However, when on May 13, hundreds of unarmed civilians were killed by security forces in Andijan, the fourth biggest city in Uzbekistan, the Bush administration kept quiet for three days before it expressed its concern.

It was Britain's Foreign Secretary who was one of the first leaders of the Western countries to criticise the massacre of women and children in Andijan. The Uzbek Foreign Ministry did not like it and on May 16 stated: "The British government's statement that government troops were involved in shooting people is absolutely groundless and rash."

After considerable pressure on the Bush administration, a spokesperson of the State Department finally came out on May 17 with a statement that the Uzbekistan government "should exercise restraint." The Secretary of State after four days urged the Uzbek government to carry out political changes to head off future unrest. The statement was mild compared to that directed to other countries.

Delayed US response
Why did the same US that invariably jumps to criticise human rights violations in other countries keep mum in the case of Uzbekistan? Some of the reasons deserve mention.

Many political observers believe that the US policy of democratisation in the world seems nothing but a ploy to hide their blunder in waging an unprovoked war on Iraq and the current on-going debilitating impact on Iraq. They argue that the Bush administration picks and chooses a country for human rights violations for its strategic interests. In October 2004, the US Congress passed the Belarus Democracy Act designed to foment anti-government opposition in that country.

If a dictator of a country is willing to dance to the tune of the Bush administration, it does not say anything about the dictator's record of oppression and suppression of the democratic rights of his people. President Karimov of Uzbekistan is reportedly much worse than President Lukashenko of the Republic of Belarus in suppressing people's rights. However, there is no similar legislation by the US Congress against the regime of Uzbekistan.

Uzbekistan's president for 14 years, Islam Karimov, and President George Bush are good friends. The relationship flourished in March 2002 when the US and Uzbekistan signed a Declaration of Strategic Partnership. The Karimov regime is pivotal to the US strategic policy in the region.

Uzbekistan provides home to a US military base in the southern tip of Uzbekistan, just near the border of Afghanistan, and is regarded as a geo-political bulwark in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Furthermore, the US presence in the backyard of Russia acts to contain Russian and Chinese influence in the region.

Last year the nature of cooperation of the Uzbek regime was revealed by the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray. Ambassador Murray dared to expose the practice of delivering terror suspects from Iraq and Afghanistan by the US-led coalition forces to Uzbekistan for interrogation and torture. It has been the most convenient way for the Bush administration to inflict torture on suspected terrorists by a third country on their behalf. The Tony Blair government recalled the ambassador to headquarters because of his criticism against the Uzbek regime.

Political observers believe that it does not matter to the Bush administration whether President Karimov of Uzbekistan commits a massacre of his own people or not, so long as the regime further advances US strategic interests. According to the latest US Department of State report, Washington "values as a stable moderate force in a turbulent region." The expression "moderate" is intriguing and misplaced because Karimov's rule brought not only oppression of democratic rights of people but also abysmal poverty and terrible living conditions.

Cause of popular revolt
From the reports in media, it all started on May 12 in Andijan, where people had been protesting peacefully outside a city court for four months over a trial of 23 local businessmen who are leaders of charitable organisations, which serve as the only source of welfare for the population in the Ferghana Valley of Uzbekistan. The arrested persons are neither Islamic militants nor are subversive to the regime, according to the protestors. It is claimed that they are being unfairly put on trial. On that day some of the protesters were arrested and taken to the city's jail.

Next day, several thousand people including women and children gathered in the city's main square. Most demonstrators were ordinary people and the atmosphere was calm. They were holding a meeting to protest the unfair trial. Roads to the city centre were blocked and protesters controlled the area.

What is remarkable is that the protesters did not even try to solicit support from the Bush administration. They knew that it would be a futile exercise given the special relationship between Karimov and Bush. They asked for help from Russia. In the end, Russia decided not to do anything. Political analysts believe that Russia is not prepared to annoy the US at this stage by supporting the popular rebellion.

The security forces received orders in the afternoon of May 13 to "eliminate" the group that meanwhile seized the government building. The security forces began shooting at the crowd. One woman told BBC: "We don't know what happened to us. All of a sudden these heavy armoured vehicles appeared. One helicopter was flying above. Can you imagine they were shooting at us from above, with our children." Another woman reportedly said: "I have got three children. I was trying to cover them up. I was crying: Take my life [but] don't shoot my children."

What the security forces did is unthinkable. The regime opted for a military solution and, according to some reports, massacred at least seven hundred and forty five (745) men, women, and children. An Uzbek opposition group said that the dead bodies were lying in mosques on the day of the massacre. It is reported that the president himself supervised the "pacification" effort and referred to the scores of dead as "criminals" -- although their numbers included women and children.

The regime reportedly concocted a story that the security forces did not shoot, but the Islamic militants fired the bullets. This story has been contradicted by the eye-witnesses.

Only on May 17, under pressure, did the Karimov regime for the first time admit that 169 people died in Andijan because Uzbek refugees in Kyrgyzstan who fled from Andijan spoke to international media, saying that at least 500 innocent people were killed by the regime. Many of the fleeing hundreds of refugees were also shot at and killed. One refugee told BBC: "We are fed up, we do not need such a state. We won't go back to Andijan. Even if Kyrgyzstan shoots us dead here, we'll stay here. But we won't go back to Andijan. We will die for our children, to save them."

A very controlled tour of foreign diplomats was undertaken on May 18 under pressure by the Uzbek government. The diplomats were not allowed to speak to ordinary people. BBC camerman Sanjay Ganguli summed up aptly: ""We saw pretty much what they wanted us to see." The security forces were not letting people get anywhere near diplomats and the city wore a deserted look, only tanks and heavily armed soldiers in Andijan. Currently there is a demand from international community that an independent inquiry should be held as to the cause of the massacre.

Conclusion
What is the lesson we learn from the Uzbekistan's revolt? When people cannot exercise their constitutional rights of free association, freedom of speech and thought, they turn traditionally to other avenues. In a country of 25 million people, when people were in a back-to-the-wall situation, they came out to protest the oppressive nature of their government in peaceful demonstrations on May 13 in Andijan.

Using massive force, President Karimov survived this time. If the regime does not listen to their people, it is likely that the next rebellion will come in the form of a full-blown revolution, as it occurred in Kyrgyzstan.

Both the US and Russia must think over what has occurred in Andijan and coax the Uzbek regime to introduce openness and reforms in the country. Meanwhile, the credibility of the democratisation policy of the Bush administration has come under sharp scrutiny in Uzbekistan, and human rights organisations all over the world are watching to see how the Bush administration responds to the horrible massacre in Andijan.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.