From The Australian

MOSCOW: The man accused of leading the massacre of anti-government protesters in Uzbekistan in May is having cancer treatment in Germany, despite being barred last month from the EU.

German officials disclosed yesterday that Zakirjan Almatov, Uzbekistan’s Interior Minister, got a visa in October to undergo a lifesaving operation in Hanover.

Mr Almatov was in charge of security forces who fired on anti-government protesters in the eastern city of Andijan on May 13. The Government says that 187 people died, mostly Islamic militants, but witnesses say up to 500 unarmed civilians were killed.

The EU responded by announcing sanctions on Uzbekistan on October 3, including a visa ban on officials responsible for the bloodshed. It issued a list of 12 names, including Mr Almatov, this week.

EU and German officials said that he was granted a visa because the year-long ban was not in force at the time and allowed humanitarian exemptions.

But human rights activists expressed outrage that Germany, which has a military base in Uzbekistan, had made an exception for one of the ban’s main targets.

Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, said the decision was shameful and scandalous.

Mr Murray was recalled last year after accusing Britain and the US of toning down criticism of human rights abuses in Uzbekistan in exchange for the US military’s use of an airbase on its soil. He said he believed Germany was doing the same.

In July the US was asked to leave its base, a launchpad for its operations in Afghanistan, after joining EU calls for an inquiry into the violence.

From USINFO.State.Gov

Absence of countries on list of worst offenders in State’s report questioned

By Jeffrey Thomas

Washington File Staff Writer

Washington – A congressional hearing examined the State Department’s annual report on religious freedom November 15, questioning the absence of the Central Asian nations of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan from the list of the worst violators.

The State Department released its International Religious Freedom Report for 2005 November 8. The report ‘ the seventh in the annual series — examines religious freedom in 197 countries and what the United States is doing to improve the conditions for this central human right. The report is mandated by the U.S. Congress under the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA). (See related article.)

No country in Europe or Eurasia is listed in the report as a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) — the category reserved for the worst offenders that engage in or tolerate gross infringements of religious freedom.

The 2005 report lists eight countries as CPCs: Burma, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), Eritrea, Iran, the People’s Republic of China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Vietnam. The panel of witnesses at the hearing November 15 agreed these countries were gross violators of religious freedom and urged greater U.S. efforts on behalf of those who are suffering for their faith.

Although Uzbekistan was not on that list, it was cited in the report for ongoing serious abuses of religious freedom.

The report cited Turkmenistan as one of two Eurasian countries (along with Georgia) in which the conditions for religious freedom have continued to improve over the past year. (See related article.)

CONCERNS RAISED OVER REPORT’S TREATMENT OF UZBEKISTAN, TURKMENISTAN

At the hearing, Committee Chairman Christopher Smith said he considers Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to be among those countries ‘where the rights of believers are seriously threatened.’

John Hanford, the State Department’s ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, testified first at the hearing, providing the committee with a summary of the report.

The United States continues to engage a number of additional countries on serious violations of religious freedom, he said, citing Uzbekistan as an example. After recounting some of the mistreatment and abuses in Uzbekistan, he added: ‘We are continuing engagement with the government to encourage respect for religious freedom for all groups.’

Hanford also noted ‘positive developments’ in Turkmenistan, including the release of a number of political prisoners and the first-ever roundtable involving government officials with representatives of religious minorities. ‘Nevertheless, serious problems remain,’ he said.

Hanford said the report is ‘always going to miss things and we always welcome criticism ‘ and try to respond to those criticisms.’

‘We’re there to be a ‘gold standard’ on the facts,’ he said of the annual report.

He wanted to make clear, he said, ‘that we are in final CPC negotiations on one or two fronts. We anticipate making an additional CPC announcement in the near future.’

U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WEIGHS IN

Michael Cromartie, the chair of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, said the commission stands by its recent call for Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to be ranked among the worst offenders against religious freedom in the world. (See related article.)

The commission also was established by IRFA. The law charges the commission with monitoring the status of freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief globally and making recommendations to the president, the secretary of state and Congress as to how the U.S. government better can protect and promote religious freedom and related human rights in its relations with other countries.

‘The omission of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan from the CPC list is particularly troubling and a discredit to Congress’s intent in passing IRFA,’ said Cromartie.

‘Turkmenistan, among the most repressive states in the world today, allows virtually no independent religious activity,’ he continued. ‘The government of Uzbekistan places strict restrictions on religious practice and continues to crack down harshly on individuals and groups that operate outside of government-controlled religious organizations.’

‘The ambassador-at-large [John Hanford] and the State Department have for years attempted to engage the governments of these two countries in an effort to seek improvements. However, the response has been extremely limited. In the face of the severe religious freedom violations perpetrated by the Turkmen and Uzbek governments, the continued failure to name them as CPCs undermines the spirit and letter of IRFA.’

Cromartie took particular issue with the annual report on Turkmenistan containing the ‘startling claim that the status of religious freedom improved during the period covered by this report. Even more disturbing is that Turkmenistan is listed in the Executive Summary as one of the countries which has seen significant improvements in the promotion of religious freedom.’

‘This conclusion is regarded as erroneous not only by the commission but by most human rights organizations and other observers of Turkmenistan,’ he said.

A coalition of nine human-rights groups submitted a joint statement supporting Cromartie’s concerns, calling the evidence of severe and widespread violations of religious freedom in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan ‘overwhelming,’ and providing detailed criticism of the annual reports on the two countries.

Another witness, Lawrence Uzzell from the nongovernmental organization International Religious Freedom Watch, added his voice to the criticism of the sections on Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Uzzell suggested that U.S. diplomats ‘fall into the trap of paying too little attention to indigenous minorities, even if those minorities may be suffering harsher repression than American missions and missionaries.’

The problem is not, Uzzell said, that the report has too many references to such U.S.-based groups as the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. ‘The problem is that the report gives too little attention to other groups.’

The prepared statements of all the witnesses at the hearing as well as a webcast of the hearing itself are available at the Web site of the House International Relations Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights, and International Operations.

The full text of the 2005 report and previous reports are available on the State Department Web site.

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Brussels, 18 November 2005

The European Union has been closely following the trial in Uzbekistan of 15 individuals in relation to the events in Andijan on 12-13 May 2005, which concluded on 14 November.

The European Union shares many of the serious concerns about the conduct of the trial expressed on 26 October by the UN Special Rapporteurs and the Independent Expert on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, and those expressed by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The European Union looks forward to the early publication of the report of the ODIHR team which followed the trial.

The European Union has serious concerns about the credibility of the case presented by the prosecution and believes that defence procedures were inadequate to ensure a fair trial. The European Union would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns with the Uzbek government.

The trial focussed on the attacks on the army barracks, prison and SNB building, as well as the occupation of the Hokimyat. While recognising the criminal nature of these attacks, the European Union is concerned that the trial paid little attention to the substantial number of reports, including from eyewitnesses, alleging that the Uzbek military and security forces committed grave human rights violations while curbing the demonstrations.

The European Union continues to place primary importance on a credible and transparent independent international inquiry into the events of 12-13 May. The European Union stands ready to discuss all of these matters in its ongoing dialogue with Uzbekistan.

By Ian MacWilliam writing in BBC Online

Uzbekistan’s Supreme Court has jailed 15 men for between 14 and 20 years after they were convicted of organising unrest in the eastern town of Andijan.

Last May, a jail break in Andijan was followed by a massive anti-government demonstration. Protesters who escaped say government troops fired into the crowd, killing hundreds of people. The Uzbek authorities say only 187 people died, and that most were killed by the organisers of the unrest, who it calls Islamic insurgents.

“The court has found the accused guilty in particular of terrorism, attempts to overthrow the constitutional order, aggravated murder and the seizure of hostages,” Judge Bakhtyor Jamolov told the court on Monday.

Outside observers, however, say the trial was carefully stage-managed from the start. The defendants all confessed their guilt in the opening days of the trial in September, begging the forgiveness of the Uzbek people and President Islam Karimov.

Questionable standards

International human rights groups and the UN have called into question the trial’s validity. They say forced confessions are often obtained by the use of threats against family members, by physical torture, or by the use of psychotropic drugs. They say these methods, widely used in the Soviet period, are still routine in Uzbekistan today. The Uzbek government denies this.

Apart from concerns about the confessions, the trial fell far short of international standards in other respects. During the month-long proceedings there was no cross-questioning by independent lawyers and little attempt to verify the truth of witnesses’ accounts. The defendant’s government-appointed lawyers made little effort to defend them.

“It was hard to believe some pressure was not put on the defendants,” said Andrea Berg, of US-based Human Rights Watch. “We think this was a show trial. The defendants and their lawyers had no chance to speak to each other in private.”

Lone testimony

Of more than 200 witnesses called by the government, only one, a housewife from near Andijan, challenged the official account. Makhbuba Zakirova said soldiers had indeed fired at unarmed civilians in Andijan, and again as some protesters tried to escape across the border into neighbouring Kyrgyzstan. The judge denounced Ms Zakirova in his summing up speech.

“Makhbuba Zakirova gave evidence that does not agree with events,” he told the court. “The court has decided she intentionally gave false evidence because she sympathises with the Akramists.”

The government uses the term “Akramists” to refer to members of a group of pious Muslims in Andijan who were prominent in the anti-government protests. But members of this ill-defined group say they are simply believers, not terrorists, and they deny any desire to overthrow the government.

There has been concern about Ms Zakirova’s security since her testimony. She remains under close government observation.

Universal scepticism

Some observers had expected the death penalty for some of the accused. Analysts speculate they may have been promised to be spared capital punishment if they co-operated. But speculation aside, Mr Karimov has said the death penalty will be abolished in Uzbekistan in 2008 – and it may be that death was judged to be too harsh, given the widespread criticism the trial has aroused.

In Andijan itself, there appears to be almost universal scepticism about the trial. People are afraid to speak openly, but in private they say the Tashkent government is persecuting normal Muslim believers.

Most say people gathered in the town centre because they were concerned about widespread government corruption and the lack of jobs. Given the international criticism and widespread domestic scepticism, the propaganda value of the Andijan trial is unclear.

Reliable partner

Only Russia and China have come out unequivocally in support of the Uzbek government – both countries which are seeking greater influence in Central Asia. While the sentences were being pronounced in Tashkent, Mr Karimov was in Moscow receiving a warm welcome from President Vladimir Putin.

The two men signed an agreement promising much closer military co-operation and apparently opening the way for possible Russian military intervention in Uzbekistan in the event of further unrest, such as in Andijan.

“We have shown once more with whom we want to build our future,” said Mr Karimov in Moscow. “Russia is our most reliable partner and ally.”

By contrast, Brussels has issued a list of 12 top Uzbek officials who will be banned from visiting EU member states for a year. They include Interior minister Zakirjon Almatov, Defence minister Kadyr Gulyamov, and the head of the secret police, Rustam Inoyatov.

EU bans

An EU statement said the visa ban, and a ban on arms sales to Uzbekistan, had been adopted because of “the excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by Uzbek security forces during the Andijan events, and following refusal of the Uzbek authorities to allow an independent international inquiry”.

While this trial has come to an end, anger about Andijan is bound to continue to fester in Uzbekistan. Members of the small and beleaguered opposition say that disaffection with Mr Karimov is now widespread within the government and the security services. In Andijan, some people say cautiously they expect further unrest and possibly political change.

Historically the Uzbek people have usually been obedient to their rulers – but many analysts say growing poverty and authoritarianism are making Uzbekistan a dangerously unstable land in the heart of Central Asia.

From Human Rights Watch

Tashkent, November 11, 2005 ‘ An independent journalist in Uzbekistan was ambushed and assaulted on November 9 by a group of unidentified men, the latest attack in a worsening environment for government critics since the May 13 massacre in Andijan, Human Rights Watch said today.

The circumstances of the attack strongly suggest that Aleksei Volosevich, a correspondent for the independent website fergana.ru, was attacked in Tashkent on November 9 because of his extensive reporting critical of the government since the May 13 massacre.

‘Aleksei Volosevich is the latest independent journalist to be attacked in the wake of Andijan,’ said Holly Cartner, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. ‘The Uzbek authorities have done absolutely nothing to protect those who are uncovering important facts about the massacre.’

At 4 p.m. on November 9, Volosevich received a telephone call at home from an unidentified male caller. The caller claimed he had come from Andijan and said he had material of interest to Volosevich. Volosevich asked how the man knew his home telephone number, but the caller declined to answer, saying only that he would explain when they met. The two agreed to meet an hour later not far from Volosevich’s apartment.

As Volosevich walked toward the appointed meeting place, five men approached him. One man asked Volosevich if he had a cigarette. Just as Volosevich was answering, the men jumped him. One tripped him, knocking him to the ground. They threw paint in Volosevich’s face and poured several buckets of indelible paint on him. As the men ran away, one of them shouted, ‘You won’t sell out your country anymore!’

When Volosevich returned home, he saw a young man running away from the entrance to his building. Inside, he saw that the entryway and the door to his apartment were covered in paint. The walls were covered with graffiti, including curse words, the phrase ‘sell-out journalist,’ and the word ‘Jew.’ The graffiti said that Volosevich’who is an ethnic Russian’doesn’t understand Islam, the predominant religion in Uzbekistan.

Volosevich told Human Rights Watch that he understood the attack as retribution for his reporting, particularly his reporting on the Andijan events and their aftermath, including the trial of 15 defendants accused of organizing the Andijan events, which is ongoing in the Supreme Court.

Two weeks ago, an article appeared in a government-controlled newspaper that criticized Volosevich and his reporting on the Supreme Court trial. The article appeared only days after Volosevich had published the opinions of several commentators highly critical of the trial. Volosevich also told Human Rights Watch that for several days around that same time, he could not gain access to any material on the fergana.ru website on his home computer. Every time he clicked on a link, the same fergana.ru article appeared: one from several years ago about the journalist Ruslan Sharipov, an outspoken government critic who had then recently been arrested. The article also noted the severe difficulties journalists face if they are critical of the government. Volosevich took this as a warning organized by the authorities since only the government could interfere with his Internet provider in this way.

Volosevich also appeared in video footage of Andijan that the prosecution showed in the Supreme Court trial relating to the Andijan events. The footage shows Volosevich and other journalists entering the local government (hokimiat) building in Andijan that had been taken over by gunmen. During the trial, the prosecution has argued that foreign journalists and local journalists working for foreign media provided ‘informational support’ to the terrorists. Government-controlled television also broadcast the video.

‘Independent journalists are not safe in Uzbekistan,’ said Cartner. ‘The government has shown its hostility to the press. It has arrested and intimidated those who report independently and suggested that journalists bear responsibility for the atrocities in Andijan.’

The press service of the National Security Service reported that it has a mandate to investigate the crime against Volosevich because the incident involves anti-Semitism. The head of the press service denied that the security service had any involvement in the attack on Volosevich. Moreover, he stated that he doubted that the attack could have taken place because there is no anti-Semitism in Uzbekistan. He speculated that Volosevich could have set up the attack himself in order to give himself a basis for receiving political asylum abroad.

Since the Andijan events, the atmosphere for the press has worsened significantly in Uzbekistan. Journalists and others who have provided independent accounts of the events in Andijan and called for an investigation and accountability have faced harassment, arbitrary detention, criminal charges and physical assaults.

‘Suggesting that Volosevich organized an assault on himself is absurd,’ Cartner said. ‘Attacks on independent journalists are an all-too-real fact of life in Uzbekistan.’

‘Instead of blaming Volosevich, the Uzbek government should promptly investigate the attack and bring charges against those responsible, rather than denying it took place,’ Cartner added.

Background

On May 13, Uzbek government forces killed hundreds of unarmed protesters as they fled a demonstration in Andijan, a city in eastern Uzbekistan. The government has still taken no steps to investigate or hold accountable those responsible for this atrocity. Instead, it denies all responsibility and persecutes those who seek an independent and transparent investigation.

In the days following the Andijan massacre, the government detained journalists, forced them to leave the city and confiscated the notebooks and recording equipment from several of them. It has arrested locals who provided assistance to the foreign press and is holding them on criminal charges. Neighborhood (mahalla) committee members went house to house warning residents not to speak to journalists about the events.

After his accounts of the Andijan events appeared widely in the foreign press, the chairman of the Andijan human rights group Appeliatsia (‘Appeal’), Saidjahon Zainabitdinov, was arrested on May 21 and charged with slander, terrorism and preparation or distribution of information threatening to public security and the public order. He remains in custody and has had no contact with his lawyer or family.

On August 11, 2005, the government refused entry to Igor Rotar, an independent journalist who reports on religious freedom for Forum 18.

On August 26, a court sentenced Radio Liberty journalist Nosir Zokir to six months of imprisonment for insulting a security officer.

On October 26, 2005, the BBC announced that it was forced to close its Tashkent bureau because of the harassment and persecution of its staff by the authorities. At least seven BBC correspondents have fled or been forced to leave Uzbekistan, including foreign correspondent Monica Whitlock, and at least two Uzbek members of the BBC staff have received political asylum.