Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Islam’s Positive Influence

The Fergana Valley in the heart of Central Asia has a reputation for instability, violent conflict, and Islamic fundamentalism. The three countries whose borders intersect in...

The Fergana Valley in the heart of Central Asia has a reputation for instability, violent conflict, and Islamic fundamentalism. The three countries whose borders intersect in this densely populated mountainous region—Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan—have struggled to build modern states in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. This process has indeed been tumultuous.

A civil war broke out between rival political factions in Tajikistan in the 1990s. The "tulip revolution" of 2006 ousted the authoritarian leader of Kyrgyzstan. Later in 2006, the Uzbek authorities broke up antigovernment demonstrations in the Fergana Valley city of Andijan, killing hundreds. Meanwhile, all three governments have taken actions against Islamic fundamentalist groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. More recently, there have been reports of a new group of so-called "black turbans" organizing in the Uzbek city of Kokand.

But this picture of the Fergana Valley as violent and prone to Islamic fundamentalism is inaccurate, according to S. Frederick Starr, chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at Johns Hopkins University.

"There is a tendency to catastrophize, to see the region as a series of unsolvable problems, but that’s not true," Starr said at a March seminar in Washington, DC, on the Fergana Valley cosponsored with the Sasakawa Peace Foundation. "The region has not been a tinderbox. There have been incidents in all three sectors. The ones before 1991 tended to be ethnically based. But amazingly the borders have remained the same. And for all the complications that independence has brought, the ethnic clashes have been relatively limited."

Three factors have had a moderating influence. "Migrant labor is a safety valve," Starr argues. "The soil is good—it’s spectacular agricultural land if it’s irrigated—so that even without cash to buy lots of things, people can eat. And these folks know one another. They’ve lived with one another for hundreds and thousands of years."

Pulat Shozimov also sees a very different Fergana Valley. A leading Tajik scholar, Shozimov is one of the three editors of a new multi-disciplinary research project sponsored by the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute that brings together 24 scholars from all three countries to produce essays on eight different socioeconomic topics. Shozimov portrays this research project as "a model, a free space for open discussion about key questions and problems in order to discovery new possibilities for the Fergana Valley."

The study "will be the most comprehensive three-dimensional portrait of this crucial region that has been produced in the last half-century," Starr says. "What our three editors have achieved, one from each country, is to create a positive climate for real region-wide collaboration."

The Fergana Valley is overwhelmingly Muslim, and most believers are Sunni. A common element in the region, since the fall of the secular Soviet regime, has been a surge in religious interest.

"There has definitely been an Islamic revival," observes Eric McGlintchey, a professor of government and politics at George Mason University. "It’s very apparent simply looking at the number of people going to Friday prayers and the dress people are adopting. After 50 years or more of being told they couldn’t practice their religion, they can now practice religion openly. So, there’s a natural curiosity."

Some outside analysts have focused on the threat of religious radicalism in the Fergana Valley. But McGlintchey believes that radical Islam has limited appeal. "The Hizb-ut-Tahrir operates fairly openly in Kyrgyzstan, less so in Uzbekistan," McGlintchey reports. "They know the literature, the talking points, but when you press them a little bit on Islam or broader, ‘ummah’ things begin to fall apart fairly quickly. Most people don’t waste their religion on Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Their status is overstated."

A more important but less analyzed trend has been the linkage between Islam and economic modernization. According to Shozimov, the Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan (IRPT) has reached out to an emerging middle class. "At present they don’t have a clear economic program," he says, "but I think they are trying to build their own economic network." Here, Shozimov says, the IRPT is looking to Turkey’s ruling party as a model for how to combine Islamic values with both democratic structures and a modern, globally connected economy.

McGlintchey agrees: "It took a Muslim party to come to power to move Turkey in a democratic direction. You may be seeing a similar dynamic in Tajikistan."

Meanwhile, in Uzbekistan, McGlinchey notes a similar dynamic. "There is a virtuous cycle that connects Islamic social capital and economic growth," he contends. "In Andijan, businessmen have gotten together who trusted one another and recognized each other as devout—in contrast to the state authorities who are very often corrupt and extract resources and are difficult to trust. These businessmen pooled capital within the group and were able to grow different businesses. Other people see these prominent Muslim businessmen, see their success, and say, ‘I want to work in their factories and learn about the religion.’"

The Fergana Valley is thus attempting to leave behind its image as a sporadically violent and unstable region that plays host to radical Islamic groups. New cooperative initiatives as well as new economic and political models of modernizing Islam are emerging. The rather frosty official relations among the three countries may do little to encourage these new dynamics, but they are nonetheless being challenged from below.

"In spite of the obvious tensions among the three countries," Starr observes, "the three peoples know each other very well, have been interacting closely for centuries, and understand how to maintain practical relations even in the face of tensions."

John Feffer writes for the Inter Press Service.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share