“That a number of people become ‘more Muslim’ does *NOT* means that they are ‘violent radicals’”

Scuzi

“However, one has to notice radical Islamists’ arguments are being supported by the common people because of the economic and social injustices. So, I do think that radicalization of groups not happy with their governments is happening already.”

It depends how one defines ‘radicalization’. If part of the population (and a growing one at that) find dignity, direction and become better people thanks to Islam, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. So what of people drink less, or stop drinking at all? So what if people pray, fast, give zakhat? So what if girls wear headscarves instead of going half-naked?

That a number of people become ‘more Muslim’ does means that they are ‘violent radicals’ (btw, Muslims have the right to defend themselves against aggression; that is not ‘terrorism’).

Besides, let’s be serious: the results of the main alternatives in CA and the Muslim Caucasus (neo-Sovietism, Western import concepts) are not particularly brilliant to say the least…

This is why I am convinced (see my op-ed http://neweurasia.net/?p=532 + comments) that an Islamic-*inspired* way is maybe not the best then at least not a bad solution. If some ‘Bishkekers’ feel that their lifestyle is being threatened by that, bad luck for them.

As for the HuT in the ex-USSR: imo, it’s like a yeti, about whom many *talk* but which nobody has actually ever *seen*! Also, Islam is absolutely not limited to the HuT (and the IMU for that matter), nor have those a ‘monopoly’ on Islam. It’s important to make that distinction.

Regarding the issue of Russians in Central Asia thinking, talking, and living like foreigners, I would agree with Ataman. Yulia, forgive me, but since you are Russian, I bet you my monthly salary that you do not speak Kyrgyz or any other Central Asian language for that matter. I have only seen a handful of Russian speaking either Kyrgyz or Uzbek. I am myself from Bishkek and have to say that most of the Biskekers (including many ethnic Kyrgyz) do not really know what is happening in the rural areas. What do you expect of the youth in the villlages who do not have a good education, most of the villagers they know are alcoholics, have no prospects of finding a decent job?

“It’s not much of a revalation when you say about counterwighting Russia and China and geopolitical claims that are being currently.”

Did anyone said it was? It’s just repeating a reality to put things in context.

“One, who is a bystander, can be sceptical about that but you need to have a local experience and understanding of everyday challenges to realize what kind of threats are out there. It’s a popular liberal rhetorical technique nowadays to say that religious movements are just scapegoats for “skilled” politicians to manipulate with them but I personally not a great admirer of such “theoreticians’.”

Never thought that I’d be called a ‘liberal’ one day.

It’s also a popular rhetorical technique nowadays to bluff that ‘bystanders’ and foreigners ‘can not grasp the reality’ and ‘everyday challenges’ on the grounds. The typical Western expat will, of course, not. Yet there are now a fair number of ‘inostrantsi’ (several of whom you find on blogs like this one) who speak Russian, lived and worked several years on the grounds, and maybe grasp a number of things much better than many locals do (I mean, nothing personal, but let’s face it: many ethnic Russians or westernised-russianized Kyrgyz from Bishkek are as much ‘foreigners’ in a mahalla or kyshlak in Osh or Jalalabad).

To come back on the original topic: how many ‘Hizbutovsti’ do you met/know *personally*?

“To have the US as an ally is more than essential for Kyrgyzstan nowadays in the light of the growing danger produced by the movement of radical Islamic organization “Hizb-ut-Tahrir” aiming to turn the region into Islamic state.”

This is naïve.

If the US are in Kyrgyzstan it is not to «protect Kyrgyzstan against the Hizb ut Tahrir» and whatever caliphate fantasy that might fly around. It is to have a military foothold against China and Russia. That is not US-bashing — the other two try to do similar moves — that is just how things are since a number of years; obtain optimal strategic positions for maximum control over raw materials, trade routes, cheap labour, limit the competitor’s sphere of influence etc. etc. so as to increase their respective chances of survival in the global economy.

That being said: do you really believe yourself that the Hizb ut Tahrir is so big of a threat?

I know that many ethnic Russians and other «Bishkekers» believe it is. Some even told me that they are convinced that, I quote, «more than half the adult population of the south are sleeper ??????????» and that Batken, Osh and Jalalabad are already de facto already taken over by the Hizb ut Tahrir. In my opinion, and having lived and worked in Osh and Batken for quite some time, this tells more about a deep distrust and fear of «the civilised people from the city» against «the hillbillies from the kyshlak» than about the Hizb-ut-Tahrir.

I do not deny that the Hizb, or structures associating themselves with it, exists in Kyrgyzstan and elsewhere. It probably has a couple of thousands of members and sympathizers. Some splinter groups may turn violent. The question is, how much capacity and how much of an impact they have or will have.

One can of course reply: «yes, but look what happened in Batken and Jalalabad the other day» (see http://www.iwpr.net/?p=rca&s=f&o=322279&apc_state=henprca ).

I have to things to say one that:

1) First, blaming «??????????» for every violent incident and planting Hizb evidence is a mothballed manipulation technique. It has happened before: e.g. the bombings in a Bishkek bazaar and an exchange office in Osh a couple of years ago that were immediately ‘linked’ to the Hizb ut Tahrir and Uighur radicals to eventually turn out to be ordinary mafia score settling. The reality is, that some *want* the Hizb ut Tahrir and other Islamist groups to be a threat: certain rogue regimes – that in Tashkent in particular – because cultivating paranoia is their only raison d’être and a way to get legitimacy, foreign loans and military aid; the Russian and local neo-KGB to enforce their position; and the Russian and local boulevard press.

2) Second, let us assume that the recent havoc in Batken and Jalalabad was indeed the work of Hizb cells. Let’s ask ourselves then what kind of Islamist militants need to do a messy attack against a remote customs and border post in Batken in order to get a couple of AK-47s?! Certainly not members the allegedly well-organised, regionally widespread and narco-funded terror networks that some claim they are.