EU to Soften Stance on Uzbekistan
EU to Soften Stance on Uzbekistan
Despite continuing differences of opinion on the Andijan violence of May 2005, the European Union and Uzbekistan now look likely to come to an understanding on the human rights situation in the country. NBCentralAsia commentators say that for that to happen, the EU will make unacceptable concessions to Tashkent.
On April 2-5, a European Union delegation visited Uzbekistan to investigate what really happened in Andijan, according to the Uznews.net site.
The outcome of the visit, together with the findings of a previous EU investigative mission in December, may influence Brussels’ position on the sanctions imposed on Uzbekistan in the wake of the Andijan violence.
Differing views of what happened on May 13, 2005 have soured Tashkent’s relations with the West. Government forces opened fire on demonstrators in the town killing hundreds, but while the western view is that those killed were peaceful demonstrators calling for the release of detained local businessmen, Uzbek authorities assert they were Islamic militants.
Tensions over the issue were felt during a strategy meeting attended by an EU delegation and foreign ministers from the five Central Asian states in Astana on March 28.
Uzbek foreign minister Vladimir Norov said that his country did not want the EU to interfere in its domestic affairs, and that Uzbekistan would not be lectured to.
Despite this, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU commissioner for external relations, said the next day that the Uzbek leadership was undergoing a “rethink”, and was increasingly prepared to show it understood the EU’s concerns about the human rights situation in the country.
However, NBCentralAsia commentators warn that the EU will be sending out the wrong message if it too has a change of heart and changes its policy.
“Prematurely claiming progress does a disservice to the people of Uzbekistan, who deserve justice and real human rights reform. It is irresponsible for the EU to accept empty promises and endless dialogue – or, as in this case, outright hostility – and call it progress,” said Acacia Shields, a human rights consultant.
Orozbek Moldaliev, who is now head of the Politics Religion and Security Foundation in Kyrgyzstan, and who previously served as a diplomat in Uzbekistan for several years, said that recent developemtns show that the EU has changed tactics in dealing with Tashkent – as its strategy for Central Asia shows, it has decided to avoid confrontation and to try to influence domestic affairs through cooperation.
“The EU believes that this approach will make it easier to influence human rights developments in Uzbekistan,” Moldaliev said.
An NBCentralAsia political observer based in Turkmenistan, another state that is also at odds with the EU over human rights and democracy, says that the EU’s stance on both countries shows a “trend towards reducing the level of criticism on human rights issues”.
In his view, this softened approach stems from EU members’ desire to find alternative sources of energy. “Pragmatism will prevail,” he concluded.
(News Briefing Central Asia draws comment and analysis from a broad range of political observers across the region.)
On April 2-5, a European Union delegation visited Uzbekistan to investigate what really happened in Andijan, according to the Uznews.net site.
The outcome of the visit, together with the findings of a previous EU investigative mission in December, may influence Brussels’ position on the sanctions imposed on Uzbekistan in the wake of the Andijan violence.
Differing views of what happened on May 13, 2005 have soured Tashkent’s relations with the West. Government forces opened fire on demonstrators in the town killing hundreds, but while the western view is that those killed were peaceful demonstrators calling for the release of detained local businessmen, Uzbek authorities assert they were Islamic militants.
Tensions over the issue were felt during a strategy meeting attended by an EU delegation and foreign ministers from the five Central Asian states in Astana on March 28.
Uzbek foreign minister Vladimir Norov said that his country did not want the EU to interfere in its domestic affairs, and that Uzbekistan would not be lectured to.
Despite this, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU commissioner for external relations, said the next day that the Uzbek leadership was undergoing a “rethink”, and was increasingly prepared to show it understood the EU’s concerns about the human rights situation in the country.
However, NBCentralAsia commentators warn that the EU will be sending out the wrong message if it too has a change of heart and changes its policy.
“Prematurely claiming progress does a disservice to the people of Uzbekistan, who deserve justice and real human rights reform. It is irresponsible for the EU to accept empty promises and endless dialogue – or, as in this case, outright hostility – and call it progress,” said Acacia Shields, a human rights consultant.
Orozbek Moldaliev, who is now head of the Politics Religion and Security Foundation in Kyrgyzstan, and who previously served as a diplomat in Uzbekistan for several years, said that recent developemtns show that the EU has changed tactics in dealing with Tashkent – as its strategy for Central Asia shows, it has decided to avoid confrontation and to try to influence domestic affairs through cooperation.
“The EU believes that this approach will make it easier to influence human rights developments in Uzbekistan,” Moldaliev said.
An NBCentralAsia political observer based in Turkmenistan, another state that is also at odds with the EU over human rights and democracy, says that the EU’s stance on both countries shows a “trend towards reducing the level of criticism on human rights issues”.
In his view, this softened approach stems from EU members’ desire to find alternative sources of energy. “Pragmatism will prevail,” he concluded.
(News Briefing Central Asia draws comment and analysis from a broad range of political observers across the region.)
