Last Monday, the UN Council for Human Rights (established this summer to replace the former Committee for Human Rights) decided to discuss human rights abuses in Uzbekistan behind the closed doors. So as not to make a fuss.

When the Uzbek authorities massacred hundreds of unarmed demonstrators in Andijan in May 2005, general public demanded an open discussion of the situation in Uzbekistan from the UN. Louise Arbour, the UN Supreme Commissar for Human Rights, called for "a public procedure of investigation."

The regime of President Islam Karimov, former first secretary of the Central Committee of the Uzbek Communist Party, responded to the accusations in a typically Soviet manner. The memorandum forwarded to the UN general secretary in June 2006 denied problems with human rights in Uzbekistan and branded international community's concerns as "groundless". And since everything was fine and dandy with human rights, international observers had no business in Uzbekistan. That was why not even Michelle Picard, an independent expert the Committee for Human Rights had appointed as the investigator, was permitted to enter Uzbekistan.

Helpless in the matter of the Andijan investigation, the UN could have arranged public debates within the framework of its Council for Human Rights. After all, Comrade Karimov dictates his will to Tashkent, not Geneva. Regretfully, however, even that never happened which is hardly surprising. It is countries like China, Algeria, Russia, Azerbaijan, and Cuba that defend "high standards in the sphere of human rights" in the UN Council for Human Rights.

"The Council's decision is a signal that a regime may arrange a massacre and refuse to cooperate with the international community without fear of any serious consequences. This approach is unacceptable," Hollie Kartner, Director of Human Rights Watch for Europe and Central Asia, said.

Staffed with representatives of dictatorships, the UN Council for Human Rights it no better than its predecessor, the Committee which was disbanded as absolutely ineffective and unnecessary.

Unlike the UN, the European Union comprises democratic countries where opinion of public organizations is taken into account. Worried by energy problems, the European Union drafted a provisional trade accord with Turkmenistan (a document that would have ensured deliveries of Turkmen gas to Europe). EU committees for foreign affairs and international trade endorsed the document this March. Its ratification by the European Parliament would have been the last step.

President Saparmurat Niyazov, former first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Turkmenistan, would have gotten away with it but for the murder of RL correspondent Ogulsapar Muradova in jail this September (see Novaya Gazeta, No 75, Human Rights and Gas). The matter became public knowledge. Organizations of journalists and human rights activists protested. Unlike the UN, the European Union could not ignore the public outcry.

The European Parliament voted against the provisional trade accord on October 3. The Committee for International Trade decided to table the whole matter pending improvement of the situation with human rights in Turkmenistan. The European Parliament urged Ashkhabad to release all political prisoners, stop interfering with non-governmental organizations, and permit international observers and a Red Cross delegation to come to Turkmenistan.

Novaya Gazeta, October 9, 2006, p. 13

© Translated by Ferghana.Ru