Wednesday, 23 September 2015

Violence in Tajikistan emerges from within the state

Published in Analytical Articles
Rate this item
(7 votes)

By Edward Lemon

September 23rd, 2015, The CACI Analyst

Rather than resulting from external factors, as the regime has argued, the recent violence in Tajikistan erupted from within the state itself. Elites within the Tajik state continually compete for political influence and economic gain. These struggles occasionally break out into violence. Ironically, such conflicts are actually useful for the regime. They allow it to legitimize a purge of potentially disloyal members and a crackdown on other opponents. By blaming the latest conflict on the country’s leading opposition party, the Islamic Renaissance Party (IRPT), the regime legitimized its move to ban the party and arrest its leading members.

BACKGROUND: Early in the morning of September 4, gunmen attacked police checkpoints in Vahdat and Dushanbe, leaving at least nine officers dead. According to the Tajik government, Deputy Defense Minister Abduhalim Nazarzoda orchestrated the attacks. Following the initial attacks, he fled with a few dozen supporters to the mountainous Romit gorge, 30 miles north-east of Dushanbe. After a lengthy counter-insurgency operation, the Ministry of Interior claimed to have killed Nazarzoda on the afternoon of September 16. In total, 25 militants have been killed and approximately 125 detained in the operation. The regime lost 14 law enforcement officers, including the commander of the special operations group of the State Committee for National Security of Tajikistan, Colonel Rustam Amakiyev.

Until early September, Major-General Nazarzoda – also known as Hoji Halim – was one of the last United Tajik Opposition (UTO) commanders to be given a post as part of the 1997 peace agreement to remain in government. Born near Dushanbe in 1964, he worked as a factory laborer, becoming the head of a warehouse in Dushanbe in 1991. During the early months of the civil war in 1992, he commanded an armed opposition group in the Karotegin region of Dushanbe. He spent the rest of the war in Kazakhstan, but returned to Tajikistan after the hostilities ceased and took up a position in the Ministry of Defense in 1999. A skillful player of the political game, he rose to the position of Deputy Minister in 2014.

Two versions of the events leading up to the conflict exist. The regime has argued that Nazarzoda was plotting a military coup and launched the attacks on September 4 as the start of his bid for power. President Rahmon stated during a speech in Vahdat on September 5 that Nazarzoda and his supporters were “terrorists with evil intentions to destabilize the situation.”

Nazarzoda himself has given a different version of events. On September 3, he lost his job for forging documents. According to a statement released by his supporters on September 6, the regime plotted to remove Nazarzoda for refusing to agree with the recent banning of the IRPT. When he heard that he was going to be targeted, he assembled supporters and decided to fight his way out.

While neither narrative can be entirely trusted, Nazarzoda’s story seems more plausible. Indeed, the official framing of events contains a number of inconsistencies. First, if Nazarzoda planned the coup in advance, then why did he let the regime capture most of his weapons cache on September 4? Second, western observer Peter Leonard visited the scene of “heavy fighting” at Vahdat police station on September 5 and found little evidence that a gun battle had taken place. This would not be the first time the Tajik government misrepresented the circumstances of an armed incident. In January 2011, the regime claimed to have killed militant leader Ali Bedaki in a gun battle. A video later emerged that showed Bedaki being interrogated at gunpoint.

IMPLICATIONS: Nazarzoda’s demise has given the regime an excuse to make its final moves against the IRPT. The party has been under intense pressure this year. In the March elections, the party lost its two seats in parliament. A June 16 article in state-run newspaper Jumhuriyat accused the party’s leader Muhiddin Kabiri of corruption. He has remained in exile since shortly after the elections, fearing arrest should he return to Tajikistan. During the recent conflict, the government stressed Nazarzoda’s wartime membership of the IRPT. Some officials have even claimed that he is still a member. Given that law enforcement officers in Tajikistan cannot be members of political parties, this assertion is clearly false.

Nonetheless, on September 17 the Prosecutor General accused Kabiri of ordering the attacks. The statement accused 13 other IRPT deputies, including spokesman Hikmatullo Saifullozoda and deputy chairman Mahmadali Hait, of planning the attacks. The security services have already started acting on the accusations. Hait was arrested whilst trying to board a plane to Almaty on September 16. The security services detained First Deputy Chairman Saidumar Husayni on the same day.

Despite the regime’s repeated attempts to blame instability on external actors, the recent crisis emerged from within the state itself. The distribution of power in the post-conflict Tajik state renders it prone to violence. After the war, the spoils of the state were divided among former commanders from both sides. As part of the 1997 peace accords, the government allocated 30 percent of the ministerial posts to the opposition. Five former UTO commanders were given cabinet positions. Commanders from the government-led Popular Front also received positions. For example, Popular Front strongman Ghaffur Mirzoyev was given command of the Presidential Guard.

Government posts in Tajikistan are less about serving the public, and more about serving the post holders and their families. Holders of office have amassed sizeable fortunes. Nazarzoda, for example, used his political influence to run a construction business, buy a bread factory and three dachas in Varzob, according to a state TV report. This made him an attractive target for rivals looking to appropriate his wealth.

As Rahmon’s regime has consolidated its power, it has gradually removed these former commanders, often using accusations of treason and corruption to legitimize the ousting. Mirzoyev lost his job in 2004 and was imprisoned in 2005 for plotting a coup. The UTO’s supreme military commander Mirzo Ziyoyev, who was Minister of Emergency Situations until the government disbanded the ministry in 2006, died under mysterious circumstances in 2009 after being accused of terrorism.

The government’s attempts to constrain the influence of local commanders have occasionally resulted in violence. Recent conflicts in the Rasht valley between 2008 and 2011, and Khorog in 2012 and 2014, resulted from this aggressive form of state-building. This most recent outburst of violence is part of this same process. But it is the first time in many years that conflict has broken out in the capital city itself.

CONCLUSIONS: Despite the fixation among many analysts with the threat of spill-overs from northern Afghanistan and Tajiks going to fight with the Islamic State, recent conflicts in Tajikistan have been more about local politics than about religion. This latest incident emerged from within the Tajik state itself. And in blaming the violence on the IRPT, the regime has used the conflict to legitimize the banning of the party and arrest of its leading members.

Outbreaks of violence will continue to occur in the fractious post-conflict Tajik state as elites continue to struggle over resources. More Nazarzodas may exist within the government. Having seen the regime’s attempt to purge a potentially disloyal figure, they may become desperate enough to rebel too.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Edward Lemon is a doctoral candidate at the University of Exeter. In his research, he examines the relationships between security, Islam and migration in Tajikistan.

Image Attribution: www.rferl.org, accessed on Sept 25, 2015

Read 3807 times Last modified on Friday, 16 October 2015

Latest Issue

Visit also

silkroad

isdp

turkeyanalyst

Joint Center Publications

Resource Page "Resources on Terrorism and Radical Islamism in Central Asia", Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program, April 11, 2017.

Silk Road Monograph Nicklas Norling, Party Problems and Factionalism in Soviet Uzbekistan: Evidence from the Communist Party Archives, March 2017.

Oped Svante E. Cornell, "Russia: An Enabler of Jihad?", W. Martens Center for European Studies, January 16, 2017.

Book Svante E. Cornell, ed., The International Politics of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Conflict: The Original 'Frozen Conflict' and European Security, Palgrave, 2017. 

Article Svante E. Cornell, The fallacy of ‘compartmentalisation’: the West and Russia from Ukraine to Syria, European View, Volume 15, Issue 1, June 2016.

Silk Road Paper Shirin Akiner, Kyrgyzstan 2010: Conflict and Context, July 2016. 

Silk Road Paper John C. K. Daly, Rush to Judgment: Western Media and the 2005 Andijan ViolenceMay 2016.

Silk Road Paper Jeffry Hartman, The May 2005 Andijan Uprising: What We KnowMay 2016.

Silk Road Paper Johanna Popjanevski, Retribution and the Rule of Law: The Politics of Justice in Georgia, June 2015.

Book S. Frederick Starr and Svante E. Cornell, eds., ·Putin's Grand Strategy: The Eurasian Union and its Discontents, Joint Center Monograph, September 2014.

Book S. Frederick Starr, Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia's Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane, Princeton University Press, September 2013.


 

 

The Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst is a biweekly publication of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program, a Joint Transatlantic Research and Policy Center affiliated with the American Foreign Policy Council, Washington DC., and the Institute for Security and Development Policy, Stockholm. For 15 years, the Analyst has brought cutting edge analysis of the region geared toward a practitioner audience.

Newsletter

Sign up for upcoming events, latest news and articles from the CACI Analyst

Newsletter