BACKGROUND: On July 15th it was announced that the United States would impose a punitive blockage of American financial assistance in response to Uzbekistan’s poor human rights record. Approximately $18 million are slated to be withheld from an annual aid package that by some estimates exceeds $500 million per year. The $18 million in military and economic assistance would exclude monies directed towards the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, as well as American funding for pro-democracy groups and health care programs. America’s moves were prompted by Uzbekistan’s fight against militant religious terrorist organizations such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HT)—groups viewed as al-Qaeda subsidiaries. While the suspension of certain aid monies has been linked to the Tashkent government’s human right’s record, Uzbekistan has been very active in combating violent Islamist extremism. It is important to note that the Uzbek fight against terrorism is coupled with large-scale governmental efforts to foster moderate Islam. Tashkent has recently engaged in extensive efforts to translate and make available non-violent and uncorrupted interpretations of Islam, the Holy Qur’an, and the Hadith. Islamic education is now available that stress the proper teachings of a faith that emphasizes coexistence and nonviolence. These underreported actions have been essential to educate a populace that has historically had little religious training. It has also been vital to combating the corruptions of Islam promulgated by the IMU and HT that have been used to justify violence. In this respect, Uzbekistan has taken considerable steps to counter the subversive teachings of the IMU and HT. Uzbek authorities have gone to great lengths to acknowledge that Islam can peacefully coexist alongside a secular state. They stress that Uzbek nationals are not punished for their beliefs, but rather for attempts to destroy the constitutional nature of the state. Towards this end, it has been noted that over 1,300 prisoners have repented for their actions, and claimed that they chose the wrong path. Those that have not been linked to violent actions have been subjected to lesser punishments, and as indicated above, many have been released.

IMPLICATIONS: In essence, the suspension of US assistance carries little impact for Tashkent, or the U.S.-Uzbek relationship. America’s ties with Uzbekistan remain strong, and the financial suspension represents what one regional observer termed a ‘diplomatic slap on the wrist.’ One senior Uzbek official confided directly that Tashkent can do without Washington’s money because Uzbekistan is a strong nation locked in a mortal struggle with terrorist organizations bent upon destroying the Uzbek state. When considered in these terms, for Uzbek national security officials, to forgo a minor foreign aid package is well worth the cost when the alternative is interpreted as enabling the disintegration of the state. Officials involved in Uzbekistan’s fight against the IMU and HT have linked Tashkent’s battles to Washington’s global war. Uzbek security officials have noted that HT has moved into Kyrgyz territory in the Fergana valley, and that the organization continues to proselytize and incite its adherents to violence. HT sanctuaries have been identified in Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Meanwhile it is now understood that the IMU continues to operate a clandestine network within Uzbekistan, despite efforts to eradicate the movement. Although both groups operate independently of each other, general trends have been identified linking the leaderships of the IMU and HT; however those ties do not extend to the operational level. At this level, Uzbek security forces have indicated that proscribed leaflets, ammunition, and weapons have been found in the homes of HT suspects, and that intelligence developed at the scene of last spring’s terror offensive has implicated HT. In battling the finances of HT, it has been noted that individual persons contribute to individual cells, thereby making each cell financially and operationally independent of the leadership. These funds pay for leaflet printing, safe houses, and other expenses. As result, the battle to shut down terrorist financing is much more difficult. That said, Uzbek and American counterterrorism officials have expressed confidence that advancements have been made to dry-up terrorist financing.

CONCLUSIONS: Tashkent will remain a vital ally of Washington in its global war on terrorism. The United States publicly maintains at least four significant military bases in Uzbekistan located at Khanabad, Tuzel, Kokaida, and Chirchik. Over 300 thousand tons of humanitarian assistance have flowed through Uzbekistan to Afghanistan since the start of Operation Enduring Freedom. This aid has been complemented by Uzbek supplies of electricity and liquefied natural gas to its southern neighbor. In fact, since 2000 the U.S. Central Command and Central Intelligence Agency have covertly operated Predator UAV drones over Afghanistan targeting Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network. Intelligence collected from UAV platforms was essential in developing a picture of al-Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan. The victory over the Taliban in war in Afghanistan would not have been possible without Uzbek support and cooperation. American basing rights, over flightpermission, and search-and-rescue cooperation have proved vital to U.S. forces deployed in the theater. Moreover, as the Pentagon continues to reconfigure its defense posture to counter future threats, basing rights in countries such as Uzbekistan will not only prove essential, but will increase in pace, size, and duration. In order to project American military force into what the American defense establishment has termed the new ‘arc of instability’, Washington will accelerate its reliance upon key regional allies such as Tashkent. The current diplomatic episode over human rights was a long time coming, yet will pass quickly. Washington is keen to maintain its relationship with Tashkent, and will undoubtedly find additional ways in which to influence the behaviors of its ally. While it may give little comfort to human rights organizations that are eager for a more forceful global and universal American policy, it is simply a fact of circumstance that in this case, Uzbekistan is an ally with which Washington will seek to work behind the scenes.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Christopher Boucek is Deputy Director of the Homeland Security & Resilience Department at the Royal United Services Institute in London, and editor of RUSI/Jane’s Homeland Security & Resilience Monitor.