The fight led by prominent human rights advocate Radha Stirling for greater transparency and the rule of law in Uzbekistan has transcended domestic politics and become part of a larger geopolitical struggle in Central Asia. According to Stirling, there are cases within the country that reflect deeper systemic issues facing Uzbekistan’s judiciary. This, she argues, creates favourable conditions for external interference and could undermine the country’s strategic standing in the region.
Internal Rift Within the Uzbek State
The recent address by President Shavkat Mirziyoyev to the National Anti-Corruption Council marked a turning point in Uzbekistan’s political landscape. In a sharp and critical speech, Mirziyoyev declared that existing anti-corruption measures were ineffective and immediately dismissed 117 officials from anti-corruption agencies across various government institutions. These officials, appointed in 2023, were tasked with acting as internal watchdogs to improve accountability and transparency in state institutions. Their dismissal points to two possible scenarios:
- A split within the ruling elite, where competing factions within the Uzbek government are seeking to undermine the president’s authority on corruption issues.
- The failure of decentralised oversight, where anti-corruption mechanisms have been compromised by the interests of powerful groups and elite capture of state institutions.
Mirziyoyev’s decision underscores a fundamental tension between centralisation and decentralisation in political governance. Mackinder argued that control over the Heartland requires not only territorial dominance but also the capacity to ensure internal cohesion and political order. The dismissal of anti-corruption officials has revealed cracks in Uzbekistan’s political architecture — cracks that could be exploited by both internal and external players seeking to influence the country’s strategic trajectory.
Military Court and Political Pressure
Allegations of corruption and a lack of transparency within Uzbekistan’s judicial system were brought into sharp focus during a recent closed military court trial over an alleged assassination attempt on Komil Allamjonov — a powerful businessman and former senior official in the presidential administration.
In an interview with Radha Stirling, the well-known lawyer and human rights activist highlighted the core problems in Uzbekistan’s judicial system:
“This case has become a clear indicator of the systemic issues facing Uzbekistan’s judiciary. The defendants in this case, Shukhrat Rasulov and Javlon Yunusov, claimed in court that their confessions were obtained under severe duress during intense interrogations. The investigation was led by an operational group involving members of the State Security Service (SGB), the Prosecutor’s Office, and the Main Directorate of Internal Affairs in Tashkent. This unit has been implicated in multiple cases involving harsh interrogation methods and the fabrication of criminal charges.”
Stirling also noted that after the initial investigation phase, the case — along with the suspects — was transferred from the SGB to the Main Directorate of Internal Affairs in Tashkent. This was reportedly due to the fact that one of the defendants, Shukhrat Rasulov, had previously served in the SGB. The convicted individuals have already filed an appeal, claiming political pressure and fabricated charges.
This case illustrates the weakness and political vulnerability of Uzbekistan’s judiciary. If corruption and political interference persist, Uzbekistan’s ability to function as an independent geopolitical player in the region could be severely compromised.
Threat of Magnitsky Act Sanctions
Amid these developments, human rights organisations and international institutions have begun discussing the possibility of imposing targeted sanctions on Uzbek officials under the Magnitsky Act.
In an interview, Radha Stirling commented:
“The situation in Uzbekistan could follow a trajectory similar to that of Abu Ghraib in 2004. Discussions are already underway about imposing Magnitsky Act sanctions against several Uzbek officials. Notably, Uzbekistan is already represented on the Magnitsky list by the daughter of former President Islam Karimov — Gulnara Karimova. The list also includes several members of Uzbekistan’s security services.”
The US Treasury Department recently added three former Uzbek officials to the sanctions list for alleged sexual abuse of orphans at a charitable institution in Urgench. Sanctions under the Magnitsky Act include asset freezes, travel bans to the United States, and restrictions on business dealings with American companies.
If Uzbek authorities fail to restore transparency and the rule of law, the country risks facing mounting international pressure, which would weaken its geopolitical standing in the region.
A Critical Juncture for the Heartland
Uzbekistan’s fight against corruption is not just a domestic political crisis — it is a test of the country’s ability to establish itself as a stabilising force in Central Asia. Mackinder warned that:
“Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World.”
If Mirziyoyev can overcome the influence of corrupt elites, Uzbekistan could establish itself as an independent geopolitical player in the region. However, if these internal weaknesses remain unresolved, the country risks becoming a pawn in a larger geopolitical contest between Moscow, Beijing, and Ankara — a contest that Mackinder foresaw over a century ago.
Uzbekistan stands at a geopolitical crossroads. Without internal stability and transparent governance, Uzbekistan’s influence in the region will diminish, and its strategic significance in Central Asia will weaken. The fight against corruption is not merely an internal challenge; it is a battle for control over the Heartland. Should Uzbek authorities fail to address these internal vulnerabilities, external players — Russia, China, and Turkey — could capitalise on Tashkent’s strategic weakness to strengthen their own influence in Central Asia.