Uzbekistan takes the world stage
Brian M Downing
The world will not mourn the passing of Uzbekistan’s despotic ruler Islam Karimov. Foreign powers, however, will watch anxiously as a successor takes power in Tashkent, or tries to. Authoritarian rule often entails difficult a succession process, as with Stalin and Brezhnev. So it likely will be with the old communist party boss of Uzbekistan. The delay in announcing his death suggests uncertainty at the top.
Some powers will do more than watch the power transition. And some are much better positioned to influence events inside the landlocked Central Asian country than the United States is.
Succession
The next ruler will be either a member of Karimov’s family, his security apparatus, or his council of ministers. There could be infighting between these groups that will paralyze the state and open the door to turmoil. Russia and China have considerable influence in the country as they share security concerns and development plans for Central Asia.
Karimov, having declared independence from the Soviet Union when the effort to oust Gorbachev failed, deftly avoided over-dependence on the new Russian rulers. However, Uzbekistan’s oil and gas feed into the Russian pipeline network and its security apparatus has ties to and affinities with those of Vladimir Putin. He will seek to expedite the process and help someone to his liking take power.
Elements in Uzbekistan’s state and society might prefer a path toward reform, if only to reduce the likelihood of another murderous, capricious autocrat. However, Karimov saw that there were no political parties and little in the way of civil society. American influence is slight and Washington wants stability, not unpredictable change – there’s enough of that in the world. The optimal outcome is an easing of harsh, arbitrary rule. Nothing more substantive, nothing in line with western principles.
Islamist militancy
Washington and Moscow are at odds in Eastern Europe and the Middle East but have common interests, to some extent, in Central Asia – especially in Afghanistan. The spread of Islamist militancy into Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan is a distant concern to the US; Russia sees it as a dire threat to its southern periphery and Islamic enclaves in Russia itself.
The Islamist Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) once operated in parts of all three ‘Stans before being exiled to Afghanistan (oddly, with Russian help), where they aided the Taliban against the Northern Alliance before their defeat in 2001. The IMU now operates with al Qaeda in eastern Afghanistan, where ISIL is gathering support. Instability in Uzbekistan could lead to the IMU’s return, perhaps flying ISIL’s black flags.
The IMU’s numbers are few, but it will find willing recruits in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan. All three have young populations facing uncertain prospects, sharp competition for water and other resources, and antagonisms between disparate ethnic groups. Islamist militancy is already on the rise in Tajikistan, where the security chief rather embarrassingly defected to ISIL last year.
Afghan logistics
American eyes will be on the continued reliability of Uzbekistan as a supply route into Afghanistan, where a Taliban offensive is challenging three or more provinces, including Kunduz which borders Uzbekistan.
One of the two principal supply routes comes through Pakistan. The other begins, rather improbably, in Latvia and wends through Russia and Kazakhstan before entering Uzbekistan then Afghanistan. Instability in Uzbekistan, and Taliban success in Kunduz, will imperil the supply system.
The Taliban are besieging the capital of Helmand province in the south, launching drives around Kabul, and seizing districts in Kunduz. That northern province is of significance not only for logistical reasons, but also for its Pashtun population (rare in the north) and its oil fields, which the Taliban would like to seize for revenue and prestige in negotiations.
Washington will never admit to abandoning the effort to promote democracy in the world, but events in the Middle East must surely have brought behind-the-doors reappraisal. Stability in Uzbekistan is paramount in Washington – perhaps so much so that Washington might prefer an iron fist in Tashkent to an even hand.
Copyright 2016 Brian M Downing
Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who has written for outlets across the political spectrum. He studied at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago, and did post-graduate work at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs.