Top

Top

Quoting unnamed Taliban defense ministry sources, the Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) said although there were already several thousand fighters along the border, reinforcements were needed after reports the United States was deploying its troops in Uzbekistan.

``We have deployed our forces there at all important places. This is the question of our self respect and we will never bow before the Americans and will fight to the last,'' AIP quoted a Taliban spokesman as saying.

Uzbekistan's President Islam Karimov on Friday told visiting Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld he would make an air base available for use by U.S. cargo planes, helicopters and troops, but only for humanitarian and rescue operations.

Some 1,000 U.S. soldiers have been sent to Uzbekistan in an unprecedented deployment of American forces in the former Soviet republic.

Top

Как передает корреспондент РИА "Новости", об этом пишет в субботу газета "Вашингтон пост" со ссылкой на неназванных по имени высокопоставленных представителей администрации Джорджа Буша.

По словам этих представителей, первая тысяча американских горных стрелков разместится на базе Ханабад в Узбекистане. Несмотря на официальное заявление Ташкента о том, что с территории Узбекистана не могут наносится удары по Афганистану, США ожидают, что такое согласие узбекских властей в конечном итоге будет получено. Об этом, как утверждает газета, сообщили представители американской администрации.

Раскрыв детали прошедших переговоров между США и Узбекистаном об узбекском участии в операции против террористов, представители администрации Буша сообщили, пишет "Вашингтон пост", что узбекская сторона потребовала от американской "политических и военных гарантий" и что в настоящее время идут также переговоры о "новой экономической помощи" Узбекистану со стороны США.

Top

Top

BACKGROUND: Since independence in late 1991, Uzbekistan has been ranked as a slow reformer. In league tables based on the EBRD transition indices or similar liberalization indicators, it is often linked with Belarus and Turkmenistan as the least liberalized among Soviet successor economies. In 1993, Uzbekistan was the penultimate country to introduce a national currency and was relatively slow in stabilizing the hyperinflation of the early 1990s. Large-scale privatization has been glacially slow. In fall 1996, despite commitments to currency convertibility, the government responded to a balance of payments crisis by imposing draconian exchange controls. Since then, relations with the IMF, never good, have been dismal.

The consequence of the foreign exchange controls was, predictably, the emergence of a large black market premium on foreign currency. In January 2000, the market rate of just over 800 sum per US dollar when the official exchange rate was 140 sum/$. The government has, however begun to seriously address this situation since May 2000, when the official rate was devalued to 233 sum/$ and then allowed to fall steadily. In addition, by extending the use of a commercial rate, introduced in June 2000, to an increasing number of transactions, the premium on many foreign exchange transactions had been cut to less than ten percent by August 2001. The present situation is not the same as having a unified exchange rate and a convertible currency, but the extent of the costs of exchange controls has been substantially reduced and the combined measures are widely viewed as steps towards exchange rate unification and currency convertibility.

Fears that easing of the exchange control regime would be accompanied by backsliding on trade policy have not been realized. Uzbekistan had a fairly liberal trade policy by 1996, but its impact has been masked by the forex controls that could be used discretionarily to protect domestic producers. Tariff reductions in March 2001 indicate that Uzbekistan is serious about trade liberalization, and is preparing to be more active in pursuing its application for WTO membership. The second major policy innovation has been the emphasis on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This was heralded by the 2000 National Human Development Report, prepared by the Center for Economic Research, a well-connected and influential Tashkent think-tank. The theme was taken up in major speeches by President Karimov in 2001 and incorporated in a Presidential Decree which mandated all government departments to consider how to assist SME development and how to ease constraints faced by private enterprises, with the goal of doubling the share of SMEs in total output from around 30% to 60%. Whatever the feasibility of the numerical target or nature of specific measures still to be implemented, the July 24th decree represents a significant policy shift, because emphasis on SMEs implies a more hands-off approach to private enterprise and consequently an easing of the import-substituting industrialization (ISI) strategy pursued since independence. Large enterprises remain state-owned, but the economic costs of favoring the dinosaurs will be reduced and a private sector may grow around them under the new strategy.

IMPLICATIONS: Together these two sets of policy changes show a willingness of the government to accept and reverse previous policy errors, and to do so before the costs have become too high. In crucial respects, Uzbekistan repeated the errors of many developing countries whose import-substitution policies in the 1950s and 1960s were accompanied by exchange controls and other restrictions on enterprise. The difference is that the policies are being reversed before vested interests become powerful enough to resist changes; such policy sclerosis characterized most developing countries from the 1960s to the 1990s, but not South Korea or Taiwan, who managed to reverse their ISI policies after a decade or so.

The pattern of policy reform in Uzbekistan in 2000-01 is not new. In 1992-93 Uzbekistan ignored external advice to stabilize and privatize quickly, and insisted on pursuing a gradual transition strategy. Once convinced of the dangers of hyperinflation and the need for monetary stringency, however, Uzbekistan adopted a classic IMF-style macroeconomic policy in 1994 and succeeded in taming inflation through orthodox means by 1996. Despite introducing export controls and maintaining many price controls in 1992 – again contrary to prevailing external advice – these were gradually lifted during the early and mid 1990s as the government came to recognize their costs. Small-scale and housing privatization proceeded steadily in the early 1990s, even as Uzbekistan gained a reputation as a non-reformer due to slow movement on the more contentious privatization of large enterprises.

The main exception to this cautious learning process has been a stubborn refusal to end state orders for the two main crops, cotton and wheat. A key reason for this is that the implicit taxes, especially on cotton for which farmgate prices are well below world prices, account for a large part of government revenue. The Uzbekistani state has been successful in maintaining its revenues as a share of GDP at a much higher level than have other transition economies. Even if the method of achieving this goal would not meet the approval of many economists due to the long-term negative incentive effects on cotton producers, the upside is a continuing ability to provide core public services.

CONCLUSIONS: The role of the state is part of the explanation of Uzbekistan’s economic success over the last decade. The government has provided competent governance. Even if some policies have been misguided, they have not yet been calamitous. Even if corruption is widespread, it is grease rather than sand in the wheels, and public services continue to function more effectively than in most other transition economies. The relatively successful social security system has provided an effective safety valve through the tough economic times of the 1990s.

Uzbekistan has been the most successful Soviet successor state in terms of output performance over the past decade. This is primarily due to competent governance, maintaining the economic and social infrastructure. The government has made policy errors, but has been willing to learn and to correct them. The foreign exchange and SME policy innovations of 2000-01 continue this tradition and are positive signs for the country’s economic future.

AUTHOR BIO: Richard Pomfret is a Professor of Economics at Adelaide University, Australia. His most recent book, Constructing a Market Economy: Diverse Paths from Central Planning in Asia and Europe, will be published by Edward Elgar in December 2001.

Top

EurasiaNet: What is the mood now in the Ferghana Valley in Central Asia? Has the crisis concerning Afghanistan affected the mood in the valley?

Schoeberlein: It is difficult to assess in a broad way. There hasn't been much time since the September 11 events. But, generally, there is great nervousness in the region about anything that could set off instability. This has tremendously exacerbated the existing tension in the valley. It has also raised concerns connected with the potential reaction to Islam and the underground movement. There is concern that there will be a further crackdown.

EurasiaNet: Have there been any signs that the crackdown is intensifying?

Schoeberlein: I haven't seen any signs of that.

EurasiaNet: Do you think that the crackdown will intensify?

Schoeberlein: It is difficult to say. Speaking about the level of arrests, we don't have good numbers. That makes it difficult to assess trends. All we know is that many people are affected. So, even with a little more time passing, it may be difficult to assess how much might have changed. ... One reason why there is concern is because, until recently, the Uzbek government worried that their moves to crack down would draw international criticism. Just on the eve of these of these events [the September 11 attacks], the US Commission on International Religious Freedom was assessing the question of religious freedom in Uzbekistan. Following these events, it becomes much more difficult to give the Uzbek government a negative rating because this might be seen as interfering with the war effort and military cooperation between the two countries.

EurasiaNet: President Karimov has been supportive of the US anti-terrorism effort, according to accounts in Western news media. However, Uzbek media has been pretty much silent on the topic of US-Uzbek cooperation. What do you make of this apparent discrepancy?

Schoeberlein: The reasons behind this may be connected with the nervousness that the government of Uzbekistan itself feels in terms of the response by its own population. Another very important factor is these very sensitive relationships are still being worked out, and here I mean not only the relationship between the United States and Uzbekistan, but also that between Uzbekistan and Russia. Russia is very nervous about a US presence on the ground in what is considered Moscow's former territory, and its current sphere of influence. I think there are back-room discussions going on now among all these governments to try to work out some arrangement, and, most likely, many of the details need to be resolved. This may be what lies behind US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's visit to Tashkent.

EurasiaNet: Do you see any long-term implications of a US military presence in Uzbekistan?

Schoeberlein: The likelihood of a major operation being based in Uzbekistan is perhaps not great. There are logistical difficulties - Uzbekistan is a long way from an ocean for supply purposes. So even if they got everything that they wanted, US officials might not do that much from Uzbek territory. Nevertheless, it seems that there will be some operations out of Uzbekistan and this has important implications for the future.

One, for the first time the United States will be directly intervening in this region. Even during the 1979-89 Afghan war, the United States never had ground troops in the region, and certainly not in former Soviet territory. Another factor that will come to the forefront is the potential for increased anti-Western feeling in Uzbekistan. Until now, there really hasn't been any anti-Western sentiment, even among the rather extreme forms of Islamism. They [Islamic radicals] have said bad things about the United States, but they haven't really been oriented towards taking hostages or acts of terrorism against US targets. That could change and it precisely this sort of basing arrangement that could become a motivator for the support that Osama bin Laden has received from Muslims elsewhere. Support for bin Laden hasn't come from Central Asians per se, but Central Asia hasn't had American bases either. This could also create considerable tension among the states of Central Asia, at least those hosting US forces, and Russia -if it becomes a permanent feature, as opposed to a temporary operation.

EurasiaNet: Do you get the impression that, given Karimov's rhetoric on US basing, Uzbekistan is making a geopolitical gambit to escape Russia's sphere of influence?

Schoeberlein: What we have seen over the last couple of weeks is just a continuation of the politics that had been going on in the region before September 11. The United States was trying to promote greater sovereignty among the states of Central Asia - in a sense, trying to wean them away from Russian influence. Russia, meanwhile, was very much trying to retain that influence. Various Central Asian states had adopted different positions along these axes. Uzbekistan was the one country that was really quite strident at times in its opposition to Russian influence. For example, the Uzbeks pulled out of the CIS Collective Security Treaty, and around the same time they joined the GUUAM group of countries, which does not include Russia. They have been wanting to assert their independence, and the United States has been keen to promote that trend. The United States has also sometimes encouraged Uzbekistan to see itself as Washington's key strategic ally within the region. So that trend is very much reinforced by the latest events.

The tensions that made it difficult to realize those realignments in the past have not disappeared. The events of September 11 have, perhaps somewhat temporarily, changed the priorities, making it difficult for Russia to speak out strongly against US intervention here. But it doesn't mean that those fundamental problems will disappear.

EurasiaNet: So does the United States' decision to base some operations in Uzbekistan carry with it certain obligations to Uzbekistan, such as a security guarantee?

Schoeberlein: There are various kinds of obligations. One category would be to help the Uzbek battle their own internal security problem, namely the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. There are some hints that this is, in fact, what is involved in the negotiations [between the two countries]. There was a mention of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan in President Bush's speech to congress on September 20. This mention would appear to be connected with the Uzbek government's own desire for the campaign against terrorism to also target the IMU. If this is the case, the United States could become embroiled in an internal conflict within a Central Asian country. Obviously, this would be a dramatic new development.

Another kind of obligation would be supporting the country through its economic woes, providing development assistance on a scale that hasn't been provided in the past. One hopes that there will be an effort to strengthen the economies of these countries. There is also a risk that in the current climate it will be very difficult for the United States to put pressure on governments, such as that in Uzbekistan, to carry out the fundamental reforms that until now have been seen as absolutely essential in making assistance efforts worthwhile.

Top

A cameraman for Associated Press Television News observed an aircraft with U.S. markings flying overhead near the Khanabad air base, about 180 miles southwest of the capital, Tashkent. An Associated Press photographer also saw a similar, large military plane taking off from the base.

A local police officer, who refused to be named, said that three or four planes had already landed. His report could not be confirmed.

Pentagon spokesman Jim Turner refused to comment on Saturday, in keeping with the Pentagon's policy of not discussing troop movements. The Pentagon has said repeatedly since the Sept. 11 attacks that for safety and other reasons it will not discuss details of its campaign to root out Osama bin Laden and supporters. The campaign is expected to make heavy use of U.S. special forces working clandestinely.

There was only indirect evidence suggesting a new military presence. Earlier this past week, reporters could easily walk up to the Khanabad base perimeter and drive straight up to the front gate. But on Saturday, many more Uzbek police and military checkpoints had been erected on roads leading up to the base, with guards brandishing Kalashnikov automatic rifles and turning back all cars without special permission to enter.

Karimov on Friday granted permission for U.S. warplanes and troops to use an Uzbek air base to support President Bush's campaign to root out terrorists in neighboring Afghanistan.

The Army has dispatched 1,000 infantry soldiers skilled at search-and-rescue, humanitarian missions and helicopter assaults.

The deal struck by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Karimov gave the Pentagon a foothold it needs inside Uzbekistan, a former Soviet republic on Afghanistan's northern border.

But it was not clear from Karimov's comments on Friday whether it provided the wide latitude U.S. officials had sought for putting a military squeeze on Afghanistan's Taliban.

``We have offered one airfield in Uzbekistan, with all the surrounding facilities, in order to deploy a limited number of (U.S.) transport airplanes and helicopters,'' Karimov said through an interpreter at a news conference with Rumsfeld.

``I envisage that the equipment will be used for humanitarian operations and for search and rescue operations,'' he said.

Karimov said no U.S. special operations forces - such as Army Rangers or Green Berets who specialize in operating behind enemy lines - would be allowed to operate from Uzbek territory.

``We are not quite ready for this,'' he said when asked why no special forces would be permitted.

U.S. officials said Friday that the U.S. Army was sending about 1,000 infantry soldiers to this former Soviet republic.

The large air base at Khanabad is now home to Uzbekistan's ground-attack Su-24 planes.

Top

More than 10 guns and rocket launchers, which have maximum ranges of 15 to 30 km, were positioned near Hayraton, an Afghan town 20 kilometres east of Termez in Uzbekistan, the source, who is close to Northern Alliance warlord Gen Abdorrashid Dostum, told Interfax.

Top

``We will attack Uzbekistan if any attack is launched from its borders,'' Radio Voice of Shariat quoted officials as telling a rally in Hairaton, near the Uzbek border.

The broadcast was monitored by Reuters in Pakistan.

Uzbekistan's President Islam Karimov on Friday told visiting Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld he would make an air base available for use by U.S. cargo planes, helicopters and troops, but only for humanitarian and rescue operations.

Some 1,000 soldiers of the U.S. army's 10th Mountain Division have been sent to Uzbekistan, on an unprecedented deployment of American forces in a former Soviet republic.

``We are against the usage of our territory for the land operations against Afghanistan and we are against air strikes executed from the territory of Uzbekistan,'' Karimov said after meeting Rumsfeld.

``We do not have any guarantees that tomorrow we will not find ourselves face to face with these terrible terrorist forces and so we do not want to allow ourselves to be used by anyone.''

The country is ideally placed as a base for any U.S. operation in Afghanistan, where the ruling Taliban are sheltering Osama bin Laden, the man Washington blames for last month's attacks on the United States.

Analysts in Washington expect U.S. strategy to include missions by special forces inside Afghanistan, and say Karimov's insistence that Uzbekistan will not be the springboard for such attacks poses problems for military planners.

But they said the definition of ``humanitarian'' and ``rescue'' operations might be quietly broadened with Tashkent's consent.

The former Soviet republic was the jumping-off point for the ill-fated Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

Top

Uzbekistan must join in the fight against terrorism because it has itself suffered from terrorist attacks and must defend the peaceful lives of its citizens. Uzbekistan has agreed to open its air space for the US Air Force, will exchange information and permit US transport aircraft to land at military bases in Uzbekistan for search-and-rescue operations only. No ground operations or bombing raids are to be carried out from Uzbek territory against Afghanistan.

The following is the text of the statement as carried by the Uzbek newspaper Khalq Sozi on 6 October; subheadings insterted editorially.

Statement by President Islam Karimov of the Republic of Uzbekistan

As a result of the terrorist act committed in the USA on 11 September this year a tense situation has developed in our region. In this connection the mass media have recently been carrying various reports about the situation in Afghanistan where terrorist bands are based, and the developments around it.

Along with grounded information, a one-sided approach can be observed in these reports, numerous fabrications and far-fetched falsehoods. The reason for this is first of all that every country and every political force acts in an information space in pursuit of its own interests.

Listening to reports by Russian television channels and the mass media on this issue, one can hear that Uzbekistan has provided a place on its territory for the armed forces of the United States of America and Western countries and that soon these military units will start operating from these bases and attack Afghanistan. Recently some foreign mass media circulated reports saying that sub-divisions of the US 10th mountain rifle division were located in Uzbekistan and that their major aim was to intrude into Afghanistan. Some media sources display computer-enhanced photographs purporting to show aerodromes in Uzbekistan.

Especially in connection with the arrival in Uzbekistan of the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, the foreign mass media made various assumptions and fabrications. The majority of reports, news items and assumptions circulated, based on falsehood, try to present the visit to Uzbekistan of the US defence secretary, who also visited Egypt, Oman and Saudi Arabia, as evidence of an allegedly secret agreement between us. Telephone conversations between the US president and the British prime minister and the president of Uzbekistan are commented upon in the same way, which is further evidence of the same falsehood.

Purpose of media distortions

A question arises: what is the aim of such an information attack and of circulating such fabrications?

First, this should be assessed as a mercenary desire on the part of forces who look at us with envy, who cannot submit to our independent policy and do not accept our actions in protecting the country by our own forces, who still approach us in the old way and cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that Uzbekistan's prestige on the world arena is being enhanced with every passing day.

Second, one can see in the basis of such an information attack a manifestation of a smear campaign, the aim of which is to complicate relations among the states of the region, to set them off against one another and make them lose mutual confidence.

The worst thing is that the concealed aim of these fabrications is to sow panic and alarm in the hearts of people living in the region, representatives of various nationalities and religions, and to undermine their confidence in the morrow. Indeed, if a person listens day after day to such fabrications, he naturally becomes worried and suffers and asks himself what is going to happen with our peaceful life and the future of children.

Unfortunately, our press and TV are failing to bring the necessary information to our people in a timely way and are giving no explanation of this issue, and as a result it is difficult for the public to understand which reports of the foreign media are truthful and which are false. Our press shows its inexperience in such complicated situations.

Third, the initiators of that information attack, who are pursuing first of all their own ideological and egoistic interests, are willy-nilly trying to confuse the forces and people who are uniting in the name of the fight against terrorism, the plague of the 21st century, and to sow differences and suspicion among them.

Fourth, Today it is also becoming clear that some states and political forces are bombastically declaring that they are joining the fight against terrorist groups and terrorism as a whole, and are mobilizing all their forces and opportunities for that purpose. While in reality, unfortunately, they are getting involved in political games and bargaining around the vital issue which affects the destinies of all peoples and regions. To be frank, some politicians and statesmen are busy with a search for the solution of other problems: namely, the influence of which forces and states will prevail in the new government which will come to power in Afghanistan.

International fight against terrorism

Of course, we all understand that after the barbaric and tragic terrorist acts in the USA the situation in the world is sharply changing. The American government has declared a merciless war to root out terrorism and against the extremist centres, irrespective of the region they are located in, which are supporting the terrorists and supplying them with money, weapons and destructive ideology for carrying out subversive activities and bandit attacks.

Today we all have to clarify one truth: naturally, not a single person, not a single state can stay aloof from the fight to root out that evil which threatens the whole of mankind.

This truth is confirmed by the fact that over 100 countries of the world have expressed their determination and firm position on this issue. It is noteworthy that various countries, irrespective of their political systems or views, including leading Arab and Muslim countries, are today joining the coalition being formed to fight terrorism. Undoubtedly, the position of the world community, uniting these forces and states, will strengthen further and this fight and these actions will be waged to the end.

The leaders of strong states, in particular, the USA and Britain, specifically point out that this fight is not aimed against Islamic states, Islamic religion, the people of Afghanistan or the Taleban movement, that its real aim is to wholly eliminate the destructive machine of terrorism across the world. They say repeatedly that their aim is to wipe out terrorism, which causes misfortune to millions of innocent people, wipe it out of the life of the public and the peoples of the world.

According to a document recently signed by the US president to render material aid, primarily food aid, to the long-suffering Afghan people, 320m dollars were allocated which shows that the fight against terrorism is not directed against the Afghan people and their interests.

Uzbekistan's position

Naturally, today everybody is interested in the following question: what is the attitude of Uzbekistan to these events, what is the role and contribution of Uzbekistan to this fight.

First of all I must say that the people of Uzbekistan, people living here, know well from their own experience the tragic consequences of terrorism. If the developments of 11 September opened the eyes of many states and peoples, we in our life have much earlier faced the monstrous essence of terrorism. Is it possible to forget the sufferings of our people caused by terrorism, the death of young people, full of vital strength and energy, who were its victims? Is it possible to forget the slaughter committed by the bandit groups in [eastern] Andizhan and Namangan Regions? Or to forget the subversive activities of the terrorist groups who for the last two or three years have violated our borders and intruded into the mountainous areas of [southern] Surkhandarya and Tashkent Regions, to forget that for several months they violated people's peaceful life or that many innocent people were killed by them?

Is it possible to look on with indifference as we see that thousands and thousands of young people are dying in the world because of narcotic substances, which are one of the major income sources of the extremist groups?

Not always can we make public certain information related to such bandit groups, about their dirty intentions, so as to preserve the peaceful life of the population and protect mothers, women and children.

Not only today, but also earlier, from the moment I became head of state, I have always considered it my duty to call upon my fellow countrymen to be vigilant and to repeat that there is a threat of terrorism and of dark forces, that these forces, accumulating arms and strength, are ready any minute to go into action achieve their dirty intentions, and to constantly repeat that this ugly force is at our door.

I would like to say: once there is such a threat around us, we will take all necessary measures to preserve the country's independence and our people's life.

In the summer months of this year we held military exercises of our Armed Forces in Saryassiya [southern Uzbekistan, on border with Tajikistan], since we know that malicious forces, who are planning to strike secretly at night, are roaming about our borders.

It is no secret for us also that terrorists are based in military camps in Mazar-e Sharif, or Takhar, Konduz or Kabul, Kandahar or Jalalabad [Afghanistan]. They are sheltered by the Taleban, have made murder their profession, are sharpening their teeth and showing their grinning teeth from the other side of the Khayraton bridge [Uzbek-Afghanistan].

Does that not indicate clearly that the inveterate terrorist Juma Namangoniy is one of the Taleban army commanders, that over 400 militants from Central Asia are fighting with the forces waging war against the Northern Alliance?

Drawing conclusions from what has been said, we clearly understand that the activities of those malicious forces which are trying to turn away Uzbekistan from the chosen way and disrupt the peaceful life of our people depend on aid from the extremist centres behind them. Suppose that tomorrow those malicious forces win in Afghanistan. Who will guarantee that they will not encroach on Uzbekistan? Everyone who lives in this sacred land should ask himself this question and should go carefully into the question and answer it decently.

Self-reliance and international cooperation

Now let us imagine: who will help us solve the problem if tomorrow someone aggressively invades our land?

It is beyond doubt that we first of all have to rely on our own strength, our own armed forces and the confidence and firm spirit of our people. Today, I, as president, looking into the open faces of our fellow countrymen, want to repeat the truth pertaining to us all: we first of all must rely on our own strength.

But, if the terrorist groups coming out against us have behind them centres with great potential, great forces and means, if some states secretly aid them, if that flow does not stop, will we be able to oppose alone that dreadful and organized force? Think for yourselves: how long will we be able to confront that disaster individually? Although this is difficult, I will say: how long will that enemy threat, that disaster hang over our threshold as a terrible danger? How many casualties do we have to face along that fight? How much money and resources intended for building the free and good life of our people must we spend?

These are certainly natural questions.

Therefore it must be clear to us all that we need to join the states showing firmness in the fight against international terrorism anding inflexibly on this road, must heir guarantees on issues of the security and inviolability of our borders and rely on their support. How will others in the world arena take us if Uzbekistan says "no, it is not our business, leave us alone" at a moment when the world community and all progressive forces of mankind are fighting against that hated phenomenon and expressing their readiness to liquidate terrorism? Is it not logical that our country, which has seriously suffered from terrorism and personally experienced its ruinous impact, which as it grows stronger turns into a constant threat, that our country should stay together with strong states and the world community which has declared war against that terrible evil?

Otherwise, are we not going in the future to remain face-to-face with world terrorism, with criminal elements who have fled Uzbekistan, movements which are fed by extremist centres? Who will then listen to our voice and our appeal?

This is also a complicated question to which we must find an answer.

For two or three years already our people have been suffering disasters from cut-throat terrorists. How many of our sons have perished in the fight against them? Who is helping us in those hard times? What is the use of speaking about help, we even see that some forces and big states are playing political "games" with the bandit group calling itself the "Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan".

It is improper to speak about this now, but this is the true situation, the real state of affairs.

Cooperation with USA

Today I must openly say that we are holding negotiations with the leadership of the USA, with official representatives of that country, about a joint fight against international terrorism. Yes, such talks are being conducted, and no one denies this. But not a single document on the issue has been signed yet.

At present we are working on a legal document which will serve as the basis for such cooperation. The document, along with mutual obligations, should give specific mutual guarantees. It should be noted that our principled approach on the issue was precisely expressed in a telephone conversation with the US president, George Bush, and in today's conversation with Defence Secretary Mr Rumsfeld.

Namely, our position is as follows:

1. Our country gives air space to the US Air Force.

2. Information exchange is to be organized between the security bodies of the two countries.

3. US transport aircraft and helicopters are to be permitted to land at a military aerodromes on the territory of Uzbekistan. The relevant conditions are to be created for the work of the American specialists and technical workers servicing these aircraft and helicopters. We are not giving that aerodrome fully to them. Our military aircraft will also remain there.

4. The USA's aircraft and helicopters will only be used for humanitarian purposes and to carry out search-and-rescue operations. They are insignificant in number and include only transport and cargo planes and helicopters.

We also express our principled approach on two important issues: 1. It is not admissible for military ground operations to be carried out against Afghanistan from the territory of Uzbekistan.

2. It is not allowed to carry out bombing assault operations from the territory of our country.

This is our stance on the participation in the fight against international terrorism.

I think this approach is in line with the interests of our state and international legal norms.

Top

But in hedging Friday's offer to visiting Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld by insisting the Americans use the base only for humanitarian and rescue missions, President Islam Karimov indicated just how far he fears angering militant Islam might pose a threat to his own authoritarian rule.

``We are against the usage of our territory for the land operations against Afghanistan and we are against air strikes executed from the territory of Uzbekistan,'' Karimov told reporters after meeting Rumsfeld in Tashkent.

``We do not have any guarantees that tomorrow we will not find ourselves face to face with these terrible terrorist forces and so we do not want to allow ourselves to be used by anyone.''

The country is ideally placed as a base for any U.S. operation against Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, who are sheltering Osama bin Laden, the man Washington blames for last month's attacks on the United States. Uzbekistan was the jumping-off point for the ill-fated Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

Karimov told Rumsfeld of his fears of Islamic radicalism, against which he has imposed a heavy security crackdown in the country he first ruled as the Communist party leader of the then-Soviet republic.

His concern is that helping attack a Muslim neighbor may fuel tensions with domestic opponents even as it brings gratitude from the United States that may give Central Asia's strongest power more leeway in strained dealings with Moscow.

Karimov, who promotes a state-sponsored form of Islam devoid of political radicalism, survived a series of bomb attacks in 1999 that he said were an assassination attempt by the shadowy Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, bent on setting up an Islamic state in the country of 25 million.

TAJIK LESSONS

The lessons of his smaller, poorer former Soviet neighbor, Tajikistan, are not lost on him. It has been left devastated by a civil war between secular and Islamic forces.

On Friday, neighboring Tajikistan arrested two members of a banned Islamic group, highlighting the region's sensitivities.

The two were members of the Khizbi Takhrir movement, which also operates in Uzbekistan. A Tajik Interior Ministry source said they had distributed leaflets calling for an Islamic state.

Soviet Communists brutally repressed Islam as they established their atheistic rule across the Central Asian empire of the former Russian Czars, insulating the region for a while from Islamic militancy in its southern neighbors Iran and Afghanistan.

But independence from Moscow in 1991 changed all that.

Religious revival was felt across the region, especially in Uzbekistan -- home to ancient centers of Islam in Bokhara and Samarkand -- as well as in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.

Tajikistan was ravaged by civil war from 1992 to 1997 between a pro-Moscow secular government and an Islamic opposition.

AUTHORITARIAN STATE

Karimov fears Uzbekistan could go the same way, and has ruthlessly clamped down on Islamic groups. His is one of the most authoritarian governments in the former Soviet Union.

In 1999 and 2000, in the brief summer period when mountain passes are free from snow, armed groups which Karimov says were funded from Afghanistan and based in Tajikistan made frequent raids on Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, killing dozens of troops.

In July the State Department expressed concern over the death in police custody of opposition figure Shavruk Rozimuradov. Washington has frequently voiced worries about human rights with the country now offering it support.

Though tight control of the media means opposition to Karimov rarely gets a public airing, the conditions he has placed on backing for the U.S. coalition reflect the difficult domestic balancing act he faces in dealing with Islam.

Top