Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tajik newspaper looks at "conflict of interests" between Russia andA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tajik newspaper looks at "conflict of interests" between Russia andA

    Tajik newspaper looks at "conflict of interests" between Russia and America

    Najot, Dushanbe
    2 Jun 05

    In an article entitled "Andijon in the shadow of Kyrgyz developments",
    a member of the Islamic Rebirth Party of Tajikistan, Hikmatullo
    Saifullozoda, says that the collision of Russian and US interests
    appears to have reached a new high. He said the USA had expressed
    concern over Uzbek government forces firing at protesters in
    Andijon. The following is an excerpt from the article by the head of
    administration of the Islamic Rebirth Party of Tajikistan, Hikmatullo
    Saifullozoda, published in the Tajik newspaper Najot on 2 June 2005;
    subheadings as published:

    Conflict of interests: sine qua non

    Recent developments inside the CIS countries and beyond are seen by
    most of analysts and political scientists as a natural and inevitable
    phenomenon, although these developments have been more or less
    varied. Meanwhile, the foreign media, especially the Russian media,
    in their reports indicate that most of the events of the last three
    years at different locations signify a gradual erosion of the area of
    Russian interests. If we scrutinise the issue from the geopolitical
    standpoint we will encounter a collision of greater interests in
    separate regional developments. It is quite apparent from the changes
    in relations and positions of the leaders of the Balkans, the Middle
    East, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and the Central Asian countries
    with regard to the superpowers before and after important events. And
    this is not a secret. Although the US and Russian leaders often declare
    themselves to be strategic partners, but it is unlikely that their will
    have no disagreement over their nations' present and new interests.

    Ferghana Valley: heartland of crisis

    The Fergana Valley is a region which has for decades been attracting
    the attention of many researchers and international political
    circles. Though it was divided between three countries - Uzbekistan,
    Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan - during the Soviet period, they could never
    change the spiritual and political nature of this region. That's why
    any development in this region is bound to influence the neighbouring
    countries.

    The political situation which lately seemed unstable in the Ferghana
    Valley, the southern part of Kyrgyzstan, has inevitably brought about
    a serious change in the country. The leadership of our neighbouring
    country - Kyrgyzstan - has left the country after a popular uprising,
    officially refusing to retain the power. This act has been differently
    evaluated from different sides. Some circles considered it to be "Askar
    Akayev's weakness in his inability to immediately use force". But most
    of political scientists and analysts appreciated the intellectual
    ability of the former Kyrgyz president and his good decision to
    prevent bloodshed. [Passage omitted: Akayev has given an interview
    to the Russian newspaper Argumenty i fakty]

    North-south conflict in Kyrgyzstan

    In another point, the former president expressed concern about the
    relations and resistances of his country's southern and northern
    regions. The analysts also consider the difference in the morale
    and living conditions of people of the north and the south as one of
    significant factors of political conflicts in this country, which in
    turn depends on the unique spiritual atmosphere in the Ferghana Valley.

    Neighbouring regimes unpleased with Kyrgyz developments

    Now a question arises as to why most authorities in the neighbouring
    countries did not formally declare their position on the situation
    in Kyrgyzstan. And in a diplomatic manner they proclaimed it to be
    "an internal affair" of the neighbouring country, only referring to
    one side of the argument, that is calling it either good or bad. From
    these statements one can only conclude that they did not expect
    such developments in Kyrgyzstan. Perhaps they may not tolerate this
    development or may not be pleased with change of power in this manner
    in the country.

    Pointing the finger at Islamic extremism

    However, the protests in Andijon and other parts of Uzbekistan drew the
    attention of political and diplomatic circles of countries far removed
    from Uzbekistan and those near it, especially the USA and Russia. The
    reason for this attention is clear: the problem of Russia's ongoing
    presence and the expansion of American influence in the Central Asia
    depends on the outcome of developments in the Ferghana Valley. As
    I have stated in one of my analytical notes, Russia's diplomacy had
    been failing for the last few years, but this was not much felt in
    regard to America. This kind of developments in different regions,
    especially in the CIS countries, can in no way satisfy the Russian
    political circles. Therefore the Russian authorities have in many
    cases evaluated the Andijon protests as "foreign intervention". But
    they do not clearly say whose intervention this was. They only speak
    about Islam and Islamic extremists and these groups are mainly blamed
    as possible culprits.

    Russia's support of Uzbek regime

    Similar statements have also been made during the developments in
    Kyrgyzstan, which is a way of diverting the public opinion from the
    main causes of the events. I think the developments in Kyrgyzstan
    have to some extent turned out in Russia's favour. Therefore Russia's
    indirect support for the current Uzbek government's position in
    resolving the Andijon issue is apparent. The Russian Foreign Ministry
    right from the beginning of protests in Andijon expressed support for
    the government of Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan was also reportedly one of
    the main topics of discussions between Vladimir Putin and Nursultan
    Nazarbayev in Chelyabinsk. The chairman of the committee of the Russian
    parliament on the CIS countries Andrey Kokoshin considers the use of
    force to suppress the protests in Uzbekistan right and justifiable.

    We remember that when the crowds in Kyrgyzstan had apparently been
    destroying shops and stores, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin,
    who was in Armenia at the time, advised against using force and said
    that all problems should be solved in a peaceful way. But he quickly
    recognised the new government.

    Firm stance, tough measures

    Islom Karimov in one of his press conferences on the Andijon protests
    said that nobody could prevent "me from doing things in my chosen
    way". Attempts to repeat the Kyrgyz developments in Andijon are
    apparentı Without financial assistance from abroad these groups
    could not prepare so seriouslyı A third force may take advantage of
    efforts by some countries to impose democracy on Central Asia. This
    force is radical Islam.

    There have been two kinds of positions towards the protests in
    Uzbekistan. One deals with the events being instigated by organised
    extremist groups and the other is about violation of human rights by
    government agencies. The authorities of Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan
    and Tajikistan have clearly shown their positions towards the first
    stance. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the candidate for
    the vice-presidency of Kyrgyzstan Feliks Kulov, and Afghan Foreign
    Minister Dr Abdollah.

    Tajik civil war a good lesson

    But it is also necessary to bring up some points made by Secretary
    of Security Council of Tajikistan Amirqul Azimov in one of his
    interviews. He said that developments in Tajikistan in 1992 turned
    out differently. Had the Tajik authorities taken a firm stand and
    tough measures to eliminate "a bunch of extremists" at that time,
    there would have been no five years of bloody civil war.

    Had it not been the very Amirqul Azimov who was responsible for
    the investigation of the incidents in 1990s as a prosecutor? And
    proceeding from the interests of his group and his circles put the
    seal of "regionalism and Islam" on those incidents, was not he thus
    exacerbating the situation? Today it is apparent from his words that he
    still cannot accept the methods of consolidation and tolerance. These
    words come at the same time when the president of Tajikistan, Emomali
    Rahmonov, has for many times called the civil war an imposed one. And
    the sides of to the peace agreement are loyal to their commitments.

    [Passage omitted: excerpts from speeches by a representative of the
    Uzbek party, Ozod Dehqonlar, Nigora Hidoyatulloh]

    Do not look for `foreign hand'

    The authorities of most of the CIS countries, especially in Central
    Asia, should search for ways of solving socio-economic problems of
    their countries and ensure justice and the truth at elections instead
    of "searching for foreign involvement".

    Unfortunately as it is visible, the experience of Tajikistan and its
    peace agreement has not become a lesson for some of the Central Asian
    countries and separate circles of the country. And they still try to
    use forefathers' methods to tackle problems. Some of them do not seem
    to understand that the course of developments is indispensable and the
    geopolitical orientations can not remain invariant. The governments
    also cannot keep their political orientation unchanged, but the change
    of orientation is useful only with keeping national interests intact.

    Greater reliance on Russia

    The Uzbek authorities now rely more on Russia's support, though they
    have several times changed their position in the past. The USA,
    Britain, Germany, the European Union and the UN have asked for an
    international commission to enquire into the incidents in Andijon. But
    the Uzbek authorities have not accepted the international request.

    Why did Uzbekistan undertake fully independent policies in the recent
    past and assist foreign investors in getting domineering positions
    in the Central Asian market? And why now it is not pleased with the
    presence of the Western countries in the region?

    Why do Russia and Uzbekistan consider Islam as a threat and a factor
    of instability in the region? Why does not the international community
    isolate Uzbekistan like Belarus? This and many other questions have to
    be answered. But I believe that the conflict of Russian and American
    interests in the region has reached a new level. Although the US
    government voiced concern over the shooting at the demonstrators in
    Andijon, its decision that Islom Karimov has to undertake political
    reform in his country and make "his regime more liberal" comes
    too late.

    Hikmatullo Sayfullozoda

    Head of administration of the Islamic Rebirth Party of Tajikistan

    --Boundary_(ID_T3wXywCXCK9qPQJyFriTXA)--
Working...
X