11 - 17 October 2001
Issue No.555
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 11 - 17 October 2001 Issue No.555 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Front-line quandary
Will participation by Central Asian Islamic republics in the US offensive against Afghanistan help to crush Islamist opposition at home -- or revitalise them, asks Fatemah Farag
It was only a few weeks ago that the Islamic republics of Central Asia were celebrating 10 years of independence from the USSR with lavish fanfare. Today, these still-nascent states face a battle that could jeopardise the precarious stability they have been able to maintain since winning their independence ten years ago. Three of these countries share borders with Afghanistan -- namely Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. These are the natural "front lines" in the US's so-called war against terror.
The governments that rule these countries today undoubtedly find common ground with the US ultimatum: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists". This position has been the bedrock of former Soviet Islamic republics' policies towards militant Islamist opposition within their borders, particularly Uzbekistan. Direct participation in the US war against Afghanistan, however, could expose the republics to retaliation and the revitalisation of internal Islamist opposition.
These fears found their expression at last week's two-day summit of the former Soviet republics that make up the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), held in Tajikistan and attended by Russia. Aside from having suffered eight years of civil war between the government and the Islamist opposition, Tajikistan is the country that has the longest border with Afghanistan. Nikolai Patrushev, head of the Russian Federal Security Service, announced after the summit that the CIS countries had agreed not to involve themselves directly in the American campaign, though they would assist in the provision of humanitarian aid. It was decided, however, that to do their part in the fight against terrorism, CIS nations would offer help with intelligence information.
Uzbekistan, one of Central Asia's most highly populated countries and the world's fourth-largest producer of cotton and gold, has emerged as a key player in the war effort. Though Uzbekistan shares a 100-mile border with Afghanistan, Uzbek military cooperation has been described as "limited". National television has also reportedly described Uzbek participation as confined to assistance in humanitarian operations, but there are strong indications that the case is otherwise.
During his visit to Uzbekistan on 5 October, US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld clinched a deal that would allow 1,000 US army personnel to be based within Uzbek borders. US troops will also be given access to key airports. At this stage, however, it remains unclear whether these airport facilities have been used or if a ground war will utilise the troops there.
In fact, there are several military airports that could serve as staging posts for any US attack. The largest of these, in the Ferghana Valley, was used by the Soviet Union for its own attacks against Afghanistan and is Uzbekistan's main military air base. There is also a major military airport in Termez, right on the Uzbek-Afghan border, near the sole bridge across the river. Rumours that these airports would be a part of the war began as early as last month, when a single US warplane landed at a military base in the Uzbek capital of Tashkent.
Analysts contend that Uzbekistan is bartering its services for assistance in addressing its own terrorist problem. The argument gains credence with Bush's unexpected mention in a recent speech to Congress of a small and generally unknown group, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU). For the past few years, the IMU has waged a low- level but determined campaign against the country's leadership, planting a bomb in Tashkent in 1999 that killed 16 and wounded more than 100. It is a relatively modest organisation that many would think did not deserve to be equated with Islamic Jihad and Osama Bin Laden's Al-Qa'ida.
But the Uzbek government believes Juma Namangani, the IMU military leader, is now a senior commander under Bin Laden. And there have been reports that he is the appointed leader of a 9,000-strong force uniting IMU fighters, so-called Arab-Afghans and Islamist militants from north-west China. Also, the IMU's ideological leader, Takhir Yuldash, is said to be in Afghanistan. There have been claims that the IMU has been re-organised into a Greater Turkmen movement, indicating designs reaching beyond Uzbekistan to all Central Asian states.
In addition to the IMU, the Uzbek government has been up against Hizbul Tahrir, which, though a non-violent organisation, is considered the largest Islamist group in the country. It also contends with members of the strict Wahabi sect. In dealing with both violent and non-violent opposition, it is documented that the state has been brutal. According to a Moscow-based human rights group, Memorial, the number of Islamists arrested between January 1999 and April 2000 ranges between 4,000 and 5,000.
When I visited Taskent only a few months ago, senior US diplomats told me that an average of 100 people are arbitrarily incarcerated each month. They noted that sporting a long beard could bring harassment and potential arrest, and that legal procedures that effectively protected civil rights remain inadequate. According to a Human Rights Watch report released in December, the number of allegations of torture is also on the rise. One US diplomat confided that "We have told the Uzbek government that such repression could create even more problems in the future by radicalising groups and providing grounds for alliances and mergers."
Considering its drive to combat militant Islamist opposition in the area, however, the US may now be more willing to turn a blind eye to Uzbek President Vladimir Karimov's methods. One thing to consider is a scenario that sees US troops departing as quickly as they came, leaving the Taliban still in place. An Uzbek Foreign Ministry source is reported to have confirmed that Tashkent would like to see the US pursue an expanded war that aims to "eradicate" the Taliban. "As long as they are across the border, we will not feel safe," he told to Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR).
An over-enthusiastic alliance with Washington could also irritate Moscow, which is still believed to hold sway over major political decisions taken by Uzbekistan and neighbouring former Soviet countries. Noteworthy is the fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin sent troops into Uzbekistan on 8 October "to stand beside US troops."
The Uzbek government has reason to be worried, and not just about the challenges from within. Before the war began, Taliban Defence Minister Mullah Obaydallah Akhond announced at a Peshawar press conference reported by the Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) that "Any kind of aggression against Afghanistan will be met with jihad and Uzbekistan will face the consequences. Uzbekistan should be cautious about being dragged into such issues; the brave people of Afghanistan will fight against its enemies." A similar threat was reported by IWPR to have been made in a letter to Uzbek Foreign Minister Abdul-Aziz Kamilov.
A line in the sand: Uzbek workers repair a fence along Uzbekistan's border with Afghanistan
While Uzbekistan may be the centre of attention these days; it does not stand alone. Turkmenistan, home to the air bases of Kusha, Ashgabat, Negit-dag and Serdar, which once served as the launching pad for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, is also in a tight spot. After evading comment for as long as he could, President Saparmura Niazov finally broke his silence after a meeting with Colin Powell last month. It was announced that the US would not be allowed use of Turkmenistan's territory for any military purposes and affirmed that the country would only act as a base for humanitarian aid. The decision has been justified on the grounds of the country's neutral status, but analysts point to the president's "special relationship" with the Taliban: the latter refrains from carrying out hostile operations in Turkmenistan in exchange for relatively open borders. For its part, Tajikistan, with its already shaky coalition government, has made no public pledges over the use of its territory or airspace.
Kazakhstan, further displaced geographically, is still close enough to feel the heat. "These kind of inhuman acts [the 11 September events] need the coordinated and effective actions of all countries and international organisations," a Kazak Foreign Ministry statement read. The statement indicated that Almaty is ready to assist the US in pursuing those responsible for last month's outrages. "Kazakhstan is ready to undertake further joint measures needed to combat terrorism," the statement said.
Once again, the Kazak regime's concerns over militant Islamist opposition within its borders is the source of readiness to assist the US. The IWPR quoted Kazak President Nursultan Nazarbaev as saying that "Here in Central Asia, we are all too aware of fundamentalist terrorism imported from neighbouring countries."
For the millions of Muslims who are the citizens of Central Asian republics, there is the concern that the terms of the war will ultimately result in two unfortunate outcomes: that abroad, the Americans and Europeans will be turned against them, and at home, their governments will clamp down even harder.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page