Demand Action

[A_Wanderer]

I would like to see some serious actions against the Karimov government in Uzbekistan, an old style strongman who has used the war on terror to curry favour with the US and has just cracked down hard on opposition under the guise of anti-terrorism and it has errupted.

Even as Uzbekistan's government maintained that it had acted cautiously and minimized the use of force in putting down a prison break and demonstration late last week, survivors said Monday that government security forces had fired indiscriminately at unarmed civilians and struck women and children. ...

Details of the crackdown and the violence that has intermittently occurred in its aftermath have been sketchy and contradictory, and movement through the areas where the most intense violence occurred has largely been restricted. Telephone and Internet service have been inconsistent or not operating.

The Uzbek government has blamed those who stormed the prison for the violence, and described the heavy response as necessary. But unverified accounts have said hundreds have been killed in several outbreaks of violence, mostly instigated by government action. ...

Mr. Karimov placed blame for the unrest on Islamic extremist groups, a label that he has used to describe political opponents in recent years and that his critics say is used as a pretext for maintaining a repressive state.

link

Uzbekistan is different. Other post-Soviet dictators could see when the game was up. The autocrats of Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan were unwilling to plunge their countries into full-scale civil war; faced with populations in open revolt, they surrendered. But Islam Karimov, the tyrant of Tashkent, shows no sign of going quietly. ...

Living standards have collapsed since the days of the USSR, while restrictions on travel have been imposed to prevent the population from picking up dangerous ideas. Karimov's men have already massacred dozens of protesters, and are evidently ready to carry on shooting.

The president's implacability is partly explained by the attitude of the US State Department. The Americans sponsored opposition movements in Georgia and Ukraine, and Congress recently voted a $40 million grant for pro-democracy activists in Belarus. But when it comes to Uzbekistan, Washington is shamefully equivocal. The Administration is calling for restraint on both sides, even though there is ample evidence that the security forces have been firing into unarmed crowds.

Uzbekistan sits oddly with the rest of George W. Bush's foreign policy. Elsewhere, his Administration has taken the view that the best way to advance American interests is by spreading freedom. Yet Karimov is indulged in an old-fashioned, Cold War sort of way: "He's a son-of-a-bitch, but he's our son-of-a-bitch".

link

This is the ultimate test of US foreign policy and the nature of the Bush administration, it is a situation where there are at present no good guys, on one hand you have a brutal dictator who is murdering opposition in the streets and on the other you may open the door to Islamist governance. With the proper use of power a peaceful solution may be found. This is where the cold war leftovers clash with the geopolitical realities of the 21st Century, if Bush really is genuine about freedom being the key to peace then this crisis may be transformed into an opportunity to build a functional Central Asia.

The US must cease supporting these dictators and draw a line in the sand, they worked in the cold war because the situation was relatively static but today they are more trouble than they are worth, change is hard and there will be setbacks but the end result is infinitely more favourable and will surely lend to better results overall.

 

[verte76]

I've read stuff about Uzbekistan in the press. Uzbekistan was involved in the action in Afghanistan against the Taliban. But I'm not comfortable with us having this guy as an ally.

 

[deep]

I would like to see some serious actions against ......

Who????



Very selected in your condemnations.

War on Terror

Is THE BIG LIE!!

 

[WinnieThePoo]

A Wanderer should be more connected with reality

 

[Rono]

More information about the american love for the dictator.

Murray was the british ambassador in uzbekitan.

---------------------------------------------------

Murray said yesterday: 'The US will claim that they are teaching the Uzbeks less repressive interrogation techniques, but that is basically not true. They help fund the budget of the Uzbek security services and give tens of millions of dollars in military support. It is a sweetener in the agreement over which they get their air base.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1484251,00.html

 

[A_Wanderer]

If you think that I am advocating a millitary action then you are seriously mistaken, I am saying that with soft power a third way could be formed that could resolve the situation peacefully.

Using dictators like Karimov or Musharraf may yield short term gains but in the long term it just makes the problems worse, how is this view disconnected with reality? It seems that either you are all so jaded that you just don't care or else you only care if it is a clear cut issue. I know my history and I think that it is fair to say that the US has backed its share of dictators from Chang Kai Shek to Pinochet, it is also fair to say that the situation then was much different than it is today, without the spectre of a communist superpower the realist motivation to maintain dictators ceases to exist. It is this backing of dictators that drives support for Islamists and makes the road more difficult.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I like this one

The US base in Uzbekistan has gradually started to move out after bilateral relations have deteriorated over the Andijan unrest, during which 173 people died according to official estimates. Human rights organizations put the number of dead as about 1,000.

Planes, personnel, and equipment from the Hanabad airbase have been shifted to Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan following Uzbek President Islam Karimov administration's "restrictive" attitude as retaliation against Washington's call for an independent international commission to investigate the unrest. The US base might be completely closed within the next months, it is claimed, following negotiations between US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Kyrgyz officials about the crisis. Some observers argue that the US administration might "facilitate" a possible velvet revolution by further increasing the pressure on Tashkent.

link

 

[verte76]

Good. We don't need Uzbekistan.

 

[Se7en]

without the spectre of a communist superpower the realist motivation to maintain dictators ceases to exist.

you don't think it has anything to do with maintaining leaders who will go along with u.s. intentions for developing central asian oil?

 

[A_Wanderer]

World energy supplies are a factor; but you do not need a dictator to do business with, free and democratic countries can produce and sell resources just fine. It also ensures a more stable region which in the long run is a better way to get cheap oil than a shakey network of tyrants at constant risk of being deposed.

If the US only wanted Iraq's oil it could have just cut a deal with Saddam; a desperate dictator willing to sell and the US holding a strong negotiation position in regards to the sanctions; much cheaper oil, less millitary fuss and all those Iraqi civilians could still be getting killed off by the Mukhabarat.

 

[Se7en]

look, for like the millionth time, it's not about the u.s. getting cheap oil for itself (with military installations all over the arabian peninsula the only real threat to our oil supply would be the possible collapse of the house of saud which i don't think is likely given the support they have received from the u.s.), it's more about being a strong presence and have some sort of control in a region that has new hydrocarbon and oil sectors being developed and who's yields will most likely flow to possible international rivals.

you're right that democracies can also be dealt with, i never suggested otherwise, but i know that even you, in this very thread, have noted that the u.s. has historically supported or even put into power dictators or governments that would be friendly to its interests regardless of opinion of the local population.

sometimes democracy can be more trouble than it's worth. turkey gave the u.s. a little kick in the pants when, after listening to a huge majority of the countries population, it refused to allow u.s. to attack iraq from turkish soil. deomocracy in action and the u.s. was none too pleased with the way that went down.

 

[melon]

This is where the cold war leftovers clash with the geopolitical realities of the 21st Century, if Bush really is genuine about freedom being the key to peace then this crisis may be transformed into an opportunity to build a functional Central Asia.

Funny. I don't think Bush is serious about "freedom" at all. It's just a convenient excuse to rile up nationalist sentiment and moral justification for what amounts to little more than trying to create a global climate friendly for American business interests. Hence, where there is no business, there is no interest.

If Bush even remotely mentions this nation, it will only be if the news brings it up so much that he can't ignore it any longer. Hence why Bush gave Saudi Arabia a little slap on the wrist and told them insincerely to become more democratic. But the reality is, as long as Saudi Arabia keep the oil spigot open at full blast, we really don't give a fuck if people get beheaded or tortured.

As for Iraq, attacking Saddam this time was more about wounded pride. Republicans are generally controlled by two emotions:

1) Greed
2) Pride

There's been this languishing sentiment that Bush, Sr. fucked up over Gulf War I, which we entered at the request of Saudi Arabia. That's right...there's that oil again. And Republicans had been chomping at the bit for over a decade. Read some of the PNAC writings from the late 1990s; they were obsessed with the issue of invading Iraq. They were looking for any and every excuse to invade Iraq well before 9/11.

Melon