Andijon – the conflict within

My professor at my alma-ater SOAS, Dr. Shirin Akiner, wrote a report on what happened in Andijon back in May. She became quite a controversial figure for doing so. Her 50-pages report has been published, and is available here. Some of her statements can be read in short here (from an Uzbek TV-show). RIA Novosti picked up the story here. While she is widely cited as an ardent supporter of the Uzbek government’s position, she herself says:

. … the interview has been widely reported under the headline ‘Academic supports Karimov’. This is the cry of the ideologue: in other words, ‘you are either with us or against us – and if the latter, your views cannot be taken seriously’. This is the very antithesis of intellectual inquiry.

via Registan

Many contest her views, including a fellow German reporter, Marcus Bensmann. He testified during a Senator’s hearing which Laurence from The Registan attended. First off, this is Laurence’s opinion on the validity of Bensmann’s account:

Marcus Bensmann, a German reporter who had been in Andijan, looked like a Peter Sellars character, wearing funny glasses and hair that resembled a wig. He spoke with a strong German accent. In response to a question from Congressman Pitt, he attacked British scholar Shirin Akiner’s report on the Andijan event. But the only error he mentioned sounded rather minor. Akiner apparently claimed shooting began at 6:20, while Bernsmann said he was in the square when shooting began at 5:30. He condemned Akiner for touring with local officials, but remained oblivious to the irony that he said he had attended the Andijon demonstration at the invitation of some of the organizers. (Either Bensmann or Templer mentioned that someone told them that if Westerners came, they would feel safe, making them, essentially voluntary human shields.)

The most striking statement from Bensmann was that he attended the earlier trials of the Akromists, and had never before been to a trial of Islamists where they did not mention Allah. Yet, these defendants pointed to the Uzbek constitution, the words of President Karimov, and saying they were just businessmen, he said. But Bensmann didn’t try to explain where this new legal strategy had come from–ICG consultants perhaps? He also admitted that when his stringer was arrested, he just went to the Uzbek police and asked for him to be released–which they did. Bensmann then sent him to another country, he said. He said he knew IMU and Chechen gunmen, they were big and strong but the Andijon gunmen were skinny, so did not come from anywhere else. Given Bensmann’s own claims he is on friendly terms with terrorists, he might not want to anger sources by revealing things they wish to keep secret. Again, an unreliable witness.

(my emphasis)

I got in touch with that Marcus Bensmann to tell him about my (very positive) relationship with Dr. Akiner and that I am generally very much in favour of her analytical observations. As there are many conflicting accounts of what has happened, I was very interested his opinion. One should bear in mind that he is a direct witness, he stood on the square when everything sparked off. Here some of the most striking points:

- The square has been full of people. The AP photo taken by Efrim on that day is real.

- Most people on the square came from Andijon; women, children, young and old — they were not armed.

- The square is much more spacious than described by Dr. Akiner. Her accounts of the dimensions are a joke, according to Mr. Bensmann.

- People were on the square voluntarily, they weren’t forced to be there.

- There were no warnings, e.g. megaphones or shots in the air, to drive the people away from the square.

- Around 5:10 p.m., armoured cars drove past the square and the soldiers opened fire on the people standing on the square. Before, there was no attack on security forces from within the mass of people nor from the occupied Hokimat.

- Mr. Bensmann did not see any fighters from Chechnya or Afghanistan.

- According to Mr. Bensmann, Dr. Akiner forged the time of the attack and puts it to 6.30 p.m. However, it is easy to prove her wrong, as e.g. with the journalist’s telephone bill.

- Dr. Akiner writes that she has been led around through Andijon by the deputy of the local hokim and believes that she could lead fearless interviews. That is, according to Mr. Bensmann, absurd.

Mr. Bensmann is very interested, why Dr. Akiner writes such reports. He is reminded of a visit to a Soviet Gulag by Maxim Gorki and his subsequent report: “In June, 1929 Gorky visited Solovki (cleaned up for this occasion) and wrote a positive article about the Gulag camp that already gained ill fame in the West.”

I won’t comment on that. I am just very much looking forward to being in class with Dr. Akiner next year – when we’ll surely debate this topic as well.

IMHO, the truth probably lies somewhere in between these two conflicting accounts, with some bits better reflected by Mr. Bensmann (who is an actual witness). As Nathan has pointed out before, one very important thing I miss in Dr. Akiner’s reports is a call for more transparency on the Uzbek authorities’ side.

5 Comments so far
Leave a comment








Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Name (required)

E-mail (required)

URI

Your Comment