By now most of
the major media outlets have spelled out with a great deal of inaccuracy what
“exactly” happened in the eastern Uzbek town of Andijan on May 13: How many got
killed and who killed them. Led by the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw,
the world media has accused the much maligned Uzbekistan President Islam
Karimov of yet another bloody and ruthless suppression of “public dissent.”
But, not much has been heard about who the players really are, and what their
end objective is.
Although all
the tiles of this jigsaw puzzle have not been put in place, it is evident that
the answers to these questions can only be found in London, Birmingham,
Bradford, and Liverpool. The old British colonial establishment, with the
former intelligence officer Bernard Lewis as its mentor, seems to have
activated another course of action that can bring endless bloodshed in Central
Asia. The objective is to keep both China and Russia under an open threat, and
no one could better serve this “Bernard Lewis Doctrine” than the Muslims
controlled and nurtured in Britain—the Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Our story here
concentrates on the geopolitical origins of the destabilization of the Central
Asian republic of Uzbekistan, but it is crucial to note that Uzbekistan is only
a small slice of the process which Lyndon LaRouche identified in the Fall of
1999 as the “Storm Over Asia”. In a lengthy video documentary at that time,
LaRouche described the strategy being deployed in regions stretching from the
Caucasus to the Subcontinent, to the Far East, as a deliberate attempt by
British-American forces to destroy Russia and China, in particular, as foci for
an emerging Eurasian bloc for economic development.
First, the
Significance: The most significant aspect of the violent incident in
Andijan is that it was located in the Fergana Valley, a confluence of three
former Soviet Republics—Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Andijan is
located about 25 miles west of Osh, Kyrgyzstan, where the seed crystal for the
March uprising against Kyrgyz President Askar Akayev was planted. Within was
gone.
Andijan is also about 25
miles east of Namangan, the hotbed of the Saudi-funded Wahabi-form of Islamic
extremism. Juma Namangani, now dead, was the leader of the movement that began
in Namangan. In other words, Andijan is in the heart of the Fergana Valley,
whose 7 million inhabitants make it the most densely populated region of
Central Asia.
For years, the Uzbek
government has pointed out that the valley is a hotbed of Muslim extremists
aiming to set up an Islamic state in the region. The valley is largely
ethnically Uzbek, but is split up between Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and
Kyrgyzstan in a confused patchwork of Soviet-era borders, which leave enclaves
of one country surrounded by the territory of another. In general, Uzbekistan
holds the valley floor, Tajikistan holds its narrow mouth, and Kyrgyzstan holds
the high ground around. Although the valley mouth is narrow, the valley land
mass is vast, at 22,000 square kilomters (8,500 square miles). The Pamir and Tien
Shan mountains that rise above the valley are only dimly visible, but supply
the valley with water.
During the Soviet era,
the valley was a major center of cotton and silk production. The hills above
are covered by walnut forests, and there is also some oil and gas in the
valley. That scene has not changed much. What has changed significantly since
the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, is the valley’s integration
with the “free world,” a process that has turned Central Asia into a hot bed of
transnational Islamic militants, controlled and funded by outside forces. On
the ground, the new foot soldiers of colonial Britain and feudal Arabia are
keen to replace the secular regimes in order to set up an Islamic Caliphate.
Recently, the Kyrgyz
media reported that the country’s border control services said that militants
coming from Afghanistan, financed by arms and drugs trafficking, were gathering
near the Kyrgyz borders, and that the illegal entry into Kyrgyzstan of foreign
nationals and individuals without any citizenship, is on the rise. It is
important to note that these militants were not parachuted out of airplanes,
but were coming through Afghanistan and Pakistan. It could very well be a
ticking time bomb for India, China, and Russia.
The Foot Soldiers of the
U.S. Neo-Cons: In
the Fergana Valley, in addition to various Islamic preachers, there are two
major Islamic groups whose common objective is to change the regimes in
Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Kazakstan. These are the Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and the Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT). While the IMU thrives
on violence, the HT is strongly promoted as peaceful by the United Kingdom,
where it is headquartered. But records indicate that the IMU and the HT work
hand-in-hand. Most of the IMU recruits are from the HT, and according to Rohan
Gunaratana, an expert on world terrorist outfits, Khaled Sheikh Muhammad, the
alleged mastermind of 9/11, and Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian of Chechen
origin who has remained active in the Iraqi insurgency against the U.S. occupying
forces, were both once members of the HT.
The IMU consists of
hardcore, well-trained militants ofvarious ethnic origins—Uzbeks, Tajiks,
Kyrgyz, Kazaks, Uighurs, and Chechens, among others. These militants identify
as their ancestors those who had participated in the Basmachi rebellion against
the Soviet Union during the 1918-23 period, fighting along with the White
Russians and the British Army. Many of the IMU members, who settled later in
Afghanistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, among other places, fought
against the Russian invaders in the 1980s in Afghanistan, and were put under
the wings of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
Reports indicate that
there are at least 2,000 of these militants, who have been protected by the Pakistani
ISI, with the nod of approval by the Americans and the British. One possible
reason that they were protected is that the IMU is single-mindedly seeking
revenge against the Russians and those Central Asian leaders who support
Russia.
The relationship between
the Taliban and IMU is as old as the IMU, going back a long way, before the
attacks of 9/11 that prompted the U.S.-led campaign against the Taliban. After
the Taliban had captured the Afghan capital, Kabul, in September 1996, Juma
Namangani and Tahir Yuldashev—long-time adversaries of Uzbek President Karimov,
and considered to be the founders of the IMU—held a press conference in the
city to announce the IMU’s formation. Namangani, who had
served as a Soviet paratrooper in Afghanistan in
the 1980s, became the group’s leader (or Ameer), and Yuldashev became its
military commander. Their aim was to topple Karimov and turn Uzbekistan, and
ultimately the whole of Central Asia, into an Islamic state.
The Taliban provided them
with a place to shelter and train—and to plot against Karimov. It is also said
that Yuldashev developed contact with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, and that
they became mutually supportive.
After the U.S. invasion
of Afghanistan in the winter of 2001, Namangani was one of those killed. But
Yuldashev led a large number of Central Asian families over the
border into South Waziristan, a tribal area in Pakistan’s Northwest
Frontier Province, where the central authorities of Pakistan wield little
power. Available information suggests that a large number of these IMU
fighters, along with some al-Qaeda and Taliban militia, have moved up to
Badakhshan province in eastern Afghanistan. A few, however, are still based in
the Waziristan tribal areas of Pakistan. In March 2004, during heavy fighting
in the Waziristan area, Yuldashev was reportedly wounded. The Pakistani Army
intercepted radio transmissions in both Uzbek and Chechen, according to the
Pakistani commander of the counter-insurgency operation, Lieutenant General
Safdar Hussain.
 |
| Omar Bakri Mohammed |
Unlike the IMU, which has
concentrated its role in Central Asia with a focus on the Fergana Valley, the
Hizb ut-Tahrir is an international Islamic movement. It is headquartered in
London, but also has a strong organizational presence in Birmingham, Liverpool,
and Bradford. The group was co-founded by Omar Bakri Mohammed, who
came to the U.K. after being expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1986. HT’s present
leader is a communications IT professional from the Indian subcontinent,
Jalaluddin Patel.
Hizb ut-Tahrir was
established in 1953 in Palestine by a well-known religious figure, the judge of
the appellate Shar’ia court in Jerusalem, Takieddin al-Nabahani al-Falastini
(1909-1979). According to available reports, the group’s first U.K.- based
website was hosted by the London Imperial College, but after complaints to the
College authorities, the site was closed down temporarily until a new host
could be found. The group now posts in their own name as Hizb ut-Tahrir, and as
Khilafah.
Although portrayed as
“non-violent” by the British authorities, Bakri’s links to Osama bin Laden
are widely known. Excerpts of a letter to Bakri by bin Laden, sent by fax from
Afghanistan in the summer of 1998, were published in the Los Angeles
Times. Bakri later released what he called bin Laden’s four specific
objectives for a jihad against the United States: “Bring down their airliners.
Prevent the safe passage of their ships. Occupy their embassies. Force the
closure of their companies and banks.”
Many of those who follow
the HT activities are intrigued as to why the group is not more discreet. For
instance, on its web site in 2003 appeared “A Cry of the Imam from the Muslims
of Uzbekistan.” In that article, the “Imam” gave the call “to destroy Karimov”.
Similar calls have been issued to oust the Jordanian and Turkish authorities as
well.
These are not empty
threats. Backed by British Intelli- gence and funds from drugs, as well as from
the coffers of Wahabi sheikhs, Hizb ut-Tahrir is a huge organization. Some
claim it has at least 10,000 foot soldiers in Central Asia. A few more thousands
are lurking in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and HT also has a strong presence in
North Africa.
Reports from reliable
Indian sources indicate that recent demonstrations against the U.S. and against
Karzai were organized by the Hizb ut-Tehrir (HT), and not by the Taliban or the
Hizb-e-Islami or the al-Qaeda. Although one source was aware of some HT
activities in the student community in Afghanistan, the extent of its
penetration not only in the student community, but also in the Afghan security
forces came as a surprise. In other words, the American occupying forces will
soon be fighting the Britain-run Islamic foot soldiers!
As one Indian analyst
pointed out, Osh and Jalalabad, the cities which spearheaded the regime change
in Kyrgyzstan, .happen to be HT strongholds. The HT is making huge gains in an
entire belt, stretching from the Fergana provinces of Namangan, Andijan, and
Kokand (which is contiguous to Osh and Jalalabad) to the adjacent Penjekent
Valley (Uzbekistan) and Khojent (Tajikistan).
 |
| Bernard Lewis |
“It [London] is also a
center for Islamist politics. You could say that London has become, for the
exponents of radical Islam, the most important city in the Middle East. A
framework of lenient asylum laws has allowed the development of the largest and
most overt concentration of Islamist political activists since Taliban-ruled
Afghanistan. Just ask the French, whose exasperation with the indulgent
toleration afforded to Algerian Islamic activists led them to dub the city
dismissively as l’ante´chambre de l’Afghanistan. They certainly have a point.
Many of bin Laden’s fatwas were actually first publicized in London. In fact,
the United Kingdom in general seems to differ from other European states in the
degree to which it became a spiritual and communications hub for the jihad
movement”.
It is evident that Ulph
has no clue of what the long-term British objectives are, and why it is that
London remains an “Aladdin’s Cave,” full of Islamic dissidents.
It is to be understood
that Britain is no longer a military or economic power of substance. In order
to be an almost equal partner of the Atlantic Alliance, Britain has two
important ingredients to offer the United States: first, its ability to undo
the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, and parts of the Indian
subcontinent through the use of creatures living in London’s Aladdin’s cave;
and second, its control of world currency movements through the City of London.
Unfortunately, these are also poison offerings that have helped to vastly
undermine the U.S. credibility.
 |
| Zbigniew Brzenski |
The policy of the West towards the Middle East—in other words, the
policy of the Anglo-Americans, because the European Union does not have a
policy worth citing—has long been formulated by Bernard Lewis. Lewis started
his career as an intelligence officer, and for the rest of his life has
remained in bed with British Intelligence. Avowedly anti-Russia and pro-Israel,
Lewis reaped a rich harvest among U.S - academia and policymakers. He brought
under his wing President Carter’s virulent anti-Russia National Security
Council chief, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in the 1980s and made the U.S. neo-cons,
led by Vice President Dick Cheney, dance to his tune on the Middle East in
2001. In between, Lewis penned dozens of books and was taken seriously by
people as a historian.
In fact, Lewis is what he
always was—a British Intelligence officer. And like all old Nazis, KKKers, and
what have-you, he works for an abysmal cause: revival of the British Empire. To
understand Lewis, one must read this statement he made in Canada, while
discussing his article, “Freedom and Justice in the Modern Middle East.” He
said:
“During the Second World
War, Nazi Germany and the Allies had all sorts of odd friends.” Lewis further said: “When
Churchill was asked in the House of Commons about Britain’s new ally, Russia,
he replied that if Hitler would invade hell, ‘I would find occasion to support
the devil.’ In this way, there is nothing odd about an alliance between Saddam
and al-Qaeda.”
In essence, what Lewis is
saying is that in order to deal a crippling blow to Russia, and to all
powers that would oppose his objective of reviving the Empire, he has no qualms
about supporting outfits like the Hizb ut-Tahrir. In 1979, when Ayatollah
Khomeini took over power in Iran and the West was in a quandary, Lewis sucked
in Brzezinski with his story in Time magazine on “The Crescent
of Crisis,” which ended with the following observation:
“In the long run there
may even be targets of opportunity for the West created by ferment within the
crescent. Islam is undoubtedly compatible with socialism, but it is inimical to
the atheistic Communism. The Soviet Union is already the world’s fifth largest
Muslim nation. By the year 2000, the huge Islamic populations in the border
republics may outnumber Russia’s now dominant Slavs. From Islamic democracies
on Russia’s southern tier, zealous Koranic evangelism might sweep across the
border into these politically repressed Soviet states, creating problems for
the Kremlin. . . . Whatever the solution, there is a clear need for the U.S. to
recapture what Kissinger calls the ‘geopolitical momentum.’ That, more than
anything else, will help maintain order in the crescent of crisis.”
It seems the same process
has been unleashed once more. This time, the objective is to weaken China,
Russia, and possibly, India, using the HT to unleash the dogs of war in Central
Asia. It is not difficult for those on the ground to see what Lewis and his
foot soldiers are up to. Indeed, the leader of the Islamic Party of Tajikistan,
Deputy Prime Minister Hoji Akbar Turajonzoda, has identified the HT as a
Western-sponsored bogeyman for “remaking Central Asia.” Turajonzoda said: “A more
detailed analysis of HT’s programmatic and ideological
views and concrete examples of its activities suggests that it was created by
anti-Islamic forces. One proof of this is the comfortable existence this
organization enjoys in a number of Western countries, where it has large
centers and offices that develop its concept of an “Islamic caliphate”.
It is evident that
Turajonzoda has seen through Lewis’s game. However, he has little capability to
stop the juggernaut now unleashed.
On the other hand, it is
not the lack of understanding on behalf of American neo-cons associated with
the Bush Administration, but their keenness to use the Lewis Doctrine to
achieve what they believe is justified, that promises an untold danger. How
important a brain-trust is Lewis to the neo-cons? Read the following: “Bernard
Lewis has been the single most important intellectual influence countering the
conventional wisdom on managing the conflict between radical Islam and the
West,” says neo-con Richard Perle, who remains a close adviser to
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. “The idea that a big part of the
problem is failed societies on the Arab side is very important,” says
Perle. “That is not the point of view of the diplomatic establishment.”
Copyright © of Ramtanu Maitra 2005
