Second-year college students will be harvesting cotton in Hodzhajlinsky, Kunkakulsky, Karausyaksky, and Tahtakupyrsky districts of the Autonomous Republic of Karakalpakstan.
Rumors have been circulating that even first-year students may be forced to pick cotton; with September 22 being given as a possible date of departure to the fields. (UZNews.cnet, September 14)
Much of the drive for independence in Karakalpakstan revolves around the uneven distribution of public funding garnered from natural resource extraction and the abysmal record of human rights abuses by the national government, particularly in Karakalpakstan. The Karimov regime has increasingly relied on the the harvesting of cotton for export in order to ensure revenue. Human rights campaigners have condemned the government headed by Karimov specifically on the issue of cotton production. These activists cite first person accounts and raw data as evidence that the Karimov regime exploits young children as ostensible slave labor in cultivating cotton for export. Additionally, human rights groups have also claimed that Karimov’s forced labor campaign further compels citizens to harvest the cotton at little to no financial benefit for the individual. The economics and human rights issues in Karakalpakstan in particular conflate to make the situation a tense one as talk of independence emerged in Warsaw last week.
Russian aggressiveness has also impacted the Karimov regime’s focus with regard to security strategy and economic interests. While Uzbekistan has bristled at Russian influence in the affairs of Uzbekistan since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the conflict in Ukraine and the codification of treaties such as the Eurasian Economic Union have inspired further distrust of Moscow by the Tashkent regime. The national government has apparently begun a pivot eastward in an effort to shake the yoke of Moscow’s influence and ensure long-term economic viability of the regime. Joanna Lillis, writing for Eurasianet, observes:
Tilting east is more promising for Tashkent than attempting to turn westward: partly since Uzbekistan’s geopolitical importance to the West is waning as NATO withdraws from Afghanistan; and partly since many Western states consider doing business with Karimov toxicdue to Uzbekistan’s poor human rights record.
Western states, especially the United States and United Kingdom, “remain constrained from increasing their engagement by political and human rights concerns, as well as the negative blowback they received from forging close security ties with Tashkent in the 2000s,” Cooley pointed out.
After 9/11, Washington wooed Uzbekistan (which sits on Afghanistan’s northern border) to open a military base – from which it was summarily ejected after criticizing the killing of protesters by Uzbek security forces in Andijan in 2005.
“Uzbekistan has tended to ‘turn West’ when it finds that Russia is becoming too assertive, and then back again to Russia when pressed too strongly by the West on its poor human rights record,” said Dalton. “This could happen again this time – although with most of its gas pipelines connecting with China, and Western forces pulling out from Afghanistan this year, it is not clear what Uzbekistan could offer the West in return.”
Ultimately, China – now a major purchaser of Uzbek gas – stands to benefit from Uzbekistan’s present dilemma. Karimov’s visit to Beijing in August was “an important signal,” said Dalton, “that Uzbekistan wishes to maintain good ties with strong foreign partners, to counterbalance Russian influence.” (Lillis, Eurasianet.org, September 8)
On September 14, reports out of Europe signaled an escalation in the call for Karakalpakstan’s independence from Uzbekistan:
Over the past year the separatist movement of Karakalpakstanis has been active primarily online. The movement looks to laws which allow Karakalpakstan to separate from Uzbekistan via referendum and complains that the Tashkent’s repressions do not allow Karakalpakstanis to even broach the idea of holding such a referendum
In Warsaw, Nuratdinov spoke of both laws and an agreement between Karakalpakstan and Uzbekistan which allow for the possibility of Karakalpakstan separating from Uzbekistan.
The current constitutions of both Karakalpakstan and Uzbekistan define the former as a sovereign republic and allow it the right to become independent via a referendum.
However, in the words of the Karakalpakstani speaker, “any attempts to discuss the right of the people of Karakalpakstan to become independent are severely repressed by the Uzbekistani special services.”
According to activists, authorities in Karakalpakstan are conducting politically-motivated arrests of suspected dissenters and separatists. Those arrested are tortured and sentenced to long terms of incarceration.
At the end of his speech Nasiratdin Nuratdinov called on the OSCE and other international organizations to begin monitoring the human rights situation in Karakalpakstan. (UZNews, September 14)
As time passed following the fall of the Soviet Union, the post-Soviet republics concurrently gained increased autonomy from Russian policymakers and increased attention from the Kremlin. With vast deposits of natural resources in countries such as Uzbekistan, Russian strategists have pursued increased influence over the governments of the post-Soviet republics, most specifically Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. This has often facilitated hardened regime postures towards human rights, democratic governance, and transparency.
The future of Central Asia is likely to be highlighted by the region’s geopolitical value in energy resource extraction. Both China and Russia sustain incredible interest in ensuring access to the natural resources beneath territory ruled by despotic regimes in the post-Soviet space.
Authoritarian regimes in places such as Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan will likely continue to react to democracy movements within their borders with an iron fist, concerned that any fissure in the population’s acquiescence to the rule of despots such as Karimov represents a weakening of the regime’s control over its territory.
Karakalpakstan is an interesting case study in the pushback of ethnic minorities bristling against what they perceive is tyrannical rule of the national government. Given Karimov’s history of suppressing movements pursuing greater human rights standards in government policy, Karakalpakstan will likely emerge as an intriguing reminder of the possibility for strife and violent conflict in Central Asia.
(Featured Image Courtesy: Reuters)
COMMENTS