The Debate | Opinion | Central Asia

The US Congress Should Ask What Happened in Karakalpakstan

Before granting Uzbekistan Permanent Normal Trade Relations, Washington needs to use the leverage it has to push Tashkent toward accountability. 

Four years after security forces opened fire on largely peaceful demonstrators in Nukus, the capital of Karakalpakstan, the truth about one of Central Asia’s deadliest episodes of political violence remains obscured. The Uzbek government’s investigative commission has never published its findings, and the identities of those killed have not been officially disclosed. 

As a result, independent verification of the death toll remains impossible. Families continue to wait for answers, while the international community still lacks a complete account of what happened during the July 2022 crackdown in Karakalpakstan.

Yet Washington is preparing to deepen its economic relationship with Uzbekistan. 

Uzbekistan is expected to accede to the World Trade Organization (WTO) this year. And once that happens, the U.S. Congress is expected to consider granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) to Tashkent, permanently lifting the remaining trade restrictions associated with the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. 

Before taking that step, lawmakers should ask a simple question: What happened in Karakalpakstan, and why has the Uzbek government still not fully accounted for it? 

A PNTR designation is unlike annual waivers (as Uzbekistan has been granted under Jackson-Vanik) or temporary trade preferences. Once granted, it permanently normalizes trade relations under U.S. law. Congress therefore has a rare opportunity to ask whether one of the most serious unresolved human rights crises in Central Asia has been adequately addressed before permanently removing one of the few remaining points of leverage in the bilateral relationship

The July 2022 protests began after authorities proposed constitutional amendments that would have removed Karakalpakstan’s constitutional recognition as a sovereign republic within Uzbekistan and eliminated its constitutional right to hold a referendum on independence. Thousands of residents gathered in Nukus to oppose the changes. Security forces responded with force that United Nations experts described as excessive and unjustified. An unverified number of people were killed, hundreds were injured, and hundreds more were detained. Reports of torture and ill-treatment soon followed.

What happened next is less widely understood. Facing widespread domestic unrest and international criticism, President Shavkat Mirziyoyev withdrew the proposed amendments affecting Karakalpakstan. 

The broader constitutional reform, however, continued. Months later, Uzbekistan resumed the constitutional reform process, and in April 2023 voters approved a new constitution that reset presidential term limits, allowing Mirziyoyev to begin counting his years in office anew and potentially remain president until 2040.

The amendments affecting Karakalpakstan were withdrawn only after security forces had already suppressed the protests. The broader constitutional reforms, however, remained intact, including the provisions that reset presidential term limits. That contrast has received far less attention than the protests themselves, yet it says much about the direction of political reform in Uzbekistan. 

If the constitutional reforms were intended to modernize governance, why has political power become more centralized? Why are meaningful opposition parties still absent from........

© The Diplomat