FOREIGN INFLUENCE OR LEADERSHIP WEAKNESS?

Recently, the President of Uzbekistan pointed to the existence of foreign factors in the events in Nukus, Uzbekistan. According to media reports, Mr. Mirziyoyev stated that these events were not organized in a single day or even ten days, but rather, foreign forces had been preparing these actions for many years. According to the President of Uzbekistan, the goal of creating such unrest was to disrupt the unity of Uzbekistan.

The recent events in Uzbekistan occurred in a year when, at least in parts of three Central Asian countries, including Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, the suppression of public protests took place. If this situation affected Kazakhstan in January, by May, "there was no other choice" but to use force in Tajikistan. Uzbekistan also did not remain on the sidelines of these events, and a pretext was found for this.

Mr. Mirziyoyev pointed to foreign involvement in the events in Karakalpakstan, just as Mr. Tokayev blamed terrorist elements for the bloodshed in his country in January. However, the cause of the public protests was clear – the removal of the autonomous status of a republic within Uzbekistan. Thus, the question arises: was the proposal for constitutional reform made by foreigners? Was it not Mirziyoyev himself who proposed amendments to the Constitution of Uzbekistan?

As is known, the announcement of a fuel price increase in January this year in Kazakhstan brought people to the streets. The president of this country, who used military forces from the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) to suppress these protests, blamed terrorist elements for the protests. It is strange, isn't it? If you demand your rights, are you a terrorist?

The contradiction here is that in both of these countries, the demands of the protesters were taken into account. If their protests had no real basis, why were their demands met? This means that the strategists of these countries made mistakes in presenting price changes as well as in constitutional reforms, but they are unwilling to admit their mistakes. Since they consider themselves rulers and the ultimate authorities, they interpret events and causes in a way that allows them to come out unscathed and legitimize their continued rule.

Such leaders should understand that all their "political" tricks are recognized by the people, who know that this is nothing but lies. However, unlike the presidents, the people do not have a platform to openly express the thoughts they harbor.

Another reason for this stance, unfortunately characteristic of all Central Asian leaders, is their evasion of the shame of the people's poverty and the bloodshed they cause. Perhaps only a naive few might believe their words, but the main thing for these leaders is to rid themselves of the "guilt" of their conscience, which is why they look for scapegoats, even though the source of these mistakes lies on their own platform.

In Tajikistan, too, it is often suggested that the civil war in the country during 1992-1997 was imposed from outside. Promoting this idea is a way to shirk responsibility and avoid acknowledging their inability as the intellectual force supposed to lead society. If this is not the case, then why is it that foreign actors, who have no base in a foreign country, are able to incite people against each other? Maybe they pay? Yes, but how many millions of people could they possibly pay to turn them against each other? Or why do people who elect their own presidents not trust them and instead trust foreigners?

If the issue is about money, one could argue that everyone needs it. So why do the presidents of countries who suppress their people under the pretext of taking money from foreigners and organizing protests, not create favorable conditions for their citizens to earn money within their own countries?

Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, as two Central Asian countries, send the majority of their workforce to Russia. Labor migrants from these two countries are among the most disenfranchised people in Russia. Despite this lack of rights, Tajik labor migrants bear the heavy burden of supporting their home country's economy. When this money is sent to Tajikistan, why doesn't the Tax Committee say that this money comes from abroad and shouldn't enter the country?

Moreover, the government of Tajikistan has made minimal efforts to improve the situation of labor migrants in Russia. It's true that they have humbly requested Russia several times to pardon deported migrants who violated the law. But this initiative was primarily driven by security and economic considerations for the government.

For example, in 2013, in connection with extending the presence of a Russian military base on its soil, Moscow granted certain privileges to Tajik labor migrants. However, after the establishment of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), all these privileges were lost. The government of Tajikistan has never reminded Russia of these privileges, even though alongside the embassy, the Migration Service of Tajikistan is also active in Russia. Incidentally, the agreement between Moscow and Dushanbe will remain in force until 2042.

Thus, I think the leaders of Central Asian countries, as mentioned earlier, try to shift their responsibilities onto "foreigners" and legitimize their regimes, otherwise, they would have to relinquish their seats. On the other hand, if the rights of ordinary citizens and the interests of political forces in a country are protected within the framework of the law, no group will sell out. Perhaps a few might lose their way, but it is impossible for this to happen on a mass scale. However, ensuring the people's interests within the framework of laws does not guarantee the lifetime rule of any individual, which is why "foreigners" are made the scapegoats, so that citizens die, and power is preserved.