Uzbekistan

[sgill]

It’s fairly clear that being a despot is not enough in itself to warrant a United States invasion on a nation. Look no further than Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and, today, Uzbekistan. It’s also apparent that Saddam’s brutal treatment of his people, in addition to exploiting people’s fear post 911, was pushed by the United States administration as the main justification for invading Iraq, necessary to gather support from mainstream, patriotic America.

It would seem that the United States was hoping that the current unrest in Uzbekistan would blow over quickly after a fast, brutal response by Karimov’s thugs. Unfortunately, it isn’t working out quite as planned and the situation is presenting itself as an embarrassing problem for the United States.

Of course, it is important to be seen to be condeming the actions of Karimov; but I am almost certain that the reality is that this current unrest must be stopped at all costs, and are, therefore, supported.

Anybody else got any ideas on this?

[politbureau]

"They had snipers everywhere and they didn’t care who they shot down. I saw hundreds of people dead in the street. I saw them shoot boys, women and children. They shot at the crowd like animals. They were firing at us from helicopters. People got confused running everywhere, trying to hide in buildings or behind cars.’’
Suvahuan, a mother of four in her 40s who fled Andizhan on Saturday with her children

‘It was chaotic. I saw several people drown as they tried to cross the bridge. Anyone who says the protest was the work of militant Islamists is lying. It was the people, tired, poor, hungry people, not extremists, who took to the street. Anything else is Karimov’s propaganda.’"
Rakhmat, a trader

[Dog_s_Breakfast]

An article by Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan:

What drives support for this torturer

Oil and gas ensure that the US backs the Uzbek dictator to the hilt

Craig Murray
Monday May 16, 2005
The Guardian

[i]The bodies of hundreds of pro-democracy protesters in
Uzbekistan are scarcely cold, and already the White House
is looking for ways to dismiss them. The White House
spokesman Scott McClellan said those shot dead in the city
of Andijan included “Islamic terrorists” offering armed
resistance. They should, McClellan insists, seek democratic
government “through peaceful means, not through
violence”.

…[/i]

Read the rest of the article:
guardian.co.uk/comment/story … 31,00.html

Post (quote) cut by moderator due to length. Please observe the following rule:

Do not post articles - use links instead. Quoted sources should be limited to one paragraph in length, or less. Try to keep the text relevant to the topic as much as possible.

[fred_smith]

[quote]The information may be untrue, but it is valuable because it
feeds into the US agenda. Karimov is very much George
Bush’s man in central Asia. There is not a senior member of
the US administration who is not on record saying warm
words about Karimov. There is not a single word recorded
by any of them calling for free elections in Uzbekistan. [/quote]

so in the words of your own reporter all the information may be untrue but it is “valuable” because it proves his point that the US has an agenda? Very interesting style of reporting.

So Karimov is “our man” in Uzbekistan? Did we install him? I thought the Russians did that?

Bush has not specifically called for elections in many countries, but his overall thrust is clear.

Now, there is some validity to the points that you make. First of all, what are the opportunities for credible democratic opposition in Uzbekistan? Will supporting the overthrow of Karimov deliver a democracy or will it result in something like the shah being tossed out only to see the mullahs come in? This is the same problem we are facing in Pakistan with Musharraf. Want to see him overthrown to bring “democracy” to Pakistan? These are not easy variables to balance.

I completely agree that we should be putting pressure on Uzbekistan to reform but I also think that we have to be realistic about what we can accomplish. How to balance this is the key. Carter completely failed by rushing to implement his “concern for human rights” above all factors. Look at the results in Nicaragua, Afghanistan and Iran to name three. Under Carter’s term of office there were massive protests in Kaohsiung and Kyongju in Korea. What happened? Bloody crackdowns.

Compare this with Reagan’s approach which was to ease Marcos out of the Philippines with minimum bloodshed. Compare his efforts in Grenada. Compare his challenges to the Soviet Union everywhere. Compare the efforts to democratize that were pushed in Taiwan, Korea, Thailand and elsewhere in East Asia during his tenure.

We can push democracy BUT doing it the right way even if it takes longer is not necessarily bad.

Finally, countries like Afghanistan and Iraq deserved to be invaded. The native democracy movement was never going to flourish and develop under the conditions then present. With other countries, we have other options. Witness the new empowerment of women in Kuwait. We can try similar approaches in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and maybe Uzbekistan.

This simplistic refrain that one hears from the Left so often about how if we are going to invade one country for x, y and z reasons, we must invade all is ludicrous. It is especially ludicrous in light of the leftist position (which is set in stone) that all war is wrong. Hence, isn’t it somewhat incredible that the left and the Guardian are basically espousing war against Uzbekistan? Does this make sense to anyone else?

[butcher_boy]

[quote=“fred smith”][quote]The information may be untrue, but it is valuable because it
feeds into the US agenda. Karimov is very much George
Bush’s man in central Asia. [/quote]

so in the words of your own reporter all the information may be untrue but it is “valuable” because it proves his point that the US has an agenda? Very interesting style of reporting.

[/quote]

Fred, I think you misunderstood what he was referring to when he said that the ‘information may be untrue’. He was not referring to the information about the disgraceful nature of such a good ally in the war on terror (one which terrorises its own people no less). He was saying that the information gained by torture in Uzbekistan is most likely untrue, but that it allows Karimov to play with the big boys as he produces information which seems to fit into their efforts and ideas about the war on terror.

Personally I think basing soldiers in a place where the security forces have boiled people to death shows a glaring lack of judgement (but hey, we’re talking about the ‘W’ team so not a real surprise). I don’t think that kind of regime is easy to ‘balance’.

[fred_smith]

Dear BB:

Ah! I see your point. Okay. My mistake.

Uzbekistan like Pakistan is a difficult nut to crack and one that we are going to have to deal with sooner or later, but why only the US? How should we deal with people like this when the alternatives could be far far worse? I fully agree that we must move ahead to pressure Karimov to reform. I am not so concerned about Uzbekistan regardless. We do not however want to have another war on our hands or civil war where we have to send troops to maintain the peace. Thsi might be a good opportunity for our “allies” the Europeans, Canadians and others who “claim” to be concerned about human rights to step forward to present a plan for how they will police the country and help move it forward. What exactly are their nation-building efforts going to be?

That said, final comment: we must force and push Karimov to democratize. It is in everyone’s best interests but as everyone knows we cannot take on yet another and another and another failed state without help and still have forces left to deal with North Korea, China or Iran as needed. When are others going to step forward with these responsibilities which should be shared?

That said, I have no idea what to do about Pakistan and would love to hear someone anyone who has an idea. Pakistan has nukes and a potential for making Iran and the Taliban look like moderate, civilized states. Throw in the India, Kashmir problem that could easily and has almost gone nuclear and you’d better have someone who damned well knows what they are doing if there is talk of replacing Musharaff. Life is difficult. There are no easy answers in this case nor are there any in the case of Iran and North Korea. Anyone who has something to say on this is welcome. I am all ears!

[bob_honest]

I guess if you are in the position of the big chief indian in Washington, you sometimes have to cooperate with dictators, so you can install your millitary bases there, which you may need because of a real enemy somewhere close.

Nevertheless I noticed, US had dropped support for dictatorships after the cold war and is - on the contrary- now on a mission to spread democracy.

Well, as I said, tactical reasons may lead to an exception now and then, that

[fred_smith]

My question remains. Why is this a US problem? Where is Europe? Russia? China? Japan? the UN? The Arab League?

I do not disagree that the US should do something but we have already moved ahead to do something with Iraq and Afghanistan and have supported democratic movements elsewhere. If Uzbekistan melts down, who will send peace-keeping forces? Hmmm? The Europeans? the UN? Who?

[bob_honest]

Fischer will send his Green Devils, a special squad.

[fred_smith]

Karimov is apparently playing off the US and Russians and we are in a bit of a bind. What to do? Anyone have any advice for us? I think that we should put the pressure on him but we do have some major strategic interests that we can not just willfully flout. How can we balance these mutually incompatible objectives? Seriously, the same goes for Pakistan. Anyone with advice is free to supply it. I am all ears.

[Traveller]

@fred smith

Karimov is apparently playing off the US and Russians and we are in a bit of a bind. What to do? Anyone have any advice for us? I think that we should put the pressure on him but we do have some major strategic interests that we can not just willfully flout. How can we balance these mutually incompatible objectives? Seriously, the same goes for Pakistan. Anyone with advice is free to supply it. I am all ears.

Finally, we get to the crux of thematter, the US will always put its own interests in front of anything else, whether that be minimal or even the basic issues of human rights and democracy.

Thanks Fred, you have confirmed what most suspected for along time. Just a shame those atrategic interests are not of the same value as they were in Iraq then is it not, otherwise you would find yourself having to deal with yet another invasion.

[fred_smith]

Finally, we get to the crux of thematter, the US will always put its own interests in front of anything else, whether that be minimal or even the basic issues of human rights and democracy.

Hmmm. Do not recall saying this. I am saying that our interests to advance democracy and human rights are facing strategic challenges as well here. We have interests in the region. Are you saying the US is not allowed to have strategic interests? What then are the other nations of the world or the UN or the EU doing to advance democracy and respect for human rights in Uzbekistan?

Thanks Fred, you have confirmed what most suspected for along time. Just a shame those atrategic interests are not of the same value as they were in Iraq then is it not, otherwise you would find yourself having to deal with yet another invasion

You never could read very well Traveller. Product of an inferior education? I have said with Pakistan and Uzbekistan I and no doubt many policy-makers do not want to do because our interests are overlapping, confused and antithical. WHAT I asked would someone recommend that we do. We have 1/2 promoting democracy and human rights and half trying to salvage our relationship with Uzbekistan so that we can continue to have the presence necessary to advance democracy and human rights in other countries most importantly Afghanistan. If you do not recognize that then you are merely a bloviating pontifical fool.

[Alien]

[quote=“fred smith”]
I have said with Pakistan and Uzbekistan I and no doubt many policy-makers do not want to do because our interests are overlapping, confused and antithical. WHAT I asked would someone recommend that we do. We have 1/2 promoting democracy and human rights and half trying to salvage our relationship with Uzbekistan so that we can continue to have the presence necessary to advance democracy and human rights in other countries most importantly Afghanistan. [/quote]

Right… Denial ain’t a river in Egypt, Fred. And the stench of hypocricy is overpowering.

The Bush administration’s reasons for keeping Karimov as a strategic partner are wearing thin. We needed Karimov after September 11, when he offered us an old Soviet airbase to stage operations against the Taliban. But we now have the sprawling Bagram installation in Afghanistan. Others argue that Karimov is a secular bulwark against Islamists in Central Asia’s most populous state. But Bush himself has sworn that privileging stability over the uncertainty of freedom is a strategy doomed to failure. Moreover, support for Karimov is counterproductive, since he seems bent on driving Uzbekistan’s Muslim fence-sitters into the Islamists’ camp. Another argument sees Uzbekistan as a way to check Chinese and Russian influence in the region and to secure Central Asian oil and gas reserves for the West. But Karimov needs us more than we need him.

tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050530 … rial053005

[politbureau]

My recommendation is to do what you would do in your personal life when faced with the choice between doing what is right and what is expedient.

Many of course would call doing exactly that being a “bloviating pontifical fool” but I’d bet there are some former executives at Enron and WorldCom who today wished they’d been a little bit more “bloviating pontifical” foolish and less expedient when faced with that choice.

The best guidance though on what to do in a situation like this is what Jesus said, paraphasing:

‘He who seeks to save his life will lose it.’

And:

‘He who falls in the little things will also fall in the big things.’

The meaning of the first teaching is that if you make self-preservation your top priority by compromising with evil, you’ll perish in the end, so the surest path to self-preservation is making doing the right thing the top priority and self-preservation will – paradoxically – follow.

The meaning of the second teaching is that you can’t make small compromises with evil in the service of some greater good. Evil begets evil.

[fred_smith]

Thank you Alien for your “intelligent” and “helpful” response. Did I say that I had made my mind up? No. I am asking for advice because I believe that our policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan is placing us between a rock and a hard place. What exactly do YOU suggest that we do Alien? Your charge of hypocrisy is naturally most amusing as always. Anything to say for the women, gays and children of the Middle East? The ones you claim to be so “concerned” about? No? Why not? What have you done for them lately? What would your party do for them? What “brave” stances has anyone on the left made for these goals recently? Protesting outside the Augusta Country Club and then driving off to a nice hotel with a jacuzzi? Oh dear. The suffering. The incredible bravery. I do hope that the shower jets allow you all to “overcome” your tired muscles. Be sure and order the White Zinfandel. It, too, is all about style and totally lacking in substance.

Spook: I am not sure what your response is supposed to mean.

On a more intelligent note, I just finished reading this week’s Economist and its opinion is that the US has bases in Afghanistan and Kirghizistan so we no longer need Karimov and that any support of him would be counterproductive to the initiatives that we would like to lead. After having read this “reasonable and rational” approach I am inclined to agree with the Economist and believe the US should cut ties with Karimov. It will be much better for us in the long run, regardless of any extenuating factors involving expediency.

Also, it noted that we may have less to fear from radical Islam in Pakistan than we were led to believe and that the attendance at madrassahs has actually been declining as a percentage of the total so we may have options other than Musharaff that we should carefully explore.

I will again note that Carter’s self-proclaimed “idealism” resulted in haphazard policies that allowed nations like Nicaragua and Iran among others to spin out of control and the end result was far far worse, while Reagan was able to defuse bad situations in Thailand, the Philippines (Marcos), Taiwan and South Korea. That is the kind of level-headed thinking and strategy that we need to push reform in both Pakistan and Uzbekistan. We need to help Karimov leave and perhaps one day will need to do the same with Musharraf but let’s do it carefully and competently so that we do not cause more harm than good. I will note that all those “idealists” who supported Carter and his policies have never had much to say about all the deaths and the destruction that resulted from their support of such policies. Talk about hypocrisy. How are all those women doing in Iran now? Hmmm? Gay rights in Iran? Freedom? Human rights? Journalistic freedom? Hmmm? But how we do hear about the Patriot Act? Fascism alive and kicking in the US of A. Hypocrisy? or just sheer stupidity? haha

[politbureau]

[quote=“fred smith”]
Spook: I am not sure what your response is supposed to mean.[/quote]

"Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "`You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. . . "

[TainanCowboy]

“Waste not thy time listening to the prattles of a fool.
While melodius to thine ear, the words are languorous to thine heart and troublesome to thy mind.”

Put one hand on your radio and put your other hand into your pocket!
Reach deeep Brothers and Sistas! It is Blessed to be a giver!

Send donations, cash please - no checks - to
The Ecstactic Church of the Great Hoogley Moogley
Box 0077, Rancho Cucamonga,California, 91729

(please indicate the intended recipient of your donation)

[LittleBuddhaTW]

According to some U.S. official that I saw on CNN the other day, the US already witheld something like US$13 million in aid to Uzbekistan last year because of human rights concerns, and is planning on holding back the aid this year as well. In addition, they say they are severely curtailing their use of and operations out of the air force base they are currently stationed at in Uzbekistan. So, the U.S. has done nothing?

[fred_smith]

Exactly Little Buddha and where is Europe? Germany? France? China? Russia? Japan? the UN? THAT is the point but only the US gets criticized. I have no doubt that France, Germany, Russia and China as has been their wont in the past are in Tashkent right now looking for opportunities to sell arms to the Karimov regime and no doubt the UN will facilitate the whole process. Utter f****ing bullocks to focus on the US only. Typical. Spineless. Amoral. Hypocritical. Cynical. BS.

[politbureau]

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]“Waste not thy time listening to the prattles of a fool.
While melodius to thine ear, the words are languorous to thine heart and troublesome to thy mind.”

Put one hand on your radio and put your other hand into your pocket!
Reach deeep Brothers and Sistas! It is Blessed to be a giver!

Send donations, cash please - no checks - to
The Ecstactic Church of the Great Hoogley Moogley
Box 0077, Rancho Cucamonga,California, 91729

(please indicate the intended recipient of your donation)[/quote]