Here is what Press Secretary Scott McClellan said about the White House's view on what happened last week in Uzbekistan:
We have had some 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. And we urge both the government and the demonstrators to exercise restraint at this time. The people of Uzbekistan want to see more representative and democratic government, but that should come through peaceful means, not through violence. And that's what our message is. (Source: White House)
Here is a quote from an eyewitness account of what happened:
The eight-wheeled armoured personnel carriers, APCs, appeared out of nowhere, moving through the streets at speed, past the people on the outer fringes of the rally. The first column of vehicles thundered past without taking any aggressive action. But a second column arriving five minutes later suddenly opened up on the crowds, firing off round after round without even slowing down to take aim ... People on the square, who were unarmed and included women and children, started screaming and trying to run away. (Source: Institute for War and Peace Reporting)
Here is what British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said:
I am extremely concerned by reports that Uzbek troops opened fire on demonstrators in Andizhan. I totally condemn these actions and I urge the Uzbek authorities to show restraint in dealing with the situation and look for a way to resolve it peacefully. (Source: FCO)
So Britain urges restraint on the Uzbek authorities who stand accused of gunning down civilians. The US urges the gunned down civilians to exercise restraint when taking bullets from the Uzbek authorities.
Could this be British policy diverging from the Washington line in the War on Terror? Or perhaps the Foreign Secretary is just better briefed over the situation in Uzbekistan after his recent electoral battle with Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Tashkent who stood in Mr Straw's Blackburn constituency in protest - among other things - against Britain's alliance with the cynically brutal Uzbek President Islam Karimov.
Let's have some more quotes.
Here is what US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said in a press conference when challenged on the difference between European and US views on what happened in Uzbekistan:
QUESTION: Regardless of what the European Union said about this, the reports are that Uzbek troops opened fire on a square in this town. Do you think that's a good idea? Do you think that is excessive violence?
MR. BOUCHER: We don't think anybody should be using violence. We think everybody should be using -- whatever -- that everybody should be using restraint and doing whatever they can to avoid violence in this kind of situation, but I'm not going to comment on the latest report. You know, the one before that had other people doing other things. The one before that had criminals being released from a prison, including possible terrorists. You know, this has been a whole series of violent events and both sides need to do what they can to stamp down the violence and deal with these problems peacefully. (Source: State Department)
Meanwhile, here's what the State Department says about the convictions in Uzbekistan of those in jail charged with terrorist offences:
The Government announced trials, including those of alleged religious extremists, only at the court in which the trial was to take place and only a day or two before the trial began. International observers generally were allowed to attend even the most sensitive trials.
Defendants often claimed that the confessions on which the prosecution based its cases were extracted by torture. In many cases, particularly those involving suspected members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, the prosecution failed to produce confessions and relied solely on witness testimony, which was reportedly often coerced. Typical sentences for male members of Hizb ut-Tahrir ranged from 7 to 12 years' imprisonment.
In a series of trials in August, September, and October, the Government convicted approximately 115 individuals in connection with the March and April terrorist violence in Tashkent and Bukhara. International and local human rights groups that monitored the trials concluded that the trials failed to meet international standards. The prosecution's cases relied primarily on confessions, which human rights groups and defense attorneys maintained were coerced. Several defendants testified in court that they had been physically abused in pretrial detention. (Source: State Department 2004 country report Uzbekistan.)
And finally, these are the areas where the US has promised to help Uzbekistan under a 2002 bilateral declaration of strategic partnership signed by then Secretary of State Colin Powell:
- modernizing and reforming the Armed Forces of the Republic of Uzbekistan, including training in civil-military relations and its obligations for conduct under international conventions, increasing their combat readiness, and providing training and advanced training of specialists, officers and command staff of the Armed forces of the Republic of Uzbekistan;
- using up-to-date information and computer technologies in training military personnel, and establishing and developing distance learning, and modeling and simulation systems in the republic of Uzbekistan;
- re-equipping the Armed Forces of the Republic of Uzbekistan with weapons and military hardware, providing assistance in modernizing and restoring the weapons and military hardware of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Uzbekistan;
- actively utilizing the entire complex of existing international mechanism and instruments in providing military-technical assistance to the Republic of Uzbekistan, developing its military infrastructure, and strengthening the logistical and training/methodological foundation of military educational institutions and training centers of the Armed forces of the republic of Uzbekistan; and
- other forms of cooperation as the Sides see fit. (Source: US Embassy Uzbekistan).
Could those be the same modern and reformed armed forces that, when not clamping down on the terrorists who confess under torture, go about in armoured vehicles shooting at civilians?
Go on then, one last quote. This is what the New York Times reported earlier this month, shedding some light on what 'other forms of cooperation' might entail:
There is growing evidence that the United States has sent terror suspects to Uzbekistan for detention and interrogation, even as Uzbekistan's treatment of its own prisoners continues to earn it admonishments from around the world. (Source: New York Times 1 May 2005)
Could it be that US reluctance to criticise the Uzbek authorities is somehow connected to Tashkent's valuable line in anti-terror services, including torture of suspects away from the pesky restraints imposed by American law?
