The leaders of the Central Asian state of Uzbekistan have few palatable options that will enable them both to calm unrest fueled by economics and radical Islam and retain political control, experts said.
Social discontent and anti-government protests have been spreading below the media radar for the past two years, while entrenched government corruption, economic mismanagement and a one-track response of force to suppress political and economic opposition are beyond correction, they added.
It's a problem, too, for both Moscow and Washington, which have backed the Uzbek regime.
"This government is in a dead-end of its own making," said David Lewis, an analyst for Central Asia working in Bishkek for the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, an independent conflict prevention organization.
"It is really hard to see an optimistic outcome here," he said, adding that even a last-ditch attempt to implement economic freedoms that have been stymied for years could spin out of control, undermining the leadership's hold on power as it did in the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.
"My money would be on a widening of the protests to different parts of the country. And when you get a large amount of people on the streets, the default option of the government is going to be repression. They do not have many other mechanisms in their repertoire," Lewis said.
Anti-government sentiment, rooted in economics and social justice concerns but focused by a politically-engaged, contemporary strand of the Islamic faith, presents a challenge not just to President Islam Karimov but also to the US and Russia, both present in the country.
The US got the nod both from Karimov and Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2001 to open an air base in Uzbekistan for operations to remove the fundamentalist Islamic Taliban regime in neighboring Afghanistan in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.
And Washington, keen to keep the military foothold in the turbulent Central Asian region that it acquired then, has backed the hardline Karimov regime and in large measure turned a blind eye to documented, sweeping and extreme abuses of human rights in the former Soviet republic.
"The United States is going to face some very difficult choices," Lewis said. "So far, US statements have been very cautious. But when people start seeing on television the crackdowns by security forces trained by the United States, the pressure to break with Karimov will be high."
Moscow, also unstinting in its support of Karimov and fearful of a spread of Islamic militancy on its borders along with a surge of refugees from Central Asia into Russia, will also be compelled to reassess its Uzbekistan policy as the unrest there gains in strength.
"In Uzbekistan's part of the Ferghana Valley, there is a concentration of extreme poverty, even hunger, and a strong Islamic tradition which has recently turned aggressive," said Alexei Malashenko, an analyst with the Carnegie Moscow Center.
Economic decline, unemployment, deep corruption, a general feeling of powerlessness to affect change and the strengthening of underground religious movements after the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union are all objective factors that have combined to strengthen radical Islam, he said.
"Karimov ... provoked these people," Malashenko said. "He arrested not only the Islamist leaders, but their wives. No one likes this. Karimov is guilty."
Experts agreed that Karimov and the "kleptocracy" that surrounds him in the government missed opportunities to develop his country's economy that were presented in the past few years, notably by the US when it opened the air base, and that it was now too late to recover them.
"Whichever scenario you put in front of you it doesn't look good for Karimov," Lewis said.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval