Uzbekistan seems to be following Ukraine, Georgia or Lebanon but unlike those countries the ruling regime is one that has closely allied itself with the US in War in Afghanistan while the opposition is Islamic and not Western oriented. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/16/uzbekistan.reaction/index.html U.S., UK split over Uzbek violence Monday, May 16, 2005 Posted: 11:20 AM EDT (1520 GMT) LONDON, England -- Condemnation by Britain of Uzbek soldiers who opened fire on protesters contrasts markedly to the near silence coming from its allies in Washington. In London, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on Sunday slammed the violence in the city of Andijan as "a clear abuse of human rights." He was speaking as witnesses described how Uzbek soldiers fired into a crowd, including women, children and their own police comrades begging them not to shoot. (Full story) "I am extremely concerned by reports that Uzbek troops opened fire on demonstrators in Andijan," Straw said. "I totally condemn these actions and I urge the Uzbek authorities to show restraint in dealing with the situation and look for a way to resolve it peacefully." The Uzbek government rejected the criticism. "From where has Jack Straw learned that law enforcement had 'opened fire on demonstrators' if that did not take place at all," the foreign ministry said in a statement reported by The Associated Press. Uzbekistan's authoritarian President Islam Karimov has blamed Islamic groups for sparking the unrest and said he never gave an order to shoot as the unrest unfolded. The clashes present a quandary for Washington because Karimov is considered a key ally in the fight against terrorism and the U.S. maintains a military base in Uzbekistan to support anti-terrorist operations in Afghanistan. The number of troops at the base, 700 kilometers (430 miles) southwest of Andijan, has at times reached several thousand, according to AP. The U.S. has urged both sides in Uzbekistan to work out their differences peacefully. But critics say the White House has turned a "blind eye" to the situation. At a U.S. State Department briefing on Friday, spokesman Richard Boucher said the United States was closely monitoring the situation. "I would note that, while we have been very consistently critical of the human rights situation in Uzbekistan, we are very concerned about the outbreak of violence in Andijan, and particularly, the escape of prisoners, including possibly members of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, an organization we consider a terrorist organization." But former British ambassador to Tashkent, Craig Murray, warned that the Uzbek opposition could become more radical if the West failed to support it, creating just the sort of hardline Islamist movement Karimov and Washington says already threatens the former Soviet country. "We're actually, if you like, creating the monster we pretend we're fighting," Murray told Reuters. Murray, London's diplomat in Tashkent from 2002 to 2004, said the West, and the U.S. in particular, had tolerated Karimov's repressive rule because he had allowed Washington to set up an air base and that the U.S. was also interested in central Asian oil and gas. "I think we need to change our stance and unequivocally call for early, full and fair elections," he said.
It's really not an easy question to answer. Do you hope that the influence you are building with the regime in place will allow both for your national security goals and for the transition to a democratic regime, or do you alienate the regime and support Islamic radicals (whoa, that hasn't worked out too well in the past).
I've noted this several timeshere but nobody seems to care. Islam Karimov, a horrendous dictator and longtime strongman of uzbekistan, has been a good ole buddy of GWB since even before GWB became president (due to petrol/enron connections - note none of this is even disputed and is a matter of public record). His affinity for torturing people and generally taking a big fat dump on human rights(including people rendered to him by the US) with full US backing and endorsements kind of exposes Bush Doctrine 2.0 (democracy now! WMD's later! or before!) as the sham that it is/was. It's a shame that the HIGH HORSE brigade hasn't weighed in on this.
It looks like the Admin is weighing in and at least criticizing Karimov, albeit it with some qualifications. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/17/uzbekistan.unrest/index.html Uzbek opposition says 745 died Tuesday, May 17, 2005 Posted: 10:04 AM EDT (1404 GMT)
I'm not sure it make a sham of a foreign policy with democracy as a stated goal. Its a little unrealistic to assume that the administration would cut off or sanction any regime that didn't conform to our idea of democracy. In fact, the whole idea of 'constructive engagement' is to develop political and economic ties to affect change toward more open and democratic societies while enhancing our mutually beneficial relationships. I believe some dictators are beyond the scope of reformation, such as Saddam, and with little chance of affecting change other courses are pursued. On the whole its not really contradictory, just more realistic (not necessarily realist ).
If we went in and took out Karimov, there would be one less torturous dictator in the world today. Do you think we should be allied with and even sending prisoners to a brutal, murderous, and torturous dictator? I thought you didn't care if there WMD's or not in regards to taking out Saddam because of the kind of dictator he was. Now we have a dictator and groups openly protesting him that could use our support, and rather than have a consistent foreign policy we tell the dictator in a mild tone to play nice, while he is murdering people. As I said before this administration cares little for democracy throughout the world.
As I've said many times in the past, there is a difference between Saddam, who we had no influence with, and other situations where our influence might bring about a democratic transition sans military intervention. If you isolate Karimov you'd lose that chance and there is precedent for using influence to aid such a transition (Taiwan and South Korea, for example). That the administration IS criticising the situation belies your assertion that they don't care about democratic reform.
What the U.S. has done barely counts as a criticism. It doesn't even amount to a slap on the wrist. This has been going on for some time, before the demonstrations even started. Before anything came out in the public the administration wasn't criticizing. They were sending prisoners there to let this torturous regime have a crack at them. They were chumming up to Karimov, and letting our troops be based there. The argument you use about influencing them towards reform, has done little in China, though that has been the supposed strategy their for decades. I do agree that we should engage Karimov, but not pal around with him. That is the difference. We should start by suggesting reforms, and promising reward for those reforms. If that doesn't work we give a deadline and start pulling back our support, trade etc, and begin to encourage others to do the same. At that time we start supporting opposition groups inside Uzbekistan. This administration hasn't even started suggesting reform. Until it was painfully obvious to everyone in the world community they wouldn't even say something was wrong in Uzbekistan. They are dragging their feet, and doing nothing to encourage change or democracy there.
HayesStreet, how do you think the international community view this thing? Basically they will US as a hypocritical country that does not really care about human rights or democarcy when they conflict with US interest. But of course most of the nocons could care less about the international communities anyway.
Where is the outrage? A ~100 brave students were killed near Tianamen Square 15 years ago, and no one will ever forget that. But hundreds of protesters killed by an "ally in the war against terrorism" did not even make the 11 PM news? Not as important as "Is Dave Chappelle crazy?" The harshest word from the WH is that they are "deeply disturbed".
Maybe this excerpt of the interview between Saddam Hussein and US Ambassador April Glaspie in July 25, 1990 can refresh your memory: ... GLASPIE: I have a direct instruction from the President to seek better relations with Iraq. GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. ..James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. ...
My memory about our influence with Saddam pre-intevention? This doesn't have anything to do with that. Not sure how the 'international community' views it. Probably in a self serving manner, I would imagine. Can we get some idea of what the EU, China, Russia, the UN et al are 'doing' about this? I'm afraid you're incorrect on that. Compare China to what it was 'decades ago.' Constructive engagement does not result in an instantaneous transformation but it certainly has increased the pace of reform. Economic reform does eventually lead to political reform - see Taiwan, S Korea et al.
I was asking why you conclude US didn't have "influence" on Saddam, his domestic and foreign policies alike?
China's economic reform has little to do with pressure from us, and a lot to do with their own need to transform their economy in order to survive. They are still totalitarian, don't tolerate dissent, and have human rights abuses galore. The only thing we have done is by products produced there. Taiwan did reform and change to a great deal. S. Korea has had corruption for some time, and it has gone up and down, as has the use or abuse of power from their leaders.
Constructive engagement is one that I'm generally in favor of if the alternative is war or ineffective sanctions. I don't think the PRC or Taiwan and S. Korea can be held up as examples of successful constructive engagement. In the PRC the political situation hasn't really eased up since the late 1980's possibly even back slid some. From what I know about there pro-democracy fervor isn't as great as 1989 because many younger Chinese are more concerned about economic success and also because te government has kept up pressure. At the sametime the PRC has successfully played up distrust of other countries, particularly the US, to discourage the pro-democracy movement. Taiwan and S. Korea since their inception has been staunch US allies and at any point in their histories the US could've pressured them to democratize. Their democracies arose in opposition to US influence by electing leaders who aren't particularly pro-US and in S. Korea's case a previous anti-US protestor.
it's a complicated situation, not at all analogous to saddam, or US support for democracy in Ukraine, for example. in war time, you can't always be choosey in picking your allies, witness US support for Stalin in WW2, but while a certain amount of real politik is understandable, support for mass murder isn't, and Karamazov is dancing awfully close to that line. the bush admin needs to be more forceful with him, and there are some indications they are- it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. where is the EU outrage?
here's more indication that the Bush doctrine is working... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701426_pf.html -- Syria Heralds Reforms, But Many Have Doubts Party Weighs Gradual Moves Toward Democracy By Anthony Shadid Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday, May 18, 2005; A10 DAMASCUS, Syria, May 17 -- Beset by U.S. attempts to isolate his country and facing popular expectations of change, Syrian President Bashar Assad will move to begin legalizing political parties, purge the ruling Baath Party, sponsor free municipal elections in 2007 and formally endorse a market economy, according to officials, diplomats and analysts. Assad's five-year-old government is heralding the reforms as a turning point in a long-promised campaign of liberalizing a state that, while far less dictatorial than Iraq under Saddam Hussein, remains one of the region's most repressive. His officials see the moves, however tentative and drawn out, as the start of a transitional period that will lead to a more liberal, democratic Syria. Emboldened opposition leaders, many of whom openly support pressure by the United States even if they mistrust its intentions, said the measures were the last gasp of a government staggering after its hasty and embarrassing troop withdrawal last month from neighboring Lebanon. The debate over the changes comes during a remarkable surge in what constitutes dissent in this country of 18 million. For the first time in years, opposition figures and even government allies are openly speculating on the fate of a party that, in some fashion, has ruled Syria since 1963 in the name of Arab nationalism, and today faces perhaps its greatest crisis. The debate points to the most pressing questions in the country today: Can Syria truly reform itself and what might follow? "We understand that democracy is a process -- a historical and political process -- but we are on the right track, and we have begun the mechanisms that will take us forward," said Imad Shueibi, who directs the Data and Strategic Studies Center in Damascus and says he is aligned with reformers within Assad's government. "This will be the first step." Dissidents are dismissive of the government's capacity to sincerely reform. They see similarities between government moves here and in Egypt, the Arab world's most populous country, where President Hosni Mubarak has sought to introduce measured but controlled change. "We have an archaic authoritarian regime, which is now a burden on itself. They want to streamline it and make it more attractive," said Yassin Hajj Saleh, a leftist dissident imprisoned for 16 years and freed in 1996. He calls the moves "the modernization of authoritarianism." "The old model has ended, it is outdated, its age has passed," he said, "and they want to renew it." Assad, who seems to remain popular in Syria, has pointed to next month's congress of the Baath Party as the centerpiece of the promised reforms. The congress, which has become the talk of the capital, was last convened in 2000 after Assad inherited power from his father, Hafez Assad. In the wake of the withdrawal from Lebanon, expectations were high that the congress might inaugurate a Syrian equivalent of glasnost. In past weeks, through the state media, those hopes have been steadily ratcheted down. Most prominent among the reforms will be a recommendation for a new party law, said the officials, analysts and diplomats. It would envision the formation of parties as long as they are not explicitly based on ethnicity, religion or region. While this is potentially a dramatic step, analysts caution that even if the Baath Party recommends the change, enacting a law could take a year or more. Also, the party is not expected to surrender its constitutionally enshrined position as "the leading party of both the society and the state." Emergency law allowing indefinite detention of suspects may be suspended, except in cases of national security, and the government will likely ease rules that require approval from the security services for a host of activities -- among them opening a hair salon. As part of the reforms, the government is expected to enact a law providing for free elections of 15,000 members of municipal councils in 2007. The congress is also expected to endorse the free market as the country's economic orientation -- a break from the party's slogan of "unity, freedom and socialism." The move would formalize economic changes underway for more than a decade. The Baath Party's 21-member leadership, still including many septuagenarian colleagues of Assad's father, will likely be purged, analysts and officials said. The number may be reduced to 15, with only a handful -- perhaps three or four -- carried over from the current leadership. It would mark another step in Assad's consolidation of power and could open the way for the inclusion of powerful relatives like his brother, who heads the elite Republican Guard, and brother-in-law, who heads the feared military intelligence. Debate continues over other steps, analysts say: an amnesty for political crimes; the granting of citizenship to at least 100,000 members of the Kurdish minority; and suspension of Law 49. That 25-year-old decree stipulates the death penalty for membership in the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic group that once posed the greatest threats to the Baath Party's hold on power. Less publicly, the government has permitted the return of some political exiles, including Amin Hafez, the former head of state, and Jassim Alwan, another former officer who led a coup attempt against the Baath Party in 1963. "It's a step forward," said Sami Moubayed, a Syrian analyst and writer. But he added: "It's minimal change. The steps should have been much more courageous." The changes will almost certainly fail to mollify the United States, which has effectively ended engagement with Damascus over what U.S. officials say is Syria's lack of aggressiveness in closing its border with Iraq to prevent infiltration by insurgents. Many of the government's critics -- and a substantial current within the ruling party -- will likely be disappointed as well, viewing the steps taken at the congress more as an attempt to ensure the government's survival than the start of real change. "Unless the party comes out in favor of significant, deep political and economic reforms, it's going to leave a lot of disappointment and frustration," said Nabil Sukkar, an influential businessman and former World Bank economist. "If it's wishy-washy and comes out with only compromises, it's not going to meet expectations." Damascus is a far different capital from it was 10 years ago, when fear and dreary Stalinist architecture cast a pall over life. The endemic iconography of Assad's father -- building-size portraits and pictures pasted every few feet -- are gone, making way for advertisements for Chanel, BMW and Syria's mobile phone network. Freewheeling Beirut radiates its influence on the Syrian capital, evident in fashion, taste and restaurants and bars that vie for space in the once-neglected, cobblestoned Old City. While the heavy-handed state media remain unchanged, Arab satellite stations such as al-Jazeera and pan-Arab newspapers enter freely. For those with English skills and enough money for a subscription, the Internet offers a sometimes startling window on Syrian politics written from inside the country. Nearly all Web sites are accessible, except for those that end in ".il," the domain for Israel. "There's no fear. People are not afraid to talk, and this is a tremendous change," Sukkar said. Assad exudes a far different style from his father, a former air force officer and committed Baathist who ruled Syria for 30 years. The younger Assad, a 39-year-old ophthalmologist, is seen as lacking his father's political guile, but well-intentioned and eager to curry acceptance rather than generate fear. This year, some Syrians distributed a video clip via cell phone of a smiling Assad riding a bumper car with his oldest son, Hafez, at a popular park. (Those in other bumper cars noticeably kept their distance.) How far that style will intrude on the government's grip, though, remains a subject of fierce debate, with the June 6-9 meeting of the congress seen as perhaps the greatest indicator yet of the government's vision. The diplomats and analysts said the Syrian government appeared divided on how to cope with the U.S. threat -- will Syria remain a potential player in regional politics, giving it relevance to American policy, or is its very survival threatened, whatever policies it adopts? Under either scenario, some analysts say, the political reforms unveiled at the congress become less pressing for a party intent on maintaining its grip and a president who still relies on that party for his legitimacy and strength. "I believe we are looking [at] a very, very dismal future for this country," said Ammar Abdulhamid, who runs a publishing house and related organization trying to foster civic awareness. "The Syrian regime is simply at a loss in how to play its cards or what it's going to do." The government, he said, is still trying to pull "a rabbit out of a hat." "But the hat is bottomless, the rabbit is long dead, and the president is not a magician," Abdulhamid said.
Did I read the same paragraph a while back? Or am I dreaming? Sirshir I mean the earlier long paragraph you poste.
I don't think its true that Taiwan and S Koreas democratic transitions were opposed by the US. What the three (PRC, Taiwan, S Korea) do have in common is that their militaries drove economic growth through liberalization and opening their markets, and in Taiwan and S Korea that spawned political liberalization. Post Cold War there was no reason for the US to oppose that, and new leaders on both sides in both places have continued to support the previously in place US alliances. While the PRC is still totalitarian in nature, it is far more politically open that it was previously. As such I think constructive engagement is the route that is most desirable when you DO have a country that is open to our influence and where there is a chance to use our tight relations in one area to affect another. Constructive engagement isn't about using hardline pressure to affect change, its about opening as many channels as possible between a totalitarian society and the outside - especially economically - to affect change. In that regard, China S Korea and Taiwan are similar and its been successful to varying degrees in each. Moreso in Taiwan and S Korea but their markets have also been more open longer. Er, well he broke sanctions, didn't liberalize domestically at all, didn't cooperate with weapons inspections, supported suicide bombers.... Why do you conclude we DID have influence? Because of our pre-Gulf War relationship, lol?
