Rahmon’s Moment in the Spotlight

On the eve of Tajikistan’s independence day, September 9, President Emomali Rahmon took time toward the end of a long speech to comment on the situation in neighboring Afghanistan.

His remarks were interesting for two reasons: first, for what they tell us about Tajikistan’s intended position vis-a-vis a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan; and second, for what they tell us about Rahmon’s ambitions to seize the moment to paper over his reputation when the world is paying close attention to the region.

In the speech, Rahmon reiterated his support for the “creation of an inclusive government [in Afghanistan] that takes into account the interests of all national minorities.”

The speech came a day after the Taliban unveiled a “caretaker” government comprised exclusively of senior Taliban men, all but three out of 34 Pashtun. If Rahmon plans to recognize the Taliban’s government, he made no mention of it in his speech nor since. This contrasts with a short statement from the Uzbek Foreign Ministry welcoming the creation of an “interim government in Afghanistan” and expressing Tashkent’s readiness for “constructive dialogue and practical internations with the new state bodies of Afghanistan.”

Rahmon made a point to repeat, several times, in his independence day speech that the people of Afghanistan are not to blame for the present situation. The “instability and tragedy that befell the people of this ancient country are the result of the intervention of foreign countries” he said.

He then chastised “all international human rights institutions” for remaining silent about Afghanistan and not showing any initiative to support the rights of the Afghan people. He warned that indifference to the fate of Afghanistan will lead to an increase in violence, the outbreak of an “imposed civil war,” a humintarian catastrophe, the persistence of Afghanistan as a breeding groud for terrorism, and a threat to regional security.

On the surface, it’s a striking position from one of the world’s longest-serving leaders who, since coming to power at the outset of Tajikistan’s devastating civil war in 1992, has steered the country into the bottom rungs of most international human rights rankings. In Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2021 Tajikistan comes in as “not free” and notches an 8 out of 100; in the Nations in Transit 2021 assessment of Tajikistan’s democracy, Dushanbe scored a 2 out of 100. Human Rights Watch has published a steady flow of reports over the years about the Tajik state’s human rights violations, many of which we’ve also covered here at The Diplomat.

Rahmon is conveniently positioning Tajikistan on the moral high ground vis-a-vis Afghanistan, and once again re-casting himself in the story, this time as a leader deeply concerned for the rights of a neighboring people.

Back in December 2015, after having successfully sidelined Tajikistan’s most prominent opposition party – the Islmic Renaissance Party (IRPT) – by labeling it an extremist outfit, Rahmon was awarded by the country’s rubberstamp parliament with the title of “Leader of the Nation.” The bill granting him the new title also officially designated him “the founder of peace and national unity of Tajikistan.” That the bill passed as the state was pursing (and later enacted) long prison sentences for members of the opposition – who, critically, also played a role in bringing the civil war to an end – was particularly grotesque. Rahmon, as the cornerstone of peace in the country, was thus reframed as the only thing that kept an outbreak of violence, perhaps even another civil war and the ensuing humanitarian catastrophe, at bay.

Rahmon was re-writing history then for a domestic audience, casting himself as a unifier rather than a victorious autocrat, and he’s trying to do so now for a global audience. That the risks are real – of a resumption of violence in Afghanistan, a civil war – makes Rahmon’s argument easier to sell to a global audience less knowledgeable about the reality of his leadership in Tajikistan.

Tajikistan’s president speaking of an inclusive government is especially galling. By most interpretations of “inclusivity” the Tajik government fails. Rahmon’s government tolerates no political opposition, despite the peace accord ending the civil war guaranteeing the opposition 30 percent of government posts and the right to contest elections. Meanwhile, in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap ranking, in 2020 Tajikistan came in at 137th out of 153 countries. As Tajik researcher Dilbar Turakhanova wrote in a March 2021 analysis for the Foreign Policy Centre, since gaining independence in 1991, Tajikistan has not had a female president or prime minister, nor have any of its provincial governors or ambassadors been women. And while the country has arguably less ethnic and religious diversity than Afghanistan, minority groups such as the Shia Pamiris of Tajikistan’s eastern Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Region – a base for the opposition during the civil war – are sidelined politically.

Inside Tajikistan, Rahmon’s word is essentially law and the 2015 legislation that named him the founder of peace and unity also guaranteed him immunity from any future prosecution. Tajikistan’s media space is sparse, and has been largely cowed by three decades of state pressure. So when Rahmon tells a bald-faced lie, few say so out loud.

In his independence speech, Rahmon righteously accused international human rights institutions of being “silent” about Afghanistan. That’s simply a lie. He said they didn’t show any initiative to support the rights of the Afghan people. Another lie. It is not difficult to find international human rights organizations decrying the poor treatment of the Afghan people by the U.S. government, the Taliban, and the global community alike. But Rahmon’s statements weren’t about the truth, they were about perception.

Rahmon was positioning himself for a spotlight that rarely shines his way with such intensity. The casual observer of world news can perhaps be forgiven for not knowing Tajikistan’s political history, but in this moment Rahmon is saying all the right things. This is a moment for Rahmon to brand himself, and his government, as a useful partner for Western countries with interests in Afghanistan but now lacking a physical perch from which to pursue those interests. Friendly Tajikistan and its founder of peace is here to help.