US Allies - A Threat To US National Security

Friday, May 13, 2005
By: Tashbih Sayyed

Hizb ut-Tahrir, a radical Islamist organization is seeking the creation of a caliphate spanning all of Central Asia and the chances are that US ally Islam Karimove's oppressive policies in Uzbekistan may very well help them in achieving their objective. And Washington by not exerting pressure on the Uzbekistan government with whom it is identified universally, to refrain from violating the basic human rights of its citizens will also be indirectly responsible for empowering radical Islam. If there is one factor other than the Wahhabi-ism that has helped in the spread of anti-Americanism and Islamist terrorism, it is the oppressive and undemocratic policies of US backed Muslim regimes.
There is no denying that radical Islam has been helped tremendously by the coercive policies of US backed governments in the Muslim world. Whether it was the regime of the Shah Reza Shah Pehlawi in Iran or the present House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, US policy of ignoring inhuman treatment of their citizens by US backed autocratic regimes helped Ayatollah Khomeini to win Iranis against the "Great Satan" and now I am afraid, if the policies are not corrected, the same thing is going to happen in Saudi Arabia.

Washington's policy of backing undemocratic and tyrannical Muslim rulers has already made radical Islam's campaign to convince its constituency that the US is not sincere in its professed plan to introduce democracy in the Muslim world credible. An email, I received from a Canadian Muslim group, reflects the same conviction, "The Bush regime talks about democracy in Iraq, but sustains dictatorship in the Muslim world. The fact is that unless a democratic movement is born in the womb of the CIA, the Americans will do everything to crush it."

Referring to the unfolding events in Uzbekistan, Pepe Escobar, writing in the Asia Times, seems to agree, "So you won't see the White House, or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, hammering Karimov. You won't hear many in Washington calling for free elections in Uzbekistan. The former strongmen of color-coded, "revolutionary" Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan were monsters who had to be removed for "freedom and democracy" to prevail. So is the dictator of Belarus. Not Karimov. He's "our" dictator: the Saddam Hussein of Central Asia is George W Bush's man."

US don't seem to recognize the fact that the world has become much wiser than it was during the cold war. It cannot be hoodwinked any more. The information flows freely and in case some government can still impose a censorship, rumors take a life of their own. When it comes to sharing agendas, issues and missions, there are no border now.

If President George W, Bush wants to introduce democracy and freedoms in the Muslim world, he cannot be selective. When it comes to removing tyrants, there should not be any difference between Saddam Hussein and Islam Karimov. That's why the world is unable to digest the obvious contradictions in the US policies, if Washington sincerely believes in advancing the cause of freedoms, then why "Uzbekistan dictator Islam Karimov's army, which last Friday opened fire on thousands of unarmed protesters in Andijan, in the Ferghana Valley, has been showered by Washington in the past few years with hundreds of millions of dollars (US$200 million in 2002 alone) - all on behalf of the 'war on terror'."

Inhuman treatment endured by Muslim citizens under US backed dictators, irresponsible journalism spreading lies in the guise of news of the desecration of Muslim holy book in Guantanamo detention camp and continued instability in Iraq as a result of ever growing insurgency, resulting in hundreds of deaths on a regular basis has already provided enough justification for radical Islam to convince the Muslims to continue jihad against the "crusaders". And although, Wahhabi dominated Muslim world was never a friend of the West, the US identification with the corrupt Muslim despots is pushing it beyond reconcilable frontiers.

According to a BBC report, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, says the radicalizing effect of the president Karimov's repression posed the biggest threat to Uzbekistan's security. On May 13 protesters in Andijan, Uzbekistan, seized arms from a military depot and attacked a local prison, freeing the inmates, including some who had been jailed on charges related to radical Islamic activity. After battling local police during the early morning hours, militants took control of local government offices. At least nine people were killed and 34 wounded during the initial burst of fighting.

Meanwhile, unarmed protesters gathered in the central square outside the regional administration building. Many of the protesters called on Karimov to resign, voicing complaints with the government's economic and political policies. Radical Islamic rhetoric, especially calls for the establishment of a regional caliphate, did not feature prominently during the protest. Then, shortly after 5 p.m., government troops, backed by armored personnel carriers, moved in, prompting more gunfire that led to hundreds of casualties among the protesters.

Galima Bukharbaeva, in an account published by the Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR), said that government armored personnel carriers opened up on the crowd with heavy weapons, firing at random while moving at high speed. "By most accounts, economic discontent drove many local residents to join the protest. Some participants told a EurasiaNet contributor that government economic policies, especially punitive taxation on trade, were impoverishing many Uzbeks without providing any means for relief of dire financial problems."

According to media reports being circulated in the Muslim world, hundreds of protesters have been gunned down in bloody clashes with US backed government forces in Uzbekistan. One human rights observer in the eastern city of Andijan said that up to 500 people may have perished in the shootings. In a severe rebuke to London and Washington's approach to the region, Britain's former ambassador to the country said the countries had swallowed Uzbek propaganda that sought to portray the democracy movement as a brand of Islamic extremism.

The former British ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray said, "The Americans and British wouldn't do anything to help democracy in Uzbekistan." Mr. Murray added: "We didn't provide support for those who were trying to develop democratic opposition, and that includes these people in Andizhan. People are turning to violence because we gave them no support." US statements lumping together the perpetrator of the crime and the victim by urging "restraint" by both the massacred demonstrators and their government killers also strengthened the Muslim perception that Islam Karimov's repression of dissent and discontent is fully backed by the US. "The people of Uzbekistan want to see a more representative and democratic government. But that should come through peaceful means not through violence, and that's what our message is," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "We have had concerns about human rights in Uzbekistan, but we are concerned about the outbreak of violence, particularly by some members of a terrorist organization that were freed from prison."

The statement clearly showed that the US has no clue of what is actually happening in Uzbekistan. Washington, at its own peril, fails to understand that Karimov, just like all other Muslim dictators, is exploiting west's fear of radical Islam. It must be understood that every one who speaks against oppressive practices of their governments doesn't have to be a religious extremist.

Sir Menzies Campbell, deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, in Britain said, "Rather than use force to impose democracy, as in Iraq, should we not be more assiduous in promoting democratic movements in countries like Uzbekistan?"

Without exception, almost all the US backed Muslim rulers, because of their corruption, inhuman policies and utter disregard for the values of freedom, have provided fertility for the spread of religious extremism. Human Rights organizations have been crying for a long time that President Islam Karimov's policy of routinely arresting and torturing non-violent Muslim dissidents, who practiced their faith outside state-controlled mosques, will compel them to join the violent radical Islamists.

And now it is for everyone to see that they were right. Karimov's atrocities have driven a great number of Uzbeks into the fold of radical Islamists. Hizb ut-Tahrir and Islamist movement of Uzbekistan have gained so much ground that their presence is being felt in the whole region and beyond into China. Experts believe that it is now a matter of urgency that the United States, if it wants to improve its image in this part of the world, must apply real pressure on Tashkent to improve its human rights performance and implement serious political and economic reforms.

Experts wonder as to why Washington failed to learn anything from its cold war era experiences. It should have been enough to guide US's post September 11, policies in the Muslim world at least. But it evident that nothing is changed; Washington is still following the same policies of relying on corrupt and opportunist rulers in its war against radical Islam as it did in fighting the Communism. Washington, during the cold war, allowed itself to be blackmailed by Muslim rulers who exploited Washington's fear of Communism to prolong their rules. They are at it again; now they are overplaying the threat of radical Islam.

But the times have changed. Islamism is not as limited or restricted in its appeal as Communism. Islamism has very successfully hijacked Islam and with it religious legitimacy. Over a billion Muslims have been influenced to a varying degree by the Islamist propaganda. Islamism is using all the trappings of a just war; Muslims are ready and willing to die for their faith. Perceptions in this war of wills are of vital importance. A manipulated theology, manufactured history and grievances of a long colonial injustice is there to lend further justification, legitimization and urgency to the cause of Islamism.

This war cannot be won by materially privileged, industrially advanced and technologically superior powers. Because material weapons are effective only against visible and physically target-able foes; radical Islam is an invisible enemy. It can be everywhere and can attack at every time. No technology has been able to deter a homicide bomber. The possibility of a bio-chemical attack is real. The free world has to be much more ingenious and honest in identifying and tackling the threat. Double standards and hypocrisy may not even succeed in short terms. What to say about long term strategies.

In this ethereal war reputation and perception will matter much more than anything else. Reliance on the corrupt and absolutists cannot help in improving or maintaining a good image. Long association with the corrupt has already tarnished the image of he United States of America. The US must try and find ways not to just win governmental support for its just causes but also the hearts and minds of their citizens. Because whenever democracy will come in the Muslim world, it will be the citizens who will matter not the corrupt rulers. If the free world has to win this war against radical Islam, it will have to, once and for all, distance itself from undemocratic and fascist regimes of every kind, form and shade. As I have been saying for many years, this is a war of minds; it cannot be won by hardware only.

The rise of radical Islam in the Muslim world and especially what is happening in Uzbekistan these days is the direct result of the double standards employed by the US in conducting its foreign policy. Washington failed to recognize that Al-Qaeda and groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir have directly benefited from the repressive acts of Muslim governments. Karimov government, being the most repressive in Central Asia, jailing thousands of Uzbeks for engaging in non-state-sanctioned forms of political and religious expression, has forced, otherwise peaceful Muslims, to seek means of expression through radical Islam. In addition to trying to keep a tight lid on all forms of political dissent, Karimov's administration has steadfastly resisted economic reforms. The result has been a potentially volatile build-up of popular frustration.

A Human Rights Watch report lends credence to the notion, as suggested in its title, "Creating Enemies of the State: Religious Persecution in Uzbekistan", that the revolt could indeed be homegrown, given the nature and extent of Karimov's repression. It estimates that some 7,000 independent Muslims are currently in prison and subject to torture and other abuses. "Uzbekistan cannot hide behind the global war on terrorism to justify religious repression," said Rachel Denber, the acting director of HRW's Europe and Central Asia Division.

Karimov has drastically curtailed individual rights and has stifled dissenting political opinion. At the same time, the Uzbek government has avoided implementing economic reforms needed to prevent the stagnation of commerce. Political observers assert that his repressive policies are fueling a home-grown insurgency. Reports by International Crisis Group and Human Rights Watch have lambasted the Uzbek government for an egregious and worsening record of human rights violations.

According to an article published in April 2, 2004, issue of Asia times, "A recent State Department report gave Uzbekistan low marks on human rights, and government-to-government assistance programs totaling some US$50 million will have to be axed unless the Bush administration decides to waive the human rights requirements. Domestic pressure has been building on the issue, with a number of op-eds and editorials in The Washington Post condemning Uzbekistan's human rights record, questioning the country's usefulness as a US ally in the "war on terror", and urging increased US pressure on the Karimov regime to take action on human rights issues."

Religious extremists, actually, take advantage of situations in which common citizens, forced by inhuman conditions decide to come out on the streets to some how let the world know of their plight. Religious extremists, it has been observed, join such protests to create chaos and confusion. I am sure that if US backed Muslim governments, some how, can bring themselves to act in a just and fair manner, a big reason for the Muslims to join extremists will be eliminated. Washington will have to accept that it cannot win this war against radical Islam, so long as, it is being identified with the tyrannies of its allies.

Experts who have devoted their lives in studying the workings of religious extremists are unanimous that the basic reasons for religious extremism's rise in the Muslims societies is the absence of rule of law. Democracy cannot take roots in a society that has no institutions guaranteeing basic human rights and liberties. People in a society, in which basic human rights are violated as a routine, are found to be most receptive to the radical ideologies. And that is what is happening in the Muslim world today; dictatorial regimes are pushing their peaceful citizens in the direction of radical Islam.

Talking about the protesters, Galima Bukharbaeva, the country director in Uzbekistan for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, told CNN, "They say they are not Islamic extremists. They are just ordinary people who are tired of unemployment, who are tired of injustice, and they just want better living conditions." Most independent analysts agree with the assessment. And even those who do not agree are of the opinion that the best way to curb radicalism is to remove the circumstances that make radicalism as an attractive alternative.

I believe that even if Washington finds it impossible to win support of honest and true leaders in the Muslim world, it can still force the not so honest ones to provide at least some basic human needs like due process of justice, employment, free press, health services and education to their citizens.

In doing so, not only will they improve their image in the eyes of their citizens, they will also help rehabilitate US image in the Muslim world. Washington must take a pause and think hard that why is it that it has never been able to find a true and honest Muslim leader to support its policies. The answer to this question will solve a much more critical puzzle – why anti-Americanism has never shown any signs of receding in the Muslim world?

The Friday protests in Andijan were sparked by the jailing of 23 local men, many of them prominent business owners, who were accused by the government of Islamic extremism. Underlying the confrontation, however, was long-standing popular anger over mass unemployment, poverty and the brutal methods of the autocratic regime of President Islam Karimov, a key ally of the Bush administration in the so-called global war on terrorism.

The fact that most of the protesters in Andijan's central square on Friday were not radical Islamists but those who just wanted an end to the poverty and injustice will further empower the anti-American forces in the region. Unemployed and oppressed, the protesters were convinced that they no longer have a future in the country. Some of these protesters were set free when armed men stormed the town's prison in the early hours of the morning. Torture, absence of due process of justice and imprisonment of innocent bystanders had added fuel to the fire. Vicious beatings in Uzbek jails as a routine had further added to a growing sense of anger. They were all in one way or the other had experienced some form of oppression at the hands of Islam Karimov's authoritarian regime.

According to a BBC analysis, Uzbekistan has for long been seen as an impoverished, corrupt and repressive state ruled by a strongman president, Islam Karimov. But concerns about human rights and the lack of democracy have been sidelined, as the US-led "war on terror" had transformed the country into one of Washington's closest allies. Washington has completely ignored the fact that Karimov's regime is infamous for its use of the most brutal means of torture. And that he has banned opposition parties for more than a decade carries out strict press censorship and is holding an estimated 6,000 political prisoners.

Many regional observers say that the US identification with Karimov regime is adding fuel to the fires of anti-Americanism to an alarming level, threatening US national security. Writes Sergei Blagov, "Uzbekistan is one of America's strongest allies in Central Asia. At the March 2002 meeting in Washington between President George W Bush and Karimov, the two countries signed the Declaration of Strategic Partnership.

According to State Department "background notes", last updated in February, "Uzbekistan has been a strong partner of the United States on foreign policy and security issues ranging from Iraq to Cuba, and nuclear proliferation to narcotics trafficking" and "is a strong supporter of US military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq and of the global war against terror". The note said the US "values Uzbekistan as a stable, moderate force in a turbulent region."

Islamists are trained not to miss an opportunity to point out that Muslim dictators are able to violate the human rights of their citizens only because they are encouraged to do so by the US. The poor conditions of Muslims under US-backed dictatorships are being skillfully exploited by groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. Hizb ut-Tahrir aims to re-establish the historical Caliphate in order to bring together all Muslim lands under Islamic rule and establish a state capable of counterbalancing the West. And this reason alone should be enough to spur attention to Karimov regime's deplorable human rights record.

Karimov's oppressive actions one of which was the elimination of the democratic opposition, have already assisted Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan in recruiting a great number of holy warriors.

It is a common observation in the Muslim societies that all radical Islamist organizations tend to exploit poor social and economic condition of the Muslim street to recruit their cadres. Whether it is Palestine, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Indonesia or China, the disenfranchisement, poverty and lack of health care, food, education and economic opportunities for the common person has helped radical Islam to entrench itself.

Everywhere, their modus operandi is the same; they take advantage of the trying situation created by dictatorial regimes. They provide what has been denied by corrupt rulers - they setup agencies that provide health services, education. They establish small enterprises that create job opportunities; by doing so they win the trust of the street. And once having gained the confidence of the common person, their job of recruiting people for the advancement of their agenda becomes real easy.

Uzbekistan is proving to be an ideal place for radical Islam to establish its credentials and authority; Political opposition is not tolerated in Uzbekistan, media is not free and torture is "systematic". And because what followed in the wake of 11 September 2001 has placed Uzbekistan firmly on the map as a US ally, radical Islam is using Uzbekistan's in-human circumstances to demonize the US.

The fact that President Bush has noticeably left Uzbekistan out of speeches condemning repressive regimes has not helped the US and has further been exploited by Hizb ut-Tahrir in achieving its goals. "Western analysts believe that, whatever the relationship between events in Uzbekistan and the wider threat of Islamist organizations, economic discontent and repression mean that Uzbekistan has become a breeding ground for political extremism."

Alex Vatanka, the editor in chief at the London-based analytical group Jane's Sentinel, says that, at least with the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and Hizb ut-Tahrir, the focus on Uzbekistan can be explained by the groups' large Uzbek membership. "The composition of these Islamist movements—and if you look closely at these groups, essentially we're talking about two groups, the IMU and Hizb ut-Tahrir—both these seem to have quite a lot of Uzbeks among their ranks," he said. "And that tells us something about the Uzbek society."

According to reports, the majority of those arrested for belonging to both these Islamic groups are ethnic Uzbeks. The leadership of the IMU is undeniably Uzbek and one of the group's leaders, Tohir Yuldash, was reportedly with a group of Uzbeks, Chechens, and Arabs in the Waziristan tribal area of Pakistan. Undemocratic and oppressive policies of Muslim rulers, almost all of whom are backed by the US have contributed to the growth of organizations like Hizb ut-Tahrir as a natural corollary in the spread of anti-Americanism.

In Uzbekistan, in particular, repression has given Hizb ut-Tahrir a certain mystique among the population, "and the lack of alternative forms of political opposition or expression of discontent has ensured that it has attracted members from the mass of those opposed to the regime for political reasons. Poor economic policies have further undermined support for the government, and induced discontent among traders – a key Hizb ut-Tahrir constituency."

According to an International Eurasian Institute for Economic and Political Research, "For a small but significant group of predominantly young men, Hizb ut-Tahrir gives an easy explanation for their own failure to achieve change in their personal lives, in society or in the state system. It provides young men with some meaning and structured belief in an era of otherwise confusing and difficult social change. It also offers occasional material benefit and social support in states characterized by extreme poverty and social breakdown."

It seems that in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, major beneficiaries of the U.S. war on terrorism have been the despotic regimes in the Muslim world. These regimes have aligned themselves with Washington, not because they really believed in upholding the cause of freedom but only because they wanted to perpetuate their own tyrannies. Uzbekistan's Islam Karimov was one of them. Desperate to recruit more and more allies and find bases from where it could launch its offensive against Al-Qaeda and Taleban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Washington, ignored a fundamental fact that by enlisting one evil regime on its side to get rid of another of the same kind will only help the enemy.

"The Uzbek government is conducting a merciless campaign against peaceful Muslim dissidents," said Rachel Denber, the acting director of HRW's Europe and Central Asia Division. "The scale and brutality of the operations against independent Muslims makes it clear that these are part of a concerted and tightly-orchestrated campaign of religious persecution."

Jim Lobe, in an article written in April 2004, said, "Washington and other Western countries have long warned Karimov that his failure to respect human rights and implement serious political and economic reforms, and his repression of independent Muslims in particular, could destabilize the country. But he has responded mainly with only token gestures, while insisting that any far-reaching relaxation of his control would likely lead to a major upsurge of terrorism by the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and another, much larger group, the Hizb ut-Tahrir, which has called for the replacement of his regime with a Central Asian caliphate, albeit by non-violent means."

The United States of America, at this critical juncture in the war against radical Islam cannot afford to alienate popular Muslim opinion by supporting despots and oppressors. The close US identification with rulers like Islam Karimov, will only substantiate what terrorists like Osama bin Laden wants Muslims to believe about the US.

It is critical for the US national security that its allies, especially, Muslim allies do not indulge in violating human rights, perpetuating torture and unfair judicial processes against their citizens.