucasus: implications for the EU
by Zeyno Baran, S. Frederick Starr, Svante E. Cornell.
4) The Tulip Revolution takes root
By Pepe Escobar. 26 March 2007
5) UZBEKISTAN: What is known about Akramia and the uprising?
By Igor Rotar, Forum 18 News Service 16 June 2005
6) Documenting Andijan
By Lionel Beehner, Staff Writer. 26 June 2006
7) The Andijan Uprising, Akramiya and Akram Yuldashev
By Martha brill Olcott, Marina Barnett Web Commentary, June 22, 2006
"69 minutes of video were taken by two cameramen in the Babur Square in Andijan on May 13, 2005. We are providing the complete version of the film."
Subj: Uzbekistan: a new wave of serious persecution may be just beginning
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UZBEKISTAN: A NEW WAVE OF SERIOUS PERSECUTION MAY BE JUST BEGINNING
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The religious liberty situation for Protestant Christians in Uzbekistan has deteriorated markedly since May 2005. There are two reasons for this and while one is well understood, the other is not.
Reason One: HOLDING ON TO POWER
As is well understood, the era of the Soviet-era dictators running post-Soviet states is coming to an end. Uzbekistan's President Karimov has been watching as post-Soviet states have turned West-ward and embraced democracy and liberty; and as corrupt, repressive pro-Russian, Soviet-era Communist dictators have been driven from power in "colour revolutions": Georgia (Rose, 2003), Ukraine (Orange, 2004) and Kyrzygstan (Tulip, 2005). Then in December 2006 the Soviet-era strongman Saparmurat Niyazov, President of Turkmenistan, died aged 66yrs.
Karimov is keen to hold on to power and so he is quick to repress anything that could threaten the status quo, including threatening non-traditional religions. Radical Islam (largely foreign influenced) is clearly a serious threat to Central Asia. However, because Protestant Christianity is perceived as being essentially Western, anti-corruption and pro-democracy, Karimov regards it as equally threatening.
While Karimov's repression and violence have hurt the Church, they have enabled the Islamist revolutionary and militant groups that feed off social anger to grow. Karimov has been perpetuating a vicious reactionary cycle and Christians are caught up in the slipstream.
Reason Two: LETTING GO OF THE WEST
The other reason why the religious liberty situation for Protestants has deteriorated over recent years is actually more important but less understood.
In 1998 when the US State Department passed its Freedom from Religious Persecution Act (HR 2431), Uzbekistan had several Protestant pastors serving long prison sentences with hard labour on bogus drugs charges. To avoid incurring US sanctions as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC), Uzbek leaders negotiated with the US and then released their religious prisoners. In November 2006, after two years of escalating religious repression, the US State Department added Uzbekistan to its list of Countries of Particular Concern (CPC). On 9 March 2007 Uzbekistan sentenced one of its leading registered Protestant pastors to four years in a penal colony after a sham trial. Clearly Uzbekistan doesn't care about the US or CPC status any more. (Link 1)
There is no doubt that the critical turning point was the May 2005 uprising in Andjian.
After the May 2005 Andjian incident WEA RLC News & Analysis wrote (19 July 2005) that Karimov was fighting a war for the status quo against radical Islam, and it was anticipated that "non-traditional" Protestant Christians would doubtless be caught up in the ensuing crackdown. (Link 2)
However, immediately after the May 2005 Andijan uprising, another factor entered the equation and it is this factor that has caused the most serious damage to the religious liberty and human rights situation in Uzbekistan.
In May 2005, the West was in the midst of a "War on Terror" and Uzbekistan, a key ally in the War on Terror, was struggling with serious issues regarding Islamic revolutionary and al-Qaeda linked terrorist organisations. (Forty-seven people were killed in March and July 2004 in a series of well planned and well facilitated terrorist attacks that targeted Uzbek police, private and commercial facilities, and the US and Israeli Embassies.)
Despite this, after the May 2005 incident in Andijan, Western media, human rights monitors and governments were exceedingly quick to reject the Uzbek government's assertion that Islamic radicals and militants had attempted a coup d'etat. Western groups preferred rather to accept (even passionately embrace) narrative coming from Andijan that alleged that a repressive and violent government had, for no reason at all, massacred hundreds of innocent peaceful protesters as they gathered to decry their poverty and the lack of justice, liberty and democracy under the Karimov regime.
The US, too quick to pass judgment, enacted reactionary policies including sanctions. From this point onwards, President Karimov no longer viewed the US as a partner and ally in the "War on Terror". Two months later, in July 2005, President Karimov officially evicted the US military base from Uzbekistan. The Karshi-Kanabad (K2) Airbase had been established in the wake of 9/11 to serve as a hub for combat and humanitarian missions into Afghanistan.
Along with this, Karimov turned increasingly towards Russia, China and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO, which Uzbekistan joined in 2001) which is committed security and "non-interference" and to reducing US influence in Central Asia.
US influence in Uzbekistan has been dealt a serious blow. Not only has the US lost its ability to exert positive influence over Uzbekistan in terms of religious liberty, but due to the souring of relations the West has lost its ability to influence Uzbekistan's secular government towards reform and openness.
SO WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN ANDJIAN?
A most comprehensive and useful piece on the May 2005 Andijan incident comes from the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program, a Joint Transatlantic Research and Policy Center based in Johns Hopkins University-SAIS, Washington, DC, and Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Their paper (herein referred to as the Silk Road paper) entitled: "Islamic Radicalism in Central Asia and the Caucasus: implications for the EU" by Zeyno Baran, S. Frederick Starr, Svante E. Cornell, published in July 2006, is extremely helpful in many ways. (Link 3)
This paper examines the nature, in terms of history and evolution, of both Islam and secularism in Central Asia and the Caucasus. It looks at how the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have affected the region, and how a proliferation of foreign Islamic missionaries (mostly of the "Wahhabi" brand), who have arrived during and since perestroika, has radicalised elements over recent decades. It also examines the ideology and methodology of the main radical Islamic groups of the region.
One particularly interesting thing in this paper is that it shows how Islamist groups use, adopt or exploit other causes (ie poverty, or nationalism), and how they have become extremely sophisticated in manipulating (and sacrificing) people and employing propaganda and Western slogans, all for their own political ends. The same patterns of exploitation, manipulation (of people and media), lies and propaganda are seen in all conflicts where militant and revolutionary Islamists are present and seeking to co-opt Western support for their agenda (for example, in the Middle East and the Balkans).
The Silk Road paper devotes pages 33-40 to the re-emergence of terrorism in Uzbekistan. Pages 35-50 deal with the May 2005 Andijan incident.
According to the authors, Baran, Starr and Cornell, radical Islamist and terrorist activity in Central Asia increased markedly from early 2004. After the March and July 2004 terror attacks in Uzbekistan the US criticised Uzbekistan's human rights while doing little to assist it in its investigations or response to the terror attacks. According to the authors, "Overall, the terrorists were greatly emboldened, concluding that Western opinion would allow them literally to get away with murder." (p 34)
The Silk Road paper claims that the Islamist organisations had also been watching the "colour revolutions". They too knew the days of corrupt Soviet-era (secular) dictators were coming to an end, and they were determined to be the ones to take power in the event of any regime change. The event that most impacted them was the November 2004 "Tulip Revolution" in Kyrgyzstan. This was different to the previous "colour revolutions" as it was violent - yet the West accepted it anyway. The Tulip Revolution (see link 4) gave the Uzbek Islamists their precedent.
One of the most difficult things for human rights groups has been the fact that the overwhelming majority of protestors in Babur Square in Andijan on 13 May 2005 were not armed militant Islamist ideologues. Rather they were family people, women and children, humble citizens just wanting a better life. As Human Rights Watch reported: "The Uzbek government has stated that
the Andijan protests were organized by 'religious fundamentalists.' 'Protesters grievances, however, appeared to focus on a wide range of issues, including poverty and corruption."
The fact is both are true. The rally that brought several thousand citizens into Babur Square in Andijan was organised by Islamist groups. They promoted the event as Uzbekistan's chance for a "colour revolution". The repressed, poor and fearful of Andijan came out in their thousands to protest repression and stage their people's revolution. They were unarmed and unaware that their peaceful people's revolution was going to be used as a cover for a violent Islamic coup d'etat. The citizens of Andijan were also unaware that those who organised the rally would eventually exploit them as human shields.
As a little bit of background: in the section entitled, "Radical Groups: A Survey" (commences on page 19) the Silk Road paper reports (p24-25) that "Akramiya" (the group that organised the uprising - an Andijan based off-shoot of Hizb ut-Tahrir) has been committed to establishing "Islamic socialism" in Andijan. One strategy has been for wealthier followers to set up small business and employ young men who then must attend ideological study-groups after work. Around one-fifth of the profits of those businesses go into a fund for Akramiya, which is committed (like Hizb ut-Tahrir) to the overthrow of the secular government and the enactment of Sharia law and Islamic rule through the re-establishment of the Caliphate. Their work has won hearts as it has helped alleviate poverty in the region.
This is how the Silk Road paper describes what happened in Andijan in May 2005 (page 36).
"In June, 2004, 23 businessmen, followers of Akramiya, were arrested and in February 2005 they were put on trial. Peaceful demonstrations in support of the defendants went on for several weeks. According to reports from the region, Akramiya organized the uprising in a carefully planned way: the accused businessmen promised to pay their staff a full day's salary if they attended the protests. Moreover, their relatives organized transport for others to come from more distant regions. The protesters were orderly and asking merely for 'justice' for their relatives and friends. By May 12th, the presumed final week of the trial, there were already several thousand peaceful demonstrators.
"That night, the Uzbek government arrested some demonstrators. This arrest marked the start of the uprising. On the morning of May 13, armed militants first seized a police station, then a military post, and then a high-security prison, collecting weaponry in each place and killing officials and others along the way. Negotiations between the government and the militants broke down, in part because the release of Akram Yuldashev [founder of Akramiya, in prison for involvement in terrorist bombings in 1999] was the main demand of the insurgents. Expecting a harsh reaction from the government, the insurgents then formed human shields with women and children." [This point is backed up by footnotes that include a Forum 18 release that reports that the insurgents took hostages and abused them: ". . several hostages received severe beatings. The hostages had wire tied round their necks and were placed at the perimeter of the square as human shields. Therefore the first to die from the shots fired by Uzbek government forces were the hostages." Link 5]
The Silk Road paper continues: "While it is yet to be determined who shot first, by the end of the day, some two hundred persons were dead, most killed by government troops but a large number killed by the armed insurgents."
This picture is confirmed by other investigating groups, such as the Council on Foreign Relations (see report: "Documenting Andijan", link 5), and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (see report: "The Andijan Uprising, Akramiya and Akram Yuldashev", link 6, which includes a 69 minute video of the 13 May 2005 Andijan incident filmed by two locals who believed they were filming a historic event - a people's revolution in Uzbekistan). This film, which is also referred to in the CFR report "Documenting Andijan", shows buildings in flames and thousands of peaceful protesters listening to speeches, encircled by armed Islamic militants, some of whom are making Molotov cocktails. The militants are clearly preparing for armed conflict - for a violent Islamic coup d'etat.
The Silk Road paper comments: "Radical Islamist groups have won the information war. While the insurgency was an attempted coup d'etat, international media framed the story as the massacre of innocent civilians comparable to the Tiananmen Square incident". (page 38)
"The end result of Andijan is that the U.S. military lost its base in Uzbekistan, a major setback for essential intelligence and counterterrorism work. No less significant, the West lost whatever possibility it previously had to influence the Uzbek government to reform or open up the system. Its precipitous condemnation of the government's actions, without corresponding attention to the insurgents, effectively discredited whatever reformist currents had existed earlier within the Uzbek government. Instead, Uzbekistan now leans on Russian and Chinese guidance, which gives carte blanche to the most repressive forces within the Uzbek government. Indeed, the pro-Western liberal forces that had slowly strengthened their positions within the Uzbek elite over that past decade have now been almost completely purged and marginalized." (page 39)
A NEW WAVE OF PERSECUTION MAY BE JUST BEGINING
There is no doubt that persecution against Uzbekistan's Protestant Church has escalated since the May 2005 Andijan incident. And it is clear that the US can no longer influence Uzbek policy concerning religious liberty, as the US, a former ally, is now an enemy.
Furthermore, the Islamists are emboldened by the fact that the West is more interested in the prison conditions and civil liberties of radical Islamists (HRW calls this "independent Islam") than in the terror they inflict and the repression and persecution they intend. And the Uzbek government is emboldened by SCO support to repress anything it wants to repress in any way it wants to repress it.
A new wave of serious persecution may be just beginning.
-------------------------------------------
The Silk Road paper gives recommendations for a European response. These include gaining an improved understanding the ideological framework of radical and terrorist Islamic groups; engaging with reform-minded officials within governments (not just within opposition groups); support the counter-narcotics efforts that can cut the main source of funding to extremist and terrorist Islamic groups; engage in the region and shatter the isolation that only benefits extremists; foster educational and cultural exchanges - and more.
The future of Uzbekistan hangs in the balance.
Elizabeth Kendal WEA RLC
Links
1) Religious Liberty Prayer Bulletin | No. 421 | Wed 21 Mar 2007
UZBEKISTAN: PASTOR SENTENCED TO FOUR YEARS
http://www.worldevangelicalalliance.com/news/view.htm?id=977
Uzbekistan: Internal exile for Protestant Pastor.
By Felix Corley, Forum 18 News Service. 9 March 2007
http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=928
See also http://compassdirect.org
For the Russian version:
Leader of illegal religious organization convicted in Uzbekistan
5 March 2007 http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=2739
2) Uzbekistan: Karimov's war for the status quo.
WEA RLC News & Analysis. 19 July 2005
WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal.
3) Silk Road Paper. July 2006
Islamic Radicalism in Central Asia and the Caucasus: implications for the EU
by Zeyno Baran, S. Frederick Starr, Svante E. Cornell.
4) The Tulip Revolution takes root
By Pepe Escobar. 26 March 2007
5) UZBEKISTAN: What is known about Akramia and the uprising?
By Igor Rotar, Forum 18 News Service 16 June 2005
6) Documenting Andijan
By Lionel Beehner, Staff Writer. 26 June 2006
7) The Andijan Uprising, Akramiya and Akram Yuldashev
By Martha brill Olcott, Marina Barnett Web Commentary, June 22, 2006
"69 minutes of video were taken by two cameramen in the Babur Square in Andijan on May 13, 2005. We are providing the complete version of the film."
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Vietnam's crackdown creates watershed
Date: Tuesday 20 March 2007
Subj: Vietnam's crackdown creates watershed
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal
--------------------------------------------------------------
VIETNAM'S CRACKDOWN CREATES WATERSHED
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Vietnam government's crackdown against human rights and democracy advocates (many of whom are Christians acting upon their religious beliefs) is not hidden nor is it subtle. It is bold, challenging and hugely significant. It creates a watershed, especially for the US. Through a wave of harassments, arrests and criminal charges against human rights and democracy advocates engaged in peaceful and perfectly legal activities, Vietnam is openly showing its hand and waiting to see if anyone will challenge, or if everyone will fold.
CONGRESSMEN SPEAK OUT
Several US Congressmen, including Chris Smith, Frank Wolf, Ed Royce and Dana Rohrabacher, are speaking out against the crackdown. Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) has introduced a resolution condemning the recent arrests and calling for the immediate and unconditional release of dissidents. According to Voice of America (VOA), "The measure warns that ongoing harassment, detentions and arrests will harm the broadening of ties with the U.S., and result in Vietnam being put back on a list of Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) for severe and ongoing violations of religious freedom." (Link 1)
Congressman Smith told a press conference, "'I have been to Vietnam and met with Father Ly, Nguyen Van Dai and over 60 other dissidents. These are smart, talented and kind people -- some of Vietnam's best and brightest. They harbor no malice toward the government. They only want a better future for their country. These individuals are the Vaclav Havels of Vietnam. Their
incarcerations -- under a bogus Soviet-era article -- are meant to harass, intimidate and keep them from bringing about peaceful change. Their arrests cannot and should not stand,' Smith said.
"Smith also noted that the State Department's removal of Vietnam's Country of Particular Concern (CPC) designation is not permanent. 'The U.S. should consider reinstating Vietnam's CPC designation in light of the regime's recent actions. Nothing precludes us from putting them back on that list. We can and should put them back on tomorrow if the regime does not take immediate action to improve human rights conditions in Vietnam,' said Smith." (Link 2)
If the US State Department does not respond to Vietnam's overt repression of faith-motivated human rights and democracy advocates, then the US State Department will be giving tacit endorsement to a false and unsustainable dichotomy whereby freedom to believe is separated from freedom to exercise/act upon that belief. This would seriously undermine much of what the US administration has been working towards over the past decade with regards to the promotion of religious liberty in the world.
UPDATE ON NGUYEN VAN DAI
Lawyer Dai, his female associate Le thi Cong Nhan, and Catholic priest Father Nguyen Van Ly are charged with violating Article 88 of the Criminal Code by "propagandising against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam". According to sources, one of the accusations levelled against Nguyen van Dai is that he has "consorted with certain extremist elements to gather what is called 'evidence that Vietnam suppresses religion' to distribute to enemy forces and to reactionaries residing abroad".
Two days before his 6 March arrest Nguyen van Dai spoke to an FNA (Free News Agency) reporter in Hanoi. (Link 3)
FNA reports that not only was Lawyer Dai's law office and home raided by police but on 28 February, in response to police pressure, the Business Registration Office of Hanoi's Planning and Investment Bureau cancelled the permit of TNHH Translation and Legal Consultation Firm of which Mr Nguyen Van Dai is a co-founder and the executive director.
Lawyer Dai told FNA that his activities as a lawyer include providing legal assistance to the majority of the country's human rights and democracy activists. As such his work has angered the Communist authorities who have responded by placing him under close surveillance, summonsing him frequently for interrogation, monitoring and even cutting his phone lines.
When asked about the charge of violating Article 88 of the Criminal Code, Dai responded by saying that under Vietnam's Constitution citizens had the legal right to access, store and study information. Only documents that oppose the legislative, executive and judiciary branches of government by instigating violent and illegal armed action would be considered to be in violation of the law. Nguyen van Dai, who is a member of Advocates International and Advocates Asia, is convinced he has not stepped outside the bounds of the law.
Lawyer Dai told the FNA that as long as Vietnam did not have freedom or democracy then he would use his legal profession to defend religious and pro-democracy activists. "It seems that the Communist authorities are doing their best to train and turn me into a professional political activist," says Dai. "They do not want me to operate as a lawyer specialised in human rights and religious freedom.
"Should the Communist authorities illegally take away my right to do business and to practice my profession, I would still have a range of options to consider, but it would appear that everybody including the Communists is wishing to see me become a politician mobilising the masses and directly struggling for the democratisation of Vietnam. Deep down, I have always wanted to just be a human rights lawyer, but historical circumstances seem to be steering me in another direction. I still have time to pray to God for his guidance in my final decision. Whatever my action I always wish to be encouraged and supported by the people inside the country, compatriots living overseas and the international community. The Vietnamese people's struggle for freedom and democracy is far from over and will still encounter many difficulties. However, as the path of truth and righteousness, it will receive the undivided support of the people and the support from the international community and will undoubtedly meet with success."
On 13 March the state-run Vietnam News Agency (VNA) reported that Nguyen van Dai and Le thi Cong Nhan's names had been removed from the Ha Noi Bar Association and accordingly the Thien An Lawyers' Office was no longer eligible to operate. VNA claims that initial investigations have shown "that since 2004, Nguyen Van Dai took advantage of the State's permission to establish the Thien An Lawyers' Office and the Viet Luat [Translation and Legal Consultation] company to spread propaganda, lure forces and collude with political opportunists as well as hostile forces at home and abroad which oppose the State. Their acts run counter to the interests of the nation and people." (Link 4)
It has been confirmed that Nguyen van Dai is on a hunger strike.
Elizabeth Kendal WEA RLC
Links
1) US Lawmakers Warn Vietnam on Crackdown on Dissidents
By Dan Robinson, Capitol Hill. 14 March 2007
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-03-14-voa91.cfm
2) Smith Calls on Vietnamese Government to Immediately Release Political
Prisoners. 15 March 2007
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-15-2007/0004547274&EDATE=
3) Vietnam's communist authorities' desperate repressive measures against
attorney Nguyen Van Dai. 5 March 2007.
http://ykien.net/blog/?p=686 (in three languages)
4) Two lawyers' names erased from Bar Association. 13 March 2007
http://english.vietnamnet.vn/politics/2007/03/672366/
SEE ALSO
Vietnam uncovers democracy 'plot'. Hanoi (dpa)
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=117327
Subj: Vietnam's crackdown creates watershed
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal
--------------------------------------------------------------
VIETNAM'S CRACKDOWN CREATES WATERSHED
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Vietnam government's crackdown against human rights and democracy advocates (many of whom are Christians acting upon their religious beliefs) is not hidden nor is it subtle. It is bold, challenging and hugely significant. It creates a watershed, especially for the US. Through a wave of harassments, arrests and criminal charges against human rights and democracy advocates engaged in peaceful and perfectly legal activities, Vietnam is openly showing its hand and waiting to see if anyone will challenge, or if everyone will fold.
CONGRESSMEN SPEAK OUT
Several US Congressmen, including Chris Smith, Frank Wolf, Ed Royce and Dana Rohrabacher, are speaking out against the crackdown. Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) has introduced a resolution condemning the recent arrests and calling for the immediate and unconditional release of dissidents. According to Voice of America (VOA), "The measure warns that ongoing harassment, detentions and arrests will harm the broadening of ties with the U.S., and result in Vietnam being put back on a list of Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) for severe and ongoing violations of religious freedom." (Link 1)
Congressman Smith told a press conference, "'I have been to Vietnam and met with Father Ly, Nguyen Van Dai and over 60 other dissidents. These are smart, talented and kind people -- some of Vietnam's best and brightest. They harbor no malice toward the government. They only want a better future for their country. These individuals are the Vaclav Havels of Vietnam. Their
incarcerations -- under a bogus Soviet-era article -- are meant to harass, intimidate and keep them from bringing about peaceful change. Their arrests cannot and should not stand,' Smith said.
"Smith also noted that the State Department's removal of Vietnam's Country of Particular Concern (CPC) designation is not permanent. 'The U.S. should consider reinstating Vietnam's CPC designation in light of the regime's recent actions. Nothing precludes us from putting them back on that list. We can and should put them back on tomorrow if the regime does not take immediate action to improve human rights conditions in Vietnam,' said Smith." (Link 2)
If the US State Department does not respond to Vietnam's overt repression of faith-motivated human rights and democracy advocates, then the US State Department will be giving tacit endorsement to a false and unsustainable dichotomy whereby freedom to believe is separated from freedom to exercise/act upon that belief. This would seriously undermine much of what the US administration has been working towards over the past decade with regards to the promotion of religious liberty in the world.
UPDATE ON NGUYEN VAN DAI
Lawyer Dai, his female associate Le thi Cong Nhan, and Catholic priest Father Nguyen Van Ly are charged with violating Article 88 of the Criminal Code by "propagandising against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam". According to sources, one of the accusations levelled against Nguyen van Dai is that he has "consorted with certain extremist elements to gather what is called 'evidence that Vietnam suppresses religion' to distribute to enemy forces and to reactionaries residing abroad".
Two days before his 6 March arrest Nguyen van Dai spoke to an FNA (Free News Agency) reporter in Hanoi. (Link 3)
FNA reports that not only was Lawyer Dai's law office and home raided by police but on 28 February, in response to police pressure, the Business Registration Office of Hanoi's Planning and Investment Bureau cancelled the permit of TNHH Translation and Legal Consultation Firm of which Mr Nguyen Van Dai is a co-founder and the executive director.
Lawyer Dai told FNA that his activities as a lawyer include providing legal assistance to the majority of the country's human rights and democracy activists. As such his work has angered the Communist authorities who have responded by placing him under close surveillance, summonsing him frequently for interrogation, monitoring and even cutting his phone lines.
When asked about the charge of violating Article 88 of the Criminal Code, Dai responded by saying that under Vietnam's Constitution citizens had the legal right to access, store and study information. Only documents that oppose the legislative, executive and judiciary branches of government by instigating violent and illegal armed action would be considered to be in violation of the law. Nguyen van Dai, who is a member of Advocates International and Advocates Asia, is convinced he has not stepped outside the bounds of the law.
Lawyer Dai told the FNA that as long as Vietnam did not have freedom or democracy then he would use his legal profession to defend religious and pro-democracy activists. "It seems that the Communist authorities are doing their best to train and turn me into a professional political activist," says Dai. "They do not want me to operate as a lawyer specialised in human rights and religious freedom.
"Should the Communist authorities illegally take away my right to do business and to practice my profession, I would still have a range of options to consider, but it would appear that everybody including the Communists is wishing to see me become a politician mobilising the masses and directly struggling for the democratisation of Vietnam. Deep down, I have always wanted to just be a human rights lawyer, but historical circumstances seem to be steering me in another direction. I still have time to pray to God for his guidance in my final decision. Whatever my action I always wish to be encouraged and supported by the people inside the country, compatriots living overseas and the international community. The Vietnamese people's struggle for freedom and democracy is far from over and will still encounter many difficulties. However, as the path of truth and righteousness, it will receive the undivided support of the people and the support from the international community and will undoubtedly meet with success."
On 13 March the state-run Vietnam News Agency (VNA) reported that Nguyen van Dai and Le thi Cong Nhan's names had been removed from the Ha Noi Bar Association and accordingly the Thien An Lawyers' Office was no longer eligible to operate. VNA claims that initial investigations have shown "that since 2004, Nguyen Van Dai took advantage of the State's permission to establish the Thien An Lawyers' Office and the Viet Luat [Translation and Legal Consultation] company to spread propaganda, lure forces and collude with political opportunists as well as hostile forces at home and abroad which oppose the State. Their acts run counter to the interests of the nation and people." (Link 4)
It has been confirmed that Nguyen van Dai is on a hunger strike.
Elizabeth Kendal WEA RLC
Links
1) US Lawmakers Warn Vietnam on Crackdown on Dissidents
By Dan Robinson, Capitol Hill. 14 March 2007
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-03-14-voa91.cfm
2) Smith Calls on Vietnamese Government to Immediately Release Political
Prisoners. 15 March 2007
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-15-2007/0004547274&EDATE=
3) Vietnam's communist authorities' desperate repressive measures against
attorney Nguyen Van Dai. 5 March 2007.
http://ykien.net/blog/?p=686 (in three languages)
4) Two lawyers' names erased from Bar Association. 13 March 2007
http://english.vietnamnet.vn/politics/2007/03/672366/
SEE ALSO
Vietnam uncovers democracy 'plot'. Hanoi (dpa)
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=117327