Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Unraveling the Mystery of the Tashkent Bombings: Theories and Implications

2000; George Washington University; Volume: 8; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

1940-4603

Abdumannob Polat, Nickolai Butkevich,

Nuclear Issues and Defense

Although the international community has given some attention to Islamic extremism in Uzbekistan and to Uzbek president Islam Karimov's latest crackdown on the religious opposition in his country, the explosions that rocked Tashkent in February 1999 have never been adequately explained. In this article, we analyze several theories related to the terrorist attack, its exploitation by the Uzbek government to justify massive human rights abuses, and its meaning in the context of the threat of Islamic extremism in Uzbekistan. We conclude with some policy recommendations for the U.S. government on how to deal with this strategically located country. The Explosions in Tashkent On 16 February 1999, six bombs exploded in Tashkent, killing sixteen people and injuring more than one hundred. The attack, which targeted key government buildings, called the stability of the nation into question for the first time. Two hours after the explosions, before an investigation had been started or any arrests made, President Karimov and the heads of the Uzbek security service and police announced that Islamic militants were responsible. They soon named militant Islamic leaders in exile, including the political head of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), Tohir Yoldosh, and its military commander, Juma Namangoni, as the masterminds behind the explosions. Less than two weeks later, the Uzbek authorities expanded their list of suspects to include Muhammad Solih, leader of the opposition Erk (Freedom) Party, who has lived in exile since 1993. All three men were accused of conspiring to forcibly take over the government. The IMU responded by calling for the Uzbek government to be overthrown and for government officials to be put on trial. In August 1999, it declared jihad (holy war) against the Uzbek government. In summer 1999, IMU fighters invaded the Batken area in south Kyrgyzstan, aiming to reach Uzbek territory and set off an Islamic revolt there (described in further detail below). The IMU and another radical Islamic group, Hizbi-Ut-Tahrir (Party of Freedom),(1) claimed that Karimov is a Jew and an enemy of Islam.(2) On 5 August 2000, clashes between Uzbek government forces and Islamic fighters in mountainous areas of southern Uzbekistan resulted in about fifteen reported deaths and many more casualties. The IMU claimed responsibility for the operation. The same day, dozens of armed militants, supposedly also IMU fighters, invaded Batken area in southern Kyrgyzstan, marking what could be the beginning of new stage in the conflict between Uzbek authorities and Islamic fighters. A week later, fighting occurred in mountainous area sixty miles from the capital city of Tashkent. In Uzbekistan, official reports said that government troops lost at least twenty people; Kyrgyzstan reported thirty deaths. There have been no credible reports on losses among Islamic fighters. The 1999 explosions in Tashkent occurred over period of one and half hours, in several locations in downtown Tashkent. According to official information, four or five armed men drove car packed with explosives to the main entrance of the Cabinet of Ministers building few minutes before the expected arrival of Karimov to speak before the country's top leadership.(3) The bombers parked the car there and escaped, after which the bomb went off. Several minutes earlier, reports indicate, another car explosion and shootout had already occurred hundred meters away, distracting the guards. According to the official version, the terrorists fled the scene of the attack,(4) and some were able to leave Uzbekistan (downtown Tashkent is just twelve to fourteen miles from the Uzbek-Kazakh border). The authorities responded by arresting hundreds of individuals, without providing sufficient evidence by international norms. In most cases, the only evidence to support the charges was confessions and other forms of testimony. …